On Thu, 8 Jan 2026 16:08:41 GMT, Viktor Klang <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
>> commit since the last revision:
>> 
>>   Change signalWork fencing; in-progress activation changes
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 1268:
> 
>> 1266:          * Resizes the queue array and pushes unless out of memory.
>> 1267:          * @param task the task; caller must ensure nonnull
>> 1268:          * @param pool the pool to signal upon resize
> 
> @DougLea So this param now becomes "the pool to signal upon resize, if null 
> and the queue's owner has a pool then that pool will be used for the signal 
> instead"

Yes. I'll fix the param spec (among other upcoming docs fixes when this 
settles.)

> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 1295:
> 
>> 1293:                     ForkJoinWorkerThread o;
>> 1294:                     if (pool != null ||
>> 1295:                         ((o = owner) != null && (pool = o.pool) != 
>> null))
> 
> Ok, so now you can't intentionally skip a signal by passing `null` as a pool. 
> Might be for the best, since we always want to signal if we deem it to be 
> needed.

Right. This covers usages of lazySubmit that we don't think can occur in loom, 
but now there as a safeguard.

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

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28797#discussion_r2673020403
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/28797#discussion_r2673015766

Reply via email to