Develop Reference

Java in memory data storage thread safety

I'm making a real time multiplayer game server in Java. I'm storing all data for matches in memory in a HashMap with "match" objects. Each match object contains information about the game and game state for all players (anywhere from 2-5 in one match). The server will pass the same match object for each user's connection to the server.
What I'm a little concerned about is making this thread safe. Connections could be made to different threads in the server, all of which need to access the same match.
The problem with that is there would be a lot of variables/lists in the object, all of which would need to be synchronized. Some of them may need to be used to perform calculations that affect each other, meaning I would need nested synchronized blocks, which I don't want.
Is synchronized blocks for every variable in the match object my only solution, or can I do something else?
I know SQLite has an in memory mode, but the problem I found was this:
Quote from their website:
SQLite supports an unlimited number of simultaneous readers, but it will only allow one writer at any instant in time. For many situations, this is not a problem. Writer queue up. Each application does its database work quickly and moves on, and no lock lasts for more than a few dozen milliseconds. But there are some applications that require more concurrency, and those applications may need to seek a different solution
A few dozen milliseconds? That's a long time. Would that be fast enough, or is there another in memory database that would be suited for real time games?

Your architecture is off in this case. You want a set of data to be modified and updated by several threads at once, which might be possible, but is extremely difficult to get right and fast at the same time.
It would be much easier if you change the architecture like follows:
There is one thread that has exclusive access to a single match object. A thread could handle multiple match objects, but a single match object will only be handled/guarded by a single thread. Now if any external effect wants to change any values, it needs to make a "change request", but cannot change it immediately on it's own. And once the change has been implemented and the values updated, the thread guarding the match object will send out an update to the clients.
So lets say a player scores a goal, then the client thread calls a function
void clientScoredGoal(Client client) {
actionQueue.put(new GoalScoredEvent(client));
}
Where actionQueue is i.E. a BlockingQueue.
The thread handling the match objects is listening on this queue via actionQueue.take() and reacts as soon as a new action has been found. It will then apply the change, updated internal values if neccessary, and then distributes an update package (a "change request" to clients if you want).
Also in general synchronized should be considered bad practice in Java. There are certain situations where it is a good way to handle synchronization, but in like 99% of all cases using features from the Concurrent package will be by far the better solution. Notice the complete lack of synchronized in the example code above, yet it is perfectly thread-safe.

the question is very generic. It is difficult to give specific advice.
I'm making a real time multiplayer game server in Java. I'm storing all data for matches in memory in a HashMap with "match" objects.
If you want to store "match" objects in a Map and then have multiple threads requesting/adding/removing objects from the map, then you have to use a "ConcurrentHashMap".
What I'm a little concerned about is making this thread safe. Connections could be made to different threads in the server, all of which need to access the same match.
The safest and easiest way to have multithreading is to make each "match" an immutable object, then there is no need to synchronize.
If "match" information is mutable and accessed simultaneously by many threads, then you will have to synchronize. But in this case, the "mutable state" is contained within a "match", so only the class "match" will need to use synchronization.
I would need nested synchronized blocks, which I don't want.
I haven't ever seen the need to have nested synchronized blocks. perhaps you should refactor your solution before you try to make it thread safe.
Is synchronized blocks for every variable in the match object my only solution, or can I do something else? I know SQLite has an in memory mode
If you have objects with mutable state that are accessed by multiple threads, then you need to make them thread safe. there is no other way (notice that I didn't say that "synchronized blocks" is the only option. there are different ways to achieve thread safety). Using an in memory database is not the solution to your thread safety problem.
The advantage of using an in memory database is in speeding up the access to information (as you don't have to access a regular database with information stored in an HDD), but with the penalty that now your application needs more RAM.
By the way, even faster than using an in memory database would be to keep all the information that you need within objects in your program (which has the same limitation of requiring more RAM).

In Java can I depend on reference assignment being atomic to implement copy on write?

