Might be a little late to the game on this, but a basic implementation would look something like this:
public class MySingleton {
private static MySingleton INSTANCE;
public static MySingleton getInstance() {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
INSTANCE = new MySingleton();
}
return INSTANCE;
}
...
}
Here we have the MySingleton class which has a private static member called INSTANCE, and a public static method called getInstance(). The first time getInstance() is called, the INSTANCE member is null. The flow will then fall into the creation condition and create a new instance of the MySingleton class. Subsequent calls to getInstance() will find that the INSTANCE variable is already set, and therefore not create another MySingleton instance. This ensures there is only one instance of MySingleton which is shared among all callers of getInstance().
But this implementation has a problem. Multi-threaded applications will have a race condition on the creation of the single instance. If multiple threads of execution hit the getInstance() method at (or around) the same time, they will each see the INSTANCE member as null. This will result in each thread creating a new MySingleton instance and subsequently setting the INSTANCE member.
private static MySingleton INSTANCE;
public static synchronized MySingleton getInstance() {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
INSTANCE = new MySingleton();
}
return INSTANCE;
}
Here we’ve used the synchronized keyword in the method signature to synchronize the getInstance() method. This will certainly fix our race condition. Threads will now block and enter the method one at a time. But it also creates a performance problem. Not only does this implementation synchronize the creation of the single instance, it synchronizes all calls to getInstance(), including reads. Reads do not need to be synchronized as they simply return the value of INSTANCE. Since reads will make up the bulk of our calls (remember, instantiation only happens on the first call), we will incur an unnecessary performance hit by synchronizing the entire method.
private static MySingleton INSTANCE;
public static MySingleton getInstance() {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
synchronize(MySingleton.class) {
INSTANCE = new MySingleton();
}
}
return INSTANCE;
}
Here we’ve moved synchronization from the method signature, to a synchronized block that wraps the creation of the MySingleton instance. But does this solve our problem? Well, we are no longer blocking on reads, but we’ve also taken a step backward. Multiple threads will hit the getInstance() method at or around the same time and they will all see the INSTANCE member as null. They will then hit the synchronized block where one will obtain the lock and create the instance. When that thread exits the block, the other threads will contend for the lock, and one by one each thread will fall through the block and create a new instance of our class. So we are right back where we started.
private static MySingleton INSTANCE;
public static MySingleton getInstance() {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
synchronized(MySingleton.class) {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
INSTANCE = createInstance();
}
}
}
return INSTANCE;
}
Here we issue another check from INSIDE the block. If the INSTANCE member has already been set, we’ll skip initialization. This is called double-checked locking.
This solves our problem of multiple instantiation. But once again, our solution has presented another challenge. Other threads might not “see” that the INSTANCE member has been updated. This is because of how Java optimizes memory operations. Threads copy the original values of variables from main memory into the CPU’s cache. Changes to values are then written to, and read from, that cache. This is a feature of Java designed to optimize performance. But this creates a problem for our singleton implementation. A second thread — being processed by a different CPU or core, using a different cache — will not see the changes made by the first. This will cause the second thread to see the INSTANCE member as null forcing a new instance of our singleton to be created.
private static volatile MySingleton INSTANCE;
public static MySingleton getInstance() {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
synchronized(MySingleton.class) {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
INSTANCE = createInstance();
}
}
}
return INSTANCE;
}
We solve this by using the volatile keyword on the declaration of the INSTANCE member. This will tell the compiler to always read from, and write to, main memory, and not the CPU cache.
But this simple change comes at a cost. Because we are bypassing the CPU cache, we will take a performance hit each time we operate on the volatile INSTANCE member — which we do 4 times. We double-check existence (1 and 2), set the value (3), and then return the value (4). One could argue that this path is the fringe case as we only create the instance during the first call of the method. Perhaps a performance hit on creation is tolerable. But even our main use-case, reads, will operate on the volatile member twice. Once to check existence, and again to return its value.
private static volatile MySingleton INSTANCE;
public static MySingleton getInstance() {
MySingleton result = INSTANCE;
if (result == null) {
synchronized(MySingleton.class) {
result = INSTANCE;
if (result == null) {
INSTANCE = result = createInstance();
}
}
}
return result;
}
Since the performance hit is due to operating directly on the volatile member, let’s set a local variable to the value of the volatile and operate on the local variable instead. This will decrease the number of times we operate on the volatile, thereby reclaiming some of our lost performance. Note that we have to set our local variable again when we enter the synchronized block. This ensures it is up to date with any changes that occured while we were waiting for the lock.
I wrote an article about this recently. Deconstructing The Singleton. You can find more info on these examples and an example of the "holder" pattern there. There is also a real-world example showcasing the double-checked volatile approach. Hope this helps.
