// Default load factor but only 1 concurrent thread anticipated.

// This gives ~48 mill/s cache lookups

static final ConcurrentHashMap<Class, _MethodCache> getMethodCache_chm

  = new ConcurrentHashMap(16, 0.75f, 1);

// Let's try load factor 0.5.

// This seems a bit worse - something around 42 mill/s or so.

/*static final ConcurrentHashMap<Class, _MethodCache> getMethodCache_chm

  = new ConcurrentHashMap(16, 0.5f, 1);*/

// Let's try load factor 0.25 just for fun.

// Gives ~47 mill/s or so. So I guess the load factor of 0.75 is fine.

/*static final ConcurrentHashMap<Class, _MethodCache> getMethodCache_chm

  = new ConcurrentHashMap(16, 0.25f, 1);*/

static _MethodCache getMethodCache_chm(Class c) {

  _MethodCache cache = getMethodCache_chm.get(c);

  if (cache == null)

    getMethodCache_chm.put(c, cache = _MethodCache(c));

  ret cache;

}

// This one gets ~44 mill/s cache lookups which is definitely better than the old method

svoid bench_concurrentHashMapBasedMethodCache_tweaked() {

  print("Loading 1000 classes");

  L<Class> classes = map classForName(takeFirst(1000, classNamesInJigsawModule("java.base")));

  print("Have " + nClasses(classes) + ". Filling method caches");

  time {

    for (c : classes) assertNotNull(getMethodCache_chm(c));

  }

  print("Looking them up again.");

  benchFor10(-> {

    for (c : classes) assertNotNull(getMethodCache_chm(c));

  });

  print("Classes in method cache: " + l(getMethodCache_chm));

}