-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 590
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
untimed invokeAny and invokeAll with virtual threads #29787
base: integration
Are you sure you want to change the base?
untimed invokeAny and invokeAll with virtual threads #29787
Conversation
…n virtual=true
…g virtual threads
maxPolicy.strict.desc=Maximum concurrency is strictly enforced. \ | ||
Tasks that run on the task submitter's thread count towards maximum concurrency. \ | ||
This policy does not allow tasks to run on the task submitter's thread when \ | ||
already at maximum concurrency. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Note to reviewers: maxPolicy.loose.desc and maxPolicy.strict.desc were not changed. I only split the existing text onto multiple lines so that I could read them in a code editor without needing to keep scrolling back and forth. I also split up maxPolicy.desc
for the same reason, but added some text to that one, so that is the one to review.
#build |
Your personal pipeline request is at https://libh-proxy1.fyre.ibm.com/cognitive/pipelineAnalysis.html?uuid=ea9a359f-2e75-4998-9250-b8fee6d4415f Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees. |
Your personal build request is at https://wasrtc.hursley.ibm.com:9443/jazz/resource/itemOid/com.ibm.team.build.BuildResult/_P2cDIIJoEe-TieZHY4j0Qw Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees. |
dev/com.ibm.ws.concurrency.policy/resources/OSGI-INF/l10n/metatype.properties
Show resolved
Hide resolved
dev/com.ibm.ws.concurrency.policy/resources/OSGI-INF/l10n/metatype.properties
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
dev/com.ibm.ws.concurrency.policy/resources/OSGI-INF/l10n/metatype.properties
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
dev/com.ibm.ws.concurrency.policy/resources/OSGI-INF/l10n/metatype.properties
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
dev/com.ibm.ws.concurrency.policy/resources/OSGI-INF/l10n/metatype.properties
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…type.properties Co-authored-by: David Mueller <[email protected]>
…type.properties Co-authored-by: David Mueller <[email protected]>
…type.properties Co-authored-by: David Mueller <[email protected]>
…type.properties Co-authored-by: David Mueller <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, thanks
#build |
Your personal pipeline request is at https://libh-proxy1.fyre.ibm.com/cognitive/pipelineAnalysis.html?uuid=8ace4b69-eb91-4a70-935b-4e9faed05b42 Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees. |
Your personal build request is at https://wasrtc.hursley.ibm.com:9443/jazz/resource/itemOid/com.ibm.team.build.BuildResult/_TuOMMYKYEe-TieZHY4j0Qw Target locations of links might be accessible only to IBM employees. |
Code analysis and actionsDO NOT DELETE THIS COMMENT.
|
Untimed invokeAny and invokeAll with virtual=true.
Comments in the code indicated a desire to choose the behavior based on whether the submitting thread is virtual or not, which would have been a good idea, but unfortunately would have been a breaking change because users can already request invokeAny and invokeAll from virtual threads due to Liberty already supporting Java 21.
The next best thing we could do was to make the decision based on the virtual=true setting for the managed executor, which is not yet GA function. In cases where both are virtual, this will work great. But it will not optimize the case where a virtual thread invokes invokeAny or invokeAll to run on platform threads because changing the default for that would be a breaking change to existing behavior.
release bug
label if applicable: https://github.com/OpenLiberty/open-liberty/wiki/Open-Liberty-Conventions).