Develop Reference

Java: prevent another thread getting control until a specific command in the first thread is executed

I have a simple concurrent code that increments a shared variable.
Two threads increment the counter 10,000,000 times each and print the result.
It works alright (race condition is resolved with synchronized inside the increment method).
However after thread A is done incrementing, thread B starts incrementing before thread A has a chance to prints its result (should be 10,000,000). I can resolve it by getting thread B to sleep 3 seconds before starting its own increment:
public class DogLatch {
private static Counter counter = new Counter();
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Thread a = new Thread(new A());
Thread b = new Thread(new B());
a.start();
b.start();
a.join();
b.join();
System.out.printf("counter: %,d", counter.getValue());
}
static class Counter {
private int i;
public void increment() {
synchronized (this) {
i++;
}
}
public int getValue() {return i;}
public void setValue(int i ) {this.i = i;}
}
static class A implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10_000_000; i++) {
counter.increment();
}
System.out.println("A done: " + counter.getValue());
}
}
static class B implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Go to school");
System.out.println("Walk dog");
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
for (int i = 0; i < 10_000_000; i++) {
counter.increment();
}
System.out.println("B done: " + counter.getValue());
}
}
}
would print
Go to school
Walk dog
A done: 10000000
B done: 20000000
counter: 20,000,000
However if I repalce B with:
static class B implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Go to school");
System.out.println("Walk dog");
for (int i = 0; i < 10_000_000; i++) {
counter.increment();
}
System.out.println("B done: " + counter.getValue());
}
}
I get
Go to school
Walk dog
A done: 17368068
B done: 20000000
counter: 20,000,000
output. Is there a way to achieve the correct output where A done: 10000000 and B done: 10000000 is displayed, without resorting to Thread.sleep() in B?

Actually, your program is not really doing much concurrent processing. You wait 5 seconds in thread B while thread A increments up to 10,000,000 and then B wakes up and continues.
This would be the result if you just started them one after the other in a single thread.
But you know it's working fine since the the end result is always 20,000,000 without the sleep statement.
If you force alternation you will loose the benefit of using threads. The fact that A prints out different values but the final tally is 20,000,000 is indicative of it working perfectly!

improper output of synchronization in java

In the code, the thread output is not properly synchronized. The output should be the numbers in increasing order.
here is the code
public class Prog {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread a = new Thread(new Writer(), "A");
Thread b = new Thread(new Writer(), "B");
Thread c = new Thread(new Writer(), "C");
a.start();
b.start();
c.start();
}
static class Writer implements Runnable {
private static int count;
#Override
public void run() {
while (count < 5) {
show();
}
try {
Thread.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
private synchronized void show() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ":\t" + ++count);
}
}
}
One output of this code is:
B: 2
B: 4
C: 3
A: 2
B: 5
whereas expected output is:
B: 1
B: 2
C: 3
A: 4
B: 5
What am I missing? Please help.

Each Writer synchronizes (implicitly) on itself - so you have three writers and three separate locks (no real synchronization between them can occur).
If you change the show method to static, the writers will synchronize on the Writer class instead - this way all the writers will share the lock and be synchronized with each other.

Sequential execution of threads using synchronized

I have a snippet of code that creates 3 threads and expect them to print sequentially using synchronized block on the integer object. But apparently I am getting deadlock sometimes. See below:
public class SequentialExecution implements Runnable {
private Integer i = 1;
public void run() {
String tmp = Thread.currentThread().getName();
if (tmp.equals("first")) {
synchronized(i) {
first();
i = 2;
}
} else if (tmp.equals("second")) {
while (i != 2);
synchronized(i) {
second();
i = 3;
}
} else {
while (i != 3);
synchronized(i) {
third();
}
}
}
public void first() {
System.out.println("first " + i);
}
public void second() {
System.out.println("second " + i);
}
public void third() {
System.out.println("third " + i);
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
//create 3 threads and call first(), second() and third() sequentially
SequentialExecution se = new SequentialExecution();
Thread t1 = new Thread(se, "first");
Thread t2 = new Thread(se, "second");
Thread t3 = new Thread(se, "third");
t3.start();
t2.start();
t1.start();
}
}
The result I am expecting(and sometimes getting) is:
first 1
second 2
third 3
One sample result I am getting with deadlock(and eclipse hangs) is:
first 1
second 2
Anyone know why this is not working? I know I can use locks but I just don't know why using synchronized block is not working.

