RFR: 8305092: Improve Thread.sleep(millis, nanos) for sub-millisecond granularity [v3]

Alan Bateman alanb at openjdk.org
Wed Apr 19 09:30:53 UTC 2023


On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 19:38:12 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <shade at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> Java API has the `Thread.sleep(millis, nanos)` method exposed to users. The documentation for that method clearly says the precision and accuracy are dependent on the underlying system behavior. However, it always rounds up `nanos` to 1ms when doing the actual sleep. This means users cannot do the micro-second precision sleeps, even when the underlying platform allows it. Sub-millisecond sleeps are useful to build interesting primitives, like the rate limiters that run with >1000 RPS.
>> 
>> When faced with this, some users reach for more awkward APIs like `java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.parkNanos`. The use of that API for sleeps is not in line with its intent, and while it "seems to work", it might have interesting interactions with other uses of `LockSupport`. Additionally, these "sleeps" are no longer visible to monitoring tools as "normal sleeps", e.g. as `Thread.sleep` events. Therefore, it would be prudent to improve current `Thread.sleep(millis, nanos)` for sub-millisecond granularity. 
>> 
>> Fortunately, the underlying code is almost ready for this, at least on POSIX side. I skipped Windows paths, because its timers are still no good. Note that on both Linux and MacOS timers oversleep by about 50us. I have a few ideas how to improve the accuracy for them, which would be a topic for a separate PR.
>> 
>> Additional testing:
>>   - [x] New regression test
>>   - [x] New benchmark
>>   - [x] Linux x86_64 `tier1`
>>   - [x] Linux AArch64 `tier1`
>
> Aleksey Shipilev has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Fix gtests

You might need to check that  test/hotspot/jtreg/vmTestbase/nsk/jdwp/ThreadReference/OwnedMonitorsStackDepthInfo/ownedMonitorsStackDepthInfo001/ownedMonitorsStackDepthInfo001a.java is passing. I haven't tried your changes but I remember needing to change this test when doing experimental changes in this area.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13225#issuecomment-1514418262


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list