After we introduced locked thread detection to Plumbr couple of months ago, we have started to receive queries similar to “hey, great, now I understand what is causing my performance issues, but what I am supposed to do now?”

We are working hard to build the solution instructions into our own product, but in this post I am going to share several common techniques you can apply independent of the tool used for detecting the lock. The methods include lock splitting, concurrent data structures, protecting the data instead of the code and lock scope reduction.

Locking is not evil, lock contention is

Whenever you face a performance  problem with the threaded code there is a chance that you will start blaming locks. After all, common “knowledge” is that locks are slow and limit scalability. So if you are equipped with this “knowledge” and start to optimize the code and getting rid of locks there is a chance that you end up introducing nasty concurrency bugs that will surface later on.

So it is important to understand the difference between contended and uncontended locks. Lock contention occurs when a thread is trying to enter the synchronized block/method currently executed by another thread. This second thread is now forced to wait until the first thread has completed executing the synchronized block and releases the monitor. When only one thread at a time is trying to execute the synchronized code, the lock stays uncontended.

As a matter of fact, synchronization in JVM is optimized for the uncontended case and for the vast majority of the applications, uncontended locks pose next to no overhead during execution. So, it is not locks you should blame for performance, but contended locks. Equipped with this knowledge, lets see what we can do to reduce either the likelihood of contention or the length of the contention.

Protect the data not the code

A quick way to achieve thread-safety is to lock access to the whole method. For example, take look at the following example, illustrating a naive attempt to build an online poker server:

01.class GameServer {
02.public Map<<String, List<Player>> tables = new HashMap<String, List<Player>>();
03. 
04. 
05. 
06. 
07.public synchronized void join(Player player, Table table) {
08.if (player.getAccountBalance() > table.getLimit()) {
09.List<Player> tablePlayers = tables.get(table.getId());
10.if (tablePlayers.size() < 9) {
11.tablePlayers.add(player);
12.}
13.}
14.}
15.public synchronized void leave(Player player, Table table) {/*body skipped for brevity*/}
16.public synchronized void createTable() {/*body skipped for brevity*/}
17.public synchronized void destroyTable(Table table) {/*body skipped for brevity*/}
18.}

The intentions of the author have been good - when new players join() the table, there must be a guarantee that the number of players seated at the table would not exceed the table capacity of nine.

But whenever such a solution would actually be responsible for seating players to tables - even on a poker site with moderate traffic, the system would be doomed to constantly trigger contention events by threads waiting for the lock to be released. Locked block contains account balance and table limit checks which potentially can involve expensive operations both increasing the likelihood and length of the contention.

First step towards solution would be making sure we are protecting the data, not the code by moving the synchronization from the method declaration to the method body. In the minimalistic example above, it might not change much at the first place. But lets consider the whole GameServerinterface, not just the single join() method:

01.class GameServer {
02.public Map<String, List<Player>> tables = new HashMap<String, List<Player>>();
03. 
04. 
05. 
06. 
07.public void join(Player player, Table table) {
08.synchronized (tables) {
09.if (player.getAccountBalance() > table.getLimit()) {
10.List<Player> tablePlayers = tables.get(table.getId());
11.if (tablePlayers.size() < 9) {
12.tablePlayers.add(player);
13.}
14.}
15.}
16.}
17.public void leave(Player player, Table table) {/* body skipped for brevity */}
18.public void createTable() {/* body skipped for brevity */}
19.public void destroyTable(Table table) {/* body skipped for brevity */}
20.}

What originally seemed to be a minor change, now affects the behaviour of the whole class. Whenever players were joining tables, the previously synchronized methods locked on theGameServer instance (this) and introduced contention events to players trying to simultaneouslyleave() tables. Moving the lock from the method signature to the method body postpones the locking and reduces the contention likelihood.

