On Wed, 19 Apr 2023 09:56:44 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@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 six > additional commits since the last revision: > > - Adjust assert > - Replace (park|sleep)_millis back with just (park|sleep) > - More review touchups > - Revert some Thread refactorings > - Add a few missing sleep_millis renames > - Adjust the test a bit Further to Alan's comment about checking tests, I think this may also impact the strace00n tests that are currently being fixed by https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/13476 - the changes in Thread.java may change the maximum stack depth. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13225#issuecomment-1514702679
