I have a Thread that only has to work when a certain circumstance comes in. Otherwise it just iterates over an empty infinite loop:
public void run() {
while(true) {
if(ball != null) {
// do some Calculations
}
}
}
Does it affect the performance when the loop actually does nothing but it has to check if it has to do the calculation every iteration?
Only creating a this Thread when needed is not an option for me, because my class which implements Runnable is a visual object which has be shown all the time.
edit: so is the following a good solution? Or is it better to use a different method (concerning performance)?
private final Object standBy = new Object();
public void run() {
while(true) {
synchronized (standBy) {
while(ball != null) // should I use while or if here?
try{ standBy.wait() }
catch (InterruptedException ie) {}
}
if(ball != null) {
// do some Calculations
}
}
public void handleCollision(Ball b) {
// some more code..
ball = b;
synchronized (standBy) {
standBy.notify();
}
}
You might want to consider putting the thread to sleep and only waking it up only when your 'ball' variable becomes true. There are multiple ways of doing this, from using the very low level, wait and notify statements to using the java.util.concurrent classes which provide a less error prone way of doing this. Have a look at the documentation for the condition interface. A data structure like a BlockingQueue would also be a solution.
Yes it does. This is the most simple implementation of busy waiting, and should be avoided whenever possible. Use wait/notify or java.util.concurrent mechanisms. Maybe you should be more specific about what exactly you want to achieve to get more useful responses.
Yes, it will certainly affect performance. To increase performance, you can consider putting in a bit of a time delay (say 500ms or 1000ms or even higher) in your code depending how crucial timing is to you.
Share a BlockingQueue between your threads.
class Producer implements Runnable {
private final BlockingQueue queue;
Producer(BlockingQueue q) { queue = q; }
public void run() {
try {
while (true) { queue.put(produce()); }
} catch (InterruptedException ex) { ... handle ...}
}
Object produce() { ... }
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
private final BlockingQueue queue;
Consumer(BlockingQueue q) { queue = q; }
public void run() {
try {
while (true) { consume(queue.take()); }
} catch (InterruptedException ex) { ... handle ...}
}
void consume(Object x) { ... }
}
I found the following interesting thing. In task manager, running that infinite loop like that, would consume 17% of my CPU. Now, if I added a simple
Thread.sleep(1)
inside the loop, which is only one milisecond, the CPU use dropped to almost zero as if I was not using the program, and the response time of the program was still pretty good on average (in my case it needed to reply things fast)
Related
Consider this code:
class Solver {
private boolean abort = false;
public void solve(List<Case> cases) {
while(!abort) {
for(Case c : cases)
compute(c); // method that take too long to finish
}
}
// a bunch of methods
public void abort() {
abort = true;
}
}
// in another class
Solver solver = new Solver();
solver.solve(cases);
public void onSolveAborted() {
solver.abort();
}
How can I change this solution so I can abort the solve function instantly. I know I can implements the Runnable interface in Solver class so I can stop the thread. This will introduce many changes in our code and I don't know if the framework we are using allow creating threads.
This will not be possible without the use of threads. Something has to set abort() before the running thread will stop. Take a look at this example:
class Solver implements Runnable {
private List<Case> cases;
public Solver(List<Case> cases) {
this.cases = cases;
}
private void compute(Case c) {
try {
// Do some computation here
} finally {
// Sound the horns! Abandon ship!
}
}
public void solve(List<Object> cases) {
for (Case c : cases) {
try {
compute(c); // method that take too long to finish
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// Hmm, maybe I should take the hint...
break;
}
}
}
public void run() {
solve(cases);
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
List<Case> cases = new ArrayList<Case>();
// Populate cases
Thread t = new Thread(new Solver(cases));
t.run();
do {
// Wait 30 seconds
t.join(30 * 1000);
// Not done yet? Lets drop a hint..
if(t.isAlive()) {
t.interrupt();
}
} while (t.isAlive());
}
}
Very simply, it launches solve in a thread. The main thread waits up to 30 seconds then interrupts solve method. The solve method catches the interruption and gracefully exits the computation. Unlike your solution using boolean abort, this launches an InterruptedException from anywhere in your thead code (and you should deal with the exception accordingly!) allowing you to halt execution at any time.
