I have a task executor which takes runnable as a task. I am starting a timer before calling runnable.run() method and stopping it when the runnable finished. I want to terminate the execution of run() method from the executor itself if the timer exceeds the time limit. I do not know what user will implement in run().
TaskExecutor.add(new Runnable () {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("This is test job");
}}
);
This is how the user adds a new task. Every task runs in the same thread.
Edit
This task executor will act as a service to users. And because creating threads are expensive operation and requires native OS calls, I am trying to avoid them. Otherwise I would call Thread.interrupt() at some point. But I just want to know if there is a way to terminate the run() method from a parent object. Terminate means to stop something abruptly. As how we terminate processes in OS task manager.
How tasks are executed
while (jobQueue.isEmpty()) {
for (Job job : jobQueue) {
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
job.run();
//There is a separate thread which checks
//for timeout flags by comparing the startTime
//with the current time. But all tasks are
//executed in the same thread sequentially. I
//only want to terminate single jobs that are
//timed out.
}
}
you can check condition for your timer,if timer exceeds you can interrupt your thread like-
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
It will stop your current Thread.
I just want to know if there is a way to terminate the run() method from a parent object.
You can't really terminate a method, and you can't really do anything from an object.
It's often convenient to say "this object does X," or "this method does Y," but objects and methods don't really do anything. When you're talking about multi-threaded code, it's important to realize that everything your program does is done by threads. Methods are just the instructions that tell threads what to do, and objects are what the threads do it to.
You can interrupt a thread, which is only a good idea if the thread is designed to gracefully handle the interrupt; and you can terminate a thread, which basically is never a good idea.
Threads should always cooperate with one another. You need to provide a means by which your program can politely ask the client-provided callback to abort its work and return early. If the client code does not respect your request (i.e., if the client code does not cooperate), that's the client programmer's fault for not obeying your guidelines.
The simplest way to do it would be to simply expose some static boolean method that the client can periodically check to see whether it's time to abort.
Related
I want to stop / kill all Threads (Runnables) started by Main after a given timeout. I tried to do as mentioned below. But it is not working as expected. Apart from that, I tried with the Thread.interrupt() but the results is negative. I tried thread.stop(). It is working but deprecated.
Can anyone give some idea on this?
Note : I'm focusing on a solution for Runnables not Callables. And I'm trying to do this bymodifying only the client code (Main). Not the Threads (Supplier)
Main
Thread roxtoursThrd = new Thread(new Supplier("roxtours", 1));
Thread bluevacationsThrd = new Thread(new Supplier("bluevacations", 1));
Thread elixerThrd = new Thread(new Supplier("elixer", 1));
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
taskExecutor.execute(roxtoursThrd);
taskExecutor.execute(bluevacationsThrd);
taskExecutor.execute(elixerThrd);
taskExecutor.shutdown();
// taskExecutor.shutdownNow(); // This is also not stopping threads. They continue.
try {
taskExecutor.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
Supplier.java
public class Supplier implements Runnable {
public Supplier(String name, int count) {
this.name = name;
this.count = count;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// Some time consuming operations (URL Connections, XML Decoding, DB Queries etc etc) are goes in here.
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
String name = null;
int count = 0;
Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(Supplier.class);
}
Making the executor's tasks respond to interruption will require changing the code for the Suppliers. Interruption is cooperative; the thread being interrupted gets a flag set on it, but it's up to the thread to decide how to handle it. If your Runnable doesn't act on it, as in your example, then nothing happens, the thread just keeps on executing.
The Executor can only cancel threads that respond to interruption, see the API documentation for ExecutorService.shutdownNow:
There are no guarantees beyond best-effort attempts to stop processing actively executing tasks. For example, typical implementations will cancel via Thread.interrupt(), so any task that fails to respond to interrupts may never terminate.
A thread can check its flag with the Thread#isInterrupted method. Your Runnable task should check Thread.getCurrentThread().isInterrupted().
