On 06/19/2014 04:48 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Or, even better, why not just using the next value from the "seeder" sequence
for the initial value of "secondary" seed and avoid interaction with TLR's main
seed/probe:
Thanks! Or better, just use mix32:
+ if ((r = (int)mix64(seeder.getAndAdd(SEEDER_INCREMENT))) == 0)
=>
if ((r = mix32(seeder.getAndAdd(SEEDER_INCREMENT))) == 0)
I committed this to jsr166 cvs. As you noted, this only addresses
an uncommon performance glitch. I don't have any further ideas
since we discussed last year the tradeoffs between computing
decent quality initial seeds versus class-loading.
I still think we have the best practical compromise in place.
-Doug
}
UNSAFE.putInt(t, SECONDARY, r);
Regards, Peter
On 06/19/2014 10:37 AM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi,
I noticed an inconsistency in calling TLR.localInit() method. Everywhere it's
called conditionaly if thread-local "probe" is zero except in
TLR.nextSecondarySeed() where it's called if "secondary" seed is zero. This
re-initializes the "probe" and "seed" even though they might have already been
initialized. It's not a big deal, because this happens at most once per
thread, but it would be more consistent to call localInit() conditionaly, I
think:
diff -r 5b45a5efe417
src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ThreadLocalRandom.java
--- a/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ThreadLocalRandom.java Tue May 20
10:11:23 2014 +0400
+++ b/src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ThreadLocalRandom.java Thu Jun 19
10:34:18 2014 +0200
@@ -1034,7 +1034,8 @@
r ^= r << 5;
}
else {
- localInit();
+ if (UNSAFE.getInt(t, PROBE) == 0)
+ localInit();
if ((r = (int)UNSAFE.getLong(t, SEED)) == 0)
r = 1; // avoid zero
}
Regards, Peter
_______________________________________________
Concurrency-interest mailing list
concurrency-inter...@cs.oswego.edu
http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
