Develop Reference

Running an object with a synchronized method and normal method, concurrently?

Is it just that two synchronised methods that can't run concurrently?
For example, someone codes 2 Java classes.
public class A {
public synchronized void a1(){
//do something }
public void a2(){
//do something }
public synchronized int a3(){
int var = 0;
//do something changing var
return var; } }
public class B {
public void b1(){
//do something
}
public synchronized int b2(){
int var = 0;
//do something changing var
return var;
}
public void b3(){
//do something
}
}
With a main method,
public static void main(String[] args){
A firstA = new A();
A secondA = new A();
B firstB = newB();
//create some threads that perform operations on firstA, secondA and first B and start them
}
Assuming they run in parallel and call methods on the created objects and also assuming that none of these methods are prevented by other mechanisms from running currently.
Out of the methods in the example I gave, are there any that cannot be run concurrently if called at the same time by 2 different threads?
By running concurrently I mean, they will be sequenced so that one will finish before the other starts.

Assuming that there is no other synchronization involved, the only calls that will be mutually excluded are:
firstA.a1() vs firstA.a1()
firstA.a1() vs firstA.a3()
secondA.a1() vs secondA.a1()
secondA.a1() vs secondA.a3()
firstB.b2() vs firstB.b2()
This is because synchronized blocks have to use the same lock for them to have an effect on each other. When you mark a whole method as synchronized, the lock object will be the value of this. So methods in firstA will be completely independent of methods of secondA or firstB, because they use different locks.
The methods in your code that aren't marked synchronized won't even attempt to acquire any lock at all, they can run whenever they want.
Please note that mutual exclusion is just one aspect of multithreading. For your programme to work correctly, you also have to consider things like visibility and safe publication.

Of course, the answer depends on what "something" you "do" when you "do something", and since you don't show that, no one can answer. That's what happens when you omit the significant information. Don't omit the significant information.
What we can say is that the synchronized methods in A do not use the same lock as the synchronized methods in B.
If multiple threads access the same data, then they must synchronize with each other. The only way for threads to synchronize with each other is to use the same means of synchronization. If that's the use of synchronized, then they must synchronize on the same monitor (lock). So if the A methods and B methods access the same data from different threads, and who can tell if they do from what you show? then they won't work as shown.
If any of the unsynchronized methods access the same data from different threads, and the part you didn't show does not have other effective synchronization means, then they won't work.
All this depends on what you decided not to show us.

All of them can run at the same time without inturrupting each other.
because each thread handles different instance, there's no need for them to wait to what so ever synconized method.

trying to grasp basic thread synchronisation in java

public class ThreadTest implements Runnable {
private int counter;
private Date mydate = new Date();
public void upCounter1() {
synchronized (mydate ) {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
counter++;
System.out.println("1 " + counter);
}
}
}
public void upCounter2() {
synchronized (mydate ) {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
counter++;
System.out.println("2 " + counter);
}
}
}
public void upCounter3() {
synchronized (mydate ) {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
counter++;
System.out.println("3 " + counter);
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
upCounter1();
upCounter2();
upCounter3();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Threadtest mtt = new Threadtest();
Thread t1 = new Thread(mtt);
Thread t2 = new Thread(mtt);
Thread t3 = new Thread(mtt);
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
}
}
I tried this code with various synchronisation techniques and I'd like to make sure I get what's happening. I've read a bunch of articles on this, but none of them broke it down enough for me.
So here's what I observed:
synchronised (this): This works only, if I give the SAME instance of Threadtest to all threads, because if I give each thread its own instance, each will get that instance's intrinsic lock and can access the methods without interruption from the other threads.
However, if I give each thread its own instance, I can do: synchronised (getClass()), because then I get the instrinsic lock of the class
Alternatively, I could do: synchronised (mydate), where the same rules apply that apply to synchronised (this). But it has the advantage of not being public. > I dont really understand this. What is the "danger" of using this?
Alternatively to synchronised (getClass()), I could also use a private static field.
However, I cannot do synchronised(Date.class).
I could synchronise the entire methods (same effecte as with synchronised-block)
making counter volatile doesn't work, because incrementing isn't a truly atomic operation
If I want to make each method accessible individually, I would make three private fields and use them in the synchronised-blocks. I then am effectively using the intrinsic locks of those fields and not of my class or instance.
I also noted that when I use the class-lock, each method is viewed as separate and I have effectively 3 ounters that go to 15. If I use the instance lock, the counter goes to 45. Is that the correct and expected behaviour?
Are my explanations and observations correct? (I basically want to make sure I draw the correct conclusions form the console output I got)

