> 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.

Accepted.

Thanks
Max

> 
> Regards,
> Sean.
> 
> On 22/02/18 08:36, Weijun Wang wrote:
>> Please take a review at
>> 
>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~weijun/8197518/webrev.00/
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> Noreg-perf.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Max
>> 
> 

Reply via email to