But why does the JVM have to know my intent... It knows that I started a thread and it knows that it has some priority. So why can't it just stick all of the threads that were started for a particular priority on a queue and then iterate through that queue. It might be easier said then done, but that's what I don't understand.
Example: If you have 3 threads with same priority... Thread 1 (default priority 5) Thread 2 (default priority 5) Thread 3 (default priority 5) Let's pretend that each thread executes 2 loops. Execute Thread 1 Execute Thread 2 Execute Thread 3 Execute Thread 1 Execute Thread 2 Execute Thread 3 If the threads have different priorities then this wouldn't work, but assuming that they have the same priority why doesn't the JVM do this? Can you dumb it down for me more? We experienced this issue running Weblogic 9.2 container and the thread scheduling isn't even available to us since it's a EE container and you're not suppose to manage threads. Ultimately, what you're telling me is that weblogic has a bug and that they should have used java.util.concurrent. On Nov 2, 9:53 am, Phil <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you're missing the point. The JVM can't know your intent when > you started your threads and cannot know that the right thing to do is > to 'level' resource usage across your threads. If you need your > threads to receive a more equal share of resources then this needs to > be expressed in your design. Hence the suggestion to use fair locks to > more precisely influence the scheduler. > > Even the thread priority is not a hard and fast guarantee, just an > indication (or to quote a pirate: the code is more what you'd call > "guidelines" than actual rules). If you read a good Java certification > textbook it will tell you threads must have priorities, and that the > priority can be between 1 and 10, but it does not dictate what the JVM > should do about these different priorities. In general, scheduling > algorithms are left to the implementor, about the only thing you can > be certain of is that 1 is viewed as the lowest priority, 10 as the > highest and 5 as the default. Beyond that, all bets are off. > > Phil. > > On Nov 2, 2:32 pm, Brent <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > How does that look ok to you? Threads 0 and 1 only executed 23 times > > while the other threads executed 45/46 times. How can that ever be a > > good thing? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
