Related
The following implementation from Wikipedia:
volatile unsigned int produceCount = 0, consumeCount = 0;
TokenType buffer[BUFFER_SIZE];
void producer(void) {
while (1) {
while (produceCount - consumeCount == BUFFER_SIZE)
sched_yield(); // buffer is full
buffer[produceCount % BUFFER_SIZE] = produceToken();
// a memory_barrier should go here, see the explanation above
++produceCount;
}
}
void consumer(void) {
while (1) {
while (produceCount - consumeCount == 0)
sched_yield(); // buffer is empty
consumeToken(buffer[consumeCount % BUFFER_SIZE]);
// a memory_barrier should go here, the explanation above still applies
++consumeCount;
}
}
says that a memory barrier must be used between the line that accesses the buffer and the line that updates the Count variable.
This is done to prevent the CPU from reordering the instructions above the fence along-with that below it. The Count variable shouldn't be incremented before it is used to index into the buffer.
If a fence is not used, won't this kind of reordering violate the correctness of code? The CPU shouldn't perform increment of Count before it is used to index into buffer. Does the CPU not take care of data dependency while instruction reordering?
Thanks
If a fence is not used, won't this kind of reordering violate the correctness of code? The CPU shouldn't perform increment of Count before it is used to index into buffer. Does the CPU not take care of data dependency while instruction reordering?
Good question.
In c++, unless some form of memory barrier is used (atomic, mutex, etc), the compiler assumes that the code is single-threaded. In which case, the as-if rule says that the compiler may emit whatever code it likes, provided that the overall observable effect is 'as if' your code was executed sequentially.
As mentioned in the comments, volatile does not necessarily alter this, being merely an implementation-defined hint that the variable may change between accesses (this is not the same as being modified by another thread).
So if you write multi-threaded code without memory barriers, you get no guarantees that changes to a variable in one thread will even be observed by another thread, because as far as the compiler is concerned that other thread should not be touching the same memory, ever.
What you will actually observe is undefined behaviour.
It seems, that your question is "can incrementing Count and assigment to buffer be reordered without changing code behavior?".
Consider following code tansformation:
int count1 = produceCount++;
buffer[count1 % BUFFER_SIZE] = produceToken();
Notice that code behaves exactly as original one: one read from volatile variable, one write to volatile, read happens before write, state of program is the same. However, other threads will see different picture regarding order of produceCount increment and buffer modifications.
Both compiler and CPU can do that transformation without memory fences, so you need to force those two operations to be in correct order.
If a fence is not used, won't this kind of reordering violate the correctness of code?
Nope. Can you construct any portable code that can tell the difference?
The CPU shouldn't perform increment of Count before it is used to index into buffer. Does the CPU not take care of data dependency while instruction reordering?
Why shouldn't it? What would the payoff be for the costs incurred? Things like write combining and speculative fetching are huge optimizations and disabling them is a non-starter.
If you're thinking that volatile alone should do it, that's simply not true. The volatile keyword has no defined thread synchronization semantics in C or C++. It might happen to work on some platforms and it might happen not to work on others. In Java, volatile does have defined thread synchronization semantics, but they don't include providing ordering for accesses to non-volatiles.
However, memory barriers do have well-defined thread synchronization semantics. We need to make sure that no thread can see that data is available before it sees that data. And we need to make sure that a thread that marks data as able to be overwritten is not seen before the thread is finished with that data.
I like to settle a theoretical computing argument.
Assume everything initial 0
Thread0 Thread1
x=1 | y=x
Here we have a data race. As far as I understand (assuming that x fits in the architecture's word-size and is aligned on the word boundary, which it normally would be), the result is either x=1 ^ y=0 or x=1 ^ y=1.
Now my second example uses explicit locking (assume that lock() gets some global lock), and as far as I understand this is not a data race condition anymore.
Thread0 Thread1
lock() | lock()
x=1 | y=x
unlock() | unlock()
However I would argue that both programs are identical, they produce identical output, have identical race issues. Somehow however people are trying to convince me that data race condition is bad, and I don't see why my first program would be worse than my second.
