[concurrency-interest] Spin Loop Hint support: Draft JEP proposal

[Vitaly Davidovich]

Why not drop the (superfluous, IMO) "on" prefix while you're changing the
receiver? Thread::spinWait would be in the same style/spirit as
Thread::yield, and I don't think there will be much contention.

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Gil Tene <gil at azul.com> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 22, 2016, at 10:11 AM, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> >
> > 2016/1/28 9:25 -0800, gil at azul.com:
> >> This thread seems to have "hopped away" to the concurrency-interest
> >> list in mid-Dec-2015. This posting is intended to capture a summary of
> >> reasoning and some of the discussion there so that we have it in the
> >> record in core-libs-dev. Mostly by including the contents of several
> >> posts in the continuations of the original thread.
> >>
> >> See thread continuations here:
> >>
> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/thread.html#14576
> >> and here:
> >>
> http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2015-December/thread.html#14580
> >>
> >> Summary:
> >>
> >> ...
> >
> > Thanks for the summary.
> >
> > I still don't buy the argument that this method belongs in j.l.Runtime.
> >
> > To say that this method should go there because it's an instruction to
> > the run-time system is pretty weak.  I agree with Vitaly [1] that if
> > that's the threshold for adding methods to the Runtime class then lots
> > of other stuff belongs there as well, including much of what's now in
> > java.lang.Thread and java.util.concurrent and, arguably, anything else
> > related to interacting with the environment in which the application
> > runs (file and network I/O, process manipulation, etc.).
> >
> > This thread-related method really belongs in either java.lang.Thread or
> > java.util.concurrent.LockSupport.  j.l.Thread already has plenty of
> > expert-level static methods related to the current thread, one of which
> > (Thread::yield) is even a hint, just like this one.  j.u.c.LockSupport
> > is even more obviously intended for expert users and hence may be the
> > best choice, but I could live with either one.
>
> Ok. In the interest of moving forward, lets settle on:
>
> Thread.onSpinWait()
>
> Same logic for the name, different receiver for the event. I can certainly
> live with it, and Doug seems ok with it as well.
>
> — Gil.
>