"durations" : [ {
    "testProject" : "excludeRuleMergingBuild",
    "linux" : 233
  } ]
}, {
  "scenario" : "org.gradle.performance.regression.corefeature.LargeDependencyGraphPerformanceTest.resolve large dependency graph (parallel = false, locking = true)",
  "durations" : [ {
    "testProject" : "excludeRuleMergingBuild",

    @ParametricNullness
    // We set the field only once (during construction or deserialization).
    @SuppressWarnings("SynchronizeOnNonFinalField")
    public T get() {
      // A 2-field variant of Double Checked Locking.
      if (!initialized) {
        synchronized (lock) {
          if (!initialized) {
            T t = delegate.get();
            value = t;
            initialized = true;
            return t;

    @ParametricNullness
    // We set the field only once (during construction or deserialization).
    @SuppressWarnings("SynchronizeOnNonFinalField")
    public T get() {
      // A 2-field variant of Double Checked Locking.
      if (!initialized) {
        synchronized (lock) {
          if (!initialized) {
            T t = delegate.get();
            value = t;
            initialized = true;
            return t;

import java.io.IOException;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;

import org.apache.logging.log4j.LogManager;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.Logger;
import org.codelibs.core.lang.StringUtil;
import org.codelibs.fess.Constants;
import org.codelibs.fess.exception.JobProcessingException;

    // way for it to return a false negative would be for the target value to jump around in the map
    // such that none of the subsequent iterations observed it, despite the fact that at every point
    // in time it was present somewhere int the map. This becomes increasingly unlikely as
    // CONTAINS_VALUE_RETRIES increases, though without locking it is theoretically possible.

    // way for it to return a false negative would be for the target value to jump around in the map
    // such that none of the subsequent iterations observed it, despite the fact that at every point
    // in time it was present somewhere int the map. This becomes increasingly unlikely as
    // CONTAINS_VALUE_RETRIES increases, though without locking it is theoretically possible.

 *
 * <ul>
 *   <li>for an unnested {@code lock()} and {@code unlock()}, a cycle detecting lock takes 38ns as
 *       opposed to the 24ns taken by a plain lock.
 *   <li>for nested locking, the cost increases with the depth of the nesting:
 *       <ul>
 *         <li>2 levels: average of 64ns per lock()/unlock()
 *         <li>3 levels: average of 77ns per lock()/unlock()

    @Nullable V get();

    /**
     * Waits for a value that may still be loading. Unlike get(), this method can block (in the case
     * of FutureValueReference).
     *
     * @throws ExecutionException if the loading thread throws an exception
     * @throws ExecutionError if the loading thread throws an error
     */
    V waitForValue() throws ExecutionException;

import java.util.List;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Optional;
import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap;
import java.util.function.Consumer;

import org.apache.logging.log4j.LogManager;
import org.apache.logging.log4j.Logger;
import org.codelibs.core.lang.StringUtil;
import org.codelibs.core.timer.TimeoutManager;
import org.codelibs.core.timer.TimeoutTask;
import org.codelibs.curl.CurlResponse;

    @Nullable V get();

    /**
     * Waits for a value that may still be loading. Unlike get(), this method can block (in the case
     * of FutureValueReference).
     *
     * @throws ExecutionException if the loading thread throws an exception
     * @throws ExecutionError if the loading thread throws an error
     */
    V waitForValue() throws ExecutionException;