To understand the concept of threads better, we are supposed to use a Number object that can be increased, decreased, squared and rooted via it's methods. It's only attribute is a double number (initialized as number=1).
So if i instantiate the Number object and call increment(), decrement(), square() and root() 100000000 times to that number object, the number attribute is 1 again (as expected).
Now the problem is that we are supposed to instantiate two thread objects, one calling the increase/decrease 100000000 times and the other one calling square/root 100000000 times.
According to our teacher the result would be inconsistency, i.E getting 0 instead of 1 as the result, but in my program it just gives me infinity or 1 depending on wether or not i am using synchronized() in the Thread class.
public class Calculation {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Number num = new Number();
Number num1 = new Number();
for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
num.increment();
}
for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
num.decrement();
}
for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
num.square();
}
for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
num.root();
}
System.out.println(num.getNumber());
CalcThread t1 = new CalcThread(num1, true);
CalcThread t2 = new CalcThread(num1, false);
t1.start();
t2.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
System.out.println(num1.getNumber());
}
}
public class CalcThread extends Thread {
public Number num;
public boolean decision;
public CalcThread(Number num, boolean decision) {
this.num = num;
this.decision = decision;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(num) {
if (this.decision) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
num.square();
}
for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
num.root();
}
} else {
for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
num.increment();
}
for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) {
num.decrement();
}
}
}
}
}
public class Number {
double number;
public Number() {
this.number = 1;
}
public void increment() {
this.number++;
}
public void decrement() {
this.number--;
}
public void square() {
this.number = this.number * this.number;
}
public void root() {
this.number = Math.sqrt(this.number);
}
public double getNumber() {
return number;
}
public void setNumber(double number) {
this.number = number;
}
}
Getting infinity when leaving synchronized out makes sense because it is increasing while squaring the number at the same time, so the number will soon be too large to fit the double type size right?
How do i get the inconsistency my teacher was talking about?
Thank you for your help in advance.
Related
I will input some number to calculates sum of Factorial series,
like if i put 5, output will be 1!+2!+3!+4!+5!, but calculating processing could be heavy so i want to use multiple treads that calculates each factorial.. means thread1 cals 1!, thread2 cals 2!...
i used arrays of threads but can't sync them in propel results. and can't find the way to sum these results.
i wrote codes...
public class Calthread extends Thread{
private int num=1;
public Calthread(int num) {
this.num = num;
}
public void run() {
int dft = 1;
for(int i=1; i<=num; i++) {
dft = dft*i;
}
System.out.println(num + "! result :" + dft);
}
}
this is for 1 thread
for main class
public class calculator {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.print("input number>>");
int k = scanner.nextInt(); //input 'k'
int sum = 0;
Calthread[] cal = new Calthread[k]; // make threads number of 'k'
for(int i = 0; i<k; i++) {
cal[i] = new Calthread(i+1);
cal[i].start();
}
}
}
how can I Sync them and print the sum of all?
To return value from thread you should use Callable instead of Runnable:
public class Calthread implements Callable<Integer> {
private int num = 1;
public Calthread(int num) {
this.num = num;
}
#Override
public Integer call() {
int dft = 1;
for (int i = 1; i <= num; i++) {
dft = dft * i;
}
return dft;
}
}
And in the main class:
public class Calculator {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.print("input number>>");
int k = scanner.nextInt(); //input 'k'
int sum = 0;
// Make threads number of 'k'. Here we use List instead of array because there is such contract in ExecutorService
List<Calthread> cal = new ArrayList<>(k);
// Create thread pool with fixed number of threads
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(k);
// Add all Callable task in one collection
for (int i = 0; i < k; i++) {
cal.add(new Calthread(i+1));
}
try {
// Invoke all Callable task and get List with results
List<Future<Integer>> results = service.invokeAll(cal);
// Future::get is blocking method. It waits result.
for (Future<Integer> result : results) {
sum += result.get();
}
} catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {
System.out.println("Something went wrong");
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Result: " + sum);
// We need to shutdown our service
service.shutdown();
}
}
The program's aim is to simulate that multiple users add a number to the buffer from 0 to n. Then print the sum of numbers in the buffer. When I run the program, it seems that the threads never end. However, the thread will finish when I run the program in debug mode of Idea and step line by line. Also, I do not exactly know where I need to use my semaphore method P() and V() for mutual exclusion.
Version: JDK 8. I cannot use semaphore in the library.
