I've got pretty complex method, with few loops and other method calls. I'd like to make it possible to interrupt this method. The only solution I've found to do so, is by checking if Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted(). The problem is I'd like to check it in every iteration of every loop and in few other places. After doing that the code does not really look so nice.
So there are two questions really.
1. Is there any other way to stop the method when thread was interrupted than checking the same flag over and over again?
2. Is it better - mostly in case of performance - to just add !Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() condition in every loop or use some method like the one below?
void checkIfInterrupted() {
if (Thread.interrupted()) {
throw new InterruptedException();
}
}
Preferred way is to check Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() every loop in your thread. Viz. Java Concurrency In Practice - Listening 7.5:
class PrimeProducer extends Thread {
private final BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue;
PrimeProducer(BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
public void run() {
try {
BigInteger p = BigInteger.ONE;
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted())
queue.put(p = p.nextProbablePrime());
} catch (InterruptedException consumed) {
/* Allow thread to exit */
}
}
public void cancel() { interrupt(); }
}
There are two points in each loop iteration where interruption may be
detected: in the blocking put call, and by explicitly polling the
interrupted status in the loop header. The explicit test is not
strictly necessary here because of the blocking put call, but it makes
PrimeProducer more responsive to interruption because it checks for
interruption before starting the lengthy task of searching for a
prime, rather than after. When calls to interruptible blocking methods
are not frequent enough to deliver the desired responsiveness,
explicitly testing the interrupted status can help.
Related
I have a method that I would like to call. However, I'm looking for a clean, simple way to kill it or force it to return if it is taking too long to execute.
I'm using Java.
to illustrate:
logger.info("sequentially executing all batches...");
for (TestExecutor executor : builder.getExecutors()) {
logger.info("executing batch...");
executor.execute();
}
I figure the TestExecutor class should implement Callable and continue in that direction.
But all i want to be able to do is stop executor.execute() if it's taking too long.
Suggestions...?
EDIT
Many of the suggestions received assume that the method being executed that takes a long time contains some kind of loop and that a variable could periodically be checked.
However, this is not the case. So something that won't necessarily be clean and that will just stop the execution whereever it is is acceptable.
You should take a look at these classes :
FutureTask, Callable, Executors
Here is an example :
public class TimeoutExample {
public static Object myMethod() {
// does your thing and taking a long time to execute
return someResult;
}
public static void main(final String[] args) {
Callable<Object> callable = new Callable<Object>() {
public Object call() throws Exception {
return myMethod();
}
};
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
Future<Object> task = executorService.submit(callable);
try {
// ok, wait for 30 seconds max
Object result = task.get(30, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
System.out.println("Finished with result: " + result);
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
System.out.println("timeout...");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("interrupted");
}
}
}
Java's interruption mechanism is intended for this kind of scenario. If the method that you wish to abort is executing a loop, just have it check the thread's interrupted status on every iteration. If it's interrupted, throw an InterruptedException.
Then, when you want to abort, you just have to invoke interrupt on the appropriate thread.
Alternatively, you can use the approach Sun suggest as an alternative to the deprecated stop method. This doesn't involve throwing any exceptions, the method would just return normally.
I'm assuming the use of multiple threads in the following statements.
I've done some reading in this area and most authors say that it's a bad idea to kill another thread.
If the function that you want to kill can be designed to periodically check a variable or synchronization primitive, and then terminate cleanly if that variable or synchronization primitive is set, that would be pretty clean. Then some sort of monitor thread can sleep for a number of milliseconds and then set the variable or synchronization primitive.
Really, you can't... The only way to do it is to either use thread.stop, agree on a 'cooperative' method (e.g. occassionally check for Thread.isInterrupted or call a method which throws an InterruptedException, e.g. Thread.sleep()), or somehow invoke the method in another JVM entirely.
For certain kinds of tests, calling stop() is okay, but it will probably damage the state of your test suite, so you'll have to relaunch the JVM after each call to stop() if you want to avoid interaction effects.
For a good description of how to implement the cooperative approach, check out Sun's FAQ on the deprecated Thread methods.
