I read in a Java textbook the following pertaining to multi-threading.
For a thread to call wait() or notify(), the thread has to be the owner of the lock for that object. When
the thread waits, it temporarily releases the lock for other threads to use, but it will need
it again to continue execution.
I'm confused about what is meant by the clause
When the thread waits, it temporarily releases the lock for other
threads to use
I don't get what that clause is talking about. Is it saying that when the wait() method is called it is actually releasing the lock before the wait() returns (i.e. this happens without caller knowing)? Or is it just alluding to wait(timeout) releasing the lock when the timeout elapses? If it is the former why would it release the lock before notify()? This seems like a vague and poorly explained statement.
For a thread to call wait() or notify(), the thread has to be the owner of the lock for that object.
Otherwise, a runtime error occur and the rest of code is not executed.
When the thread waits, it temporarily releases the lock for other threads to use
In more details, call to wait() does the following:
the lock is released
current thread is registered as waiting in the monitor
processor switches to some other thread ready for execution
Then, some thread calls notify() or notifyAll(), which causes one or all threads which are registered as waiting at this monitor to be moved from the wait set to the ready set, waiting for a free processor to execute.
but it will need it again to continue execution.
This means the execution of the thread is continued with executing synchronized statement to regain the lock. After the lock is aquired, then the wait() method returns. wait(timeout) differs in that except for notify() or notifyAll(), it also can return upon the timeout.
In sum, you need to understand how a thread switches between following 4 states:
running on a processor
blocked on synchronized statement
waiting for notification
ready to execute and waiting for a free processor
When a thread calls wait, the thread releases the lock right away and then goes dormant until either the timeout expires, if any, or until it receives a notification, which occurs when another thread acquires the same lock that the waiting thread gave up and calls notify on it (also the scheduler has to pick the waiting thread from among any other waiting threads; calling notify doesn’t notify a given thread, it tells the scheduler to pick a thread from a given lock’s wait set to notify).
Once the thread is woken up by a notify, it has to reacquire the lock in order to leave the wait method, because the thread is still inside of a synchronized method or block. That is what the quote means when it says the thread will need the lock to resume execution.
When a thread calls wait(), it's temporarily releasing the monitor (lock) of the object until it receives a notification from another thread. This way, a thread can willingly give control (that it has, in the first place) of the object's monitor to another thread. Take a look at the docs:
The invocation of wait() does not return until another thread has
issued a notification that some special event may have occurred —
though not necessarily the event this thread is waiting for (so always
invoke wait() inside a loop that tests for the condition being
waited for).
...
When wait() is invoked, the thread releases the lock and suspends
execution. At some future time, another thread will acquire the same
lock and invoke Object.notifyAll, informing all threads waiting on
that lock that something important has happened.
Related
From the JAVA docs for Object notify()
The awakened thread will not be able to proceed until the current
thread relinquishes the lock on this object.
This means that unless the Thread which notifes, its synchronized block is complete and it releases the lock, the waiting thread cannot proceed. If that's the case then whats the point of having notify() if the sync block is going to be executed anyway? What's the actual use of notify() if it doesn't wake up the waiting thread and let it do its job?
Good question. Will point you to take a look at the Thread State Class.
A thread that calls the Object.notify method enables a thread that previously called Object.wait is now enabled to be scheduled by the thread scheduler. In parlance, the thread that was waiting is now "runnable". Although it is "runnable", it is not "running".
It can only continue running when the thread invoking notify releases the lock - one way is when it exits out of the synchronized block.
There are a lot of schematics on the web on the Thread States. Some of them are completely incorrect or confusing since they introduce terminology not in the official docs. Here is one that makes sense to me.
Strictly speaking, we don't: we could have the waiting thread run a loop where it re-acquires the lock, checks the condition, and sleeps for a short amount of time. But using wait() and notify() is much more efficient, because then the waiting thread doesn't keep waking up and tying up CPU (and tying up the lock).
notify() and notifyAll() are used to wake up thread(s) that called wait() on the same object on which notify() or notifyAll() is called.
Without call to notify() those "waiting" threads will wait forever (although JVM spec says that threads may sometime wake up without call to notify).
Also because call to notify() doesn't releases the lock associated with the object itself that call usually is the last statement in a synchronized block.
