From the JAVA docs for Object notify()
The awakened thread will not be able to proceed until the current
thread relinquishes the lock on this object.
This means that unless the Thread which notifes, its synchronized block is complete and it releases the lock, the waiting thread cannot proceed. If that's the case then whats the point of having notify() if the sync block is going to be executed anyway? What's the actual use of notify() if it doesn't wake up the waiting thread and let it do its job?
Good question. Will point you to take a look at the Thread State Class.
A thread that calls the Object.notify method enables a thread that previously called Object.wait is now enabled to be scheduled by the thread scheduler. In parlance, the thread that was waiting is now "runnable". Although it is "runnable", it is not "running".
It can only continue running when the thread invoking notify releases the lock - one way is when it exits out of the synchronized block.
There are a lot of schematics on the web on the Thread States. Some of them are completely incorrect or confusing since they introduce terminology not in the official docs. Here is one that makes sense to me.
Strictly speaking, we don't: we could have the waiting thread run a loop where it re-acquires the lock, checks the condition, and sleeps for a short amount of time. But using wait() and notify() is much more efficient, because then the waiting thread doesn't keep waking up and tying up CPU (and tying up the lock).
notify() and notifyAll() are used to wake up thread(s) that called wait() on the same object on which notify() or notifyAll() is called.
Without call to notify() those "waiting" threads will wait forever (although JVM spec says that threads may sometime wake up without call to notify).
Also because call to notify() doesn't releases the lock associated with the object itself that call usually is the last statement in a synchronized block.
So notify() is used together with wait() and not by itself.
Usually the use case is like the following (blocking queue with limited size).
Method that adds element to queue (some pseudo code)
synchronized(lockObject) {
if (size < LIMIT) {
addElement();
lockObject.notifyAll(); //notifying threads that are waiting to get element from empty queue
} else {
lockObject.wait(); // waiting for other thread to get element from queue and make room for new element
}
}
Method that gets element
synchronized(lockObject) {
if (size > 0) {
getElement();
lockObject.notifyAll(); // notify threads that there is a room for new element
} else {
lockObject.wait(); // waiting for other thread to put element into the queue
}
}
Also calling lockObject.wait() releases lock on lockObject. More details regarding that could be found here: Java : Does wait() release lock from synchronized block
Notifying is what wakes up a thread that is waiting. If you remove the notify then waiting threads stay waiting (barring spurious wakeups but let’s not go there for now).
(Interrupting wakes up the thread but the guidance is to use it for cancellation only. Interruption targets a specific thread, where notifying lets the scheduler decide which threads are affected.)
When a thread calls wait it has to have the lock, then the wait method lets go of the lock.
When a thread calls notify it has to have the lock.
As a practical matter the notify can’t take effect on any waiting thread until the notifying thread relinquishes the lock. The first thing the notified thread is going to need to do anyway is to try to acquire the lock. All the passage you're quoting is trying to say is that the wakeup doesn't occur instantaneously when a thread calls notify.
So what happens here is that the notifying thread lets go of the lock and sends the notify to the scheduler, the scheduler decides which thread to notify, then the notified thread wakes up and contends for the lock in order to leave the wait method.
Imagine if you need a thread to wait for another thread to do something that it may or may not even currently be actively working on. For example, a thread that's waiting for a job to do may need to wait until another thread has put a job on the list of jobs it should do if that list is empty. How would you do this?
You can't just use some form of mutual exclusion. There may be long periods of time when there's no work to do and not thread holds any lock on the queue. There may just not be any work to do right now. The thread that does work needs to wait, without holding any lock, until another thread has given it some work to do.
So somewhere, there's a thread that does something like this:
Acquire the lock that protects some shared state that another thread might be waiting for a change to. (In this case, the job queue.)
Change the shared state to reflect the fact that the thing a thread might need to wait for has happened. (That is, put a job on the queue.)
Release the lock and let any waiting thread(s) know that the thing has happened.
So what could our code to wait look like? Perhaps:
Acquire the lock that protects the shared state.
Check whether we need to wait or not. (Is there a job on the queue?)
If we need to wait, wait. (If not, wait for a job to be placed on the queue.)
...
Oops, we have a problem. The thing we're waiting for can't happen because we hold the lock. No other thread can change the shared state. (Our thread to put a job on the queue can't touch the queue until we release the lock we acquired in step 1.)
Let's try it again:
Acquire the lock that protects the shared state.
