mirror of git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git
				
				
				
			
		
			
				
	
	
		
			105 lines
		
	
	
		
			4.7 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Java
		
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			105 lines
		
	
	
		
			4.7 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Java
		
	
	
	
| /*
 | |
|  * Written by Doug Lea with assistance from members of JCP JSR-166
 | |
|  * Expert Group and released to the public domain, as explained at
 | |
|  * http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
 | |
|  */
 | |
| 
 | |
| package java.util.concurrent.locks;
 | |
| 
 | |
| /**
 | |
|  * A <tt>ReadWriteLock</tt> maintains a pair of associated {@link
 | |
|  * Lock locks}, one for read-only operations and one for writing.
 | |
|  * The {@link #readLock read lock} may be held simultaneously by
 | |
|  * multiple reader threads, so long as there are no writers.  The
 | |
|  * {@link #writeLock write lock} is exclusive.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * <p>All <tt>ReadWriteLock</tt> implementations must guarantee that
 | |
|  * the memory synchronization effects of <tt>writeLock</tt> operations
 | |
|  * (as specified in the {@link Lock} interface) also hold with respect
 | |
|  * to the associated <tt>readLock</tt>. That is, a thread successfully
 | |
|  * acquiring the read lock will see all updates made upon previous
 | |
|  * release of the write lock.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * <p>A read-write lock allows for a greater level of concurrency in
 | |
|  * accessing shared data than that permitted by a mutual exclusion lock.
 | |
|  * It exploits the fact that while only a single thread at a time (a
 | |
|  * <em>writer</em> thread) can modify the shared data, in many cases any
 | |
|  * number of threads can concurrently read the data (hence <em>reader</em>
 | |
|  * threads).
 | |
|  * In theory, the increase in concurrency permitted by the use of a read-write
 | |
|  * lock will lead to performance improvements over the use of a mutual
 | |
|  * exclusion lock. In practice this increase in concurrency will only be fully
 | |
|  * realized on a multi-processor, and then only if the access patterns for
 | |
|  * the shared data are suitable.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * <p>Whether or not a read-write lock will improve performance over the use
 | |
|  * of a mutual exclusion lock depends on the frequency that the data is
 | |
|  * read compared to being modified, the duration of the read and write
 | |
|  * operations, and the contention for the data - that is, the number of
 | |
|  * threads that will try to read or write the data at the same time.
 | |
|  * For example, a collection that is initially populated with data and
 | |
|  * thereafter infrequently modified, while being frequently searched
 | |
|  * (such as a directory of some kind) is an ideal candidate for the use of
 | |
|  * a read-write lock. However, if updates become frequent then the data
 | |
|  * spends most of its time being exclusively locked and there is little, if any
 | |
|  * increase in concurrency. Further, if the read operations are too short
 | |
|  * the overhead of the read-write lock implementation (which is inherently
 | |
|  * more complex than a mutual exclusion lock) can dominate the execution
 | |
|  * cost, particularly as many read-write lock implementations still serialize
 | |
|  * all threads through a small section of code. Ultimately, only profiling
 | |
|  * and measurement will establish whether the use of a read-write lock is
 | |
|  * suitable for your application.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * <p>Although the basic operation of a read-write lock is straight-forward,
 | |
|  * there are many policy decisions that an implementation must make, which
 | |
|  * may affect the effectiveness of the read-write lock in a given application.
 | |
|  * Examples of these policies include:
 | |
|  * <ul>
 | |
|  * <li>Determining whether to grant the read lock or the write lock, when
 | |
|  * both readers and writers are waiting, at the time that a writer releases
 | |
|  * the write lock. Writer preference is common, as writes are expected to be
 | |
|  * short and infrequent. Reader preference is less common as it can lead to
 | |
|  * lengthy delays for a write if the readers are frequent and long-lived as
 | |
|  * expected. Fair, or "in-order" implementations are also possible.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * <li>Determining whether readers that request the read lock while a
 | |
|  * reader is active and a writer is waiting, are granted the read lock.
 | |
|  * Preference to the reader can delay the writer indefinitely, while
 | |
|  * preference to the writer can reduce the potential for concurrency.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * <li>Determining whether the locks are reentrant: can a thread with the
 | |
|  * write lock reacquire it? Can it acquire a read lock while holding the
 | |
|  * write lock? Is the read lock itself reentrant?
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * <li>Can the write lock be downgraded to a read lock without allowing
 | |
|  * an intervening writer? Can a read lock be upgraded to a write lock,
 | |
|  * in preference to other waiting readers or writers?
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * </ul>
 | |
|  * You should consider all of these things when evaluating the suitability
 | |
|  * of a given implementation for your application.
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * @see ReentrantReadWriteLock
 | |
|  * @see Lock
 | |
|  * @see ReentrantLock
 | |
|  *
 | |
|  * @since 1.5
 | |
|  * @author Doug Lea
 | |
|  */
 | |
| public interface ReadWriteLock {
 | |
|     /**
 | |
|      * Returns the lock used for reading.
 | |
|      *
 | |
|      * @return the lock used for reading.
 | |
|      */
 | |
|     Lock readLock();
 | |
| 
 | |
|     /**
 | |
|      * Returns the lock used for writing.
 | |
|      *
 | |
|      * @return the lock used for writing.
 | |
|      */
 | |
|     Lock writeLock();
 | |
| }
 |