condition.java
来自「JAVA的一些源码 JAVA2 STANDARD EDITION DEVELO」· Java 代码 · 共 441 行 · 第 1/2 页
JAVA
441 行
/* * @(#)Condition.java 1.5 04/07/12 * * Copyright 2004 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. * SUN PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL. Use is subject to license terms. */package java.util.concurrent.locks;import java.util.concurrent.*;import java.util.Date;/** * <tt>Condition</tt> factors out the <tt>Object</tt> monitor * methods ({@link Object#wait() wait}, {@link Object#notify notify} * and {@link Object#notifyAll notifyAll}) into distinct objects to * give the effect of having multiple wait-sets per object, by * combining them with the use of arbitrary {@link Lock} implementations. * Where a <tt>Lock</tt> replaces the use of <tt>synchronized</tt> methods * and statements, a <tt>Condition</tt> replaces the use of the Object * monitor methods. * * <p>Conditions (also known as <em>condition queues</em> or * <em>condition variables</em>) provide a means for one thread to * suspend execution (to "wait") until notified by another * thread that some state condition may now be true. Because access * to this shared state information occurs in different threads, it * must be protected, so a lock of some form is associated with the * condition. The key property that waiting for a condition provides * is that it <em>atomically</em> releases the associated lock and * suspends the current thread, just like <tt>Object.wait</tt>. * * <p>A <tt>Condition</tt> instance is intrinsically bound to a lock. * To obtain a <tt>Condition</tt> instance for a particular {@link Lock} * instance use its {@link Lock#newCondition newCondition()} method. * * <p>As an example, suppose we have a bounded buffer which supports * <tt>put</tt> and <tt>take</tt> methods. If a * <tt>take</tt> is attempted on an empty buffer, then the thread will block * until an item becomes available; if a <tt>put</tt> is attempted on a * full buffer, then the thread will block until a space becomes available. * We would like to keep waiting <tt>put</tt> threads and <tt>take</tt> * threads in separate wait-sets so that we can use the optimization of * only notifying a single thread at a time when items or spaces become * available in the buffer. This can be achieved using two * {@link Condition} instances. * <pre> * class BoundedBuffer { * <b>final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();</b> * final Condition notFull = <b>lock.newCondition(); </b> * final Condition notEmpty = <b>lock.newCondition(); </b> * * final Object[] items = new Object[100]; * int putptr, takeptr, count; * * public void put(Object x) throws InterruptedException { * <b>lock.lock(); * try {</b> * while (count == items.length) * <b>notFull.await();</b> * items[putptr] = x; * if (++putptr == items.length) putptr = 0; * ++count; * <b>notEmpty.signal();</b> * <b>} finally { * lock.unlock(); * }</b> * } * * public Object take() throws InterruptedException { * <b>lock.lock(); * try {</b> * while (count == 0) * <b>notEmpty.await();</b> * Object x = items[takeptr]; * if (++takeptr == items.length) takeptr = 0; * --count; * <b>notFull.signal();</b> * return x; * <b>} finally { * lock.unlock(); * }</b> * } * } * </pre> * * (The {@link java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue} class provides * this functionality, so there is no reason to implement this * sample usage class.) * * <p>A <tt>Condition</tt> implementation can provide behavior and semantics * that is * different from that of the <tt>Object</tt> monitor methods, such as * guaranteed ordering for notifications, or not requiring a lock to be held * when performing notifications. * If an implementation provides such specialized semantics then the * implementation must document those semantics. * * <p>Note that <tt>Condition</tt> instances are just normal objects and can * themselves be used as the target in a <tt>synchronized</tt> statement, * and can have their own monitor {@link Object#wait wait} and * {@link Object#notify notification} methods invoked. * Acquiring the monitor lock of a <tt>Condition</tt> instance, or using its * monitor methods, has no specified relationship with acquiring the * {@link Lock} associated with that <tt>Condition</tt> or the use of its * {@link #await waiting} and {@link #signal signalling} methods. * It is recommended that to avoid confusion you never use <tt>Condition</tt> * instances in this way, except perhaps within their own implementation. * * <p>Except where noted, passing a <tt>null</tt> value for any parameter * will result in a {@link NullPointerException} being thrown. * * <h3>Implementation Considerations</h3> * * <p>When waiting upon a <tt>Condition</tt>, a "<em>spurious * wakeup</em>" is permitted to occur, in * general, as a concession to the underlying platform semantics. * This has little practical impact on most