> On Jun 28, 2016, at 5:33 AM, Per Liden <per.li...@oracle.com> wrote: > Patch looks good. The only thing I don't feel qualified to review is the > initialization order change in thread.cpp, so I'll let others comments on > that.
Thanks. I’ll be following up on that area. > I like the pop-one-reference-at-a-time semantics, which simplifies things a > lot and keeps the interface nice and clean. I was previously afraid that it > might cause a noticeable performance degradation compared to lifting the > whole list into Java in one go, but your testing seem to prove that's not the > case. I was concerned about that too, and had tried a different approach that also still supported the existing "some callers wait and others don’t" API, but it was a bit messy. Coleen convinced me to try this (since it was easy) and do the measurement, and it worked out well.
