On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:56:03 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> I don't think we should care about this case: it seems the rare benefit does > not outweigh the cost for common case? The goal for this implementation is to > avoid wasting more space than necessary. Caching a node would take another > bunch of KBs per Cleaner, at very least. That is probably correct. I was however thinking that it would only be pooled asymmetrically as some type of hystereses. So you pool when you remove a node (switch the head) and keep it far an arbitrary amount of removals. So it would only really waste memory for cleaners that have this behaviour that they keep adding and removing cleanable around a NODE_CAPACITY boundary. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22043#issuecomment-2476557406
