I would like opinion on this to settle a small dispute. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I have written my own file handler that is attached to the logger. This being a file handler and being accessed by multiple threads, I am using synchronization in order to ensure that there is no collision during the writing process. Additionally it is a rolling log, so I also close and open files, and do not want any problems there either.
His response to it was (as pasted from email)
I strongly believe that Synchronization is very bad in the Handler. It
is too complex for such easy task. So, I would say why do not use one
instance per Thread?
What would you say is better from performance's and memory management perspective.
Thank you very much for any response. Whenever writing and reading is involved in multithreaded applications I have used synchronization on java applications all my life, and have not heard of any severe performance issues.
So please I would like to know if there are any issues and I really should switch to one instance per thread.
And in general, what would be the downfall of using synchronization?
EDIT: the reason why I wrote a custom file handler (yes I do love slf4j), is because my custom handler is dealing with two files at once, and additionally I have few other functions I perform on top of writing to files.
another solution would be to use a separate thread to do the (costly on its own) writing and use concurrent queues to pass the log messages from the domain threads
the key part here is that pushing to a queue is much less costly that writing to a file and means that there is less interference from concurrent log calls
the call to log would then log like
private static BlockingQueue logQueue = //...
public static void log(String message){
//construct&filter message
logQueue.add(message);
}
then in the logger thread it will look like
while(true){
String message = logQueue.poll();
logFile.println(message);//or whatever you are doing
}
As with all I/O, you have little choice but mutual exclusion. You may theoretically build up a complex scheme with a lock-free queue which accumulates logging entries, but its utility, and especially its reliability, would be very questionable: without careful design you could get a logging-caused OOME, have the application hang on due to threads which you didn't clean up, etc.
Keep in mind that, assuming you are using buffered I/O, you already have an equivalent of a queue, minimizing the time spent occupying the lock.
The downfall to synchronisation is the fact that only one thread can access that part of the code at any one time, meaning your code will see little benefit from multithreading I.e. the synchronised part of your application will only be as fast as a single thread. (Small overhead for handling the synchronised status too, so a little slower perhaps)
However, in subjects where you don't want the threads to interfere with one another, such as writing to files, the security gained from the synchronisation is paramount, and the performance loss should just be accepted.
Related
I know that thread safety of java sockets has been discussed in several threads here on stackoverflow, but I haven't been able to find a clear answer to this question - Is it, in practice, safe to have multiple threads concurrently write to the same SocketOutputStream, or is there a risk that the data sent from one thread gets mixed up with the data from another tread? (For example the receiver on the other end first receives the first half of one thread's message and then some data from another thread's message and then the rest of the first thread's message)
The reason I said "in practice" is that I know the Socket class isn't documented as thread-safe, but if it actually is safe in current implementations, then that's good enough for me. The specific implementation I'm most curious about is Hotspot running on Linux.
When looking at the Java layer of hotspot's implementation, more specifically the implementation of socketWrite() in SocketOutputStream, it looks like it should be thread safe as long as the native implementation of socketWrite0() is safe. However, when looking at the implemention of that method (j2se/src/solaris/native/java/net/SocketOutputStream.c), it seems to split the data to be sent into chunks of 64 or 128kb (depending on whether it's a 64bit JVM) and then sends the chunks in seperate writes.
So - to me, it looks like sending more than 64kb from different threads is not safe, but if it's less than 64kb it should be safe... but I could very well be missing something important here. Has anyone else here looked at this and come to a different conclusion?
I think it's a really bad idea to so heavily depend on the implementation details of something that can change beyond your control. If you do something like this you will have to very carefully control the versions of everything you use to make sure it's what you expect, and that's very difficult to do. And you will also have to have a very robust test suite to verify that the multithreaded operatio functions correctly since you are depending on code inspection and rumors from randoms on StackOverflow for your solution.
Why can't you just wrap the SocketOutputStream into another passthrough OutputStream and then add the necessary synchronization at that level? It's much safer to do it that way and you are far less likely to have unexpected problems down the road.
According to this documentation http://www.docjar.com/docs/api/java/net/SocketOutputStream.html, the class does not claim to be thread safe, and thus assume it is not. It inherits from FileOutputStream, which normally file I/O is not inherently thread safe.
My advice is that if the class is related to hardware or communications, it is not thread safe or "blocking". The reason is thread safe operations consume more time, which you may not like. My background is not in Java but other libraries are similar in philosophy.
I notice you tested the class extensively, but you may test it all day for many days, and it may not prove anything, my 2-cents.
Good luck & have fun with it.
