On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 14:14:18 GMT, Viktor Klang <vkl...@openjdk.org> 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/ForkJoinPool.java line 1870:
>
>> 1868: else if ((phase = w.phase) != 0 && (phase & IDLE) != 0)
>> 1869: releaseWaiters(); // ensure released
>> 1870: if (w == null || w.source != DROPPED) {
>
> @DougLea If this isn't intended to be an `else-if` I'd recommend adding a
> line of whitespace between it and the line above.
Thanks for the prod. While making the control flow here read better, I noticed
that adding a leading runState check in registerWorker further reduced overhead
a bit when shutdown occurs while still ramping up.
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 1877:
>
>> 1875: (LMASK & c)))));
>> 1876: }
>> 1877: if (phase != 0 && w != null && (runState & STOP) == 0L) {
>
> @DougLea If this isn't intended to be an else-if I'd recommend adding a line
> of whitespace between it and the line above.
now no more elses so less confuring
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 2078:
>
>> 2076: w.phase = p;
>> 2077: if (!compareAndSetCtl(pc, qc)) // try to enqueue
>> 2078: return w.phase = phase; // back out on possible
>> signal
>
> @DougLea We don't back out the stackPred change here, is that still valid? 🤔
yes. it's as if the deactivation didn't happen, so no need to increment version
tag bits.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21507#discussion_r1838807759
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21507#discussion_r1838808625
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21507#discussion_r1838810950
