RFA 8056248: Improve ForkJoin thread throttling

[Paul Sandoz]

On Sep 5, 2014, at 12:24 PM, Seán Coffey <sean.coffey at oracle.com> wrote:

> 
> On 05/09/14 11:15, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> On Sep 5, 2014, at 12:09 PM, Seán Coffey <sean.coffey at oracle.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I don't see CCC approval for an 8u backport either. Please ensure that's been completed also.
>>> 
>> Does it need a CCC if the property is not specified?
> Are you saying that you're going to pull the java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.common.maximumSpare property out or make it implementation specific ?

I am saying i could pull the *specification* of the property, as per the little patch in the original email (it would still implemented for ease of backporting any future updates).

If we make it implementation specific, as Alan suggests, then perhaps it may need to be renamed?

My preference is to pull the specification (it's extremely rare that this property will be used anyway).

Paul.


> If you're pulling it out, then CCC shouldn't be required. If you're making it impl specific, my understanding is that all new system properties should be documented via CCC (even if implementation specific). Joe or Alan might be able to correct me here.
> 
> regards,
> Sean.
>