[concurrency-interest] Is it a good idea to try manipulating theway JVM reorders?

Enno Shioji eshioji at gmail.com
Sat Dec 19 05:20:49 EST 2009

@Joe Thank you! I didn't know such utilities exist. I'll definitely
have a look at it.

Maybe I'm not understanding the Java Memory Model correctly, but for
example, is there really a difference between methodA and methodB

class Sample {
     AtomicReference<Boolean> ref = new AtomicReference<Boolean>();
     Phaser phaser = getPhaser();



I wonder because, according to Java Concurrency in Practice:
"There is no guarantee that operations in one thread will be performed
in the order given by the program, as long as the reordering is not
detectable from within that thread even if the reordering is apparent
to other threads.[1]"

Doesn't this mean that the compiler is free to reorder
"phaser.arrive();" and "ref.set(Boolean.TRUE);" because indeed, that
reordering is not detectable within that thread, while it is apparent
to other threads? Thus, I thought you need to do something to prevent

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 7:04 PM, David Holmes <davidcholmes at aapt.net.au> wrote:
> Enno Shioji writes:
>> Now, here is a naive optimization attempt that I think is not thread-safe:
>> class Task {
>>     //Populate with bunch of (Long, new AtomicReference()) pairs
>>     //Actual app uses read only HashMap
>>     Map<Id, AtomicReference<SubTaskResult>> subtasks = populatedMap();
>>     AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(subtasks.size());
>>     public Task set(id, subTaskResult){
>>            //null check omitted
>>            subtasks.get(id).set(result);
>>            //In the actual app, if !compareAndSet(null, result)
>> return null;
>>            return check() ? this : null;
>>     }
>>     private boolean check(){
>>            return counter.decrementAndGet() == 0;
>>     }
>>   }//class
>> I concluded a thread can observe a decremented counter (by another
>> thread) before the result is set in AtomicReference (by that other
>> thread) because of reordering.
> Which "another thread" are you referring to? The AtomicInteger has volatile
> semantics and will be read and written by all threads storing a result, so
> the results can not appear in the Map after the corresponding decrement of
> the counter. For each thread the write to the map happens-before the
> decrement (program order) and each decrement to a non-zero value must
> happen-before the decrement to zero (counter acts as volatile). Consequently
> all the results stores must happen-before a zero counter value is seen. I'd
> go further and say that any thread that reads the counter value N, must be
> able to see the results stored by threads that set a counter value greater
> than N.
> David Holmes

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list