Tommy Kwee
I have a web-service that write files to disk and other stuff to database. The entire operation takes 1-2 seconds for each write.
The service can, bur that is unlikely, be called from several clients at the same time. Let´s assume that 20 clients call the webservice at the same time, the write operations must be synchronized. In that case, some clients can get a time out exception because they have to wait to many seconds.
Are there any good practices to solve these kind of situations? As it is now, the methods are synchronized (and that can cause the starvation/timeouts).
Should I let all threads get into the write method by removing the synchronized keyword and put their task into a task queue to avoid a timeout? Is that the correct way to get arount this?
Removing the synchronized and putting it into a task queue by itself will not help you (because that's effectively what the synchronized is doing for you). However if you respond to the web request as soon as you put it on the queue, then you will reduce your response fime. But at the cost of some reliability as the user will get a confirmation that the work is done and the work will not really have been done (the system could crash before the work is done).
Francis Upton's practice is indeed an accepted practice.
Another one, is making more fine grained synchronization. Instead of synchronizing all read/write methods of a class, you can synchronize access of the exact invariants that should be synchronized.
And yet even better, is to get rid of synchronization altogether. This is possible using the java.util.concurrent package. This package introduce new collections that use Non-Blocking Algorithms (implemented in java using Compare-Ans-Swap atomic instructions). These collections, such as ConcurrentHashMap, enable much better throughput when scaling.
You can read more about it in this article.
In this type of implementation (slow service under increasing load) you want to make as much as possible async, including the timeout processing (if server-based) and the required I/O. Don't hold up your client response threads waiting for either of these time-consuming operations, to preserve the server's responsiveness to new requests, but instead fire off the required operations (maybe to a dynamic thread pool) and let callbacks process the results, whether timeout, complete I/O, or errors.
Send the appropriate response depending on what happens first, but be prepared to roll back I/O if you send an error/timeout message and then a completed I/O arrives (due to a race condition between I/O and timer). This implies transactional semantics are required in the server.
This is an area that get increasingly complex as your load grows but good design early on should allow you to scale as load grows. Ideally the client servicing threads should not block at all.
In order to avoid race condition, we can synchronize the write and access methods on the shared variables, to lock these variables to other threads.
My question is if there are other (better) ways to avoid race condition? Lock make the program slow.
What I found are:
using Atomic classes, if there is only one shared variable.
using a immutable container for multi shared variables and declare this container object with volatile. (I found this method from book "Java Concurrency in Practice")
I'm not sure if they perform faster than syncnronized way, is there any other better methods?
thanks
Avoid state.
Make your application as stateless as it is possible.
Each thread (sequence of actions) should take a context in the beginning and use this context passing it from method to method as a parameter.
When this technique does not solve all your problems, use the Event-Driven mechanism (+Messaging Queue).
When your code has to share something with other components it throws event (message) to some kind of bus (topic, queue, whatever).
Components can register listeners to listen for events and react appropriately.
In this case there are no race conditions (except inserting events to the queue). If you are using ready-to-use queue and not coding it yourself it should be efficient enough.
Also, take a look at the Actors model.
Atomics are indeed more efficient than classic locks due to their non-blocking behavior i.e. a thread waiting to access the memory location will not be context switched, which saves a lot of time.
Probably the best guideline when synchronization is needed is to see how you can reduce the critical section size as much as possible. General ideas include:
Use read-write locks instead of full locks when only a part of the threads need to write.
Find ways to restructure code in order to reduce the size of critical sections.
Use atomics when updating a single variable.
Note that some algorithms and data structures that traditionally need locks have lock-free versions (they are more complicated however).
Well, first off Atomic classes uses locking (via synchronized and volatile keywords) just as you'd do if you did it yourself by hand.
Second, immutability works great for multi-threading, you no longer need monitor locks and such, but that's because you can only read your immutables, you cand modify them.
You can't get rid of synchronized/volatile if you want to avoid race conditions in a multithreaded Java program (i.e. if the multiple threads cand read AND WRITE the same data). Your best bet is, if you want better performance, to avoid at least some of the built in thread safe classes which do sort of a more generic locking, and make your own implementation which is more tied to your context and thus might allow you to use more granullar synchronization & lock aquisition.
Check out this implementation of BlockingCache done by the Ehcache guys;
http://www.massapi.com/source/ehcache-2.4.3/src/net/sf/ehcache/constructs/blocking/BlockingCache.java.html
One of the alternatives is to make shared objects immutable. Check out this post for more details.
You can perform up to 50 million lock/unlocks per second. If you want this to be more efficient I suggest using more course grain locking. i.e. don't lock every little thing, but have locks for larger objects. Once you have much more locks than threads, you are less likely to have contention and having more locks may just add overhead.
