RFR: 8320304: Refactor and simplify monitor deflation functions [v3]

[Stefan Karlsson]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2023 17:33:29 GMT, Daniel D. Daugherty <dcubed at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> I appreciate you took the time to trial this - that was not necessary unless others have similar comments.  Personally I find the patch without safepointer less disruptive from the safepointing pov.
>
>> This is a patch that removes the "safepointer" class:
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/2025d7a8e8d48d2d9af548d95b4a88a57058427c
> 
> This patch looks messier than it should because of a mis-indent in `ObjectSynchronizer::block_for_safepoint`
> from L1659 -> 1671.
> 
> I could go either way with having the safepointing and associated logging hiding
> inside ObjectMonitorDeflationSafepointer or not. When I read David's comment, I
> thought he was not happy with both abstract objects (ObjectMonitorDeflationSafepointer
> and ObjectMonitorDeflationLogging). Now that I reread his comments, I'm no longer
> sure that the style objection is to both.
> 
> The way that I reviewed this was to make sure that all calls to `ObjectSynchronizer::chk_for_block_req`
> had an appropriate replacement call to the new helper object APIs...
> 
> Rereading it all again, I'm leaning toward having both helper objects.

Thanks for finding the mis-indentation. I've created a patch without it:
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/f4c8c29e029b5e2e981c5cc0367c197d82bcdb1d

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16706#discussion_r1401052556