For an example of this approach in real life, Eclipse RCP's Job API's 'IProgressMonitor' object allows some management service to signal sub-processes (via the 'cancel' method) that they should stop. Of course, that relies on the methods to actually check the isCancelled method regularly, which they often fail to do.
A hybrid approach might be to ask the thread nicely with interrupt, then insist a couple of seconds later with stop. Again, you shouldn't use stop in production code, but it might be fine in this case, esp. if you exit the JVM soon after.
To test this approach, I wrote a simple harness, which takes a runnable and tries to execute it. Feel free to comment/edit.
public void testStop(Runnable r) {
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.start();
try {
t.join(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
if (!t.isAlive()) {
System.err.println("Finished on time.");
return;
}
try {
t.interrupt();
t.join(2000);
if (!t.isAlive()) {
System.err.println("cooperative stop");
return;
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
System.err.println("non-cooperative stop");
StackTraceElement[] trace = Thread.getAllStackTraces().get(t);
if (null != trace) {
Throwable temp = new Throwable();
temp.setStackTrace(trace);
temp.printStackTrace();
}
t.stop();
System.err.println("stopped non-cooperative thread");
}
To test it, I wrote two competing infinite loops, one cooperative, and one that never checks its thread's interrupted bit.
public void cooperative() {
try {
for (;;) {
Thread.sleep(500);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("cooperative() interrupted");
} finally {
System.err.println("cooperative() finally");
}
}
public void noncooperative() {
try {
for (;;) {
Thread.yield();
}
} finally {
System.err.println("noncooperative() finally");
}
}
Finally, I wrote the tests (JUnit 4) to exercise them:
#Test
public void testStopCooperative() {
testStop(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
cooperative();
}
});
}
#Test
public void testStopNoncooperative() {
testStop(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
noncooperative();
}
});
}
I had never used Thread.stop() before, so I was unaware of its operation. It works by throwing a ThreadDeath object from whereever the target thread is currently running. This extends Error. So, while it doesn't always work cleanly, it will usually leave simple programs with a fairly reasonable program state. For example, any finally blocks are called. If you wanted to be a real jerk, you could catch ThreadDeath (or Error), and keep running, anyway!
If nothing else, this really makes me wish more code followed the IProgressMonitor approach - adding another parameter to methods that might take a while, and encouraging the implementor of the method to occasionally poll the Monitor object to see if the user wants the system to give up. I'll try to follow this pattern in the future, especially methods that might be interactive. Of course, you don't necessarily know in advance which methods will be used this way, but that is what Profilers are for, I guess.
As for the 'start another JVM entirely' method, that will take more work. I don't know if anyone has written a delegating class loader, or if one is included in the JVM, but that would be required for this approach.
Nobody answered it directly, so here's the closest thing i can give you in a short amount of psuedo code:
wrap the method in a runnable/callable. The method itself is going to have to check for interrupted status if you want it to stop (for example, if this method is a loop, inside the loop check for Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted and if so, stop the loop (don't check on every iteration though, or you'll just slow stuff down.
in the wrapping method, use thread.join(timeout) to wait the time you want to let the method run. or, inside a loop there, call join repeatedly with a smaller timeout if you need to do other things while waiting. if the method doesn't finish, after joining, use the above recommendations for aborting fast/clean.
so code wise, old code:
void myMethod()
{
methodTakingAllTheTime();
}
new code:
void myMethod()
{
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable()
{
public void run()
{
methodTakingAllTheTime(); // modify the internals of this method to check for interruption
}
});
t.join(5000); // 5 seconds
t.interrupt();
}
but again, for this to work well, you'll still have to modify methodTakingAllTheTime or that thread will just continue to run after you've called interrupt.
The correct answer is, I believe, to create a Runnable to execute the sub-program, and run this in a separate Thread. THe Runnable may be a FutureTask, which you can run with a timeout ("get" method). If it times out, you'll get a TimeoutException, in which I suggest you
call thread.interrupt() to attempt to end it in a semi-cooperative manner (many library calls seem to be sensitive to this, so it will probably work)
wait a little (Thread.sleep(300))
and then, if the thread is still active (thread.isActive()), call thread.stop(). This is a deprecated method, but apparently the only game in town short of running a separate process with all that this entails.
