Develop Reference

Threading in Sequence

I am trying to learn how to write a program which performs a given set of tasks in sequence with the help of threads. For example, Writing a program which have 3 different threads print 1111…, 22222…., 333333……, so that the output will be 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3…..? OR for e.g. 2 threads one is printing odd numbers and other even numbers, but the output should be printed in sequence - i.e. one even and then odd.
I would like to learn how to write similar kind of programs in which different threads print different stuff concurrently and the output should be printed in sequence.
What is the basic concept in writing these programs. Can we use ThreadPools/Executors for the purpose ? For e.g. can we use
ExecutorService exectorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
Can we use Future, FurtureTask, Callable, execute, submit ...? I know these concepts but I am not able to connect the dots for solving the above scenarios.
Please guide me how to go about writing these kind of programs using multithreading / concurrency.
I have written a program using wait()/notifyAll(). Following is the program. I am not executing the consumer as I am printing the whole sequence at the end. Also I am limiting the capacity of the queue to be 15. So I am basically printing the odd / even range till 15.
public class ProduceEven implements Runnable {
private final List<Integer> taskQueue;
private final int MAX_CAPACITY;
public ProduceEven (List<Integer> sharedQueue, int size) {
this.taskQueue = sharedQueue;
this.MAX_CAPACITY = size;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
int counter = 0;
while (counter < 15) {
try {
produce(counter++);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.getMessage();
}
}
}
private void produce (int i) throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (taskQueue) {
while (taskQueue.size() == MAX_CAPACITY) {
System.out.println("Queue is full : "+Thread.currentThread().getName()+" is waiting , size: "+ taskQueue.size());
taskQueue.wait();
}
Thread.sleep(1000);
if(i%2==0) {
taskQueue.add(i);
}
taskQueue.notifyAll();
}
}
}
public class ProduceOdd implements Runnable {
private final List<Integer> taskQueue;
private final int MAX_CAPACITY;
public ProduceOdd (List<Integer> sharedQueue, int size) {
this.taskQueue = sharedQueue;
this.MAX_CAPACITY = size;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int counter = 0;
while (counter < 15) {
try {
produce(counter++);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.getMessage();
}
}
}
private void produce (int i) throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (taskQueue) {
while (taskQueue.size() == MAX_CAPACITY) {
System.out.println("Queue is full : "+Thread.currentThread().getName()+" is waiting , size: "+ taskQueue.size());
taskQueue.wait();
}
Thread.sleep(1000);
if(i%2==1) {
taskQueue.add(i);
}
taskQueue.notify();
}
}
}
public class OddEvenExampleWithWaitAndNotify {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Integer> taskQueue = new ArrayList<Integer>();
int MAX_CAPACITY = 15;
Thread tProducerEven = new Thread(new ProduceEven(taskQueue, MAX_CAPACITY), "Producer Even");
Thread tProducerOdd = new Thread(new ProduceOdd(taskQueue, MAX_CAPACITY), "Producer Odd");
tProducerEven.start();
tProducerOdd.start();
try {
tProducerEven.join();
tProducerOdd.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
ListIterator listIterator = taskQueue.listIterator();
System.out.println("Elements Are:: ");
while(listIterator.hasNext()) {
System.out.print(listIterator.next()+" ");
}
}
}
The output which I get is: Elements Are:: 02134657911810131214
The output is all jumbled up. Why is it not in sequence. 01234567891011121314 What am I missing. I would be now trying to make the program using Semaphores. Also how do we make this program using explicit locks?

Yes, you can use ExecutorService as a starting point to run your threads. You can also create and start your Threads manually, that would make no difference.
The important thing is that your Threads will run in parallel if you do not synchronize them (i.e., they have to wait for one another). To synchronize you can, e.g. use Semaphores or other thread communication mechanisms.
You wrote in the comments you have written a producer/consumer program. It's a bit of the same thing. Each time the 1-Thread produces a 1, the 2-Thread must know that it can now produce a 2. When it is finished, it must let the 3-Thread know that it must produce a 3. The basic concepts are the same. Just the threads have both producer and consumer roles.

