On Tue, 23 Jul 2024 12:34:45 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I was thinking it was referring to `ObjectSynchronizer::waitUninterruptibly`
>> added the same commit as the comment b3bf31a0a08da679ec2fd21613243fb17b1135a9
>
> git backout restored the old wrong comment. We should fix this separately.
Suggestion:
// If we were to use wait() instead of waitInterruptibly() then
>> I think I was thinking of the names as a prefix to refer to the `Count of
>> the table` and `Size of the table`. And not the `Number of tables`. But I
>> can see the confusion.
>>
>> `ConcurrentHashTable` tracks no statistics except for JFR which added some
>> counters directly into the implementation. All statistics are for the users
>> to manage, even if there are helpers for gather these statistics.
>>
>> The current implementation is based on what we do for the StringTable and
>> SymbolTable
>
> In the other tables, it's called _items_count and it determines the
> load_factor for triggering concurrent work. We should rename this field
> items_count to match, and also since it's consistent.
Suggestion:
volatile size_t _items_count;
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20067#discussion_r1687990861
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20067#discussion_r1688564267
