I want to know if the following (contrived) example is thread safe:
public class SpringSingleton
{
private MyObject _myObject = new MyObject("hello");
public void useObject()
{
_myObject.doSomethingCool();
}
public void changeObject()
{
_myObject = new MyObject("goodbye");
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// Have multiple threads, some using and some changing the object
}
}
My main question is: what will happen when one thread tries to call useObject() at the same time another thread tries to call changeObject()?
Assigning a reference is an atomic operation. You can never see a half-assigned reference. So the thread calling the doSomethingCool() method will either call it on the old reference, or on the new one.
But that doesn't make the code thread-safe. You can also have visibility problems: the thread reading the reference might see an old one even though the thread has already written a new reference. To solve that problem, you need to make the field volatile, or to wrap it into an AtomicReference, or to synchronize all accesses to the field.
Also note that if you ever change the code to
_myObject.doSomethingCool();
_myObject.doSomethingElse();
then you'll have another problem: the first call might be done on the old object, and the second on the new one. If coherence is necessary between these two calls, then those two calls, as well as every other interaction with _myObject, should be wrapped into a synchronized block (using the same lock).
If one thread tries to call useObject() at the same time another thread tries to call changeObject(), then the behavior is non-deterministic, the thread calling useObject() might see the old or the new value.
Whether or not it is "safe" depends on what behavior you desire.
It might not matter to your code which value it sees, in a short period of time.
Related
Here is a question that has been asked many times, I have double-checked numerous issues that have been raised formerly but none gave me an answer element so I thought I would put it here.
The question is about making my code thread-safe in java knowing that there is only one shared variable but it can change anytime and actually I have the feeling that the code I am optimizing has not been thought for a multi-threading environment, so I might have to think it over...
Basically, I have one class which can be shared between, say, 5 threads. This class has a private property 'myProperty' which can take 5 different values (one for each thread). The problem is that, once it's instantiated by the constructor, that value should not be changed anymore for the rest of the thread's life.
I am pretty well aware of some techniques used to turn most of pieces of code "thead-safe" including locks, the "synchronized" keyword, volatile variables and atomic types but I have the feeling that these won't help in the current situation as they do not prevent the variable from being modified.
Here is the code :
// The thread that calls for the class containing the shared variable //
public class myThread implements Runnable {
#Autowired
private Shared myProperty;
//some code
}
// The class containing the shared variable //
public class Shared {
private String operator;
private Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
public void inititiate(){
this.lock.lock()
try{
this.operator.initiate() // Gets a different value depending on the calling thread
} finally {
this.lock.unlock();
}
}
// some code
}
As it happens, the above code only guarantees that two threads won't change the variable at the same time, but the latter will still change. A "naive" workaround would consist in creating a table (operatorList) for instance (or a list, a map, etc. ) associating an operator with its calling thread's ID, this way each thread would just have to access its operator using its id in the table but doing this would make us change all the thread classes which access the shared variable and there are many. Any idea as to how I could store the different operator string values in an exclusive manner for each calling thread with minimal changes (without using magic) ?
I'm not 100% sure I understood your question correctly, but I'll give it a shot anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong.
A "naive" workaround would consist in creating a table (operatorList)
for instance (or a list, a map, etc. ) associating an operator with
its calling thread's ID, this way each thread would just have to
access its operator using its id in the table but doing this would
make us change all the thread classes which access the shared variable
and there are many.
There's already something similar in Java - the ThreadLocal class?
You can create a thread-local copy of any object:
private static final ThreadLocal<MyObject> operator =
new ThreadLocal<MyObject>() {
#Override
protected MyObject initialValue() {
// return thread-local copy of the "MyObject"
}
};
Later in your code, when a specific thread needs to get its own local copy, all it needs to do is: operator.get(). In reality, the implementation of ThreadLocal is similar to what you've described - a Map of ThreadLocal values for each Thread. Only the Map is not static, and is actually tied to the specific thread. This way, when a thread dies, it takes its ThreadLocal variables with it.
I'm not sure if I totally understand the situation, but if you want to ensure that each thread uses a thread-specific instance for a variable, the solution is use a variable of type ThreadLocal<T>.
