I am attempting to implement thread-safe usage of ConcurentHashMap within singleton spring service that is injected into controllers:
#Service
public MyService{
final ConcurrentMap<String, AtomicInteger> myMap = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, AtomicInteger>(10) {
{/* initialize the ten key/values */
}
};
public int add(String key) {
return myMap.get(key).incrementAndGet();
}
// accessed via ajax loop (and controller), if value changes update display
public int getCount(String key) {
return myMap.get(key).get();
}
}
Is there a better way to make access to a hashmap thread-safe? How could I adapt this to work in a clustered environment? It is a follw up to my other question.
I do not aim to have an answer for the question esp. because I do not have expertise in the clustered situation; however, I'd like to point out what I think is worth noticing.
#JB Nizet in one of the comments mentions that the code is thread-safe and correct. I would like to add but not consistent based on Java API Reference:
Retrieval operations (including get) generally do not block, so may
overlap with update operations (including put and remove)
It means that there can be a client getting this information while some update is currently running. And, that makes sense since you mention 'looping' in your code. So, if this is NOT important in your case, then everything should be just fine.
But, if you need to make this more strict, I was thinking maybe using an instance of ReentrantReadWriteLock would be a good choice. The lock enables your code to block all the read requests until there is a consistent snapshot of the information available. You'd be probably using the lock on the getCount method to strictly block until add method frees all the locks waiting for the consistent snapshot of the map used in the code.
I also have a guess that the same concern is valid when you migrate this to a clustered solution; if consistency is required across different cluster nodes, then it should be taken care of.
Related
I am a bit confused regarding one pattern I have seen in some legacy code of ours.
The controller uses a map as a cache, with an approach that should be thread safe, however I am still not confident it indeed is. We have a map, which is properly synchronized during addition and retrieval, however, there is a bit of logic outside of the synchronized block, that does some additional filtering.
(the map itself and the lists are never accessed outside of this method, so concurrent modification is not an issue; the map holds some stable parameters, which basically never change, but are used often).
The code looks like the following sample:
public class FooBarController {
private final Map<String, List<FooBar>> fooBarMap =
new HashMap<String, List<FooBar>>();
public FooBar getFooBar(String key, String foo, String bar) {
List<FooBar> foobarList;
synchronized (fooBarMap) {
if (fooBarMap.get(key) == null) {
foobarList = queryDbByKey(key);
fooBarMap.put(key, foobarList);
} else {
foobarList = fooBarMap.get(key);
}
}
for(FooBar fooBar : foobarList) {
if(foo.equals(fooBar.getFoo()) && bar.equals(fooBar.getBar()))
return fooBar;
}
return null;
}
private List<FooBar> queryDbByKey(String key) {
// ... (simple Hibernate-query)
}
// ...
}
Based on what I know about the JVM memory model, this should be fine, since if one thread populates a list, another one can only retrieve it from the map with proper synchronization in place, ensuring that the entries of the list is visible. (putting the list happens-before getting it)
However, we keep seeing cases, where an entry expected to be in the map is not found, combined with the typical notorious symptoms of concurrency issues (e.g. intermittent failures in production, which I cannot reproduce in my development environment; different threads can properly retrieve the value etc.)
I am wondering if iterating through the elements of the List like this is thread-safe?
The code you provided is correct in terms of concurrency. Here are the guarantees:
only one thread at a time adds values to map, because of synchronization on map object
values added by thread become visible for all other threads, that enter synchronized block
Given that, you can be sure that all threads that iterate a list see the same elements. The issues you described are indeed strange but I doubt they're related to the code you provided.
It could be thread safe only if all access too fooBarMap are synchronized. A little out of scope, but safer may be to use a ConcurrentHashmap.
There is a great article on how hashmaps can be synchronized here.
In situation like this it's best option to use ConcurrentHashMap.
Verify if all Update-Read are in order.
