Further Java Practical Class

Further Java Ticklet 3*


Table of Contents

Submission

In order to gain a star in the mark sheet you must complete this exercise. Completing the exercise does not gain you any credit in the examination. In Workbook 3 you wrote SafeMessageQueue, a queue which permitted concurrent access by multiple producers and consumers. In your implementation, each producer and consumer obtained a lock on the SafeMessageQueue object before adding or removing items from the queue. When there are more than 2 items in the queue, it's possible for the producers and consumers to work truly concurrently since they should not interfere with one another, but this requires careful use of two locks: one on the first element of the linked list and one on the last. It turns out that, since Java supports an atomic compare-and-set instruction, you can even write a safe implementation with no locks! In this exercise you will provide a two lock and a no lock implementation of a variant of the MessageQueue interface.

A two lock version of SafeMessageQueue cannot use the wait-notify paradigm, since the wait-notify paradigm requires any producer or consumer to acquire a single shared lock in Java. (Recall that you must call the wait and notify methods inside a synchronized statement in Java otherwise the JVM will throw a java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException at runtime.) As a consequence you will need to support the following non-blocking API:

package uk.ac.cam.crsid.fjava.tick3star;

public interface ConcurrentQueue<T> {
	public void offer(T message); //Add "message" to queue
	public T poll();              //Return first item from queue or null if empty
}

It turns out that fine-grained locking strategies and no-locking strategies are very hard to get right, therefore you should base your implementations on the pseudocode in the paper Simple, Fast, and Practical Non-Blocking and Blocking Concurrent Queue Algorithms by Maged M. Michael and Michael L. Scott[1]. This paper is written for languages which do not have a garbage collector (e.g. C or C++) and therefore there are a couple of points in the paper which you can ignore. Firstly, any reference to free in the paper can be safely ignored since the JVM will garbage collect unused memory on your behalf. Secondly, the function called CAS in the paper (an atomic compare-and-set operator) takes four arguments:

CAS(a,b,c,d)

which means set a to c iff a equals b. (The argument d is used for version counting, and is not necessary in your implementation since Java has a garbage collector.) In your Java implementation you should use the class java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference. You can create a new instance as follows:

AtomicReference ar = new AtomicReference(a);

You can then do the equivalent of the CAS function as follows:

ar.compareAndSet(b,c)

which updates ar to point to c iff a equals b.

Submission

Please put the source code and byte code of ConcurrentQueue, OneLockConcurrentQueue, TwoLockConcurrentQueue, NoLockConcurrentQueue and ConcurrentQueueTest together with any other classes you wrote to support your application into a jar file called crsid-tick3star.jar. Please email the jar file to ticks1b-java@cl.cam.ac.uk. You should receive a response via email within an hour. If you do not, please send an email to ticks1b-admin@cl.cam.ac.uk.



Copyright Alastair R. Beresford and Andrew C. Rice 2008,2009