[concurrency-interest] the remove-on-cancel policy on ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor

Sangjin Lee sjlee at apache.org
Tue Aug 31 19:41:44 EDT 2010

Thanks. I'll check out the hashed wheel timer. Sounds quite interesting.

Yes, I know that trying to remove it every time you cancel can be expensive
(remove(Object) is actually linear). But we do support cases where the delay
is quite large and most of the tasks are promptly canceled. In this case, it
causes a pretty significant increase in used JVM heap and the associated
increases in GC cost. So, we want to provide an *option* where they can
remove on cancel, and they would come out ahead all things considered.


On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:18 AM, "이희승 (Trustin Lee)" <trustin at gmail.com>wrote:

> ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor's queue implementation is heap, and it means
> removing an arbitrary task from the queue takes O(logN) time which is
> not very optimal.  If removal takes place very often, you will observe
> very high CPU usage.
> If remove-on-cancel policy became available, someone might have
> addressed this issue in JDK 7.  However, I did not read the code yet, so
> someone else will step up and let us know.
> Anyway, you can call ThreadPoolExecutor.purge() to remove the cancelled
> tasks from the queue manually.  Calling it for every 1000th cancellation
> for example helped me a lot.
> Alternatively, you can try a different timer implementation that has
> minimal cancellation cost.  I find hashed wheel timer very useful:
>    http://www.cse.wustl.edu/~cdgill/courses/cs6874/TimingWheels.ppt
> and the following is my implementation for Netty:
> http://docs.jboss.org/netty/3.2/xref/org/jboss/netty/util/HashedWheelTimer.html
> HTH,
> Trustin
> On 08/31/2010 02:12 PM, Sangjin Lee wrote:
> > Maybe this has been discussed in the past...
> >
> > I've always been curious why ScheduledFuture.cancel() would not also
> > remove tasks from the queue (so would keep them live until the delay
> > elapses) as an optional behavior. I know one can override the
> > decorateTask() method to achieve the same effect, but it's slightly less
> > than optimal as you need to create an additional delegate object to
> > achieve the same goal. Then I checked the upcoming JDK 7 changes, and
> > there seems to be such a setting called the remove-on-cancel policy!
> >
> > I looked some old versions of ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor, and it seems
> > this behavior was in but was removed at some point? Could someone shed
> > light on why it was decided not to include it in the existing versions
> > of JDK? And why the change in JDK 7? I would love to have this behavior,
> > but I'm just curious about the reason behind these decisions. Thanks!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sangjin
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Concurrency-interest mailing list
> > Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> > http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
> --
> what we call human nature in actuality is human habit
> http://gleamynode.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20100831/7db0b844/attachment.html>

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list