Develop Reference

how synchronized keyword works internally

I read the below program and answer in a blog.
int x = 0;
boolean bExit = false;
Thread 1 (not synchronized)
x = 1;
bExit = true;
Thread 2 (not synchronized)
if (bExit == true)
System.out.println("x=" + x);
is it possible for Thread 2 to print “x=0”?
Ans : Yes ( reason : Every thread has their own copy of variables. )
how do you fix it?
Ans: By using make both threads synchronized on a common mutex or make both variable volatile.
My doubt is : If we are making the 2 variable as volatile then the 2 threads will share the variables from the main memory. This make a sense, but in case of synchronization how it will be resolved as both the thread have their own copy of variables.
Please help me.

This is actually more complicated than it seems. There are several arcane things at work.
Caching
Saying "Every thread has their own copy of variables" is not exactly correct. Every thread may have their own copy of variables, and they may or may not flush these variables into the shared memory and/or read them from there, so the whole thing is non-deterministic. Moreover, the very term flushing is really implementation-dependent. There are strict terms such as memory consistency, happens-before order, and synchronization order.
Reordering
This one is even more arcane. This
x = 1;
bExit = true;
does not even guarantee that Thread 1 will first write 1 to x and then true to bExit. In fact, it does not even guarantee that any of these will happen at all. The compiler may optimize away some values if they are not used later. The compiler and CPU are also allowed to reorder instructions any way they want, provided that the outcome is indistinguishable from what would happen if everything was really in program order. That is, indistinguishable for the current thread! Nobody cares about other threads until...
Synchronization comes in
Synchronization does not only mean exclusive access to resources. It is also not just about preventing threads from interfering with each other. It's also about memory barriers. It can be roughly described as each synchronization block having invisible instructions at the entry and exit, the first one saying "read everything from the shared memory to be as up-to-date as possible" and the last one saying "now flush whatever you've been doing there to the shared memory". I say "roughly" because, again, the whole thing is an implementation detail. Memory barriers also restrict reordering: actions may still be reordered, but the results that appear in the shared memory after exiting the synchronized block must be identical to what would happen if everything was indeed in program order.
All that only works, of course, only if both blocks use the same locking object.
The whole thing is described in details in Chapter 17 of the JLS. In particular, what's important is the so-called "happens-before order". If you ever see in the documentation that "this happens-before that", it means that everything the first thread does before "this" will be visible to whoever does "that". This may even not require any locking. Concurrent collections are a good example: one thread puts there something, another one reads that, and that magically guarantees that the second thread will see everything the first thread did before putting that object into the collection, even if those actions had nothing to do with the collection itself!
Volatile variables
One last warning: you better give up on the idea that making variables volatile will solve things. In this case maybe making bExit volatile will suffice, but there are so many troubles that using volatiles can lead to that I'm not even willing to go into that. But one thing is for sure: using synchronized has much stronger effect than using volatile, and that goes for memory effects too. What's worse, volatile semantics changed in some Java version so there may exist some versions that still use the old semantics which was even more obscure and confusing, whereas synchronized always worked well provided you understand what it is and how to use it.
Pretty much the only reason to use volatile is performance because synchronized may cause lock contention and other troubles. Read Java Concurrency in Practice to figure all that out.
Q & A
1) You wrote "now flush whatever you've been doing there to the shared
memory" about synchronized blocks. But we will see only the variables
that we access in the synchronize block or all the changes that the
thread call synchronize made (even on the variables not accessed in the
synchronized block)?
Short answer: it will "flush" all variables that were updated during the synchronized block or before entering the synchronized block. And again, because flushing is an implementation detail, you don't even know whether it will actually flush something or do something entirely different (or doesn't do anything at all because the implementation and the specific situation already somehow guarantee that it will work).
Variables that wasn't accessed inside the synchronized block obviously won't change during the execution of the block. However, if you change some of those variables before entering the synchronized block, for example, then you have a happens-before relationship between those changes and whatever happens in the synchronized block (the first bullet in 17.4.5). If some other thread enters another synchronized block using the same lock object then it synchronizes-with the first thread exiting the synchronized block, which means that you have another happens-before relationship here. So in this case the second thread will see the variables that the first thread updated prior to entering the synchronized block.
If the second thread tries to read those variables without synchronizing on the same lock, then it is not guaranteed to see the updates. But then again, it isn't guaranteed to see the updates made inside the synchronized block as well. But this is because of the lack of the memory-read barrier in the second thread, not because the first one didn't "flush" its variables (memory-write barrier).
