On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:42:25 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
>> changes:
On Tue, 2 Jul 2024 19:28:58 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> @DougLea is there any timeline where we can expect the backport of this fix
>> into jdk17? or any other work around?
>
> @suryag10 Sorry I'm not the right person to ask about backports.
Thanks for the info @DougLea and @jaikiran
-
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:42:25 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
>> changes:
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 Thu, 10 Aug 2023 15:03:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> Thanks for making the fixes Doug!
>> Would it also be possible to backport these fixes to Java 17?
>>
>> It seems to be a very common issue for openHAB users now that they upgrade
>> to openHAB 4 which requires Java 17.
>>
>> See:
>>
>> *
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 commits
>> since t
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:42:25 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
>> changes:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:29:24 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/LinkedTransferQueue.java
>> line 896:
>>
>>> 894: for (DualNode p = (pred == null) ? head : pred.next, c = p;
>>> 895: p != null; ) {
>>> 896: boole
> 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
> changes:
> * * Class DualNode replaces Qnode, with fields an
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/LinkedTransferQueue.java
> line 896:
>
>> 89
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/LinkedTransferQueue.java
> line 639:
>
>> 63
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:31:07 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
>> changes:
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 11:16:55 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> It's a good point, but we don't normally do this. Added (L336):
>> * returns just barely too soon. As is the case in most j.u.c
>> * blocking support, untimed waits use ManagedBlockers when
>> * callers are ForkJoin threads, but
On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:31:07 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
>> changes:
> 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
> changes:
> * * Class DualNode replaces Qnode, with fields an
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: LockSupport.parkNanos(ns);
>>
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/LinkedTransferQueue.java
> line 397:
>
>> 395: * T
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 summary of
>> changes:
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 summary of
>> changes:
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 summary of
>> changes:
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/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent
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 summary of
>> changes:
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 additional commits
>>
> 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 revision:
nit
> 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 incremental webre
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:21:01 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> 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 targ
On Fri, 30 Jun 2023 19:38:19 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> 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 w
On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 19:21:01 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> 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 targ
> 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 incremental webre
> 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 revision:
Fix
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 transfer (each possibly with timeout), as described
> 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 incremental webre
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/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/Link
On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 22:53:10 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> 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 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.
Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit
since the last revision:
Ove
> 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 incremental webre
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:52:00 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> 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.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/LinkedTrans
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:52:00 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> 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.
@DougLea @AlanBateman I had a look as well, didn't find anyt
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:52:00 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> 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.
src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/LinkedTrans
On Mon, 5 Jun 2023 18:52:00 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> 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.
This looks okay to me, it was a bit easier than I expected.
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:
41 matches
Mail list logo
