Hi Stig, I mostly agree with your view. My emails have been describing a specific scenario: my application runs on JDK 25, but many of the libraries I depend on were developed for JDK 8 or are not very actively maintained. In the short term, pooling virtual threads seems to be the only practical workaround; I don’t see a better alternative right now.
One correction I need to make: I did not fix the maximum size of my virtual‑thread pool. That means when the 200 core virtual threads are all in use, the pool’s behavior becomes the same as non‑pooled virtual threads (it will create additional threads). You suggested using platform threads instead, but platform threads have expensive context switching. In my example, if I switch to platform threads then once the 200 core threads are exhausted new platform threads are created, and at the moment those threads are created CPU usage essentially spikes. If you run Java under Kubernetes you’ll be familiar with this: creating new platform threads can instantly consume the cgroup CPU quota, causing the process to be throttled until the next available CPU window. Using a pooled virtual‑thread solution avoids this problem because it does not require creating costly platform threads. Thanks, Jianbin Chen Stig Rohde Døssing <[email protected]> 于2026年1月25日周日 00:11写道： > Hi Jianbin, > > Sorry to butt in, but I think the question you are asking is a little odd. > You have a library that uses ThreadLocals for reusing expensive resources > (buffers in this case). The way to make such a library work well with > virtual threads is to redesign the library to avoid using TLs in this > manner. For example, you could make the library keep a pool of these > resources for reuse in a non-TL structure, like concurrent > maps/lists/queues. > > But once you set the limitation that the library can't be adjusted, you > are forced into awkward workarounds. This is because the main advantage of > virtual threads is to allow you to write code in a thread-per-task style, > but the presence of these TLs makes threads precious resources that must be > reused across tasks, which loses you the ability to use virtual threads in > this way. > > If you are unable to adjust the library and really want to use virtual > threads for part of your code, an option is to isolate the TL-using code so > it runs on a platform thread pool. You would then write most of your code > in thread-per-task style with virtual threads, but make the virtual threads > hand off work that needs the TLs to the thread pool, blocking the virtual > thread until that work completes. > > If that is not an option, and you don't want that kind of handoff, you are > forced to create a pool of threads, as you found. But at that point, I > don't really understand why you want to use virtual threads at all. Once > you are making a pool of 200 threads you reuse, it doesn't really matter if > those threads are virtual or platform threads. You are forced to abandon > the thread-per-task style either way. > > I don't think there is a great solution that will let you use > thread-per-task style virtual threads with a library that uses TLs for > resource reuse. The best you are likely to be able to do is various > workarounds, with various drawbacks. It might be better to aim for > reworking the library, and sticking with platform threads until you can do > that? > > Den lør. 24. jan. 2026 kl. 14.14 skrev Jianbin Chen <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Alan, >> >> I ran my example on JDK 21 because it uses Thread.sleep. In an earlier >> message on the mailing list I learned that virtual‑thread performance on >> JDK 25 was worse for this kind of scenario compared with JDK 21, and that >> the issue is supposed to be fixed in JDK 25.0.3 — which has not been >> released yet. >> >> That said, this does not affect the main point of my message: I’m asking >> for advice about using pooled virtual threads to work around third‑party >> libraries that implement buffer pools via ThreadLocal. >> >> Thank you, >> Jianbin Chen >> >> Alan Bateman <[email protected]> 于2026年1月24日周六 16:34写道： >> >>> >>> >>> On 24/01/2026 05:55, Jianbin Chen wrote: >>> > : >>> > >>> > I constructed the Executor directly with >>> > Executors.newVirtualThreadPerTaskExecutor(); >>> > however, the run results still show that the pooled virtual‑thread >>> > behavior outperforms the non‑pooled virtual threads. >>> >>> This looks like it is benchmarking Thread.sleep so a different topic to >>> that of libraries that are caching objects in thread locals. >>> >>> For the Thread.sleep test then it would easier to discuss if converted >>> to a JMH benchmark as there are warmup issues in the test you included. >>> Also just to note that the Thread.sleep implementation has changed >>> significantly changed since JDK 21 so you will see very different >>> results with JDK 25 runs (some of the messages in the discussion speak >>> of JDK 21, the subject line in the mails say "JDK 25", so I'm guessing >>> you might be testing both). >>> >>> -Alan >>> >>
