Develop Reference

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

Is this a proper customized synchronizer?

I had a strong need for a synchronizer similar to a CountDownLatch, but the starting number for the countdown is unknown. To add context, if I'm going through a buffered recordset (say from a text file or a query) and kicking off a runnable for each record, but I don't know how many records there will be... I need a synchronizer that signals when the iteration is complete and all runnables are complete.
This is the synchronizer I came up with... a BufferedLatch. A method is called in the iteration loop for each record incrementing the recordSetSize. At the end of each runnable kicked off for each record, the processedRecordSetSize is incremented. When the iteration through all records is complete (but runnables may still be in queue), the setDownloadComplete() method is called letting the BufferedLatch know the recordSetSize is now fixed. The await() method waits for the iterationComplete variable to be true (recordsetSize is now fixed) and recordsetSize == processedRecordSetSize;
Is this an optimal implementation of this synchronizer? Is there more concurrent opportunity that synchronization is holding back? Although testing seems to work fine, are there any gotcha's I'm overlooking?
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public final class BufferedLatch {
/** A customized synchronizer built for concurrent iteration processes where the number of objects to be iterated is unknown
* and a runnable will be kicked off for each object, and the await() method will wait for all runnables to be complete
*/
private final AtomicInteger recordsetSize = new AtomicInteger(0);
private final AtomicInteger processedRecordsetSize = new AtomicInteger(0);
private volatile boolean iterationComplete = false;
public int incrementRecordsetSize() throws Exception {
if (iterationComplete) {
throw new Exception("Cannot increase recordsize after download is flagged complete!");
}
else {
return recordsetSize.incrementAndGet();
}
}
public void incrementProcessedRecordSize() {
synchronized(this) {
processedRecordsetSize.incrementAndGet();
if (iterationComplete) {
if (processedRecordsetSize.get() == recordsetSize.get()) {
this.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
public void setDownloadComplete() {
synchronized(this) {
iterationComplete = true;
}
}
public void await() throws InterruptedException {
while (! (iterationComplete && (processedRecordsetSize.get() == recordsetSize.get()))) {
synchronized(this) {
while (! (iterationComplete && (processedRecordsetSize.get() == recordsetSize.get()))) {
this.wait();
}
}
}
}
}
UPDATE-- NEW CODE
public final class BufferedLatch {
/** A customized synchronizer built for concurrent iteration processes where the number of objects to be iterated is unknown
* and a runnable will be kicked off for each object, and the await() method will wait for all runnables to be complete
*/
private int recordCount = 0;
private int processedRecordCount = 0;
private boolean iterationComplete = false;
public synchronized void incrementRecordCount() throws Exception {
if (iterationComplete) {
throw new Exception("Cannot increase recordCount after download is flagged complete!");
}
else {
recordCount++;
}
}
public synchronized void incrementProcessedRecordCount() {
processedRecordCount++;
if (iterationComplete && recordCount == processedRecordCount) {
this.notifyAll();
}
}
public synchronized void setIterationComplete() {
iterationComplete = true;
if (iterationComplete && recordCount == processedRecordCount) {
this.notifyAll();
}
}
public synchronized void await() throws InterruptedException {
while (! (iterationComplete && (recordCount == processedRecordCount))) {
this.wait();
}
}
}