2) In this chapter you post (of JLS) it is written that: "A write to a
volatile field (§8.3.1.4) happens-before every subsequent read of that
field." Doesn't this mean that when the variable is volatile you will
see only changes of it (because it is written write happens-before
read, not happens-before every operation between them!). I mean
doesn't this mean that in the example, given in the description of the
problem, we can see bExit = true, but x = 0 in the second thread if
only bExit is volatile? I ask, because I find this question here: http://java67.blogspot.bg/2012/09/top-10-tricky-java-interview-questions-answers.html
and it is written that if bExit is volatile the program is OK. So the
registers will flush only bExits value only or bExits and x values?
By the same reasoning as in Q1, if you do bExit = true after x = 1, then there is an in-thread happens-before relationship because of the program order. Now since volatile writes happen-before volatile reads, it is guaranteed that the second thread will see whatever the first thread updated prior to writing true to bExit. Note that this behavior is only since Java 1.5 or so, so older or buggy implementations may or may not support this. I have seen bits in the standard Oracle implementation that use this feature (java.concurrent collections), so you can at least assume that it works there.
3) Why monitor matters when using synchronized blocks about memory
visibility? I mean when try to exit synchronized block aren't all
variables (which we accessed in this block or all variables in the
thread - this is related to the first question) flushed from registers
to main memory or broadcasted to all CPU caches? Why object of
synchronization matters? I just cannot imagine what are relations and
how they are made (between object of synchronization and memory).
I know that we should use the same monitor to see this changes, but I
don't understand how memory that should be visible is mapped to
objects. Sorry, for the long questions, but these are really
interesting questions for me and it is related to the question (I
would post questions exactly for this primer).
Ha, this one is really interesting. I don't know. Probably it flushes anyway, but Java specification is written with high abstraction in mind, so maybe it allows for some really weird hardware where partial flushes or other kinds of memory barriers are possible. Suppose you have a two-CPU machine with 2 cores on each CPU. Each CPU has some local cache for every core and also a common cache. A really smart VM may want to schedule two threads on one CPU and two threads on another one. Each pair of the threads uses its own monitor, and VM detects that variables modified by these two threads are not used in any other threads, so it only flushes them as far as the CPU-local cache.
See also this question about the same issue.
4) I thought that everything before writing a volatile will be up to
date when we read it (moreover when we use volatile a read that in
Java it is memory barrier), but the documentation don't say this.
It does:
17.4.5.
If x and y are actions of the same thread and x comes before y in program order, then hb(x, y).
If hb(x, y) and hb(y, z), then hb(x, z).
A write to a volatile field (§8.3.1.4) happens-before every subsequent
read of that field.
If x = 1 comes before bExit = true in program order, then we have happens-before between them. If some other thread reads bExit after that, then we have happens-before between write and read. And because of the transitivity, we also have happens-before between x = 1 and read of bExit by the second thread.
5) Also, if we have volatile Person p does we have some dependency
when we use p.age = 20 and print(p.age) or have we memory barrier in
this case(assume age is not volatile) ? - I think - No
You are correct. Since age is not volatile, then there is no memory barrier, and that's one of the trickiest things. Here is a fragment from CopyOnWriteArrayList, for example:
Object[] elements = getArray();
E oldValue = get(elements, index);
if (oldValue != element) {
int len = elements.length;
Object[] newElements = Arrays.copyOf(elements, len);
newElements[index] = element;
setArray(newElements);
} else {
// Not quite a no-op; ensures volatile write semantics
setArray(elements);
Here, getArray and setArray are trivial setter and getter for the array field. But since the code changes elements of the array, it is necessary to write the reference to the array back to where it came from in order for the changes to the elements of the array to become visible. Note that it is done even if the element being replaced is the same element that was there in the first place! It is precisely because some fields of that element may have changed by the calling thread, and it's necessary to propagate these changes to future readers.
6) And is there any happens before 2 subsequent reads of volatile
field? I mean does the second read will see all changes from thread
which reads this field before it(of course we will have changes only
if volatile influence visibility of all changes before it - which I am
a little confused whether it is true or not)?
No, there is no relationship between volatile reads. Of course, if one thread performs a volatile write and then two other thread perform volatile reads, they are guaranteed to see everything at least up to date as it was before the volatile write, but there is no guarantee of whether one thread will see more up-to-date values than the other. Moreover, there is not even strict definition of one volatile read happening before another! It is wrong to think of everything happening on a single global timeline. It is more like parallel universes with independent timelines that sometimes sync their clocks by performing synchronization and exchanging data with memory barriers.