If a thread is waiting or sleeping when the interrupted flag is set then an InterruptedException will be thrown and the flag will be cleared.
Do not use Thread#setDaemon(true) unless you're prepared for those threads to disappear suddenly with no warning and no chance to clean up pending tasks when the rest of the application shuts down.
The other option is the deprecated Thread#stop method, which causes ThreadDeath to be thrown. Unlike interruption, this is not cooperative, and it's between difficult and impossible to write code that can predictably and cleanly terminate when this exception occurs, because ThreadDeath can be thrown anywhere, unlike InterruptedException, which is much more manageable since it is only thrown from specific blocking calls.
Use shutdownNow() instead of shutdown().
The shutdown() will initiate the shutdown and it will not accept any new tasks but you never know when the threads will be actually stopped.
The shutdownNow() will immediately attempts to stop all the active threads and this will return all the active threads which are awaiting for execution.
Again there is no guarantee that all the threads will be stopped immediately (Threads will go for a graceful shutdown and it may take time based on the task given to the thread). We have to use either of the below methods to wait till all the threads are completed its execution.
executor.awaitTermination(...);
or
while (! executor.isTerminated()) {
// Sleep for few milliseconds...
}
Refer the doc: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ExecutorService.html#shutdown%28%29
Your thread's run method is not blocking, hence it does not run into a situation where an InterruptedException is thrown.
When a Thread is inerrupted, besides throwing an exception if it is blocking, it also has its interrupted status set, that is to say the method Thread#isInterrupted() returns true. Also, the method Thread#interrupted also returns true, but with the latter the interrupted status of the thread is cleared.
In your example you are not blocking nor are you checking the threads inerrupted status.
EDIT: Since you are not checking to see if the thread is interupted nor are you blocking, then you can't stop the threads explicitly, but you can stop them by making them daemon threads and then when your main thread (which is a user thread) finishes, all the other daemon threads will stop. Main difference between daemon thread and user thread is that as soon as all user thread finish execution java program or JVM terminates itself, JVM doesn't wait for daemon thread to finish there execution.
If you want to interrupt threads, you have to provide interruption entrance point. Sleep for a very short time, for example, then catch and handle InterruptionException.
Next what you can do is make use of isInterrupted() method in every iteration and the handle that as well.
Other approach would be to make all the threads daemons with setDaemon(), as they would be killed after main thread finishes, but this would be useful only if main was to be stopped.
In response to your edit/updated question:
excerpt from shutdownNow() documentation
There are no guarantees beyond best-effort attempts to stop processing
actively executing tasks. For example, typical implementations will
cancel via Thread.interrupt(), so any task that fails to respond to
interrupts may never terminate.
So either you prepare you application to work as multi-threaded or you stick to single thread.
Also, see How do you kill a thread in Java?.
And the most important link from the question above: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/misc/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html
I am having an issue ending threads once my program my has finished. I run a threaded clock object and it works perfectly but I need to end all threads when the time ´==´ one hour that bit seems to work I just need to know how to end them. Here is an example of the code I have and this is the only thing that runs in the run method apart from one int defined above this code.
#Override
public void run()
{
int mins = 5;
while(clock.getHour() != 1)
{
EnterCarPark();
if(clock.getMin() >= mins)
{
System.out.println("Time: " + clock.getTime() + " " + entryPoint.getRoadName() + ": " + spaces.availablePermits() + " Spaces");
mins += 5;
}
}
}
But when you keep watching the threads that are running in the debug mode of netbeans they keep running after an hour has passed not sure how to fix this. I have tried the interrupt call but it seems to do nothing.
There are two ways to stop a thread in a nice way, and one in an evil way.
For all you need access to the object of the thread (or in the first case a Runnable class that is executed on that thread).
So your first task is to make sure you can access a list of all threads you want to stop. Also notice that you need to make sure you are using threadsafe communication when dealing with objects used by several threads!
