I have a situation in my application where events come in and the thread that handles them (signalling thread) must signal to another thread (working thread), thus far in an idle state, that it can run some code. Once the working thread is done it should wait to be signalled again. It is possible that events will arrive while the working thread is working. In this case it should move on and keep working immediately. One action by the working thread does enough work for any amount of incoming events, so there is no need to work once per event, just once as soon as possible after each event. Example correct behavior:
event comes in
worker thread starts work
worker thread finishes work
event comes in
worker thread starts work
event comes in
event comes in
worker thread finishes work
worker thread starts work
worker thread finishes work
4 events, 3 periods of work. It's an unfortunate but unavoidable requirement that the signalling thread cannot block while handling the event. I have implemented this at the moment using a BlockingQueue, which has the pointless side effect of filling itself up even though the contents are not interesting or even looked at. I was expecting to be able to make this work using CountDownLatch or CyclicBarrier or similar but I haven't been able to find a way. Here is my implementation:
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.LinkedBlockingQueue;
public class Main {
private static final class MyBarrier {
private BlockingQueue<Boolean> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
void await() throws InterruptedException {
queue.take();
queue.clear();
}
void signal() {
queue.add(true);
}
}
private static Random random = new Random(0);
private static void sleepForMax(int maxMillis) {
sleep(random.nextInt(maxMillis));
}
private static void sleep(long millis) {
try {
Thread.sleep(millis);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyBarrier myBarrier = new MyBarrier();
final ExecutorService singallingThread = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
singallingThread.submit(() -> {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
sleepForMax(1_000); // simulate period between events arriving
myBarrier.signal();
System.out.println("Signalling work to be done");
}
System.out.println("Thread interrupted");
});
final ExecutorService workingThread = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
workingThread.submit(() -> {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
try {
System.out.println("Waiting for work");
myBarrier.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
break;
}
System.out.println("Doing work...");
sleepForMax(3_000); // simulate work being done
System.out.println("Work done");
}
System.out.println("Thread interrupted");
});
sleep(10_000);
singallingThread.shutdownNow();
workingThread.shutdownNow();
}
}
What's the better way to do this?
When I run your code with your implementation that uses Phaser, having changed the sleep times so that signalling occurs every 800 ms and processing takes 1000 ms, I get e.g. this output:
00008: Waiting for work
00808: Signalling work to be done
00808: Doing work... <-- worker starts working
01608: Signalling work to be done <-- signal came, so there's more work
01808: Work done
01809: Waiting for work <-- waits for work...
02409: Signalling work to be done <-- ...for 600 ms, until the next signal
02409: Doing work...
(The number to the left is milliseconds since start. Also, you can reproduce it with your code with random delays, but that's harder to reproduce and see there.)
If I understood it correctly, this is wrong. E.g. imagine what happens if signals stop coming.
Your code can probably work with this adjustment for your specific case:
private static final class MyBarrierWithPhaser {
private final Phaser phaser = new Phaser(1);
private int lastObservedPhase; // Phaser has initial phase 0
void await() throws InterruptedException {
// only works for 1 producer 1 worker; lastObservedPhase is kind of thread-local
lastObservedPhase = phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(lastObservedPhase);
}
void signal() {
phaser.arrive();
}
}
With this, the worker records the last phase it advanced to, and if the signal thread "arrives" before the next awaitAdvanceInterruptibly, then the Phaser phase gets updated, and when worker tries to wait using a stale phase, it will progress immediately; if the signal thread does not arrive before awaitAdvanceInterruptibly, then the worker will wait until the signal thread finally arrives.
