Related
I want to print number in the below format. This should be taken care by two thread t1,t2. Can anyone help to enhance the below code which I have written?
First t1 should print 0-4
Then t2 should print 5-9
Then again t1 should print 10-14
Then t2 should print 15-19
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
class PrintNumber implements Runnable{
String name;
public void run(){
print();
}
synchronized public void print(){
for(int i=0;i< 5;i++){
System.out.println(i+" -- "+Thread.currentThread());
}
}
public static void main(String[] args){
Runnable r = new PrintNumber();
Thread t1 = new Thread(r,"t1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(r,"t2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
Instead of using the low-level wait() and notify() you can use two Sempaphores.
Each Runnable has a Semaphore it waits for and one it uses to notify the next one.
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
class PrintNumber implements Runnable{
static volatile int nextStartIdx;
private Semaphore waitForSemaphore;
private Semaphore next;
public PrintNumber(Semaphore waitFor, Semaphore next) {
this.waitForSemaphore = waitFor;
this.next = next;
}
public void run(){
while (true) {
print();
}
}
public void print() {
try {
waitForSemaphore.acquire();
int start = nextStartIdx;
for(int i=0;i< 5;i++){
System.out.println(String.format("%d -- %s", i + start, Thread.currentThread().getName()));
}
nextStartIdx += 5;
next.release();
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args){
Semaphore a = new Semaphore(1);
Semaphore b = new Semaphore(0);
Thread t1 = new Thread(new PrintNumber(a,b),"t1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(new PrintNumber(b,a),"t2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
You can use wait and notify to achieve inter thread communication for your sczenario.
class PrintNumber implements Runnable {
String name;
Integer count = 0;
#Override
public void run() {
try {
print();
} catch (final InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
synchronized public void print() throws InterruptedException {
while (count < 15) {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
count++;
System.out.println(count + " -- " + Thread.currentThread());
}
notifyAll();
wait();
}
}
public static void main(final String[] args) {
final Runnable r = new PrintNumber();
final Thread t1 = new Thread(r, "t1");
final Thread t2 = new Thread(r, "t2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
For more information see:
A simple scenario using wait() and notify() in java
I was asked to write a two-threaded Java program in an interview. In this program one thread should print even numbers and the other thread should print odd numbers alternatively.
Sample output:
Thread1: 1
Thread2: 2
Thread1: 3
Thread2: 4
... and so on
I wrote the following program. One class Task which contains two methods to print even and odd numbers respectively. From main method, I created two threads to call these two methods. The interviewer asked me to improve it further, but I could not think of any improvement. Is there any better way to write the same program?
class Task
{
boolean flag;
public Task(boolean flag)
{
this.flag = flag;
}
public void printEven()
{
for( int i = 2; i <= 10; i+=2 )
{
synchronized (this)
{
try
{
while( !flag )
wait();
System.out.println(i);
flag = false;
notify();
}
catch (InterruptedException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public void printOdd()
{
for( int i = 1; i < 10; i+=2 )
{
synchronized (this)
{
try
{
while(flag )
wait();
System.out.println(i);
flag = true;
notify();
}
catch(InterruptedException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
public class App {
public static void main(String [] args)
{
Task t = new Task(false);
Thread t1 = new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run()
{
t.printOdd();
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run()
{
t.printEven();
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
I think this should work properly and pretty simple.
package com.simple;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
/**
* #author Evgeny Zhuravlev
*/
public class ConcurrentPing
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
Semaphore semaphore1 = new Semaphore(0, true);
Semaphore semaphore2 = new Semaphore(0, true);
new Thread(new Task("1", 1, semaphore1, semaphore2)).start();
new Thread(new Task("2", 2, semaphore2, semaphore1)).start();
semaphore1.release();
}
private static class Task implements Runnable
{
private String name;
private long value;
private Semaphore semaphore1;
private Semaphore semaphore2;
public Task(String name, long value, Semaphore semaphore1, Semaphore semaphore2)
{
this.name = name;
this.value = value;
this.semaphore1 = semaphore1;
this.semaphore2 = semaphore2;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
try
{
semaphore1.acquire();
System.out.println(name + ": " + value);
value += 2;
semaphore2.release();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
}
}
Well, there are many alternatives. I would probably use a SynchronousQueue instead (I don't like low-level wait/notify and try to use higher-level concurrency primitives instead). Also printOdd and printEven could be merged into single method and no additional flags are necessary:
public class App {
static class OddEven implements Runnable {
private final SynchronousQueue<Integer> queue = new SynchronousQueue<>();
public void start() throws InterruptedException {
Thread oddThread = new Thread(this);
Thread evenThread = new Thread(this);
oddThread.start();
queue.put(1);
evenThread.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
int i = queue.take();
System.out.println(i + " (" + Thread.currentThread() + ")");
if (i == 10)
break;
queue.put(++i);
if (i == 10)
break;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
new OddEven().start();
}
}
Is there any better way to write the same program?
