On Tue, 11 Mar 2025 16:15:10 GMT, Quan Anh Mai <qa...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Can you please elaborate a bit more on your proposal @merykitty?
>
> If you have an `@Stable Object[]`, then the elements are also considered
> `@Stable`. Then you can do something like:
>
> ReentrantLock[] locks;
>
> T get(int idx) {
> Object x = backing[idx];
> if (x == null) {
> return compute(idx);
> }
> return unwrap(x);
> }
>
> T compute(int idx) {
> ReentrantLock lock = locks[idx];
> lock.lock();
> try {
> Object x = backing[idx];
> if (x != null) {
> return unwrap(x);
> }
> T obj = ...;
> backing[idx] = wrap(obj);
> return obj;
> } finally {
> lock.unlock();
> }
> }
What would be the difference between `@Stable StableValueImpl<E>[] backing` and
`@Stable Object[] backing`?
>> Yes we can. However, I am uncertain if the added complexity can motivate any
>> performance benefits. Perhaps on ARM? I can do a benchmark on it.
>
> You can probably use `acquire` only for the first `get` as it is in the fast
> path. For other I guess `volatile` is fine.
Yeah. Maybe that could strike a balance.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23972#discussion_r1990908235
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/23972#discussion_r1991599680
