Develop Reference

trying to grasp basic thread synchronisation in java

public class ThreadTest implements Runnable {
private int counter;
private Date mydate = new Date();
public void upCounter1() {
synchronized (mydate ) {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
counter++;
System.out.println("1 " + counter);
}
}
}
public void upCounter2() {
synchronized (mydate ) {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
counter++;
System.out.println("2 " + counter);
}
}
}
public void upCounter3() {
synchronized (mydate ) {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
counter++;
System.out.println("3 " + counter);
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
upCounter1();
upCounter2();
upCounter3();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Threadtest mtt = new Threadtest();
Thread t1 = new Thread(mtt);
Thread t2 = new Thread(mtt);
Thread t3 = new Thread(mtt);
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
}
}
I tried this code with various synchronisation techniques and I'd like to make sure I get what's happening. I've read a bunch of articles on this, but none of them broke it down enough for me.
So here's what I observed:
synchronised (this): This works only, if I give the SAME instance of Threadtest to all threads, because if I give each thread its own instance, each will get that instance's intrinsic lock and can access the methods without interruption from the other threads.
However, if I give each thread its own instance, I can do: synchronised (getClass()), because then I get the instrinsic lock of the class
Alternatively, I could do: synchronised (mydate), where the same rules apply that apply to synchronised (this). But it has the advantage of not being public. > I dont really understand this. What is the "danger" of using this?
Alternatively to synchronised (getClass()), I could also use a private static field.
However, I cannot do synchronised(Date.class).
I could synchronise the entire methods (same effecte as with synchronised-block)
making counter volatile doesn't work, because incrementing isn't a truly atomic operation
If I want to make each method accessible individually, I would make three private fields and use them in the synchronised-blocks. I then am effectively using the intrinsic locks of those fields and not of my class or instance.
I also noted that when I use the class-lock, each method is viewed as separate and I have effectively 3 ounters that go to 15. If I use the instance lock, the counter goes to 45. Is that the correct and expected behaviour?
Are my explanations and observations correct? (I basically want to make sure I draw the correct conclusions form the console output I got)

a-c; e-f are correct.
c) Alternatively, I could do: synchronised (mydate), where the same rules apply that apply to synchronised (this). But it has the advantage of not being public. > I dont really understand this. What is the "danger" of using this?
The argument is that other code may also decide to use that object as a lock. Which could cause conflict; when you know that this can never be the case then it is not such an evil thing. It is also usually more of a problem when one uses wait/notify in their code.
d) Alternatively to synchronised (getClass()), I could also use a private static field. However, I cannot do synchronised(Date.class).
You can use Date.class, it would just be a bit weird and falls into the argument discussed in c above about not polluting other classes work spaces.
g) If I want to make each method accessible individually, I would make three private fields and use them in the synchronised-blocks. I then am effectively using the intrinsic locks of those fields and not of my class or instance.
Given that the three methods share the same state, then no, this would not be wise as it would lead to races between the threads.
h) I also noted that when I use the class-lock, each method is viewed as separate and I have effectively 3 counters that go to 15. If I use the instance lock, the counter goes to 45. Is that the correct and expected behaviour?
No, this sounds wrong but I may have misunderstood you. I would expect the total to be 45 in both cases when using either this or this.getClass() as the lock.