If I have an unsynchronized java collection in a multithreaded environment, and I don't want to force readers of the collection to synchronize[1], is a solution where I synchronize the writers and use the atomicity of reference assignment feasible? Something like:
private Collection global = new HashSet(); // start threading after this
void allUpdatesGoThroughHere(Object exampleOperand) {
// My hypothesis is that this prevents operations in the block being re-ordered
synchronized(global) {
Collection copy = new HashSet(global);
copy.remove(exampleOperand);
// Given my hypothesis, we should have a fully constructed object here. So a
// reader will either get the old or the new Collection, but never an
// inconsistent one.
global = copy;
}
}
// Do multithreaded reads here. All reads are done through a reference copy like:
// Collection copy = global;
// for (Object elm: copy) {...
// so the global reference being updated half way through should have no impact
Rolling your own solution seems to often fail in these type of situations, so I'd be interested in knowing other patterns, collections or libraries I could use to prevent object creation and blocking for my data consumers.
[1] The reasons being a large proportion of time spent in reads compared to writes, combined with the risk of introducing deadlocks.
Edit: A lot of good information in several of the answers and comments, some important points:
A bug was present in the code I posted. Synchronizing on global (a badly named variable) can fail to protect the syncronized block after a swap.
You could fix this by synchronizing on the class (moving the synchronized keyword to the method), but there may be other bugs. A safer and more maintainable solution is to use something from java.util.concurrent.
There is no "eventual consistency guarantee" in the code I posted, one way to make sure that readers do get to see the updates by writers is to use the volatile keyword.
On reflection the general problem that motivated this question was trying to implement lock free reads with locked writes in java, however my (solved) problem was with a collection, which may be unnecessarily confusing for future readers. So in case it is not obvious the code I posted works by allowing one writer at a time to perform edits to "some object" that is being read unprotected by multiple reader threads. Commits of the edit are done through an atomic operation so readers can only get the pre-edit or post-edit "object". When/if the reader thread gets the update, it cannot occur in the middle of a read as the read is occurring on the old copy of the "object". A simple solution that had probably been discovered and proved to be broken in some way prior to the availability of better concurrency support in java.

