A Lock Contention Classifier Based on Java Lock Contention Anti-Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locks are essential in multi-threaded applications as they provide a solution to synchronization of shared resources. However, improper management of locks and threads can lead to contention and surface as run-time performance degradation in the application. Nowadays, performance engineers use legacy tools and their experience to determine causes of lock contention but it takes significant expertise to use these tools. In this paper, a data clustering approach is presented to help identify lock contention faults. The classifier is trained leveraging run-time performance data acquired from a catalog of lock contention Java anti-patterns and code smells. The K-means unsupervised classifier algorithm was used to create the classification model and the results show that lock contentions can be classified into three clusters that can be identified into those caused by a) threads spending too much time inside the critical section, b) threads blocked because of high frequency access requests, and c) threads with a low contention. This classifier is intended to be used to help tailor recommendations to the developer based on the lock contention anti-patterns and type of lock contention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".