As I understood from your question. There are fix set of params which never changes. One of the ways I preferred in situation like this is:
I. To create the map cache during start up and keep only one instance of it.
II. Read the map Instance anytime anywhere in the application.
In the for loop you are returning reference to fooBar objects in the foobarList.
So the method calling getFooBar() has access to the Map through this fooBar reference object.
try to clone fooBar before returning from getFooBar()
Introduction
Suppose I have a ConcurrentHashMap singleton:
public class RecordsMapSingleton {
private static final ConcurrentHashMap<String,Record> payments = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
public static ConcurrentHashMap<String, Record> getInstance() {
return payments;
}
}
Then I have three subsequent requests (all processed by different threads) from different sources.
The first service makes a request, that gets the singleton, creates Record instance, generates unique ID and places it into Map, then sends this ID to another service.
Then the second service makes another request, with that ID. It gets the singleton, finds Record instance and modifies it.
Finally (probably after half an hour) the second service makes another request, in order to modify Record further.
Problem
In some really rare cases, I'm experiencing heisenbug. In logs I can see, that first request successfully placed Record into Map, second request found it by ID and modified it, and then third request tried to find Record by ID, but found nothing (get() returned null).
The single thing that I found about ConcurrentHashMap guarantees, is:
Actions in a thread prior to placing an object into any concurrent
collection happen-before actions subsequent to the access or removal
of that element from the collection in another thread.
from here. If I got it right, it literally means, that get() could return any value that actually was sometime into Map, as far as it doesn't ruin happens-before relationship between actions in different threads.
In my case it applies like this: if third request doesn't care about what happened during processing of first and second, then it could read null from Map.
It doesn't suit me, because I really need to get from Map the latest actual Record.
What have I tried
So I started to think, how to form happens-before relationship between subsequent Map modifications; and came with idea. JLS says (in 17.4.4) that:
A write to a volatile variable v (§8.3.1.4) synchronizes-with all
subsequent reads of v by any thread (where "subsequent" is defined
according to the synchronization order).
So, let's suppose, I'll modify my singleton like this:
public class RecordsMapSingleton {
private static final ConcurrentHashMap<String,Record> payments = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
private static volatile long revision = 0;
public static ConcurrentHashMap<String, Record> getInstance() {
return payments;
}
public static void incrementRevision() {
revision++;
}
public static long getRevision() {
return revision;
}
}
Then, after each modification of Map or Record inside, I'll call incrementRevision() and before any read from Map I'll call getRevision().
Question
Due to nature of heisenbugs no amount of tests is enough to tell that this solution is correct. And I'm not an expert in concurrency, so couldn't verify it formally.
Can someone approve, that following this approach guarantees that I'm always going to get the latest actual value from ConcurrentHashMap? If this approach is incorrect or appears to be inefficient, could you recommend me something else?
You approach will not work as you are actually repeating the same mistake again. As ConcurrentHashMap.put and ConcurrentHashMap.get will create a happens before relationship but no time ordering guaranty, exactly the same applies to your reads and writes to the volatile variable. They form a happens before relationship but no time ordering guaranty, if one thread happens to call get before the other performed put, the same applies to the volatile read that will happen before the volatile write then. Besides that, you are adding another error as applying the ++ operator to a volatile variable is not atomic.
The guarantees made for volatile variables are not stronger than these made for a ConcurrentHashMap. It’s documentation explicitly states:
Retrievals reflect the results of the most recently completed update operations holding upon their onset.
The JLS states that external actions are inter-thread actions regarding the program order:
An inter-thread action is an action performed by one thread that can be detected or directly influenced by another thread. There are several kinds of inter-thread action that a program may perform:
…
External Actions. An external action is an action that may be observable outside of an execution, and has a result based on an environment external to the execution.
Simply said, if one thread puts into a ConcurrentHashMap and sends a message to an external entity and a second thread gets from the same ConcurrentHashMap after receiving a message from an external entity depending on the previously sent message, there can’t be a memory visibility issue.
