I have a network of Java Threads (Flow-Based Programming) communicating via fixed-capacity channels - running under WindowsXP. What we expected, based on our experience with "green" threads (non-preemptive), would be that threads would switch context less often (thus reducing CPU time) if the channels were made bigger. However, we found that increasing channel size does not make any difference to the run time. What seems to be happening is that Java decides to switch threads even though channels aren't full or empty (i.e. even though a thread doesn't have to suspend), which costs CPU time for no apparent advantage. Also changing Thread priorities doesn't make any observable difference.
My question is whether there is some way of persuading Java not to make unnecessary context switches, but hold off switching until it is really necessary to switch threads - is there some way of changing Java's dispatching logic? Or is it reacting to something I didn't pay attention to?! Or are there other asynchronism mechanisms, e.g. Thread factories, Runnable(s), maybe even daemons (!). The answer appears to be non-obvious, as so far none of my correspondents has come up with an answer (including most recently two CS profs). Or maybe I'm missing something that's so obvious that people can't imagine my not knowing it...
I've added the send and receive code here - not very elegant, but it seems to work...;-) In case you are wondering, I thought the goLock logic in 'send' might be causing the problem, but removing it temporarily didn't make any difference. I have added the code for send and receive...
public synchronized Packet receive() {
if (isDrained()) {
return null;
}
while (isEmpty()) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
close();
return null;
}
if (isDrained()) {
return null;
}
}
if (isDrained()) {
return null;
}
if (isFull()) {
notifyAll(); // notify other components waiting to send
}
Packet packet = array[receivePtr];
array[receivePtr] = null;
receivePtr = (receivePtr + 1) % array.length;
//notifyAll(); // only needed if it was full
usedSlots--;
packet.setOwner(receiver);
if (null == packet.getContent()) {
traceFuncs("Received null packet");
} else {
traceFuncs("Received: " + packet.toString());
}
return packet;
}
synchronized boolean send(final Packet packet, final OutputPort op) {
sender = op.sender;
if (isClosed()) {
return false;
}
while (isFull()) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
indicateOneSenderClosed();
return false;
}
sender = op.sender;
}
if (isClosed()) {
return false;
}
try {
receiver.goLock.lockInterruptibly();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return false;
}
try {
packet.clearOwner();
array[sendPtr] = packet;
sendPtr = (sendPtr + 1) % array.length;
usedSlots++; // move this to here
if (receiver.getStatus() == StatusValues.DORMANT || receiver.getStatus() == StatusValues.NOT_STARTED) {
receiver.activate(); // start or wake up if necessary
} else {
notifyAll(); // notify receiver
// other components waiting to send to this connection may also get
// notified,
// but this is handled by while statement
}
sender = null;
Component.network.active = true;
} finally {
receiver.goLock.unlock();
}
return true;
}
