OpenCores
URL https://opencores.org/ocsvn/openrisc/openrisc/trunk

Subversion Repositories openrisc

[/] [openrisc/] [trunk/] [gnu-dev/] [or1k-gcc/] [libjava/] [classpath/] [external/] [jsr166/] [java/] [util/] [concurrent/] [locks/] [ReadWriteLock.java] - Blame information for rev 768

Details | Compare with Previous | View Log

Line No. Rev Author Line
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 &quot;in-order&quot; 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
}

powered by: WebSVN 2.1.0

© copyright 1999-2024 OpenCores.org, equivalent to Oliscience, all rights reserved. OpenCores®, registered trademark.