Your code is threadsafe as it stands, if slow (you are writing to the console while holding a lock) - but better correct and slow than wrong and fast!
a) synchronised (this): This works only, if I give the SAME instance of Threadtest to all threads, because if I give each thread its own instance, each will get that instance's intrinsic lock and can access the methods without interruption from the other threads.
Your code is threadsafe either case - that is, it will give the exact same results every time. If you pass the same instance to three different threads the final line of output will be "3 45" (since there is only one counter variable) and if you give each thread its own instance there will be three lines reading "3 15". It sounds to me like you understand this.
b) However, if I give each thread its own instance, I can do: synchronised (getClass()), because then I get the instrinsic lock of the class
If you do this your code is still threadsafe, but you will get three lines reading "3 15" as above. Be aware that you will also be more prone to liveness and deadlock issues for the reason stated below.
c) Alternatively, I could do: synchronised (mydate), where the same rules apply that apply to synchronised (this). But it has the advantage of not being public. I dont really understand this. What is the "danger" of using this?
You should try to use private locks where you can. If you use a globally-visible object (e.g. this or getClass or a field with visibility other than private or an interned String or an object that you got from a factory) then you open up the possibility that some other code will also try to lock on the object that you are locking on. You may end up waiting longer than you expect to acquire the lock (liveness issue) or even in a deadlock situation.
For a detailed analysis of things that can go wrong, see the secure coding guidelines for Java - but note that this is not just a security issue.
d) Alternatively to synchronised (getClass()), I could also use a private static field. However, I cannot do synchronised(Date.class).
A private static field is preferable to either getClass() or Date.class for the reasons stated above.
e) I could synchronise the entire methods (same effecte as with synchronised-block)
Pretty much (there are currently some insignificant byte code differences), but again you should prefer private locks.
f) making counter volatile doesn't work, because incrementing isn't a truly atomic operation
Yes, you may run into a race condition and your code is no longer threadsafe (although you don't have the visibility issue mentioned below)
g) If I want to make each method accessible individually, I would make three private fields and use them in the synchronised-blocks. I then am effectively using the intrinsic locks of those fields and not of my class or instance.
You should not do this, you should always use the same lock to access a variable. As well as the fact that you could have multiple threads reading/writing to the same variable at the same time giving race condition you also have a subtler issue to do with inter-thread visibility. The Java Memory Model guarantees that writes done by one thread before a lock is released will be seen another thread when that other thread acquires the same lock. So thread 2 executing upCounter2 may or may not see the results of thread 1 executing upCounter1.
Rather than thinking of "which blocks of code do I need to execute?" you should think "which pieces of state do I need to access?".
h) I also noted that when I use the class-lock, each method is viewed as separate and I have effectively 3 ounters that go to 15. If I use the instance lock, the counter goes to 45. Is that the correct and expected behaviour?
Yes, but it has nothing to do with the object you are using for synchronisation, rather it's because you have created three different ThreadTest objects and hence have three different counters, as I explained in my answer to your first question.
Make sure that you understand the difference between three threads operating on one object and one thread operating on three different objects. Then you will be able to understand the behaviour you are observing with three threads operating on three different objects.

a) Correct
b) Correct
c) There could be some other bunch of code using your this or class in another part of your application where your class is accessible. This will mean that unrelated code will be waiting for each other to complete.
d) You cannot do synchronisation on Date.class because of the same reason above. There may be unrelated threaded methods waiting for each other unnecessarily.
e) Method synchronisation is same as class lock
g) Correct

Multi-threading -- a faster way?

I have a class with a getter getInt() and a setter setInt() on a certain field, say field
Integer Int;
of an object of a class, say SomeClass.
The setInt() here is synchronized-- getInt() isn't.
I am updating the value of Int from within multiple threads.
Each thread is getting the value Int, and setting it appropriately.
The threads aren't sharing any other resources in any way.
The code executed in each thread is as follows.
public void update(SomeClass c) {
while (<condition-1>) // the conditions here and the calculation of
// k below dont have anything to do
// with the members of c
if (<condition-2>) {
// calculate k here
synchronized (c) {
c.setInt(c.getInt()+k);
// System.out.println("in "+this.toString());
}
}
}
The run() method is just invoking the above method on the members updated from within the constructor by the params passed to it:
public void run() { update(c); }
When I run this on large sequences, the threads aren't interleaving much-- i see one thread executing for long without any other thread running in between.
There must be a better way of doing this.
I can't change the internals of SomeClass, or of the class invoking the threads.
How can this be done better?
TIA.
//=====================================
EDIT:
I'm not after manipulating the execution sequence of the threads. They all have the same priority. It`s just that what i see in the outcome is suggesting that the threads aren't sharing the execution time evenly-- one of them, once takes over, executing on. However, I can't see why this code should be doing this.

It`s just that what i see in the outcome is suggesting that the threads aren't sharing the execution time evenly
Well, this is exactly what you don't want if you are after efficiency. Yanking a thread from being executed and scheduling another thread is generally very costly. Therefore it's actually advantageous to do one of them, once takes over, executing on. Of course, when this is overdone you could see higher throughput but longer response time. In theory. In practice, JVMs thread scheduling is well tuned for almost all purposes, and you don't want to try changing it in almost all situations. As a rule of thumb, if you are interested in response times in millisecond order, you probably want to stay away messing with it.
tl;dr: It's not being inefficient, you probably want to leave it as it is.
EDIT:
Having said that, using an AtomicInteger may help in performance, and is in my opinion less error prone than using a lock (synchronized keyword). You need to be hitting that variable really very hard in order to get a measurable benefit though.

