On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:28:53 GMT, Aleksey Shipilev <sh...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> Java API has the `Thread.sleep(millis, nanos)` method exposed to users. The > documentation for that method clearly says the precision and accuracy are > dependent on the underlying system behavior. However, it always rounds up > `nanos` to 1ms when doing the actual sleep. This means users cannot do the > micro-second precision sleeps, even when the underlying platform allows it. > Sub-millisecond sleeps are useful to build interesting primitives, like the > rate limiters that run with >1000 RPS. > > When faced with this, some users reach for more awkward APIs like > `java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.parkNanos`. The use of that API for > sleeps is not in line with its intent, and while it "seems to work", it might > have interesting interactions with other uses of `LockSupport`. Additionally, > these "sleeps" are no longer visible to monitoring tools as "normal sleeps", > e.g. as `Thread.sleep` events. Therefore, it would be prudent to improve > current `Thread.sleep(millis, nanos)` for sub-millisecond granularity. > > Fortunately, the underlying code is almost ready for this, at least on POSIX > side. I skipped Windows paths, because its timers are still no good. Note > that on both Linux and MacOS timers oversleep by about 50us. I have a few > ideas how to improve the accuracy for them, which would be a topic for a > separate PR. > > Additional testing: > - [x] New regression test > - [x] New benchmark > - [x] Linux x86_64 `tier1` > - [x] Linux AArch64 `tier1` src/hotspot/share/include/jvm.h line 279: > 277: > 278: JNIEXPORT void JNICALL > 279: JVM_Sleep(JNIEnv *env, jclass threadClass, jlong millis, jint nanos); I wonder if it would be simpler to just provide a single value, in nanoseconds, to the VM. That's enough for a sleep of 292 years. Windows would still need to convert to milliseconds of course but it overall would avoid sending two values down to the park code. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13225#discussion_r1163750704
