You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> on 2014/04/02 23:58:31 UTC
[poo] fairness
It looks to me like v 2 pools are no longer fair in the sense of
1.5.x (modulo lucky threads getting to wait on creates). I agree
that the default should be no fairness constraint, but it might be
good to make this configurable. This looks doable with another
small tweak to LinkedBlockingDeque. Any objections to this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [poo] fairness
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 4/2/14, 3:38 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
> Are the concurrency updates in Java 7 (or 8) of any help here?
The machinery is there in the 1.6 vintage classes we now use. We
just need to make fairness of the lock used by our
LinkedBlockingDeque configurable.
Phil
>
> Gary
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks to me like v 2 pools are no longer fair in the sense of
>> 1.5.x (modulo lucky threads getting to wait on creates). I agree
>> that the default should be no fairness constraint, but it might be
>> good to make this configurable. This looks doable with another
>> small tweak to LinkedBlockingDeque. Any objections to this?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [poo] fairness
Posted by Gary Gregory <ga...@gmail.com>.
Are the concurrency updates in Java 7 (or 8) of any help here?
Gary
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It looks to me like v 2 pools are no longer fair in the sense of
> 1.5.x (modulo lucky threads getting to wait on creates). I agree
> that the default should be no fairness constraint, but it might be
> good to make this configurable. This looks doable with another
> small tweak to LinkedBlockingDeque. Any objections to this?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
--
E-Mail: garydgregory@gmail.com | ggregory@apache.org
Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/>
JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/>
Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/>
Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com
Home: http://garygregory.com/
Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory
Re: [poo] fairness
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 4/3/14, 12:46 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 22:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
>> It looks to me like v 2 pools are no longer fair in the sense of
>> 1.5.x (modulo lucky threads getting to wait on creates). I agree
>> that the default should be no fairness constraint, but it might be
>> good to make this configurable. This looks doable with another
>> small tweak to LinkedBlockingDeque. Any objections to this?
> Love the typo in the subject. I hope you don't plan on the same typo in
> your presentation next week. I might not be able to keep a straight face.
lol - I will try to avoid it :)
>
> No objections to the proposed change.
Tracking as POOL-262
Phil
>
> Mark
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
Re: [poo] fairness
Posted by Mark Thomas <ma...@apache.org>.
On 02/04/2014 22:58, Phil Steitz wrote:
> It looks to me like v 2 pools are no longer fair in the sense of
> 1.5.x (modulo lucky threads getting to wait on creates). I agree
> that the default should be no fairness constraint, but it might be
> good to make this configurable. This looks doable with another
> small tweak to LinkedBlockingDeque. Any objections to this?
Love the typo in the subject. I hope you don't plan on the same typo in
your presentation next week. I might not be able to keep a straight face.
No objections to the proposed change.
Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org