It might be the case that these action aren’t programmed that way or that the external entity doesn’t have the assumed dependency, but it might be the case that the error lies in a completely different area but we can’t tell as you didn’t post the relevant code, e.g. the key doesn’t match or the printing code is wrong. But whatever it is, it won’t be fixed by the volatile variable.
Same with the follow link, I use the same code with the questioner.
Java multi-threading atomic reference assignment
In my code, there
HashMap<String,String> cache = new HashMap<String,String>();
public class myClass {
private HashMap<String,String> cache = null;
public void init() {
refreshCache();
}
// this method can be called occasionally to update the cache.
//Only one threading will get to this code.
public void refreshCache() {
HashMap<String,String> newcache = new HashMap<String,String>();
// code to fill up the new cache
// and then finally
cache = newcache; //assign the old cache to the new one in Atomic way
}
//Many threads will run this code
public void getCache(Object key) {
ob = cache.get(key)
//do something
}
}
I read the sjlee's answer again and again, I can't understand in which case these code will go wrong. Can anyone give me a example?
Remember I don't care about the getCache function will get the old data.
I'm sorry I can't add comment to the above question because I don't have 50 reputation.
So I just add a new question.
Without a memory barrier you might see null or an old map but you could see an incomplete map. I.e. you see bits of it but not all. Thus is not a problem if you don't mind entries being missing but you risk seeing the Map object but not anything it refers to resulting in a possible NPE.
There is no guarantee you will see a complete Map.
final fields will be visible but non - final fields might not.
this is a very interesting problem, and it shows that one of your core assumptions
"Remember I don't care about the getCache function will get the old
data."
is not correct.
we think, that if "refreshCache" and "getCache" is not synchronized, then we will only get old data, which is not true.
Their call by the initial thread may never reflect in other threads. Since cache is not volatile, every thread is free to keep it's own local copy of it and never make it consistent across threads.
Because the "visibility" aspect of multi-threading, which says that unless we use appropriate locking, or use volatile, we do not trigger a happens-before scenario, which forces threads to make shared variable value consistent across the multiple processors they are running on, which means "cache" , may never get initialized causing an obvious NPE in getCache
to understand this properly, i would recommend reading section 16.2.4 of "Java concurrency in practice" book which deals with a similar problem in double checked locking code.
Solution: would be
To make refreshCache synchronized to force, all threads to update their copy of HashMap whenever any one thread calls it, or
To make cache volatile or
You would have to call refreshCache in every single thread that calls getCache which kind of defeats the purpose of a common cache.
I know you have to synchronize around anything that would change the structure of a hashmap (put or remove) but it seems to me you also have to synchronize around reads of the hashmap otherwise you might be reading while another thread is changing the structure of the hashmap.
So I sync around gets and puts to my hashmap.
The only machines I have available to me to test with all only have one processor so I never had any real concurrency until the system went to production and started failing. Items were missing out of my hashmap. I assume this is because two threads were writing at the same time, but based on the code below, this should not be possible. When I turned down the number of threads to 1 it started working flawlessly, so it's definitely a threading problem.
Details:
// something for all the threads to sync on
private static Object EMREPORTONE = new Object();
synchronized (EMREPORTONE)
{
reportdatacache.put("name.." + eri.recip_map_id, eri.name);
reportdatacache.put("subjec" + eri.recip_map_id, eri.subject);
etc...
}
... and elsewhere....
synchronized (EMREPORTONE)
{
eri.name = (String)reportdatacache.get("name.." + eri.recip_map_id);
eri.subject = (String)reportdatacache.get("subjec" + eri.recip_map_id);
etc...
}
and that's it. I pass around reportdatacache between functions, but that's just the reference to the hashmap.
Another important point is that this is running as a servlet in an appserver (iplanet to be specific, but I know none of you have ever heard of that)
But regardless, EMREPORTONE is global to the webserver process, no two threads should be able to step on each other, yet my hashmap is getting wrecked. Any thoughts?
