I have main thread with method "start". This method starts another thread, that doing long job. Method "start" can be call from another threads. How to avoid creating new threads in "start" method if already have one running and do not lock main thread? I trying use singleThreadExecutor, but it queues tasks.
code:
Start method:
public void start(){
// need only one active thread
// if thread alive, avoid to start another
t = new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.currentThread().sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
t.start();
}
Simple test
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
Thread r = new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run() {
Helper.getInstance().start();
}
});
r.start();
}
If you want to just discard new tasks when the current thread is busy, you could use a SingleThreadExecutor and configure it to discard any overflow tasks instead of queueing them.
Related
I have these two methods for creating and stopping a thread. However the thread still keeps running, even after the first method is called. (I'm creating an object of the class and calling them from another class).
private Thread thread;
public void stopAlarm() {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "stopAlarm called");
sendAlarm = false;
if (!thread.equals(null)) {
try {
thread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public void triggerAlarm() {
Runnable alarmTest = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (sendAlarm) {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, String.valueOf(sendAlarm));
}
}
};
thread = new Thread(Test);
thread.start();
}
When stopAlarm is called the thread is always null, although it is called after triggerAlarm is called (thread is running).
Your problem is caused by thread scope. Thread scope is created when you create a thread with same variables in the scope but you can't change these variables from outside world. Best practice for managing runnables in android is to use Handler.
Handler handler = new Handler();
Runnable alarmTest = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, String.valueOf(sendAlarm));
handler.post(alarmTest, 5000); //wait 5 sec and run again
//you can stop from outside
}
};
after definitions, in order to start the runnable:
handler.post(alarmTest,0); //wait 0 ms and run
in order to stop the runnable:
handler.removeCallbacks(alarmTest);
EDIT: wait statement with loop
EDIT: Complete solution
Handler handler = new Handler();
Runnable alarmTest = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, String.valueOf(sendAlarm));
handler.post(alarmTest, 5000); //wait 5 sec and run again
//you can stop from outside
}
};
public void stopAlarm() {
Log.i(LOG_TAG, "stopAlarm called");
handler.removeCallbacks(alarmTest);
}
public void triggerAlarm() {
handler.post(alarmTest,0); //wait 0 ms and run
}
Depending on your OS you may find making your thread volatile may fix this.
private volatile Thread thread;
However - there are better ways to do this. One very useful one is using a small (just one entry) BlockingQueue which is polled by the running thread.
// Use a BlockingQueue to signal the alarm to stop.
BlockingQueue<String> stop = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(1);
public void stopAlarm() {
stop.add("Stop");
}
public void triggerAlarm() {
new Thread(() -> {
try {
while (stop.poll(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS) == null) {
// Stuff
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}).start();
}
Clearly you will have to manage edge cases like where someone calls stopAlarm when no alarm is running.
class Test {
boolean isFirstThread = true;
private synchronized void printer(int threadNo) {
if(isFirstThread) {
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
isFirstThread = false;
System.out.println(threadNo);
}
public void starter() {
new Thread(){
#Override()
public void run() {
printer(0);
}
}.start();
new Thread(){
#Override()
public void run() {
printer(1);
}
}.start();
new Thread(){
#Override()
public void run() {
printer(2);
}
}.start();
new Thread(){
#Override()
public void run() {
printer(3);
}
}.start();
}
}
In the above code, when i call starter from main. I have created four new Threads to call a synchronized function. I know the order of execution of the threads can't be predicted. Unless they all wait for some time, so that first thread can finish and come out of the synchronized block. In which case I expect all threads to be held in a queue so i expected the answer as
0
1
2
3
But consistently(I ran the program more than 20 times) I was getting the output as
0
3
2
1
Which means that the threads are being held in a stack instead of a queue. Why is it so? Every answer in the google result says it is a queue but I am getting it as a stack. I would like to know the reason behind for holding the threads in stack(which is counter intuitive) instead of queue?
The order in which threads start is up to the OS, it is not specified in the Java Language Spec. You call start in the main thread, but when the new thread gets allocated and when it begins processing its Runnable or run method is left to the OS' scheduler to decide.
Be careful not to rely on the order in which threads happen to start.
