I have a service which schedules async tasks using ScheduledExecutorService for the user. Each user will trigger the service to schedule two tasks. (The 1st Task schedule the 2nd task with a fixed delay, such as 10 seconds interval)
pseudocode code illustration:
task1Future = threadPoolTaskScheduler.schedule(task1);
for(int i = 0; i< 10000; ++i) {
task2Future = threadPoolTaskScheduler.schedule(task2);
task2Future.get(); // Takes long time
Thread.sleep(10);
}
task1.Future.get();
Suppose I have a potential of 10000 users using the service at the same time, we can have two kinds of ScheduledExecutorService configuration for my service:
A single ScheduledExecutorService for all the users.
Create a ScheduledExecutorService for each user.
What I can think about the first method:
Pros:
Easy to control the number of threads in the thread pool.
Avoid creating new threads for scheduled tasks.
Cons:
Always keeping multiple number of threads available could waste computer resources.
May cause the hang of the service because of lacking available threads. (For example, set the thread pool size to 10, and then there is a 100 person using the service the same time, then after entering the 1st task and it tries to schedule the 2nd task, then finding out there is no thread available for scheduling the 2nd task)
What I can think about the second method
Pros:
Avoiding always keep many threads available when the number of user is small.
Can always provide threads for a large number of simultaneously usage.
Cons:
Creating new threads creates overheads.
Don't know how to control the number of maximum threads for the service. May cause the RAM out of space.
Any ideas about which way is better?
Single ScheduledExecutorService drives many tasks
The entire point of a ScheduledExecutorService is to maintain a collection of tasks to be executed after a certain amount of time elapses.
So given the scenario you describe, you need only a single ScheduledExecutorService object. Submit your 10,000 tasks to that one object. Each task will be executed approximately when its designated delay elapses. Simple, and easy.
Thread pool size
The real issue is deciding how many threads to assign to the ScheduledExecutorService.
Threads, as currently implemented in the OpenJDK project, are mapped directly to host OS threads. This makes them relatively heavyweight in terms of CPU and memory usage. In other words, currently Java threads are “expensive”.
There is no simple easy answer to calculating thread pool size. The optimal number is the least amount of threads that can keep up with the workload without over-burdening the host machine’s limited number of cores and limited memory. If you search Stack Overflow, you’ll find many discussions on the topic of deciding how many threads to use in a pool.
Project Loom
And keep tabs with the progress of Project Loom and its promise to bring virtual threads to Java. That technology has the potential to radically alter the calculus of deciding thread pool size. Virtual threads will be more efficient with CPU and with memory. In other words, virtual threads will be quite “cheap”, “inexpensive”.
How executor service works
You said:
entering the 1st task and it tries to schedule the 2nd task, then finding out there is no thread available for scheduling the 2nd task
That is not how the scheduled executor service (SES) works.
If a task being currently executed by a SES needs to schedule itself or some other task to later execution, that submitted task is added to the queue maintained internally by the SES. There is no need to have a thread immediately available. Nothing happens immediately except that queue addition. Later, when the added task’s specified delay has elapsed, the SES looks for an available thread in its thread-pool to execute that task that was queued a while back in time.
You seem to feel a need to manage the time of each task’s execution on certain threads. But that is the job of the scheduled executor service. The SES tracks the tasks submitted for execution, notices when their specified delay elapses, and schedules their execution on a thread from its managed pool of threads. You don’t need to manage any of that. Your only challenge is to assign an appropriate number of threads to the pool.
Multiple executor services
You commented:
why don't use multiple ScheduledExecutorService instances
Because in your scenario, there is no benefit. Your Question implies that you have many tasks all similar with none being prioritized. In such a case, just use one executor service. One scheduled executor service with 12 threads will get the same amount of work accomplished as 3 services with 4 threads each.
As for excess threads, they are not a burden. Any thread without a task to execute uses virtually no CPU time. A pool may or may not choose to close some unused threads after a while. But such a policy is up to the implementation of the thread pool of the executor service, and is transparent to us as calling programmers.
If the scenario were different, where some of the tasks block for long periods of time, or where you need to prioritize certain tasks, then you may want to segregate those into a separate executor service.
In today's Java (before Project Loom with virtual threads), when code in a thread blocks, that thread sits there doing nothing but waiting to unblock. Blocking means your code is performing an operation that awaits a response. For example, making network calls to a socket or web service blocks, writing to storage blocks, and accessing an external database blocks. Ideally, you would not write code that blocks for long periods of time. But sometimes you must.
