After reading a little bit about the java memory model and synchronization, a few questions came up:
Even if Thread 1 synchronizes the writes, then although the effect of the writes will be flushed to main memory, Thread 2 will still not see them because the read came from level 1 cache. So synchronizing writes only prevents collisions on writes. (Java thread-safe write-only hashmap)
Second, when a synchronized method exits, it automatically establishes a happens-before relationship with any subsequent invocation of a synchronized method for the same object. This guarantees that changes to the state of the object are visible to all threads. (https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/syncmeth.html)
A third website (I can't find it again, sorry) said that every change to any object - it doesn't care where the reference comes from - will be flushed to memory when the method leaves the synchronized block and establishes a happens-before situation.
My questions are:
What is really flushed back to memory by exiting the synchronized block? (As some websites also said that only the object whose lock has been aquired will be flushed back.)
What does happens-before-relaitonship mean in this case? And what will be re-read from memory on entering the block, what not?
How does a lock achieve this functionality (from https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/locks/Lock.html):
All Lock implementations must enforce the same memory synchronization semantics as provided by the built-in monitor lock, as described in section 17.4 of The Java™ Language Specification:
A successful lock operation has the same memory synchronization effects as a successful Lock action. A successful unlock operation has the same memory synchronization effects as a successful Unlock action. Unsuccessful locking and unlocking operations, and reentrant locking/unlocking operations, do not require any memory synchronization effects.
If my assumtion that everything will be re-read and flushed is correct, this is achieved by using synchronized-block in the lock- and unlock-functions (which are mostly also necessary), right? And if it's wrong, how can this functionality be achieved?
Thank you in advance!
The happens-before-relationship is the fundamental thing you have to understand, as the formal specification operates in terms of these. Terms like “flushing” are technical details that may help you understanding them, or misguide you in the worst case.
If a thread performs action A within a synchronized(object1) { … }, followed by a thread performing action B within a synchronized(object1) { … }, assuming that object1 refers to the same object, there is a happens-before-relationship between A and B and these actions are safe regarding accessing shared mutable data (assuming, no one else modifies this data).
But this is a directed relationship, i.e. B can safely access the data modified by A. But when seeing two synchronized(object1) { … } blocks, being sure that object1 is the same object, you still need to know whether A was executed before B or B was executed before A, to know the direction of the happens-before-relationship. For ordinary object oriented code, this usually works naturally, as each action will operate on whatever previous state of the object it finds.
Speaking of flushing, leaving a synchronized block causes flushing of all written data and entering a synchronized block causes rereading of all mutable data, but without the mutual exclusion guaranty of a synchronized on the same instance, there is no control over which happens before the other. Even worse, you can not use the shared data to detect the situation, as without blocking the other thread, it can still inconsistently modify the data you’re operating on.
Since synchronizing on different objects can’t establish a valid happens-before relationship, the JVM’s optimizer is not required to maintain the global flush effect. Most notably, today’s JVMs will remove synchronization, if Escape Analysis has proven that the object is never seen by other threads.
So you can use synchronizing on an object to guard access to data stored somewhere else, i.e not in that object, but it still requires consistent synchronizing on the same object instance for all access to the same shared data, which complicates the program logic, compared to simply synchronizing on the same object containing the guarded data.
volatile variables, like used by Locks internally, also have a global flush effect, if threads are reading and writing the same volatile variable, and use the value to form a correct program logic. This is trickier than with synchronized blocks, as there is no mutual exclusion of code execution, or well, you could see it as having a mutual exclusion limited to a single read, write, or cas operation.