Edit. The full quote from Wikipedia is:
C++11 introduced formal support for multithreading, and defined a data race strictly as a race condition between non-atomic variables. While race conditions in general will continue to exist, a "data race" must be avoided by the programmer, who must assure that only one thread at a time may access any variable if the access is for writing.
Now, assuming this is correct (it's wikipedia, which tends to be reasonably good on programming but can often be very wrong indeed), it's defining "data race" in this context purely as one of the clearly bad cases; those which can cause shearing of values. Such cases obviously must be avoided, so clearly data-races—defined as they are here—must be avoided.
And by this definition, neither program in your question has a data race.
I leave my original answer on race conditions generally:
The second example has a data-race too. Indeed, it has the exact same data-race as the first one.
Is this bad? That depends. Note before any of the rest. Not only are many cases bad, as I'll describe more below, but those cases that are bad tend to be particularly hard to find and fix, which in itself should lean one towards assuming the worse.
An obvious case where a data race is bad is where it corrupts data. Let's say we change your example so that x and y were larger than the architecture's word size and we're setting x = -1. We'll also assume two's-complement. Now the possible values for y are not just -1 and 0, but also -4294967296 and 4294967295.
In this case, the locking you suggest wouldn't remove the data-race completely, but would remove that part of it that could cause shearing: The only possible values of y would again be -1 and 0.
Another question is serialisation. It's often necessary to be able to consider a sequence of concurrent events as having been one of a limited set of sequential events.
For example, consider we start with X = 0 and then have:
Thread 0 Thread 1
++x x = -50
Now, there's still the risk of sheering here that could result in a possible bogus value.
Assuming that x is word-size or smaller, we still might have an issue. There are two possible values if the operations were not concurrent. Either x could be equal to -50 (increment, then assign -50) or x could be equal to -49 (assign -50 then increment). However, concurrently it's possible for us to end up with x having a value of 1 because thread 0 reads 0, thread 1 assigns -50and then thread 0 increments and assigns 1.
Now, it's quite possible that this is perfectly okay. It's very likely though that it isn't.
As programmers we've got four possibilities:
Identify the data-race. Determine that it is harmless (or relatively harmless*), and let it be.
Identify the data-race. Determine that it can cause problems, and fix it.
Identify the data-race. Just fix it because that way we can't make a mistake in determining it is harmless when it actually isn't.
Identify the data-race. Determine that it can cause problems. Change the code so the race doesn't cause problems.
The importance of case number 2 is obvious - we turn code that has a bug into code that isn't.
The importance of case number 3 comes down to time and provability. We might well be making code less efficient (many methods for stopping data-races have at least some overhead), but it often takes less developer time to remove a race than prove it harmless, and the cost of a wrong example is marginally slower code whereas the cost of being wrong in the other direction is a hard to fix bug.
The importance of number 1 is more complicated, it can be important in some very low-level concurrent code to avoid locking, so there are cases where we want to tolerate races. Number 4 is a way to turn something from number 2 into number 1, and comes up when either the data-race is inherent to the problem (we can't remove it) or we're doing the sort of low-level concurrency that number 1 involves.
Here's an interesting example in C#:
public static SomeResource GetTheResource()
{
get
{
if(_theResource == null)
_theResource = CreateTheResource();
return _theResource
}
}
The data-race should be obvious; until theResource is set and all CPU's caches see the update, we might assign to it several times from different threads. Is this a bug? Many people would say it is, but actually it depends. It's possible that it's safe to have a brief period where different versions of theResource are used, and all we really lose is some efficiency in the beginning from the multiple calls to CreateTheResource(). In code with a high requirement for performance we might decide to tolerate this initial lower efficiency for the long-term efficiency gain of no locking. Or it might be vital that we lock. Or we might just lock because we don't have that pressing a need to avoid it, and it's simpler just to assume that the might be a problem.
Important Point 1: If you do decide to tolerate a race like this, you should add a comment to that effect and why. Otherwise every time someone comes across this code they'll have to check again that it's safe, rather than at most check your stated reasoning.
