Develop Reference

Double checking way of creating singleton issue

How reading (outside critical resource block) and writing (inside critical resource block) does not have atomicity issues.
I have read and discussed with various people but most people don't answer if both operations are atomic and how atomicity is actually achieved for above problem.
class ABC {
private static volatile ABC abcInstance;
static ABC getInstance(){
if(abcInstance == null){
synchronized(ABC.class){
if(abcInstance == null){
abcInstance = new ABC();
return abcInstance;
}
}
}
return abcInstance;
}
}
Are if(abcInstance == null) outside synchronisation block and abcInstance = new ABC(); atomic, if not then this way of creating singletons is wrong.
In C++, abcInstance = new ABC(); consists of three instructions broadly speaking:
Create ABC object.
Allocate memory for ABC.
Assign it to abcInstance.
And for optimisations compiler can reorder these three instructions in any way. Suppose it follows 2->3->1 and after instruction 3 interrupt happens and next thread calling getInstance() will read that abcInstance has some value then it will point to something which does not have ABC object.
Please correct me if am wrong for both C++ and Java.

This answers the Java part of your question only.
Is if(abcInstance == null) and abcInstance = new ABC(); are atomic, if not then this way of creating singleton is wrong.
It is not atomicity that is the (potential) problem. (Reference assignment is atomic from the perspective of both the thread doing the assignment, and the thread reading the assigned variable.)
The problem is when the value written to abcInstance becomes visible to another thread.
Prior to Java 5, the memory model did not provide sufficient guarantees about memory visibility for that implementation to work reliably.
In the Java 5 (and later) memory model, there is a happens before relation between one thread's write to a volatile variable and another thread's subsequent read of the variable. This means:
The second thread is guaranteed to see the non-null value of abcInstance if the first thread has written it.
The happens before relation also guarantees that the second thread will see the fully initialized state of the ABC instance create by the first thread.
The synchronized block ensures that only one ABC instance may be created at a time.
This is the authoritative article explaining why old double-checked locking implementations were broken:
The "Double-Checked Locking is Broken" Declaration
As Andrew Turner states, there is a simpler, cleaner way to implement singleton classes in Java: use an enum.
Implementing Singleton with an Enum (in Java)

Here are two typical singleton variants in C++.
First one shared by all threads:
class singleton {
private:
singleton() {}
public:
singleton(const singleton&) = delete;
static singleton& get_instance() {
static singleton ins;
return ins;
}
};
And here's one that that will create one instance per thread that needs it:
class tl_singleton {
private:
tl_singleton() {}
public:
tl_singleton(const tl_singleton&) = delete;
static tl_singleton& get_instance() {
static thread_local tl_singleton ins;
return ins;
}
};

Synchronizing singleton in Java

I have just encountered code where synchronization was done on wrong class:
public class Test
{
public static volatile Test instance = null;
public static void setIfNull(Test newInstance)
{
synchronized (WRONG.class) // should be synchronized (Test.class)
{
if (newInstance == null)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("newInstance must not be null.");
if (instance == null) instance = newInstance;
}
}
}
Above error would not happen if whole method was synchronized:
public class Test
{
public static volatile Test instance = null;
public static synchronized void setIfNull(Test newInstance)
{
if (newInstance == null)
throw new IllegalArgumentException("newInstance must not be null.");
if (instance == null) instance = newInstance;
}
}
The way I see it, second piece of code is more error proof than first one.
Are there any pitfalls of using method synchronization over synchronization block concerning above code pattern?
Warning: In above code instance field is not properly encapsulated. Being public member nothing prevents external code not only to read it, but also write to it in thread unsafe manner. This code should not be used as proper thread safe singleton example because that is not what it is.

Are there any pitfalls of using method synchronization over synchronization block concerning above code pattern?
Since this:
public static synchronized void setIfNull(Test newInstance) {
...
}
...is exactly the same (JLS 8.4.3.6) as this:
public static void setIfNull(Test newInstance) {
synchronized (Test.class) {
...
}
}
...what you are really asking is: "What is the difference between synchronizing on some other class object WRONG.class and on This.class?".
The only thing to look out for is whether something else in your code decides to synchronize on Test.class.

