We Keep Coding

Why is this code not going into an infinite loop as suggested by JSR133?

In JSR-133 section 3.1, which discusses the visibility of actions between threads - it is mentioned that the code example below, which does not utilise the volatile keyword for the boolean field, can become an infinite loop if two threads are running it. Here is the code from the JSR:
class LoopMayNeverEnd {
boolean done = false;
void work() {
while (!done) {
// do work
}
}
void stopWork() {
done = true;
}
}
Here is a quote of the important bit in that section that I'm interested in:
... Now imagine that two threads are created, and that one
thread calls work(), and at some point, the other thread calls stopWork(). Because there is
no happens-before relationship between the two threads, the thread in the loop may never
see the update to done performed by the other thread ...
And here is my own Java code I wrote just so I can see it loop:
public class VolatileTest {
private boolean done = false;
public static void main(String[] args) {
VolatileTest volatileTest = new VolatileTest();
volatileTest.runTest();
}
private void runTest() {
Thread t1 = new Thread(() -> work());
Thread t2 = new Thread(() -> stopWork());
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
private void stopWork() {
done = true;
System.out.println("stopped work");
}
private void work() {
while(!done){
System.out.println("started work");
}
}
}
Although the results from consecutive executions are different - as expected - I don't see it ever going into an infinite loop. I'm trying to understand how I can simulate the infinite loop that the documentation suggests, what am I missing? How does declaring the boolean volatile, remove the infinite loop?

The actual behavior is OS and JVM specific. For example, by default, Java runs in client mode on 32-bit Windows and in server mode on the Mac. In client mode the work method will terminate, but will not terminate in server mode.
This happens because of the Java server JIT compiler optimization. The JIT compiler may optimize the while loop, because it does not see the variable done changing within the context of the thread. Another reason of the infinite loop might be because one thread may end up reading the value of the flag from its registers or cache instead of going to memory. As a result, it may never see the change made by the another thread to this flag.
Essentially by adding volatile you make the thread owning done flag to not cache this flag. Thus, the boolean value is stored in common memory and therefore guarantees visibility. Also, by using volatile you disabling JIT optimization that can inline the flag value.
Basically if you want to reproduce infinite loop - just run your program in server mode:
java -server VolatileTest

The default, non-volatile, implicit declaration of all Java values allows the Jit compiler to "hoist" references to non-volatile values, out of loops so that they are only read 'once'. This is allowed after a tracing of execution paths can safely arrive at the fact that the methods called inside of such a loop, don't ever cause entry back into the classes methods where it might mutate the value of these non-volatile values.
The System.out.println() invocation goes to native code which keeps the JIT from resolving that 'done' is never modified. Thus the hoist does not happen when the System.out.println() is there and as you found out, the infinite loop is only happening with it removed where the JIT can resolve that there is no write to 'done'.
The ultimate problem is that this reference hoisting is conditional on "reachability" of a mutation of the value. Thus, you may have moments where there is no reach to a mutation of the value, during development, and thus the hoist happens and suddenly you can't exit the loop. A later change to the loop might use some function that makes it impossible to discern that the value cannot be written by the logic in the loop, and the hoist disappears and the loop works again.
This hoist is a big problem for many people who don't see it coming. There is a pretty large group of belief now that safe Java has class level variables either declared as volatile or final. If you really need a variable to be "optimizable", then don't use a class level variable and instead make it a parameter, or copy it into a local variable for the optimizer to go after. Doing this with read only access helps manage "dynamic" changes in a value that disrupt predictable execution paths too.
There is has been recurring discussion on the java concurrency mailing list about this issue. They don't seem to believe that this is a problem for Java developers and that this "optimization" of reference is far more valuable to performance than problematic to development.

