[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6410?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Jason Huynh updated GEODE-6410:
-------------------------------
Description:
Usages of putIfAbsent in Geode on ConcurrentHashMap may not have realized the
actual synchronized/atomic nature of the putIfAbsent. See
[https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6737839]
This ticket is for someone to review or possibly change the putIfAbsent usages
to be more performant.
Not sure if putIfAbsent is called enough and under contention enough for this
to matter...
was:
Usages of putIfAbsent in Geode on ConcurrentHashMap may not have realized the
actual synchronized/atomic nature of the putIfAbsent. See
[https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6737839]
This ticket is for someone to review or possibly change the putIfAbsent usages
to be more performant.
> review use of putIfAbsent
> -------------------------
>
> Key: GEODE-6410
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-6410
> Project: Geode
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: general
> Reporter: Jason Huynh
> Priority: Major
>
> Usages of putIfAbsent in Geode on ConcurrentHashMap may not have realized the
> actual synchronized/atomic nature of the putIfAbsent. See
> [https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-6737839]
> This ticket is for someone to review or possibly change the putIfAbsent
> usages to be more performant.
> Not sure if putIfAbsent is called enough and under contention enough for this
> to matter...
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
