while (!closingTime){
depot.enterramp();
}
This is to start the function as below
synchronized (list) {
while (list.size() == 0) {
System.out.println(":: DEPOT\t:: " + "NO BUS FOUND IN THE APPROACHES DEPOT, WAITING THE BUS COMING");
try {
list.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException iex) {
iex.printStackTrace();
}
}
Currently my thread is waiting the notify() [This code is in enterramp() ]
public class Clock extends Thread {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(15000);
notifyTime();
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
public synchronized void notifyTime() {
System.out.println(":: CLOCK\t:: ALERT ALERT !!! DEPOT HAVE TO CLOSE IN 30 MINUTES, NO MORE ACCEPTING THE BUSES");
closingTime = true;
return;
}
This is the clock sleep for 15 seconds and make the closing time to true
synchronized (list) {
list.add(bus);
list.notify();
}
This is my part of notify it
The problem I facing is when the closing == true, but the thread is stucking in the wait() area, how do i can make the thread exit from the wait() when my closingtime == true ???
If you read the Object::wait documentation, it says the following:
Causes the current thread to wait until another thread invokes
the notify() method or the notifyAll()method for this object, or some
other thread interrupts the current thread, or a certain amount of
real time has elapsed.
So you need to interrupt the thread.
a) Your exit condition (boolean closingTime ) AND the lock (on which synchronization occurs) should both be used by the waiting threads. Your code can wait while the list is empty AND the exit condition is false.
b) you are synchronizing on 2 monitors; the 'this' and the 'list'. If the critical zone was protected by just one dedicated monitor (it's somewhat ok to reuse the list), then adding to the list OR changing the closingTime exit condition could both use notify(). This means kicking the waiting thread out without interrupt, as it is intended for.
c) try to avoid notify(), use notifyAll() unless you really know why you should notify only one.
In your logic you should wait if there are no buses AND it's not closing time. But you check only first condition. I propose to notify the thread when you set closingTime to true. Make these changes:
while (list.size() == 0 && !closingTime) {
closingTime = true;
list.notifyAll();
Meanwhile on interrupt() topic: it does get you out of wait(), but its logic is very different. It is indended for outside control, like a signal to halt execution and exit. So, when you want to stop waiting, use notyfyAll(), when you want to BREAK execution, use interrupt().
Related
I'm trying to figure out how to use wait & notify, so I've written this small example with a few planes waiting for a runway to clear before they take off, the issue I'm having is that when a plane takes off, and calls notifyAll(), only one thread seems to be woken up, i.e. I expect all of the threads to report that they have been notified, but are still waiting. What actually happens is that only one thread is woken, and the rest do nothing. Why does it appear that only the one thread is woken, and how can I fix it?
class Plane extends Thread
{
Runway runway;
Plane(int id, Runway runway)
{
super(id + "");
this.runway = runway;
}
public void run()
{
runway.taxi();
runway.takeoff();
}
}
class Runway
{
boolean isFull;
Runway()
{
isFull = false;;
}
public synchronized void taxi()
{
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " started to taxi");
while(isFull)
{
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is queued");
try
{
wait();
}
catch(InterruptedException e){}
}
isFull = true;
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " entering runway");
}
public synchronized void takeoff()
{
try
{
Thread.currentThread().sleep(1000);
}
catch(InterruptedException e){}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " took off");
isFull = false;
notifyAll();
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Runway runway = new Runway();
new Plane(1, runway).start();
new Plane(2, runway).start();
new Plane(3, runway).start();
new Plane(4, runway).start();
}
}
Thanks for taking the time to help me :)
Because notifyAll() is not wakeAll(). All threads are notified, but only one gets hold of the key and is being run. All others get to waiting pull again.
Suppose you have 4 Planes that are all start()-ed one after the other.
All 4 will attempt to call taxi() followed by takeoff()
The first one will call taxi():
acquire the lock,
find isFull is false
set isFull to true
return, releasing the lock
Then one (or more) of the remaining threads may get to call taxi(). If they do, they:
acquire the lock
find isFull is false
call wait() which releases the lock
OR
block while trying to acquire the lock
In the mean time, the thread that returned from taxi() will call takeoff(). This will:
acquire the lock
sleep for 1 second,
notify any threads that were waiting
return, releasing the lock.
So how does this explain what you are seeing?