Proper use of volatile variables and synchronized blocks

I am trying to wrap my head around thread safety in java (or in general). I have this class (which I hope complies with the definition of a POJO) which also needs to be compatible with JPA providers:
public class SomeClass {
private Object timestampLock = new Object();
// are "volatile"s necessary?
private volatile java.sql.Timestamp timestamp;
private volatile String timestampTimeZoneName;
private volatile BigDecimal someValue;
public ZonedDateTime getTimestamp() {
// is synchronisation necessary here? is this the correct usage?
synchronized (timestampLock) {
return ZonedDateTime.ofInstant(timestamp.toInstant(), ZoneId.of(timestampTimeZoneName));
}
}
public void setTimestamp(ZonedDateTime dateTime) {
// is this the correct usage?
synchronized (timestampLock) {
this.timestamp = java.sql.Timestamp.from(dateTime.toInstant());
this.timestampTimeZoneName = dateTime.getZone().getId();
}
}
// is synchronisation required?
public BigDecimal getSomeValue() {
return someValue;
}
// is synchronisation required?
public void setSomeValue(BigDecimal val) {
someValue = val;
}
}
As stated in the commented rows in the code, is it necessary to define timestamp and timestampTimeZoneName as volatile and are the synchronized blocks used as they should be? Or should I use only the synchronized blocks and not define timestamp and timestampTimeZoneName as volatile? A timestampTimeZoneName of a timestamp should not be erroneously matched with another timestamp's.
This link says
Reads and writes are atomic for all variables declared volatile
(including long and double variables)
Should I understand that accesses to someValue in this code through the setter/getter are thread safe thanks to volatile definitions? If so, is there a better (I do not know what "better" might mean here) way to accomplish this?

To determine if you need synchronized, try to imagine a place where you can have a context switch that would break your code.
In this case, if the context switch happens where I put the comment, then in getTimestamp() you're going to be reading different values from each timestamp type.
Also, although assignments are atomic, this expression java.sql.Timestamp.from(dateTime.toInstant()); certainly isn't, so you can get a context switch inbetween dateTime.toInstant() and the call to from. In short you definitely need the synchronized blocks.
synchronized (timestampLock) {
this.timestamp = java.sql.Timestamp.from(dateTime.toInstant());
//CONTEXT SWITCH HERE
this.timestampTimeZoneName = dateTime.getZone().getId();
}
synchronized (timestampLock) {
return ZonedDateTime.ofInstant(timestamp.toInstant(), ZoneId.of(timestampTimeZoneName));
}
In terms of volatile, I'm pretty sure they're required. You have to guarantee that each thread definitely is getting the most updated version of a variable.
This is the contract of volatile. And although it may be covered by the synchronized block, and volatile not actually necessary here, it's good to write anyway. If the synchronized block does the job of volatile already, the VM won't do the guarantee twice. This means volatile won't cost you any more, and it's a very good flashing light that says to the programmer: "I'M USED IN MULTIPLE THREADS".
For someValue: If there's no synchronized block here, then volatile is definitely necessary. If you call a set in one thread, the other thread has no queue that tells it that may have been updated outside of this thread. So it may use an old and cached value. The JIT can do a lot of funny optimizations if it assumes single thread. Ones that can simply break your program.
Now I'm not entirely certain if synchronized is required here. My guess is no. I would add it anyway to be safe though. Or you can let java worry about the synchronization and use http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/atomic/AtomicInteger.html

Nothing new here, this is just a more explicit version of something #Cruncher already said:
You need synchronized whenever it is important for two or more fields in your program to be consistent with one another. Suppose you have two parallel lists, and your code depends on them both being the same length. That's called an invariant as in, the two lists are invariably the same length.
How can you write a method, append(x,y), that adds a new pair of values to the lists without temporarily breaking the invariant? You can't. The method must add one item to the first list, breaking the invariant, and then add the other item to the second list, fixing it again. There's no other way.
In a single-threaded program, that temporary broken state is no problem because no other method can possibly use the lists while append(x,y) is running. That's no longer true in a multithreaded program. In the worst case, append(x,y) could add x to the x list, and then the scheduler could suspend the thread at that exact moment to allow other threads to run. The CPUs could execute millions of instructions before append(x,y) gets to finish the job and make the lists right again. During all of that time, other threads would see the broken invariant, and possibly corrupt your data or crash the program as a result.
The fix is for append(x,y) to be synchronized on some object, and (this is the important part), for every other method that uses the lists to be synchronized on the same object. Since only one thread can be synchronized on a given object at a given time, it will not be possible for any other thread to see the lists in an inconsistent state.
So, if thread A calls append(x,y), and thread B tries to look at the lists "at the same time", will thread B see the what the lists looked like before or after thread A did its work? That's called a data race. And with only the synchronization that I have described so far, there's no way to know which thread will win. All we've done so far is to guarantee one particular invariant.
If it matters which thread wins the race, then that means that there is some higher-level invariant that also needs protection. You will have to add more synchronization to protect that one too. "Thread safety" -- two little words to name a subject that is both broad and deep.
Good Luck, and Have Fun!

