Develop Reference

Making sure a thread's "updates" is readable to other threads in Java

I got one main thread that will start up other threads. Those other threads will ask for jobs to be done, and the main thread will make jobs available for the other threads to see and do.
The job that must be done is to set indexes in the a huge boolean array to true. They are by default false, and the other threads can only set them to true, never false. The various jobs may involve setting the same indexes to true.
The main thread finds new jobs depending on two things.
The values in the huge boolean array.
Which jobs has already been done.
How do I make sure the main thread reads fresh values from the huge boolean array?
I can't have the update of the array be through a synchronized method, because that's pretty much all the other threads do, and as such I would only get a pretty much sequential performance.
Let's say the other threads update the huge boolean array by setting many of it's indexes to true through a non-synchronized function. How can I make sure the main thread reads the updates and make sure it's not just locally cached at the thread? Is there any ways to make it "push" the update? I'm guessing the main thread should just use a synchronized method to "get" the updates?

For the really complete answer to your question, you should open up a copy of the Java Language Spec, and search for "happens before".
When the JLS says that A "happens before" B, it means that in a valid implementation of the Java language, A is required to actually happen before B. The spec says things like:
If some thread updates a field, and then releases a lock (e.g.,
leaves a synchronized block), the update "happens before" the lock is
released,
If some thread releases a lock, and some other thread subsequently
acquires the same lock, the release "happens before" the acquisition.
If some thread acquires a lock, and then reads a field, the
acquisition "happens before" the read.
Since "happens before" is a transitive relationship, you can infer that if thread A updates some variables inside a synchronized block and then thread B examines the variables in a block that is synchronized on the same object, then thread B will see what thread A wrote.
Besides entering and leaving synchronized blocks, there are lots of other events (constructing objects, wait()ing/notify()ing objects, start()ing and join()ing threads, reading and writing volatile variables) that allow you to establish "happens before" relationships between threads.
It's not a quick solution to your problem, but the chapter is worth reading.
...the main thread will make jobs available for the other threads to see and do...
I can't have the update of the array be through a synchronized method, because that's pretty much all the other threads do, and ...
Sounds like you're saying that each worker thread can only do a trivial amount of work before it must wait for further instructions from the main() thread. If that's true, then most of the workers are going to be waiting most of the time. You'd probably get better performance if you just do all of the work in a single thread.
Assuming that your goal is to make the best use of available cycles a multi-processor machine, you will need to partition the work in some way that lets each worker thread go off and do a significant chunk of it before needing to synchronize with any other thread.

I'd use another design pattern. For instance, you could add to a Set the indexes of the boolean values as they're turned on, for instance, and then synchronize access to that. Then you can use wait/notify to wake up.

First of all, don't use boolean arrays in general, use BitSets. See this: boolean[] vs. BitSet: Which is more efficient?
In this case you need an atomic BitSet, so you can't use the java.util.BitSet, but here is one: AtomicBitSet implementation for java

You could instead model this as message passing rather than mutating shared state. In your description the workers never read the boolean array and only write the completion status. Have you considered using a pending job queue that workers consume from and a completion queue that the master reads? The job status fields can be efficiently maintained by the master thread without any shared state concerns. Depending on your needs, you can use either blocking or non-blocking queues.

difference between wait() and yield()

So far what I have understood about wait() and yield () methods is that yield() is called when the thread is not carrying out any task and lets the CPU execute some other thread. wait() is used when some thread is put on hold and usually used in the concept of synchronization. However, I fail to understand the difference in their functionality and i'm not sure if what I have understood is right or wrong. Can someone please explain the difference between them(apart from the package they are present in).

aren't they both doing the same task - waiting so that other threads can execute?
Not even close, because yield() does not wait for anything.
Every thread can be in one of a number of different states: Running means that the thread is actually running on a CPU, Runnable means that nothing is preventing the thread from running except, maybe the availability of a CPU for it to run on. All of the other states can be lumped into a category called blocked. A blocked thread is a thread that is waiting for something to happen before it can become runnable.
The operating system preempts running threads on a regular basis: Every so often (between 10 times per second and 100 times per second on most operating systems) the OS tags each running thread and says, "your turn is up, go to the back of the run queue' (i.e., change state from running to runnable). Then it lets whatever thread is at the head of the run queue use that CPU (i.e., become running again).
When your program calls Thread.yield(), it's saying to the operating system, "I still have work to do, but it might not be as important as the work that some other thread is doing. Please send me to the back of the run queue right now." If there is an available CPU for the thread to run on though, then it effectively will just keep running (i.e., the yield() call will immediately return).
When your program calls foobar.wait() on the other hand, it's saying to the operating system, "Block me until some other thread calls foobar.notify().
Yielding was first implemented on non-preemptive operating systems and, in non-preemptive threading libraries. On a computer with only one CPU, the only way that more than one thread ever got to run was when the threads explicitly yielded to one another.
Yielding also was useful for busy waiting. That's where a thread waits for something to happen by sitting in a tight loop, testing the same condition over and over again. If the condition depended on some other thread to do some work, the waiting thread would yield() each time around the loop in order to let the other thread do its work.
Now that we have preemption and multiprocessor systems and libraries that provide us with higher-level synchronization objects, there is basically no reason why an application programs would need to call yield() anymore.

