Is ConcurrentSkipListMap.compute() safe for relative updates?












1















The Javadoc for ConcurrentSkipListMap.compute(K, BiFunction) states:




Attempts to compute a mapping for the specified key and its current mapped value (or null if there is no current mapping). The function is NOT guaranteed to be applied once atomically.




I understand that the function may be invoked multiple times, but what does "once atomically" refer to?



Specifically, is it safe for the function to invoke X = X + 1 without the map value getting incremented multiple times?






java java.util.concurrent concurrentskiplistmap







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    From the implementation it looks like it would be safe. I think it's just saying that the function could be called more than once.

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:02
















1















The Javadoc for ConcurrentSkipListMap.compute(K, BiFunction) states:




Attempts to compute a mapping for the specified key and its current mapped value (or null if there is no current mapping). The function is NOT guaranteed to be applied once atomically.




I understand that the function may be invoked multiple times, but what does "once atomically" refer to?



Specifically, is it safe for the function to invoke X = X + 1 without the map value getting incremented multiple times?






java java.util.concurrent concurrentskiplistmap







share|improve this question




















  • 1





    From the implementation it looks like it would be safe. I think it's just saying that the function could be called more than once.

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:02














1












1








1








The Javadoc for ConcurrentSkipListMap.compute(K, BiFunction) states:




Attempts to compute a mapping for the specified key and its current mapped value (or null if there is no current mapping). The function is NOT guaranteed to be applied once atomically.




I understand that the function may be invoked multiple times, but what does "once atomically" refer to?



Specifically, is it safe for the function to invoke X = X + 1 without the map value getting incremented multiple times?






java java.util.concurrent concurrentskiplistmap







share|improve this question
















The Javadoc for ConcurrentSkipListMap.compute(K, BiFunction) states:




Attempts to compute a mapping for the specified key and its current mapped value (or null if there is no current mapping). The function is NOT guaranteed to be applied once atomically.




I understand that the function may be invoked multiple times, but what does "once atomically" refer to?



Specifically, is it safe for the function to invoke X = X + 1 without the map value getting incremented multiple times?






java java.util.concurrent concurrentskiplistmap




java java.util.concurrent concurrentskiplistmap






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 15 '18 at 0:52







Gili

















asked Nov 15 '18 at 0:51









GiliGili

41.3k62276522




41.3k62276522








  • 1





    From the implementation it looks like it would be safe. I think it's just saying that the function could be called more than once.

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:02














  • 1





    From the implementation it looks like it would be safe. I think it's just saying that the function could be called more than once.

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:02








1




1





From the implementation it looks like it would be safe. I think it's just saying that the function could be called more than once.

– shmosel
Nov 15 '18 at 1:02





From the implementation it looks like it would be safe. I think it's just saying that the function could be called more than once.

– shmosel
Nov 15 '18 at 1:02












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














It is saying that:




  • the function could be called more than once, and

  • those calls could overlap in time; i.e. if multiple threads are calling compute simultaneously.


In other words, do not expect atomic behavior in the way that the function reference is called by compute.





Specifically, is it safe for the function to invoke X = X + 1 without the map value getting incremented multiple times?




It depends on what mean by "invoke X = X + 1". (You didn't include a clear example ....)





  • If the x = x + 1 means that you are just trying to increment the map's value, then:




    • One call to compute will only result in one "incrementation", because of the definition in the compute in ConcurrentMap.


    • But when you return from compute the value could have been incremented more than once, because another thread was doing the same thing simultaneously.





  • If the x = x + 1 refers to a side-effect of the method reference, then all bets are off:




    • It may have happened multiple times.

    • If your method reference is not properly synchronized, etcetera, there could be all sorts of nasty effects. The spec implies that the compute call is not going to synchronize externally or call the method reference in a mutex or anything like that. Normal concurrency / memory rules apply ...








share|improve this answer


























  • Why would they overlap in time?

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:17











  • Because multiple threads could be calling compute. For the same key.

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:18













  • Seems like a weird use of "atomically" though. By that definition, AtomicInteger.getAndUpdate() is not atomic either.

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:23











  • @shmosel - It is not a definition. It is an anti-definition. It is a statement that is intended to dispel misconceptions / false assumptions. But yes you are correct. They don't strictly need to say "atomic". And they could have said "not guaranteed to be called once atomically" about the call(s) to the function in getAndUpdate. Instead, they simply say that the function may be called more than once ... which is probably sufficient.

