Gsyfuy

Can I ask the recruiters in my resume to put the reason why I am rejected?

How does quantile regression compare to logistic regression with the variable split at the quantile?

How is the claim "I am in New York only if I am in America" the same as "If I am in New York, then I am in America?

Could an aircraft fly or hover using only jets of compressed air?

A newer friend of my brother's gave him a load of baseball cards that are supposedly extremely valuable. Is this a scam?

Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?

Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?

How does one intimidate enemies without having the capacity for violence?

Does object always see its latest internal state irrespective of thread?

What defenses are there against being summoned by the Gate spell?

Which country benefited the most from UN Security Council vetoes?

Do infinite dimensional systems make sense?

Codimension of non-flat locus

Can a Cauchy sequence converge for one metric while not converging for another?

Can a vampire attack twice with their claws using Multiattack?

Languages that we cannot (dis)prove to be Context-Free

Why can't I see bouncing of switch on oscilloscope screen?

Theorems that impeded progress

Modeling an IP Address

Is it inappropriate for a student to attend their mentor's dissertation defense?

High voltage LED indicator 40-1000 VDC without additional power supply

DC-DC converter from low voltage at high current, to high voltage at low current

Unable to deploy metadata from Partner Developer scratch org because of extra fields

Is it possible to do 50 km distance without any previous training?

Does object always see its latest internal state irrespective of thread?

Does a finally block always get executed in Java?Java: serial thread confinement questionJava difference between fixed threadpool and scheduled threadpoolJackrabbit and concurrent modificationHow to stop a Runnable scheduled for repeated execution after a certain number of executionsvolatile keyword for objects in C++Multiple threads accessing inner classHow can a loop be completed by two thread? say loop from count=1 to count=4 by ist thread and count =5 to 8 by 2nd thread?If I keep a reference to a Runnable, when does the Thread it ran on get released?How to stop a schedule ScheduledExecutorService

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ height:90px;width:728px;box-sizing:border-box;
}

8

2

Let's say I have a runnable with a simple integer count variable which is incremented every time runnable runs. One instance of this object is submitted to run periodically in a scheduled executor service.

class Counter implements Runnable {

    private int count = 0;



    @Override

    public void run() {

      count++;    

    }

}



Counter counter = new Counter();

ScheduledExecutorService executorService = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);

executorService.scheduleWithFixedDelay(counter, 1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

Here, object is accessing its own internal state inside of different threads (reading and incrementing). Is this code thread safe or it's possible that we lose updates to count variable when it's scheduled in a different thread?

java multithreading concurrency

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

RandomQuestionRandomQuestion

3,055144579

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Nope; most definitely not.
  
  – Boris the Spider
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Just to be clear: When the answers below say "...no happens-before..." what they're saying is, Suppose count==N. Then along comes worker thread A, which sets count = N+1. Then one whole second later, worker thread B is chosen to call the run() method, and worker thread B looks at count. It is possible at that point for worker thread B to still see count == N.
  
  – Solomon Slow
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

8

2

Let's say I have a runnable with a simple integer count variable which is incremented every time runnable runs. One instance of this object is submitted to run periodically in a scheduled executor service.

class Counter implements Runnable {

    private int count = 0;



    @Override

    public void run() {

      count++;    

    }

}



Counter counter = new Counter();

ScheduledExecutorService executorService = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);

executorService.scheduleWithFixedDelay(counter, 1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

Here, object is accessing its own internal state inside of different threads (reading and incrementing). Is this code thread safe or it's possible that we lose updates to count variable when it's scheduled in a different thread?

java multithreading concurrency

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

RandomQuestionRandomQuestion

3,055144579

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Nope; most definitely not.
  
  – Boris the Spider
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  3
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Just to be clear: When the answers below say "...no happens-before..." what they're saying is, Suppose count==N. Then along comes worker thread A, which sets count = N+1. Then one whole second later, worker thread B is chosen to call the run() method, and worker thread B looks at count. It is possible at that point for worker thread B to still see count == N.
  
