I have two threads named t1 and t2. They only make an addition to total integer variable. But the variable total isn't shared among these threads. I want to use same total variable in both the t1 and t2 threads. How can I do that?
My Adder runnable class:
public class Adder implements Runnable{
int a;
int total;
public Adder(int a) {
this.a=a;
total = 0;
}
public int getTotal() {
return total;
}
#Override
public void run() {
total = total+a;
}
}
My Main class:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Adder adder1=new Adder(2);
Adder adder2= new Adder(7);
Thread t1= new Thread(adder1);
Thread t2= new Thread(adder2);
thread1.start();
try {
thread1.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
t2.start();
try {
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(adder1.getTotal()); //prints 7 (But it should print 9)
System.out.println(adder2.getTotal()); //prints 2 (But it should print 9)
}
}
Both print statements should give 9 but they give 7 and 2 respectively (because the total variable doesn't isn't by t1 and t2).
The easy way out would be to make total static so it's shared between all Adder instances.
Note that such a simplistic approach would be sufficient for the main method you shared here (which doesn't really run anything in parallel, since each thread is joined right after being started). For a thread-safe solution, you'll need to protect the addition, e.g., by using an AtomicInteger:
public class Adder implements Runnable {
int a;
static AtomicInteger total = new AtomicInteger(0);
public Adder(int a) {
this.a = a;
}
public int getTotal() {
return total.get();
}
#Override
public void run() {
// return value is ignored
total.addAndGet(a);
}
}
Related
so much confused why I get a random result while doing 'i++' in a synchronized or a locked method?
public class aaa implements Runnable {
static int count = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
aaa aaa = new aaa();
aaa.create();
}
public void create() {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(100);
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
aaa thread = new aaa();
executor.execute(thread);
}
executor.shutdown();
while (true){
if(executor.isTerminated()){
System.out.println("a " + count);
break;
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
this.test();
}
public void test() {
Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
try {
lock.lock();
count++;
System.out.println(count);
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
OR:
public synchronized void test() {
count++;
System.out.println(count);
}
the result is a random number sometimes 1000 sometimes 998, 999 ...etc and the print from inside the 'test' method is not in a sequence, it is like :
867
836
825
824
821
820
819
817
816
a 999
However, if it is in a synchronized block, everything looks good:
public void test() {
synchronized (aaa.class) {
count++;
System.out.println(count);
}
}
the result:
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
a 1000
I think all of the methods above should give me the same result 1000, and the self increment should be in a sequence, but only the last method works.What is wrong with the code? Please help!!!
You are creating multiple instances of aaa, each instance creates its own ReentrantLock, and every thread in execution smoothly acquires a lock from its own instance.
public void test() {
Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
try {
lock.lock();
count++;
System.out.println(count);
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
Since there are multiple instances of aaa, each thread is running on its own instance and the synchronized method uses current object of aaa.class
public synchronized void test() {
count++;
System.out.println(count);
}
The reason for getting a proper result in this approach is, you are using the aaa.class as an object to the synchronization
public void test() {
synchronized (aaa.class) {
count++;
System.out.println(count);
}
}
The solution is, reuse the same lock(ReentrantLock) across all the threads. Defining the lock in the same level as the variable count would solve the issue.
You must create a single mutex, i.e.
static Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
Your synchronized method does not work since you are creating N aaa instances then, every (non static) method is different (with their own mutex).
Your synchronized (aaa.class) works since aaa.class is the same Object for all aaa instances and methods.
Then, if you need synchronize the method be sure it is the same for all threads, e.g. if test is static will be the same for all
#Override
public void run() {
test();
}
public static synchronized void test() {
count++;
}
but you can inject a "counter class", e.g.
class Counter {
int count = 0;
// non static but synchronized for all (since they use the same `counter` object)
synchronized void inc() {
count++;
}
}
to be used for all threads
...
SyncTest thread = new SyncTest(counter); // <== the same
...
