On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:52:54 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> Roman Kennke has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/JDK-8291555-v2' into JDK-8291555-v2
>> - Use nullptr instead of NULL in touche
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:57:19 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> Roman Kennke has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/JDK-8291555-v2' into JDK-8291555-v2
>> - Use nullptr instead of NULL in touche
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:45:12 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current
>> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking
>> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload
>> of the
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 14:53:29 GMT, Thomas Stuefe wrote:
>> Roman Kennke has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/JDK-8291555-v2' into JDK-8291555-v2
>> - Use nullptr instead of NULL in touche
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:45:12 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current
>> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking
>> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload
>> of the
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:45:12 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current
>> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking
>> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload
>> of the
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:45:12 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current
>> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking
>> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload
>> of the
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:45:12 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current
>> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking
>> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload
>> of the
On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 15:57:53 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
> > Proposal for omitting the lockstack size check (at least in 75% of all
> > times):
> >
> > * We know that Thread as well as grown lockstack backing buffers start at
> > malloc-aligned boundaries. Practically this is 16 (64-bit), 4-8 (32
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:45:12 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current
>> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking
>> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload
>> of the
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:45:12 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current
>> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking
>> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload
>> of the
On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 12:45:12 GMT, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current
>> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking
>> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload
>> of the
> This change adds a fast-locking scheme as an alternative to the current
> stack-locking implementation. It retains the advantages of stack-locking
> (namely fast locking in uncontended code-paths), while avoiding the overload
> of the mark word. That overloading causes massive problems with Li
13 matches
Mail list logo