I have a situation and I need some advice about synchronized block in Java. I have a Class Test below:
Class Test{
private A a;
public void doSomething1(String input){
synchronized (a) {
result = a.process(input);
}
}
public void doSomething2(String input){
synchronized (a) {
result = a.process(input);
}
}
public void doSomething3(String input){
result = a.process(input);
}
}
What I want is when multi threads call methods doSomeThing1() or doSomeThing2(), object "a" will be used and shared among multi threads (it have to be) and it only processes one input at a time (waiting until others thread set object "a" free) and when doSomeThing3 is called, the input is processed immediately.
My question is will the method doSomeThing3() be impacted my method doSomeThing1() and doSomeThing2()? Will it have to wait if doSomeThing1() and doSomeThing2() are using object "a"?
A method is never impacted by anything that your threads do. What gets impacted is data, and the answer to your question depends entirely on what data are updated (if any) inside the a.process() call.
You asked "Variable reference or memory is blocked?"
First of all, "variable" and "memory" are the same thing. Variables, and fields and objects are all higher level abstractions that are built on top of the lower-level idea of "memory".
Second of all, No. Locking an object does not prevent other threads from accessing or modifying the object or, from accessing or modifying anything else.
Locking an object does two things: It prevents other threads from locking the same object at the same time, and it makes certain guarantees about the visibility of memory updates. The simple explanation is, if thread X updates some variables and then releases a lock, thread Y will be guaranteed to see the updates only after it has acquired the same lock.
What that means for your example is, if thread X calls doSomething1() and modifies the object a; and then thread Y later calls doSomething3(), thread Y is not guaranteed to see the the updates. It might see the a object in its original state, it might see it in the fully updated state, or it might see it in some invalid half-way state. The reason why is because, even though thread X locked the object, modified it, and then released the lock; thread Y never locked the same object.
In your code, doSomething3() can proceed in parallel with doSomething1() or doSomething2(), so in that sense it does what you want. However, depending on exactly what a.process() does, this may cause a race condition and corrupt data. Note that even if doSomething3() is called, any calls to doSomething1() or doSomething2() that have started will continue; they won't be put in abeyance while doSomething3() is processed.
I am recently reading the book "Java Concurrency in Practice". One example of "safe publish" it gives is to initialize a private int field n during construction, and a later assertion on that field n == "expect value" through a public method could still be failed if it is called from another thread. This makes me feel worried in that, assuming all private fields are initialized only once, do we still have to mark them as volatile or wrap them into ThreadLocal or even use an AtomicReference to get a pure thread safe java class, since these private fields, though not visible outside, definitely could be referenced by the method(s) called by other threads.
EDIT: Just to be clear - the assertion is failed because the calling thread sees a stale value of n, even though it has been set during construction. This is a clearly a memory-visibility issue. Problem is whether synchronizing on n is worthy of the overhead after all, since it is only initialized once, and as a private field, author can make sure it won't be changed again.
This specific case is properly documented in the JSR 133: Java Memory Model and Thread
Specification. It even has a dedicated code sample page 14 section 3.5 Final Fields that exactly match your question.
To summarize:
A thread that can only see a reference to an object after that object has been completely initialized is guaranteed to see the correctly initialized values for that object’s final fields.
There is no guarantee for non final fields
It means that you have to make sure that an happens-before occurs between your object creation in a thread and its usage in another thread. You can use synchronized, volatile or any other mean to enforce an happens-before.
Since you say in another comment that the field is only set during construction, I would make it... final. Also, such shared objects between threads could suggest some design smell; I would review my design to make sure that I am not creating an overly complex, tightly coupled, hard to debug system.
If the fields are never used outside the class, wrapping their usages with synchronized blocks or inside synchronized functions, two threads won't concurrently modify these fields.
volatile keyword is just a part of thread safety. It only makes the value of a field never be cached, always read from memory. Take this example.
private int myPrivateField = 0;
void someFunction() {
while(myPrivateField ==0) {
}
}
void otherFunction() {
myPrivateField = 1;
}
If someFunction() is called from one thread and it's running for a while,
when you call otherFunction() the value of myPrivateField will not be
"updated" inside someFunction, it was cached to 0 as an otimization.
Making myPrivateField as volatile, the value will always be the one
in memory.
