[concurrency-interest] Relativity of guarantees provided by volatile

Zhong Yu zhong.j.yu at gmail.com
Sat Aug 18 18:23:11 EDT 2012


On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Marko Topolnik <mtopolnik at inge-mark.hr> wrote:
>> It seems imperative that, on any physical model of JMM, among
>> synchronization actions, if a happens-before b, then there's a causal
>> relationship from a to b, and it's necessary that
>> a.startTime<b.endTime (on any observer's clock). In that sense, the
>> term happens-before is literal after all?
>
> Although admittedly exotic, theoretically the JVM might _predict_ what a future action will write and let that value be read by another thread ahead of time, creating a happens-before that travels back through time without disrupting the JMM's stipulations.

This is true. Probably more constraints on the physical model are
needed, e.g. a thread has no knowledge about the global program.

>
>> In OP's example, there are so(r_i, w_j), but there's no hb(r_i, w_j),
>> therefore there's no temporal constraints, w_j can occur before r_i.
>> If there were something that established hb(r_i, w_j), then the
>> example is impossible under JMM.
>>
>> Interestingly, JMM also defines r_i and w_j to be in a data race, even
>> though they are all volatile.
>
> This a very nice catch. Isn't in fact any read in a data race with all writes by another thread following the write it observed? That would make it impossible to write a program free of data races. In other words this sounds like a loophole in the definition of a data race.
>
>> Could it be true that, if an execution is free of data race, it is
>> temporally consistent, i.e. its synchronization order is consistent
>> with temporal order.
>
> I think that any synchronization order is temporally consistent, save for perversions like the one I mention above. Whether there are also data races shouldn't matter as they are not included in the synchronization order, anyway.
>
> -Marko
>



More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list