On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 07:31:14 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Tue, 3 Dec 2024 07:31:14 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
> currently knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchroniz
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:33:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 17:23:10 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> How about this:
>>
>>> ...the problem is in GC time hiccups to walk the large linked lists.
>>
>> Though, for this test, `CleanableList` itself is not being walked.
>>
>> Rather, `CleanableList` itself is a factor in as much as it ex
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 17:33:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:38:00 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Yes, this is a test that says "User allocated lots of Cleaner-carrying
>> objects, and all of them are alive. See if GC chokes in this conditions."
>> This is similar to the cases we are seeing in our prod conditions: these
>> objects
On Mon, 25 Nov 2024 08:32:31 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> How about this:
>>
>>> ...the problem is in GC time hiccups to walk the large linked lists.
>>
>> Though, for this test, `CleanableList` itself is not being walked.
>>
>> Rather, `CleanableList` itself is a factor in as much as it ex
On Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:38:00 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
> Though, for this test, CleanableList itself is not being walked.
I think this is a matter of definition of "CleanableList itself is not being
walked".
The Java code does not walk the list in this test, but GC does the walk the
list a
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 06:59:45 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Would this be considered a benchmark of the GC's PhantomReference
>> management, then - deciding that all the `PhantomCleanerRef`s are still
>> reachable, perhaps?
>>
>> To measure `CleanableList`'s list manipulation at GC-time, a `T
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 16:12:18 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev 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 17 additional
>> commi
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
> currently knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchroniz
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:33:01 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:33:01 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Fri, 22 Nov 2024 00:17:19 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Redone the benchmark. We actually want all targets to be reachable, and only
>> expose the Cleaner-side linked lists to the test. New performance data is
>> updated here:
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/22043#issuecomment-24709
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 19:29:07 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Ah (facepalms), I see, I thought I assigned it! Damn. Let me fix and
>> re-measure.
>
> Redone the benchmark. We actually want all targets to be reachable, and only
> expose the Cleaner-side linked lists to the test. New performance d
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 18:29:24 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Sorry for being dense, but where is a value being set to `CleanerGC.prev` ?
>
> Ah (facepalms), I see, I thought I assigned it! Damn. Let me fix and
> re-measure.
Redone the benchmark. We actually want all targets to be reachable, and
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
> currently knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchroniz
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 18:20:10 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> No. Local `prev` variable goes out of scope when `setup()` finishes, making
>> the whole thing eligible for GC. We need something that keeps the list
>> alive, like a benchmark object field, which `CleanerGC.prev` is.
>
> Sorry for bei
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 18:02:24 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Doesn't it get covered by the local `prev` in `setup()`? Should that be
>> removed?
>
> No. Local `prev` variable goes out of scope when `setup()` finishes, making
> the whole thing eligible for GC. We need something that keeps the li
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 17:53:00 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Yes. It maintains the root of a reachable linked list of `Target`-s.
>
> Doesn't it get covered by the local `prev` in `setup()`? Should that be
> removed?
No. Local `prev` variable goes out of scope when `setup()` finishes, making the
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 07:11:00 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/java/lang/ref/CleanerGC.java line 45:
>>
>>> 43:
>>> 44: // Deliberately a linked list to avoid exposing external
>>> parallelism to GC.
>>> 45: Target prev;
>>
>> Is `CleanerGC.prev` used?
>
> Y
On Thu, 21 Nov 2024 05:42:09 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Check all elements are removable after random test
>
> test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/java/lang/ref/CleanerGC.java
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 09:19:39 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:09:38 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
> currently knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchroniz
On Wed, 20 Nov 2024 00:50:01 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Use RandomFactory in test
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/ref/PhantomCleanable.java line 55:
>
>>
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 18:50:36 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> With SM removal, there is a doPrivileged call in Cleaner.java. Should that be
> handled separately from this PR?
Since this is not related to the problem at hand, I'd prefer to keep it out of
this PR.
-
PR Comment: https://gi
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:53:45 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:53:45 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:19:51 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev 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
>> co
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
> currently knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchroniz
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 19:26:03 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > With SM removal, there is a doPrivileged call in Cleaner.java. Should that
> > be handled separately from this PR?
>
> Since this is not related to the problem at hand, I'd prefer to keep it out
> of this PR.
Actually, I wonder if
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:09:38 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 08:09:38 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
> currently knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchroniz
On Tue, 19 Nov 2024 00:58:18 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Drop --add-exports from the test
>
> test/jdk/jdk/internal/ref/Cleaner/CleanableListTest.java line 46:
>
>> 44:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 00:03:18 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> prev is not needed
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/ref/CleanerImpl.java line 239:
>
>> 237:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2024 09:46:50 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:30:06 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 21:31:54 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> prev is not needed
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/ref/CleanerImpl.java line 310:
>
>> 308:
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
> currently knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchroniz
On Sat, 16 Nov 2024 18:11:32 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> prev is not needed
>
> test/jdk/jdk/internal/ref/Cleaner/CleanableListTest.java line 30:
>
>> 28: * @compile/module
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:30:06 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:30:06 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:55:30 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Do not need -ea -esa in tests, our testing infra adds them already
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/ref/C
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 19:30:06 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
> currently knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchroniz
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 17:53:53 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Do not need -ea -esa in tests, our testing infra adds them already
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/ref/C
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:11:38 GMT, Francesco Nigro wrote:
> ...in case having a lock-free structure can be of any help, in JCTools we
> have...
We should continue to lock the same lock in `insert()` and `remove()`, as it
creates the _happens-before_ between the
thread registering the `Cleaner`,
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:19:46 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC.
