On Thu, 20 Aug 2026 14:13:27 GMT, Fredrik Bredberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> This PR is a follow-up to > [JDK-8389325](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8389325) ("Remove the > UseObjectMonitorTable flag and related code"). It: > - Removes obsolete mark-word and monitor-pointer support. > - Removes displaced-mark related code in garbage collectors (G1, Parallel GC > and Shenandoah). > - Renames UseObjectMonitorTableTest to ObjectMonitorTableTest. > - Addresses all the leftover review comments from > [JDK-8389325](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8389325). > > Passes tier1-5 tests successfully on supported platforms. > > --------- > - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK > Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai). Some questions and suggested additions. src/hotspot/share/oops/markWord.cpp line 40: > 38: // have to check has_monitor() before is_locked() > 39: // Valhalla: inline types/arrays can't be monitored > 40: st->print(" monitor(" INTPTR_FORMAT ")", value()); But the monitor isn't the value now. Shouldn't this just be removed? We don't want printing to search the table. src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.hpp line 236: > 234: uintptr_t metadata() const; > 235: void set_metadata(uintptr_t value); > 236: volatile uintptr_t* metadata_addr(); If I remember this correctly metadata could be two different things, but with the lock in the markWord gone, it can now only be one thing. But I guess that one thing is the hash code as uintptr_t ? Is metadata_addr() used? src/hotspot/share/runtime/objectMonitor.inline.hpp line 88: > 86: set_metadata(hdr.value()); > 87: } > 88: Is there also a set_metadata() that should be removed? ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32471#pullrequestreview-4995670129 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32471#discussion_r3832190455 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32471#discussion_r3833133580 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/32471#discussion_r3833136505
