On Tue, 2 Sep 2025 08:24:10 GMT, Fredrik Bredberg <fbredb...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Since the integration of > [JDK-8359437](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359437) the `LockingMode` > flag can no longer be set by the user. After that, a number of PRs has been > integrated which has removed all `LockingMode` related code from all > platforms (except from zero, which is done in this PR). > > This PR removes `LockingMode` related code from the shared (non-platform > specific) files. It also removes the `LockingMode` variable itself. > > Passes tier1-tier5 with no added problems. A few comments and suggestions for your next RFE. src/hotspot/share/jvmci/vmStructs_jvmci.cpp line 344: > 342: volatile_nonstatic_field(ObjectMonitor, _entry_list, > ObjectWaiter*) \ > 343: volatile_nonstatic_field(ObjectMonitor, _succ, > int64_t) \ > 344: volatile_nonstatic_field(ObjectMonitor, _stack_locker, > BasicLock*) \ There are some jvmci tests that check that the java side of jvmci matches, ie: make test TEST=compiler/jvmci src/hotspot/share/runtime/basicLock.hpp line 51: > 49: void set_bad_metadata_deopt() { set_metadata(badDispHeaderDeopt); } > 50: > 51: static int displaced_header_offset_in_bytes() { return > metadata_offset_in_bytes(); } Also delete line 51 ? src/hotspot/share/runtime/javaThread.cpp line 2007: > 2005: #ifdef SUPPORT_MONITOR_COUNT > 2006: // Nothing to do. Just do some sanity check. > 2007: assert(_held_monitor_count == 0, "counter should not be used"); In further cleanup, can we now remove _held_monitor_count next? src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 769: > 767: > 768: // LightweightSynchronizer::inflate_locked_or_imse is used to to get an > inflated > 769: // ObjectMonitor* when lightweight locking is used. It is used from > contexts I guess you don't need the phrase "when lightweight locking is used". src/hotspot/share/runtime/lightweightSynchronizer.cpp line 823: > 821: ObjectMonitor* LightweightSynchronizer::inflate_into_object_header(oop > object, ObjectSynchronizer::InflateCause cause, JavaThread* locking_thread, > Thread* current) { > 822: > 823: // The JavaThread* locking_thread parameter is only used by > lightweight locking and Same here. suggestion: // The JavaThread* locking parameter requires that the locking_thread == JavaThread::current, or is suspended // throughout the call by some other mechanism. src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp line 542: > 540: } > 541: ObjectMonitor* monitor; > 542: monitor = LightweightSynchronizer::inflate_locked_or_imse(obj(), > inflate_cause_notify, CHECK); Declare and initialize on the same line: ObjectMonitor* monitor = LightwightSynchronizer::inflate_locked_or_imse(obj...); src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp line 557: > 555: > 556: ObjectMonitor* monitor; > 557: monitor = LightweightSynchronizer::inflate_locked_or_imse(obj(), > inflate_cause_notify, CHECK); same here with ObjectMonitor* monitor = LIght ... I think we should have another RFE to look at eliminating the middle call. Call these in LIghtweightSynchronizer::notify, notifyAll and waitInterruptably directly and remove these functions. src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.inline.hpp line 48: > 46: assert(current == Thread::current(), "must be"); > 47: > 48: LightweightSynchronizer::enter(obj, lock, current); In the further RFE, we should remove these dispatch functions too. ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27041#pullrequestreview-3177963667 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27041#discussion_r2317054927 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27041#discussion_r2317063086 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27041#discussion_r2317069783 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27041#discussion_r2317072241 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27041#discussion_r2317077253 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27041#discussion_r2317084869 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27041#discussion_r2317088830 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27041#discussion_r2317095107