wait is for waiting on a condition. This might not jump into the eye when looking at the method as it is entirely up to you to define what kind of condition it is. But the API tries to force you to use it correctly by requiring that you own the monitor of the object on which you are waiting, which is necessary for a correct condition check in a multi-threaded environment.
So a correct use of wait looks like:
synchronized(object) {
while( ! /* your defined condition */)
object.wait();
/* execute other critical actions if needed */
}
And it must be paired with another thread executing code like:
synchronized(object) {
/* make your defined condition true */)
object.notify();
}
In contrast Thread.yield() is just a hint that your thread might release the CPU at this point of time. It’s not specified whether it actually does anything and, regardless of whether the CPU has been released or not, it has no impact on the semantics in respect to the memory model. In other words, it does not create any relationship to other threads which would be required for accessing shared variables correctly.
For example the following loop accessing sharedVariable (which is not declared volatile) might run forever without ever noticing updates made by other threads:
while(sharedVariable != expectedValue) Thread.yield();
While Thread.yield might help other threads to run (they will run anyway on most systems), it does not enforce re-reading the value of sharedVariable from the shared memory. Thus, without other constructs enforcing memory visibility, e.g. decaring sharedVariable as volatile, this loop is broken.

The first difference is that yield() is a Thread method , wait() is at the origins Object method inheritid in thread as for all classes , that in the shape, in the background (using java doc)
wait()
Causes the current thread to wait until another thread invokes the notify() method or the notifyAll() method for this object. In other words, this method behaves exactly as if it simply performs the call wait(0).
yield()
A hint to the scheduler that the current thread is willing to yield its current use of a processor. The scheduler is free to ignore this hint.
and here you can see the difference between yield() and wait()

Yield(): When a running thread is stopped to give its space to another thread with a high priority, this is called Yield.Here the running thread changes to runnable thread.
Wait(): A thread is waiting to get resources from a thread to continue its execution.

Does empty synchronized(this){} have any meaning to memory visibility between threads?

I read this in an upvoted comment on StackOverflow:
But if you want to be safe, you can add simple synchronized(this) {}
at the end of you #PostConstruct [method]
[note that variables were NOT volatile]
I was thinking that happens-before is forced only if both write and read is executed in synchronized block or at least read is volatile.
Is the quoted sentence correct? Does an empty synchronized(this) {} block flush all variables changed in current method to "general visible" memory?
Please consider some scenerios
what if second thread never calls lock on this? (suppose that second thread reads in other methods). Remember that question is about: flush changes to other threads, not give other threads a way (synchronized) to poll changes made by original thread. Also no-synchronization in other methods is very likely in Spring #PostConstruct context - as original comment says.
is memory visibility of changes forced only in second and subsequent calls by another thread? (remember that this synchronized block is a last call in our method) - this would mark this way of synchronization as very bad practice (stale values in first call)

Much of what's written about this on SO, including many of the answers/comments in this thread, are, sadly, wrong.
The key rule in the Java Memory Model that applies here is: an unlock operation on a given monitor happens-before a subsequent lock operation on that same monitor. If only one thread ever acquires the lock, it has no meaning. If the VM can prove that the lock object is thread-confined, it can elide any fences it might otherwise emit.
The quote you highlight assumes that releasing a lock acts as a full fence. And sometimes that might be true, but you can't count on it. So your skeptical questions are well-founded.
See Java Concurrency in Practice, Ch 16 for more on the Java Memory Model.

