On Mar 14, 2014, at 7:17 AM, Brian Burkhalter <brian.burkhal...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 2014, at 3:39 AM, Peter Levart wrote: > >> But in general it would be better to just use "ThreadLocalRandom.current()" >> everywhere you use "rnd" variable. This is precisely it's purpose - a random >> number generator that is never contended. The overhead of >> ThreadLocalRandom.current() call is hardly measurable by itself. > > I'll update that and re-run some of the benchmarks later. Following up on the content above and this earlier message in the thread: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2014-March/025676.html I have posted a revised patch (NB: I know lines 2897-2906 should be elsewhere) http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/6375303/webrev.01/ and updated benchmark source (using only ThreadLocalRandom.current()) http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/6375303/Bench6375303.java and updated benchmark results for three different variations http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~bpb/6375303/6375303-bench-2.html This version of toString() is from Peter and dispenses with the volatile qualifier on stringCache. At least on my system, there is no statistically significant micro-performance difference among the three versions tested, viz., baseline, toString() change only, toString() change plus other cleanup. Any comments appreciated. Thanks, Brian
