mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From 이희승 (Trustin Lee) <trus...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Should all configuration properties be volatile? (Was: Re: Visibility of idle time changes in BaseIoSession)
Date Thu, 15 May 2008 07:57:20 GMT
On Thu, 15 May 2008 16:47:32 +0900, Emmanuel Lecharny  
<elecharny@apache.org> wrote:

> 이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote:
>>
>> The problem is we have so many properties which needs visibility  
>> independent from each other.
> Do we have a list of all the properties we need to protect? This could  
> be a good start to discuss about the best mechanism to use to protect  
> them.
>> If we are going to use a lock, we will need as many lock objects as the  
>> number of the properties, which is way too much IMO.
> You can also synchronize the get() and set() methods, and you don't need  
> a lock anymore. Actually, this might be even more performant than using  
> volatile, if the property is read many times.

using synchronized modifier for a method is same with synchronized (this)  
{...}, and it means all properties of one object will share one single  
lock and cause serious contention.

>> Or.. should we just return AtomicXYZ objects for all properties?
> It will depend on the kind of property you want to protect.
>>>     public void increaseReadBytes(int increment) {
>>>          if (increment > 0) {
>>>              readBytes += increment;
>>>              lastReadTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
>>>              idleCountForBoth = 0;
>>>              idleCountForRead = 0;
>>>          }
>>>      }
>>
>> readBytes += increment; should be atomic, and each assignment  
>> operations should be visible to other threads (i.e. volatile is enough).
> In this case, readBytes should be an AtomicInteger then, and you should  
> not be able to do a readBytes += increment. Volatile don't protect  
> against this operation (if you have a look at the way AtomicInteger is  
> written, it's really interesting to find that the stored value is  
> volatile, but that the increment operation calls a native method to  
> guarantee the concurrent access protection).
>>
>> We can synchronize the whole operation (i.e. increaseReadBytes), but I  
>> guess we won't get practical value from it as long as we don't expose  
>> an explicit lock object for users.
> What we want to do is to deliver a correct number of read bytes to the  
> user. Using an AtomicInteger for it should be enough.

Yes, that's what I meant.  :)

-- 
Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/

Mime
View raw message