Can someone please explain the difference between these two examples in the context of object locking:
public void method1(){
synchronized(this){
....
}
}
And
StringBuffer aStringBufferObject = new StringBuffer("A");
public void method2(){
synchronized(aStringBufferObject){
....
}
}
I know the first example will obtain a lock on the this instance and the second will obtain a lock of the aStringBufferObject instance. But i dont really understand what the effect or the difference of the two is.
For example, in the second example, will threads still be able to execute the code inside the synchronized block because the lock is not related to the 'this' instance?
I know that synchronizing a method or a block of code prevents multiple threads to access that block/method at the same time but what is the purpose of specifying the object to lock on and what is the difference in the way the object is specified as in the above examples?
What is the purpose of specifying the object to lock on?
Often, it is easier to synchronize on this or on the Class instance (for static methods). But, there are cases where you will need to synchronize on a specific object instead of the implicit lock (this). Such cases include:
You want to synchronize access to primitives without using this. You can only synchronize on Objects as each Object is associated with an implicit monitor in Java. Primitives do not have such implicit monitors, and therefore you need to use a lock object. Using the wrapper classes are a poor and incorrect choice, especially if you end up modifying the lock object in the guarded block.
You want to synchronize on an object that actually protects the critical section, when synchronizing on this would not offer a guarantee of thread safety. For instance, if you are synchronizing access to a ArrayList instance shared across instances of class A, then synchronizing on an instance of A is useless. A thread might create a new instance of A and gain access to the list, while another thread is modifying it. If you use a different lock that all threads must contend for then you can protect the list; this lock could be the one associated with A.class, but it could be any object that will offer the same guarantees.
You want to perform lock splitting to ensure that different guarded blocks are protected by different locks instead of the same lock. In other words, if it is thread-safe to allow different threads to acquire different locks to access different critical sections, then you can have a different lock for every critical section.
The following is an example of split lock usage:
private Object method1Lock = new Object();
private Object method2Lock = new Object();
public void method1(){
synchronized(method1Lock){
....
}
}
public void method2(){
synchronized(method2Lock){
....
}
}
You would use split locks when you can ensure that the concurrent execution of method1 and method2 do not violate the class invariants. This way, you can improve performance across threads that need access to the same object, but will be invoking different methods.
On your other question,
For example, in the second example, will threads still be able to execute the code inside the synchronized block because the lock is not related to the 'this' instance?
In the second example, any thread entering the guarded region must acquire the lock associated with aStringBufferObject. If a different thread is holding that lock, then the current thread will not proceed further. When you specify this, then the thread must acquire the lock associated with the current object. In both cases, a thread must acquire a lock; the examples are only different in the object that is being used as a lock.
Synchronizing on an object means that other blocks which synchronize on the same object will have to wait. For example:
public void methodA() {
synchronized(obj) {
//Do one job
}
}
public void methodB() {
synchronized(obj) {
//Do another job
}
}
If you call methodA() in one thread and then call methodB() in another thread, methodB() won't finish before methodA() finishes.
The synchronized block is a monitor, which leave out of details to lock and unlock a mutex. Because every object in Java has an internal lock(refer to source code of Object class), when use synchronized statement, the JVM will help you synchronize the critical section. You can also synchronize block yourself use ReentrantLock in package java.util.concurrent.locks.
Related
Consider this code:
public synchronized void onSignalsTimeout(List<SignalSpec> specs) {
if (specs != null && specs.size() > 0) {
for (SignalSpec spec : specs) {
ParsedCANSignal timeoutedSignal = new ParsedCANSignal();
SignalsProvider.getInstance().setSignal(spec.name, spec.parent.parent.channel, timeoutedSignal);
}
}
}
I've got simple question:
When Thread 1 calls onSignalsTimeout method, can Thread 2 access objects that are accessed in that method?
Can't find anywhere if 'synchronized' locks only access to this method or access to all objects used in this method.