Check whether we need to wait or not. (Is there a job on the queue?)
If we don't need to wait, exit this algorithm. (If there's a job, take it off the queue, release the lock, and do it.)
Release the lock. (So another thread can put a job on the queue.)
Wait for the thing to happen.
...
Oops, we have another problem. What if the thing we're waiting for happens after step 4 but before step 5. Since the lock has been released, the thing we're waiting for can happen. We can't check again because we don't hold the lock. How can we ensure we don't wait for something that has already happened, which may mean waiting forever?
To solve this, we need an atomic "unlock and wait" operation. That's what wait does. And we also need some operation that can end this wait that can be called by the thread that changed the shared state so that we no longer need to wait. That's what notify does.
I have a simple program which I am finding very confusing. The code snippet is as follows:
class Processor{
public void produce() Throws InterruptedException{
synchronized(this){
System.out.println("Producer Running...");
wait();
System.out.println("Resumed");
}
}
public void consume() Throws InterruptedException{
synchronized(this){
Thread.Sleep(2000);
System.out.println("Consumer Running... Press return key to return");
scan.nextLine();
notify();
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
}
Now my question is that , when we call wait() in the "produce" method the execution is immediately transferred to the "consume" method. (produce and consume are executed in separate threads). But when the notify(); is called in the "consume " method ,the execution does not immediately transfer. It waits for Thread.sleep(5000) to complete . why is this so ?
Well, the reason is quite simple.
When a thread calls wait() on certain object it goes into a waiting state and it stops executing (it is removed from scheduling). When waiting a thread releases all the monitors it has taken (and it needs to regain them after waking up)
When a thread calls notify() on certain object it wakes up another thread waiting over it, but it does not go into a waiting state itself, so it keeps running.
After your producer thread calls notify it keeps running and performing a five seconds sleep. While sleeping a thread retains all monitors that it has taken (you are inside a synchronized(this) block hence you have a monitor for "this" object). Scheduler cannot run the consumer thread that was just notified since it needs to readquire the monitor before resuming, and it wont be freed until your producer thread stops sleeping and gets out of the synchronized block
Although you seem to be missing some code needed for me to explain completely accurately, I'll do my best to provide an explanation that would be applicable even if my guess was incorrect.
wait() and notify() are methods called on a mutex object -- in this case, this.
wait() causes the currently executing thread to pause and give up that mutex (I think it's just the mutex that wait() is called on, could be all of them. Not sure), after which another thread can acquire the mutex and start executing. This is why you observe an immediate transfer of control when wait() is executed.
When notify() is called on a mutex, a thread waiting on that mutex wakes up and attempts to acquire the lock. However, it cannot do so until the lock is available -- in this case, until the lock (this) is released by the thread that calls notify() (the consumer thread). The mutex is only released once the consumer thread exits from the synchronized block, which is after the Thread.sleep(5000); call in your code. sleep() does not release any mutexes that the current thread has acquired, so the first thread has to wait until the second has finished sleeping and exited the synchronized block.
That is why wait() transfers control immediately, while notify() (in this case) has the currently executing thread finish its method before the formerly waiting thread can continue execution.
Assuming that you are calling both methods using the same object from difference threads.
If you want to don't wait 5000 miliseconds, use wait(5000) instead of Thread.sleep(5000).
The notify method, take one (random) previously waiting thread, that is waiting to acquire the lock (of an object) that the running/current thread has taken before, and mark it to resume as soon the current thread release the lock.
In your this case, it will release the lock and soon the Thread.sleep(5000) finish and leave the synchronized block.
Be aware, if you call produces or consume with diferents objects things will go totally diferent. I strongly suggest to read this article.
Hope it helps! As the good answers below!
The reason is that Thread.sleep(5000L) does not release the lock on the object's monitor while it's waiting, contrary to wait(5000L). This is specified in the Javadoc for Thread.sleep() :
... The thread does not lose ownership of any monitors.
Whereas the javadoc for Object.wait() specifies:
... This method causes the current thread (call it T) to place itself
in the wait set for this object and then to relinquish any and all
synchronization claims on this object...
According to a colleague, JVM does not guarantee that when calling "notify" on an object, the correct "wait" will be notified at that time. He says there can be a case when a previous notify which is not valid anymore is delivered at an invalid time.
Is this true? If so, how/why is this, and what use is the wait/notify mechanism if you cannot assume something as basic as this will work?