Suppose that when the first thread returned from taxi() it was immediately able to reacquire the lock and start the takeoff() call. It would then call sleep() WHILE HOLDING THE LOCK. This would prevent any other threads from starting their taxi() calls (if they hadn't already done so). Then after the sleep, it would call notifyAll(). But that would only notify the threads that were had gotten into the taxi() call and that had called wait(). Any threads that were blocked while starting the taxi() call would never see the notifications.
(Notifications are never queued for threads that are not in wait() calls.)
Is this likely? Well yes it is.
Starting a thread is a relatively expensive / time consuming process, and there is a good chance that the first thread started will get to do a lot of work before the next one gets started. The chances are that it will get all the way to the sleep call before the second one tries to call taxi().
The same pattern is likely to repeat for the remaining threads. When each thread that gets into taxi() is likely to release and then reacquire it before another thread is scheduled. (Thread scheduling is handled by the OS, and it is optimizing for efficiency rather than fairness. If you want fair scheduling, you need to use a Lock object.)
... how can a fix it?
Change your code so that you don't sleep while holding the lock. For example:
public void takeoff() {
try {
Thread.currentThread().sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// squash ...
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " took off");
synchronize (this) {
isFull = false;
notifyAll();
}
}
That's what it does. It "notifies" all the waiting threads, but only one wakes and gets the CPU. notify() picks a waiting thread based on what the underlying thread implementation selects. notifyAll() gives all the waiting threads an equal chance to compete. But either way, only one thread takes the context.
I have a thread that calls the wait method and can only be awoken when the notify method called from some other class:
class ThreadA {
public static void main(String [] args) {
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
synchronized(b) {
try {
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
for(int i=0;i<100;i++) {
total += i;
}
notify();
}
}
}
In the above code if the synchronized block in main, if the ThreadA does not execute first and instead the other synchronization block executing and completes to completion, then ThreadA executes its synchronized block and calls wait, what is going to happen and how it will be notified again?
If ThreadB gets through its synchronized block before ThreadA does, then ThreadA will block indefinitely on the call to wait. It won't somehow be notified that the other thread has already completed.
The problem is that you're trying to use wait and notify in ways that they are not designed to be used. Usually, wait and notify are used to have one thread wait until some condition is true, and then to have another thread signal that the condition may have become true. For example, they're often used as follows:
/* Producer */
synchronized (obj) {
/* Make resource available. */
obj.notify();
}
/* Consumer */
synchronized (obj) {
while (/* resource not available */)
obj.wait();
/* Consume the resource. */
}
The reason that the above code works is that it doesn't matter which thread runs first. If the producer thread creates a resource and no one is waiting on obj, then when the consumer runs it will enter the while loop, notice that the resource has been produced, and then skip the call to wait. It can then consume the resource. If, on the other hand, the consumer runs first, it will notice in the while loop that the resource is not yet available and will wait for some other object to notify it. The other thread can then run, produce the resource, and notify the consumer thread that the resource is available. Once the original thread is awoken, it will notice that the condition of the loop is no longer true and will consume the resource.
More generally, Java suggests that you always call wait in a loop because of spurious notifications in which a thread can wake up from a call to wait without ever being notified of anything. Using the above pattern can prevent this.
In your particular instance, if you want to ensure that ThreadB has finished running before ThreadA executes, you may want to use Thread.join(), which explicitly blocks the calling thread until some other thread executes. More generally, you may want to look into some of the other synchronization primitives provided by Java, as they often are much easier to use than wait and notify.
You could loop and wait until the total has been computed :
synchronized(b) {
while (total == 0) {
b.wait();
}
}
You could also use a higher-level abstraction like a CountDownLatch.
It is possible for ThreadB's run method to complete before you enter the synchronized block in ThreadA.main. In that situation, since the notify call has happened before you started waiting, ThreadA will block forever on the wait call.
A simple workaround would be to grab the lock on b in main before you start the second thread to ensure the wait happens first.
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
synchronized(b) {
b.start();
...
b.wait();
}
You probably want to use a java.util.concurrent.Semaphore for this.
