java重复旋转,如何避免在Java中忙于旋转

I have a multi-threaded application where a thread sends a message to another thread. The waiting thread polls for the message and reacts (locks are handled). Like this:

Waiting thread code:

while(true)

{

if(helloArrived())

System.out.println("Got hello");

if(byeArrived())

System.out.println("Got bye");

if(stopArrived())

break;

}

I want to avoid this cpu hogging technique and use something else instead. Any ideas?

Edit: The actual code is below:

BlockingQueue killMeMailbox = new LinkedBlockingQueue();

BlockingQueue messageMailbox = new LinkedBlockingQueue();

public void run()

{

while(true)

{

if(killMeMailbox.size() > 0)

{

break;

}

if(messageMailbox.size() > 0)

{

System.out.println(messageMailbox.poll());

}

}

}

public void receiveMail(Mail mail)

{

//kill

if(mail.from == -1)

{

killMeMailbox.add(0);

}

else

{

//other

try

{

messageMailbox.put(mail);

}

catch(Exception e)

{

System.out.println(e.getMessage());

}

}

}

解决方案

The correct way to avoid this is to use the wait/notify mechanism implemented by java.lang.Object, or one of the higher level concurrency mechanisms provided by the Java class libraries:

blocking queues; e.g. the classes that implemented the BlockingQueue interface.

(Pick the mechanism that is the best match for what your specific use-case ...)

Using Thread.sleep is not a good solution. While you reduce CPU load (compared with a polling loop), the flip-side is that you reduce responsiveness.

I'm using a BlockingQueue now. But maybe I'm doing it incorrectly. I just added the actually code above. Do you see my problem?

Yea. You are using the queue in a way that is designed to avoid blocking. That's the wrong approach. You should use take() (which will block until an entry becomes available) instead of poll(), and get rid of the code that tests the queue size.

Your "killMeMailbox" stuff seems to be designed to allow you to stop waiting for mail. You should be able to implement that using Thread.interrupt. (An interrupt will unblock a take() call ...)