Declare i to be volatile: private volatile Integer i = 1;. This warns the compiler that it must not apply certain optimizations to i. It must be read from memory each time it is referenced in case another thread has changed it.
I also agree with the recommendation in user3582926's answer to synchronize on this rather than i, because the object referenced by i changes as the program runs. It is neither necessary nor sufficient to make the program work, but it does make it a better, clearer program.
I have tested each change by changing the main method to:
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
// create 3 threads and call first(), second() and third() sequentially
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
SequentialExecution se = new SequentialExecution();
Thread t1 = new Thread(se, "first");
Thread t2 = new Thread(se, "second");
Thread t3 = new Thread(se, "third");
t3.start();
t2.start();
t1.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
t3.join();
}
}
There is no deadlock. There is a memory order issue.
The while loops in the second and third threads are outside any synchronized block. There is nothing telling the compiler and JVM that those threads cannot keep i, or the object to which it points, in a register or cache during the loop. The effect is that, depending on timing, one of those threads may get stuck looping looking at a value that is not going to change.
One way to solve the problem is to mark i volatile. That warns the compiler that it is being used for inter-thread communication, and each thread needs to watch for changes in memory contents whenever i changes.
In order to solve it entirely using synchronization, you need to check the value of the Integer referenced by i inside a block that is synchronized on a single, specific object. i is no good for that, because it changes due to boxing/unboxing conversion. It might as well be a simple int.
The synchronized blocks cannot wrap the while loops, because that really would lead to deadlock. Instead, the synchronized block has to be inside the loop. If the updates to i are synchronized on the same object, that will force the updates to be visible to the tests inside the while loops.
These considerations lead to the following synchronization-based version. I am using a main method that does 1000 runs, and will itself hang if any thread in any of those runs hangs.
public class SequentialExecution implements Runnable {
private int i = 1;
public void run() {
String tmp = Thread.currentThread().getName();
if (tmp.equals("first")) {
synchronized (this) {
first();
i = 2;
}
} else if (tmp.equals("second")) {
while (true) {
synchronized (this) {
if (i == 2) {
break;
}
}
}
synchronized (this) {
second();
i = 3;
}
} else {
while (true) {
synchronized (this) {
if (i == 3) {
break;
}
}
}
synchronized (this) {
third();
}
}
}
public void first() {
System.out.println("first " + i);
}
public void second() {
System.out.println("second " + i);
}
public void third() {
System.out.println("third " + i);
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
// create 3 threads and call first(), second() and third() sequentially
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
SequentialExecution se = new SequentialExecution();
Thread t1 = new Thread(se, "first");
Thread t2 = new Thread(se, "second");
Thread t3 = new Thread(se, "third");
t3.start();
t2.start();
t1.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
t3.join();
}
}
}

I believe you want to be using synchronized(this) instead of synchronized(i).

