We Keep Coding

Volatile keyword for thread safety

I have the below code:
public class Foo {
private volatile Map<String, String> map;
public Foo() {
refresh();
}
public void refresh() {
map = getData();
}
public boolean isPresent(String id) {
return map.containsKey(id);
}
public String getName(String id) {
return map.get(id);
}
private Map<String, String> getData() {
// logic
}
}
Is the above code thread safe or do I need to add synchronized or mutexes in there? If it's not thread safe, please clarify why.
Also, I've read that one should use AtomicReference instead of this, but in the source of the AtomicReference class, I can see that the field used to hold the value is volatile (along with a few convenience methods).
Is there a specific reason to use AtomicReference instead?
I've read multiple answer related to this but the concept of volatile still confuses me. Thanks in advance.

If you're not modifying the contents of map (except inside of refresh() when creating it), then there are no visibility issues in the code.
It's still possible to do isPresent(), refresh(), getName() (if no outside synchronization is used) and end up with isPresent()==true and getName()==null.

A class is "thread safe" if it does the right thing when it is used by multiple threads at the same time. There is no way to tell whether a class is thread safe unless you can say what "the right thing" means, and especially, what "the right thing when used by multiple threads" means.
What is the right thing if thread A calls foo.isPresent("X") and it returns true, and then thread B calls foo.refresh(), and then thread A calls foo.getName("X")?
If you are going to claim "thread safety", then you must be very explicit about what the caller should expect in cases like that.

Volatile is only useful in this scenario to update the value immediately. It doesn't really make the code by itself thread-safe.
But because you've stated in your comment, you only update the reference and because the reference-switch is atomic, your code will be thread-safe.(from the given code)

If I understood your question correctly and your comments - your class Foo holds a Map in which only the reference should be updated e.g. a whole new Map added instead of mutating it. If this is the premise:
It does not make any difference if you declare it as volatile or not. Every read/write operation in Java is atomic itself. You will never see a half transaction on these operations. See the JLS 17.7
17.7. Non-Atomic Treatment of double and long
For the purposes of the Java programming language memory model, a single write to a non-volatile long or double value is treated as two separate writes: one to each 32-bit half. This can result in a situation where a thread sees the first 32 bits of a 64-bit value from one write, and the second 32 bits from another write.
Writes and reads of volatile long and double values are always atomic.
Writes to and reads of references are always atomic, regardless of whether they are implemented as 32-bit or 64-bit values.
Some implementations may find it convenient to divide a single write action on a 64-bit long or double value into two write actions on adjacent 32-bit values. For efficiency's sake, this behavior is implementation-specific; an implementation of the Java Virtual Machine is free to perform writes to long and double values atomically or in two parts.
Implementations of the Java Virtual Machine are encouraged to avoid splitting 64-bit values where possible. Programmers are encouraged to declare shared 64-bit values as volatile or synchronize their programs correctly to avoid possible complications.
EDIT: Although the top statement still stands as it is - for thread safety it's necessary to add volatile to reflect the immediate update on different Threads to reflect the reference update. The behavior of a Thread is to make local copy of it while with volatile it will do a happens-before relationship in other words the Threads will have the same state of the Map.

Initialization safety in java

Just to make sure I understand the concepts presented in java concurrency in practice.
Lets say I have the following program:
public class Stuff{
private int x;
public Stuff(int x){
this.x=x;
}
public int getX(){return x;}
}
public class UseStuff(){
private Stuff s;
public void makeStuff(int x){
s=new Stuff(x);
}
public int useStuff(){
return s.getX();
}
}
If I let multiple threads to play with this code, then I'm not only in trouble because s might be pointing to multiple instances if two or more threads are entering to the makeStuff method, but even if just one thread creates a new Stuff, then an other thread who is just entered to useStuff can return the value 0 (predefined int value) or the value assigned to "x" by its constructor.
That all depends on whether the constructor has finished initializing x.
So at this point, to make it thread safe I must do one thing and then I can choose from two different ways.
First I must make makeStuff() atomic, so "s" will point to one object at a time.
Then I either make useStuff synchronized as well which ensures the I get back the Stuff object x var only after its constructor has finished building it, OR i can make Stuff's x final, and by this the JMM makes sure that x's value will only be visible after it has been initialized.
Do I understand the importance of final fields in the context of concurrency and JMM?

Do I understand the importance of final fields in the context of concurrency and JMM?
Not quite. The spec writes:
final fields also allow programmers to implement thread-safe immutable objects without synchronization. A thread-safe immutable object is seen as immutable by all threads, even if a data race is used to pass references to the immutable object between threads. This can provide safety guarantees against misuse of an immutable class by incorrect or malicious code
If you make x final, this guarantees that every thread that obtains a reference to a Stuff instance will observe x to have been assigned. It does not guarantee that any thread will obtain such a reference.
That is, in the absence of synchronization action in useStuff(), the runtime is permitted to satisfy a read of s from a register, which might return a stale value.
The cheapest correctly synchronized variant of this code is declaring s volatile, which ensures that writes to s happen-before (and are therefore visible to) subsequent reads of s. If you do that, you need not even make x final (because the write to x happens-before the write of s, the read of s happens-before the read of x, and happens-before is transitive).

