I am trying to understand interrupting threads within an ExecutorService and I can't figure out why the following MyNeverEndingRunnable class doesn't get the interrupt signal. I have a class that implements Runnable and simply prints and waits in a loop until it is interrupted:
class MyNeverEndingRunnable
implements Runnable
{
int count = 0;
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
System.out.printf("[%d]:%d\n", Thread.currentThread().getId(), ++count);
try { Thread.sleep(5000L); } catch (Exception ignored) {}
if (Thread.interrupted())
{
break;
}
}
}
}
I spawn a few of these threads then call shutdownNow() on my ExecutorService which should call interrupt on each of the running threads but the below code continues to run forever:
int threadCount = 5;
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threadCount);
Future[] threads = new Future[threadCount];
for (int k = 0; k < threadCount; ++k)
{
threads[k] = executorService.submit(new MyNeverEndingRunnable());
}
Thread.sleep(20000L);
executorService.shutdownNow();
while (!executorService.isShutdown()) Thread.sleep(1000L);
Does anyone know what I am doing wrong here?
From the Javadoc:
InterruptedException - if any thread has interrupted the current thread. The interrupted status of the current thread is cleared when this exception is thrown. [My emphasis]
NB There's nothing that actually guarantees that threads are interrupted by shutdownNow(). It just describes that as a 'typical implementation'.
Your code is a little strange. Try this:
try
{
Thread.sleep(5000L);
}
catch (InterruptedException exc)
{
break;
}
and remove the Thread.interrupted() test.
Read the Javadoc on Thread.sleep():
Throws:
...
InterruptedException - if any thread has interrupted the current thread. The interrupted status of the current thread is cleared when this exception is thrown.
As soon as the exception is thrown, it's no longer interrupted. In your case, you can immediately break out of the loop and let the thread die, as #EJP suggested. But if your code doesn't have ownership of the thread (e.g. a separate method), you'll want to make sure the interruption is propagated to the caller, either by propagating the exception, or by re-interrupting:
try {
while (true) {
System.out.printf("[%d]:%d\n", Thread.currentThread().getId(), ++count);
Thread.sleep(5000L);
}
} catch (InterruptedException notIgnored)
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
Or similarly:
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
System.out.printf("[%d]:%d\n", Thread.currentThread().getId(), ++count);
try {
Thread.sleep(5000L);
} catch (InterruptedException notIgnored)
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
I have a nice and compact code, which does not work as I expected.
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (;;) {
}
} finally {
System.out.println("FINALLY");
}
}
};
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Future<?> future = executor.submit(r);
try {
future.get(3, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
boolean c = future.cancel(true);
System.out.println("Timeout " + c);
} catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {
System.out.println("interrupted");
}
System.out.println("END");
}
}
The output is :
Timeout true
END
Question:
Why does not terminate the future.cancel(true) method the called Runnable?
After the program wrote the "END" to the output, the "r" Runnable is still running.
The problem is that your Runnable is not interruptible: task interruption is a collaborative process in Java and the cancelled code needs to check regularly if it's been cancelled, otherwise it won't respond to the interruption.
You can amend you code as follows and it should work as expected:
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
try {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {}
} finally {
System.out.println("FINALLY");
}
}
};
This is always a little bit misleading: The ExceutorService or even the underlying thread scheduler do not know anything about what the Runnable is doing. In your case they don't know that there is a unconditional loop.
All these methods (cancel, done, ...) are related to manage Threads in the Executor structure. cancel cancels the thread from the point of view of the Executor service.
The programmer must test if the Runnable was canceled and must terminate the run() method.
So in your case (if I remember well) something like this:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
FutureTask r = new FutureTask () {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (;!isCancelled();) {
}
} finally {
System.out.println("FINALLY");
}
}
};
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Future<?> future = executor.submit(r);
try {
future.get(3, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
boolean c = future.cancel(true);
System.out.println("Timeout " + c);
} catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {
System.out.println("interrupted");
}
System.out.println("END");
}
}
When you cancel a Future whose Runnable has already begun, the interrupt method is called on the Thread that is running the Runnable. But that won't necessarily stop the thread. Indeed, if it's stuck in a tight loop, like the one you've got here, the Thread won't stop. In this case, the interrupt method just sets a flag called the "interrupt status", which tells the thread to stop when it can.
See the Javadoc for the interrupt method of Thread
Future.cancel() will cancel any queued task or will call Thread.interrupt() on your thread if already running.
You need to interrupt your code
It's your code's responsibility is to be ready for any interruptions. I'd go so far to say that whenever you have a long running task, that you insert some interrupt ready code like this:
while (... something long...) {
... do something long
if (Thread.interrupted()) {
... stop doing what I'm doing...
