We Keep Coding

"gap" between method call and the synchronized block -- avoiding deadlock in concurrency

The following method is a method of class SomeType-- the type it is taking as its argument.
The line comments indicate the line #s.
synchronized void someMethod(SomeType other) { // line 1
// line 2
synchronized (other) { // line 3
//...do stuff // line 4
}
}
The block indicated as "line 4" has calls to some other synchronized methods of both this
and other, and this code is intended for avoiding deadlocks.
However -- suppose both a.someMethod(b) and b.someMethod(a) are invoked concurrently, where a and b are different instances.
Further suppose that b.someMethod(a) is invoked right after a.someMethod(b) is, and they both are held up
at line 2-- each of a and b acquired its own lock and waiting for the other's lock to proceed.
Can/not this happen?
If so - on which jdk implementations? This looks like something that depends on the specific implementation unless it
is explicitly in the jdk specifications.
TIA

Yes, the deadlock you describe can happen. How often it happens may be dependent on the specifics of the threading code; these days, you are most likely using the native threading of the operating system, so it would be more dependent on the native OS than on the JDK/JRE. Deadlock is likely possible on most platforms, though, so you should guard against it in your code.
If you think contention for the method will be low or if you don't care about performance, you could synchronize on a static member or on the class itself, rather than synchronizing on the objects. If you do care about performance and think contention will be significant, you will need to figure out a way to ensure that the monitors are locked in the same order independent of which object the method is being called on and which is the method argument.

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.

Shouldn't Java compiler force to make synchronize?

Consider the following scenario.
public synchronized String getData(){
return getInfo();
}
private String getInfo(){
// operation here should synchronized
return "Synchronize Info";
}
If some one by pass the flow of this operation. System may become unstable, if Java compiler force to make getInfo synchronized that kind of issues won't be there. But Java compiler doesn't force to do so. Now developer should responsible for make getInfo synchronized or not. Why Java doesn't force to make getInfo synchronized ?

It's impossible for the Java compiler to enforce this usefully. You could invent a rule that synchronized methods can only call methods of the same object if they are synchronized, but it's not helpful except in quite narrow scenarios. If getInfo() were public, getData() could easily call a different class, which calls back to getInfo() on the original object.
Also, synchronization can be used on individual statements rather than whole methods, and there are other locks too. Trying to design compiler rules to prevent synchronized code using unsynchronized data for all these cases would be complicated or impossible.
Actually, it's legitimate to want to call a method without the cost of synchronization at times when it's known that only thread is using the object. Deciding which parts of the object should be locked, and when, is a complicated design problem only the human programmer can do.
So Java can't/won't prevent you from writing code which is not theadsafe. It doesn't care. If by "system" you mean "computer", it will not "become unstable". At worst, that one class will be buggy.

From the Java documentation at http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/syncmeth.html, "it is not possible for two invocations of synchronized methods on the same object to interleave".
In other words, if you call getData, then any future calls to getData on the same object will wait until that one is done. So even when the control flow moves into getInfo, the system will still block any future calls to getData until the first returns, so there is no reason why getInfo should be blocked. I hope that helps!

Is unsynchronized read of integer threadsafe in java?

I see this code quite frequently in some OSS unit tests, but is it thread safe ? Is the while loop guaranteed to see the correct value of invoc ?
If no; nerd points to whoever also knows which CPU architecture this may fail on.
private int invoc = 0;
private synchronized void increment() {
invoc++;
}
public void isItThreadSafe() throws InterruptedException {
for (int i = 0; i < TOTAL_THREADS; i++) {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// do some stuff
increment();
}
}).start();
}
while (invoc != TOTAL_THREADS) {
Thread.sleep(250);
}
}

