1 |
768 |
jeremybenn |
/*
|
2 |
|
|
* Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
|
3 |
|
|
* Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
|
4 |
|
|
* http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
|
5 |
|
|
*/
|
6 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
package java.util.concurrent.locks;
|
8 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
/**
|
10 |
|
|
* A <tt>ReadWriteLock</tt> maintains a pair of associated {@link
|
11 |
|
|
* Lock locks}, one for read-only operations and one for writing.
|
12 |
|
|
* The {@link #readLock read lock} may be held simultaneously by
|
13 |
|
|
* multiple reader threads, so long as there are no writers. The
|
14 |
|
|
* {@link #writeLock write lock} is exclusive.
|
15 |
|
|
*
|
16 |
|
|
* <p>All <tt>ReadWriteLock</tt> implementations must guarantee that
|
17 |
|
|
* the memory synchronization effects of <tt>writeLock</tt> operations
|
18 |
|
|
* (as specified in the {@link Lock} interface) also hold with respect
|
19 |
|
|
* to the associated <tt>readLock</tt>. That is, a thread successfully
|
20 |
|
|
* acquiring the read lock will see all updates made upon previous
|
21 |
|
|
* release of the write lock.
|
22 |
|
|
*
|
23 |
|
|
* <p>A read-write lock allows for a greater level of concurrency in
|
24 |
|
|
* accessing shared data than that permitted by a mutual exclusion lock.
|
25 |
|
|
* It exploits the fact that while only a single thread at a time (a
|
26 |
|
|
* <em>writer</em> thread) can modify the shared data, in many cases any
|
27 |
|
|
* number of threads can concurrently read the data (hence <em>reader</em>
|
28 |
|
|
* threads).
|
29 |
|
|
* In theory, the increase in concurrency permitted by the use of a read-write
|
30 |
|
|
* lock will lead to performance improvements over the use of a mutual
|
31 |
|
|
* exclusion lock. In practice this increase in concurrency will only be fully
|
32 |
|
|
* realized on a multi-processor, and then only if the access patterns for
|
33 |
|
|
* the shared data are suitable.
|
34 |
|
|
*
|
35 |
|
|
* <p>Whether or not a read-write lock will improve performance over the use
|
36 |
|
|
* of a mutual exclusion lock depends on the frequency that the data is
|
37 |
|
|
* read compared to being modified, the duration of the read and write
|
38 |
|
|
* operations, and the contention for the data - that is, the number of
|
39 |
|
|
* threads that will try to read or write the data at the same time.
|
40 |
|
|
* For example, a collection that is initially populated with data and
|
41 |
|
|
* thereafter infrequently modified, while being frequently searched
|
42 |
|
|
* (such as a directory of some kind) is an ideal candidate for the use of
|
43 |
|
|
* a read-write lock. However, if updates become frequent then the data
|
44 |
|
|
* spends most of its time being exclusively locked and there is little, if any
|
45 |
|
|
* increase in concurrency. Further, if the read operations are too short
|
46 |
|
|
* the overhead of the read-write lock implementation (which is inherently
|
47 |
|
|
* more complex than a mutual exclusion lock) can dominate the execution
|
48 |
|
|
* cost, particularly as many read-write lock implementations still serialize
|
49 |
|
|
* all threads through a small section of code. Ultimately, only profiling
|
50 |
|
|
* and measurement will establish whether the use of a read-write lock is
|
51 |
|
|
* suitable for your application.
|
52 |
|
|
*
|
53 |
|
|
*
|
54 |
|
|
* <p>Although the basic operation of a read-write lock is straight-forward,
|
55 |
|
|
* there are many policy decisions that an implementation must make, which
|
56 |
|
|
* may affect the effectiveness of the read-write lock in a given application.
|
57 |
|
|
* Examples of these policies include:
|
58 |
|
|
* <ul>
|
59 |
|
|
* <li>Determining whether to grant the read lock or the write lock, when
|
60 |
|
|
* both readers and writers are waiting, at the time that a writer releases
|
61 |
|
|
* the write lock. Writer preference is common, as writes are expected to be
|
62 |
|
|
* short and infrequent. Reader preference is less common as it can lead to
|
63 |
|
|
* lengthy delays for a write if the readers are frequent and long-lived as
|
64 |
|
|
* expected. Fair, or "in-order" implementations are also possible.
|
65 |
|
|
*
|
66 |
|
|
* <li>Determining whether readers that request the read lock while a
|
67 |
|
|
* reader is active and a writer is waiting, are granted the read lock.
|
68 |
|
|
* Preference to the reader can delay the writer indefinitely, while
|
69 |
|
|
* preference to the writer can reduce the potential for concurrency.
|
70 |
|
|
*
|
71 |
|
|
* <li>Determining whether the locks are reentrant: can a thread with the
|
72 |
|
|
* write lock reacquire it? Can it acquire a read lock while holding the
|
73 |
|
|
* write lock? Is the read lock itself reentrant?
|
74 |
|
|
*
|
75 |
|
|
* <li>Can the write lock be downgraded to a read lock without allowing
|
76 |
|
|
* an intervening writer? Can a read lock be upgraded to a write lock,
|
77 |
|
|
* in preference to other waiting readers or writers?
|
78 |
|
|
*
|
79 |
|
|
* </ul>
|
80 |
|
|
* You should consider all of these things when evaluating the suitability
|
81 |
|
|
* of a given implementation for your application.
|
82 |
|
|
*
|
83 |
|
|
* @see ReentrantReadWriteLock
|
84 |
|
|
* @see Lock
|
85 |
|
|
* @see ReentrantLock
|
86 |
|
|
*
|
87 |
|
|
* @since 1.5
|
88 |
|
|
* @author Doug Lea
|
89 |
|
|
*/
|
90 |
|
|
public interface ReadWriteLock {
|
91 |
|
|
/**
|
92 |
|
|
* Returns the lock used for reading.
|
93 |
|
|
*
|
94 |
|
|
* @return the lock used for reading.
|
95 |
|
|
*/
|
96 |
|
|
Lock readLock();
|
97 |
|
|
|
98 |
|
|
/**
|
99 |
|
|
* Returns the lock used for writing.
|
100 |
|
|
*
|
101 |
|
|
* @return the lock used for writing.
|
102 |
|
|
*/
|
103 |
|
|
Lock writeLock();
|
104 |
|
|
}
|