Rather than trying to roll out your own solution, why not use a ConcurrentHashMap as your set and just set all the values to some standard value? (A constant like Boolean.TRUE would work well.)
I think this implementation works well with the many-readers-few-writers scenario. There's even a constructor that lets you set the expected "concurrency level".
Update: Veer has suggested using the Collections.newSetFromMap utility method to turn the ConcurrentHashMap into a Set. Since the method takes a Map<E,Boolean> my guess is that it does the same thing with setting all the values to Boolean.TRUE behind-the-scenes.
Update: Addressing the poster's example
That is probably what I will end up going with, but I am still curious about how my minimalist solution could fail. – MilesHampson
Your minimalist solution would work just fine with a bit of tweaking. My worry is that, although it's minimal now, it might get more complicated in the future. It's hard to remember all of the conditions you assume when making something thread-safe—especially if you're coming back to the code weeks/months/years later to make a seemingly insignificant tweak. If the ConcurrentHashMap does everything you need with sufficient performance then why not use that instead? All the nasty concurrency details are encapsulated away and even 6-months-from-now you will have a hard time messing it up!
You do need at least one tweak before your current solution will work. As has already been pointed out, you should probably add the volatile modifier to global's declaration. I don't know if you have a C/C++ background, but I was very surprised when I learned that the semantics of volatile in Java are actually much more complicated than in C. If you're planning on doing a lot of concurrent programming in Java then it'd be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the basics of the Java memory model. If you don't make the reference to global a volatile reference then it's possible that no thread will ever see any changes to the value of global until they try to update it, at which point entering the synchronized block will flush the local cache and get the updated reference value.
However, even with the addition of volatile there's still a huge problem. Here's a problem scenario with two threads:
We begin with the empty set, or global={}. Threads A and B both have this value in their thread-local cached memory.
Thread A obtains obtains the synchronized lock on global and starts the update by making a copy of global and adding the new key to the set.
While Thread A is still inside the synchronized block, Thread B reads its local value of global onto the stack and tries to enter the synchronized block. Since Thread A is currently inside the monitor Thread B blocks.
Thread A completes the update by setting the reference and exiting the monitor, resulting in global={1}.
Thread B is now able to enter the monitor and makes a copy of the global={1} set.
Thread A decides to make another update, reads in its local global reference and tries to enter the synchronized block. Since Thread B currently holds the lock on {} there is no lock on {1} and Thread A successfully enters the monitor!
Thread A also makes a copy of {1} for purposes of updating.
Now Threads A and B are both inside the synchronized block and they have identical copies of the global={1} set. This means that one of their updates will be lost! This situation is caused by the fact that you're synchronizing on an object stored in a reference that you're updating inside your synchronized block. You should always be very careful which objects you use to synchronize. You can fix this problem by adding a new variable to act as the lock:
private volatile Collection global = new HashSet(); // start threading after this
private final Object globalLock = new Object(); // final reference used for synchronization
void allUpdatesGoThroughHere(Object exampleOperand) {
// My hypothesis is that this prevents operations in the block being re-ordered
synchronized(globalLock) {
Collection copy = new HashSet(global);
copy.remove(exampleOperand);
// Given my hypothesis, we should have a fully constructed object here. So a
// reader will either get the old or the new Collection, but never an
// inconsistent one.
global = copy;
}
}
This bug was insidious enough that none of the other answers have addressed it yet. It's these kinds of crazy concurrency details that cause me to recommend using something from the already-debugged java.util.concurrent library rather than trying to put something together yourself. I think the above solution would work—but how easy would it be to screw it up again? This would be so much easier:
private final Set<Object> global = Collections.newSetFromMap(new ConcurrentHashMap<Object,Boolean>());
Since the reference is final you don't need to worry about threads using stale references, and since the ConcurrentHashMap handles all the nasty memory model issues internally you don't have to worry about all the nasty details of monitors and memory barriers!

According to the relevant Java Tutorial,
We have already seen that an increment expression, such as c++, does not describe an atomic action. Even very simple expressions can define complex actions that can decompose into other actions. However, there are actions you can specify that are atomic:
Reads and writes are atomic for reference variables and for most primitive variables (all types except long and double).
Reads and writes are atomic for all variables declared volatile (including long and double variables).
This is reaffirmed by Section §17.7 of the Java Language Specification
Writes to and reads of references are always atomic, regardless of whether they are implemented as 32-bit or 64-bit values.
It appears that you can indeed rely on reference access being atomic; however, recognize that this does not ensure that all readers will read an updated value for global after this write -- i.e. there is no memory ordering guarantee here.
If you use an implicit lock via synchronized on all access to global, then you can forge some memory consistency here... but it might be better to use an alternative approach.
You also appear to want the collection in global to remain immutable... luckily, there is Collections.unmodifiableSet which you can use to enforce this. As an example, you should likely do something like the following...
private volatile Collection global = Collections.unmodifiableSet(new HashSet());
... that, or using AtomicReference,
private AtomicReference<Collection> global = new AtomicReference<>(Collections.unmodifiableSet(new HashSet()));
You would then use Collections.unmodifiableSet for your modified copies as well.
// ... All reads are done through a reference copy like:
// Collection copy = global;
// for (Object elm: copy) {...
// so the global reference being updated half way through should have no impact
You should know that making a copy here is redundant, as internally for (Object elm : global) creates an Iterator as follows...
final Iterator it = global.iterator();
while (it.hasNext()) {
Object elm = it.next();
}
There is therefore no chance of switching to an entirely different value for global in the midst of reading.
All that aside, I agree with the sentiment expressed by DaoWen... is there any reason you're rolling your own data structure here when there may be an alternative available in java.util.concurrent? I figured maybe you're dealing with an older Java, since you use raw types, but it won't hurt to ask.
You can find copy-on-write collection semantics provided by CopyOnWriteArrayList, or its cousin CopyOnWriteArraySet (which implements a Set using the former).
Also suggested by DaoWen, have you considered using a ConcurrentHashMap? They guarantee that using a for loop as you've done in your example will be consistent.
Similarly, Iterators and Enumerations return elements reflecting the state of the hash table at some point at or since the creation of the iterator/enumeration.
Internally, an Iterator is used for enhanced for over an Iterable.
You can craft a Set from this by utilizing Collections.newSetFromMap like follows:
final Set<E> safeSet = Collections.newSetFromMap(new ConcurrentHashMap<E, Boolean>());
...
/* guaranteed to reflect the state of the set at read-time */
for (final E elem : safeSet) {
...
}

