When is AtomicInteger preferable to synchronization?
ef2011：
Why would I use an AtomicInteger since AtomicIntegerit's at least an order of magnitude slower than the intprotected object ?synchronized
For example, if I just want to increment a value in a intthread-safe way , why not always use:
synchronized(threadsafeint) {
threadsafeint++;
}
instead of using the much slower AtomicInteger.incrementAndGet() ?
Peter Lowry:
print
print
Since AtomicInteger is at least an order of magnitude slower than a sync-protected int, why would I use AtomicInteger?
AtomicInteger is faster.
static final Object LOCK1 = new Object();
static final Object LOCK2 = new Object();
static int i1 = 0;
static int i2 = 0;
static final AtomicInteger ai1 = new AtomicInteger();
static final AtomicInteger ai2 = new AtomicInteger();
public static void main(String... args) throws IOException {
for(int i=0;i<5;i++) {
testSyncInt();
testAtomicInt();
}
}
private static void testSyncInt() {
long start = System.nanoTime();
int runs = 10000000;
for(int i=0;i< runs;i+=2) {
synchronized (LOCK1) {
i1++;
}
synchronized (LOCK2) {
i2++;
}
}
long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.printf("sync + incr: Each increment took an average of %.1f ns%n", (double) time/runs);
}
private static void testAtomicInt() {
long start = System.nanoTime();
int runs = 10000000;
for(int i=0;i< runs;i+=2) {
ai1.incrementAndGet();
ai2.incrementAndGet();
}
long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.printf("incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of %.1f ns%n", (double) time/runs);
}
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 32.4 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 20.6 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 31.4 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 12.9 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 29.6 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 12.9 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 35.1 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 16.6 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 29.9 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 13.0 ns
Add some contention as suggested by @assylias. It shows that the CPU can optimize access when you are only really using one thread.
static final Object LOCK1 = new Object();
static final Object LOCK2 = new Object();
static int i1 = 0;
static int i2 = 0;
static final AtomicInteger ai1 = new AtomicInteger();
static final AtomicInteger ai2 = new AtomicInteger();
public static void main(String... args) throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException {
for(int i=0;i<5;i++) {
testSyncInt();
testAtomicInt();
}
}
private static void testSyncInt() throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException {
long start = System.nanoTime();
final int runs = 1000000;
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
List<Future<Void>> futures = new ArrayList<>();
for(int t=0;t<8;t++) {
futures.add(es.submit(new Callable<Void>() {
public Void call() throws Exception {
for (int i = 0; i < runs; i += 2) {
synchronized (LOCK1) {
i1++;
}
synchronized (LOCK2) {
i2++;
}
}
return null;
}
}));
}
for (Future<Void> future : futures) {
future.get();
}
es.shutdown();
long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.printf("sync + incr: Each increment took an average of %.1f ns%n", (double) time/runs/2);
}
private static void testAtomicInt() throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException {
long start = System.nanoTime();
final int runs = 1000000;
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
List<Future<Void>> futures = new ArrayList<>();
for(int t=0;t<8;t++) {
futures.add(es.submit(new Callable<Void>() {
public Void call() throws Exception {
for (int i = 0; i < runs; i += 2) {
ai1.incrementAndGet();
ai2.incrementAndGet();
}
return null;
}
}));
}
for (Future<Void> future : futures) {
future.get();
}
es.shutdown();
long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.printf("incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of %.1f ns%n", (double) time/runs/2);
}
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 478.6 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 191.5 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 437.5 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 169.8 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 408.1 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 180.8 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 511.5 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 313.4 ns
sync + incr: Each increment took an average of 441.6 ns
incrementAndGet: Each increment took an average of 219.7 ns