JDK-8365191 : Cleanup after removing LockingMode related code
  • Type: Sub-task
  • Component: hotspot
  • Sub-Component: runtime
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: New
  • Resolution: Unresolved
  • Submitted: 2025-08-09
  • Updated: 2025-08-11
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
JDK 26
26Unresolved
Description
This is a general cleanup after removing LockingMode related code.
It includes:
- Removing asserts() that are no longer necessary, since we removed legacy locking and monitor locking.
- Rewriting or deleting comments and arguments that are related to displaced headers. 
- Dropping the lightweight prefix/suffix (e.g. fast_lock_lightweight and fast_unlock_lockweight should be renamed fast_lock and fast_unlock).
- Etc., etc.
Comments
There are comments in the cpu specific code about displacement registers and the like. This is the pass to make these have good names. We may need another CR once we examine what is left in synchronizer.cpp. It may be that it only handles the OM lists (adding to and deflation) and that the dispatch should go directly to lightweightSynchronizer.cpp. It might need to be renamed in a further pass. I don't know if we need fast_unlock_lightweight to be renamed to fast_unlock. I don't really mind the specific names. I'm open to stronger opinions.
11-08-2025