Develop Reference

How to run a task once every Threads finished running in Java?

I have a loop which create a new Thread on each iteration, like so:
for(int i = 0; i < REPEAT; i++) {
new Thread(new MyTask(i)).start();
Thread.sleep(1);
}
private void finalTask() {
//Some code to be executed once every threads stopped running
}
Where MyTask is a class implementing Runnable. My goal is: I would like to run finalTask once every threads stopped. To achieve this, I have tried incrementing a variable by 1 each time a thread finished running, and once this variable was equal to REPEAT, the final task would run. But this didn't work. I've searched on Google and StackOverlow for answers to my problem, but there are very little informations on this and none of them worked as well. There would always be a thread that was running after the final task. How can I do this then?

You can use a CountDownLatch for this. A CountDownLatch is
A synchronization aid that allows one or more threads to wait until a set of operations being performed in other threads completes.
CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(REPEAT);
for (int i = 0; i < REPEAT; i++) {
new Thread(new MyTask(i, countDownLatch)).start();
Thread.sleep(1);
}
finalTask(countDownLatch);
I create a CountDownLatch whose count is initialized to the value of REPEAT. I pass this to each of the threads and to the finalTask method.
Each thread after doing its work should call the countDown method of the countDownLatch.
private static class MyTask implements Runnable {
private int i;
private CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
private MyTask(int i, CountDownLatch countDownLatch) {
this.i = i;
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
#Override
public void run() {
//Perform some task
System.out.println("Running " + i);
countDownLatch.countDown();
}
}
The first line of the finalTask method should call the await method of the CountDownLatch. This will cause the thread running the finalTask wait till the count of the CountDownLatch reaches 0 i.e., until all threads (REPEAT number of them) has completed and invoked the countDown of the CountDownLatch.
private static void finalTask(CountDownLatch countDownLatch) {
try {
countDownLatch.await(); //this will wait until the count becomes 0.
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace(); //handle it appropriately
}
//Some code to be executed once all threads stopped running
System.out.println("All done");
}

Another simple way is to just join() on all the threads and then call finalTask():
Thread tasks[] = new Thread[REPEAT];
for(int i = 0; i < REPEAT; i++) {
tasks[i] = new Thread(new MyTask(i));
tasks[i].start();
}
for (Thread task : tasks) {
for (;;) {
try {
task.join();
break;
}
catch ( InterruptedException e ) {
// catch code here
}
}
}
finalTask();
Note there's almost more code used to handle the possible InterruptedException from the join() method call than used to implement the rest of the processing.

You can put them into CompletableFutures and then use whenComplete() .
CompletableFuture[] all =
IntStream.range(0, REPEAT+1).
.mapToObj(i -> CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(new MyTask(i)))
.toArray(CompletableFuture[]::new) ;
CompletableFuture.allOf(all).whenComplete((r, t) -> {
// your code here
}) ;