a-c; e-f are correct.
c) Alternatively, I could do: synchronised (mydate), where the same rules apply that apply to synchronised (this). But it has the advantage of not being public. > I dont really understand this. What is the "danger" of using this?
The argument is that other code may also decide to use that object as a lock. Which could cause conflict; when you know that this can never be the case then it is not such an evil thing. It is also usually more of a problem when one uses wait/notify in their code.
d) Alternatively to synchronised (getClass()), I could also use a private static field. However, I cannot do synchronised(Date.class).
You can use Date.class, it would just be a bit weird and falls into the argument discussed in c above about not polluting other classes work spaces.
g) If I want to make each method accessible individually, I would make three private fields and use them in the synchronised-blocks. I then am effectively using the intrinsic locks of those fields and not of my class or instance.
Given that the three methods share the same state, then no, this would not be wise as it would lead to races between the threads.
h) I also noted that when I use the class-lock, each method is viewed as separate and I have effectively 3 counters that go to 15. If I use the instance lock, the counter goes to 45. Is that the correct and expected behaviour?
No, this sounds wrong but I may have misunderstood you. I would expect the total to be 45 in both cases when using either this or this.getClass() as the lock.

Your code is threadsafe as it stands, if slow (you are writing to the console while holding a lock) - but better correct and slow than wrong and fast!
a) synchronised (this): This works only, if I give the SAME instance of Threadtest to all threads, because if I give each thread its own instance, each will get that instance's intrinsic lock and can access the methods without interruption from the other threads.
Your code is threadsafe either case - that is, it will give the exact same results every time. If you pass the same instance to three different threads the final line of output will be "3 45" (since there is only one counter variable) and if you give each thread its own instance there will be three lines reading "3 15". It sounds to me like you understand this.
b) However, if I give each thread its own instance, I can do: synchronised (getClass()), because then I get the instrinsic lock of the class
If you do this your code is still threadsafe, but you will get three lines reading "3 15" as above. Be aware that you will also be more prone to liveness and deadlock issues for the reason stated below.
c) Alternatively, I could do: synchronised (mydate), where the same rules apply that apply to synchronised (this). But it has the advantage of not being public. I dont really understand this. What is the "danger" of using this?
You should try to use private locks where you can. If you use a globally-visible object (e.g. this or getClass or a field with visibility other than private or an interned String or an object that you got from a factory) then you open up the possibility that some other code will also try to lock on the object that you are locking on. You may end up waiting longer than you expect to acquire the lock (liveness issue) or even in a deadlock situation.
For a detailed analysis of things that can go wrong, see the secure coding guidelines for Java - but note that this is not just a security issue.
d) Alternatively to synchronised (getClass()), I could also use a private static field. However, I cannot do synchronised(Date.class).
A private static field is preferable to either getClass() or Date.class for the reasons stated above.
e) I could synchronise the entire methods (same effecte as with synchronised-block)
Pretty much (there are currently some insignificant byte code differences), but again you should prefer private locks.
f) making counter volatile doesn't work, because incrementing isn't a truly atomic operation
Yes, you may run into a race condition and your code is no longer threadsafe (although you don't have the visibility issue mentioned below)
g) If I want to make each method accessible individually, I would make three private fields and use them in the synchronised-blocks. I then am effectively using the intrinsic locks of those fields and not of my class or instance.
You should not do this, you should always use the same lock to access a variable. As well as the fact that you could have multiple threads reading/writing to the same variable at the same time giving race condition you also have a subtler issue to do with inter-thread visibility. The Java Memory Model guarantees that writes done by one thread before a lock is released will be seen another thread when that other thread acquires the same lock. So thread 2 executing upCounter2 may or may not see the results of thread 1 executing upCounter1.
Rather than thinking of "which blocks of code do I need to execute?" you should think "which pieces of state do I need to access?".
h) I also noted that when I use the class-lock, each method is viewed as separate and I have effectively 3 ounters that go to 15. If I use the instance lock, the counter goes to 45. Is that the correct and expected behaviour?
Yes, but it has nothing to do with the object you are using for synchronisation, rather it's because you have created three different ThreadTest objects and hence have three different counters, as I explained in my answer to your first question.
Make sure that you understand the difference between three threads operating on one object and one thread operating on three different objects. Then you will be able to understand the behaviour you are observing with three threads operating on three different objects.

a) Correct
b) Correct
c) There could be some other bunch of code using your this or class in another part of your application where your class is accessible. This will mean that unrelated code will be waiting for each other to complete.
d) You cannot do synchronisation on Date.class because of the same reason above. There may be unrelated threaded methods waiting for each other unnecessarily.
e) Method synchronisation is same as class lock
g) Correct

Am I properly implementing Java's synchronized construct?

