Currently, we run a P's safe-point function immediately after entering
_Psyscall state. This is unsafe, since as soon as we put the P in
_Psyscall, we no longer control the P and another M may claim it.
We'll still run the safe-point function only once (because doing so
races on an atomic), but the P may no longer be at a safe-point when
we do so.

In particular, this means that the use of forEachP to dispose all P's
gcw caches is unsafe. A P may enter a syscall, run the safe-point
function, and dispose the P's gcw cache concurrently with another M
claiming the P and attempting to use its gcw cache. If this happens,
we may empty the gcw's workbuf after putting it on
work.{full,partial}, or add pointers to it after putting it in
work.empty. This will cause an assertion failure when we later pop the
workbuf from the list and its object count is inconsistent with the
list we got it from.

Fix this by running the safe-point function just before putting the P
in _Psyscall.

Related to #11640. This probably fixes this issue, but while I'm able
to show that we can enter a bad safe-point state as a result of this,
I can't reproduce that specific failure.

Change-Id: I6989c8ca7ef2a4a941ae1931e9a0748cbbb59434
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/12124
Run-TryBot: Austin Clements <austin@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Russ Cox <rsc@golang.org>