CODEWITHSUNDEEP
javamultithreadingconcurrency
Harshal Pandya
Harshal Pandya

Reputation: 1624

Update two ConcurrentHashMaps atomically

Map<String,Integer> m1 = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
Map<String,Integer> m2 = new ConcurrentHashMap<>();
public void update(int i) {
  m1.put("key", i);
  m2.put("key", i);
}

In the dummy code above, the updates to m1 & m2 are not atomic. If I try to synchronize this block, findBugs complains "Synchronization performed on util.concurrent instance"

Is there a recommended way to do this other than not using concurrent collections and doing all synchronization explicitly.

As an aside I also don't know the exact implications of wrapping concurrent collections in explicit synchronization.

Upvotes: 2

Views: 807

Answers (2)

Holger
Holger

Reputation: 298389

A ConcurrentMap is not a synchronized map. The latter does indeed synchronizes on itself, so synchronizing on the Map will have an effect regarding other Map operations.

In contrast, a ConcurrentMap is designed to allow concurrent updates of different keys and does not synchronizes on itself, so if other code synchronizes on the Map instance, it has no effect. It wouldn’t help to use a different mutex; as long as other thread perform operations on the same maps without using this mutex, they won’t respect you intended atomicity. On the other hand, if all threads would use the mutex for all accesses to the maps, you wouldn’t need a ConcurrentMap anymore.

But as Jarrod Roberson noted, this is likely an X-Y Problem, as updating two maps atomically without having an atomic read of both maps, no thread would notice whether the update happened atomically or not. The question is what you actually want to achieve, either, you don’t really need the atomicity or you shouldn’t use ConcurrentMaps.

Upvotes: 1

Durandal
Durandal

Reputation: 20069

If the intention is that for a key both maps always retrieve the same value, the design of using two different concurrent maps is flawed. Even if you synchronize the write, reading threads can still access the two maps while youre writing. Thats probably what the FindBugs rule tries to catch.

There are two ways to go about this, either use explicit synchronization (that is two regular maps with synchronized reads and writes), or use just one concurrent map and put in a value object hold both ints.

Upvotes: 2

Related Questions