Important Point 2: While the principle here is language-agnostic, the details in each case often are not. In this case tolerating the race depends not just on the temporary multiple copies being safe, but also on garbage collection cleaning those excess copies up. If we were instead assigning a pointer to the heap in C++ the above would at the very best be leaky, even if otherwise safe.
A more complicated case is something like this (again a C# example, but applicable to other languages):
internal sealed class LockFreeQueue<T>
{
private sealed class Node
{
public readonly T Item;
public Node Next;
public Node(T item)
{
Item = item;
}
}
private volatile Node _head;
private volatile Node _tail;
public LockFreeQueue()
{
_head = _tail = new Node(default(T));
}
#pragma warning disable 420 // volatile semantics not lost as only by-ref calls are interlocked
public void Enqueue(T item)
{
Node newNode = new Node(item);
for(;;)
{
Node curTail = _tail;
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref curTail.Next, newNode, null) == null) //append to the tail if it is indeed the tail.
{
Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _tail, newNode, curTail); //CAS in case we were assisted by an obstructed thread.
return;
}
else
{
Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _tail, curTail.Next, curTail); //assist obstructing thread.
}
}
}
public bool TryDequeue(out T item)
{
for(;;)
{
Node curHead = _head;
Node curTail = _tail;
Node curHeadNext = curHead.Next;
if (curHead == curTail)
{
if (curHeadNext == null)
{
item = default(T);
return false;
}
else
Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _tail, curHeadNext, curTail); // assist obstructing thread
}
else
{
item = curHeadNext.Item;
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _head, curHeadNext, curHead) == curHead)
{
return true;
}
}
}
}
#pragma warning restore 420
}
This code doesn't prevent data-races, but rather it reacts to them. If an operation is affected by another thread, then rather than error or return an incorrect result, the thread deals with the race and returns something else (and indeed even helps the other thread in some cases).
So in summary, data-races are not in and of themselves bad things. They are though complicating things, and those complications can cause problems. When you have a data-race you have a choice between proving it's not a problem, changing your code to tolerate the race so that it's no longer a problem, or changing your code to remove the race. Of these, just removing the race is often the easiest choice.
*I don't mean "relatively harmless" in a vague way here, but relative to the alternative. E.g. if we decide to leave the race in the C# example given, it's because we've decided that the cost of redundant object creation is less harmful than the relative cost of preventing it.
I thank everybody for their answers, although valuable they did not actually answer the question I was hoping I asked. The answers did allow me to reason better about what I was actually asking, and in the end find something of an answer online:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2013/01/06/benign-data-races-what-could-possibly-go-wrong
So I guess my question should have been:
The C(++)11 standard defines my first example as a data race (if I don't use the "atomic" keyword), and the second one not. The first one therefore has undefined behaviour (even though there don't seem to be compiler implementations that would result in anything but x==1 && y==0|1, according to the standard any resulting value for x and y is correct compiler behaviour). I was wondering why this is. I think the Intel document answers that question pretty elaborately.
If x and y fit into a machine register then assignment is atomic by default so locks won't change the outcome. It's equally possible to get y = 0 or y = 1 in the second case as well.
I've always been told to puts locks around variables that multiple threads will access, I've always assumed that this was because you want to make sure that the value you are working with doesn't change before you write it back
i.e.
mutex.lock()
int a = sharedVar
a = someComplexOperation(a)
sharedVar = a
mutex.unlock()
And that makes sense that you would lock that. But in other cases I don't understand why I can't get away with not using Mutexes.
Thread A:
sharedVar = someFunction()
Thread B:
localVar = sharedVar
What could possibly go wrong in this instance? Especially if I don't care that Thread B reads any particular value that Thread A assigns.
It depends a lot on the type of sharedVar, the language you're using, any framework, and the platform. In many cases, it's possible that assigning a single value to sharedVar may take more than one instruction, in which case you may read a "half-set" copy of the value.
Even when that's not the case, and the assignment is atomic, you may not see the latest value without a memory barrier in place.