For java.lang.Object.notify, The Javadoc says:
Wakes up a single thread that is waiting on this object's monitor. If
any threads are waiting on this object, one of them is chosen to be
awakened. The choice is arbitrary and occurs at the discretion of the
implementation. A thread waits on an object's monitor by calling one
of the wait methods.
Here is a pattern to wait for a particular condition:
synchronized( lock ) {
while( conditionEvaluation( data )) {
lock.wait();
}
}
The counterpart should use java.lang.Object.notifyAll() to ensure the vivacity of the application. Even if today, it's only one waiter, after many evolutions of the software, it may be several waiters in the future, so notifyAll() is more robust than notify().
Each object that waits on an intrinsic lock will enter the lock's wait set. When you invoke notify on the lock object, one of the threads in its wait set will be chosen to resume work. The only guarantee that the JVM offers is that the waiting threads will be eventually notified. One of the main reasons for this non-deterministic behavior is the way suspended threads are chosen to run by the JVM, which is arbitrary. In addition however, locks in java implement a non-fair locking policy which permits thread barging. This simply means that it is permissible for new lock requests to jump ahead of the lock's wait set, it the lock is available at the time of the request. The justification behind this is that given substantial contention, there might be some (potentially significant) delay before choosing and resuming a suspended thread in the wait set and the time it actually runs. Any incoming lock request from a thread could therefore utilize this time delay to immediately run, in the hope that it will have released the lock by the time the resumed thread is ready to run. For example consider the following sequence of events:
Thread A that previously has acquired monitor X calls notify()
Thread B waiting on monitor X has chosen to be suspended (arbitrarily).
Thread C tries to acquire monitor X, sees that it is available and acquires it.
Thread C runs (despite thread B is currently in the process of being resumed)
Thread C finishes execution and releases monitor X, just before thread B is actually run.
Thread B is ready to run so it acquires the lock and starts execution.
It should be evident that between step 2 and 6 there exists some time interval where no threads are actually using the lock. Thread C barges in and utilizes the time interval as an optimization. The downside of this of course is the risk of not releasing the lock at the time thread B is ready to run, which at that time thread B will notice that the lock is unavailable and will enter the wait set again. Statistically however it can be proven that non-fair locking offers better performance in most situations.
As an aside note, you could use fair locks where waiting threads are resumed in the order they acquired the lock, but in practice this offers worse performance. Read more about this here: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/locks/ReentrantLock.html
I hope this answers your question.
No it's not true. When a thread invokes notify, one waiting thread is awakened (if such a thread exists, otherwise notification is lost). Probably your colleague had in mind "spurious notify", which can awake a thread when in fact no other thread invoked notify or notifyAll. To filter "spurious notify", each notify invocation should accompanied with some change in monitored object state, and the waiting threads should check that state:
synchronized void up() {
counter++;
notify();
}
synchronized void down() {
while (counter==0) {
wait();
}
counter--;
}
Note checking state in down() is done before call to wait(), as it could be changed before the invocation and the notification is lost. In other words, the real information is passed with object's state, and wait/notify only help to avoid polling. Never rely on notifications without changing an object's state.
What is the difference between a wait() and sleep() in Threads?
Is my understanding that a wait()-ing Thread is still in running mode and uses CPU cycles but a sleep()-ing does not consume any CPU cycles correct?
Why do we have both wait() and sleep()?
How does their implementation vary at a lower level?
A wait can be "woken up" by another thread calling notify on the monitor which is being waited on whereas a sleep cannot. Also a wait (and notify) must happen in a block synchronized on the monitor object whereas sleep does not:
Object mon = ...;
synchronized (mon) {
mon.wait();
}
At this point the currently executing thread waits and releases the monitor. Another thread may do
synchronized (mon) { mon.notify(); }
(on the same mon object) and the first thread (assuming it is the only thread waiting on the monitor) will wake up.
You can also call notifyAll if more than one thread is waiting on the monitor – this will wake all of them up. However, only one of the threads will be able to grab the monitor (remember that the wait is in a synchronized block) and carry on – the others will then be blocked until they can acquire the monitor's lock.
Another point is that you call wait on Object itself (i.e. you wait on an object's monitor) whereas you call sleep on Thread.