In my application, where I run untrusted, uncooperative code written by my beginner students, I do the above, ensuring that the killed thread never has (write) access to any objects that survive its death. This includes the object that houses the called method, which is discarded if a timeout occurs. (I tell my students to avoid timeouts, because their agent will be disqualified.) I am unsure about memory leaks...
I distinguish between long runtimes (method terminates) and hard timeouts - the hard timeouts are longer and meant to catch the case when code does not terminate at all, as opposed to being slow.
From my research, Java does not seem to have a non-deprecated provision for running non-cooperative code, which, in a way, is a gaping hole in the security model. Either I can run foreign code and control the permissions it has (SecurityManager), or I cannot run foreign code, because it might end up taking up a whole CPU with no non-deprecated means to stop it.
double x = 2.0;
while(true) {x = x*x}; // do not terminate
System.out.print(x); // prevent optimization
I can think of a not so great way to do this. If you can detect when it is taking too much time, you can have the method check for a boolean in every step. Have the program change the value of the boolean tooMuchTime to true if it is taking too much time (I can't help with this). Then use something like this:
Method(){
//task1
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task2
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task3
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task4
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task5
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//final task
}
I'm having a code in Java where two objects wait and notify each other when one finished processing. I'll keep my code simple with the following example and assuming there are no syntax error (I just want you to know the logic is more important here rather than the syntax).
Assuming I have object A which is a thread having this pseudo code
class A is Thread {
run() {
while(true) {
wait(); // wait for signal from B
// then do something if signal received
B.signal(); // let B know that we're done and wait again
}
}
}
Then we have here B which is also a thread having this pseudo code
class B is Thread {
run() {
while(true) {
// Do something
A.signal(); // Let A know to continue processing
wait(); // Wait for signal from A before doing something again
}
}
}
So as you can see there's a cycle. The problem is I am having a dead-lock and the reason here is because when A is finished processing, it signals B to work before it waits.. But by the time B is notified, there are chances that A still haven't reached the wait() code and B is already calling A.signal() and leads to a dead lock.
How do I properly solve this problem? The solution I have in mind is that when B is notified to work, I will let the thread of B sleep for a number of milliseconds but I don't think this is ever a good idea. Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance.
When you use notify() this should be associated with a state change.
When you use wait() this should be associated with a check for a state change.
In real code, you should only wait when you are waiting for something.
Note: wait() can wake spuriously, it doesn't mean notify() was called. As you noticed, notify() does nothing if nothing is wait()ing.
Instead of using this pattern, you can use a BlockingQueue to pass work/messages between threads. This has the wait/notify and the object containing work built in.
However, since you normally need a thread to do the work, there is an ExecutorService builtin to do this. This allows you to pass work to a pool of threads and collect the results.
In short, you should be using an ExecutorService.
If A is using the result of B, then maybe you can consider a BlockingQueue.
As you can find described in the Javadoc, you need to put your wait calls inside a loop that checks for a condition. Otherwise, if you don't have a condition variable or expression that you can check, it is possible that you miss the notify because you were not waiting at that point.
Also, as others have pointed out, you need to hold the monitor of the object you are calling the wait or notify method on; that's what the synchronized keyword is for.
In the below fix, the condition is very simple; it's a variable called notified in classes A and B.
Also, to get this right, A and B need to know about each other. In your code you seemed to be invoking static methods; but the notify method needs to be called on an instance, so you need to keep references to the instances of A and B in B and A, respectively.
This fixes the problems:
class A is Thread {
private B b;
private boolean notified;
public void run() {
while(true) {
synchronized(this) {
while (!notified) {
try {
wait(); // wait for signal from B
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
notified = false;
}
synchronized(b) {
// then do something if signal received
b.notified = true;
b.notify(); // let B know that we're done and wait again
}
}
}
}
class B is Thread {
private A a;
private boolean notified;
public void run() {
while(true) {
synchronized(a) {
// Do something
a.notified = true;
a.notify(); // Let A know to continue processing
}
synchronized(this) {
while (!notified) {
try {
wait(); // Wait for signal from A before doing something again
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
notified = false;
}
}
}
}
I've written following multi thread program. I want to cancel the all the thread if one of the thread sends back false as return. However though I'm canceling the thread by canceling individual task. Its not working. What changes I need to make inorder to cancel the thread?
