Develop Reference

Variable 'runner' is not updated inside loop

Like this, I have two thread. The SleepRunner thread add some random numbers to a list then change flag to true and sleep. The main thread wait SleepRunner thread until the flag in SleepRunner object change from false to true then main thread will interrupte SleepRunner thread and the program will end.
But the question is, when the while loop is no body code in main thread, the variable 'runner' is not updated inside loop in other words The program is not over after SleepRunner thread change flag from false to true. So I tried to use debug tools in idea, but the program ended smoothly. And If I write some code, like System.out.println() or Thread.sleep(1) in while loop body at main thread, the program ended successfully too. it's too incredible! Does anyone know why this happens? Thanks.
public class Test1 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SleepRunner runner = new SleepRunner();
Thread thread = new Thread(runner);
thread.start();
while(!(runner.isFlag())){
/*try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}*/
}
System.out.println("END");
thread.interrupt();
}
}
public class SleepRunner implements Runnable {
private boolean flag = false;
public boolean isFlag() {
return flag;
}
#Override
public void run() {
List<Integer> list = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
try {
Thread.sleep((long) (Math.random() * 200));
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Interrupted");
}
int num = (int) (Math.random() * 100);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " + num);
list.add(num);
}
flag = true;
System.out.println("30 Seconds");
try {
Thread.sleep(30000);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Interrupted in 30 seconds");
}
System.out.println("sleep runner thread end");
}
}

You've violated the java memory model.
Here's how the JMM works*:
Each thread, whenever any field (from any object) is read or updated, flips a coin. On heads, it will make a copy and update/read from that. On tails, it won't. Your job is to ensure your code functions correctly regardless of how the coin lands, and you can't force the coinflip in a unit test. The coin need not be 'fair'. The coin's behaviour depends on the music playing in your music player, the whims of a toddler, and the phase of the moon. (In other words, any update/read may be done to a local cache copy, or not, up to the java implementation).
You may safely conclude that the only way to do it correctly, is to ensure the thread never flips that coin.
The way to accomplish that is to establish so-called 'comes before' relationships. Establishing them is done primarily by using synchronization primitives, or by calling methods that use synchronization primitives. For example, if I do this:
thread X:
synchronized(x) {
x.foo();
System.out.println(shared.y);
shared.y = 10;
}
thread Y:
synchronized(x) {
x.foo();
System.out.println(shared.y);
shared.y = 20;
}
then you've established a relationship: code block A comes before code block B, or vice versa, but you've at least established that they must run in order.
As a consequence, this will print either 0 10 or 0 20, guaranteed. Without the synchronized block, it can legally print 0 0 as well. All 3 results would be an acceptable result (the java lang spec says it's okay, and any bugs filed that you think this makes no sense would be disregarded as 'working as intended').
volatile can also be used, but volatile is quite limited.
Generally, because this cannot be adequately tested, there are only 3 ways to do threading properly in java:
'in the large': Use a webserver or other app framework that takes care of the multithreading. You don't write the psv main() method, that framework does, and all you write are 'handlers'. None of your handlers touch any shared data at all. The handlers either don't share data, or share it via a bus designed to do it right, such as a DB in serializable transaction isolation mode, or rabbitmq or some other message bus.
'in the small': Use fork/join to parallellize a giant task. The handler for the task cannot, of course, use any shared data.
read Concurrency in Practice (the book), prefer using the classes in the java.util.concurrent package, and in general be a guru about how this stuff works, because doing threading any other way is likely to result in you programming bugs which your tests probably won't catch, but will either blow up at production time, or will result in no actual multithreading (e.g. if you overzealously synchronize everything, you end up having all cores except one core just waiting around, and your code will actually run way slower than if it was just single threaded).
*) The full explanation is about a book's worth. I'm just giving you oversimplified highlights, as this is merely an SO answer.

