* using a secondary hash (Marsaglia XorShift) to try to find a
   * free slot.
   *
   * The table size is capped because, when there are more threads
   * than CPUs, supposing that each thread were bound to a CPU,
   * there would exist a perfect hash function mapping threads to
   * slots that eliminates collisions. When we reach capacity, we
   * search for this mapping by randomly varying the hash codes of

    // we try hard to make them robust in practice.  We could additionally try to add in a system
    // load timeout multiplier.  Or we could try to use a CPU time bound instead of wall clock time
    // bound.  But these ideas are harder to implement.  We do not try to detect or handle a
    // user-specified -XX:+DisableExplicitGC.
    //
    // TODO(user): Consider using

 * Generally speaking, this class reduces object allocation and memory consumption at the price of
 * moderately increased constant factors of CPU. Only use this class when there is a specific reason
 * to prioritize memory over CPU.
 *
 * @author Dimitris Andreou
 * @author Jon Noack
 */
@GwtIncompatible // not worth using in GWT for now
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault

        blocker = (Blocker) state;
      }
      spinCount++;
      if (spinCount > MAX_BUSY_WAIT_SPINS) {
        /*
         * If we have spun a lot, just park ourselves. This will save CPU while we wait for a slow
         * interrupting thread. In theory, interruptTask() should be very fast, but due to
         * InterruptibleChannel and JavaLangAccess.blockedOn(Thread, Interruptible), it isn't

   * using a secondary hash (Marsaglia XorShift) to try to find a
   * free slot.
   *
   * The table size is capped because, when there are more threads
   * than CPUs, supposing that each thread were bound to a CPU,
   * there would exist a perfect hash function mapping threads to
   * slots that eliminates collisions. When we reach capacity, we
   * search for this mapping by randomly varying the hash codes of

    // we try hard to make them robust in practice.  We could additionally try to add in a system
    // load timeout multiplier.  Or we could try to use a CPU time bound instead of wall clock time
    // bound.  But these ideas are harder to implement.  We do not try to detect or handle a
    // user-specified -XX:+DisableExplicitGC.
    //
    // TODO(user): Consider using

 * either of these extremes, {@code Striped} allows the user to trade between required concurrency
 * and memory footprint. For example, if a set of tasks are CPU-bound, one could easily create a
 * very compact {@code Striped<Lock>} of {@code availableProcessors() * 4} stripes, instead of
 * possibly thousands of locks which could be created in a {@code Map<K, Lock>} structure.
 *

   * using a secondary hash (Marsaglia XorShift) to try to find a
   * free slot.
   *
   * The table size is capped because, when there are more threads
   * than CPUs, supposing that each thread were bound to a CPU,
   * there would exist a perfect hash function mapping threads to
   * slots that eliminates collisions. When we reach capacity, we
   * search for this mapping by randomly varying the hash codes of

 * Generally speaking, this class reduces object allocation and memory consumption at the price of
 * moderately increased constant factors of CPU. Only use this class when there is a specific reason
 * to prioritize memory over CPU.
 *
 * @author Louis Wasserman
 * @author Jon Noack
 */
@GwtIncompatible // not worth using in GWT for now
@ElementTypesAreNonnullByDefault

 * java.util.LinkedHashMap}. Generally speaking, this class reduces object allocation and memory
 * consumption at the price of moderately increased constant factors of CPU. Only use this class
 * when there is a specific reason to prioritize memory over CPU.
 *
 * @author Louis Wasserman
 */
@J2ktIncompatible // no support for access-order mode in LinkedHashMap delegate
@GwtIncompatible // not worth using in GWT for now