It depends on the implementation which decides if threads will keep a copy of the variables in their own memory. In case of class level variables threads have a shared access and in case of local variables threads will keep a copy of it. I will provide two examples which shows this fact , please have a look at it.
And in your example if I understood it correctly your code should look something like this--
package com.practice.multithreading;
public class LocalStaticVariableInThread {
static int x=0;
static boolean bExit = false;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t1=new Thread(run1);
Thread t2=new Thread(run2);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
static Runnable run1=()->{
x = 1;
bExit = true;
};
static Runnable run2=()->{
if (bExit == true)
System.out.println("x=" + x);
};
}
Output
x=1
I am getting this output always. It is because the threads share the variable and the when it is changed by one thread other thread can see it. But in real life scenarios we can never say which thread will start first, since here the threads are not doing anything we can see the expected result.
Now take this example--
Here if you make the i variable inside the for-loop` as static variable then threads won t keep a copy of it and you won t see desired outputs, i.e. the count value will not be 2000 every time even if u have synchronized the count increment.
package com.practice.multithreading;
public class RaceCondition2Fixed {
private int count;
int i;
/*making it synchronized forces the thread to acquire an intrinsic lock on the method, and another thread
cannot access it until this lock is released after the method is completed. */
public synchronized void increment() {
count++;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
RaceCondition2Fixed rc= new RaceCondition2Fixed();
rc.doWork();
}
private void doWork() {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for ( i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
increment();
}
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for ( i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
increment();
}
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
/*if we don t use join then count will be 0. Because when we call t1.start() and t2.start()
the threads will start updating count in the spearate threads, meanwhile the main thread will
print the value as 0. So. we need to wait for the threads to complete. */
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" Count is : "+count);
}
}

How synchronized Block In Java works? Variable reference or memory is blocked?

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.

How atomicity is achieved in the classes defined in java.util.concurrent.atomic package?

I was going through the source code of java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger to find out how atomicity is achieved by the atomic operations provided by the class. For instance AtomicInteger.getAndIncrement() method source is as follows
public final int getAndIncrement() {
for (;;) {
int current = get();
int next = current + 1;
if (compareAndSet(current, next))
return current;
}
}
I am not able to understand the purpose of writing the sequence of operations inside a infinite for loop. Does it serve any special purpose in Java Memory Model (JMM). Please help me find a descriptive understanding. Thanks in advance.

I am not able to understand the purpose of writing the sequence of operations inside a infinite for loop.
The purpose of this code is to ensure that the volatile field gets updated appropriately without the overhead of a synchronized lock. Unless there are a large number of threads all competing to update this same field, this will most likely spin a very few times to accomplish this.
The volatile keyword provides visibility and memory synchronization guarantees but does not in itself ensure atomic operations with multiple operations (test and set). If you are testing and then setting a volatile field there are race-conditions if multiple threads are trying to perform the same operation at the same time. In this case, if multiple threads are trying to increment the AtomicInteger at the same time, you might miss one of the increments. The concurrent code here uses the spin loop and the compareAndSet underlying methods to make sure that the volatile int is only updated to 4 (for example) if it still is equal to 3.
t1 gets the atomic-int and it is 0.
t2 gets the atomic-int and it is 0.
t1 adds 1 to it
t1 atomically tests to make sure it is 0, it is, and stores 1.
t2 adds 1 to it
t2 atomically tests to make sure it is 0, it is not, so it has to spin and try again.
t2 gets the atomic-int and it is 1.
t2 adds 1 to it
t2 atomically tests to make sure it is 1, it is, and stores 2.
Does it serve any special purpose in Java Memory Model (JMM).
No, it serves the purpose of the class and method definitions and uses the JMM and the language definitions around volatile to achieve its purpose. The JMM defines what the language does with the synchronized, volatile, and other keywords and how multiple threads interact with cached and central memory. This is mostly about native code interactions with operating system and hardware and is rarely, if ever, about Java code.
It is the compareAndSet(...) method which gets closer to the JMM by calling into the Unsafe class which is mostly native methods with some wrappers:
public final boolean compareAndSet(int expect, int update) {
return unsafe.compareAndSwapInt(this, valueOffset, expect, update);
}