ReentrantLock - lock.unlock() doesn't release lock

I'm trying to create an application with a single tasks producer (boss) and multiple tasks consumers (employees). The boss will add more tasks from time to time, and is up to the employees to clear the tasks queue. The problem is the following: Only one consumer is doing all of the work, and once it finishes, the others start to work.
I've try using a ReentrantLock, but it appears as nothing changed.
package threads;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class Store {
public static ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();
public static void main(String[] args) {
AtomicInteger tasksList = new AtomicInteger(7);
Runnable boss = () -> {
System.out.println("Boss: Good morning.");
List<Runnable> employeeList = generateEmployeesList(5, tasksList);
for (Runnable employee : employeeList) {
employee.run();
}
while(tasksList.get() > 0) {
try {
lock.lock();
System.out.println("Work more!");
tasksList.incrementAndGet();
} finally {
lock.unlock();
try {
Thread.sleep(1500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
System.out.println("Boss: Time to go home.");
};
System.out.println("= Starting =");
boss.run();
}
public static List<Runnable> generateEmployeesList(int amountOfEmployees, AtomicInteger tasksList){
List<Runnable> employeeList = new ArrayList<Runnable>();
for (int i = 0; i < amountOfEmployees; i++) {
employeeList.add(createEmployee(i+1, tasksList));
}
return employeeList;
}
public static Runnable createEmployee(int employeeNumber, AtomicInteger tasksList) {
return () -> {
System.out.println("Thread #" + (employeeNumber) + " Started. Missing tasks: " + tasksList.get());
while(tasksList.get() > 0) {
try {
lock.lock();
System.out.println("Thread #" + (employeeNumber) + ". Task completed: " + tasksList.decrementAndGet() +" tasks left.");
} finally {
lock.unlock();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
System.out.println("Thread #" + (employeeNumber) +": Finished.");
};
}
}
Results (wrong):
= Starting =
Boss: Good morning.
Thread #1 Started. Missing tasks: 7
Thread #1. Task completed: 6 tasks left.
Thread #1. Task completed: 5 tasks left.
Thread #1. Task completed: 4 tasks left.
Thread #1. Task completed: 3 tasks left.
Thread #1. Task completed: 2 tasks left.
Thread #1. Task completed: 1 tasks left.
Thread #1. Task completed: 0 tasks left.
Thread #1: Finished.
Thread #2 Started. Missing tasks: 0
Thread #2: Finished.
Thread #3 Started. Missing tasks: 0
Thread #3: Finished.
Thread #4 Started. Missing tasks: 0
Thread #4: Finished.
Thread #5 Started. Missing tasks: 0
Thread #5: Finished.
Boss: Time to go home.
Expected results (random consumer decrements the tasks variable):
= Starting =
Boss: Good morning.
Thread #4 Started. Missing tasks: 7
Thread #4. Task completed: 6 tasks left.
Thread #2 Started. Missing tasks: 6
Thread #2. Task completed: 5 tasks left.
Thread #4. Task completed: 4 tasks left.
Thread #1 Started. Missing tasks: 4
...
Thread #1: Finished.
Thread #2: Finished.
Thread #3: Finished.
...
Boss: Time to go home.
Any ideas of what am I doing wrong? What can I do to solve my problem?
I modified the app to use threads instead of Runnables. But, I'm still getting the same issue.
class Lock {
private static final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();
public static final ReentrantLock getLock() {
return lock;
}
}
public class Store {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Boss b = new Boss(5, 7);
b.start();
}
public static List<Thread> generateEmployeesList(int amountOfEmployees, AtomicInteger tasksList){
List<Thread> employeeList = new ArrayList<Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < amountOfEmployees; i++) {
employeeList.add(employeeFactory(i+1, tasksList));
}
return employeeList;
}
public static Thread employeeFactory(int employeeNumber, AtomicInteger tasksList) {
return new Employee(employeeNumber, tasksList);
}
}
class Employee extends Thread {
int number = 0;
AtomicInteger tasksList;
public Employee(int number, AtomicInteger tasksList) {
this.number = number;
this.tasksList = tasksList;
}
#Override
public void start() {
System.out.println("Thread #" + number + " Started. Missing tasks: " + tasksList.get());
while(tasksList.get() > 0) {
try {
Lock.getLock().lock();
System.out.println("Thread #" + number + ". Task completed: " + tasksList.decrementAndGet() +" tasks left.");
} finally {
Lock.getLock().unlock();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
System.out.println("Thread #" + number +": Finished.");
}
}
class Boss extends Thread {
int employees = 0;
AtomicInteger tasks;
public Boss(int employees, int numberOfTasks) {
this.employees = employees;
this.tasks = new AtomicInteger(numberOfTasks);
}
public void start() {
List<Thread> employeeList = Store.generateEmployeesList(employees, tasks);
System.out.println("Boss: Good Morning!");
for (Thread employee : employeeList) {
employee.start();
}
while(tasks.get() > 0 ) {
Lock.getLock().lock();
try {
System.out.println("Keep working!");
tasks.incrementAndGet();
} finally {
Lock.getLock().unlock();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}