}
}
How to stop what I'm doing?
You have several options:
If your you are in Runnable.run() just return or break out of the loop and finish the method.
You may be in some other method deep in the code. It may make sense at that point for that method to throw InterruptedException so you would just do that (leaving the flag cleared).
But maybe deep in your code it doesn't make sense to throw InterruptedException. In that case you should throw some other exception, but before that mark your thread interrupted again so the code that catches knows that an interrupt was in progress. Here's an example:
private void someMethodDeepDown() {
while (.. long running task .. ) {
... do lots of work ...
if (Thread.interrupted()) {
// oh no! an interrupt!
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
throw new SomeOtherException();
}
}
}
Now the exception can propagate an either terminate the thread or be caught, but the receiving code hopefully notices that an interrupt is in progress.
I want to run some periodic task in background and I want to do it right.
So I schedule my task with ScheduledExecutorService.scheduleWithFixedDelay(..) and call ScheduledFuture.get() on the separate thread to control the life of the task, catch uncaught exceptions from it and get notified if the task is cancelled.
The problem is that if ScheduledExecutorService.shutdown() is called while the task is executing, than ScheduledFuture does not get notified and its get() method stays blocked forever.
And here comes the simple code to illustrate the problem:
public final class SomeService {
private final ScheduledExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
private final SomePeriodicTask task = new SomePeriodicTask();
private ScheduledFuture<?> future;
public void start() {
future = executor.scheduleWithFixedDelay(task, 0, 1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
final Runnable watchdog = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
future.get();
} catch (CancellationException ex) {
System.out.println("I am cancelled");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("I am interrupted");
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
System.out.println("I have an exception");
}
System.out.println("Watchdog thread is exiting");
}
};
new Thread(watchdog).start();
}
public void shutdownAndWait() {
System.out.println("Shutdown requested");
executor.shutdown();
try {
executor.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.DAYS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) { //BTW When and why could this happen?
System.out.println("Waiting for shutdown was interrupted");
}
System.out.println("Executor is shutdown " + executor.isShutdown());
}
}
First, simple task which returns quickly
final class SomePeriodicTask implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.print("I am just doing my job...");
System.out.println("done");
}
}
If we run it like this
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
SomeService service = new SomeService();
service.start();
Thread.sleep(3000);
service.shutdownAndWait();
System.out.println("Future is cancelled " + service.future.isCancelled());
System.out.println("Future is done " + service.future.isDone());
}
then the output is
I am just doing my job...done
I am just doing my job...done
I am just doing my job...done
Shutdown requested
I am cancelled
Watchdog thread is exiting
Executor is shutdown true
Future is cancelled true
Future is done true
totally as expected.
But if we modify the task to simulate some heavy job
final class SomePeriodicTask implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.print("I am just doing my job...");
try {
Thread.sleep(1500); //Heavy job. You can change it to 5000 to be sure
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Task was interrupted");
}
System.out.println("done");
}
}
so that the call to shutdown() happens while the task is executing... then the output is
I am just doing my job...done
I am just doing my job...Shutdown requested
done
Executor is shutdown true
Future is cancelled false
Future is done false
So what happened here... Executor is shutting down, as expected. It lets the current task to finish its job, as expected. We see that executor did finish shutting down, but our ScheduledFuture did not get cancelled and its get() method is still blocked and the watchdog thread prevents JVM from exiting and hangs forever.
Of course there are workarounds. For example I can call future.cancel(false) manually before shutdown or make watchdog a daemon thread or even try to schedule shutdown of Executor by himself so that it does not overlap with running task... But all of above have drawbacks and when code will get more complicated things can go sideways.
And anyway, I am seeking for your expert opinion because I will have no peace until I understand why it doesn't behave like it should. If it is a bug in jdk it must be reported. If I misunderstand something and my code is wrong, I must know it...
Thanks in advance
The first thing to understand is that for a periodic task, a normal completion does not turn the state of the Future to done as it expects to be rescheduled and possibly rerun.
This interferes with the semantics of Executor.shutdown; it will cancel all pending tasks but let the currently running tasks complete. So your currently running task completes normally and doesn’t set its state to done as it never does, but isn’t rescheduled because the executor has been shut down.
Even if you use shutdownNow it will interrupt the currently running tasks but not cancel them and since your task catches the InterruptedException and completes earlier but normally, there will be no state transition to done.