I've written following multi thread program. I want to cancel the all the thread if one of the thread sends back false as return. However though I'm canceling the thread by canceling individual task. Its not working. What changes I need to make inorder to cancel the thread?
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
public class BeamWorkerThread implements Callable<Boolean> {
private List<BeamData> beamData;
private String threadId;
public BeamScallopingWorkerThread(
List<BeamData> beamData, String threadId) {
super();
this.beamData = beamData;
this.threadId = threadId;
}
#Override
public Boolean call() throws Exception {
Boolean result = true;
DataValidator validator = new DataValidator();
Iterator<BeamScallopingData> it = beamData.iterator();
BeamData data = null;
while(it.hasNext()){
data = it.next();
if(!validator.validateDensity(data.getBin_ll_lat(), data.getBin_ll_lon(), data.getBin_ur_lat(), data.getBin_ur_lon())){
result = false;
break;
}
}
return result;
}
}
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(100);
List<Future<Boolean>> results = new ArrayList<Future<Boolean>>();
long count = 0;
final long RowLimt = 10000;
long threadCount = 1;
while ((beamData = csvReader.read(
BeamData.class, headers1, processors)) != null) {
if (count == 0) {
beamDataList = new ArrayList<BeamData>();
}
beamDataList.add(beamData);
count++;
if (count == RowLimt) {
results.add(threadPool
.submit(new BeamWorkerThread(
beamDataList, "thread:"
+ (threadCount++))));
count = 0;
}
}
results.add(threadPool.submit(new BeamWorkerThread(
beamDataList, "thread:" + (threadCount++))));
System.out.println("Number of threads" + threadCount);
for (Future<Boolean> fs : results)
try {
if(fs.get() == false){
System.out.println("Thread is false");
for(Future<Boolean> fs1 : results){
fs1.cancel(true);
}
}
} catch(CancellationException e){
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
} finally {
threadPool.shutdownNow();
}
}
My comments
Thanks all for your input I'm overwhelmed by the response. I do know that, well implemented thread takes an app to highs and mean time it a bad implementation brings the app to knees. I agree I'm having fancy idea but I don't have other option. I've a 10 million plus record hence I will have memory constraint and time constraint. I need to tackle both. Hence rather than swallowing whole data I'm breaking it into chunks and also if one data is invalid i don't want to waste time in processing remaining million data. I find #Mark Peters suggestion is an option. Made the changes accordingly I mean added flag to interrupt the task and I'm pretty confused how the future list works. what I understand is that looping through each field of future list starts once all the thread returns its value. In that case, there is no way to cancel all the task in half way from main list. I need to pass on the reference of object to each thread. and if one thread finds invalid data using the thread refernce call the cancel mathod of each thread to set the interrupt flag.
while(it.hasNext() && !cancelled) {
if(!validate){
// loop through each thread reference and call Cancel method
}
}
Whatever attempt you make to cancel all the remaining tasks, it will fail if your code is not carefully written to be interruptible. What that exactly entails is beyond just one StackOverflow answer. Some guidelines:
do not swallow InterruptedException. Make its occurrence break the task;
if your code does not spend much time within interruptible methods, you must insert explicit Thread.interrupted() checks and react appropriately.
Writing interruptible code is in general not beginner's stuff, so take care.
Cancelling the Future will not interrupt running code. It primarily serves to prevent the task from being run in the first place.
While you can provide a true as a parameter, which will interrupt the thread running the task, that only has an effect if the thread is blocked in code that throws an InterruptedException. Other than that, nothing implicitly checks the interrupted status of the thread.
In your case, there is no blocking; it's busy work that is taking time. One option would be to have a volatile boolean that you check at each stage of your loop:
public class BeamWorkerThread implements Callable<Boolean> {
private volatile boolean cancelled = false;
#Override
public Boolean call() throws Exception {
//...
while(it.hasNext() && !cancelled) {
//...
