> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
On Wed, 22 May 2024 15:45:43 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 36
On Wed, 22 May 2024 15:51:05 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 36
On Thu, 16 May 2024 10:29:48 GMT, Sunmisc Unsafe wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address review comments
>
> Maybe I don't quite understand, or I don't hav
On Wed, 22 May 2024 21:23:04 GMT, Sunmisc Unsafe wrote:
>> After recheckiing, the best policy is to leave internal queues the same, but
>> initialize external queues larger.
>
> Probably a misplaced post again, but why can't you allocate an array of arrays
> where the outer array is 30
> and the
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
On Wed, 29 May 2024 13:26:10 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 41
On Wed, 29 May 2024 14:19:52 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 41
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
On Wed, 29 May 2024 14:09:51 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 41
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has upda
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:04:50 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reconcile changes
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinP
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:08:49 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reconcile changes
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinP
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:33:45 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reconcile changes
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinP
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 16:47:20 GMT, jengebr wrote:
> Improve `java/util/concurrent/CopyOnWriteArrayList` by eliminating needless
> cloning of Object[0] instances. This cloning is intended to prevent callers
> from changing array contents, but many `CopyOnWriteArrayList`s are allocated
> to size z
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 13:03:45 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Improve `java/util/concurrent/CopyOnWriteArrayList` by eliminating needless
>> cloning of Object[0] instances. This cloning is intended to prevent callers
>> from changing array contents, but many `CopyOnWriteArrayList`s are allocated
>>
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployment
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 12:46:36 GMT, jengebr wrote:
>> Improve `java/util/concurrent/CopyOnWriteArrayList` by eliminating needless
>> cloning of Object[0] instances. This cloning is intended to prevent callers
>> from changing array contents, but many `CopyOnWriteArrayList`s are allocated
>> to si
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 17:55:31 GMT, Suryanarayana Garlapati
wrote:
>> @wborn I think 17 should also be OK modulo deleting 2 lines for pre-21
>> mentioned above. I only checked with 19 though..
>
> @DougLea is there any timeline where we can expect the backport of this fix
> into jdk17? or any oth
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:24:12 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Removes some of the old wording around the algorithmic complexity of
> ConcurrentSkipListSet::size() while still retaining the warning around the
> accuracy of the returned result.
Yes, thanks for fixing wording that should have been upda
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 14:02:52 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> 8336384: AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquire should cancel acquire when
>> failing due to a LinkageError or other errors
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/locks/AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer.java
> line 381:
>
>> 379:
The Exchanger class uses spin-waits that are hostile to some uses of
VirtualThreads. Improving this requires a means of estimating whether there are
many VirtualThreads with few carriers, which can be supported by adding a
method in class ForkJoinWorkerThread. This enables a reworking of the exc
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 16:08:31 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Viktor Klang has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Catching both Error and RuntimeException
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/locks/AbstractQueuedLongS
On Tue, 13 Aug 2024 11:52:05 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> The Exchanger class uses spin-waits that are hostile to some uses of
>> VirtualThreads. Improving this requires a means of estimating whether there
>> are many VirtualThreads with few carriers, which can be supported by adding
>> a metho
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 15:41:21 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 858:
>>
>>> 856: * usages of ForkJoinTasks ignore interrupt status when executing
>>> 857: * or awaiting completion. Otherwise, reporting task results or
>>>
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 08:28:24 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> This PR fixes a few trivial grammar issues and typos in documentation.
>>
>> The main issue is the use of the word "timeout". To my mind, timeout, a
>> duration, is not the same as deadline, which is a point in time, an instant,
>> which
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 08:28:24 GMT, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> This PR fixes a few trivial grammar issues and typos in documentation.
>>
>> The main issue is the use of the word "timeout". To my mind, timeout, a
>> duration, is not the same as deadline, which is a point in time, an instant,
>> which
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 17:07:42 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> The Exchanger class uses spin-waits that are hostile to some uses of
> VirtualThreads. Improving this requires a means of estimating whether there
> are many VirtualThreads with few carriers, which can be supported by adding a
&g
the possible expense of revealing too much
> about current VT implementation
Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by
the merge/rebase. The pull request contains five additional commi
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 17:07:42 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> The Exchanger class uses spin-waits that are hostile to some uses of
> VirtualThreads. Improving this requires a means of estimating whether there
> are many VirtualThreads with few carriers, which can be supported by adding a
&g
On Mon, 12 Aug 2024 17:07:42 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> The Exchanger class uses spin-waits that are hostile to some uses of
> VirtualThreads. Improving this requires a means of estimating whether there
> are many VirtualThreads with few carriers, which can be supported by adding a
&g
On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 18:52:23 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Unfortunately there is no good, deterministic reproducer which can be used as
> a regression test at this point in time.
I think this is the most straightforward way to address. It doesn't need doc
change -- there are other cases where b
On Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:10:22 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Unfortunately there is no good, deterministic reproducer which can be used
>> as a regression test at this point in time.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java
> line 533:
>
>> 531: */
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:36:48 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>
> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on whethe
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:08:57 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
>> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>>
>> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on w
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 20:00:56 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Inviting @DougLea and @viktorklang-ora to review.
