Check for thread shutdown and execute a task once it shutdown

Check for thread shutdown and execute a task once it shutdown - java

I am creating a fixed-size thread pool with 10 threads as follows:
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
for (int i = 0; i < poolSize; ++i) {
executorService.execute(factory.get());
}
Now, after spawning 10 threads, a runnable is being executed by each of them. Runnable here is provided by factory.get()
Now, I wanted to do a thing that as soon as a thread gets shutdown, i.e. it has completed a task, it picks another runnable again and start running it. So, basically check for all 10 threads state and execute a runnable again if the thread is shutdown.
I know I can do something like, in which I can call the executorService shutdown() method as follows to do that:
while (!executorService.isShutdown()) {
try {
executorService.execute(factory.get());
} catch (RejectedExecutionException e) {
if (!executorService.isShutdown())
log.warn("task submission rejected");
}
}
But in this approach, issue is that I am keep on calling the execute function which would increase LinkedBlockingQueue and won't serve my purpose.
If I can somehow check the Threads state, that would be good because then, it would avoid the overhead of going back to get more work from the executor service.
Please suggest how can I do that in code.

You can use a bounded executor. The following is code by Brian Goetz from jcip
/**
* BoundedExecutor
* <p/>
* Using a Semaphore to throttle task submission
*
* #author Brian Goetz and Tim Peierls
*/
public class BoundedExecutor {
private final Executor exec;
private final Semaphore semaphore;
public BoundedExecutor(Executor exec, int bound) {
this.exec = exec;
this.semaphore = new Semaphore(bound);
}
public void submitTask(final Runnable command)
throws InterruptedException {
semaphore.acquire();
try {
exec.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
command.run();
} finally {
semaphore.release();
}
}
});
} catch (RejectedExecutionException e) {
semaphore.release();
}
}
}
Then just create and use it:
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
BoundedExecutor boundedExecutor = new BoundedExecutor(executorService,10);
while (!executorService.isShutdown()) {
try {
boundedExecutor.submitTask(factory.get());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
This way you will always have 10 threads running, new tasks will only be submitted after the old ones will complete and you can stop the execution by shutting down the executor.

Why use a thread pool if you're going to run 10 threads continually? Just start 10 threads yourself.
Why have a "controller" thread on top of the 10 worker threads? Just let each thread ask for the next task to execute.
The following assumes that factory.get() is thread-safe.
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
new Thread(() -> {
for (;;) {
Runnable r = factory.get(); // <-- must be thread-safe
if (r == null)
break; // stop thread if no more tasks to execute
try {
r.run();
} catch (Exception e) {
// log exception here
}
}
}).start();
}
If needed, save the 10 thread objects in an array.
If you want to be able to shutdown the threads without having factory.get() returning null, add a volatile boolean, and check it in the loop.

Related

How to end a thread in executor service if thread takes too long?

Sample executor service
static class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
private String serverName;
public MyRunnable(String serverName) {
super();
this.serverName = serverName;
}
#Override
public void run() {
...
conn = new ch.ethz.ssh2.Connection(serverName);
conn.connect();
boolean isAuthenticated = conn.authenticateWithPassword(user, pass);
logger.info("Connecting to " + server);
if (isAuthenticated == false) {
logger.info(server + " Please check credentials");
}
sess = conn.openSession();
...
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<String> serverList = ...;
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(20);
for (String serverName : serverList) {
MyRunnable r = new MyRunnable(serverName);
executor.execute(r);
}
executor.shutdown();
executor.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.HOURS);
}
Right here is a sample code of my executor service. But with this logic when I meet a server that fails to connect or takes too long to connect it creates a a hang time within my application. I want to end/kill the thread if it takes longer than x amount of time to connect. How can I terminate the thread task if it does not connect to server within 2 seconds.
Attempt
ThreadPoolExecutor executor = new ThreadPoolExecutor(
10, 25, 500, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS,
new LinkedBlockingQueue<>(1));
I added the following code but apparently it does not end the thread if it takes longer than 2000 milliseconds.
Attempt 2
Future<?> future = executor.submit( new task));
try {
future.get(2000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS); // This waits timeout seconds; returns null
}
catch(TimeoutException e) {
future.cancel(true);
// System.out.println(server + "name");
}

