[concurrency-interest] when is safe publication safe?

Rémi Forax forax at univ-mlv.fr
Mon Apr 26 05:35:50 EDT 2010

Le 26/04/2010 07:17, Joe Bowbeer a écrit :
> While I'm accumulating questions...
> Why is ThreadLocal not the preferred cache in this case?
> Joe

You can also mutate the metaclass by example by adding a new method 
in that case, all threads must see the modification.
So ThreadLocal doesn't solve the problem here.


> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Joe Bowbeer wrote:
>     Jochen,
>     What you are describing seems like a caching problem as much as it
>     is about safe publication and/or dynamic languages.  The language
>     runtime creates the (immutable) instances and publishes them to
>     the cache, right?  The performance of the cache is the hot spot?
>     So are you using something like MapMaker to implement the cache?
>     http://code.google.com/p/google-collections/
>     What are you using to hold off a t2 when t1 is in the process of
>     publishing to the cache?  Some scheme involving a Future?
>     Joe
>     On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>         Doug Lea wrote:
>             On 04/25/10 05:31, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
>                     As a first step, consider exactly what
>                     effects/semantics you want
>                     here, and the ways you intend people to be able to
>                     write conditionally
>                     correct Groovy code.
>                 People wouldn't have to write conditionally correct
>                 Groovy code. they
>                 would write normal code as they would in Java (Groovy
>                 and Java are very
>                 near).
>             It seems implausible that you could do enough
>             analysis at load/run time to determine whether you need
>             full locking in the presence of multithreaded racy
>             initialization
>             vs much cheaper release fences. This would require at
>             least some
>             high-quality escape analysis. And the code generated
>             would differ both for the writing and reading callers.
>         maybe I did explain it not good. Let us assume I have the
>         Groovy code:
>         1+1
>         Then this is really something along the lines of:
>         SBA.getMetaClassOf(1).invoke("plus",1)
>         and SBA.getMetaClassOf(1) would return the meta class of
>         Integer. Since this is purely a runtime construct, it does not
>         exist until the first time this meta class is requested. So
>         getMetaClassOf would be the place to initialize the meta
>         class, that would register it in a global structure and on
>         subsequent invocation use that cached meta class. If two
>         threads execute the code above, then one would do the
>         initialization, while the other has to wait. The waiting
>         thread would then read the initialized global meta class. On
>         subsequent invocations both threads would just read. Since
>         changes of the meta class are rare, we would in 99% of all
>         cases simply read the existing value. Since we have to be
>         memory aware, these meta class can be unloaded at runtime too.
>         They are SoftReferenced so it is done only if really needed.
>         But rather than the normal change a reinitialization might be
>         needed much more often.
>         As you see the user code "1+1" does contain zero
>         synchronization code. The memory barriers are all in the
>         runtime. It is not that this cannot be solved by using what
>         Java already has, it is that this is too expensive.
>             As I mentioned, an alternative is to lay down some rules.
>             If people stick to the rules they get consistent (in the sense
>             of data-race-free) executions, else they might not. And of
>             such rules, I think the ones that can apply here amount
>             to saying that other threads performing initializations cannot
>             trust any of their reads of the partially initialized object.
>             And further, they cannot leak refs to that object outside
>             of the
>             group of initializer threads.
>             This is not hugely different than the Swing threading rules
>             (http://java.sun.com/products/jfc/tsc/articles/threads/threads1.html)
>             but applies only during initialization.
>         but unlike what the above may suggest there is no single
>         initialization phase. The meta classes are created on demand.
>         We cannot know beforehand which meta classes are needed and
>         doing them all before starting would increase the startup time
>         big times.
>         If there were of course a way to recognize a partially
>         initialized object I could maybe think of something... but is
>         there a reliable one?
>         bye blackdrag
>         -- 
>         Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
>         The Groovy Project Tech Lead (http://groovy.codehaus.org)
>         http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://cs.oswego.edu/pipermail/concurrency-interest/attachments/20100426/8ef5da1b/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list