In servlet container environment static variables depend on classloader. So you may think that you're dealing with same static instance, but in fact it could be completely different one.
Additionally, check if you do not use the map by escaped reference elsewhere and write/remove keys from it.
And yes, use ConcurrentHashMap instead.
Yes, synchronization is not only important when writing, but also when reading. While a write will be performed under mutually exclusion, a reader might access an errenous state of the map.
I cannot recommend you under any circumstances to synchronize the Java Collections manually, there are thread-safe counterparts: Collections.synchronizedMap and ConcurrentHashMap. Use them, they will ensure, that access to them is safe in a multithreaded environment.
Futher hints, it seems that everyone is accesing the datareportcache. Is there only one instance of that object? Why not synchronize then on the cache itself? But forget then when trying to solve your problems, use the sugar from java.util.concurrent.
As I see it there are 3 possibilities here:
You are locking on two different objects. EMREPORTONE is private static however and the code that accesses the reportdatacache is in one file only. Ok, that isn't it then. But I would recommend locking on reportdatacache instead of EMREPORTONE however. Cleaner code.
You are missing some read or write to reportdatacache somewhere. There are other accesses to the map that are not synchronized. Are things never removed from the cache?
This isn't a synchronization problem but rather a race condition issue. The data in the hashmap is fine but you are expecting things to be in the cache but they haven't be stored by the other thread yet. Maybe 2 requests come in for the same eri at the same time and they are both putting values into the cache? Maybe check to see if the old value returned by put(...) is always null? Maybe explaining more about how you know that items are missing from the map would help with this.
As an aside, you are doing this:
reportdatacache.put("name.." + eri.recip_map_id, eri.name);
reportdatacache.put("subjec" + eri.recip_map_id, eri.subject);
But it seems like you really should be storing the eri by its id.
reportdatacache.put(recip_map_id, eri);
Then you aren't creating fake keys with the "name.." prefix. Or maybe you should create a NameSubject private static class to store the name and subject in the cache. Cleaner.
Hope something here helps.
EDIT: I've reorganized this question to reflect the new information that since became available.
This question is based on the responses to a question by Viliam concerning Guava Maps' use of lazy eviction: Laziness of eviction in Guava's maps
Please read this question and its response first, but essentially the conclusion is that Guava maps do not asynchronously calculate and enforce eviction. Given the following map:
ConcurrentMap<String, MyObject> cache = new MapMaker()
.expireAfterAccess(10, TimeUnit.MINUTES)
.makeMap();
Once ten minutes has passed following access to an entry, it will still not be evicted until the map is "touched" again. Known ways to do this include the usual accessors - get() and put() and containsKey().
The first part of my question [solved]: what other calls cause the map to be "touched"? Specifically, does anyone know if size() falls into this category?
The reason for wondering this is that I've implemented a scheduled task to occasionally nudge the Guava map I'm using for caching, using this simple method:
public static void nudgeEviction() {
cache.containsKey("");
}
However I'm also using cache.size() to programmatically report the number of objects contained in the map, as a way to confirm this strategy is working. But I haven't been able to see a difference from these reports, and now I'm wondering if size() also causes eviction to take place.
Answer: So Mark has pointed out that in release 9, eviction is invoked only by the get(), put(), and replace() methods, which would explain why I wasn't seeing an effect for containsKey(). This will apparently change with the next version of guava which is set for release soon, but unfortunately my project's release is set sooner.
This puts me in an interesting predicament. Normally I could still touch the map by calling get(""), but I'm actually using a computing map:
ConcurrentMap<String, MyObject> cache = new MapMaker()
.expireAfterAccess(10, TimeUnit.MINUTES)
.makeComputingMap(loadFunction);
where loadFunction loads the MyObject corresponding to the key from a database. It's starting to look like I have no easy way of forcing eviction until r10. But even being able to reliably force eviction is put into doubt by the second part of my question:
The second part of my question [solved]: In reaction to one of the responses to the linked question, does touching the map reliably evict all expired entries? In the linked answer, Niraj Tolia indicates otherwise, saying eviction is potentially only processed in batches, which would mean multiple calls to touch the map might be needed to ensure all expired objects were evicted. He did not elaborate, however this seems related to the map being split into segments based on concurrency level. Assuming I used r10, in which a containsKey("") does invoke eviction, would this then be for the entire map, or only for one of the segments?