There are multiple issues with this code. You're misunderstanding how to use Runnables. The Runnable#run() method simply runs the code you create in the thread you're currently in. You have to create a separate thread to run them if you want some parallelism.
// Change this
employee.start();
// to this:
Thread t = new Thread(employee);
t.start();
Second, as a commenter mentioned you're not locking the access to the Atomic correctly. So, even though it's thread safe within single operations to itself it is not consistent across multiple invocations especially if your behavior depends on previous results, which you do. This is why if you made the single change above you'd see output something like below:
= Starting =
Boss: Good morning.
Work more!
Thread #2 Started. Missing tasks: 7
Thread #1 Started. Missing tasks: 8
Thread #4 Started. Missing tasks: 7
Thread #3 Started. Missing tasks: 7
Thread #1. Task completed: 7 tasks left.
Thread #5 Started. Missing tasks: 7
Thread #5. Task completed: 6 tasks left.
Thread #2. Task completed: 5 tasks left.
Thread #4. Task completed: 4 tasks left.
Thread #3. Task completed: 3 tasks left.
Thread #5. Task completed: 2 tasks left.
Thread #1. Task completed: 1 tasks left.
Thread #2. Task completed: 0 tasks left.
Thread #4. Task completed: -1 tasks left.
Thread #3. Task completed: -2 tasks left.
Boss: Time to go home.
Thread #5: Finished.
Thread #1: Finished.
Thread #4: Finished.
Thread #2: Finished.
Thread #3: Finished.
Between observing that there are tasks left
tasksList.get() > 0
and 'taking' one task
tasksList.incrementAndGet();
another thread may have taken a task. This is what you see with the negative counts. The operations must both exist in the loop or some other method of synchronization must be used like the built in Object sync methods:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class Store {
public static Object sync = new Object();
public static void main(String[] args) {
AtomicInteger tasksList = new AtomicInteger(7);
Runnable boss = () -> {
System.out.println("Boss: Good morning.");
List<Runnable> employeeList = generateEmployeesList(5, tasksList);
for (Runnable employee : employeeList) {
Thread t = new Thread(employee);
t.start();
}
synchronized (sync) {
while(tasksList.get() > 0) {
try {
System.out.println("Work more!");
tasksList.incrementAndGet();
} finally {
try {
sync.wait(1500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
System.out.println("Boss: Time to go home.");
};
System.out.println("= Starting =");
boss.run();
}
public static List<Runnable> generateEmployeesList(int amountOfEmployees, AtomicInteger tasksList){
List<Runnable> employeeList = new ArrayList<Runnable>();
for (int i = 0; i < amountOfEmployees; i++) {
employeeList.add(createEmployee(i+1, tasksList));
}
return employeeList;
}
public static Runnable createEmployee(int employeeNumber, AtomicInteger tasksList) {
return () -> {
System.out.println("Thread #" + (employeeNumber) + " Started. Missing tasks: " + tasksList.get());
synchronized (sync) {
while (tasksList.get() > 0) {
try {
System.out.println("Thread #" + (employeeNumber) + ". Task completed: "
+ tasksList.decrementAndGet() + " tasks left.");
} finally {
try {
sync.wait(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
System.out.println("Thread #" + (employeeNumber) +": Finished.");
};
}
}
Yielding:
= Starting =
Boss: Good morning.
Thread #2 Started. Missing tasks: 7
Thread #3 Started. Missing tasks: 7
Work more!
Thread #4 Started. Missing tasks: 7
Thread #1 Started. Missing tasks: 7
Thread #3. Task completed: 7 tasks left.
Thread #5 Started. Missing tasks: 8
Thread #2. Task completed: 6 tasks left.
Thread #5. Task completed: 5 tasks left.
Thread #1. Task completed: 4 tasks left.
Thread #4. Task completed: 3 tasks left.
Thread #2. Task completed: 2 tasks left.
Thread #1. Task completed: 1 tasks left.
Thread #3. Task completed: 0 tasks left.
Thread #4: Finished.
Thread #5: Finished.
Boss: Time to go home.
Thread #3: Finished.
Thread #2: Finished.
Thread #1: Finished.

Multithreaded approach using java Executor interface

I am trying to implement the multithreaded approach using executor interface where i have produced multiple threads in main class
class Main
{
private static final int NTHREADS = 10;
public static void main(String[] args)
{
.........
String str = createThreads(document);
.............
}
public String createThreads(String docString)
{
........
.......
Map<String,String> iTextRecords = new LinkedHashMap<String, String>();
if(!iText.matches(""))
{
String[] tokenizedItext = iText.split("\\^");
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(NTHREADS);
for(int index = 0 ;index < tokenizedItext.length;index++)
{
Callable<Map<String,String>> worker = null;
Future<Map<String,String>> map = null;
if(tokenizedItext[index].matches("^[0-9.<>+-= ]+$") || tokenizedItext[index].matches("^\\s+$"))
{
iTextRecords.put(tokenizedItext[index],tokenizedItext[index]);
}
else
{
worker = new MultipleDatabaseCallable(tokenizedItext[index],language);
map = executor.submit(worker);
try
{
iTextRecords.putAll(map.get());
}
catch(InterruptedException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace(System.out);
}
catch(ExecutionException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace(System.out);
}
}
}
executor.shutdown();
// Wait until all threads are finish
while (!executor.isTerminated())
{
}
}
}
The Callable class is as
class MultipleDatabaseCallable implements Callable<Map<String,String>>
{
#Override
public Map<String, String> call() throws Exception {
System.out.println("Entering: "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
Map<String,String> map = new HashMap<String,String>();
for(int i =0;i<50000;i++)
{
for(int i1 = 0 ;i1<5000;i1++)
{
for(int i2 =0;i2 <500;i2++)
{
}
}
}
System.out.println("Exiting: "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
return map;
}
}
output I am getting is
Entering: pool-1-thread-1
Exiting: pool-1-thread-1
Entering: pool-1-thread-2
Exiting: pool-1-thread-2
Entering: pool-1-thread-3
Exiting: pool-1-thread-3
Entering: pool-1-thread-4
Exiting: pool-1-thread-4
Entering: pool-1-thread-5
Exiting: pool-1-thread-5
Entering: pool-1-thread-6
Exiting: pool-1-thread-6
While looking at the output it seems like only one thread is entering at a time in the call method and other thread enters only when previous one exist. However it is expected that the multiple threads should enter and execute call() method. Also when I am executing the same program by making NTHREADS = 1. it is taking same time as it is taking with NTHREADS =10
so it seems like the application is running as good as a single threaded application.please suggest whats wrong i am doing in implementation.
Thanks