How can I terminate the thread task if it does not connect to server within 2 seconds.
This is difficult thing to do typically because even if you interrupt the thread (like the other answers mention) there's no guarantee that the thread will stop. Interrupt just sets a flag on the thread and it's up to the code to detect the status and stop. This means that a ton of threads may be in the background waiting for the connects.
In your case however you are using the ch.ethz.ssh2.Connection.connect() method. Turns out there is a connect method that takes a timeout. I think you want the following:
// try to connect for 2 seconds
conn.connect(null, 2000, 0);
To quote from the connect method javadocs:
In case of a timeout (either connectTimeout or kexTimeout) a SocketTimeoutException is thrown.

You have to do awaitTermination() first, then check the return value, and then do shutdownNow(). shutdown() does not guarantee instant stoppage of the service, it just stops taking new jobs, and waits for all jobs to complete in order. shutdownNow() on the other hand, stops taking new jobs, actively attempts to stop all running tasks, and does not start any new one, returning a list of all waiting-to-execute jobs.
From JavaDocs :
The following method shuts down an ExecutorService in two phases,
first by calling shutdown to reject incoming tasks, and then calling
shutdownNow, if necessary, to cancel any lingering tasks:
void shutdownAndAwaitTermination(ExecutorService pool) {
pool.shutdown(); // Disable new tasks from being submitted
try {
// Wait a while for existing tasks to terminate
if (!pool.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS)) {
pool.shutdownNow(); // Cancel currently executing tasks
// Wait a while for tasks to respond to being cancelled
if (!pool.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS))
System.err.println("Pool did not terminate");
}
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
// (Re-)Cancel if current thread also interrupted
pool.shutdownNow();
// Preserve interrupt status
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}

You can always call future.get(timeout...)
It will return timeout exception if it did not finish yet... then you can call future.cancel().

As long as you deal with threads in Java the only safe way to stop the thread is to interrupt it. You can call shutdown() first and then wait. This method doesn't interrupt threads.
If it doesn't help then you call shutdownNow() which tries to cancel tasks by setting interrupted flag of each thread to true. In that case if threads are blocked/waiting then InterruptedException will be thrown. If you check interrupted flag somewhere inside your tasks then you are good too.
But if you have no other choice but to stop threads you still can do it. One possible solution of getting access to workers is to trace all created threads inside ThreadPoolExecutor with help of custom thread factory.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class TestThreadPoolEx {
static class CustomThreadFactory implements ThreadFactory {
private List<Thread> threads = new ArrayList<>();
#Override
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
Thread t = new Thread(r);
threads.add(t);
return t;
}
public List<Thread> getThreads() {
return threads;
}
public void stopThreads() {
for(Thread t : threads) {
if(t.isAlive()) {
try {
t.stop();
} catch (Exception e) {
//NOP
}
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
CustomThreadFactory factory = new CustomThreadFactory();
ExecutorService ex = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1, factory);
ex.submit(() -> {
while(true);
});
ex.shutdown();
ex.awaitTermination(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
ex.shutdownNow();
ex.awaitTermination(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
factory.stopThreads();
}
}
This is sure unsafe but should fit your requirements. In this case it's able to stop while(true) loop. Cancelling tasks won't be able to do that.