MSDN Magazine has a good explanation of different problems you may encounter in multithreaded code:
Forgotten Synchronization
Incorrect Granularity
Read and Write Tearing
Lock-Free Reordering
Lock Convoys
Two-Step Dance
Priority Inversion
The code in your question is particularly vulnerable to Read/Write Tearing. But your code, having neither locks nor memory barriers, is also subject to Lock-Free Reordering (which may include speculative writes in which thread B reads a value that thread A never stored) in which side-effects become visible to a second thread in a different order from how they appeared in your source code.
It goes on to describe some known design patterns which avoid these problems:
Immutability
Purity
Isolation
The article is available here
The main problem is that the assignment operator (operator= in C++) is not always guaranteed to be atomic (not even for primitive, built in types). In plain English, that means that assignment can take more than a single clock cycle to complete. If, in the middle of that, the thread gets interrupted, then the current value of the variable might be corrupted.
Let me build off of your example:
Lets say sharedVar is some object with operator= defined as this:
object& operator=(const object& other) {
ready = false;
doStuff(other);
if (other.value == true) {
value = true;
doOtherStuff();
} else {
value = false;
}
ready = true;
return *this;
}
If thread A from your example is interrupted in the middle of this function, ready will still be false when thread B starts to run. This could mean that the object is only partially copied over, or is in some intermediate, invalid state when thread B attempts to copy it into a local variable.
For a particularly nasty example of this, think of a data structure with a removed node being deleted, then interrupted before it could be set to NULL.
(For some more information regarding structures that don't need a lock (aka, are atomic), here is another question that talks a bit more about that.)
This could go wrong, because threads can be suspended and resumed by the thread scheduler, so you can't be sure about the order these instructions are executed. It might just as well be in this order:
Thread B:
localVar = sharedVar
Thread A:
sharedVar = someFunction()
In which case localvar will be null or 0 (or some completeley unexpected value in an unsafe language), probably not what you intended.
Mutexes actually won't fix this particular issue by the way. The example you supply does not lend itself well for parallelization.
Recently I tried to Access a textbox from a thread (other than the UI thread) and an exception was thrown. It said something about the "code not being thread safe" and so I ended up writing a delegate (sample from MSDN helped) and calling it instead.
But even so I didn't quite understand why all the extra code was necessary.
Update:
Will I run into any serious problems if I check
Controls.CheckForIllegalCrossThread..blah =true
Eric Lippert has a nice blog post entitled What is this thing you call "thread safe"? about the definition of thread safety as found of Wikipedia.
3 important things extracted from the links :
“A piece of code is thread-safe if it functions correctly during
simultaneous execution by multiple threads.”
“In particular, it must satisfy the need for multiple threads to
access the same shared data, …”
“…and the need for a shared piece of data to be accessed by only one
thread at any given time.”
Definitely worth a read!
In the simplest of terms threadsafe means that it is safe to be accessed from multiple threads. When you are using multiple threads in a program and they are each attempting to access a common data structure or location in memory several bad things can happen. So, you add some extra code to prevent those bad things. For example, if two people were writing the same document at the same time, the second person to save will overwrite the work of the first person. To make it thread safe then, you have to force person 2 to wait for person 1 to complete their task before allowing person 2 to edit the document.
Wikipedia has an article on Thread Safety.
This definitions page (you have to skip an ad - sorry) defines it thus:
In computer programming, thread-safe describes a program portion or routine that can be called from multiple programming threads without unwanted interaction between the threads.
A thread is an execution path of a program. A single threaded program will only have one thread and so this problem doesn't arise. Virtually all GUI programs have multiple execution paths and hence threads - there are at least two, one for processing the display of the GUI and handing user input, and at least one other for actually performing the operations of the program.
This is done so that the UI is still responsive while the program is working by offloading any long running process to any non-UI threads. These threads may be created once and exist for the lifetime of the program, or just get created when needed and destroyed when they've finished.
As these threads will often need to perform common actions - disk i/o, outputting results to the screen etc. - these parts of the code will need to be written in such a way that they can handle being called from multiple threads, often at the same time. This will involve things like:
Working on copies of data
Adding locks around the critical code
Opening files in the appropriate mode - so if reading, don't open the file for write as well.
