Is that all that's happening here? There's an implicit limit on real threads, where before it was unlimited by virtue of not using the virtual thread's limited pool?
If it doesn't spawn threads when all of them are blocked, that seems kinda dumb. And a severe change in semantics. It can be conservative and try running unpinned ones on fewer threads and shuffle them around and slowly spawn more to ensure eventual progress, which would mean a possibly significant optimization problem, but a hard cap impacts correctness.
My long held belief: green/user-level/M:N threading schemes never work at first, and only work reliably after extreme effort has been put into fixing all the cases where blocking code gets called underneath. afaik there are only two modern working implementations: golang and erlang. This article is consistent with that belief.
There are many other implementations, although in less popular languages.
The trick is to include the green threads from the start, so there are no libraries that depend on real threading. That's why Go and Erlang are so successful.
It pins goroutine until it is explicitly released ensuring that multiple native calls will remain on the same platform thread and nothing else is going to use it.
This is critical for namespace manipulation on Linux.
Java only pins for duration of native call and synchronized blocks.
It looks like Java does not offer equivalent API?
For now could be achieved with synchronized but if synchronized will be changed in the future to not pin it would break.
Virtual threads were never intended as a drop-in replacement for platform threads. They offer the same API, but they are for different usage scenarios.
If you have lots of blocking I/O (meaning: waiting for things happening on other threads or processes, which offers scheduling opportunities), use virtual threads. If you compute or call native code, keep using platform threads.
The issue with synchronized is eventually going to be resolved. But long-running computations (sorting, parsing, number crunching, etc) or native calls must also in the future be offloaded to an ExecutorService with platform threads.
The change in semantics is that while in principle your OS thread will always have a turn at making progress (assuming no super heavy spin locks etc), that isn't true for virtual threads. The classic situation and the one they hit in the article is something like this,
You've got some virtual threads that encounter this code,
synchronized(foo) {
foo.wait()
}
And some other virtual threads that are in charge of awaking the waiters,
synchronized(foo) {
operation()
foo.notify()
}
This is a classic approach to the producer/consumer pattern in Java.
If operation() can do a virtual thread suspend, then it's possible to be suspended, relinquish the platform thread, which the scheduler reuses for the consumer and gets blocked on Object.wait. If this happens enough, you can end up with all the platform threads blocked, and no threads available to make progress on the producer.
The problem is that Object.wait doesn't release the virtual thread, which is a pretty major foot gun that I think the JDK team would have liked to avoid but it was too hard to implement correctly in the current JDK's codebase.
The only way I can see this being a problem is if the virtual threads can't be stolen from their (now pinned) carrier thread. Because otherwise that's all true of real threads too, blocking them is the whole point of Object.wait.
If there's no work-stealing from pinned carriers (or they're low-finite and normal threads are effectively infinite): yes that'd be a HUGE issue. I would be shocked if they released anything with that limitation though, that would violate some of the core expectations of mutexes and threads - independent ones need to make progress or nearly all patterns can't guarantee progress.
From Java docs for `jdk.virtualThreadScheduler.maxPoolSize`: the default is 256.
So yeah I can see that starving rather quickly, particularly with benchmarking-like workloads. Synchronized is very very common, 256 concurrent calls really doesn't seem all that abnormal.
If that were raised to like max-int32 would things be fine, semantically? That'd mimic real threads limits (no jvm limit at all afaict).
> If there's no work-stealing from pinned carriers (or they're low-finite and normal threads are effectively infinite): yes that'd be a HUGE issue. I would be shocked if they released anything with that limitation though, that would violate some of the core expectations of mutexes and threads - independent ones need to make progress or nearly all patterns can't guarantee progress.
Correct you can't steal the carrier thread from an Object.wait() waiting virtual thread. This is apparently in the pipeline but it is a pretty major limitation.
Most cases of synchronized/notify/wait should probably use concurrent collections instead (as message queues) so in greenfield code it's not that big of a deal. Virtual threads make writing consumers/producers using collections way easier too.
Sadly, most Java projects are not greenfield projects.
>Correct you can't steal the carrier thread from an Object.wait() waiting virtual thread. This is apparently in the pipeline but it is a pretty major limitation.
I mean stealing other virtual threads from the pinned carrier thread (except for the one pinning it) so they can make progress. Normal work-stealing stuff - the queue(thread) is blocked(pinned), so process that task(virtual thread) in a different queue(thread).
It makes sense that a pinned thread remains pinned with the virtual thread that pinned it.
The 256 default carrier thread limit is going to frequently be a problem though, yeah. That's more than enough to cause all this, and it's a pretty crazy default imo.
If it doesn't spawn threads when all of them are blocked, that seems kinda dumb. And a severe change in semantics. It can be conservative and try running unpinned ones on fewer threads and shuffle them around and slowly spawn more to ensure eventual progress, which would mean a possibly significant optimization problem, but a hard cap impacts correctness.