Hi Peter, Thanks for taking a look at the new webrev!
Initially, I think we’re expecting two uses of JdkThreadLocal: one in sun.nio.ch.Utils, shown on my webrev and my original motivation for working on this, and one in sun.nio.fs.NativeBuffers, as shown on Alan’s webrev (I’m not familiar with that part of the code at all; I assume it’s addressing a similar issue to sun.nio.ch.Utils). When I originally brought up this issue, Alan said that he's only expecting 2-3 uses (literally) inside java.base, so I did the implementation accordingly and tried to keep it as simple as possible. We could maybe look at other uses of ThreadLocal inside java.base to get a better sense of how many more will benefit from a thread termination callback? Response to your comments: I can definitely add javadoc to explain the limitations of the implementation. It takes me a long time to write coherent javadoc / comments, so I wanted to make sure we have the right approach first before I did that. :-) Re: sanity tests in add(): I was being paranoid but, sure, I can remove them. Re: Entry objects: You’re absolutely right. I did it this way to make it easier to extend WeakReference if needed. It also keeps the code a bit less verbose. I can use JdkThreadLocal<T> directly. Tony ————— Tony Printezis | @TonyPrintezis | tprinte...@twitter.com On May 17, 2018 at 4:39:20 PM, Peter Levart (peter.lev...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi Tony, If we anticipate only small number of JdkThreadLocal(s) (there will be only one for the start) then this is a plausible solution. Then perhaps this limitation should be written somewhere in the JdkThreadLocal javadoc so that one day somebody will not be tempted to use JdkThreadLocal(s) en masse. Let's say there will be a few more JdkThreadLocal(s) in the future. Are we willing to pay for a few lookups into a ThreadLocalMap at each and every thread's exit even though such thread did not register a mapping for any JdkThreadLocal? Is an additional reference field in each and every ThreadLocalMap (one per Thread that uses thread locals) a bigger price to pay? I don't know. Will let others comment on this. Otherwise the code looks good. Just a couple of observations: Since private static method JdkThreadLocal.add is only called from JdkThreadLocal constructor with just constructed instance (this), there's no possibility for it to be called twice or more times with the same instance. The check for duplicates could go away then, right? You keep an array of Entry objects which are just wrappers for JdkThreadLocal objects. Are you already planning for Entry to become a WeakReference? Otherwise you could just keep JdkThreadLocal objects in the array directly. Regards, Peter On 05/17/18 20:25, Tony Printezis wrote: Hi all, I have a new version of the code for your consideration: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tonyp/8202788/webrev.1/ I basically combined our two approaches. The usage is as Alan had proposed it: Users have to use JdkThreadLocal (which is only available within java.base) and override threadTerminated(). However, I keep track of JdkThreadLocal instances globally (as I did before) and not per-thread. This way we don’t need to add any unnecessary complexity to ThreadLocalMap. Currently, I don’t allow entries to be purged if the JdkThreadLocal instance becomes otherwise unreachable. I can easily add that functionality if needed (I can use WeakReferences for that). However, for the uses we’re considering, is it really necessary? Thoughts? Tony ————— Tony Printezis | @TonyPrintezis | tprinte...@twitter.com On May 14, 2018 at 12:40:28 PM, Tony Printezis (tprinte...@twitter.com) wrote: Peter, In my proposal, you can register the exit hook in the ThreadLocal c’tor, so it’s almost as nice as Alan’s in that respect (and it doesn't require an extra field per ThreadLocal plus two extra fields per JdkEntry). :-) But, I do like the addition of the JdkEntry list to avoid unnecessarily iterating over all the map entries (which was my main concern with Alan’s original webrev). I’ll be totally happy with a version of this. Tony ————— Tony Printezis | @TonyPrintezis | tprinte...@twitter.com On May 12, 2018 at 6:44:08 AM, Peter Levart (peter.lev...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi, On 05/11/18 16:13, Alan Bateman wrote: On 08/05/2018 16:07, Tony Printezis wrote: Hi all, Following the discussion on this a few weeks ago, here’s the first version of the change: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~tonyp/8202788/webrev.0/ I think the consensus was that it’d be easier if the exit hooks were only available within java.base. Is it enough that I added the functionality to the jdk.internal.misc package? (And is jdk.internal.misc the best place for this?) I’ll also add a test for the new functionality. But let’s first come up with an approach that everyone is happy with. :-) Peter's approach in early April was clean (and we should come to the getIfPresent discussion) but it adds a field to Thread for the callback list. If I read your approach correctly, you are avoiding that by maintaining an array of hooks in ThreadLocalExitHooks. Another approach to try is a java.base-internal ThreadLocal that defines a method to be invoked when a thread terminates. Something like the following: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/8202788/webrev/index.html -Alan >From the API perspective, Alan's suggestion is the most attractive one as it puts the method to where it belongs - into the ThreadLocal instance. But the implementation could be improved a bit. I don't like the necessity to iterate over all ThreadLocal(s) to filter out JdkThreadLocal(s). There might be a situation where there's plenty of ThreadLocal(s) registered per exiting thread which would produce a spike in CPU processing at thread exit. The way to avoid this would be to maintain a separate linked list of entries that contains just those with JdkThreadLocal(s). Like in this modification of Alan's patch, for example: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~plevart/jdk-dev/DBBCache_Cleanup/webrev.01/ (Only ThreadLocal class is modified from Alan's patch) What do you think? Regards, Peter