Coping with not having access to resources because they're locked by other threads/processes.
Simply, thread-safe means that a method or class instance can be used by multiple threads at the same time without any problems occurring.
Consider the following method:
private int myInt = 0;
public int AddOne()
{
int tmp = myInt;
tmp = tmp + 1;
myInt = tmp;
return tmp;
}
Now thread A and thread B both would like to execute AddOne(). but A starts first and reads the value of myInt (0) into tmp. Now for some reason, the scheduler decides to halt thread A and defer execution to thread B. Thread B now also reads the value of myInt (still 0) into it's own variable tmp. Thread B finishes the entire method so in the end myInt = 1. And 1 is returned. Now it's Thread A's turn again. Thread A continues. And adds 1 to tmp (tmp was 0 for thread A). And then saves this value in myInt. myInt is again 1.
So in this case the method AddOne() was called two times, but because the method was not implemented in a thread-safe way the value of myInt is not 2, as expected, but 1 because the second thread read the variable myInt before the first thread finished updating it.
Creating thread-safe methods is very hard in non-trivial cases. And there are quite a few techniques. In Java you can mark a method as synchronized, this means that only one thread can execute that method at a given time. The other threads wait in line. This makes a method thread-safe, but if there is a lot of work to be done in a method, then this wastes a lot of space. Another technique is to 'mark only a small part of a method as synchronized' by creating a lock or semaphore, and locking this small part (usually called the critical section). There are even some methods that are implemented as lock-less thread-safe, which means that they are built in such a way that multiple threads can race through them at the same time without ever causing problems, this can be the case when a method only executes one atomic call. Atomic calls are calls that can't be interrupted and can only be done by one thread at a time.
In real world example for the layman is
Let's suppose you have a bank account with the internet and mobile banking and your account have only $10.
You performed transfer balance to another account using mobile banking, and the meantime, you did online shopping using the same bank account.
If this bank account is not threadsafe, then the bank allows you to perform two transactions at the same time and then the bank will become bankrupt.
Threadsafe means that an object's state doesn't change if simultaneously multiple threads try to access the object.
You can get more explanation from the book "Java Concurrency in Practice":
A class is thread‐safe if it behaves correctly when accessed from multiple threads, regardless of the scheduling or interleaving of the execution of those threads by the runtime environment, and with no additional synchronization or other coordination on the part of the calling code.
A module is thread-safe if it guarantees it can maintain its invariants in the face of multi-threaded and concurrence use.
Here, a module can be a data-structure, class, object, method/procedure or function. Basically scoped piece of code and related data.
The guarantee can potentially be limited to certain environments such as a specific CPU architecture, but must hold for those environments. If there is no explicit delimitation of environments, then it is usually taken to imply that it holds for all environments that the code can be compiled and executed.
Thread-unsafe modules may function correctly under mutli-threaded and concurrent use, but this is often more down to luck and coincidence, than careful design. Even if some module does not break for you under, it may break when moved to other environments.
Multi-threading bugs are often hard to debug. Some of them only happen occasionally, while others manifest aggressively - this too, can be environment specific. They can manifest as subtly wrong results, or deadlocks. They can mess up data-structures in unpredictable ways, and cause other seemingly impossible bugs to appear in other remote parts of the code. It can be very application specific, so it is hard to give a general description.
Thread safety: A thread safe program protects it's data from memory consistency errors. In a highly multi-threaded program, a thread safe program does not cause any side effects with multiple read/write operations from multiple threads on same objects. Different threads can share and modify object data without consistency errors.
You can achieve thread safety by using advanced concurrency API. This documentation page provides good programming constructs to achieve thread safety.
Lock Objects support locking idioms that simplify many concurrent applications.
Executors define a high-level API for launching and managing threads. Executor implementations provided by java.util.concurrent provide thread pool management suitable for large-scale applications.
Concurrent Collections make it easier to manage large collections of data, and can greatly reduce the need for synchronization.
