RFR(XS): 8147844: new method j.l.Runtime.onSpinWait()

[Gil Tene]

> On Jan 28, 2016, at 8:51 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> 
> 2016/1/28 8:12 -0800, Gil Tene <gil at azul.com>:
>> On Jan 27, 2016, at 9:41 PM, David Holmes <david.holmes at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> On 27/01/2016 11:31 PM, Ivan Krylov wrote:
>>>> Earlier there was a discussion on this mail alias about the spin loop
>>>> hint proposal [1]. Based on the feedback from that discussion some
>>>> changes were incorporated and the JEP has been filed [2]. There seems to
>>>> be a consensus on the API side. The JEP is now in a draft state and I
>>>> hope this JEP will get targeted for java 9 shortly.
>>> 
>>> The discussion in [1] continued in:
>>> 
>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-December/037063.html
>>> 
>>> but ended abruptly. In particular Mark's query as to why this moved
>>> from Thread to Runtime was seemingly left unanswered.
>> 
>> The thread continued, but it looks like due to cross-posting with
>> concurrency-interest and people replying on the thread dropping the
>> cores-libs-dev recipient somehow.
> 
> I was wondering what happened to that thread ...
> 
>>                                  See continuations of the thread
>> here:
>> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/thread.html#14576
>> and here:
>> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/thread.html#14580
>> 
>> Mark's question on why this was moved from Thread to Runtime is
>> discussed in detail there. An easy summary in a single message body
>> can be found here:
>> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/014587.html
>> .
> 
> So that we have a self-contained record for posterity in the OpenJDK
> mail archive, can someone please summarize the reasoning to this list,
> core-libs-dev?

Good point. I will follow up in the original thread on core-libs-dev with a summary and pointers to the pother discussion.

> 
> I also suggested that this single method doesn't really need a JEP.
> You can do it that way if you really want to, but it will take a bit
> more time.

One reason we wanted to go through the JEP process is to add to the community-originated and community-lead stats in JEPs. I think it's worth the effort to do that, partly to encourage others to run through the same with larger scope things.

> 
> - Mark