Using simpler synchronization primitives, I can think of how to implement it using the synchronized-wait()-notify() mechanism:
private static final class MyBarrierWithSynchronized {
private boolean hasWork = false;
synchronized void await() throws InterruptedException {
while (!hasWork) {
wait();
}
hasWork = false;
}
synchronized void signal() {
hasWork = true;
notifyAll(); // or notify() if we are sure there is 1 signal thread and 1 worker thread
}
}
It has a couple of drawbacks: await() won't be interrupted if the thread is waiting to enter it. Also, some don't like synchronizing on this, I kept it so in order to be short. This can be rewritten using the java.util.concurrent.* analogues, this implementation will not have both of these drawbacks:
private static final class MyBarrierWithLock {
private boolean hasWorkFlag = false;
private final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private final Condition hasWorkCond = lock.newCondition();
void await() throws InterruptedException {
lock.lockInterruptibly();
try {
while (!hasWorkFlag) {
hasWorkCond.await();
}
hasWorkFlag = false;
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
void signal() {
lock.lock();
try {
hasWorkFlag = true;
hasWorkCond.signalAll(); // or signal() if we are sure there is 1 signal thread and 1 worker thread
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
I'm experimenting with this, using java.util.concurrent.Phaser, which may work, but I haven't used Phaser before so I'm not sure.
private static final class MyBarrier2 {
private Phaser phaser = new Phaser(1);
void await() throws InterruptedException {
phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(phaser.getPhase());
}
void signal() {
phaser.arrive();
}
}
Related
I have a problem to understand Locks and Conditions in Java, i do not understand why my code ends up in a deadlock. My programm consists of a Mainthread and a Subthread, subthread is a member of Mainthread. Both threads run in an infinite loop, Subthread's loop is supposed to execute exactly one iteration as soon as it receives the signal for startCond from the Mainthread. Mainthread should wait for the finishCond signal to continue.
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class LockTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
LockTest lt = new LockTest();
Mainthread m1 = lt.new Mainthread();
m1.start();
}
public class Mainthread extends Thread {
private Subthread sub = new Subthread();
public void run(){
System.out.println("Main start");
sub.start();
while(!isInterrupted()) {
try {
sub.getStartLock().lock();
sub.getStartCond().signal();
sub.getStartLock().unlock();
sub.getFinishLock().lock();
sub.getFinishCond().await();
sub.getFinishLock().unlock();
System.out.println("Main done");
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public class Subthread extends Thread {
private Lock startLock = new ReentrantLock();
private Lock finishLock = new ReentrantLock();
private Condition startCond = startLock.newCondition();
private Condition finishCond = finishLock.newCondition();
public Lock getStartLock() {
return startLock;
}
public Lock getFinishLock() {
return finishLock;
}
public Condition getStartCond() {
return startCond;
}
public Condition getFinishCond() {
return finishCond;
}
public void run() {
System.out.println("Sub start");
while(!isInterrupted()) {
try {
startLock.lock();
startCond.await();
startLock.unlock();
finishLock.lock();
finishCond.signal();
finishLock.unlock();
System.out.println("Sub done");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
My expected output would be:
Main done Sub done
(repeated as many times as it was executed in the loops).
Is there a way to solve this problem easier?
The main thread starts, it creates new sub thread and starts it but calling start on a thread does not mean that the thread would receive the processor imeddiatly and that its code will be actually executed.
Main, callss sub.getStartCond().signal(); but at this moment the sub thread is still not running so it misses this signal.
Main, awaits on the finishCond.
Sub starts executing its run method, it goes to the start condition and waits on it for ever.
The deadlock.
Signal wakes up only CURRENTLY waiting thread, it does not 'remember' previous calls.
Use Semaphore instead http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Semaphore.html
it has the semantic of 'counting the permits'.
There might be a more reliable way to do this. I would recommend using a CountDownLatch initialized with a count of 1, instead of a condition. Both the main and child threads can share the same instance of the latch (since the main owns the child that should be easy). The child will call await() and the main will call countDown() when you need to send the signal to the child. I recommend you make the latch private and final.
class ChildThread extends Thread {
private final CountDownLatch signal;
public ChildThread(CountDownLatch signal) {
this.signal = signal;
}
public void run() {
// The loop is necessary in case we get interrupted.
while (true) {
try {
signal.await();
break;
} catch(InterruptedException ignored) {
}
}
// do the work...
}
}
class MainThread extends Thread {
private final ChildThread child;
private final CountDownLatch signalToChild;
public MainThread() {
signalToChild = new CountDownLatch(1);
child = new ChildThread(signalToChild);
}
public void run() {
// I can start the child right away but I'd rather make sure it
// starts if the main thread has started.
child.start();
// prework
// let's signal the child
signalToChild.countDown();
// now the child is working, let's go on with the main thread work
}
}
This works because main and child thread actually share state, i.e., the latch. It does not matter if the main thread decrements the latch before the child thread is actually started, because the child will check this shared state to know if it can start.