I'm kind of confused about how to implement synchronized blocks in Java.
Here is an example situation:
public class SlotWheel extends Thread implements ActionListener
{
private int currentTick; // This instance variable is modified in two places
private synchronized void resetCurrentTicks()
{
currentTick = 0;
}
private synchronized void incrementCurrentTicks()
{
++currentTick;
}
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e)
{
resetCurrentTicks();
}
}
While the program is running, it's possible that a user clicks a button which invokes actionPerformed which then calls resetCurrentTicks. At the same time, the running thread is calling incrementCurrentTicks on each loop iteration.
Because I'm still new to Java and programming, I'm not sure if my implementation is protecting currentTick from becoming corrupted.
I have this feeling that my implementation would only work if incrementCurrentTicks were to be called in actionPerformed and in the running thread, but because I'm manipulating currentTick from different methods, my implementation is wrong.

Looks ok.
See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/syncmeth.html
It is not possible for two invocations of synchronized methods on the same object to interleave
Of course you should consider whether it is the GUI thread trying to mess with the ticks or not. In your simple case it's probably ok, but in a more complex case you might want to push the "work" out of the GUI thread.

Your instincts are correct. It is difficult to synchronize access to class properties consistently across multiple methods. Rather than attempting to do so, I would recommend you take a look at java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger. It provides you with safe, concurrent access to the underlying property without writing and testing alot of boilerplate code.
Incorporating it into your code, you would end up with something like this:
public class SlotWheel extends Thread implements ActionListener {
private AtomicInteger currentTick = new AtomicInteger();
private void resetCurrentTicks() {
currentTick.set(0);
}
private void incrementCurrentTicks() {
currentTick.incrementAndGet();
}
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e)
{
resetCurrentTicks();
}
}

First off, Java guarantees that "scalar" values -- integers, chars, floats, etc -- are atomic in themselves in that you cannot simultaneously modify such a value and get a mixture of the two sources. You're guaranteed to get one value or the other of two "simultaneous" modifications. You can, however, get an inconsistent result from, eg, x++, since two threads may attempt to simultaneously increment x and possibly only one increment might occur. (OTOH, two threads simultaneously performing x = 7; will obviously not interfere with each other -- simultaneous access does not cause an explosion or anything.)
Next, understand that the synchronized keyword is used in two slightly different contexts -- as a method modifier and as a block modifier. There is some modest difference between the two.
When used as a block modifier you say synchronized(object_ref) {some block}. In this case the synchronized statement gets a lock on the object identified by object_ref and all other syncronized statements that might simultaneously attempt to execute referencing the same object will be held off while the current statement finishes its block.
When you use it as a method modifier, the function is the same except that, for a non-static method, the "this" object is the one that is locked, and the entire method is is "protected" by the lock.
(For a static method, on the other hand, the Class object is locked -- a slightly special case, equivalent to synchronized(ClassName.class){some block} as a synchronized block.)
It's important to understand that for two synchronized blocks or methods to be prevented from simultaneously executing they must be referencing, as their synchronizing object, the same object, not simply one of the same class.

You are correct, in that it is not safe. However, you can simply synchronize on any Object in scope, and remove "synchronized" from the method definition
public class MyThread {
private Object lock = new Object();
private int counter;
protected void threadMetod() {
synchronized (lock) {
counter++;
}
}
public void otherReset() {
synchronized (lock) {
counter = 0;
}
}
}

Is there reasoning behind choosing a specific object?

Is the locking object used for synchronization arbitrary or is there reasoning behind choosing a specific object?

Why would you lock an object? Because it is shared among various threads. That's all there is. How you implement locking and threading is probably the difficult part, as opposed to choosing which object to lock on.

You'd be better off using one of the more modern locking techniques where much of the complexity and pitfalls have been removed/smoothed over. Package java.util.concurrent.locks would be a good start.

