Timer vs Thread primitive in Java

Question

Has anyone observed that creating a thread that does work in a while(true) loop with a Thread.sleep(t) appears to consume more CPU than creating a Timer in Java with a wakeup of t? Anyone with JVM expertise know why this is? I've only really tried this on Windows and Linux x86.

Think it would help if you posted sample code-- maybe there's something subtle you're doing that we can't see from this description. — Neil Coffey
– Neil Coffey, Commented May 15, 2009 at 7:07

Alex · Accepted Answer · 2009-05-15 07:00:39Z

1

According to the Javadoc for the Timer class, there's a background thread that does the work:

Corresponding to each Timer object is a single background thread that is used to execute all of the timer's tasks, sequentially. Timer tasks should complete quickly. If a timer task takes excessive time to complete, it "hogs" the timer's task execution thread. This can, in turn, delay the execution of subsequent tasks, which may "bunch up" and execute in rapid succession when (and if) the offending task finally completes.

How are you observing CPU usage? Have you tried a JVM profiler?

answered May 15, 2009 at 7:00

Alex

8,3618 gold badges55 silver badges80 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

2 Comments

Amir Afghani Over a year ago

I'm not - although I can try using JConsole or VisualVM. I was simply using TaskManager in windows on a quiet machine.

Alex Over a year ago

I'd be very weary of what that's reporting - it's by no means a definitive profiling tool. Have a look at using VisualVM for profiling your app as it will give you a lot more detail.

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Timer vs Thread primitive in Java

1 Answer 1

2 Comments

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

2 Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related