[eivanov89]

I would like to reply with a quote of sir Tony Hoare's 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture: "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies".

[adra]

This one was a very large caveat pointed out loudly every time the feature was mentioned to the community. So, yes the limitation/flaw was very well known and is ideally going to be addressed in a future JDK release.

[lmm]

> This one was a very large caveat pointed out loudly every time the feature was mentioned to the community.

It really wasn't. There were people on here, including Oracle employees, claiming that the virtual thread implementation was a drop-in replacement that would work (not necessarily perform better, but work) in all cases.

[samus]

And it indeed does in common usage scenarios. And also in this case once the issue with `synchronized` is resolved. After all, this is a benchmark and it's not surprising that one of the limitations of the design was hit.

[kelnos]

"common usage scenarios" != "in all cases".

I don't know if those Oracle employees actually did outright say -- or even imply -- "in all cases" as the GP asserted, but if they did, then "only" working in "common usage scenarios" would definitely be overselling the feature.

[samus]

I find it unlikely as well that they said it would just work in all cases. But since it's going to work out eventually and a workaround exists, they would actually not be that wrong with that statement.

[kaba0]

If your program was prone to deadlock as is, and is just more easily happening with virt threads, it means that the problem is your code.

[simiones]

If your program requires 5 OS threads to be able to make progress (say, there are operations for which 4 threads are blocked while the 5th does work), and the runtime only spawns 2 OS threads and tries to schedule your 5 now virtual threads on those 2 OS threads, then your old program was perfectly correct and the virtual threads runtime has broken it.

This was a known and advertised failure case with the new threads runtime, exacerbated by limitations in the implementation that cause certain blocking operations to block the current OS thread instead of blocking the virtual thread and allowing another virtual thread to be re-use the underlying OS thread.

[lmm]

Having X resources and Y dedicated threads that operate on them, where Y > X, and allowing a thread to block in a way that requires the assistance of another thread to make progress but only when it's holding a resource, is a perfectly reasonable, standard, and safe design. When a change to the runtime silently reduces the number of synchronized sections a program can enter concurrently, it's not at all surprising that this breaks working code.

[kaba0]

Concurrency plus parallelism is complicated. There is no going around that.