I have a third-party MyService class which is not thread safe, I have the same issue as this with one difference: I need to submit Callables not Runnables.
With a regular ThreadPoolExecutor I would have done this:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(8);
// later in another thread
Future<String> result = executor.submit(() -> {
// compute return value then return it
return computed value
})
I would have then waited on the result future to get the result of callable.
But ExecutorService doesn't have a way to associate an object with each thread and the answer to the question above doesn't consider that the worker thread needs to communicate back to the Thread who submitted the task.
Using ThreadLocal has the obvious drawback at shutdown phase, I thought of a Map of Thread Ids to the results they need but ConcurrentHashMap doesn't provide a method that blocks current thread waiting for a key to be added and this question doesn't give me a good answer: BlockingQueue<Map.Entry> is not what I need here and the BlockingMap library linked is very old.
So How do I achieve what I want ?
I found a way, this solution is taken from Executors jdk implementation code. in short we use a Future<Result> to communicate back to the request thread like this:
class Task<T> extends CompletableFuture<T>
// in worker thread
MyService service = new MyServiceImpl();
while(!!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
Task<T> task = blockingQueue.take();
T result = ... // compute result
task.complete(result)
}
// in request thread
Task<T> newTask = new Task<>();
blockingQueue.put(newTask)
return newTask.get() <--- ofcourse you can do others things with the future
Related
Did I need to handle runtime exception in executorservice? I tried an example in spring boot web application, the code will still execute despite of exception
Here is the code:
#RestController
class WelcomeController {
ExecutorService es = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
#GetMapping("/sayhi")
public String sayHi() {
es.submit(() -> {
System.out.println("hello");
int a = 0;
if (10 / a == 1) {
}
});
return "hi";
}
}
When an exception is thrown in one thread it doesn’t propagate to other threads unless you do something to make it do that (like using a Future). Here the thread causes an exception and dies, but the rest of the program isn’t affected.
The executor creates a replacement for the lost thread, see the api doc:
Creates an Executor that uses a single worker thread operating off an unbounded queue, and uses the provided ThreadFactory to create a new thread when needed. Unlike the otherwise equivalent newFixedThreadPool(1, threadFactory) the returned executor is guaranteed not to be reconfigurable to use additional threads.
It would seem to me like a good idea to have tasks handle exceptions that they cause. Otherwise the thread dies and the pool has to start a new one to replace it. This is basically what the article linked in the comments says.
You supposed to keep the return value Future
and use Future.get() to interogate if there was an unhandled Exception
I have a series of tasks (i.e. Runnables) to be executed by an Executor.
Each task requires a certain condition to be valid in order to proceed. I would be interested to know if there is a way to somehow configure Executor to move tasks in the end of the queue and try to execute them later when the condition would be valid and the task be able to execute and finish.
So the behavior be something like:
Thread-1 take tasks from queue and run is called
Inside run the condition is not yet valid
Task stops and Thread-1 places task in the end of the queue and
gets next task to execute
Later on Thread-X (from thread pool) picks task again from queue condition is valid
and task is being executed
In Java 6, the ThreadPoolExecutor constructor takes a BlockingQueue<Runnable>, which is used to store the queued tasks. You can implement such a blocking queue which overrides the poll() so that if an attempt is made to remove and execute a "ready" job, then poll proceeds as normal. Otherwise the runnable is place at the back of the queue and you attempt to poll again, possibly after a short timeout.
Unless you have to have busy waiting, you can add a repeating task to a ScheduledExecutorService with an appropriate polling interval which you cancel or kill after it is "valid" to run.
ScheduleExecutorService ses = ...
ses.scheduleAtFixedRate(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
if (!isValid()) return;
preformTask();
throw new RuntimeException("Last run");
}
}, PERIOD, PERIOD, TimeUnit.MILLI_SECONDS);
Create the executor first.
You have several possibilites.
If I suppose that your tasks implement a simple interface to query their status (something like an enum with 'NeedReschedule' or 'Completed'), then implement a wrapper (implementing Runnable) for your tasks which will take the task and the executor as instanciation parameters. This wrapper will run the task it is bound to, check its status afterwards, and if necessary reschedule a copy of itself in the executor before terminating.
Alternatively, you could use an execption mechanism to signal the wrapper that the task must be rescheduled.
