[concurrency-interest] The very best CAS loop

Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com
Thu Sep 29 04:36:32 EDT 2016

On 29/09/16 02:26, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
>     Alas, it’s tricky to do better while retaining safe access, there are:
>     - bounds checks;
>     - read only checks;
>     - alignment checks; and
>     - that the buffer is effectively a box of the address (base &
>     offset, where base == null for off-heap).
>     When looping the checks can be hoisted, and unrolling should
>     result in efficient addressing. So, e.g. for plain access, a the
>     generated hot-loop is similar to that as if Unsafe was directly
>     used.
> So maybe we do need Unsafe after all? :) I mean it's fairly clear
> that safety checks can only be amortized when compiler is dealing
> with them in bulk - should work well for loops (assuming inlining
> doesn't fail), although OSR wouldn't I think.
> But what about non-loop cases or when compiler's compilation horizon
> doesn't see the loop? Other languages have unsafe escape hatches for
> when you really want to subvert the system because "you know
> better".

Well, some do.  I'd argue that you need high-speed access to raw
memory in the cases when you have a lot of bulk data.  And in those
cases a skilled programmer can work with JVM to make sure that the
compiler gets what it needs to do a good job.


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list