原子数组 java,Java数组:+原子*同步,或同步就足够了?

This question has been asked again and again, but I have still a doubt. When people say that synchronized creates a memory barrier, what does this memory barrier apply to, ANY cached variable? This doesn't look like feasible.

So, due to this doubt, I have written some code that looks like this:

final AtomicReferenceArray total=new AtomicReferenceArray(func.outDim);

for(int i=0; i

for(int i=0; i

workers[i]=new Thread(new Runnable(){

public void run() {

double[] myPartialSum=new double(func.outDim);

//some lengthy math which fills myPartialSum...

//The Atomic* guarantees that I'm not writing local copies of the Double references (whose value are immutables, so it's like an array of truly volatile doubles) in variable total, synchronized(total) atomizes the sum

synchronized(total){ for(int i=0; i

};

workers[i].start();

}

//wait for workers to terminate...

//print results accessing total outside of a synchronized(total) block, since no worker is alive at this point.

I wonder if it's possible to just substitute the type of total with a plain double[]: this would require that synchronized(total) (in the run() method) assures that I'm not working with local copies of each index in the array of doubles, that is, the memory fence does not apply only to the value of total itself (which is under the hood a pointer), but to the indexes of total too. Does this happen?

解决方案

The memory barrier applies to all memory references, even unrelated ones. When you synchronize total you will see an up to date copy of any memory values and when you leave the block, there is another memory barrier.

  • 0
    点赞
  • 0
    收藏
    觉得还不错? 一键收藏
  • 0
    评论
评论
添加红包

请填写红包祝福语或标题

红包个数最小为10个

红包金额最低5元

当前余额3.43前往充值 >
需支付:10.00
成就一亿技术人!
领取后你会自动成为博主和红包主的粉丝 规则
hope_wisdom
发出的红包
实付
使用余额支付
点击重新获取
扫码支付
钱包余额 0

抵扣说明:

1.余额是钱包充值的虚拟货币,按照1:1的比例进行支付金额的抵扣。
2.余额无法直接购买下载,可以购买VIP、付费专栏及课程。

余额充值