Yet another point is that you can get spurious wakeups from wait (i.e. the thread which is waiting resumes for no apparent reason). You should always wait whilst spinning on some condition as follows:
synchronized {
while (!condition) { mon.wait(); }
}
One key difference not yet mentioned is that:
sleep() does not release the lock it holds on the Thread,
synchronized(LOCK) {
Thread.sleep(1000); // LOCK is held
}
wait() releases the lock it holds on the object.
synchronized(LOCK) {
LOCK.wait(); // LOCK is not held
}
I found this post helpful. It puts the difference between Thread.sleep(), Thread.yield(), and Object.wait() in human terms. To quote:
It all eventually makes its way down to the OS’s scheduler, which
hands out timeslices to processes and threads.
sleep(n) says “I’m done with my timeslice, and please don’t give me
another one for at least n milliseconds.” The OS doesn’t even try to
schedule the sleeping thread until requested time has passed.
yield() says “I’m done with my timeslice, but I still have work to
do.” The OS is free to immediately give the thread another timeslice,
or to give some other thread or process the CPU the yielding thread
just gave up.
wait() says “I’m done with my timeslice. Don’t give me another
timeslice until someone calls notify().” As with sleep(), the OS won’t
even try to schedule your task unless someone calls notify() (or one of
a few other wakeup scenarios occurs).
Threads also lose the remainder of their timeslice when they perform
blocking IO and under a few other circumstances. If a thread works
through the entire timeslice, the OS forcibly takes control roughly as
if yield() had been called, so that other processes can run.
You rarely need yield(), but if you have a compute-heavy app with
logical task boundaries, inserting a yield() might improve system
responsiveness (at the expense of time — context switches, even just
to the OS and back, aren’t free). Measure and test against goals you
care about, as always.
There are a lot of answers here but I couldn't find the semantic distinction mentioned on any.
It's not about the thread itself; both methods are required as they support very different use-cases.
sleep() sends the Thread to sleep as it was before, it just packs the context and stops executing for a predefined time. So in order to wake it up before the due time, you need to know the Thread reference. This is not a common situation in a multi-threaded environment. It's mostly used for time-synchronization (e.g. wake in exactly 3.5 seconds) and/or hard-coded fairness (just sleep for a while and let others threads work).
wait(), on the contrary, is a thread (or message) synchronization mechanism that allows you to notify a Thread of which you have no stored reference (nor care). You can think of it as a publish-subscribe pattern (wait == subscribe and notify() == publish). Basically using notify() you are sending a message (that might even not be received at all and normally you don't care).
To sum up, you normally use sleep() for time-syncronization and wait() for multi-thread-synchronization.
They could be implemented in the same manner in the underlying OS, or not at all (as previous versions of Java had no real multithreading; probably some small VMs doesn't do that either). Don't forget Java runs on a VM, so your code will be transformed in something different according to the VM/OS/HW it runs on.
Here, I have listed few important differences between wait() and sleep() methods.
PS: Also click on the links to see library code (internal working, just play around a bit for better understanding).
wait()
wait() method releases the lock.
wait() is the method of Object class.
wait() is the non-static method - public final void wait() throws InterruptedException { //...}
wait() should be notified by notify() or notifyAll() methods.
wait() method needs to be called from a loop in order to deal with false alarm.
wait() method must be called from synchronized context (i.e. synchronized method or block), otherwise it will throw IllegalMonitorStateException
sleep()
sleep() method doesn't release the lock.
sleep() is the method of java.lang.Thread class.
sleep() is the static method - public static void sleep(long millis, int nanos) throws InterruptedException { //... }
after the specified amount of time, sleep() is completed.
sleep() better not to call from loop(i.e. see code below).
sleep() may be called from anywhere. there is no specific requirement.
Ref: Difference between Wait and Sleep
Code snippet for calling wait and sleep method
synchronized(monitor){
while(condition == true){
monitor.wait() //releases monitor lock
}
Thread.sleep(100); //puts current thread on Sleep
}
Difference between wait() and sleep()
The fundamental difference is that wait() is non static method of Object and sleep() is a static method of Thread.
The major difference is that wait() releases the lock while sleep() doesn’t release any lock while waiting.
wait() is used for inter-thread communication while sleep() is used to introduce a pause on execution, generally.
wait() should be called from inside synchronise or else we get an IllegalMonitorStateException, while sleep() can be called anywhere.
To start a thread again from wait(), you have to call notify() or notifyAll() indefinitely. As for sleep(), the thread gets started definitely after a specified time interval.
Similarities
Both make the current thread go into the Not Runnable state.
Both are native methods.