If you want more control, you can add the try.. catch inside compute so you can have a finally clause to close any opened files or whatnot. Perhaps better still, have a try.. finally in compute to deal with closing things in a "nice" way and the try.. catch (InterruptedException) in the solve method to handle what happens in the case of interruption (in short, cleanup logic and interruption logic don't have to be in the same method).
Do somthing like this
Let say, you have 100 cases, 10 has been solved and you want to abort remaing 90.
In your code, you are solving all the cases in one iteration, after that while loop check for abort.
public void solve(List<Case> cases) {
Iterator<Case> iterator = cases.iterator();
while (iterator.hasNext() && !abort) {
Case c=iterator.iterator.next();
compute(c);
}
}
Change your class to Runnable and use ExecutorService to run it. Then you can just use methods "shutDown()" or "shutDownNow()" methods. This is cleaner and less intrusive then what you suggested in your own question. Plus killing thread manually is a REALLY BAD idea. At some point in JDK itself in thread method "kill()" was killed as there is no clean way to do so properly
I have a class with a function which is synchronized like so:
public synchronized void enqueue(int number) {...}
In my program I have several threads running all wanting to use this function on a specific object of the class. What I would like to happen is for the threads to simply try using the function and if it is locked to not wait on it simply skip running that function.
Can this be done without using the Java.util.concurency library and only using syncronization primatives?
The restriction of not using concurrency is not optional
I like the AtomicInteger solution, but of course AtomicInteger is part of the concurrency package. You can follow the same principle (with lower efficiency, though) with the following simple code:
private boolean locked = false;
public void enqueue(int number) {
synchronized (this) {
if (locked) {
return;
}
locked = true;
}
try {
// Synchronized goodness goes here.
} finally {
synchronized (this) {
locked = false;
}
}
}
Since you're restricted here, here's what I would do:
Make a class with the ability to tell it that you want to lock on it. There are two types of locks: passive lock, and active lock. A passive lock will allow an unlimited number of threads to pass. An active lock will make it belong only to that thread.
When you want a passive lock, you have to register yourself, and unregister yourself when you're done. You'll wait on an internal object until all active locks are done.
When you want an active lock, you wait for all current passive locks have unregistered. If there's currently an active lock (store a thread reference to see if there is, utilizing Thread.currentThread()) then wait until notified. You can then set yourself as the referred thread. When you unregister, if there are waiting active locks, notify one of them (consider a Set<Thread> to register this). If there aren't, notify all the passive locks that are waiting and they can go through.
There's going to be a lot of unanswered questions here, and I doubt it's perfect, but this is most of what you're looking for...
Rather than use any synchronization primitives I'd recommend using something like the AtomicInteger class to leverage a CAS (compare-and-swap) operation for your anti-concurrency strategy:
public void enqueue(int number) {
if (!atomicInteger.compareAndSet(0, 1) {
return;
}
try {
// Synchronized goodness goes here.
} finally {
atomicInteger.set(0);
}
}
May be you can you synchronize the object that handles the Queue. If someone else ois using the queue the enqueue does nothing. I have an example that compiles and run. Very simple example but not pretty:
class Queue {
public void enqueue(int number) {
// something in this method for demo purposes only
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e){}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" done");
}
}
class Demo {
private static Queue e = new Queue();
public void enqueue(int number) {
Queue q = getQueue();
if (q!=null) {
q.enqueue(number);
releaseQueue(q);
} else {
// do nothing since the queue is being used
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" done doing nothing");
}
}
public synchronized Queue getQueue() {
Queue b = e;
e = null;
return b;
}
public synchronized void releaseQueue(Queue q) {
e = q;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
Demo d = new Demo();
d.enqueue(5);
}
}, "Thread "+j);
t.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(50);
} catch (InterruptedException e){}
}
}
}
YES You can implement locking on your own by managing a static variable in that class, or a using a "lock" text file, for example.