All writes that occur prior to a monitor exit are visible to all threads after a monitor enter.
A synchronized(this){} can be turned into bytecode like
monitorenter
monitorexit
So if you have a bunch of writes prior to the synchronized(this){} they would have occurred before the monitorexit.
This brings us to the next point of my first sentence.
visible to all threads after a monitor enter
So now, in order for a thread to ensure the writes ocurred it must execute the same synchronization ie synchornized(this){}. This will issue at the very least a monitorenter and establish your happens before ordering.
So to answer your question
Does an empty synchronized(this) {} block flush all variables changed
in current method to "general visible" memory?
Yes, as long as you maintain the same synchronization when you want to read those non-volatile variables.
To address your other questions
what if second thread never calls lock on this? (suppose that second
thread reads in other methods). Remember that question is about: flush
changes to other threads, not give other threads a way (synchronized)
to poll changes made by original thread. Also no-synchronization in
other methods is very likely in Spring #PostConstruct context
Well in this case using synchronized(this) without any other context is relatively useless. There is no happens-before relationship and it's in theory just as useful as not including it.
is memory visibility of changes forced only in second and subsequent
calls by another thread? (remember that this synchronized block is a
last call in our method) - this would mark this way of synchronization
as very bad practice (stale values in first call)
Memory visibility is forced by the first thread calling synchronized(this), in that it will write directly to memory. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean each threads needs to read directly from memory. They can still read from their own processor caches. Having a thread call synchronized(this) ensures it pulls the value of the field(s) from memory and retrieve most up to date value.

Thread behaviour

From a Thread perspective, what is a block, wait and lock? Rather,is it necessary to have all these three in any operation? For example, in a producer-consumer pattern how this things are implemented.
Thanks in advance

A blocking operation is one that blocks the thread until the operation completes. Blocking a thread is the process of telling the thread scheduler (usually the operating system, although there are user-level thread libraries) not to run a thread until that thread is woken up. There are many kinds of blocking operations, and one example is file I/O. As with any other blocking operation, the method doesn't return until the relevant operation (in this case, file I/O) has completed.
A wait is a particular kind of blocking operation used for thread synchronization. Specifically, it says "please block the thread that called wait until some other thread wakes it up." In Java, wait is a method. The corresponding wake-up method is notify.
A lock is a higher-level abstraction that says "only allow a limited number of threads into this region of code." Most commonly, that limited number is 1, in which case a mutex (which I explain in plenty of detail in this SO answer) is the preferred locking primitive in a lower-level language like C. In Java, the most common locking primitive is called a monitor. There is a notion of owning an object's monitor (every object has a monitor), and waiting on a monitor, and waking up a thread that is waiting on a monitor. How do we accomplish this? You guessed it - we use the wait method to wait on a monitor, and notify to wake up one of the threads that is waiting on the monitor.
Now an answer that will probably sound a bit like Greek, given that you are just starting with concurrency: To implement the producer-consumer pattern, the most common strategy is to use two semaphores (plus a mutex to synchronize access to the buffer). A semaphore is usually implemented with a mutex, but is a higher-order construct because it allows counting some resource. So you keep one semaphore to count the number of items in the buffer, and one to count the number of empty spaces in the buffer. The producer waits on the empty space semaphore and adds items to the buffer whenever space becomes available, and the consumer waits on the items semaphore and consumes an item whenever an item becomes available.
Now I've defined what these things are, but I haven't really talked about how to use them. That, however, is worth several lectures in a college course, and is certainly too much for a StackOverflow answer. I'd recommend the concurrency lessons in the Java tutorials as a way to get started with threading. Also, look up college courses on the web. Many schools post notes publicly online, so with a little searching you can often find high-quality material.
EDIT: A description of the difference between wait and blocking I/O
Before you begin reading this, make sure you're familiar with what a thread is, and what a process is. I give an explanation in the first four paragraphs of this SO answer, and Wikipedia has a more detailed explanation (albeit with less historical context).
Each thread has one very important piece of information: an instruction pointer (there are other important pieces of information associated with each thread, but they aren't important now). The instruction pointer is a JVM-maintained pointer to the currently executing bytecode instruction. Every time you execute an instruction (each instruction is an abstract representation of a very simple operation, such as "call method foo on object x), the instruction pointer is moved forward to some "next instruction." To run your program, the JVM sets the instruction pointer to the beginning of main and keeps executing instructions and moving the instruction pointer forward until the program exits somehow.
A blocking operation stops the instruction pointer from moving forward until some event occurs to cause the instruction pointer to move forward again. Certainly the thread that initiated the blocking operation can't make this event happen, because that thread's instruction pointer isn't moving forward i.e. that thread is doing nothing.
Now, there are a lot of different kinds of blocking operations. One is blocking I/O. If you call System.out.println, for example, the println method doesn't return until the text is written out to the console. In this case, the instruction pointer stops somewhere inside System.out.println, and the operating system signals the thread to wake up whenever the console printing finishes. So the thread doesn't have to start its own instruction pointer moving again, but the method still returns just after the text is written to the console. So, at a very high level:
Thread 0 calls System.out.println("foo")
Thread 0's instruction pointer stops moving while the operating system writes "foo" to the console
When the operating system is done writing to the console, it notifies the JVM, and the JVM automatically starts moving thread 0's instruction pointer moving again. All of this happens without the programmer who writes System.out.println having to think about it.
Another completely separate kind of blocking operation is encapsulated in the Object.wait method. Whenever a thread calls Object.wait, that thread's instruction pointer stops moving, but instead of the operating system starting the movement of the instruction pointer again, another thread does the job. In this case, there is no external event that will cause the thread's instruction pointer to be restarted (as in the blocking I/O case), but there is an event internal to the program. As I said, another thread will start the instruction pointer moving again by calling Object.notify. So, at a very high level:
Thread 0 calls x.wait() on some object
Thread 0's instruction pointer stops moving
Thread 1 calls x.notify() on the same object x
Thread 0's instruction pointer starts moving again
Thread 0 and thread 1 are now executing concurrently
Notice that a lot more work has to go into writing wait/notify code correctly - the JVM and the operating system don't do all the work for you this time. They still actually do most of the work for you, but you actually have to think about calling wait and notify, and how they allow you to communicate between threads, implement locks, and more.
So there are two morals to this story. The first is that blocking I/O and wait are completely different beasts. In both cases, a thread is blocked, but in the blocking I/O case the thread is woken up automatically by the operating system, while in the wait case the thread has to rely on another thread calling notify in order to wake it up. The second is that concurrent programming is harder to reason about than serial programming. The toy examples I've put in this answer don't really do the second point justice.