Hi this is one sample program to print Odd and Even using two thread and using thread synchronization among them.
Also we have used Executor framework which is not mandatory, you can create thread using new Thread() as well. For quick prototype I have used system.exit() which can be replaced with graceful shutdown of threads like, interruption and all.
package com.ones.twos.threes;
import java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class OnesTwos {
public static void main(String[] args) {
BlockingQueue<Integer> bq1 = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Integer>(100);
BlockingQueue<Integer> bq2 = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Integer>(100);
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
try {
bq1.put(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
executorService.submit(new OddEven(bq1, bq2));
executorService.submit(new OddEven(bq2, bq1));
executorService.shutdown();
}
public static class OddEven implements Runnable {
BlockingQueue<Integer> bq1;
BlockingQueue<Integer> bq2;
public OddEven(BlockingQueue<Integer> bq1, BlockingQueue<Integer> bq2) {
this.bq1 = bq1;
this.bq2 = bq2;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
int take = bq1.take();
System.out.println(take);
bq2.offer(take + 1);
if (take > 20)
System.exit(0);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}

Mycode is also similar to Anirban's, except I am not using executor framework,
public class TestThread {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Boolean bol = new Boolean(true);
(new Thread(new Odd(bol), "odd")).start();
(new Thread(new Even(bol), "even")).start();
}
}
public class Even implements Runnable {
private Boolean flag;
public Even(Boolean b) {
this.flag = b;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 2; i < 20; i = i + 2) {
synchronized (flag) {
try {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+":"+i);
Thread.sleep(1000);
flag.notify();
flag.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
public class Odd implements Runnable {
private Boolean flag;
public Odd(Boolean b) {
this.flag = b;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 1; i < 20; i = i + 2) {
synchronized (flag) {
try {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+":"+i);
Thread.sleep(1000);
flag.notify();
flag.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}

By establishing the thread pool of 3 (ExecutorService exectorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3); you are essentilly limiting the executor capacity to 3 and other incoming threads will be on hold. If you want to run them in paralel you can just submit them at once. If you want to wait for each other and want to find out the result I suggest you use Callable. Personally I really like Callable because after submiting it you can just call the get method of Future, wait for a returned value from the executed thread and then continue to the next one. From the API you can see this:
/**
* Submits a value-returning task for execution and returns a
* Future representing the pending results of the task. The
* Future's {#code get} method will return the task's result upon
* successful completion.
*
*
* If you would like to immediately block waiting
* for a task, you can use constructions of the form
* {#code result = exec.submit(aCallable).get();}
And a very good example here. If you go for the Callable alternative then you don't need a Thread pool. Just a normal executor is fine. Remember to shut the executor down in the end.

class MyNumber {
int i = 1;
}
class Task implements Runnable {
MyNumber myNumber;
int id;
Task(int id, MyNumber myNumber) {
this.id = id;
this.myNumber = myNumber;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (myNumber) {
while (myNumber.i != id) {
try {
myNumber.wait(); //Wait until Thread with correct next number
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(id);
if (myNumber.i == 1) {
myNumber.i = 2;
} else if (myNumber.i == 2) {
myNumber.i = 3;
} else {
myNumber.i = 1;
}
myNumber.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
In main method:
MyNumber myNumber = new MyNumber();
new Thread(new Task(1, myNumber)).start();
new Thread(new Task(2, myNumber)).start();
new Thread(new Task(3, myNumber)).start();

Hi here we have used 2 thread one to print even and another to print odd.
Both are separate and have no relation to each other.
But we have to do a synchronization mechanism between them. Also we need a mechanism to let the ball rolling, i.e. start one thread printing.
Each thread is waiting on condition and after doing it's task it lets other thread work and put ownself in waiting state.
Well happy path works fine, but we need special care when even thread is not in waiting state and the signal() from main fires, in that case even thread will never able to wake up and the program hangs.
So to make sure main thread successfully sends a signal() to even thread and even thread does not miss that we have used Phaser(with party) and checking even thread state in while loop in main.
Code is as below.
package com.ones.twos.threes;
import java.util.concurrent.Phaser;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class OnesTwosTrial2 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Lock lk = new ReentrantLock();
Phaser ph = new Phaser(3); // to let main start the even thread
Condition even = lk.newCondition();
Condition odd = lk.newCondition();
OnesTwosTrial2 onestwostrial2 = new OnesTwosTrial2();
Thread ev = onestwostrial2.new Evens(lk, even, odd, ph);
Thread od = onestwostrial2.new Odds(lk, even, odd, ph);
ev.start();
od.start();
System.out.println("in main before arrive");
ph.arriveAndAwaitAdvance();
System.out.println("in main after arrive");
// we have to make sure odd and even thread is
// started and waiting on respective condition.
// So we used Phaser with 3, because we are having here
// 3 parties (threads)
// main, odd,even. We will signal only when all the
// threads have started.
// and waiting on conditions.
while (!Thread.State.WAITING.equals(ev.getState())) {
System.out.println("waiting");
}
lk.lock();
even.signal();
lk.unlock();
}
class Evens extends Thread {
Lock lk;
Condition even;
Condition odd;
Phaser ph;
public Evens(Lock lk, Condition even, Condition odd, Phaser ph) {
this.lk = lk;
this.even = even;
this.odd = odd;
this.ph = ph;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("even ph");
int cnt = 0;
while (cnt < 20) {
try {
lk.lock();
ph.arrive();
even.await();
System.out.println(cnt);
cnt += 2;
odd.signal();
lk.unlock();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
class Odds extends Thread {
Lock lk;
Condition even;
Condition odd;
Phaser ph;
public Odds(Lock lk, Condition even, Condition odd, Phaser ph) {
this.lk = lk;
this.even = even;
this.odd = odd;
this.ph = ph;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("odd ph");
int cnt = 1;
while (cnt < 20) {
try {
lk.lock();
ph.arrive();
odd.await();
System.out.println(cnt);
cnt += 2;
even.signal();
lk.unlock();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}

