RFR: 8320318: ObjectMonitor Responsible thread [v2]

[Amit Kumar]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2024 13:19:26 GMT, Fredrik Bredberg <fbredberg at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Removed the concept of an ObjectMonitor Responsible thread.
>> 
>> The reason to have an ObjectMonitor Responsible thread was to avoid threads getting stranded due to a hole in the successor protocol. This hole was there because adding the necessary memory barrier was considered too expensive some 20 years ago.
>> 
>> The ObjectMonitor Responsible thread code adds complexity, and doing timed parks just to avoid getting stranded is not the way forward. More info about the problems with the ObjectMonitor responsible thread can be found in [JDK-8320318](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8320318).
>> 
>> After removing the ObjectMonitor Responsible thread we see increased performance on all supported platforms except Windows. [JDK-8339730](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8339730) has been created to handle this.
>> 
>> Passes tier1-tier7 on supported platforms.
>> x64, AArch64, Riscv64, ppc64le and s390x passes ok on the test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/vm/lang/LockUnlock.java test.
>> Arm32 and Zero doesn't need any changes as far as I can tell.
>
> Fredrik Bredberg has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Update one, after the review

src/hotspot/cpu/s390/macroAssembler_s390.cpp line 3685:

> 3683:   z_stg(currentHeader, Address(Z_thread, JavaThread::unlocked_inflated_monitor_offset()));
> 3684: 
> 3685:   z_cr(currentHeader, Z_thread); // Set flag = NE

I ran tier1 test and don't see any new failure appearing. 

How about using `z_ltgr` here ? 

Suggestion:

  z_ltgr(oop, oop); // Set flag = NE

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/19454#discussion_r1760569255