When you call
map = executor.submit(worker);
the value returned map in this case is a Future. Meaning that it does not have a value, until the callable has returned one. Now when you call
iTextRecords.putAll(map.get());
What happens is that the current thread blocks (inside the map.get()) waiting for the callable to return (in the other thread).
Since you always wait for a callable to be finished (per map.get()) before submitting a new one (per executor.submit()) you enforce the sequential execution you observe.
In order to execute the tasks in parallel, you have to start them all before calling get for the first time. You could for instance create an ArrayList<Future<Map<String,String>>> futures = ... and then
do
futures.add(executor.submit(worker));
to submit the tasks (no need for the map variable) and create a second loop (after the for(int i ...) loop):
for(Future<Map<String,String>> f: futures) {
iTextRecords.putAll(f.get);
}

You must collect your futures while you submit the callables. Call get() on your futures only after you finish submitting.

When should I use a CompletionService over an ExecutorService?

I just found CompletionService in this blog post. However, this does't really showcases the advantages of CompletionService over a standard ExecutorService. The same code can be written with either. So, when is a CompletionService useful?
Can you give a short code sample to make it crystal clear? For example, this code sample just shows where a CompletionService is not needed (=equivalent to ExecutorService)
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
// CompletionService<Long> taskCompletionService =
// new ExecutorCompletionService<Long>(taskExecutor);
Callable<Long> callable = new Callable<Long>() {
#Override
public Long call() throws Exception {
return 1L;
}
};
Future<Long> future = // taskCompletionService.submit(callable);
taskExecutor.submit(callable);
while (!future.isDone()) {
// Do some work...
System.out.println("Working on something...");
}
try {
System.out.println(future.get());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}

Omitting many details:
ExecutorService = incoming queue + worker threads
CompletionService = incoming queue + worker threads + output queue

With ExecutorService, once you have submitted the tasks to run, you need to manually code for efficiently getting the results of the tasks completed.
With CompletionService, this is pretty much automated. The difference is not very evident in the code you have presented because you are submitting just one task. However, imagine you have a list of tasks to be submitted. In the example below, multiple tasks are submitted to the CompletionService. Then, instead of trying to find out which task has completed (to get the results), it just asks the CompletionService instance to return the results as they become available.
public class CompletionServiceTest {
class CalcResult {
long result ;
CalcResult(long l) {
result = l;
}
}
class CallableTask implements Callable<CalcResult> {
String taskName ;
long input1 ;
int input2 ;
CallableTask(String name , long v1 , int v2 ) {
taskName = name;
input1 = v1;
input2 = v2 ;
}
public CalcResult call() throws Exception {
System.out.println(" Task " + taskName + " Started -----");
for(int i=0;i<input2 ;i++) {
try {
Thread.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(" Task " + taskName + " Interrupted !! ");
e.printStackTrace();
}
input1 += i;
}
System.out.println(" Task " + taskName + " Completed ######");
return new CalcResult(input1) ;
}
}
public void test(){
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
CompletionService<CalcResult> taskCompletionService = new ExecutorCompletionService<CalcResult>(taskExecutor);
int submittedTasks = 5;
for (int i=0;i< submittedTasks;i++) {
taskCompletionService.submit(new CallableTask (
String.valueOf(i),
(i * 10),
((i * 10) + 10 )
));
System.out.println("Task " + String.valueOf(i) + "subitted");
}
for (int tasksHandled=0;tasksHandled<submittedTasks;tasksHandled++) {
try {
System.out.println("trying to take from Completion service");
Future<CalcResult> result = taskCompletionService.take();
System.out.println("result for a task availble in queue.Trying to get()");
// above call blocks till atleast one task is completed and results availble for it
// but we dont have to worry which one
// process the result here by doing result.get()
CalcResult l = result.get();
System.out.println("Task " + String.valueOf(tasksHandled) + "Completed - results obtained : " + String.valueOf(l.result));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Something went wrong with a task submitted
System.out.println("Error Interrupted exception");
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
// Something went wrong with the result
e.printStackTrace();
System.out.println("Error get() threw exception");
}
}
}
}

Basically you use a CompletionService if you want to execute multiple tasks in parallel and then work with them in their completion order. So, if I execute 5 jobs, the CompletionService will give me the first one that that finishes. The example where there is only a single task confers no extra value over an Executor apart from the ability to submit a Callable.