There are some difference key notes i conclude after working on wait and sleep, first take a look on sample using wait() and sleep():
Example1: using wait() and sleep():
synchronized(HandObject) {
while(isHandFree() == false) {
/* Hand is still busy on happy coding or something else, please wait */
HandObject.wait();
}
}
/* Get lock ^^, It is my turn, take a cup beer now */
while (beerIsAvailable() == false) {
/* Beer is still coming, not available, Hand still hold glass to get beer,
don't release hand to perform other task */
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
/* Enjoy my beer now ^^ */
drinkBeers();
/* I have drink enough, now hand can continue with other task: continue coding */
setHandFreeState(true);
synchronized(HandObject) {
HandObject.notifyAll();
}
Let clarity some key notes:
Call on:
wait(): Call on current thread that hold HandObject Object
sleep(): Call on Thread execute task get beer (is class method so affect on current running thread)
Synchronized:
wait(): when synchronized multi thread access same Object (HandObject) (When need communication between more than one thread (thread execute coding, thread execute get beer) access on same object HandObject )
sleep(): when waiting condition to continue execute (Waiting beer available)
Hold lock:
wait(): release the lock for other object have chance to execute (HandObject is free, you can do other job)
sleep(): keep lock for at least t times (or until interrupt) (My job still not finish, i'm continue hold lock and waiting some condition to continue)
Wake-up condition:
wait(): until call notify(), notifyAll() from object
sleep(): until at least time expire or call interrupt
And the last point is use when as estani indicate:
you normally use sleep() for time-syncronization and wait() for
multi-thread-synchronization.
Please correct me if i'm wrong.
This is a very simple question, because both these methods have a totally different use.
The major difference is to wait to release the lock or monitor while sleep doesn't release any lock or monitor while waiting. Wait is used for inter-thread communication while sleep is used to introduce pause on execution.
This was just a clear and basic explanation, if you want more than that then continue reading.
In case of wait() method thread goes in waiting state and it won't come back automatically until we call the notify() method (or notifyAll() if you have more then one thread in waiting state and you want to wake all of those thread). And you need synchronized or object lock or class lock to access the wait() or notify() or notifyAll() methods. And one more thing, the wait() method is used for inter-thread communication because if a thread goes in waiting state you'll need another thread to wake that thread.
But in case of sleep() this is a method which is used to hold the process for few seconds or the time you wanted. Because you don't need to provoke any notify() or notifyAll() method to get that thread back. Or you don't need any other thread to call back that thread. Like if you want something should happen after few seconds like in a game after user's turn you want the user to wait until the computer plays then you can mention the sleep() method.
And one more important difference which is asked often in interviews: sleep() belongs to Thread class and wait() belongs to Object class.
These are all the differences between sleep() and wait().
And there is a similarity between both methods: they both are checked statement so you need try catch or throws to access these methods.
I hope this will help you.
source : http://www.jguru.com/faq/view.jsp?EID=47127
Thread.sleep() sends the current thread into the "Not Runnable" state
for some amount of time. The thread keeps the monitors it has aquired
-- i.e. if the thread is currently in a synchronized block or method no other thread can enter this block or method. If another thread calls t.interrupt() it will wake up the sleeping thread.
Note that sleep is a static method, which means that it always affects
the current thread (the one that is executing the sleep method). A
common mistake is to call t.sleep() where t is a different thread;
even then, it is the current thread that will sleep, not the t thread.
t.suspend() is deprecated. Using it is possible to halt a thread other
than the current thread. A suspended thread keeps all its monitors and
since this state is not interruptable it is deadlock prone.
object.wait() sends the current thread into the "Not Runnable" state,
like sleep(), but with a twist. Wait is called on an object, not a
thread; we call this object the "lock object." Before lock.wait() is
called, the current thread must synchronize on the lock object; wait()
then releases this lock, and adds the thread to the "wait list"
associated with the lock. Later, another thread can synchronize on the
same lock object and call lock.notify(). This wakes up the original,
waiting thread. Basically, wait()/notify() is like
sleep()/interrupt(), only the active thread does not need a direct
pointer to the sleeping thread, but only to the shared lock object.
Wait and sleep are two different things:
In sleep() the thread stops working for the specified duration.
In wait() the thread stops working until the object being waited-on is notified, generally by other threads.
sleep is a method of Thread, wait is a method of Object, so wait/notify is a technique of synchronizing shared data in Java (using monitor), but sleep is a simple method of thread to pause itself.
sleep() is a method which is used to hold the process for few seconds or the time you wanted but in case of wait() method thread goes in waiting state and it won’t come back automatically until we call the notify() or notifyAll().