  – Solomon Slow
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

Let's say I have a runnable with a simple integer count variable which is incremented every time runnable runs. One instance of this object is submitted to run periodically in a scheduled executor service.

class Counter implements Runnable {

    private int count = 0;



    @Override

    public void run() {

      count++;    

    }

}



Counter counter = new Counter();

ScheduledExecutorService executorService = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);

executorService.scheduleWithFixedDelay(counter, 1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

Here, object is accessing its own internal state inside of different threads (reading and incrementing). Is this code thread safe or it's possible that we lose updates to count variable when it's scheduled in a different thread?

java multithreading concurrency

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

RandomQuestionRandomQuestion

3,055144579

class Counter implements Runnable {

    private int count = 0;



    @Override

    public void run() {

      count++;    

    }

}



Counter counter = new Counter();

ScheduledExecutorService executorService = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);

executorService.scheduleWithFixedDelay(counter, 1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

RandomQuestionRandomQuestion

3,055144579

share|improve this question

asked 3 hours ago

RandomQuestionRandomQuestion

3,055144579

asked 3 hours ago

RandomQuestionRandomQuestion

3,055144579

asked 3 hours ago

RandomQuestionRandomQuestion

3,055144579

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

3

No this code is not thread-safe because there is no happens-before relation between increments made in different threads started with ScheduledExecutorService.

To fix it you need to either mark variable as volatile or switch to AtomicInteger or AtomicLong.

UPDATE:
As @BoristheSpider mentioned, in general in case of increment/decrement making variable volatile is not enough since increment/decrement is not atomic itself and calling it from several threads concurrently will cause race conditions and missed updates. However in this particular case scheduleWithFixedDelay() guarantees (according to Javadoc) that there will be overlapping executions of scheduled task so volatile will also work in this particular case even with increment.

share|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

IvanIvan

5,69911022

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @BoristheSpider taking into account how scheduleWithFixedDelay work there will be no overlapped calls to counter++ in that particular scenario. So volatile should be OK.
  
  – Ivan
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  There is a happens-before relation introduced between subsequent execution of a task scheduled with scheduleWithFixedDelay.
  
  – Sotirios Delimanolis
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  How come volatile is not enough? The semantics of volatile should hold in every case and it would solve this problem. In the past, the writing of doubles and longs could have been more difficult to do atomically since those occupied more than one 32-bit register. However, as far as I can tell, that should not affect the semantics of volatile. Or am I missing something?
  
  – Edwin Dalorzo
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @EdwinDalorzo in this particular case volatile is enough. But in general case not because increment is effectively translated into 3 operations: read, add, write and is prone to race condition in multithreaded environment
  
  – Ivan
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  To reiterate, the code they have posted is thread-safe. This answer is wrong.
  
  – Sotirios Delimanolis
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

2

No this is code is not thread safe since there is no happens before relation between different threads accessing count.

share|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

michidmichid

5,54921938

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Even then it's not thread safe, because ++ isn't atomic.
  
  – Andy Turner
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @michid please correct me if I am wrong but shouldn't counter++ be synchronized too as increment operation is not atomic.
  
  – Yug Singh
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Does counter++ need to be synchronized even if it's guaranteed that only one thread will be running this runnable at a time (like in the code in the question)?
  
  – RandomQuestion
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @RandomQuestion yes. Because visibility.
  
  – Boris the Spider
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I agree with the comments here that accesses to counter++ should be synchronized and that merely declaring it volatile is not sufficient. I edited my answer accordingly focusing on the happens-before relation.
  
  – michid
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

0

Does object always see its latest internal state irrespective of thread?

Just to be clear for the purposes of this question and its answers, an object doesn't do anything, it's just memory. Threads are the executing entity. It's misleading to say does an object see whatever. It's the thread that's doing the seeing/reading of object state.

This isn't specified in the javadoc, but

Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);

returns a ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.

Your code is using

executorService.scheduleWithFixedDelay(counter, 1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

The javadoc for ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor#scheduledWithFixedDelay states

Submits a periodic action that becomes enabled first after the given
initial delay, and subsequently with the given delay between the
termination of one execution and the commencement of the next.

The class javadoc further clarifies

Successive executions of a periodic task scheduled via
scheduleAtFixedRate or scheduleWithFixedDelay do not overlap.
While different executions may be performed by different threads, the
effects of prior executions happen-before those of subsequent ones.

As such, each execution of Counter#run is guaranteed to see the value of count after it's been incremented by the previous execution. For example, the third execution will read a count value of 2 before it performs its increment.

You don't need volatile or any other additional synchronization mechanism for this specific use case.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

Sotirios DelimanolisSotirios Delimanolis

212k41500590

add a comment | 

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Sign up using Google

Sign up using Facebook

Sign up using Email and Password

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55542189%2fdoes-object-always-see-its-latest-internal-state-irrespective-of-thread%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Email

Required, but never shown

3

No this code is not thread-safe because there is no happens-before relation between increments made in different threads started with ScheduledExecutorService.

To fix it you need to either mark variable as volatile or switch to AtomicInteger or AtomicLong.