}
}
public void cancel() {
cancelled = true;
}
}
Then you would keep references to your BeamWorkerThread objects and call cancel() on it to preempt its execution.
Why don't I like interrupts?
Marko mentioned that the cancelled flag above is essentially reinventing Thread.interrupted(). It's a valid criticism. Here's why I prefer not to use interrupts in this scenario.
1. It's dependent on certain threading configurations.
If your task represents a cancellable piece of code that can be submitted to an executor, or called directly, using Thread.interrupt() to cancel execution in the general case assumes that the code receiving the interrupt will be the code that should know how to cleanly cancel the task.
That might be true in this case, but we only know so because we know how both the cancel and the task work internally. But imagine we had something like this:
Task does piece of work
Listeners are notified on-thread for that first piece of work
First listener decides to cancel the task using Thread.interrupt()
Second listener does some interruptible piece of work, and is interrupted. It logs but otherwise ignores the interrupt.
Task does not receive interrupt, and task is not cancelled.
In other words, I feel that interrupt() is too global of a mechanism. Like any shared global state, it makes assumptions about all of the actors. That's what I mean by saying that using interrupt() exposes/couples to details about the run context. By encapsulating it in a cancel() method applicable only for that task instance, you eliminate that global state.
2. It's not always an option.
The classic example here is an InputStream. If you have a task that blocks on reading from an InputStream, interrupt() will do nothing to unblock it. The only way to unblock it is to manually close the stream, and that's something best done in a cancel() method for the task itself. Having one way to cancel a task (e.g. Cancellable), regardless of its implementation, seems ideal to me.
Use the ExecutorService.shutdownNow() method. It will stop the executor from accepting more submissions and returns with the Future objects of the ongoing tasks that you can call cancel(true) on to interrupt the execution. Of course, you will have to discard this executor as it cannot be restarted.
The cancel() method may not terminate the execution immediately if the Thread is not waiting on a monitor (not blocked interruptibly), and also if you swallow the InterruptedException that will be raised in this case.
I have a thread that updates it's state from time to time and I want a second thread to be able to wait for the first thread to be done. Something like this:
Thread 1:
while(true) {
...do something...
foo.notifyAll()
...wait for some condition that might never happen...
...
}
Thread 2:
...
foo.wait();
...
Now this looks nice and all unless Thread 1's notifyAll() runs before Thread 2's wait(), in which case Thread 2 waits until Thread 1 notifies again (which might never happen).
My possible solutions:
a) I could use a CountDownLatch or a Future, but both have the problem that they inherently only run once. That is, in Thread 1's while loop, I would need to create a new foo to wait for each time and Thread 2 would need to ask which foo to wait for. I have a bad feeling about simply writing
while(true) {
foo = new FutureTask();
...
foo.set(...);
...wait for a condition that might never be set...
...
}
as I fear that at foo = new FutureTask(), what happens when someone waited for the old foo (for "some reason", set was not called, e.g. a bug in the exception handling)?
b) Or I could use a semaphore:
class Event {
Semaphore sem;
Event() { sem = new Semaphore(1); sem . }
void signal() { sem.release(); }
void reset() { sem.acquire(1); }
void wait() { if (sem.tryAcquire(1)) { sem.release(); } }
}
But I fear that there is some race condition, if multiple threads are wait()ing for it while another one signal()s and reset()s.
Question:
Is there nothing in the Java API that resembles the Windows Event behaviour? Or, if you despise Windows, something like golang's WaitGroup (i.e. a CountDownLatch that allows countUp())? Anything?
How to do it manually:
Thread 2 cannot simply wait because of spurious wakeup and in Java there is no way to know why Object.wait() returned. So I need a condition variable that stores whether the event is signalled or not. Thread 2:
synchronized(foo) {
while(!condition) {
foo.wait();
}
}
And Thread 1 of course sets condition to true in a synchronized block. Thanks to weekens for the hint!
Is there an existing class that wraps that behaviour?
Or do I need to copy and paste the code all over?
