AtomicInteger实现和代码重复

时间:2013-02-28 18:07:30

标签: java performance jvm

警告:问题有点长,但分隔线下方的部分仅用于好奇。

Oracle的AtomicInteger JDK 7实现包括以下方法:

public final int addAndGet(int delta) {
    for (;;) {
        int current = get();
        int next = current + delta;         // Only difference
        if (compareAndSet(current, next))
            return next;
    }
}

public final int incrementAndGet() {
    for (;;) {
        int current = get();
        int next = current + 1;             // Only difference
        if (compareAndSet(current, next))
            return next;
    }
}

似乎很清楚第二种方法可以写成:

public final int incrementAndGet() {
    return addAndGet(1);
}

该类中还有其他几个类似代码重复的例子。我想不出有任何理由这样做,而是考虑性能(*)。而且我很确定作者在确定设计之前做了一些深入的测试。

为什么(或在什么情况下)第一个代码比第二个代码表现更好?


(*)我无法抗拒,但写了一个快速的微基准。它显示(后JIT)系统性差距为2-4%,有利于addAndGet(1) vs incrementAndGet()(这无疑是小的,但它非常一致)。我说实话无法解释这个结果......

输出:

  

incrementAndGet():905
  addAndGet(1):868
  incrementAndGet():902
  addAndGet(1):863
  incrementAndGet():891
  addAndGet(1):867
  ...

代码:

public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
    final int size = 100_000_000;
    long start, end;
    AtomicInteger ai;

    System.out.println("JVM warmup");
    for (int j = 0; j < 10; j++) {
        start = System.nanoTime();
        ai = new AtomicInteger();
        for (int i = 0; i < size / 10; i++) {
            ai.addAndGet(1);
        }
        end = System.nanoTime();
        System.out.println("addAndGet(1): " + ((end - start) / 1_000_000));
        start = System.nanoTime();
        ai = new AtomicInteger();
        for (int i = 0; i < size / 10; i++) {
            ai.incrementAndGet();
        }
        end = System.nanoTime();
        System.out.println("incrementAndGet(): " + ((end - start) / 1_000_000));
    }


    System.out.println("\nStart measuring\n");

    for (int j = 0; j < 10; j++) {
        start = System.nanoTime();
        ai = new AtomicInteger();
        for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
            ai.incrementAndGet();
        }
        end = System.nanoTime();
        System.out.println("incrementAndGet(): " + ((end - start) / 1_000_000));
        start = System.nanoTime();
        ai = new AtomicInteger();
        for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) {
            ai.addAndGet(1);
        }
        end = System.nanoTime();
        System.out.println("addAndGet(1): " + ((end - start) / 1_000_000));
    }
}

5 个答案:

答案 0 :(得分:6)

我会给出新的假设。如果我们查看AtomicInteger的字节代码,我们会看到它们之间的主要区别在于addAndGet使用iload_指令,incrementAndGet使用iconst_指令:

public final int addAndGet(int);
   ...
   4:   istore_2
   5:   iload_2
   6:   iload_1
   7:   iadd

public final int incrementAndGet();
   ...
   4:   istore_1
   5:   iload_1
   6:   iconst_1
   7:   iadd

由于iconst_ ... iadd作为INC指令,似乎iload_ + iadd转换为ADD指令。这一切都涉及关于ADD 1 vs INC的常见问题,依此类推:

Relative performance of x86 inc vs. add instruction

Is ADD 1 really faster than INC ? x86

这可能是答案,为什么addAndGet略快于incrementAndGet

答案 1 :(得分:4)

出于好奇,这里是JIT生成的汇编代码。总之,主要区别在于:

  • incrementAndGet

    mov    r8d,eax
    inc    r8d                ;*iadd
    
  • addAndGet

    mov    r9d,r8d
    add    r9d,eax            ;*iadd
    

其余代码基本相同。这证实了:

  • 这些方法不是内在的,不要互相称呼
  • 唯一的区别是INC vs ADD 1

我在阅读大会时不够好,知道为什么会有所作为。这并没有真正回答我最初的问题。

完整列表(incrementAndGet):

