<div class="__aliyun_email_body_block"><div  style="clear:both;">thanks,</div><div  style="clear:both;"><br ></div><div  style="clear:both;"><div  style="margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#000000;font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:.0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:.0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;clear:both;"><span  style="margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;">Because with the current implementation, for a job like I Need translate every json properties inside a JsonObject with VirtualThread ,which returns a CompletableFuture, and to collect the final result , I need do a `future.get` in the parent VT. if I have a 1000+ properties, then 1000+ mount and unmount maybe happen when it interleave with others, it can increase the total time</span></div><div  style="margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#000000;font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:.0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:.0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;clear:both;"><span  style="margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;"><br ></span></div><div  style="margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;color:#000000;font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:.0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:.0px;white-space:normal;text-decoration-thickness:initial;text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;clear:both;"><span  style="margin:.0px;padding:.0px;border:.0px;outline:.0px;font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;"><br ></span></div><br  class="Apple-interchange-newline"></div><blockquote  style="margin-right:.0px;margin-top:.0px;margin-bottom:.0px;font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;font-size:14.0px;color:#000000;"><div  style="clear:both;">------------------------------------------------------------------</div><div  style="clear:both;">发件人：Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman@oracle.com></div><div  style="clear:both;">发送时间：2024年6月21日(星期五) 22:30</div><div  style="clear:both;">收件人："何品(虎鸣)"<hepin.p@alibaba-inc.com>; "loom-dev"<loom-dev@openjdk.org></div><div  style="clear:both;">主　题：Re: Can virtual thread get better support for Map/Reduce like thing?</div><div  style="clear:both;"><br ></div>

  On 21/06/2024 12:46, 何品(虎鸣) wrote:<br >
    <div >
      
      
        <div  style="clear:both;font-family:Tahoma,Arial,STHeiti,SimSun;">The
          current implementation always adds the task to the tail, but
          what if a map/reduce like work, which mean a fork() maybe
          better for performance/latency , but that will reduce some
          fairness.</div>
      
    </div>
    <br >
    If you are building the JDK yourself then you should be try it out.
    It would be interesting to share your results. <br >
    <br >
    -Alan<br >
  

</blockquote></div>