I'm new to Java multi threading and little confused with how Java join and wait works.
I have the following example
public class Main {
private static int counter;
static class RunnableThread implements Runnable {
private static final String PREFIX = "RT-";
public RunnableThread() {
}
#Override
public void run() {
counter++;
System.out.println(PREFIX+counter);
try {
Thread.sleep(50000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread rt = new Thread(new RunnableThread());
//Thread tt = new TradThread();
rt.start();
//tt.start();
try {
rt.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
System.out.println("Main thread wait is interrupted");
e1.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("MT-"+counter);
}
}
It throws IllegalMonitorStateException as the main thread doesn't hold any monitor. Now in the same code if I change rt.wait() to rt.join() it works.
When I see how join is implemented it looks like it calls the wait() method. Now how is the call to wait from inside the join valid?
I would assume The Main thread when it calls rt.join() the code in the join method is being executed by the Main thread itself.
Please help me to understand this.
Thanks
Thread.join() and Object.wait() are very different.
t.join()
Join current thread where you are behind thread t. So, current thread will not run until thread t finishes its work.
o.wait()
Release the lock of object o and pause current thread. So, current thread will not run until it obtains the lock of object o again by o.notify() or o.notifyAll() from other thread.
Note: you must have obtained the lock of object o before invoking this method.
Technically, in the join code, we have:
wait(0);
...
wait(delay);
in this case, this is the same as calling this.wait(). So to answer the question, the wait function being called is the object referenced by rt wait method.
Related
I'm curious to submit here a short example I made and hopefully have someone able to explain to me one thing: is it possible to use the wait() and notify() inside a synchronized block without having to declare threads explicitly? (AKA: not using dedicated threads).
Here's the example:
public class mutex {
private Object mutex = new Object();
public mutex(Object mutex) {
this.mutex = mutex;
}
public void step1() throws InterruptedException {
System.out.println("acquiring lock");
synchronized(mutex) {
System.out.println("got in sync block");
System.out.println("calling wait");
mutex.wait();
System.out.println("wait finished ");
}
}
public void step2() throws InterruptedException{
System.out.println("acquiring lock");
synchronized(mutex){
System.out.println("got in sync block");
System.out.println("calling notify");
mutex.notify();
System.out.println("notify called");
}
}
Those two simple step are just prints for logging and what should be happening.
The idea is to be able to call a wait() in step1 and be able to complete the call once step2 has been called with its notify().
Now, as far as I understood the whole thing, this is the right way to do what I want to do:
public void go1() {
Object mutex = new Object();
mutex m = new mutex(mutex);
Thread t1 = new Thread(()->{
try {
m.step1();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(()->{
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
m.step2();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
and finally the main
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object mutex = new Object();
new mutex(mutex).go1();
//new mutex(mutex).go2();
}
The above code works and shows what I am expecting:
acquiring lock
got in sync block
calling wait
acquiring lock
got in sync block
calling notify
notify called
wait finished
I get why it works. This is what I expected to happen and how I have been taught to do this. The question comes now as I will paste the second variant of the main function I wanted to test - this one just hangs when the wait() is called.
public void go2() {
Object mutex = new Object();
mutex m = new mutex(mutex);
try {
m.step1();
Thread.sleep(1000);
m.step2();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Why does this hang?
Is it because there is just one thread doing everything and it goes into waiting state after the wait() is called?
I know that when wait is called on the monitor object it should also release the lock, so why in this case the program can't get to call the step2()?
Is there a way to use the my second go() function to achieve this process or is it impossible for it to work?
TLDR just so I am making sure I can be understood: do I have to use dedicated threads to also use properly wait() and notify()? Because I seem to get deadlocks if I don't.
Thank you.
Once you call mutex#wait, the current thread is added to the wait set of object mutex. And thread will not execute any further instructions until it has been removed from mutex's wait set. That's why step2 cannot be executed by the current thread.
The current thread will be removed from the wait set and resume if other threads call mutex#notify/notifyAll. See JLS#WAIT for all situations in which the current thread can resume..
I've an object that's created when the class is instantiated. I create a lock i-e; wait() on that object inside a background thread, however the app still gets unresponsive. My understanding of synchronization/locking is that if object.wait() is called in the main thread than it's equivalent to blocking the main thread however if it's called inside a background thread (even though the object upon which wait() is called in the main thread, shouldn't cause problems).
Can someone please help me out understanding this?
Example code:
class MyClass {
private final Object myLockObject = new Object();
public void connect() {
new Thread(new Runnable{
mSocket.connect();
myLockObject.wait(); // causing ANR
}).start();
}
private void socketConnectCallback() {
//upon callback
myLockObject.notifyAll();
}
}
class MyAndroidService extends Service {
public void onStartCommand() {
MyClass myClassObject = new MyClass();
myClassObject.connect();
//it immediately returns here even with the code written above.
}
}
First of all, this code will throw an IllegalMonitorStateException. This is because before calling object.wait(), you need to make sure that you are holding the object's monitor. One way to do this is to use:
synchronised(object) {
// this thread now owns the object's monitor
object.wait();
}
Further, the thread that calls for object.wait() relinquishes its ownership on that object's monitor and waits for some other thread to notify it. Once it gets the notification, it will wait until it reacquires the object's monitor (since some other thread might be having the ownership of that monitor even if the waiting thread got the notify signal). Then it continues normal execution.