Creating a Thread that does not exit

I was wondering what the best way to create a Java Thread that does not terminate.
Currently, I basically have a "Runner" that basically looks like:
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
for (int i = 0; i < numThreads; ++i) {
pool.submit(new Task());
}
pool.shutdown();
and Task looks something like this
public class Task {
...
public void run() {
while(true) { }
}
}
There are two concerns I have with my approach:
Should I be creating a task that just returns after doing work and continue spawning threads that do minimal amounts of work? I'm concerned about the overhead, but am not sure how to measure it.
If I have a Thread that just loops infinitely, when I force quit the executable, will those Threads be shutdown and cleaned up? After some testing, it doesn't appear an InterruptException is being thrown when the code containing the ExecutorService is forcefully shutdown.
EDIT:
To elaborate, the Task looks like
public void run() {
while(true) {
// Let queue be a synchronized, global queue
if (queue has an element) {
// Pop from queue and do a very minimal amount of work on it
// Involves a small amount of network IO (maybe 10-100 ms)
} else {
sleep(2000);
}
}
}

I agree with #D Levant, Blocking queue is the key to use here. With blocking queue, you don't need to handle the queue-empty or queue-full scenario.
In your Task class,
while(true) {
// Let queue be a synchronized, global queue
if (queue has an element) {
// Pop from queue and do a very minimal amount of work on it
// Involves a small amount of network IO (maybe 10-100 ms)
} else {
sleep(2000);
}
}
Its really not a good approach, its inefficient because your while loop is continuously polling, even you have put the thread sleep(), but still its also a overhead of unnecessary context-switches every time the thread wake-ups and sleeps.
In my opinion, your approach of using Executors is looking good for your case. Thread creation is obviously a costly process, and Executors provide us the flexibility of re-using the same thread for different tasks.
You can just pass your task through execute(Runnable) or submit(Runnable/Callable) and then rest will be taken care by Executors internally. Executors internally uses blocking queue concept only.
You can even create your own thread pool by using the ThreadPoolExecutor class and passing the required parameter in its constructor, here you can pass your own blocking queue to hold the tasks. Rest thread-management will be taken care by it on basis of the configuration passes in constructor, So If you are really confident about the configuration parameters then you can go for it.
Now the last point, If you don't want to use the Java's in-built Executors framework, then you can design your solution by using BlockingQueue to hold tasks and starting a thread which will take the tasks from this blocking queue to execute, Below is the high-level implementation:
class TaskRunner {
private int noOfThreads; //The no of threads which you want to run always
private boolean started;
private int taskQueueSize; //No. of tasks that can be in queue at a time, when try to add more tasks, then you have to wait.
private BlockingQueue<Runnable> taskQueue;
private List<Worker> workerThreads;
public TaskRunner(int noOfThreads, int taskQueueSize) {
this.noOfThreads = noOfThreads;
this.taskQueueSize = taskQueueSize;
}
//You can pass any type of task(provided they are implementing Runnable)
public void submitTask(Runnable task) {
if(!started) {
init();
}
try {
taskQueue.put(task);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void shutdown() {
for(Worker worker : workerThreads){
worker.stopped = true;
}
}
private void init() {
this.taskQueue = new LinkedBlockingDeque<>(taskQueueSize);
this.workerThreads = new ArrayList<>(noOfThreads);
for(int i=0; i< noOfThreads; i++) {
Worker worker = new Worker();
workerThreads.add(worker);
worker.start();
}
}
private class Worker extends Thread {
private volatile boolean stopped;
public void run() {
if(!stopped) {
try {
taskQueue.take().run();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
class Task1 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
//Your implementation for the task of type 1
}
}
class Task2 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
//Your implementation for the task of type 2
}
}
class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
TaskRunner runner = new TaskRunner(3,5);
runner.submitTask(new Task1());
runner.submitTask(new Task2());
runner.shutdown();
}
}