Reduce the lock scope

Now, after making sure it is the data we actually protect, not the code, we should make sure our solution is locking only what is necessary - for example when the code above is rewritten as follows:

01.public class GameServer {
02.public Map<String, List<Player>> tables = new HashMap<String, List<Player>>();
03. 
04. 
05. 
06. 
07.public void join(Player player, Table table) {
08.if (player.getAccountBalance() > table.getLimit()) {
09.synchronized (tables) {
10.List<Player> tablePlayers = tables.get(table.getId());
11.if (tablePlayers.size() < 9) {
12.tablePlayers.add(player);
13.}
14.}
15.}
16.}
17.//other methods skipped for brevity
18.}

then the potentially time-consuming operation of checking player account balance (which potentially can involve IO operations) is now outside the lock scope. Notice that the lock was introduced only to protect against exceeding the table capacity and the  account balance check is not anyhow part of this protective measure.

Split your locks

When we look at the last code example, you can clearly notice that the whole data structure is protected by the same lock. Considering that we might hold thousands of poker tables in this structure, it still poses a high risk for contention events  as we have to protect each table separately from overflowing in capacity.

For this there is an easy way to introduce individual locks per table, such as in the following example:

01.public class GameServer {
02.public Map<String, List<Player>> tables = new HashMap<String, List<Player>>();
03. 
04. 
05. 
06. 
07.public void join(Player player, Table table) {
08.if (player.getAccountBalance() > table.getLimit()) {
09.List<Player> tablePlayers = tables.get(table.getId());
10.synchronized (tablePlayers) {
11.if (tablePlayers.size() < 9) {
12.tablePlayers.add(player);
13.}
14.}
15.}
16.}
17.//other methods skipped for brevity
18.}

Now, if we synchronize the access only to the same table instead of all the tables, we have significantly reduced the likelihood of locks becoming contended. Having for example 100 tables in our data structure, the likelihood of the contention is now 100x smaller than before.

Use concurrent data structures

Another improvement is to drop the traditional single-threaded data structures and use data structures designed explicitly for concurrent usage. For example, when picking ConcurrentHashMapto store all your poker tables would result in code similar to following:

01.public class GameServer {
02.public Map<String, List<Player>> tables = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, List<Player>>();
03. 
04. 
05. 
06. 
07.public synchronized void join(Player player, Table table) {/*Method body skipped for brevity*/}
08.public synchronized void leave(Player player, Table table) {/*Method body skipped for brevity*/}
09. 
10. 
11. 
12. 
13.public synchronized void createTable() {
14.Table table = new Table();
15.tables.put(table.getId(), table);
16.}
17. 
18. 
19. 
20. 
21.public synchronized void destroyTable(Table table) {
22.tables.remove(table.getId());
23.}
24.}

The synchronization in join() and leave() methods is still behaving as in our previous example, as we need to protect the integrity of individual tables. So no help from ConcurrentHashMap in this regards. But as we are also creating new tables and destroying tables in createTable() and destroyTable()methods, all these operations to the ConcurrentHashMap are fully concurrent, permitting to increase or reduce the number of tables in parallel.

Other tips and tricks

  • Reduce the visibility of the lock. In the example above, the locks are declared public and are thus visible to the world, so there is there is a chance that someone else will ruin your work by also locking on your carefully picked monitors.
  • Check out java.util.concurrent.locks to see whether any of the locking strategies implemented there will improve the solution.
  • Use atomic operations. The simple counter increase we are actually conducting in example above does not actually require a lock. Replacing the Integer in count tracking withAtomicInteger would most suit this example just fine.

Hope the article helped you to solve the lock contention issues, independent of whether you are using Plumbr automatic lock detection solutionor manually extracting the information from thread dumps.

reference from:

http://java.dzone.com/articles/improving-lock-performance

Improving Lock Performance in Java--reference的更多相关文章

  1. What Influences Method Call Performance in Java?--reference

    reference from:https://www.voxxed.com/blog/2015/02/too-fast-too-megamorphic-what-influences-method-c ...

