Java ReentrantReadWriteLocks - how to safely acquire write lock when in a read lock?

I am using in my code at the moment a ReentrantReadWriteLock to synchronize access over a tree-like structure. This structure is large, and read by many threads at once with occasional modifications to small parts of it - so it seems to fit the read-write idiom well. I understand that with this particular class, one cannot elevate a read lock to a write lock, so as per the Javadocs one must release the read lock before obtaining the write lock. I've used this pattern successfully in non-reentrant contexts before.

What I'm finding however is that I cannot reliably acquire the write lock without blocking forever. Since the read lock is reentrant and I am actually using it as such, the simple code

lock.getReadLock().unlock();
lock.getWriteLock().lock()

can block if I have acquired the readlock reentrantly. Each call to unlock just reduces the hold count, and the lock is only actually released when the hold count hits zero.

EDIT to clarify this, as I don't think I explained it too well initially - I am aware that there is no built-in lock escalation in this class, and that I have to simply release the read lock and obtain the write lock. My problem is/was that regardless of what other threads are doing, calling getReadLock().unlock() may not actually release this thread's hold on the lock if it acquired it reentrantly, in which case the call to getWriteLock().lock() will block forever as this thread still has a hold on the read lock and thus blocks itself.

For example, this code snippet will never reach the println statement, even when run singlethreaded with no other threads accessing the lock:

final ReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
lock.getReadLock().lock();

// In real code we would go call other methods that end up calling back and
// thus locking again
lock.getReadLock().lock();

// Now we do some stuff and realise we need to write so try to escalate the
// lock as per the Javadocs and the above description
lock.getReadLock().unlock(); // Does not actually release the lock
lock.getWriteLock().lock();  // Blocks as some thread (this one!) holds read lock

System.out.println("Will never get here");

So I ask, is there a nice idiom to handle this situation? Specifically, when a thread that holds a read lock (possibly reentrantly) discovers that it needs to do some writing, and thus wants to "suspend" its own read lock in order to pick up the write lock (blocking as required on other threads to release their holds on the read lock), and then "pick up" its hold on the read lock in the same state afterwards?

Since this ReadWriteLock implementation was specifically designed to be reentrant, surely there is some sensible way to elevate a read lock to a write lock when the locks may be acquired reentrantly? This is the critical part that means the naive approach does not work.

Solution 1:

This is an old question, but here's both a solution to the problem, and some background information.

As others have pointed out, a classic readers-writer lock (like the JDK ReentrantReadWriteLock) inherently does not support upgrading a read lock to a write lock, because doing so is susceptible to deadlock.

If you need to safely acquire a write lock without first releasing a read lock, there is a however a better alternative: take a look at a read-write-update lock instead.

I've written a ReentrantReadWrite_Update_Lock, and released it as open source under an Apache 2.0 license here. I also posted details of the approach to the JSR166 concurrency-interest mailing list, and the approach survived some back and forth scrutiny by members on that list.

The approach is pretty simple, and as I mentioned on concurrency-interest, the idea is not entirely new as it was discussed on the Linux kernel mailing list at least as far back as the year 2000. Also the .Net platform's ReaderWriterLockSlim supports lock upgrade also. So effectively this concept had simply not been implemented on Java (AFAICT) until now.

The idea is to provide an update lock in addition to the read lock and the write lock. An update lock is an intermediate type of lock between a read lock and a write lock. Like the write lock, only one thread can acquire an update lock at a time. But like a read lock, it allows read access to the thread which holds it, and concurrently to other threads which hold regular read locks. The key feature is that the update lock can be upgraded from its read-only status, to a write lock, and this is not susceptible to deadlock because only one thread can hold an update lock and be in a position to upgrade at a time.

This supports lock upgrade, and furthermore it is more efficient than a conventional readers-writer lock in applications with read-before-write access patterns, because it blocks reading threads for shorter periods of time.

Example usage is provided on the site. The library has 100% test coverage and is in Maven central.

