This is the mail archive of the
java@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: Synchronization article on developerWorks
- To: Bryce McKinlay <bryce at waitaki dot otago dot ac dot nz>
- Subject: Re: Synchronization article on developerWorks
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: 24 Jul 2001 12:59:55 -0600
- Cc: java at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20010724104721.YKXY5720334.mta3-rme.xtra.co.nz@kiteless>
- Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Bryce" == Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> writes:
Bryce> Here's an interesting article about the costs of syncronization.
Bryce> Especially interesting because GCJ gets mentioned in the performance
Bryce> tests:
Bryce> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-threads1.html
They use gcj 3.0, which, while a reasonable choice, also will show
more overhead than 3.1.
If you follow the `discussion' link you'll see a comment from our own
AG and a response from the paper's author, both about the gcj results.
Also, they mention something that I've been meaning to address for a
while: double-check locking. We use this in libgcj, but everything
I've read says it is inherently broken. We should probably go through
libgcj and remove the instances of it.
Tom