Making Callable Threads as Daemon

How can I make Callable thread as daemon thread?
Here is what I am trying. I am trying to execute a set of threads of which one of them does not complete and goes into infinite loop. What it does is the main thread of the program does not terminate even though all the code statements are executed. The main thread goes into suspended mode after that.
Here is the code snippet for the same.
public class MyThread implements Callable<String> {
private int value;
public MyThread(int value) {
this.value = value;
}
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
//Thread.currentThread().setDaemon(true);
System.out.println("Executing - " + value);
if (value == 4) {
for (; ; );
}
return value + "";
}
}
Main Program
public class ExecutorMain {
public static String testing() {
ExecutorService executor = null;
List<Future<String>> result = null;
String parsedValue = null;
try {
executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
List<MyThread> threads = new ArrayList<MyThread>();
for (int i = 1; i < 10; i++) {
MyThread obj = new MyThread(i);
threads.add(obj);
}
result = executor.invokeAll(threads, Long.valueOf("4000"), TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
//result = executor.invokeAll(threads);
for (Future<String> f : result) {
try {
parsedValue = f.get();
System.out.println("Return Value - " + parsedValue);
} catch (CancellationException e) {
System.out.println("Cancelled");
parsedValue = "";
f.cancel(true);
}
}
executor.shutdownNow();
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception while running threads");
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
List executedThreads = executor.shutdownNow();
System.out.println(executedThreads);
for (Object o : executedThreads) {
System.out.println(o.getClass());
}
}
System.out.println("Exiting....");
//System.exit(1);
return "";
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
testing();
}
}
What I got to understand from my earlier question about Dangling threads in Java is that I have to make my threads as daemon threads.

How can I make Callable thread as daemon thread?
You need to use a new ThreadFactory that creates daemon threads. See this answer here: Executor and Daemon in Java
By default the executors create non-daemon threads whenever they build their pools. But you can inject your own ThreadFactory which creates the threads for the pool.
For example:
executor = ExecutorService.newSingleThreadExecutor(new MyThreadFactory());
The ThreadFactory implements the newThread method:
Thread newThread(Runnable r)
Copied from the answer I linked to above, you could implement it like:
class MyThreadFactory implements ThreadFactory {
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
Thread thread = new Thread(r);
thread.setDaemon(true);
return thread;
}
}
You mentioned in your question:
//Thread.currentThread().setDaemon(true);
Yeah, this won't work because you cannot set the daemon flag once the thread has been started.

It is not about making Callable to daemon. You actually want to make the execute threads become daemon. You can create the thread in this way to make it becomes daemon:
executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(new ThreadFactory(){
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.setDaemon(true);
return t;
}
});

Just setting the Threads created by the ExecutorService to daemon won't help (though you do need to do this). You can set your ExecutorService Threads to daemon like so:
executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(new ThreadFactory() {
#Override
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.setDaemon(true);
return t;
}
});
The real problem you are having is with this code block:
for (Future<String> f : result) {
try {
parsedValue = f.get();
System.out.println("Return Value - " + parsedValue);
} catch (CancellationException e) {
System.out.println("Cancelled");
parsedValue = "";
f.cancel(true);
}
}
executor.shutdownNow();
More specifically, this code will hang forever here:
parsedValue = f.get();
The reason for this is simple, the Future#get method "Waits if necessary for the computation to complete, and then retrieves its result.", but the computation will never complete because it is in an infinite loop. Not even an interrupt from ThreadPoolExecutor#shutdownNow or Future#cancel(true) will help you because your Callable code is not perofrming a blocking operation or otherwise checking for an interrupt.
From here, you have two options:
Use the form of Future#get that takes a long timeout argument.
Use Future#isDone to determine if the Future#get method has a value to return prior to actually calling Future#get.

Thanks Tim for the detailed explanation. However, your proposed solution did not solve the issue. The problem was that because the thread has gone to infinite loop, it does not check for any thread interruption and hence does not terminate.
For my scenario, infinite loop is not a good example, but what we were trying to accomplish is that we were executing a regular expression which was taking too long to execute and the check for interruption was after matcher.find() call. Because find() does not return in stipulated time and also the find() method does not check for thread interruptions, we were facing the dangling thread issue. Finally, implemented InterruptableCharSequence from this url and got it working.

How to wait for all threads to finish, using ExecutorService?

I need to execute some amount of tasks 4 at a time, something like this:
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
while(...) {
taskExecutor.execute(new MyTask());
}
//...wait for completion somehow
How can I get notified once all of them are complete? For now I can't think about anything better than setting some global task counter and decrease it at the end of every task, then monitor in infinite loop this counter to become 0; or get a list of Futures and in infinite loop monitor isDone for all of them. What are better solutions not involving infinite loops?
Thanks.