Solution 2:

I have made a little progress on this. By declaring the lock variable explicitly as a ReentrantReadWriteLock instead of simply a ReadWriteLock (less than ideal, but probably a necessary evil in this case) I can call the getReadHoldCount() method. This lets me obtain the number of holds for the current thread, and thus I can release the readlock this many times (and reacquire it the same number afterwards). So this works, as shown by a quick-and-dirty test:

final int holdCount = lock.getReadHoldCount();
for (int i = 0; i < holdCount; i++) {
   lock.readLock().unlock();
}
lock.writeLock().lock();
try {
   // Perform modifications
} finally {
   // Downgrade by reacquiring read lock before releasing write lock
   for (int i = 0; i < holdCount; i++) {
      lock.readLock().lock();
   }
   lock.writeLock().unlock();
}

Still, is this going to be the best I can do? It doesn't feel very elegant, and I'm still hoping that there's a way to handle this in a less "manual" fashion.

Solution 3:

What you want to do ought to be possible. The problem is that Java does not provide an implementation that can upgrade read locks to write locks. Specifically, the javadoc ReentrantReadWriteLock says it does not allow an upgrade from read lock to write lock.

In any case, Jakob Jenkov describes how to implement it. See http://tutorials.jenkov.com/java-concurrency/read-write-locks.html#upgrade for details.

Why Upgrading Read to Write Locks Is Needed

An upgrade from read to write lock is valid (despite the assertions to the contrary in other answers). A deadlock can occur, and so part of the implementation is code to recognize deadlocks and break them by throwing an exception in a thread to break the deadlock. That means that as part of your transaction, you must handle the DeadlockException, e.g., by doing the work over again. A typical pattern is:

boolean repeat;
do {
  repeat = false;
  try {
   readSomeStuff();
   writeSomeStuff();
   maybeReadSomeMoreStuff();
  } catch (DeadlockException) {
   repeat = true;
  }
} while (repeat);

Without this ability, the only way to implement a serializable transaction that reads a bunch of data consistently and then writes something based on what was read is to anticipate that writing will be necessary before you begin, and therefore obtain WRITE locks on all data that are read before writing what needs to be written. This is a KLUDGE that Oracle uses (SELECT FOR UPDATE ...). Furthermore, it actually reduces concurrency because nobody else can read or write any of the data while the transaction is running!

In particular, releasing the read lock before obtaining the write lock will produce inconsistent results. Consider:

int x = someMethod();
y.writeLock().lock();
y.setValue(x);
y.writeLock().unlock();

You have to know whether someMethod(), or any method it calls, creates a reentrant read lock on y! Suppose you know it does. Then if you release the read lock first:

int x = someMethod();
y.readLock().unlock();
// problem here!
y.writeLock().lock();
y.setValue(x);
y.writeLock().unlock();

another thread may change y after you release its read lock, and before you obtain the write lock on it. So y's value will not be equal to x.

Test Code: Upgrading a read lock to a write lock blocks:

import java.util.*;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.*;

public class UpgradeTest {

    public static void main(String[] args) 
    {   
        System.out.println("read to write test");
        ReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();

        lock.readLock().lock(); // get our own read lock
        lock.writeLock().lock(); // upgrade to write lock
        System.out.println("passed");
    }

}

Output using Java 1.6:

read to write test
<blocks indefinitely>

Solution 4:

What you are trying to do is simply not possible this way.

You cannot have a read/write lock that you can upgrade from read to write without problems. Example:

void test() {
    lock.readLock().lock();
    ...
    if ( ... ) {
        lock.writeLock.lock();
        ...
        lock.writeLock.unlock();
    }
    lock.readLock().unlock();
}

Now suppose, two threads would enter that function. (And you are assuming concurrency, right? Otherwise you would not care about locks in the first place....)

Assume both threads would start at the same time and run equally fast. That would mean, both would acquire a read lock, which is perfectly legal. However, then both would eventually try to acquire the write lock, which NONE of them will ever get: The respective other threads hold a read lock!

Locks that allow upgrading of read locks to write locks are prone to deadlocks by definition. Sorry, but you need to modify your approach.

Solution 5:

Java 8 now has a java.util.concurrent.locks.StampedLock with a tryConvertToWriteLock(long) API

More info at http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue215.html