First of all, forget about synchronized methods. A so-called synchronized method...
synchronized AnyType foobar(...) {
doSomething();
}
Is nothing but a shortcut way of writing this:
AnyType foobar(...) {
synchronized(this) {
doSomething();
}
}
There is nothing special about the method in either case. What is special is the synchronized block, and what a synchronized block does is very simple. When the JVM executes this:
synchronized(foo) {
doSomething();
}
It first evaluates the expression foo. The result must be an object reference. Then it locks the object, performs the body of the synchronized block, and then it unlocks the object.
But what does locked mean? It may mean less than you think. It does not prevent other threads from using the object. It doesn't prevent them from accessing the object's fields or, from updating its fields. The only thing that locking an object prevents is, it prevents other threads from locking the same object at the same time.
If thread A tries to enter synchronized(foo) {...} while thread B already has foo locked (either in the same synchronized block, or in a different one), then thread A will be forced to wait until thread B releases the lock.
You use synchronized blocks to protect data.
Suppose your program has some collection of objects that can be in different states. Suppose that some states make sense, but there are other states that don't make sense—invalid states.
Suppose that it is not possible for a thread to change the data from one valid state to another valid state without temporarily creating an invalid state.
If you put the code that changes the state in a synchronized(foo) block, and you put every block of code that can see the state into a synchronized block that locks the same object, foo, then you will prevent other threads from seeing the temporary invalid state.
Yes, other threads can access the objects used in the method; the synchronized keyword guarantees that no more than one thread at the time can execute the code of the method.
From https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/syncmeth.html:
First, it is not possible for two invocations of synchronized methods on the same object to interleave. When one thread is executing
a synchronized method for an object, all other threads that invoke
synchronized methods for the same object block (suspend execution)
until the first thread is done with the object.
Second, when a synchronized method exits, it automatically establishes a happens-before relationship with any subsequent
invocation of a synchronized method for the same object. This
guarantees that changes to the state of the object are visible to all
threads. Note that constructors cannot be synchronized — using the
synchronized keyword with a constructor is a syntax error.
Synchronizing constructors doesn't make sense, because only the thread
that creates an object should have access to it while it is being
constructed.
In this context, synchronized simultaneously locks this method and any other method similarly marked as synchronized in your class.
I need to clear a few basic concepts so as to check whether my understanding is correct or not.
1) Once a thread enters any synchronized method on an instance, no other thread can enter any other synchronized method on the same instance.
2) However, nonsynchronized methods on that instance will continue to be callable (by other threads). If yes, can I then say the whole object doesn't gets locked but only the critical methods which are synchronized.
3) Will I get the same behaviour as above for synchronized statement too:
synchronised(this){
// statements to be synchronised
}
or the whole object gets locked here with nonsynchronized methods on that instance not callable.
I think I am pretty confused with locking scope.
A lock only prevents other threads from acquiring that same lock -- the lock itself has no idea what it protects -- it's just something that only one thread can have. We say the whole object is locked because any other thread that attempts to lock the whole object will be unable to acquire that lock until it's released. Otherwise, your understanding is correct.
Your statements are correct. Only synchronized code becomes protected. The object is simply used as the synchronizing lock, and it is not itself "locked".
And yes, you get the same behavior for synchronized blocks on the same object. In fact, you can synchronize blocks in the code of one object using another object as the lock.
The code,
public synchronized void abc() {
...
}
it is conceptually same as,
public void abc() {
synchronized(this) {
}
}
In either of these cases the non-synchronized methods can be called when the monitor (in this case the object on which the method abc is called) is locked by a Thread executing a synchronized block or method.
Your understanding is correct. All three statements you made, are valid.
Please note one thing though, locks are not on methods(synchronized or non-synchronized). Lock is always on the object, and once one thread acquired the lock on an object, other threads have to wait till the lock is released and available for other threads to acquire.
i'm currently studying the multithreading concept thoroughly and i'v noticed that whenever a synchronized block is discussed, the lock on this object is acquired. e.g:
synchronized(this) {}
but, is there any reason to give another object as the argument for synchronized? or is it an inadvisable pattern?
An example why locking on something else might be beneficial:
final List<Object1> firstList = new List<>();
final List<Object2> secondList = new List<>();
// ...
public Object readFromListOne() {
synchronized(firstList) {
return firstList.remove(0);
}
}
public Object readFromListTwo() {
synchronized(secondList) {
return secondList.remove(0);
}
}
Here threads can access both lists simultaneously, while a synchronized(this) would have locked both calls, even though it isn't necessary.