In your case, the background thread should block, and the main thread should continue executing normally. Isn't this what you have mentioned is happening?
I don't know if this will help so much, but I can't comment so I want to get your attention to this code:
newThread(new Runnable {
mSocket.connect();
myLockObject.wait();
}).start();
This must be like:
(new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
mSocket.connect(); // connect takes argument(s)
} catch (IOException e) {
// Catch the excpetion
}
try {
myLockObject.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Catch the excpetion
}
}
})).start();
and since Runnable is a functional interface you can use lambda expression instead of creating a new object.
Edit:
I think I figured out what do you want to do, if you want to make a thread that connects the socket and then wait to be notified and want it to acquire the intrinsic lock of the object myLockObject to prevent interleaving then you have to put the code you want to be executed by the thread in a guarded block:
private final void connectSocket() {
synchronized(myLockObject) {
try {
mSocket.connect(null);
} catch (IOException e) {
}
try {
myLockObject.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
and in the connect method just call connectSocket
public void connect() {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
connectSocket();
}
}).start();
}
I wrote following Code :
public class ThreadDemo implements Runnable
{
private Thread t ;
private String threadName;
ThreadDemo(String threadName)
{
this.t = new Thread(this,threadName);
t.start();
}
public void run()
{
System.out.println("New thread has been started!!!" + t.getName());
}
public static void main(String args[])
{
new ThreadDemo("Thread-1");
Thread t = Thread.currentThread();
try {
t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
new ThreadDemo("Thread-2");
}
}
So i have putted the join method on main thread . When i run it ,its execution never end.
Why it is so ? Why main thread doesn't end ? why it's running for infinite time.
The join() method waits for the thread that you call it on to finish. In your code, you are calling join() on the current thread - that is the same thread as you are calling it from. The main thread is now going to wait for itself to finish. That never happens, because it's waiting on itself...
You should not join the main thread, but the thread that you started instead.
ThreadDemo demo = new ThreadDemo("Thread-1");
try {
demo.t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
Just another perspective to this code....
This code will hang even if you do not initialize the ThreadDemo objects
within the main program.
In short all this code can be reduced to saying the following statement,
Thread.currentThread().join() will never return.
I do not understand why Java throw exception from subject in this code. Could somebody explain me it?
class Wait implements Runnable
{
public void run() {
synchronized (Object.class) {
try {
while(true) {
System.out.println("Before wait()");
wait();
System.out.println("After wait()");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public class ObjectMethodInConcurency
{
public static void main(String[] args) {
Wait w = new Wait();
(new Thread(w)).start();
}
}
Use synchronized (this) { instead of synchronized (Object.class) in your class
EDIT
Reasoning behind the IllegalMonitorException in above code
In Java using synchronized keyword is a way to create and obtain a monitor object which will be used as lock to execute corresponding code block.
In the above code that monitor is "Object.class".
And wait() method tells the current thread to wait until it is notifyed and you have to invoke wait() on the monitor object which owns the lock.
So the way to invoke wait() method is like below otherwise you will get IllegalMonitorException.
synchronized(monitor){
monitor.wait();
}
So for your example you can either use "Object.class.wait()" or change the monitor to this since you are calling wait() method on the current instance
I have a method and a thread which I'd like to run in the following order: First the method should do something with an object, and then the thread should do something with the object. They share the same object. I have to synchronize them, but I am just meeting with Threads. How can I do that?
private synchronized method()
{
//do something with an object (a field)
}
Runnable ObjectUpdater = new Runnable()
{
//do something with the object after the method has finished
}
My code, that somehow manages to freeze my Main thread (where the method is)
My thread code:
private Runnable something = new Runnable(){
synchronized (this){
while (flag == false)
{ try {wait();)
catch (IntExc ie) {e.printStackTrace...}
}
//here it does its thing
}
setFlag(false);
}
My method code (part of the main thread)
private void Method()
{
//do its thing
setFlag(true);
notifyAll();
}
To me that is simple questions
" you said that I do not know which is
going to access the object first - the
separate ObjectUpdater thread, or the
main thread (with the method). If the
separate thread accesses it before the
main thread, that is bad and I don't
want this to happen"
if you want the main thread method to call first then the objectUpdater thread , have a flag to know whether the method is visited first by main thread ,if it is updater then call wait to this thread , once main finishes it call notify which will run separator thread,
to know which thread is main thread or updater thread , set a name to the thread while creating it. and get the name as Thread.currentThread().getName().
Use the Semaphore class to allow access to the object.
public class Main
{
public static void main (String[] args) {
final Obj obj = new Obj();
final Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(0);
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
semaphore.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
return;
}
obj.doSomething();
}
});
t.setName("test");
t.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ignored) {
}
obj.doSomething();
semaphore.release();
}
}
class Obj {
public void doSomething() {
System.out.println("something done by " + Thread.currentThread());
}
}
Apart from synchronizing on the object, you could call the method as first statement in the new thread, or you could start the new thread at the end of the method.
It is hard to say what is the best approach in your case, maybe you can give us some more details on the how and what?
Update
In answer to your code (for some reason I cannot add another comment...)
Is the method called from a synchronized(this) block? If not the notifyAll() should be in a synchronized block. Also, can you update the code to show where/how your main thread interacts with the method and the object?
I think better approach would be to call the method using which you want to perform something with an object, and then declare the thread which would do something with an object.