In such a case where some tasks run long, or conversely you have some tasks that must be prioritized for fast execution, then yes, use multiple executor services.
For example, say you have a 16-core machine with not much else running except your Java app. You might have one executor service with a thread pool size of 4 maximum for long-running tasks, one executor service with a thread pool with a size of 7 maximum for many run-of-the-mill tasks, and a third executor service with a thread pool maximum size of 2 for very few tasks that run short but must run quickly. (The numbers here are arbitrary examples, not a recommendation.)
Other approaches
As commented, there are other frameworks for managing concurrency. The ScheduledExecutorService discussed here is general purpose.
For example, Swing, JavaFX, Spring, and Jakarta EE each have their own concurrency management. Consider using those where approriate to your particular project.
Related
Let's assume I have a queue of Process objects that will execute a program on my computer than is single threaded. To increase efficiency I want to run to run 4 instances at a time so that I can get the most out of my 4 core CPU. How do I get 4 elements out of the queue, start processing them, and have a new process from the queue take the place of a process that has finished running?
Executor framework
Java provides all of this capability for you. No need for you to create your Process class nor a queue.
Each of your tasks should implement the Runnable or Callable interface.
Submit those to an executive service, as explained in the Oracle tutorial. The executor service acts as your queue, feeding the submitted tasks to an available thread.
To monitor the completion of your tasks, you may capture the returned Future object.
If you want a maximum of four tasks to be running simultaneously, create your executor service with a backing thread pool of four threads.
But beware of over scheduling. For a four core machine, you may want to use less than four threads, if your tasks are CPU intensive. Your computer has other work to to do such as OS tasks, run the JVM, and run other apps. On the other hand, if your tasks are not CPU-intensive, so they spend much time waiting such as waiting on network calls to return, then you may want a larger thread pool.
All this has been covered many times already on Stack Overflow. So search to learn more.
And be sure to read the book Java Concurrency In Practice by Goetz et al.
First of all, I could not determine what the title should be, so if it's not specific enough, the question itself will be.
We have an application that uses a foreground service and stays alive forever, and in this service, there are frequent database access jobs, network access jobs and some more, that needs to run on background threads. One job itself consumes a small amount of time, but the jobs themselves are frequent. Obviously, they need to run on worker threads, so I'm here to ask which design we should follow.
HandlerThread is a structure that creates a singular thread and uses a queue to execute tasks but always loops and waits for messages which consumes power, while ThreadPoolExecutor creates multiple threads for each job and deletes threads when the jobs are done, but because of too many threads there could be leaks, or out-of-memory even. The job count may be 5, or it may be 20, depending on how the user acts in a certain way. And, between 2 jobs, there can be a 5 second gap, or a day gap, totally depending on user. But, remember, the application stays alive forever and waits for these jobs to execute.
So, for this specific occasion, which one is better to use? A thread pool executor or a handler thread? Any advice is appreciated, thanks.
Caveat: I do not do Android work, so I am no expert there. My opinions here are based a quick reading of Android documentation.
tl;dr
➥ Use Executors rather than HandlerThread.
The Executors framework is more modern, flexible, and powerful than the legacy Thread facility used by HandlerThread. Everything you can do in HandlerThread you can do better with executors.
Differences
One big difference between HandlerThread and ThreadPoolExecutor is that the first comes from Android while the second comes from Java. So if you'll be doing other work with Java, you might not want to get in the habit of using HandlerThread.
Another big difference is age. The android.os.HandlerThread class inherits from java.lang.Thread, and dates back to the original Android API level 1. While nice for its time, the Thread facility in Java is limited in its design. That facility was supplanted by the more modern, flexible, and powerful Executors framework in later Java.
Executors
Your Question is not clear about whether these are recurring jobs or sporadically scheduled. Either can be handled with Executors.
For jobs that run once at a specific time, and for recurring scheduled jobs, use a ScheduledExecutorService. You can schedule a job to run once at a certain time by specifying a delay, a span of time to wait until execution. For repeated jobs, you can specify an amount to wait, then run, then wait, then run, and so on. I'll not address this further, as you seem to be talking about sporadic immediate jobs rather than scheduled or repeating jobs. If interested, search Stack Overflow as ScheduledExecutorService has been covered many times already on Stack Overflow.
Single thread pool
HandlerThread is a structure that creates a singular thread
If you want to recreate that single thread behavior, use a thread pool consisting of only a single thread.
ExecutorService es = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor() ;
Make your tasks. Implement either Runnable or Callable using (a) a class implementing either interface, (b) without defining a class, via lambda syntax or conventional syntax.
Conventional syntax.
