| /* | |
| * DO NOT ALTER OR REMOVE COPYRIGHT NOTICES OR THIS FILE HEADER. | |
| * | |
| * This code is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it | |
| * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 only, as | |
| * published by the Free Software Foundation. Oracle designates this | |
| * particular file as subject to the "Classpath" exception as provided | |
| * by Oracle in the LICENSE file that accompanied this code. | |
| * | |
| * This code is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT | |
| * ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or | |
| * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License | |
| * version 2 for more details (a copy is included in the LICENSE file that | |
| * accompanied this code). | |
| * | |
| * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License version | |
| * 2 along with this work; if not, write to the Free Software Foundation, | |
| * Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301 USA. | |
| * | |
| * Please contact Oracle, 500 Oracle Parkway, Redwood Shores, CA 94065 USA | |
| * or visit www.oracle.com if you need additional information or have any | |
| * questions. | |
| */ | |
| /* | |
| * This file is available under and governed by the GNU General Public | |
| * License version 2 only, as published by the Free Software Foundation. | |
| * However, the following notice accompanied the original version of this | |
| * file: | |
| * | |
| * 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/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ | |
| */ | |
| package java.util.concurrent.locks; | |
| /** | |
| * A {@code ReadWriteLock} maintains a pair of associated {@link | |
| * Lock locks}, one for read-only operations and one for writing. | |
| * The {@linkplain #readLock read lock} may be held simultaneously | |
| * by multiple reader threads, so long as there are no writers. | |
| * The {@linkplain #writeLock write lock} is exclusive. | |
| * | |
| * <p>All {@code ReadWriteLock} implementations must guarantee that | |
| * the memory synchronization effects of {@code writeLock} operations | |
| * (as specified in the {@link Lock} interface) also hold with respect | |
| * to the associated {@code readLock}. 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(); | |
| } |