  # {method} 'incrementAndGet' '()I' in 'java/util/concurrent/atomic/AtomicInteger'
  #           [sp+0x20]  (sp of caller)
  0x00000000026804c0: mov    r10d,DWORD PTR [rdx+0x8]
  0x00000000026804c4: shl    r10,0x3
  0x00000000026804c8: cmp    rax,r10
  0x00000000026804cb: jne    0x0000000002657b60  ;   {runtime_call}
  0x00000000026804d1: data32 xchg ax,ax
  0x00000000026804d4: nop    DWORD PTR [rax+rax*1+0x0]
  0x00000000026804dc: data32 data32 xchg ax,ax
[Verified Entry Point]
  0x00000000026804e0: sub    rsp,0x18
  0x00000000026804e7: mov    QWORD PTR [rsp+0x10],rbp  ;*synchronization entry
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@-1 (line 204)
  0x00000000026804ec: mov    eax,DWORD PTR [rdx+0xc]  ;*invokevirtual compareAndSwapInt
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::compareAndSet@9 (line 135)
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@12 (line 206)
  0x00000000026804ef: mov    r8d,eax
  0x00000000026804f2: inc    r8d                ;*iadd
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@7 (line 205)
  0x00000000026804f5: lock cmpxchg DWORD PTR [rdx+0xc],r8d
  0x00000000026804fb: sete   r11b
  0x00000000026804ff: movzx  r11d,r11b          ;*invokevirtual compareAndSwapInt
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::compareAndSet@9 (line 135)
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@12 (line 206)
  0x0000000002680503: test   r11d,r11d
  0x0000000002680506: je     0x0000000002680520  ;*iload_2
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@18 (line 207)
  0x0000000002680508: mov    eax,r8d
  0x000000000268050b: add    rsp,0x10
  0x000000000268050f: pop    rbp
  0x0000000002680510: test   DWORD PTR [rip+0xfffffffffdbafaea],eax        # 0x0000000000230000
                                                ;   {poll_return}
  0x0000000002680516: ret    
  0x0000000002680517: nop    WORD PTR [rax+rax*1+0x0]  ; OopMap{rdx=Oop off=96}
                                                ;*goto
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@20 (line 208)
  0x0000000002680520: test   DWORD PTR [rip+0xfffffffffdbafada],eax        # 0x0000000000230000
                                                ;*goto
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@20 (line 208)
                                                ;   {poll}
  0x0000000002680526: mov    r11d,DWORD PTR [rdx+0xc]  ;*invokevirtual compareAndSwapInt
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::compareAndSet@9 (line 135)
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@12 (line 206)
  0x000000000268052a: mov    r8d,r11d
  0x000000000268052d: inc    r8d                ;*iadd
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@7 (line 205)
  0x0000000002680530: mov    eax,r11d
  0x0000000002680533: lock cmpxchg DWORD PTR [rdx+0xc],r8d
  0x0000000002680539: sete   r11b
  0x000000000268053d: movzx  r11d,r11b          ;*invokevirtual compareAndSwapInt
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::compareAndSet@9 (line 135)
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@12 (line 206)
  0x0000000002680541: test   r11d,r11d
  0x0000000002680544: je     0x0000000002680520  ;*ifeq
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet@15 (line 206)
  0x0000000002680546: jmp    0x0000000002680508

完整列表(addAndGet):

