Java synchronized method lock on object or method

Question

If I have 2 synchronized methods in the same class  but each accessing different variables  can 2 threads access those 2 methods at the same time  Does the lock occur on the object  or does it get as specific as the variables inside the synchronized method    Example   class X        private int a      private int b       public synchronized void addA            a               public synchronized void addB            b               Can 2 threads access the same instance of class X performing x addA   and x addB   at the same time

User · Answer

From oracle documentation link

Making methods synchronized has two effects:

First, it is not possible for two invocations of synchronized methods on the same object to interleave. When one thread is executing a synchronized method for an object, all other threads that invoke synchronized methods for the same object block (suspend execution) until the first thread is done with the object.

Second, when a synchronized method exits, it automatically establishes a happens-before relationship with any subsequent invocation of a synchronized method for the same object. This guarantees that changes to the state of the object are visible to all threads

Have a look at this documentation page to understand intrinsic locks and lock behavior.

This will answer your question: On same object x , you can't call x.addA() and x.addB() at same time when one of the synchronized methods execution is in progress.

User · Answer

This might not work as the boxing and autoboxing from Integer to int and viceversa is dependant on JVM and there is high possibility that two different numbers might get hashed to same address if they are between -128 and 127

User · Answer

If you have some methods which are not synchronized and are accessing and changing the instance variables  In your example    private int a   private int b    any number of threads can access these non synchronized methods at the same time when other thread is in the synchronized method of the same object and can make changes to instance variables  For e g  -   public void changeState           a          b            You need to avoid the scenario that non synchronized methods are accessing the instance variables and changing it otherwise there is no point of using synchronized methods   In the below scenario -  class X            private int a          private int b           public synchronized void addA                a                       public synchronized void addB                b                   public void changeState               a              b                      Only one of the threads can be either in addA or addB method but at the same time any number of threads can enter changeState method  No two threads can enter addA and addB at same time because of Object level locking  but at same time any number of threads can enter changeState

User · Answer

The lock accessed is on the object  not on the method  Which variables are accessed within the method is irrelevant   Adding  synchronized  to the method means the thread running the code must acquire the lock on the object before proceeding  Adding  static synchronized  means the thread running the code must acquire the lock on the class object before proceeding  Alternatively you can wrap code in a block like this   public void addA         synchronized this            a              so that you can specify the object whose lock must be acquired   If you want to avoid locking on the containing object you can choose between    using synchronized blocks that specify different locks making a and b atomic  using java util concurrent atomic

User · Answer

Yes  it will block the other method because synchronized method applies to the WHOLE class object as pointed      but anyway it will block the other thread execution ONLY while performing the sum in whatever method addA or addB it enters  because when it finish     the one thread will FREE the object and the other thread will access the other method and so on perfectly working   I mean the  synchronized  is made precisely for blocking the other thread from accessing another while in a specific code execution  SO FINALLY THIS CODE WILL WORK FINE   As a final note  if there is an  a  and  b  variables  not just an unique variable  a  or whatever other name  there is no need to synchronize this methods cause it is perfectly safe accesing other var  Other memory location    class X    private int a  private int b   public void addA        a       public void addB        b         Will work as well

User · Answer

In java synchronization if a thread want to enter into synchronization method it will  acquire lock on all synchronized methods of that object not just on one synchronized method  that thread is using  So a thread executing  addA   will acquire lock on addA   and addB   as both are synchronized So other threads with same object cannot execute addB

User · Answer

This example  although not pretty one  can provide more insight into locking mechanism  If incrementA is synchronized  and incrementB is not synchronized  then incrementB will be executed ASAP  but if incrementB is also synchronized then it has to  wait  for incrementA to finish  before incrementB can do its job    Both methods are called onto single instance - object  in this example it is  job  and  competing  threads are aThread and main    Try with  synchronized  in incrementB and without it and you will see different results If incrementB is  synchronized  as well then it has to wait for incrementA   to finish  Run several times each variant   class LockTest implements Runnable       int a   0      int b   0       public synchronized void incrementA             for  int i   0  i  lt  100  i                  this a                System out println  Thread      Thread currentThread   getName        a      this a                           Try with  synchronized  and without it and you will see different results        if incrementB is  synchronized  as well then it has to wait for incrementA   to finish         public void incrementB         public synchronized void incrementB             this b            System out println                  incrementB                                 System out println  Thread      Thread currentThread   getName        b      this b           System out println                  incrementB                                     Override     public void run             incrementA            System out println               incrementA completed                           class LockTestMain       public static void main String   args  throws InterruptedException           LockTest job   new LockTest            Thread aThread   new Thread job           aThread setName  aThread            aThread start            Thread sleep 1           System out println                   main  calling metod  incrementB                                   job incrementB

User · Answer

From  The Java    Tutorials  on synchronized methods      First  it is not possible for two invocations of synchronized methods on the same object to interleave  When one thread is executing a synchronized method for an object  all other threads that invoke synchronized methods for the same object block  suspend execution  until the first thread is done with the object    From  The Java    Tutorials  on synchronized blocks      Synchronized statements are also useful for improving concurrency with fine-grained synchronization  Suppose  for example  class MsLunch has two instance fields  c1 and c2  that are never used together  All updates of these fields must be synchronized  but there s no reason to prevent an update of c1 from being interleaved with an update of c2     and doing so reduces concurrency by creating unnecessary blocking  Instead of using synchronized methods or otherwise using the lock associated with this  we create two objects solely to provide locks     Emphasis mine   Suppose you have 2 non-interleaving variables  So you want to access to each one from a different threads at the same time  You need to define the lock not on the object class itself  but on the class Object like below  example from the second Oracle link    public class MsLunch        private long c1   0      private long c2   0       private Object lock1   new Object        private Object lock2   new Object         public void inc1             synchronized lock1                c1                         public void inc2             synchronized lock2                c2

User · Answer

Synchronized on the method declaration is syntactical sugar for this    public void addA          synchronized  this              a                 On a static method it is syntactical sugar for this    ClassA        public static void addA               synchronized ClassA class                  a                     I think if the Java designers knew then what is understood now about synchronization  they would not have added the syntactical sugar  as it more often than not leads to bad implementations of concurrency

User · Answer

You can do something like the following   In this case you are using the lock on a and b to synchronized instead of the lock on  this    We cannot use int because primitive values don t have locks  so we use Integer   class x     private Integer a     private Integer b     public void addA          synchronized a             a                    public synchronized void addB          synchronized b             b

User · Answer

If you declare the method as synchronized  as you re doing by typing public synchronized void addA    you synchronize on the whole object  so two thread accessing a different variable from this same object would block each other anyway    If you want to synchronize only on one variable at a time  so two threads won t block each other while accessing different variables  you have synchronize on them separately in synchronized    blocks  If a and b were object references you would use   public void addA         synchronized  a             a             public void addB         synchronized  b             b              But since they re primitives you can t do this   I would suggest you to use AtomicInteger instead   import java util concurrent atomic AtomicInteger   class X        AtomicInteger a      AtomicInteger b       public void addA            a incrementAndGet               public void addB             b incrementAndGet

[java] Java synchronized method lock on object, or method?

Examples related to java

Examples related to multithreading

Examples related to thread-safety

Examples related to locking

Examples related to synchronized