Re: The code example in onSpinWait() Javadoc

Totally right, sorry again (writing by phone is a terrible idea :( ):
yes , poll should  use  "o = this.obj".

> Can we get rid of "done"?  Since offerOnce() does not allow null, then
having the done flag does not seem to help anything.
Absolutely yes: I've prepared this as a "simplified" (and wrong due to the
hurry, sorry for that) version of what we do on many queues in JCtools,
that's why it contains some unnecessary bits as you've rightly pointed out.
Code that is spin awaiting on a condition, sure that it will happen at some
point in the future, is something that could help to understand the rare
cases
where using onSpinWait could be beneficial IMO.



Il giorno gio 14 nov 2019 alle ore 17:18 Nathan and Ila Reynolds <
[email protected]> ha scritto:

> In poll(), should "this.obj = o" be "o = this.obj"?  Without this change,
> it seems poll() could spin forever.
>
> Should "poll" be renamed to "take" since the method could block until a
> value is available?
>
> Can we get rid of "done"?  Since offerOnce() does not allow null, then
> having the done flag does not seem to help anything.
>
> Is the compiler and execution engine in my head misinterpreting and
> mis-executing the code?
>
> Here is the code with my suggested changes.
>    volatile E obj = null;
>
>    public void offerOnce(E o) {
>       Objects.checkNonNull(o);
>       this.obj = o;
>    }
>
>   public boolean isDone() {
>        return obj != null;
>   }
>
>    public E take() {
>       E o;
>
>       while (true) {
>          o = obj;
>
>          if (o != null)
>             return o;
>
>          java.lang.Thread.onSpinWait();
>       }
>    }
>
> -Nathan
>
> On 11/14/2019 8:54 AM, Francesco Nigro wrote:
>
> Sorry I've written on the email text, I forgot an important part, let me
> write it properly:
>
>    volatile E obj = null;
>    volatile boolean done = false;
>
>    public void offerOnce(E o) {
>       Objects.checkNonNull(o);
>       this.done = true;
>       this.obj = o;
>    }
>
>   public boolean isDone() {
>        return done;
>   }
>
>    public E poll() {
>       E o = this.obj;
>       if (o == null && !this.done) {
>          return null;
>       }
>       //o will be !null at some point
>       do {
>          if (o != null)
>             return o;
>          java.lang.Thread.onSpinWait();
>          this.obj = o;
>       } while(true);
>    }
>
> Similarly to the queue API: poll should return null iff !done, but offer
> update first done and then this.obj:
> poll need to read obj, but has to stay consistent to the ordering, so at
> some point, obj will be visible if done == true.
> On JCtools we have some queues with a similar behaviour (producer sequence
> is advanced before writing the actual element in the queue)
> and we need to spin wait the element apprearence to stay consistent with
> the isEmpty behaviour: that's a good use case for onSpinWait (when it works
> :P).
>
>
>
> Il giorno gio 14 nov 2019 alle ore 16:43 Andrew Haley <[email protected]> ha
> scritto:
>
>> On 11/14/19 3:31 PM, Francesco Nigro via Concurrency-interest wrote:
>> >     E o = this.obj;
>> >     if (o == null && !done) {
>> >         return null;
>> >      }
>> >      //o will be !null at some point
>> >      do {
>> >          if (o != null)
>> >             return o;
>> >          java.lang.Thread.onSpinWait();
>> >      } while(true);
>> > }
>> >
>> > In case like this is more appropriate, maybe, but much less intuitive
>> > probably.
>>
>> Umm, what? o is a local. This loop spins forever.
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Haley  (he/him)
>> Java Platform Lead Engineer
>> Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com>
>> https://keybase.io/andrewhaley
>> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
Concurrency-interest mailing list
[email protected]
http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest