Check for timeout in wait() loop

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I want to check for a condition in a guarded wait() loop with a user-specified total timeout, similar to how LinkedBlockingQueue.poll() works.
For example collection can be appended to by different threads, but only when the collection contains a value equating to myItem within timeout, should the loop terminate successfully. If the user-specified timeout elapses, it should throw.
This is my current best approach:
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
synchronized (collection)
while (!collection.contains(myItem))
long remaining = System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime - timeout;
if (remaining < 0)
throw new TimeoutException();
collection.wait(remaining);
The problem here is that System.currentTimeMillis() (or System.nanoTime()) is called inside a synchronized context. IntelliJ's warning states:
While not necessarily representing a problem, such calls cause an expensive context switch, and are best kept out of synchronized contexts, if possible.
I wonder how much impact this 'expensive context switch' will have in practice, with Oracle JVM 8?
This is one alternative I came up with, but I don't like this as the actual timeout becomes âÂÂtimeout/10âÂÂ*10 + delta. and the error will probably be much worse than the context switch.
synchronized (collection)
int loops = 0;
while (!collection.contains(myItem))
if(loops++ > timeout / 10)
throw new TimeoutException();
collection.wait(10);
java locking timeout
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I want to check for a condition in a guarded wait() loop with a user-specified total timeout, similar to how LinkedBlockingQueue.poll() works.
For example collection can be appended to by different threads, but only when the collection contains a value equating to myItem within timeout, should the loop terminate successfully. If the user-specified timeout elapses, it should throw.
This is my current best approach:
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
synchronized (collection)
while (!collection.contains(myItem))
long remaining = System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime - timeout;
if (remaining < 0)
throw new TimeoutException();
collection.wait(remaining);
The problem here is that System.currentTimeMillis() (or System.nanoTime()) is called inside a synchronized context. IntelliJ's warning states:
While not necessarily representing a problem, such calls cause an expensive context switch, and are best kept out of synchronized contexts, if possible.
I wonder how much impact this 'expensive context switch' will have in practice, with Oracle JVM 8?
This is one alternative I came up with, but I don't like this as the actual timeout becomes âÂÂtimeout/10âÂÂ*10 + delta. and the error will probably be much worse than the context switch.
synchronized (collection)
int loops = 0;
while (!collection.contains(myItem))
if(loops++ > timeout / 10)
throw new TimeoutException();
collection.wait(10);
java locking timeout
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I want to check for a condition in a guarded wait() loop with a user-specified total timeout, similar to how LinkedBlockingQueue.poll() works.
For example collection can be appended to by different threads, but only when the collection contains a value equating to myItem within timeout, should the loop terminate successfully. If the user-specified timeout elapses, it should throw.
This is my current best approach:
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
synchronized (collection)
while (!collection.contains(myItem))
long remaining = System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime - timeout;
if (remaining < 0)
throw new TimeoutException();
collection.wait(remaining);
The problem here is that System.currentTimeMillis() (or System.nanoTime()) is called inside a synchronized context. IntelliJ's warning states:
While not necessarily representing a problem, such calls cause an expensive context switch, and are best kept out of synchronized contexts, if possible.
I wonder how much impact this 'expensive context switch' will have in practice, with Oracle JVM 8?
This is one alternative I came up with, but I don't like this as the actual timeout becomes âÂÂtimeout/10âÂÂ*10 + delta. and the error will probably be much worse than the context switch.
synchronized (collection)
int loops = 0;
while (!collection.contains(myItem))
if(loops++ > timeout / 10)
throw new TimeoutException();
collection.wait(10);
java locking timeout
I want to check for a condition in a guarded wait() loop with a user-specified total timeout, similar to how LinkedBlockingQueue.poll() works.
For example collection can be appended to by different threads, but only when the collection contains a value equating to myItem within timeout, should the loop terminate successfully. If the user-specified timeout elapses, it should throw.
This is my current best approach:
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
synchronized (collection)
while (!collection.contains(myItem))
long remaining = System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime - timeout;
if (remaining < 0)
throw new TimeoutException();
collection.wait(remaining);
The problem here is that System.currentTimeMillis() (or System.nanoTime()) is called inside a synchronized context. IntelliJ's warning states:
While not necessarily representing a problem, such calls cause an expensive context switch, and are best kept out of synchronized contexts, if possible.
I wonder how much impact this 'expensive context switch' will have in practice, with Oracle JVM 8?
This is one alternative I came up with, but I don't like this as the actual timeout becomes âÂÂtimeout/10âÂÂ*10 + delta. and the error will probably be much worse than the context switch.
synchronized (collection)
int loops = 0;
while (!collection.contains(myItem))
if(loops++ > timeout / 10)
throw new TimeoutException();
collection.wait(10);
java locking timeout
edited Jun 7 at 9:09
asked Jun 7 at 8:11
Mark Jeronimus
1865
1865
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
I think you should be fine with System.currentTimeMillis(). Even though the method itself is not synchronized, mostly native method call internally would be synchronized.
Read this old but still useful article about the same thing.
http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/28685
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
I think you should be fine with System.currentTimeMillis(). Even though the method itself is not synchronized, mostly native method call internally would be synchronized.
Read this old but still useful article about the same thing.
http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/28685
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I think you should be fine with System.currentTimeMillis(). Even though the method itself is not synchronized, mostly native method call internally would be synchronized.
Read this old but still useful article about the same thing.
http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/28685
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I think you should be fine with System.currentTimeMillis(). Even though the method itself is not synchronized, mostly native method call internally would be synchronized.
Read this old but still useful article about the same thing.
http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/28685
I think you should be fine with System.currentTimeMillis(). Even though the method itself is not synchronized, mostly native method call internally would be synchronized.
Read this old but still useful article about the same thing.
http://www.devx.com/Java/Article/28685
answered Jun 14 at 7:43
Jabbar_Jigariyo
22414
22414
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fcodereview.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f196003%2fcheck-for-timeout-in-wait-loop%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password