No, you don't necessarily need a lock or a wait just because you're using threads. However, if you want the threads to exchange data, they are often useful.
Here's a good explanation with an example of the consumer producer model:
http://www.ase.md/~aursu/JavaThreadsSynchronization.html
Cheers!

Block : Prevent the Executing.
Wait : Suspends the current thread.
Lock : When you lock it others can't Use it.
Consider online purchase when a customer buys a Movie Ticket
As soon as he chooses the seat. Others won't be able to get those seat at the same time(Locking those seats).

What happens to a Thread that fails to acquire a lock?

What happens to a Thread that fails to acquire a lock (non-spin)? It goes to the BLOCKED state. How does it gets executed again?
Lock lck = new ReentrantLock();
lck.lock()
try
{
}
finally
{
lck.unlock();
}

The scheduler (or the underlying Lock implementation) is responsible for getting it running again. If the lock action was translated into a mutex call all the way into the kernel, the scheduler will not reschedule the thread until the mutex becomes available; then the OS scheduler will re-awaken the thread. Reading the wikipedia page on Context Switch and links from there might provide more insight into the detailed mechanisms involved. You can also look directly at the code for ReentrantLock though that will eventually boil your question down to some combination of primitives including AbstractedQueuedSynchronizer, various atomic operations, and maybe LockSupport.park() and unpark(). You might augment your question or ask a new one if you're specifically interested in kernel-level blocking/context switches or specifically how various Java primitives (e.g., j.u.c.Lock or primitive object monitors) are implemented atop the kernel.
In practice, because this is costly, this may be optimized away by the JVM or lock implementation. For instance, the thread may actually spin for a bit to see if the lock is freed before actually blocking.
Note that a Java thread may report the state BLOCKED even if the underlying OS thread is not blocked, specifically in the adaptive spinning cases described in the performance whitepaper below.
There are some great resources out there to learn about concurrency control in Java. Leading the pantheon is Java Concurrency in Practice. Some interesting discussion of synchronization performance in HotSpot 6.0 in the Java SE 6 Performance Whitepaper and some related slides.

Lock acquisition never fails. Think of it as having not yet succeeded.
Sure, there are some cases where it will never succeed, but there's no transition event where the thread is notified of a failure… it just keeps waiting.

The thread holding the lock unlocks the lock and then the (or "a") blocked thread is woken up. If the thread holding the lock never releases the lock (perhaps because it's blocked on another resource) then you get deadlock. A non-spinning lock will typically use the wait()/notify() primitives or something similar such that the thread is notified when the lock again becomes available.