Just for learning, I have written the following code for custom thread pool referring and editing the code shown here.
As shown in the code I am using ArrayBlockingQueue for task queue.
Code:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public class ThreadPoolService {
private final BlockingQueue<Runnable> taskQueue;
private final int corePoolSize;
private ThreadPoolService(int corePoolSize) {
this.corePoolSize = corePoolSize;
this.taskQueue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(corePoolSize);
ThreadPool[] threadPool = new ThreadPool[corePoolSize];
for (int i = 0; i < corePoolSize; i++) {
threadPool[i] = new ThreadPool();
threadPool[i].start();
}
}
public static ThreadPoolService newFixedThreadPool(int size) {
return new ThreadPoolService(size);
}
public void execute(Runnable task) {
try {
taskQueue.offer(task, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private class ThreadPool extends Thread {
Runnable task;
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
while (!taskQueue.isEmpty()) {
task = taskQueue.remove();
task.run();
}
} catch (RuntimeException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadPoolService pool = ThreadPoolService.newFixedThreadPool(10);
Runnable task1 = () -> {
System.out.println(" Wait for sometime: -> " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try {
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(2);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
};
Runnable task2 = () -> System.out.println(" Do Task 2 -> " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
Runnable task3 = () -> System.out.println(" Do Task 3 -> " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
Runnable task4 = () -> System.out.println(" Do Task 4 -> " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
List<Runnable> taskList = new ArrayList<>();
taskList.add(task1);
taskList.add(task2);
taskList.add(task3);
taskList.add(task4);
for (Runnable task : taskList) {
pool.execute(task);
}
}
}
This code runs fine sometimes and sometimes gives an error.
Success output:
Do Task 2 -> Thread-2
Wait for sometime: -> Thread-8
Do Task 3 -> Thread-6
Do Task 4 -> Thread-7
Failure output:
Do Task 4 -> Thread-3
Do Task 3 -> Thread-6
Wait for sometime: -> Thread-4
Do Task 2 -> Thread-7
java.util.NoSuchElementException
at java.util.AbstractQueue.remove(AbstractQueue.java:117)
at com.interview.java.ThreadPoolService$ThreadPool.run(ThreadPoolService.java:43)
java.util.NoSuchElementException
at java.util.AbstractQueue.remove(AbstractQueue.java:117)
at com.interview.java.ThreadPoolService$ThreadPool.run(ThreadPoolService.java:43)
java.util.NoSuchElementException
at java.util.AbstractQueue.remove(AbstractQueue.java:117)
at com.interview.java.ThreadPoolService$ThreadPool.run(ThreadPoolService.java:43)
I see the reason for the error is the attempt to remove the element when the queue is empty. But it should not because i am doing queue empty check at line no 42 (while (!taskQueue.isEmpty())). What is wrong with code and also why it runs without error sometimes ?
Between the 'while' check and the actual removal, the queue could be modified by another Thread, possibly resulting in the error you mention. That's called a 'race condition'.
So in order to fix that you'll need a way to block the access to the queue by other threads, either by 'locking', using a 'synchronized' block with a shared lock object. Or simply by 'polling' instead of removing.
BlockingQueue is thread-safe only on an individual operation level.I'm seeing check-then-actoperation in the code which is a compound operation which is not thread-safe. To make this code thread-safe perform the check-then-act inside a synchronized block and lock on the queue itself.
synchronized(taskQueue) {
while (!taskQueue.isEmpty()) {
task = taskQueue.remove();
task.run();
}};
optimization: If the task is a time consuming one, you can execute it outside the synchronized block. So that other threads don't have to wait till the current task completes.
What is wrong with code?
You access taskQueue field from several threads without synchronization. You must do queue empty check and remove operation atomically, which can be done with synchronized keyword:
private class ThreadPool extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
Runnable task;
while (true) {
synchronized(queue) {
// give access to taskQueue to one thread at a time
if (!taskQueue.isEmpty()) {
task = taskQueue.remove();
}
}
try {
task.run();
} catch (RuntimeException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
why it runs without error sometimes?
Because of nature of JVM thread scheduler: sometimes it plans thread execution in such a way that they access taskQueue synchronously by themselves. But when you deal with multithreading, you can't rely on thread execution order, and must synchronize access to shared objects by yourself.