Main.java
Buffer b = new Buffer(bufferSize);
ArrayList<user> us = new ArrayList<>();
for(int i = 0; i < num_users; i++) us.add(new user(i, elements, b));
ArrayList<Thread> th = new ArrayList<>();
for(int i = 0; i < num_users; i++)
{
th.add(new Thread(us.get(i)));
th.get(i).start();
}
user.java
public class user implements Runnable
{
private int id;
private int num_elements;
private semaphore mutex = new semaphore(1 );
public static Buffer buf;
public user(int i, int el, Buffer b)
{id = i; num_elements = el; buf = b;}
public void add_elements()
{//Add element to buffer, element value iterates from 0, 1, 2 .... num_elements
mutex.P();
int n = 0;
while (num_elements > 0)
{
buf.add(new Integer(n));
n++;
num_elements--;
}
mutex.V();
}
public void run()
{
add_elements();
}
}
Buffer.java
public class Buffer
{
private LinkedList<Object> buf_list;
private int elements; //Number of elements currently on the queue
private int buf_size; //Maximum number of elements allowed on queue
private semaphore mutex = new semaphore(1);
public Buffer(int n) //Queue creation, with n indicating the maximum capacity
{
buf_list = new LinkedList<Object>();
elements = 0;
buf_size = n;
}
public void add(Integer n)
{
mutex.P();
buf_list.add(n);
elements++;
mutex.V();
}
public void finalSummation()
{
if (elements == buf_size)
{
mutex.P();
int sum = 0;
for (Object n : buf_list)
sum += ((Integer)n).intValue();
mutex.V();
System.out.println("Count total: " + sum);
}
}
}
semaphore.java
public class semaphore
{
private int count = 0;
public semaphore(int init_count)
{
count = init_count;
}
public synchronized void P()
{
count -= 1;
while (count < 0)
{
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Error");
System.exit(-1);
}
}
}
public synchronized void V()
{
count += 1;
notifyAll();
}
}
I expect it will print the sum of buffer numbers, but the thread may not finish.
There are a few things that stand out as issues here.
1) your code is never calling the finalSummation method. So the "printing" of the result will never happen.
2) Buffer and each user are all creating their own semaphores. If you are attempting to allow multiple threads to update Buffer without colliding then you need to share the same semaphore. Remove the semaphore and the usage of it from the user class. Just let the Buffer instance control only one update at a time with its semaphore.
3) You don't need to check the semaphore in the finalSummation method. Presumably, all threads are done at that point. And to enforce that ...
4) Put code like this at the end of main
for(int i = 0; i < num_users; i++) {
th.get(i).join();
}
b.finalSummation();
5) A semaphore should manage a number of permits. Your semaphore is managing the number of instances waiting - that is a pretty much an irrelevant number for a semaphore. Change your P() and V() to acquire() and release() to be consistent with the pattern.
public static class semaphore {
private int permits = 0;
public semaphore(int permits) {
this.permits = permits;
}
public synchronized void acquire() {
while (permits < 1) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Error");
System.exit(-1);
}
}
permits--;
}
public void release() {
synchronized (this) {
permits += 1;
notifyAll();
}
}
}
I have put it together using the above answer if that helps. Please select above answer as the right answer.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.LinkedList;
public class Main {
// assumed values
private static final int bufferSize = 5;
private static final int num_users = 10;
private static final int elements = 5;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Buffer b = new Buffer(bufferSize);
ArrayList<User> us = new ArrayList<>();
for(int i = 0; i < num_users; i++) us.add(new User(i, elements, b));
ArrayList<Thread> th = new ArrayList<>();
for(int i = 0; i < num_users; i++)
{
th.add(new Thread(us.get(i)));
th.get(i).start();
}
for(int i = 0; i < num_users; i++) {
try {
th.get(i).join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
b.finalSummation();
System.out.println("Exiting");
}
}
class User implements Runnable
{
private int id;
private int num_elements;
public static Buffer buf;
public User(int i, int el, Buffer b)
{id = i; num_elements = el; buf = b;}
public void add_elements()
{//Add element to buffer, element value iterates from 0, 1, 2 .... num_elements
int n = 0;
while (num_elements > 0)
{
buf.add(new Integer(n));
n++;
num_elements--;
}
}
public void run()
{
add_elements();
}
}
class Buffer
{
private LinkedList<Object> buf_list;
private int elements; //Number of elements currently on the queue
private int buf_size; //Maximum number of elements allowed on queue
private Semaphore mutex ;
public Buffer(int n) //Queue creation, with n indicating the maximum capacity
{
buf_list = new LinkedList<Object>();
elements = 0;
buf_size = n;
mutex = new Semaphore(buf_size);
}
public synchronized void add(Integer n)
{
mutex.acquire();
buf_list.add(n);
elements++;
mutex.release();
}
public void finalSummation()
{
int sum = 0;
System.out.println(buf_list);
for (Object n : buf_list)
sum += ((Integer)n).intValue();
System.out.println("Count total: " + sum);
}
}
class Semaphore {
private int permits = 0;
public Semaphore(int permits) {
this.permits = permits;
}
public synchronized void acquire() {
while (permits < 1) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Error");
System.exit(-1);
}
}
permits--;
}
public void release() {
synchronized (this) {
permits += 1;
notifyAll();
}
}
}
I want to generate pairs from a given large pool of numbers. I am using two for loops and threads. My function getAllPairs() in the code generates apairs with a given array of numbers.
