[concurrency-interest] Enforcing ordered execution of critical sections?

suman shil suman_krec at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 20 09:04:23 EST 2014


I have modified my solution to avoid notifyAll(). Let me know your feedback.

public class OrderedExecutor{ private int maxOrder; private int currentAllowedOrder; private Map<Integer, Object> map = new HashMap<Integer, Object>();    public OrderedExecutor(int n)    {         this.maxOrder = n;         this.currentAllowedOrder = 0;     for(int i = 0 ; i < this.maxOrder ; i++)     {     map.put(i, new Object());     }    }        public  Object execCriticalSectionInOrder(int order,                                              Callable<Object> callable)                                              throws Exception    { if (order >= this.maxOrder) { throw new Exception("Exceeds maximum order "+ maxOrder); }   while(order != currentAllowedOrder) { synchronized (this.map.get(order)) { this.map.get(order).wait();  } }  try {  return callable.call();  }       finally {            currentAllowedOrder = currentAllowedOrder+1; synchronized (this.map.get(order+1))            {                this.map.get(order+1).notify();            }        }    }}   

      From: Joe Bowbeer <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com>
 To: concurrency-interest <concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu> 
 Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 3:33 AM
 Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] Enforcing ordered execution of critical sections?
   
That would be "Tom" Cargill; link to paper:
http://www.profcon.com/profcon/cargill/jgf/9809/SpecificNotification.html



On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Joe Bowbeer <joe.bowbeer at gmail.com> wrote:
I frown on use of notify[All]/wait because they make the code hard to maintain.
In this case, with potentially lots of waiting threads, I would check out the "Specific Notification" pattern if I were determined to go the wait/notify route:
Tim Cargill's paper is dated but still worth reading.
Also see chapter 3.7.3 Specific Notifications in Doug Lea's CPiJ and Peter Haggar's article: 
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-spnotif.html

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Oleksandr Otenko <oleksandr.otenko at oracle.com> wrote:
  Yes, no one said it is a good idea to always do that. When it is contended, most of the threads will wake up to only go back to sleep.
 
 The pattern you are after is usually called sequencer. You can see it used in TCP. I am not sure why it wasn't implemented in j.u.c. - maybe not that popular.
 
 The best solution will be lock-like, but the waiter nodes will contain the value they are waiting for - so only the specific threads get woken up. The solution with concurrent map is very similar, only with larger overhead from storing the index the thread is waiting for.
 
 
 Alex
 
 
 On 18/12/2014 20:21, Hanson Char wrote:
  
 Less overhead and simpler are a nice properties, even though at the expense of having to wake up all waiting threads just to find out the one with the right order to execute.  Still, this seems like a good tradeoff. 
  Thanks, Hanson  
 On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com> wrote: 
On 12/17/2014 08:15 PM, Oleksandr Otenko wrote:
 
 No, there is no difference. Peter didn't spot your entire method is synchronized, so spurious wakeup won't make progress until the owner of the lock exits the method.
 
 You could split the synchronization into two blocks - one encompassing the wait loop, the other in the finally block; but it may make no difference.
 
 Alex
 
 
 You're right, Alex. I'm so infected with park/unpark virus that I missed that ;-)
 
 Peter
 
 
 
 On 17/12/2014 18:36, suman shil wrote:
  
 Thanks peter for your reply. You are right. I should have incremented currentAllowedOrder in finally block.
 
 Suman
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 *From:* Peter Levart <peter.levart at gmail.com>
 *To:* suman shil <suman_krec at yahoo.com>; Oleksandr Otenko <oleksandr.otenko at oracle.com>; Concurrency-interest <concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu>
 *Sent:* Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:54 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [concurrency-interest] Enforcing ordered execution of critical sections?
 
 On 12/17/2014 06:46 PM, suman shil wrote:
 
 Thanks for your response. Will notifyAll() instead of notify() solve the problem?
 
 
 It will, but you should also account for "spurious" wake-ups. You should increment currentAllowedOrder only after return from callable.call (in finally block just before notifyAll()).
 
 Otherwise a nice solution - with minimal state, providing that not many threads meet at the same time...
 
