On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 11:45:10 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reconcile changes
>
> Viktor (mostly) and I have been testing and reviewing these changes at each
> iteration. I think we
On Fri, 31 May 2024 13:18:33 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 11:16:49 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 1345:
>>
>>> 1343: int b = base, p = top, cap;
>>> 1344: if (p - b > 0 && a != null && (cap = a.length) > 0) {
>>> 1345: for (int m
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 14:33:45 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reconcile changes
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 1345:
>
>> 1343:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 13:18:33 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:24:56 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 2024:
>>
>>> 2022: }
>>> 2023: if (pb == (pb = b)) // base
>>> unchanged
>>> 2024:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:08:49 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reconcile changes
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 2075:
>
>> 2073:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 14:04:50 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Reconcile changes
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 2024:
>
>> 2022:
On Fri, 31 May 2024 13:18:33 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Fri, 31 May 2024 13:18:33 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
On Wed, 29 May 2024 14:09:51 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 41 additional commits
>>
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
On Wed, 29 May 2024 14:19:52 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 41 additional commits
>>
On Wed, 29 May 2024 13:26:10 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 41 additional commits
>>
On Wed, 29 May 2024 11:33:40 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Wed, 29 May 2024 11:33:40 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Wed, 29 May 2024 11:33:40 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Wed, 29 May 2024 11:33:40 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Wed, 29 May 2024 11:33:40 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Wed, 29 May 2024 11:33:40 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
On Thu, 16 May 2024 10:29:48 GMT, Sunmisc Unsafe wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address review comments
>
> Maybe I don't quite understand, or I don't have proof, But wouldn't it be
> better if
On Wed, 22 May 2024 21:23:04 GMT, Sunmisc Unsafe wrote:
>> After recheckiing, the best policy is to leave internal queues the same, but
>> initialize external queues larger.
>
> Probably a misplaced post again, but why can't you allocate an array of arrays
> where the outer array is 30
> and
On Thu, 16 May 2024 10:29:48 GMT, Sunmisc Unsafe wrote:
>> Doug Lea has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address review comments
>
> Maybe I don't quite understand, or I don't have proof, But wouldn't it be
> better if
On Wed, 22 May 2024 15:51:05 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 36 additional commits
>>
On Wed, 22 May 2024 15:45:43 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 36 additional commits
>>
On Sun, 12 May 2024 13:05:48 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> The goal is to reduce the worst form of contention: when queue arrays are
>> laid out adjacently in memory. Increasing sizes has some impact but with
>> diminishing returns. Thanks for the comment as a reminder that I haven't
>> rechecked
On Wed, 22 May 2024 15:32:42 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Wed, 22 May 2024 15:32:42 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Wed, 22 May 2024 15:32:42 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
On Sun, 12 May 2024 13:12:24 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Sun, 12 May 2024 19:46:42 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/ForkJoinPool.java line 1242:
>
>> 1240:
On Sun, 12 May 2024 13:12:24 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with large numbers of cores
Doug Lea has updated the pull
On Sat, 11 May 2024 23:39:04 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Fri, 10 May 2024 12:20:27 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 978:
>>
>>> 976: * of two, at least 2. See above.
>>> 977: */
>>> 978: static final int INITIAL_QUEUE_CAPACITY = 1 << 7;
>>
>> @DougLea Interesting
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
On Fri, 10 May 2024 11:44:14 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 1412:
>>
>>> 1410: if (stalled)
>>> 1411: Thread.onSpinWait();
>>> 1412: stalled = true;
>>
On Fri, 10 May 2024 12:09:20 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 2167:
>>
>>> 2165: }
>>> 2166: }
>>> 2167: return stat;
>>
>> @DougLea Since `stat` is a local, and is only written to once per branch it
>>
On Fri, 10 May 2024 07:34:40 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:30:24 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:15:59 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:11:52 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:08:05 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:04:27 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Fri, 10 May 2024 08:02:23 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Fri, 10 May 2024 07:35:17 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
>> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
>> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in
>> deployments
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:50:18 GMT, Doug Lea wrote:
> This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
> cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
> adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
> with
This set of changes address causes of poor utilization with small numbers of
cores due to overly aggressive contention avoidance. A number of further
adjustments were needed to still avoid most contention effects in deployments
with large numbers of cores
-
Commit messages:
-
71 matches
Mail list logo
