CODEWITHSUNDEEP
javamultithreadinglazy-initializationlock-freewait-free
Alex Salauyou
Alex Salauyou

Reputation: 14338

Lock-free and wait-free thread-safe lazy initialization

To perform lock-free and wait-free lazy initialization I do the following:

private AtomicReference<Foo> instance = new AtomicReference<>(null);  

public Foo getInstance() {
   Foo foo = instance.get();
   if (foo == null) {
       foo = new Foo();                       // create and initialize actual instance
       if (instance.compareAndSet(null, foo)) // CAS succeeded
           return foo;
       else                                   // CAS failed: other thread set an object 
           return instance.get();             
   } else {
       return foo;
   }
}

and it works pretty well except for one thing: if two threads see instance null, they both create a new object, and only one is lucky to set it by CAS operation, which leads to waste of resources.

Does anyone suggest another lock-free lazy initialization pattern, which decrease probability of creating two expensive objects by two concurrent threads?

Upvotes: 28

Views: 4721

Answers (5)

Giovanni Botta
Giovanni Botta

Reputation: 9816

I think you need to have some synchronization for the object creation itself. I would do:

// The atomic reference itself must be final!
private final AtomicReference<Foo> instance = new AtomicReference<>(null);
public Foo getInstance() {
  Foo foo = instance.get();
  if (foo == null) {
    synchronized(instance) {
      // You need to double check here
      // in case another thread initialized foo
      Foo foo = instance.get();
      if (foo == null) {
        foo = new Foo(); // actual initialization
        instance.set(foo);
      }
    }
  }
  return foo;
}

This is a very common pattern especially for lazy singletons. Double checked locking minimizes the number of times the synchronized block is actually executed.

Upvotes: 5

John Vint
John Vint

Reputation: 40256

If you want true lock-freedom you will have to do some spinning. You can have one thread 'win' creation rights but the others must spin until it's ready.

private AtomicBoolean canWrite = new AtomicBoolean(false);  
private volatile Foo foo; 
public Foo getInstance() {
   while (foo == null) {
       if(canWrite.compareAndSet(false, true)){
           foo = new Foo();
       }
   }
   return foo;
}

This obviously has its problems of busy spinning (you can put a sleep or yield in there), but I would probably still recommend Initialization on demand.

Upvotes: 23

Chand Priyankara
Chand Priyankara

Reputation: 6784

What about using another volatile variable to lock? You can do the double lock with new variable?

Upvotes: 0

m c
m c

Reputation: 1104

I would probably go with the lazy init Singleton pattern:

private Foo() {/* Do your heavy stuff */}

private static class CONTAINER {
 private static final Foo INSTANCE = new Foo();
}

public static Foo getInstance() {
 return CONTAINER.INSTANCE;
}

I do not actually see any reason on using an AtomicReference member field for itself.

Upvotes: 0

Bhupi
Bhupi

Reputation: 395

I am not sure if end result should be performance centric or not , if yes below is not solution . can you please check twice for instance and after first check call thread.sleep method for random mili seconds less than 100 mili seconds.

private AtomicBoolean canWrite = new AtomicBoolean(false);  
private volatile Foo foo; 
public Foo getInstance() {
   if(foo==null){
          Thread.Sleep(getRandomLong(50)) // you need to write method for it
         if(foo==null){
            foo = new Foo();
      }
   }
   return foo;
}

Upvotes: -1

Related Questions