I have an array of length 1000. With one thread, output time is nearly 15 sec. Now I want to use 5-6 threads and reduce this output time.I am stuck at dividing this task equally to five threads.If not threads,how to decrease the output time?
Solution with threads is appreciated since I put a lot of time learning multithreading. I would like to implement it.
import java.util.*;
class Pair {
public int x, y;
public Pair(int x, int y) {
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
}
#Override
public String toString(){
return " ( " + x + " ," + y + " ) " ;
}
}
class selectPairs{
private int[] array;
private List<Pair> totalPairs ;
public selectPairs(int[] arr){
array = arr;
}
//set Method
public void settotalPairs(List<Pair> pieces){
totalPairs = pieces;
}
//get Method
public List<Pair> gettotalPairs(){
return totalPairs;
}
// Method to generate pairs
public List<Pair> getAllPairs() {
List<Pair> pairs = new ArrayList<Pair>();
int total = array.length;
for(int i=0; i < total; i++) {
int num1 = array[i];
for(int j=i+1; j < total; j++) {
int num2 = array[j];
pairs.add(new Pair(num1,num2));
}
}
return pairs;
}
}
// Thread class
class ThreadPairs extends Thread {
private Thread t;
selectPairs SP;
ThreadPairs(selectPairs sp){
SP = sp;
}
public void run() {
synchronized(SP) {
List<Pair> PAIRS = SP.getAllPairs();
SP.settotalPairs(PAIRS);
}
}
}
public class TestThread {
public static void main(String args[]) {
int[] a = new int[1000];
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
a[i] = i ;
}
selectPairs ob = new selectPairs(a);
ThreadPairs T = new ThreadPairs( ob );
T.start();
while (true) {
try {
T.join();
break;
}
catch(Exception e){
}
}
List<Pair> Total = new ArrayList<Pair>() ;
List<Pair> Temp1 = ob.gettotalPairs();
Total.addAll(Temp1);
System.out.println(Total);
}
}
A solution with a thread-pool, a task split strategy and it collects all results:
public class SelectPairs {
private static final int NUM_THREADS = 8;
private int[] array;
public SelectPairs(int[] arr) {
array = arr;
}
// A splitting task strategy
public List<Pair> getPartialPairs(int threadIndex, int numThreads) {
List<Pair> pairs = new ArrayList<Pair>();
int total = array.length;
for (int i = threadIndex; i < total; i += numThreads) {
int num1 = array[i];
for (int j = i + 1; j < total; j++) {
int num2 = array[j];
pairs.add(new Pair(num1, num2));
}
}
return pairs;
}
// To use Callables or Runnables are better than extends a Thread.
public static class PartialPairsCall implements Callable<List<Pair>> {
private int thread;
private int totalThreads;
private SelectPairs selectPairs;
public PartialPairsCall(int thread, int totalThreads, SelectPairs selectPairs) {
this.thread = thread;
this.totalThreads = totalThreads;
this.selectPairs = selectPairs;
}
#Override
public List<Pair> call() throws Exception {
return selectPairs.getPartialPairs(thread, totalThreads);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
int[] a = new int[1000];
for (int i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
a[i] = i;
}
SelectPairs sp = new SelectPairs(a);
// Create a thread pool
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(NUM_THREADS);
List<Future<List<Pair>>> futures = new ArrayList<>(NUM_THREADS);
// Submit task to every thread:
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
futures.add(es.submit(new PartialPairsCall(i, NUM_THREADS, sp)));
}
// Collect the results:
List<Pair> result = new ArrayList<>(a.length * (a.length - 1));
for (Future<List<Pair>> future : futures) {
result.addAll(future.get());
}
// Shutdown thread pool
es.shutdown();
System.out.println("result: " + result.size());
}
}
regarding the framework of multithreading, you can implement ThreadPoolExecutor as was suggested in a comment.
