On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:09:03 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 Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:20:56 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 Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:37:04 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 Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:29:53 GMT, Simon Hartley 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 3927:
>
>> 3925:
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:27:30 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Personally I think it's worth it. @AlanBateman, what do you think?
>
> Right now it's hard to envisage needing to have >2B delayed tasks queued.
> Maybe in a few years we might regret this. So maybe better to change it to
> return long, I
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 19:17:32 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> The schedule(Runnable ..) and schedule(Callable ..) methods are a single
>> sentence in the interface. The ForkJoinPool methods has more to say about
>> cancellation and shutdown. So while it could inherit, doesn't seem to be
>> worth it her
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:06:40 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Arguably better, but not sure it is worth regenerating diffs for? (An int
>> was used for the same reason as in FJT.getQueueSize -- they need to be
>> valid array bounds. Which might someday allow long, but if so many things
>> would ch
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 19:52:16 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 3932:
>>
>>> 3930: * @since 25
>>> 3931: */
>>> 3932: public int getDelayedTaskCount() {
>>
>> @DougLea It would seem more consistent to have this return a
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:14:08 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The pull request now contains 49 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8319447
>> - Address review comments
>> - Merge branch
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:23:12 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> The commonPool can't be shutdown (both shutdown methods are specified to
>> have no effect on the common pool) so I suppose it doesn't really matter.
>
> Heh, that's a fair point, Alan. :)
Clarified:
* Arranges that scheduled tasks t
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:12:47 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The pull request now contains 49 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8319447
>> - Address review comments
>> - Merge branch
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:05:46 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The pull request now contains 49 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8319447
>> - Address review comments
>> - Merge branch
On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:11:40 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge
>> or a rebase. The pull request now contains 49 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into JDK-8319447
>> - Address review comments
>> - Merge branch
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 19:57:54 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 Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:14:45 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 3743:
>>
>>> 3741: * @since 25
>>> 3742: */
>>> 3743: public void cancelDelayedTasksOnShutdown() {
>>
>> @DougLea Should this really be possible to enab
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 22:41:07 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>>> @sunmisc You are right that it would be nice if there were a way to
>>> efficiently use getAndSet here because a failed reference CAS hits slow
>>> paths that vary across GCs. But all of the ways I know to do this are much
>>> worse.
>>
>>
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 19:57:54 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, 25 Mar 2025 12:06:30 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 3507:
>>
>>> 3505:
>>> 3506: /**
>>> 3507: * Submits a one-shot task that becomes enabled after the given
>>
>> If the javadoc for the new methods from the
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:41:41 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 47 additional commits
>> since
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:40:57 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 47 additional commits
>> since
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 16:38:55 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 47 additional commits
>> since
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:40:08 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 47 additional commits
>> since
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:35:52 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 47 additional commits
>> since
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:30:22 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 47 additional commits
>> since
On Tue, 25 Mar 2025 15:14:56 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 47 additional commits
>> since
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:09:03 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 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:09:03 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 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:09:03 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 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:09:03 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 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:09:03 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 Mon, 24 Mar 2025 20:03:47 GMT, Joe Darcy 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 47 additional commits
>> since th
On Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:09:03 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 Sat, 22 Mar 2025 11:09:03 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
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
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
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 14:17:29 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Use SharedSecrets for ThreadLocalRandomProbe; other tweaks
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/atomic/Stri
On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 20:29:20 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, 11 Mar 2025 20:29:20 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, 11 Mar 2025 13:46:52 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 1301:
>>
>>> 1299: if ((room == 0 ||// pad if no caller-run
>>> 1300: a[m & (s - ((internal || task == null ||
>>> 1301:
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
On Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:17:50 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 (as
On Mon, 10 Mar 2025 14:34:42 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Disambiguate caller-runs vs Interruptible
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 1301:
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 14:34:00 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Maybe it's worth using java.time.Duration, although it doesn't fit into the
>> API very elegantly.
