DSP-19407 after upgrade review remarks #19
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
sbtourist
reviewed
Dec 10, 2019
| @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ public int compare(ScheduledFutureTask<?> o1, ScheduledFutureTask<?> o2) { | |||
| } | |||
| }; | |||
|
|
|||
| PriorityQueue<ScheduledFutureTask<?>> scheduledTaskQueue; | |||
| protected PriorityQueue<ScheduledFutureTask<?>> scheduledTaskQueue; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you also mention this change in the final commit message?
sbtourist
approved these changes
Dec 10, 2019
- Reason for reverting incrementMemoryCounter implementation (from Sergio's comment): "..moving from a CAS loop to the double addAndGet() might be faster, but by doing so, a single big-ish allocation which goes over the limit could cause concurrent small allocations to fail as well before the memory limit is brought back below threshold via DIRECT_MEMORY_COUNTER.addAndGet(-capacity)" - scheduledTaskQueue is now protected to simplify DB-3884 "we might need to peek at the scheduled queue ourselves"
jtgrabowski
force-pushed
the
DSP-19407-upgrade-review-remarks
branch
from
d55e60e to
1731329
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Reason for reverting incrementMemoryCounter implementation (from
Sergio's comment):
"..moving from a CAS loop to the double addAndGet() might be faster, but
by doing so, a single big-ish allocation which goes over the limit
could cause concurrent small allocations to fail as well before the
memory limit is brought back below threshold via
DIRECT_MEMORY_COUNTER.addAndGet(-capacity)"