No, it's not threadsafe. invoc needs to be declared volatile, or accessed while synchronizing on the same lock, or changed to use AtomicInteger. Just using the synchronized method to increment invoc, but not synchronizing to read it, isn't good enough.
The JVM does a lot of optimizations, including CPU-specific caching and instruction reordering. It uses the volatile keyword and locking to decide when it can optimize freely and when it has to have an up-to-date value available for other threads to read. So when the reader doesn't use the lock the JVM can't know not to give it a stale value.
This quote from Java Concurrency in Practice (section 3.1.3) discusses how both writes and reads need to be synchronized:
Intrinsic locking can be used to guarantee that one thread sees the effects of another in a predictable manner, as illustrated by Figure 3.1. When thread A executes a synchronized block, and subsequently thread B enters a synchronized block guarded by the same lock, the values of variables that were visible to A prior to releasing the lock are guaranteed to be visible to B upon acquiring the lock. In other words, everything A did in or prior to a synchronized block is visible to B when it executes a synchronized block guarded by the same lock. Without synchronization, there is no such guarantee.
The next section (3.1.4) covers using volatile:
The Java language also provides an alternative, weaker form of synchronization, volatile variables, to ensure that updates to a variable are propagated predictably to other threads. When a field is declared volatile, the compiler and runtime are put on notice that this variable is shared and that operations on it should not be reordered with other memory operations. Volatile variables are not cached in registers or in caches where they are hidden from other processors, so a read of a volatile variable always returns the most recent write by any thread.
Back when we all had single-CPU machines on our desktops we'd write code and never have a problem until it ran on a multiprocessor box, usually in production. Some of the factors that give rise to the visiblity problems, things like CPU-local caches and instruction reordering, are things you would expect from any multiprocessor machine. Elimination of apparently unneeded instructions could happen for any machine, though. There's nothing forcing the JVM to ever make the reader see the up-to-date value of the variable, you're at the mercy of the JVM implementors. So it seems to me this code would not be a good bet for any CPU architecture.

Well!
private volatile int invoc = 0;
Will do the trick.
And see Are java primitive ints atomic by design or by accident? which sites some of the relevant java definitions. Apparently int is fine, but double & long might not be.
edit, add-on. The question asks, "see the correct value of invoc ?". What is "the correct value"? As in the timespace continuum, simultaneity doesn't really exist between threads. One of the above posts notes that the value will eventually get flushed, and the other thread will get it. Is the code "thread safe"? I would say "yes", because it won't "misbehave" based on the vagaries of sequencing, in this case.

Theoretically, it is possible that the read is cached. Nothing in Java memory model prevents that.
Practically, that is extremely unlikely to happen (in your particular example). The question is, whether JVM can optimize across a method call.
read #1
method();
read #2
For JVM to reason that read#2 can reuse the result of read#1 (which can be stored in a CPU register), it must know for sure that method() contains no synchronization actions. This is generally impossible - unless, method() is inlined, and JVM can see from the flatted code that there's no sync/volatile or other synchronization actions between read#1 and read#2; then it can safely eliminate read#2.
Now in your example, the method is Thread.sleep(). One way to implement it is to busy loop for certain times, depending on CPU frequency. Then JVM may inline it, and then eliminate read#2.
But of course such implementation of sleep() is unrealistic. It is usually implemented as a native method that calls OS kernel. The question is, can JVM optimize across such a native method.
Even if JVM has knowledge of internal workings of some native methods, therefore can optimize across them, it's improbable that sleep() is treated that way. sleep(1ms) takes millions of CPU cycles to return, there is really no point optimizing around it to save a few reads.
--
This discussion reveals the biggest problem of data races - it takes too much effort to reason about it. A program is not necessarily wrong, if it is not "correctly synchronized", however to prove it's not wrong is not an easy task. Life is much simpler, if a program is correctly synchronized and contains no data race.

As far as I understand the code it should be safe. The bytecode can be reordered, yes. But eventually invoc should be in sync with the main thread again. Synchronize guarantees that invoc is incremented correctly so there is a consistent representation of invoc in some register. At some time this value will be flushed and the little test succeeds.
It is certainly not nice and I would go with the answer I voted for and would fix code like this because it smells. But thinking about it I would consider it safe.

If you're not required to use "int", I would suggest AtomicInteger as an thread-safe alternative.

In Java critical sections, what should I synchronize on?

In Java, the idiomatic way to declare critical sections in the code is the following:
private void doSomething() {
// thread-safe code
synchronized(this) {
// thread-unsafe code
}
// thread-safe code
}
Almost all blocks synchronize on this, but is there a particular reason for this? Are there other possibilities? Are there any best practices on what object to synchronize on? (such as private instances of Object?)

As earlier answerers have noted, it is best practice to synchronize on an object of limited scope (in other words, pick the most restrictive scope you can get away with, and use that.) In particular, synchronizing on this is a bad idea, unless you intend to allow the users of your class to gain the lock.
A particularly ugly case arises, though, if you choose to synchronize on a java.lang.String. Strings can be (and in practice almost always are) interned. That means that each string of equal content - in the ENTIRE JVM - turns out to be the same string behind the scenes. That means that if you synchronize on any String, another (completely disparate) code section that also locks on a String with the same content, will actually lock your code as well.
I was once troubleshooting a deadlock in a production system and (very painfully) tracked the deadlock to two completely disparate open source packages that each synchronized on an instance of String whose contents were both "LOCK".

