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

虽然我同意不要盲目地遵守教条规则,但“偷锁”的场景对你来说是不是很古怪?一个线程确实可以从你的对象“外部”获得锁(synchronized(theObject){…}),阻塞其他线程等待同步实例方法。

如果您不相信恶意代码,请考虑这些代码可能来自第三方(例如,如果您开发了某种应用程序服务器)。

“意外”版本似乎不太可能,但就像他们说的那样,“让一些东西不受白痴的影响,就会有人发明一个更好的白痴”。

所以我同意“这取决于这个班级做什么”的观点。


编辑以下eljenso的前3条评论:

我从来没有遇到过偷锁的问题,但这里有一个想象的场景:

假设您的系统是一个servlet容器,我们考虑的对象是ServletContext实现。它的getAttribute方法必须是线程安全的,因为上下文属性是共享数据;所以你声明它是同步的。让我们再想象一下,您提供了一个基于容器实现的公共托管服务。

我是您的客户,并在您的站点上部署我的“好”servlet。我的代码碰巧包含对getAttribute的调用。

黑客伪装成另一个客户,在您的站点上部署恶意servlet。它在init方法中包含以下代码:

synchronized (this.getServletConfig().getServletContext()) {
   while (true) {}
}

假设我们共享相同的servlet上下文(只要两个servlet位于同一个虚拟主机上,规范就允许),那么我对getAttribute的调用将永远锁定。黑客已经在我的servlet上实现了DoS。

如果getAttribute在私有锁上同步,则这种攻击是不可能的,因为第三方代码无法获得此锁。

我承认这个例子是人为设计的,对servlet容器如何工作的看法过于简单,但恕我直言,它证明了这一点。

因此,我将基于安全性考虑做出设计选择:我是否能够完全控制访问实例的代码?线程无限期地持有实例锁的后果是什么?

其他回答

首先需要指出的是:

public void blah() {
  synchronized (this) {
    // do stuff
  }
}

语义上等价于:

public synchronized void blah() {
  // do stuff
}

这是不使用synchronized(this)的一个原因。您可能会说,您可以围绕synchronized(this)块做一些事情。通常的原因是试图避免必须进行同步检查,这将导致各种并发问题,特别是双重检查锁定问题,这表明要使一个相对简单的检查具有线程安全性是多么困难。

私有锁是一种防御机制,这从来都不是一个坏主意。

另外,正如您所提到的,私有锁可以控制粒度。一个对象上的一组操作可能与另一组完全无关,但同步(这)将相互排除对所有这些操作的访问。

同步(这个)真的不能给你任何东西。

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!!

如果可能的话,让你的数据不可变(最终变量) 如果你不能避免跨多个线程共享数据的突变,使用高级编程结构[例如,粒度锁API]

Lock提供对共享资源的独占访问:一次只有一个线程可以获得锁,并且对共享资源的所有访问都要求首先获得锁。

使用ReentrantLock实现Lock接口的示例代码

 class X {
   private final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();
   // ...

   public void m() {
     lock.lock();  // block until condition holds
     try {
       // ... method body
     } finally {
       lock.unlock()
     }
   }
 }

锁定相对于同步的优势

The use of synchronized methods or statements forces all lock acquisition and release to occur in a block-structured way. Lock implementations provide additional functionality over the use of synchronized methods and statements by providing A non-blocking attempt to acquire a lock (tryLock()) An attempt to acquire the lock that can be interrupted (lockInterruptibly()) An attempt to acquire the lock that can timeout (tryLock(long, TimeUnit)). A Lock class can also provide behavior and semantics that is quite different from that of the implicit monitor lock, such as guaranteed ordering non-re entrant usage Deadlock detection

看看这个关于各种锁的SE问题:

同步vs锁定

您可以通过使用高级并发API而不是synchronized块来实现线程安全。该文档页提供了实现线程安全的良好编程结构。

锁对象支持简化许多并发应用程序的锁定习惯用法。

executor为启动和管理线程定义了高级API。concurrent提供的执行器实现提供了适合大型应用程序的线程池管理。

并发集合使管理大型数据集合变得更容易,并且可以大大减少同步的需要。

原子变量具有最小化同步和帮助避免内存一致性错误的特性。

ThreadLocalRandom(在JDK 7中)提供了从多个线程有效生成伪随机数的功能。

其他编程结构也可以参考java.util.concurrent和java.util.concurrent.atomic包。

我认为第一点(其他人使用您的锁)和第二点(所有方法不必要地使用相同的锁)可能发生在任何相当大的应用程序中。特别是当开发人员之间没有良好的沟通时。

这不是一成不变的,这主要是一个良好的实践和防止错误的问题。

避免使用synchronized(this)作为锁定机制:这会锁定整个类实例,并可能导致死锁。在这种情况下,重构代码以只锁定特定的方法或变量,这样整个类就不会被锁定。同步可以在方法级别内使用。 下面的代码展示了如何锁定一个方法,而不是使用synchronized(this)。

   public void foo() {
if(operation = null) {
    synchronized(foo) { 
if (operation == null) {
 // enter your code that this method has to handle...
          }
        }
      }
    }