The best place to add the desired behavior of cancelling even tasks that completed normally upon shutdown is the Executor implementation; just change the line
private final ScheduledExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
to
private final ScheduledExecutorService executor = new ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor(1) {
#Override
protected void afterExecute(Runnable r, Throwable t) {
if(t==null && isShutdown() && r instanceof RunnableScheduledFuture<?>)
{
RunnableScheduledFuture<?> rsf = (RunnableScheduledFuture<?>)r;
if(rsf.isPeriodic()) rsf.cancel(false);
}
};
};
I have been working on a java GUI application that on a particular action do some task. I have been doing this task using ExecutorService. Now the working with multiple threads works fine but the problem is that I do not want to block my GUI. User may want to cancel the current operation and may request for another one. But while using the ExecutorService, my main Thread gets blocked. I want to wait for my child threads to finish, invoked using ExecutorService, while still being able to work on GUI.
The updated code is:
ExecutorService child = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
ExecutorService es = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
#Action
public void doAction() {
/** Some Code goes here */
if(Condition){
if(!(es.isTerminated()||es.isShutdown())){
es.shutdownNow();
es = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
}
es.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
if(!(child.isTerminated()||child.isShutdown())){
child.shutdownNow();
child = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
}
for(loopConditions){
child.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
//Perform Some Task Here
}
});
}
child.shutdown();
try {
boolean finshed = child.awaitTermination(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
child.shutdownNow();
Logger.getLogger(MySearchView.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
System.out.println("All Child Threads finished Execution");
}
});
es.shutdown();
try {
boolean finshed = es.awaitTermination(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
es.shutdownNow();
Logger.getLogger(MySearchView.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
System.out.println("All Threads finished Execution");
/**
* Code that should run after all Threads finishes their Execution
*/
}
}
You're not using the Executors in the way they're intended. They are meant to be long-lived, created on application startup and torn down at the end. Don't use shutdownNow and awaitTermination during normal processing.
If you want to await the result of a task, call get() on the Future that was returned when you submitted it.
I would use a ScheduledExecutorService to shut itself down after 5 seconds.
Is it possible to force Java to throw an Exception after some block of code runs longer than acceptable?
Here's the simplest way that I know of to do this:
final Runnable stuffToDo = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
/* Do stuff here. */
}
};
final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final Future future = executor.submit(stuffToDo);
executor.shutdown(); // This does not cancel the already-scheduled task.
try {
future.get(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
}
catch (InterruptedException ie) {
/* Handle the interruption. Or ignore it. */
}
catch (ExecutionException ee) {
/* Handle the error. Or ignore it. */
}
catch (TimeoutException te) {
/* Handle the timeout. Or ignore it. */
}
if (!executor.isTerminated())
executor.shutdownNow(); // If you want to stop the code that hasn't finished.
Alternatively, you can create a TimeLimitedCodeBlock class to wrap this functionality, and then you can use it wherever you need it as follows:
new TimeLimitedCodeBlock(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES) { #Override public void codeBlock() {
// Do stuff here.
}}.run();
I compiled some of the other answers into a single utility method:
public class TimeLimitedCodeBlock {
public static void runWithTimeout(final Runnable runnable, long timeout, TimeUnit timeUnit) throws Exception {
runWithTimeout(new Callable<Object>() {
#Override
public Object call() throws Exception {
runnable.run();
return null;
}
}, timeout, timeUnit);
}
public static <T> T runWithTimeout(Callable<T> callable, long timeout, TimeUnit timeUnit) throws Exception {
final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final Future<T> future = executor.submit(callable);
executor.shutdown(); // This does not cancel the already-scheduled task.
try {
return future.get(timeout, timeUnit);
}
catch (TimeoutException e) {
//remove this if you do not want to cancel the job in progress
//or set the argument to 'false' if you do not want to interrupt the thread
future.cancel(true);
throw e;
}
catch (ExecutionException e) {
//unwrap the root cause
Throwable t = e.getCause();
if (t instanceof Error) {
throw (Error) t;
} else if (t instanceof Exception) {
throw (Exception) t;
} else {
throw new IllegalStateException(t);
}
}
}
}
Sample code making use of this utility method:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
log(startTime, "calling runWithTimeout!");
try {
TimeLimitedCodeBlock.runWithTimeout(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
log(startTime, "starting sleep!");
Thread.sleep(10000);
log(startTime, "woke up!");
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
log(startTime, "was interrupted!");
}
}
}, 5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
}
catch (TimeoutException e) {
log(startTime, "got timeout!");
}
log(startTime, "end of main method!");
}
private static void log(long startTime, String msg) {
long elapsedSeconds = (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime);
System.out.format("%1$5sms [%2$16s] %3$s\n", elapsedSeconds, Thread.currentThread().getName(), msg);
}
Output from running the sample code on my machine:
0ms [ main] calling runWithTimeout!
