[concurrency-interest] Single writer multiple readers no barriers -- safe ?
vitalyd at gmail.com
Thu Nov 28 22:21:24 EST 2013
AtomicReference.lazySet is the way to go here - on x86 this is just normal
mov instruction with compiler barrier only (StoreStore). If you don't want
overhead of AtomicReference wrapper (doesn't sound like that would be an
issue) you can get same effect with Unsafe.putObjectOrdered.
I wouldn't worry about AtomicReference.get() performance on x86 - this is a
read from memory but if you read frequently, you'll hit L1 cache anyway.
Sent from my phone
On Nov 28, 2013 5:34 PM, "Thomas Kountis" <tkountis at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
> This is my first time posting on this list, been follower for quite some
> time now and really enjoying all the knowledge sharing :) .
> I was looking on optimizing a solution today at work, and I came across
> the following.
> We have a scenario where we keep a simple cache (HashMap) and this is
> accessed by multiple
> readers on an application server, millions of times per day and highly
> contented. This cache is immutable and only gets updated by a single writer
> by replacing the reference that the variable points to every 5 mins. This
> is currently done as a volatile field. I was looking for a way to lose
> completely the memory barriers and rely on that field being eventually
> visible across all other threads (no problem by reading stale data for a
> few seconds).
> Would that be possible with the current JMM ? I tried to test that
> scenario with some code, and it seems to work most of the times, but some
> threads read stale data for longer that I would expect (lots of seconds).
> Is there any platform dependency on such implementation ? Its going to run
> on x86 environments. Is there any assumption we can make as of how long
> that 'eventually' part can be ? (could it be more than 5 mins, when the
> next write occurs?). My understanding is that, that write even if
> re-ordered will have to happen. I came across an article about using the
> AtomicReference doing a lazySet (store-store) for the write, and then the
> Unsafe to do a getObject (direct) instead of the default get which is based
> on the volatile access. Would that be a better solution?
> Any ideas, alternatives?
> PS. Sorry for the question-bombing :/
> Concurrency-interest mailing list
> Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Concurrency-interest