On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 7:41 PM, Florent Daigniere
<nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote:
> Daniel Cheng wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:45 AM, <nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote:
>>> Author: nextgens
>>> Date: 2009-02-03 16:45:44 +0000 (Tue, 03 Feb 2009)
>>> New Revision: 25492
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>> trunk/freenet/src/freenet/client/async/ClientRequestScheduler.java
>>> Log:
>>> Use the executor and not the ticker there
>>>
>>> Modified: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/client/async/ClientRequestScheduler.java
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- trunk/freenet/src/freenet/client/async/ClientRequestScheduler.java
>>> 2009-02-03 16:24:45 UTC (rev 25491)
>>> +++ trunk/freenet/src/freenet/client/async/ClientRequestScheduler.java
>>> 2009-02-03 16:45:44 UTC (rev 25492)
>>> @@ -662,18 +662,18 @@
>>> Runnable r = new Runnable() {
>>> public void run() {
>>> if(logMINOR) Logger.minor(this, "Running
>>> "+gets.length+" callbacks off-thread for "+block.getKey());
>>> - for(int i=0;i<gets.length;i++) {
>>> + for(SendableGet get : gets) {
>>> try {
>>> - if(logMINOR)
>>> Logger.minor(this, "Calling callback for "+gets[i]+" for "+key);
>>> - gets[i].onGotKey(key,
>>> block, ClientRequestScheduler.this);
>>> + if(logMINOR)
>>> Logger.minor(this, "Calling callback for "+get+" for "+key);
>>> + get.onGotKey(key, block,
>>> ClientRequestScheduler.this);
>>> } catch (Throwable t) {
>>> - Logger.error(this, "Caught
>>> "+t+" running callback "+gets[i]+" for "+key, t);
>>> + Logger.error(this, "Caught
>>> "+t+" running callback "+get+" for "+key, t);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> if(logMINOR) Logger.minor(this, "Finished
>>> running callbacks");
>>> }
>>> };
>>> - node.getTicker().queueTimedJob(r, 0); // FIXME ideally
>>> these would be completed on a single thread; when we have 1.5, use a
>>> dedicated non-parallel Executor
>>> + node.executor.execute(r, "Callbacks for "+name);
>>
>> The FIXME still applies: node.executor spawn a new thread for every
>> request. the original comment call for a "non-parallel" executor.
>
> There is a patch in the pipes to make it happen; There is no reason why
> not to use Executor anymore... All we need is a NativeThread factory.
I tried to do this some time before but didn't commit it.
That's because the NativeThread priority must be specified on create.
That means we need one java.util.concurrent.Executor for each priority.
I can't find a (clean) way to keep the number of thread in thread limit.
--