Well, the thing is, the only good way to write the program is to use a single thread. If you want a program to do X, Y, and Z in that order, then write a procedure that does X, then Y, then Z. There is no better way than that.
Here's what I would have written after discussing the appropriateness of threads with the interviewer.
import java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue;
import java.util.function.Consumer;
public class EvenOdd {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SynchronousQueue<Object> q1 = new SynchronousQueue<>();
SynchronousQueue<Object> q2 = new SynchronousQueue<>();
Consumer<Integer> consumer = (Integer count) -> System.out.println(count);
new Thread(new Counter(q1, q2, 2, 1, consumer)).start();
new Thread(new Counter(q2, q1, 2, 2, consumer)).start();
try {
q1.put(new Object());
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
private static class Counter implements Runnable {
final SynchronousQueue<Object> qin;
final SynchronousQueue<Object> qout;
final int increment;
final Consumer<Integer> consumer;
int count;
Counter(SynchronousQueue<Object> qin, SynchronousQueue<Object> qout,
int increment, int initial_count,
Consumer<Integer> consumer) {
this.qin = qin;
this.qout = qout;
this.increment = increment;
this.count = initial_count;
this.consumer = consumer;
}
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
Object token = qin.take();
consumer.accept(count);
qout.put(token);
count += increment;
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
}
}
How about a shorter version like this:
public class OddEven implements Runnable {
private static volatile int n = 1;
public static void main(String [] args) {
new Thread(new OddEven()).start();
new Thread(new OddEven()).start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this.getClass()) {
try {
while (n < 10) {
this.getClass().notify();
this.getClass().wait();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": " + (n++));
this.getClass().notify();
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
There is a bit of a trick to kick-start the threads properly - thus the need to an extra notify() to start the whole thing (instead of have both processes wait, or required the main Thread to call a notify) and also to handle the possibility that a thread starts, does it's work and calls notify before the second thread has started :)
My initial answer was non-functional. Edited:
package test;
public final class App {
private static volatile int counter = 1;
private static final Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String... args) {
for (int t = 0; t < 2; ++t) {
final int oddOrEven = t;
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
while (counter < 100) {
synchronized (lock) {
if (counter % 2 == oddOrEven) {
System.out.println(counter++);
}
}
}
}
}).start();
}
}
}
How can I start two threads where thread1 executes first, thread2 starts when thread1 ends while the main method thread can continue its work without locking on the other two?
I have tried join() however it needs to be called from the thread which has to wait for the other, there's no way to do something like thread2.join(thread1);
If I call for a join inside main() I therefore effectively stop execution of the main thread and not only of thread2.
I therefore tried with ExecutorService but again same problem.
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public class Test
{
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException
{
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is Started");
class TestThread extends Thread
{
String name;
public TestThread(String name)
{
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
try
{
System.out.println(this + " is Started");
Thread.sleep(2000);
System.out.println(this + " is Completed");
}
catch (InterruptedException ex) { ex.printStackTrace(); }
}
#Override
public String toString() { return "Thread " + name; }
}
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
executor.execute(new TestThread("1"));
boolean finished = executor.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.HOURS);
if(finished)
{
//I should execute thread 2 only after thread 1 has finished
executor.execute(new TestThread("2"));
}
//I should arrive here while process 1 and 2 go on with their execution
System.out.println("Hello");
}
}
#EDIT: Why I need this:
I need this because Thread1 copies elements from a database table into another database, thread2 has to copy a linking table which references the table copied from thread1.
