8261509: Move per-thread StackWatermark from Thread to JavaThread class

[zhengyu123]

Per-thread StackWatermark only applies to JavaThread, so it should belong to there.

---

Progress

• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• Change must be properly reviewed

Issue

• JDK-8261509: Move per-thread StackWatermark from Thread to JavaThread class

Reviewers

• Erik Österlund (@fisk - Reviewer)

Download

$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/2513/head:pull/2513
$ git checkout pull/2513

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back zgu! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@zhengyu123 The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• hotspot-runtime

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (c902131)

[openjdk]

@zhengyu123 This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8261509: Move per-thread StackWatermark from Thread to JavaThread class

Reviewed-by: eosterlund

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 8 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 40754f1: 4841153: java.awt.geom.Rectangle2D.add(double,double) documented incorrectly
• 4caeb39: 8260380: Upgrade to LittleCMS 2.12
• a772639: 8261298: LinuxPackage.c, getJvmLauncherLibPath RPM->DEB typo
• 52fc01b: 8261268: LOAD_INSTANCE placeholders unneeded for parallelCapable class loaders
• a3d6e37: 8261302: NMT: Improve malloc site table hashing
• ad54d8d: 8260934: java/lang/StringBuilder/HugeCapacity.java fails without Compact Strings
• 752f92b: 6211242: AreaAveragingScaleFilter(int, int): IAE is not specified
• 3af334a: 6211257: BasicStroke.createStrokedShape(Shape): NPE is not specified

Please see this link for an up-to-date comparison between the source branch of this pull request and the master branch.
As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[zhengyu123]

Thanks, @fisk

[zhengyu123]

/integrate

[openjdk]

@zhengyu123 Since your change was applied there have been 21 commits pushed to the master branch:

• eef86a8: 8261029: Code heap page sizes not traced correctly using os::trace_page_sizes
• 0a89987: 8240281: Remove failing assertion code when selecting first memory state in SuperWord::co_locate_pack
• 9fed604: 8261300: jpackage: rewrite while(0)/while(false) to proper blocks
• 8b6ab31: 8261418: Reduce decoder creation overheads for sun.nio.cs.ext Charsets
• 5e1b809: 8261444: Remove unused fields in Lower
• a9c3680: 8261250: Dependencies: Remove unused dependency types
• 3ede231: 8259430: C2: assert(in_vt->length() == out_vt->length()) failed: mismatch on number of elements
• 1662373: 8235139: Deprecate the socket impl factory mechanism
• 49cf13d: 8261449: Micro-optimize JVM_LatestUserDefinedLoader
• 837bd89: 8261548: ProblemList runtime/NMT/CheckForProperDetailStackTrace.java
• ... and 11 more: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/compare/4619f372ae5934091b0d40621a1dbcd9e4b0f80c...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

Pushed as commit 4a72cea.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.

[dcubed-ojdk]

@zhengyu123 - This appears to be a trivial change so a single reviewer is fine.
For future PRs, please make it clear that you are proposing the change as trivial
and make sure that your single reviewer agrees before you integrate under the
trivial change rules.

[zhengyu123]

@zhengyu123 - This appears to be a trivial change so a single reviewer is fine.
For future PRs, please make it clear that you are proposing the change as trivial
and make sure that your single reviewer agrees before you integrate under the
trivial change rules.

@dcubed-ojdk Sorry about that, will do.