[concurrency-interest] DirectByteBuffers and reachabilityFence
aph at redhat.com
Wed Dec 9 05:33:11 EST 2015
On 08/12/15 19:17, Vitaly Davidovich wrote:
>> Absolutely, yes. We already know that very similar code breaks.
> "Very similar" is slightly different though.
>> Sure there is: write a field (a counter, say) in your methods and read
>> it in the finalizer. Make sure that you do something with the field
>> in the finalizer to ensure it's not eliminated: a volatile write will
>> do. This is fully JLS-compliant; reachabilityFence() is just an
> C'mon, really?? :)
I wonder how many times I'm going to wrote "Absolutely, yes."
> So now I'm going to write to dummy fields? And what are you going to
> do with it in a finalizer?
Update a global volatile.
> And of course, a Sufficiently Smart Compiler could detect
> (theoretically, of course :)) that this is all just dummy ops and
> remove them.
No, it can't. Because the JLS says so. IMVHO it'd be much better to
stop trying to guess what a compiler might do and simply write in the
> In my opinion, the current lack of optimization (accidental or not)
> should be somehow encoded/made intentional.
I have in the past argued that methods of classes with finalizers
should automagically extend the lifetime of the "this" object.
However, I was on the losing side, and reachabilityFence() is the
compromise result. That's okay, really: it solves the practical
> Perhaps treat Unsafe::anything() as a full compiler optimization
> fence, if it's not already.
That one really is a no-hoper. The idea of NIO ByteBuffers is "as
fast as C" and full fences would be a pretty major regression.
More information about the Concurrency-interest