Consequently thread2 has to start populating its linking table only when thread1 has finished otherwise an integrity error is given by the database.
Now imagine I have several threads with different priorities due to complex linking tables and you have an idea.
The second Thread can be custom like this (takes as argument the previous thread):
public static void main(String[] a) {
Thread first = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
}
});
Thread second = new MyThread(first);
first.start();
second.start();
//continue executing
}
public static class MyThread extends Thread {
private Thread predecessor;
public MyThread(Thread predecessor) {
this.predecessor = predecessor;
}
public void run() {
if (predecessor != null && predecessor.isAlive()) {
try {
predecessor.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
//do your stuff
}
}
You can use a CountDownLatch:
create it in the main thread, pass it on to both threads and call countdown on it in thread one when it exits and await it being counted down at the start of thread 2.
I am pretty sure you got something wrong because this must work and it does work:
new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
TestThread t1= new TestThread("1");
TestThread t2= new TestThread("2");
try {
t1.start();
t1.join();
t2.start();
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
The ouput is:
main is Started
Hello
Thread 1 is Started
Thread 1 is Completed
Thread 2 is Started
Thread 2 is Completed
Another option would be to extend the TestThread for the "Thread 1" to execute the work of "Thread 2" after it has been done with its own work. Something similar to this:
final TestThread t2= new TestThread("2");
TestThread t1= new TestThread("1") {
#Override
public void run() {
super.run(); //finish t1 work
t2.start(); // start t2 work
}
};
t1.start();
Why not just have thread1 be the one to start thread2?
// in main
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
// do thread1 work
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() { /* do thread2 work */ }
}).start();
}
}).start();
However, it's not at all clear why you would want to do this as opposed to just having thread1 do 100% of the background work.
You can use SingleThreadExecutor to run one task after another Java doc
So it will put your task one after another and they will execute in sequence without blocking main thread
Try this, This will work as expected. Two threads printing odd and even one after another and main exiting as soon as possible.
public class YoThreD {
static boolean isThread1 = false;
public static synchronized boolean isThread1() {
return isThread1 = !isThread1;
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
Runnable runnableObject = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
try {
if (Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("thread1")) {
if (isThread1()){
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " : " + i);
}else{
this.notify();
this.wait();
}
} else {
if (!isThread1()){
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " : " + i);
this.notify();
this.wait();
}
else{
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}
}
};
Thread thread1 = new Thread(runnableObject);
thread1.setName("thread1");
thread1.start();
Thread thread2 = new Thread(runnableObject);
thread2.setName("thread2");
thread2.start();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + "Main thread finished");
}
}
Silly question, but if thread 2 is supposed to execute when thread 1 is done... why not just start it from thread 1?
Or maybe just have thread 1 trigger an event and the main thread can just launch the new one in response to that.
I found this example, should work for you.
You can run two thread one after other by using several ways:
by using join() method. ex:
Thread t1=new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
System.out.println("A " + i);
}
}
});
Thread t2=new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
System.out.println("B " + i);
}
}
});
by using wait() and notify() methods: ex.
`
{
public class NotiffyAllExample {
int flag = 1;
public static void main(String[] args) {
NotiffyAllExample notiffyAllExample = new NotiffyAllExample();
A1 a = new A1(notiffyAllExample);
B1 b = new B1(notiffyAllExample);
C1 c = new C1(notiffyAllExample);
a.start();
b.start();
}
}
class A1 extends Thread {
NotiffyAllExample notiffyAllExample;
public A1(net.citigroup.mexico.pg.test.test.NotiffyAllExample notiffyAllExample) {
this.notiffyAllExample = notiffyAllExample;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
synchronized (notiffyAllExample) {
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
while (notiffyAllExample.flag != 1) {
notiffyAllExample.wait();
}
System.out.print("A ");
}
notiffyAllExample.flag = 2;
notiffyAllExample.notifyAll();
}
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception 1 :" + e.getMessage());
}
}
}
class B1 extends Thread {
NotiffyAllExample notiffyAllExample;
public B1(NotiffyAllExample notiffyAllExample) {
this.notiffyAllExample = notiffyAllExample;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
synchronized (notiffyAllExample) {
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
while (notiffyAllExample.flag != 2) {
notiffyAllExample.wait();
}
System.out.print("B ");
}
notiffyAllExample.flag = 1;
notiffyAllExample.notifyAll();
}
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception 2 :" + e.getMessage());
}
}
}
}
`
I am trying to create an implementation where multiple threads print alternate values of sequence. So here thread1 will print 1,4,7 thread2 will print 2,5,8 thread3 will print 3,6,9. I am using Atomic integer and modulo function.
