Develop Reference

ExecutorService and AtomicInteger : RejectedExecutionException

I want atomicInteger to have a value of 100 then the program terminates
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
AtomicInteger atomicInteger = new AtomicInteger(0);
do {
executor.submit(() -> {
System.out.println(atomicInteger.getAndAdd(10));
if (atomicInteger.get() == 100) {
//executor.shutdownNown();
}
});
} while (true);
}
I have error
Exception in thread "main" java.util.concurrent.RejectedExecutionException: Task java.util.concurrent.FutureTask#1d8d10a rejected from java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor#9e54c2[Terminated, pool size = 0, active threads = 0, queued tasks = 0, completed tasks = 10]
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$AbortPolicy.rejectedExecution(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:2063)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.reject(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:830)
at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.execute(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1374)
at java.util.concurrent.AbstractExecutorService.submit(AbstractExecutorService.java:112)
at java.util.concurrent.Executors$DelegatedExecutorService.submit(Executors.java:678)
How should I implement it.

There is no need to use AtomicInteger here, since your Runnable lambda function invocations are guaranteed to execute sequentially (by new SingleThreadExecutor). Also, your Runnable lambda code were to take any time to execute (e.g. 2ms), your main loop will queue up far more than 10 tasks needed to hit your limit. You can see this happen if you add a 2ms sleep inside your Runnable lambda function, and also add a counter to your do/while loop, and print the value of the counter out at the end to see how many instances Runnables you queued up.
Assuming that you wish to test this code with concurrent threads, you would need to replace the call to newSingleThreadPool with newFixedThreadPool. The approach your code takes is problematic when concurrent threads are being used. In the following code, I've switched to newFixedThreadPool, added a counter, so we can see how many tasks are queued, and added to short pauses in your Runnable lambda function, just to represent a small amount of work. When I execute this program, atomicInteger became greater than 13000 and the program crashed with java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: GC overhead limit exceeded That is because, your runnable function always adds 10 to atomicInteger regardless of it's current value. And also, the code queues up more tasks than it needs. Here's the code with these small changes that illustrate the problem.
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
AtomicInteger atomicInteger = new AtomicInteger(0);
int i=0;
do {
executor.submit(() -> {
pause(2); // simulates some small amount of work.
System.out.println("atomicInt="+atomicInteger.getAndAdd(10));
pause(2); // simulates some small amount of work.
if (atomicInteger.get() == 100) {
System.out.println("executor.shutdownNow()");
System.out.flush();
executor.shutdownNow();
}
});
if (atomicInteger.get() == 100) {
break;
}
} while (true);
System.out.println("final atomicInt="+atomicInteger.get());
System.out.println("final tasks queued="+i);
}
public static void pause(long millis) {
try {
Thread.sleep(millis);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
Here is a version that fixes the concurrency problems and moves the executor management out of the worker threads where it doesn't really belong:
private static int LIMIT = 100;
private static int INCREMENT = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
AtomicInteger atomicInteger = new AtomicInteger(0);
for (int i=0; i < LIMIT/INCREMENT; i++) {
executor.submit(() -> {
pause(2);
System.out.println("atomicInt=" + atomicInteger.getAndAdd(INCREMENT));
System.out.flush();
pause(2);
});
}
executor.shutdown();
while (!executor.isTerminated()) {
System.out.println("Executor not yet terminated");
System.out.flush();
pause(4);
}
System.out.println("final atomicInt=" + atomicInteger.get());
}
public static void pause(long millis) {
try {
Thread.sleep(millis);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}

You should just change your while loop to check for the condition that you needed and shutdown the executor after that

Java ScheduledExecutorService - Preventing Starvation in Multiple Parallel Tasks

I'm working on a program that needs to inspect multiple resources in parallel and periodically:
public class JobRunner {
private final SensorService sensorService;
private ScheduledExecutorService executor = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors());
public void run() {
sensorService.finalAll().forEach(sensor -> {
Runnable task = () -> {
// read and save new data to log
List<Double> data = sensor.fetchNewData();
this.save(data);
};
// execute every 10 sec
executor.scheduleWithFixedDelay(task, 0, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
});
}
public void save(List<Double> data) {
// ...
}
}
The findAll call returns a list of about 50 sensors, but when I run the program I see that while all sensors are queried on the first period, only 2-3 are called on subsequent executions (e.g - at 20 sec, 30 sec, etc). I'm thinking that since some sensors return faster than others, they complete the task's waiting cycle earlier and are grabbed by the next thread in the pool, thereby starving the other tasks that are slower to finish.
How can I ensure all tasks (sensors) are given equal treatment? What's are some best practices here; should I use a job queue or a different concurrency mechanism? Thanks.