1) You need to add some flag that is used to communicate between the threads, so that B can signal to A when it is finished. A simple boolean variable is fine, as long as it is only read and written within the synchronized blocks.
synchronized(this) {
for(int i=0;i<100;i++) {
total += i;
}
isDone = true;
notify();
}
2) A needs to loop while waiting. So if your boolean variable was called isDone, and was set to true by threadB, then threadA should have some code like this:
synchronized(b) {
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
while( ! isDone ) b.wait();
}
In this particular case, there's actually no reason to have the synchronized block in A - since threadB doesn't do anything after it finishes running, and A doesn't do anything except wait for B, threadA could simply call b.join() to block until it finishes. I assume that your actual use case is more complex than this.
Why to make that complex ? Just use join() function of Thread.
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
b.join();
// now print b.total
do not synchronized(thread), don't do it, do not synchronized(thread).. repat: no synchronized(thread) :)
And if you need to wait for the thread 'b' to finish, use b.join(), now your code is free to hang in b.wait()
--
Hopefully the source below can grant you an insight while sync(thread)/notify() I consider bad practice. (cut-cut)
Enjoy
To proceeed below you make sure you have accepted Oracle's License aggreement, found there:
https://cds.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/CDS-CDS_Developer-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewLicense-Start?LicenseUUID=7HeJ_hCwhb4AAAEtmC8ADqmR&ProductUUID=pGqJ_hCwj_AAAAEtB8oADqmS&cnum=&evsref=&sln=
Java sources (incl), called in init(), effectively called by any java c-tor, since java 1.5
private static **synchronized int** nextThreadNum() {
return threadInitNumber++;
}
//join (the method w/ nanos only increase millis by one, if nanos>500000, millis==0 and nanos>0
public final **synchronized** void join(long millis)
throws InterruptedException {
long base = System.currentTimeMillis();
long now = 0;
if (millis < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("timeout value is negative");
}
if (millis == 0) {
while (isAlive()) {
wait(0);
}
} else {
while (isAlive()) {
long delay = millis - now;
if (delay <= 0) {
break;
}
wait(delay);
now = System.currentTimeMillis() - base;
}
}
}
public **synchronized** void start() {
/**
* This method is not invoked for the main method thread or "system"
* group threads created/set up by the VM. Any new functionality added
* to this method in the future may have to also be added to the VM.
*
* A zero status value corresponds to state "NEW".
*/
if (threadStatus != 0)
throw new IllegalThreadStateException();
group.add(this);
start0();
if (stopBeforeStart) {
stop0(throwableFromStop);
}
}
//stop1 is called after stop ensures proper priviledges
private final **synchronized** void stop1(Throwable th) {
SecurityManager security = System.getSecurityManager();
if (security != null) {
checkAccess();
if ((this != Thread.currentThread()) ||
(!(th instanceof ThreadDeath))) {
security.checkPermission(SecurityConstants.STOP_THREAD_PERMISSION);
}
}
// A zero status value corresponds to "NEW"
if (threadStatus != 0) {
resume(); // Wake up thread if it was suspended; no-op otherwise
stop0(th);
} else {
// Must do the null arg check that the VM would do with stop0
if (th == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
// Remember this stop attempt for if/when start is used
stopBeforeStart = true;
throwableFromStop = th;
}
}
I know that there are a few threads open regarding this topic, but I'm just looking for a VERY ELEMENTARY example of how to use wait() and notify() in Java. By "VERY ELEMENTARY," I mean simply printing something out. Thanks.
EDIT: Here's what I have tried thus far and I get an IllegalMonitorStateException:
public void waiting() {
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
if(i == 5)
try {
this.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
else
System.out.println(i);
}
System.out.println("notify me now");
this.notify();
}
wait and notify are used in synchronized block while using threads to suspend and resume where left off.
Wait immediately looses the lock, whereas Nofity will leave the lock only when the ending bracket is encountered.
public class Mythread implements Runnable{
public synchronized void goo(){
System.out.println("Before Wait");
wait();
System.out.println("After Wait");
}
public synchronized void foo(){
System.out.println("Before Notify");
notify();
System.out.println("After Notify");
}
public class Test{
public static void main(String[] args){
Thread t = new Thread(new Mythread);
t.start();
}
}
Your IllegalMonitorStateException is due to the fact that you must synchronize on the object before calling wait or notify. So
this.wait
needs to be
synchronized(this) {
this.wait();
}
Your example won't run because you'll never get to the notify call... as soon as your thread hits wait, it will suspend and advance no further. For wait / notify to work, you have to have two threads. One thread suspends when the wait method is invoked, and eventually, the second thread calls synchronized(this) { this.notify() } to cause the first thread to wake up and continue executing below the wait call.