Sample executor service
static class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
private String serverName;
public MyRunnable(String serverName) {
super();
this.serverName = serverName;
}
#Override
public void run() {
...
conn = new ch.ethz.ssh2.Connection(serverName);
conn.connect();
boolean isAuthenticated = conn.authenticateWithPassword(user, pass);
logger.info("Connecting to " + server);
if (isAuthenticated == false) {
logger.info(server + " Please check credentials");
}
sess = conn.openSession();
...
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<String> serverList = ...;
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(20);
for (String serverName : serverList) {
MyRunnable r = new MyRunnable(serverName);
executor.execute(r);
}
executor.shutdown();
executor.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.HOURS);
}
Right here is a sample code of my executor service. But with this logic when I meet a server that fails to connect or takes too long to connect it creates a a hang time within my application. I want to end/kill the thread if it takes longer than x amount of time to connect. How can I terminate the thread task if it does not connect to server within 2 seconds.
Attempt
ThreadPoolExecutor executor = new ThreadPoolExecutor(
10, 25, 500, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS,
new LinkedBlockingQueue<>(1));
I added the following code but apparently it does not end the thread if it takes longer than 2000 milliseconds.
Attempt 2
Future<?> future = executor.submit( new task));
try {
future.get(2000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS); // This waits timeout seconds; returns null
}
catch(TimeoutException e) {
future.cancel(true);
// System.out.println(server + "name");
}
How can I terminate the thread task if it does not connect to server within 2 seconds.
This is difficult thing to do typically because even if you interrupt the thread (like the other answers mention) there's no guarantee that the thread will stop. Interrupt just sets a flag on the thread and it's up to the code to detect the status and stop. This means that a ton of threads may be in the background waiting for the connects.
In your case however you are using the ch.ethz.ssh2.Connection.connect() method. Turns out there is a connect method that takes a timeout. I think you want the following:
// try to connect for 2 seconds
conn.connect(null, 2000, 0);
To quote from the connect method javadocs:
In case of a timeout (either connectTimeout or kexTimeout) a SocketTimeoutException is thrown.
You have to do awaitTermination() first, then check the return value, and then do shutdownNow(). shutdown() does not guarantee instant stoppage of the service, it just stops taking new jobs, and waits for all jobs to complete in order. shutdownNow() on the other hand, stops taking new jobs, actively attempts to stop all running tasks, and does not start any new one, returning a list of all waiting-to-execute jobs.
From JavaDocs :
The following method shuts down an ExecutorService in two phases,
first by calling shutdown to reject incoming tasks, and then calling
shutdownNow, if necessary, to cancel any lingering tasks:
void shutdownAndAwaitTermination(ExecutorService pool) {
pool.shutdown(); // Disable new tasks from being submitted
try {
// Wait a while for existing tasks to terminate
if (!pool.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS)) {
pool.shutdownNow(); // Cancel currently executing tasks
// Wait a while for tasks to respond to being cancelled
if (!pool.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS))
System.err.println("Pool did not terminate");
}
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
// (Re-)Cancel if current thread also interrupted
pool.shutdownNow();
// Preserve interrupt status
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
You can always call future.get(timeout...)
It will return timeout exception if it did not finish yet... then you can call future.cancel().
As long as you deal with threads in Java the only safe way to stop the thread is to interrupt it. You can call shutdown() first and then wait. This method doesn't interrupt threads.
If it doesn't help then you call shutdownNow() which tries to cancel tasks by setting interrupted flag of each thread to true. In that case if threads are blocked/waiting then InterruptedException will be thrown. If you check interrupted flag somewhere inside your tasks then you are good too.
But if you have no other choice but to stop threads you still can do it. One possible solution of getting access to workers is to trace all created threads inside ThreadPoolExecutor with help of custom thread factory.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class TestThreadPoolEx {
static class CustomThreadFactory implements ThreadFactory {
private List<Thread> threads = new ArrayList<>();
#Override
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
Thread t = new Thread(r);
threads.add(t);
return t;
}
public List<Thread> getThreads() {
return threads;
}
public void stopThreads() {
for(Thread t : threads) {
if(t.isAlive()) {
try {
t.stop();
} catch (Exception e) {
//NOP
}
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
CustomThreadFactory factory = new CustomThreadFactory();
ExecutorService ex = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1, factory);
ex.submit(() -> {
while(true);
});
ex.shutdown();
ex.awaitTermination(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
ex.shutdownNow();
ex.awaitTermination(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
factory.stopThreads();
}
}
This is sure unsafe but should fit your requirements. In this case it's able to stop while(true) loop. Cancelling tasks won't be able to do that.
