[concurrency-interest] Re: synchronized vs ReentrantLock semantic

Doug Lea dl at cs.oswego.edu
Mon Jun 13 19:59:51 EDT 2005

Dawid Kurzyniec wrote:

> Great! So, what's the final answer on ReentrantReadWriteLock? Is it OK 
> to use it to share non-volatiles then? Technically, RWLock is not a 
> lock, 

Yes, it is (rrwl.readLock() returns a Lock), and yes it does.

> BTW. Being too lazy to analyze the new JMM semantics just now, whilst 
> still curious, let me ask: is it that the volatile read/write, performed 
> by the AbstractQueuedSynchronizer, has implicit memory synchronization 
> effects?

Well, it has explicit memory effects :-)

In general, a volatile read acts in the same was as entry into a
synchronized block with respect to the memory model (NOT with respect to
exclusion). And a volatile acts in same way as exit from block.


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list