First, note that the following code snippets are identical.
public void foo() {
synchronized (this) {
// do something thread-safe
}
}
and:
public synchronized void foo() {
// do something thread-safe
}
do exactly the same thing. No preference for either one of them except for code readability and style.
When you do synchronize methods or blocks of code, it's important to know why you are doing such a thing, and what object exactly you are locking, and for what purpose.
Also note that there are situations in which you will want to client-side synchronize blocks of code in which the monitor you are asking for (i.e. the synchronized object) is not necessarily this, like in this example :
Vector v = getSomeGlobalVector();
synchronized (v) {
// some thread-safe operation on the vector
}
I suggest you get more knowledge about concurrent programming, it will serve you a great deal once you know exactly what's happening behind the scenes. You should check out Concurrent Programming in Java, a great book on the subject. If you want a quick dive-in to the subject, check out Java Concurrency # Sun

I try to avoid synchronizing on this because that would allow everybody from the outside who had a reference to that object to block my synchronization. Instead, I create a local synchronization object:
public class Foo {
private final Object syncObject = new Object();
…
}
Now I can use that object for synchronization without fear of anybody “stealing” the lock.

Just to highlight that there are also ReadWriteLocks available in Java, found as java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock.
In most of my usage, I seperate my locking as 'for reading' and 'for updates'. If you simply use a synchronized keyword, all reads to the same method/code block will be 'queued'. Only one thread can access the block at one time.
In most cases, you never have to worry about concurrency issues if you are simply doing reading. It is when you are doing writing that you worry about concurrent updates (resulting in lost of data), or reading during a write (partial updates), that you have to worry about.
Therefore a read/write lock makes more sense to me during multi-threaded programming.

You'll want to synchronize on an object that can serve as a Mutex. If the current instance (the this reference) is suitable (not a Singleton, for instance), you may use it, as in Java any Object may serve as the Mutex.
In other occasions, you may want to share a Mutex between several classes, if instances of these classes may all need access to the same resources.
It depends a lot on the environment you're working in and the type of system you're building. In most Java EE applications I've seen, there's actually no real need for synchronization...

Personally, I think the answers which insist that it is never or only rarely correct to sync on this are misguided. I think it depends on your API. If your class is a threadsafe implementation and you so document it, then you should use this. If the synchronization is not to make each instance of the class as a whole threadsafe in the invocation of it's public methods, then you should use a private internal object. Reusable library components often fall into the former category - you must think carefully before you disallow the user to wrap your API in external synchronization.
In the former case, using this allows multiple methods to be invoked in an atomic manner. One example is PrintWriter, where you may want to output multiple lines (say a stack trace to the console/logger) and guarantee they appear together - in this case the fact that it hides the sync object internally is a real pain. Another such example are the synchronized collection wrappers - there you must synchronize on the collection object itself in order to iterate; since iteration consists of multiple method invocations you cannot protect it totally internally.
In the latter case, I use a plain object:
private Object mutex=new Object();
However, having seen many JVM dumps and stack traces that say a lock is "an instance of java.lang.Object()" I have to say that using an inner class might often be more helpful, as others have suggested.
Anyway, that's my two bits worth.
Edit: One other thing, when synchronizing on this I prefer to sync the methods, and keep the methods very granular. I think it's clearer and more concise.

Synchronization in Java often involves synchronizing operations on the same instance. Synchronizing on this then is very idiomatic since this is a shared reference that is automatically available between different instance methods (or sections of) in a class.
Using another reference specifically for locking, by declaring and initializing a private field Object lock = new Object() for example, is something I never needed or used. I think it is only useful when you need external synchronization on two or more unsynchronized resources inside an object, although I would always try to refactor such a situation into a simpler form.
Anyway, implicit (synchronized method) or explicit synchronized(this) is used a lot, also in the Java libraries. It is a good idiom and, if applicable, should always be your first choice.

On what you synchronize depends on what other threads that might potentially get into conflict with this method call can synchronize.
If this is an object that is used by only one thread and we are accessing a mutable object which is shared between threads, a good candidate is to synchronize over that object - synchronizing on this has no point since another thread that modifies that shared object might not even know this, but does know that object.
On the other hand synchronizing over this makes sense if many threads call methods of this object at the same time, for instance if we are in a singleton.
Note that a syncronized method is often not the best option, since we hold a lock the whole time the method runs. If it contains timeconsuming but thread safe parts, and a not so time consuming thread-unsafe part, synchronizing over the method is very wrong.