Your question is rather unclear.
You may be referring to a Semaphore object as a lock. You may also be referring to synchronized objects.
1) A semaphore may as well arbitrary object. It's intended purpose is that it can be used to hold threads at the semaphore until other threads release it.
2) Synchronized objects make all of their functions atomic: If a thread is operating on the object, the other object waits to complete its own function. This is usually implemented using a semaphore internally.
Semaphores are the objects used to solve synchronization problems.

The locking object needs to represent the exclusive part.
if you lock the whole object meaning using it exclusively by an thread, you may use the object "this" to lock. This is the way "synchronize" work on methods work.
public class A
{
public synchronized void do1 ()
{
...
}
public synchronized void do2 ()
{
...
}
}
if your object just has some set of members which should be used exclusively, you need separate (explicit) locking objects
public class B
{
private X x;
private Y y;
private Object lockXY = new Object ();
private R r;
private S s;
private Object lockRS = new Object ();
public void do1 ()
{
synchronize (lockXY) {
}
...
}
public void do2 ()
{
synchronize (lockRS) {
}
}
}
Beware to make locking to complex, you may run into dead locks

As in the accepted answer, the object you choose is arbitrary, just make sure you use it correctly. However, some objects are better than others. It's best practice not to use some object that may be accessible outside the context of the locking - if it is some other piece of code may also decide to synchronize on it, or call notify on it or whatever. So preferably use java.util.concurrent instead, or use private objects.

What is the difference between synchronized on lockObject and using this as the lock?

I know the difference between synchronized method and synchronized block but I am not sure about the synchronized block part.
Assuming I have this code
class Test {
private int x=0;
private Object lockObject = new Object();
public void incBlock() {
synchronized(lockObject) {
x++;
}
System.out.println("x="+x);
}
public void incThis() { // same as synchronized method
synchronized(this) {
x++;
}
System.out.println("x="+x);
}
}
In this case what is the difference between using lockObject and using this as the lock? It seems to be the same to me..
When you decide to use synchronized block, how do you decide which object to be the lock?

Personally I almost never lock on "this". I usually lock on a privately held reference which I know that no other code is going to lock on. If you lock on "this" then any other code which knows about your object might choose to lock on it. While it's unlikely to happen, it certainly could do - and could cause deadlocks, or just excessive locking.
There's nothing particularly magical about what you lock on - you can think of it as a token, effectively. Anyone locking with the same token will be trying to acquire the same lock. Unless you want other code to be able to acquire the same lock, use a private variable. I'd also encourage you to make the variable final - I can't remember a situation where I've ever wanted to change a lock variable over the lifetime of an object.

I had this same question when I was reading Java Concurrency In Practice, and I thought I'd add some added perspective on the answers provided by Jon Skeet and spullara.
Here's some example code which will block even the "quick" setValue(int)/getValue() methods while the doStuff(ValueHolder) method executes.
public class ValueHolder {
private int value = 0;
public synchronized void setValue(int v) {
// Or could use a sychronized(this) block...
this.value = 0;
}
public synchronized int getValue() {
return this.value;
}
}
public class MaliciousClass {
public void doStuff(ValueHolder holder) {
synchronized(holder) {
// Do something "expensive" so setter/getter calls are blocked
}
}
}
The downside of using this for synchronization is other classes can synchronize on a reference to your class (not via this, of course). Malicious or unintentional use of the synchronized keyword while locking on your object's reference can cause your class to behave poorly under concurrent usage, as an external class can effectively block your this-synchronized methods and there is nothing you can do (in your class) to prohibit this at runtime. To avoid this potential pitfall, you would synchronize on a private final Object or use the Lock interface in java.util.concurrent.locks.
For this simple example, you could alternately use an AtomicInteger rather than synchronizing the setter/getter.

Item 67 of Effective Java Second Edition is Avoid excessive synchronization, thus I would synchronize on a private lock object.

Every object in Java can act as a monitor. Choosing one is dependent on what granularity you want. Choosing 'this' has the advantage and disadvantage that other classes could also synchronize on the same monitor. My advice though is to avoid using the synchronize keyword directly and instead use constructs from the java.util.concurrency library which are higher level and have well defined semantics. This book has a lot of great advice in it from very notable experts:
Java Concurrency in Practice
http://amzn.com/0321349601

In this case it does not matter which object you choose for lock. But you must consistently use the same object for locking to achieve correct synchronization. Above code does not ensure proper synchronization as you once use the 'this' object as lock and next the 'lockObject' as lock.