| {@code Lock} implementations provide more extensive locking
operations than can be obtained using {@code synchronized} methods
and statements. They allow more flexible structuring, may have
quite different properties, and may support multiple associated
{@link Condition} objects.
A lock is a tool for controlling access to a shared resource by
multiple threads. Commonly, a lock provides exclusive access to a
shared resource: only one thread at a time can acquire the lock and
all access to the shared resource requires that the lock be
acquired first. However, some locks may allow concurrent access to
a shared resource, such as the read lock of a {@link ReadWriteLock}.
The use of {@code synchronized} methods or statements provides
access to the implicit monitor lock associated with every object, but
forces all lock acquisition and release to occur in a block-structured way:
when multiple locks are acquired they must be released in the opposite
order, and all locks must be released in the same lexical scope in which
they were acquired.
While the scoping mechanism for {@code synchronized} methods
and statements makes it much easier to program with monitor locks,
and helps avoid many common programming errors involving locks,
there are occasions where you need to work with locks in a more
flexible way. For example, some algorithms for traversing
concurrently accessed data structures require the use of
"hand-over-hand" or "chain locking": you
acquire the lock of node A, then node B, then release A and acquire
C, then release B and acquire D and so on. Implementations of the
{@code Lock} interface enable the use of such techniques by
allowing a lock to be acquired and released in different scopes,
and allowing multiple locks to be acquired and released in any
order.
With this increased flexibility comes additional
responsibility. The absence of block-structured locking removes the
automatic release of locks that occurs with {@code synchronized}
methods and statements. In most cases, the following idiom
should be used:
Lock l = ...;
l.lock();
try {
// access the resource protected by this lock
} finally {
l.unlock();
}
When locking and unlocking occur in different scopes, care must be
taken to ensure that all code that is executed while the lock is
held is protected by try-finally or try-catch to ensure that the
lock is released when necessary.
{@code Lock} implementations provide additional functionality
over the use of {@code synchronized} methods and statements by
providing a non-blocking attempt to acquire a lock ({@link
#tryLock()}), an attempt to acquire the lock that can be
interrupted ({@link #lockInterruptibly}, and an attempt to acquire
the lock that can timeout ({@link #tryLock(long, TimeUnit)}).
A {@code Lock} class can also provide behavior and semantics
that is quite different from that of the implicit monitor lock,
such as guaranteed ordering, non-reentrant usage, or deadlock
detection. If an implementation provides such specialized semantics
then the implementation must document those semantics.
Note that {@code Lock} instances are just normal objects and can
themselves be used as the target in a {@code synchronized} statement.
Acquiring the
monitor lock of a {@code Lock} instance has no specified relationship
with invoking any of the {@link #lock} methods of that instance.
It is recommended that to avoid confusion you never use {@code Lock}
instances in this way, except within their own implementation.
Except where noted, passing a {@code null} value for any
parameter will result in a {@link NullPointerException} being
thrown.
Memory Synchronization
All {@code Lock} implementations must enforce the same
memory synchronization semantics as provided by the built-in monitor
lock, as described in
The Java Language Specification, Third Edition (17.4 Memory Model):
- A successful {@code lock} operation has the same memory
synchronization effects as a successful Lock action.
- A successful {@code unlock} operation has the same
memory synchronization effects as a successful Unlock action.
Unsuccessful locking and unlocking operations, and reentrant
locking/unlocking operations, do not require any memory
synchronization effects.
Implementation Considerations
The three forms of lock acquisition (interruptible,
non-interruptible, and timed) may differ in their performance
characteristics, ordering guarantees, or other implementation
qualities. Further, the ability to interrupt the ongoing
acquisition of a lock may not be available in a given {@code Lock}
class. Consequently, an implementation is not required to define
exactly the same guarantees or semantics for all three forms of
lock acquisition, nor is it required to support interruption of an
ongoing lock acquisition. An implementation is required to clearly
document the semantics and guarantees provided by each of the
locking methods. It must also obey the interruption semantics as
defined in this interface, to the extent that interruption of lock
acquisition is supported: which is either totally, or only on
method entry.
As interruption generally implies cancellation, and checks for
interruption are often infrequent, an implementation can favor responding
to an interrupt over normal method return. This is true even if it can be
shown that the interrupt occurred after another action may have unblocked
the thread. An implementation should document this behavior. | 