Java threads in order

I'm learning threads so I wanted to make a program which has two types of threads: one that writes random numbers and the other one which checks if the current number matches some specific number. The threads call write() and read(int) methods from the Numbers class. To make things more clear, I want my main program to look like this:
Numbers n = new Numbers();
new WritingThread(n);
new ReadingThread(n,3);
new ReadingThread(n,5);
So the output would be something like this:
2
7
3 !!! MATCH !!!
8
5 !!! MATCH !!!
1
...
The thing is that threads are not executed in order. I want to first execute the WritingThread, and then all the ReadingThreads. Because this way a new random number would be written and only one thread would have the chance to check if the numbers match. Here is the code:
class Numbers:
public class Numbers {
int number;
boolean written = false;
public synchronized void write() {
while (written)
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
e1.printStackTrace();
}
number = (int) (Math.random() * 10);
System.out.print("\n" + number);
written = true;
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized void check(int n) {
while (!written)
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.print(" Reading thread: " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
if (n == number)
System.out.print(" !!! MATCH !!! ");
notify();
written = false;
}
}
class WritingThread:
public class WritingThread extends Thread {
Numbers n;
WritingThread(Numbers n){
this.n = n;
start();
}
public void run(){
while(true){
n.write();
}
}
}
class ReadingThread:
public class ReadingThread extends Thread{
Numbers n;
int number;
public ReadingThread(Numbers n, int number){
this.n = n;
this.number = number;
start();
}
public void run(){
while(true){
n.check(number);
}
}
}
And the output:
3 Reading thread: Thread-2
3 Reading thread: Thread-1 !!! MATCH !!!
0 Reading thread: Thread-2
5 Reading thread: Thread-1
0 Reading thread: Thread-2
0 Reading thread: Thread-1
5 Reading thread: Thread-2 !!! MATCH !!!
8 Reading thread: Thread-1
I know i could make one thread which has an array of numbers to check, but I am curious how could it be done this way. Thanks.

Lets start with your example. You have two consumers and one boolean flag. Think through the logic. Let's call our three threads W, C1 and C2.
W post 5
W set flag to true
W send notifyAll
C2 awake
C1 awake
C2 acquire lock
C1 block
C2 no match
C2 notify
W awake
W blocks
C2 release lock
C1 acquire lock
flag is false, C1 waits (releases monitor)
flag is false, C2 waits (releases monitor)
GOTO start
This is just one if the many possible ways in which this code can fun. Any time the lock needs to be acquired there is a free for all and of the threads waiting for it only one can get the lock. That thread will check the value set and reset the flag. If that thread is not the one that the value was intended for it is still consumed.
It should be fairly obvious that you have a race hazard. You are using a single queue for two consumer threads. Each consumer thread is fighting for the queue. Your queue is thread safe in that no more than one thread can read the single item from it at any one time but it causes a race hazard as each consumer thread expects to be the only one reading it. If the wrong thread reads the item then the other thread cannot see it.
The only way to resolve this is to have one queue per thread. The producer puts the same item into each consumer thread's private queue and each consumer thread takes items from its queue and reads them.
Here is an example using an ExecutorSerivce:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final class Consumer implements Runnable {
private final BlockingQueue<Integer> q = new LinkedBlockingDeque<>();
private final int search;
public Consumer(final int search) {
this.search = search;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
if (q.take() == search) {
System.out.println("Found magic number.");
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
}
}
}
public Queue<Integer> getQ() {
return q;
}
}
final class Producer implements Runnable {
final Random r = new Random();
final Iterable<Queue<Integer>> qs;
public Producer(final Iterable<Queue<Integer>> qs) {
this.qs = qs;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
final int i = r.nextInt();
for (final Queue<Integer> q : qs) {
q.offer(i);
}
}
}
}
final int numConsumers = 5;
final Collection<Queue<Integer>> qs = new LinkedList<>();
final ExecutorService es = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for (int i = 0; i < numConsumers; ++i) {
final Consumer c = new Consumer(i);
qs.add(c.getQ());
es.submit(c);
}
es.submit(new Producer(qs));
}
You are likely to get very few hits with this example as Random.nextInt() is used. If you want to get more hits reduce the range of the generated random numbers by calling Random.nextInt(int max) which generates numbers [0, max).
As you can see each Consumer has a queue of items to check and it blocks using the BlockingQueue API to wait for new items. The Producer puts the same item into each of the Consumer's queues in turn.