The major difference is that wait() releases the lock or monitor while sleep() doesn’t releases any lock or monitor while waiting. Wait is used for inter-thread communication while sleep is used to introduce pause on execution, generally.
Thread.sleep() sends the current thread into the “Not Runnable” state for some amount of time. The thread keeps the monitors it has acquired — i.e. if the thread is currently in a synchronized block or method no other thread can enter this block or method. If another thread calls t.interrupt() it will wake up the sleeping thread. Note that sleep is a static method, which means that it always affects the current thread (the one that is executing the sleep method). A common mistake is to call t.sleep() where t is a different thread; even then, it is the current thread that will sleep, not the t thread.
object.wait() sends the current thread into the “Not Runnable” state, like sleep(), but with a twist. Wait is called on an object, not a thread; we call this object the “lock object.” Before lock.wait() is called, the current thread must synchronize on the lock object; wait() then releases this lock, and adds the thread to the “wait list” associated with the lock. Later, another thread can synchronize on the same lock object and call lock.notify(). This wakes up the original, waiting thread. Basically, wait()/notify() is like sleep()/interrupt(), only the active thread does not need a direct pointer to the sleeping thread, but only to the shared lock object.
synchronized(LOCK) {
Thread.sleep(1000); // LOCK is held
}
synchronized(LOCK) {
LOCK.wait(); // LOCK is not held
}
Let categorize all above points :
Call on:
wait(): Call on an object; current thread must synchronize on the lock object.
sleep(): Call on a Thread; always currently executing thread.
Synchronized:
wait(): when synchronized multiple threads access same Object one by one.
sleep(): when synchronized multiple threads wait for sleep over of sleeping thread.
Hold lock:
wait(): release the lock for other objects to have chance to execute.
sleep(): keep lock for at least t times if timeout specified or somebody interrupt.
Wake-up condition:
wait(): until call notify(), notifyAll() from object
sleep(): until at least time expire or call interrupt().
Usage:
sleep(): for time-synchronization and;
wait(): for multi-thread-synchronization.
Ref:diff sleep and wait
In simple words, wait is wait Until some other thread invokes you whereas sleep is "dont execute next statement" for some specified period of time.
Moreover sleep is static method in Thread class and it operates on thread, whereas wait() is in Object class and called on an object.
Another point, when you call wait on some object, the thread involved synchronize the object and then waits. :)
wait and sleep methods are very different:
sleep has no way of "waking-up",
whereas wait has a way of "waking-up" during the wait period, by another thread calling notify or notifyAll.
Come to think about it, the names are confusing in that respect; however sleep is a standard name and wait is like the WaitForSingleObject or WaitForMultipleObjects in the Win API.
From this post : http://javaconceptoftheday.com/difference-between-wait-and-sleep-methods-in-java/
wait() Method.
1) The thread which calls wait() method releases the lock it holds.
2) The thread regains the lock after other threads call either notify() or notifyAll() methods on the same lock.
3) wait() method must be called within the synchronized block.
4) wait() method is always called on objects.
5) Waiting threads can be woken up by other threads by calling notify() or notifyAll() methods.
6) To call wait() method, thread must have object lock.
sleep() Method
1) The thread which calls sleep() method doesn’t release the lock it holds.
2) sleep() method can be called within or outside the synchronized block.
3) sleep() method is always called on threads.
4) Sleeping threads can not be woken up by other threads. If done so, thread will throw InterruptedException.
5) To call sleep() method, thread need not to have object lock.
Here wait() will be in the waiting state till it notify by another Thread but where as sleep() will be having some time..after that it will automatically transfer to the Ready state...
wait() is a method of Object class.
sleep() is a method of Thread class.
sleep() allows the thread to go to sleep state for x milliseconds.
When a thread goes into sleep state it doesn’t release the lock.
wait() allows thread to release the lock and goes to suspended state.
This thread will be active when a notify() or notifAll() method is
called for the same object.
One potential big difference between sleep/interrupt and wait/notify is that
calling interrupt() during sleep() always throws an exception (e.g. InterruptedException), whereas
calling notify() during wait() does not.
Generating an exception when not needed is inefficient. If you have threads communicating with each other at a high rate, then it would be generating a lot of exceptions if you were calling interrupt all the time, which is a total waste of CPU.