In your code there are N=count service.findAll() timers, which makes debugging and testing more difficult. Moreover there is no guarantee that old task will be executed and not overtaken by the new one in reasonable time. What if you
Use single timer which triggers sensors check 10s after last all sensors check completed
Go through sensors concurrently when check is triggered by the timer
Please, see the next code as an example. It prints 50 integers every 10 seconds and EOL afterwards. Parallelism is achieved with Stream API
ScheduledExecutorService executor = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
executor.scheduleWithFixedDelay(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
IntStream.range(0, 50).parallel().forEach(i -> System.out.print(i + " "));
System.out.println();
}
}, 0, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
You may replace ScheduledExecutorService with Timer to make code clearer. And, as an option, instead of using parallel streams you can use another ExecutorService, submitting next N tasks to it on Timer and waiting until they are completed:
ExecutorService workerExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors());
Timer timer = new Timer();
timer.schedule(new TimerTask() {
#Override
public void run() {
List<Future<Void>> futures = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++) {
final int index = i;
Future<Void> future = workerExecutor.submit(new Callable<Void>() {
#Override
public Void call() throws Exception {
System.out.print(index + " ");
return null;
}
});
futures.add(future);
}
for (Future<Void> future : futures) {
try {
future.get();
} catch (InterruptedException|ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException();
}
}
System.out.println();
}
}, 0, 10_000);

Learning about Threads

I have written a simple program, that is intended to start a few threads. The threads should then pick a integer n from an integer array, use it to wait n and return the time t the thread waited back into an array for the results.
If one thread finishes it's task, it should pick the next one, that has not yet being assigned to another thread.
Of course: The order in the arrays has to be maintained, so that integers and results match.
My code runs smoothly as far I see.
However I use one line of code block I find in particular unsatisfying and hope there is a good way to fix this without changing too much:
while(Thread.activeCount() != 1); // first evil line
I kinda abuse this line to make sure all my threads finish getting all the tasks done, before I access my array with the results. I want to do that to prevent ill values, like 0.0, Null Pointer Exception... etc. (in short anything that would make an application with an actual use crash)
Any sort of constructive help is appreciated. I am also not sure, if my code still runs smoothly for very very long arrays of tasks for the threads, for example the results no longer match the order of the integer.
Any constructive help is appreciated.
First class:
public class ThreadArrayWriterTest {
int[] repitions;
int len = 0;
double[] timeConsumed;
public boolean finished() {
synchronized (repitions) {
return len <= 0;
}
}
public ThreadArrayWriterTest(int[] repitions) {
this.repitions = repitions;
this.len = repitions.length;
timeConsumed = new double[this.len];
}
public double[] returnTimes(int[] repititions, int numOfThreads, TimeConsumer timeConsumer) {
for (int i = 0; i < numOfThreads; i++) {
new Thread() {
public void run() {
while (!finished()) {
len--;
timeConsumed[len] = timeConsumer.returnTimeConsumed(repititions[len]);
}
}
}.start();
}
while (Thread.activeCount() != 1) // first evil line
;
return timeConsumed;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
long begin = System.currentTimeMillis();
int[] repitions = { 3, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 3, 3 };
int numberOfThreads = 10;
ThreadArrayWriterTest t = new ThreadArrayWriterTest(repitions);
double[] times = t.returnTimes(repitions, numberOfThreads, new TimeConsumer());
for (double d : times) {
System.out.println(d);
}
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Total time of execution: " + (end - begin));
}
}
Second class:
public class TimeConsumer {
double returnTimeConsumed(int repitions) {
long before = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < repitions; i++) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
long after = System.currentTimeMillis();
double ret = after - before;
System.out.println("It takes: " + ret + "ms" + " for " + repitions + " runs through the for-loop");
return ret;
}
}

The easiest way to wait for all threads to complete is to keep a Collection of them and then call Thread.join() on each one in turn.

In addition to .join() you can use ExecutorService to manage pools of threads,
An Executor that provides methods to manage termination and methods
that can produce a Future for tracking progress of one or more
asynchronous tasks.
An ExecutorService can be shut down, which will cause it to reject new
tasks. Two different methods are provided for shutting down an
ExecutorService. The shutdown() method will allow previously submitted
tasks to execute before terminating, while the shutdownNow() method
prevents waiting tasks from starting and attempts to stop currently
executing tasks. Upon termination, an executor has no tasks actively
executing, no tasks awaiting execution, and no new tasks can be
submitted. An unused ExecutorService should be shut down to allow
reclamation of its resources.
Method submit extends base method Executor.execute(Runnable) by
creating and returning a Future that can be used to cancel execution
and/or wait for completion. Methods invokeAny and invokeAll perform
the most commonly useful forms of bulk execution, executing a
collection of tasks and then waiting for at least one, or all, to
complete.
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(maximumNumberOfThreads);
CompletionService completionService = new ExecutorCompletionService(executorService);
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfTasks; ++i) {
completionService.take();
}
executorService.shutdown();
Plus take a look at ThreadPoolExecutor

