I am trying to run two methods in parallel. To do that I have written a code like below:
After getting critiques, I thought I should be clearer. method1() is a local method which runs on my local computer. method2() is a web method which sends some data to a remote computer to process and return result. Since the work takes too long I divide the data into 2 pieces and one part is processed on local and the other one is on remote.
After the jobs finishes I combine the results.
//str1 and str2 are defined outside the main method.
Thread[] threads = new Thread[2];
threads[0] = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() { str1 = method1(); }
};
threads[1] = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() { str2 = method2(); }
};
threads[0].start();
threads[1].start();
I get null from method2() in return when I try this way. Bu if I run method2() outside thread definition str2 is null.
Thread thread = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() { str1 = method1(); }
};
thread.start();
str2 = method2();
method2() returns what it should return. The explanation could be that thread[1].start() does not start.
You should ask yourself the question, why would you like to run two methods parallel?
when working with threads always think in terms of task(work to be done) and the executor of the task(which is a thread in this case).
So if we say that the stuff which goes inside a method is a task, which we need to perform, then the next question is who will accomplish that task.
Now in your case you have two methods to run which means two tasks at hand.
Next question is are these tasks mutually exclusive? if yes then the method you adopted above is right.
If the tasks are not mutually exclusive and depend on a common state. Like below:-
//x and y are state variables which are shared across two tasks(method1 and method2)
int x; int y;
method1(){x++;y--;}
method2(){x--;y++;}
Thread[] threads = new Thread[2];
threads[0] = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() { method1(); }
};
threads[1] = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() { method2(); }
};
threads[0].start();
threads[1].start();
Now, Here we have to make sure that the two threads have sequential access to the state variables x and y . So we do that by synchronizing access to these state variables by using thread synchronization techniques.
There are various approaches to that, the simplest being adding the synchronized keyword to method1 and method 2 as follows:-
synchronized method1(){x++;y--;}
synchronized method2(){x--;y++;}
rest remains same. For reference you can see various thread synchronization approaches for a more efficient approach.
Your code should work for what you explained what you want to do. (Before your edit ...)
Nevertheless, let me suggest using one of Java's Executors. They may be of great use to you when it comes to extending the functionality or adding more tasks ...
After your edit:
I suspect a "racing condition". That is: You check for the result, before the thread has finished and set the variable.
Related
Is there a way to create multiple threads that run simultaneously with a for loop? Consider this example:
for(int i = 1; i<=36; i++) {
if(new Random().nextInt(2)==0){
ActionThread nr = new ActionThread();
}
}
I don't want the threads to be killed after completion of the if statement. The end of each thread is randomly determined in the ActionThread class itself. Also, how do I name the threads automatically? For example, instead of nr, the first thread should be named nr1, the second nr2, the third nr3, and so on.
I'm assuming that ActionThread is some custom class that you have created that extends Thread.
I don't want the threads to be killed after completion of the if statement.
They won't be. However, it doesn't look like you have started them yet. Read the javadocs for Thread. Read the material at the top, then look at the start() and run() methods.
If you don't start a thread ... nothing happens.
Also, if you want some other part of your application to be able to "do things" to the threads once they have been created, you should replace the nr local variable with a data structure that the the rest of the application can get at; e.g. a list or an array.
(It is also possible to find extant threads via the ThreadGroup tree, but it is complicated.)
Also, how do I name the threads automatically?
Call Thread.setName(), or pass the thread name to the (relevant) Thread constructor. For example:
nr.setName("thr" + i);
Or you could even make your ActionThread set its own name in the constructor.
I should also point out that is is generally considered to be a bad idea to create subclasses of Thread. It is better to put your thread logic into a custom Runnable class, then create and pass a Runnable instance as a Thread construct argument. Like this:
public class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
// thread logic goes here
}
}
Thread th = new Thread(new MyRunnable());
th.start();
If you want to pass parameters to the thread logic, add a constructor to your runnable class with some arguments, and provide them when you instantiate the runnable.