Below implementation works fine in the sense that first thread prints 1,4,7 while second prints 2,5,8 and third prints 3,6,9 but problem is that sequence is not maintained i.e output can be like 1,3,2,4,5,7,8,6,9 while i want sequence to be maintained as proper threads shld print those values.
One condition is i don't want to use synchronize. [Just for learning purpose]
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class ThreeThreadsOrderedLockLess {
AtomicInteger sharedOutput = new AtomicInteger(0);
public static void main(String args[]) {
ThreeThreadsOrderedLockLess t = new ThreeThreadsOrderedLockLess();
ThreadTasks t1 = t.new ThreadTasks(0);
ThreadTasks t2 = t.new ThreadTasks(1);
ThreadTasks t3 = t.new ThreadTasks(2);
Thread ts1 = new Thread(t1);
Thread ts2 = new Thread(t2);
Thread ts3 = new Thread(t3);
ts1.start();
ts2.start();
ts3.start();
}
private class ThreadTasks implements Runnable {
private final int threadPosition;
public ThreadTasks(int threadPosition) {
super();
this.threadPosition = threadPosition;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (sharedOutput.get() < 9) {
if (sharedOutput.get() % 3 == this.threadPosition) {
System.out.println("Printing output for Thread: "
+ this.threadPosition + " "
+ sharedOutput.incrementAndGet());
}
}
}
}
}
You should print first, and increment after:
int value = sharedOutput.get() + 1;
System.out.println("Printing output for Thread: "
+ this.threadPosition + " "
+ value);
sharedOutput.incrementAndGet();
That said, all the threads are busy looping, which will lead to 100% CPU usage. You should synchronize the threads instead.
Below code snippet will print numbers in sequence and all threads will be terminated gracefully after the task.
Used AtomicInteger, which is thread-safe for printing the numbers and same logic can be applied to print as till any number with any number of threads.
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class PrintNumSequence
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
AtomicInteger atomicInteger = new AtomicInteger(0);
new NumPrinter(atomicInteger, 0).start();// thread0
new NumPrinter(atomicInteger, 1).start();// thread1
new NumPrinter(atomicInteger, 2).start();// thread2
}
}
class NumPrinter extends Thread
{
private AtomicInteger atomicInteger;
private int threadNum;
public NumPrinter(AtomicInteger atomicInteger, int threadNum)
{
this.atomicInteger = atomicInteger;
this.threadNum = threadNum;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
int num = atomicInteger.intValue();
do
{
synchronized (atomicInteger)
{
num = atomicInteger.intValue();
// If number is 9 then stop.
if (num > 9)
{
atomicInteger.notifyAll();
break;
}
// 3 is number of threads
if ((num % 3) == threadNum)
{
System.out.println("Thread-" + threadNum + " -->" + num);
num = atomicInteger.incrementAndGet();
}
atomicInteger.notifyAll();
try
{
atomicInteger.wait();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
} while (true);
}
}
This is because the time slice for each thread is determined by the OS. So it is possible that thread x increments the shared number but before printing the time slice is passed to the next thread y which now reads the shared number and prints it after incrementing (assuming that thread y got more time than thread x to increament and print the shared number)
.
use wait(), notify(), notifyall() methods of the Java.
you can also take a look at this Tutorial of these methods.
Hope this would be helpful to solve your issue. . .
the output of this example is as under.