Runnable sayHelloJob = new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run ( )
{
System.out.println( "Hello. " + Instant.now() );
}
};
Lambda syntax.
Runnable sayBonjourJob = ( ) -> System.out.println( "Bonjour. " + Instant.now() );
Submit as many of these jobs to the executor service as you wish.
es.submit( sayHelloJob ) ;
es.submit( sayBonjourJob ) ;
Notice that the submit method returns a Future. With that Future object, you can check if the computation is complete, wait for its completion, or retrieve the result of the computation. Or you may choose to ignore the Future object as seen in the code above.
Fixed thread pool
If you want multiple thread behavior, just create your executor with a different kind of thread pool.
A fixed thread pool has a maximum number of threads servicing a single queue of submitted jobs (Runnable or Callable objects). The threads continue to live, and are replaced as needed in case of failure.
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool( 3 ) ; // Specify number of threads.
The rest of the code remains the same. That is the beauty of using the ExecutorService interface: You can change the implementation of the executor service to get difference behavior while not breaking your code that calls upon that executor service.
Cached thread pool
Your needs may be better service by a cached thread pool. Rather than immediately creating and maintaining a certain number of threads as the fixed thread pool does, this pool creates threads only as needed, up to a maximum. When a thread is done, and resting for over a minute, the thread is terminated. As the Javadoc notes, this is ideal for “many short-lived asynchronous tasks” such as yours. But notice that there is no upper limit of threads that may be running simultaneously. If the nature of your app is such that you may see often spikes of many jobs arriving simultaneously, you may want to use a different implementation other than cached thread pool.
ExecutorService es = Executors.newCachedThreadPool() ;
Managing executors and threads
but because of too many threads there could be leaks, or out-of-memory even
It is the job of you the programmer and your sysadmin to not overburden the production server. You need to monitor performance in production. The managagement is easy enough to perform, as you control the number of threads available in the thread pool backing your executor service.
We have an application that uses a foreground service and stays alive forever
Of course your app does eventually come to end, being shutdown. When that happens, be sure to shutdown your executor and its backing thread pool. Otherwise the threads may survive, and continue indefinitely. Be sure to use the life cycle hooks of your app’s execution environment to detect and react to the app shutting down.
The job count may be 5, or it may be 20, depending on how the user acts in a certain way.
Jobs submitted to an executor service are buffered up until they can be scheduled on a thread for execution. So you may have a thread pool of, for example, 3 threads and 20 waiting jobs. No problem. The waiting jobs will be eventually executed when their time comes.
You may want to prioritize certain jobs, to be done ahead of lower priority jobs. One easy way to do this is to have two executor services. Each executor has its own backing thread pool. One executor is for the fewer but higher-priority jobs, while the other executor is for the many lower-priority jobs.
Remember that threads in a thread pool doing no work, on stand-by, have virtually no overhead in Java for either CPU or memory. So there is no downside to having a special higher-priority executor service sitting around and waiting for eventual jobs to arrive. The only concern is that your total number of all background threads and their workload not overwhelm your machine. Also, the implementation of the thread pool may well shut down unused threads after a period of disuse.
Don't really think its a question of the number of threads you are running, more how you want them run. If you want them run one at at time (i.e. you only want to execute on database query at a time) then use a HandlerThread. If you want multi-threading / a pool of threads, then use and Executor.
In my experience, leaks are really more down to how you have coded your threads, not really the chosen implementation.
Personally, I'd use a HandlerThread, here's a nice article on implementing them and how to avoid memory leaks ... Using HandlerThread in Android
I am working on a micro-service which have following flow of operations :
A request comes to execute some number of tasks. After some pre-processing I know that I need to execute some number of tasks let's say 10. Now the tasks are independent of each other, so can be executed in parallel. And each task have some processing step and some external API calls. And after all tasks are completed the combined results need to be returned.
This is one request, so obviously this micro service can get many such requests in parallel too.
Here API calls are most time-consuming operations and other work executes in very less time comparatively. So I want to design this in a way that as many tasks can be executed in parallel because for tasks mostly would be blocked for API calls.
A simple solution I see is using a thread-pool using ExecutorService, but it doesn't seem like a ideal solution because let's say I create a thread pool of 32 threads, and I get 60 tasks. So only 32 would be executing at a time, even though those 32 tasks are blocked for api call and not using much CPU time.
Is this possible to achieve without breaking the task as a single unit ?
The optimal number of threads depends on the number of cores the server has and the time the I/O workload takes. See http://baddotrobot.com/blog/2013/06/01/optimum-number-of-threads/ to calculate that.