 Regards, Peter
 
 
 RegardsSuman
        From: Oleksandr Otenko<oleksandr.otenko at oracle.com> <mailto:oleksandr.otenko at oracle.com>
   To: suman shil<suman_krec at yahoo.com> <mailto:suman_krec at yahoo.com>; Concurrency-interest<concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu> <mailto:concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu>    Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 9:55 PM
   Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] Enforcing ordered execution of critical sections?
       There is no guarantee you'll ever hand over the control to the right thread upon notify()
     Alex
 
 On 17/12/2014 14:07, suman shil wrote:
       Hi, Following is my solution to solve this problem. Please let me know if I am missing something.
    public class OrderedExecutor {  private int currentAllowedOrder = 0;  private int maxLength = 0;  public OrderedExecutor(int n)  {          this.maxLength = n;  } public synchronized Object execCriticalSectionInOrder( int order, Callable<Object> callable)                                 throws Exception  { if (order >= maxLength)  {  throw new Exception("Exceeds maximum order "+ maxLength);  }    while(order != currentAllowedOrder)  {  wait();  }    try  { currentAllowedOrder = currentAllowedOrder+1;  return callable.call();  }  finally  {  notify();  }  } }
    Regards Suman
         From: Peter Levart<peter.levart at gmail.com> <mailto:peter.levart at gmail.com>
   To: Hanson Char<hanson.char at gmail.com> <mailto:hanson.char at gmail.com>    Cc: concurrency-interest<concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu> <mailto:concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu>    Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 11:01 PM
   Subject: Re: [concurrency-interest] Enforcing ordered execution of critical sections?
           On 12/14/2014 06:11 PM, Hanson Char wrote:
      Hi Peter,
    Thanks for this proposed idea of using LockSupport. This begs the question: which one would you choose if you had all three (correct)  implementation available?  (Semaphore, CountDownLatch, or LockSupport)?
    Regards, Hanson
     The Semaphore/CountDownLatch variants are equivalent if you don't need re-use. So any would do. They lack invalid-use detection. What happens if they are not used as intended? Semaphore variant acts differently than CountDownLatch variant. The low-level variant I  proposed detects invalid usage. So I would probably use this one. But the low level variant is harder to reason about it's correctness.  I think it is correct, but you should show it to somebody else to confirm this.
     Another question is whether you actually need this kind of synchronizer. Maybe if you explained what you are trying to achieve, somebody could have an idea how to do that even more elegantly...
     Regards, Peter
                 On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Peter Levart<peter.levart at gmail.com> <mailto:peter.levart at gmail.com>  wrote:
    Hi Hanson,
     This one is more low-level, but catches some invalid usages and is more resource-friendly:
       public class OrderedExecutor {
         public <T> T execCriticalSectionInOrder(
           final int order,
           final Supplier<T> criticalSection
       ) throws InterruptedException {
           if (order < 0) {
                throw new IllegalArgumentException("'order' should be >= 0");
           }
           if (order > 0) {
               waitForDone(order - 1);
           }
           try {
               return criticalSection.get();
           } finally {
               notifyDone(order);
           }
       }
         private static final Object DONE = new Object();
       private final ConcurrentMap<Integer, Object> signals = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
         private void waitForDone(int order) throws InterruptedException {
           Object sig = signals.putIfAbsent(order, Thread.currentThread());
           if (sig != null && sig != DONE) {
               throw new IllegalStateException();
           }
           while (sig != DONE) {
               LockSupport.park();
               if (Thread.interrupted()) {
                   throw new InterruptedException();
               }
               sig = signals.get(order);
           }
       }
         private void notifyDone(int order) {
           Object sig = signals.putIfAbsent(order, DONE);
           if (sig instanceof Thread) {
               if (!signals.replace(order, sig, DONE)) {
                   throw new IllegalStateException();
               }
               LockSupport.unpark((Thread) sig);
           } else if (sig != null) {
               throw new IllegalStateException();
           }
       }
   }
       Regards, Peter
     On 12/14/2014 05:08 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
        On 12/14/2014 04:20 PM, Hanson Char wrote:
      Hi Peter,
    Thanks for the suggestion, and sorry about not being clear about one important  detail: "n" is not known a priori when constructing an OrderedExecutor.  Does this mean the use of CountDownLatch is ruled out?
     If you know at least the upper bound of 'n', it can be used with such 'n'. Otherwise something that dynamically re-sizes the array could be devised. Or you could simply use a ConcurrentHashMap instead of array where keys are 'order' values:
