[concurrency-interest] Elements in AtomicReferenceArray and AtomicReference[] both distinct?

Stanimir Simeonoff stanimir at riflexo.com
Wed Aug 1 12:02:28 EDT 2012

Due to cache-coherency writing to an element would have effects on the
nearby elements too. It's called "false sharing":
[Write] Sharing (false or not) kills concurrency.
However there is no locking and the access to distinctive elements is


On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Raph Frank <raphfrk at gmail.com> wrote:

> I always assumed that elements in an AtomicReferenceArray were
> distinct.  Threads that accessed different elements would not
> interfere.
> This thread suggests otherwise, that the protection is at the entire
> array level.
> http://www.java-forums.org/threads-synchronization/25324-atomicreferencearray-t-equivalent-array-atomicreference-t.html
> Which is correct, do an array of AtomicReferences give better concurrency?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120801/8a2ded78/attachment.html>

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list