HOWEVER Although this simplistic hack would not be terribly difficult --- the java.util.concurrency package solution would be EVEN EASIER, AND is a better choice because, as you will quickly find, when building multithreaded resources into applications our needs will quickly exceed your current expectations
Don't worry about the WHOLE concurrency package -- I find that just taking 3 minutes to learn how to use the AtomicBoolean or AtomicLong fields can be enough to enable simple, multithreaded logic with a minimal effort.
I'm using a thread that is continuously reading from a queue.
Something like:
public void run() {
Object obj;
while(true) {
synchronized(objectsQueue) {
if(objectesQueue.isEmpty()) {
try {
objectesQueue.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
obj = objectesQueue.poll();
}
}
// Do something with the Object obj
}
}
What is the best way to stop this thread?
I see two options:
1 - Since Thread.stop() is deprecated, I can implement a stopThisThread() method that uses a n atomic check-condition variable.
2 - Send a Death Event object or something like that to the queue. When the thread fetches a death event, it exits.
I prefer the 1st way, however, I don't know when to call the stopThisThread() method, as something might be on it's way to the queue and the stop signal can arrive first (not desirable).
Any suggestions?
The DeathEvent (or as it is often call, "poison pill") approach works well if you need to complete all of the work on the queue before shutting down. The problem is that this could take a long time.
If you want to stop as soon as possible, I suggest you do this
BlockingQueue<O> queue = ...
...
public void run() {
try {
// The following test is necessary to get fast interrupts. If
// it is replaced with 'true', the queue will be drained before
// the interrupt is noticed. (Thanks Tim)
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
O obj = queue.take();
doSomething(obj);
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
// We are done.
}
}
To stop the thread t that instantiated with that run method, simply call t.interrupt();.
If you compare the code above with other answers, you will notice how using a BlockingQueue and Thread.interrupt() simplifies the solution.
I would also claim that an extra stop flag is unnecessary, and in the big picture, potentially harmful. A well-behaved worker thread should respect an interrupt. An unexpected interrupt simply means that the worker is being run in a context that the original programmer did not anticipate. The best thing is if the worker to does what it is told to do ... i.e. it should stop ... whether or not this fits with the original programmer's conception.
Why not use a scheduler which you simply can stop when required? The standard scheduler supports repeated scheduling which also waits for the worker thread to finish before rescheduling a new run.
ScheduledExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
service.scheduleWithFixedDelay(myThread, 1, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
this sample would run your thread with a delay of 10 sec, that means when one run finishes, it restarts it 10 seconds later. And instead of having to reinvent the wheel you get
service.shutdown()
the while(true) is not necessary anymore.
ScheduledExecutorService Javadoc
In your reader thread have a boolean variable stop. When you wish for this thread to stop set thius to true and interrupt the thread. Within the reader thread when safe (when you don't have an unprocessed object) check the status of the stop variable and return out of the loop if set. as per below.
public class readerThread extends Thread{
private volitile boolean stop = false;
public void stopSoon(){
stop = true;
this.interrupt();
}
public void run() {
Object obj;
while(true) {
if(stop){
return;
}
synchronized(objectsQueue) {
if(objectesQueue.isEmpty()) {
try {
objectesQueue.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
if(stop){
return;
}
obj = objectesQueue.poll();
// Do something with the Object obj
}
}
}
}
public class OtherClass{
ThreadReader reader;
private void start(){
reader = ...;
reader.start();
}
private void stop(){
reader.stopSoon();
reader.join(); // Wait for thread to stop if nessasery.
}
}
Approach 1 is the preferred one.