Put: 1
Got: 1
Put: 2
Got: 2
Put: 3
Got: 3
Put: 4
Got: 4
Put: 5
Got: 5
This should work:
package com.sid;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class NumberSequence {
private AtomicInteger sharedOutput = new AtomicInteger(0);
private Object object = new Object();
public static void main(String args[]) {
NumberSequence t = new NumberSequence();
ThreadTasks t1 = t.new ThreadTasks(0);
ThreadTasks t2 = t.new ThreadTasks(1);
ThreadTasks t3 = t.new ThreadTasks(2);
Thread ts1 = new Thread(t1);
Thread ts2 = new Thread(t2);
Thread ts3 = new Thread(t3);
ts1.start();
ts2.start();
ts3.start();
}
private class ThreadTasks implements Runnable {
private final int threadPosition;
public ThreadTasks(int threadPosition) {
super();
this.threadPosition = threadPosition;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (sharedOutput.get() < 10) {
synchronized (object) {
if (sharedOutput.get() % 3 == this.threadPosition) {
if(sharedOutput.get() < 10)
System.out.println("Printing output for Thread: "
+ this.threadPosition + " "
+ sharedOutput.incrementAndGet());
}
}
}
}
}
}
Proper synchronization would help you get the clear answer. I've improved the implementation, you should solve your questions.
int threadId;
int moduluos;
int numOfThreads;
public ThreadTasks(int id, int nubOfThreads) {
threadId = id;
this.numOfThreads = nubOfThreads;
moduluos = threadId%numOfThreads;
}
public void run() {
print();
}
private void print() {
try {
while (true) {
synchronized (monitor) {
if (number.get() % numOfThreads != moduluos) {
monitor.wait();
} else {
System.out.println("ThreadId [" + threadId
+ "] printing -->"
+ number.getAndIncrement());
monitor.notifyAll();
}
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
package test.mk.thread;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class MkThread2 {
int nextThreadToRun = 1;
int[] arr = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11};
AtomicInteger nextArrayIndex = new AtomicInteger(0);
boolean token = true;
public static void main(String[] args) {
MkThread2 mkThread = new MkThread2();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Worker2(1, mkThread));
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Worker2(2, mkThread));
Thread t3 = new Thread(new Worker2(3, mkThread));
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
}
}
class Worker2 implements Runnable{
volatile int threadNo;
private MkThread2 mkThread;
private String threadName;
Worker2(int threadNo, MkThread2 mkThread){
this.threadNo = threadNo;
this.mkThread = mkThread;
this.threadName = "Thread:"+threadNo ;
}
public void run(){
try{
synchronized (mkThread) {
while(mkThread.token){
while(threadNo != mkThread.nextThreadToRun){
mkThread.wait();
}
if(mkThread.token){//double checking
System.out.print(threadName+ "->" + mkThread.arr[mkThread.nextArrayIndex.get()]);
if(threadNo == 3) System.out.println();
mkThread.nextThreadToRun = getNextThread(threadNo);
if(mkThread.nextArrayIndex.get() == mkThread.arr.length-1){
mkThread.token = false;
}
mkThread.nextArrayIndex.incrementAndGet();
}
mkThread.notifyAll();
}
}
}
catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private int getNextThread(int threadNo){
int result = -1;
switch (threadNo) {
case (1):
result = 2;
break;
case (2):
result = 3;
break;
case (3):
result = 1;
break;
}
return result;
}
}
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class Print123456789 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
print p1 = new print(0);
print p2 = new print(1);
print p3 = new print(2);
Thread t1 = new Thread(p1);
Thread t2 = new Thread(p2);
Thread t3 = new Thread(p3);
t1.start();
t2.start();t3.start();
}
}
class print implements Runnable {
private int threadNumber;
private static AtomicInteger atomicInteger = new AtomicInteger(0);
public print(int threadNumber) {
super();
this.threadNumber = threadNumber;
}
public void run(){
try{
while(atomicInteger.get() < 10){
synchronized (atomicInteger) {
if((atomicInteger.get()%3) == this.threadNumber){
System.out.println(atomicInteger.getAndIncrement() + " Thread :" + this.threadNumber );
atomicInteger.notifyAll();
}
else
atomicInteger.wait();
}
}
}catch(InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
This can be better implemented using blocking queues. Define a worker holding a blocking queue. The workers waits on the queue until it receives a number in it. It prints the number it receives, increments it and passes it on to the next worker in the chain. Refer here for the full solution.
package threeThread;
class Task implements Runnable {
String message;
ThreeThread lock;
int i = 0;
int p;
public Task(String text, ThreeThread obj, int p) {
message = text;
this.lock = obj;
this.p = p;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
synchronized (lock) {
while(!((lock.status % 3) == 0) && p == 1){
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
while(!((lock.status % 3) == 1) && p == 2){
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
while(!((lock.status % 3) == 2) && p == 3){
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("thread: " + p + " : " + message);
lock.status++;
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
public class ThreeThread {
volatile int status = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreeThread lock = new ThreeThread();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Task("Hello", lock,1));
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Task("Good", lock,2));
Thread t3 = new Thread(new Task("Morning", lock,3));
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
}
}
I am putting code to print 1-100 using 5 threads. One can use any number of thread to print output in round robin fashion.