Basically on an ExecutorService you call shutdown() and then awaitTermination():
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
while(...) {
taskExecutor.execute(new MyTask());
}
taskExecutor.shutdown();
try {
taskExecutor.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
...
}

Use a CountDownLatch:
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(totalNumberOfTasks);
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
while(...) {
taskExecutor.execute(new MyTask());
}
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException E) {
// handle
}
and within your task (enclose in try / finally)
latch.countDown();

ExecutorService.invokeAll() does it for you.
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
List<Callable<?>> tasks; // your tasks
// invokeAll() returns when all tasks are complete
List<Future<?>> futures = taskExecutor.invokeAll(tasks);

You can use Lists of Futures, as well:
List<Future> futures = new ArrayList<Future>();
// now add to it:
futures.add(executorInstance.submit(new Callable<Void>() {
public Void call() throws IOException {
// do something
return null;
}
}));
then when you want to join on all of them, its essentially the equivalent of joining on each, (with the added benefit that it re-raises exceptions from child threads to the main):
for(Future f: this.futures) { f.get(); }
Basically the trick is to call .get() on each Future one at a time, instead of infinite looping calling isDone() on (all or each). So you're guaranteed to "move on" through and past this block as soon as the last thread finishes. The caveat is that since the .get() call re-raises exceptions, if one of the threads dies, you would raise from this possibly before the other threads have finished to completion [to avoid this, you could add a catch ExecutionException around the get call]. The other caveat is it keeps a reference to all threads so if they have thread local variables they won't get collected till after you get past this block (though you might be able to get around this, if it became a problem, by removing Future's off the ArrayList). If you wanted to know which Future "finishes first" you could use some something like https://stackoverflow.com/a/31885029/32453

In Java8 you can do it with CompletableFuture:
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
List<Runnable> tasks = getTasks();
CompletableFuture<?>[] futures = tasks.stream()
.map(task -> CompletableFuture.runAsync(task, es))
.toArray(CompletableFuture[]::new);
CompletableFuture.allOf(futures).join();
es.shutdown();

Just my two cents.
To overcome the requirement of CountDownLatch to know the number of tasks beforehand, you could do it the old fashion way by using a simple Semaphore.
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
int numberOfTasks=0;
Semaphore s=new Semaphore(0);
while(...) {
taskExecutor.execute(new MyTask());
numberOfTasks++;
}
try {
s.aquire(numberOfTasks);
...
In your task just call s.release() as you would latch.countDown();

A bit late to the game but for the sake of completion...
Instead of 'waiting' for all tasks to finish, you can think in terms of the Hollywood principle, "don't call me, I'll call you" - when I'm finished.
I think the resulting code is more elegant...
Guava offers some interesting tools to accomplish this.
An example:
Wrap an ExecutorService into a ListeningExecutorService:
ListeningExecutorService service = MoreExecutors.listeningDecorator(Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10));
Submit a collection of callables for execution ::
for (Callable<Integer> callable : callables) {
ListenableFuture<Integer> lf = service.submit(callable);
// listenableFutures is a collection
listenableFutures.add(lf)
});
Now the essential part:
ListenableFuture<List<Integer>> lf = Futures.successfulAsList(listenableFutures);
Attach a callback to the ListenableFuture, that you can use to be notified when all futures complete:
Futures.addCallback(lf, new FutureCallback<List<Integer>> () {
#Override
public void onSuccess(List<Integer> result) {
// do something with all the results
}
#Override
public void onFailure(Throwable t) {
// log failure
}
});
This also offers the advantage that you can collect all the results in one place once the processing is finished...
More information here

The CyclicBarrier class in Java 5 and later is designed for this sort of thing.

here is two options , just bit confuse which one is best to go.
Option 1:
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
List<Runnable> tasks = getTasks();
CompletableFuture<?>[] futures = tasks.stream()
.map(task -> CompletableFuture.runAsync(task, es))
.toArray(CompletableFuture[]::new);
CompletableFuture.allOf(futures).join();
es.shutdown();
Option 2:
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
List< Future<?>> futures = new ArrayList<>();
for(Runnable task : taskList) {
futures.add(es.submit(task));
}
for(Future<?> future : futures) {
try {
future.get();
}catch(Exception e){
// do logging and nothing else
}
}
es.shutdown();
Here putting future.get(); in try catch is good idea right?