(full code)
public class SyncTest implements Runnable {
private final Counter c;
public SyncTest(Counter c) {
this.c = c;
}
static class Counter {
int count = 0;
// non static but synchronized for all (since they use the same `counter` object)
synchronized void inc() {
count++;
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
test();
}
public void test() {
this.c.inc();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// one counter for all
Counter counter = new Counter();
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(100);
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
SyncTest thread = new SyncTest(counter);
executor.execute(thread);
}
executor.shutdown();
while (true) {
if (executor.isTerminated()) {
System.out.println("a " + counter.count);
break;
}
}
}
}
Rule of thumb: Declare your lock variable on the next line after the variable(s) that you want to protect with it, and declare it with the same keywords. E.g.,
public class aaa implements Runnable {
static int count = 0;
static Lock countLock = new ReentrantLock();
...
If you read deeply enough into any of the other answers here, then you will see why this helps.
So my task is this:
Instantiate two object of the same class
Provide a constructor argument, to designate a thread as even and another as odd .
Start both threads right one after other
Odd thread prints odd numbers from 0 to 1000
Even thread prints even numbers from 0 to 1000
However they should be in sync the prints should be 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .....
One number on each line
However I can't seem to get the locks to release correctly. I've tried reading some of the similar problems on here but they all use multiple classes. What am I doing wrong?
Edit: My main class is doing this -
NumberPrinter oddPrinter = new NumberPrinter("odd");
NumberPrinter evenPrinter = new NumberPrinter("even");
oddPrinter.start();
evenPrinter.start();
and my output is -
odd: 1
even: 2
...
public class NumberPrinter extends Thread {
private String name;
private int starterInt;
private boolean toggle;
public NumberPrinter(String name) {
super.setName(name);
this.name=name;
if(name.equals("odd")) {
starterInt=1;
toggle = true;
}
else if(name.equals("even")) {
starterInt=2;
toggle = false;
}
}
#Override
public synchronized void run() {
int localInt = starterInt;
boolean localToggle = toggle;
if(name.equals("odd")) {
while(localInt<1000) {
while(localToggle == false)
try {
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
System.out.println(name+": "+localInt);
localInt +=2;
localToggle = false;
notify();
}
}
else {
while(localInt<1000) {
while(localToggle == true)
try {
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
System.out.println(name+": "+localInt);
localInt +=2;
localToggle = true;
notify();
}
}
}
}
The key problem here is that the two threads have no way to coordinate with each other. When you have a local variable (localToggle in this case) nothing outside the method can observe or alter its value.
If you share one object with both threads, however, its state can change, and if used correctly, those state changes will be visible to both threads.
You will see examples where the shared object is an AtomicInteger, but when you use synchronized, wait() and notify(), you don't need the extra concurrency overhead built into the atomic wrappers.
Here's a simple outline:
class Main {
public static main(String... args) {
Main state = new Main();
new Thread(new Counter(state, false)).start();
new Thread(new Counter(state, true)).start();
}
int counter;
private static class Counter implements Runnable {
private final Main state;
private final boolean even;
Counter(Main state, boolean even) {
this.state = state;
this.even = even;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(state) {
/* Here, use wait and notify to read and update state.counter
* appropriately according to the "even" flag.
*/
}
}
}
}
I'm not clear whether using wait() and notify() yourself is part of the assignment, but an alternative to this outline would be to use something like a BlockingQueue to pass a token back and forth between the two threads. The (error-prone) condition monitoring would be built into the queue, cleaning up your code and making mistakes less likely.
I finally got it working in a way that meets the standards required by my assignment.
