Looking for a sponsor to review changes made to two unit tests under jdk/test (original) (raw)

David Holmes david.holmes at oracle.com
Mon Apr 8 23:28:48 UTC 2013

On 8/04/2013 9:59 PM, Mani Sarkar wrote:

Thanks Alan, David for your feedback.

So effectively you are saying the Thread.sleep(10) is fine in the test and does not need to be re-written using any of the concurrency library methods.

As I wrote back in one of my earliest emails:

"that aside the latch is not needed. The fork() method starts a thread and joins it. So when createNoise() returns we already know for certain that the "noise has been created". What the sleep is doing is giving the GC a chance to run. "

The sleep has nothing to do with synchronizing with the "noise" thread. And synchronization with the "noise" thread is already handled perfectly correctly.

David

Cheers, mani On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:20 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com_ _<mailto:david.holmes at oracle.com>> wrote: Mani, Please go back to my original response. As Alan has just re-stated we do not need a latch or a semaphore here because we already do a join on the thread. As I have said the sleep is to allow the GC a chance to run (eg finalizer and/or reference processor thread). David

On 8/04/2013 8:53 PM, Mani Sarkar wrote: We initially introduced CountdownLatch and now Semaphore, to replace the Thread.sleep(10) which took place before - what appears to be a forced GC (am I right?): System.err.println("GC " + i); System.gc(); System.runFinalization(); As the threads join at the ends of the other, then we can do away with the Semaphore but how would we simulate the 10ms pause before the forced GC - is that necessary? Can we still use Semaphores to implement pauses? Cheers, mani On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com <mailto:Alan.Bateman at oracle.com>>wrote: On 08/04/2013 10:39, Mani Sarkar wrote: Hi David, Here's the version of *jdk8tl/jdk/**test/java/lang/*ref/Basic.javaimplemented using a Semaphore: Hi Mani, Is there a handshake really needed here? From a quick look at the test then it looks to me that fork (used by createNoise) does a Thread.join so it waiting until the task is complete before it returns. -Alan

-- Twitter: @theNeomatrix369 Blog: http://neomatrix369.wordpress.com JUG activity: LJC Advocate (@adoptopenjdk & @adoptajsr programs) Meet-a-Project: https://github.com/MutabilityDetector Devoxx UK 2013 was a grand success: http://www.devoxx.com/display/UK13/Home */Don't chase success, rather aim for "Excellence", and success will come chasing after you!/*

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list