Develop Reference

Why is one thread getting activated in my Producer Consumer Code

I am learning locks and conditions in Java and have implemented producer and consumer code.Idea is to have 1 producer and N Consumer . But when i run the code , always 1 consumer thread read
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.Queue;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class ProdConsumer {
int MAX_ELEMENTS = 10;
Queue<Integer> q ;
Lock lock = new ReentrantLock(false);
Condition read = lock.newCondition();
Condition write = lock.newCondition();
ProdConsumer(){
q = new LinkedList<>();
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
ProdConsumer pq = new ProdConsumer();
new Thread(() -> {
try {
new Producer(pq.q).produce(pq.lock,pq.read,pq.write,pq.MAX_ELEMENTS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}).start();
new Thread(() -> {
try {
System.out.println("Started " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
new Consumer(pq.q).consume(pq.lock,pq.read,pq.write);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}).start();
new Thread(() -> {
try {
System.out.println("Started " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
new Consumer(pq.q).consume(pq.lock,pq.read,pq.write);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}).start();
}
}
class Producer {
Queue q;
Producer(Queue q) {
this.q = q;
}
void produce(Lock lock, Condition read, Condition write, int MAX_ELEMENTS) throws InterruptedException {
lock.lock();
try {
int count = 0;
while (count < 1000) {
while (q.size() == MAX_ELEMENTS) {
write.await();
}
q.add(count);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + "PRODUCED " + count);
count++;
read.signalAll();
}
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
class Consumer {
Queue q;
Consumer(Queue q ){
this.q = q;
}
void consume(Lock lock, Condition read, Condition write) throws InterruptedException {
lock.lock();
try {
while (true) {
while (q.size() == 0) {
read.await();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + "CONSUMED " + q.poll());
Thread.sleep((long)(Math.random() * 1000));
write.signalAll();
}
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
Result:
Started Thread-1
Started Thread-2
Thread-0PRODUCED 0
Thread-0PRODUCED 1
Thread-0PRODUCED 2
Thread-0PRODUCED 3
Thread-0PRODUCED 4
Thread-0PRODUCED 5
Thread-0PRODUCED 6
Thread-0PRODUCED 7
Thread-0PRODUCED 8
Thread-0PRODUCED 9
Thread-1CONSUMED 0
Thread-1CONSUMED 1
Thread-1CONSUMED 2
Thread-1CONSUMED 3
Thread-1CONSUMED 4
Thread-1CONSUMED 5
Thread-1CONSUMED 6
Thread-1CONSUMED 7
Thread-1CONSUMED 8
Thread-1CONSUMED 9
Here we can see , even tough both thread starts , always Thread one is consuming.
My thought process is , when producer signals all , then either of consumer thread should start. What am i doing wrong ?

Unfortunately you have implemented the producer-consumer with a dependency on both the queue size and locks, and the queue access is not thread-safe. The implementation is unlikely to work properly as producer could call signalAll several times when neither consumer is using read.
Because your producer starts first it could either add the queue so that both consumers see q.size() > 0 when they start-up or they might both see q.size() == 0 and miss the producer saying read.signalAll() before they enter read.await(). Thus this while loop below is not doing as you expect in both consumers:
while (q.size() == 0) {
read.await();
}
To demonstrate the above, switch the new Threads around and start up both Consumer first BEFORE the Producer, and change the consumer so they rely only on only the read locks not queue size to determine when to read the queue.
// while (q.size() == 0) {
read.await();
// }
That avoids not-threadsafe access to q.size() and q.poll() but still may fail if both consumers do not hit read.await() so you might need to sleep before starting the producer.
A better (and reliable) solution would replace locks with thread-safe Queue such as new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(MAX_ELEMENTS) and use q.put() / q.take() to ensure consumers are exactly handling everything from the producer, and then you won't need to worry about the order of producer-consumer startup (nor add a sleep before producer start-up).
Also note that System.out in these threads introduces some inter-thread synchronisation (see PrintWriter source code) so the results may not be same without your logging.

