Develop Reference

Java, why need to use synchronization? instead of using a single thread?

While reading about Java synchronized, I just wondered, if the processing should be in synchronization, why not just creating a single thread (not main thread) and process one by one instead of creating multiple threads.
Because, by 'synchronized', all other threads will be just waiting except single running thread. It seems like the only single thread is working in the time.
Please advise me what I'm missing it.
I would very appreciate it if you could give some use cases.
I read an example, that example about accessing bank account from 2 ATM devices. but it makes me more confused, the blocking(Lock) should be done by the Database side, I think. and I think the 'synchronized' would not work in between multiple EC2 instances.
If my thinking is wrong, please fix me.

If all the code you run with several threads is within a synchronized block, then indeed it makes no difference vs. using a single thread.
However in general your code contains parts which can be run on several threads in parallel and parts which can't. The latter need synchronization but not the former. By using several threads you can speed up the "parallelisable" bits.

Let's consider the following use-case :
Your application is a internet browser game. Every player has a score and can click a button. Every time a player clicks the button, their score is increased and their opponent's is decreased. The first player to reach 10 wins.
As per the nature of the game, and to single a unique winner, you have to consider the two counters increase (and the check for the winner) atomically.
You'll have each player send clickEvents on their own thread and every event will be translated into the increase of the owner's counter, the check on whether the counter reached 10 and the decrease of the opponent's counter.
This is very easily done by synchronizing the method which handles modifying the counters : every concurrent thread will try to obtain the lock, and when they do, they'll execute the code (and finally release the lock).
The locking mechanism is pretty lightweight and only requires a single keyword of code.
If we follow your suggestion to implement another thread that will handle the execution, we'd have to implement the whole thread management logic (more code), to initialize that Thread (more resource) and even so, to guarantee fairness in the handling of events, you still need a way for your client threads to pass the event to your executor thread. The only way I see to do so, is to implement a BlockingQueue, which is also synchronized to prevent the race condition that naturally occurs when trying to add elements from two other thread.
I honnestly don't see a way to resolve this very simple use-case without synchronization (or implementing your own locking algorithm that basically does the same).

You can have a single thread and process one-by-one (and this is done), but there are considerable overheads in doing so and it does not remove the need for synchronization.
You are in a situation where you are starting with multiple threads (for example, you have lots of simultaneous web sessions). You want to do a part of the processing in a single thread - let's say updating some common structure with some new data. You need to pass the new data to the single thread - how do you get it there? You would have to use some kind of message queue (or an equivalent thing) and have the single thread pick requests off the message queue and that would have have to be synchronized anyway, plus there is the overhead of managing the queue, plus the issue that you need to get a reply back from the single thread asynchronously. So you are back to square one.
This technique is used where the processing you need to do is considerable and you don't want to block your main threads for a long time.
In summary: having a single thread does not remove the need for synchronization.

Java Thread storing

So, I have a loop where I create thousands of threads which process my data.
I checked and storing a Thread slows down my app.
It's from my loop:
Record r = new Record(id, data, outPath, debug);
//r.start();
threads.add(r);
//id is 4 digits
//data is something like 500 chars long
It stop my for loop for a while (it takes a second or more for one run, too much!).
Only init > duration: 0:00:06.369
With adding thread to ArrayList > duration: 0:00:07.348
Questions:
what is the best way of storing Threads?
how to make Threads faster?
should I create Threads and run them with special executor, means for example 10 at once, then next 10 etc.? (if yes, then how?)

Consider that having a number of threads that is very high is not very useful.
At least you can execute at the same time a number of threads equals to the number of core of your cpu.
The best is to reuse existing threads. To do that you can use the Executor framework.
For example to create an Executor that handle internally at most 10 threads you can do the followig:
List<Record> records = ...;
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
for (Record r : records) {
executor.submit(r);
}
// At the end stop the executor
executor.shutdown();
With a code similar to this one you can submit also many thousands of commands (Runnable implementations) but no more than 10 threads will be created.

I'm guessing that it is not the .add method that is really slowing you down. My guess is that the hundreds of Threads running in parallel is what really is the problem. Of course a simple command like "add" will be queued in the pipeline and can take long to be executed, even if the execution itself is fast. Also it is possible that your data-structure has an add method that is in O(n).
Possible solutions for this:
* Find a real wait-free solution for this. E.g. prioritising threads.
* Add them all to your data-structure before executing them
While it is possible to work like this it is strongly discouraged to create more than some Threads for stuff like this. You should use the Thread Executor as David Lorenzo already pointed out.

I have a loop where I create thousands of threads...
That's a bad sign right there. Creating threads is expensive.
Presumeably your program creates thousands of threads because it has thousands of tasks to perform. The trick is, to de-couple the threads from the tasks. Create just a few threads, and re-use them.
That's what a thread pool does for you.
Learn about the java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor class and related classes (e.g., Future). It implements a thread pool, and chances are very likely that it provides all of the features that you need.
If your needs are simple enough, you can use one of the static methdods in java.util.concurrent.Executors to create and configure a thread pool. (e.g., Executors.newFixedThreadPool(N) will create a new thread pool with exactly N threads.)
If your tasks are all compute bound, then there's no reason to have any more threads than the number of CPUs in the machine. If your tasks spend time waiting for something (e.g., waiting for commands from a network client), then the decision of how many threads to create becomes more complicated: It depends on how much of what resources those threads use. You may need to experiment to find the right number.

