Develop Reference

ScheduledExecutorService with repeating tasks that have max duration

I have the following problem. I need multiple tasks to be performed simultaneously and repeatedly, each in a separate thread. Each task has its own repeat rate interval. Each task execution should take no more than a max duration (timeout) which is different for the different tasks. If a single execution exceeds that duration, it needs to be restarted. The current implementation uses a ScheduledThreadExecutor and scheduleAtFixedRate(...) method. The timeout condition is observed by creating a new thread within each task that performs the task logic and the thread is being joined for the given duration, then interrupted if still alive. This is not memory efficient because it effectively doubles the number of threads for each task: one for each task in the scheduled executor and one more within each task to manage the expiration.
Another idea I have is to utilize a managing thread that constantly iterates through the tasks (the ScheduledFuture instances returned by the executor) and checks the current execution duration, then canceling them if needed and rescheduling. The problem with such an approach is that ScheduledFuture doesn't hold how long the current execution has taken. I can maintain a Map<Future, MyTask> and store the execution duration in the MyTask class but it already starts looking a bit too much.
Do you think there's some better solution that I can use to solve this particular problem?

Timer schedule vs scheduleAtFixedRate?

public class MyTimerTask extends TimerTask{
#Override
public void run() {
int i = 0;
try {
Thread.sleep(100000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Run Me ~" + ++i);
System.out.println("Test");
}
}
Case 1 :-
TimerTask task = new MyTimerTask();
Timer timer = new Timer();
timer.schedule(task, 1000,6000); // line 1
System.out.println("End"); // here is bebug point.
My Expectation of schedule() method (as per my understanding given in javadocs where each execution is scheduled once previous task execution is completed)
that two threads should be
created after line 1.
One for timer which spawns another thread for tasks. Once first task thread dies
another will be created and son on. But at debug point , i just see one thread corresponding to Timer. Why
not thread for tasks which implement Runnable?
Case 2 :-
TimerTask task = new MyTimerTask();
Timer timer = new Timer();
timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(task, 1000,6000); // line 1
System.out.println("End"); // here is bebug point.
My Expectation of scheduleAtFixedRate() method(as per my understanding given in javadocs where each execution is scheduled relative to the scheduled
execution time of the initial execution) that around 17 threads(dont pay much attention
to 17. It can be more or less to that. But it should be greater than 2 ) should be
created after line 1.
One for timer which should spawn 16 other thread corresponding two each task. At first task sleeps
for 100 second, Timer should create another thread corresponding to next task and similarly for other task.
But at debug point , i just see one thread corresponding to Timer. Here also i can see sequential execution of task. Why not 17 threads?
UPDATE :- As per ScheduleAtFixedRate javadocs , each execution is scheduled relative to the scheduled execution time of the initial execution. If an execution is delayed for any reason (such as garbage collection or other background activity), two or more executions will occur in rapid succession to "catch up. what does that mean? To me it gives impression, if second task is due even first task is not completed, then timer will create new thread for due task. Is n't it?

Timer uses the Active Object pattern under the hood, so there is only ever a single thread being used and scheduling a new task on the timer adds that task to the thread's tasks queue.
The timer thread keeps track of all the tasks in it's queue and sleeps until the next task is scheduled. Then, it wakes up and executes the task itself by invoking task.run() directly, meaning that it does not spawn another thread to execute the code.
This also means that if you schedule two tasks to execute at the same time then, true to the Active Object pattern, they will be executed sequentially (one after another) on the same thread of control. This means the second task will execute after it's scheduled time (but probably not by much).
Now, to unequivocally answer your question, here is the scheduling logic from Timer.class that schedules the next time that the task should be run again (from lines 262-272 here):
// set when the next task should be launched
if (task.fixedRate) {
// task is scheduled at fixed rate
task.when = task.when + task.period;
} else {
// task is scheduled at fixed delay
task.when = System.currentTimeMillis()
+ task.period;
}
// insert this task into queue
insertTask(task);
task.fixedRate is set to true if you use one of the timer.scheduleAtFixedRate() methods and is set to false if you use one of the timer.schedule() methods.
task.when is the "time" (ticks) that the task was scheduled to run.
task.period is the interval you passed to the timer.schedule*() method.
So, from the code we can see that if you use a fixed rate then a repeating task will be scheduled to run relative to when it was first started. If you don't use a fixed rate, then it is scheduled to run relative to when it was last run (which will drift relative to a fixed rate, unless your task is never delayed and takes less than one tick to execute).
This also means that if a task falls behind and it is on a fixed rate, then Timer will keep rescheduling the task for immediate execution until it catches up to the total number of times it should have ran over a given period.
So if you have a task, say a ping() that you schedule to run at a fixed rate every 10ms and there is temporary blocking in the ping() method to where it takes 20ms to execute, then the Timer will call ping() again immediately after the previous call finished, and it will keep doing so until the given rate is achieved.

The javadoc for Timer says
Corresponding to each Timer object is a single background thread that
is used to execute all of the timer's tasks, sequentially.
Basically it holds a queue of tasks to which it adds when you schedule them. It uses one thread to iterate over the queue and execute the tasks.

The timer class creates one thread per instance of the timer class and this thread do all tasks scheduled Timer#schedule or Timer#scheduleAtFixRate.
So, as you ovserved, the timer creates only one thread.
A task would have came start time before the preciding task has finished, then the follwing task has waited until the preciding task has finished.
So, Timer "never" create another thread although the preciding task hasn't finished and the time the following task has to start has come.
So, I advise you that:
if you want to schedule tasks and do the tasks on time whether a preciding task has finished or not, use ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor instead of Timer.
And though if you do not want, it's prefer to use ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor than Timer because for one thing, tasks scheduled by Timer would never have done if a task would have threw RuntimeException or Error.