Thank you all for your input. I'll leave the answer here for anyone who might need it.
public class Demo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
NumberPrinter oddPrinter = new NumberPrinter("odd");
NumberPrinter evenPrinter = new NumberPrinter("even");
oddPrinter.start();
evenPrinter.start();
System.out.println("Calling thread Done");
}
public class NumberPrinter extends Thread {
private int max = 1000;
static Object lock = new Object();
String name;
int remainder;
static int startNumber=1;
public NumberPrinter(String name) {
this.name = name;
if(name.equals("even")) {
remainder=0;
}else {
remainder=1;
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(startNumber<max) {
synchronized(lock) {
while(startNumber%2 !=remainder) {
try {
lock.wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(name+": "+startNumber);
startNumber++;
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
I'm attempting to edit my program so that the incrementer and decrementer classes are called alternatively, which incrementer being performed first. My aim is to be able to print the value of a shared variable (sharedValue) after each increment/decrement and hopefully see it toggle between 1 and 0. Below is the code for my main class, a semaphore class and incrementer class (there is a class decrementer which is styled the same way as icrementer so i didn't include it).
main class
public class Main extends Thread {
private static int sharedValue = 0;
private static Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(1);
static int numberOfCycles = 20000;
public static void increment() {
semaphore.down();
sharedValue++;
semaphore.up();
}
public static void decrement() {
semaphore.down();
sharedValue--;
semaphore.up();
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
incrementer inc = new incrementer(numberOfCycles);
inc.start();
inc.join();
decrementer dec = new decrementer(numberOfCycles);
dec.start();
dec.join();
System.out.println(sharedValue);
}
}
Semaphore class
private int count;
// Constructor
public Semaphore(int n) {
count = n;
}
// Only the standard up and down operators are allowed.
public synchronized void down() {
while (count == 0) {
try {
wait(); // Blocking call.
} catch (InterruptedException exception) {
}
}
count--;
}
public synchronized void up() {
count++;
notify();
}
incrementer Class
public class incrementer extends Thread{
private int numberOfIncrements;
public incrementer(int numOfIncrements){
numberOfIncrements = numOfIncrements;
}
public void run(){
for(int i = 0; i <= numberOfIncrements; i++){
Main.increment();
}
}
}
Thanks in advance!
So I have been reading through my notes and it occurred to me that I could use another mutex semaphore which can determine if the buffer is full or empty. Am I right with this approach?
Thread.Join causes your main thread to wait for the completion of the incrementer, then starts the decrementer and then waits for decrementer to complete. If you want them to run concurrently, remove the two Thread.Join calls:
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
incrementer inc = new incrementer(numberOfCycles);
decrementer dec = new decrementer(numberOfCycles);
inc.start();
dec.start();
}
To print the shared value after each increment or decrement, move the println call to the increment and decrement functions of your main class:
public static void increment() {
semaphore.down();
sharedValue++;
System.out.println(sharedValue);
semaphore.up();
}
public static void decrement() {
semaphore.down();
sharedValue--;
System.out.println(sharedValue);
semaphore.up();
}
Also note that even with these changes you won't be observing the toggling between 1 and 0. This is because the two threads don't start at the same time, and even if they did (e.g. using CyclicBarrier) you can't control the scheduling so they would progress differently. If you really want to observe this output, you should make each thread wait for 1ms before and after calling semaphore.up() in order to give the other thread a chance to wait and acquire a permit from the semaphore.
public static void increment() {
semaphore.down();
sharedValue++;
System.out.println(sharedValue);
try {
Thread.sleep(1); //give time to other threads to wait for permit
semaphore.up();
Thread.sleep(1); //give time to other threads to acquire permit
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
There are more robust ways to get this kind of output from two threads, but I didn't want to make major modifications to your code.
I have two methods in two different classes, like this
public class ClassX implements Runnable {
public void methodAandB() {
for(int i=0;i<10;i++) {
System.out.println("This is A and B ");
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
methodAandB();
}
}
public class ClassY implements Runnable {
public void methodAorB() {
for(int i=0;i<10;i++) {
System.out.println("This is A or B");
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
methodAorB(a);
}
}
Thread t1 is calling methodAandB().