Why do it this way? Because it allows you to easily change your code to use a thread loop or executor or some such.
public static void main(String[] a) {
List<ActionThread> threads = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 1; i <= 36; i++) {
if (new Random().nextInt(2) == 0) { // no idea why you have put this
// but seems unecessary
ActionThread thread = new ActionThread();
threads.add(thread);
thread.start();
}
}
}
class ActionThread extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
// Write what to do in Thread here
}
}
Once the list of ActionThread is there you have handle to all the Threads that you have created. using threads.get(index). From question its appears that by name you meant handle to Thread instance
For automatic naming, may be use static field (counter) in ActionThread and increment him in the constructor, before generate thread name.
class ActionThread extend Thread {
private static int id = 0;
ActionThread() {
setName(String.format("n%d", ++id);
}
}
The "this" object is different for the two threads, since they are two different objects. So they are checking two different locks, so nothing should stop them from running in parallel a critical section :
void method() {
synchronized(this) {
//critical section
}
}
What do I miss ?
If you have a critical section, it usually involves a single object. In these cases, if two different instances run in parallel, there are no race conditions, assuming they only work on instance-local resources, such as private fields.
What you might have missed is if objects of the same type work on a shared resource, synchronized(this) will indeed not block them from accessing it in parallel. In this case you can synchronize on the class itself using synchronized(MyFoo.class) { } or a shared variable.
Here is an example where it is the same object for two threads:
class Test {
void method() {
synchronized(this) {
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final Test t1 = new Test();
new Thread() {
public void run() {
t1.method();
};
}.start();
new Thread() {
public void run() {
t1.method();
};
}.start();
}
}
You do not miss anything. If both your threads try to apply synchronized and try to lock monitors of two different objects, they won't block each other.
Every object in Java has a lock mechanism, and only one thread at a time can occupy the lock. When you surround a block of code with synchronize(this) or add a synchronize keyword to a method, it restricts only one thread to those synchronized areas for that object. It has nothing to do with thread instances, nor do two instances of the same class share a lock.
If multiple threads of same Object are calling method(); then at a time only one thread will get object's monitor. but if there are different - different object of same type then they can enter parallel way.
the only problem in this code will happen when you are having any class variable, so that will be shared by all that time you have to use class Level lock.
Because it always prints out '3'. No synchronization needed? I am testing this simple thing because I am having a trouble in a real multiple thread problem, which isn't good to illustrate the problem, because it's large. This is a simplified version to showcase the situation.
class Test {
public static int count = 0;
class CountThread extends Thread {
public void run()
{
count++;
}
}
public void add(){
CountThread a = new CountThread();
CountThread b = new CountThread();
CountThread c = new CountThread();
a.start();
b.start();
c.start();
try {
a.join();
b.join();
c.join();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test test = new Test();
System.out.println("START = " + Test.count);
test.add();
System.out.println("END: Account balance = " + Test.count);
}
Because it always prints out '3'. No synchronization needed?
It is not thread safe and you are just getting lucky. If you run this 1000 times, or on different architectures, you will see different output -- i.e. not 3.
I would suggest using AtomicInteger instead of a static field ++ which is not synchronized.
public static AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger();
...
public void run() {
count.incrementAndGet();
}
...
Seems to me like count++ is fast enough to finish until you invoke 'run' for the other class. So basically it runs sequential.
But, if this was a real life example, and two different threads were usingCountThread parallelly, then yes, you would have synchronization problem.
To verify that, you can try to print some test output before count++ and after, then you'll see if b.start() is invoking count++ before a.start() finished. Same for c.start().
Consider using AtomicInteger instead, which is way better than synchronizing when possible -
incrementAndGet
public final int incrementAndGet()
Atomically increments by one the current value.