Answer: maaartinus has addressed this part of the question:
Beware that containsKey and other reading methods only run postReadCleanup, which does nothing but on each 64th invocation (see DRAIN_THRESHOLD). Moreover, it looks like all cleanup methods work with single Segment only.
So it looks like calling containsKey("") wouldn't be a viable fix, even in r10. This reduces my question to the title: How can I reliably force eviction to occur?
Note: Part of the reason my web app is noticeably affected by this issue is that when I implemented caching I decided to use multiple maps - one for each class of my data objects. So with this issue there is the possibility that one area of code is executed, causing a bunch of Foo objects to be cached, and then the Foo cache isn't touched again for a long time so it doesn't evict anything. Meanwhile Bar and Baz objects are being cached from other areas of code, and memory is being eaten. I'm setting a maximum size on these maps, but this is a flimsy safeguard at best (I'm assuming its effect is immediate - still need to confirm this).
UPDATE 1: Thanks to Darren for linking the relevant issues - they now have my votes. So it looks like a resolution is in the pipeline, but seems unlikely to be in r10. In the meantime, my question remains.
UPDATE 2: At this point I'm just waiting for a Guava team member to give feedback on the hack maaartinus and I put together (see answers below).
LAST UPDATE: feedback received!
I just added the method Cache.cleanUp() to Guava. Once you migrate from MapMaker to CacheBuilder you can use that to force eviction.
I was wondering the about the same issue you described in the first part of your question. From what I can tell from looking at the source code for Guava's CustomConcurrentHashMap (release 9), it appears that entries are evicted on the get(), put(), and replace() methods. The containsKey() method does not appear to invoke eviction. I'm not 100% sure because I took a quick pass at the code.
Update:
I also found a more recent version of the CustomConcurrentHashmap in Guava's git repository and it looks like containsKey() has been updated to invoke eviction.
Both release 9 and the latest version I just found do not invoke eviction when size() is called.
Update 2:
I recently noticed that Guava r10 (yet to be released) has a new class called CacheBuilder. Basically this class is a forked version of the MapMaker but with caching in mind. The documentation suggests that it will support some of the eviction requirements you are looking for.
I reviewed the updated code in r10's version of the CustomConcurrentHashMap and found what looks like a scheduled map cleaner. Unfortunately, that code appears unfinished at this point but r10 looks more and more promising each day.
Beware that containsKey and other reading methods only run postReadCleanup, which does nothing but on each 64th invocation (see DRAIN_THRESHOLD). Moreover, it looks like all cleanup methods work with single Segment only.
The easiest way to enforce eviction seems to be to put some dummy object into each segment. For this to work, you'd need to analyze CustomConcurrentHashMap.hash(Object), which is surely no good idea, as this method may change anytime. Moreover, depending on the key class it may be hard to find a key with a hashCode ensuring it lands in a given segment.
You could use reads instead, but would have to repeat them 64 times per segment. Here, it'd easy to find a key with an appropriate hashCode, since here any object is allowed as an argument.
Maybe you could hack into the CustomConcurrentHashMap source code instead, it could be as trivial as
public void runCleanup() {
final Segment<K, V>[] segments = this.segments;
for (int i = 0; i < segments.length; ++i) {
segments[i].runCleanup();
}
}
but I wouldn't do it without a lot of testing and/or an OK by a guava team member.
