incubator-directmemory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: changing the DM behavior at runtime
Date Sun, 26 Feb 2012 07:12:34 GMT
I think ConcurrentSkipLisMap [1] would be also a nice option to inspect
(should be more performant [2]).
I think I can make some tests next week.
Tommaso

[1] :
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentSkipListMap.html
[2] :
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1811782/when-should-i-use-concurrentskiplistmap


2012/2/26 Michael André Pearce <michael.andre.pearce@me.com>

> Haha i knew i remember seeing something, we can take insperation for key
> locking from how concurrenthashmap achieves it.
>
>
> http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/classes/EDU/oswego/cs/dl/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
>
>
>
> On 26 Feb 2012, at 01:14, Michael André Pearce wrote:
>
> > Doug Lee and using hashes, though i still cant remember for the life of
> me where ive seen this atm. (it cant be too distant past if i remember the
> guys name)
> >
> >
> > On 26 Feb 2012, at 01:06, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> >
> >> +1 concurrency is still an open issue in DM
> >>
> >> best,
> >> -Simo
> >>
> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Michael André Pearce
> >> <michael.andre.pearce@me.com> wrote:
> >>> Also can i suggest locking on the key for put/updates/deletes? avoids
> someone getting a key whilst it is in transitive state of being updated by
> another, ive seen before a fancy way of doing this, avoiding a lock for
> every key, will have to try remember.
> >>>
> >>> On 26 Feb 2012, at 00:24, Simone Tripodi wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi all guys,
> >>>>
> >>>> I had a chat with Benoit in another thread and I realized no one of
> >>>> our class is Thread safe - what do you think of actual behavior that
> >>>> every component accepts a setter for any member - that could cause
> >>>> strange behaviors at runtime?
> >>>>
> >>>> I would analyze wich components can be converted to immutable - IIUC
> >>>> Benoit agreed with me on having some PointerImpl members as immutable,
> >>>> i.e. CacheService#setMap( ConcurrentMap<K, Pointer<V>> map
) means
> >>>> dropping all the already stored data :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>> best,
> >>>> -Simo
> >>>>
> >>>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
> >>>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
> >>>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
> >>>> http://www.99soft.org/
> >>>
> >
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message