Hi, > On Jun 21, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Andrew Dinn <ad...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi Paul, > > Sorry for the delay in responding to this -- holiday and then an urgent > bug fix intervened . . . > > On 08/06/18 01:42, Paul Sandoz wrote: >> Sandhya gave an overview to a few of us Oracle folks. I agree with >> what Sandhya says regarding the API, a small surface, and on pursuing >> an unsafe intrinsic. I like it and would encourage the writing of a >> draft JEP, especially to give this visibility. > > Great! Thanks for your feedback (also to Sandhya). I'll start drafting a > JEP staright away. I'll also work on revising the current intrinsic > implementation so it is presented via Unsafe (which should be fairly > simple to achieve). >
Great! >> It intersects with https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8153111 >> ((bf) Allocating ByteBuffer on heterogeneous memory), which is >> attempting to be more generic. > > Ok, thanks. I'll have a think about how we night try to integrate these > two approaches and see what I can work into the draft JEP. > My impressions are that your approach may be a sufficiently good step forward that we don’t need to introduce a new abstraction for buffer allocation. Vivek any views on this? >> We might also need to increase the velocity on >> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180628 (retrofit direct >> buffer support for size beyond gigabyte scales), and i would be very >> interested your views on this, how you might be currently working >> around such size limitations, and what buffer enhancements would work >> for you. > > I think Jonathan answered that better than I can in his response. > However, if this accelerates delivery of a fix for JDK-8180628 then all > to the good. > Agreed! Paul.