Thread t2 is calling methodAorB().
Can I switch between these two threads after each iteration of loop in methods?
I want to get output like this:
This is A and B
This is A or B
This is A and B
This is A or B
This is A and B
This is A or B
This is A and B
This is A or B
Best example of flip-flop between threads:
Given two int array (even and odd), 2 threads printing their numbers in natural order.
package com.rough;
public class ThreadsBehaviour {
static Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
int a[] = {1,3,5,7,9};
int b[] = {2,4,6,8,10};
Thread odd = new Thread(new Looper(a, lock));
Thread even = new Thread(new Looper(b, lock));
odd.start();
even.start();
}
}
class Looper implements Runnable
{
int a[];
Object lock;
public Looper(int a[], Object lock)
{
this.a = a;
this.lock = lock;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i = 0; i < a.length; i++)
{
synchronized(lock)
{
System.out.print(a[i]);
try
{
lock.notify();
if(i == (a.length - 1))
{
break;
}
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
You can achieve this simply by using the shared variables. I have implemented and verified the problem. code is below
class X
public class ClassX implements Runnable {
public void methodAandB() {
for(int i=0;i<10;i++) {
while(GlobalClass.isClassXdone)
{}
System.out.println("This is A and B ");
GlobalClass.isClassXdone = true;
GlobalClass.isClassYdone = false;
}}
#Override
public void run() {
methodAandB(); } }
ClassY
public class ClassY implements Runnable {
public void methodAorB() {
for(int i=0;i<10;i++) {
while(GlobalClass.isClassYdone)
{}
System.out.println("This is A or B ");
GlobalClass.isClassYdone = true;
GlobalClass.isClassXdone = false;}}
#Override
public void run() {
methodAorB();}}
Definition of the shared variable
public class GlobalClass {
public static boolean isClassXdone = false ;
public static boolean isClassYdone = false ;
}
You can just start your thread using t1.start and t2.start to get the desired output
Thread t1 = new Thread(new ClassX());
Thread t2 = new Thread(new ClassY());
t1.start();
t2.start();
This is probably more than needed to solve the problem, but, as it seems to be an introduction to concurrent programming exercise, it should be along the lines of what you'll encounter.
You should probably have a shared object that both your threads know, so that they may synchronize through it. Like so:
public class MyMutex {
private int whoGoes;
private int howMany;
public MyMutex(int first, int max) {
whoGoes = first;
howMany = max;
}
public synchronized int getWhoGoes() { return whoGoes; }
public synchronized void switchTurns() {
whoGoes = (whoGoes + 1) % howMany;
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized void waitForMyTurn(int id) throws
InterruptedException {
while (whoGoes != id) { wait(); }
}
}
Now, your classes should receive their respective identifier, and this shared object.
public class ClassX implements Runnable {
private final int MY_ID;
private final MyMutex MUTEX;
public ClassX(int id, MyMutex mutex) {
MY_ID = id;
MUTEX = mutex;
}
public void methodAandB() {
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
try {
MUTEX.waitForMyTurn(MY_ID);
System.out.println("This is A and B ");
MUTEX.switchTurns();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
// Handle it...
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() { methodAandB(); }
}
ClassY should do the same. Wait for its turn, do its action, and then yield the turn to the other.
I know it's a little late to answer this. But it's yesterday only I have come across this question. So I guess it's never too late.. ;)
Solution, as #afsantos mentioned is having a shared object between the two threads and implementing mutual exclusion on the shared object. The shared object could be alternatively locked by the two threads. Two possible implementations are as follows. This is actually more like an extension of #afsantos solution. His work is hereby acknowledged.