Thread Synchronization - Synchronizing three threads to print 012012012012..... not working

I am trying to synchronize three threads to print 012012012012.... but it is not working correctly. Each thread is assigned a number which it prints when it receives a signal from main thread. There is something wrong with the following program which I am not able to catch.
public class Application {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int totalThreads = 3;
Thread[] threads = new Thread[totalThreads];
for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) {
threads[i] = new MyThread(i);
threads[i].start();
}
int threadIndex = 0;
while (true) {
synchronized(threads[threadIndex]) {
threads[threadIndex].notify();
}
threadIndex++;
if (threadIndex == totalThreads) {
threadIndex = 0;
}
}
}
}
class MyThread extends Thread {
private int i;
public MyThread(int i) {
this.i = i;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized(this) {
waitForSignal();
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
private void waitForSignal() {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

You need more coordination. the notify call does not immediately wake up the thread and force it to proceed. Instead, think of notify as sending an email to the thread to let it know that it can proceed. Imagine if you wanted your 3 friends to call you in order. You sent friend 1 an email to call you, waited one second, sent an email to friend 2, waited a second, and sent an email to friend 3. do you think you'd get called in that exact order?
one way to add more coordination would be to have some shared state which indicates whose turn it is. if all your friends could see your house, you could put a number on the outside of the house indicating whose turn it was to call. each friend would wait until they saw their number, and then call.

Here's your problem:
int threadIndex = 0;
while (true) {
synchronized(threads[threadIndex]) {
threads[threadIndex].notify();
}
threadIndex++;
if (threadIndex == totalThreads) {
threadIndex = 0;
}
}
The main thread notifies all threads in the right order. However, your threads are working independently. They may or may not get scheduled at a specific point in time. So the end result may be, that thread 2 is reaching the wait/print lock before thread 1 before thread 0. The final order is not determined by you sending the notifications, but (in essence) by the scheduler.
The solution is to change it this way:
the main thread notifies exactly one thread: thread 0
every thread does his work and when done, notifies the next thread in line
obviously the last thread has to notify thread 0 again.

Another possible solution: In the main thread, you can wait immediately after having notified a thread (in the same synchronized block), like this:
synchronized (threads[threadIndex])
{
threads[threadIndex].notify();
threads[threadIndex].wait(); // try/catch here
}
And in the run method of the thread, you can use notifyAll to wake up the main thread after the thread finished its work:
synchronized (this)
{
waitForSignal();
System.out.println(i);
notifyAll();
}
More sophisticated solutions would involve classes from the java.util.concurrent.locks package.

package threads;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
public class ZeroEvenOddPrinter {
class Runner extends Thread{
Semaphore prev;
Semaphore next;
int num = 0;
public Runner(Semaphore prev,Semaphore next,int num){
this.prev = prev;
this.next = next;
this.num = num;
}
#Override
public void run(){
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
prev.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
if (num == 0)
System.out.println(0);
else {
System.out.println(num);
num = num + 2;
}
next.release();
}
}
}
static public void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException{
Semaphore sem1 = new Semaphore(1);
Semaphore sem2 = new Semaphore(1);
Semaphore sem3 = new Semaphore(1);
ZeroEvenOddPrinter zeo = new ZeroEvenOddPrinter();
Runner t1 = zeo.new Runner(sem1,sem2,0);
Runner t2 = zeo.new Runner(sem2,sem3,1);
Runner t3 = zeo.new Runner(sem3,sem1,2);
sem1.acquire();
sem2.acquire();
sem3.acquire();
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
sem1.release();
}
}
Here i am using semaphores as triggers for all the three threads. Initially all threads will be blocked on sem1,sem2,sem3. Then i will release the sem1 and first thread will execute then it will release the second thread and so on... The best part is you extend this logic to n number of threads. Good Luck!!!