This code is not thread-safe:
public static int count = 0;
class CountThread extends Thread {
public void run()
{
count++;
}
}
You can run this code a million times on one system and it might pass every time. This does not mean is it is thread-safe.
Consider a system where the value in count is copied to multiple processor caches. They all might be updated independently before something forces one of the caches to be copied back to main RAM. Consider that ++ is not an atomic operation. The order of reading and writing of count may cause data to be lost.
The correct way to implement this code (using Java 5 and above):
public static java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger count =
new java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger();
class CountThread extends Thread {
public void run()
{
count.incrementAndGet();
}
}
It's not thread safe just because the output is right. Creating a thread causes a lot of overhead on the OS side of things, and after that it's just to be expected that that single line of code will be done within a single timeslice. It's not thread safe by any means, just not enough potential conflicts to actually trigger one.
It is not thread safe.
It just happened to be way to short to have measurable chance to show the issue. Consider counting to much higher number (1000000?) in run to increase chance of 2 operations on multiple threads to overlap.
Also make sure your machine is not single core CPU...
To make the class threadsafe either make count volatile to force memory fences between threads, or use AtomicInteger, or rewrite like this (my preference):
class CountThread extends Thread {
private static final Object lock = new Object();
public void run()
{
synchronized(lock) {
count++;
}
}
}
I am trying to understand the keyword synchronized from the following example
Java Main Method -->
public int methodA(){
Hello h = new Hello();
h.callSomeSynchronizedMethod();
sysout("Main");
return 0;
}
In the Hello Class-->
public synchronized void callSomeSynchronizedMethod(){
Hi h = new Hi();
h.someMethod();
sysout("Hello");
}
In the Hi class
public void someMethod(){
sysout("Hi");
}
So what would be the list of outputs that i will get;
1.) Is it in the order of Hi, Hello and Main ?
2.) What i understand about the synchronized keyword is that it will only execute 1 method and then execute the other, without multi-threading. Is this correct ?
To really understand what synchronized does you need to run the program twice, once synchronized and once not. Also your program should use multiple threads. So here is an example of such a test.
public class Synchro {
public static void main(String args[]){
new Synchro();
}
public Synchro(){
final Moo moo = new Moo();
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable(){
public void run(){
moo.aMethod("Second");
}
});
t.start();//calling the method in a thread
moo.aMethod("First");//calling the same method from the same object in the main thread
}
class Moo{
public Moo(){
}
public void aMethod(String name){
//this loop just prints slowly so you can see the execution
for(int i = 1; i <= 100; i++){
System.out.println(String.format("%s : %d", name, i));
try{
Thread.sleep(50);
}catch(InterruptedException e){}
}
}
}
}
Now, if you run the above code, noticing that the method is not synchronized, you will see the printout from the two executions of the method interleaved. That is you will see First 1 then Second 1 then First 2 etc.
Now, add the synchronized keyword to the method making it:
public synchronized void aMethod(String name){ ....
and run the code again. This time, one execution of the method completes before the other begins.
The synchronized keyword is only necessary when multiple threads are accessing the very same object.
You would get "Hi", then "Hello", then "Main", yes. The synchronized modifier has nothing to do with the order the methods are called in; and, other than adding a bit of overhead, it does nothing at all when running the code in a single thread. You could run this same test without synchronized and get the same result.
Now, if you ran a similar test where multiple threads were calling these methods, your results would be less determinate.
Synchronized is meant to allow for the more safe execution of code and management of resources in a multi-threaded environment.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/syncmeth.html
Hope this helps.
all these methods will be executed in one thread so the answer for the first question is "yes".
synchronized keyword emans that the method can be executed in only one thread at every moment of time. So if you call it from another thread - it will wait till the execution is finished in the first thread.
In Java there is no automatic multithreading: you must explicitly start a thread and pass it a run method that it will execute. Only in that case will the synchronized keyword start to matter, but its meaning is not quite as you understand it: the methods will execute in whatever thread calls them, but while one is executing, another thread will block before it is able to execute a method guarded by the same lock.