Atomic Variables have features that minimize synchronization and help avoid memory consistency errors.
ThreadLocalRandom (in JDK 7) provides efficient generation of pseudorandom numbers from multiple threads.
Refer to java.util.concurrent and java.util.concurrent.atomic packages too for other programming constructs.
Producing Thread-safe code is all about managing access to shared mutable states. When mutable states are published or shared between threads, they need to be synchronized to avoid bugs like race conditions and memory consistency errors.
I recently wrote a blog about thread safety. You can read it for more information.
You are clearly working in a WinForms environment. WinForms controls exhibit thread affinity, which means that the thread in which they are created is the only thread that can be used to access and update them. That is why you will find examples on MSDN and elsewhere demonstrating how to marshall the call back onto the main thread.
Normal WinForms practice is to have a single thread that is dedicated to all your UI work.
I find the concept of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reentrancy_%28computing%29 to be what I usually think of as unsafe threading which is when a method has and relies on a side effect such as a global variable.
For example I have seen code that formatted floating point numbers to string, if two of these are run in different threads the global value of decimalSeparator can be permanently changed to '.'
//built in global set to locale specific value (here a comma)
decimalSeparator = ','
function FormatDot(value : real):
//save the current decimal character
temp = decimalSeparator
//set the global value to be
decimalSeparator = '.'
//format() uses decimalSeparator behind the scenes
result = format(value)
//Put the original value back
decimalSeparator = temp
To understand thread safety, read below sections:
4.3.1. Example: Vehicle Tracker Using Delegation
As a more substantial example of delegation, let's construct a version of the vehicle tracker that delegates to a thread-safe class. We store the locations in a Map, so we start with a thread-safe Map implementation, ConcurrentHashMap. We also store the location using an immutable Point class instead of MutablePoint, shown in Listing 4.6.
Listing 4.6. Immutable Point class used by DelegatingVehicleTracker.
class Point{
public final int x, y;
public Point() {
this.x=0; this.y=0;
}
public Point(int x, int y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
}
Point is thread-safe because it is immutable. Immutable values can be freely shared and published, so we no longer need to copy the locations when returning them.
DelegatingVehicleTracker in Listing 4.7 does not use any explicit synchronization; all access to state is managed by ConcurrentHashMap, and all the keys and values of the Map are immutable.
Listing 4.7. Delegating Thread Safety to a ConcurrentHashMap.
public class DelegatingVehicleTracker {
private final ConcurrentMap<String, Point> locations;
private final Map<String, Point> unmodifiableMap;
public DelegatingVehicleTracker(Map<String, Point> points) {
this.locations = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, Point>(points);
this.unmodifiableMap = Collections.unmodifiableMap(locations);
}
public Map<String, Point> getLocations(){
return this.unmodifiableMap; // User cannot update point(x,y) as Point is immutable
}
public Point getLocation(String id) {
return locations.get(id);
}
public void setLocation(String id, int x, int y) {
if(locations.replace(id, new Point(x, y)) == null) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("invalid vehicle name: " + id);
}
}
}
If we had used the original MutablePoint class instead of Point, we would be breaking encapsulation by letting getLocations publish a reference to mutable state that is not thread-safe. Notice that we've changed the behavior of the vehicle tracker class slightly; while the monitor version returned a snapshot of the locations, the delegating version returns an unmodifiable but “live” view of the vehicle locations. This means that if thread A calls getLocations and thread B later modifies the location of some of the points, those changes are reflected in the Map returned to thread A.
4.3.2. Independent State Variables
We can also delegate thread safety to more than one underlying state variable as long as those underlying state variables are independent, meaning that the composite class does not impose any invariants involving the multiple state variables.
VisualComponent in Listing 4.9 is a graphical component that allows clients to register listeners for mouse and keystroke events. It maintains a list of registered listeners of each type, so that when an event occurs the appropriate listeners can be invoked. But there is no relationship between the set of mouse listeners and key listeners; the two are independent, and therefore VisualComponent can delegate its thread safety obligations to two underlying thread-safe lists.