All,
What should be the approach to writing a thread safe program. Given a problem statement, my perspective is:
1 > Start of with writing the code for a single threaded environment.
2 > Underline the fields which would need atomicity and replace with possible concurrent classes
3 > Underline the critical section and enclose them in synchronized
4 > Perform test for deadlocks
Does anyone have any suggestions on the other approaches or improvements to my approach. So far, I can see myself enclosing most of the code in synchronized blocks and I am sure this is not correct.
Programming in Java
Writing correct multi-threaded code is hard, and there is not a magic formula or set of steps that will get you there. But, there are some guidelines you can follow.
Personally I wouldn't start with writing code for a single threaded environment and then converting it to multi-threaded. Good multi-threaded code is designed with multi-threading in mind from the start. Atomicity of fields is just one element of concurrent code.
You should decide on what areas of the code need to be multi-threaded (in a multi-threaded app, typically not everything needs to be threadsafe). Then you need to design how those sections will be threadsafe. Methods of making one area of the code threadsafe may be different than making other areas different. For example, understanding whether there will be a high volume of reading vs writing is important and might affect the types of locks you use to protect the data.
Immutability is also a key element of threadsafe code. When elements are immutable (i.e. cannot be changed), you don't need to worry about multiple threads modifying them since they cannot be changed. This can greatly simplify thread safety issues and allow you to focus on where you will have multiple data readers and writers.
Understanding details of concurrency in Java (and details of the Java memory model) is very important. If you're not already familiar with these concepts, I recommend reading Java Concurrency In Practice http://www.javaconcurrencyinpractice.com/.
You should use final and immutable fields wherever possible, any other data that you want to change add inside:
synchronized (this) {
// update
}
And remember, sometimes stuff brakes, and if that happens, you don't want to prolong the program execution by taking every possible way to counter it - instead "fail fast".
As you have asked about "thread-safety" and not concurrent performance, then your approach is essentially sound. However, a thread-safe program that uses synchronisation probably does not scale much in a multi cpu environment with any level of contention on your structure/program.
Personally I like to try and identify the highest level state changes and try and think about how to make them atomic, and have the state changes move from one immutable state to another – copy-on-write if you like. Then the actual write can be either a compare-and-set operation on an atomic variable or a synchronised update or whatever strategy works/performs best (as long as it safely publishes the new state).
This can be a bit difficult to structure if your new state is quite different (requires updates to several fields for instance), but I have seen it very successfully solve concurrent performance issues with synchronised access.
Buy and read Brian Goetz's "Java Concurrency in Practice".
Any variables (memory) accessible by multiple threads potentially at the same time, need to be protected by a synchronisation mechanism.
I have multiple threads each one with its own private concurrent queue and all they do is run an infinite loop retrieving messages from it. It could happen that one of the queues doesn't receive messages for a period of time (maybe a couple seconds), and also they could come in big bursts and fast processing is necessary.
I would like to know what would be the most appropriate to do in the first case: use a blocking queue and block the thread until I have more input or do a Thread.yield()?
I want to have as much CPU resources available as possible at a given time, as the number of concurrent threads may increase with time, but also I don't want the message processing to fall behind, as there is no guarantee of when the thread will be reescheduled for execution when doing a yield(). I know that hardware, operating system and other factors play an important role here, but setting that aside and looking at it from a Java (JVM?) point of view, what would be the most optimal?
Always just block on the queues. Java yields in the queues internally.
In other words: You cannot get any performance benefit in the other threads if you yield in one of them rather than just block.
You certainly want to use a blocking queue - they are designed for exactly this purpose (you want your threads to not use CPU time when there is no work to do).
Thread.yield() is an extremely temperamental beast - the scheduler plays a large role in exactly what it does; and one simple but valid implementation is to simply do nothing.
Alternatively, consider converting your implementation to use one of the managed ExecutorService implementations - probably ThreadPoolExecutor.
This may not be appropriate for your use case, but if it is, it removes the whole burden of worrying about thread management from your own code - and these questions about yielding or not simply vanish.
In addition, if better thread management algorithms emerge in future - for example, something akin to Apple's Grand Central Dispatch - you may be able to convert your application to use it with almost no effort.
Another thing that you could do is use the concurrent hash map for your queue. When you do a read it gives you a reference of the object you were looking for, so it is possible you my miss a message that was just put into the queue. But if all this is doing is listening for a message you will catch it the next iteration. It would be different if the messages could be updated by other threads. But there doesn't really seem to be a reason to block that I can see.