On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 17:37:19 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Note that the long standing recommendation has always been to cache/reuse
> direct buffers rather than discard like the reproducer does
The reproducer is likely overly simplistic. The performance problem we are
solving is non-parallelism
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:48:49 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:48:49 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
>> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
>> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
>> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users w
> DirectByteBuffers are still using old `jdk.internal.ref.Cleaner`
> implementation. That implementation carries a doubly-linked list, and so
> makes DBB suffer from the same issue fixed for generic
> `java.lang.ref.Cleaner` users with
> [JDK-8343704](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8343704
