On Fri, 24 Oct 2025 11:10:09 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <[email protected]> wrote:

>> This is the last PR in a series of PRs (see: 
>> [JDK-8344261](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8344261)) to obsolete the 
>> LockingMode flag and related code.
>> 
>> The main focus is to to unify `ObjectSynchronizer` and 
>> `LightweightSynchronizer`.
>> There used to be a number of "dispatch functions" to redirect calls 
>> depending on the setting of the `LockingMode` flag.
>> Since we now only have lightweight locking, there is no longer any need for 
>> those dispatch functions, so I removed them.
>> To remove the dispatch functions I renamed the corresponding lightweight 
>> functions and call them directly.
>> This ultimately led me to remove "lightweight" from the function names and 
>> go back to "fast" instead, just to avoid having some with, and some without 
>> the "lightweight" part of the name.
>> 
>> This PR also include a small simplification of 
>> `ObjectSynchronizer::FastHashCode`.
>> 
>> Tested tier1-7 (on supported platforms) without seeing any problems that can 
>> be traced to this code change.
>> All other platforms (`arm`, `ppc`, `riscv`, `s390`) has been sanity checked 
>> using QEMU.
>
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp line 1454:
> 
>> 1452: // 
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 1453: // ConcurrentHashTable storing links from objects to ObjectMonitors
>> 1454: class ObjectMonitorTable : AllStatic {
> 
> I guess after looking at this, it made sense to combine the 
> lightweightSynchronizer code into synchronizer.cpp (should be 
> ObjectSynchronizer.hpp/cpp).  I wonder if the OM table code could be split 
> out into its own file objectMontitorTable.hpp/cpp.  I feel like 
> synchronzer.hpp/cpp again does too many different things.

Since we are currently investigating the OM table elseware (see: 
[JDK-8365493](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8365493)) I wore for not 
doing any OM table refactoring in this PR.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27915#discussion_r2460595360

Reply via email to