Does my implementation of LinkedBlockingQueue need to be synchronized?

Question

To begin with, I have used search and found n topics related to this question. Unfortunately, they didin't help me, so it'll be n++ topics :)

Situation: I will have few working threads (the same class, just many dublicates) (let's call them WT) and one result writing thread (RT).

WT will add objects to the Queue, and RT will take them. Since there will be many WT won't there be any memory problems(independant from the max queue size)? Will those operations wait for each other to be completed?

Moreover, as I understand, BlockingQueue is quite slow, so maybe I should leave it and use normal Queue while in synchronized blocks? Or should I consider my self by using SynchronizedQueue?

programmers.stackexchange.com?

KevinDTimm
– KevinDTimm

2013-03-08 13:55:49 +00:00
Commented Mar 8, 2013 at 13:55 — KevinDTimm
– KevinDTimm, Commented Mar 8, 2013 at 13:55

NPE · Accepted Answer · 2013-03-08 14:15:05Z

2

LinkedBlockingQueue is designed to handle multiple threads writing to the same queue. From the documentation:

BlockingQueue implementations are thread-safe. All queuing methods achieve their effects atomically using internal locks or other forms of concurrency control. However, the bulk Collection operations addAll, containsAll, retainAll and removeAll are not necessarily performed atomically unless specified otherwise in an implementation.

Therefore, you are quite safe (unless you expect the bulk operations to be atomic).

Of course, if thread A and thread B are writing to the same queue, the order of A's items relative to B's items will be indeterminate unless you synchronize A and B.

As to the choice of queue implementation, go with the simplest that does the job, and then profile. This will give you accurate data on where the bottlenecks are so you won't have to guess.

edited Mar 8, 2013 at 14:15

answered Mar 8, 2013 at 13:56

NPE

503k114 gold badges970 silver badges1k bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

Vishal K Over a year ago

+1 Very true , But I would like to add one more point that However, the bulk Collection operations addAll, containsAll, retainAll and removeAll are not necessarily performed atomically unless specified otherwise in an implementation. So it is possible, for example, for addAll(c) to fail (throwing an exception) after adding only some of the elements in c. As specified here docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/…

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

Does my implementation of LinkedBlockingQueue need to be synchronized?

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related