[concurrency-interest] jni effectively immutable "constructor" guarded by java volatile for safe publishing

Zhong Yu zhong.j.yu at gmail.com
Mon Aug 27 20:18:31 EDT 2012

just curious - an object is created on a direct ByteBuffer, which
resides outside java heap. how would garbage collector treat the

On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 12:16 PM, Andy Nuss <andrew_nuss at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 1) I have a native function which passes several params and uses a native
> C++ constructor in-place constructor relative to a saved nio direct
> bytebuffer to create an object,  returning a long which is cast from the
> pointer to object.  This object's constructed values are effectively
> immutable in that only that native call sets the members of the obect.  The
> C++ object then can do work based on its constructed state.
> 2) java code that makes the above calls safely publishes the longified
> version of the C++ pointer (created above) somewhere (without mutex) and
> changes a volatile variable to hopefully publish the memory changes made in
> the "constructor" above to other threads.
> Now another java thread reads that volatile fence variable of 2), and then
> picks up that published long, and calls another native function that
> accesses that effectively immutable object in the C++ memory space to do
> some work.
> Is that other thread guaranteed to see the fully constructed native object
> because of the Java Memory Model guarantees about volatiles and fences?  I
> would bet the answer is yes on some platforms, but I see that different
> chips work different ways with using fences, and was wondering about all
> platforms for which java is available.  I couldn't tell by googling whether
> the Java Memory Model made guarantees relative to changes in *all* memory,
> not just that of the virtual machine.  Maybe sun.misc.Unsafe might come to
> the rescue?
> (By the way, I need to use mutexes in my native code too for the purpose of
> subdividing the nio bytebuffer of 1), and found that JNI MontorEnter() was
> extraordinarily slow, as are all callbacks into java code.  I saw somewhere
> that it is safe to use POSIX threads' or Windows threads' semaphores as long
> as during the critical section, there are no callbacks into jvm.  But I
> wonder if anyone can answer this other question?)
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest

More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list