Versions Compared

Old Version 5

changes.mady.by.user Bill Burcham

Saved on

compared with

New Version 6

changes.mady.by.user Bill Burcham

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Since our core pool size is always 0 or 1 we'd almost always have the executor preferring queuing over running immediately if we were using a non-synchronous work queue. It's hard to see the relationship between this theory and the subject of bug 37091 above.

It is counterintuitive that the commit in question changed the pool's core size from maxSize to 1 (when some maxSize is specified.) Offhand it seems as if this logic is working against the built-in JDK core size functionality, the very purpose of which is to maintain a minimum number of ready unused threads available when demand drops.