In short it states: threads = number of cores * (1 + wait time / service time)
The timings has to come from your observation and measurements.
For the rest, you can use the CompletableFuture as mentioned in the comments or you can use the Executors class: Executors.newFixedThreadPool(<num of threads>);
You will have to do some benchmarking to figure out what is optimal for your setup. You might want to look into using ThreadPoolExecutor which can scale up and down the number of threads according to how many threads are available in the pool. There are a few parameters you can adjust in your benchmarks, namely corePoolSize and maximumPoolSize.
One way to deal with this is to ensure that the thread pool alway contains at least n threads in the runnable state (where n is usually equal to the number of CPU cores). This implies that you need to manage blocking and whenever a thread starts blocking add a thread to the pool and remove it again once it comes out of blocking.
Java's ForkJoinPool.ManagedBlocker is part of a solution for a similar problem when working with parallel streams.
Scala generalises and simplifies this aspect through the ExecutionContext used when working with futures.
The TheadPoolExecutor has some control parameters (core pool size (<32), maximum pool size (60)), allowing 60 threads for 32 cores would work well when 28 active threads are blocked.
The constellation you describe would often utilize a task queue, but you asked for the most CPU utilizing strategy. Though with microservices other aspects (than cores) play a role too.
I used to use ThreadPoolExecutors for years and one of the main reasons - it is designed to 'faster' process many requests because of parallelism and 'ready-to-go' threads (there are other though).
Now I'm stuck on minding inner design well known before.
Here is snippet from java 8 ThreadPoolExecutor:
public void execute(Runnable command) {
...
/*
* Proceed in 3 steps:
*
* 1. If fewer than corePoolSize threads are running, try to
* start a new thread with the given command as its first
* task. The call to addWorker atomically checks runState and
* workerCount, and so prevents false alarms that would add
* threads when it shouldn't, by returning false.
*/
...
int c = ctl.get();
if (workerCountOf(c) < corePoolSize) {
if (addWorker(command, true))
return;
c = ctl.get();
}
...
I'm interested in this very first step as in most cases you do not want thread poll executor to store 'unprocessed requests' in the internal queue, it is better to leave them in external input Kafka topic / JMS queue etc. So I'm usually designing my performance / parallelism oriented executor to have zero internal capacity and 'caller runs rejection policy'. You chose some sane big amount of parallel threads and core pool timeout not scare others and show how big the value is ;). I don't use internal queue and I want tasks to start to be processed the earlier the better, thus it has become 'fixed thread pool executor'. Thus in most cases I'm under this 'first step' of the method logic.
Here is the question: is this really the case that it will not 'reuse' existing threads but will create new one each time it is 'under core size' (most cases)? Would it be not better to 'add new core thread only if all others are busy' and not 'when we have a chance to suck for a while on another thread creation'? Am I missing anything?
The doc describes the relationship between the corePoolSize, maxPoolSize, and the task queue, and what happens when a task is submitted.
...but will create new one [thread] each time it is 'under core size...'
Yes. From the doc:
When a new task is submitted in method execute(Runnable), and fewer
than corePoolSize threads are running, a new thread is created to
handle the request, even if other worker threads are idle.
Would it be not better to add new core thread only if all others are busy...
Since you don't want to use the internal queue this seems reasonable. So set the corePoolSize and maxPoolSize to be the same. Once the ramp up of creating the threads is complete there won't be any more creation.
However, using CallerRunsPolicy would seem to hurt performance if the external queue grows faster than can be processed.
Here is the question: is this really the case that it will not 'reuse' existing threads but will create new one each time it is 'under core size' (most cases)?
Yes that is how the code is documented and written.
Am I missing anything?
Yes, I think you are missing the whole point of "core" threads. Core threads are defined in the Executors docs are:
... threads to keep in the pool, even if they are idle.
That's the definition. Thread startup is a non trivial process and so if you have 10 core threads in a pool, the first 10 requests to the pool each start a thread until all of the core threads are live. This spreads the startup load across the first X requests. This is not about getting the tasks done, this is about initializing the TPE and spreading the thread creation load out. You could call prestartAllCoreThreads() if you don't want this behavior.
The whole purpose of the core threads is to have threads already started and running available to work on tasks immediately. If we had to start a thread each time we needed one, there would be unnecessary resource allocation time and thread start/stop overhead taking compute and OS resources. If you don't want the core threads then you can let them timeout and pay for the startup time.
I used to use ThreadPoolExecutors for years and one of the main reasons - it is designed to 'faster' process many requests because of parallelism and 'ready-to-go' threads (there are other though).