I have a simple application in which I create 3 threads inside a class to ping 3 different websites and note the time taken to do so.
I wish to enhance it by seeing which thread out of the 3 executes successfully first and terminating the other two .
Which class of the JDK would be helpful in doing so ? and how ?
Sample code to ping websites :
public static boolean pingUrl(final String address) {
try {
final URL url = new URL("http://" + address);
final HttpURLConnection urlConn = (HttpURLConnection) url.openConnection();
urlConn.setConnectTimeout(1000 * 10); // mTimeout is in seconds
final long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
urlConn.connect();
final long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (urlConn.getResponseCode() == HttpURLConnection.HTTP_OK) {
System.out.println("Time (ms) : " + (endTime - startTime));
System.out.println("Ping to "+address +" was success");
return true;
}
} catch (final MalformedURLException e1) {
e1.printStackTrace();
} catch (final IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return false;
}
I wish to enhance it by seeing which thread out of the 3 executes successfully first and terminating the other two .
I would use an ExecutorService combined with a ExecutorCompletionService. Then, when the first Future is returned from the completion service when the first task completes, you would call shutdownNow() on the ExecutorService.
The javadocs for ExecutorCompletionService are pretty good and show how to use it.
// maybe you want 10 threads working on your tasks
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
CompletionService<Result> ecs
= new ExecutorCompletionService<Result>(threadPool);
for (Callable<Result> task : tasks) {
// submit your tasks to the completion service, they run in the thread-pool
ecs.submit(task);
}
// once you get one result
Future<Result> future = ecs.take();
// kill the rest of the tasks
threadPool.shutdownNow();
Result result = future.get();
// probably will need to close the thread connections, see below
// maybe call threadPool.awaitShutdown(...) here to wait for the others to die
The only problem with this mechanism is that this will only interrupt the threads. In your case they are going to be stuck in urlConn.connect(); which is not interruptible. Once the ecs.take() returns, you are going to have to run back over your tasks and call disconnect() on the the HttpURLConnection that are still in progress. Even then I'm not sure if it will stop a connection that is currently underway. If that doesn't work then you may need to switch to using Apache HttpClient or some other class that you can close to stop the threads from waiting longer.
for (Callable<Result> task : tasks) {
// you'll need to do something like this
task.closeConnection();
}
In your case, your task might look something like:
public class MyPingTask implements Callable<Boolean> {
private String address;
public MyPingTask(String address) {
this.address = address;
}
public Boolean call() throws Exception {
// obviously the pingUrl code could go right here
return pingUrl(address);
}
}
Here is the Java tutorial on ExecutorService and related classes.
I suppose BlockingQueue may be useful. The main idea that spawned thread writes some value to BlockingQueue when finished and gracefully closes on InterruptedException
For example:
public void runPing(List<String> urls) {
Collection<Thread> runningThreads = new ArrayList<>(urls.size());
final BlockingQueue<Integer> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(urls.size());
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
final String url = urls.get(i);
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
pingUrl(url);
queue.add(1);
}
});
runningThreads.add(t);
}
try {
queue.poll(1, TimeUnit.HOURS);
interruptChilds(runningThreads);
} catch (Exception e) {
interruptChilds(runningThreads);
}
}
private void interruptChilds(Collection<Thread> runningThreads) {
for (Thread t : runningThreads) {
t.interrupt();
}
}
Please note that in there are no handling of InterruptedException. It should be added in your method
While I was exploring ExecutorService, I encountered a method Future.get() which accepts the timeout.
The Java doc of this method says
Waits if necessary for at most the given time for the computation to complete, and then retrieves its result, if available.
Parameters:
timeout the maximum time to wait
unit the time unit of the timeout argument
As per my understanding, we are imposing a timeout on the callable, we submit to the ExecutorService so that, my callable will interrupt after the specified time(timeout) has passed
But as per below code, the longMethod() seems to be running beyond the timeout(2 seconds), and I am really confused understanding this. Can anyone please point me to the right path?
import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public class Timeout implements Callable<String> {
public void longMethod() {
for(int i=0; i< Integer.MAX_VALUE; i++) {
System.out.println("a");
}
}
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
longMethod();
return "done";
}
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
try {
service.submit(new Timeout()).get(2, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
my callable will interrupt after the specified time(timeout) has passed
Not true. The task will continue to execute, instead you will have a null string after the timeout.