>
> As usual, I couldn't resist more fiddling.
> - Added missing tests for take, remove(), remove(Object).
> - Improved DelayQueueTest's testing infrastructure
> - added more test assert
On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 14:13:14 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Improves the stability of the memory leak test for CompletableFuture timeout
>> cancellation by both reducing the count by 50% (which should still be above
>> threshold to trigger given the ample margin set initially) as well as
>> exten
On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 11:44:53 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> 8066859 : java/lang/ref/OOMEInReferenceHandler.java failed with
> java.lang.Exception: Reference Handler thread died
Thanks to @AlanBateman for suggesting to disable possibly misleading stack
traces in pre-allocated exceptions; now upda
8066859 : java/lang/ref/OOMEInReferenceHandler.java failed with
java.lang.Exception: Reference Handler thread died
-
Commit messages:
- Also update Xcomp problem list
- Merge branch 'master' of https://git.openjdk.org/jdk into JDK-8066859
- Address review comments
- Disable filli
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 04:10:49 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> 8066859 : java/lang/ref/OOMEInReferenceHandler.java failed with
>> java.lang.Exception: Reference Handler thread died
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/locks/AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer.java
> line 296:
>
>> 294:
> 8066859 : java/lang/ref/OOMEInReferenceHandler.java failed with
> java.lang.Exception: Reference Handler thread died
Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Don't bother creating static exceptions
---
On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 15:03:46 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Don't bother creating static exceptions
>
> test/jdk/ProblemList.txt line 498:
On Mon, 11 Jul 2022 04:18:20 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/locks/LockSupport.java line
>> 463:
>>
>>> 461: * Preallocated exceptions thrown if acquiring or releasing locks
>>> 462: * when OutOfMemory.
>>> 463: */
>>
>> I don't see
> 8066859 : java/lang/ref/OOMEInReferenceHandler.java failed with
> java.lang.Exception: Reference Handler thread died
Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Unspecialize catch to allow OOME
-
Changes:
> 8066859 : java/lang/ref/OOMEInReferenceHandler.java failed with
> java.lang.Exception: Reference Handler thread died
Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
copyright header
-
Changes:
- all:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2022 14:32:35 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Unspecialize catch to allow OOME
>
> test/jdk/java/util/concurrent/locks/Lock/OOMEInAQS.j
On Fri, 8 Jul 2022 11:44:53 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> 8066859 : java/lang/ref/OOMEInReferenceHandler.java failed with
> java.lang.Exception: Reference Handler thread died
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 53580455
Author: Doug Lea
URL:
https://git.openjdk.o
This test now conforms to jtreg rules about not using System.exit to cover
untested OutOfMemoryErrors
-
Commit messages:
- Avoid System.exit in jtreg tests
Changes: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/9491/files
Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=9491&range=00
Issue:
> This test now conforms to jtreg rules about not using System.exit to cover
> untested OutOfMemoryErrors
Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
try/lock() style
-
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.o
On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 13:29:50 GMT, David Holmes wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> try/lock() style
>
> test/jdk/java/util/concurrent/locks/Lock/OOME
On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 11:57:37 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This test now conforms to jtreg rules about not using System.exit to cover
> untested OutOfMemoryErrors
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: 890bcedd
Author: Doug Lea
URL:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/
8292969: This small change in signal propagation rules improves utilization
when entry queues are resized,
-
Commit messages:
- Merge remote-tracking branch 'refs/remotes/origin/JDK-8292969' into
JDK-8292969
- Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8292969
- Update @preturn javad
On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 12:44:11 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> 8292969: This small change in signal propagation rules improves utilization
> when entry queues are resized,
Thanks. replaced with:
* @return the next prevSrc value to use, or negative if none found
Thanks. I keep forgetting the re
On Mon, 26 Sep 2022 13:21:23 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> 8292969: This small change in signal propagation rules improves utilization
>> when entry queues are resized,
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 1842:
>
>> 1840: signalW
On Wed, 7 Sep 2022 12:44:11 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> 8292969: This small change in signal propagation rules improves utilization
> when entry queues are resized,
This pull request has now been integrated.
Changeset: bc12e955
Author: Doug Lea
URL:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/
Addresses Jdk 8288899 : java/util/concurrent/ExecutorService/CloseTest.java
failed with "InterruptedException: sleep interrupted" and related issues.
This is a major ForkJoin update (and hard to review -- sorry) that finally
addresses incompatibilities between ExecutorService and ForkJoinPool (w
This now uses Thread.isVirtual to distinguish spin vs immediate block cases,
enabling re-introduction of spin control from the previous version, removing
anomalies like this one.
-
Commit messages:
- Use Thread.isVirtual to distinguish spin vs immediate block cases
Changes: https:
> This now uses Thread.isVirtual to distinguish spin vs immediate block cases,
> enabling re-introduction of spin control from the previous version, removing
> anomalies like this one.
Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The in
> This now uses Thread.isVirtual to distinguish spin vs immediate block cases,
> enabling re-introduction of spin control from the previous version, removing
> anomalies like this one.
Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 12:54:37 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Overhaul LTQ and SQ to use common blocking and matching mechanics
>
> src/java.base/shar
> This now uses Thread.isVirtual to distinguish spin vs immediate block cases,
> enabling re-introduction of spin control from the previous version, removing
> anomalies like this one.
Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The in
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 13:00:27 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/LinkedTransferQueue.java
>> line 115:
>>
>>> 113: * indicating whether to act as some form of offer, put, poll,
>>> 114: * take, or trans
> This now uses Thread.isVirtual to distinguish spin vs immediate block cases,
> enabling re-introduction of spin control from the previous version, removing
> anomalies like this one.
Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last
> This now uses Thread.isVirtual to distinguish spin vs immediate block cases,
> enabling re-introduction of spin control from the previous version, removing
> anomalies like this one.
Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The in
> This now uses Thread.isVirtual to distinguish spin vs immediate block cases,
> enabling re-introduction of spin control from the previous version, removing
> anomalies like this one.
Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or
a rebase. The in
> This now uses Thread.isVirtual to distinguish spin vs immediate block cases,
> enabling re-introduction of spin control from the previous version, removing
> anomalies like this one.
Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last
On Mon, 17 Jul 2023 14:45:57 GMT, Andrey Turbanov wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains seven
On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 10:26:03 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This update addresses performance issues across both LinkedTransferQueue and
>> SynchronousQueue by creating a common basis for implementation across them
>> (mainly in LinkedTransferQueue). Pasting from internal doc summ
On Fri, 7 Jul 2023 13:45:25 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Fix inverted test assert; improve internal documentation; simplify code
>
> src/jav
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 09:30:53 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> nitpicks
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/LinkedTransferQue
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 10:55:19 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/LinkedTransferQueue.java
>> line 446:
>>
>>> 444: Thread.onSpinWait();
>>> 445: else
>>> 446:
a dummy node, while also reducing retries under heavy
> * contention and misorderings, and relaxing some accesses,
> * requiring accommodation in many places (as well as
> * adjustments in WhiteBox tests).
Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 13:53:57 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address review comments
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/Linked
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:00:06 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address review comments
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/Linked
a dummy node, while also reducing retries under heavy
> * contention and misorderings, and relaxing some accesses,
> * requiring accommodation in many places (as well as
> * adjustments in WhiteBox tests).
Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:52:00 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This update addresses performance issues across both LinkedTransferQueue and
> SynchronousQueue by creating a common basis for implementation across them
> (mainly in LinkedTransferQueue). Pasting from internal doc summary of
On Sat, 3 Jun 2023 14:08:02 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> Addresses Jdk 8288899 : java/util/concurrent/ExecutorService/CloseTest.java
> failed with "InterruptedException: sleep interrupted" and related issues.
>
> This is a major ForkJoin update (and hard to review -- sorry) tha
ensure consistent data structures and actions without requiring global
> synchronization or locking on every task execution that would massively
> degrade performance. The previous lack of a solution to this was the main
> reason for these incompatibilities.
Doug Lea has updated the pull reque
ensure consistent data structures and actions without requiring global
> synchronization or locking on every task execution that would massively
> degrade performance. The previous lack of a solution to this was the main
> reason for these incompatibilities.
Doug Lea has updated the pull reque
On Sun, 6 Aug 2023 12:23:54 GMT, Wouter Born wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 13 additional
ensure consistent data structures and actions without requiring global
> synchronization or locking on every task execution that would massively
> degrade performance. The previous lack of a solution to this was the main
> reason for these incompatibilities.
Doug Lea has updated the pull reque
On Tue, 15 Aug 2023 14:19:29 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 45
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:33:58 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 442:
>>
>>> 440: * queues are at odd indices. Worker phase ids masked with SMASK
>>> 441: * match their index. Shared (submissi
ensure consistent data structures and actions without requiring global
> synchronization or locking on every task execution that would massively
> degrade performance. The previous lack of a solution to this was the main
> reason for these incompatibilities.
Doug Lea has updated the pull re
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 09:50:49 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 45
ensure consistent data structures and actions without requiring global
> synchronization or locking on every task execution that would massively
> degrade performance. The previous lack of a solution to this was the main
> reason for these incompatibilities.
Doug Lea has updated the pull reque
ensure consistent data structures and actions without requiring global
> synchronization or locking on every task execution that would massively
> degrade performance. The previous lack of a solution to this was the main
> reason for these incompatibilities.
Doug Lea has updated the pull re
ensure consistent data structures and actions without requiring global
> synchronization or locking on every task execution that would massively
> degrade performance. The previous lack of a solution to this was the main
> reason for these incompatibilities.
Doug Lea has updated the pull re
On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 15:25:49 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought
>> in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 45
1 - 100 of 376 matches
Mail list logo