// is synchronisation required?
public BigDecimal getSomeValue() {
return someValue;
}
// is synchronisation required?
public void setSomeValue(BigDecimal val) {
someValue = val;
}
I think Yes you are require to put the synchronization block because consider an example in which one thread is setting the value and at the same time other thread is trying to read from getter method, like here in the example you will see the syncronization block.So, if you take your variable inside the method then you must require the synchronization block.

Java synchronized on atomic operation

Is this Java class thread safe or reset method needs to be synchronized too? If yes can someone tell me the reason why?
public class NamedCounter {
private int count;
public synchronized void increment() { count++; }
public synchronized int getCount() { return count; }
public void reset() { count = 0; }
}

Not without synchronizing rest() and adding more methods. You will run into cases where you will need more methods. For example
NamedCounter counter = new NamedCounter();
counter.increment();
// at this exact time (before reaching the below line) another thread might change changed the value of counter!!!!
if(counter.getCount() == 1) {
//do something....this is not thread safe since you depeneded on a value that might have been changed by another thread
}
To fix the above you need something like
NamedCounter counter = new NamedCounter();
if(counter.incrementAndGet()== 1) { //incrementAndGet() must be a synchronized method
//do something....now it is thread safe
}
Instead, use Java's bulit-in class AtomicInteger which covers all cases. Or if you are trying to learn thread safety then use AtomicInteger as a standard (to learn from).
For production code, go with AtomicInteger without even thinking twice! Please note that using AtomicInteger does not automatically guarantee thread safety in your code. You MUST make use of the methods that are provided by the api. They are there for a reason.

Note that synchronized is not just about mutual exclusion, it is fundamentally about the proper ordering of operations in terms of the visibility of their actions. Therefore reset must be synchronized as well, otherwise the writes it makes may occur concurrently to other two methods, and have no guarantee to be visible.
To conclude, your class is not thread-safe as it stands, but will be as soon as you synchronize the reset method.

You have to synchronize your reset() method also.
To make a class thread safe you have to synchronize all paths that access a variable else you will have undesired results with the unsynchronized paths.

You need to add synchronized to reset method too and then it will be synchronized. But in this way you achieve syncronization through locks, that is, each thread accesing the method will lock on the NamedCounter object instace.
However, if you use AtomicInteger as your count variable, you don't need to syncronize anymore because it uses the CAS cpu operation to achieve atomicity without the need to synchronize.

Not an answer, but too long for a comment:
If reset() is synch'ed, then the 0 become visible to any thread that reads or increments the counter later. Without synchronization, there is no visibility guarantee. Looking at the interaction of concurrent increment and the unsychronized reset, it may be that 0 becomes visible to the incrementing thread before entering the method, then the result will be 1. If counter is set to 0 between increment's read and write, the reset will be forgotten. If it is set after the write, the end result will be 0. So, if you want to assert that for every reading thread, the counter is 0 after reset, that method must be synchronized, too. But David Schwartz is correct that those low-level synchronizations make little sense whithout higher-level semantics of those interactions.

When to use volatile and synchronized

I know there are many questions about this, but I still don't quite understand. I know what both of these keywords do, but I can't determine which to use in certain scenarios. Here are a couple of examples that I'm trying to determine which is the best to use.
Example 1:
import java.net.ServerSocket;
public class Something extends Thread {
private ServerSocket serverSocket;
public void run() {
while (true) {
if (serverSocket.isClosed()) {
...
} else { //Should this block use synchronized (serverSocket)?
//Do stuff with serverSocket
}
}
}
public ServerSocket getServerSocket() {
return serverSocket;
}
}
public class SomethingElse {
Something something = new Something();
public void doSomething() {
something.getServerSocket().close();
}
}
Example 2:
public class Server {
private int port;//Should it be volatile or the threads accessing it use synchronized (server)?
//getPort() and setPort(int) are accessed from multiple threads
public int getPort() {
return port;
}
public void setPort(int port) {
this.port = port;
}
}
Any help is greatly appreciated.