Regarding producers and consumer pattern in java with blocking queue approach

I was doing a research in producers and consumer design patterns with regards to threads in java, I recently explored in java 5 with the introduction With introduction of BlockingQueue Data Structure in Java 5 Its now much simpler because BlockingQueue provides this control implicitly by introducing blocking methods put() and take(). Now you don't require to use wait and notify to communicate between Producer and Consumer. BlockingQueue put() method will block if Queue is full in case of Bounded Queue and take() will block if Queue is empty. In next section we will see a code example of Producer Consumer design pattern. I have developed the below program but please also let me know the old style approach of waut() and notify() , I want to develop the same logic with old style approach also
Folks please advise how this can be implemented in , classical way is using wait() and notify() method to communicate between Producer and Consumer thread and blocking each of them on individual condition like full queue and empty queue...?
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.LinkedBlockingQueue;
import java.util.logging.Level;
import java.util.logging.Logger;
public class ProducerConsumerPattern {
public static void main(String args[]){
//Creating shared object
BlockingQueue sharedQueue = new LinkedBlockingQueue();
//Creating Producer and Consumer Thread
Thread prodThread = new Thread(new Producer(sharedQueue));
Thread consThread = new Thread(new Consumer(sharedQueue));
//Starting producer and Consumer thread
prodThread.start();
consThread.start();
}
}
//Producer Class in java
class Producer implements Runnable {
private final BlockingQueue sharedQueue;
public Producer(BlockingQueue sharedQueue) {
this.sharedQueue = sharedQueue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i=0; i<10; i++){
try {
System.out.println("Produced: " + i);
sharedQueue.put(i);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Producer.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
}
//Consumer Class in Java
class Consumer implements Runnable{
private final BlockingQueue sharedQueue;
public Consumer (BlockingQueue sharedQueue) {
this.sharedQueue = sharedQueue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
try {
System.out.println("Consumed: "+ sharedQueue.take());
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Consumer.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
}
Output:
Produced: 0
Produced: 1
Consumed: 0
Produced: 2
Consumed: 1
Produced: 3
Consumed: 2
Produced: 4
Consumed: 3
Produced: 5
Consumed: 4
Produced: 6
Consumed: 5
Produced: 7
Consumed: 6
Produced: 8
Consumed: 7
Produced: 9
Consumed: 8
Consumed: 9

If you want to know another way to do this try using an ExecutorService
public static void main(String... args) {
ExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
System.out.println("Produced: " + i);
final int finalI = i;
service.submit(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Consumed: " + finalI);
}
});
}
service.shutdown();
}
With just 10 tasks the producer can be finished before the consumer starts. If you try 100 tasks you may find them interleaved.

If you want to understand how a BlockingQueue works, for educational purposes, you can always have a look on its source code.
The simplest way could be to synchronize the offer() and take() methods, and once the queue is full and someone is trying to offer() an element - invoke wait(). When someone is taking an element, notify() the sleeping thread. (Same idea when trying to take() from an empty queue).
Remember to make sure all your wait() calls are nested in loops that checks if the conditions are met each time the thread is awakened.
If you are planning to implement it from scratch for product purposes - I'd strongly argue against it. You should use an existing, tested libraries and components as much as possible.

I can do this wait-notify stuff in my sleep (or at least I think I can). Java 1.4 source provided beautiful examples of all this, but they've switched to doing everything with atomics and it's a lot more complicated now. The wait-notify does provide flexibility and power, though the other methods can shield you from the dangers of concurrency and make for simpler code.
To do this, you want some fields, like so:
private final ConcurrentLinkedQueue<Intger> sharedQueue =
new ConcurrentLinkedQueue<>();
private volatile boolean waitFlag = true;
Your Producer.run would look like this:
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 100000, i++) {
System.out.println( "Produced: " + i );
sharedQueue.add( new Integer( i ) );
if (waitFlag) // volatile access is cheaper than synch.
synchronized (sharedQueue) { sharedQueue.notifyAll(); }
}
}
And Consumer.run:
public void run() {
waitFlag = false;
for (;;) {
Integer ic = sharedQueue.poll();
if (ic == null) {
synchronized (sharedQueue) {
waitFlag = true;
// An add might have come through before waitFlag was set.
ic = sharedQueue.poll();
if (ic == null) {
try { sharedQueue.wait(); }
catch (InterruptedException ex) {}
waitFlag = false;
continue;
}
waitFlag = true;
}
}
System.out.println( "Consumed: " + ic );
}
}
This keeps synchronizing to a minimum. If all goes well, there's only one look at a volatile field per add. You should be able to run any number of producers simultaneously. (Consumer's would be trickier--you'd have to give up waitFlag.) You could use a different object for wait/notifyAll.