Reading an array consecutively with two threads

I have an array : int[] arr = {5,4,3,1,2};
I want to do like this::
5 should be read by thread one
4 should be read by thread two
3 should be read by thread one
1 should be read by thread two
2 should be read by thread one
I have tried my best this simple program:
package com.techighost.create.deadlock;
public class ArrayReading implements Runnable {
volatile int index = 0;
int[] arr;
public ArrayReading(int[] arr) {
this.arr = arr;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (arr) {
for (;index<=(arr.length-1);) {
if (index % 2 == 0 && Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("Thread-One")) {
System.out.println(arr[index] + " " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
index++;
arr.notify();
} else if (index % 2 != 0 && Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("Thread-Two")) {
System.out.println(arr[index] + " " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
index++;
arr.notify();
}else{
System.out.println("In else " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try {
arr.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
int[] arr = { 5, 4, 3, 1, 2 };
ArrayReading arrayReading = new ArrayReading(arr);
Thread t = new Thread(arrayReading);
t.setName("Thread-One");
Thread t1 = new Thread(arrayReading);
t1.setName("Thread-Two");
t.start();
t1.start();
t.join();
t1.join();
}
}
I think that this thread name check should not be there? Any body please suggest what can be done to remove this check

You can use condition as mentioned by #zzk.Program
for this can be as
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class PrintSequentially {
private final int[] items;
private final ReentrantLock lock;
private final Condition notEven;
private final Condition notOdd;
private int currentCount = 0;
public PrintSequentially(int[] items) {
this.items = items;
this.lock = new ReentrantLock();
this.notEven = lock.newCondition();
this.notOdd = lock.newCondition();
}
public void printSeq() throws InterruptedException {
try {
lock.lockInterruptibly();
while (currentCount < items.length) {
if (currentCount % 2 == 0) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ":"
+ items[currentCount++]);
if (currentCount < items.length)
notEven.await();
notOdd.signal();
} else {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ":"
+ items[currentCount++]);
notEven.signal();
if (currentCount < items.length)
notOdd.await();
}
}
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
Driver program for this is
public static void main(String[] args) {
int arr[] ={1,2,3,4,5};
final PrintSequentially p = new PrintSequentially(arr);
Runnable r1 = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
p.printSeq();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
Runnable r2 = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
p.printSeq();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
Thread th1 = new Thread(r1);
th1.setName("thread 1");
th1.start();
Thread th2 = new Thread(r2);
th2.setName("thread 2");
th2.start();
}
Here you can add as many thread you want. It will print sequentially.

You could use conditions. Thread 1 should wait for condition index % 2 == 0 and Thread 2 should wait for condition index % 2 == 1.
Look at this link for how to use condition

Use another parameter field in your runnable to tell it to read even or odd indices, create two instances of your runnable, one for even, one for odd. Set up an ExecutorService with at least two threads, execute the runnables. It may be possibile they finish too fast to be given different threads. Did not test this.

I understand that this probably is some sort of getting-your-feet-wet thread application but there are a number of problems with it that makes it less than optimal.
The whole point of using threads is asynchronous operation. Wanting your threads to process every other entry in an array sounds like you are dividing up the work but this may run slower than single threaded because of the synchronization to accomplish the every other. The nature of threads also means that "2" may be printed before "1". That's a good thing because you aren't slowing down a thread to get them to be in order.
Your code has some race conditions here. For example, a thread could process the last element of the list and go to wait but the other thread could have already finished the list and won't be there to notify it. I bet your application often hangs at the end.
You should consider using an executor service and submitting a job for each entry. This is the best way to do most threaded task:
// create a thread pool with 2 workers
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
for (int entry : arr) {
threadPool.submit(new `(entry));
}
// once we have submitted all jobs to the thread pool, it should be shutdown
threadPool.shutdown();
// to wait for the jobs to finish you do
threadPool.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
...
Then your ArrayReading takes the entry not the whole array and can work on them independently.
Lastly, as others have already mentioned, you could pass a boolean even flag to have each thread process even (if true) or odd (if false) items.
Thread t1 = new Thread(new ArrayReading(arr, true));
Thread t2 = new Thread(new ArrayReading(arr, false));