Now you have the following options
Interrupt mechanisme
Call Thread.interrupt() on each thread. This will throw an InterruptedException on the thread if you are in a blocking function. Otherwise it will only set the isInterrupted() flag, so you have to check this as well. This is a very clean and versatile way that will try to interrupt blocking functions by this thread. However many people don't understand how to nicely react to the InterruptedException, so it could be more prone to bugs.
isRunning flag
Have a boolean 'isRunning' in your thread. The while loop calls a function 'stopRunning()' that sets this boolean to false. In your thread you periodically read this boolean and stop execution when it is set to false.
This boolean needs to be threadsafe, this could be done by making it volatile (or using synchronized locking).
This also works well when you have a Runnable, which is currently the advised way of running tasks on Threads (because you can easily move Runnables to Threadpools etc.
Stop thread (EVIL)
A third and EVIL and deprecated way is to call Thread.stop(). This is very unsafe and will likely lead to unexpected behavior, don't do this!
Make sure that the loop inside every thread finishes - if it does in all the threads, it does not make sense that there are prints in the output. Just note that what you are checking in each loop condition check if the current hour is not 1 PM, not if an hour has not passed.
Also, your threads garbage collected, which means that the Garbage Collector is responsible for their destruction after termination - but in that case they should not output anything.
A volatile variable shared by all the Threads should help to achieve the goal. The importance of a volatile variable is that each of the Threads will not cache or have local copy but will need to directly read from the main memory. Once it is updated, the threads will get the fresh data.
public class A{
public static volatile boolean letThreadsRun = true;
}
// inside your Thread class
#Override
public void run()
{ // there will come a point when A.letThreadsRun will be set to false when desired
while(A.letThreadsRun)
{
}
}
If two threads are both reading and writing to a shared variable, then
using the volatile keyword for that is not enough. You need to use
synchronization in that case to guarantee that the reading and writing
of the variable is atomic.
Here are links that may help you to grasp the concept:
http://tutorials.jenkov.com/java-concurrency/volatile.html
http://java.dzone.com/articles/java-volatile-keyword-0
If these threads are still running after your main program has finished, then it may be appropriate to set them as daemon threads. The JVM will exit once all non-daemon threads have finished, killing all remaining daemon threads.
If you start the threads like:
Thread myThread = new MyThread();
myThread.start();
Then daemon-izing them is as simple as:
Thread myThread = new MyThread();
myThread.setDaemon(true);
myThread.start();
It's a bad practice to externally terminate threads or to rely on external mechanisms like kill for proper program termination. Threads should always be designed to self-terminate and not leave resources (and shared objects) in a potentially indeterminate state. Every time I have encountered a thread that didn't stop when it was supposed to, it was always a programming error. Go check your code and then step through the run loop in a debugger.
Regarding your thread, it should self-terminate when the hour reaches 1, but if it is below or above 1, it will not terminate. I would make sure that clock's hour count reaches one if minutes go past 59 and also check that it doesn't somehow skip 1 and increment off in to the sunset, having skipped the only tested value. Also check that clock.getHour() is actually returning the hour count instead of a dummy value or something grossly incorrect.
Have you considered using an ExecutorService ? It behaves more predictably and avoids the overhead of thread creation. My suggestion is that you wrap your while loop within one and set a time limit of 1 hr.
Using Thread.interrupt() will not stop the thread from running, it merely sends a signal to you thread. It's our job to listen for this signal and act accordingly.
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable(){
public void run(){
// look for the signal
if(!Thread.interrupted()){
// keep doing whatever you're doing
}
}
});
// After 1 hour
t.interrupt();
But instead of doing all this work, consider using an ExecutorService. You can use Executors class with static methods to return different thread pools.
Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10)
creates a fixed thread pool of size 10 and any more jobs will go to queue for processing later
Executors.newCachedThreadPool()
starts with 0 threads and creates new threads and adds them to pool on required basis if all the existing threads are busy with some task. This one has a termination strategy that if a thread is idle for 60 seconds, it will remove that thread from the pool
Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor()
creates a single thread which will feed from a queue, all the tasks that're submitted will be processed one after the other.