You are correct - Sleep() causes that thread to "sleep" and the CPU will go off and process other threads (otherwise known as context switching) wheras I believe Wait keeps the CPU processing the current thread.
We have both because although it may seem sensible to let other people use the CPU while you're not using it, actualy there is an overhead to context switching - depending on how long the sleep is for, it can be more expensive in CPU cycles to switch threads than it is to simply have your thread doing nothing for a few ms.
Also note that sleep forces a context switch.
Also - in general it's not possible to control context switching - during the Wait the OS may (and will for longer waits) choose to process other threads.
The methods are used for different things.
Thread.sleep(5000); // Wait until the time has passed.
Object.wait(); // Wait until some other thread tells me to wake up.
Thread.sleep(n) can be interrupted, but Object.wait() must be notified.
It's possible to specify the maximum time to wait: Object.wait(5000) so it would be possible to use wait to, er, sleep but then you have to bother with locks.
Neither of the methods uses the cpu while sleeping/waiting.
The methods are implemented using native code, using similar constructs but not in the same way.
Look for yourself: Is the source code of native methods available? The file /src/share/vm/prims/jvm.cpp is the starting point...
Wait() and sleep() Differences?
Thread.sleep()
Once its work completed then only its release the lock to everyone. until its never release the lock to anyone.
Sleep() take the key, its never release the key to anyone, when its work completed then only its release then only take the key waiting stage threads.
Object.wait()
When its going to waiting stage, its will be release the key and its waiting for some of the seconds based on the parameter.
For Example:
you are take the coffee in yours right hand, you can take another anyone of the same hand, when will your put down then only take another object same type here. also. this is sleep()
you sleep time you didn't any work, you are doing only sleeping.. same here also.
wait(). when you are put down and take another one mean while you are waiting , that's wait
you are play movie or anything in yours system same as player you can't play more than one at a time right, thats its here, when you close and choose another anyone movie or song mean while is called wait
wait releases the lock and sleep doesn't. A thread in waiting state is eligible for waking up as soon as notify or notifyAll is called. But in case of sleep the thread keeps the lock and it'll only be eligible once the sleep time is over.
sleep() method causes the current thread to move from running state to block state for a specified time. If the current thread has the lock of any object then it keeps holding it, which means that other threads cannot execute any synchronized method in that class object.
wait() method causes the current thread to go into block state either for a specified time or until notify, but in this case the thread releases the lock of the object (which means that other threads can execute any synchronized methods of the calling object.
In my opinion, the main difference between both mechanisms is that sleep/interrupt is the most basic way of handling threads, whereas wait/notify is an abstraction aimed to do thread inter-communication easier. This means that sleep/interrupt can do anything, but that this specific task is harder to do.
Why is wait/notify more suitable? Here are some personal considerations:
It enforces centralization. It allows to coordinate the communication between a group of threads with a single shared object. This simplifies the work a lot.
It enforces synchronization. Because it makes the programmer wrap the call to wait/notify in a synchronized block.
It's independent of the thread origin and number. With this approach you can add more threads arbitrarily without editing the other threads or keeping a track of the existing ones. If you used sleep/interrupt, first you would need to keep the references to the sleeping threads, and then interrupt them one by one, by hand.
An example from the real life that is good to explain this is a classic restaurant and the method that the personnel use to communicate among them: The waiters leave the customer requests in a central place (a cork board, a table, etc.), ring a bell, and the workers from the kitchen come to take such requests. Once that there is any course ready, the kitchen personnel ring the bell again so that the waiters are aware and take them to the customers.
Example about sleep doesn’t release lock and wait does
Here there are two classes :
Main : Contains main method and two threads.
Singleton : This is singleton class with two static methods getInstance() and getInstance(boolean isWait).
public class Main {
private static Singleton singletonA = null;
private static Singleton singletonB = null;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread threadA = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
singletonA = Singleton.getInstance(true);
}
};
Thread threadB = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
singletonB = Singleton.getInstance();
while (singletonA == null) {
System.out.println("SingletonA still null");
}
if (singletonA == singletonB) {
System.out.println("Both singleton are same");
} else {
System.out.println("Both singleton are not same");
}
}
};
threadA.start();
threadB.start();
}
}
and
public class Singleton {
private static Singleton _instance;
public static Singleton getInstance() {
if (_instance == null) {
synchronized (Singleton.class) {
if (_instance == null)
_instance = new Singleton();
}
}
return _instance;
}
public static Singleton getInstance(boolean isWait) {
if (_instance == null) {
synchronized (Singleton.class) {
if (_instance == null) {
if (isWait) {
try {
// Singleton.class.wait(500);//Using wait
Thread.sleep(500);// Using Sleep
System.out.println("_instance :"
+ String.valueOf(_instance));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
_instance = new Singleton();
}
}
}
return _instance;
}
}
Now run this example you will get below output :
_instance :null
Both singleton are same
Here Singleton instances created by threadA and threadB are same. It means threadB is waiting outside until threadA release it’s lock.