So, I have a server like this:
public class Server {
private ExecutorService executor = null;
private class WorkerThread implements Runnable{
public void run() {
try{
do{
synchronized(executor){
executor.wait();
}
// doSomeThing
}while(true);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
Server() {
executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
}
public void calledWhenTriggerEventOccurs(){
synchronized(executor) {
executor.execute(new WorkerThread());
executor.notify();}
}
}
After calledWhenTriggerEventOccurs() is called for 3 times in a row, 3 new threads are being placed in the executors pool. Then I just wait for 90 sec.
I now would expect the previous 3 threads to be dead. But they are still alive.
When I call calledWhenTriggerEventOccurs() once again a 4th thread is being created.
So why are those 3 threads not being removed as I would expect?
Your tasks most likely wait forever so I wouldn't expect them to die, no matter how long you wait. When you notify() and there isn't any threads waiting the notify is lost. Most likely you have notified three times before your three tasks have a chance to start.
Here's essentially my problem:
while (true) {
if (previous 'doWorkAsync' method is not still in flight) {
doWorkAsync() // this returns immediately
}
wait set amount of time
}
A couple solutions come to mind for me:
Block until doWorkAsync() completes. This is not desirable to me for a few reasons.
It (potentially) results in waiting longer than I really needed to in the 'wait some set amount of time' line (e.g. if doWorkAsync takes 5 seconds, and the set amount of waiting time is 10 seconds, this will result in 15 seconds of waiting between calls, which isn't what I wanted). Of course, I could account for this by waiting less time, but somehow it just feels clunky.
It also ties up this thread unnecessarily. Instead of waiting for this task to come back, this thread could handle other work, like making config updates so the next call to doWorkAsync() has fresh data.
Use a gating mechanism. The easiest implementation that comes to mind is a boolean, set before calls to doWorkAsync(), and unset when doWorkAsync() completes. This is essentially what I'm doing now, but I'm not sure if it's an anti-pattern??
Is #2 the right way to go, or are there better ways to solve this problem?
EDIT: If it helps, doWorkAsync() returns a ListenableFuture (of guava).
The original question may not have been 100% clear. Here's the crux. If the async request finishes before the given timeout, this code will always work. However, if the async task takes SET_AMOUNT_OF_TIME + epsilon to complete, then this code will sleep twice as long as necessary, which is what I'm trying to avoid.
The simplest way to do this is using the wait and notifyAll methods already in Java. All you need to do is use an AtomicBoolean as a flag and block on it until the another Thread tells you something has changed.
The difference between that and your approach is that a blocked thread doesn't do anything whereas a polling thread uses CPU time.
Here is a simple example using two Threads - the Runnable "First" is submitted and it waits on done until the Runnable "Second" notifies that it has changed the flag.
public class App {
private static final AtomicBoolean done = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private static final class First implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while (!done.get()) {
System.out.println("Waiting.");
synchronized (done) {
try {
done.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
}
}
}
System.out.println("Done!");
}
}
private static final class Second implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
}
done.set(true);
synchronized (done) {
done.notifyAll();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
executorService.submit(new First());
Thread.sleep(1000);
executorService.submit(new Second());
executorService.shutdown();
}
}
The sleep calls are just to show that a task of arbitrary length can take place, obviously they are not required.
The thing to note is that First prints "waiting" every time it enters the loop and, if you run the code, it only prints it once. The second thing to note is that First reacts to the changing of the flag immediately as it is told to awake and recheck when the flag is changed.
I have used return in the InterruptedException blocks, you may want to used Thread.currentThread().interrupt() instead so that the process doesn't die if it's spuriously interrupted.
A more advanced approach is to use Lock and Condition
public class App {
private static final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private static final Condition condition = lock.newCondition();
private static final class First implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
lock.lock();
System.out.println("Waiting");
try {
condition.await();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
System.out.println("Done!");
}
}
private static final class Second implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
lock.lock();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
condition.signalAll();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
executorService.submit(new First());
Thread.sleep(1000);
executorService.submit(new Second());
executorService.shutdown();
}
}
In this situation First acquires a lock on the Lock object the immediately calls await on the Condition. The releases the lock and blocks on the Condition.