Syncronization of two threads every k steps

I have a problem with Java threads. I must run two threads separately for a defined number of steps and then I have to make them communicate.
Thread 1 must read an ArrayList that thread 2 owns and modifies and same for thread 2.
Which is the better method to synchronize them? Can I use the arrayList of thread1 for thread 2 or must I define a different shared area?
Thank everybody.

It is much cleaner to use a dedicated synchronizer than to lock on one of the ArrayLists.
I would suggest using a CyclicBarrier. To quote the JavaDoc:
A synchronization aid that allows a set of threads to all wait for each other to reach a common barrier point. CyclicBarriers are useful in programs involving a fixed sized party of threads that must occasionally wait for each other. The barrier is called cyclic because it can be re-used after the waiting threads are released.

Since the situation is symmetric, you should not chose one ArrayList over the other. Use additional object. Exchanger looks like the best choice.

Java multithreading in CPU load

I have a bit of an issue with an application running multiple Java threads.
The application runs a number of working threads that peek continuously at an input queue and if there are messages in the queue they pull them out and process them.
Among those working threads there is another verification thread scheduled to perform at a fixed period a check to see if the host (on which the application runs) is still in "good shape" to run the application. This thread updates an AtomicBoolean value which in turn is verified by the working thread before they start peeking to see if the host is OK.
My problem is that in cases with high CPU load the thread responsible with the verification will take longer because it has to compete with all the other threads. If the AtomicBoolean does not get updated after a certain period it is automatically set to false, causing me a nasty bottleneck.
My initial approach was to increase the priority of the verification thread, but digging into it deeper I found that this is not a guaranteed behavior and an algorithm shouldn't rely on thread priority to function correctly.
Anyone got any alternative ideas? Thanks!

Instead of peeking into a regular queue data structure, use the java.util.concurrent package's LinkedBlockingQueue.
What you can do is, run an pool of threads (you could use executer service's fixed thread pool, i.e., a number of workers of your choice) and do LinkedBlockingQueue.take().
If a message arrives at the queue, it is fed to one of the waiting threads (yeah, take does block the thread until there is something to be fed with).
Java API Reference for Linked Blocking Queue's take method
HTH.

One old school approach to throttling rate of work, that does not use a health check thread at all (and so by-passes these problems) is to block or reject requests to add to the queue if the queue is longer than say 100. This applies dynamic back pressure on to the clients generating the load, slowing them down when the worker threads are over loaded.
This approach was added to the Java 1.5 library, see java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue. Its put(o) method blocks if the queue is full.

Are u using Executor framework (from Java's concurrency package)? If not give it a shot. You could try using ScheduledExecutorService for the verification thread.

More threads does not mean better performance. Usually if you have dual core, 2 threads gives best performance, 3 or more starts getting worse. Quad core should handle 4 threads best, etc. So be careful how much threads you use.
You can put the other threads to sleep after they perform their work, and allow other threads to do their part. I believe Thread.yield() will pause the current thread to give time to other threads.
If you want your thread to run continuously, I would suggest creating two main threads, thread A and B. Use A for the verification thread, and from B, create the other threads. Therefore thread A gets more execution time.

Seems you need to utilize Condition variables. Peeking will take cpu cycles.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/locks/Condition.html

Java threadpool functionality

I need to make a program with a limited amount of threads (currently using newFixedThreadPool) but I have the problem that all threads get created from start, filling up memory at alarming rate.
I wish to prevent this. Threads should only be created shortly before they are executed.
e.g.: I call the program and instruct it to use 2 threads in the pool. The program should create & launch the first 2 Threads immediately (obviously), create the next 2 to wait for the previous 2, and at that point wait until one or both of the first 2 ended executing.
I thought about extending executor or FixedThreadPool or such. However I have no clue on how to start there and doubt it is the best solution. Easiest would have my main Thread sleeping on intervals, which is not really good either...
Thanks in advance!

Have you tried taking a look at ThreadPoolExecutor ? Using the right constructor parameters, you could easily tweak the number and keep-alive time of the created threads.

Looking at the details in your post...
I call the program and instruct it to use 2 threads in the pool. The program should create & launch the first 2 Threads immediately (obviously), create the next 2 to wait for the previous 2, and at that point wait until one or both of the first 2 ended executing.
Your problem is much more about synchronizing tasks execution than in fact pooling threads. From what you say here, you want to have 2 threads executing any number of tasks; if you don't want to have 100 jobs running at the same time, don't create a 100 threads pool...
I would suggest either using a BlockingQueue to control your Runnables, or create a 2 threads pool using a ThreadPoolExecutor, and feed it all your tasks. It will execute them when threads are available.
Does that make sense with what you try to achieve here?

I don't think you should manipulate the thread pool implementation. If you create the threads shortly before execution, you lose the main benefit of the pool, that recycles your threads.
Maybe you should reduce the maximum number of threads in the pool. If you instruct the pool to create too many of them, the total out-of-heap memory used for their stack spaces will consume all available memory. I assume that this is the kind of OutOfMemoryError you have (?).

If you're looking at this from a performance perspective, then it's best to take the hit in memory when you first start up the application than constantly get bombarded with allocating and deallocating memory while the program is running.
If it's using too much memory when you start the application, then it will still be too much memory later. You should throttle down the size of the thread pool.
There are additional benefits to using a thread pool, such as if you lose a thread along the way, the thread pool will automatically create a new one to replace it, keeping your thread pool at a constant size.
If this isn't the type of benefit that you're looking for, then you may wish to handle the threads in memory manually, and avoid the thread pool.