11–20 of 270 posts
Really excited to see this! Seeing some of the early comments here I think folks may not realize how awesome this would be in the server space. After all, a big reason that NodeJS won a lot of popularity on the server is that, for many types of common webserver workloads (i.e. lots of IO, relatively minor CPU usage), NodeJS can actually scale much better than Java with its thread-per-request model. With these virtual…
Really excited to see this! Seeing some of the early comments here I think folks may not realize how awesome this would be in the server space. After all, a big reason that NodeJS won a lot of popularity on the server is that, for many types of common webserver workloads (i.e. lots of IO, relatively minor CPU usage), NodeJS can actually scale much better than Java with its thread-per-request model. With these virtual…
Am I understanding correctly that this is basically goroutines for Java?
> The JDK implements virtual threads by storing their state, including the stack, on the Java heap. Virtual threads are scheduled by a scheduler in the Java class libraries, whose worker threads mount virtual threads on their backs when the virtual threads are executing, thus becoming their carriers. When a virtual thread parks -- say, when it blocks on some I/O operation or a java.util.concurrent synchronization construct -- it suspends, and the virtual thread's carrier is free to run any other task. When a virtual thread is unparked -- say, by an I/O operation completing -- it is submitted to the scheduler, which, when available, will mount and resume the virtual thread on some carrier thread, not necessarily the same one it ran on previously. In this way, when a virtual thread performs a blocking operation, instead of parking an OS thread, it is suspended by the JVM and another one scheduled in its place, all without blocking any OS threads (see the Limitations section).
Really excited to see this! Seeing some of the early comments here I think folks may not realize how awesome this would be in the server space. After all, a big reason that NodeJS won a lot of popularity on the server is that, for many types of common webserver workloads (i.e. lots of IO, relatively minor CPU usage), NodeJS can actually scale much better than Java with its thread-per-request model. With these virtual…
Am I understanding correctly that this is basically goroutines for Java?
Also, there's no new syntax, so you're stuck with all the same thread pool concurrency we've been using for decades.
EDIT: It looks like I'm wrong about this:
> My understanding is that you won't have to worry about blocking a virtual thread, because all IO APIs are being modified to park when executed in the context of a virtual thread.
I was just thinking I’d love this element of Erlang/BEAM with the syntax of Clojure (lisp). This makes that sound more possible.
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmMU5Y_r0Uk
2: https://assets.ctfassets.net/oxjq45e8ilak/5QM86VAnN9XJ9HUIs2...
Why not just use a name like 'Joroutine'
Really excited to see this! Seeing some of the early comments here I think folks may not realize how awesome this would be in the server space. After all, a big reason that NodeJS won a lot of popularity on the server is that, for many types of common webserver workloads (i.e. lots of IO, relatively minor CPU usage), NodeJS can actually scale much better than Java with its thread-per-request model. With these virtual…
Node.js doesn't create a thread per request; it's single-threaded with evented I/O. You can use node-cluster to start more than a single thread to saturate multi-core CPUs and load-balance HTTP requests across these, but that doesn't make it thread-per-request.
I was going to say with modern PCs this is kinda redundant now, but its still a language of small devices too, where it'll be welcome.
This isn't really targeted for small devices - its very very applicable with large computers in datacenters (id argue those machines will benefit even more from this). Any time you wait on I/O you potentially park an entire thread when you could be multiplexing your threads. This is a net win for almost all users of threads (except perhaps 100% cpu intensive tasks)