私人锁对象和固有锁

Question

When to prefer private lock object to synchronize a block over intrinsic lock(this)? Please cite the upshots of both.

private lock object:-

Object lock =new Object();  
synchronized(lock)
{  }

intrinsic lock(this):-

synchronized(this)
{  }

Answer 1

Using explicit lock objects can allow different methods to synchronize on different locks and avoid unnecessary contention. It also makes the lock more explicit, and can make it easier to search the code for blocks that use the lock.

You probably don't want to do either, however! Find the appropriate class in java.util.concurrent and use that instead. :)

Answer 2

A private lock can be useful if you are doing some kind of lock sharding, ie, you need to only lock certain parts of your object while others can still be accessed by a different client.

One simple parallel to understand this concept is a table lock in a database: if you are modifying one table, you acquire the lock on that single table, not the whole database, so the rest of the tables can be modified by other clients. If you need to implement a similar logic but in a POJO you would use as many private locks as necessary.

One downside of this approach is that your class gets cluttered with a lot of objects. This might be indication that you need to refactor it in a more granular set of classes with a simpler locking strategy but it all depends on your design and implementation.

Answer 3

These are both using intrinsic locks. Your first example is using the intrinsic lock of lock , while the second is using the intrinsic lock of this . The question is whether or not this is really what you want to lock on, which it often isn't.

Consider the case, when you use synchronized(this) inside one of your methods. You have 2 objects of this class, and these objects reference some shared resource. If you lock on this then you will not have mutual exclusivity to that resource. You need to lock on some object that everything that can access the resource has access to.

Lock on this ONLY if the important resource is part of the class itself. Even then in some cases a lock object is better. Also, if there's several different resources in your class, that do not need to be mutually exclusive as a whole, but individually, then you need several lock objects.

The key is to really just know how synchronized works, and be mindful of what your code is actually doing

Answer 4

Actually, using either won't make any difference, it is more about choice/style, API writers will lock on the Object -either by synchronized(this) or explicit synchronized on any Object method- , or use an internal monitor depends on sharing a resource, you might not want API users to access your internal lock or you might want to give the choice to API users to share the Object intrinsic lock.

Either way none of those choices are wrong, it is more about the intention of such lock.

Read Java Concurrency in Practice , that will make you a master of concurrency and clarify many of those concepts, which sometimes are more related with the choice you make rather than correctness.

Answer 5

Each object has only one intrinsic lock.

With the synchronized keyword: if you call two synchronized methods from the same object from two different threads, even-thought one thread could run method one and the other thread could run method two, that will not happen because both methods share the same intrinsic lock (which belongs to the object). And according to that one thread will have to wait for the other thread to finish before it can acquire the intrinsic lock to run the other method.

But if you use multiple locks , you will make sure that only one thread can access method one at a time and that only one thread can access method two at a time. But you will allow that method one and method two can be accessed by one thread each at the same time and then reducing the time required for the operation.