> On Feb 22, 2018, at 8:14 PM, Seán Coffey <sean.cof...@oracle.com> wrote:
> This looks good to me Max. I think it'll solve the issue reported.
> line 109 : I guess this could turn negative if timeLimit was value < 60. I
> don't think that's possible unless we're dealing with a strange config!
Negative time might still work. In fact, time() values before the epoch are
also comparable, unless less than -2^32.
> For the code comment, may a minor edit :
> 111 // Only trigger a cleanup when very old entries exist
> 112 // (lifespan + 1 min ago). This ensures a cleanup is done
> 113 // at most every minute.
> On 22/02/18 08:36, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Please take a review at
>> Two notes:
>> 1. I tried list.subList(here, end).clear() but it's not faster.
>> 2. I have looked at ConcurrentHashMap + ConcurrentSkipListMap but will need
>> more time to verify its correctness and measure the performance gain. Since
>> the bug is reported on 8u, a safer fix looks better.