每当在SO上出现关于Java同步的问题时,有些人都急于指出应该避免同步(这一点)。相反,他们声称,对私有引用的锁定是首选的。

其中一些原因是:

一些邪恶的代码可能会偷你的锁(这个很流行,也有一个“意外”变体) 同一类中的所有同步方法都使用完全相同的锁,这降低了吞吐量 你(不必要地)暴露了太多信息

包括我在内的其他人认为,synchronized(this)是一个被大量使用的习语(在Java库中也是如此),是安全的,而且很容易理解。它不应该被避免,因为你有一个错误,你不知道你的多线程程序中发生了什么。换句话说:如果它是适用的,那么就使用它。

我感兴趣的是看到一些现实世界的例子(没有foobar的东西),避免锁定在这是可取的,当同步(这)也会做的工作。

因此:您应该总是避免synchronized(this),并将其替换为私有引用上的锁吗?


一些进一步的信息(随着答案的更新):

we are talking about instance synchronization both implicit (synchronized methods) and explicit form of synchronized(this) are considered if you quote Bloch or other authorities on the subject, don't leave out the parts you don't like (e.g. Effective Java, item on Thread Safety: Typically it is the lock on the instance itself, but there are exceptions.) if you need granularity in your locking other than synchronized(this) provides, then synchronized(this) is not applicable so that's not the issue


当前回答

我只想提到一种可能的解决方案,用于在没有依赖关系的原子代码部分中惟一的私有引用。您可以使用带锁的静态Hashmap和名为atomic()的简单静态方法,该方法使用堆栈信息(完整的类名和行号)自动创建所需的引用。然后,您可以在同步语句中使用此方法,而无需写入新的锁对象。

// Synchronization objects (locks)
private static HashMap<String, Object> locks = new HashMap<String, Object>();
// Simple method
private static Object atomic() {
    StackTraceElement [] stack = Thread.currentThread().getStackTrace(); // get execution point 
    StackTraceElement exepoint = stack[2];
    // creates unique key from class name and line number using execution point
    String key = String.format("%s#%d", exepoint.getClassName(), exepoint.getLineNumber()); 
    Object lock = locks.get(key); // use old or create new lock
    if (lock == null) {
        lock = new Object();
        locks.put(key, lock);
    }
    return lock; // return reference to lock
}
// Synchronized code
void dosomething1() {
    // start commands
    synchronized (atomic()) {
        // atomic commands 1
        ...
    }
    // other command
}
// Synchronized code
void dosomething2() {
    // start commands
    synchronized (atomic()) {
        // atomic commands 2
        ...
    }
    // other command
}

其他回答

I think there is a good explanation on why each of these are vital techniques under your belt in a book called Java Concurrency In Practice by Brian Goetz. He makes one point very clear - you must use the same lock "EVERYWHERE" to protect the state of your object. Synchronised method and synchronising on an object often go hand in hand. E.g. Vector synchronises all its methods. If you have a handle to a vector object and are going to do "put if absent" then merely Vector synchronising its own individual methods isn't going to protect you from corruption of state. You need to synchronise using synchronised (vectorHandle). This will result in the SAME lock being acquired by every thread which has a handle to the vector and will protect overall state of the vector. This is called client side locking. We do know as a matter of fact vector does synchronised (this) / synchronises all its methods and hence synchronising on the object vectorHandle will result in proper synchronisation of vector objects state. Its foolish to believe that you are thread safe just because you are using a thread safe collection. This is precisely the reason ConcurrentHashMap explicitly introduced putIfAbsent method - to make such operations atomic.

总之

Synchronising at method level allows client side locking. If you have a private lock object - it makes client side locking impossible. This is fine if you know that your class doesn't have "put if absent" type of functionality. If you are designing a library - then synchronising on this or synchronising the method is often wiser. Because you are rarely in a position to decide how your class is going to be used. Had Vector used a private lock object - it would have been impossible to get "put if absent" right. The client code will never gain a handle to the private lock thus breaking the fundamental rule of using the EXACT SAME LOCK to protect its state. Synchronising on this or synchronised methods do have a problem as others have pointed out - someone could get a lock and never release it. All other threads would keep waiting for the lock to be released. So know what you are doing and adopt the one that's correct. Someone argued that having a private lock object gives you better granularity - e.g. if two operations are unrelated - they could be guarded by different locks resulting in better throughput. But this i think is design smell and not code smell - if two operations are completely unrelated why are they part of the SAME class? Why should a class club unrelated functionalities at all? May be a utility class? Hmmmm - some util providing string manipulation and calendar date formatting through the same instance?? ... doesn't make any sense to me at least!!

