写了两个例子,对这两种机制进行对比,发现性能差距在6倍以上。
synchronized的例子:
public class SyncInc {
public static void main(String[] args) {
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(10);
long begin = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
new Thread() {
@Override
public void run() {
while (Number.get() < 100_000_000) {
Number.inc();
}
latch.countDown();
}
}.start();
}
try {
latch.await();
System.out.println("took " + (System.nanoTime() - begin) / 1_000_000 + " ms");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class Number {
public static volatile int value = 0;
public static synchronized void inc() {
value++;
}
public static int get() {
return value;
}
Atomic的例子:
public class AtomicInc {
public static void main(String[] args) {
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(10);
long begin = System.nanoTime();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
new Thread() {
@Override
public void run() {
while (AtomicNumber.get() < 100_000_000) {
AtomicNumber.inc();
}
latch.countDown();
}
}.start();
}
try {
latch.await();
System.out.println("took " + (System.nanoTime() - begin) / 1_000_000 + " ms");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class AtomicNumber {
public static AtomicInteger value = new AtomicInteger(0);
public static void inc() {
value.incrementAndGet();
}
public static int get() {
return value.get();
}
}