On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:37:40 -0400, Robert Jacques <sandf...@jhu.edu>
wrote:
So you want to synchronize the ~= function? I thought the LRU would be
thread local and therefore independent of these issues, as well as being
faster. And if the LRU isn't thread-local, then why not make it part of
the GC? It would both be more general and much simpler/cleaner to
implement.
quoting myself earlier:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:58:01 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer
<schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote:
In response to other's queries about how many LRUs to use, you'd
probably want one per heap, and you'd want to lock/not lock based on
whether the heap is thread local or not.
You need a locked operation in the case where the heap is shared,
otherwise, you lose safety.
At the moment all we *have* is a shared heap. So ~= is a synchronized
operation until thread-local heaps are available.
I think the only logical place for the LRU is the GC, it makes no sense to
have a a shared LRU for an unshared GC or vice versa.
-Steve