TPE is not necessarily "faster". We use it because to manually manage and communicate with a number of threads is hard and easy to get wrong. That's why the TPE code is so powerful. It is the OS threads that give us parallelism.
I don't use internal queue and I want tasks to start to be processed the earlier the better,
The entire point of a threaded program is the maximize throughput. If you run 100 threads on a 4 core system and the tasks are CPU intensive, you are going to pay for the increased context switching and the overall time to process a large number of requests is going to decrease. Your application is also most likely competing for resources on the server with other programs and you don't want to cause it to slow to a crawl if 100s of jobs try to run in a thread pool at the same time.
The whole point of limiting your core threads (i.e. not making them a "sane big amount") is that there is an optimal number of concurrent threads that will maximize the overall throughput of your application. It can be really hard to find the optimal core thread size but experimentation, if possible, would help.
It depends highly on the degree of CPU versus IO in a task. If the tasks are making remote RPC calls to a slow service then it might make sense to have a large number of core threads in your pool. If they are predominantly CPU tasks, however, you are going to want to be closer to the number of CPU/cores and then queue the rest of the tasks. Again it is all about overall throughput.
To reuse threads one need somehow to transfer task to existing thread.
This pushed me towards synchronous queue and zero core pool size.
return new ThreadPoolExecutor(0, maxThreadsCount,
10L, SECONDS,
new SynchronousQueue<Runnable>(),
new BasicThreadFactory.Builder().namingPattern("processor-%d").build());
I have really reduced amounts of 'peaks' of 500 - 1500 (ms) on my 'main flow'.
But this will work only for zero-sized queue. For non-zero-sized queue question is still open.
I would like to know which to use CachedThreadPool or FixedThreadPool in this particular scenario.
When the user logins into the app, a list of addresses will be obtained about 10 addresses. I need to do the following:
Convert the address into latitude and longitude for which I am calling a Google API
Obtain distance between the above fetched latitude and longitude with user's current location also with the help of a Google API
So, I have created a class GetDistance which implements Runnable. In this class I am first calling the Google API and parsing the response to get respective latitude and longitude and then calling and parsing result of another Google API to get driving distance.
private void getDistanceOfAllAddresses(List<Items> itemsList) {
ExecutorService exService = newCachedThreadPool(); //Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
for(int i =0; i<itemsList.size(); i++) {
exService.submit(new GetDistance(i,usersCurrentLocation));
}
exService.shutdown();
}
I have tried with both CachedThreadPool and FixedThreadPool, time taken is almost the same. I am in favour of CachedThreadPool as it is recommended for small operations, but I have some concerns. Lets assume CachedThreadPool creates 10 threads (worst case) to complete the process (10 items), will it be an issue if my app is running on lower end devices? As number of threads created will also affect the RAM of the device.
I want to know your thoughts and opinions on this. Which is better to use?
Go with newCachedThreadPool it is better fit for this situation, because your task are small and I/O (network) bound. Which means you should create threads (usually 1.5x ~ 2x times) greater than number of processor cores to get optimum output, but here I guess newCachedThreadPool will manage itself. So, newCachedThreadPool will have less overhead as compared to newFixedThreadPool and will help in your situation.
If you had CPU intensive tasks then newFixedThreadPool could have been a better choice.
Update
A list of addresses will be obtained about 10 addresses.
If you need only 10 address always, then it doesn't matter, go with newCachedThreadPool. But if you think that number of address can increase then use newFixedThreadPool with number of threads <= 1.5x to 2x times number of cores available.
From Java docs:
newFixedThreadPool
Creates a thread pool that reuses a
fixed number of threads operating off
a shared unbounded queue. At any
point, at most nThreads threads will
be active processing tasks. If
additional tasks are submitted when
all threads are active, they will wait
in the queue until a thread is
available. If any thread terminates
due to a failure during execution
prior to shutdown, a new one will take
its place if needed to execute
subsequent tasks. The threads in the
pool will exist until it is explicitly
shutdown.
newCachedThreadPool
Creates a thread pool that creates new
threads as needed, but will reuse
previously constructed threads when
they are available. These pools will
typically improve the performance of
programs that execute many short-lived
asynchronous tasks. Calls to execute
will reuse previously constructed
threads if available. If no existing
thread is available, a new thread will
be created and added to the pool.
Threads that have not been used for
sixty seconds are terminated and
removed from the cache. Thus, a pool
that remains idle for long enough will
not consume any resources. Note that
pools with similar properties but
different details (for example,
timeout parameters) may be created
using ThreadPoolExecutor constructors.