Wait for one of several threads

I have a java application where the main-thread starts 2 other threads.
If one of these threads terminates, the main-thread may start another thread depending on the result of the terminated thread.
Example:
The main-thread creates 2 threads: A and B. Thread A will load a picture and thread B will load another picture. If A terminates and loaded the picture successfully a new Thread C will be created which does some other stuff and so on.
How can i do this? I do not want to use busy waiting in the main thread and check every 100ms if one of the two threads has finished.
I think i cannot use a thread pool because the number of active threads (in this case A and B) will vary extremely and it's the main-threads dicision to create a new thread or not.
This is rough sketch of the "busy waiting" solution:
public class TestThreads {
private class MyThread extends Thread {
volatile boolean done = false;
int steps;
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i=0; i<steps; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": " + i);
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException exc) { }
}
done = true;
synchronized (this) {
notify();
}
}
public void waitFor(long ms) {
synchronized (this) {
try {
wait(ms);
} catch (InterruptedException exc) { }
}
}
}
public void startTest() {
MyThread a = new MyThread();
a.steps = 6;
a.start();
MyThread b = new MyThread();
b.steps = 3;
b.start();
while (true) {
if (!a.done) {
a.waitFor(100);
if (a.done) {
System.out.println("C will be started, because A is done.");
}
}
if (!b.done) {
b.waitFor(100);
if (b.done) {
System.out.println("C will be started, because B is done.");
}
}
if (a.done && b.done) {
break;
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestThreads test = new TestThreads();
test.startTest();
}
}

This sounds like a classic case for using a ThreadPoolExecutor for performing the tasks concurrently, and wrapping it with an ExecutorCompletionService, for collecting the results as they arrive.
For example, assuming that tasks contains a set of tasks to execute in parallel, each returning a String value when it terminates, the code to process the results as they become available can be something like:
List<Callable<String>> tasks = ....;
Executor ex = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
ExecutorCompletionService<String> ecs = new ExecutorCompletionService<String>(ex);
for (Callable<String> task : tasks)
ecs.submit(task);
for(int i = 0; i < tasks.size(); i++) {
String result = ecs.take().get();
//Do something with result
}
If you include the identity of the task as a part of the returned value, then you can make decisions depending on the completion order.

Check Semaphore
A counting semaphore. Conceptually, a semaphore maintains a set of permits. Each acquire() blocks if necessary until a permit is available, and then takes it
So, whenever you thread finishes, it frees one permit, which is then acquired by the main thread

You should use a thread pool. In a thread pool, you have a fixed number of threads and tasks are kept in a queue; whenever a thread is available, a task is taken off the queue and executed by that thread.
Here is a link to the Sun tutorial on thread pooling.
Edit: just noticed that you wrote in your answer that you think you cannot use thread pooling. I don't see why this is the case. You can set threads to be created on-demand rather than all at once if you are worried about creation overhead, and once created an idle thread is not really going to hurt anything.
You also say that it's the main thread's decision to create a new Thread or not, but does it really need to be? I think that may just overcomplicate things for you.

Is there a reason to control the thread execution directly instead of using something like
ExecutorService?
#danben got there first, but I fell into the same pooling trap.