Listing 4.9. Delegating Thread Safety to Multiple Underlying State Variables.
public class VisualComponent {
private final List<KeyListener> keyListeners
= new CopyOnWriteArrayList<KeyListener>();
private final List<MouseListener> mouseListeners
= new CopyOnWriteArrayList<MouseListener>();
public void addKeyListener(KeyListener listener) {
keyListeners.add(listener);
}
public void addMouseListener(MouseListener listener) {
mouseListeners.add(listener);
}
public void removeKeyListener(KeyListener listener) {
keyListeners.remove(listener);
}
public void removeMouseListener(MouseListener listener) {
mouseListeners.remove(listener);
}
}
VisualComponent uses a CopyOnWriteArrayList to store each listener list; this is a thread-safe List implementation particularly suited for managing listener lists (see Section 5.2.3). Each List is thread-safe, and because there are no constraints coupling the state of one to the state of the other, VisualComponent can delegate its thread safety responsibilities to the underlying mouseListeners and keyListeners objects.
4.3.3. When Delegation Fails
Most composite classes are not as simple as VisualComponent: they have invariants that relate their component state variables. NumberRange in Listing 4.10 uses two AtomicIntegers to manage its state, but imposes an additional constraint—that the first number be less than or equal to the second.
Listing 4.10. Number Range Class that does Not Sufficiently Protect Its Invariants. Don't do this.
public class NumberRange {
// INVARIANT: lower <= upper
private final AtomicInteger lower = new AtomicInteger(0);
private final AtomicInteger upper = new AtomicInteger(0);
public void setLower(int i) {
//Warning - unsafe check-then-act
if(i > upper.get()) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(
"Can't set lower to " + i + " > upper ");
}
lower.set(i);
}
public void setUpper(int i) {
//Warning - unsafe check-then-act
if(i < lower.get()) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(
"Can't set upper to " + i + " < lower ");
}
upper.set(i);
}
public boolean isInRange(int i){
return (i >= lower.get() && i <= upper.get());
}
}
NumberRange is not thread-safe; it does not preserve the invariant that constrains lower and upper. The setLower and setUpper methods attempt to respect this invariant, but do so poorly. Both setLower and setUpper are check-then-act sequences, but they do not use sufficient locking to make them atomic. If the number range holds (0, 10), and one thread calls setLower(5) while another thread calls setUpper(4), with some unlucky timing both will pass the checks in the setters and both modifications will be applied. The result is that the range now holds (5, 4)—an invalid state. So while the underlying AtomicIntegers are thread-safe, the composite class is not. Because the underlying state variables lower and upper are not independent, NumberRange cannot simply delegate thread safety to its thread-safe state variables.
NumberRange could be made thread-safe by using locking to maintain its invariants, such as guarding lower and upper with a common lock. It must also avoid publishing lower and upper to prevent clients from subverting its invariants.
If a class has compound actions, as NumberRange does, delegation alone is again not a suitable approach for thread safety. In these cases, the class must provide its own locking to ensure that compound actions are atomic, unless the entire compound action can also be delegated to the underlying state variables.
If a class is composed of multiple independent thread-safe state variables and has no operations that have any invalid state transitions, then it can delegate thread safety to the underlying state variables.
I understand about race conditions and how with multiple threads accessing the same variable, updates made by one can be ignored and overwritten by others, but what if each thread is writing the same value (not different values) to the same variable; can even this cause problems? Could this code:
GlobalVar.property = 11;
(assuming that property will never be assigned anything other than 11), cause problems if multiple threads execute it at the same time?
The problem comes when you read that state back, and do something about it. Writing is a red herring - it is true that as long as this is a single word most environments guarantee the write will be atomic, but that doesn't mean that a larger piece of code that includes this fragment is thread-safe. Firstly, presumably your global variable contained a different value to begin with - otherwise if you know it's always the same, why is it a variable? Second, presumably you eventually read this value back again?