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:32






  • 1





    Hmmm ... sort of. "The overall effects are atomic" is conditional on a sensible implementation of the BiFunction. That matters because (as you point out) if the CAS fails you need to all the function again ... and again ... until it succeeds. BTW, that behavior is part of the spec, not just an implementation detail; see the superclass javadocs

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:05













Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53310936%2fis-concurrentskiplistmap-compute-safe-for-relative-updates%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














It is saying that:




  • the function could be called more than once, and

  • those calls could overlap in time; i.e. if multiple threads are calling compute simultaneously.


In other words, do not expect atomic behavior in the way that the function reference is called by compute.





Specifically, is it safe for the function to invoke X = X + 1 without the map value getting incremented multiple times?




It depends on what mean by "invoke X = X + 1". (You didn't include a clear example ....)





  • If the x = x + 1 means that you are just trying to increment the map's value, then:




    • One call to compute will only result in one "incrementation", because of the definition in the compute in ConcurrentMap.


    • But when you return from compute the value could have been incremented more than once, because another thread was doing the same thing simultaneously.





  • If the x = x + 1 refers to a side-effect of the method reference, then all bets are off:




    • It may have happened multiple times.

    • If your method reference is not properly synchronized, etcetera, there could be all sorts of nasty effects. The spec implies that the compute call is not going to synchronize externally or call the method reference in a mutex or anything like that. Normal concurrency / memory rules apply ...








share|improve this answer


























  • Why would they overlap in time?

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:17











  • Because multiple threads could be calling compute. For the same key.

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:18













  • Seems like a weird use of "atomically" though. By that definition, AtomicInteger.getAndUpdate() is not atomic either.

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:23











  • @shmosel - It is not a definition. It is an anti-definition. It is a statement that is intended to dispel misconceptions / false assumptions. But yes you are correct. They don't strictly need to say "atomic". And they could have said "not guaranteed to be called once atomically" about the call(s) to the function in getAndUpdate. Instead, they simply say that the function may be called more than once ... which is probably sufficient.

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:32






  • 1





    Hmmm ... sort of. "The overall effects are atomic" is conditional on a sensible implementation of the BiFunction. That matters because (as you point out) if the CAS fails you need to all the function again ... and again ... until it succeeds. BTW, that behavior is part of the spec, not just an implementation detail; see the superclass javadocs

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:05


















2














It is saying that:




  • the function could be called more than once, and

  • those calls could overlap in time; i.e. if multiple threads are calling compute simultaneously.


In other words, do not expect atomic behavior in the way that the function reference is called by compute.





Specifically, is it safe for the function to invoke X = X + 1 without the map value getting incremented multiple times?




It depends on what mean by "invoke X = X + 1". (You didn't include a clear example ....)





  • If the x = x + 1 means that you are just trying to increment the map's value, then:




    • One call to compute will only result in one "incrementation", because of the definition in the compute in ConcurrentMap.


    • But when you return from compute the value could have been incremented more than once, because another thread was doing the same thing simultaneously.





  • If the x = x + 1 refers to a side-effect of the method reference, then all bets are off:




    • It may have happened multiple times.

    • If your method reference is not properly synchronized, etcetera, there could be all sorts of nasty effects. The spec implies that the compute call is not going to synchronize externally or call the method reference in a mutex or anything like that. Normal concurrency / memory rules apply ...








share|improve this answer


























  • Why would they overlap in time?

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:17











  • Because multiple threads could be calling compute. For the same key.

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:18













  • Seems like a weird use of "atomically" though. By that definition, AtomicInteger.getAndUpdate() is not atomic either.

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:23











  • @shmosel - It is not a definition. It is an anti-definition. It is a statement that is intended to dispel misconceptions / false assumptions. But yes you are correct. They don't strictly need to say "atomic". And they could have said "not guaranteed to be called once atomically" about the call(s) to the function in getAndUpdate. Instead, they simply say that the function may be called more than once ... which is probably sufficient.

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:32






  • 1





    Hmmm ... sort of. "The overall effects are atomic" is conditional on a sensible implementation of the BiFunction. That matters because (as you point out) if the CAS fails you need to all the function again ... and again ... until it succeeds. BTW, that behavior is part of the spec, not just an implementation detail; see the superclass javadocs

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:05
















2












2








2







It is saying that:




  • the function could be called more than once, and

  • those calls could overlap in time; i.e. if multiple threads are calling compute simultaneously.


In other words, do not expect atomic behavior in the way that the function reference is called by compute.