  # {method} 'addAndGet' '(I)I' in 'java/util/concurrent/atomic/AtomicInteger'
  # this:     rdx:rdx   = 'java/util/concurrent/atomic/AtomicInteger'
  # parm0:    r8        = int
  #           [sp+0x20]  (sp of caller)
  0x0000000002680d00: mov    r10d,DWORD PTR [rdx+0x8]
  0x0000000002680d04: shl    r10,0x3
  0x0000000002680d08: cmp    rax,r10
  0x0000000002680d0b: jne    0x0000000002657b60  ;   {runtime_call}
  0x0000000002680d11: data32 xchg ax,ax
  0x0000000002680d14: nop    DWORD PTR [rax+rax*1+0x0]
  0x0000000002680d1c: data32 data32 xchg ax,ax
[Verified Entry Point]
  0x0000000002680d20: sub    rsp,0x18
  0x0000000002680d27: mov    QWORD PTR [rsp+0x10],rbp  ;*synchronization entry
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@-1 (line 233)
  0x0000000002680d2c: mov    eax,DWORD PTR [rdx+0xc]  ;*invokevirtual compareAndSwapInt
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::compareAndSet@9 (line 135)
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@12 (line 235)
  0x0000000002680d2f: mov    r9d,r8d
  0x0000000002680d32: add    r9d,eax            ;*iadd
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@7 (line 234)
  0x0000000002680d35: lock cmpxchg DWORD PTR [rdx+0xc],r9d
  0x0000000002680d3b: sete   r11b
  0x0000000002680d3f: movzx  r11d,r11b          ;*invokevirtual compareAndSwapInt
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::compareAndSet@9 (line 135)
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@12 (line 235)
  0x0000000002680d43: test   r11d,r11d
  0x0000000002680d46: je     0x0000000002680d60  ;*iload_3
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@18 (line 236)
  0x0000000002680d48: mov    eax,r9d
  0x0000000002680d4b: add    rsp,0x10
  0x0000000002680d4f: pop    rbp
  0x0000000002680d50: test   DWORD PTR [rip+0xfffffffffdbaf2aa],eax        # 0x0000000000230000
                                                ;   {poll_return}
  0x0000000002680d56: ret    
  0x0000000002680d57: nop    WORD PTR [rax+rax*1+0x0]  ; OopMap{rdx=Oop off=96}
                                                ;*goto
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@20 (line 237)
  0x0000000002680d60: test   DWORD PTR [rip+0xfffffffffdbaf29a],eax        # 0x0000000000230000
                                                ;*goto
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@20 (line 237)
                                                ;   {poll}
  0x0000000002680d66: mov    r11d,DWORD PTR [rdx+0xc]  ;*invokevirtual compareAndSwapInt
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::compareAndSet@9 (line 135)
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@12 (line 235)
  0x0000000002680d6a: mov    r9d,r11d
  0x0000000002680d6d: add    r9d,r8d            ;*iadd
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@7 (line 234)
  0x0000000002680d70: mov    eax,r11d
  0x0000000002680d73: lock cmpxchg DWORD PTR [rdx+0xc],r9d
  0x0000000002680d79: sete   r11b
  0x0000000002680d7d: movzx  r11d,r11b          ;*invokevirtual compareAndSwapInt
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::compareAndSet@9 (line 135)
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@12 (line 235)
  0x0000000002680d81: test   r11d,r11d
  0x0000000002680d84: je     0x0000000002680d60  ;*ifeq
                                                ; - java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger::addAndGet@15 (line 235)
  0x0000000002680d86: jmp    0x0000000002680d48

答案 2 :(得分:1)

要扩展@AlexeiKaigorodov的答案,如果这是真正的Java代码,它会更快,因为它会消除调用堆栈上的额外帧。这使得它运行得更快(为什么不呢?)并且可能会导致对循环的多个并发调用不太可能失败,从而导致循环重复运行。 (尽管如此,我无法想出任何这样的理由。)

但是,通过您的微基准测试,代码可能不是真实的,incrementAndGet()方法是以您指定的方式在本机代码中实现的,或者两者都只是内部指令(委托给{{ 1}}在x86上例如)。但是,通常很难判断JVM一直在做什么,并且可能还有其他因素导致这种情况发生。

答案 3 :(得分:0)

只是为了完成讨论, Concurrency-interest -- Discussion list for JSR-166 邮件列表中几乎同时也会询问同一个问题

这是线程的开始 - [concurrency-interest] AtomicInteger implementation 讨论AtomicInteger实现。

答案 4 :(得分:-3)

原因是他们更愿意以代码大小为代价加快代码。

我确信,消息来源是真实的。如果他们是内在的,他们将被标记为本机。