Should I volatile the field with synchronized methods?

Question

With following class,

// This class should be thread-safe!!!
class BankAccount {

    private long balance; // Should it         


        

Answer 1

No, compared with synchronized keyword, volatile is lightweight.

volatile can gurantee the reader thread always get fresh balance value, but it can not make balance += amount; atomic. synchronized can do both.

Answer 2

You don’t need volatile in the code shown, because the variable is used only within the synchronized methods. The synchronized methods make sure that the variable’s contents are visible and not stale, and also make sure that the operations performed within each synchronized method are not interfered with by concurrently running threads. The volatile keyword is redundant here, it only makes sure the variable’s contents are visible.

If you want the variable’s value to be visible to threads that don’t enter a synchronized instance method on this object (maybe you’d like it to be used in methods that don’t acquire a lock on the instance), then in that case keeping it volatile would make sense.

If you took away the synchronized keywords and left the variable volatile, you’d have a problem, because although volatile makes sure updates are visible it doesn’t make sure the updates are atomic. The += and -= operations here are not atomic and can be interfered with by concurrently-running threads.

Alternatively consider using an AtomicLong instead, in this example you might not need the synchronized keyword (depending on what the code in //... does). Methods like addAndGet perform their changes to the value stored atomically. For most things where you would have used volatile before, the Atomic classes can do a better job.