Synchronized keyword doesn't work

package threadShareResource1;
public class NonSynchro1 {
private int sum = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
NonSynchro1 n = new NonSynchro1();
n.task();
System.out.println(n.getSum());
}
public synchronized void sumAddOne(){
sum++;
}
public void task(){
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
sumAddOne();
}
}).start();
/* try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} */
}
}
public int getSum() {
return sum;
}
}
Without the commented part of code, the program has data corruption, which is not 100 every time I run it. But I thought the synchronized keyword should acquires a lock on the sumAddOne method, which is the critical region of my program, allowing one thread accessing this method every time.
I've try to use ExecutorService as well, but it doesn't give 100 all the runs.
public void task(){
ExecutorService s = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
s.execute(new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
sumAddOne();
}
}));
}
s.shutdown();
while(!s.isTerminated()){}
}

In Task(), you start 100 threads (which is a lot) and each one is to add 1 to sum.
But when Task is done all you know is that 100 threads are in some process of having started. You don't block before calling println(), so how do you know all the threads have completed?
The sleep probably "prevents the corruption" just because it gives the system time to finish launching all the threads.
Beyond that you are using Synchronized correctly. Any place multiple threads may write to the same variable you need it and, in general (simplifying), you don't need it if you are only reading.

Synchronised keyword is used correctly, the problem is that you are not waiting for the threads to finish. Here is a possible solution:
public class NonSynchro1 {
private static final ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
private int sum = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
NonSynchro1 n = new NonSynchro1();
n.task();
System.out.println(n.getSum());
executorService.shutdown();
}
public synchronized void sumAddOne() {
sum++;
}
public void task() {
List<Callable<Object>> callables = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
callables.add(() -> {
sumAddOne();
return null;
});
}
List<Future<Object>> futures;
try {
futures = executorService.invokeAll(callables);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
futures.forEach(future -> {
try {
future.get();
} catch (ExecutionException | InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
});
}
public int getSum() {
return sum;
}
}
First we create a list of callables - a list of functions that will be executed in parallel.
Then we invoke them on the executor service. newCachedThreadPool I have used here, by default has 0 threads, it will create as many as necessary to execute all passed callables, the threads will be killed after being idle for a minute.
Finally, in the for-each loop we resolve all futures. get() call will block until the function was executed by the executor service. It will also throw exception if it was thrown inside the function (without calling get() you would not see such exception at all).
Also, it is a good idea to shutdown the executor service when you want to terminate the program gracefully. In this case, it is just executorService.shutdown() at the end of main method. If you don't do this, the program will terminate after a minute when idle threads are killed. However, if different executor service, threads might not be killed when idle, in which case the program would never terminate.

Just for completeness sake: Here's a solution showing how the original program can be made to wait for all threads to finish by joining them:
for (Thread t : n.task())
try {
t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
which requires task to return the threads it creates. In this case we don't need to complicate things with caching managers or collections: a simple array will do. Here's the complete class:
public class TestSynchro1 {
private int sum = 0;
public synchronized void sumAddOne() {
sum++;
}
public Thread[] task(int n) {
Thread[] threads = new Thread[n];
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
(threads[i] = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
sumAddOne();
}
})).start();
}
return threads;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestSynchro1 n = new TestSynchro1();
for (Thread t : n.task(100))
try {
t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(n.sum);
}
}

why object.wait(value) is not accurate?

