[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Avoiding locks
From: |
Jeff Sturm |
Subject: |
Re: Avoiding locks |
Date: |
Tue, 29 Jul 2003 14:10:11 -0400 (EDT) |
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Sascha Brawer wrote:
> vaguely related to the current thread about "Thread/VMThread proposal" on
> the Classpath discussion list, I would like to ask whether the following
> pattern is correct with respect to the Java memory model. I believe so,
> but I would like to be sure.
This is an example of the double-checking idiom.
http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html
It is known to be broken with respect to the Java memory model. (In
practice the failure is unlikely to manifest except on certain
multiprocessors.)
As I understand it, if the proposal in JSR 133 is adopted, it will be
sufficient to declare the result field "volatile" for conforming VMs.
Jeff
- Avoiding locks, Sascha Brawer, 2003/07/29
- Re: Avoiding locks,
Jeff Sturm <=