So notify() is used together with wait() and not by itself.
Usually the use case is like the following (blocking queue with limited size).
Method that adds element to queue (some pseudo code)
synchronized(lockObject) {
if (size < LIMIT) {
addElement();
lockObject.notifyAll(); //notifying threads that are waiting to get element from empty queue
} else {
lockObject.wait(); // waiting for other thread to get element from queue and make room for new element
}
}
Method that gets element
synchronized(lockObject) {
if (size > 0) {
getElement();
lockObject.notifyAll(); // notify threads that there is a room for new element
} else {
lockObject.wait(); // waiting for other thread to put element into the queue
}
}
Also calling lockObject.wait() releases lock on lockObject. More details regarding that could be found here: Java : Does wait() release lock from synchronized block
Notifying is what wakes up a thread that is waiting. If you remove the notify then waiting threads stay waiting (barring spurious wakeups but let’s not go there for now).
(Interrupting wakes up the thread but the guidance is to use it for cancellation only. Interruption targets a specific thread, where notifying lets the scheduler decide which threads are affected.)
When a thread calls wait it has to have the lock, then the wait method lets go of the lock.
When a thread calls notify it has to have the lock.
As a practical matter the notify can’t take effect on any waiting thread until the notifying thread relinquishes the lock. The first thing the notified thread is going to need to do anyway is to try to acquire the lock. All the passage you're quoting is trying to say is that the wakeup doesn't occur instantaneously when a thread calls notify.
So what happens here is that the notifying thread lets go of the lock and sends the notify to the scheduler, the scheduler decides which thread to notify, then the notified thread wakes up and contends for the lock in order to leave the wait method.
Imagine if you need a thread to wait for another thread to do something that it may or may not even currently be actively working on. For example, a thread that's waiting for a job to do may need to wait until another thread has put a job on the list of jobs it should do if that list is empty. How would you do this?
You can't just use some form of mutual exclusion. There may be long periods of time when there's no work to do and not thread holds any lock on the queue. There may just not be any work to do right now. The thread that does work needs to wait, without holding any lock, until another thread has given it some work to do.
So somewhere, there's a thread that does something like this:
Acquire the lock that protects some shared state that another thread might be waiting for a change to. (In this case, the job queue.)
Change the shared state to reflect the fact that the thing a thread might need to wait for has happened. (That is, put a job on the queue.)
Release the lock and let any waiting thread(s) know that the thing has happened.
So what could our code to wait look like? Perhaps:
Acquire the lock that protects the shared state.
Check whether we need to wait or not. (Is there a job on the queue?)
If we need to wait, wait. (If not, wait for a job to be placed on the queue.)
...
Oops, we have a problem. The thing we're waiting for can't happen because we hold the lock. No other thread can change the shared state. (Our thread to put a job on the queue can't touch the queue until we release the lock we acquired in step 1.)
Let's try it again:
Acquire the lock that protects the shared state.
Check whether we need to wait or not. (Is there a job on the queue?)
If we don't need to wait, exit this algorithm. (If there's a job, take it off the queue, release the lock, and do it.)
Release the lock. (So another thread can put a job on the queue.)
Wait for the thing to happen.
...
Oops, we have another problem. What if the thing we're waiting for happens after step 4 but before step 5. Since the lock has been released, the thing we're waiting for can happen. We can't check again because we don't hold the lock. How can we ensure we don't wait for something that has already happened, which may mean waiting forever?
To solve this, we need an atomic "unlock and wait" operation. That's what wait does. And we also need some operation that can end this wait that can be called by the thread that changed the shared state so that we no longer need to wait. That's what notify does.
JLS 17.2.4:
If a thread is both notified and interrupted while waiting, it may
either:
[...]
Could you give an example of thread which is both interrupted and notified while waiting? I cannot understand how it is even possible because when we call
Thred.interrupt()
or
obj.notify()
the thread will be removed from the wait set. Since further call doesn't relate to a waiting thread. It has been removed from wait set yet.
Consider this code:
synchronized(obj) {
obj.notify();
threadWatingOnObj.interrupt();
}
Before the thread executing the above code releases the lock, no notified thread will be able to proceed. Therefore, when control returns to such a thread from its obj.wait() call, it will have been both notified and interrupted.