If you want to cancel it:
timeout.cancel(true) //Timeout timeout = new Timeout();
P.S. As you have it right now this interrupt will have no effect what so ever. You are not checking it in any way.
For example this code takes into account interrupts:
private static final class MyCallable implements Callable<String>{
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder();
try{
for(int i=0;i<Integer.MAX_VALUE;++i){
builder.append("a");
Thread.sleep(100);
}
}catch(InterruptedException e){
System.out.println("Thread was interrupted");
}
return builder.toString();
}
}
And then:
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
MyCallable myCallable = new MyCallable();
Future<String> futureResult = service.submit(myCallable);
String result = null;
try{
result = futureResult.get(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
}catch(TimeoutException e){
System.out.println("No response after one second");
futureResult.cancel(true);
}
service.shutdown();
The timeout on get() is for how long the 'client' will wait for the Future to complete. It does not have an impact on the future's execution.
Object result;
int seconds = 0;
while ((result = fut.get.(1, TimeUnit.SECOND)) == null) {
seconds++;
System.out.println("Waited " + seconds + " seconds for future";
}
my callable will interrupt after the specified time(timeout) has passed
The above statement is wrong, Usually Future.get is blocking. Specifying the timeout allows you to use it in a non blocking manner.
This is useful for instance in time critical applications, if you need a result within let's say 2 seconds and receiving after that means you can't do anything with that.
I need to execute some amount of tasks 4 at a time, something like this:
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
while(...) {
taskExecutor.execute(new MyTask());
}
//...wait for completion somehow
How can I get notified once all of them are complete? For now I can't think about anything better than setting some global task counter and decrease it at the end of every task, then monitor in infinite loop this counter to become 0; or get a list of Futures and in infinite loop monitor isDone for all of them. What are better solutions not involving infinite loops?
Thanks.
Basically on an ExecutorService you call shutdown() and then awaitTermination():
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
while(...) {
taskExecutor.execute(new MyTask());
}
taskExecutor.shutdown();
try {
taskExecutor.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
...
}
Use a CountDownLatch:
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(totalNumberOfTasks);
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
while(...) {
taskExecutor.execute(new MyTask());
}
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException E) {
// handle
}
and within your task (enclose in try / finally)
latch.countDown();
ExecutorService.invokeAll() does it for you.
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
List<Callable<?>> tasks; // your tasks
// invokeAll() returns when all tasks are complete
List<Future<?>> futures = taskExecutor.invokeAll(tasks);
You can use Lists of Futures, as well:
List<Future> futures = new ArrayList<Future>();
// now add to it:
futures.add(executorInstance.submit(new Callable<Void>() {
public Void call() throws IOException {
// do something
return null;
}
}));
then when you want to join on all of them, its essentially the equivalent of joining on each, (with the added benefit that it re-raises exceptions from child threads to the main):
for(Future f: this.futures) { f.get(); }
Basically the trick is to call .get() on each Future one at a time, instead of infinite looping calling isDone() on (all or each). So you're guaranteed to "move on" through and past this block as soon as the last thread finishes. The caveat is that since the .get() call re-raises exceptions, if one of the threads dies, you would raise from this possibly before the other threads have finished to completion [to avoid this, you could add a catch ExecutionException around the get call]. The other caveat is it keeps a reference to all threads so if they have thread local variables they won't get collected till after you get past this block (though you might be able to get around this, if it became a problem, by removing Future's off the ArrayList). If you wanted to know which Future "finishes first" you could use some something like https://stackoverflow.com/a/31885029/32453
In Java8 you can do it with CompletableFuture:
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
List<Runnable> tasks = getTasks();
CompletableFuture<?>[] futures = tasks.stream()
.map(task -> CompletableFuture.runAsync(task, es))
.toArray(CompletableFuture[]::new);
CompletableFuture.allOf(futures).join();
es.shutdown();
Just my two cents.
To overcome the requirement of CountDownLatch to know the number of tasks beforehand, you could do it the old fashion way by using a simple Semaphore.
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
int numberOfTasks=0;
Semaphore s=new Semaphore(0);
while(...) {
taskExecutor.execute(new MyTask());
numberOfTasks++;
}
try {
s.aquire(numberOfTasks);
...
In your task just call s.release() as you would latch.countDown();
A bit late to the game but for the sake of completion...
Instead of 'waiting' for all tasks to finish, you can think in terms of the Hollywood principle, "don't call me, I'll call you" - when I'm finished.
