Subj : Re: Synchronization constructs in Java and their implications
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Joe Seigh
Date : Mon Sep 26 2005 09:17 am

Minkoo Seo wrote:
> I've timed an example program in which 1,000 threads competed for
> one lock using the codes posted.
> 
> According to my results, synchronized keyword was the slowest one:
> Synchornized: 1139.4 ms
> Lock: 817.7 ms
> Semaphore: 823.8 ms
> Spinlock: 1.1 ms
> 
> Accordingly, it does not make sense that all those constructs use
> synchronized keyword internally, doesn't it?
> 

Not on the fast path parts anyway which are probably using lock-free
logic.

-- 
Joe Seigh

When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.

.