A simple answer is as follows:
synchronized can always be used to give you a thread-safe / correct solution,
volatile will probably be faster, but can only be used to give you a thread-safe / correct in limited situations.
If in doubt, use synchronized. Correctness is more important than performance.
Characterizing the situations under which volatile can be used safely involves determining whether each update operation can be performed as a single atomic update to a single volatile variable. If the operation involves accessing other (non-final) state or updating more than one shared variable, it cannot be done safely with just volatile. You also need to remember that:
updates to non-volatile long or a double may not be atomic, and
Java operators like ++ and += are not atomic.
Terminology: an operation is "atomic" if the operation either happens entirely, or it does not happen at all. The term "indivisible" is a synonym.
When we talk about atomicity, we usually mean atomicity from the perspective of an outside observer; e.g. a different thread to the one that is performing the operation. For instance, ++ is not atomic from the perspective of another thread, because that thread may be able to observe state of the field being incremented in the middle of the operation. Indeed, if the field is a long or a double, it may even be possible to observe a state that is neither the initial state or the final state!

The synchronized keyword
synchronized indicates that a variable will be shared among several threads. It's used to ensure consistency by "locking" access to the variable, so that one thread can't modify it while another is using it.
Classic Example: updating a global variable that indicates the current time
The incrementSeconds() function must be able to complete uninterrupted because, as it runs, it creates temporary inconsistencies in the value of the global variable time. Without synchronization, another function might see a time of "12:60:00" or, at the comment marked with >>>, it would see "11:00:00" when the time is really "12:00:00" because the hours haven't incremented yet.
void incrementSeconds() {
if (++time.seconds > 59) { // time might be 1:00:60
time.seconds = 0; // time is invalid here: minutes are wrong
if (++time.minutes > 59) { // time might be 1:60:00
time.minutes = 0; // >>> time is invalid here: hours are wrong
if (++time.hours > 23) { // time might be 24:00:00
time.hours = 0;
}
}
}
The volatile keyword
volatile simply tells the compiler not to make assumptions about the constant-ness of a variable, because it may change when the compiler wouldn't normally expect it. For example, the software in a digital thermostat might have a variable that indicates the temperature, and whose value is updated directly by the hardware. It may change in places that a normal variable wouldn't.
If degreesCelsius is not declared to be volatile, the compiler is free to optimize this:
void controlHeater() {
while ((degreesCelsius * 9.0/5.0 + 32) < COMFY_TEMP_IN_FAHRENHEIT) {
setHeater(ON);
sleep(10);
}
}
into this:
void controlHeater() {
float tempInFahrenheit = degreesCelsius * 9.0/5.0 + 32;
while (tempInFahrenheit < COMFY_TEMP_IN_FAHRENHEIT) {
setHeater(ON);
sleep(10);
}
}
By declaring degreesCelsius to be volatile, you're telling the compiler that it has to check its value each time it runs through the loop.
Summary
In short, synchronized lets you control access to a variable, so you can guarantee that updates are atomic (that is, a set of changes will be applied as a unit; no other thread can access the variable when it's half-updated). You can use it to ensure consistency of your data. On the other hand, volatile is an admission that the contents of a variable are beyond your control, so the code must assume it can change at any time.

