[concurrency-interest] AtomicReferenceFieldUpdater vs Unsafe

Ismael Juma mlists at juma.me.uk
Thu Nov 17 08:30:12 EST 2011


On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Roman Elizarov <elizarov at devexperts.com>wrote:

>  Unsafe is big and that’s a separate issue from concurrency patterns (CAS
> is that we started with).
>

I know that, of course. Many people in this list (most?) are not only
interested in concurrency so I thought it was relevant.


>  The problem is that ByteBuffer is not as fast as byte[] – even though it
> uses Unsafe inside,
>

That is not the only problem (both snappy and compress-lzf moved from using
normal operations on byte[] to using Unsafe with byte[]).

Best,
Ismael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20111117/80e9fa33/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list