On Thu, 26 May 2022 18:50:07 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> May I have this test update reviewed?
>
> The ForceGC could be enhanced by using smaller wait/sleep time, and shared
> cleaner.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
Sorry, I was working on a history webpage while submit the PR and did
On Tue, 31 May 2022 17:41:08 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote:
> Hmm... one benefit of Cleaner is the ease of use to avoid the need of
> managing the reference queue. If the performance of the Cleaner API is a
> concern, perhaps we should look into reducing its overhead?
The code using a Cleaner here
On Thu, 26 May 2022 21:40:42 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> > Even using a Cleaner is a more overhead than necessary. I would have
> > skipped the overhead of a cleaner and Atomic classes with something more
> > self contained as a static method:
>
> I agreed that the using of Cleaner is
On Thu, 26 May 2022 18:50:07 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> May I have this test update reviewed?
>
> The ForceGC could be enhanced by using smaller wait/sleep time, and shared
> cleaner.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
Marked as reviewed by mchung (Reviewer).
-
PR:
On Thu, 26 May 2022 21:40:42 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> Even using a Cleaner is a more overhead than necessary.
> I would have skipped the overhead of a cleaner and Atomic classes with
> something more self contained as a static method:
Hmm... one benefit of Cleaner is the ease of use to
On Tue, 31 May 2022 13:26:17 GMT, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> May I have this test update reviewed?
>>
>> The ForceGC could be enhanced by using smaller wait/sleep time, and shared
>> cleaner.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Xuelei
>
> test/lib/jdk/test/lib/util/ForceGC.java line 50:
>
>> 48:
On Thu, 26 May 2022 18:50:07 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> May I have this test update reviewed?
>
> The ForceGC could be enhanced by using smaller wait/sleep time, and shared
> cleaner.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
LGTM - but it may be good to have an other reviewer (@mlchung ?)
On Thu, 26 May 2022 18:50:07 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> May I have this test update reviewed?
>
> The ForceGC could be enhanced by using smaller wait/sleep time, and shared
> cleaner.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
Marked as reviewed by bchristi (Reviewer).
-
PR:
On Thu, 26 May 2022 18:50:07 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> May I have this test update reviewed?
>
> The ForceGC could be enhanced by using smaller wait/sleep time, and shared
> cleaner.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
ok, the updates look fine.
-
Marked as reviewed by rriggs
On Thu, 26 May 2022 21:22:23 GMT, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Even using a Cleaner is a more overhead than necessary. I would have skipped
> the overhead of a cleaner and Atomic classes with something more self
> contained as a static method:
I agreed that the using of Cleaner is still heavy, but
On Thu, 26 May 2022 18:50:07 GMT, Xue-Lei Andrew Fan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> May I have this test update reviewed?
>
> The ForceGC could be enhanced by using smaller wait/sleep time, and shared
> cleaner.
>
> Thanks,
> Xuelei
Even using a Cleaner is a more overhead than necessary.
I would have
11 matches
Mail list logo