I think the resulting code is more elegant...
Guava offers some interesting tools to accomplish this.
An example:
Wrap an ExecutorService into a ListeningExecutorService:
ListeningExecutorService service = MoreExecutors.listeningDecorator(Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10));
Submit a collection of callables for execution ::
for (Callable<Integer> callable : callables) {
ListenableFuture<Integer> lf = service.submit(callable);
// listenableFutures is a collection
listenableFutures.add(lf)
});
Now the essential part:
ListenableFuture<List<Integer>> lf = Futures.successfulAsList(listenableFutures);
Attach a callback to the ListenableFuture, that you can use to be notified when all futures complete:
Futures.addCallback(lf, new FutureCallback<List<Integer>> () {
#Override
public void onSuccess(List<Integer> result) {
// do something with all the results
}
#Override
public void onFailure(Throwable t) {
// log failure
}
});
This also offers the advantage that you can collect all the results in one place once the processing is finished...
More information here
The CyclicBarrier class in Java 5 and later is designed for this sort of thing.
here is two options , just bit confuse which one is best to go.
Option 1:
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
List<Runnable> tasks = getTasks();
CompletableFuture<?>[] futures = tasks.stream()
.map(task -> CompletableFuture.runAsync(task, es))
.toArray(CompletableFuture[]::new);
CompletableFuture.allOf(futures).join();
es.shutdown();
Option 2:
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
List< Future<?>> futures = new ArrayList<>();
for(Runnable task : taskList) {
futures.add(es.submit(task));
}
for(Future<?> future : futures) {
try {
future.get();
}catch(Exception e){
// do logging and nothing else
}
}
es.shutdown();
Here putting future.get(); in try catch is good idea right?
Follow one of below approaches.
Iterate through all Future tasks, returned from submit on ExecutorService and check the status with blocking call get() on Future object as suggested by Kiran
Use invokeAll() on ExecutorService
CountDownLatch
ForkJoinPool or Executors.html#newWorkStealingPool
Use shutdown, awaitTermination, shutdownNow APIs of ThreadPoolExecutor in proper sequence
Related SE questions:
How is CountDownLatch used in Java Multithreading?
How to properly shutdown java ExecutorService
You could wrap your tasks in another runnable, that will send notifications:
taskExecutor.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
taskStartedNotification();
new MyTask().run();
taskFinishedNotification();
}
});
Clean way with ExecutorService
List<Future<Void>> results = null;
try {
List<Callable<Void>> tasks = new ArrayList<>();
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
results = executorService.invokeAll(tasks);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
...
} catch (Exception ex) {
...
}
I've just written a sample program that solves your problem. There was no concise implementation given, so I'll add one. While you can use executor.shutdown() and executor.awaitTermination(), it is not the best practice as the time taken by different threads would be unpredictable.
ExecutorService es = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
List<Callable<Integer>> tasks = new ArrayList<>();
for (int j = 1; j <= 10; j++) {
tasks.add(new Callable<Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer call() throws Exception {
int sum = 0;
System.out.println("Starting Thread "
+ Thread.currentThread().getId());
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
sum += i;
}
System.out.println("Stopping Thread "
+ Thread.currentThread().getId());
return sum;
}
});
}
try {
List<Future<Integer>> futures = es.invokeAll(tasks);
int flag = 0;
for (Future<Integer> f : futures) {
Integer res = f.get();
System.out.println("Sum: " + res);
if (!f.isDone())
flag = 1;
}
if (flag == 0)
System.out.println("SUCCESS");
else
System.out.println("FAILED");
} catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
Just to provide more alternatives here different to use latch/barriers.
You can also get the partial results until all of them finish using CompletionService.
From Java Concurrency in practice:
"If you have a batch of computations to submit to an Executor and you want to retrieve their results as they become
available, you could retain the Future associated with each task and repeatedly poll for completion by calling get with a
timeout of zero. This is possible, but tedious. Fortunately there is a better way: a completion service."