application programs as a * <tt>Condition</tt> should always be waited upon in a loop, testing * the state predicate that is being waited for. An implementation is * free to remove the possibility of spurious wakeups but it is * recommended that applications programmers always assume that they can * occur and so always wait in a loop. * * <p>The three forms of condition waiting * (interruptible, non-interruptible, and timed) may differ in their ease of * implementation on some platforms and in their performance characteristics. * In particular, it may be difficult to provide these features and maintain * specific semantics such as ordering guarantees. * Further, the ability to interrupt the actual suspension of the thread may * not always be feasible to implement on all platforms. * <p>Consequently, an implementation is not required to define exactly the * same guarantees or semantics for all three forms of waiting, nor is it * required to support interruption of the actual suspension of the thread. * <p>An implementation is required to * clearly document the semantics and guarantees provided by each of the * waiting methods, and when an implementation does support interruption of * thread suspension then it must obey the interruption semantics as defined * in this interface. * <p>As interruption generally implies cancellation, and checks for * interruption are often infrequent, an implementation can favor responding * to an interrupt over normal method return. This is true even if it can be * shown that the interrupt occurred after another action may have unblocked * the thread. An implementation should document this behavior. * * * @since 1.5 * @author Doug Lea */public interface Condition { /** * Causes the current thread to wait until it is signalled or * {@link Thread#interrupt interrupted}. * * <p>The lock associated with this <tt>Condition</tt> is atomically * released and the current thread becomes disabled for thread scheduling * purposes and lies dormant until <em>one</em> of four things happens: * <ul> * <li>Some other thread invokes the {@link #signal} method for this * <tt>Condition</tt> and the current thread happens to be chosen as the * thread to be awakened; or * <li>Some other thread invokes the {@link #signalAll} method for this * <tt>Condition</tt>; or * <li>Some other thread {@link Thread#interrupt interrupts} the current * thread, and interruption of thread suspension is supported; or * <li>A "<em>spurious wakeup</em>" occurs * </ul> * * <p>In all cases, before this method can return the current thread must * re-acquire the lock associated with this condition. When the * thread returns it is <em>guaranteed</em> to hold this lock. * * <p>If the current thread: * <ul> * <li>has its interrupted status set on entry to this method; or * <li>is {@link Thread#interrupt interrupted} while waiting * and interruption of thread suspension is supported, * </ul> * then {@link InterruptedException} is thrown and the current thread's * interrupted status is cleared. It is not specified, in the first * case, whether or not the test for interruption occurs before the lock * is released. * * <p><b>Implementation Considerations</b> * <p>The current thread is assumed to hold the lock associated with this * <tt>Condition</tt> when this method is called. * It is up to the implementation to determine if this is * the case and if not, how to respond. Typically, an exception will be * thrown (such as {@link IllegalMonitorStateException}) and the * implementation must document that fact. * * <p>An implementation can favor responding to an interrupt over normal * method return in response to a signal. In that case the implementation * must ensure that the signal is redirected to another waiting thread, if * there is one. * * @throws InterruptedException if the current thread is interrupted (and * interruption of thread suspension is supported). **/ void await() throws InterruptedException; /** * Causes the current thread to wait until it is signalled. * * <p>The lock associated with this condition is atomically * released and the current thread becomes disabled for thread scheduling * purposes and lies dormant until <em>one</em> of three things happens: * <ul> * <li>Some other thread invokes the {@link #signal} method for this * <tt>Condition</tt> and the current thread happens to be chosen as the * thread to be awakened; or * <li>Some other thread invokes the {@link #signalAll} method for this * <tt>Condition</tt>; or * <li>A "<em>spurious wakeup</em>" occurs * </ul> * * <p>In all cases, before this method can return the current thread must * re-acquire the lock associated with this condition. When the * thread returns it is <em>guaranteed</em> to hold this lock. * * <p>If the current thread's interrupted status is set when it enters
⌨️ 快捷键说明
复制代码Ctrl + C
搜索代码Ctrl + F
全屏模式F11
增大字号Ctrl + =
减小字号Ctrl + -
显示快捷键?