Hi Arhice,
First of all, I want to apologize if I may not have explained things clearly
since English is not my first language. I’m really sorry about that.
Even so, I deeply appreciate your response and taking the time to reply.
First, I would like to confirm whether my understanding is correct.
From what I know, ReentrantLock is based on AQS, and internally, threads are
queued by being linked as Node.
When ReentrantLock.newCondition is called, a ConditionObject is created. When
Condition::await is called, the thread waits based on a ConditionNode, and the
AQS head is replaced with AQS::signalNext, allowing the lock to be released. At
this point, I understand that the node disappears from the AQS queue and starts
waiting within the ConditionNode of the ConditionObject.
As a result, I understand that the waiting places for ReentrantLock and
Condition are different.
To summarize, when Condition::await() is called, the node that was previously
waiting in AQS receives the lock, disappears from the AQS queue, and starts
waiting within the ConditionNode of the ConditionObject.
Additionally, from what I understand, in Condition::doSignal, the first
ConditionNode is removed, and then AQS::enqueue adds it to the tail of AQS.
public class ConditionObject implements Condition, java.io.Serializable {
private void doSignal(ConditionNode first, boolean all) {
while (first != null) {
ConditionNode next = first.nextWaiter;
if ((firstWaiter = next) == null)
lastWaiter = null;
if ((first.getAndUnsetStatus(COND) & COND) != 0) {
enqueue(first);
if (!all)
break;
}
first = next;
}
}
When enqueue is called:
public abstract class AbstractQueuedSynchronizer
extends AbstractOwnableSynchronizer
/*
* Tail of the wait queue. After initialization, modified only via casTail.
*/
private transient volatile Node tail;
final void enqueue(Node node) {
if (node != null) {
for (;;) {
Node t = tail;
node.setPrevRelaxed(t); // avoid unnecessary fence
if (t == null) // initialize
tryInitializeHead();
else if (casTail(t, node)) {
t.next = node;
if (t.status < 0) // wake up to clean link
LockSupport.unpark(node.waiter);
break;
}
}
}
}
From my understanding, this attaches the node to the tail of AQS.
To elaborate further on the situation:
Threads T1 to T10 are waiting on Condition::await() because the queue is full.
(At this point, T1 to T10 are linked through ConditionNode.) [The AQS queue is
empty, while ConditionNode holds T1 to T10.]
T11 calls take() and holds the lock via lock.lockInterruptibly().
(Since no threads are waiting in the AQS queue, T11 will acquire the lock
immediately.)
[Now, AQS holds T11 at its head, and ConditionNode holds T1 to T10.]
T12 calls queue.put() and enters the wait queue for lock.lockInterruptibly().
(Since T11 is holding the lock with take(), T12 will be queued behind it in
AQS.)
[Now, AQS holds T11 and T12, while ConditionNode holds T1 to T10.]
T11 reduces the count and sends a signal, then releases the lock.
T1 receives the signal and moves to the lock queue. Since ReentrantLock is in
fair mode,
(When T11 sends the signal, T1, the first thread linked in ConditionNode, will
be enqueued via AQS::enqueue. Now, AQS holds T11, T12, and T1, while
ConditionNode holds T2 to T10.)
T11 releases the lock and wakes up T12.
[Now, AQS holds T12 and T1, while ConditionNode holds T2 to T10.]
T12 acquires the lock and proceeds to enqueue in ArrayBlockingQueue without
being blocked by while(count==length).
T12 releases the lock, and the next node in AQS is unparked.
[Now, AQS holds T1, while ConditionNode holds T2 to T10.]
T1, having reacquired the lock after Condition::await(), fails to exit the
while loop and waits again.
[Now, ConditionNode holds T1 and T2 to T10.]
This is how I currently understand the situation.
If there are any mistakes in my understanding, I would greatly appreciate your
clarification.
Best Regards,
Kim Minju
> 2024. 9. 8. 오전 3:34, Archie Cobbs <archie.co...@gmail.com> 작성:
>
> Hi Kim,
>
> On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 10:36 AM 김민주 <miiiinj...@gmail.com
> <mailto:miiiinj...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Here's a clearer outline of the scenario:
>>
>> Threads T1 to T10 are waiting on Condition::await() because the queue is
>> full.
>> T11 calls take() and holds the lock via lock.lockInterruptibly().
>> T12 calls queue.put() and enters the wait queue for
>> lock.lockInterruptibly(). (As I understand, the wait queue for ReentrantLock
>> and Condition are separate.)
>> T11 reduces the count and sends a signal, then releases the lock.
>> T1 receives the signal and moves to the lock queue. Since the ReentrantLock
>> is in fair mode, T12 (which was already waiting) gets priority, and T1 will
>> acquire the lock later.
>> T12 acquires the lock and successfully enqueues.
> From one reading of the Javadoc, your step #5 ("T12 gets priority") is not
> supposed to happen that way. Instead, one of T1 through T10 should be
> guaranteed to acquire the lock.
>
> Here it is again (from ReentrantLock.newCondition()):
>
>> The ordering of lock reacquisition for threads returning from waiting
>> methods is the same as for threads initially acquiring the lock, which is in
>> the default case not specified, but for fair locks favors those threads that
>> have been waiting the longest.
>
>
> But part of the problem here is that this documentation is ambiguous.
>
> The ambiguity is: are ALL threads trying to acquire the lock, whether on an
> initial attempt or after a condition wakeup, ordered for fairness together in
> one big pool? → In this case step #5 can't happen. Call this Interpretation A.
>
> Or is this merely saying that threads waiting on a condition reacquire the
> lock based on when they started waiting on the condition, but there are no
> ordering guarantees between those threads and any other unrelated threads
> trying to acquire the lock? → In this case step #5 can happen. Call this
> Interpretation B.
>
> So I think we first need to clarify which interpretation is correct here, A
> or B.
>
> On that point, Victor said this:
>
>> I've re-read ReentrantLock and AQS, and from my understanding on the logic
>> the Condition's place in the wait queue should be maintained, which means
>> that T3 shouldn't be able to "barge".
>
>
> So it sounds like Victor is confirming interpretation A. Victor do you agree?
>
> If so, then it seems like we need to do two things:
>
> 1. File a Jira ticket to clarify the Javadoc, e.g. to say something like this:
>
>> The ordering of lock reacquisition for threads returning from waiting
>> methods is the same as for threads initially acquiring the lock, which is in
>> the default case not specified, but for fair locks favors those threads that
>> have been waiting the longest. In the latter case, the ordering
>> consideration includes all threads attempting to acquire the lock,
>> regardless of whether or not they were previously blocked on the condition.
>
>
> 2. Understand why Kim's updated test case is still failing (it must be either
> a bug in the test or a bug in ArrayBlockingQueue).
>
> -Archie
>
> --
> Archie L. Cobbs