I think your original idea was sound, and DaoWen did a good job getting the bugs out. Unless you can find something that does everything for you, it's better to understand these things than hope some magical class will do it for you. Magical classes can make your life easier and reduce the number of mistakes, but you do want to understand what they are doing.
ConcurrentSkipListSet might do a better job for you here. It could get rid of all your multithreading problems.
However, it is slower than a HashSet (usually--HashSets and SkipLists/Trees hard to compare). If you are doing a lot of reads for every write, what you've got will be faster. More importantly, if you update more than one entry at a time, your reads could see inconsistent results. If you expect that whenever there is an entry A there is an entry B, and vice versa, the skip list could give you one without the other.
With your current solution, to the readers, the contents of the map are always internally consistent. A read can be sure there's an A for every B. It can be sure that the size() method gives the precise number of elements that will be returned by the iterator. Two iterations will return the same elements in the same order.
In other words, allUpdatesGoThroughHere and ConcurrentSkipListSet are two good solutions to two different problems.

Can you use the Collections.synchronizedSet method? From HashSet Javadoc http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/util/HashSet.html
Set s = Collections.synchronizedSet(new HashSet(...));

Replace the synchronized by making global volatile and you'll be alright as far as the copy-on-write goes.
Although the assignment is atomic, in other threads it is not ordered with the writes to the object referenced. There needs to be a happens-before relationship which you get with a volatile or synchronising both reads and writes.
The problem of multiple updates happening at once is separate - use a single thread or whatever you want to do there.
If you used a synchronized for both reads and writes then it'd be correct but the performance may not be great with reads needing to hand-off. A ReadWriteLock may be appropriate, but you'd still have writes blocking reads.
Another approach to the publication issue is to use final field semantics to create an object that is (in theory) safe to be published unsafely.
Of course, there are also concurrent collections available.

How to Ensure Memory Visibility in Java when passing data across threads

I have a producer consumer like pattern where some threads are creating data and periodically passing putting chunks of that data to be consumed by some other threads.
Keeping the Java Memory Model in mind, how do i ensure that the data passed to the consumer thread has full 'visibility'?
I know there are data structures in java.util.concurrent like ConcurrentLinkedQueue that are built specifically for this, but I want to do this as low level as possible without utilizing those and have full transparency on what is going on under the covers to ensure the memory visibility part.

If you want "low level" then look into volatile and synchronized.