You can use inter thread communication using wait and notify like this :
class ReadNum
{
int arr[];
private volatile int counter = 0;
public ReadNum()
{
counter = 0 ;
}
public ReadNum(int size)
{
arr = new int[size];
for (int i = 0; i < size ; i++)
{
arr[i] = i;
}
}
public void setArray(int[] arr)
{
counter = 0;
this.arr = arr;
}
public synchronized void readOdd()
{
while (counter < arr.length)
{
if (counter % 2 != 0)
{
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+":->"+arr[counter]);
counter++;
}
notify();
try{
wait();
}catch(Exception ex){ex.printStackTrace();}
}
notify();//So that other EvenThread does'nt hang if OddThread completes earlier
}
public synchronized void readEven()
{
while (counter < arr.length)
{
if (counter % 2 == 0)
{
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+":->"+arr[counter]);
counter++;
}
notify();
try{
wait();
}catch(Exception ex){ex.printStackTrace();}
}
notify();//So that other OddThread does'nt hang if EvenThread completes earlier
}
}
public class SequenceRead
{
public static void main(String st[])
{
final ReadNum rn = new ReadNum();
int arr[]= {1,2,34,78,99,45,4545,987,343,45};
rn.setArray(arr);
Thread th1 = new Thread(new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
rn.readEven();
}
},"EvenReadThread");
Thread th2 = new Thread( new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
rn.readOdd();
}
},"OddReadThread");
th2.start();th1.start();
}
}
UPDATE
Here is the explanation that you asked for about Race Condition.
Race Condition : "It is a situation where multiple threads can access same resource (typically object's instance variables) and can
produce corrupted data if one thread "races in" or "sneaks in" too
quickly before an operation that should be atomic has completed. Hence the output of program is unpredictable because it is dependent on the sequence or timing of starting, execution and completion of the various threads accessing the same resource ."
For example consider the code given below:
class Race
{
private int counter;
public void printCounter()
{
while(counter < 100)
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(10);//Added to show Race Effect.
}
catch (Exception ex){}
counter = counter + 1;
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() +" : "+counter);//If we don't consider Race condition then the Output should be 100 for all threads.
}
}
public class MainClasss
{
public static void main(String st[])
{
final Race race = new Race();
Thread[] th = new Thread[2];
//Creating 2 threads to call printCounter of object race
for (int i = 0 ; i < th.length ; i++)
{
th[i] = new Thread( new Runnable()
{
public void run()
{
race.printCounter();
}
}, "Thread"+i);
}
//Starting all Threads
for (Thread thr : th )
{
thr.start();
}
}
}
And here is the output that that I am getting , It might vary on your system.
Thread1 : 100
Thread0 : 101
All threads are not printing 100 as expected!!! Why ? Because Program has no control on when an executing Thread will be preempted by another thread.It all depends upon JVM Thread Scheduler.One of the possible explanations for above output is as follows:
At counter = 99 , Thread1 sneaked inside the while loop and slept for 10 ms .
JVM Scheduler now preempted Thread1 by Thread0 .
Thread1 goes inside "while" loop because it finds counter < 100
At Thread.sleep Thread0 is preempted by Thread1.
Thread1 increases the counter by 1.
Thread1 prints the counter value as 100 and finishes.
Thread0 continues execution and increases the counter by 1 and makes counter = 101
Thread0 prints the counter value as 101 and finishes.
This is the live exhibition of Race Condition.
To Avoid this Race condition you should make the ReadNum method as synchronized , So that when a Thread enters that method , it takes the monitor and become owner of the synchronized method . And that thread is preempted only after it completes the all operation Atomically . I hope it gave you a good overview of Race Condition now.

here is the code you are looking for ....
public class ThreadConcurrent {
int []array=new int[]{0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9};
volatile int i=0;
public void checkSum() {
synchronized (this) {
for(;i<array.length;){
System.out.println("thread name "+Thread.currentThread().getName()+ " : "+array[i]);
i++;
notify();
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final ThreadConcurrent er=new ThreadConcurrent();
Thread t1=new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
er.checkSum();
}
}, "T1");
Thread t21=new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
er.checkSum();
}
}, "T2");
t1.start();
t21.start();
}
}