You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to issues@geode.apache.org by "Jason Huynh (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2019/02/14 23:22:00 UTC

[jira] [Updated] (GEODE-6410) review use of putIfAbsent

     [ 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)