Simply set a volatile stop field to true and call interrupt() on the running thread. This will force any I/O methods that wait to return with an InterruptedException (and if your library is written correctly this will be handled gracefully).
I think your two cases actually exhibit the same potential behavior. For the second case consider Thread A adds the DeathEvent after which Thread B adds a FooEvent. When your job Thread receives the DeathEvent there is still a FooEvent behind it, which is the same scenario you are describing in Option 1, unless you try to clear the queue before returning, but then you are essentially keeping the thread alive, when what you are trying to do is stop it.
I agree with you that the first option is more desirable. A potential solution would depend on how your queue is populated. If it is a part of your work thread class you could have your stopThisThread() method set a flag that would return an appropriate value (or throw Exception) from the enqueuing call i.e.:
MyThread extends Thread{
boolean running = true;
public void run(){
while(running){
try{
//process queue...
}catch(InterruptedExcpetion e){
...
}
}
}
public void stopThisThread(){
running = false;
interrupt();
}
public boolean enqueue(Object o){
if(!running){
return false;
OR
throw new ThreadNotRunningException();
}
queue.add(o);
return true;
}
}
It would then be the responsibility of the object attempting to enqueue the Event to deal with it appropriately, but at the least it will know that the event is not in the queue, and will not be processed.
I usually put a flag in the class that has the Thread in it and in my Thread code I would do. (NOTE: Instead of while(true) I do while(flag))
Then create a method in the class to set the flag to false;
private volatile bool flag = true;
public void stopThread()
{
flag = false;
}
public void run() {
Object obj;
while(flag) {
synchronized(objectsQueue) {
if(objectesQueue.isEmpty()) {
try {
objectesQueue.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
obj = objectesQueue.poll();
}
}
// Do something with the Object obj
}
}
I have few asynchronous tasks running and I need to wait until at least one of them is finished (in the future probably I'll need to wait util M out of N tasks are finished).
Currently they are presented as Future, so I need something like
/**
* Blocks current thread until one of specified futures is done and returns it.
*/
public static <T> Future<T> waitForAny(Collection<Future<T>> futures)
throws AllFuturesFailedException
Is there anything like this? Or anything similar, not necessary for Future. Currently I loop through collection of futures, check if one is finished, then sleep for some time and check again. This looks like not the best solution, because if I sleep for long period then unwanted delay is added, if I sleep for short period then it can affect performance.
I could try using
new CountDownLatch(1)
and decrease countdown when task is complete and do
countdown.await()
, but I found it possible only if I control Future creation. It is possible, but requires system redesign, because currently logic of tasks creation (sending Callable to ExecutorService) is separated from decision to wait for which Future. I could also override
<T> RunnableFuture<T> AbstractExecutorService.newTaskFor(Callable<T> callable)
and create custom implementation of RunnableFuture with ability to attach listener to be notified when task is finished, then attach such listener to needed tasks and use CountDownLatch, but that means I have to override newTaskFor for every ExecutorService I use - and potentially there will be implementation which do not extend AbstractExecutorService. I could also try wrapping given ExecutorService for same purpose, but then I have to decorate all methods producing Futures.
All these solutions may work but seem very unnatural. It looks like I'm missing something simple, like
WaitHandle.WaitAny(WaitHandle[] waitHandles)
in c#. Are there any well known solutions for such kind of problem?
UPDATE:
Originally I did not have access to Future creation at all, so there were no elegant solution. After redesigning system I got access to Future creation and was able to add countDownLatch.countdown() to execution process, then I can countDownLatch.await() and everything works fine.
Thanks for other answers, I did not know about ExecutorCompletionService and it indeed can be helpful in similar tasks, but in this particular case it could not be used because some Futures are created without any executor - actual task is sent to another server via network, completes remotely and completion notification is received.
simple, check out ExecutorCompletionService.
ExecutorService.invokeAny
Why not just create a results queue and wait on the queue? Or more simply, use a CompletionService since that's what it is: an ExecutorService + result queue.
