The question is rather easy, in a way. Suppose I have this class:
static class Singleton {
}
And I want to provide a singleton factory for it. I can do the (probably) obvious. I am not going to mention the enum possibility or any other, as they are of no interest to me.
static final class SingletonFactory {
private static volatile Singleton singleton;
public static Singleton getSingleton() {
if (singleton == null) { // volatile read
synchronized (SingletonFactory.class) {
if (singleton == null) { // volatile read
singleton = new Singleton(); // volatile write
}
}
}
return singleton; // volatile read
}
}
I can get away from one volatile read with the price of higher code complexity:
public static Singleton improvedGetSingleton() {
Singleton local = singleton; // volatile read
if (local == null) {
synchronized (SingletonFactory.class) {
local = singleton; // volatile read
if (local == null) {
local = new Singleton();
singleton = local; // volatile write
}
}
}
return local; // NON volatile read
}
This is pretty much what our code has been using for close to a decade now.
The question is can I make this even faster with release/acquire semantics added in java-9 via VarHandle:
static final class SingletonFactory {
private static final SingletonFactory FACTORY = new SingletonFactory();
private Singleton singleton;
private static final VarHandle VAR_HANDLE;
static {
try {
VAR_HANDLE = MethodHandles.lookup().findVarHandle(SingletonFactory.class, "singleton", Singleton.class);
} catch (Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
private static Singleton getInnerSingleton() {
Singleton localSingleton = (Singleton) VAR_HANDLE.getAcquire(FACTORY); // acquire
if (localSingleton == null) {
synchronized (SingletonFactory.class) {
localSingleton = (Singleton) VAR_HANDLE.getAcquire(FACTORY); // acquire
if (localSingleton == null) {
localSingleton = new Singleton();
VAR_HANDLE.setRelease(FACTORY, localSingleton); // release
}
}
}
return localSingleton;
}
}
Would this be a valid and correct implementation?
Yes, this is correct, and it is present on Wikipedia. (It doesn't matter that the field is volatile, since it is only ever accessed from VarHandle.)
If the first read sees a stale value, it enters the synchronized block. Since synchronized blocks involve happen-before relationships, the second read will always see the written value. Even on Wikipedia it says sequential consistency is lost, but it refers to the fields; synchronized blocks are sequentially consistent, even though they use release-acquire semantics.
So the second null check will never succeed, and the object is never instantiated twice.
It is guaranteed that the second read will see the written value, because it is executed with the same lock held as when the value was computed and stored in the variable.
On x86 all loads have acquire semantics, so the only overhead would be the null check. Release-acquire allows values to be seen eventually (that's why the relevant method was called lazySet before Java 9, and its Javadoc used that exact same word). This is prevented in this scenario by the synchronized block.
Instructions may not be reordered out and into synchronized blocks.