Probably not. I think conceptually you're onto something here, as it looks like your application needs something more than just a CountDownLatch. However, the implementation seems to have several problems.
First, I note that it looks odd to mix atomics/volatiles AND ordinary object monitor locks (synchronized). While there may be proper uses that mix these different constructs, mixing in this case I believe will lead to errors.
Consider incrementRecordsetSize() which first checks iterationComplete and only if it's false does it increment recordsetSize. The iterationComplete variable is volatile so updates from other threads will be visible. However, the fact that no locking is done here allows TOCTOU race conditions (time-of-check vs time-of-use). The rule seems to be, recordsetSize must not be incremented if iterationComplete is true. Suppose thread T1 comes along and finds iterationComplete to be false, so it decides to increment recordsetSize. Before it does so, another thread T2 comes along and sets iterationComplete to be true. This would allow T1 to do the increment improperly. Worse, before it does so, suppose another thread T3 came along and called incrementProcessedRecordSize(). It would increment processedRecordsetSize and then find iterationComplete true. It further might find that processedRecordsetSize equals recordsetSize and then notify all waiters, who then proceed as if the processing is complete. But it's not, as T1 then proceeds to increment recordsetSize and presumably continues with its processing.
The problem here is that this object's state consists of the fusion of three independent pieces of state -- two int counters and a boolean -- and all three must be read and written atomically. If certain bits of logic attempt to take advantage of individual volatile or atomic properties, it introduces the possibility of race conditions such as the one I described.
I'd suggest rewriting this as a plain object with two plain ints and a boolean (not atomic, not volatile) and just lock around everything. This should certainly clear up the logic and make things easier to understand.
In incrementProcessedRecordSize I note that the condition essentially duplicates the condition in the await method. A simplifying convention is for all updates to notify and have the condition evaluated only by the waiters. This may result in some unnecessary wakeups. If this is a problem, you might consider minimizing the number of notifies, but you need to think about maintainability. If you're not careful, the wait/notify conditions will become spread across the code and will be very hard to reason about. Alternatively, you could refactor the condition into a method and call it from the different places that do waiting and notification.
It looks like await() does a complicated form of double-checked locking. Instead of testing a volatile boolean outside the lock, it tests several separate pieces of information both outside and inside the lock. This seems susceptible to TOCTOU problems (as above) but it might be safe if you can prove the state really latches, that is, that once it becomes true it never returns to false. I'd have to stare at the code for a long time before I'd be able to convince myself it's correct.
On the other hand, what does this buy you? It seems to optimize away just the taking of the lock. If you have a zillion threads that are going to come by after processing is complete, it might be worth it, but it doesn't seem like it. I'd just remove the outer while loop and check the variables within a synchronized block.
Finally, having an object that represents counters and a boolean may very well be sensible for what you're doing, but other things you've said (in the question and in comments) are that some threads are generating a workload (e.g. reading lines from a file) and other threads are retiring that workload. This implies that there is some other data structure like a queue that contains this workload, and you have a producer-consumer problem here. That other structure has to be thread-safe, of course, since multiple threads are interacting over it. But the counters and boolean in this structure need to be updated in lockstep with the updates to the workload structure, otherwise there could be race conditions between checking and updating these separate objects.
It seems to me you could replace the counters in this object with the queue and just put simple locks around everything. The producers would append to the queue until they're done, at which time they set iterationComplete to true which prevents more work from being added. The consumers pull from the queue until iterationComplete is true and the queue is empty, at which point they're done. If they find the queue empty but iterationComplete is false, they know to block while awaiting further work.
I'd say to stick with simple locking and avoid volatiles/atomics until you get the basics correct. If there are bottlenecks in that code, then apply optimizations selectively while preserving the same invariants.

Java synchronized - am I doing it right?

I'm not used to working with synchronized. Does the following snippet look right?
public void setNewSessionListener(NewSessionListener newSessionListener) {
if (this.newSessionListener != null)
synchronized (this.newSessionListener) {
this.newSessionListener = newSessionListener;
}
else
this.newSessionListener = newSessionListener;
}
More specifically do I need to perform a null check? I have a gut feeling there is something fundamentally wrong with that code.

There are two mistakes. The first one is that if you access a field which requires synchronization, you always have to access it with the same lock held. Also you have to check if the field is null and write to the field in the same sychronized block, because otherwise when you write something to the field, it may already be not null.
The second one is that it is best to sychronize on something that doesn't change, in other words, on a static final field or on the instance itself. For example, you can create a lock object specifically for this purpose:
private static final Object LOCK = new Object();
And then you will write:
synchronized (LOCK) {
if (this.newSessionListener == null) this.newSessionListener = newSessionListener;
}

Your feeling is right. You should do the null check inside the synchronized block. Otherwise the block won't prevent double initialization. Furthermore, you shouldn't synchronize on this.newSessionListener which you are about to change - choose an object (reference) which is going to stay around for the whole scope of the block. This is the only way to guarantee that only one thread can enter this block of code at any point in time. The typical way to achieve this is to synchronize on this. Alternatively, you may synchronize on a private final object, kept for this sole purpose.
Moreover, ultimately you are performing the same assignment in both the if and the else branches, which is probably not what you want.

This is, at a minimum, a very bad idea. You are synchronizing on an object you then assign to.
Because you are using synchronized I assume this is called asynchronously and it could be called by one thread while another thread is inside this code. If so, you are not locking on a common object, you are locking on the value it is holding at that point in time.
Probably, and I stress probably, you can do synchronized (this). That will insure that all calls to this method for this specific object are synchronized. And that calls to other instances of this class are locked for that other object - but not across instances.
If you want to synchronize across all instantiated objects, call synchronized (YourClass)

Here's another possibility (i tend to prefer explicit locks over the synchronized block):
private ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();
lock.lock();
try {
// do your synchronized code here.
}
finally {
lock.unlock();
}
Though just by looking at your code, i'm not sure why there's even an if block. Why are you synchronized in one case, and not the other? Especially considering you're making the same assignment in either case?

