Some Eclipse Foundation services are deprecated, or will be soon. Please ensure you've read this important communication.

Bug 360105

Summary:

[DS] SCRManager waits too long to enable components

Product:

[Eclipse Project] Equinox

Reporter:

Jens Kuebler <kuebler>

Component:

Compendium

Assignee:

Stoyan Boshev <s.boshev>

Status:

RESOLVED FIXED

QA Contact:

Severity:

normal

Priority:

CC:

tjwatson

Version:

unspecified

Target Milestone:

Juno M4

Hardware:

OS:

All

Whiteboard:

Attachments:

Description	Flags
proposed patch	none

Description Jens Kuebler

2011-10-06 10:35:43 EDT

Build Identifier: I20110613-1736

In case many components get activated on start up, the start time of eclipse significantly rises.
The reason is the Service Component Manager that sleeps for too long in case components get activated very fast.

SCRManager#startedBundle:
components.wait(1000);

a components.wait(10) suffices

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1 Thomas Watson

2011-10-06 11:29:01 EDT

I would have thought the wait is waiting for a notification from another thread.  From what you state it sounds like this is not happening.

Comment 2 Jens Kuebler

2011-10-06 11:39:01 EDT

Yes sometimes the 
workObject.notify()
in SCRManager#performWork
executes before the wait so it will wait the 1000msecs

Comment 3 Thomas Watson

2011-10-06 14:13:00 EDT

(In reply to comment #2)
> Yes sometimes the 
> workObject.notify()
> in SCRManager#performWork
> executes before the wait so it will wait the 1000msecs

Then something is not right in the logic.  Shouldn't the loop use a while(condition)->do instead of do->while(condition)?  This way you avoid waiting when there is no longer anything to wait for.

Comment 4 Stoyan Boshev

2011-10-07 02:06:04 EDT

(In reply to comment #3)
> Then something is not right in the logic.  Shouldn't the loop use a
> while(condition)->do instead of do->while(condition)?  This way you avoid
> waiting when there is no longer anything to wait for.

Yes, we can switch the "do-while" to "while" loop to fix this bug

Comment 5 Thomas Watson

2011-10-07 11:23:41 EDT

(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > Then something is not right in the logic.  Shouldn't the loop use a
> > while(condition)->do instead of do->while(condition)?  This way you avoid
> > waiting when there is no longer anything to wait for.
> 
> Yes, we can switch the "do-while" to "while" loop to fix this bug

Thanks Stoyan, I will mark this for juno.  Please release a fix when you have it.

Comment 6 Stoyan Boshev

2011-11-17 09:00:44 EST

Created attachment 207144 [details]
proposed patch

Adding the discussed change as patch

Comment 7 Stoyan Boshev

2011-11-21 04:29:17 EST

The patch is released in HEAD