RFR (XS): 8014890 : Reference queues may return more entries than expected
david.holmes at oracle.com
Mon Jul 1 11:37:12 UTC 2013
On 1/07/2013 8:14 PM, Aleksey Shipilev wrote:
> On 07/01/2013 02:05 PM, Thomas Schatzl wrote:
>> Fyi, while waiting for your approval, I tried to clean up this a little
>> taking into account the comments from Peter and Aleksey (sorry if I
>> forgot somebody) into account.
> Mandy Chung?
>> A webrev for this is at
> This looks good.
> The same "thou shalt not do multiple volatile reads" applies to
> "(r.queue == NULL) || (r.queue == ENQUEUED)" now.
Doesn't that just reduce to "r.queue != this" ? (The assert suggests so :) )
> Also, continuing on
> the micro-optimization spree, you might want to use bitwise |, not
> logical ||, saving a branch.
Bit-wise OR? What bits are you ORing ?
Both things are optional though, it does
> not hurt much at this point due to the synchronization, and we can
> address these if/when we do the overhaul of that entire code.
More information about the core-libs-dev