This solution is simpler, in the sense that it doesn't require a particular interface for you task, so that simple Runnable could be thrown in the system without trouble. However, exceptions incur more computation time (object construction, stack trace etc.).
Here's a possible implementation of the wrapper using the exception signaling mechanism.
You need to implement the RescheduleException class extending Throwable, which may be fired by the wrapped runnable (no need for a more specific interface for the task in this setup). You could also use a simple RuntimeException as proposed in another answer, but you will have to test the message string to know if this is the exception you are waiting for.
public class TaskWrapper implements Runnable {
private final ExecutorService executor;
private final Runnable task;
public TaskWrapper(ExecutorService e, Runnable t){
executor = e;
task = t;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
task.run();
}
catch (RescheduleException e) {
executor.execute(this);
}
}
Here's a very simple application firing up 200 wrapped tasks randomly asking a reschedule.
class Task implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run(){
if (Maths.random() > 0.5)
throw new RescheduleException();
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args){
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
int i = 200;
while(i--)
executor.execute(new TaskWrapper(executor, new Task());
}
}
You could also have a dedicated thread to monitor the other threads results (using a message queue) and reschedule if necessary, but you lose one thread, compared to the other solution.
My multi-threaded application has a main class that creates multiple threads. The main class will wait after it has started some threads. The runnable class I created will get a file list, get a file, and remove a file by calling a web service. After the thread is done it will notify the main class to run again. My problem is it works for a while but possibly after an hour or so it will get to the bottom of the run method from the output I see in the log and that is it. The Java process is still running but it does not do anything based on what I am looking at in the log.
Main class methods:
Main method
while (true) {
// Removed the code here, it was just calling a web service to get a list of companies
// Removed code here was creating the threads and calling the start method for threads
mainClassInstance.waitMainClass();
}
public final synchronized void waitMainClass() throws Exception {
// synchronized (this) {
this.wait();
// }
}
public final synchronized void notifyMainClass() throws Exception {
// synchronized (this) {
this.notify();
// }
}
I originally did the synchronization on the instance but changed it to the method. Also no errors are being recorded in the web service log or client log. My assumption is I did the wait and notify wrong or I am missing some piece of information.
Runnable Thread Code:
At the end of the run method
// This is a class member variable in the runnable thread class
mainClassInstance.notifyMainClass();
The reason I did a wait and notify process because I do not want the main class to run unless there is a need to create another thread.
The purpose of the main class is to spawn threads. The class has an infinite loop to run forever creating and finishing threads.
Purpose of the infinite loop is for continually updating the company list.
I'd suggest moving from the tricky wait/notify to one of the higher-level concurrency facilities in the Java platform. The ExecutorService probably offers the functionality you require out of the box. (CountDownLatch could also be used, but it's more plumbing)
Let's try to sketch an example using your code as template:
ExecutorService execSvc = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(THREAD_COUNT);
while (true) {
// Removed the code here, it was just calling a web service to get a list of companies
List<FileProcessingTask> tasks = new ArrayList<FileProcessingTask>();
for (Company comp:companyList) {
tasks.add(new FileProcessingTask(comp));
}
List<Future<FileProcessingTask>> results = execSvc.invokeAll(tasks); // This call will block until all tasks are executed.
//foreach Future<FileProcessingTask> in results: check result
}
class FileProcessingTask implements Callable<FileResult> { // just like runnable but you can return a value -> very useful to gather results after the multi-threaded execution
FileResult call() {...}
}
------- edit after comments ------
If your getCompanies() call can give you all companies at once, and there's no requirement to check that list continuously while processing, you could simplify the process by creating all work items first and submit them to the executor service all at once.
List<FileProcessingTask> tasks = new ArrayList<FileProcessingTask>();
for (Company comp:companyList) {
tasks.add(new FileProcessingTask(comp));
}
The important thing to understand is that the executorService will use the provided collection as an internal queue of tasks to execute. It takes the first task, gives it to a thread of the pool, gathers the result, places the result in the result collection and then takes the next task in the queue.
If you don't have a producer/consumer scenario (cfr comments), where new work is produced at the same time that task are executed (consumed), then, this approach should be sufficient to parallelize the processing work among a number of threads in a simple way.
If you have additional requirements why the lookup of new work should happen interleaved from the processing of the work, you should make it clear in the question.