Almost all blocks synchronize on this, but is there a particular reason for this? Are there other possibilities?
This declaration synchronizes entire method.
private synchronized void doSomething() {
This declaration synchronized a part of code block instead of entire method.
private void doSomething() {
// thread-safe code
synchronized(this) {
// thread-unsafe code
}
// thread-safe code
}
From oracle documentation page
making these methods synchronized has two effects:
First, it is not possible for two invocations of synchronized methods on the same object to interleave. When one thread is executing a synchronized method for an object, all other threads that invoke synchronized methods for the same object block (suspend execution) until the first thread is done with the object.
Are there other possibilities? Are there any best practices on what object to synchronize on? (such as private instances of Object?)
There are many possibilities and alternatives to synchronization. You can make your code thread safe by using high level concurrency APIs( available since JDK 1.5 release)
Lock objects
Executors
Concurrent collections
Atomic variables
ThreadLocalRandom
Refer to below SE questions for more details:
Synchronization vs Lock
Avoid synchronized(this) in Java?

the Best Practices is to create an object solely to provide the lock:
private final Object lock = new Object();
private void doSomething() {
// thread-safe code
synchronized(lock) {
// thread-unsafe code
}
// thread-safe code
}
By doing this you are safe, that no calling code can ever deadlock your method by an unintentional synchronized(yourObject) line.
(Credits to #jared and #yuval-adam who explained this in more details above.)
My guess is that the popularity of using this in tutorials came from early Sun javadoc: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/locksync.html

Synchronization includes 3 parts: Atomicity, Visibility and Ordering
Synchronized block is very coarse level of synchronization. It enforces visibility and ordering just as what you expected. But for atomicity, it does not provide much protection. Atomicity requires global knowledge of the program rather than local knowledge. (And that makes multi-threading programming very hard)
Let's say we have a class Account having method deposit and withdraw. They are both synchronized based on a private lock like this:
class Account {
private Object lock = new Object();
void withdraw(int amount) {
synchronized(lock) {
// ...
}
}
void deposit(int amount) {
synchronized(lock) {
// ...
}
}
}
Considering we need to implement a higher-level class which handles transfer, like this:
class AccountManager {
void transfer(Account fromAcc, Account toAcc, int amount) {
if (fromAcc.getBalance() > amount) {
fromAcc.setBalance(fromAcc.getBalance() - amount);
toAcc.setBalance(toAcc.getBalance + amount);
}
}
}
Assuming we have 2 accounts now,
Account john;
Account marry;
If the Account.deposit() and Account.withdraw() are locked with internal lock only. That will cause problem when we have 2 threads working:
// Some thread
void threadA() {
john.withdraw(500);
}
// Another thread
void threadB() {
accountManager.transfer(john, marry, 100);
}
Because it is possible for both threadA and threadB run at the same time. And thread B finishes the conditional check, thread A withdraws, and thread B withdraws again. This means we can withdraw $100 from John even if his account has no enough money. This will break atomicity.
You may propose that: why not adding withdraw() and deposit() to AccountManager then? But under this proposal, we need to create a multi-thread safe Map which maps from different accounts to their locks. We need to delete the lock after execution (otherwise will leak memory). And we also need to ensure no other one accesses the Account.withdraw() directly. This will introduce a lots of subtle bugs.
The correct and most idiomatic way is to expose the lock in the Account. And let the AccountManager to use the lock. But in this case, why not just use the object itself then?
class Account {
synchronized void withdraw(int amount) {
// ...
}
synchronized void deposit(int amount) {
// ...
}
}
class AccountManager {
void transfer(Account fromAcc, Account toAcc, int amount) {
// Ensure locking order to prevent deadlock
Account firstLock = fromAcc.hashCode() < toAcc.hashCode() ? fromAcc : toAcc;
Account secondLock = fromAcc.hashCode() < toAcc.hashCode() ? toAcc : fromAcc;
synchronized(firstLock) {
synchronized(secondLock) {
if (fromAcc.getBalance() > amount) {
fromAcc.setBalance(fromAcc.getBalance() - amount);
toAcc.setBalance(toAcc.getBalance + amount);
}
}
}
}
}
To conclude in simple English, private lock does not work for slightly more complicated multi-threaded program.