On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 20:01:57 GMT, Stefan Karlsson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Fredrik Bredberg has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains three additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Updated after review
>> - Merge branch 'master' into 8389325_remove_use_object_monitor_table_flag
>> - 8389325: Remove the UseObjectMonitorTable flag and related code
>
> src/hotspot/share/gc/shenandoah/shenandoahHeap.inline.hpp line 4:
>
>> 2: * Copyright (c) 2015, 2020, Red Hat, Inc. All rights reserved.
>> 3: * Copyright Amazon.com Inc. or its affiliates. All Rights Reserved.
>> 4: * Copyright (c) 2026, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
>
> Shouldn't this be:
>
> Suggestion:
>
> * Copyright (c) 2025, 2026, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights
> reserved.
Fixed
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/arguments.cpp line 3445:
>
>> 3443: }
>> 3444:
>> 3445: void Arguments::set_compact_headers_flags() {
>
> Should this be removed?
Fixed
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.inline.hpp line 78:
>
>> 76:
>> 77: inline markWord ObjectMonitor::header() const {
>> 78: guarantee(false, "Locking with OM table does not use header");
>
> Like Aleksey's earlier comment: Remove?
Changed to `ShouldNotCallThis()`, but will defer removing to
[JDK-8389938](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8389938).
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp line 687:
>
>> 685: markWord mark = obj->mark_acquire();
>> 686: // The hash can simply be installed in the object header when
>> 687: // using the Object Monitor Table.
>
> The comment makes it sound like the Object Monitor Table is still optional.
> Maybe completely remove this comment?
Rewrote the comment.
> src/hotspot/share/runtime/synchronizer.cpp line 2217:
>
>> 2215:
>> 2216: ObjectMonitor* ObjectSynchronizer::read_monitor(oop obj, markWord
>> mark) {
>> 2217: return ObjectSynchronizer::get_monitor_from_table(obj);
>
> The `markWord mark` parameter should probably be removed.
This will be removed in
[JDK-8389938](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8389938).
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32257#discussion_r3756423517
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32257#discussion_r3756425011
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32257#discussion_r3756427637
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32257#discussion_r3756434426
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32257#discussion_r3756442410
