java.nio.*Buffer read/write atomicity
vitalyd at gmail.com
Thu Dec 20 00:21:45 UTC 2012
I'm with David on this one - since BB specifically says that it's not
threadsafe I don't see why there would be any expectation of atomicity.
Same goes for IntBuffer or LongBuffer.
Sent from my phone
On Dec 19, 2012 6:23 PM, "Zhong Yu" <zhong.j.yu at gmail.com> wrote:
> Users are unlikely to expect multi-byte atomicity on a ByteBuffer.
> However they are more likely to expect int-width atomicity on an
> IntBuffer view of a ByteBuffer; such atomicity is unfortunately not
> guaranteed either.
> Zhong Yu
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:48 AM, Aleksey Shipilev
> <aleksey.shipilev at oracle.com> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> > I wanted to cross-check what's the expected behavior of Buffers with
> > respect to atomicity? Don't confuse the atomic operations (a la
> > j.u.c.atomic.*) and the read/write atomicity. Here's the concrete
> > example, should the assert always be true?
> > ByteBuffer buf = ByteBuffer.allocate(100);
> > (publish $buf to both threads properly)
> > (start both threads)
> > Thread 1:
> > buf.putInt(0, 42); // at position 0
> > Thread 2:
> > int i = buf.getInt(0); // at position 0
> > Assert.assertTrue( (i == 0) || (i == 42) )
> > Javadoc is silent about that, except for noting Buffers are not supposed
> > to be used from the multiple threads without synchronization. I would
> > anyway advocate to follow the atomicity behavior of plain fields and
> > arrays, and make these reads/writes atomic under the race.
> > The apparent reason for at least BB to fail to be atomic is that we
> > read/write larger values byte-by-byte. Luckily, it appears to be easy to
> > fix (for a given endianness, we can just throw in the Unsafe call).
> > Before going out and submitting the RFE, I wanted to crosscheck if
> > somebody has strong feelings about this.
> > Thanks,
> > Aleksey.
More information about the core-libs-dev