The synchronization is required because you would ordinarily check some condition before waiting, ie,
synchronized(this) {
if(! this.isReady) {
this.wait();
}
}
You need to synchronize to make sure no other thread changes the state of the isReady flag between the line where you check the variable and the line where you wait. So your notify code would
synchronized(this) {
isReady = true;
this.notify();
}
Now the order of the method calls doesn't matter. If you notify first, no thread will wake up, but that's ok, because you aren't going to sleep since isReady = true. If you go to sleep first, isReady = true does nothing, but the notify call wakes up the thread. Finally, the synchronization ensures that you don't check the variable in thread A, then have thread B set the variable and notify (doing nothing), then have thread A go to sleep and never wake up.
Hope that helps.
wait() and notify() are used to synchronise threads: a thread can be told to wait(), and will not continue doing anything until it receives the notify() call.
The basic idea with these functions is that wait() suspends a thread (puts it to sleep), and notify() causes a thread to pick up where it left when it went to sleep.
Take a look at: this or just look up simple prodcuer consumer problem java on google. I am sure you will find something to suit your needs.
See this example on guarded blocks from the oracle java site - it includes a worked example of a simple producer-consumer problem.
I am trying to construct two threads, thread A is the main thread and thread B is the second thread, thread B is updating a variable through a time consuming function (this variable should be shared between both threads, because eventually thread A needs to use that variable as well), but I want thread A to terminate thread B if thread B takes too long to complete (using an exception).
What I tried is the following:
Thread thread = new Thread() {
public void run() {
/// run something that could take a long time
}
};
synchronized (thread) {
thread.start();
}
System.err.println("Waiting for thread and terminating it if it did not stop.");
try {
thread.wait(10000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("interrupted.");
}
Should that give the expected behavior of terminating a behavior in case it has run more than 10 seconds? The thread object gets deleted after the wait, because the method that runs the thread returns.
Right now, what happens with this code is that I always get java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException on the wait(10000) command.
You will always get a IllegalMonitorStateException if you are calling wait() on an object that you are not synchronized on.
try {
// you need this to do the wait
synchronized (thread) {
thread.wait(10000);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("interrupted.");
}
If you are waiting for the thread to finish then you probably are trying to do a:
try {
thread.join(10000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
System.err.println("interrupted.");
}
Unfortunately, you do not know at that point if the thread is running because join doesn't return whether or not it timed out (grumble). So you need to test if the thread.isAlive() after the join.
If you are asking how you can cancel the thread if it runs for longer than 10000 millis, then the right thing to do is use thread.interrupt(). This will cause any sleep() or wait() methods to throw an InterruptedException and it will set the interrupt flag on the thread.
To use the interrupt flag your thread should be doing something like:
while (!Thread.currentThread.isInterrupted()) {
// do it's thread stuff
}
Also, it is always a good pattern to do something like the following because once the InterruptedException is thrown, the interrupt flag has been cleared:
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// set the interrupt flag again because InterruptedException clears it
Thread.currentThread.interrupt();
System.err.println("interrupted.");
}
That code is incorrect. Method wait is declared in Object class and is intended to suspend current thread using as monitor instance of the object on which it is called. You may invoke this method only in synchronized section, that is why you get your exception.
Regarding to your problem: in general you can not stop another thread if it does not want to stop. So you should invoke Thread.interrupt to notify the thread that it should stop working and it is up to that thread to decide to take into account that notification or not. To check if thread is interrupted you may use interrupted() or isInterrupted() methods.
I have a thread that updates it's state from time to time and I want a second thread to be able to wait for the first thread to be done. Something like this:
Thread 1:
while(true) {
...do something...
foo.notifyAll()
...wait for some condition that might never happen...
...
}
Thread 2:
...
foo.wait();
...
Now this looks nice and all unless Thread 1's notifyAll() runs before Thread 2's wait(), in which case Thread 2 waits until Thread 1 notifies again (which might never happen).
My possible solutions:
a) I could use a CountDownLatch or a Future, but both have the problem that they inherently only run once. That is, in Thread 1's while loop, I would need to create a new foo to wait for each time and Thread 2 would need to ask which foo to wait for. I have a bad feeling about simply writing
while(true) {
foo = new FutureTask();
...
foo.set(...);
...wait for a condition that might never be set...
...
