synchronized与lock，哪个效率更高

Java在一开始就提供了synchronized关键字，用于多线程之间的同步。它使用简便，不会出现拿锁之后不归还的情况，可以避免一些编程错误。

而jdk5时提供的concurrent包里，有一个Lock接口以及它的实现类：ReentrantLock。这个类提供了更灵活的控制以及更强大的功能。

如果单从性能方面考虑，两个哪个更高效呢？

 

首先是单线程的加锁情况，见以下代码：

import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock; 
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;

public class SynLockTest {

    public static void main(String[] args) { 
        long value = 0; 
        int MAX = 10000000; 
        Lock lock = new ReentrantLock(); 
        long start = System.nanoTime(); 
        for (int i = 0; i < MAX; i++) { 
            synchronized (new Object()) { 
                value = value + 1; 
            } 
        } 
        long end = System.nanoTime(); 
        System.out.println("synchronized cost: " + (end – start)/1000000 + "ms");

        start = System.nanoTime(); 
        for (int i = 0; i < MAX; i++) { 
            lock.lock(); 
            try { 
                value = value + 1; 
            } finally { 
                lock.unlock(); 
            } 
        } 
        end = System.nanoTime(); 
        System.out.println("lock cost: " + (end – start) + "ns"); 
    } 
}

结果如下：

synchronized cost: 405ms 
lock cost: 479ms

可见Lock的运行时间比synchronized略大。可以推测java编译器为synchronized做了特别优化。

再考虑多线程情况：

public class SynLockTest {

    static class SynRunner implements Runnable { 
        private long v = 0;

        @Override 
        public synchronized void run() { 
            v = v + 1; 
        } 
    }

    static class LockRunner implements Runnable { 
        private ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock(); 
        private long v = 0;

        @Override 
        public void run() { 
            lock.lock(); 
            try { 
                v = v + 1; 
            } finally { 
                lock.unlock(); 
            } 
        }

    }

    static class Tester { 
        private AtomicLong runCount = new AtomicLong(0); 
        private AtomicLong start = new AtomicLong(); 
        private AtomicLong end = new AtomicLong();

        public Tester(final Runnable runner, int threadCount) { 
            final ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threadCount); 
            Runnable task = new Runnable() { 
                @Override 
                public void run() { 
                    while (true) { 
                        runner.run(); 
                        long count = runCount.incrementAndGet(); 
                        if (count == 1) { 
                            start.set(System.nanoTime()); 
                        } else if (count >= 10000000) { 
                            if (count == 10000000) { 
                                end.set(System.nanoTime()); 
                                System.out.println(runner.getClass().getSimpleName() + ", cost: " 
                                        + (end.longValue() – start.longValue())/1000000 + "ms");                            } 
                                pool.shutdown(); 
                            return; 
                        } 
                    } 
                } 
            }; 
            for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++) { 
                pool.submit(task); 
            } 
        } 
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) { 
        new Tester(new SynRunner(), 1); 
        new Tester(new LockRunner(), 1); 
    }

}

现在测试不同线程下的表现（时间单位ms）：

	1	10	50	100	500	1000	5000
synchronized	542	4894	4667	4700	5151	5156	5178
lock	838	1211	821	847	851	1211	1241

可以看到，在多线程环境并存在大量竞争的情况下，synchronized的用时迅速上升，而lock却依然保存不变或增加很少。

 

Lock是用CAS来实现的
JDK 1.6以上synchronized也改用CAS来实现了，所以两者性能差不多
Lock提供的功能丰富点，synchronized的使用简单点