Yep, we've gone back and forth a few times on whether these cleanup tasks should be done on a background thread (or pool), or should be done on user threads. If they were done on a background thread, this would eventually happen automatically; as it is, it'll only happen as each segment gets used. We're still trying to come up with the right approach here - I wouldn't be surprised to see this change in some future release, but I also can't promise anything or even make a credible guess as to how it will change. Still, you've presented a reasonable use case for some kind of background or user-triggered cleanup.
Your hack is reasonable, as long as you keep in mind that it's a hack, and liable to break (possibly in subtle ways) in future releases. As you can see in the source, Segment.runCleanup() calls runLockedCleanup and runUnlockedCleanup: runLockedCleanup() will have no effect if it can't lock the segment, but if it can't lock the segment it's because some other thread has the segment locked, and that other thread can be expected to call runLockedCleanup as part of its operation.
Also, in r10, there's CacheBuilder/Cache, analogous to MapMaker/Map. Cache is the preferred approach for many current users of makeComputingMap. It uses a separate CustomConcurrentHashMap, in the common.cache package; depending on your needs, you may want your GuavaEvictionHacker to work with both. (The mechanism is the same, but they're different Classes and therefore different Methods.)
I'm not a big fan of hacking into or forking external code until absolutely necessary. This problem occurs in part due to an early decision for MapMaker to fork ConcurrentHashMap, thereby dragging in a lot of complexity that could have been deferred until after the algorithms were worked out. By patching above MapMaker, the code is robust to library changes so that you can remove your workaround on your own schedule.
An easy approach is to use a priority queue of weak reference tasks and a dedicated thread. This has the drawback of creating many stale no-op tasks, which can become excessive in due to the O(lg n) insertion penalty. It works reasonably well for small, less frequently used caches. It was the original approach taken by MapMaker and its simple to write your own decorator.
A more robust choice is to mirror the lock amortization model with a single expiration queue. The head of the queue can be volatile so that a read can always peek to determine if it has expired. This allows all reads to trigger an expiration and an optional clean-up thread to check regularly.
By far the simplest is to use #concurrencyLevel(1) to force MapMaker to use a single segment. This reduces the write concurrency, but most caches are read heavy so the loss is minimal. The original hack to nudge the map with a dummy key would then work fine. This would be my preferred approach, but the other two options are okay if you have high write loads.
I don't know if it is appropriate for your use case, but your main concern about the lack of background cache eviction seems to be memory consumption, so I would have thought that using softValues() on the MapMaker to allow the Garbage Collector to reclaim entries from the cache when a low memory situation occurs. Could easily be the solution for you. I have used this on a subscription-server (ATOM) where entries are served through a Guava cache using SoftReferences for values.
Based on maaartinus's answer, I came up with the following code which uses reflection rather than directly modifying the source (If you find this useful please upvote his answer!). While it will come at a performance penalty for using reflection, the difference should be negligible since I'll run it about once every 20 minutes for each caching Map (I'm also caching the dynamic lookups in the static block which will help). I have done some initial testing and it appears to work as intended:
public class GuavaEvictionHacker {
//Class objects necessary for reflection on Guava classes - see Guava docs for info
private static final Class<?> computingMapAdapterClass;
private static final Class<?> nullConcurrentMapClass;
private static final Class<?> nullComputingConcurrentMapClass;
private static final Class<?> customConcurrentHashMapClass;
private static final Class<?> computingConcurrentHashMapClass;
private static final Class<?> segmentClass;