Now change the Singleton.java by commenting Thread.sleep(500); method and uncommenting Singleton.class.wait(500); . Here because of Singleton.class.wait(500); method threadA will release all acquire locks and moves into the “Non Runnable” state, threadB will get change to enter in synchronized block.
Now run again :
SingletonA still null
SingletonA still null
SingletonA still null
_instance :com.omt.sleepwait.Singleton#10c042ab
SingletonA still null
SingletonA still null
SingletonA still null
Both singleton are not same
Here Singleton instances created by threadA and threadB are NOT same because of threadB got change to enter in synchronised block and after 500 milliseconds threadA started from it’s last position and created one more Singleton object.
Should be called from synchronized block : wait() method is always called from synchronized block i.e. wait() method needs to lock object monitor before object on which it is called. But sleep() method can be called from outside synchronized block i.e. sleep() method doesn’t need any object monitor.
IllegalMonitorStateException : if wait() method is called without acquiring object lock than IllegalMonitorStateException is thrown at runtime, but sleep() method never throws such exception.
Belongs to which class : wait() method belongs to java.lang.Object class but sleep() method belongs to java.lang.Thread class.
Called on object or thread : wait() method is called on objects but sleep() method is called on Threads not objects.
Thread state : when wait() method is called on object, thread that holded object’s monitor goes from running to waiting state and can return to runnable state only when notify() or notifyAll() method is called on that object. And later thread scheduler schedules that thread to go from from runnable to running state.
when sleep() is called on thread it goes from running to waiting state and can return to runnable state when sleep time is up.
When called from synchronized block : when wait() method is called thread leaves the object lock. But sleep() method when called from synchronized block or method thread doesn’t leaves object lock.
For More Reference
From oracle documentation page on wait() method of Object:
public final void wait()
Causes the current thread to wait until another thread invokes the notify() method or the notifyAll() method for this object. In other words, this method behaves exactly as if it simply performs the call wait(0).
The current thread must own this object's monitor. The thread releases ownership of this monitor and waits until another thread notifies threads waiting on this object's monitor to wake up
interrupts and spurious wakeups are possible
This method should only be called by a thread that is the owner of this object's monitor
This method throws
IllegalMonitorStateException - if the current thread is not the owner of the object's monitor.
InterruptedException - if any thread interrupted the current thread before or while the current thread was waiting for a notification. The interrupted status of the current thread is cleared when this exception is thrown.
From oracle documentation page on sleep() method of Thread class:
public static void sleep(long millis)
Causes the currently executing thread to sleep (temporarily cease execution) for the specified number of milliseconds, subject to the precision and accuracy of system timers and schedulers.
The thread does not lose ownership of any monitors.
This method throws:
IllegalArgumentException - if the value of millis is negative
InterruptedException - if any thread has interrupted the current thread. The interrupted status of the current thread is cleared when this exception is thrown.
Other key difference:
wait() is a non-static method (instance method) unlike static method sleep() (class method).
wait() is given inside a synchronized method
whereas sleep() is given inside a non-synchronized method because wait() method release the lock on the object but sleep() or yield() does release the lock().
The method wait(1000) causes the current thread to sleep up to one second.
A thread could sleep less than 1 second if it receives the notify() or notifyAll() method call.
The call to sleep(1000) causes the current thread to sleep for exactly 1 second.
Also sleeping thread doesn't hold lock any resource. But waiting thread does.
Actually, all this is clearly described in Java docs (but I realized this only after reading the answers).
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/index.html :
wait() - The current thread must own this object's monitor. The thread releases
ownership of this monitor and waits until another thread notifies
threads waiting on this object's monitor to wake up either through a
call to the notify method or the notifyAll method. The thread then
waits until it can re-obtain ownership of the monitor and resumes execution.
sleep() - Causes the currently executing thread to sleep (temporarily cease execution) for the specified number of milliseconds, subject to the precision and accuracy of system timers and schedulers. The thread does not lose ownership of any monitors.