Second then acquires a lock on the Lock and calls signalAll on the Condition which awakes First.
First then reacquires the lock and continues execution, printing "Done!".
EDIT
The OP would like to call the method doWorkAsync with a specified period, if the method takes less time than the period then the process has to wait. If the method takes longer then the method should be called again immediately after.
The task needs to be stopped after a certain time.
At no point should the method be running more than once simultaneously.
The easiest approach would be to call the method from a ScheduledExecutorService, the Runnable would wrap the method and call get on the Future - blocking the scheduled executor until it is done.
This guarantees that the method is called with at least WAIT_TIME_BETWEEN_CALLS_SECS delay.
Then schedule another task that kills the first one after a set time.
final ScheduledExecutorService scheduledExecutorService = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
final Future<?> taskHandle = scheduledExecutorService.scheduleAtFixedRate(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
final ListenableFuture<Void> lf = doWorkAsync();
try {
doWorkAsync().get();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
} catch (ExecutionException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
}, 0, WAIT_TIME_BETWEEN_CALLS_SECS, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
scheduledExecutorService.schedule(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
taskHandle.cancel(false);
}
}, TOTAL_TIME_SECS, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
The best solution would be call the raw Runnable on a ScheduledExecutorService rather than calling it on another executor and blocking on the ListenableFuture.
Think what you are looking for is The Reactor Pattern.
Is there a reason you don't want these things running at the same time? If what you want to do is chain them, you could use Futures. Akka has Composable Futures and mappable ones.
I have a daemon thread which is started when a page is opened. The thread is then stopped when the page is closed. So in my class which holds the thread, I have it created like this:
class A {
private static volatile boolean isStopped=false;
//this method is called then the page is loaded
public void testListener() {
Thread listener = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while(!isStopped) {
//perform listener event
try {
//after every event sleep for a while
Thread.sleep(1000 *2)
} catch(InterruptedException e){}
}
}
});
}
listener.setName("Test-Server-Daemon");
listener.setDaemon(true);
listener.start();
// reset back to false so thread can be restarted when the page load event,
// call this method instance
if (isStopped) {
isStopped=false;
}
}
/**This is called when page is closed**/
public static void stopListener() {
isStopped=true;
}
}
Upon investigation, I have noticed that when the page is closed and not opened again within say 30 seconds interval, the thread is gracefully stopped.
But when the page is closed and re-opened within say 2 seconds interval the old thread does not get stopped and hence runs simultaneously with a new one.
And so as you can see from below image, I have the same thread started again when I close and quickly open the page.
Do anyone knows how to prevent this from occurring?
I have tried using thread interrupt where I reset the mutex but no joy.
EDITED:
isStopped is volatile.
To follow on from #Jordão's answer, the isStopped variable should be per thread. I would recommend using something like an AtomicBoolean and changing your thread code to be approximately:
public AtomicBoolean testListener() {
final AtomicBoolean isStopped = new AtomicBoolean(false);
Thread listener = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while(!isStopped.get()) {
...
}
}
});
listener.setName("Test-Server-Daemon");
listener.setDaemon(true);
listener.start();
return isStopped;
}
Then back in your page controller you can do:
AtomicBoolean isStopped = testListener();
// do the page stuff
...
// when done stop the thread
isStopped.set(true);
You're probably overriding the value of isStopped with false before the old thread has a chance to see that it should stop. The problem is here:
if(isStopped)
{
isStopped=false;
}
You should better isolate your code: create separate instances of A for each thread and make isStopped an instance volatile field (not static). And remove that block of code...
If your flag isStopped is not true for at least 2 seconds, your thread could be sleeping when this happens. A much simpler solution is to avoid start/stopping the thread as this could cause as much overhead as it saves (it certainly complicates the issue)
This is what I would do is start the thread once and only once.
public void run() {
try {
while(true) {
if(!isStopped) {
//perform listener event
}
//after every event sleep for a while
Thread.sleep(1000 *2);
}
} catch(InterruptedException e){}
}
By setting the flag, it stops performing, but the thread keeps checking.
