Couldn't you instead treat it like a monitor? Then it's OK if only the
first
notify wakes up the blocked thread, as long as that thread only blocks when
the queue is empty. In other words, when it wakes up, it should process all
the items in the queue before blocking again.
dl
On 3/2/2015 4:3
Thanks!
Dan
On 3/2/15 8:02 AM, Coleen Phillimore wrote:
Yes, this new comment tells me the secret bit of information I didn't
know from looking at that bit of code.
thanks,
Coleen
On 2/27/15, 4:54 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Coleen and David,
My final attempt to get more acceptable w
On 3/2/15 1:27 AM, David Holmes wrote:
On 28/02/2015 7:54 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Coleen and David,
My final attempt to get more acceptable wording for this comment:
Here's the current wording:
+// The WatcherThread is not a JavaThread so we do not honor the
+// safepoint proto
Hi Jaroslav,
Thanks for taking a look.
"So, if the number of enqueue request is higher than the max semaphore count it
will just fail with the assert?"
I am letting the max semaphore count reflect the number of available (also
pre-allocated) operations - a client should not be able to reach th
Hi Dmitry,
Thanks for taking a look.
Also thanks for the hint about using a guarantee instead of an assert - you are
right, I will change it accordingly.
Cheers
Markus
-Original Message-
From: Dmitry Samersoff
Sent: den 2 mars 2015 14:52
To: Markus Gronlund; serviceability-dev@openjd
Yes, this new comment tells me the secret bit of information I didn't
know from looking at that bit of code.
thanks,
Coleen
On 2/27/15, 4:54 PM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Coleen and David,
My final attempt to get more acceptable wording for this comment:
Here's the current wording:
+
Markus,
Looks good for me. Excellent finding.
Variable
229 BOOL not_exceeding_semaphore_maximum_count =
is not used in production and it could lead to a compiler warning.
So it might be better to use guarantee instead of assert here.
-Dmitry
On 2015-03-02 15:34, Markus Gronlund wrote:
>
Hi Markus,
On 2.3.2015 13:34, Markus Gronlund wrote:
Greetings,
Kindly asking for reviews for the following changeset:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073042
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mgronlun/8073042/webrev01/
Looks reasonable.
Description:
The signaling mechan
Greetings,
Kindly asking for reviews for the following changeset:
Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8073042
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~mgronlun/8073042/webrev01/
Description:
The signaling mechanism used to communicate about attaching operations under
Windows c
On 28/02/2015 7:54 AM, Daniel D. Daugherty wrote:
Coleen and David,
My final attempt to get more acceptable wording for this comment:
Here's the current wording:
+// The WatcherThread is not a JavaThread so we do not honor the
+// safepoint protocol for the PeriodicTask_lock.
Mut
10 matches
Mail list logo