13ms [ pool-1-thread-1] starting sleep!
5015ms [ main] got timeout!
5016ms [ main] end of main method!
5015ms [ pool-1-thread-1] was interrupted!
Yes, but its generally a very bad idea to force another thread to interrupt on a random line of code. You would only do this if you intend to shutdown the process.
What you can do is to use Thread.interrupt() for a task after a certain amount of time. However, unless the code checks for this it won't work. An ExecutorService can make this easier with Future.cancel(true)
Its much better for the code to time itself and stop when it needs to.
If it is test code you want to time, then you can use the time attribute:
#Test(timeout = 1000)
public void shouldTakeASecondOrLess()
{
}
If it is production code, there is no simple mechanism, and which solution you use depends upon whether you can alter the code to be timed or not.
If you can change the code being timed, then a simple approach is is to have your timed code remember it's start time, and periodically the current time against this. E.g.
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
// .. do stuff ..
long elapsed = System.currentTimeMillis()-startTime;
if (elapsed>timeout)
throw new RuntimeException("tiomeout");
If the code itself cannot check for timeout, you can execute the code on another thread, and wait for completion, or timeout.
Callable<ResultType> run = new Callable<ResultType>()
{
#Override
public ResultType call() throws Exception
{
// your code to be timed
}
};
RunnableFuture<ResultType> future = new FutureTask<>(run);
ExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
service.execute(future);
ResultType result = null;
try
{
result = future.get(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS); // wait 1 second
}
catch (TimeoutException ex)
{
// timed out. Try to stop the code if possible.
future.cancel(true);
}
service.shutdown();
}
I can suggest two options.
Within the method, assuming it is looping and not waiting for an external event, add a local field and test the time each time around the loop.
void method() {
long endTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis() + 10000;
while (true) {
// method logic
if (System.currentTimeMillis() > endTimeMillis) {
// do some clean-up
return;
}
}
}
Run the method in a thread, and have the caller count to 10 seconds.
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
method();
}
});
thread.start();
long endTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis() + 10000;
while (thread.isAlive()) {
if (System.currentTimeMillis() > endTimeMillis) {
// set an error flag
break;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
}
catch (InterruptedException t) {}
}
The drawback to this approach is that method() cannot return a value directly, it must update an instance field to return its value.
EDIT: Peter Lawrey is completely right: it's not as simple as interrupting a thread (my original suggestion), and Executors & Callables are very useful ...
Rather than interrupting threads, you could set a variable on the Callable once the timeout is reached. The callable should check this variable at appropriate points in task execution, to know when to stop.
Callables return Futures, with which you can specify a timeout when you try to 'get' the future's result. Something like this:
try {
future.get(timeoutSeconds, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
myCallable.setStopMeAtAppropriatePlace(true);
}
See Future.get, Executors, and Callable ...
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Future.html#get-long-java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit-
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Callable.html
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Executors.html#newFixedThreadPool%28int%29
I created a very simple solution without using any frameworks or APIs. This looks more elegant and understandable. The class is called TimeoutBlock.
public class TimeoutBlock {
private final long timeoutMilliSeconds;
private long timeoutInteval=100;
public TimeoutBlock(long timeoutMilliSeconds){
this.timeoutMilliSeconds=timeoutMilliSeconds;
}
public void addBlock(Runnable runnable) throws Throwable{
long collectIntervals=0;
Thread timeoutWorker=new Thread(runnable);
timeoutWorker.start();
do{
if(collectIntervals>=this.timeoutMilliSeconds){
timeoutWorker.stop();
throw new Exception("<<<<<<<<<<****>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Execution Time Exceeded In "+timeoutMilliSeconds+" Milli Seconds. Thread Block Terminated.");
}
collectIntervals+=timeoutInteval;
Thread.sleep(timeoutInteval);
}while(timeoutWorker.isAlive());
System.out.println("<<<<<<<<<<####>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Executed Within "+collectIntervals+" Milli Seconds.");
}
/**
* #return the timeoutInteval
*/
public long getTimeoutInteval() {
return timeoutInteval;
}
/**
* #param timeoutInteval the timeoutInteval to set
*/
public void setTimeoutInteval(long timeoutInteval) {
this.timeoutInteval = timeoutInteval;
}
}
example :
try {
TimeoutBlock timeoutBlock = new TimeoutBlock(10 * 60 * 1000);//set timeout in milliseconds
Runnable block=new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//TO DO write block of code to execute
}
};
timeoutBlock.addBlock(block);// execute the runnable block
} catch (Throwable e) {
//catch the exception here . Which is block didn't execute within the time limit
}
This was so much useful for me when i had to connect to a FTP account. Then download and upload stuff. sometimes FTP connection hangs or totally breaks. This caused whole system to go down. and i needed a way to detect it and prevent it from happening . So i created this and used it. Works pretty well.