Basic concept is to lock one object and notify other for executing the printing of value.
public class PrintOneToHundredUsing5Threads {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Object> objList = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
objList.add(new Object());
}
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new PrintThread(objList.get(i), objList.get((i + 1) % 5)));
t.setName("Thread" + i);
t.start();
}
}
}
class PrintThread implements Runnable {
Object current;
Object next;
volatile static int i = 1;
PrintThread(Object cur, Object next) {
this.current = cur;
this.next = next;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (; i <= 100;) {
synchronized (current) {
synchronized (next) {
next.notify();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " Value : " + i++);
}
try {
current.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
You can use below code to print sequential numbers using multiple threads -
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
public class ThreadCall extends Thread {
private BlockingQueue<Integer> bq = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Integer>(10);
private ThreadCall next;
public void setNext(ThreadCall t) {
this.next = t;
}
public void addElBQ(int a) {
this.bq.add(a);
}
public ThreadCall(String name) {
this.setName(name);
}
#Override
public void run() {
int x = 0;
while(true) {
try {
x = 0;
x = bq.take();
if (x!=0) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " =>" + x);
if (x >= 100) System.exit(0); // Need to stop all running threads
next.addElBQ(x+1);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int THREAD_COUNT = 10;
List<ThreadCall> listThread = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i=1; i<=THREAD_COUNT; i++) {
listThread.add(new ThreadCall("Thread " + i));
}
for (int i = 0; i < listThread.size(); i++) {
if (i == listThread.size()-1) {
listThread.get(i).setNext(listThread.get(0));
}
else listThread.get(i).setNext(listThread.get(i+1));
}
listThread.get(0).addElBQ(1);
for (int i = 0; i < listThread.size(); i++) {
listThread.get(i).start();
}
}
}
Hope this will resolve your problem.
public class PrintThreadsInSerial {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t = new Thread(new Job());
t.start();
}
}
class Job implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
for (int i = 1; i <= 3; i++) {
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
}
The ThreadSynchronization class can be used to print numbers between 'n' no. of threads in sequence.
The logic is to create a common object between each of the consecutive threads and use 'wait', 'notify' to print the numbers in sequence.
Note: Last thread will share an object with the first thread.
You can change the 'maxThreads' value to increase or decrease the number of thread in the program before running it.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class ThreadSynchronization {
public static int i = 1;
public static final int maxThreads = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Object> list = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < maxThreads; i++) {
list.add(new Object());
}
Object currObject = list.get(maxThreads - 1);
for (int i = 0; i < maxThreads; i++) {
Object nextObject = list.get(i);
RunnableClass1 a = new RunnableClass1(currObject, nextObject, i == 0 ? true : false);
Thread th = new Thread(a);
th.setName("Thread - " + (i + 1));
th.start();
currObject = list.get(i);
}
}
}
class RunnableClass implements Runnable {
private Object currObject;
private Object nextObject;
private boolean firstThread;
public RunnableClass(Object currObject, Object nextObject, boolean first) {
this.currObject = currObject;
this.nextObject = nextObject;
this.firstThread = first;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int i = 0;
try {
if (firstThread) {
Thread.sleep(5000);
firstThread = false;
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " - " + ThreadSynchronization.i++);
synchronized (nextObject) {
nextObject.notify();
}
}
while (i++ < Integer.MAX_VALUE) {
synchronized (currObject) {
currObject.wait();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " - " + ThreadSynchronization.i++);
Thread.sleep(1000);
synchronized (nextObject) {
nextObject.notify();
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public class PrintSeqNumUsingAltThreads {
public static void main(String[] args) {
AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(0);
int numThreads = 3;
Thread t1 = new Thread(new SeqNumPrinter(counter, 0, numThreads));
Thread t2 = new Thread(new SeqNumPrinter(counter, 1, numThreads));
Thread t3 = new Thread(new SeqNumPrinter(counter, 2, numThreads));