Try using AtomicBoolean instead of the Boolean field.
Use the compareAndSet method; let me know if u need more clarification as the javadocs are quite useful.
Try making isStopped volatile, i.e. private static volatile boolean isStopped=false;. There may be a lag in memory synchronization between the two threads (the main one and your own).
Move your instantiation outside of your method and make it static. This guarentee's you will only ever have one instance of this Thread.
private static Thread listener;
Once this is done you can add this to you're method:
if(listener.isAlive()) try { Thread.sleep(100); } catch (InterruptedException ie) {}
listener = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while(!isStopped) {
//perform listener event
try {
//after every event sleep for a while
Thread.sleep(1000 *2)
}
catch(InterruptedException e){}
}
}
});
Now you won't start a new thread until the previous one has stopped.
(NB, not sure if isAlive() is accurate, you may need to create your own Thread implementation to accurately reflect if the thread is stopped if it isn't)
I would used a java.util.concurrent.ScheduledExecutorService for that. It will manage the thread and the scheduling of the task.
For instance:
import java.util.concurrent.ScheduledExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.ScheduledFuture;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public class Scheduler {
static ScheduledExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
static ScheduledFuture<?> future;
// called when the page is opened
public static void open() {
future = service.scheduleAtFixedRate(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
//perform listener event
}
}, 0, 2, TimeUnit.SECONDS); // every 2 seconds
}
// called when the page is closed
public static void close() {
// stop listener event
future.cancel(true);
future = null;
}
}
I have few asynchronous tasks running and I need to wait until at least one of them is finished (in the future probably I'll need to wait util M out of N tasks are finished).
Currently they are presented as Future, so I need something like
/**
* Blocks current thread until one of specified futures is done and returns it.
*/
public static <T> Future<T> waitForAny(Collection<Future<T>> futures)
throws AllFuturesFailedException
Is there anything like this? Or anything similar, not necessary for Future. Currently I loop through collection of futures, check if one is finished, then sleep for some time and check again. This looks like not the best solution, because if I sleep for long period then unwanted delay is added, if I sleep for short period then it can affect performance.
I could try using
new CountDownLatch(1)
and decrease countdown when task is complete and do
countdown.await()
, but I found it possible only if I control Future creation. It is possible, but requires system redesign, because currently logic of tasks creation (sending Callable to ExecutorService) is separated from decision to wait for which Future. I could also override
<T> RunnableFuture<T> AbstractExecutorService.newTaskFor(Callable<T> callable)
and create custom implementation of RunnableFuture with ability to attach listener to be notified when task is finished, then attach such listener to needed tasks and use CountDownLatch, but that means I have to override newTaskFor for every ExecutorService I use - and potentially there will be implementation which do not extend AbstractExecutorService. I could also try wrapping given ExecutorService for same purpose, but then I have to decorate all methods producing Futures.
All these solutions may work but seem very unnatural. It looks like I'm missing something simple, like
WaitHandle.WaitAny(WaitHandle[] waitHandles)
in c#. Are there any well known solutions for such kind of problem?
UPDATE:
Originally I did not have access to Future creation at all, so there were no elegant solution. After redesigning system I got access to Future creation and was able to add countDownLatch.countdown() to execution process, then I can countDownLatch.await() and everything works fine.
Thanks for other answers, I did not know about ExecutorCompletionService and it indeed can be helpful in similar tasks, but in this particular case it could not be used because some Futures are created without any executor - actual task is sent to another server via network, completes remotely and completion notification is received.
simple, check out ExecutorCompletionService.
ExecutorService.invokeAny
Why not just create a results queue and wait on the queue? Or more simply, use a CompletionService since that's what it is: an ExecutorService + result queue.
This is actually pretty easy with wait() and notifyAll().
First, define a lock object. (You can use any class for this, but I like to be explicit):
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Lock {}
Next, define your worker thread. He must notify that lock object when he's finished with his processing. Note that the notify must be in a synchronized block locking on the lock object.
