On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:36:43 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> (Copied from https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8319447)
>>
>> The problems addressed by this CR/PR are that ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor is
>> both ill-suited for many (if not most) of its applications, and is a
>> performance bottleneck (a
On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 09:11:00 GMT, Dmitry Chuyko wrote:
>> Please review a tiny fix in the ForkJoinPool. Since JDK 9 (JDK-8134852 [1])
>> in one case when TC subfield in ctl field is decremented, the applied
>> masking (UMASK, upper bits) may not preserve neighbor RC subfield
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:34:51 GMT, Dmitry Chuyko wrote:
> Please review a tiny fix in the ForkJoinPool. Since JDK 9 (JDK-8134852 [1])
> in one case when TC subfield in ctl field is decremented, the applied masking
> (UMASK, upper bits) may not preserve neighbor RC subfield sometimes
)' which preserves the RC part of the compareAndSetCtl()
> candidate argument. On 17u and 11u that repairs known tests and applications.
> This PR is for the mainline, and I intend to backport it to 21u, 17u and 11u.
>
> [1] https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8134852
> [2] https://bugs.
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:34:51 GMT, Dmitry Chuyko wrote:
> Please review a tiny fix in the ForkJoinPool. Since JDK 9 (JDK-8134852 [1])
> in one case when TC subfield in ctl field is decremented, the applied masking
> (UMASK, upper bits) may not preserve neighbor RC subfield sometimes
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:34:51 GMT, Dmitry Chuyko wrote:
> Please review a tiny fix in the ForkJoinPool. Since JDK 9 (JDK-8134852 [1])
> in one case when TC subfield in ctl field is decremented, the applied masking
> (UMASK, upper bits) may not preserve neighbor RC subfield sometimes
On Mon, 17 Mar 2025 14:43:05 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
> It seems this is an overflow for the TC part of the flag. The RC part seems
> to be able to overflow too, but because it occupies the higher bits its
> overflow will never affect the TC. And this is the only site where TC is
> masked with `
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 13:34:51 GMT, Dmitry Chuyko wrote:
> Please review a tiny fix in the ForkJoinPool. Since JDK 9 (JDK-8134852 [1])
> in one case when TC subfield in ctl field is decremented, the applied masking
> (UMASK, upper bits) may not preserve neighbor RC subfield sometimes
Please review a tiny fix in the ForkJoinPool. Since JDK 9 (JDK-8134852 [1]) in
one case when TC subfield in ctl field is decremented, the applied masking
(UMASK, upper bits) may not preserve neighbor RC subfield sometimes. In JDKs
prior to 19 FJP may stop executing tasks, which requires a long r