The JDK provides a nice solution for multi threaded int access, AtomicInteger:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/atomic/AtomicInteger.html

As Enno Shioji has pointed out, letting one thread proceed might be the most efficient way to execute your code in some scenarios.
It depends on how much cost the thread synchronization imposes in relation to the other work of your code (which we don’t know). If you have a loop like:
while (<condition-1>)
if (<condition-2>) {
// calculate k here
synchronized (c) {
c.setInt(c.getInt()+k);
}
}
and the test for condition-1 and condition-2 and the calculation of k is rather cheap compared to the synchronization cost, the Hotspot optimizer might decide to reduce the overhead by transforming the code to something like this:
synchronized (c) {
while (<condition-1>)
if (<condition-2>) {
// calculate k here
c.setInt(c.getInt()+k);
}
}
(or a rather more complicated structure by performing loop unrolling and span the synchronized block over multiple iterations). The bottom line is that the optimized code might block other threads longer but let the one owning the lock finish faster resulting in an overall faster execution.
This does not mean that a single-threaded execution was the fastest way to handle your problem. It also doesn’t mean that using an AtomicInteger here would be the best option to solve the problem. It would create a higher CPU load and possibly a small acceleration but it doesn’t solve your real mistake:
It is completely unnecessary to update c within the loop at a high frequency. After all, your threads do not depend on seeing updates to c timely. It even looks like they are not using it at all. So the correct fix would be to move the update out of the loop:
int kTotal=0;
while (<condition-1>)
if (<condition-2>) {
// calculate k here
kTotal += k;
}
synchronized (c) {
c.setInt(c.getInt()+kTotal);
}
Now, all threads can run in parallel (assuming the code you haven’t posted here doesn’t contain inter-thread dependencies) and the synchronization cost is reduced to a minimum. You could still change it to an AtomicInteger as well but that’s not that important anymore.

Answering to this
i see one thread executing for long without any other thread running in between.
There must be a better way of doing this.
You can not control how threads will be executed. JVM does this for you, and does not like you to interfere in its work.
Still you can look at yield as your option, but that also does not ensure same thread will not be picked again.
The java.lang.Thread.yield() method causes the currently executing thread object to temporarily pause and allow other threads to execute.

I've found it better to use wait() and notify() than yield. Check out this example (seen from a book)-
class Q {
int n;
boolean valueSet = false;
synchronized int get() {
if(!valueSet)
wait(); //handle InterruptedException
//
valueSet = false;
notify();//if thread waiting in put, now notified
}
synchronized void put(int n) {
if(valueSet)
wait(); //handle InterruptedException
//
valueSet = true;
//if thread in get waiting then that is resumed now
notify();
}
}
or you could try using sleep() and join the threads in the end in main() but that isn't a foolproof way

You are having public void update(SomeClass c) method in your code and this method is an instance method in which you are passing the object as parameter.
synchronized(c) in your code is doing nothing. Let me show you with some example,
So if you will make different objects of this class and then try to make them different threads like,
class A extends Thread{
public void update(SomeClass c){}
public void run(){
update(c)
}
public static void main(String args[]){
A t1 = new A();
A t2 = new A();
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
Then both of these t1 & t2 will have their own copies of update method and the reference variable c which you are making synchronized will also be different for both the threads. t1 calls its own update() method and t2 calls its own update() method. So synchronization won't work.
Synchronization will work when you have something common for both the threads.
Something like,
class A extends Thread{
static SomeClass c;
public void update(){
synchronized(c){
}
}
public void run(){
update(c)
}
public static void main(String args[]){
A t1 = new A();
A t2 = new A();
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
This way the actual concept of synchronization will be applied.