A lot of the complexity in your code is that the main thread is trying to wait on two different objects. There's nothing which says you can't use wait and notify on another object, and if your tasks are ( A or B ) then C, the code below will work - wait on a reference which is set to indicate the first task to complete.
import java.util.*;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.*;
public class BiggieThreads
{
private static class MyTask implements Runnable
{
final int steps;
final AtomicReference<MyTask> shared;
final String name;
MyTask ( int steps, AtomicReference<MyTask> shared, String name )
{
this.shared = shared;
this.steps = steps;
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
for ( int i = 1; i <= steps; i++ ) {
System.out.println ( "Running: " + this + " " + i + "/" + steps);
try {
Thread.sleep ( 100 );
} catch ( InterruptedException exc ) { }
}
// notify if this is the first to complete
if ( shared.compareAndSet ( null, this ) )
synchronized ( shared ) {
shared.notify();
}
System.out.println ( "Completed: " + this );
}
#Override
public String toString ()
{
return name;
}
}
public void startTest() throws InterruptedException
{
final ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool ( 3 );
final AtomicReference<MyTask> shared = new AtomicReference<MyTask>();
Random random = new Random();
synchronized ( shared ) {
// tasks launched while lock on shared held to prevent
// them notifying before this thread waits
pool.execute ( new MyTask ( random.nextInt ( 5 ) + 3, shared, "a" ) );
pool.execute ( new MyTask ( random.nextInt ( 5 ) + 3, shared, "b" ) );
shared.wait();
}
System.out.println ( "Reported: " + shared.get() );
pool.shutdown();
}
public static void main ( String[] args ) throws InterruptedException
{
BiggieThreads test = new BiggieThreads ();
test.startTest();
}
}
I'd tend to use a semaphore for this job in production, as although the wait is quite simple, using in semaphore puts a name to the behaviour, so there's less to work out when you next read the code.

How to wait for a number of threads to complete?

What is a way to simply wait for all threaded process to finish? For example, let's say I have:
public class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable{
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int n=0; n<1000; n++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new DoSomethingInAThread());
t.start();
}
// wait for all threads' run() methods to complete before continuing
}
public void run() {
// do something here
}
}
How do I alter this so the main() method pauses at the comment until all threads' run() methods exit? Thanks!

You put all threads in an array, start them all, and then have a loop
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
Each join will block until the respective thread has completed. Threads may complete in a different order than you joining them, but that's not a problem: when the loop exits, all threads are completed.

One way would be to make a List of Threads, create and launch each thread, while adding it to the list. Once everything is launched, loop back through the list and call join() on each one. It doesn't matter what order the threads finish executing in, all you need to know is that by the time that second loop finishes executing, every thread will have completed.
A better approach is to use an ExecutorService and its associated methods:
List<Callable> callables = ... // assemble list of Callables here
// Like Runnable but can return a value
ExecutorService execSvc = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
List<Future<?>> results = execSvc.invokeAll(callables);
// Note: You may not care about the return values, in which case don't
// bother saving them
Using an ExecutorService (and all of the new stuff from Java 5's concurrency utilities) is incredibly flexible, and the above example barely even scratches the surface.

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
public class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException
{
//limit the number of actual threads
int poolSize = 10;
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(poolSize);
List<Future<Runnable>> futures = new ArrayList<Future<Runnable>>();
for (int n = 0; n < 1000; n++)
{
Future f = service.submit(new DoSomethingInAThread());
futures.add(f);
}
// wait for all tasks to complete before continuing
for (Future<Runnable> f : futures)
{
f.get();
}
//shut down the executor service so that this thread can exit
service.shutdownNow();
}
public void run()
{
// do something here
}
}

instead of join(), which is an old API, you can use CountDownLatch. I have modified your code as below to fulfil your requirement.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable{
CountDownLatch latch;
public DoSomethingInAThread(CountDownLatch latch){
this.latch = latch;
}
public void run() {
try{
System.out.println("Do some thing");
latch.countDown();
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public class CountDownLatchDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try{
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1000);
for (int n=0; n<1000; n++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new DoSomethingInAThread(latch));
t.start();
}
latch.await();
System.out.println("In Main thread after completion of 1000 threads");
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Explanation:
CountDownLatch has been initialized with given count 1000 as per your requirement.
Each worker thread DoSomethingInAThread will decrement the CountDownLatch, which has been passed in constructor.
Main thread CountDownLatchDemo await() till the count has become zero. Once the count has become zero, you will get below line in output.
In Main thread after completion of 1000 threads
More info from oracle documentation page
public void await()
throws InterruptedException
Causes the current thread to wait until the latch has counted down to zero, unless the thread is interrupted.
Refer to related SE question for other options:
wait until all threads finish their work in java

Avoid the Thread class altogether and instead use the higher abstractions provided in java.util.concurrent
The ExecutorService class provides the method invokeAll that seems to do just what you want.

