* Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-04-04 19:22:27]: > On Friday 04 April 2008 07:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Author: nextgens > > Date: 2008-04-04 06:05:54 +0000 (Fri, 04 Apr 2008) > > New Revision: 18975 > > > > Modified: > > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/client/async/SplitFileInserterSegment.java > > Log: > > Simplify a few things synchronization-wise declaring a few variables > volatile > > I thought there were issues with volatile? Like it's not deterministic, and > you really should use locking in all nontrivial cases?
I suggest you read http://www.javaperformancetuning.com/tips/volatile.shtml :) Two things to add: 1) there is no significant performance cost for reading a volatile on x86 2) The SplitFileInserterSegment class is already a synchronization nightmare so we'd better reduce the locking to the minimum there : we still had some unsynchronized accesses to those booleans. I think that making those booleans volatile is a step forward fighting the "requests don't finish" kind of bugs which are likely to be caused by race-conditions.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