Since java provides more advanced threading API with concurrent package, You should have look into ExecutorService, which simplifies thread management mechanism.
Simple to solution to your problem.
Use Executors API to create thread pool
static ExecutorService newFixedThreadPool(int nThreads)
Creates a thread pool that reuses a fixed number of threads operating off a shared unbounded queue.
Use invokeAll to wait for all tasks to complete.
Sample code:
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
List<MyCallable> futureList = new ArrayList<MyCallable>();
for ( int i=0; i<12; i++){
MyCallable myCallable = new MyCallable((long)i);
futureList.add(myCallable);
}
System.out.println("Start");
try{
List<Future<Long>> futures = service.invokeAll(futureList);
for(Future<Long> future : futures){
try{
System.out.println("future.isDone = " + future.isDone());
System.out.println("future: call ="+future.get());
}
catch(Exception err1){
err1.printStackTrace();
}
}
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
service.shutdown();
Refer to this related SE question for more details on achieving the same:
wait until all threads finish their work in java

How to run two threads at the same time in java

I am new to java and I am trying to learn about threads.
I am expecting an output of alternate hello this is thread one and hello this is thread two. but the output I get is as follows:
hello this is thread one
hello this is thread one
hello this is thread one
hello this is thread one
hello this is thread one
hello this is thread two
hello this is thread two
hello this is thread two
hello this is thread two
hello this is thread two
Below is my code. Can anyone please help me out to why I am getting this output as opposed to expected. And what is it that I can do to run the two threads in parallel.
public class ThreadDemo {
public static void main(String args[]) {
// This is the first block of code
Thread thread = new Thread() {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i += 2) {
System.out.println("hello this is thread one");
}
}
};
// This is the second block of code
Thread threadTwo = new Thread() {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i += 2) {
System.out.println("hello this is thread two");
}
}
};
// These two statements are in the main method and begin the two
// threads.
// This is the third block of code
thread.start();
// This is the fourth block of code
threadTwo.start();
}
}

Just because threads may interlace does not mean that they will. Your threads simply run too fast. Try adding Thread.sleep() to make them run longer.

The problem here is that PrintStream is synchronized which is not fair.
final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock(true); //create fair lock
//after running this code change it to
//ReentrantLock(false); to see what happens
// This is the first block of code
Thread thread = new Thread() {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i += 2) {
lock.lock();
System.out.println("hello this is thread one");
lock.unlock();
}
}
};
// This is the second block of code
Thread threadTwo = new Thread() {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i += 2) {
lock.lock();
System.out.println("hello this is thread two");
lock.unlock();
}
}
};
// These two statements are in the main method and begin the two
// threads.
// This is the third block of code
thread.start();
// This is the fourth block of code
threadTwo.start();
when a lock is fair it will be alot slower, but when its not fair as in your first case it keeps grabbing the lock over and over before the other thread gets a chance to take it. A fair lock is like a queue. Whoever is queued to take it next gets it.

Depending on the number of CPUs and/or CPU cores, multi-threading may only be simulated by your CPU by giving each thread a certain number of time before another thread is scheduled. See also Wikipedia on "Preemptive Multitasking"
Also, given today's CPUs and many cores and their speed, it may also be that the execution of the first thread already finished before the second one is started.
Also, both threads are battling for the lock in System.out, so they will lock each other out.
Let the threads run for longer times (higher number of iterations), and you will see the interleaving you are expecting.

Your code would work too..add sleep in the first object.
// This is the first block of code
Thread thread = new Thread() {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i += 2) {
System.out.println("hello this is thread one");
try {
sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
};

If you want to have the threads' bodies wait until both threads are running, you can use something like a CountDownLatch, which can block until its internal counter counts down to zero:
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(2);
Thread thread = new Thread() {
#Override public void run() {
latch.countDown();
latch.await(); // Execution waits here until latch reaches zero.
// Rest of the method.
}
}
Thread threadTwo = new Thread() {
#Override public void run() {
latch.countDown();
latch.await(); // Execution waits here until latch reaches zero.
// Rest of the method.
}
}
thread.start();
threadTwo.start();
(Exception handling omitted for clarity)
This will guarantee that the "interesting bit" of the two threads' run methods will be executing at the same time. However, because of the unfair synchronization on the println() method you are calling, there is no guarantee of how the messages printed by the two threads will be interleaved:
Sometimes they might "perfectly" interleave (1, 2, 1, 2, ...)
Sometimes a few of one might be printed without anything from the other (1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 2, ...)
Sometimes one might print all of its messages before the other (1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2).

Below code is working...
public class ThreadDemo {
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException {
// This is the first block of code
Thread thread = new Thread() {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i += 2) {
System.out.println("hello this is thread one");
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(ThreadDemo.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
};
// This is the second block of code
Thread threadTwo = new Thread() {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i += 2) {
System.out.println("hello this is thread two");
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(ThreadDemo.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
};
// These two statements are in the main method and begin the two
// threads.
// This is the third block of code
thread.start();
// This is the fourth block of code
threadTwo.start();
}
}

Your code is working as expected, there is absolutely no guarantee that your implementation will execute in the pre-defined manner you are expecting.
I would suggest that you look at other methods of implementing multithreaded code such as join(), sleep() and finding one that better suits your needs.

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. #