Deadlock

From APIDesign

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Current revision (07:09, 2 August 2018) (edit) (undo)
 
(8 intermediate revisions not shown.)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
[[wikipedia::Deadlock|Deadlock]] can only happen when all four [[deadlock conditions]] are satisfied. One would expect satisfying all of them isn't that common, but that would be wrong assumption. [[Deadlock]]s happen. While it is fine to avoid them by eliminating just one of the [[deadlock conditions]] in a regular code, the situation in [[APIDesign]] is a bit different. As a [[paradox]] of [[APIDesign]] there is just a single [[good]] solution to avoid [[deadlock]]s when designing an [[API]]:
+
[[wikipedia::Deadlock|Deadlock]] can only happen when all four [[deadlock conditions]] are satisfied. One would expect satisfying all of them isn't that common, but that would be wrong assumption. [[Deadlock]]s happen. Fighting with them is [[ImpossibleThreading|close to impossible]]. While it is fine to avoid them by eliminating just one of the [[deadlock conditions]] in a regular code, the situation in [[APIDesign]] is a bit different. As a [[paradox]] of [[APIDesign]] there is just a single [[good]] solution to avoid [[deadlock]]s when designing an [[API]]:
'''Never hold a lock when calling a foreign code!'''
'''Never hold a lock when calling a foreign code!'''
-
What is a foreign code in this context? Anything written by users of your [[API]]. E.g. callbacks, listeners, etc. must not be called under any lock used in your [[API]]. The rule is that simple. Memorize the rule, stick to it and your [[API]]s will be [[deadlock]] free!
+
What is a foreign code in this context? Anything written by users of your [[API]]. E.g. callbacks, listeners, overriden methods, etc. must not be called under any lock used in your [[API]]. The rule is that simple. Memorize the rule, stick to it and your [[API]]s will be [[deadlock]] free!
It is easy to follow the rule when dealing with listeners - they are just simple callbacks that notify a change - they don't return any value and as such they can be called asynchronously. which is exactly what [[UI]] frameworks like [[AWT]] or [[Swing]] do: they notify the callbacks ''later''. Of course, without holding any locks and thus avoiding [[deadlock]]s.
It is easy to follow the rule when dealing with listeners - they are just simple callbacks that notify a change - they don't return any value and as such they can be called asynchronously. which is exactly what [[UI]] frameworks like [[AWT]] or [[Swing]] do: they notify the callbacks ''later''. Of course, without holding any locks and thus avoiding [[deadlock]]s.
Line 28: Line 28:
</source>
</source>
-
Placing such class into an [[API]] is directly asking for troubles. First of all one synchronizes on a publicly reachable object - e.g. '''this''' - see [[Java_Monitor]] page for details. Yet, the biggest problem is the call to a unknown code while holding the lock. The unknown code is represented by abstract ''combine'' method - it can do anything wild. For example ask for another lock - and that is just a step away for creating [[deadlock]].
+
Placing such class into an [[API]] is directly asking for troubles. First of all one synchronizes on a publicly reachable object - e.g. '''this''' - see [[Java_Monitor]] page for details. Yet, the biggest problem is the call to a unknown code while holding the lock. The unknown code is represented by abstract ''combine'' method - it can do anything wild. For example ask for another lock - and that is just a step away from causing a [[deadlock]].
-
 
+
-
How can one prevent that? Of course, the easiest solution is to blame the user of the [[API]] and possibly put a note to [[javadoc]] of the ''combine'' method to ask users to not [[deadlock]]. While possible, it is not a solution [[TheAPIBook]] would recommend - we know users of our [[API]]s are [[clueless]], they don't read [[javadoc]] unless inevitable and they don't like to be blamed. It is the [[API]] writer that shall be blamed and shall work hard on allowing [[clueless]] usage of the [[API]] by its users. As such let's rewrite the code to take all the pain:
+
 +
How can one prevent that? Of course, the easiest solution is to blame the user of the [[API]] and possibly put a note to [[javadoc]] of the ''combine'' method to ask users to not [[deadlock]]. While possible, it is not a solution [[TheAPIBook]] would recommend - we know users of our [[API]]s are [[clueless]], they don't read [[javadoc]] unless inevitable and they don't like to be blamed. It is the [[API]] writer that shall work hard on allowing [[clueless]] usage of the [[API]] by its users. As such let's rewrite the code to take all the pain:
<source lang="java">
<source lang="java">
-
 