To transfer data, you need a field somewhere available to all threads. In your case it really needs to be some sort of collection to handle multiple entries. If you made the field final, referencing, say, a ConcurrentLinkedQueue, you'd pretty much be done. The field could be made public and everyone could see it, or you could make it available with a getter.
If you use an unsynchronized queue, you have more work to do, because you have to manually synchronize all access to it, which means you have to track down all usages; not easy when there's a getter method. Not only do you need to protect the queue from simultaneous access, you must make sure interdependent calls end up in the same synchronized block. For instance:
if (!queue.isEmpty()) obj = queue.remove();
If the whole thing is not synchronized, queue is perfectly capable of telling you it is not empty, then throwing a NoSuchElementException when you try to get the next element. (ConcurrentLinkedQueue's interface is specifically designed to let you do operations like this with one method call. Take a good look at it even if you don't want to use it.)
The simple solution is to wrap the queue in another object whose methods are carefully chosen and all synchronized. The wrapped class, even if it's LinkedList or ArrayList, will now act (if you do it right) like CLQ, and it can be freely released to the rest of the program.
So you would have what is really a global field with an immutable (final) reference to a wrapper class, which contains a LinkedList (for example) and has synchronized methods that use the LinkedList to store and access data. The wrapper class, like CLQ, would be thread-safe.
Some variants on this might be desirable. It might make sense to combine the wrapper with some other high-level class in your program. It might also make sense to create and make available instances of nested classes: perhaps one that only adds to the queue and one that only removes from it. (You couldn't do this with CLQ.)
A final note: having synchronized everything, the next step is to figure out how to unsynchronize (to keep threads from waiting too much) without breaking thread safety. Work really hard on this, and you'll end up rewriting ConcurrentLinkedQueue.

Java concurrency - use which technique to achieve safety?

I have a list of personId. There are two API calls to update it (add and remove):
public void add(String newPersonName) {
if (personNameIdMap.get(newPersonName) != null) {
myPersonId.add(personNameIdMap.get(newPersonName)
} else {
// get the id from Twitter and add to the list
}
// make an API call to Twitter
}
public void delete(String personNAme) {
if (personNameIdMap.get(newPersonName) != null) {
myPersonId.remove(personNameIdMap.get(newPersonName)
} else {
// wrong person name
}
// make an API call to Twitter
}
I know there can be concurrency problem. I read about 3 solutions:
synchronized the method
use Collections.synchronizedlist()
CopyOnWriteArrayList
I am not sure which one to prefer to prevent the inconsistency.

1) synchronized the method
2) use Collections.synchronizedlist
3) CopyOnWriteArrayList ..
All will work, it's a matter of what kind of performance / features you need.
Method #1 and #2 are blocking methods. If you synchronize the methods, you handle concurrency yourself. If you wrap a list in Collections.synchronizedList, it handles it for you. (IMHO #2 is safer -- just be sure to use it as the docs say, and don't let anything access the raw list that is wrapped inside the synchronizedList.)
CopyOnWriteArrayList is one of those weird things that has use in certain applications. It's a non-blocking quasi-immutable list, namely, if Thread A iterates through the list while Thread B is changing it, Thread A will iterate through a snapshot of the old list. If you need non-blocking performance, and you are rarely writing to the list, but frequently reading from it, then perhaps this is the best one to use.
edit: There are at least two other options:
4) use Vector instead of ArrayList; Vector implements List and is already synchronized. However, it's generally frowned, upon as it's considered an old-school class (was there since Java 1.0!), and should be equivalent to #2.
5) access the List serially from only one thread. If you do this, you're guaranteed not to have any concurrency problems with the List itself. One way to do this is to use Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor and queue up tasks one-by-one to access the list. This moves the resource contention from your list to the ExecutorService; if the tasks are short, it may be fine, but if some are lengthy they may cause others to block longer than desired.
In the end you need to think about concurrency at the application level: thread-safety should be a requirement, and find out how to get the performance you need with the simplest design possible.
On a side note, you're calling personNameIdMap.get(newPersonName) twice in add() and delete(). This suffers from concurrency problems if another thread modifies personNameIdMap between the two calls in each method. You're better off doing
PersonId id = personNameIdMap.get(newPersonName);
if (id != null){
myPersonId.add(id);
}
else
{
// something else
}