Java Multithreading large arrays access

My main class, generates multiple threads based on some rules. (20-40 threads live for long time).
Each thread create several threads (short time ) --> I am using executer for this one.
I need to work on Multi dimension arrays in the short time threads --> I wrote it like it is in the code below --> but I think that it is not efficient since I pass it so many times to so many threads / tasks --. I tried to access it directly from the threads (by declaring it as public --> no success) --> will be happy to get comments / advices on how to improve it.
I also look at next step to return a 1 dimension array as a result (which might be better just to update it at the Assetfactory class ) --> and I am not sure how to.
please see the code below.
thanks
Paz
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.logging.Level;
public class AssetFactory implements Runnable{
private volatile boolean stop = false;
private volatile String feed ;
private double[][][] PeriodRates= new double[10][500][4];
private String TimeStr,Bid,periodicalRateIndicator;
private final BlockingQueue<String> workQueue;
ExecutorService IndicatorPool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
public AssetFactory(BlockingQueue<String> workQueue) {
this.workQueue = workQueue;
}
#Override
public void run(){
while (!stop) {
try{
feed = workQueue.take();
periodicalRateIndicator = CheckPeriod(TimeStr, Bid) ;
if (periodicalRateIndicator.length() >0) {
IndicatorPool.submit(new CalcMvg(periodicalRateIndicator,PeriodRates));
}
}
if ("Stop".equals(feed)) {
stop = true ;
}
} // try
catch (InterruptedException ex) {
logger.log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
stop = true;
}
} // while
} // run
Here is the CalcMVG class
public class CalcMvg implements Runnable {
private double [][][] PeriodRates = new double[10][500][4];
public CalcMvg(String Periods, double[][][] PeriodRates) {
System.out.println(Periods);
this.PeriodRates = PeriodRates ;
}
#Override
public void run(){
try{
// do some work with the data of PeriodRates array e.g. print it (no changes to array
System.out.println(PeriodRates[1][1][1]);
}
catch (Exception ex){
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ex.getMessage());
logger.log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}//run
} // mvg class

There are several things going on here which seem to be wrong, but it is hard to give a good answer with the limited amount of code presented.
First the actual coding issues:
There is no need to define a variable as volatile if only one thread ever accesses it (stop, feed)
You should declare variables that are only used in a local context (run method) locally in that function and not globally for the whole instance (almost all variables). This allows the JIT to do various optimizations.
The InterruptedException should terminate the thread. Because it is thrown as a request to terminate the thread's work.
In your code example the workQueue doesn't seem to do anything but to put the threads to sleep or stop them. Why doesn't it just immediately feed the actual worker-threads with the required workload?
And then the code structure issues:
You use threads to feed threads with work. This is inefficient, as you only have a limited amount of cores that can actually do the work. As the execution order of threads is undefined, it is likely that the IndicatorPool is either mostly idle or overfilling with tasks that have not yet been done.
If you have a finite set of work to be done, the ExecutorCompletionService might be helpful for your task.
I think you will gain the best speed increase by redesigning the code structure. Imagine the following (assuming that I understood your question correctly):
There is a blocking queue of tasks that is fed by some data source (e.g. file-stream, network).
A set of worker-threads equal to the amount of cores is waiting on that data source for input, which is then processed and put into a completion queue.
A specific data set is the "terminator" for your work (e.g. "null"). If a thread encounters this terminator, it finishes it's loop and shuts down.
Now the following holds true for this construct:
Case 1: The data source is the bottle-neck. It cannot be speed-up by using multiple threads, as your harddisk/network won't work faster if you ask more often.
Case 2: The processing power on your machine is the bottle neck, as you cannot process more data than the worker threads/cores on your machine can handle.
In both cases the conclusion is, that the worker threads need to be the ones that seek for new data as soon as they are ready to process it. As either they need to be put on hold or they need to throttle the incoming data. This will ensure maximum throughput.
If all worker threads have terminated, the work is done. This can be i.E. tracked through the use of a CyclicBarrier or Phaser class.
Pseudo-code for the worker threads:
public void run() {
DataType e;
try {
while ((e = dataSource.next()) != null) {
process(e);
}
barrier.await();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
I hope this is helpful on your case.

