Synchronization vs Lock

Question

java util concurrent API provides a class called as Lock  which would basically serialize the control in order to access the critical resource  It gives method such as park   and unpark       We can do similar things if we can use synchronized keyword and using wait   and notify   notifyAll   methods     I am wondering which one of these is better in practice and why

User · Answer

The main difference is fairness  in other words are requests handled FIFO or can there be barging   Method level synchronization ensures fair or FIFO allocation of the lock   Using   synchronized foo        or  lock acquire         lock release      does not assure fairness   If you have lots of contention for the lock you can easily encounter barging where newer requests get the lock and older requests get stuck   I ve seen cases where 200 threads arrive in short order for a lock and the 2nd one to arrive got processed last   This is ok for some applications but for others it s deadly   See Brian Goetz s  Java Concurrency In Practice  book  section 13 3 for a full discussion of this topic

User · Answer

Major difference between lock and synchronized    with locks  you can release and acquire the locks in any order  with synchronized  you can release the locks only in the order it was acquired

User · Answer

There are 4 main factors into why you would want to use synchronized or java util concurrent Lock   Note  Synchronized locking is what I mean when I say intrinsic locking     When Java 5 came out with ReentrantLocks  they proved to have quite a noticeble throughput difference then intrinsic locking   If youre looking for faster locking mechanism and are running 1 5 consider j u c ReentrantLock   Java 6 s intrinsic locking is now comparable  j u c Lock has different mechanisms     for locking  Lock interruptable -     attempt to lock until the locking     thread is interrupted  timed lock -     attempt to lock for a certain amount     of time and give up if you do not     succeed  tryLock - attempt to lock      if some other thread is holding the     lock give up   This all is included     aside from the simple lock       Intrinsic locking only offers simple     locking Style   If both 1 and 2 do not fall     into categories of what you are     concerned with most people      including myself  would find the     intrinsic locking semenatics easier     to read and less verbose then     j u c Lock locking  Multiple Conditions   An object you lock on can only be notified and waited for a single case   Lock s newCondition method allows for a single Lock to have mutliple reasons to await or signal   I have yet to actually need this functionality in practice  but is a nice feature for those who need it

User · Answer

I would like to add some more things on top of  Bert F answer   Locks support various methods for finer grained lock control  which are more expressive than implicit monitors  synchronized locks      A Lock provides exclusive access to a shared resource  only one thread at a time can acquire the lock and all access to the shared resource requires that the lock be acquired first  However  some locks may allow concurrent access to a shared resource  such as the read lock of a ReadWriteLock    Advantages of Lock over Synchronization from documentation page   The use of synchronized methods or statements provides access to the implicit monitor lock associated with every object  but forces all lock acquisition and release to occur in a block-structured way Lock implementations provide additional functionality over the use of synchronized methods and statements by providing a non-blocking attempt to acquire a lock  tryLock     an attempt to acquire the lock that can be interrupted  lockInterruptibly    and an attempt to acquire the lock that can timeout  tryLock long  TimeUnit    A Lock class can also provide behavior and semantics that is quite different from that of the implicit monitor lock  such as guaranteed ordering  non-reentrant usage  or deadlock detection   ReentrantLock  In simple terms as per my understanding  ReentrantLock allows an object to re-enter from one critical section to other critical section   Since you already have lock to enter one critical section  you can other critical section on same object by using current lock    ReentrantLock key features as per this article   Ability to lock interruptibly  Ability to timeout while waiting for lock  Power to create fair lock  API to get list of waiting thread for lock  Flexibility to try for lock without blocking    You can use  ReentrantReadWriteLock ReadLock  ReentrantReadWriteLock WriteLock to further acquire control on granular locking on read and write operations   Apart from these three ReentrantLocks  java 8 provides one more Lock  StampedLock      Java 8 ships with a new kind of lock called StampedLock which also support read and write locks just like in the example above  In contrast to ReadWriteLock the locking methods of a StampedLock return a stamp represented by a long value     You can use these stamps to either release a lock or to check if the lock is still valid  Additionally stamped locks support another lock mode called optimistic locking   Have a look at this article on usage of different type of ReentrantLock and StampedLock locks

User · Answer

You can achieve everything the utilities in java util concurrent  do with the low-level primitives like synchronized  volatile  or wait   notify  However  concurrency is tricky  and most people get at least some parts of it wrong  making their code either incorrect or inefficient  or both    The concurrent API provides a higher-level approach  which is easier  and as such safer  to use  In a nutshell  you should not need to use synchronized  volatile  wait  notify directly anymore    The Lock  class itself is on the lower-level side of this toolbox  you may not even need to use that directly either  you can use Queues and Semaphore and stuff  etc  most of the time

User · Answer

Lock and synchronize block both serves the same purpose but it depends on the usage  Consider the below part  void randomFunction          synchronize this     do some functionality          synchronize this       do some functionality          end of randomFunction   In the above case   if a thread enters the synchronize block  the other block is also locked  If there are multiple such synchronize block on the same object  all the blocks are locked  In such situations    java util concurrent Lock can be used to prevent unwanted locking of blocks