Solution 1:
Blueprint of the object that will be shared is as follows.
public class MutEx {
public int whoGoes, howMany;
public MutEx(int whoGoes, int howMany) {
this.whoGoes = whoGoes;
this.howMany = howMany;
}
public synchronized void switchTurns(){
this.whoGoes = (this.whoGoes + 1) % 2;
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized void waitForTurn(int id) throws InterruptedException{
while(this.whoGoes != id)
wait();
}
}
Then, you could implement the ClassX as follows.
public class ClassX implements Runnable {
private final int MY_ID;
private final MutEx MUT_EX;
public ThreadOne(int MY_ID, MutEx MUT_EX) {
this.MY_ID = MY_ID;
this.MUT_EX = MUT_EX;
}
#Override
public void run(){
this.doTheWork();
}
public void doTheWork(){
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++){
try {
MUT_EX.waitForMyTurn(MY_ID);
System.out.println("This is A and B");
MUT_EX.switchTurns();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
ClassY also will be the same, with whatever the differences you need to be there. Then, in the invocation (i.e. in the main method),
public static void main(String[] args) {
MutEx mutEx = new MutEx(0, 2);
Thread t1 = new Thread(new ClassX(0, mutEx);
Thread t2 = new Thread(new ClassY(1, mutEx));
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
Voila! You have two threads, alternating between each as you need.
Solution 2: Alternatively, you could implement the ClassX & ClassY as follows.
public class ClassX extends Thread{
Here, you are subclassing the java.lang.Thread to implement your requirement. For this to be invoked, change the main method as follows.
public static void main(String[] args) {
MutEx mutEx = new MutEx(0, 2);
ClassX t1 = new ClassX(0, mutEx);
ClassY t2 = new ClassY(1, mutEx);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
Run this, and you have the same result.
If you don't need to use Thread try this code:
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
if (i % 2 == 0) {
methodAandB();
} else {
methodAorB();
}
}
I am very new to threads. I wrote a code and expected my output as 20000 consistently. But that's not the case. Please find the code below:
class Runner4 implements Runnable {
static int count = 0;
public synchronized void increase() {
count++;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
increase();
}
}
}
public class threading4 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runner4());
t1.start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runner4());
t2.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(Runner4.count);
}
}
Any explanation?
Thanks!!
You are synchronizing on two different objects in your code (corresponding to the two objects you created). As such, there is no protection of the shared static variable, and you get unpredictable results. Basically, there is no effective synchronization going on in your program. You can fix this with a simple modification.
Change:
public synchronized void increase(){
count++;
}
To:
public void increase(){
synchronized(Runner4.class) {
count++;
}
}
Note that I am not saying this is the best way to accomplish this kind of synchronization - but the important take-away is that, if you are modifying a class level variable, you need class level synchronization as well.
Your code would work if count was not static.
public synchronized void increase() {
// method body
}
is equivalent to
public void increase() {
synchronized(this) {
// method body
}
}
Since count is static, both t1 and t2 are accessing it with different locks, resulting in non-deterministic behavior. Either make Runner4.increase synchronize on a common lock (Runner4.class or a private static lock object would work just fine), or make count non-static.
The way you're trying to achieve what you want is is not really the best way.
A better way to do it is define a class called Counter, as the following:
public class Counter
{
int count;
public Counter()
{
count = 0;
}
public synchronized void increase() {
count++;
}
public int getCount()
{
return count;
}
}
The class has the methods of increasing the counter and getting it.
What you need to do now is have a Counter object to be shared by two threads that call the increase() method. So your thread class would look like this:
class Runner4 extends Thread {
Counter count;
public Runner4(Counter c)
{
count = c;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
count.increase();
}
}
}
Notice that the class takes a Counter object and calls the increase method. Also the class extends Thread instead of implementing Runnable. There is really no much difference, it's just now your Runner4 can use Thread class methods.
From your main defines a Counter object and two Runner4 threads, and then pass the Counter object to each one of them:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Counter count = new Counter();
Thread t1 = new Runner4(count);
t1.start();
Thread t2 = new Runner4(count);
t2.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(count.getCount());
}