Consider using java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch. Examples in javadocs

Depending on your needs, you may also want to check out the classes CountDownLatch and CyclicBarrier in the java.util.concurrent package. They can be useful if you want your threads to wait for each other, or if you want more fine-grained control over the way your threads execute (e.g., waiting in their internal execution for another thread to set some state). You could also use a CountDownLatch to signal all of your threads to start at the same time, instead of starting them one by one as you iterate through your loop. The standard API docs have an example of this, plus using another CountDownLatch to wait for all threads to complete their execution.

As Martin K suggested java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch seems to be a better solution for this. Just adding an example for the same
public class CountDownLatchDemo
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
int noOfThreads = 5;
// Declare the count down latch based on the number of threads you need
// to wait on
final CountDownLatch executionCompleted = new CountDownLatch(noOfThreads);
for (int i = 0; i < noOfThreads; i++)
{
new Thread()
{
#Override
public void run ()
{
System.out.println("I am executed by :" + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try
{
// Dummy sleep
Thread.sleep(3000);
// One thread has completed its job
executionCompleted.countDown();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
}
try
{
// Wait till the count down latch opens.In the given case till five
// times countDown method is invoked
executionCompleted.await();
System.out.println("All over");
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

If you make a list of the threads, you can loop through them and .join() against each, and your loop will finish when all the threads have. I haven't tried it though.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html#join()

Create the thread object inside the first for loop.
for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) {
threads[i] = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// some code to run in parallel
}
});
threads[i].start();
}
And then so what everyone here is saying.
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();

You can do it with the Object "ThreadGroup" and its parameter activeCount:

As an alternative to CountDownLatch you can also use CyclicBarrier e.g.
public class ThreadWaitEx {
static CyclicBarrier barrier = new CyclicBarrier(100, new Runnable(){
public void run(){
System.out.println("clean up job after all tasks are done.");
}
});
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new MyCallable(barrier));
t.start();
}
}
}
class MyCallable implements Runnable{
private CyclicBarrier b = null;
public MyCallable(CyclicBarrier b){
this.b = b;
}
#Override
public void run(){
try {
//do something
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" is waiting for barrier after completing his job.");
b.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
To use CyclicBarrier in this case barrier.await() should be the last statement i.e. when your thread is done with its job. CyclicBarrier can be used again with its reset() method. To quote javadocs:
A CyclicBarrier supports an optional Runnable command that is run once per barrier point, after the last thread in the party arrives, but before any threads are released. This barrier action is useful for updating shared-state before any of the parties continue.