Here the implementation
public class TaskSubmiter {
private final ExecutorService executor;
TaskSubmiter(ExecutorService executor) { this.executor = executor; }
void doSomethingLarge(AnySourceClass source) {
final List<InterestedResult> info = doPartialAsyncProcess(source);
CompletionService<PartialResult> completionService = new ExecutorCompletionService<PartialResult>(executor);
for (final InterestedResult interestedResultItem : info)
completionService.submit(new Callable<PartialResult>() {
public PartialResult call() {
return InterestedResult.doAnOperationToGetPartialResult();
}
});
try {
for (int t = 0, n = info.size(); t < n; t++) {
Future<PartialResult> f = completionService.take();
PartialResult PartialResult = f.get();
processThisSegment(PartialResult);
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
catch (ExecutionException e) {
throw somethinghrowable(e.getCause());
}
}
}
This is my solution, based in "AdamSkywalker" tip, and it works
package frss.main;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class TestHilos {
void procesar() {
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
List<Runnable> tasks = getTasks();
CompletableFuture<?>[] futures = tasks.stream().map(task -> CompletableFuture.runAsync(task, es)).toArray(CompletableFuture[]::new);
CompletableFuture.allOf(futures).join();
es.shutdown();
System.out.println("FIN DEL PROCESO DE HILOS");
}
private List<Runnable> getTasks() {
List<Runnable> tasks = new ArrayList<Runnable>();
Hilo01 task1 = new Hilo01();
tasks.add(task1);
Hilo02 task2 = new Hilo02();
tasks.add(task2);
return tasks;
}
private class Hilo01 extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("HILO 1");
}
}
private class Hilo02 extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
sleep(2000);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("HILO 2");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
TestHilos test = new TestHilos();
test.procesar();
}
}
You could use this code:
public class MyTask implements Runnable {
private CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
public MyTask(CountDownLatch countDownLatch {
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
//Do somethings
//
this.countDownLatch.countDown();//important
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(NUMBER_OF_TASKS);
ExecutorService taskExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_TASKS; i++){
taskExecutor.execute(new MyTask(countDownLatch));
}
countDownLatch.await();
System.out.println("Finish tasks");
So I post my answer from linked question here, incase someone want a simpler way to do this
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
CompletableFuture[] futures = new CompletableFuture[10];
int i = 0;
while (...) {
futures[i++] = CompletableFuture.runAsync(runner, executor);
}
CompletableFuture.allOf(futures).join(); // THis will wait until all future ready.
I created the following working example. The idea is to have a way to process a pool of tasks (I am using a queue as example) with many Threads (determined programmatically by the numberOfTasks/threshold), and wait until all Threads are completed to continue with some other processing.
import java.util.PriorityQueue;
import java.util.Queue;
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
/** Testing CountDownLatch and ExecutorService to manage scenario where
* multiple Threads work together to complete tasks from a single
* resource provider, so the processing can be faster. */
public class ThreadCountDown {
private CountDownLatch threadsCountdown = null;
private static Queue<Integer> tasks = new PriorityQueue<>();
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Create a queue with "Tasks"
int numberOfTasks = 2000;
while(numberOfTasks-- > 0) {
tasks.add(numberOfTasks);
}
// Initiate Processing of Tasks
ThreadCountDown main = new ThreadCountDown();
main.process(tasks);
}
/* Receiving the Tasks to process, and creating multiple Threads
* to process in parallel. */
private void process(Queue<Integer> tasks) {
int numberOfThreads = getNumberOfThreadsRequired(tasks.size());
threadsCountdown = new CountDownLatch(numberOfThreads);
ExecutorService threadExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(numberOfThreads);
//Initialize each Thread
while(numberOfThreads-- > 0) {
System.out.println("Initializing Thread: "+numberOfThreads);
threadExecutor.execute(new MyThread("Thread "+numberOfThreads));
}
try {
//Shutdown the Executor, so it cannot receive more Threads.
threadExecutor.shutdown();
threadsCountdown.await();
System.out.println("ALL THREADS COMPLETED!");
//continue With Some Other Process Here
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
/* Determine the number of Threads to create */
private int getNumberOfThreadsRequired(int size) {
int threshold = 100;
int threads = size / threshold;
if( size > (threads*threshold) ){
threads++;
}
return threads;
}
/* Task Provider. All Threads will get their task from here */
private synchronized static Integer getTask(){
return tasks.poll();
}
/* The Threads will get Tasks and process them, while still available.
