[concurrency-interest] Why not "weakNanoTime" for jdk9?

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Fri Mar 6 14:35:51 EST 2015


We all know that nanoTime has problems.  Many (most?) users of nanoTime,
especially for benchmarking or concurrent algorithms, don't really care
about the monotonicity guarantee and just want a "best-effort"
"as-efficient-as-possible" version of nanoTime.  Sure, some algorithms in
java.util.concurrent might need to change slightly to accommodate nanoTime
going backwards, but we already do this to some extent.

http://shipilev.net/blog/2014/nanotrusting-nanotime/

Some users have already created such a private nanoTime.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20150306/79f835c9/attachment.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list