I am not able to understand the purpose of writing the sequence of
operations inside a infinite for loop.
To understand why it is in an infinite loop I find it helpful to understand what the compareAndSet does and how it may return false.
Atomically sets the value to the given updated value if the current
value == the expected value.
Parameters:
expect - the expected value
update - the new value
Returns:
true if successful. False return indicates that the actual value was not
equal to the expected value
So you read the Returns message and ask how is that possible?
If two threads are invoking incrementAndGet at close to the same time, and they both enter and see the value current == 1. Both threads will create a thread-local next == 2 and try to set via compareAndSet. Only one thread will win as per documented and the thread that loses must try again.
This is how CAS works. You attempt to change the value if you fail, try again, if you succeed then continue on.
Now simply declaring the field as volatile will not work because incrementing is not atomic. So something like this is not safe from the scenario I explained
volatile int count = 0;
public int incrementAndGet(){
return ++count; //may return the same number more than once.
}

Java's compareAndSet is based on CPU compare-and-swap (CAS) instructions see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compare-and-swap. It compares the contents of a memory location to a given value and, only if they are the same, modifies the contents of that memory location to a given new value.
In case of incrementAndGet we read the current value and call compareAndSet(current, current + 1). If it returns false it means that another thread interfered and changed the current value, which means that our attempt failed and we need to repeat the whole cycle until it succeeds.

Hashtable: why is get method synchronized?

I known a Hashtable is synchronized, but why its get() method is synchronized?
Is it only a read method?

If the read was not synchronized, then the Hashtable could be modified during the execution of read. New elements could be added, the underlying array could become too small and could be replaced by a bigger one, etc. Without sequential execution, it is difficult to deal with these situations.
However, even if get would not crash when the Hashtable is modified by another thread, there is another important aspect of the synchronized keyword, namely cache synchronization. Let's use a simplified example:
class Flag {
bool value;
bool get() { return value; } // WARNING: not synchronized
synchronized void set(bool value) { this->value = value; }
}
set is synchronized, but get isn't. What happens if two threads A and B simultaneously read and write to this class?
1. A calls read
2. B calls set
3. A calls read
Is it guaranteed at step 3 that A sees the modification of thread B?
No, it isn't, as A could be running on a different core, which uses a separate cache where the old value is still present. Thus, we have to force B to communicate the memory to other core, and force A to fetch the new data.
How can we enforce it? Everytime, a thread enters and leaves a synchronized block, an implicit memory barrier is executed. A memory barrier forces the cache to be updated. However, it is required that both the writer and the reader have to execute the memory barrier. Otherwise, the information is not properly communicated.
In our example, thread B already uses the synchronized method set, so its data modification is communicated at the end of the method. However, A does not see the modified data. The solution is to make get synchronized, so it is forced to get the updated data.

Have a look in Hashtable source code and you can think of lots of race conditions that can cause problem in a unsynchronized get() .
(I am reading JDK6 source code)
For example, a rehash() will create a empty array, and assign it to the instance var table, and put the entries from old table to the new one. Therefore if your get occurs after the empty array assignment, but before actually putting entries in it, you cannot find your key even it is in the table.
Another example is, there is a loop iterate thru the linked list at the table index, if in middle in your iteration, rehash happens. You may also failed to find the entry even it exists in the hashtable.

Hashtable is synchronized meaning the whole class is thread-safe
Inside the Hashtable, not only get() method is synchronized but also many other methods are. And particularly put() method is synchronized like Tom said.
A read method must be synchronized as a write method because it will make sure the visibility and the consistency of the variable.

Java: How exactly do synchronized operations relate to volatility?