Schedule will not execute the missed task if the start time is in the past.
scheduleAtFixedRate will execute the missed tasks if the start time is in the past.For the missed tasks, the start time will be calculated based last task's end time. When missed tasks are executed fully, the new normal tasks' start time will be calculated based on last task's start time.
BR Sanchez

Does ThreadPoolExecutor spawns a new thread if a current thread sleeps

This question is a followup on this one.
Essentially what I am doing is declaring a ThreadPoolExecutor with just one thread. I am overriding the beforeExecute() method to put a sleep so that each of my tasks are executed with some delay among themselves. This is basically to give away the CPU to other threads since my thread is kind of thrashing.
So the expected behavior is:
For each new task in the ThreadPoolExecutor, it calls the before execute function before executing the task and hence it sleeps for say 20s before it executes the task.
However this is what I see:
For each new task submitted:
It executes the task
Calls the beforeExecute method
sleeps for say 20s
RE-EXECUTE the task!
The order of 1. & 2. is not the same all the time.
Here are my questions:
It is appearing that a new thread comes in after/during sleeping and goes ahead and executes my task right away while the actual thread is sleeping.
So does the ThreadPoolExecutor spawn a new thread as soon as an existing thread sleeps [thinking that the thread is terminated]??
I tried to put the keepAliveTime > sleeptime ..so that in case the above assertion is true .. it atleast waits for more than sleep time to spawn a new thread ...[hoping in the mean time the sleeping thread would be awake and the ThreadPoolExecutor would dump the idea of spawning a new thread
Even if it does spawn a new thread and execute my task right away, why would the task be re-executed after the sleeping thread wakes up !! Shouldn't the task be taken out of task Queue before that ??
Am I missing something here ? Any other way to debug this scenario ?
=> An alternative method I was thinking to do the desired task [and not solve the peoblem] was to wrap the runnable with one more runnable and sleep the outer runnable before calling the inner one.

I think what you're looking for is a ScheduledExecutorService
From what I understand of your question, scheduleAtFixedRate(...) should do the deal:
scheduleAtFixedRate(Runnable command, long initialDelay, long period, TimeUnit unit)
Creates and executes a periodic action
that becomes enabled first after the
given initial delay, and subsequently
with the given period; that is
executions will commence after
initialDelay then initialDelay+period,
then initialDelay + 2 * period, and so
on.

No, that is not how it works. The ThreadPoolExecutor knows it has a worker thread, even if that worker is RUNNABLE, WAITING, BLOCKED, or any other state.
The task is removed from the BlockingQueue long before the beforeExecute method is invoked.
You can look at the code for the API yourself and determine what it is doing. Every Java JDK installation includes a "src.zip" file which contains the entire Java Library. If yu haven't already, you can attach this source in eclipse and then while debugging in eclipse diving into a library method will show you source instead of just the class file.

What happens if a TimerTask takes longer to execute than the specified interval?

When using
Timer.schedule(TimerTask task, long delay, long period)
(i.e. with fixed-delay execution), what happens if the specified TimerTask's run() method takes longer than period to complete? Is it possible that two concurrent TimerTask threads will be running because of this?
And if so, is there a way to avoid it?

Timer's documentation says the following:
Timer tasks should complete quickly. If a timer task takes excessive time to complete, it "hogs" the timer's task execution thread. This can, in turn, delay the execution of subsequent tasks, which may "bunch up" and execute in rapid succession when (and if) the offending task finally completes.
That is, concurrent TimerTask threads will not be running. The tasks will accumulate into a queue. This may or may not be appropriate (more likely, not).

Timer and TimerTask don't handle this sort of situation well. If you want to handle it better, then don't use those classes.
java.util.concurrent.ScheduledExecutorService provides two scheduling methods, scheduleAtFixedRate and scheduledWithFixedDelay, which govern what happens when tasks "bunch up".
scheduleAtFixedRate:
Creates and executes a periodic action
that becomes enabled first after the
given initial delay, and subsequently
with the given period; that is
executions will commence after
initialDelay then initialDelay+period,
then initialDelay + 2 * period, and so
on. If any execution of the task
encounters an exception, subsequent
executions are suppressed. Otherwise,
the task will only terminate via
cancellation or termination of the
executor. If any execution of this
task takes longer than its period,
then subsequent executions may start
late, but will not concurrently
execute.
scheduleWithFixedDelay:
Creates and executes a periodic action
that becomes enabled first after the
given initial delay, and subsequently
with the given delay between the
termination of one execution and the
commencement of the next. If any
execution of the task encounters an
exception, subsequent executions are
suppressed. Otherwise, the task will
only terminate via cancellation or
termination of the executor.
You can create ScheduledExecutorService instances using the Executors factory class.

Timer vs Thread primitive in Java

Has anyone observed that creating a thread that does work in a while(true) loop with a Thread.sleep(t) appears to consume more CPU than creating a Timer in Java with a wakeup of t? Anyone with JVM expertise know why this is? I've only really tried this on Windows and Linux x86.

According to the Javadoc for the Timer class, there's a background thread that does the work:
Corresponding to each Timer object is a single background thread that is used to execute all of the timer's tasks, sequentially. Timer tasks should complete quickly. If a timer task takes excessive time to complete, it "hogs" the timer's task execution thread. This can, in turn, delay the execution of subsequent tasks, which may "bunch up" and execute in rapid succession when (and if) the offending task finally completes.
How are you observing CPU usage? Have you tried a JVM profiler?