I think the javadoc best answers the question of when the CompletionService is useful in a way an ExecutorService isn't.
A service that decouples the production of new asynchronous tasks from the consumption of the results of completed tasks.
Basically, this interface allows a program to have producers which create and submit tasks (and even examine the results of those submissions) without knowing about any other consumers of the results of those tasks. Meanwhile, consumers which are aware of the CompletionService could poll for or take results without being aware of the producers submitting the tasks.
For the record, and I could be wrong because it is rather late, but I am fairly certain that the sample code in that blog post causes a memory leak. Without an active consumer taking results out of the ExecutorCompletionService's internal queue, I'm not sure how the blogger expected that queue to drain.

First of all, if we do not want to waste processor time, we will not use
while (!future.isDone()) {
// Do some work...
}
We must use
service.shutdown();
service.awaitTermination(14, TimeUnit.DAYS);
The bad thing about this code is that it will shut down ExecutorService. If we want to continue work with it (i.e. we have some recursicve task creation), we have two alternatives: invokeAll or ExecutorService.
invokeAll will wait untill all tasks will be complete. ExecutorService grants us ability to take or poll results one by one.
And, finily, recursive example:
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(THREAD_NUMBER);
ExecutorCompletionService<String> completionService = new ExecutorCompletionService<String>(executorService);
while (Tasks.size() > 0) {
for (final Task task : Tasks) {
completionService.submit(new Callable<String>() {
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
return DoTask(task);
}
});
}
try {
int taskNum = Tasks.size();
Tasks.clear();
for (int i = 0; i < taskNum; ++i) {
Result result = completionService.take().get();
if (result != null)
Tasks.add(result.toTask());
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// error :(
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
// error :(
}
}

See it by yourself at run time,try to implement both solutions (Executorservice and Completionservice) and you'll see how different they behave and it will be more clear on when to use one or the other.
There is an example here if you want http://rdafbn.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/executorservice-vs-completionservice-vs.html

Let's say you have 5 long running task(callable task) and you have submitted those task to executer service. Now imagine you don't want to wait for all 5 task to compete instead you want to do some sort of processing on these task if any one completes. Now this can be done either by writing polling logic on future objects or use this API.

package com.barcap.test.test00;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
/**
* Created by Sony on 25-04-2019.
*/
public class ExecutorCompletest00 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService exc= Executors.newFixedThreadPool( 10 );
ExecutorCompletionService executorCompletionService= new ExecutorCompletionService( exc );
for (int i=1;i<10;i++){
Task00 task00= new Task00( i );
executorCompletionService.submit( task00 );
}
for (int i=1;i<20;i++){
try {
Future<Integer> future= (Future <Integer>) executorCompletionService.take();
Integer inttest=future.get();
System.out.println(" the result of completion service is "+inttest);
break;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
=======================================================
package com.barcap.test.test00;
import java.util.*;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
/**
* Created by Sony on 25-04-2019.
*/
public class ExecutorServ00 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executorService=Executors.newFixedThreadPool( 9 );
List<Future> futList= new ArrayList <>( );
for (int i=1;i<10;i++) {
Future result= executorService.submit( new Task00( i ) );
futList.add( result );
}
for (Future<Integer> futureEach :futList ){
try {
Integer inm= futureEach.get();
System.out.println("the result of future executorservice is "+inm);
break;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
===========================================================
package com.barcap.test.test00;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
/**
* Created by Sony on 25-04-2019.
*/
public class Task00 implements Callable<Integer> {
int i;
public Task00(int i) {
this.i = i;
}
#Override
public Integer call() throws Exception {
System.out.println(" the current thread is "+Thread.currentThread().getName() +" the result should be "+i);
int sleepforsec=100000/i;
Thread.sleep( sleepforsec );
System.out.println(" the task complted for "+Thread.currentThread().getName() +" the result should be "+i);
return i;
}
}
======================================================================
difference of logs for executor completion service:
the current thread is pool-1-thread-1 the result should be 1
the current thread is pool-1-thread-2 the result should be 2
the current thread is pool-1-thread-3 the result should be 3
the current thread is pool-1-thread-4 the result should be 4
the current thread is pool-1-thread-6 the result should be 6
the current thread is pool-1-thread-5 the result should be 5
the current thread is pool-1-thread-7 the result should be 7
the current thread is pool-1-thread-9 the result should be 9
the current thread is pool-1-thread-8 the result should be 8
the task complted for pool-1-thread-9 the result should be 9
teh result is 9
the task complted for pool-1-thread-8 the result should be 8
the task complted for pool-1-thread-7 the result should be 7
the task complted for pool-1-thread-6 the result should be 6
the task complted for pool-1-thread-5 the result should be 5
the task complted for pool-1-thread-4 the result should be 4
the task complted for pool-1-thread-3 the result should be 3
the task complted for pool-1-thread-2 the result should be 2
the current thread is pool-1-thread-1 the result should be 1
the current thread is pool-1-thread-3 the result should be 3
the current thread is pool-1-thread-2 the result should be 2
the current thread is pool-1-thread-5 the result should be 5
the current thread is pool-1-thread-4 the result should be 4
the current thread is pool-1-thread-6 the result should be 6
the current thread is pool-1-thread-7 the result should be 7
the current thread is pool-1-thread-8 the result should be 8
the current thread is pool-1-thread-9 the result should be 9
the task complted for pool-1-thread-9 the result should be 9
the task complted for pool-1-thread-8 the result should be 8
the task complted for pool-1-thread-7 the result should be 7
the task complted for pool-1-thread-6 the result should be 6
the task complted for pool-1-thread-5 the result should be 5
the task complted for pool-1-thread-4 the result should be 4
the task complted for pool-1-thread-3 the result should be 3
the task complted for pool-1-thread-2 the result should be 2
the task complted for pool-1-thread-1 the result should be 1
the result of future is 1
=======================================================
for executorservice the result will only be avialable after all tasks complted.
executor completionservice any result avilable make that return.

