atom feed9 messages in edu.oswego.cs.concurrency-interestRe: [concurrency-interest] Using Atom...
FromSent OnAttachments
Ariel WeisbergFeb 13, 2013 12:41 pm 
Vitaly DavidovichFeb 13, 2013 12:51 pm 
Ariel WeisbergFeb 13, 2013 1:45 pm 
Vitaly DavidovichFeb 13, 2013 2:15 pm 
Aaron GrunthalFeb 13, 2013 7:37 pm 
Chris DennisFeb 14, 2013 8:15 am 
Ariel WeisbergFeb 14, 2013 8:56 am 
Vitaly DavidovichFeb 14, 2013 9:31 am 
Nathan ReynoldsFeb 14, 2013 9:41 am 
Subject:Re: [concurrency-interest] Using Atomic*FieldUpdater to remove indirection
From:Vitaly Davidovich (vita@gmail.com)
Date:Feb 13, 2013 12:51:33 pm
List:edu.oswego.cs.concurrency-interest

Can you elaborate a bit? Do you mean using AtomicInteger (as an example) instead of an int field inside a class? If so, I'd personally pad out the class with filler fields to avoid false sharing - there's no guarantee that the indirection via AtomicXXX will put memory far apart; padding gives you a bit more control here.

Sent from my phone On Feb 13, 2013 3:44 PM, "Ariel Weisberg" <ari@weisberg.ws> wrote:

Hi,

Does it make sense to use Atomic*FieldUpdater to remove the indirection overhead of an AtomicLong and AtomicReference? Similarly, does it make sense to use Atomic* to create indirection in order to avoid false sharing?