Some answers claim that s can only refer to one object at a time. This is wrong; because there is no memory barrier, different threads can have their own notion about the value of s. In order for all threads to see a consistent value assigned to s, you need to declare s as volatile, or use some other memory barrier.
If you do this, you won't need to declare x as final for the correct value to be visible to all threads (but you might still want to; fields shouldn't be mutable without a reason). That's because the initialization of x happens-before the assignment of s in "source code order," and the write of the volatile field s happens-before other thread reads that value from s. If you subsequently modified the value of a non-final field x, however, you could run into trouble because the modification isn't guaranteed to be visible to other threads. Making Stuff immutable would eliminate that possibility.
Of course, there's nothing to stop threads from clobbering the value assigned to s, so different threads could still see different values for x. This isn't really a threading issue though. Even a single thread could write and then read different values of x over time. But preventing this behavior in a multi-threaded environment requires atomicity, that is, checking to see whether s has a value and assigning one if not should appear as one indivisible action to other threads. An AtomicReference would be the best solution, but the synchronized keyword would work too.

What are you trying to protect by making things synchronized? Are you concerned that thread A will call makeStuff and then thread B will call getStuff afterwards and the value won't be there? I'm not sure how synchronizing any of this will help that. Depending on what problem you are trying to avoid, it might be as simple as marking s as volatile.

I'm not sure what you're doing there. Why are you trying to create an object and then assign it to a field? Why save it if it can be overwritten by other call to makeStuff? It seems like you use UseStuff both as an proxy and as a factory to your actual Stuff model object. You better separate the two:
public class StuffFactory {
public static Stuff createStuff(int value) {
return new StuffProxy(value);
}
}
public class StuffProxy extends Stuff {
// Replacement for useStuff from your original UseStuff class
#Override
public int getX() {
//Put custom logic here
return super.getX();
}
}
The logic here is that each thread is responsible for creation of their own Stuff objects (using the factory) so concurrent access no longer an issue.

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.

Should getters and setters be synchronized?

private double value;
public synchronized void setValue(double value) {
this.value = value;
}
public double getValue() {
return this.value;
}
In the above example is there any point in making the getter synchronized?

I think its best to cite Java Concurrency in Practice here:
It is a common mistake to assume that synchronization needs to be used only when writing to shared variables; this is simply not true.
For each mutable state variable that may be accessed by more than one
thread, all accesses to that variable must be performed with the same
lock held. In this case, we say that the variable is guarded by that
lock.
In the absence of synchronization, the compiler, processor, and runtime can do some downright weird things to the order in which operations appear to execute. Attempts to reason about the order in which memory actions "must" happen in insufflciently synchronized multithreaded programs will almost certainly be incorrect.
Normally, you don't have to be so careful with primitives, so if this would be an int or a boolean it might be that:
When a thread reads a variable without synchronization, it may see a
stale value, but at least it sees a value that was actually placed
there by some thread rather than some random value.
This, however, is not true for 64-bit operations, for instance on long or double if they are not declared volatile:
The Java Memory Model requires fetch and
store operations to be atomic, but for nonvolatile long and double
variables, the JVM is permitted to treat a 64-bit read or write as two
separate 32-bit operations. If the reads and writes occur in different
threads, it is therefore possible to read a nonvolatile long and get
back the high 32 bits of one value and the low 32 bits of another.
Thus, even if you don't care about stale values, it is not safe to use
shared mutable long and double variables in multithreaded programs
unless they are declared volatile or guarded by a lock.

Let me show you by example what is a legal way for a JIT to compile your code. You write:
while (myBean.getValue() > 1.0) {
// perform some action
Thread.sleep(1);
}
JIT compiles:
if (myBean.getValue() > 1.0)
while (true) {
// perform some action
Thread.sleep(1);
}
In just slightly different scenarios even the Java compiler could prouduce similar bytecode (it would only have to eliminate the possibility of dynamic dispatch to a different getValue). This is a textbook example of hoisting.
Why is this legal? The compiler has the right to assume that the result of myBean.getValue() can never change while executing above code. Without synchronized it is allowed to ignore any actions by other threads.