1) One significant difference between synchronized method and block is that, Synchronized block generally reduce scope of lock. As scope of lock is inversely proportional to performance, its always better to lock only critical section of code. One of the best example of using synchronized block is double checked locking in Singleton pattern where instead of locking whole getInstance() method we only lock critical section of code which is used to create Singleton instance. This improves performance drastically because locking is only required one or two times.
2) Synchronized block provide granular control over lock, as you can use arbitrary any lock to provide mutual exclusion to critical section code. On the other hand synchronized method always lock either on current object represented by this keyword or class level lock, if its static synchronized method.
3) Synchronized block can throw throw java.lang.NullPointerException if expression provided to block as parameter evaluates to null, which is not the case with synchronized methods.
4) In case of synchronized method, lock is acquired by thread when it enter method and released when it leaves method, either normally or by throwing Exception. On the other hand in case of synchronized block, thread acquires lock when they enter synchronized block and release when they leave synchronized block.
Read more: http://java67.blogspot.com/2013/01/difference-between-synchronized-block-vs-method-java-example.html#ixzz3qAc5gOJy

I cant remember any pitfalls when you synchronize whole methods. Of course those are more "expensive" that just locks around certain areas.
If you're not sure i would always go for the synchronized method first until you encounter is as a bottleneck.
To avoid blocking on the wrong object simple create an instance variable:
private final Object block = new Object();
And use this when you need sychronization. Anyway when you do so, keep in mind that other methods called by different threads dont respect this and you get side effects. So you have to be careful when going this way.
I read quite some books on those topics thats an really concrete answer ist hard to mark as the correct one.
I recommend that you read "Java Concurrency in Practice" from Brian Goetz.
Also "Java Core" from Angelika Langer, Klaus Kreft (a book that goes into deep when it comes to using the volatile keyword) (German Book, still curious that no one translated this into english as it is a masterpiece in its area).
Also you could use reentant locks to get fair locking if you like.

Java Threading - Synchronized code

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).

why using volatile with synchronized block?

I saw some examples in java where they do synchronization on a block of code to change some variable while that variable was declared volatile originally .. I saw that in an example of singleton class where they declared the unique instance as volatile and they sychronized the block that initializes that instance ... My question is why we declare it volatile while we synch on it, why we need to do both?? isn't one of them is sufficient for the other ??
public class SomeClass {
volatile static Object uniqueInstance = null;
public static Object getInstance() {
if (uniqueInstance == null) {
synchronized (someClass.class) {
if (uniqueInstance == null) {
uniqueInstance = new SomeClass();
}
}
}
return uniqueInstance;
}
}
thanks in advance.

Synchronization by itself would be enough in this case if the first check was within synchronized block (but it's not and one thread might not see changes performed by another if the variable were not volatile). Volatile alone would not be enough because you need to perform more than one operation atomically. But beware! What you have here is so-called double-checked locking - a common idiom, which unfortunately does not work reliably. I think this has changed since Java 1.6, but still this kind of code may be risky.
EDIT: when the variable is volatile, this code works correctly since JDK 5 (not 6 as I wrote earlier), but it will not work as expected under JDK 1.4 or earlier.

This uses the double checked locking, note that the if(uniqueInstance == null) is not within the synchronized part.
If uniqueInstance is not volatile, it might be "initialized" with a partially constructed object where parts of it isn't visible to other than the thread executing in the synchronized block. volatile makes this an all or nothing operation in this case.
If you didn't have the synchronized block, you could end up with 2 threads getting to this point at the same time.
if(uniqueInstance == null) {
uniqueInstance = new someClass(); <---- here
And you construct 2 SomeClass objects, which defeats the purpose.
Strictly speaking, you don't need volatile , the method could have been
public static someClass getInstance() {
synchronized(FullDictionary.class) {
if(uniqueInstance == null) {
uniqueInstance = new someClass();
}
return uniqueInstance;
}
}
But that incurs the synchronization and serialization of every thread that performs getInstance().

This post explains the idea behind volatile.
It is also addressed in the seminal work, Java Concurrency in Practice.
The main idea is that concurrency not only involves protection of shared state but also the visibility of that state between threads: this is where volatile comes in. (This larger contract is defined by the Java Memory Model.)

You can do synchronization without using synchronized block.
It's not a necessary to use volatile variable in it...
volatile updates the one variable from main memory..and
synchronized Update all shared variables that have been accessed from main memory..
So you can use it according to your requirement..