Sorry this is such a long question.
Ive been doing lots of research lately into multi-threading as I slowly implement it into a personal project. However, probably due to an abundance of slightly incorrect examples, the use of synchronized blocks and volatility in certain situations is still a bit unclear to me.
My core question is this: Are changes to references and primitives automatically volatile (that is, performed on the main memory and not a cache) when a thread is inside a synchronized block, or does the read also have to be synchronized for it to work properly?
If so What is the purpose of synchronizing a simple getter method? (see example 1 ) Also, are ALL changes sent to main memory as long as the thread has synchronized on anything? eg if it is sent off to do loads of work all over the place inside a very high level sync will every single change then made be to main memory, and nothing ever to cache, until its unlocked again?
If not Does the change have to be explicitly inside a synchronized block, or can java actually pick up on, for example, uses of the Lock object? (see example 3)
If either Does the synchronized object need to be related to the reference/primitive being changed in any way (eg the immediate object that contains it)? Can I write by syncing on one object and read with another if its otherwise safe? (see example 2)
(please note for the following examples that I know that synchronized methods and synchronized(this) are frowned upon and why, but discussion about that is beyond the scope of my question)
Example 1:
class Counter{
int count = 0;
public synchronized void increment(){
count++;
}
public int getCount(){
return count;
}
}
In this example, increment() needs to be synchronized since ++ is not an atomic operation. As such, two threads incremending at the same time may result in a overall increase of 1 to the count. The count primitive needs to be atomic (eg not long/double/reference), and it is so thats fine.
Does getCount() need to be synchronized here and why exactly? The explanation I have heard the most is that I will have no guarantee whether the count returned will be the pre- or post-increment. However, this seems like the explanation for something slightly different, thats found itself in the wrong place. I mean if I were to synchronize getCount(), then I still see no guarantee - its now down to not knowing the locking order, insead of not knowing whether the actual read happens to be before/after the actual write.
Example 2:
Is the following example threadsafe, if you assume that through trickery not shown here that none of these methods will never be called at the same time? Will count increment in an expected way if its done so using a random method each time, and then be read properly, or does the lock have to be the same object? (btw I fully realise how rediculous this example is but Im more interested in theory than practice)
class Counter{
private final Object lock1 = new Object();
private final Object lock2 = new Object();
private final Object lock3 = new Object();
int count = 0;
public void increment1(){
synchronized(lock1){
count++;
}
}
public void increment2(){
synchronized(lock2){
count++;
}
}
public int getCount(){
synchronized(lock3){
return count;
}
}
}
Example 3:
Is the happens-before relationship simply a java concept, or is it an actual thing built into the JVM? Even though I can guarantee a conceptual happens-before relationship for this next example, is java smart enough to pick it up if its a built in thing? I am assuming it is not, but is this example actually threadsafe? If its threadsafe, what about if getCount() did no locking?
class Counter{
private final Lock lock = new Lock();
int count = 0;
public void increment(){
lock.lock();
count++;
lock.unlock();
}
public int getCount(){
lock.lock();
int count = this.count;
lock.unlock();
return count;
}
}

Yes, the read has to be synchronized as well. This page says:
The results of a write by one thread are guaranteed to be visible to a
read by another thread only if the write operation happens-before the
read operation.
[...]
An unlock (synchronized block or method exit) of a monitor
happens-before every subsequent lock (synchronized block or method
entry) of that same monitor
The same page says:
Actions prior to "releasing" synchronizer methods such as Lock.unlock,
Semaphore.release, and CountDownLatch.countDown happen-before actions
subsequent to a successful "acquiring" method such as Lock.lock
So locks offer the same visibility guarantees as synchronized blocks.
Whether you use synchronized blocks or locks, the visibility is only guaranteed if the reader thread uses the same monitor or lock as the writer thread.
Your Example 1 is incorrect: the getter must be synchronized as well if you want to see the latest value of the count.
Your example 2 is incorrect because it uses different locks to guard the same count.
Your example 3 is OK. If the getter did not lock, you could see an older value of the count. The happens-before is something that is guaranteed by the JVM. The JVM has to respect the rules specified, by flushing caches to the main memory for example.

Try to view it in terms of two distinct, simple operations:
Locking (mutual exclusion),
Memory barrier (cache sync, instruction reordering barrier).
Entering a synchronized block entails both locking and memory barrier; leaving the synchronized block entails unlocking + memory barrier; reading/writing a volatile field entails memory barrier only. Thinking in these terms I think you can clarify for yourself all the question above.
As for Example 1, the reading thread will not have any kind of memory barrier. It's not just between seeing the value before/after read, it's about never observing any change to the var after a thread is started.
Example 2. is the most interesting issue you raise. You are indeed given no guarantees by the JLS in this case. In practice you won't be given any ordering guarantees (it's as if the locking aspect wasn't there at all), but you'll still have the benefit of the memory barriers so you will observe changes, unlike the first example. Basically, this is exactly the same as removing synchronized and tagging the int as volatile (apart from the runtime costs of acquiring locks).
Regarding Example 3, by "just a Java thing" I feel you have generics with erasure in mind, something that only the static code checking is aware of. This is not like that -- both locks and memory barriers are pure runtime artifacts. In fact, the compiler can't reason about them at all.