UPDATE:
As @BoristheSpider mentioned, in general in case of increment/decrement making variable volatile is not enough since increment/decrement is not atomic itself and calling it from several threads concurrently will cause race conditions and missed updates. However in this particular case scheduleWithFixedDelay() guarantees (according to Javadoc) that there will be overlapping executions of scheduled task so volatile will also work in this particular case even with increment.

share|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

IvanIvan

5,69911022

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @BoristheSpider taking into account how scheduleWithFixedDelay work there will be no overlapped calls to counter++ in that particular scenario. So volatile should be OK.
  
  – Ivan
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  There is a happens-before relation introduced between subsequent execution of a task scheduled with scheduleWithFixedDelay.
  
  – Sotirios Delimanolis
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  How come volatile is not enough? The semantics of volatile should hold in every case and it would solve this problem. In the past, the writing of doubles and longs could have been more difficult to do atomically since those occupied more than one 32-bit register. However, as far as I can tell, that should not affect the semantics of volatile. Or am I missing something?
  
  – Edwin Dalorzo
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @EdwinDalorzo in this particular case volatile is enough. But in general case not because increment is effectively translated into 3 operations: read, add, write and is prone to race condition in multithreaded environment
  
  – Ivan
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  To reiterate, the code they have posted is thread-safe. This answer is wrong.
  
  – Sotirios Delimanolis
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

3

No this code is not thread-safe because there is no happens-before relation between increments made in different threads started with ScheduledExecutorService.

To fix it you need to either mark variable as volatile or switch to AtomicInteger or AtomicLong.

UPDATE:
As @BoristheSpider mentioned, in general in case of increment/decrement making variable volatile is not enough since increment/decrement is not atomic itself and calling it from several threads concurrently will cause race conditions and missed updates. However in this particular case scheduleWithFixedDelay() guarantees (according to Javadoc) that there will be overlapping executions of scheduled task so volatile will also work in this particular case even with increment.

share|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

IvanIvan

5,69911022

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @BoristheSpider taking into account how scheduleWithFixedDelay work there will be no overlapped calls to counter++ in that particular scenario. So volatile should be OK.
  
  – Ivan
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  There is a happens-before relation introduced between subsequent execution of a task scheduled with scheduleWithFixedDelay.
  
  – Sotirios Delimanolis
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  How come volatile is not enough? The semantics of volatile should hold in every case and it would solve this problem. In the past, the writing of doubles and longs could have been more difficult to do atomically since those occupied more than one 32-bit register. However, as far as I can tell, that should not affect the semantics of volatile. Or am I missing something?
  
  – Edwin Dalorzo
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @EdwinDalorzo in this particular case volatile is enough. But in general case not because increment is effectively translated into 3 operations: read, add, write and is prone to race condition in multithreaded environment
  
  – Ivan
  2 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  To reiterate, the code they have posted is thread-safe. This answer is wrong.
  
  – Sotirios Delimanolis
  1 hour ago
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

No this code is not thread-safe because there is no happens-before relation between increments made in different threads started with ScheduledExecutorService.

To fix it you need to either mark variable as volatile or switch to AtomicInteger or AtomicLong.

UPDATE:
As @BoristheSpider mentioned, in general in case of increment/decrement making variable volatile is not enough since increment/decrement is not atomic itself and calling it from several threads concurrently will cause race conditions and missed updates. However in this particular case scheduleWithFixedDelay() guarantees (according to Javadoc) that there will be overlapping executions of scheduled task so volatile will also work in this particular case even with increment.

share|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

IvanIvan

5,69911022

share|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

IvanIvan

5,69911022

answered 3 hours ago

IvanIvan

5,69911022

answered 3 hours ago

IvanIvan

5,69911022

2

No this is code is not thread safe since there is no happens before relation between different threads accessing count.

share|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

michidmichid

5,54921938

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Even then it's not thread safe, because ++ isn't atomic.
  
  – Andy Turner
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @michid please correct me if I am wrong but shouldn't counter++ be synchronized too as increment operation is not atomic.
  
  – Yug Singh
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Does counter++ need to be synchronized even if it's guaranteed that only one thread will be running this runnable at a time (like in the code in the question)?
  
  – RandomQuestion
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @RandomQuestion yes. Because visibility.
  
  – Boris the Spider
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I agree with the comments here that accesses to counter++ should be synchronized and that merely declaring it volatile is not sufficient. I edited my answer accordingly focusing on the happens-before relation.
  
  – michid
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

2

No this is code is not thread safe since there is no happens before relation between different threads accessing count.

share|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

michidmichid

5,54921938

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Even then it's not thread safe, because ++ isn't atomic.
  
  – Andy Turner
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @michid please correct me if I am wrong but shouldn't counter++ be synchronized too as increment operation is not atomic.
  