That looks like a question from an exam. You're supposed to fill in the blank, right?
I think the question is poorly thought out because "interrupted" is a state that a thread can be in, and "waiting" is a state that a thread can be in, but "notified" is not a state.
If a thread calls wait() when it is already in the interrupted state, then the wait() call will return an exception. Likewise, if a thread is in the waiting state when it becomes interrupted, then the wait() call will return an exception in that case too.
Maybe when they say "a thread is both notified and interrupted", they mean that the thread was waiting, and it was notified, and then an interrupt was delivered while the thread still was in the wait() call, trying to re-acquire the mutex.
I have no inside knowledge of what happens in that case, but based on the Javadoc for Object.wait(), I would expect the wait() call to return normally after it acquires the mutex.
I have a simple program which I am finding very confusing. The code snippet is as follows:
class Processor{
public void produce() Throws InterruptedException{
synchronized(this){
System.out.println("Producer Running...");
wait();
System.out.println("Resumed");
}
}
public void consume() Throws InterruptedException{
synchronized(this){
Thread.Sleep(2000);
System.out.println("Consumer Running... Press return key to return");
scan.nextLine();
notify();
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
}
Now my question is that , when we call wait() in the "produce" method the execution is immediately transferred to the "consume" method. (produce and consume are executed in separate threads). But when the notify(); is called in the "consume " method ,the execution does not immediately transfer. It waits for Thread.sleep(5000) to complete . why is this so ?
Well, the reason is quite simple.
When a thread calls wait() on certain object it goes into a waiting state and it stops executing (it is removed from scheduling). When waiting a thread releases all the monitors it has taken (and it needs to regain them after waking up)
When a thread calls notify() on certain object it wakes up another thread waiting over it, but it does not go into a waiting state itself, so it keeps running.
After your producer thread calls notify it keeps running and performing a five seconds sleep. While sleeping a thread retains all monitors that it has taken (you are inside a synchronized(this) block hence you have a monitor for "this" object). Scheduler cannot run the consumer thread that was just notified since it needs to readquire the monitor before resuming, and it wont be freed until your producer thread stops sleeping and gets out of the synchronized block
Although you seem to be missing some code needed for me to explain completely accurately, I'll do my best to provide an explanation that would be applicable even if my guess was incorrect.
wait() and notify() are methods called on a mutex object -- in this case, this.
wait() causes the currently executing thread to pause and give up that mutex (I think it's just the mutex that wait() is called on, could be all of them. Not sure), after which another thread can acquire the mutex and start executing. This is why you observe an immediate transfer of control when wait() is executed.
When notify() is called on a mutex, a thread waiting on that mutex wakes up and attempts to acquire the lock. However, it cannot do so until the lock is available -- in this case, until the lock (this) is released by the thread that calls notify() (the consumer thread). The mutex is only released once the consumer thread exits from the synchronized block, which is after the Thread.sleep(5000); call in your code. sleep() does not release any mutexes that the current thread has acquired, so the first thread has to wait until the second has finished sleeping and exited the synchronized block.
That is why wait() transfers control immediately, while notify() (in this case) has the currently executing thread finish its method before the formerly waiting thread can continue execution.
Assuming that you are calling both methods using the same object from difference threads.
If you want to don't wait 5000 miliseconds, use wait(5000) instead of Thread.sleep(5000).
The notify method, take one (random) previously waiting thread, that is waiting to acquire the lock (of an object) that the running/current thread has taken before, and mark it to resume as soon the current thread release the lock.
In your this case, it will release the lock and soon the Thread.sleep(5000) finish and leave the synchronized block.
Be aware, if you call produces or consume with diferents objects things will go totally diferent. I strongly suggest to read this article.
Hope it helps! As the good answers below!
The reason is that Thread.sleep(5000L) does not release the lock on the object's monitor while it's waiting, contrary to wait(5000L). This is specified in the Javadoc for Thread.sleep() :
... The thread does not lose ownership of any monitors.
Whereas the javadoc for Object.wait() specifies:
... This method causes the current thread (call it T) to place itself
in the wait set for this object and then to relinquish any and all
synchronization claims on this object...
When a thread calls wait() it is blocked and waits for some notify.
But I want to know what happens with a thread that calls notify(). The current thread is blocked, and returns its execution at the notify point ?
