* 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
   * colliding threads.  Because search is random, and collisions
   * only become known via CAS failures, convergence can be slow,

 *       SHORT is always discriminable from zero time, and always allows enough time for the small
 *       amounts of computation (creating a thread, calling a few methods, etc) needed to reach a
 *       timeout point. Similarly, a SMALL is always discriminable as larger than SHORT and smaller
 *       than MEDIUM. And so on. These constants are set to conservative values, but even so, if

      // should never reach here!
      throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
    }

    @Override
    public Entry<K, V> belowSamplesGreater() {
      // should never reach here!
      throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
    }

    @Override
    public Entry<K, V> aboveSamplesLesser() {
      // should never reach here!
      throw new UnsupportedOperationException();

          } else if (endOfInput) { // (b)
            doneEncoding = true;
          } else { // (c)
            readMoreChars();
          }
        } else if (result.isError()) {
          // Only reach here if a CharsetEncoder with non-REPLACE settings is used.
          result.throwException();
          return 0; // Not called.
        }
      }
    }
  }

  @CheckForNull
  public abstract C previous(C value);

  /**
   * Returns a signed value indicating how many nested invocations of {@link #next} (if positive) or
   * {@link #previous} (if negative) are needed to reach {@code end} starting from {@code start}.
   * For example, if {@code end = next(next(next(start)))}, then {@code distance(start, end) == 3}
   * and {@code distance(end, start) == -3}. As well, {@code distance(a, a)} is always zero.

   * 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
   * colliding threads.  Because search is random, and collisions
   * only become known via CAS failures, convergence can be slow,

   *
   * <p>The graph below would be valid input with start nodes of {@code a, f, c}. However, if {@code
   * b} were <i>also</i> a start node, then there would be multiple paths to reach {@code e} and
   * {@code h}.
   *
   * <pre>{@code
   *    a     b      c
   *   / \   / \     |
   *  /   \ /   \    |
   * d     e     f   g
   *       |
   *       |
   *       h

    int initialBufferSize = min(BUFFER_SIZE, max(128, Integer.highestOneBit(totalLen) * 2));
    // Starting with an 8k buffer, double the size of each successive buffer. Smaller buffers
    // quadruple in size until they reach 8k, to minimize the number of small reads for longer
    // streams. Buffers are retained in a deque so that there's no copying between buffers while

      // even check the guard. I don't think we care too much about this use case but it could lead
      // to a confusing error message.
      throw new TimeoutException("Timed out waiting for " + this + " to reach the RUNNING state.");
    }
  }

  @Override
  public final void awaitTerminated() {
    monitor.enterWhenUninterruptibly(isStopped);
    try {
      checkCurrentState(TERMINATED);
    } finally {

        assertThrows(
            TimeoutException.class, () -> service.startAsync().awaitRunning(1, MILLISECONDS));
    assertThat(e)
        .hasMessageThat()
        .isEqualTo("Timed out waiting for Foo [STARTING] to reach the RUNNING state.");
  }

  private class TestService extends AbstractScheduledService {
    CyclicBarrier runFirstBarrier = new CyclicBarrier(2);
    CyclicBarrier runSecondBarrier = new CyclicBarrier(2);