  – Yug Singh
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Does counter++ need to be synchronized even if it's guaranteed that only one thread will be running this runnable at a time (like in the code in the question)?
  
  – RandomQuestion
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @RandomQuestion yes. Because visibility.
  
  – Boris the Spider
  3 hours ago
  
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I agree with the comments here that accesses to counter++ should be synchronized and that merely declaring it volatile is not sufficient. I edited my answer accordingly focusing on the happens-before relation.
  
  – michid
  3 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 2 more comments

No this is code is not thread safe since there is no happens before relation between different threads accessing count.

share|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

michidmichid

5,54921938

share|improve this answer

edited 3 hours ago

answered 3 hours ago

michidmichid

5,54921938

answered 3 hours ago

michidmichid

5,54921938

answered 3 hours ago

michidmichid

5,54921938

0

Does object always see its latest internal state irrespective of thread?

Just to be clear for the purposes of this question and its answers, an object doesn't do anything, it's just memory. Threads are the executing entity. It's misleading to say does an object see whatever. It's the thread that's doing the seeing/reading of object state.

This isn't specified in the javadoc, but

Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);

returns a ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.

Your code is using

executorService.scheduleWithFixedDelay(counter, 1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

The javadoc for ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor#scheduledWithFixedDelay states

Submits a periodic action that becomes enabled first after the given
initial delay, and subsequently with the given delay between the
termination of one execution and the commencement of the next.

The class javadoc further clarifies

Successive executions of a periodic task scheduled via
scheduleAtFixedRate or scheduleWithFixedDelay do not overlap.
While different executions may be performed by different threads, the
effects of prior executions happen-before those of subsequent ones.

As such, each execution of Counter#run is guaranteed to see the value of count after it's been incremented by the previous execution. For example, the third execution will read a count value of 2 before it performs its increment.

You don't need volatile or any other additional synchronization mechanism for this specific use case.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

Sotirios DelimanolisSotirios Delimanolis

212k41500590

add a comment | 

0

Does object always see its latest internal state irrespective of thread?

Just to be clear for the purposes of this question and its answers, an object doesn't do anything, it's just memory. Threads are the executing entity. It's misleading to say does an object see whatever. It's the thread that's doing the seeing/reading of object state.

This isn't specified in the javadoc, but

Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);

returns a ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.

Your code is using

executorService.scheduleWithFixedDelay(counter, 1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

The javadoc for ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor#scheduledWithFixedDelay states

Submits a periodic action that becomes enabled first after the given
initial delay, and subsequently with the given delay between the
termination of one execution and the commencement of the next.

The class javadoc further clarifies

Successive executions of a periodic task scheduled via
scheduleAtFixedRate or scheduleWithFixedDelay do not overlap.
While different executions may be performed by different threads, the
effects of prior executions happen-before those of subsequent ones.

As such, each execution of Counter#run is guaranteed to see the value of count after it's been incremented by the previous execution. For example, the third execution will read a count value of 2 before it performs its increment.

You don't need volatile or any other additional synchronization mechanism for this specific use case.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

Sotirios DelimanolisSotirios Delimanolis

212k41500590

add a comment | 

Does object always see its latest internal state irrespective of thread?

Just to be clear for the purposes of this question and its answers, an object doesn't do anything, it's just memory. Threads are the executing entity. It's misleading to say does an object see whatever. It's the thread that's doing the seeing/reading of object state.

This isn't specified in the javadoc, but

Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);

returns a ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.

Your code is using

executorService.scheduleWithFixedDelay(counter, 1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

The javadoc for ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor#scheduledWithFixedDelay states

Submits a periodic action that becomes enabled first after the given
initial delay, and subsequently with the given delay between the
termination of one execution and the commencement of the next.

The class javadoc further clarifies

Successive executions of a periodic task scheduled via
scheduleAtFixedRate or scheduleWithFixedDelay do not overlap.
While different executions may be performed by different threads, the
effects of prior executions happen-before those of subsequent ones.

As such, each execution of Counter#run is guaranteed to see the value of count after it's been incremented by the previous execution. For example, the third execution will read a count value of 2 before it performs its increment.

You don't need volatile or any other additional synchronization mechanism for this specific use case.

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

Sotirios DelimanolisSotirios Delimanolis

212k41500590

Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);

executorService.scheduleWithFixedDelay(counter, 1, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

share|improve this answer

edited 2 hours ago

answered 2 hours ago

Sotirios DelimanolisSotirios Delimanolis

212k41500590

answered 2 hours ago

Sotirios DelimanolisSotirios Delimanolis

212k41500590

answered 2 hours ago

Sotirios DelimanolisSotirios Delimanolis

212k41500590