I'm trying to come up with a peace of code that would fetch centralised cache shared across multiple threads/app instances. Callers might come in swarms. The data is a large set, reads during reloading are not desirable as they would likely yield incorrect/incomplete data. Let's say about once a day (not much more frequent than that) the cache needs to be reloaded, with two triggers: empty cache due to TTL or a business trigger that can not be scheduled ahead of time. Any caller carries enough information to tell if the cache is stale (O(1) check) but not while the cache is being written to - false negatives/positives are possible. Given that, here's what I managed to come up with:

public ImportantData fetchCache() throws InterruptedException {
    RCountDownLatch latch = getLatch();
    RAtomicLong controlValue = getAtomicLong();

    long controlValueBefore = controlValue.get(); //1

    ImportantData result = readCache();
    var someMetadata = readCacheMetadata();

    if (!validate(result, someMetadata) || controlValueBefore != controlValue.get()) {   //2
        if ((controlValueBefore == controlValue.get()) && latch.trySetCount(1)) {  //3
            try {
                controlValue.set(RandomUtils.nextLong()); //4
                return readCache();
            } finally {

        } else {
            latch.await(TIMEOUT, TimeUnit.SECONDS);    //5
            return readCache();
    return result;

My reasoning is:

  • If cache appears to be valid and had not been fiddled with during the read //2 is evaluated to false, return. Concurrent, no locks, only 2 extra reads from RAtomicLong
  • Once the cache is stale the first thread to notice it passes //3
  • Subsequent threads land at //5 because latch.trySetCount(1) can't be true until latch.countDown()
  • Once //4 is executed threads with the newer controlValue guaranteed to read fresh cache, threads with the older controlValue can't pass //3 anymore because (controlValueBefore == controlValue.get() is false
  • There is some time between //4 and latch.countDown() so in an unlucky event that some thread carrying the old value just passed the first part of //3 right before //4 happened - probably enough for latch.trySetCount(1) to still return false

Other than the last point I don't see any other major problems with this, however there's probably something I'm missing besides I'm not sure how the synchronisation tools provided by Redisson work and what kind of guarantees they can give. Take aside that there are probably more practical approaches architecturally (that I'll probably go with), thoughts on the algorithm? I feel like it might be one tweak away from being solid, or one observation away from being discarded completely.

  • 1
    it seems like redis should have a transaction or something that will solve this for you server side
    – Ewan
    Feb 13 at 23:54

1 Answer 1


I don't understand the design process that led to all this locking. It sounds like (lots of) clients need to access a "mostly valid" result with very low latency.

You're working too hard. The complex logic you wrote is maybe correct? I can't tell. It certainly induces client latency during some operations. The key driver of complexity seems to be the possibility of getting a stale read:

        ImportantData result = readCache();

We jump through hoops to ensure that result is a real, usable result. Why don't we just ensure that up front from the get go?

or one observation away from being discarded completely.

The set of requirements you described sounds exactly like a double buffering setup.

Offer a cache of twice the current size, with indexes of [0] and [1]. Maintain a current_index global.

Cache updates are "infrequent". In particular, max latency between a client's reads of current_index and cache[current_index] are always much larger than time between updates. Put locks on that pair of cache entries if you want explicit enforcement.

With such a setup, cache updates are easy. Work on the unused buffer (1 - cache_index), and when you're eventually finished, announce it by assigning cache_index = 1 - cache_index.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.