>
>> I wonder if the variance of the Consumer to this method should be more
>> permissible. Something like:
>>
>> public ForkJoinTask submi
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 23:55:52 GMT, Sunmisc Unsafe wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 3741:
>>
>>> 3739: public ForkJoinTask submitWithTimeout(Callable callable,
>>> 3740: long timeout,
>>> TimeUni
On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 15:13:06 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reduce volatile reads
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 3741:
>
>> 3739: publ
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 15:43:17 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 (as
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 15:49:26 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reduce volatile reads
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/DelayScheduler.java line 255:
>
>> 253:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 15:43:17 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 (as
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:26:48 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 Wed, 26 Feb 2025 13:30:56 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 3131:
>>
>>> 3129: if ((p = (cp = common).parallelism) < 2)
>>> 3130: U.compareAndSetInt(cp, PARALLELISM, p, 2);
>>> 3131: return cp;
>>
>
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 10:13:12 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Standardize parameter checking
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 3131:
>
>> 3129
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 10:13:12 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Standardize parameter checking
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 3131:
>
>> 3129
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:26:48 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, 25 Feb 2025 19:42:01 GMT, Sunmisc Unsafe wrote:
>> Is it possible to use getAndSet instead of cas-loop on #pend?
>>
>> final Task t = tail.getAndSet(task);
>> t.next = task;
>>
>> but that would require a new head field to bypass, probably not worth the
>> gamble if the footprint incre
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:23:07 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Standardize parameter checking
>
> test/jdk/java/util/concurrent/tck/ForkJoinPool20Test.java line 649:
>
>> 647:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:21:56 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Standardize parameter checking
>
> test/jdk/java/util/concurrent/tck/ForkJoinPool20Test.java line 630:
>
>> 628:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:06:31 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Standardize parameter checking
>
> test/jdk/java/util/concurrent/tck/ForkJoinPool20Test.java line 577:
>
>> 575:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 17:04:20 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Standardize parameter checking
>
> test/jdk/java/util/concurrent/tck/ForkJoinPool20Test.java line 523:
>
>> 521:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:51:29 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Standardize parameter checking
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/DelayScheduler.java line 455:
>
>> 453
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:46:07 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Standardize parameter checking
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/DelayScheduler.java line 356:
>
>> 354
On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:37:49 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Standardize parameter checking
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/DelayScheduler.java line 99:
>
>> 97:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 22:35:07 GMT, Sunmisc Unsafe 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 bottlen
On Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:26:48 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 Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:26:48 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 Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:26:48 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 Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:26:48 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 Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:26:48 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 Sun, 23 Feb 2025 15:26:48 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 Sat, 22 Feb 2025 14:30:11 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
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
> (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 (as seen especially in Loom and CompletableFuture
> usages
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:10:24 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address feedback
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 146:
>
>> 144: * and invoke
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:16:55 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address feedback
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 187:
>
>> 185: * are used. I
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:38:00 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address feedback
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 3526:
>
>> 3524: if (
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:23:23 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address feedback
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 2585:
>
>> 2583: * throw
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:11:31 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address feedback
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 160:
>
>> 158: * do not incl
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:52:41 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address feedback
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinTask.java line 1668:
>
>> 1666:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:34:32 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address feedback
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/CompletableFuture.java line
> 2947:
>
>> 2945:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 16:28:15 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address feedback
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/CompletableFuture.java line
> 2840:
>
>> 2838:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 17:30:46 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Added:
>> Delayed actions become enabled and behave as ordinary submitted
>> tasks when their delays elapse.
>
> Thanks. Also here we have ".. after the given delay, At which" so need to
> smooth that out.
OK. I also renamed executeRea
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:16:10 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 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:16:10 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 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:52:10 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 3537:
>>
>>> 3535: * pool is {@link #shutdownNow}, or is {@link #shutdown} when
>>> 3536: * otherwise quiescent and {@link #cancelDelayedTasksOnShutdown}
>>> 353
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:16:10 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 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:16:10 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 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:16:10 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 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:16:10 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 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:16:10 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 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:16:10 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 Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:16:10 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 Thu, 20 Feb 2025 22:35:07 GMT, Sunmisc Unsafe 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 bottlen
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
