[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.


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