java - memory visibility on lock acquirement -

Does memory visibility depend on that monitor? Lock A after lock B has been acquired, is this enough for memory visibility?

For example the following code:

  integer state; // Share // Synchronize a synchronized (A) {state + = 1; } Thread. Sleep (10000000); // Thread B. Thread Solid (1000); Synchronize (B) {state + = 1; }   
 Threads start at the same time and threads  b  can be arbitrarily high during sleep, to ensure that this thread  a  used  state  variable. Threads  A  before thread  B  does not use the  state  shared variable.  
  Update   
 to  
  When a thread is associated with a synchronized block as part of the monitored release , JMM requires that the local processor cache be flown, in the same way in the main memory, as part of obtaining a monitor while entering a synchronized block, the local cache is invalidated so that If you read in Will the Ori and the local cache.   
 If this is true then please give me the  state  variable yarn  b    
 
 > There is no reason to not be visible. > Further, however, they say that the monitor should be the same, but it is not contained with the aforesaid statements.  
  This process guarantees that when a variable is written by a variable during a synchronized block read by a given monitor and another thread, the same monitor During a synchronized block protected by, typing on the variable will be seen by reading threads.   
 It seems that the process of local memory flush is not as simple as described in the earlier statement and  every  can not be on lock release?  
 
 
 
 Yes, it depends on whether you can read about this in the relevant section "17.4. 4. Synchronization order ":  
 
 With an after-lock operation on an unlocked action-M on Monitor M Synchronization (where" later "is defined according to the synchronization order).   
 You can see, a solid monitor object is specified there  m . If the monitors are different, then you are not synchronizing - with regards, therefore, before you do not - before the connection (from 17.4.5):  
 
 If an action x synchronizes Does the following verb y, then we also have Hb (x, y).   
 Therefore, your updates will probably be executed sequentially with missing updates.