So I just learned about the volatile keyword while writing some examples for a section that I am TAing tomorrow. I wrote a quick program to demonstrate that the ++ and -- operations are not atomic.
public class Q3 {
private static int count = 0;
private static class Worker1 implements Runnable{
public void run(){
for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
count++; //Inner class maintains an implicit reference to its parent
}
}
private static class Worker2 implements Runnable{
public void run(){
for(int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
count--; //Inner class maintains an implicit reference to its parent
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
while(true){
Thread T1 = new Thread(new Worker1());
Thread T2 = new Thread(new Worker2());
T1.start();
T2.start();
T1.join();
T2.join();
System.out.println(count);
count = 0;
Thread.sleep(500);
}
}
}
As expected the output of this program is generally along the lines of:
-1521
-39
0
0
0
0
0
0
However, when I change:
private static int count = 0;
to
private static volatile int count = 0;
my output changes to:
0
3077
1
-3365
-1
-2
2144
3
0
-1
1
-2
6
1
1
I've read When exactly do you use the volatile keyword in Java? so I feel like I've got a basic understanding of what the keyword does (maintain synchronization across cached copies of a variable in different threads but is not read-update-write safe). I understand that this code is, of course, not thread safe. It is specifically not thread-safe to act as an example to my students. However, I am curious as to why adding the volatile keyword makes the output not as "stable" as when the keyword is not present.
The reason for all those zeroes is not that the ++'s and --'s are balancing each other out. The reason is that there is nothing here to cause count in the looping threads to affect count in the main thread. You need synch blocks or a volatile count (a "memory barrier) to force the JVM to make everything see the same value. With your particular JVM/hardware, what is most likely happening that the value is kept in a register at all times and never getting to cache--let alone main memory--at all.
In the second case you are doing what you intended: non-atomic increments and decrements on the same course and getting results something like what you expected.
This is an ancient question, but something needed to be said about each thread keeping it's own, independent copy of the data.