You can submit your same Runnable tasks to your thread pool. Executors also has methods to get pools to which you can submit scheduled tasks, things you want to happen in future
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
service.execute(myRunnableTask);
Coming to your question, when you use thread pools, you have an option to shut down them after some time elapsed like this
service.shutdown();
service.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
Few things to pay attention
shutdown() Initiates an orderly shutdown in which previously submitted tasks are executed, but no new tasks will be accepted. Invocation has no additional effect if already shut down.
awaitTermination() is waiting for the state of the executor to go to TERMINATED. But first the state must go to SHUTDOWN if shutdown() is called or STOP if shutdownNow() is called.
I am runnning ExecutorService to perform a heavy computation, however I don't want to pollute the algorithmic class/method code with runner operations, in this case I'd like to do periodical check if it should be terminated gracefully.
I tried to search for solutions, still with no success, what I concluded is that this is not possible because only the thread itself is allowed to "autokill himself".
So my question is, if there is any way to terminate the thread "outside" of the thread by invoking some forcefull atempt to kill the thread.
If not maybe the best solution is to use aspect and intercept each iteration by adding a kill status check ?
You can call thread.interrupt(). This can cause thread to exit if it "respects" interruptions. For example if thread is blocked on IO or on wait() or on sleep() InterruptedExcption will be thrown. However if it is "blocked" on busy loop that does not check isInterrupted() flag interruption will not work.
Other way to indeed kill the thread is to call deprecated method stop(). However this is the last possibility. This method is deprecated because it indeed kills threads immediately (like kill -9) that can cause resource leaks.
Bottom line: to be able to stop threads grecefully you have to write code that is ready for this and the standard solution is to respect thread interrupts.
There sure is a way to forcefully terminate a thread: Thread#stop, but it is almost never advisable. Your idea with aspects seems quite fruitful, but if you have any sort of a main loop in your task, then consider replacing the loop with a series of submitted tasks where each task is one iteration. This will allow ExecutorService#shutdown to interrupt the processing. All state can be carried along in the instance of Runnable that is being submitted.
I haven't used the ExecutorService much. But reading the JavaDocs it appears that you submit a callable or runnable to the service. Those methods return a Future object which have a cancel method on it.
cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning)
Have you tried using that?
The method thread.interrupt() stop the thread and you can call it outside the thread itself!
If you do not want to change the original implementation, you could wrap the thread. I'm not very familar with Java, so I'm sorry for the obviously not compiling example:
class ThreadWrapper extends Thread {
public ThreadWrapper(Thread t, TerminateCallback c) {
// ...
}
#Override
public void run() {
t.start(Thread.SYNCHRONOUS);
c.done(this);
}
}
You'd need to implement TerminateCallback yourself. I also assume there is a way to start a thread synchronously, Thread.SYNCHRONOUS is just a place holder. If this condition is fulfilled, I'm sure you can transfer it into valid code. :)
Lets say i am in the main method calling a process. Now if this process is stuck or taking too long, normally one can interupt it by interupting the thread.
But incase i have it implemented in the main method not in any external thread, how can i call that current thread itself for interuption like we call say thread.interupt();
Please back up a second. Thread.interrupt only interrupts wait conditions, not computations. There is no Java construct (except the monitoring/debugging agents) for interrupting a computation.
So, if you want a long-running computation to be interruptible, you have to write it to carefully check for interrupts every so often.
If you want to be able to 'interrupt' from outside the process altogether, you will need to handle signals. That's about the only interpretation I've been able to place on your question about the main thread.
This blog post (not mine) has the basic information. From a handler, you could interrupt, for example, the main thread.
You can let another thread interrupt "you" (main). Like this:
final Thread me = Thread.currentThread();
Thread wake_me_up = new Thread(){
#Override
public void run(){
//InterruptionException try catch omitted.