My two cents here
Frist a quick explanation of the intuition of this code
if(uniqueInstance == null) {
synchronized(someClass.class) {
if(uniqueInstance == null) {
uniqueInstance = new someClass();
}
}
}
The reason it checks uniqueInstance == null twice is to reduce the overhead of calling the synchronized block which is relatively slower. So called double-checked locking.
Second, the reason it uses synchronized is easy to understand, it make the two operations inside the synchronized block atomic.
Last the volatile modifier makes sure all threads see the same copy so the very first check outside of the synchronized block will see the value of uniqueInstance in a way which is "synchronized"
with the synchronized block. Without the volatile modifier one thread can assign a value to uniqueInstance but the other thread may not see it by the first check. (Although the second check will see it)

How to solve the "Double-Checked Locking is Broken" Declaration in Java?

I want to implement lazy initialization for multithreading in Java.
I have some code of the sort:
class Foo {
private Helper helper = null;
public Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
Helper h;
synchronized(this) {
h = helper;
if (h == null)
synchronized (this) {
h = new Helper();
} // release inner synchronization lock
helper = h;
}
}
return helper;
}
// other functions and members...
}
And I'm getting the the "Double-Checked Locking is Broken" declaration.
How can I solve this?

Here is the idiom recommended in the Item 71: Use lazy initialization judiciously of
Effective Java:
If you need to use lazy initialization for performance on an
instance field, use the double-check
idiom. This idiom avoids the cost
of locking when accessing the field
after it has been initialized (Item
67). The idea behind the idiom is to
check the value of the field twice
(hence the name double-check): once
without locking, and then, if the
field appears to be uninitialized, a
second time with locking. Only if the
second check indicates that the field
is uninitialized does the call
initialize the field. Because there is
no locking if the field is already
initialized, it is critical that the
field be declared volatile (Item
66). Here is the idiom:
// Double-check idiom for lazy initialization of instance fields
private volatile FieldType field;
private FieldType getField() {
FieldType result = field;
if (result != null) // First check (no locking)
return result;
synchronized(this) {
if (field == null) // Second check (with locking)
field = computeFieldValue();
return field;
}
}
This code may appear a bit convoluted.
In particular, the need for the local
variable result may be unclear. What
this variable does is to ensure that
field is read only once in the common
case where it’s already initialized.
While not strictly necessary, this may
improve performance and is more
elegant by the standards applied to
low-level concurrent programming. On
my machine, the method above is about
25 percent faster than the obvious
version without a local variable.
Prior to release 1.5, the double-check
idiom did not work reliably because
the semantics of the volatile modifier
were not strong enough to support it
[Pugh01]. The memory model introduced
in release 1.5 fixed this problem
[JLS, 17, Goetz06 16]. Today, the
double-check idiom is the technique of
choice for lazily initializing an
instance field. While you can apply
the double-check idiom to static
fields as well, there is no reason to
do so: the lazy initialization holder
class idiom is a better choice.
Reference
Effective Java, Second Edition
Item 71: Use lazy initialization judiciously

Here is a pattern for correct double-checked locking.
class Foo {
private volatile HeavyWeight lazy;
HeavyWeight getLazy() {
HeavyWeight tmp = lazy; /* Minimize slow accesses to `volatile` member. */
if (tmp == null) {
synchronized (this) {
tmp = lazy;
if (tmp == null)
lazy = tmp = createHeavyWeightObject();
}
}
return tmp;
}
}
For a singleton, there is a much more readable idiom for lazy initialization.
class Singleton {
private static class Ref {
static final Singleton instance = new Singleton();
}
public static Singleton get() {
return Ref.instance;
}
}