The issue is that presumably, you are writing to this bit of shared state for a reason - to signal that something has occurred? This is where it falls down: when you have no locking constructs, there is no implied order of memory accesses at all. It's hard to point to what's wrong here because your example doesn't actually contain the use of the variable, so here's a trivialish example in neutral C-like syntax:
int x = 0, y = 0;
//thread A does:
x = 1;
y = 2;
if (y == 2)
print(x);
//thread B does, at the same time:
if (y == 2)
print(x);
Thread A will always print 1, but it's completely valid for thread B to print 0. The order of operations in thread A is only required to be observable from code executing in thread A - thread B is allowed to see any combination of the state. The writes to x and y may not actually happen in order.
This can happen even on single-processor systems, where most people do not expect this kind of reordering - your compiler may reorder it for you. On SMP even if the compiler doesn't reorder things, the memory writes may be reordered between the caches of the separate processors.
If that doesn't seem to answer it for you, include more detail of your example in the question. Without the use of the variable it's impossible to definitively say whether such a usage is safe or not.
It depends on the work actually done by that statement. There can still be some cases where Something Bad happens - for example, if a C++ class has overloaded the = operator, and does anything nontrivial within that statement.
I have accidentally written code that did something like this with POD types (builtin primitive types), and it worked fine -- however, it's definitely not good practice, and I'm not confident that it's dependable.
Why not just lock the memory around this variable when you use it? In fact, if you somehow "know" this is the only write statement that can occur at some point in your code, why not just use the value 11 directly, instead of writing it to a shared variable?
(edit: I guess it's better to use a constant name instead of the magic number 11 directly in the code, btw.)
If you're using this to figure out when at least one thread has reached this statement, you could use a semaphore that starts at 1, and is decremented by the first thread that hits it.
I would expect the result to be undetermined. As in it would vary from compiler to complier, langauge to language and OS to OS etc. So no, it is not safe
WHy would you want to do this though - adding in a line to obtain a mutex lock is only one or two lines of code (in most languages), and would remove any possibility of problem. If this is going to be two expensive then you need to find an alternate way of solving the problem
In General, this is not considered a safe thing to do unless your system provides for atomic operation (operations that are guaranteed to be executed in a single cycle).
The reason is that while the "C" statement looks simple, often there are a number of underlying assembly operations taking place.
Depending on your OS, there are a few things you could do:
Take a mutual exclusion semaphore (mutex) to protect access
in some OS, you can temporarily disable preemption, which guarantees your thread will not swap out.
Some OS provide a writer or reader semaphore which is more performant than a plain old mutex.
Here's my take on the question.
You have two or more threads running that write to a variable...like a status flag or something, where you only want to know if one or more of them was true. Then in another part of the code (after the threads complete) you want to check and see if at least on thread set that status... for example
bool flag = false
threadContainer tc
threadInputs inputs
check(input)
{
...do stuff to input
if(success)
flag = true
}
start multiple threads
foreach(i in inputs)
t = startthread(check, i)
tc.add(t) // Keep track of all the threads started
foreach(t in tc)
t.join( ) // Wait until each thread is done
if(flag)
print "One of the threads were successful"
else
print "None of the threads were successful"
I believe the above code would be OK, assuming you're fine with not knowing which thread set the status to true, and you can wait for all the multi-threaded stuff to finish before reading that flag. I could be wrong though.
If the operation is atomic, you should be able to get by just fine. But I wouldn't do that in practice. It is better just to acquire a lock on the object and write the value.
Assuming that property will never be assigned anything other than 11, then I don't see a reason for assigment in the first place. Just make it a constant then.
Assigment only makes sense when you intend to change the value unless the act of assigment itself has other side effects - like volatile writes have memory visibility side-effects in Java. And if you change state shared between multiple threads, then you need to synchronize or otherwise "handle" the problem of concurrency.
When you assign a value, without proper synchronization, to some state shared between multiple threads, then there's no guarantees for when the other threads will see that change. And no visibility guarantees means that it it possible that the other threads will never see the assignt.
Compilers, JITs, CPU caches. They're all trying to make your code run as fast as possible, and if you don't make any explicit requirements for memory visibility, then they will take advantage of that. If not on your machine, then somebody elses.