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Worker extends Thread {
private Lock lock_;
private long timeToSleep_;
private String name_;
public Worker(Lock lock, String name, long timeToSleep) {
lock_ = lock;
timeToSleep_ = timeToSleep;
name_ = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// do real work -- using a sleep here to simulate work
try {
sleep(timeToSleep_);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
interrupt();
}
System.out.println(name_ + " is done... notifying");
// notify whoever is waiting, in this case, the client
synchronized (lock_) {
lock_.notify();
}
}
}
Finally, you can write your client:
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Client {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Lock lock = new Lock();
Worker worker1 = new Worker(lock, "worker1", 15000);
Worker worker2 = new Worker(lock, "worker2", 10000);
Worker worker3 = new Worker(lock, "worker3", 5000);
Worker worker4 = new Worker(lock, "worker4", 20000);
boolean started = false;
int numNotifies = 0;
while (true) {
synchronized (lock) {
try {
if (!started) {
// need to do the start here so we grab the lock, just
// in case one of the threads is fast -- if we had done the
// starts outside the synchronized block, a fast thread could
// get to its notification *before* the client is waiting for it
worker1.start();
worker2.start();
worker3.start();
worker4.start();
started = true;
}
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
break;
}
numNotifies++;
if (numNotifies == 4) {
break;
}
System.out.println("Notified!");
}
}
System.out.println("Everyone has notified me... I'm done");
}
}
As far as I know, Java has no analogous structure to the WaitHandle.WaitAny method.
It seems to me that this could be achieved through a "WaitableFuture" decorator:
public WaitableFuture<T>
extends Future<T>
{
private CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
WaitableFuture(CountDownLatch countDownLatch)
{
super();
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
void doTask()
{
super.doTask();
this.countDownLatch.countDown();
}
}
Though this would only work if it can be inserted before the execution code, since otherwise the execution code would not have the new doTask() method. But I really see no way of doing this without polling if you cannot somehow gain control of the Future object before execution.
Or if the future always runs in its own thread, and you can somehow get that thread. Then you could spawn a new thread to join each other thread, then handle the waiting mechanism after the join returns... This would be really ugly and would induce a lot of overhead though. And if some Future objects don't finish, you could have a lot of blocked threads depending on dead threads. If you're not careful, this could leak memory and system resources.
/**
* Extremely ugly way of implementing WaitHandle.WaitAny for Thread.Join().
*/
public static joinAny(Collection<Thread> threads, int numberToWaitFor)
{
CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(numberToWaitFor);
foreach(Thread thread in threads)
{
(new Thread(new JoinThreadHelper(thread, countDownLatch))).start();
}
countDownLatch.await();
}
class JoinThreadHelper
implements Runnable
{
Thread thread;
CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
JoinThreadHelper(Thread thread, CountDownLatch countDownLatch)
{
this.thread = thread;
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
void run()
{
this.thread.join();
this.countDownLatch.countDown();
}
}
If you can use CompletableFutures instead then there is CompletableFuture.anyOf that does what you want, just call join on the result:
CompletableFuture.anyOf(futures).join()
You can use CompletableFutures with executors by calling the CompletableFuture.supplyAsync or runAsync methods.
Since you don't care which one finishes, why not just have a single WaitHandle for all threads and wait on that? Whichever one finishes first can set the handle.
See this option:
public class WaitForAnyRedux {
private static final int POOL_SIZE = 10;
public static <T> T waitForAny(Collection<T> collection) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
List<Callable<T>> callables = new ArrayList<Callable<T>>();
for (final T t : collection) {
Callable<T> callable = Executors.callable(new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (t) {
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}, t);
callables.add(callable);
}
BlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(POOL_SIZE);
ExecutorService executorService = new ThreadPoolExecutor(POOL_SIZE, POOL_SIZE, 0, TimeUnit.SECONDS, queue);
return executorService.invokeAny(callables);
}
static public void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
final List<Integer> integers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < POOL_SIZE; i++) {
integers.add(i);
}
(new Thread() {
public void run() {
Integer notified = null;
try {
notified = waitForAny(integers);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("notified=" + notified);
}
}).start();
synchronized (integers) {
integers.wait(3000);
}
Integer randomInt = integers.get((new Random()).nextInt(POOL_SIZE));
System.out.println("Waking up " + randomInt);
synchronized (randomInt) {
randomInt.notify();
}
}
}