Btw: a concurrent list will render all this synchronization obsolete
You can use a third party object as a lock. Generally such objects can be used to achieve synchronization to shared resources between different objects, which will be forced to acquire this third party object lock before executing certain piece of code.
You can use a common object as follows.
static final Object lock=new Object();
Then you can parse this into synchronized block as follows
synchronized(lock){
}
Only requirement here is you have to share common object. Then each path(different object) locked based on this object.
I think you are having issue with why we use other object.
If we want to locked different path by different Threads we have to locked each path. So we have to use third object. Then when one object quires that lock object other threads has to wait until that lock is resealed. But same thread which acquire the lock can continue.
synchronized(this) {}
That means that any other thread that synchronizes on this will have to release/wait until you release/wait the lock before it can proceed.
synchronized(somethingElse) {}
That means the lock happens on now with somethingElse.
So there is a clear difference and depends on what you are synchronized.
Why do you have to specify, which object has locked a synchronized block of code?
You don't have to specify which object has locked a synchronized method as it is always locked by 'this' (I believe).
I have two questions:
Why can't you block a none static method with an object other than
'this' ?
Why do you have to specify the object that has blocked
synchronized code?
I have read chapter nine of SCJP for Java 6, but I am still not clear on this.
I realize it is probably a basic question, but I am new to Threading.
Why can't you block a none static method with an object other than 'this' ?
You can:
public void foo() {
synchronized (lock) {
...
}
}
Why do you have to specify the object that has blocked synchronized code?
Because that's how the language designers chose to design the language. synchronized, when used on instance methods, implicitely uses this as the lock. synchronized when used on a block must explicitely specify the lock.
You can.
The code
synchronized foo() {
// some stuff
}
Is logically equal to code
foo() {
synchronized(this) {
// some stuff
}
}
I said "logically" because these 2 examples generate different byte code.
If method foo() is static synchronization is done of class object.
However you can wish to create several synchronized blocks that are synchronized on different objects into one class or even into one method. In this case you can use synchronized (lock) where lock is not this:
foo() {
synchronized(one) {}
///..........
synchronized(two) {}
}
You can specify any object you want which should have the lock on the synchronized code block. Actually, you shouldn't use synchronize(this) at all (or maybe be careful about it, see Avoid synchronized(this) in Java?).
EVERY object has a lock on which you can synchronize:
final Object lock = new Object()
synchronized ( lock ) { ... }
If you want to synchronize the whole method, you cannot say on which object, so it is always "this" object.
synchronized foo() {....}
The first way of locking is better, by the way.
It is not recommended to lock each method with this as it reduces the concurrency in most cases. So it is recommended to use Lock Stripping in which only the specific part of the code that needs to be protected is kept in synchronized block.
It is a practice that is explained well in Java Concurrency in Practice. But note this book is useful only when you have some basic experience with threading.
Some nuggets to keep in mind:
Do not overuse synchronization
use method level synchronization only when the whole method needs to be protected
Use different locks to protect two unrelated entities, which will increase the chances of concurrency. or else for reading or writing two unrelated entities threads will block on same lock.
public void incrementCounter1(){
synchronized(lockForCounter1){
counter1++;
}
}
public void incrementCounter2(){
synchronized(lockForCounter2){
counter2++;
}
}
I think your two questions actually are same. let's say if you wanna synchronized a method m of object a between multiple threads, you need a common base system or channel that threads can talk to, this is actually what object lock offers, so when you wanna a method of a object be synchronized there is no need for another object lock to do this, because the object you access itself has this lock, that's how and why lanuage designed.
while synchronized a block is not the same thing, threads can have different talking base other than this object itself, for instance, you can set a same object as synchronized object lock for synchronized block, so all objects of this Class can be synchronized at that block!
