On 09/08/2015 03:29 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 09/08/2015 02:05 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> I don't think you'd actually need to unmap anything until a safepoint. >> I don't think that the speed of unmapping is critical as long as it >> happens "soon". > > Although given the desire to do > > buffer.unmap(); > file.delete(); > > that belief may be misplaced. We could just block for a safepoint; > we already do that in other cases, and there's no guarantee about how > long unmap() would take to execute. > > Andrew. >
I think a simple way to solve that is to ask for a safepoint explicitly, buffer.unmap(); waitUntilUnmapped(); file.delete(); Rémi ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Andrew Haley" <a...@redhat.com> > À: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net > Envoyé: Mardi 8 Septembre 2015 15:29:25 > Objet: Re: Suggested fix for JDK-4724038 (Add unmap method to > MappedByteBuffer) > > On 09/08/2015 02:05 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > I don't think you'd actually need to unmap anything until a safepoint. > > I don't think that the speed of unmapping is critical as long as it > > happens "soon". > > Although given the desire to do > > buffer.unmap(); > file.delete(); > > that belief may be misplaced. We could just block for a safepoint; > we already do that in other cases, and there's no guarantee about how > long unmap() would take to execute. > > Andrew. > >
