On Tue, 2010-11-16 at 12:55 +0100, Roman Kennke wrote: > Interesting, I didn't know that. Do you have any pointers to documents > about this? Would be interesting for me to see how that works. > Intuitively I would have assumed that the bytecode level locking would > be more efficient than method calls. I know these are intrinsics, but > still ... how can those be *more* efficient? Just curious...
This was recently asked on the concurrency-discuss list: http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/2010-November/007491.html > Does synchronized still have a better internal implementation over > j.u.c.Lock as this old blog entry says - > http://blogs.sun.com/dave/entry/java_util_concurrent_reentrantlock_vs ? > The scales have shifted back and forth, but it's not something to worry about at this point.