Specifically, is it safe for the function to invoke X = X + 1 without the map value getting incremented multiple times?




It depends on what mean by "invoke X = X + 1". (You didn't include a clear example ....)





  • If the x = x + 1 means that you are just trying to increment the map's value, then:




    • One call to compute will only result in one "incrementation", because of the definition in the compute in ConcurrentMap.


    • But when you return from compute the value could have been incremented more than once, because another thread was doing the same thing simultaneously.





  • If the x = x + 1 refers to a side-effect of the method reference, then all bets are off:




    • It may have happened multiple times.

    • If your method reference is not properly synchronized, etcetera, there could be all sorts of nasty effects. The spec implies that the compute call is not going to synchronize externally or call the method reference in a mutex or anything like that. Normal concurrency / memory rules apply ...








share|improve this answer















It is saying that:




  • the function could be called more than once, and

  • those calls could overlap in time; i.e. if multiple threads are calling compute simultaneously.


In other words, do not expect atomic behavior in the way that the function reference is called by compute.





Specifically, is it safe for the function to invoke X = X + 1 without the map value getting incremented multiple times?




It depends on what mean by "invoke X = X + 1". (You didn't include a clear example ....)





  • If the x = x + 1 means that you are just trying to increment the map's value, then:




    • One call to compute will only result in one "incrementation", because of the definition in the compute in ConcurrentMap.


    • But when you return from compute the value could have been incremented more than once, because another thread was doing the same thing simultaneously.





  • If the x = x + 1 refers to a side-effect of the method reference, then all bets are off:




    • It may have happened multiple times.

    • If your method reference is not properly synchronized, etcetera, there could be all sorts of nasty effects. The spec implies that the compute call is not going to synchronize externally or call the method reference in a mutex or anything like that. Normal concurrency / memory rules apply ...









share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 15 '18 at 4:16

























answered Nov 15 '18 at 1:16









Stephen CStephen C

520k70577937




520k70577937













  • Why would they overlap in time?

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:17











  • Because multiple threads could be calling compute. For the same key.

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:18













  • Seems like a weird use of "atomically" though. By that definition, AtomicInteger.getAndUpdate() is not atomic either.

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:23











  • @shmosel - It is not a definition. It is an anti-definition. It is a statement that is intended to dispel misconceptions / false assumptions. But yes you are correct. They don't strictly need to say "atomic". And they could have said "not guaranteed to be called once atomically" about the call(s) to the function in getAndUpdate. Instead, they simply say that the function may be called more than once ... which is probably sufficient.

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:32






  • 1





    Hmmm ... sort of. "The overall effects are atomic" is conditional on a sensible implementation of the BiFunction. That matters because (as you point out) if the CAS fails you need to all the function again ... and again ... until it succeeds. BTW, that behavior is part of the spec, not just an implementation detail; see the superclass javadocs

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:05





















  • Why would they overlap in time?

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:17











  • Because multiple threads could be calling compute. For the same key.

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:18













  • Seems like a weird use of "atomically" though. By that definition, AtomicInteger.getAndUpdate() is not atomic either.

    – shmosel
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:23











  • @shmosel - It is not a definition. It is an anti-definition. It is a statement that is intended to dispel misconceptions / false assumptions. But yes you are correct. They don't strictly need to say "atomic". And they could have said "not guaranteed to be called once atomically" about the call(s) to the function in getAndUpdate. Instead, they simply say that the function may be called more than once ... which is probably sufficient.

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 1:32






  • 1





    Hmmm ... sort of. "The overall effects are atomic" is conditional on a sensible implementation of the BiFunction. That matters because (as you point out) if the CAS fails you need to all the function again ... and again ... until it succeeds. BTW, that behavior is part of the spec, not just an implementation detail; see the superclass javadocs

    – Stephen C
    Nov 15 '18 at 7:05



















Why would they overlap in time?

– shmosel
Nov 15 '18 at 1:17





Why would they overlap in time?

– shmosel
Nov 15 '18 at 1:17













Because multiple threads could be calling compute. For the same key.

– Stephen C
Nov 15 '18 at 1:18







Because multiple threads could be calling compute. For the same key.

– Stephen C
Nov 15 '18 at 1:18















Seems like a weird use of "atomically" though. By that definition, AtomicInteger.getAndUpdate() is not atomic either.

– shmosel
Nov 15 '18 at 1:23





Seems like a weird use of "atomically" though. By that definition, AtomicInteger.getAndUpdate() is not atomic either.

