Check for timeout in wait() loop











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 ⌊timeout/10⌋*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);
}
}









share|improve this question
















bumped to the homepage by Community 16 hours ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.



















    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 ⌊timeout/10⌋*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);
    }
    }









    share|improve this question
















    bumped to the homepage by Community 16 hours ago


    This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.

















      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 ⌊timeout/10⌋*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);
      }
      }









      share|improve this question















      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 ⌊timeout/10⌋*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






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Jun 7 at 9:09

























      asked Jun 7 at 8:11









      Mark Jeronimus

      1765




      1765





      bumped to the homepage by Community 16 hours ago


      This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.







      bumped to the homepage by Community 16 hours ago


      This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
























          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






          share|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
            StackExchange.snippets.init();
            });
            });
            }, "code-snippets");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "196"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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















            Required, but never shown

























            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






            share|improve this answer

























              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






              share|improve this answer























                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






                share|improve this answer












                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







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Jun 14 at 7:43









                Jabbar_Jigariyo

                22414




                22414






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Code Review Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                    Mont Emei