LGTM (if one comment is addressed).
Yes, as a first step we should use locking for the parallel sweeper. But
lets
keep this a refactoring CL and _remove_ the concurrent code completely (as
your
own comment suggests).
https://codereview.chromium.org/11348174/diff/23001/src/spaces.cc
File src/spaces.cc (right):
https://codereview.chromium.org/11348174/diff/23001/src/spaces.cc#newcode1934
src/spaces.cc:1934: ScopedLock lock_source(category->mutex());
This operation is grabbing two mutexes in sequence. This is just
inviting a dead-lock. Since there is no code yet that uses this
functionality it is hard to tell whether there will be a dead-lock or
not. Can we please just remove this concurrent function that is not used
yet and land it together with the CL that actually uses it? This also
goes in line with our policy to not keep dead code in the repository.
https://codereview.chromium.org/11348174/
--
v8-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://groups.google.com/group/v8-dev
