«

On 5/15/2012 5:14 AM, bugbear wrote:
> I'm using various Apache Commons Maps as a
> multithread cache, protected using
> ReentrantReadWriteLock, so that getting() uses a read lock,
> and putting() uses a write lock.
>
> But I've got an issue; in the
> case of a cache miss (protected by a read lock),
> the required value is acquired using the "underlying function"
> that the cache is over; this value is then put() into
> the cache (protected by a write lock)
>
> This is all perfectly thread safe, and gives
> correct results.
>
> However, if the underlying function is slow
> and/or resource hungry (consider cacheing
> a ray traced image!) many threads can
> end up calling the real function (second
> and subsequent threads to the first get a miss
> during the first threads call to the underlying function).
>
> "obviously..." what I want is for only
> the thread that FIRST has a cache miss
> calls the underlying function, whilst other
> threads (for the same key) wait.
>
> This seems "obvious" enough that I'm guessing
> there's a standard solution.
>
> Googling led me to several "heavy" libraries;
>
> This appears more a locking/cacheing issue
> than a Java issue, although my implementation
> is in Java.
>
> Can anyone (please) point me at a
> canonical solution/implementation?

Don't know whether it's "canonical," but one fairly obvious
approach is to insert the missed key in the map immediately, but
with a value that means "Coming Soon To A Cache Near You." The
original thread can then release its read lock and fetch the true
value from its source.

Other threads that look for the same value will "hit" the
cache, but will recognize the "Coming Soon" as an indication to
wait until the first thread comes up with the value.

There must be many ways to arrange this, but one that requires
very little awareness on the part of the querying threads is to
make the hashed "value" a value-holder object. Then a querying
thread could do something like

mapLock.lockForReading();
ValueHolder holder = map.get(key);
mapLock.release();

if (holder == null) {
mapLock.lockForWriting();
holder = map.get(key); // inserted by other thread?
if (holder == null) {
holder = new ValueHolder(key);
map.put(key, holder);
}
mapLock.release();
}

Value = holder.getValue();

The ValueHolder class might look like

class ValueHolder {
private final Key key;
private Value cachedValue;
private SourceException fetchError;

ValueHolder(Key key) {
this.key = key;
}

synchronized
Value getValue() throws SourceException {
if (cachedValue == null) {
if (fetchError != null) {
// notify new thread of old error
throw fetchError;
}
try {
cachedValue = fetchValueFromSource(key);
} catch (SourceException ex) {
fetchError = ex;
throw fetchError;
}
}
return cachedValue;
}
}

(That's not the only way to deal with errors in fetching, but it
seems perfectly reasonable to me even if it's a little odd to throw
the same exception object multiple times.)

The cache-querying threads lock the map only briefly, long
enough to determine whether a ValueHolder is present. ValueHolder
can delay its callers for a long time (if not, why cache at all?),
but will only delay callers that are interested in that particular
key; callers looking for other keys will get different ValueHolder
instances and won't be interfered with. And only one thread will
actually attempt fetchValueFromSource() on any given key.

--
Eric Sosman
d