The reason here is to guard against any other thread updating the value when a thread is reading and thus avoid performing any action on stale value.
Here get method will acquire intrinsic lock on "this" and thus any other thread which might attempt to set/update using setter method will have to wait to acquire lock on "this" to enter the setter method which is already acquired by thread performing get.
This is why its recommended to follow the practice of using same lock when performing any operation on a mutable state.
Making the field volatile will work here as there are no compound statements.
It is important to note that synchronized methods use intrinsic lock which is "this". So get and set both being synchronized means any thread entering the method will have to acquire lock on this.
When performing non atomic 64 bit operations special consideration should be taken. Excerpts from Java Concurrency In Practice could be of help here to understand the situation -
"The Java Memory Model requires fetch and store operations to be atomic, but for non-volatile long and double variables, the JVM is permitted to treat a 64 bit read or write as two separate 32
bit operations. If the reads and writes occur in different threads, it is therefore possible to read a non-volatile long and get back the high 32 bits of one value and the low 32 bits of another. Thus, even if you don't care about stale values, it
is not safe to use shared mutable long and double variables in multi-threaded programs unless they are declared
volatile or guarded by a lock."

Maybe for someone this code looks awful, but it works very well.
private Double value;
public void setValue(Double value){
updateValue(value, true);
}
public Double getValue(){
return updateValue(value, false);
}
private double updateValue(Double value,boolean set){
synchronized(MyClass.class){
if(set)
this.value = value;
return value;
}
}

java threads synchronization

In the class below, is the method getIt() thread safe and why?
public class X {
private long myVar;
public void setIt(long var){
myVar = var;
}
public long getIt() {
return myVar;
}
}

It is not thread-safe. Variables of type long and double in Java are treated as two separate 32-bit variables. One thread could be writing and have written half the value when another thread reads both halves. In this situation, the reader would see a value that was never supposed to exist.
To make this thread-safe you can either declare myVar as volatile (Java 1.5 or later) or make both setIt and getIt synchronized.
Note that even if myVar was a 32-bit int you could still run into threading issues where one thread could be reading an out of date value that another thread has changed. This could occur because the value has been cached by the CPU. To resolve this, you again need to declare myVar as volatile (Java 1.5 or later) or make both setIt and getIt synchronized.
It's also worth noting that if you are using the result of getIt in a subsequent setIt call, e.g. x.setIt(x.getIt() * 2), then you probably want to synchronize across both calls:
synchronized(x)
{
x.setIt(x.getIt() * 2);
}
Without the extra synchronization, another thread could change the value in between the getIt and setIt calls causing the other thread's value to be lost.

This is not thread-safe. Even if your platform guarantees atomic writes of long, the lack of synchronized makes it possible that one thread calls setIt() and even after this call has finished it is possible that another thread can call getIt() and this call could return the old value of myVar.
The synchronized keyword does more than an exclusive access of one thread to a block or a method. It also guarantees that the second thread is informed about a change of a variable.
So you either have to mark both methods as synchronized or mark the member myVar as volatile.
There's a very good explanation about synchronization here:
Atomic actions cannot be interleaved, so they can be used without fear of thread interference. However, this does not eliminate all need to synchronize atomic actions, because memory consistency errors are still possible. Using volatile variables reduces the risk of memory consistency errors, because any write to a volatile variable establishes a happens-before relationship with subsequent reads of that same variable. This means that changes to a volatile variable are always visible to other threads. What's more, it also means that when a thread reads a volatile variable, it sees not just the latest change to the volatile, but also the side effects of the code that led up the change.

No, it's not. At least, not on platforms that lack atomic 64-bit memory accesses.
Suppose that Thread A calls setIt, copies 32 bits into memory where the backing value is, and is then pre-empted before it can copy the other 32 bits.
Then Thread B calls getIt.

No it is not, because longs are not atomic in java, so one thread could have written 32 bits of the long in the setIt method, and then the getIt could read the value, and then setIt could set the other 32 bits.
So the end result is that getIt returns a value that was never valid.

It ought to be, and generally is, but is not guaranteed to be thread safe. There could be issues with different cores having different versions in CPU cache, or the store/retrieve not being atomic for all architectures. Use the AtomicLong class.

The getter is not thread safe because it’s not guarded by any mechanism that guarantees the most up-to-date visibility. Your choices are:
making myVar final (but then you can’t mutate it)
making myVar volatile
use synchronized to accessing myVar

AFAIK, Modern JVMs no longer split long and double operations. I don't know of any reference which states this is still a problem. For example, see AtomicLong which doesn't use synchronization in Sun's JVM.
Assuming you want to be sure it is not a problem then you can use synchronize both get() and set(). However, if you are performing an operation like add, i.e. set(get()+1) then this synchronization doesn't buy you much, you still have to synchronize the object for the whole operation. (A better way around this is to use a single operation for add(n) which is synchronized)
However, a better solution is to use an AtomicLong. This supports atomic operations like get, set and add and DOESN'T use synchronization.

Since it is a read only method. You should synchronize the set method.
EDIT : I see why the get method needs to be synchronized as well. Good job explaining Phil Ross.