Passing the array as an argument to the constructor is a reasonable approach, although unless you intend to copy the array it isn't necessary to initialize PeriodRates with a large array. It seems wasteful to allocate a large block of memory and then reassign its only reference straight away in the constructor. I would initialize it like this:
private final double [][][] PeriodRates;
public CalcMvg(String Periods, double[][][] PeriodRates) {
System.out.println(Periods);
this.PeriodRates = PeriodRates;
}
The other option is to define CalcMvg as an inner class of AssetFactory and declare PeriodRate as final. This would allow instances of CalcMvg to access PeriodRate in the outer instance of AssetFactory.
Returning the result is more difficult since it involves publishing the result across threads. One way to do this is to use synchronized methods:
private double[] result = null;
private synchronized void setResult(double[] result) {
this.result = result;
}
public synchronized double[] getResult() {
if (result == null) {
throw new RuntimeException("Result has not been initialized for this instance: " + this);
}
return result;
}
There are more advanced multi-threading concepts available in the Java libraries, e.g. Future, that might be appropriate in this case.
Regarding your concerns about the number of threads, allowing a library class to manage the allocation of work to a thread pool might solve this concern. Something like an Executor might help with this.

Junit test the correct number of threads has started

So I have a method that starts five threads. I want to write a unit test just to check that the five threads have been started. How do I do that? Sample codes are much appreciated.

Instead of writing your own method to start threads, why not use an Executor, which can be injected into your class? Then you can easily test it by passing in a dummy Executor.
Edit: Here's a simple example of how your code could be structured:
public class ResultCalculator {
private final ExecutorService pool;
private final List<Future<Integer>> pendingResults;
public ResultCalculator(ExecutorService pool) {
this.pool = pool;
this.pendingResults = new ArrayList<Future<Integer>>();
}
public void startComputation() {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
Future<Integer> future = pool.submit(new Robot(i));
pendingResults.add(future);
}
}
public int getFinalResult() throws ExecutionException {
int total = 0;
for (Future<Integer> robotResult : pendingResults) {
total += robotResult.get();
}
return total;
}
}
public class Robot implements Callable<Integer> {
private final int input;
public Robot(int input) {
this.input = input;
}
#Override
public Integer call() {
// Some very long calculation
Thread.sleep(10000);
return input * input;
}
}
And here's how you'd call it from your main():
public static void main(String args) throws Exception {
// Note that the number of threads is now specified here
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
ResultCalculator calc = new ResultCalculator(pool);
try {
calc.startComputation();
// Maybe do something while we're waiting
System.out.printf("Result is: %d\n", calc.getFinalResult());
} finally {
pool.shutdownNow();
}
}
And here's how you'd test it (assuming JUnit 4 and Mockito):
#Test
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
public void testStartComputationAddsRobotsToQueue() {
ExecutorService pool = mock(ExecutorService.class);
Future<Integer> future = mock(Future.class);
when(pool.submit(any(Callable.class)).thenReturn(future);
ResultCalculator calc = new ResultCalculator(pool);
calc.startComputation();
verify(pool, times(5)).submit(any(Callable.class));
}
Note that all this code is just a sketch which I have not tested or even tried to compile yet. But it should give you an idea of how the code can be structured.