}
as I fear that at foo = new FutureTask(), what happens when someone waited for the old foo (for "some reason", set was not called, e.g. a bug in the exception handling)?
b) Or I could use a semaphore:
class Event {
Semaphore sem;
Event() { sem = new Semaphore(1); sem . }
void signal() { sem.release(); }
void reset() { sem.acquire(1); }
void wait() { if (sem.tryAcquire(1)) { sem.release(); } }
}
But I fear that there is some race condition, if multiple threads are wait()ing for it while another one signal()s and reset()s.
Question:
Is there nothing in the Java API that resembles the Windows Event behaviour? Or, if you despise Windows, something like golang's WaitGroup (i.e. a CountDownLatch that allows countUp())? Anything?
How to do it manually:
Thread 2 cannot simply wait because of spurious wakeup and in Java there is no way to know why Object.wait() returned. So I need a condition variable that stores whether the event is signalled or not. Thread 2:
synchronized(foo) {
while(!condition) {
foo.wait();
}
}
And Thread 1 of course sets condition to true in a synchronized block. Thanks to weekens for the hint!
Is there an existing class that wraps that behaviour?
Or do I need to copy and paste the code all over?
It is standard practice to change some state when performing notifyAll and to check some state when performing wait().
e.g.
boolean ready = false;
// thread 1
synchronized(lock) {
ready = true;
lock.notifyAll();
}
// thread 2
synchronized(lock) {
while(!ready)
lock.wait();
}
With this approach, it doesn't matter if thread 1 or thread 2 acquires the lock first.
Some coding analysis tools will give you a warning if you use notify or wait without setting a value or checking a value.
You could use a wait() with timeout, in which case you are not risking to wait forever. Also note that wait() may return even if there was no notify() at all, so, you'll need to wrap your wait inside some conditioned loop. That's the standard way of waiting in Java.
synchronized(syncObject) {
while(condition.isTrue()) {
syncObject.wait(WAIT_TIMEOUT);
}
}
(in your Thread 2)
Edit: Moved synchronized outside the loop.
The simplest way is just to say
firstThread.join();
This will be blocking until the first thread is terminated.
But you can implement the same using wait/notify. Unfortunately you have not posted your real code fragments but I guess that if wait does not exit when you call notify it happens because you did not put both into synchronized block. Pay attention that the "argument" of synchronized block must be the same for wait/notify pair.
I'd use a BlockingQueue between the two threads. Using wait and notify is so 5 minutes ago ;)
enum Event {
Event,
Stop;
}
BlockingQueue<Event> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Event>();
// Thread 1
try {
while(true) {
...do something...
queue.put(Event.Event);
...wait for some condition that might never happen...
...
}
} finally {
// Tell other thread we've finished.
queue.put(Event.Stop};
}
// Thread 2
...
switch ( queue.take() ) {
case Event:
...
break;
default:
...
break;
}
Seems there is only ugly solutions. I solve it using AtomicBoolean as flag and some sleep to prevent high cpu usage and timeout for unexpected lost event...
Here my code:
somewhere in thread class:
private static final int WAIT_DELAY_MS_HACK = 5000; //ms
private static final AtomicBoolean NeedToExecute = new AtomicBoolean(false);
In working thread, that need to send wake signal:
public static final void SendSignalToExecute(){
synchronized(NeedToExecute){
NeedToExecute.set(true);
NeedToExecute.notify();
}
}
In the thread that must wait signal:
//To prevent infinite delay when notify was already lost I use WAIT_DELAY_MS_HACK in wait().
//To prevent false interruption on unknown reason of JM I use while and check of AtomicBoolean by NeedToExecute.get() in it.
//To prevent high CPU usage in for unknown persistant interruption in wait I use additional sleep():
while (!NeedToExecute.get()){
synchronized(NeedToExecute){
try {
NeedToExecute.wait(WAIT_DELAY_MS_HACK); //if notify() was sent before we go into wait() but after check in while() it will lost forever... note that NeedToExecute.wait() releases the synchronized lock for other thread and re-acquires it before returning
} catch (InterruptedException ex) { //here also may be sleep or break and return
}
}
sleep(100); //if wait() will not wait - must be outside synchronized block or it may cause freeze thread with SendSignalToExecute()... :(
}
NeedToExecute.set(false); //revert back to reenter check in next iteration, but I use it for one waited thread it cycle "do ... wait" if you use multiple thread you need to synchronise somehow this revert