If the task producer is not interested in the results and it is another component's responsibility to process results of asynchronous task executed by executor service, then you should use CompletionService. It helps you in separating task result processor from task producer. See example http://www.zoftino.com/java-concurrency-executors-framework-tutorial

there is another advantage of using completionservice: Performance
when you call future.get(), you are spin waiting:
from java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture
private Object waitingGet(boolean interruptible) {
Signaller q = null;
boolean queued = false;
int spins = -1;
Object r;
while ((r = result) == null) {
if (spins < 0)
spins = (Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors() > 1) ?
1 << 8 : 0; // Use brief spin-wait on multiprocessors
else if (spins > 0) {
if (ThreadLocalRandom.nextSecondarySeed() >= 0)
--spins;
}
when you have a long-running task, this will be a disaster for performance.
with completionservice, once the task is done, it's result will be enqueued and you can poll the queue with lower performance overhand.
completionservice achieve this by using wrap task with a done hook.
java.util.concurrent.ExecutorCompletionService
private class QueueingFuture extends FutureTask<Void> {
QueueingFuture(RunnableFuture<V> task) {
super(task, null);
this.task = task;
}
protected void done() { completionQueue.add(task); }
private final Future<V> task;
}

assuming you execute a tasks in parallel and you save the Future results in a list:
The practical main difference between ExecutorService and CompletionService is:
ExecutorService get() will try to retrieve the results in the submitted order waiting for completion.
CompletionService take() + get() will try to retrieve the results in the completion order disregarding the submission order.

ExecutorCompletionService class implements CompletionService.
ExecutorCompletionService returns futures objects based on completion order, so whichever task executes first, will be returned first. You just need to call executorCompletionService.take() to get completed Future object.
I found a blog that clear my thought.
java2blog link with example

How to wait for a number of threads to complete?

What is a way to simply wait for all threaded process to finish? For example, let's say I have:
public class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable{
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int n=0; n<1000; n++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new DoSomethingInAThread());
t.start();
}
// wait for all threads' run() methods to complete before continuing
}
public void run() {
// do something here
}
}
How do I alter this so the main() method pauses at the comment until all threads' run() methods exit? Thanks!

You put all threads in an array, start them all, and then have a loop
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
Each join will block until the respective thread has completed. Threads may complete in a different order than you joining them, but that's not a problem: when the loop exits, all threads are completed.

One way would be to make a List of Threads, create and launch each thread, while adding it to the list. Once everything is launched, loop back through the list and call join() on each one. It doesn't matter what order the threads finish executing in, all you need to know is that by the time that second loop finishes executing, every thread will have completed.
A better approach is to use an ExecutorService and its associated methods:
List<Callable> callables = ... // assemble list of Callables here
// Like Runnable but can return a value
ExecutorService execSvc = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
List<Future<?>> results = execSvc.invokeAll(callables);
// Note: You may not care about the return values, in which case don't
// bother saving them
Using an ExecutorService (and all of the new stuff from Java 5's concurrency utilities) is incredibly flexible, and the above example barely even scratches the surface.

