On Mon, 10 Nov 2025 19:53:09 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Anton Artemov has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 18 commits: >> >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into >> JDK-8366659-OM-wait-suspend-deadlock >> - 8366659: Added a comment to a boolean arg for enter() >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into >> JDK-8366659-OM-wait-suspend-deadlock >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into >> JDK-8366659-OM-wait-suspend-deadlock >> - 8366659: Fixed new lines. >> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into >> JDK-8366659-OM-wait-suspend-deadlock >> - 8366659: Removed incorrect assert, >> - 8366659: Fixed merge conflict >> - 8366659: Fixed whitespace. >> - 8366659: Disabled posting JVMTI events in reenter-etner path of wait. >> Postponed waited event. >> - ... and 8 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/79fee607...31482ba4 > > src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.cpp line 533: > >> 531: } >> 532: >> 533: void ObjectMonitor::enter_with_contention_mark(JavaThread* current, >> ObjectMonitorContentionMark &cm, bool post_jvmti_events) { > > In the baseline also: `cm` is passed in, but it only used for this: > `assert(cm._monitor == this, "must be");`. > > This makes me wonder if we're missing some code in > `enter_with_contention_mark` > that is normally done when we are passed an `ObjectMonitorContentionMark`. Yes, in `enter_with_contention_mark` the mark itself is only for assertion. I agree that is not clear, if there is any issue popping up, we can address it in a separate PR. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27040#discussion_r2514088683
