On Thu, 7 Mar 2024 08:42:11 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Use of `ObjectLocker` here will introduce a new pinning point for Loom. We >> have been removing as many uses of `ObjectLocker` as we can. I also think >> this will need to be moved back to Java code when the pinning currently >> inherent in calling `Object.wait` is addressed. > > Yes, and it may be that once Object.wait is implemented that we can remove > the need to propagate the interrupt status (there are some TBDs here). > > I think the change here is okay for now but we still have the choice of > limiting the change to just JVMTI RawMonitorWait. Personally I'd prefer to see changes limited to just JVMTI `RawMonitorWait`. That minimises the risk of any unintended consequences from making the change. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18093#discussion_r1517212478
