[concurrency-interest] Single producer, single consumer: unexpected delays for producer

Gregg Wonderly gregg at cytetech.com
Tue Aug 12 16:42:14 EDT 2008

Daniel Harvey wrote:
> Having tested today, I found that performing:
> for (;;) queue.take();
> causes very little more contention that the best scenario, and much less 
> than when the socket.write() is being performed.

Have you tried putting another queue in place to send the writes off to another 
thread?  This would let you have more than one thread doing encodes() and might 
actually allow some overlapping I/O and CPU too, which will be a throughput 

I also didn't see whether you had used CTRL-\ or kill -3 <jvmpid> to get some 
stack traces to see if they revealed the threads always "stuck" at the same 
spot, or perhaps a "waiting to lock" state that might indicate, better, what the 
contentious resource is.

Gregg Wonderly

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list