       public class OrderedExecutor<T> {
         private final ConcurrentMap<Integer, CountDownLatch> latches = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
         public T execCriticalSectionInOrder(final int order,
                                           final Supplier<T> criticalSection) throws InterruptedException {
           if (order > 0) {
               latches.computeIfAbsent(order - 1, o -> new CountDownLatch(1)).await();
           }
           try {
               return criticalSection.get();
           } finally {
               latches.computeIfAbsent(order, o -> new CountDownLatch(1)).countDown();
           }
       }
   }
       Regards, Peter
           You guessed right: it's a one-shot object for a particular OrderedExecutor  instance, and "order" must be called indeed at most once.
    Regards, Hanson
      On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Peter Levart<peter.levart at gmail.com> <mailto:peter.levart at gmail.com>  wrote:
    Hi Hanson,
     I don't think anything like that readily exists  in java.lang.concurrent, but what you describe should be possible to  achieve with composition of existing primitives.  You haven't given any additional hints to what your OrderedExecutor  should behave like. Should it be a one-shot object (like CountDownLatch) or a re-usable one (like CyclicBarrier)? Will execCriticalSectionInOrder() for a particular OrderedExecutor instance and 'order' value be called at most once? If yes (and I  think that only a one-shot object  makes sense here), an array of CountDownLatch(es) could be used:
     public class OrderedExecutor<T> {
       private final CountDownLatch[] latches;
         public OrderedExecutor(int n) {
           if (n < 1) throw new IllegalArgumentException("'n'  should be >= 1");
           latches = new CountDownLatch[n - 1];
           for (int i = 0; i < latches.length; i++) {
               latches[i] = new CountDownLatch(1);
           }
       }
         public T execCriticalSectionInOrder(final int order,
                                            final Supplier<T> criticalSection) throws InterruptedException {
           if (order < 0 || order > latches.length)
               throw new IllegalArgumentException("'order' should be [0..." +  latches.length + "]");
           if (order > 0) {
               latches[order - 1].await();
           }
           try {
               return criticalSection.get();
           } finally {
               if (order < latches.length) {
                   latches[order].countDown();
               }
           }
       }
   }
       Regards, Peter
     On 12/14/2014 05:26 AM, Hanson Char wrote:
          Hi, I am looking for a construct that can  be used to efficiently enforce  ordered execution of multiple critical sections, each calling from a  different thread. The calling threads may run in  parallel and may call the execution method out of order. The  perceived construct would therefore be responsible for re-ordering the execution of those threads, so that their critical  sections (and only the critical section) will be executed in order. Would something  like the following API already exist? /** * Used to enforce ordered execution of critical sections calling from multiple *  threads, parking and unparking the  threads as necessary. */ public class OrderedExecutor<T> { /** * Executes a critical section at most once with the given order, parking * and  unparking the current thread as  necessary so that all critical * sections executed  by different threads using this  executor take place in * the order from 1 to n  consecutively. */ public T execCriticalSectionInOrder
 (  final int order, final Callable<T> criticalSection) throws InterruptedException; } Regards, Hanson _______________________________________________Concurrency-interest  mailing listConcurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu <mailto:Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu> http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest _______________________________________________
   Concurrency-interest mailing list
   Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu <mailto:Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu>
   http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
 _______________________________________________
 Concurrency-interest mailing list
 Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu <mailto:Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu>
 http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
 
 
 
 
 
 _______________________________________________
 Concurrency-interest mailing list
 Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu <mailto:Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu>
 http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 _______________________________________________
 Concurrency-interest mailing list
 Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
 http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest
   
   
 
 
_______________________________________________
Concurrency-interest mailing list
Concurrency-interest at cs.oswego.edu
http://cs.oswego.edu/mailman/listinfo/concurrency-interest




_______________________________________________
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/20141220/39b3ebc5/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list