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)

Questions on Concurrency from Java Guide

So I've been reading on concurrency and have some questions on the way (guide I followed - though I'm not sure if its the best source):
Processes vs. Threads: Is the difference basically that a process is the program as a whole while a thread can be a (small) part of a program?
I am not exactly sure why there is a interrupted() method and a InterruptedException. Why should the interrupted() method even be used? It just seems to me that Java just adds an extra layer of indirection.
For synchronization (and specifically about the one in that link), how does adding the synchronize keyword even fix the problem? I mean, if Thread A gives back its incremented c and Thread B gives back the decremented c and store it to some other variable, I am not exactly sure how the problem is solved. I mean this may be answering my own question, but is it supposed to be assumed that after one of the threads return an answer, terminate? And if that is the case, why would adding synchronize make a difference?
I read (from some random PDF) that if you have two Threads start() subsequently, you cannot guarantee that the first thread will occur before the second thread. How would you guarantee it, though?
In synchronization statements, I am not completely sure whats the point of adding synchronized within the method. What is wrong with leaving it out? Is it because one expects both to mutate separately, but to be obtained together? Why not just have the two non-synchronized?
Is volatile just a keyword for variables and is synonymous with synchronized?
In the deadlock problem, how does synchronize even help the situation? What makes this situation different from starting two threads that change a variable?
Moreover, where is the "wait"/lock for the other person to bowBack? I would have thought that bow() was blocked, not bowBack().
I'll stop here because I think if I went any further without these questions answered, I will not be able to understand the later lessons.

Answers:
Yes, a process is an operating system process that has an address space, a thread is a unit of execution, and there can be multiple units of execution in a process.
The interrupt() method and InterruptedException are generally used to wake up threads that are waiting to either have them do something or terminate.
Synchronizing is a form of mutual exclusion or locking, something very standard and required in computer programming. Google these terms and read up on that and you will have your answer.
True, this cannot be guaranteed, you would have to have some mechanism, involving synchronization that the threads used to make sure they ran in the desired order. This would be specific to the code in the threads.
See answer to #3
Volatile is a way to make sure that a particular variable can be properly shared between different threads. It is necessary on multi-processor machines (which almost everyone has these days) to make sure the value of the variable is consistent between the processors. It is effectively a way to synchronize a single value.
Read about deadlocking in more general terms to understand this. Once you first understand mutual exclusion and locking you will be able to understand how deadlocks can happen.
I have not read the materials that you read, so I don't understand this one. Sorry.

I find that the examples used to explain synchronization and volatility are contrived and difficult to understand the purpose of. Here are my preferred examples:
Synchronized:
private Value value;
public void setValue(Value v) {
value = v;
}
public void doSomething() {
if(value != null) {
doFirstThing();
int val = value.getInt(); // Will throw NullPointerException if another
// thread calls setValue(null);
doSecondThing(val);
}
}
The above code is perfectly correct if run in a single-threaded environment. However with even 2 threads there is the possibility that value will be changed in between the check and when it is used. This is because the method doSomething() is not atomic.
To address this, use synchronization:
private Value value;
private Object lock = new Object();
public void setValue(Value v) {
synchronized(lock) {
value = v;
}
}
public void doSomething() {
synchronized(lock) { // Prevents setValue being called by another thread.
if(value != null) {
doFirstThing();
int val = value.getInt(); // Cannot throw NullPointerException.
doSecondThing(val);
}
}
}
Volatile:
private boolean running = true;
// Called by Thread 1.
public void run() {
while(running) {
doSomething();
}
}
// Called by Thread 2.
public void stop() {
running = false;
}
To explain this requires knowledge of the Java Memory Model. It is worth reading about in depth, but the short version for this example is that Threads have their own copies of variables which are only sync'd to main memory on a synchronized block and when a volatile variable is reached. The Java compiler (specifically the JIT) is allowed to optimise the code into this:
public void run() {
while(true) { // Will never end
doSomething();
}
}
To prevent this optimisation you can set a variable to be volatile, which forces the thread to access main memory every time it reads the variable. Note that this is unnecessary if you are using synchronized statements as both keywords cause a sync to main memory.
I haven't addressed your questions directly as Francis did so. I hope these examples can give you an idea of the concepts in a better way than the examples you saw in the Oracle tutorial.