java concurrency - synchronized block

I have a thread issue in my code that should not be happening - but is. So I'm trying to make some work around. I will try to explain my problems with simple code as I can - because the code that I'm experiencing the issue is big and complicated
so in short the code:
...................
..................
void createAndRunThreads(){
List<Path> pathList = //read path from DB readPath();
for(Path p : pathList){
RunJob rj = new RunJob(p);
Thred t = new Thread(rj);
t.start();
}
}
class RunJob implements Runnable {
private Path path;
private ExecuteJob execJob;
public RunJob(Path path){
this.path = path;
this.execJob = new ExecuteJob();
}
public void run() {
execJob.execute(path);
}
}
class ExecuteJob {
private static Job curentExecutingJob;
public void execute(Path path){
//here every thread should get different job list from others but this is not happening
//so what happens eventually two threads are executing the same Job at once and it gets messy
List<Job> jobList = getJobsFromPath(path);
for(Job job : jobList) {
curentExecutingJob=job;
//work around that I'm trying to do. So if other thread tries to run the same job has to wait on lock(I dont know if this is posible do)
synchronized(curentExecutingJob){
if(job.getStatus.equals("redy")){
//do sum initialization
//and databese changes
job.run();
}
}
}
}
}
So my concern is if this going to work - I don know if the object in the lock is compared by memory(need to be the exact object) or by equals(to implement equal on it)
What happens when the static curentExecutingJob member has one value-object in first thread and creates lock on that(in synchronized block) and second thread changes that value and tries to enter synchronized block(My expectation that I'm hoping to be is that thread-2 will continue with executing and only time that it would be block is when he will get the same Job from DB that previously the first thread got it)
I don't know if this approach can be done and has sense
Two thread are running the following code that is inside method
1 Job j = getJobByIdFromDB(1111);
2 if(j.status.equals("redye")){
3 do staff
4 make database changes
5 j.run();
6 j.state="running";
7 }
The ThreadA is stop from executing in line 3 from JVM and his state is changed from running to runnable and is set to wait in the poll.
The ThreadB is given chance by the JVM and ThreadB executes lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 that I don't want to happen. I want the first thread that enters the code in lines 2,3 to finish before someone from the rest threads have chances to enter the same code
Problem accomplish this is that the two threads are executing the example method with different instance so synchronized the whole method wont work - also I have other code that is been executed in this method and I don't want that to be synchronizing to
So is there solution for my problem
Also if I make synchronized(this.class){} it will lose the benefits and sense of multithreading

The problem is that the 'currentExecutingJob' is defined as static, meaning that all instances of ExecuteJob share the same 'instance' of this variable. In addition, you are setting the value of this variable outside of a synchronization block, which means that each thread will set it in an uncontrolled way. Your following synchronization block should have no practical impact whatsoever.
Given the way your sample code is written, it appears to me that you don't need any static variables and you don't need any synchronization, as there are no resources shared across multiple threads.
However, Your comments in the code indicate that you want to prevent two threads from executing the same job at the same time. Your code does not achieve this, as there is no comparison of running jobs to see if the same job is running, and even if there was a comparison, your getJobsFromPath() would need to to construct a job list such that the same object instance would need to be reused when two threads/paths encounter the same 'job'.
I don't see any of this in your code.

Can't comment so I'll put it as an answer. Sorry.
The block
synchronized(curentExecutingJob)
will synchronize on the object curentExecutingJob (in your terms, memory). If you synchronize on another object otherExecutingJob with currentExecutingJob.equals(otherExecutingJob) == true, both synchronize statements will not influence each other.
To your question/problem: It would be helpful if you describe what getJobsFromPath is doing or should do and what you actually want to do and what your problem actually is. It's not really clear to me.

i saw your code that it check's for the status of job, if it is ready or not, well as i think this is not a afeasible way
you can use the Callable Interface instead of Runnable
here is an example detailed which may help you.
Java Concurrency

How to share the variable between two threads in java?

I have a loop that doing this:
WorkTask wt = new WorkTask();
wt.count = count;
Thread a = new Thread(wt);
a.start();
When the workTask is run, the count will wt++ ,
but the WorkTask doesn't seems change the count number, and between the thread, the variable can't share within two thread, what did I wrote wrong? Thanks.

Without seeing the code for WorkThread it's hard to pin down the problem, but most likely you are missing synchronization between the two threads.
Whenever you start a thread, there are no guarantees on whether the original thread or the newly created thread runs first, or how they are scheduled. The JVM/operating system could choose to run the original thread to completion and then start running the newly created thread, run the newly created thread to completion and then switch back to the original thread, or anything in between.
In order to control how the threads run, you have to synchronize them explicitly. There are several ways to control the interaction between threads - certainly too much to describe in a single answer. I would recommend the concurrency trail of the Java tutorials for a broad overview, but in your specific case the synchronization mechanisms to get you started will probably be Thread.join and the synchronized keyword (one specific use of this keyword is described in the Java tutorials).