Collections.synchronizedList is the easiest to use and probably the best option. It simply wraps the underlying list with synchronized. Note that multi-step operations (eg for loop) still need to be synchronized by you.
Some quick things
Don't synchronize the method unless you really need to - It just locks the entire object until the method completes; hardly a desirable effect
CopyOnWriteArrayList is a very specialized list that most likely you wouldn't want since you have an add method. Its essentially a normal ArrayList but each time something is added the whole array is rebuilt, a very expensive task. Its thread safe, but not really the desired result

Synchronized is the old way of working with threads. Avoid it in favor of new idioms mostly expressed in the java.util.concurrent package.
See 1.
A CopyOnWriteArrayList has fast read and slow writes. If you're making a lot of changes to it, it might start to drag on your performance.
Concurrency isn't about an isolated choice of what mechanism or type to use in a single method. You'll need to think about it from a higher level to understand all of its impacts.

Are you making changes to personNameIdMap within those methods, or any other data structures access to which should also be synchronized? If so, it may be easiest to mark the methods as synchronized; otherwise, you might consider using Collections.synchronizedList to get a synchronized view of myPersonId and then doing all list operations through that synchronized view. Note that you should not manipulate myPersonId directly in this case, but do all accesses solely through the list returned from the Collections.synchronizedList call.
Either way, you have to make sure that there can never be a situation where a read and a write or two writes could occur simultaneously to the same unsynchronized data structure. Data structures documented as thread-safe or returned from Collections.synchronizedList, Collections.synchronizedMap, etc. are exceptions to this rule, so calls to those can be put anywhere. Non-synchronized data structures can still be used safely inside methods declared to be synchronized, however, because such methods are guaranteed by the JVM to never run at the same time, and therefore there could be no concurrent reading / writing.

In your case from the code that you posted, all 3 ways are acceptable. However, there are some specific characteristics:
#3: This should have the same effect as #2 but may run faster or slower depending on the system and workload.
#1: This way is the most flexible. Only with #1 can you make the the add() and delete() methods more complex. For example, if you need to read or write multiple items in the list, then you cannot use #2 or #3, because some other thread can still see the list being half updated.

Java concurrency (multi-threading) :
Concurrency is the ability to run several programs or several parts of a program in parallel. If a time consuming task can be performed asynchronously or in parallel, this improve the throughput and the interactivity of the program.
We can do concurrent programming with Java. By java concurrency we can do parallel programming, immutability, threads, the executor framework (thread pools), futures, callables and the fork-join framework programmings.

synchronize versus Collection.synchronizedList versus CopyOnWriteArrayList

If my requirements dictate that most of my accesses to the list are for reading and modifications if any are going to be minimal, why can't I just do either of the following
synchronize modifyList method and use ArrayList. All reads from arraylist will be unsynchronized
or
inside modifyList, do a Collections.synchronizedList(arrayList)
or
CopyOnWriteArrayList (not sure what it buys here)
Why would I use either ? which is better ?

For 1 & 2, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by only synchronizing writes. If there are potential readers who might be iterating the list, or who are looking things up by index, then only synchronizing writes proves nothing. The readers will still be able to read while writes are in progress and may see dirty data or get exceptions (ConcurrentModification or IndexOutOfBounds.)
You would need to synchronize both your reads and writes if you want 'safe' iterating and getting while other threads make changes. At which point, you may as well have just used a Vector.
CopyOnWriteArrayList is purpose built for what you want to do. It buys safe synchronization-free iterators, while substantially increasing the cost of writes. It also had the advantage of doing what you want (or what it seems you want from the terse question :) ), entirely encapsulated within the JavaSE API, which reduces 'surprise' for future developers.
(do note that if you have multi-step processes involving reads with 'get' even using CopyOnWriteArrayList may not be entirely safe. You need to evaluate what your code actually does and if an interleaving modification would break the method that is getting.)

Another solution would be to use ReentrantReadWriteLock so you can use read-only locks on read operations (which don't block other reads) and a write lock for when you're writing (which will block until there are no reads, and won't allow any read locks until it's released.