Thread.sleep(200);
me.interrupt();
}
};
wake_me_up.start();
try{
go_into_cave();
}catch(InterruptedException e){
//I got interrupted
System.out.println("thank you, you saved my life");
}
go_home();
While I find it hard to read...
In the main method, you'll have a reference to all Threads. Just get the right reference and do something like this
someThread.interrupt();
Make sure you don't forget to check if the Thread that is running got the flag to interrupt set true.
For example, in the middle of it's method, it needs to be checked if itself isInterrupted() by some Thread else
if(Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
doSomeStuff();
}
You can create a new Thread and call your process from inside the new Thread. Interrupt this thread and catch the exception as per your logic.
I am not sure how to do it only form within the main method, but if your process call is called through a method, just call this method from a new thread and put up a timer in the main method. Once the timer expires, interrupt that thread and you're good to go.
If you're trying to kill the process, because it's hung, why are you even worrying about the thread? Runtime.exec() returns a Process object, which you can use to destroy the subprocess. You should be able to:
Spawn the subprocess, saving the Process object.
Presumably, you're reading the output stream of the process, via what is returned by
Process.getInputStream(). So, continue to do that.
However, spawn a second thread (or use the main thread) to monitor the process. If it
decides that the process has run too long, it can kill it via Process.destroy().
At that point, the first thread should get an EOF or an IOException (stream closed) on
the process's output stream.
I have a multi-threaded program, where I have one thread to watch over several threads. The functioning is designed like this:
Main program does initiation and starts Watcher Thread, in void Main(), I have the line
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread(new ShutdownThread(), "Exit Listener"));
When I don't start the watcher thread, the ShutdownThread is called when I terminate the program, but when I start the Watcher thread which has a dead loop in it, the ShutdownThread is not called (I print out a message in that thread). That is very very strange. Any explanations?
The watcher thread is like:
public void run(){
boolean running=false;
thread a=new thread(...); //Do the same thing for b, c, d...
while(true){
if (a.isActive()){
if (running)
thread a= new thread(...);
a.start();
running=true;
}
Thread.sleep(1000); //try catch block...
}
What I would like is a graceful shutdown, that upon getting a terminate signal, shutdownThread is run, sets a flag and interrupts all threads, and waits for the threads to interrupt it, or it timeout so that the remaining threads can be killed. All the threads can catch an interuption, and check if a flag is set, if set, it will interrupt shutdownThread and then exit itself. Instead what I am seeing is all the threads are terminating by itself, doing no cleanup at all.
How about using signals? Is there any good cross-platform code for that?
Then, setUncaughtExceptionHandler doesn't work either. I did testing, and found that the handler isn't called at all. I don't know why. The code for the handler is:
public static class ErrHandler implements Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler{
public final void uncaughtException(Thread t, Throwable e) {
Error(t + "died, threw exception: " + e);
}
}//this is in public class globals
I hook it using
producer.setUncaughtExceptionHandler(Globals.errhandler);
Is in my code, and I only see the original e.printStack() instead. It seems that I can't override it, either in the parent thread, or in itself. This is so frustrating. I'm thinking of putting a Entry into a queue, and reading it elsewhere. At least that may work.
Oh, the whole purpose is to make sure that if any of the threads die because of runtime exceptions, the watcher thread will check whether the exception is fatal enough, and decide to restart that thread or to quit altogether. At the same time, I would like the program to end gracefully (an interrupt is sent to saver threads so that it dumps the results out, and then interrupts back to tell that we are ready to quit) when the user ends it.
Dunno if it helps you, but we encountered the same behaviour.
Not all exceptions are routed correctly to the registered ExceptionHandler.
I wonder if Unit-Tests exists at all for the concurrent framework. Because this had to be detected.
We implemented the ScheduledExecutorService by ourself by using a ScheduledExecutorService instance as delegate and encapsulate the parameter Runnable/Callable of each method in a Runnable/Callable implementation which corrects the behaviour.