Make the count variable static (it looks like each thread has its own version of the variable right now) and use a mutex to make it thread safe (ie use the synchronized instruction)

From your description I came up with the following to demonstrate what I perceived as your issue. This code, should output 42. But it outputs 41.
public class Test {
static class WorkTask implements Runnable {
static int count;
#Override
public void run() {
count++;
}
}
public static void main(String... args) throws Exception {
WorkTask wt = new WorkTask();
wt.count = 41;
Thread a = new Thread(wt);
a.start();
System.out.println(wt.count);
}
}
The problem is due to the print statement running before thread had a chance to start.
To cause the current thread ( the thread that is going to read variable count ) to wait until the thread finishes, add the following after starting thre thread.
a.join();

If you are wishing to get a result back from a thread, I would recommend you to use Callable
interface and an ExecutorSercive to submit it. e.g:
Future future = Executors.newCachedThreadPool().submit
(new Callable<Interger>()
{
int count = 1000;
#Override public Integer call() throws Exception
{
//here goes the operations you want to be executed concurrently.
return count + 1; //Or whatever the result is.
}
}
//Here goes the operations you need before the other thread is done.
System.out.println(future.get()); //Here you will retrieve the result from
//the other thread. if the result is not ready yet, the main thread
//(current thread) will wait for it to finish.
this way you don't have to deal with the synchronization problems and etc.
you can see further about this in Java documentations:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/package-summary.html

calling thread.start() within its own constructor [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Java: starting a new thread in a constructor
(3 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
is it legal for a thread to call this.start() inside its own constructor? and if so what potential issues can this cause? I understand that the object wont have fully initialized until the constructor has run to completion but aside from this are there any other issues?

For memory-safety reasons, you shouldn't expose a reference to an object or that object's fields to another thread from within its constructor. Assuming that your custom thread has instance variables, by starting it from within the constructor, you are guaranteed to violate the Java Memory Model guidelines. See Brian Goetz's Safe Construction Techniques for more info.

You will also see wierd issues if the Thread class is ever further subclassed. In that case, you'll end up with the thread running already once the super() exits, and anything the subclass might do in its constructor could be invalid.
#bill barksdale
If the thread is already running, calling start again gets you an IllegalThreadStateException, you don't get 2 threads.

I assume that you want to do this to make your code less verbose; instead of saying
Thread t = new CustomThread();
t.start();
activeThreads.add(t);
you can just say
activeThreads.add( new CustomThread() );
I also like having less verbosity, but I agree with the other respondents that you shouldn't do this. Specifically, it breaks the convention; anyone familiar with Java who reads the second example will assume that the thread has not been started. Worse yet, if they write their own threading code which interacts in some way with yours, then some threads will need to call start and others won't.
This may not seem compelling when you're working by yourself, but eventually you'll have to work with other people, and it's good to develop good coding habits so that you'll have an easy time working with others and code written with the standard conventions.
However, if you don't care about the conventions and hate the extra verbosity, then go ahead; this won't cause any problems, even if you try to call start multiple times by mistake.

By the way, if one wants lower verbosity and still keep the constructor with its "standard" semantics, one could create a factory method:
activeThreads.add( CustomThread.newStartedThread() );

It's legal, but not wise. The Thread part of the instance will be completely initialised, but your constructor may not. There is very little reason to extend Thread, and to pull tricks like this isn't going to help your code.

It is "legal", but I think the most important issue is this:
A class should do one thing and do it well.
If your class uses a thread internally, then the existence of that thread should not be visible in the public API. This allows improvement without affecting the public API. Solution: extend Runnable, not Thread.
If your class provides general functionality which, in this case, happens to run in a thread, then you don't want to limit yourself to always creating a thread. Same solution here: extend Runnable, not Thread.
For less verbosity I second the suggestion to use a factory method (e.g. Foo.createAndRunInThread()).

Legal ... yes (with caveats as mentioned elsewhere). Advisable ... no.
I's just a smell you can only too easily avoid. If you want your thread to auto-start, just do it like Heinz Kabutz.
public class ThreadCreationTest {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final AtomicInteger threads_created = new AtomicInteger(0);
while (true) {
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
new Thread() {
{ start(); } // <--- Like this ... sweet and simple.
public void run() {
latch.countDown();
synchronized (this) {
System.out.println("threads created: " +
threads_created.incrementAndGet());
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
}
};
latch.await();
}
}
}