This is a general Java question and not an Android one first off!
I'd like to know how to run code on the main thread, from the context of a secondary thread. For example:
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
//work out pi to 1,000 DP (takes a while!)
//print the result on the main thread
}
}).start();
That sort of thing - I realise my example is a little poor since in Java you don't need to be in the main thread to print something out, and that Swing has an event queue also - but the generic situation where you might need to run say a Runnable on the main thread while in the context of a background thread.
EDIT: For comparison - here's how I'd do it in Objective-C:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0UL), ^{
//do background thread stuff
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
//update UI
});
});
Thanks in advance!
There is no universal way to just send some code to another running thread and say "Hey, you, do this." You would need to put the main thread into a state where it has a mechanism for receiving work and is waiting for work to do.
Here's a simple example of setting up the main thread to wait to receive work from other threads and run it as it arrives. Obviously you would want to add a way to actually end the program and so forth...!
public static final BlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>();
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
final int result;
result = 2+3;
queue.add(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(result);
}
});
}
}).start();
while(true) {
queue.take().run();
}
}
In case you are on Android, using a Handler should do the job?
new Handler(Looper.getMainLooper()).post(new Runnable () {
#Override
public void run () {
...
}
});
An old discussion, but if it is a matter of sending request to the main thread (an not the opposite direction) you can also do it with futures. The basic aim is to execute something in background and, when it is finished, to get the result:
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
// create the task to execute
System.out.println("Main: Run thread");
FutureTask<Integer> task = new FutureTask<Integer>(
new Callable<Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer call() throws Exception {
// indicate the beginning of the thread
System.out.println("Thread: Start");
// decide a timeout between 1 and 5s
int timeout = 1000 + new Random().nextInt(4000);
// wait the timeout
Thread.sleep(timeout);
// indicate the end of the thread
System.out.println("Thread: Stop after " + timeout + "ms");
// return the result of the background execution
return timeout;
}
});
new Thread(task).start();
// here the thread is running in background
// during this time we do something else
System.out.println("Main: Start to work on other things...");
Thread.sleep(2000);
System.out.println("Main: I have done plenty of stuff, but now I need the result of my function!");
// wait for the thread to finish if necessary and retrieve the result.
Integer result = task.get();
// now we can go ahead and use the result
System.out.println("Main: Thread has returned " + result);
// you can also check task.isDone() before to call task.get() to know
// if it is finished and do somethings else if it is not the case.
}
If your intention is to do several stuff in background and retrieve the results, you can set some queues as said above or you can split the process in several futures (starting all at once or starting a new one when needed, even from another future). If you store each task in a map or a list, initialized in the main thread, you can check the futures that you want at anytime and get their results when they are done.
You may want to use the 'even dispatching thread' where most event driven things happen. If you are using swing then:
SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
Your code here.
}
});
Or create a class that implements Runnable and pass it into invokeLater().
If you're using JavaFX, which I highly recommend, then you can use
Platform.runLater(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
alert(text);
}
});
from within your non-UI thread, and the runnable will executed from the UI thread on return from your thread.
A little late to the party but I think that my approach is a little bit different.
Modifying Affe's solution a little bit
public static final BlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread myThread = new Thread(
() -> {
String name = Thread.currentThread().getName();
System.out.println("initial current thread " + name);
queue.add(() -> System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()));
});
myThread.setName("background thread");
myThread.start();
try {
myThread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
while (!queue.isEmpty()) {
try {
queue.take().run();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
output
initial current thread background thread
main
I have some struggle with threads in Java, I have three threads - thread1, thread2, and thread3. Those are doing some task when it started, I want to stop these two threads by thread1. I put thread1 for sleep(500), then I stop the both threads, but the process of two threads are still running. Do you have any idea how to do this?
How're you attempting to stop them? Thread.stop? Be warned that this method is deprecated.
Instead, look into using some sort of flag for thread 1 to communicate to thread 2 and 3 that they should stop. In fact, you could probably use interrupts.
