[compiler] IsInlinable check too strict because of concurrent inlining

Bug: chromium:1274443
Change-Id: I3f6766dc84019ae017b6da1ae797c946a33079b1
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/v8/v8/+/3351968Reviewed-by: Maya Lekova <mslekova@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Jakob Gruber <jgruber@chromium.org>
Commit-Queue: Tobias Tebbi <tebbi@chromium.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/main@{#78607}

src/compiler/js-inlining-heuristic.cc

@@ -197,16 +197,23 @@ Reduction JSInliningHeuristic::Reduce(Node* node) {
                                        ? candidate.functions[i].value().shared()
                                        : candidate.shared_info.value();
     candidate.can_inline_function[i] = candidate.bytecode[i].has_value();
-    CHECK_IMPLIES(candidate.can_inline_function[i], shared.IsInlineable());
+    // Because of concurrent optimization, optimization of the inlining
+    // candidate could have been disabled meanwhile.
+    // JSInliner will check this again and not actually inline the function in
+    // this case.
+    CHECK_IMPLIES(candidate.can_inline_function[i],
+                  shared.IsInlineable() ||
+                      shared.GetInlineability() ==
+                          SharedFunctionInfo::kHasOptimizationDisabled);
     // Do not allow direct recursion i.e. f() -> f(). We still allow indirect
-    // recurion like f() -> g() -> f(). The indirect recursion is helpful in
+    // recursion like f() -> g() -> f(). The indirect recursion is helpful in
     // cases where f() is a small dispatch function that calls the appropriate
     // function. In the case of direct recursion, we only have some static
     // information for the first level of inlining and it may not be that useful
     // to just inline one level in recursive calls. In some cases like tail
     // recursion we may benefit from recursive inlining, if we have additional
     // analysis that converts them to iterative implementations. Though it is
-    // not obvious if such an anlysis is needed.
+    // not obvious if such an analysis is needed.
     if (frame_info.shared_info().ToHandle(&frame_shared_info) &&
         frame_shared_info.equals(shared.object())) {
       TRACE("Not considering call site #" << node->id() << ":"