[infinispan-dev] Per-entry lock container

[Jason Greene]

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 16, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Jason Greene <jason.greene at redhat.com> wrote:

> Yes if you get the ordering right, it can certainly be done. You might have to introduce a state-based CAS or secondary lock though for some scenarios (I haven't thought through them all) I think Manik's point though was just that getting it right is harder than just making the whole thing atomic.

So actually spending more than a few seconds of thought, just adding a lock to the chm before acquiring it is sufficient and efficient. Really the only loss compared to computeIfAbsent is the cost of lock object instantiation. If you use computeIfAbsent you might want to add a fast path initial acquire (volatile write vs the typical state CAS) to the ownablelock (if not already there)