Java memory model - can someone explain it?

I wont try to explain these issues here but instead refer you to Brian Goetz excellent book on the subject.

The book is "Java Concurrency in Practice", can be found at Amazon or any other well sorted store for computer literature.

• non-volatile variables can be cached thread-locally, so different threads may see different values at the same time; volatile prevents this (source)
• writes to variables of 32 bits or smaller are guaranteed to be atomic (implied here); not so for long and double, though 64bit JVMs probably implement them as atomic operations

I'm not going to attempt to actually answer your questions here - instead I'll redirect you to the book which I seeing recommended for advice on this topic: Java Concurrency in Practice.

One word of warning: if there are answers here, expect quite a few of them to be wrong. One of the reasons I'm not going to post details is because I'm pretty sure I'd get it wrong in at least some respects. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the community when I say that the chances of everyone who thinks they can answer this question actually having enough rigour to get it right is practically zero. (Joe Duffy recently found a bit of the .NET memory model that was surprised by. If he can get it wrong, so can mortals like us.)

---

I will offer some insight on just one aspect, because it's often misunderstood:

There's a difference between volatility and atomicity. People often think that an atomic write is volatile (i.e. you don't need to worry about the memory model if the write is atomic). That's not true.

Volatility is about whether one thread performing a read (logically, in the source code) will "see" changes made by another thread.

Atomicity is about whether there is any chance that if a change is seen, only part of the change will be seen.

For instance, take writing to an integer field. That is guaranteed to be atomic, but not volatile. That means that if we have (starting at foo.x = 0):

Thread 1: foo.x = 257;
Thread 2: int y = foo.x;

It's possible for y to be 0 or 257. It won't be any other value, (e.g. 256 or 1) due to the atomicity constraint. However, even if you know that in "wall time" the code in thread 2 executed after the code in thread 1, there could be odd caching, memory accesses "moving" etc. Making the variable x volatile will fix this.

I'll leave the rest up to real honest-to-goodness experts.