Looks good.
It should be safe to sync on MTF instance since it's not accessible
outside (MTF and MT.form() are package-private).
Best regards,
Vladimir Ivanov
On 5/28/14 1:49 PM, Tobias Hartmann wrote:
Hi,
thanks everyone for the feedback!
@Remi: I agree with Paul. This is not a problem because if the normal
read sees an outdated null value, a new LambdaForm is created and
setCachedLambdaForm(...) is executed. This will guarantee that the
non-null value is seen and used. The unnecessary creation of a new
LamdaForm is not a problem either.
@John: I added the code that you suggested to simulate CAS. Please find
the new webrev at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~anoll/8005873/webrev.02/
Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation.
Thanks,
Tobias
On 19.05.2014 20:31, John Rose wrote:
On May 16, 2014, at 4:56 AM, Tobias Hartmann
<tobias.hartm...@oracle.com> wrote:
Is it sufficient then to use synchronized (lambdaForms) { ... } in
setCachedLambdaForm(..) and a normal read in cachedLambdaForm(..)?
Yes, that is how I see it. The fast path is a racy non-volatile read
of a safely-published structure.
(If safe publication via arrays were broken, java.lang.String would be
broken. But the JMM is carefully designed to support safe publication
of array elements, and through array elements.)
— John