I am working on a java server which dispatches xmpp messages and workers execute the tasks from my clients.
private static ExecutorService threadpool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
DispatchWorker worker = new DispatchWorker(connection, packet);
threadpool.execute(worker);
Works fine, but i need a bit more than that.
I don't want to execute the same request multiple times.
My worker may start another thread with a backround task also only allowed to run once at a time. A Threadpool in the worker threads.
I can identify the requests by a string and i can also give the backround tasks an id to identify them.
My solution would be a synchronized hashmap where my running tasks are registered with their id. The reference of the map will be passed to the worker threads that they remove their entry when they finished.
Feels a bit clumsy this solution so i wanted to know if there are more elegant patterns/best practices.
best regards, m
This is exactly what Quartz does (although it does a lot more, like scheduling jobs in the future).
You can use a Singleton thread pool or pass the thread pool as an argument. (I would have the pool final)
You can use a HashSet to guard adding duplicate tasks.
I believe using Map is okay for this. But instead of synchronized HashMap you can also use ConcurrenHashMap which allows you to specify concurrency levels, i.e. how many thread can work with map at the same time. And also it has atomic putIfAbsent operation.
I would use queues and daemon worker threads that are always running and wait for something to arrive in the queue. This way it is guaranteed, that only one worker is working on a request.
If you only want one thread to run, turn POOLSIZE down to 1, or use newSingleThreadExecutor.
I do not quite understand your second requirement: do you mean only 1 thread is allowed to run as background task? If so, you could create another SingleThreadExecutor and use that for the background task. Then it would not make too much sense to have POOLSIZE>1, unless the work done in the background thread is very short compared to that done in the worker itself.
private static interface Request {};
private final int POOLSIZE = 10;
private final int QUEUESIZE = 1000;
BlockingQueue<Request> e = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Request>(QUEUESIZE);
public void startWorkers() {
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(POOLSIZE);
for(int i=0; i<POOLSIZE; i++) {
threadPool.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
final Request request = e.take();
doStuffWithRequest(request);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// LOG
// Shutdown worker thread.
}
}
});
}
}
public void handleRequest(Request request) {
if(!e.offer(request)) {
//Cancel request, queue is full;
}
}
At startup-time, startworkers starts the workers (surprise!).
handleRequest handles requests coming from a webservice, servlet or whatever.
Of course you need to adapt "Request" and "doStuffWithRequest" to your need, and add some additional logic for shutdown etc.
We originally wrote our own utilities to handle this, but if you want the results memoised, then Guava's ComputingMap encapsulates the initialisation by one and only one thread (with other threads blocking and waiting for the result), and the memoisation.
It also supports various expiration strategies.
Usage is simple, you construct it with an initialisation function:
Map<Long, Foo> cache = new MapMaker().makeComputingMap(new Function<Long, Foo>() {
public Foo apply(String key) {
return … // init with expensive calculation
}
});
and then just call it:
Foo foo = cache.get("key");
The first thread to ask for "key" will be the one who performs the initialisation
I have an event queue to process. A thread adds events to the queue.
I have created a runnable Task that in the run method does all which is necessary to process the event.
I have declared an Executors.newCachedThreadPool(); and I execute each Task.
public class EventHandler {
private static final ExecutorService handlers = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
public void handleNextEvent(AnEvent event){
handlers.execute(new Task(evt));
}
public class Task implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run() {
//Event processing
}
}
public AnotherClass{
public void passEvent(AnEvent evt)//This is called by another thread
{
EventHandler.handleNextEvent(evt);
}
}
My problem is that if I call execute of the executor, my code will get the next event and run next runnable via the executor.
My purpose is to process next event from queue only after previous task has ended.
How would I know that the previous task has finished or not so that I know I can call handleNextEvent again?
Is having some status field updated by the Task a good idea?
Thanks
Executors.newCachedThreadPool() will create new threads on demand, so it's not what you want. You want something like Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(), which will process the events one at a time, and queue up the rest.
See javadoc:
Creates an Executor that uses a single worker thread operating off an unbounded queue. (Note however that if this single thread terminates due to a failure during execution prior to shutdown, a new one will take its place if needed to execute subsequent tasks.) Tasks are guaranteed to execute sequentially, and no more than one task will be active at any given time.
I think Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor() and the submit() Method are the solution to your problem: http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ExecutorService.html