Thread Locals (was Re: State of Loom)

[Douglas Surber]

Correct.

"CPU local" seems to imply some additional properties that aren't strictly required. I would be 100% satisfied with CPU locals, but all I really need is a pool (or cache) of Thingys that is guaranteed not to block and creates new Thingys as needed to ensure non-blocking. Fewer Thingys is better as Thingys are expensive. I can guarantee that no call to a Thingy will block or suspend and that Thingys are fungible. 

> On May 28, 2020, at 5:05 AM, loom-dev-request at openjdk.java.net wrote:
> 
> I read the mails from Douglas as a plea for something to help creating a 
> cache of mutable objects where it's critical to avoid contention. I read 
> it that TLs are being used today as an approximation for CPU locals 
> because there isn't anything better.