[jayd16]

Virtual threads could be scheduled pre-emptively but currently the scheduler will wait for some kind of thread sleep to schedule another virtual thread. That's just a scheduler implementation detail and the spec is such that a time slice scheduler could be implemented.

[tomp]

Yes, but the problem is that the spec is such that preemptive blocking doesn't need to be implemented.

That means that Java programmers have to be very careful when writing code, lest they block the entire underlying (OS) thread!

Again, Go already went through that experience. It was painful. Java should have learned and implemented it from the start

[SureshG]

> That means that Java programmers have to be very careful when writing code

From JEP 444:

The scheduler does not currently implement time sharing for virtual threads. Time sharing is the forceful preemption of a thread that has consumed an allotted quantity of CPU time. While time sharing can be effective at reducing the latency of some tasks when there are a relatively small number of platform threads and CPU utilization is at 100%, it is not clear that time sharing would be as effective with a million virtual threads.

Also, in this scenario, i think the current scheduler (ForkJoin Pool) will use managed blocker to compensate those pinned carrier threads.

[jayd16]

I don't know. The language already has Thread.Yield. If your use case is such that you have starvation and care about it, it seems trivial to work around.

Still, an annoying gotcha if it hits you unexpectedly.

[nimish]

This is a really unfortunate gotcha that's not at all obvious. Does it kick preemption up a layer to the OS then?

[Jtsummers]

The "not at all obvious" gotcha is described in the documentation near the top, under the heading "What is a Virtual Thread?":

https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/21/core/virtual-threa...

> Like a platform thread, a virtual thread is also an instance of java.lang.Thread. However, a virtual thread isn't tied to a specific OS thread. A virtual thread still runs code on an OS thread. However, when code running in a virtual thread calls a blocking I/O operation, the Java runtime suspends the virtual thread until it can be resumed. The OS thread associated with the suspended virtual thread is now free to perform operations for other virtual threads.

It's not been hidden at all in their presentation on virtual threads.

The OS thread that the virtual thread is mounted to can still be preempted, but that won't free up the OS thread for another virtual thread. However, if you use them for what they're intended for this shouldn't be a problem. In practice, it will be because no one can be bothered to RTFM.

[nimish]

All that says is the Java runtime will suspend on blocking IO, not that it _only_ suspends on blocking IO.

> what they're intended for

Java prides itself on careful and deliberate changes to eliminate foot guns, but this seems like a pretty major restriction. Usually these kinds of cooperative threads are called fibers or something else to distinguish them from truly preempt-able threads.

Expecting developers to read the minutiae of documentation (there's another restriction around synchronized blocks) is a fool's errand TBH. Principle of least surprise, etc.

[cstrahan]

As a sibling comment points out, there's nothing in what you quoted that logically implies that blocking I/O is the only reason for a virtual thread to be suspended.

The best info I could find was this blog post:

https://blogs.oracle.com/javamagazine/post/going-inside-java...

"Virtual threads, however, are handled differently than platform threads. None of the existing schedulers for virtual threads uses time slices to preempt virtual threads."

The next handful of paragraphs are also interesting.