不进行同步的原因是,有时您需要多个锁(经过一些额外的思考后,第二个锁通常会被删除,但您仍然需要它处于中间状态)。如果你锁定了这个,你总是要记住两个锁中哪个是这个;如果你锁定一个私有对象,变量名会告诉你。

从读者的角度来看,如果你看到了锁定,你总是必须回答两个问题:

这能保护什么样的权限? 一把锁真的够了吗,难道不是有人引入了漏洞吗?

一个例子:

class BadObject {
    private Something mStuff;
    synchronized setStuff(Something stuff) {
        mStuff = stuff;
    }
    synchronized getStuff(Something stuff) {
        return mStuff;
    }
    private MyListener myListener = new MyListener() {
        public void onMyEvent(...) {
            setStuff(...);
        }
    }
    synchronized void longOperation(MyListener l) {
        ...
        l.onMyEvent(...);
        ...
    }
}

如果两个线程在BadObject的两个不同实例上开始longOperation(),它们将获得 他们的锁;当调用l.onMyEvent(…)时,会出现死锁,因为两个线程都不能获得其他对象的锁。

在本例中,我们可以通过使用两个锁来消除死锁,一个用于短操作,一个用于长操作。

这取决于你想做的任务,但我不会用它。此外,检查您想要完成的线程保存是否不能首先通过同步(此)来完成?API中也有一些不错的锁,可能会帮助到你:)

不,你不应该总是这样。但是,当一个特定对象上有多个关注点时,我倾向于避免它,而这些关注点只需要对它们本身是线程安全的。例如,你可能有一个可变数据对象,它有“label”和“parent”字段;它们需要是线程安全的,但是改变其中一个不需要阻止另一个被写入/读取。(在实践中,我将通过声明字段为volatile和/或使用java.util来避免这种情况。concurrent的AtomicFoo包装器)。

一般来说,同步有点笨拙,因为它只是一个大的锁定,而不是仔细考虑如何允许线程相互工作。使用synchronized(this)更加笨拙和反社会,因为它表示“当我持有锁时,没有人可以更改这个类的任何内容”。你需要多久做一次?

I would much rather have more granular locks; even if you do want to stop everything from changing (perhaps you're serialising the object), you can just acquire all of the locks to achieve the same thing, plus it's more explicit that way. When you use synchronized(this), it's not clear exactly why you're synchronizing, or what the side effects might be. If you use synchronized(labelMonitor), or even better labelLock.getWriteLock().lock(), it's clear what you are doing and what the effects of your critical section are limited to.

锁可以用于可见性,也可以用于保护一些数据不受可能导致竞争的并发修改的影响。

当您需要将基本类型操作设置为原子类型时,可以使用AtomicInteger之类的选项。

但是假设你有两个整数,它们像x和y坐标一样彼此相关,它们彼此相关,应该以原子的方式改变。然后使用相同的锁来保护它们。

锁应该只保护彼此相关的状态。不多不少。如果在每个方法中都使用synchronized(this),那么即使类的状态是不相关的,即使更新不相关的状态,所有线程也将面临争用。

class Point{
   private int x;
   private int y;

   public Point(int x, int y){
       this.x = x;
       this.y = y;
   }

   //mutating methods should be guarded by same lock
   public synchronized void changeCoordinates(int x, int y){
       this.x = x;
       this.y = y;
   }
}

在上面的例子中,我只有一个方法同时改变x和y,而不是两个不同的方法,因为x和y是相关的,如果我给了两个不同的方法分别改变x和y,那么它就不会是线程安全的。

这个例子只是为了演示它的实现方式,而不一定是这样。最好的方法是让它成为IMMUTABLE。

现在,与Point例子相反的是,@Andreas已经提供了一个TwoCounters的例子,其中状态被两个不同的锁保护,因为状态彼此不相关。

使用不同的锁来保护不相关的状态的过程称为锁剥离或锁分裂