The join() was not helpful to me. see this sample in Kotlin:
val timeInMillis = System.currentTimeMillis()
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
for (i in 1..5) {
val t = Thread(Runnable {
Thread.sleep(50)
var a = i
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "a=$a")
Thread.sleep(200)
for (j in 1..5) {
a *= j
Thread.sleep(100)
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "$a*$j=$a")
}
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|TaskDurationInMillis = " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - timeInMillis))
})
t.start()
}
})
The result:
Thread-5|a=5
Thread-1|a=1
Thread-3|a=3
Thread-2|a=2
Thread-4|a=4
Thread-2|2*1=2
Thread-3|3*1=3
Thread-1|1*1=1
Thread-5|5*1=5
Thread-4|4*1=4
Thread-1|2*2=2
Thread-5|10*2=10
Thread-3|6*2=6
Thread-4|8*2=8
Thread-2|4*2=4
Thread-3|18*3=18
Thread-1|6*3=6
Thread-5|30*3=30
Thread-2|12*3=12
Thread-4|24*3=24
Thread-4|96*4=96
Thread-2|48*4=48
Thread-5|120*4=120
Thread-1|24*4=24
Thread-3|72*4=72
Thread-5|600*5=600
Thread-4|480*5=480
Thread-3|360*5=360
Thread-1|120*5=120
Thread-2|240*5=240
Thread-1|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-3|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-4|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-5|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-2|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Now let me use the join() for threads:
val timeInMillis = System.currentTimeMillis()
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
for (i in 1..5) {
val t = Thread(Runnable {
Thread.sleep(50)
var a = i
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "a=$a")
Thread.sleep(200)
for (j in 1..5) {
a *= j
Thread.sleep(100)
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "$a*$j=$a")
}
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|TaskDurationInMillis = " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - timeInMillis))
})
t.start()
t.join()
}
})
And the result:
Thread-1|a=1
Thread-1|1*1=1
Thread-1|2*2=2
Thread-1|6*3=6
Thread-1|24*4=24
Thread-1|120*5=120
Thread-1|TaskDurationInMillis = 815
Thread-2|a=2
Thread-2|2*1=2
Thread-2|4*2=4
Thread-2|12*3=12
Thread-2|48*4=48
Thread-2|240*5=240
Thread-2|TaskDurationInMillis = 1568
Thread-3|a=3
Thread-3|3*1=3
Thread-3|6*2=6
Thread-3|18*3=18
Thread-3|72*4=72
Thread-3|360*5=360
Thread-3|TaskDurationInMillis = 2323
Thread-4|a=4
Thread-4|4*1=4
Thread-4|8*2=8
Thread-4|24*3=24
Thread-4|96*4=96
Thread-4|480*5=480
Thread-4|TaskDurationInMillis = 3078
Thread-5|a=5
Thread-5|5*1=5
Thread-5|10*2=10
Thread-5|30*3=30
Thread-5|120*4=120
Thread-5|600*5=600
Thread-5|TaskDurationInMillis = 3833
As it's clear when we use the join:
The threads are running sequentially.
The first sample takes 765 Milliseconds while the second sample takes 3833 Milliseconds.
Our solution to prevent blocking other threads was creating an ArrayList:
val threads = ArrayList<Thread>()
Now when we want to start a new thread we most add it to the ArrayList:
addThreadToArray(
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
...
})
)
The addThreadToArray function:
#Synchronized
fun addThreadToArray(th: Thread) {
threads.add(th)
}
The startNewThread funstion:
fun startNewThread(runnable: Runnable) : Thread {
val th = Thread(runnable)
th.isDaemon = false
th.priority = Thread.MAX_PRIORITY
th.start()
return th
}
Check the completion of the threads as below everywhere it's needed:
val notAliveThreads = ArrayList<Thread>()
for (t in threads)
if (!t.isAlive)
notAliveThreads.add(t)
threads.removeAll(notAliveThreads)
if (threads.size == 0){
// The size is 0 -> there is no alive threads.
}

The problem with:
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
...is, that threads[i + 1] never can join before threads[i].
Except the "latch"ed ones, all solutions have this lack.
No one here (yet) mentioned ExecutorCompletionService, it allows to join threads/tasks according to their completion order:
public class ExecutorCompletionService<V>
extends Object
implements CompletionService<V>
A CompletionService that uses a supplied Executor to execute tasks. This class arranges that submitted tasks are, upon completion, placed on a queue accessible using take. The class is lightweight enough to be suitable for transient use when processing groups of tasks.
Usage Examples.
Suppose you have a set of solvers for a certain problem, each returning a value of some type Result, and would like to run them concurrently, processing the results of each of them that return a non-null value, in some method use(Result r). You could write this as:
void solve(Executor e, Collection<Callable<Result>> solvers) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
CompletionService<Result> cs = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(e);
solvers.forEach(cs::submit);
for (int i = solvers.size(); i > 0; i--) {
Result r = cs.take().get();
if (r != null)
use(r);
}
}
Suppose instead that you would like to use the first non-null result of the set of tasks, ignoring any that encounter exceptions, and cancelling all other tasks when the first one is ready:
void solve(Executor e, Collection<Callable<Result>> solvers) throws InterruptedException {
CompletionService<Result> cs = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(e);
int n = solvers.size();
List<Future<Result>> futures = new ArrayList<>(n);
Result result = null;
try {
solvers.forEach(solver -> futures.add(cs.submit(solver)));
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
try {
Result r = cs.take().get();
if (r != null) {
result = r;
break;
}
} catch (ExecutionException ignore) {}
}
} finally {
futures.forEach(future -> future.cancel(true));
}
if (result != null)
use(result);
}
Since: 1.5 (!)
Assuming use(r) (of Example 1) also asynchronous, we had a big advantage. #