7
\$\begingroup\$

This is a simple non-fair semaphore implementation using Java atomic objects. It currently performs a little over twice as fast as java.util.concurrent.Semaphore on my simple test.

The busy-wait loop in acquire() calls the Runnable specified during construction, so that users can provide their own custom back-off strategy (such as looping for X iterations and then yielding, etc.)

I do not perform any checks on the parameters because I assume the users will not try to acquire 10 permits from a 1 permit instance.

Semaphore.java:

package cr.lockfree;

import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;

/**
 * Non-fair lock-free Semaphore with customizable back-off strategy for high
 * contention scenarios.
 * 
 * @author user2296177
 * @version 1.0
 * 
 */
public class Semaphore {
    /**
     * Default back-off strategy to prevent busy-wait loop. Calls
     * Thread.sleep(0, 1);. Has better performance and lower CPU usage than
     * Thread.yield() inside busy-wait loop.
     */
    private static Runnable defaultBackoffStrategy = () -> {
        try {
            Thread.sleep( 0, 1 );
        } catch ( InterruptedException e ) {
            e.printStackTrace();
        }
    };

    private AtomicInteger permitCount;
    private final Runnable backoffStrategy;

    /**
     * Construct a Semaphore instance with maxPermitCount permits and the
     * default back-off strategy.
     * 
     * @param maxPermitCount
     *            Maximum number of permits that can be distributed.
     */
    public Semaphore( final int maxPermitCount ) {
        this( maxPermitCount, defaultBackoffStrategy );
    }

    /**
     * Construct a Semaphore instance with maxPermitCount permits and a custom
     * Runnable to run a back-off strategy during contention.
     * 
     * @param maxPermitCount
     *            Maximum number of permits that can be distributed.
     * @param backoffStrategy
     *            Runnable back-off strategy to run during high contention.
     */
    public Semaphore( final int maxPermitCount, final Runnable backoffStrategy ) {
        permitCount = new AtomicInteger( maxPermitCount );
        this.backoffStrategy = backoffStrategy;
    }

    /**
     * Attempt to acquire one permit and immediately return.
     * 
     * @return true : acquired one permits.<br>
     *         false: did not acquire one permit.
     */
    public boolean tryAcquire() {
        return tryAcquire( 1 );
    }

    /**
     * Attempt to acquire n permits and immediately return.
     * 
     * @param n
     *            Number of permits to acquire.
     * @return true : acquired n permits.<br>
     *         false: did not acquire n permits.
     */
    public boolean tryAcquire( final int n ) {
        return tryDecrementPermitCount( n );
    }

    /**
     * Acquire one permit.
     */
    public void acquire() {
        acquire( 1 );
    }

    /**
     * Acquire n permits.
     * 
     * @param n
     *            Number of permits to acquire.
     */
    public void acquire( final int n ) {
        while ( !tryDecrementPermitCount( n ) ) {
            backoffStrategy.run();
        }
    }

    /**
     * Release one permit.
     */
    public void release() {
        release( 1 );
    }

    /**
     * Release n permits.
     * 
     * @param n
     *            Number of permits to release.
     */
    public void release( final int n ) {
        permitCount.addAndGet( n );
    }

    /**
     * Try decrementing the current number of permits by n.
     * 
     * @param n
     *            The number to decrement the number of permits.
     * @return true : the number of permits was decremented by n.<br>
     *         false: decrementing the number of permits results in a negative
     *         value or zero.
     */
    private boolean tryDecrementPermitCount( final int n ) {
        int oldPermitCount;
        int newPermitCount;
        do {
            oldPermitCount = permitCount.get();
            newPermitCount = oldPermitCount - n;
            if ( newPermitCount > n ) throw new ArithmeticException( "Overflow" );
            if ( oldPermitCount == 0 || newPermitCount < 0 ) return false;
        } while ( !permitCount.compareAndSet( oldPermitCount, newPermitCount ) );
        return true;
    }
}
\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

Negative permit count check

In tryDecrementPermitCount(), I think this check:

        if ( oldPermitCount == 0 || newPermitCount < 0 ) return false;

should just be:

        if ( newPermitCount < 0 ) return false;

The original if statement confused me because both sides of the || are essentially checking the same thing.

Also, the comment for the function says that it will return false if the permitCount reaches zero, but that isn't true. It will only return false if the permitCount would become negative (after you fix the above problem).

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ I don't see how the check causes a bug, but I do now see that it is an additional and useless check. Thanks for the review. \$\endgroup\$ – user2296177 Nov 1 '15 at 17:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ @user2296177 You're right, I misread the || as a &&, probably because the if statement confused me. I updated my answer. \$\endgroup\$ – JS1 Nov 1 '15 at 21:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.