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
public class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException
{
//limit the number of actual threads
int poolSize = 10;
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(poolSize);
List<Future<Runnable>> futures = new ArrayList<Future<Runnable>>();
for (int n = 0; n < 1000; n++)
{
Future f = service.submit(new DoSomethingInAThread());
futures.add(f);
}
// wait for all tasks to complete before continuing
for (Future<Runnable> f : futures)
{
f.get();
}
//shut down the executor service so that this thread can exit
service.shutdownNow();
}
public void run()
{
// do something here
}
}

instead of join(), which is an old API, you can use CountDownLatch. I have modified your code as below to fulfil your requirement.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable{
CountDownLatch latch;
public DoSomethingInAThread(CountDownLatch latch){
this.latch = latch;
}
public void run() {
try{
System.out.println("Do some thing");
latch.countDown();
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public class CountDownLatchDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try{
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1000);
for (int n=0; n<1000; n++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new DoSomethingInAThread(latch));
t.start();
}
latch.await();
System.out.println("In Main thread after completion of 1000 threads");
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Explanation:
CountDownLatch has been initialized with given count 1000 as per your requirement.
Each worker thread DoSomethingInAThread will decrement the CountDownLatch, which has been passed in constructor.
Main thread CountDownLatchDemo await() till the count has become zero. Once the count has become zero, you will get below line in output.
In Main thread after completion of 1000 threads
More info from oracle documentation page
public void await()
throws InterruptedException
Causes the current thread to wait until the latch has counted down to zero, unless the thread is interrupted.
Refer to related SE question for other options:
wait until all threads finish their work in java

Avoid the Thread class altogether and instead use the higher abstractions provided in java.util.concurrent
The ExecutorService class provides the method invokeAll that seems to do just what you want.

Consider using java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch. Examples in javadocs

Depending on your needs, you may also want to check out the classes CountDownLatch and CyclicBarrier in the java.util.concurrent package. They can be useful if you want your threads to wait for each other, or if you want more fine-grained control over the way your threads execute (e.g., waiting in their internal execution for another thread to set some state). You could also use a CountDownLatch to signal all of your threads to start at the same time, instead of starting them one by one as you iterate through your loop. The standard API docs have an example of this, plus using another CountDownLatch to wait for all threads to complete their execution.

As Martin K suggested java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch seems to be a better solution for this. Just adding an example for the same
public class CountDownLatchDemo
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
int noOfThreads = 5;
// Declare the count down latch based on the number of threads you need
// to wait on
final CountDownLatch executionCompleted = new CountDownLatch(noOfThreads);
for (int i = 0; i < noOfThreads; i++)
{
new Thread()
{
#Override
public void run ()
{
System.out.println("I am executed by :" + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try
{
// Dummy sleep
Thread.sleep(3000);
// One thread has completed its job
executionCompleted.countDown();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
}
try
{
// Wait till the count down latch opens.In the given case till five
// times countDown method is invoked
executionCompleted.await();
System.out.println("All over");
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

If you make a list of the threads, you can loop through them and .join() against each, and your loop will finish when all the threads have. I haven't tried it though.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html#join()

Create the thread object inside the first for loop.
for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) {
threads[i] = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// some code to run in parallel
}
});
threads[i].start();
}
And then so what everyone here is saying.
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();

You can do it with the Object "ThreadGroup" and its parameter activeCount:

As an alternative to CountDownLatch you can also use CyclicBarrier e.g.
public class ThreadWaitEx {
static CyclicBarrier barrier = new CyclicBarrier(100, new Runnable(){
public void run(){
System.out.println("clean up job after all tasks are done.");
}
});
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new MyCallable(barrier));
t.start();
}
}
}
class MyCallable implements Runnable{
private CyclicBarrier b = null;
public MyCallable(CyclicBarrier b){
this.b = b;
}
#Override
public void run(){
try {
//do something
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" is waiting for barrier after completing his job.");
b.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
To use CyclicBarrier in this case barrier.await() should be the last statement i.e. when your thread is done with its job. CyclicBarrier can be used again with its reset() method. To quote javadocs:
A CyclicBarrier supports an optional Runnable command that is run once per barrier point, after the last thread in the party arrives, but before any threads are released. This barrier action is useful for updating shared-state before any of the parties continue.

