问题
Given a Javaslang / Vavr immutable map, and a function that updates that map:
private Map<Foo, Bar> myMap = HashMap.empty();
public void setBar(Foo foo, Bar bar) {
myMap = myMap.put(foo, bar);
}
How can I ensure that two concurrent calls to setBar()
for different Foo
keys will both have their updates recorded?
// thread A
setBar(fooA, barA)
// thread B
setBar(fooB, barB)
It seems like there's a risk that the calls will be interleaved such that:
- thread A gets
{}
- thread B gets
{}
- thread B computes
{}
+fooB -> barB
={(fooB -> barB)}
- thread B sets
myMap
to{(fooB -> barB)}
- thread A computes
{}
+fooA -> barA
={(fooA -> barA)}
- thread A sets
myMap
to{(fooA -> barA)}
- thread B's update is lost
Using AtomicReference
, I came up with the following, more or less based on the ConcurrentStack
methods in the “Nonblocking Algorithms” section of Java Concurrency in Practice.
private AtomicReference<Map<Foo, Bar>> myMap =
new AtomicReference<>(HashMap.empty());
public void setBar(Foo foo, Bar bar) {
Map<Foo, Bar> myMap0;
Map<Foo, Bar> myMap1;
do {
myMap0 = myMap.get();
myMap1 = myMap0.put(foo, bar);
} while (!myMap.compareAndSet(myMap0, myMap1));
}
Is this correct? And if so, is it as good an implementation as I'm likely to get, or is there something simpler (e.g. some Java 8 AtomicReference
API I'm missing that implements this pattern)?
回答1:
Using AtomicReference
is good in this case. You can use the shortcut method
public void setBar(Foo foo, Bar bar) {
myMap.updateAndGet(map -> map.put(foo, bar)));
}
instead. See the javadoc for AtomicReference.updateAndGet. The default java implementation is exactly the same as yours in Java 8.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/44147719/lock-free-atomic-update-to-immutable-map