//MapMaker$ComputingMapAdapter#cache points to the wrapped CustomConcurrentHashMap
private static final Field cacheField;
//CustomConcurrentHashMap#segments points to the array of Segments (map partitions)
private static final Field segmentsField;
//CustomConcurrentHashMap$Segment#runCleanup() enforces eviction on the calling Segment
private static final Method runCleanupMethod;
static {
try {
//look up Classes
computingMapAdapterClass = Class.forName("com.google.common.collect.MapMaker$ComputingMapAdapter");
nullConcurrentMapClass = Class.forName("com.google.common.collect.MapMaker$NullConcurrentMap");
nullComputingConcurrentMapClass = Class.forName("com.google.common.collect.MapMaker$NullComputingConcurrentMap");
customConcurrentHashMapClass = Class.forName("com.google.common.collect.CustomConcurrentHashMap");
computingConcurrentHashMapClass = Class.forName("com.google.common.collect.ComputingConcurrentHashMap");
segmentClass = Class.forName("com.google.common.collect.CustomConcurrentHashMap$Segment");
//look up Fields and set accessible
cacheField = computingMapAdapterClass.getDeclaredField("cache");
segmentsField = customConcurrentHashMapClass.getDeclaredField("segments");
cacheField.setAccessible(true);
segmentsField.setAccessible(true);
//look up the cleanup Method and set accessible
runCleanupMethod = segmentClass.getDeclaredMethod("runCleanup");
runCleanupMethod.setAccessible(true);
}
catch (ClassNotFoundException cnfe) {
throw new RuntimeException("ClassNotFoundException thrown in GuavaEvictionHacker static initialization block.", cnfe);
}
catch (NoSuchFieldException nsfe) {
throw new RuntimeException("NoSuchFieldException thrown in GuavaEvictionHacker static initialization block.", nsfe);
}
catch (NoSuchMethodException nsme) {
throw new RuntimeException("NoSuchMethodException thrown in GuavaEvictionHacker static initialization block.", nsme);
}
}
/**
* Forces eviction to take place on the provided Guava Map. The Map must be an instance
* of either {#code CustomConcurrentHashMap} or {#code MapMaker$ComputingMapAdapter}.
*
* #param guavaMap the Guava Map to force eviction on.
*/
public static void forceEvictionOnGuavaMap(ConcurrentMap<?, ?> guavaMap) {
try {
//we need to get the CustomConcurrentHashMap instance
Object customConcurrentHashMap;
//get the type of what was passed in
Class<?> guavaMapClass = guavaMap.getClass();
//if it's a CustomConcurrentHashMap we have what we need
if (guavaMapClass == customConcurrentHashMapClass) {
customConcurrentHashMap = guavaMap;
}
//if it's a NullConcurrentMap (auto-evictor), return early
else if (guavaMapClass == nullConcurrentMapClass) {
return;
}
//if it's a computing map we need to pull the instance from the adapter's "cache" field
else if (guavaMapClass == computingMapAdapterClass) {
customConcurrentHashMap = cacheField.get(guavaMap);
//get the type of what we pulled out
Class<?> innerCacheClass = customConcurrentHashMap.getClass();
//if it's a NullComputingConcurrentMap (auto-evictor), return early
if (innerCacheClass == nullComputingConcurrentMapClass) {
return;
}
//otherwise make sure it's a ComputingConcurrentHashMap - error if it isn't
else if (innerCacheClass != computingConcurrentHashMapClass) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Provided ComputingMapAdapter's inner cache was an unexpected type: " + innerCacheClass);
}
}
//error for anything else passed in
else {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Provided ConcurrentMap was not an expected Guava Map: " + guavaMapClass);
}
//pull the array of Segments out of the CustomConcurrentHashMap instance
Object[] segments = (Object[])segmentsField.get(customConcurrentHashMap);
//loop over them and invoke the cleanup method on each one
for (Object segment : segments) {
runCleanupMethod.invoke(segment);
}
}
catch (IllegalAccessException iae) {
throw new RuntimeException(iae);
}
catch (InvocationTargetException ite) {
throw new RuntimeException(ite.getCause());
}
}
}
I'm looking for feedback on whether this approach is advisable as a stopgap until the issue is resolved in a Guava release, particularly from members of the Guava team when they get a minute.
EDIT: updated the solution to allow for auto-evicting maps (NullConcurrentMap or NullComputingConcurrentMap residing in a ComputingMapAdapter). This turned out to be necessary in my case, since I'm calling this method on all of my maps and a few of them are auto-evictors.