For the example, there won't be much difference for the functions be
synchronized, but without synchronization, you can read a value in an
inconsistent state.
Only final fields are guaranteed to be visible after constructor. Any other field requires some visibility mechanism, such as synchronized or volatile.
This is not as much of a burden as it seems: if the field is not final, then it can be changed by another thread while you're reading it. If teh field can be changed, then the last assigned value must be propagated from the writer thread to the reader thread, whether the writer thread called the constructor or a setter.
If the change in this field is not related to any other field in the class, then the field should be volatile. If the field is related to other fields in the class, then use synchronized or other, more modern locking primitives.
Not answering the entire question, but it should be pointed out that using ThreadLocal is exactly the wrong thing to use if you want to ensure visibility of updated values in all threads. Consider the following code:
class Test {
private static final ThreadLocal<Integer> value = new ThreadLocal<>();
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
System.out.println("From main Thread, value is " + value.get());
value.set(42);
System.out.println("Value has been changed");
Thread t = new Thread() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("From other Thread, value is " + value.get());
}
};
t.start();
t.join();
System.out.println("From main Thread, value is " + value.get());
}
}
This will output the following:
From main Thread, value is null
Value has been changed
From other Thread, value is null
From main Thread, value is 42
i.e. the other thread doesn't see the updated value. This is because changes to the value of a ThreadLocal is, by definition, localized to the thread which changes it.
My personal preference would be to use AtomicReference, since this avoids the risk of forgetting to synchronize externally; it also allows things like atomic compare-and-set, which you don't get with a volatile variable. However, this may not be a requirement for your particular application.
I would like to create a worker thread that should be shared within other sessions. Basically I want to restrict other users from doing the same process. So They will retrieve the thread via a static Instance of object thread that I created. If the thread is still alive, then they will be prompted with error.
Is there a other way to do this because I am thinking if placing a Thread object within a static is safe? I am also thinking of application context but I am not sure which is better way to do this in java?
Placing any object in a static or in any kind of shared location is not intrinsically unsafe but you need to take care with the design.
declare
static Thing t;
initialise
if ( t == null ) {
t = new Thing();
}
use
t.dosomething();
Now what happens if two threads hit the initialise block at the same time? You can get two Things created. Probably don't want that, so use synchronisation.
synchronized void intialise() {
if ( t == null ) {
t = new Thing();
}
}
what happens if two threads attempt to use the t at the same time. This depends on the promises made by Thing. If it's thread-safe no problem, otherwise your code needs to provide synchronisation
synchronized void doSomthing() {
t.doSomething();
}
I would use a lock for the static field you set so you avoid the possibility that two tasks start the process. You can store the Thread so you know when it is finished or an AtomicBoolean to flag when it is running. (Which you can also lock on)
You can have a atomic boolean to flag the status of your worker thread and return the thread only if it false.
you would need to set it to true when the worker thread is starts.
I have class with 2 synchronized methods:
class Service {
public synchronized void calc1();
public synchronized void calc2();
}
Both takes considerable time to execute. The question is would execution of these methods blocks each other. I.e. can both methods be executed in parallel in different threads?
No they can't be executed in parallel on the same service - both methods share the same monitor (i.e. this), and so if thread A is executing calc1, thread B won't be able to obtain the monitor and so won't be able to run calc2. (Note that thread B could call either method on a different instance of Service though, as it will be trying to acquire a different, unheld monitor, since the this in question would be different.)
The simplest solution (assuming you want them to run independently) would be to do something like the following using explicit monitors:
class Service {
private final Object calc1Lock = new Object();
private final Object calc2Lock = new Object();
public void calc1() {
synchronized(calc1Lock) {
// ... method body
}
}
public void calc2() {
synchronized(calc2Lock) {
// ... method body
}
}
}
The "locks" in question don't need to have any special abilities other than being Objects, and thus having a specific monitor. If you have more complex requirements that might involve trying to lock and falling back immediately, or querying who holds a lock, you can use the actual Lock objects, but for the basic case these simple Object locks are fine.
Yes, you can execute them in two different threads without messing up your class internals but no they won't run in parallel - only one of them will be executed at each time.
No, they cannot be. In this case you might use a synchronized block instead of synchronizing the whole method. Don't forget to synchronize on different objects.