Below, Thread.interrupt is used to implement the coordination.
final Thread subject1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
Thread.yield();
}
System.out.println("subject 1 stopped!");
}
});
final Thread subject2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
Thread.yield();
}
System.out.println("subject 2 stopped!");
}
});
final Thread coordinator = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) { }
System.out.println("coordinator stopping!");
subject1.interrupt();
subject2.interrupt();
}
});
subject1.start();
subject2.start();
coordinator.start();
Alternatively, you could also use a volatile boolean (or AtomicBoolean) as means of communicating.
Atomic access provided by volatile and java.util.concurrent.atomic.* allow you to ensure mutation of the flag is seen by the subject threads.
final AtomicBoolean running = new AtomicBoolean(true);
final ExecutorService subjects = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
subjects.submit(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (running.get()) {
Thread.yield();
}
System.out.println("subject 1 stopped!");
}
});
subjects.submit(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (running.get()) {
Thread.yield();
}
System.out.println("subject 2 stopped!");
}
});
final ScheduledExecutorService coordinator = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
coordinator.schedule(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("coordinator stopping!");
running.set(false);
subjects.shutdown();
coordinator.shutdown();
}
}, 500, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
Similarly, you could opt to, rather than use AtomicBoolean, use a field such as:
static volatile boolean running = true;
Better yet, if you take advantage of ExecutorServices, you can also program similar code as follows:
final ExecutorService subjects = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
subjects.submit(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
Thread.yield();
}
System.out.println("subject 1 stopped!");
}
});
subjects.submit(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
Thread.yield();
}
System.out.println("subject 2 stopped!");
}
});
final ScheduledExecutorService coordinator = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
coordinator.schedule(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("coordinator stopping!");
subjects.shutdownNow();
coordinator.shutdown();
}
}, 500, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
This takes advantage of the fact that ThreadPoolExecutor.shutdownNow interrupts its worker threads in an attempt to signal shutdown.
Running any example, the output should be something to the effect of:
C:\dev\scrap>javac CoordinationTest.java
C:\dev\scrap>java CoordinationTest
coordinator stopping!
subject 1 stopped!
subject 2 stopped!
Note the last two lines can come in either order.
You can't stop a thread from another thread. You can only ask the thread to stop itself, and the best way to do that is to interrupt it. The interrupted thread must collaborate, though, and respond to the interruption as soon as possible by stopping its execution.
This is covered in the Java tutorial about concurrency.
You can either:
Have some boolean flag which the threads check regularly. If it is changed, then, they stop executing (note this can cause race conditions)
Another option would be to use the ExecutorService:
An Executor that provides methods to manage termination and methods
that can produce a Future for tracking progress of one or more
asynchronous tasks.
I have a JRuby engine which evaluates some scripts and I want to close the thread if it takes more than 5 seconds.
I tried something like this:
class myThread extends Thread{
boolean allDone = false;
public void threadDone() {
allDone = true;
}
public void run() {
while(true) {
engine.eval(myScript);
if(allDone)
return;
}
}
(...)
th1 = new myThread();
th1.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
if(th1.isAlive())
th1.threadDone();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {}
if(th1.isAlive())
System.out.println("Still alive");
I also tried to kill the thread with th1.stop() or th1.interrupt() but the value retured by th1.isAlive() method is always true.
What can I do?
I want to add that myScript could be "while(1) do; end" and I cannot wait until it's completed. So I want to prevent scripts like that and kill the thread if it takes more than 5 seconds.
Another solution would be to use the built-in mechanism to interrupt threads:
public void run() {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
engine.eval(myScript);
}
}
...
th1 = new myThread();
th1.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
th1.interrupt();
}
This way, no need for an allDone field, and no risk in failing to synchronize.
To make your Thread stoppable you might want something like.
class MyTask implements Runnable {
public void run() {
try {
engine.eval(myScript);
} catch(ThreadDeath e) {
engine = null; // sudden death.
}
}
}
You can call Thread.stop(), but I suggest you read the warnings on this method first.
If you want a thread to run for up to 5 seconds, the simplest solution is for the thread to stop itself.
class MyTask implements Runnable {
public void run() {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
do {
engine.eval(myScript);
} while(System.currentTimeMillis() < start + 5000);
}
}
This assumes you want to run engine.eval() repeatedly. If this is not the case you may have to stop() the thread. It is deprecated for a good reason but it might be your only option.