今天工作时,我在Java中遇到了volatile关键字。不是很熟悉,我找到了这个解释。
鉴于那篇文章详细解释了所讨论的关键字,您曾经使用过它吗?或者您曾经看到过以正确方式使用该关键字的情况吗?
今天工作时,我在Java中遇到了volatile关键字。不是很熟悉,我找到了这个解释。
鉴于那篇文章详细解释了所讨论的关键字,您曾经使用过它吗?或者您曾经看到过以正确方式使用该关键字的情况吗?
当前回答
每个访问volatile字段的线程在继续之前都会读取它的当前值,而不是(可能)使用缓存的值。
只有成员变量可以是易变的或瞬变的。
其他回答
The volatile key when used with a variable, will make sure that threads reading this variable will see the same value . Now if you have multiple threads reading and writing to a variable, making the variable volatile will not be enough and data will be corrupted . Image threads have read the same value but each one has done some chages (say incremented a counter) , when writing back to the memory, data integrity is violated . That is why it is necessary to make the varible synchronized (diffrent ways are possible)
如果修改是由一个线程完成的,而其他线程只需要读取这个值,则volatile将是合适的。
虽然我在这里提到的答案中看到了许多很好的理论解释,但我在这里添加了一个实际的例子来解释:
1.
代码在不使用volatile的情况下运行
public class VisibilityDemonstration {
private static int sCount = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Consumer().start();
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
return;
}
new Producer().start();
}
static class Consumer extends Thread {
@Override
public void run() {
int localValue = -1;
while (true) {
if (localValue != sCount) {
System.out.println("Consumer: detected count change " + sCount);
localValue = sCount;
}
if (sCount >= 5) {
break;
}
}
System.out.println("Consumer: terminating");
}
}
static class Producer extends Thread {
@Override
public void run() {
while (sCount < 5) {
int localValue = sCount;
localValue++;
System.out.println("Producer: incrementing count to " + localValue);
sCount = localValue;
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
return;
}
}
System.out.println("Producer: terminating");
}
}
}
在上面的代码中,有两个线程——生产者和消费者。
生产者线程在循环中迭代5次(睡眠时间为1000毫秒或1秒)。在每次迭代中,生产者线程将sCount变量的值增加1。因此,在所有迭代中,生产者将sCount的值从0更改为5
使用者线程处于一个常量循环中,每当sCount的值发生变化时,它就会打印,直到值达到5为止。
两个循环同时开始。因此,生产者和消费者都应该将sCount的值打印5次。
输出
Consumer: detected count change 0
Producer: incrementing count to 1
Producer: incrementing count to 2
Producer: incrementing count to 3
Producer: incrementing count to 4
Producer: incrementing count to 5
Producer: terminating
分析
In the above program, when the producer thread updates the value of sCount, it does update the value of the variable in the main memory(memory from where every thread is going to initially read the value of variable). But the consumer thread reads the value of sCount only the first time from this main memory and then caches the value of that variable inside its own memory. So, even if the value of original sCount in main memory has been updated by the producer thread, the consumer thread is reading from its cached value which is not updated. This is called VISIBILITY PROBLEM .
2.
代码使用volatile运行
在上面的代码中,用下面的代码替换声明了sCount的代码行:
private volatile static int sCount = 0;
输出
Consumer: detected count change 0
Producer: incrementing count to 1
Consumer: detected count change 1
Producer: incrementing count to 2
Consumer: detected count change 2
Producer: incrementing count to 3
Consumer: detected count change 3
Producer: incrementing count to 4
Consumer: detected count change 4
Producer: incrementing count to 5
Consumer: detected count change 5
Consumer: terminating
Producer: terminating
分析
当我们声明一个变量为volatile时,这意味着所有对这个变量的读写操作都将直接进入主存。这些变量的值永远不会被缓存。
由于sCount变量的值永远不会被任何线程缓存,消费者总是从主内存中读取sCount的原始值(在那里由生产者线程更新)。因此,在这种情况下,输出是正确的,两个线程都打印了5次不同的sCount值。
通过这种方式,volatile关键字解决了可见性问题。
绝对是的。(不仅是Java, c#也是如此。)有时,您需要获取或设置一个值,该值保证是给定平台上的原子操作,例如int或boolean,但不需要线程锁定的开销。volatile关键字允许您确保在读取值时获得的是当前值,而不是在另一个线程上写入时被废弃的缓存值。
用volatile关键字声明的变量有两个主要特性,这使得它很特殊。
如果我们有一个易失性变量,它不能被任何线程缓存到计算机的(微处理器)缓存内存中。访问总是发生在主存中。 如果对一个易失性变量正在进行写操作,并且突然请求了一个读操作,那么可以保证写操作将在读操作之前完成。
以上两个品质推断了这一点
所有读取volatile变量的线程肯定会读取最新的值。因为没有缓存值可以污染它。而且读请求只有在当前写操作完成后才会被授予。
另一方面,
如果我们进一步研究我提到的#2,我们可以看到volatile关键字是维护一个共享变量的理想方法,它有n个读线程,只有一个写线程可以访问它。一旦我们添加了volatile关键字,就完成了。没有任何线程安全方面的开销。
交谈,
我们不能仅仅使用volatile关键字来满足有多个写入线程访问它的共享变量。
是的,我经常使用它——它对多线程代码非常有用。你指的那篇文章很好。不过有两件重要的事情要记住:
You should only use volatile if you completely understand what it does and how it differs to synchronized. In many situations volatile appears, on the surface, to be a simpler more performant alternative to synchronized, when often a better understanding of volatile would make clear that synchronized is the only option that would work. volatile doesn't actually work in a lot of older JVMs, although synchronized does. I remember seeing a document that referenced the various levels of support in different JVMs but unfortunately I can't find it now. Definitely look into it if you're using Java pre 1.5 or if you don't have control over the JVMs that your program will be running on.