>> There are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>>
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 10:05:29 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There
>> are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>> curr
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 06:36:22 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>> I see that existing `Cleaner` tests are quite rich already.
>>> ...
>>> The new asserts around that code should IMO test enough with existing tests.
>>
>> Should any of the existing `Cleaner` tests have `@run`s added with `-esa` ?
>
> Ru
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There
> are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is currently
> knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchronization
On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 07:32:37 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
> > I have been playing with
> > [8343704-node-cache.txt](https://github.com/user-attachments/files/17753986/8343704-node-cache.txt)
> > -- is that what you had in mind?
>
> Yes. It amortises the allocation over at least NODE_CAPAC
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There
> are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is currently
> knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchronization
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 17:26:31 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> > That is probably correct. I was however thinking that it would only be
> > pooled asymmetrically as some type of hystereses. So you pool when you
> > remove a node (switch the head) and keep it far an arbitrary amount of
> > removal
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 21:03:35 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Nevermind, I added a directed regression test for it now.
>
>> I see that existing `Cleaner` tests are quite rich already.
>> ...
>> The new asserts around that code should IMO test enough with existing tests.
>
> Should any of the exi
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:20:06 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> I see that existing `Cleaner` tests are quite rich already. Array-based
>> implementation does rise question about testing the resizes, that's obvious.
>> But I have discovered that copying arrays is not really that good in this
>> s
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:50:21 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
> That is probably correct. I was however thinking that it would only be pooled
> asymmetrically as some type of hystereses. So you pool when you remove a node
> (switch the head) and keep it far an arbitrary amount of removals. So
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 14:50:21 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
> I was however thinking that it would only be pooled asymmetrically as some
> type of hystereses. So you pool when you remove a node (switch the head) and
> keep it far an arbitrary amount of removals. So it would only really waste
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:24:26 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There
>> are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>> curr
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:56:03 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> I don't think we should care about this case: it seems the rare benefit does
> not outweigh the cost for common case? The goal for this implementation is to
> avoid wasting more space than necessary. Caching a node would take another
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:28:46 GMT, Axel Boldt-Christmas
wrote:
> This seem to handle excessive allocations when churning around an empty list
> by keeping the head node always allocated.
Realistically, the list is almost never empty: there is a `Cleaner` instance
itself recorded in the list.
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:24:26 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There
>> are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>> curr
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:00:24 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Speaking of testing, with this level of change, perhaps a new (white box?)
>> regtest is warranted.
>
> I see that existing `Cleaner` tests are quite rich already. Array-based
> implementation does rise question about testing the resi
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 11:50:31 GMT, Oli Gillespie wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reimplement with segmented linked list of arrays
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/ref/CleanerImpl.java
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There
> are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is currently
> knee-capped by global synchronization. The synchronization
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:04:04 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list segmented list of arrays. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There
>> are possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that is
>> curr
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:30:27 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> I pushed the array-based implementation, but ran out of time to properly
>> test it. I'll circle back to it tomorrow. Review if you can, but it will
>> probably have some touchups later.
>
> Speaking of testing, with this level of chan
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with the `ArrayList` wrapper that manages synchronization, search
> and replacements efficiently. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There are
> possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that i
On Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:50:51 GMT, Chen Liang wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Review feedback: make sure trimming actually works, stylistic changes
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/re
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 20:33:25 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with the `ArrayList` wrapper that manages synchronization,
>> search and replacements efficiently. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There
>> ar
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 20:46:09 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> Right, d'oh. The unavailability of `ArrayList.capacity()` is what gets us in
>> this mess. I'll try to rewrite to just plain arrays.
>
> I pushed the array-based implementation, but ran out of time to properly test
> it. I'll circle b
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 19:00:34 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/ref/CleanerImpl.java line 290:
>>
>>> 288: list.remove(lastIdx);
>>> 289:
>>> 290: // Capacity control: trim the backing storage if it
>>> looks like
>>
>> I t
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:22:21 GMT, Kelvin Nilsen wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev 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 four additional
>> co
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with the `ArrayList` wrapper that manages synchronization, search
> and replacements efficiently. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There are
> possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that i
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 08:16:31 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/ref/CleanerImpl.java line 300:
>>
>>> 298: return true;
>>> 299: }
>>> 300: }
>>
>> It looks like the new `PhantomCleanableList.remove()` puts 100% trust in
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 17:19:18 GMT, Kelvin Nilsen wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev 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 four additional
>> co
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 15:38:35 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
>> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
>> linked list with the `ArrayList` wrapper that manages synchronization,
>> search and replacements efficiently. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There
>> ar
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with the `ArrayList` wrapper that manages synchronization, search
> and replacements efficiently. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There are
> possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that i
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with the `ArrayList` wrapper that manages synchronization, search
> and replacements efficiently. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There are
> possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that i
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with the `ArrayList` wrapper that manages synchronization, search
> and replacements efficiently. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There are
> possible improvements here, most glaring is parallelism that i
On Wed, 13 Nov 2024 00:30:37 GMT, Brent Christian wrote:
>> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Touchups: assert index, polish commits
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/jdk/internal/ref/CleanerImpl.java line 30
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:00:39 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the ad-hoc
> linked list with the `ArrayList` wrapper that manages synchronization, search
> and replacements efficiently. Arrays are easy targets for GC. There are
> po
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 16:00:39 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the linked
> list with an `ArrayList` wrapper that manages synchronization, search and
> replacements effectively. There are possible improvements here, most glaring
> i
See the bug for more discussion and reproducer. This PR replaces the linked
list with an `ArrayList` wrapper that manages synchronization, search and
replacements effectively. There are possible improvements here, most glaring is
parallelism that is currently knee-capped by global synchronizatio
87 matches
Mail list logo
