On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:49:42 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty <dcu...@openjdk.org>
wrote:
>> Axel Boldt-Christmas has updated the pull request incrementally with two
>> additional commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Remove the last OMWorld references
>> - Rename omworldtable_work to object_monitor_table_work
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 86:
>
>> 84: uintx get_hash() const {
>> 85: uintx hash = _obj->mark().hash();
>> 86: assert(hash != 0, "should have a hash");
>
> Hmmm... I can remember seeing hash values of zero in some
> of my older legacy inflation stress runs. Is a hash value of zero
> not a thing with lightweight locking?
Update: My memory was wrong. When zero is encountered as a
hash value, it is replaced with `0xBAD`.
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 414:
>
>> 412:
>> 413: intptr_t hash = obj->mark().hash();
>> 414: assert(hash != 0, "must be set when claiming the object monitor");
>
> Hmmm... I can remember seeing hash values of zero in some
> of my older legacy inflation stress runs. Is a hash value of zero
> not a thing with lightweight locking?
Update: My memory was wrong. When zero is encountered as a
hash value, it is replaced with `0xBAD`.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20067#discussion_r1715952007
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20067#discussion_r1715952460