consider this code which basically has an object(WaitedObject) and two threads(SomeTask and SomeTaskWithWait) compete to call the methods (longRunningTask() and withWaitTask() respectively) of the object synchronously
package closerLookAtWait;
class WaitedObject
{
int i=0;
synchronized void longRunningTask()
{
System.out.println(i++);
for(long j=999; j>0; j--)
{}
}
synchronized void withWaitTask()
{
System.out.println("Now Waiting");
long time1 = System.currentTimeMillis();
try {
//Thread.sleep(500);
wait(50);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
long time2 = System.currentTimeMillis() - time1;
System.out.println("Done Waiting for "+time2);
}
}
class SomeTask implements Runnable
{
WaitedObject wo;
SomeTask(WaitedObject wo)
{
this.wo = wo;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true)
wo.longRunningTask();
}
}
class SomeTaskWithWait implements Runnable{
WaitedObject wo;
SomeTaskWithWait(WaitedObject wo)
{
this.wo = wo;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true)
wo.withWaitTask();
}
}
public class SomeWaitingWithLong {
public static void main(String[] args) {
WaitedObject wo = new WaitedObject();
new Thread(new SomeTask(wo)).start();
new Thread(new SomeTaskWithWait(wo)).start();
}
}
sample output:
well i got output as 54,54,50,65,51,52,..,78,..84,..50,52,52.
now my question is why such inaccuracy? (even 65 is ok, but why 84?)

One of the reasons is, OS puts that thread in suspended mode for the time(ms) you provide in wait(). When the time completes it isn't guarrented that your thread will be executed at once because OS has assigned another thread with a higher priority in your process to be executed by the processor or some other higher priority process is being assigned to the processor for execution. Even if your thread was at highest priority, even then there will be some delay sometimes because of context switching & in Java's case, GC.

Simple answer: Android is not a real time OS.

starting 10 different thread in java at the sametime

I have 10 different threads which I want to start at the same time. And by same time, I mean not by starting them sequentially (although this will be close).
What is the best way to achieve this in java?

To be accurate: You will not be able to start all 10 threads at the exact same time. There will be some difference in the order ms or ns. You can just try to minimize this difference. And even then: If you have less cores than threads the first couple of threads will have done some work before the others even run their first instruction.

There's a nice example of using a CountDownLatch for that in the Javaspecialists newsletter The Law of the Corrupt Politician.
public class TestCorruption {
private static final int THREADS = 2;
private static final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(THREADS);
private static final BankAccount heinz = new BankAccount(1000);
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < THREADS; i++) {
addThread();
}
Timer timer = new Timer(true);
timer.schedule(new TimerTask() {
public void run() {
System.out.println(heinz.getBalance());
}
}, 100, 1000);
}
private static void addThread() {
new Thread() {
{
start();
}
public void run() {
latch.countDown();
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
return;
}
while (true) {
heinz.deposit(100);
heinz.withdraw(100);
}
}
};
}
}

It depends on the number of cores your computer have, those will be the number of started threads on the same time, it is my first comment here so i hope this is correct.
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class Practica {
private static final int NUMTHREADS = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
CountDownLatch cdl = new CountDownLatch(NUMTHREADS);
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(NUMTHREADS);
for (int i = 0; i < NUMTHREADS; i++) {
executor.submit(new Imp(cdl));
cdl.countDown();
System.out.println("one thread sumbmited "+cdl.getCount());
}
System.out.println("All threads submmited");
executor.shutdown();
}
}
class Imp implements Runnable {
CountDownLatch cdl;
public Imp(CountDownLatch arg) {
this.cdl = arg;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
cdl.await();
System.out.printf("STARTED %s at %d millis%n",
Thread.currentThread().getName(),
System.currentTimeMillis());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

How to hit java.lang.OutOfMemoryError by spawning threads?

I came across this blog site where the author is testing against the maximum number of threads before the machine throws a java.lang.OutOfMemoryError. However, in my below test codes, i am unable to hit the error despite the arbitrary large threads spawned.
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
Thread thread = new Thread(new Car());
thread.setName(Integer.toString(i));
thread.start();
}

Try sleeping inside the thread, otherwise it might end up too quickly and get garbage collected, as shown in the example code:
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
} catch (InterruptedException ignored) {
//
}
}
});

If the (Runnable) Car instance exits shortly after being started, the memory allocated for the thread is freed. If the rate of freeing memory is greater than the thread spawning rate, you'll never get an OutOfMemoryError. You can prevent that by making Car run for a long time, for example:
class Car implements Runnable {
public void run() {
Thread.sleep(10000000);
}
}

Also take a look at the same problem which is covered in the JavaSpecialists Newsletter # 149
http://www.javaspecialists.eu/archive/Issue149.html
Here is a small piece of code that you can run to find out how many inactive threads you can start on your JVM:
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
public class ThreadCreationTest {
public static void main(String[] args)
throws InterruptedException {
final AtomicInteger threads_created = new AtomicInteger(0);
while (true) {
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
new Thread() {
{ start(); }
public void run() {
latch.countDown();
synchronized (this) {
System.out.println("threads created: " +
threads_created.incrementAndGet());
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
};
latch.await();
}
}
}