Yes, that would make sense indeed. I guess they are referring to the undesirable expansion on the array as opposed to say ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
Thanks a lot for the clarification. Alex. On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 03/ 8/11 06:25 PM, Alex Lam S.L. wrote: >> >> Under ForkJoinPool.java: >> >> * readers must tolerate null slots. To avoid flailing during >> >> should it be "failing" (extraneous "l")? > > I actually flagged this in my original review, but put it aside as I guessed > it was kinda correct. The array is sized large enough so as not to have it > grow continuously as new workers are added. I guess 'flailing' refers to the > perceived trashing if this were to happen. > > -Chris. > >> >> >> Alex. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:17 PM,<chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> Changeset: 63509149c027 >>> Author: dl >>> Date: 2011-03-08 18:16 +0000 >>> URL: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl/jdk/rev/63509149c027 >>> >>> 7023006: Reduce unnecessary thread activity in ForkJoinPool >>> Reviewed-by: chegar, dholmes >>> >>> ! src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java >>> ! src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinTask.java >>> ! src/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinWorkerThread.java >>> >>> >
