8368104: Parallel: Refactor PSThreadRootsTaskClosure

[albertnetymk]

Trivial changing the closure input arg to avoid PSPromotionManager lookup.

Test: tier1

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8368104: Parallel: Refactor PSThreadRootsTaskClosure (Enhancement - P4)

Reviewers

• Francesco Andreuzzi (@fandreuz - Author) 🔄 Re-review required (review applies to b14386f3)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27393/head:pull/27393
$ git checkout pull/27393

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/27393
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27393/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 27393

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 27393

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27393.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back ayang! 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]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

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

• hotspot-gc

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

• 02: Full - Incremental (265a0235)
• 01: Full - Incremental (476c3cce)
• 00: Full (b14386f3)

[stefank]

The pm variable isn't local to this scope anymore so it would probably be nicer to move the following part out of the scope:

      // Do the real work
      pm->drain_stacks(false);

[albertnetymk]

Well, it's there to be consistent with other kinds of roots -- old-to-young pointers, inside scavenge_roots_work, and thread_closure.

[stefank]

Ahh. I see now.

Would you mind adding a blank line so that the formatting is consistent:

      PSScavengeRootsClosure root_closure(pm);
      _oop_storage_strong_par_state.oops_do(&root_closure);

      // Do the real work
      pm->drain_stacks(false);

[stefank]

Please restore this blank line.