It is standard practice to change some state when performing notifyAll and to check some state when performing wait().
e.g.
boolean ready = false;
// thread 1
synchronized(lock) {
ready = true;
lock.notifyAll();
}
// thread 2
synchronized(lock) {
while(!ready)
lock.wait();
}
With this approach, it doesn't matter if thread 1 or thread 2 acquires the lock first.
Some coding analysis tools will give you a warning if you use notify or wait without setting a value or checking a value.
You could use a wait() with timeout, in which case you are not risking to wait forever. Also note that wait() may return even if there was no notify() at all, so, you'll need to wrap your wait inside some conditioned loop. That's the standard way of waiting in Java.
synchronized(syncObject) {
while(condition.isTrue()) {
syncObject.wait(WAIT_TIMEOUT);
}
}
(in your Thread 2)
Edit: Moved synchronized outside the loop.
The simplest way is just to say
firstThread.join();
This will be blocking until the first thread is terminated.
But you can implement the same using wait/notify. Unfortunately you have not posted your real code fragments but I guess that if wait does not exit when you call notify it happens because you did not put both into synchronized block. Pay attention that the "argument" of synchronized block must be the same for wait/notify pair.
I'd use a BlockingQueue between the two threads. Using wait and notify is so 5 minutes ago ;)
enum Event {
Event,
Stop;
}
BlockingQueue<Event> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Event>();
// Thread 1
try {
while(true) {
...do something...
queue.put(Event.Event);
...wait for some condition that might never happen...
...
}
} finally {
// Tell other thread we've finished.
queue.put(Event.Stop};
}
// Thread 2
...
switch ( queue.take() ) {
case Event:
...
break;
default:
...
break;
}
Seems there is only ugly solutions. I solve it using AtomicBoolean as flag and some sleep to prevent high cpu usage and timeout for unexpected lost event...
Here my code:
somewhere in thread class:
private static final int WAIT_DELAY_MS_HACK = 5000; //ms
private static final AtomicBoolean NeedToExecute = new AtomicBoolean(false);
In working thread, that need to send wake signal:
public static final void SendSignalToExecute(){
synchronized(NeedToExecute){
NeedToExecute.set(true);
NeedToExecute.notify();
}
}
In the thread that must wait signal:
//To prevent infinite delay when notify was already lost I use WAIT_DELAY_MS_HACK in wait().
//To prevent false interruption on unknown reason of JM I use while and check of AtomicBoolean by NeedToExecute.get() in it.
//To prevent high CPU usage in for unknown persistant interruption in wait I use additional sleep():
while (!NeedToExecute.get()){
synchronized(NeedToExecute){
try {
NeedToExecute.wait(WAIT_DELAY_MS_HACK); //if notify() was sent before we go into wait() but after check in while() it will lost forever... note that NeedToExecute.wait() releases the synchronized lock for other thread and re-acquires it before returning
} catch (InterruptedException ex) { //here also may be sleep or break and return
}
}
sleep(100); //if wait() will not wait - must be outside synchronized block or it may cause freeze thread with SendSignalToExecute()... :(
}
NeedToExecute.set(false); //revert back to reenter check in next iteration, but I use it for one waited thread it cycle "do ... wait" if you use multiple thread you need to synchronise somehow this revert
Seems to be that this method is takes in an array of threads, then determines if they have completed using InterruptedException, which seems plausible to me.
private static void waitUntilAllThreadsFinished(Thread[] threadArr) {
for(int i=0; i<threadArr.length; i++) {
try {
threadArr[i].join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
log.debug("thread ["+threadArr[i].getName()+"] have completed");
}
}
If you just want to know if the thread has been interrupted , the use public boolean isInterrupted() method on the thread reference. This code is trying to block the current thread on each of the thread's completion, and retrying if it got interrupted in th meanwhile.
I think getState is more appropriate
I would not force the throw and catch, since it is not free of cost. The Thread class have methods to access the current state of an instance.
This code does not just determine whether all threads have completed, but waits for all of them to complete. And it's not using InterruptedException to do this. If join() calls on finished (dead) thread, the code just continues on without exception.
But it will work, I guess...