I faced a similar kind of issue where my task was to push a message to SQS within a particular timeout. I used the trivial logic of executing it via another thread and waiting on its future object by specifying the timeout. This would give me a TIMEOUT exception in case of timeouts.
final Future<ISendMessageResult> future =
timeoutHelperThreadPool.getExecutor().submit(() -> {
return getQueueStore().sendMessage(request).get();
});
try {
sendMessageResult = future.get(200, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
logger.info("SQS_PUSH_SUCCESSFUL");
return true;
} catch (final TimeoutException e) {
logger.error("SQS_PUSH_TIMEOUT_EXCEPTION");
}
But there are cases where you can't stop the code being executed by another thread and you get true negatives in that case.
For example - In my case, my request reached SQS and while the message was being pushed, my code logic encountered the specified timeout. Now in reality my message was pushed into the Queue but my main thread assumed it to be failed because of the TIMEOUT exception.
This is a type of problem which can be avoided rather than being solved. Like in my case I avoided it by providing a timeout which would suffice in nearly all of the cases.
If the code you want to interrupt is within you application and is not something like an API call then you can simply use
future.cancel(true)
However do remember that java docs says that it does guarantee that the execution will be blocked.
"Attempts to cancel execution of this task. This attempt will fail if the task has already completed, has already been cancelled,or could not be cancelled for some other reason. If successful,and this task has not started when cancel is called,this task should never run. If the task has already started,then the mayInterruptIfRunning parameter determines whether the thread executing this task should be interrupted inan attempt to stop the task."
If you want a CompletableFuture way you could have a method like
public MyResponseObject retrieveDataFromEndpoint() {
CompletableFuture<MyResponseObject> endpointCall
= CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() ->
yourRestService.callEnpoint(withArg1, withArg2));
try {
return endpointCall.get(10, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
} catch (TimeoutException
| InterruptedException
| ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Unable to fetch data", e);
}
}
If you're using spring, you could annotate the method with a #Retryable so that it retries the method three times if an exception is thrown.
Instead of having the task in the new thread and the timer in the main thread, have the timer in the new thread and the task in the main thread:
public static class TimeOut implements Runnable{
public void run() {
Thread.sleep(10000);
if(taskComplete ==false) {
System.out.println("Timed Out");
return;
}
else {
return;
}
}
}
public static boolean taskComplete = false;
public static void main(String[] args) {
TimeOut timeOut = new TimeOut();
Thread timeOutThread = new Thread(timeOut);
timeOutThread.start();
//task starts here
//task completed
taskComplete =true;
while(true) {//do all other stuff }
}
There is a hacky way to do it.
Set some boolean field to indicate whether the work was completed. Then before the block of code, set a timer to run a piece of code after your timeout. The timer will check if the block of code had finished executing, and if not, throw an exception. Otherwise it will do nothing.
The end of the block of code should, of course, set the field to true to indicate the work was done.
There's a very simple option that nobody's mentioned yet:
Duration timeout = Duration.ofMinutes(5);
Thread thread = new Thread(() -> {
// your code here
});
thread.start();
thread.join(timeout.toMillis());
if (thread.isAlive()) {
thread.interrupt();
throw new MyTimeoutException();
}
If the thread running your code block fails to complete within the timeout, it is interrupted and whatever exception you want can be thrown.
It is possible to write code that will simply ignore the interruption and carry on. If you're dealing with this can cannot fix it then there is thread.stop(), but that can break any synchronisation mechanisms that you are relying on. See its deprecation notice.
You can also capture exceptions from the thread:
AtomicReference<Throwable> uncaughtException = new AtomicReference<>();
thread.setUncaughtExceptionHandler((t, ex) -> uncaughtException.setRelease(ex));
// ...
Throwable ex = uncaughtException.getAcquire();
if (ex != null) {
throw ex;
}
I had this problem too, my logs print out with ‘’Unexpected end of stream‘’.and ‘’Could not get a resource from the pool‘’，
I set the timeout of brpop to 30s, redis to 31s, and mysql database connection pool to 300s. For now, this error is not printed on the log, but I don't know if this error will be reported in the future.I don't know if it has a bad effect on my writing to the database