[concurrency-interest] Happens Before guarantee in case of unsafe.putOrderedObject and corresponding nomal read of a variable

Andrew Haley aph at redhat.com
Fri Sep 5 07:31:26 EDT 2014

On 09/05/2014 12:29 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 07:26 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 09/05/2014 12:07 PM, Doug Lea wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2014 10:17 PM, vikas wrote:
>>>> I just wanted  to know if there is any kind of synchronization/happens before
>>>> guarantees with
>>>> unsafe.putOrderedObject(data) and normal read of that particular data.
>>> In general, not. In C++/C11 terms, putOrderedObject provides
>>> a release-mode write, that must be paired with an acquire-mode
>>> read, which you can do via getObjectVolatile if not already volatile.
>>> There are a few special cases where you do not need this because
>>> of some other dominating volatile reads/writes, but they are not common.
>> While we have this particular box open, do you know why
>> AtomicIntegerFieldUpdater.putOrderedInt() uses Unsafe.putOrderedInt() ?
>> That one always baffles me.  I would have thought it was just a store.
> Because the underlying field must be volatile, at implementation level,
> the VM would otherwise generate the heavier full volatile store.

Argh.  My question was meant to be about lazySet(), sorry.

And again: I thought the idea of lazySet was to *weaken* the guarantee.
Otherwise I don't know what it is for.


More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list