| 156 |
|
* } |
| 157 |
|
* } |
| 158 |
|
* } finally { |
| 159 |
< |
* sl.unlock(stamp); |
| 159 |
> |
* sl.unlock(stamp); |
| 160 |
|
* } |
| 161 |
|
* } |
| 162 |
|
* }}</pre> |
| 226 |
|
* threads. Both await methods use a similar spin strategy: If |
| 227 |
|
* the associated queue appears to be empty, then the thread |
| 228 |
|
* spin-waits up to SPINS times (where each iteration decreases |
| 229 |
< |
* spin count with 50% probablility) before enqueing, and then, if |
| 229 |
> |
* spin count with 50% probability) before enqueuing, and then, if |
| 230 |
|
* it is the first thread to be enqueued, spins again up to SPINS |
| 231 |
|
* times before blocking. If, upon wakening it fails to obtain |
| 232 |
|
* lock, and is still (or becomes) the first waiting thread (which |
| 995 |
|
else if ((time = deadline - System.nanoTime()) <= 0L) |
| 996 |
|
return cancelWriter(node, false); |
| 997 |
|
if (node.prev == p && p.status == WAITING && |
| 998 |
< |
(p != whead || (state & WBIT) != 0L)) // recheck |
| 998 |
> |
(p != whead || (state & ABITS) != 0L)) // recheck |
| 999 |
|
U.park(false, time); |
| 1000 |
|
if (interruptible && Thread.interrupted()) |
| 1001 |
|
return cancelWriter(node, true); |
