revert volatile mod from values[] RubyArray store?#5348
Merged
Conversation
first of all RubyArray isn't thread-safe to start with volatile modifier was introduced at bdf50fd new array nil-fills are now done before field assignment
Member
|
I approve. RubyArray may deserve some proper volatility checks in the future but this partial change was not really sufficient to make sure the new state of the array is properly visible. It also adds volatile write overhead to every (already not thread-safe) update of the RubyArray values store. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
maybe I am missing smt but from reviewing parts doesn't bring much value
from the commit desc that introduced it ... seems to be due nil fills after assignment, makes no sense?
RubyArrayisn't thread-safe to start with and this might help improper concurrent usage... but only
valueshas been volatile and notbeginorlengthfields - so detection only works with internal array resizing and even than the other thread's view might not be correct, due cachedbeginfield