[concurrency-interest] padding in Exchanger
viktor.klang at gmail.com
Tue Jan 17 08:01:49 EST 2012
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
> On 01/17/12 07:47, Ruslan Cheremin wrote:
>> Yes, I understand. I do not understand why -- in current conditions --
>> 128 bytes padding is better then 64 bytes one. Both are not
>> bulletproof, and 64 bytes seems to be enough for arch with 64 cache
> Several common processors (including Intel i7s) are normally run in
> 128byte cache line mode. There are also a few less common processors
> such as recent POWER that normally run with even larger cache lines,
> but until we get better JVM support, the best we can do is target
> the most common cases.
What is the outlook for getting the contended annotation in the java spec?
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.**oswego.edu <Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu>
Akka Tech Lead
Typesafe <http://www.typesafe.com/> - The software stack for applications
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Concurrency-interest