8365190: Remove LockingMode related code from share

[fbredber]

Since the integration of JDK-8359437 the LockingMode flag can no longer be set by the user. After that, a number of PRs has been integrated which has removed all LockingMode related code from all platforms (except from zero, which is done in this PR).

This PR removes LockingMode related code from the shared (non-platform specific) files. It also removes the LockingMode variable itself.

Passes tier1-tier7 with no added problems.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue

Issue

• JDK-8365190: Remove LockingMode related code from share (Sub-task - P4)

Reviewers

• Albert Mingkun Yang (@albertnetymk - Reviewer) Review applies to 71038b71
• Coleen Phillimore (@coleenp - Reviewer) Review applies to f2fc9a5f
• Axel Boldt-Christmas (@xmas92 - Reviewer)
• Leonid Mesnik (@lmesnik - Reviewer) Review applies to 71038b71
• David Holmes (@dholmes-ora - Reviewer)
• Roberto Castañeda Lozano (@robcasloz - Reviewer) Review applies to f2fc9a5f

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27041/head:pull/27041
$ git checkout pull/27041

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/27041
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/27041/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 27041

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 27041

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27041.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back fbredberg! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

@fbredber This change now passes all automated pre-integration checks.

ℹ️ This project also has non-automated pre-integration requirements. Please see the file CONTRIBUTING.md for details.

After integration, the commit message for the final commit will be:

8365190: Remove LockingMode related code from share

Reviewed-by: aboldtch, dholmes, ayang, coleenp, lmesnik, rcastanedalo

You can use pull request commands such as /summary, /contributor and /issue to adjust it as needed.

At the time when this comment was updated there had been 96 new commits pushed to the master branch:

• 051f39e: 8366864: Sort os/linux includes
• fb1924d: 8366874: Test gc/arguments/TestParallelGCErgo.java fails with UseTransparentHugePages
• f9dc640: 8351260: java.lang.AssertionError: Unexpected type tree: (ERROR) = (ERROR)
• ... and 93 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/dacd9af9a02464d2d6144e29d851216641e836c9...master

As there are no conflicts, your changes will automatically be rebased on top of these commits when integrating. If you prefer to avoid this automatic rebasing, please check the documentation for the /integrate command for further details.

➡️ To integrate this PR with the above commit message to the master branch, type /integrate in a new comment.

[openjdk]

@fbredber The following labels will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• graal
• hotspot
• serviceability
• shenandoah

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing lists. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 03: Full - Incremental (905ef3fb)
• 02: Full - Incremental (f2fc9a5f)
• 01: Full - Incremental (3c1b56c5)
• 00: Full (71038b71)

[coleenp]

A few comments and suggestions for your next RFE.

[xmas92]

Nothing obvious seems to be missing from the removal. And the changes look correct.

As @coleenp already mentioned there is even more code now that is effectively unused. Mostly to do with legacy + loom interactions. But I think it is fine to remove that in a follow up RFE.

Similarly there are some nomenclature that should be updated, but I know you have expressed wanting to do that in a follow up RFE as well.

I think it the main refactoring that are left are cleaning up the Synchronizer APIs, unifying some functions etc.

As for unifying LightweightSynchronizer with the ObjectSynchronizer, there might be an opportunity to let ObjectSynchronizer define the general API used by the rest of the VM to interact with the locking subsystem. And let LightweightSynchronizer contain all of the implementation. This could including moving the locking specific implementation details of relocking, deopting etc. behind an interface, decoupling them, and avoiding leaking implementation.

[lmesnik]

svc part looks good.

[dholmes-ora]

Looks good. Great cleanup! A couple of nits/suggestions.

Thanks

[coleenp]

Looks great!!

[robcasloz]

Compiler changes look good, thanks!

[fbredber]

Thank you all for the reviews.

/integrate

[openjdk]

Going to push as commit a272696.
Since your change was applied there have been 98 commits pushed to the master branch:

• 5e423e0: 8367025: zIndexDistributor.hpp uses angle-bracket inclusion of globalDefinitions.hpp
• bea2b02: 8360219: [AIX] assert(locals_base >= l2) failed: bad placement
• 051f39e: 8366864: Sort os/linux includes
• ... and 95 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/dacd9af9a02464d2d6144e29d851216641e836c9...master

Your commit was automatically rebased without conflicts.

[openjdk]

@fbredber Pushed as commit a272696.

💡 You may see a message that your pull request was closed with unmerged commits. This can be safely ignored.