User · Answer

I am wondering which one of these is better in practice and why    I ve found that Lock and Condition  and other new concurrent classes  are just more tools for the toolbox  I could do most everything I needed with my old claw hammer  the synchronized keyword   but it was awkward to use in some situations  Several of those awkward situations became much simpler once I added more tools to my toolbox  a rubber mallet  a ball-peen hammer  a prybar  and some nail punches  However  my old claw hammer still sees its share of use   I don t think one is really  better  than the other  but rather each is a better fit for different problems   In a nutshell  the simple model and scope-oriented nature of synchronized helps protect me from bugs in my code  but those same advantages are sometimes hindrances in more complex scenarios  Its these more complex scenarios that the concurrent package was created to help address  But using this higher level constructs requires more explicit and careful management in the code        I think the JavaDoc does a good job of describing the distinction between Lock and synchronized  the emphasis is mine       Lock implementations provide more extensive locking operations than can be obtained using synchronized methods and statements  They allow more flexible structuring  may have quite different properties  and may support multiple associated Condition objects                The use of synchronized methods or statements provides access to the implicit monitor lock associated with every object  but forces all lock acquisition and release to occur in a block-structured way  when multiple locks are acquired they must be released in the opposite order  and all locks must be released in the same lexical scope in which they were acquired       While the scoping mechanism for synchronized methods and statements makes it much easier to program with monitor locks  and helps avoid many common programming errors involving locks  there are occasions where you need to work with locks in a more flexible way  For example    some algorithms  for traversing concurrently accessed data structures require the use of  hand-over-hand  or  chain locking   you acquire the lock of node A  then node B  then release A and acquire C  then release B and acquire D and so on  Implementations of the Lock interface enable the use of such techniques by allowing a lock to be acquired and released in different scopes  and allowing multiple locks to be acquired and released in any order       With this increased flexibility comes additional responsibility  The absence of block-structured locking removes the automatic release of locks that occurs with synchronized methods and statements  In most cases  the following idiom should be used                When locking and unlocking occur in different scopes  care must be taken to ensure that all code that is executed while the lock is held is protected by try-finally or try-catch to ensure that the lock is released when necessary       Lock implementations provide additional functionality over the use of synchronized methods and statements by providing a non-blocking attempt to acquire a lock  tryLock     an attempt to acquire the lock that can be interrupted  lockInterruptibly    and an attempt to acquire the lock that can timeout  tryLock long  TimeUnit

User · Answer

If you re simply locking an object  I d prefer to use synchronized  Example   Lock acquire    doSomethingNifty       Throws a NPE  Lock release       Oh noes  we never release the lock    You have to explicitly do try   finally   everywhere   Whereas with synchronized  it s super clear and impossible to get wrong   synchronized myObject        doSomethingNifty        That said  Locks may be more useful for more complicated things where you can t acquire and release in such a clean manner   I would honestly prefer to avoid using bare Locks in the first place  and just go with a more sophisticated concurrency control such as a CyclicBarrier or a LinkedBlockingQueue  if they meet your needs   I ve never had a reason to use wait   or notify   but there may be some good ones

User · Answer

Lock makes programmers  life easier  Here are a few situations that can be achieved easily with lock   Lock in one method  and release the lock in another method  If You have two threads working on two different pieces of code  however  in the first thread has a pre-requisite on a certain piece of code in the second thread  while some other threads also working on the same piece of code in the second thread simultaneously   A shared lock can solve this problem quite easily  Implementing monitors  For example  a simple queue where the put and get methods are executed from many other threads  However  you do not want multiple put  or get  methods running simultaneously  neither the put and get method running simultaneously  A private lock makes your life a lot easier to achieve this   While  the lock  and conditions build on the synchronized mechanism  Therefore  can certainly be able to achieve the same functionality that you can achieve using the lock  However  solving complex scenarios with synchronized may make your life difficult and can deviate you from solving the actual problem

User · Answer

Brian Goetz s  Java Concurrency In Practice  book  section 13 3      Like the default ReentrantLock  intrinsic locking offers no deterministic fairness guarantees  but the statistical fairness guarantees of most locking implementations are good enough for almost all situations

User · Answer

Many answers here recommend using synchronized  However  it depends on the usecase  The synchronized keyword has naturally built in language support  This can mean the JIT can optimise synchronised blocks in ways it cannot with Locks  e g  it can combine synchronized blocks  Only one thread is allowed to access only one method at any given point of time using a synchronized block  This is a very expensive operation  Locks avoid this by allowing configuration of various locks for different purpose  One can have couple of methods synchronized under one lock and other methods under a different lock  This allows more concurrency and also increases overall performance  So  for a smaller system which can do without concurrency and allowing one thread to execute an operation  synchronized can work  Otherwise  lock can be taken on the key

[java] Synchronization vs Lock

Examples related to java

Examples related to multithreading

Examples related to concurrency

Examples related to synchronization

Examples related to java.util.concurrent