The join() was not helpful to me. see this sample in Kotlin:
val timeInMillis = System.currentTimeMillis()
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
for (i in 1..5) {
val t = Thread(Runnable {
Thread.sleep(50)
var a = i
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "a=$a")
Thread.sleep(200)
for (j in 1..5) {
a *= j
Thread.sleep(100)
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "$a*$j=$a")
}
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|TaskDurationInMillis = " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - timeInMillis))
})
t.start()
}
})
The result:
Thread-5|a=5
Thread-1|a=1
Thread-3|a=3
Thread-2|a=2
Thread-4|a=4
Thread-2|2*1=2
Thread-3|3*1=3
Thread-1|1*1=1
Thread-5|5*1=5
Thread-4|4*1=4
Thread-1|2*2=2
Thread-5|10*2=10
Thread-3|6*2=6
Thread-4|8*2=8
Thread-2|4*2=4
Thread-3|18*3=18
Thread-1|6*3=6
Thread-5|30*3=30
Thread-2|12*3=12
Thread-4|24*3=24
Thread-4|96*4=96
Thread-2|48*4=48
Thread-5|120*4=120
Thread-1|24*4=24
Thread-3|72*4=72
Thread-5|600*5=600
Thread-4|480*5=480
Thread-3|360*5=360
Thread-1|120*5=120
Thread-2|240*5=240
Thread-1|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-3|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-4|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-5|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-2|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Now let me use the join() for threads:
val timeInMillis = System.currentTimeMillis()
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
for (i in 1..5) {
val t = Thread(Runnable {
Thread.sleep(50)
var a = i
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "a=$a")
Thread.sleep(200)
for (j in 1..5) {
a *= j
Thread.sleep(100)
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "$a*$j=$a")
}
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|TaskDurationInMillis = " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - timeInMillis))
})
t.start()
t.join()
}
})
And the result:
Thread-1|a=1
Thread-1|1*1=1
Thread-1|2*2=2
Thread-1|6*3=6
Thread-1|24*4=24
Thread-1|120*5=120
Thread-1|TaskDurationInMillis = 815
Thread-2|a=2
Thread-2|2*1=2
Thread-2|4*2=4
Thread-2|12*3=12
Thread-2|48*4=48
Thread-2|240*5=240
Thread-2|TaskDurationInMillis = 1568
Thread-3|a=3
Thread-3|3*1=3
Thread-3|6*2=6
Thread-3|18*3=18
Thread-3|72*4=72
Thread-3|360*5=360
Thread-3|TaskDurationInMillis = 2323
Thread-4|a=4
Thread-4|4*1=4
Thread-4|8*2=8
Thread-4|24*3=24
Thread-4|96*4=96
Thread-4|480*5=480
Thread-4|TaskDurationInMillis = 3078
Thread-5|a=5
Thread-5|5*1=5
Thread-5|10*2=10
Thread-5|30*3=30
Thread-5|120*4=120
Thread-5|600*5=600
Thread-5|TaskDurationInMillis = 3833
As it's clear when we use the join:
The threads are running sequentially.
The first sample takes 765 Milliseconds while the second sample takes 3833 Milliseconds.
Our solution to prevent blocking other threads was creating an ArrayList:
val threads = ArrayList<Thread>()
Now when we want to start a new thread we most add it to the ArrayList:
addThreadToArray(
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
...
})
)
The addThreadToArray function:
#Synchronized
fun addThreadToArray(th: Thread) {
threads.add(th)
}
The startNewThread funstion:
fun startNewThread(runnable: Runnable) : Thread {
val th = Thread(runnable)
th.isDaemon = false
th.priority = Thread.MAX_PRIORITY
th.start()
return th
}
Check the completion of the threads as below everywhere it's needed:
val notAliveThreads = ArrayList<Thread>()
for (t in threads)
if (!t.isAlive)
notAliveThreads.add(t)
threads.removeAll(notAliveThreads)
if (threads.size == 0){
// The size is 0 -> there is no alive threads.
}

The problem with:
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
...is, that threads[i + 1] never can join before threads[i].
Except the "latch"ed ones, all solutions have this lack.
No one here (yet) mentioned ExecutorCompletionService, it allows to join threads/tasks according to their completion order:
public class ExecutorCompletionService<V>
extends Object
implements CompletionService<V>
A CompletionService that uses a supplied Executor to execute tasks. This class arranges that submitted tasks are, upon completion, placed on a queue accessible using take. The class is lightweight enough to be suitable for transient use when processing groups of tasks.
Usage Examples.
Suppose you have a set of solvers for a certain problem, each returning a value of some type Result, and would like to run them concurrently, processing the results of each of them that return a non-null value, in some method use(Result r). You could write this as:
void solve(Executor e, Collection<Callable<Result>> solvers) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
CompletionService<Result> cs = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(e);
solvers.forEach(cs::submit);
for (int i = solvers.size(); i > 0; i--) {
Result r = cs.take().get();
if (r != null)
use(r);
}
}
Suppose instead that you would like to use the first non-null result of the set of tasks, ignoring any that encounter exceptions, and cancelling all other tasks when the first one is ready:
void solve(Executor e, Collection<Callable<Result>> solvers) throws InterruptedException {
CompletionService<Result> cs = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(e);
int n = solvers.size();
List<Future<Result>> futures = new ArrayList<>(n);
Result result = null;
try {
solvers.forEach(solver -> futures.add(cs.submit(solver)));
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
try {
Result r = cs.take().get();
if (r != null) {
result = r;
break;
}
} catch (ExecutionException ignore) {}
}
} finally {
futures.forEach(future -> future.cancel(true));
}
if (result != null)
use(result);
}
Since: 1.5 (!)
Assuming use(r) (of Example 1) also asynchronous, we had a big advantage. #