Hi Ivan,
You are right! I should make legacyChanged volatile as well. I will get it
tested it with tier-1 and get back to you tomorrow.
Letu
On 8/21/19, 12:08 AM, "Ivan Gerasimov" <ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi Letu!
The fix introduces a read of non-volatile variable legacyChanged outside
of synchronized block, which is not guaranteed to produce consistent
results.
(Please note that in the mentioned fix for JDK-7092821 the variable
servicesChanged was made volatile, so that it could be accessed outside
the synchronized blocks.)
With kind regards,
Ivan
On 8/20/19 10:18 PM, Yang, Letu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please review the fix of https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8229958
where I made the change to allow majority of calls don't have to acquire the
locks when checking the availability of the Provider object. Similar effort had
been made in fixing https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7092821 , but it
only helped the calls for new encryption algorithms. Xin had helped me to
upload the CR: https://cr.openjdk.java.net/~xliu/8229958/webrev/ .
>
> I had run tier-1 tests, and also a JMH test to confirm its performance
improvement. We have also had it running in a load test environment of an
application for a couple of days, and the improvement was confirmed as well.
>
> Best regards,
> Letu
>
--
With kind regards,
Ivan Gerasimov