Follow one of below approaches.
Iterate through all Future tasks, returned from submit on ExecutorService and check the status with blocking call get() on Future object as suggested by Kiran
Use invokeAll() on ExecutorService
CountDownLatch
ForkJoinPool or Executors.html#newWorkStealingPool
Use shutdown, awaitTermination, shutdownNow APIs of ThreadPoolExecutor in proper sequence
Related SE questions:
How is CountDownLatch used in Java Multithreading?
How to properly shutdown java ExecutorService

You could wrap your tasks in another runnable, that will send notifications:
taskExecutor.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
taskStartedNotification();
new MyTask().run();
taskFinishedNotification();
}
});

Clean way with ExecutorService
List<Future<Void>> results = null;
try {
List<Callable<Void>> tasks = new ArrayList<>();
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
results = executorService.invokeAll(tasks);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
...
} catch (Exception ex) {
...
}

I've just written a sample program that solves your problem. There was no concise implementation given, so I'll add one. While you can use executor.shutdown() and executor.awaitTermination(), it is not the best practice as the time taken by different threads would be unpredictable.
ExecutorService es = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
List<Callable<Integer>> tasks = new ArrayList<>();
for (int j = 1; j <= 10; j++) {
tasks.add(new Callable<Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer call() throws Exception {
int sum = 0;
System.out.println("Starting Thread "
+ Thread.currentThread().getId());
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
sum += i;
}
System.out.println("Stopping Thread "
+ Thread.currentThread().getId());
return sum;
}
});
}
try {
List<Future<Integer>> futures = es.invokeAll(tasks);
int flag = 0;
for (Future<Integer> f : futures) {
Integer res = f.get();
System.out.println("Sum: " + res);
if (!f.isDone())
flag = 1;
}
if (flag == 0)
System.out.println("SUCCESS");
else
System.out.println("FAILED");
} catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}

Just to provide more alternatives here different to use latch/barriers.
You can also get the partial results until all of them finish using CompletionService.
From Java Concurrency in practice:
"If you have a batch of computations to submit to an Executor and you want to retrieve their results as they become
available, you could retain the Future associated with each task and repeatedly poll for completion by calling get with a
timeout of zero. This is possible, but tedious. Fortunately there is a better way: a completion service."
Here the implementation
public class TaskSubmiter {
private final ExecutorService executor;
TaskSubmiter(ExecutorService executor) { this.executor = executor; }
void doSomethingLarge(AnySourceClass source) {
final List<InterestedResult> info = doPartialAsyncProcess(source);
CompletionService<PartialResult> completionService = new ExecutorCompletionService<PartialResult>(executor);
for (final InterestedResult interestedResultItem : info)
completionService.submit(new Callable<PartialResult>() {
public PartialResult call() {
return InterestedResult.doAnOperationToGetPartialResult();
}
});
try {
for (int t = 0, n = info.size(); t < n; t++) {
Future<PartialResult> f = completionService.take();
PartialResult PartialResult = f.get();
processThisSegment(PartialResult);
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
catch (ExecutionException e) {
throw somethinghrowable(e.getCause());
}
}
}