Rather than saying you are going to "test the five threads have been started", it would be better to step back and think about what the five threads are actually supposed to do. Then test to make sure that that "something" is actually being done.
If you really just want to test that the threads have been started, there are a few things you could do. Are you keeping references to the threads somewhere? If so, you could retrieve the references, count them, and call isAlive() on each one (checking that it returns true).
I believe there is some method on some Java platform class which you can call to find how many threads are running, or to find all the threads which are running in a ThreadGroup, but you would have to search to find out what it is.
More thoughts in response to your comment
If your code is as simple as new Thread(runnable).start(), I wouldn't bother to test that the threads are actually starting. If you do so, you're basically just testing that the Java platform works (it does). If your code for initializing and starting the threads is more complicated, I would stub out the thread.start() part and make sure that the stub is called the desired number of times, with the correct arguments, etc.
Regardless of what you do about that, I would definitely test that the task is completed correctly when running in multithreaded mode. From personal experience, I can tell you that as soon as you start doing anything remotely complicated with threads, it is devilishly easy to get subtle bugs which only show up under certain conditions, and perhaps only occasionally. Dealing with the complexity of multithreaded code is a very slippery slope.
Because of that, if you can do it, I would highly recommend you do more than just simple unit testing. Do stress tests where you run your task with many threads, on a multicore machine, on very large data sets, and make sure all the answers are exactly as expected.
Also, although you are expecting a performance increase from using threads, I highly recommend that you benchmark your program with varying numbers of threads, to make sure that the desired performance increase is actually achieved. Depending on how your system is designed, it's possible to wind up with concurrency bottlenecks which may make your program hardly faster with threads than without. In some cases, it can even be slower!

Which ThreadPool in Java should I use?

There are a huge amount of tasks.
Each task is belong to a single group. The requirement is each group of tasks should executed serially just like executed in a single thread and the throughput should be maximized in a multi-core (or multi-cpu) environment. Note: there are also a huge amount of groups that is proportional to the number of tasks.
The naive solution is using ThreadPoolExecutor and synchronize (or lock). However, threads would block each other and the throughput is not maximized.
Any better idea? Or is there exist a third party library satisfy the requirement?

A simple approach would be to "concatenate" all group tasks into one super task, thus making the sub-tasks run serially. But this will probably cause delay in other groups that will not start unless some other group completely finishes and makes some space in the thread pool.
As an alternative, consider chaining a group's tasks. The following code illustrates it:
public class MultiSerialExecutor {
private final ExecutorService executor;
public MultiSerialExecutor(int maxNumThreads) {
executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(maxNumThreads);
}
public void addTaskSequence(List<Runnable> tasks) {
executor.execute(new TaskChain(tasks));
}
private void shutdown() {
executor.shutdown();
}
private class TaskChain implements Runnable {
private List<Runnable> seq;
private int ind;
public TaskChain(List<Runnable> seq) {
this.seq = seq;
}
#Override
public void run() {
seq.get(ind++).run(); //NOTE: No special error handling
if (ind < seq.size())
executor.execute(this);
}
}
The advantage is that no extra resource (thread/queue) is being used, and that the granularity of tasks is better than the one in the naive approach. The disadvantage is that all group's tasks should be known in advance.
--edit--
To make this solution generic and complete, you may want to decide on error handling (i.e whether a chain continues even if an error occures), and also it would be a good idea to implement ExecutorService, and delegate all calls to the underlying executor.

I would suggest to use task queues:
For every group of tasks You have create a queue and insert all tasks from that group into it.
Now all Your queues can be executed in parallel while the tasks inside one queue are executed serially.
A quick google search suggests that the java api has no task / thread queues by itself. However there are many tutorials available on coding one. Everyone feel free to list good tutorials / implementations if You know some:

I mostly agree on Dave's answer, but if you need to slice CPU time across all "groups", i.e. all task groups should progress in parallel, you might find this kind of construct useful (using removal as "lock". This worked fine in my case although I imagine it tends to use more memory):
class TaskAllocator {
private final ConcurrentLinkedQueue<Queue<Runnable>> entireWork
= childQueuePerTaskGroup();
public Queue<Runnable> lockTaskGroup(){
return entireWork.poll();
}
public void release(Queue<Runnable> taskGroup){
entireWork.offer(taskGroup);
}
}
and
class DoWork implmements Runnable {
private final TaskAllocator allocator;
public DoWork(TaskAllocator allocator){
this.allocator = allocator;
}
pubic void run(){
for(;;){
Queue<Runnable> taskGroup = allocator.lockTaskGroup();
if(task==null){
//No more work
return;
}
Runnable work = taskGroup.poll();
if(work == null){
//This group is done
continue;
}
//Do work, but never forget to release the group to
// the allocator.
try {
work.run();
} finally {
allocator.release(taskGroup);
}
}//for
}
}
You can then use optimum number of threads to run the DoWork task. It's kind of a round robin load balance..
You can even do something more sophisticated, by using this instead of a simple queue in TaskAllocator (task groups with more task remaining tend to get executed)
ConcurrentSkipListSet<MyQueue<Runnable>> sophisticatedQueue =
new ConcurrentSkipListSet(new SophisticatedComparator());
where SophisticatedComparator is
class SophisticatedComparator implements Comparator<MyQueue<Runnable>> {
public int compare(MyQueue<Runnable> o1, MyQueue<Runnable> o2){
int diff = o2.size() - o1.size();
if(diff==0){
//This is crucial. You must assign unique ids to your
//Subqueue and break the equality if they happen to have same size.
//Otherwise your queues will disappear...
return o1.id - o2.id;
}
return diff;
}
}

Actor is also another solution for this specified type of issues.
Scala has actors and also Java, which provided by AKKA.

I had a problem similar to your, and I used an ExecutorCompletionService that works with an Executor to complete collections of tasks.
Here is an extract from java.util.concurrent API, since Java7:
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> ecs = new ExecutorCompletionService<Result>(e);
for (Callable<Result> s : solvers)
ecs.submit(s);
int n = solvers.size();
for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) {
Result r = ecs.take().get();
if (r != null)
use(r);
}
}
So, in your scenario, every task will be a single Callable<Result>, and tasks will be grouped in a Collection<Callable<Result>>.
Reference:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ExecutorCompletionService.html

Java Threading Tutorial Type Question

I am fairly naive when it comes to the world of Java Threading and Concurrency. I am currently trying to learn. I made a simple example to try to figure out how concurrency works.
Here is my code:
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class ThreadedService {
private ExecutorService exec;
/**
* #param delegate
* #param poolSize
*/
public ThreadedService(int poolSize) {
if (poolSize < 1) {
this.exec = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
} else {
this.exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(poolSize);
}
}
public void add(final String str) {
exec.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println(str);
}
});
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
ThreadedService t = new ThreadedService(25);
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
t.add("ADD: " + i);
}
}
}
What do I need to do to make the code print out the numbers 0-99 in sequential order?

Thread pools are usually used for operations which do not need synchronization or are highly parallel.
Printing the numbers 0-99 sequentially is not a concurrent problem and requires threads to be synchronized to avoid printing out of order.
I recommend taking a look at the Java concurrency lesson to get an idea of concurrency in Java.

The idea of threads is not to do things sequentially.
You will need some shared state to coordinate. In the example, adding instance fields to your outer class will work in this example. Remove the parameter from add. Add a lock object and a counter. Grab the lock, increment print the number, increment the number, release the number.

The simplest solution to your problem is to use a ThreadPool size of 1. However, this isn't really the kind of problem one would use threads to solve.
To expand, if you create your executor with:
this.exec = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
then your threads will all be scheduled and executed in the order they were submitted for execution. There are a few scenarios where this is a logical thing to do, but in most cases Threads are the wrong tool to use to solve this problem.
This kind of thing makes sense to do when you need to execute the task in a different thread -- perhaps it takes a long time to execute and you don't want to block a GUI thread -- but you don't need or don't want the submitted tasks to run at the same time.

The problem is by definition not suited to threads. Threads are run independently and there isn't really a way to predict which thread is run first.
If you want to change your code to run sequentially, change add to:
public void add(final String str) {
System.out.println(str);
}
You are not using threads (not your own at least) and everything happens sequentially.