This is actually pretty easy with wait() and notifyAll().
First, define a lock object. (You can use any class for this, but I like to be explicit):
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Lock {}
Next, define your worker thread. He must notify that lock object when he's finished with his processing. Note that the notify must be in a synchronized block locking on the lock object.
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Worker extends Thread {
private Lock lock_;
private long timeToSleep_;
private String name_;
public Worker(Lock lock, String name, long timeToSleep) {
lock_ = lock;
timeToSleep_ = timeToSleep;
name_ = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// do real work -- using a sleep here to simulate work
try {
sleep(timeToSleep_);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
interrupt();
}
System.out.println(name_ + " is done... notifying");
// notify whoever is waiting, in this case, the client
synchronized (lock_) {
lock_.notify();
}
}
}
Finally, you can write your client:
package com.javadude.sample;
public class Client {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Lock lock = new Lock();
Worker worker1 = new Worker(lock, "worker1", 15000);
Worker worker2 = new Worker(lock, "worker2", 10000);
Worker worker3 = new Worker(lock, "worker3", 5000);
Worker worker4 = new Worker(lock, "worker4", 20000);
boolean started = false;
int numNotifies = 0;
while (true) {
synchronized (lock) {
try {
if (!started) {
// need to do the start here so we grab the lock, just
// in case one of the threads is fast -- if we had done the
// starts outside the synchronized block, a fast thread could
// get to its notification *before* the client is waiting for it
worker1.start();
worker2.start();
worker3.start();
worker4.start();
started = true;
}
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
break;
}
numNotifies++;
if (numNotifies == 4) {
break;
}
System.out.println("Notified!");
}
}
System.out.println("Everyone has notified me... I'm done");
}
}
As far as I know, Java has no analogous structure to the WaitHandle.WaitAny method.
It seems to me that this could be achieved through a "WaitableFuture" decorator:
public WaitableFuture<T>
extends Future<T>
{
private CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
WaitableFuture(CountDownLatch countDownLatch)
{
super();
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
void doTask()
{
super.doTask();
this.countDownLatch.countDown();
}
}
Though this would only work if it can be inserted before the execution code, since otherwise the execution code would not have the new doTask() method. But I really see no way of doing this without polling if you cannot somehow gain control of the Future object before execution.
Or if the future always runs in its own thread, and you can somehow get that thread. Then you could spawn a new thread to join each other thread, then handle the waiting mechanism after the join returns... This would be really ugly and would induce a lot of overhead though. And if some Future objects don't finish, you could have a lot of blocked threads depending on dead threads. If you're not careful, this could leak memory and system resources.
/**
* Extremely ugly way of implementing WaitHandle.WaitAny for Thread.Join().
*/
public static joinAny(Collection<Thread> threads, int numberToWaitFor)
{
CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(numberToWaitFor);
foreach(Thread thread in threads)
{
(new Thread(new JoinThreadHelper(thread, countDownLatch))).start();
}
countDownLatch.await();
}
class JoinThreadHelper
implements Runnable
{
Thread thread;
CountDownLatch countDownLatch;
JoinThreadHelper(Thread thread, CountDownLatch countDownLatch)
{
this.thread = thread;
this.countDownLatch = countDownLatch;
}
void run()
{
this.thread.join();
this.countDownLatch.countDown();
}
}
If you can use CompletableFutures instead then there is CompletableFuture.anyOf that does what you want, just call join on the result:
CompletableFuture.anyOf(futures).join()
You can use CompletableFutures with executors by calling the CompletableFuture.supplyAsync or runAsync methods.
Since you don't care which one finishes, why not just have a single WaitHandle for all threads and wait on that? Whichever one finishes first can set the handle.
