On Thu, 30 Jan 2025 08:36:34 GMT, Alan Bateman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/nio/Bits.java line 146:
>>
>>> 144: }
>>> 145:
>>> 146: if (canary == null || canary.isDead()) {
>>
>> If we're keeping Reference.waitForPendingReferences, why not continue to use
>> it, rather than introducing
>> the canary as a new, ad hoc, reference processing progress detector?
>
> @kimbarrett Do you have a change coming to allow waitForPendingReferences be
> used by WB? I assume this will at least add a comment to the method (or
> whatever it changes to) to make it clear that it's for testing.
@AlanBateman I've not done any work on JDK-8305186. There has also been
discussion about making
that function non-private or even public (though with concerns about
specification difficulty) for use in
places like this.
@shipilev I'm working on a reply, but it might be long-ish. That outpacing
issue for some tests is why this
code wasn't switched away from jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner a long time ago. I'm
still looking at it, but I currently
don't think the canary provides a reliable solution to that.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22165#discussion_r1935907473