From the concurrency tutorial, the Synchronized methods part:
To make a method synchronized, simply add the synchronized keyword to its declaration:
public class SynchronizedCounter {
private int c = 0;
public synchronized void increment() {
c++;
}
public synchronized void decrement() {
c--;
}
public synchronized int value() {
return c;
}
}
If count is an instance of SynchronizedCounter, then making these methods synchronized has two effects:
First, it is not possible for two invocations of synchronized methods on the same object to interleave. When one thread is executing a synchronized method for an object, all other threads that invoke synchronized methods for the same object block (suspend execution) until the first thread is done with the object.
Second, when a synchronized method exits, it automatically establishes a happens-before relationship with any subsequent invocation of a synchronized method for the same object. This guarantees that changes to the state of the object are visible to all threads.
Simply put, that's how synchronization in Java works.
You don't have to specify which object has locked a synchronized method as it is always locked by 'this' (I believe).
True for instance methods, for static methods it locks upon the class object.
Why can't you block a none static method with an object other than 'this' ?
Note that:
public synchronized void increment() {
c++;
}
is equivalent in behavior to:
public void increment() {
synchronized(this) {
c++;
}
}
In this code snippet you can replace this with any object you wish.
Why do you have to specify the object that has blocked synchronized code?
Some, let's call it critical, block of code is to be ran only sequentially, but in uncontrolled concurrent environment it is possible that it will be ran in parallel. That's why synchronization mechanisms exists.
So we can divide the code like this:
the code safe to be ran in parallel (default situation)
the code that has to be synchronized (must be marked somehow)
That markation is made via the synchronized keyword and the corresponding lock object.
If you have two different critical code blocks that must not be ran together, they'll both have the synchronized keyword, and let's say they have the same lock object.
While the first block is executing, the lock object becomes "locked". If during that time the second block needs to get executed, the first command of that code block is:
synchronized(lock) {
but that lock object is in locked state because the first block is executing. The execution of the second block halts on that statement until the first block finishes the execution, and unlocks the state of the lock object. Then the second block may proceed with the execution (and lock the lock object again).
That mechanism is called the mutual exclusion and the lock is a general concept not tied to the Java programming language.
The details of the "lock object locking" process can be found here.
You can lock with any instance of an object but programmers usually
use this or locker...
Because it restrict access to that part of code by other threads
(unit of code processing) so you make sure whole of that part run in
consistence and nothing (i.e. a variable) would be alerted by another thread.
Consider:
a = 1;
a++;
Thread one reaches second line and you expect a = 2 but another thread executes first line and instead of 2 you have a = 1 for first thread and a = 2 for second thread. Now:
synchronized (whatever)
{
a = 1;
a++;
}
Now second thread would be blocked from entering into the code block (synchronized body) until first one leaves it (release the lock).
What is the difference or impact between using the synchronized block as in method1 and method2?
class A
{
private Object lock = new Object();
...
...
private void method1()
{
synchronized(A.class)
{
.....
}
}
private void method2()
{
synchronized(lock)
{
....
}
}
}
In first method all threads that use ANY instance of the class A will be syncronised.
In second method all threads that use THIS instance of the class A will be syncronised.
Since A.class is avaliable to others, it is public in effect. If something else uses it to synchronize access to some section of code then your section of code could be blocked. This might be good or bad; but you don't have control over it.
Using an internal object allows you to decare it as private so that you have complete control over where and when it is used. I prefer to use an internal object that I have control.
Lock is an ordinary field. So there is one of it for each instance of 'A'. A.class is global to the whole JVM. So the two blocks have completely different semantics. The version with 'lock' says, 'only one thread can be in this block for this instance of A'. The version with A.class says 'only one thread can be in this block for any instance of A.
In the first case, you synchronize on a public object (A.class), and so other parts of the application might cause problems because they also synchronize on A.class.
In the second case, you synchronize on a private lock object, and are thus sure that nobody else uses the the lock to synchronize access to something else.
Moreover, as indicated in other answers, all the instances of the class will be synchronized on the same lock with the first solution, whereas each instance will have its own lock with the second solution.
The second solution is thus much preferred (although the lock object should be final).
The parameter of synchronized block is needed to be able to create several "named" blocks. So using special lock object is probably more flexible: you can create lock1 and lock2 in future.
Yet another aspect is waiting and notification. You can say lock.wait() and then lock.notfify() from another thread. In this case you can also use both ways (special lock object or A.class as a lock).