This is about volatile piggyback. Purpose: I want to reach a lightweight vars visibilty. Consistency of a_b_c is not important. I have a bunch of vars and I don't want to make them all volatile.
Is this code threadsafe?
class A {
public int a, b, c;
volatile int sync;
public void setup() {
a = 2;
b = 3;
c = 4;
}
public void sync() {
sync++;
}
}
final static A aaa = new A();
Thread0:
aaa.setup();
end
Thread1:
for(;;) {aaa.sync(); logic with aaa.a, aaa.b, aaa.c}
Thread2:
for(;;) {aaa.sync(); logic with aaa.a, aaa.b, aaa.c}
Java Memory Model defines the happens-before relationship which has the following properties (amongst others):
These two properties together with transitivity of the happens-before relationship imply the visibility guarantees that OP seeks in the following manner:
a
in thread 1 happens-before a write to sync
in a call to sync()
in thread 1 (program order rule).sync
in the call to sync()
in thread 1 happens-before a read to sync
in a call to sync
in thread 2 (volatile variable rule).sync
in the call to sync()
in thread 2 happens-before a read from a
in thread 2 (program order rule).This implies that the answer to the question is yes, i.e. the call to sync()
in each iteration in threads 1 and 2 ensures visibility of changes to a
, b
and c
to the other thread(s). Note that this ensures visibility only. No mutual exclusion guarantees exist and hence all invariants binding a
, b
and c
may be violated.
See also Java theory and practice: Fixing the Java Memory Model, Part 2. In particular the section "New guarantees for volatile" which says
Under the new memory model, when thread A writes to a volatile variable V, and thread B reads from V, any variable values that were visible to A at the time that V was written are guaranteed now to be visible to B.