There is insufficient information in your post to determine what is going on, which is why all the advice you are getting is general information about volatile and synchronized.
So, here's my general advice:
During the cycle of writing-compiling-running a program, there are two optimization points:
at compile time, when the compiler might try to reorder instructions or optimize data caching.
at runtime, when the CPU has its own optimizations, like caching and out-of-order execution.
All this means that instructions will most likely not execute in the order that you wrote them, regardless if this order must be maintained in order to ensure program correctness in a multithreaded environment. A classic example you will often find in the literature is this:
class ThreadTask implements Runnable {
private boolean stop = false;
private boolean work;
public void run() {
while(!stop) {
work = !work; // simulate some work
}
}
public void stopWork() {
stop = true; // signal thread to stop
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadTask task = new ThreadTask();
Thread t = new Thread(task);
t.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
task.stopWork();
t.join();
}
}
Depending on compiler optimizations and CPU architecture, the above code may never terminate on a multi-processor system. This is because the value of stop will be cached in a register of the CPU running thread t, such that the thread will never again read the value from main memory, even thought the main thread has updated it in the meantime.
To combat this kind of situation, memory fences were introduced. These are special instructions that do not allow regular instructions before the fence to be reordered with instructions after the fence. One such mechanism is the volatile keyword. Variables marked volatile are not optimized by the compiler/CPU and will always be written/read directly to/from main memory. In short, volatile ensures visibility of a variable's value across CPU cores.
Visibility is important, but should not be confused with atomicity. Two threads incrementing the same shared variable may produce inconsistent results even though the variable is declared volatile. This is due to the fact that on some systems the increment is actually translated into a sequence of assembler instructions that can be interrupted at any point. For such cases, critical sections such as the synchronized keyword need to be used. This means that only a single thread can access the code enclosed in the synchronized block. Other common uses of critical sections are atomic updates to a shared collection, when usually iterating over a collection while another thread is adding/removing items will cause an exception to be thrown.
Finally two interesting points:
synchronized and a few other constructs such as Thread.join will introduce memory fences implicitly. Hence, incrementing a variable inside a synchronized block does not require the variable to also be volatile, assuming that's the only place it's being read/written.
For simple updates such as value swap, increment, decrement, you can use non-blocking atomic methods like the ones found in AtomicInteger, AtomicLong, etc. These are much faster than synchronized because they do not trigger a context switch in case the lock is already taken by another thread. They also introduce memory fences when used.

Note: In your first example, the field serverSocket is actually never initialized in the code you show.
Regarding synchronization, it depends on whether or not the ServerSocket class is thread safe. (I assume it is, but I have never used it.) If it is, you don't need to synchronize around it.
In the second example, int variables can be atomically updated so volatile may suffice.

volatile solves “visibility” problem across CPU cores. Therefore, value from local registers is flushed and synced with RAM. However, if we need consistent value and atomic op, we need a mechanism to defend the critical data. That can be achieved by either synchronized block or explicit lock.

java multi thread access to primitive variables

I know that concurrently accessing the same object from different threads, without synchronisation, is in general a bad thing. But what about this case:
I have multiple threads running (consider two, ThreadA & ThreadB). I also have this static class to keep count of the number of times a Thread does something.
public class Counter {
static private int counter=0;
static public void incCounter() {
counter++;
}
}
What happens if ThreadA and ThreadB both call Counter.incCounter()?

It's not safe.
Each thread will attempt to read counter, add one to it, and write back the result. You're not guaranteed what order these reads and writes happen in, or even if the results are visible to each thread.
In particular, one failure case would be that each thread reads the value 0, increments it to 1, and writes back the value 1. This would give the counter the value 1 even after two threads attempted to increment it.
Consider using AtomicInteger.incrementAndGet() instead.

Its value will either be 1 or 2. There's no difference between static and non static variables in this context.

It doesn't matter whether it's a static object or an instance: if you change it from multiple threads, you're going to have a problem.

to avoid conflict use the keyword synchronized.
public class Counter {
static private int counter=0;
public static synchronized void incCounter() {
counter++;
}
}
this keywords allows only one thread for time to call incCounter().

Dave is correct, but a quick fix is just to add the "synchronized" keyword to that method description; if multiple threads call that method, they will block at the method boundary until the one inside (that won the race) increments and exists, then the 2nd caller will enter.
This is a lot like designing a good "getInstance()" method on a Singleton class; you typically want it to be synchronized so you don't have the case where 2+ threads enter the method, ALL see that the "instance" is null, and then ALL create a new instance, assign it to the local member and return it.
Your threads can end up with different references to the "same" instance in that case. So you synchronize the code block, only let the first thread create the instance if it's null, and otherwise ALWAYS return the same one to all callers.
The if(instance == null) check plus the return are cheap; on the order of microseconds I believe for the future calls to getInstance (or in your example incCounter) so no need to shy away from the synchronized keyword if you need it; that's what it is for.
That being said, if you can't spare microseconds... well then you might be using the wrong language :)