Nothing happens to the current thread that calls notify(), it continues to run until it's natural end.
The wait() and notify() methods must be called within a synchronized context. As soon as the synchronized block that contains the notify() call finishes, the lock is then available and the block containing the wait() call in another thread can then continue.
Calling notify simply moves the waiting thread back into the runnable thread pool. That thread can then continue as soon as the lock is available.
Notify doesn't put current thread to sleep, only wakes up other threads that have waited on the same mutex
Notify doesn't block the executing thread and both the notifier and the waiter happily execute concurrently after that. Notify notifies one of the waiters at random, if you have more than one thread waiting and you want to wake them all you need to use notifyAll. Note that as all thread will still be in a critical section they will be marked active but will exit the critical block one at a time.
Notify doesn't block even if there are no waiting threads.
Note that this only represent the state of the thread: both threads will be active but actual dispatching of instruction depends: if you have more thread than cpu one of them will wait for its timeslice on the cpu.
wait() tells the calling thread to give up the monitor and go to sleep until some other thread enters the same monitor and calls notify( ).
notify() wakes up the first thread that called wait() on the same object.
Under ideal condition notify() is called when thread completes its execution to go back again to calling thread.
But if used before completion then the thread will continue its normal execution until reaches natural end.
Suppose d is the object we're using to invoke wait. When a thread invokes d.wait, it must own the intrinsic lock for d — otherwise an error is thrown. Invoking wait inside a synchronized method is a simple way to acquire the intrinsic lock.
so is this means that two threads cannot invoke wait() at the same time? what do intrinsic lock here mean [mentioned it as Monitor]? but how 's monitor implemented to achive mutual exclusion?
once the thread invokes wait does it holds object forever?
if so how about other thread using that lock for notifyAll()?
if we need to acquire object during notifyall, then why all waiting threads notified?
shouldn't it notify threads waiting on that object alone?
Any code to explain is appreciated.
so is this means that two threads cannot invoke wait() at the same
time?
Correct two thread cannot invoke wait() at the same time. However, once one thread is in wait(), another thread can acquire the same lock and enter a wait() state soon after. You can have any number of threads WAITING on the same object, but only one really holds the lock.
what do intrinsic lock here mean [mentioned it as Monitor]? but
how 's monitor implemented to achive mutual exclusion?
Only one thread can be running while holding a object. Other thread can be blocking trying to acquire the lock and more can be wait()ing on it.
once the thread invokes wait does it holds object forever?
The opposite, it gives it up or another thread can acquire it almost immediately.
if so how
about other thread using that lock for notifyAll()?
If you call notifyAll() on the object, all the wait()ing thread are woken in turn. Those threads can only acquire the lock one at a time and will re-acquire the lock as soonas they can.
if we need to acquire object during notifyall, then why all waiting
threads notified?
That is what notifyAll does, it is considered safer than using notify, which wakes a random one as it is less prone to coding errors.
shouldn't it notify threads waiting on that object alone?
That is what it does.
You should note that;
before you notify()/notifyAll() you should perform a state change. You should also wait() inside a loop which checks that state change. You need to do this because a) wait() can miss a notify(), b) it can wake spuriously c) another thread might grab whatever you ahve done and it might need to wait again.
over the last 9 years, there has been greater use of High Level concurrency classes. Using these classes mean you don't need to work with Threads, Queues, wait() and notify() directly.
Invoking wait inside a synchronized method is a simple way to acquire
the intrinsic lock.
Wait does not provide the lock on an object rather it makes the thread to wait to listen about the lock release when other thread calls notify. Thread gets the lock when it enters the guarded//synchronized block. Synchronzied block/method allows to take the lock if available otherwise thread cannot enter those code block.
Locks are not held forever, according to the javadoc:
The thread releases ownership of this monitor and waits until another thread notifies threads waiting on this object's monitor to wake up either through a call to the notify method or the notifyAll method. The thread then waits until it can re-obtain ownership of the monitor and resumes execution.
When you call wait(), you release the intrinsic lock on that object, until another thread calls notify() or notifyAll() on it. At that point, the JVM will wake one of the threads waiting, and automatically reacquire the lock on that object.
So to answer your question, yes, multiple threads can wait() on the same object.