See this option:
public class WaitForAnyRedux {
private static final int POOL_SIZE = 10;
public static <T> T waitForAny(Collection<T> collection) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
List<Callable<T>> callables = new ArrayList<Callable<T>>();
for (final T t : collection) {
Callable<T> callable = Executors.callable(new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (t) {
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}, t);
callables.add(callable);
}
BlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(POOL_SIZE);
ExecutorService executorService = new ThreadPoolExecutor(POOL_SIZE, POOL_SIZE, 0, TimeUnit.SECONDS, queue);
return executorService.invokeAny(callables);
}
static public void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
final List<Integer> integers = new ArrayList<Integer>();
for (int i = 0; i < POOL_SIZE; i++) {
integers.add(i);
}
(new Thread() {
public void run() {
Integer notified = null;
try {
notified = waitForAny(integers);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("notified=" + notified);
}
}).start();
synchronized (integers) {
integers.wait(3000);
}
Integer randomInt = integers.get((new Random()).nextInt(POOL_SIZE));
System.out.println("Waking up " + randomInt);
synchronized (randomInt) {
randomInt.notify();
}
}
}
I have a class proposing translations utilities. The translations themselves should be reloaded every 30 minutes. I use Spring Timer support for that. Basically, my class looks like :
public interface Translator {
public void loadTranslations();
public String getTranslation(String key);
}
loadTranslations() can be pretty long to run, so while it is running the old translations are still available. This is done by loading the translations in a local Map and just changing the reference when all translations are loaded.
My problem is : how do I make sure that when a thread is already loading translations, is a second one also tries to run, it detects that and returns immediately, without starting a second update.
A synchronized method will only queue the loads ... I'm still on Java 1.4, so no java.util.concurrent.
Thanks for your help !
Use some form of locking mechanism to only perform the task if it is not already in progress. Acquiring the locking token must be a one-step process. See:
/**
* #author McDowell
*/
public abstract class NonconcurrentTask implements Runnable {
private boolean token = true;
private synchronized boolean acquire() {
boolean ret = token;
token = false;
return ret;
}
private synchronized void release() {
token = true;
}
public final void run() {
if (acquire()) {
try {
doTask();
} finally {
release();
}
}
}
protected abstract void doTask();
}
Test code that will throw an exception if the task runs concurrently:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
final NonconcurrentTask shared = new NonconcurrentTask() {
private boolean working = false;
protected void doTask() {
System.out.println("Working: "
+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
if (working) {
throw new IllegalStateException();
}
working = true;
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
if (!working) {
throw new IllegalStateException();
}
working = false;
}
};
Runnable taskWrapper = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
shared.run();
}
}
};
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
new Thread(taskWrapper).start();
}
}
}
I am from a .net background(no java experience at all), but you could try a simple static flag of some sort that checks at the beginning of the method if its alrady running. Then all you need to do is make sure any read/write of that flag is synchronized. So at beginning check the flag, if its not set, set it, if it is set, return. If its not set, run the rest of the method, and after its complete, unset it. Just make sure to put the code in a try/finally and the flag iunsetting in the finally so it always gets unset in case of error. Very simplified but may be all you need.
Edit: This actually probably works better than synchronizing the method. Because do you really need a new translation immediately after the one before it finishes? And you may not want to lock up a thread for too long if it has to wait a while.
Keep a handle on the load thread to see if it's running?
Or can't you just use a synchronized flag to indicate if a load is in progress?
This is actually identical to the code that is required to manage the construction of a Singleton (gasp!) when done the classical way:
if (instance == null) {
synchronized {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new SomeClass();
}
}
}
The inner test is identical to the outer test. The outer test is so that we dont routinely enter a synchronised block, the inner test is to confirm that the situation has not changed since we last made the test (the thread could have been preempted before entering Synchronized).
In your case:
if (translationsNeedLoading()) {
synchronized {
if (translationsNeedLoading()) {
loadTranslations();
}
}
}
UPDATE: This way of constructing a singleton will not work reliably under your JDK1.4. For explanation see here. However I think you are you will be OK in this scenario.