public abstract class Helper {
public abstract class Helper {
Line 53: Line 51:
v3 = value3;
v3 = value3;
}
}
-
 
int r1 = combine(v1, v2);
int r1 = combine(v1, v2);
int r2 = combine(v2, v3);
int r2 = combine(v2, v3);
int r3 = combine(v3, v1);
int r3 = combine(v3, v1);
-
 
synchronized (this) {
synchronized (this) {
if (v1 == value1 && v2 == value2 && v3 == value3) {
if (v1 == value1 && v2 == value2 && v3 == value3) {
Line 69: Line 65:
}
}
}
}
-
 
</source>
</source>
Line 75: Line 70:
The code can be made even cleaner, if the internal data are kept in a special immutable object:
The code can be made even cleaner, if the internal data are kept in a special immutable object:
 +
<source lang="java">
<source lang="java">
 +
 +
 +
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference;
public abstract class Helper {
public abstract class Helper {
Line 93: Line 92:
}
}
-
private Data data = new Data(0, 0, 0);
+
private AtomicReference<Data> data = new AtomicReference<>(new Data(0, 0, 0));
protected abstract int combine(int x, int y);
protected abstract int combine(int x, int y);
Line 100: Line 99:
Data current;
Data current;
while (true) {
while (true) {
-
synchronized (this) {
+
current = data.get();
-
current = this.data;
+
-
}
+
int r1 = combine(current.value1, current.value2);
int r1 = combine(current.value1, current.value2);
Line 108: Line 105:
int r3 = combine(current.value3, current.value1);
int r3 = combine(current.value3, current.value1);
-
synchronized (this) {
+
if (data.compareAndSet(current, new Data(r1, r2, r3))) {
-
if (current == this.data) {
+
return;
-
this.data = new Data(r1, r2, r3);
+
-
return;
+
-
}
+
}
}
}
}
Line 118: Line 112:
}
}
</source>
</source>
 +
 +
Neat usage of immutability. The data that are supposed to be consistent are '''final''' in a ''Data'' class. The mutability is handled all at once with {{JDK|java/util/concurrent/atomic|AtomicReference}} ''compareAndSet'' method. Either it fails and the computation runs again or it succeeds and atomically changes the data to newly created and consistent value.
 +
 +
Avoiding [[deadlock]]s this way sort of trades the [[deadlock]]s for live-locks. There is no limit to the number of times the '''while''' cycle is executed. Under some bad setup, it might even run indefinitely. It helps, if there is some invariant that gets stabilized with every change of the ''data'' field. For example {{NB|org-openide-util-lookup|org/openide/util/lookup|AbstractLookup}} is using the same approach and with every update of the ''data'' field, the internal data structure moves towards optimum - as a result it is clear that after some number of loops, there will be no clash and the update succeeds.
 +
 +
 +
[[Category:APIDesignPatterns]]

Current revision

Deadlock can only happen when all four deadlock conditions are satisfied. One would expect satisfying all of them isn't that common, but that would be wrong assumption. Deadlocks happen. Fighting with them is close to impossible. While it is fine to avoid them by eliminating just one of the deadlock conditions in a regular code, the situation in APIDesign is a bit different. As a paradox of APIDesign there is just a single good solution to avoid deadlocks when designing an API:

Never hold a lock when calling a foreign code!

What is a foreign code in this context? Anything written by users of your API. E.g. callbacks, listeners, overriden methods, etc. must not be called under any lock used in your API. The rule is that simple. Memorize the rule, stick to it and your APIs will be deadlock free!