– shmosel
Nov 15 '18 at 1:23













@shmosel - It is not a definition. It is an anti-definition. It is a statement that is intended to dispel misconceptions / false assumptions. But yes you are correct. They don't strictly need to say "atomic". And they could have said "not guaranteed to be called once atomically" about the call(s) to the function in getAndUpdate. Instead, they simply say that the function may be called more than once ... which is probably sufficient.

– Stephen C
Nov 15 '18 at 1:32





@shmosel - It is not a definition. It is an anti-definition. It is a statement that is intended to dispel misconceptions / false assumptions. But yes you are correct. They don't strictly need to say "atomic". And they could have said "not guaranteed to be called once atomically" about the call(s) to the function in getAndUpdate. Instead, they simply say that the function may be called more than once ... which is probably sufficient.

– Stephen C
Nov 15 '18 at 1:32




1




1





Hmmm ... sort of. "The overall effects are atomic" is conditional on a sensible implementation of the BiFunction. That matters because (as you point out) if the CAS fails you need to all the function again ... and again ... until it succeeds. BTW, that behavior is part of the spec, not just an implementation detail; see the superclass javadocs

– Stephen C
Nov 15 '18 at 7:05







Hmmm ... sort of. "The overall effects are atomic" is conditional on a sensible implementation of the BiFunction. That matters because (as you point out) if the CAS fails you need to all the function again ... and again ... until it succeeds. BTW, that behavior is part of the spec, not just an implementation detail; see the superclass javadocs

– Stephen C
Nov 15 '18 at 7:05






















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53310936%2fis-concurrentskiplistmap-compute-safe-for-relative-updates%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Image
Subprefecture and commune in Nouvelle-Aquitaine, France Bressuire Subprefecture and commune Chateau de Bressuire and the Eglise Notre-Dame Coat of arms Location of Bressuire Bressuire Show map of France Bressuire Show map of Nouvelle-Aquitaine Coordinates: 46°50′27″N 0°29′14″W  /  46.8408°N 0.4872°W  / 46.8408; -0.4872 Coordinates: 46°50′27″N 0°29′14″W  /  46.8408°N 0.4872°W  / 46.8408; -0.4872 Country France Region Nouvelle-Aquitaine Department Deux-Sèvres Arrondissement Bressuire Canton Bressuire Government  • Mayor .mw-parser-output .nobold{font-weight:normal} (2014–20) Jean Michel Bernier Area 1 180.59 km 2 (69.73 sq mi) Population (2014) 2 19,300  • Density 110/km 2 (280/sq mi) Time zone UTC+01:00 (CET)  • Summer (DST) UTC+02:00 (CEST) INSEE/Postal code 79049 /79300 Elevation 98–236 m (322–774 ft) (avg. 173 m or 568 ft) 1 French Land Register data, which exclude
Read more

Vorschmack

Image
Vorschmack Ukrainian Jewish-style vorschmack served on rye bread Course Hors d'oeuvre Region or state Eastern Europe Associated national cuisine Ashkenazi Jewish, Finnish, German, Ukrainian, Polish, Russian Main ingredients Ground meat and/or fish Cookbook: Vorschmack   Media: Vorschmack Vorschmack or forshmak (Yiddish: פֿאָרשמאַק ‎, from archaic German Vorschmack , "foretaste" [1] or "appetizer" [2] ) is an originally East European dish made of salty minced fish or meat. Different variants of this dish are especially common in Ashkenazi Jewish and Finnish cuisine. Some varieties are also known in Russian and Polish cuisine. Contents 1 In Jewish cuisine 2 In Russian cuisine 3 In Polish cuisine 4 In Finnish cuisine 5 See also 6 References In Jewish cuisine According to Gil Marks, the German name points to the possible Germanic origin of this dish. [1] William Pokhlyobkin descr
Read more

Quarantine

Image
For other uses, see Quarantine (disambiguation). Signal flag "Lima" called the "Yellow Jack" which when flown in harbor means ship is under quarantine. A simple yellow flag (also called the "Yellow Jack") had historically been used to signal quarantine (it stands for Q among signal flags), but now indicates the opposite, as a signal of a ship free of disease that requests boarding and inspection. A quarantine is used to separate and restrict the movement of people; it is 'a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests', for a certain period of time. [1] This is often used in connection to disease and illness, such as those who may possibly have been exposed to a communicable disease. [2] The term is often erroneously used to mean medical isolation, which is "to separate ill persons who have a communicable disease from those who are healthy
Read more