Regarding splitting the workload, it seems that the key is splitting the iteration on the array which is achievable if you give the Runnable task a start and end index to iterate over.
class TestSync {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Counter counter1 = new Counter();
Counter counter2 = new Counter();
Counter counter3 = new Counter();
Counter counter4 = new Counter();
counter1.start();
counter2.start();
counter3.start();
counter4.start();
counter1.join();
counter2.join();
counter3.join();
counter4.join();
for (int i = 1; i <= 100; i++) {
if (values[i] > 1) {
System.out.println(String.format("%d was visited %d times", i, values[i]));
} else if (values[i] == 0) {
System.out.println(String.format("%d wasn't visited", i));
}
}
}
public static Integer count = 0;
public static int[] values = new int[105];
static {
for (int i = 0; i < 105; i++) {
values[i] = 0;
}
}
public static void incrementCount() {
count++;
}
public static int getCount() {
return count;
}
public static class Counter extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
do {
synchronized (count) {
incrementCount();
values[getCount()]++;
}
} while (getCount() < 100);
}
}
}
That is a code from one online course. My task is to make this code visit each element of array only once (only for elements from 1 to 100). So I have added simple synchronized block to run method. In case of using values inside of that statement everything works. But with count it doesn't want to work.
What the difference? Both of this objects are static fields inside of the same class. Also I have tried to make count volatile but it hasn't helped me.
PS: a lot of elements are visited 2 times and some of them even 3 times. In case of using values in synchronized all elements are visited only once!!!
Integer is immutable. The moment you call increment method, You get a new object and reference of count variable gets changed and hence leads to an issue.
first of all here is the code, you can just copy an paste
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class RepetionCounter implements Runnable{
private int x;
private int y;
private int[][] matrix;
private int xCounter;
private int yCounter;
private ArrayList<Thread> threadArray;
private int rowIndex;
private boolean[] countCompleted;
public RepetionCounter(int x, int y, int [][]matrix)
{
this.x = x;
this.y = y;
this.matrix = matrix;
this.threadArray = new ArrayList<Thread>(matrix.length);
this.rowIndex = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < matrix.length; i++){
threadArray.add(new Thread(this));
}
countCompleted = new boolean[matrix.length];
}
public void start(){
for (int i = 0; i < threadArray.size(); i++){
threadArray.get(i).start();
this.rowIndex++;
}
}
public void count(int rowIndex)
{
for(int i = 0; i < matrix[rowIndex].length; i++){
if (matrix[rowIndex][i] == x){
this.xCounter++;
} else if (matrix[rowIndex][i] == y){
this.yCounter++;
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
count(this.rowIndex);
countCompleted[this.rowIndex] = true;
}
public int getxCounter() {
return xCounter;
}
public void setxCounter(int xCounter) {
this.xCounter = xCounter;
}
public int getyCounter() {
return yCounter;
}
public void setyCounter(int yCounter) {
this.yCounter = yCounter;
}
public boolean[] getCountCompleted() {
return countCompleted;
}
public void setCountCompleted(boolean[] countCompleted) {
this.countCompleted = countCompleted;
}
public static void main(String args[]){
int[][] matrix = {{0,2,1}, {2,3,4}, {3,2,0}};
RepetionCounter rc = new RepetionCounter(0, 2, matrix);
rc.start();
boolean ready = false;
while(!ready){
for(int i = 0; i < matrix.length; i++){
if (rc.getCountCompleted()[i]){
ready = true;
} else {
ready = false;
}
}
}
if (rc.getxCounter() > rc.getyCounter()){
System.out.println("Thre are more x than y");
} else {System.out.println("There are:"+rc.getxCounter()+" x and:"+rc.getyCounter()+" y");
}
}
}
What I want this code to do: I give to the object a matrix and tow numbers, and I want to know how much times these two numbers occurs in the matrix. I create as many thread as the number of rows of the matrix (that' why there is that ArrayList), so in this object I have k threads (supposing k is the number of rows), each of them count the occurrences of the two numbers.
The problem is: if I run it for the first time everything work, but if I try to execute it another time I get and IndexOutOfBoundException, or a bad count of the occurrences, the odd thing is that if I get the error, and modify the code, after that it will works again just for once.
Can you explain to me why is this happening?
You are using the same instance of RepetitionCounter for each thread:
for(int i = 0; i < matrix.length; i++){
threadArray.add(new Thread(this));
}
so they will all share the same rowIndex. The code is pretty confusing as it is, so I suggest you encapsulate the logic for the threads in a separate Runnable class with individual row ids:
class ThreadTask implements Runnable {
private int rowId;
private int[][] matrix;
public ThreadTask(int[][] matrix, int rowId) {
this.matrix = matrix; // only a reference is passed here so no worries
this.rowId = rowId;
}
public void run() {
// search on my row
}
}
then:
for(int i = 0; i < matrix.length; i++) {
threadArray.add(new Thread(new ThreadTask(matrix, i)));
}
You need to give each thread its own Runnable. Having them all share the same Runnable is going to cause disastrous race conditions. Separate out the logic each thread needs to do into a Runnable. Then move the part of the code that starts up the threads to a place outside the Runnable.
BTW look into Executors in the java.util.concurrent package, you don't have to use raw threads for this stuff. Also using Executors may give you a better idea about separating what goes into the Task from other stuff.