It is easy to follow the rule when dealing with listeners - they are just simple callbacks that notify a change - they don't return any value and as such they can be called asynchronously. which is exactly what UI frameworks like AWT or Swing do: they notify the callbacks later. Of course, without holding any locks and thus avoiding deadlocks.

However what shall one do if the foreign code needs to be called synchronously, in a critical section? Imagine:

public abstract class Helper {
    private int value1;
    private int value2;
    private int value3;
 
    protected abstract int combine(int x, int y);
 
    public final void update() {
        synchronized (this) {
            int v1 = value1;
            value1 = combine(value1, value2);
            value2 = combine(value2, value3);
            value3 = combine(value3, v1);
        }
    }
}

Placing such class into an API is directly asking for troubles. First of all one synchronizes on a publicly reachable object - e.g. this - see Java_Monitor page for details. Yet, the biggest problem is the call to a unknown code while holding the lock. The unknown code is represented by abstract combine method - it can do anything wild. For example ask for another lock - and that is just a step away from causing a deadlock.

How can one prevent that? Of course, the easiest solution is to blame the user of the API and possibly put a note to javadoc of the combine method to ask users to not deadlock. While possible, it is not a solution TheAPIBook would recommend - we know users of our APIs are clueless, they don't read javadoc unless inevitable and they don't like to be blamed. It is the API writer that shall work hard on allowing clueless usage of the API by its users. As such let's rewrite the code to take all the pain:

public abstract class Helper {
 
    private int value1;
    private int value2;
    private int value3;
 
    protected abstract int combine(int x, int y);
 
    public final void update() {
        int v1;
        int v2;
        int v3;
        while (true) {
            synchronized (this) {
                v1 = value1;
                v2 = value2;
                v3 = value3;
            }
            int r1 = combine(v1, v2);
            int r2 = combine(v2, v3);
            int r3 = combine(v3, v1);
            synchronized (this) {
                if (v1 == value1 && v2 == value2 && v3 == value3) {
                    value1 = r1;
                    value2 = r2;
                    value3 = r3;
                    return;
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

This is the correct code which removes the deadlock danger and still keeps consistency. A kind of manually written TransactionalMemory. First of all atomically read the values needed for the computation. Then release the lock and call the unknown code. Then obtain the lock again, make sure nobody else modified the internal state and if so, modify the state of the object. If the state of the object has been modified meanwhile, repeat the computation with new values.

The code can be made even cleaner, if the internal data are kept in a special immutable object:


import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference;
 
public abstract class Helper {
 
    private static final class Data {
 
        final int value1;
        final int value2;
        final int value3;
 
        Data(int value1, int value2, int value3) {
            this.value1 = value1;
            this.value2 = value2;
            this.value3 = value3;
        }
    }
 
    private AtomicReference<Data> data = new AtomicReference<>(new Data(0, 0, 0));
 
    protected abstract int combine(int x, int y);
 
    public final void update() {
        Data current;
        while (true) {
            current = data.get();
 
            int r1 = combine(current.value1, current.value2);
            int r2 = combine(current.value2, current.value3);
            int r3 = combine(current.value3, current.value1);
 
            if (data.compareAndSet(current, new Data(r1, r2, r3))) {
                return;
            }
        }
    }
}

Neat usage of immutability. The data that are supposed to be consistent are final in a Data class. The mutability is handled all at once with AtomicReference compareAndSet method. Either it fails and the computation runs again or it succeeds and atomically changes the data to newly created and consistent value.

Avoiding deadlocks this way sort of trades the deadlocks for live-locks. There is no limit to the number of times the while cycle is executed. Under some bad setup, it might even run indefinitely. It helps, if there is some invariant that gets stabilized with every change of the data field. For example AbstractLookup is using the same approach and with every update of the data field, the internal data structure moves towards optimum - as a result it is clear that after some number of loops, there will be no clash and the update succeeds.

Personal tools
buy