EPollArrayWrapper.release should be O(N), not O(N^2)

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Martin Buchholz wrote:
> I believe this fix is important enough to
> do the (trivial and low-risk) backport to openjdk6,
> and am offering to do so.
>   

Fine by me; approved to go back once the security fixes hit the repository.

I'm checking into what the holdup is...

-Joe

> Martin
>
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 13:57, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at sun.com> wrote:
>   
>> Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>     
>>> :
>>>
>>> OK, I've renamed ExpensiveCancel to LotsOfCancels and regenerated the
>>> webrev.
>>>       
>> Looks fine.
>>
>>     
>>>    I'll also look to replace the list in milestone 6 as the
>>>    close/cancel shouldn't be O(N).
>>>
>>>
>>> We were thinking along those lines as well.
>>> Perhaps a concurrent data structure could be used here as well?
>>> I think Google engineers will help review.
>>>       
>> I haven't seen any contention on the updateList but clearly the change to
>> flush pending registrations will change that (that one is embarrassing and
>> I'm glad that you/Igor caught this). We just need to replace it with
>> something that is directly addressable and supports iteration. The original
>> need to preserve ordering can also go away if we are careful to convert the
>> pending ops. Also, we can use two registratrions lists/whatever so that
>> updateRegistrations can process the pending updates concurrently with any
>> threads that are registering channels or changing interest ops.
>>
>> -Alan.
>>
>>