I work on a high concurrency app. In the app code I try to avoid synchronization where possible. Recently, when comparing test performance of a unsynchronized and synchronized code versions, it turned out synchronized code performed three-four times faster than its unsynchronized counterpart.
After some experiments I came to this test code:
private static final Random RND = new Random();
private static final int NUM_OF_THREADS = 3;
private static final int NUM_OF_ITR = 3;
private static final int MONKEY_WORKLOAD = 50000;
static final AtomicInteger lock = new AtomicInteger();
private static void syncLockTest(boolean sync) {
System.out.println("syncLockTest, sync=" + sync);
final AtomicLong jobsDone = new AtomicLong();
final AtomicBoolean stop = new AtomicBoolean();
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_OF_THREADS; i++) {
Runnable runner;
if (sync) {
runner = new Runnable() {
@Override
public void run() {
while (!stop.get()){
jobsDone.incrementAndGet();
synchronized (lock) {
monkeyJob();
}
Thread.yield();
}
}
};
} else {
runner = new Runnable() {
@Override
public void run() {
while (!stop.get()){
jobsDone.incrementAndGet();
monkeyJob();
Thread.yield();
}
}
};
}
new Thread(runner).start();
}
long printTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_OF_ITR;) {
long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (now - printTime > 10 * 1000) {
printTime = now;
System.out.println("Jobs done\t" + jobsDone);
jobsDone.set(0);
i++;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
stop.set(true);
}
private static double[] monkeyJob() {
double[] res = new double[MONKEY_WORKLOAD];
for (int i = 0; i < res.length; i++) {
res[i] = RND.nextDouble();
res[i] = 1./(1. + res[i]);
}
return res;
}
I played with the number of threads, workload, test iterations - each time synchronized code perfomed much faster than unsunchronized one.
Here are results for two different values of NUM_OF_THREADS
Number of threads:3
syncLockTest, sync=true
Jobs done 5951
Jobs done 5958
Jobs done 5878
syncLockTest, sync=false
Jobs done 1399
Jobs done 1397
Jobs done 1391Number of threads:5
syncLockTest, sync=true
Jobs done 5895
Jobs done 6464
Jobs done 5886
syncLockTest, sync=false
Jobs done 1179
Jobs done 1260
Jobs done 1226
Test environment Windows 7 Professional Java Version 7.0
Here's a simillar case Synchronized code performs faster than unsynchronized one
Any ideas?