Thank you Mandy for review!
On 30.03.2014 8:20, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 3/27/2014 6:36 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Now, I updated the webrev with the additional delay as you suggested:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8038333/2/webrev/
Thanks for the updated patch, Ivan and also Peter for the suggestion
to delay to give a chance for the threads to wait on the lock.
Ivan - I agree with you that there is no guarantee that one thread can
remove the reference before the timeout. With this patch, basically
the test can only verify that the remove(timeout) must be >= timeout
if no reference is in the queue. That makes the test less
interesting but it's a tradeoff with test stability. I wonder if
running this test in othervm would help increase the chance of
enqueuing the reference after System.gc.
I think it's okay with your proposed patcht. We should revisit this
test in the future to see how we can improve the test for example
something similar to what Peter suggests. Can you file a bug for the
test improvement so that we can look into that in the future?
Okey. Will do.
BTW there is a typo in line 40 s/System.gs()/System.gc()/. It'd be
good to add a comment in line 66 to make it clear that the main thread
waits until the threads has started and give it a chance for the
threads to block on the queue.remove(timeout) call.
Yes, I will update the comment as you suggest before pushing.
Sincerely yours,
Ivan