* When no more tasks available, the thread will complete and reduce the threadsCountdown */
private class MyThread implements Runnable {
private String threadName;
protected MyThread(String threadName) {
super();
this.threadName = threadName;
}
#Override
public void run() {
Integer task;
try{
//Check in the Task pool if anything pending to process
while( (task = getTask()) != null ){
processTask(task);
}
}catch (Exception ex){
ex.printStackTrace();
}finally {
/*Reduce count when no more tasks to process. Eventually all
Threads will end-up here, reducing the count to 0, allowing
the flow to continue after threadsCountdown.await(); */
threadsCountdown.countDown();
}
}
private void processTask(Integer task){
try{
System.out.println(this.threadName+" is Working on Task: "+ task);
}catch (Exception ex){
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Hope it helps!
You could use your own subclass of ExecutorCompletionService to wrap taskExecutor, and your own implementation of BlockingQueue to get informed when each task completes and perform whatever callback or other action you desire when the number of completed tasks reaches your desired goal.
you should use executorService.shutdown() and executorService.awaitTermination method.
An example as follows :
public class ScheduledThreadPoolExample {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
ScheduledExecutorService executorService = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(5);
executorService.scheduleAtFixedRate(() -> System.out.println("process task."),
0, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(10);
executorService.shutdown();
executorService.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.DAYS);
}
}
if you use more thread ExecutionServices SEQUENTIALLY and want to wait EACH EXECUTIONSERVICE to be finished. The best way is like below;
ExecutorService executer1 = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(THREAD_SIZE1);
for (<loop>) {
executer1.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
...
}
});
}
executer1.shutdown();
try{
executer1.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS);
ExecutorService executer2 = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(THREAD_SIZE2);
for (true) {
executer2.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
...
}
});
}
executer2.shutdown();
} catch (Exception e){
...
}
Try-with-Resources syntax on AutoCloseable executor service with Project Loom
Project Loom seeks to add new features to the concurrency abilities in Java.
One of those features is making the ExecutorService AutoCloseable. This means every ExecutorService implementation will offer a close method. And it means we can use try-with-resources syntax to automatically close an ExecutorService object.
The ExecutorService#close method blocks until all submitted tasks are completed. Using close takes the place of calling shutdown & awaitTermination.
Being AutoCloseable contributes to Project Loom’s attempt to bring “structured concurrency” to Java.
try (
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.… ;
) {
// Submit your `Runnable`/`Callable` tasks to the executor service.
…
}
// At this point, flow-of-control blocks until all submitted tasks are done/canceled/failed.
// After this point, the executor service will have been automatically shutdown, wia `close` method called by try-with-resources syntax.
For more information on Project Loom, search for talks and interviews given by Ron Pressler and others on the Project Loom team. Focus on the more recent, as Project Loom has evolved.
Experimental builds of Project Loom technology are available now, based on early-access Java 18.
Java 8 - We can use stream API to process stream. Please see snippet below
final List<Runnable> tasks = ...; //or any other functional interface
tasks.stream().parallel().forEach(Runnable::run) // Uses default pool
//alternatively to specify parallelism
new ForkJoinPool(15).submit(
() -> tasks.stream().parallel().forEach(Runnable::run)
).get();
ExecutorService WORKER_THREAD_POOL
= Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(2);
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
WORKER_THREAD_POOL.submit(() -> {
try {
// doSomething();
latch.countDown();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
});
}
// wait for the latch to be decremented by the two remaining threads
latch.await();
If doSomething() throw some other exceptions, the latch.countDown() seems will not execute, so what should I do?
This might help
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "shutting down executor...");
executor.shutdown();
while (true) {
try {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "Waiting for executor to terminate...");
if (executor.isTerminated())
break;
if (executor.awaitTermination(5000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
break;
}
} catch (InterruptedException ignored) {}
}
You could call waitTillDone() on this Runner class:
Runner runner = Runner.runner(4); // create pool with 4 threads in thread pool
while(...) {
runner.run(new MyTask()); // here you submit your task
}
runner.waitTillDone(); // and this blocks until all tasks are finished (or failed)
runner.shutdown(); // once you done you can shutdown the runner
You can reuse this class and call waitTillDone() as many times as you want to before calling shutdown(), plus your code is extremly simple. Also you don't have to know the number of tasks upfront.
To use it just add this gradle/maven compile 'com.github.matejtymes:javafixes:1.3.1' dependency to your project.
More details can be found here:
https://github.com/MatejTymes/JavaFixes
There is a method in executor getActiveCount() - that gives the count of active threads.
After spanning the thread, we can check if the activeCount() value is 0. Once the value is zero, it is meant that there are no active threads currently running which means task is finished:
while (true) {
if (executor.getActiveCount() == 0) {
//ur own piece of code
break;
}
}