DCL using ThreadLocal By Brian Goetz # JavaWorld
what's broken about DCL?
DCL relies on an unsynchronized use of the resource field. That appears to be harmless, but it is not. To see why, imagine that thread A is inside the synchronized block, executing the statement resource = new Resource(); while thread B is just entering getResource(). Consider the effect on memory of this initialization. Memory for the new Resource object will be allocated; the constructor for Resource will be called, initializing the member fields of the new object; and the field resource of SomeClass will be assigned a reference to the newly created object.
class SomeClass {
private Resource resource = null;
public Resource getResource() {
if (resource == null) {
synchronized {
if (resource == null)
resource = new Resource();
}
}
return resource;
}
}
However, since thread B is not executing inside a synchronized block, it may see these memory operations in a different order than the one thread A executes. It could be the case that B sees these events in the following order (and the compiler is also free to reorder the instructions like this): allocate memory, assign reference to resource, call constructor. Suppose thread B comes along after the memory has been allocated and the resource field is set, but before the constructor is called. It sees that resource is not null, skips the synchronized block, and returns a reference to a partially constructed Resource! Needless to say, the result is neither expected nor desired.
Can ThreadLocal help fix DCL?
We can use ThreadLocal to achieve the DCL idiom's explicit goal -- lazy initialization without synchronization on the common code path. Consider this (thread-safe) version of DCL:
Listing 2. DCL using ThreadLocal
class ThreadLocalDCL {
private static ThreadLocal initHolder = new ThreadLocal();
private static Resource resource = null;
public Resource getResource() {
if (initHolder.get() == null) {
synchronized {
if (resource == null)
resource = new Resource();
initHolder.set(Boolean.TRUE);
}
}
return resource;
}
}
I think; here each thread will once enters the SYNC block to update the threadLocal value; then it will not. So ThreadLocal DCL will ensure a thread will enter only once inside the SYNC block.
What does synchronized really mean?
Java treats each thread as if it runs on its own processor with its own local memory, each talking to and synchronizing with a shared main memory. Even on a single-processor system, that model makes sense because of the effects of memory caches and the use of processor registers to store variables. When a thread modifies a location in its local memory, that modification should eventually show up in the main memory as well, and the JMM defines the rules for when the JVM must transfer data between local and main memory. The Java architects realized that an overly restrictive memory model would seriously undermine program performance. They attempted to craft a memory model that would allow programs to perform well on modern computer hardware while still providing guarantees that would allow threads to interact in predictable ways.
Java's primary tool for rendering interactions between threads predictably is the synchronized keyword. Many programmers think of synchronized strictly in terms of enforcing a mutual exclusion semaphore (mutex) to prevent execution of critical sections by more than one thread at a time. Unfortunately, that intuition does not fully describe what synchronized means.
The semantics of synchronized do indeed include mutual exclusion of execution based on the status of a semaphore, but they also include rules about the synchronizing thread's interaction with main memory. In particular, the acquisition or release of a lock triggers a memory barrier -- a forced synchronization between the thread's local memory and main memory. (Some processors -- like the Alpha -- have explicit machine instructions for performing memory barriers.) When a thread exits a synchronized block, it performs a write barrier -- it must flush out any variables modified in that block to main memory before releasing the lock. Similarly, when entering a synchronized block, it performs a read barrier -- it is as if the local memory has been invalidated, and it must fetch any variables that will be referenced in the block from main memory.

The only way to do double-checked locking correctly in Java is to use "volatile" declarations on the variable in question. While that solution is correct, note that "volatile" means cache lines get flushed at every access. Since "synchronized" flushes them at the end of the block, it may not actually be any more efficient (or even less efficient). I'd recommend just not using double-checked locking unless you've profiled your code and found there to be a performance problem in this area.

Define the variable that should be double-checked with volatile midifier
You don't need the h variable.
Here is an example from here
class Foo {
private volatile Helper helper = null;
public Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
synchronized(this) {
if (helper == null)
helper = new Helper();
}
}
return helper;
}
}

what do you mean, from whom you are getting the declaration?
Double-Checked Locking is fixed. check wikipedia:
public class FinalWrapper<T>
{
public final T value;
public FinalWrapper(T value) { this.value = value; }
}
public class Foo
{
private FinalWrapper<Helper> helperWrapper = null;
public Helper getHelper()
{
FinalWrapper<Helper> wrapper = helperWrapper;
if (wrapper == null)
{
synchronized(this)
{
if (helperWrapper ==null)
helperWrapper = new FinalWrapper<Helper>( new Helper() );
wrapper = helperWrapper;
}
}
return wrapper.value;
}

As a few have noted, you definitely need the volatile keyword to make it work correctly, unless all members in the object are declared final, otherwise there is no happens-before pr safe-publication and you could see the default values.
We got sick of the constant problems with people getting this wrong, so we coded a LazyReference utility that has final semantics and has been profiled and tuned to be as fast as possible.

Copying below from somewhere else ,which explains why using a method local variable as a copy for the volatile variable will speed things up.
Statement that needs explanation:
This code may appear a bit convoluted. In particular, the need for the
local variable result may be unclear.
Explanation:
The field would be read first time in the first if statement and
second time in the return statement. The field is declared volatile,
which means it has to be refetched from memory every time it is
accessed (roughly speaking, even more processing might be required to
access volatile variables) and can not be stored into a register by
the compiler. When copied to the local variable and then used in both
statements (if and return), the register optimization can be done by
the JVM.