  2. Java Reference 源码分析

    @(Java)[Reference] Java Reference 源码分析 Reference对象封装了其它对象的引用,可以和普通的对象一样操作,在一定的限制条件下,支持和垃圾收集器的交互.即可以使 ...

  3. java Reference

    相关讲解,参考: Java Reference 源码分析 Java Reference详解 Reference: // 名称说明下:Reference指代引用对象本身,Referent指代被引用对象 ...

  4. Java Reference & ReferenceQueue一览

    Overview The java.lang.ref package provides more flexible types of references than are otherwise ava ...

  5. Java Reference核心原理分析

    本文转载自Java Reference核心原理分析 导语 带着问题,看源码针对性会更强一点.印象会更深刻.并且效果也会更好.所以我先卖个关子,提两个问题(没准下次跳槽时就被问到). 我们可以用Byte ...

  6. Java Reference简要概述

    @(Java)[Reference] Java Reference简要概述 Reference对象封装了其它对象的引用,可以和普通的对象一样操作. Java提供了四种不同类型的引用,引用级别从高到低分 ...

  7. Monitor and diagnose performance in Java SE 6--转载

    Java SE 6 provides an in-depth focus on performance, offering expanded tools for managing and monito ...

  8. CLH lock 原理及JAVA实现

    --喜欢记得关注我哟[shoshana]--​ 前记 JUC中的Lock中最核心的类AQS,其中AQS使用到了CLH队列的变种,故来研究一下CLH队列的原理及JAVA实现 一. CLH背景知识 SMP ...

  9. Implementing the skip list data structure in java --reference

    reference:http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~cheung/Courses/323/Syllabus/Map/skip-list-impl.html The link ...

随机推荐

  1. 【HDOJ】4400 Mines

    (1) KD树,但实际没有STL快,3000+ /* 4400 */ #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <ma ...

  2. 同一客户代码下一个CPN对应多个FG会出现CPN描述一样的问题

    Q&A : D2E01客户下已经存在CPN: TP1062/A 对应FG: P5M2812512AFHHF0 直接在客户代码下无法新建,只能在交叉信息新建CPN: TP1062/A, 但无法修 ...

  3. Hadoop MapReduce 二次排序原理及其应用

    关于二次排序主要涉及到这么几个东西: 在0.20.0 以前使用的是 setPartitionerClass setOutputkeyComparatorClass setOutputValueGrou ...

  4. .NET System.Timers.Timer的原理和使用(开发定时执行程序)

    概述(来自MSDN) Timer 组件是基于服务器的计时器,它使您能够指定在应用程序中引发Elapsed 事件的周期性间隔.然后可以操控此事件以提供定期处理.例如,假设您有一台关键性服务器,必须每周7 ...

  5. 操作系统杂谈 mac 和linux windows若干概念

    Mac: vmware 安装:1.方式一通过FreeBSD方式用 darwin.iso引导加载dmg安装 2.通过制作cdr /iso  vmware安装mac插件 mac有 macpe 使用open ...

  6. ruby2.2.2 源代码阅读笔记

    这是win32下的结构 从ruby_setup开始阅读 Ruby对象内存结构 RVALUE是一个union,内含ruby所有结构体(RBasic RObject RClass RFloat RStri ...

  7. Add controls dynamically in flowlayoutpanel

    For a FlowLayoutPanel, you don't need to specify a location since the controls are arranged for you. ...

  8. Tdxtreelist变色

    ACanvas.Font.Color := clRed;   //如果有加印的  变颜色

  9. ARM-Linux驱动-触摸屏驱动分析

    出处:http://blog.csdn.net/geekcome/article/details/6580981 硬件平台:FL2440 内核版本:2.6.28 主机平台:Ubuntu 11.04 内 ...

  10. 五指CMS开发日志(一)

    开发了这么长时间,基本功能已经具备了.分享一下后台的界面吧.