This is my solution, based in "AdamSkywalker" tip, and it works
package frss.main;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class TestHilos {
void procesar() {
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
List<Runnable> tasks = getTasks();
CompletableFuture<?>[] futures = tasks.stream().map(task -> CompletableFuture.runAsync(task, es)).toArray(CompletableFuture[]::new);
CompletableFuture.allOf(futures).join();
es.shutdown();
System.out.println("FIN DEL PROCESO DE HILOS");
}
private List<Runnable> getTasks() {
List<Runnable> tasks = new ArrayList<Runnable>();
Hilo01 task1 = new Hilo01();
tasks.add(task1);
Hilo02 task2 = new Hilo02();
tasks.add(task2);
return tasks;
}
private class Hilo01 extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("HILO 1");
}
}
private class Hilo02 extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
sleep(2000);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("HILO 2");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestHilos test = new TestHilos();
test.procesar();
}
}

You could use this code:
public class MyTask implements Runnable {
private CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
public MyTask(CountDownLatch countDownLatch {
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
//Do somethings
//
this.countDownLatch.countDown();//important
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(NUMBER_OF_TASKS);
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_TASKS; i++){
taskExecutor.execute(new MyTask(countDownLatch));
}
countDownLatch.await();
System.out.println("Finish tasks");

So I post my answer from linked question here, incase someone want a simpler way to do this
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
CompletableFuture[] futures = new CompletableFuture[10];
int i = 0;
while (...) {
futures[i++] = CompletableFuture.runAsync(runner, executor);
}
CompletableFuture.allOf(futures).join(); // THis will wait until all future ready.

I created the following working example. The idea is to have a way to process a pool of tasks (I am using a queue as example) with many Threads (determined programmatically by the numberOfTasks/threshold), and wait until all Threads are completed to continue with some other processing.
import java.util.PriorityQueue;
import java.util.Queue;
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
/** Testing CountDownLatch and ExecutorService to manage scenario where
* multiple Threads work together to complete tasks from a single
* resource provider, so the processing can be faster. */
public class ThreadCountDown {
private CountDownLatch threadsCountdown = null;
private static Queue<Integer> tasks = new PriorityQueue<>();
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Create a queue with "Tasks"
int numberOfTasks = 2000;
while(numberOfTasks-- > 0) {
tasks.add(numberOfTasks);
}
// Initiate Processing of Tasks
ThreadCountDown main = new ThreadCountDown();
main.process(tasks);
}
/* Receiving the Tasks to process, and creating multiple Threads
* to process in parallel. */
private void process(Queue<Integer> tasks) {
int numberOfThreads = getNumberOfThreadsRequired(tasks.size());
threadsCountdown = new CountDownLatch(numberOfThreads);
ExecutorService threadExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(numberOfThreads);
//Initialize each Thread
while(numberOfThreads-- > 0) {
System.out.println("Initializing Thread: "+numberOfThreads);
threadExecutor.execute(new MyThread("Thread "+numberOfThreads));
}
try {
//Shutdown the Executor, so it cannot receive more Threads.
threadExecutor.shutdown();
threadsCountdown.await();
System.out.println("ALL THREADS COMPLETED!");
//continue With Some Other Process Here
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
/* Determine the number of Threads to create */
private int getNumberOfThreadsRequired(int size) {
int threshold = 100;
int threads = size / threshold;
if( size > (threads*threshold) ){
threads++;
}
return threads;
}
/* Task Provider. All Threads will get their task from here */
private synchronized static Integer getTask(){
return tasks.poll();
}
/* The Threads will get Tasks and process them, while still available.
* When no more tasks available, the thread will complete and reduce the threadsCountdown */
private class MyThread implements Runnable {
private String threadName;
protected MyThread(String threadName) {
super();
this.threadName = threadName;
}
#Override
public void run() {
Integer task;
try{
//Check in the Task pool if anything pending to process
while( (task = getTask()) != null ){
processTask(task);
}
}catch (Exception ex){
ex.printStackTrace();
}finally {
/*Reduce count when no more tasks to process. Eventually all
Threads will end-up here, reducing the count to 0, allowing
the flow to continue after threadsCountdown.await(); */
threadsCountdown.countDown();
}
}
private void processTask(Integer task){
try{
System.out.println(this.threadName+" is Working on Task: "+ task);
}catch (Exception ex){
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Hope it helps!