t1.currentThread().setName("T1");
t2.currentThread().setName("T2");
t3.currentThread().setName("T3");
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
}
}
public class SeqNumPrinter implements Runnable {
AtomicInteger atmCounter;
Integer threadPosition;
Integer numThreads;
public SeqNumPrinter(AtomicInteger counter, int position, int numThreads) {
this.atmCounter = counter;
this.threadPosition = position;
this.numThreads = numThreads;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (atmCounter.get() < 10) {
if (atmCounter.get() % numThreads == threadPosition) {
System.out.println("Printing value : " + atmCounter.getAndIncrement() + ", by thread : " +
Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
}
}
Output :
Printing value : 0, by thread : Thread-0 Printing value : 1, by
thread : Thread-1 Printing value : 3, by thread : Thread-0
Printing value : 2, by thread : Thread-2 Printing value : 4, by
thread : Thread-1 Printing value : 6, by thread : Thread-0
Printing value : 5, by thread : Thread-2 Printing value : 7, by
thread : Thread-1 Printing value : 9, by thread : Thread-0
Printing value : 8, by thread : Thread-2
I am trying to create multiple threads, the number of which is dependent on the input from the command line. I know extending Thread isn't the best OO practice unless you are making a specialized version of Thread, but hypothetically is this code creating the desired result?
class MyThread extends Thread {
public MyThread (String s) {
super(s);
}
public void run() {
System.out.println("Run: "+ getName());
}
}
class TestThread {
public static void main (String arg[]) {
Scanner input = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Please input the number of Threads you want to create: ");
int n = input.nextInt();
System.out.println("You selected " + n + " Threads");
for (int x=0; x<n; x++)
{
MyThread temp= new MyThread("Thread #" + x);
temp.start();
System.out.println("Started Thread:" + x);
}
}
}
You have better alternative with ExecutorService
Sample code:
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class ExecutorTest{
public static void main(String args[]){
int numberOfTasks = Integer.parseInt(args[0]);
ExecutorService executor= Executors.newFixedThreadPool(Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors());
try{
for ( int i=0; i < numberOfTasks; i++){
executor.execute(new MyRunnable(i));
}
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
executor.shutdown(); // once you are done with ExecutorService
}
}
class MyRunnable implements Runnable{
int id;
public MyRunnable(int i){
this.id = i;
}
public void run(){
try{
System.out.println("Runnable started id:"+id);
System.out.println("Run: "+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println("Runnable ended id:"+id);
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Usage:
java ExecutorTest 2
Runnable started id:0
Run: pool-1-thread-1
Runnable ended id:0
Runnable started id:1
Run: pool-1-thread-2
Runnable ended id:1
Related posts: ( Advantages of using ExecutorService as a replacement for plain Thread)
ExecutorService vs Casual Thread Spawner
How to properly use Java Executor?
Yes, it is creating and starting n threads, all ending immediately after printing Run: and their name.
One important thing java JVM can create 20000 thread at a time .
Creating 255 threads in java
class MyThread1 extends Thread {
int k;
public MyThread1(int i) {
k = i;
}
#Override
public void run() {
//Your Code
System.out.println("Thread no. "+k);
}
}
class MainClass {
public static void main(String arg[]) throws UnknownHostException {
Refresh() ;
}
public static void Refresh(){
//create 255 Thread using for loop
for (int x = 0; x < 256; x++) {
// Create Thread class
MyThread1 temp = new MyThread1(x);
temp.start();
try {
temp.join(10);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Another simple example using ExecutorService as recommended by #ravindra-babu
class MyRunnable implements Runnable{
int id;
public MyRunnable(int i){
this.id = i;
}
public void run(){
try{
long init = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Start of Thread ID = " + id);
Thread.sleep(id * 1000);
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
long elapsedTime = end - init;
System.out.println("Elapsed time of Thread ID " + id + ": " + elapsedTime);
} catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Then all you need to do is create a new Thread inside the loop
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
try{
ExecutorService executor= Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
executor.execute(new MyRunnable(i));
executor.shutdown();
} catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
return;
}
}
}