Difference in internal storing between 'fair' and 'unfair' lock

Question

The way Lock interface with class Reentrant(true) lock works is that it uses BlockingQueue to store Threads that want to acquire the lock. In that way thread that 'came first, go out first'-FIFO. All clear about that.

But where do 'unfair locks' go, or ReentrantLock(false). What is their internal implementation? How does OS decide which thread now to pick? And most importantly are now these threads also stored in a queue or where? (they must be somewhere)

Corky

The "queue" is in the OS itself, where it normally stores blocked threads. The OS does not specify what the queue algorithm is (or at least it typically doesn't, so Java being portable has to assume the worst case), so Java assumes it's unfair. – Theis

Answer 1

The class ReentrantLock does not use a BlockingQueue. It uses a non-public subclass of AbstractQueuedSynchronizer behind the scenes.

The AbstractQueuedSynchronizer class, as its documentation states, maintains “a first-in-first-out (FIFO) wait queue”. This data structure is the same for fair and unfair locks. The unfairness doesn’t imply that the lock would change the order of enqueued waiting threads, as there would be no advantage in doing that.

The key difference is that an unfair lock allows a lock attempt to succeed immediately when the lock just has been released, even when there are other threads waiting for the lock for a longer time. In that scenario, the queue is not even involved for the overtaking thread. This is more efficient than adding the current thread to the queue and putting it into the wait state while removing the longest waiting thread from the queue and changing its state to “runnable”.

When the lock is not available by the time, a thread tries to acquire it, the thread will be added to the queue and at this point, there is no difference between fair and unfair locks for it (except that other threads may overtake it without getting enqueued). Since the order has not been specified for an unfair lock, it could use a LIFO data structure behind the scenes, but it’s obviously simpler to have just one implementation code for both.

For synchronized, on the other hand, which does not support fair acquisition, there are some JVM implementations using a LIFO structure. This may change from one version to another (or even with the same, as a side effect of some JVM options or environmental aspects).

Another interesting point in this regard, is that the parameterless tryLock() of the ReentrantLock implementation will be unfair, even when the lock is otherwise in fair mode. This demonstrates that being unfair is not a property of the waiting queue here, but the treatment of the arriving thread that makes a new lock attempt.

Even when this lock has been set to use a fair ordering policy, a call to tryLock() will immediately acquire the lock if it is available, whether or not other threads are currently waiting for the lock. This "barging" behavior can be useful in certain circumstances, even though it breaks fairness.

Garrot