You could use your own subclass of ExecutorCompletionService to wrap taskExecutor, and your own implementation of BlockingQueue to get informed when each task completes and perform whatever callback or other action you desire when the number of completed tasks reaches your desired goal.

you should use executorService.shutdown() and executorService.awaitTermination method.
An example as follows :
public class ScheduledThreadPoolExample {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
ScheduledExecutorService executorService = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);
executorService.scheduleAtFixedRate(() -> System.out.println("process task."),
0, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(10);
executorService.shutdown();
executorService.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.DAYS);
}
}

if you use more thread ExecutionServices SEQUENTIALLY and want to wait EACH EXECUTIONSERVICE to be finished. The best way is like below;
ExecutorService executer1 = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(THREAD_SIZE1);
for (<loop>) {
executer1.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
...
}
});
}
executer1.shutdown();
try{
executer1.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS);
ExecutorService executer2 = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(THREAD_SIZE2);
for (true) {
executer2.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
...
}
});
}
executer2.shutdown();
} catch (Exception e){
...
}

Try-with-Resources syntax on AutoCloseable executor service with Project Loom
Project Loom seeks to add new features to the concurrency abilities in Java.
One of those features is making the ExecutorService AutoCloseable. This means every ExecutorService implementation will offer a close method. And it means we can use try-with-resources syntax to automatically close an ExecutorService object.
The ExecutorService#close method blocks until all submitted tasks are completed. Using close takes the place of calling shutdown & awaitTermination.
Being AutoCloseable contributes to Project Loom’s attempt to bring “structured concurrency” to Java.
try (
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.… ;
) {
// Submit your `Runnable`/`Callable` tasks to the executor service.
…
}
// At this point, flow-of-control blocks until all submitted tasks are done/canceled/failed.
// After this point, the executor service will have been automatically shutdown, wia `close` method called by try-with-resources syntax.
For more information on Project Loom, search for talks and interviews given by Ron Pressler and others on the Project Loom team. Focus on the more recent, as Project Loom has evolved.
Experimental builds of Project Loom technology are available now, based on early-access Java 18.

Java 8 - We can use stream API to process stream. Please see snippet below
final List<Runnable> tasks = ...; //or any other functional interface
tasks.stream().parallel().forEach(Runnable::run) // Uses default pool
//alternatively to specify parallelism
new ForkJoinPool(15).submit(
() -> tasks.stream().parallel().forEach(Runnable::run)
).get();

ExecutorService WORKER_THREAD_POOL
= Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(2);
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
WORKER_THREAD_POOL.submit(() -> {
try {
// doSomething();
latch.countDown();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
});
}
// wait for the latch to be decremented by the two remaining threads
latch.await();
If doSomething() throw some other exceptions, the latch.countDown() seems will not execute, so what should I do?

This might help
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "shutting down executor...");
executor.shutdown();
while (true) {
try {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "Waiting for executor to terminate...");
if (executor.isTerminated())
break;
if (executor.awaitTermination(5000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
break;
}
} catch (InterruptedException ignored) {}
}

You could call waitTillDone() on this Runner class:
Runner runner = Runner.runner(4); // create pool with 4 threads in thread pool
while(...) {
runner.run(new MyTask()); // here you submit your task
}
runner.waitTillDone(); // and this blocks until all tasks are finished (or failed)
runner.shutdown(); // once you done you can shutdown the runner
You can reuse this class and call waitTillDone() as many times as you want to before calling shutdown(), plus your code is extremly simple. Also you don't have to know the number of tasks upfront.
To use it just add this gradle/maven compile 'com.github.matejtymes:javafixes:1.3.1' dependency to your project.
More details can be found here:
https://github.com/MatejTymes/JavaFixes

There is a method in executor getActiveCount() - that gives the count of active threads.
After spanning the thread, we can check if the activeCount() value is 0. Once the value is zero, it is meant that there are no active threads currently running which means task is finished:
while (true) {
if (executor.getActiveCount() == 0) {
//ur own piece of code
break;
}
}

Wait until any of Future<T> is done

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();
}
}
}

Develop Reference

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.