I have always thought that synchronizing the run method in a java class which implements Runnable is redundant. I am trying to figure out why people do this:
public class ThreadedClass implements Runnable{
//other stuff
public synchronized void run(){
while(true)
//do some stuff in a thread
}
}
}
It seems redundant and unnecessary since they are obtaining the object's lock for another thread. Or rather, they are making explicit that only one thread has access to the run() method. But since its the run method, isn't it itself its own thread? Therefore, only it can access itself and it doesn't need a separate locking mechanism?
I found a suggestion online that by synchronizing the run method you could potentially create a de-facto thread queue for instance by doing this:
public void createThreadQueue(){
ThreadedClass a = new ThreadedClass();
new Thread(a, "First one").start();
new Thread(a, "Second one, waiting on the first one").start();
new Thread(a, "Third one, waiting on the other two...").start();
}
I would never do that personally, but it lends to the question of why anyone would synchronize the run method. Any ideas why or why not one should synchronize the run method?
Synchronizing the run() method of a Runnable is completely pointless unless you want to share the Runnable among multiple threads and you want to sequentialize the execution of those threads. Which is basically a contradiction in terms.
There is in theory another much more complicated scenario in which you might want to synchronize the run() method, which again involves sharing the Runnable among multiple threads but also makes use of wait() and notify(). I've never encountered it in 21+ years of Java.
There is 1 advantage to using synchronized void blah() over void blah() { synchronized(this) { and that is your resulting bytecode will be 1 byte shorter, since the synchronization will be part of the method signature instead of an operation by itself. This may influence the chance to inline the method by the JIT compiler. Other than that there is no difference.
The best option is to use an internal private final Object lock = new Object() to prevent someone from potentially locking your monitor. It achieves the same result without the downside of the evil outside locking. You do have that extra byte, but it rarely makes a difference.
So I would say no, don't use the synchronized keyword in the signature. Instead, use something like
public class ThreadedClass implements Runnable{
private final Object lock = new Object();
public void run(){
synchronized(lock) {
while(true)
//do some stuff in a thread
}
}
}
}
Edit in response to comment:
Consider what synchronization does: it prevents other threads from entering the same code block. So imagine you have a class like the one below. Let's say the current size is 10. Someone tries to perform an add and it forces a resize of the backing array. While they're in the middle of resizing the array, someone calls a makeExactSize(5) on a different thread. Now all of a sudden you're trying to access data[6] and it bombs out on you. Synchronization is supposed to prevent that from happening. In multithreaded programs you simply NEED synchronization.
class Stack {
int[] data = new int[10];
int pos = 0;
void add(int inc) {
if(pos == data.length) {
int[] tmp = new int[pos*2];
for(int i = 0; i < pos; i++) tmp[i] = data[i];
data = tmp;
}
data[pos++] = inc;
}
int remove() {
return data[pos--];
}
void makeExactSize(int size) {
int[] tmp = new int[size];
for(int i = 0; i < size; i++) tmp[i] = data[i];
data = tmp;
}
}
Why? Minimal extra safety and I don't see any plausible scenario where it would make a difference.
Why not? It's not standard. If you are coding as part of a team, when some other member sees your synchronized run he'll probably waste 30 minutes trying to figure out what is so special either with your run or with the framework you are using to run the Runnable's.
From my experience, it's not useful to add "synchronized" keyword to run() method. If we need synchronize multiple threads, or we need a thread-safe queue, we can use more appropriate components, such as ConcurrentLinkedQueue.
Well you could theoretically call the run method itself without problem (after all it is public). But that doesn't mean one should do it. So basically there's no reason to do this, apart from adding negligible overhead to the thread calling run(). Well except if you use the instance multiple times calling new Thread - although I'm a) not sure that's legal with the threading API and b) seems completely useless.
Also your createThreadQueue doesn't work. synchronized on a non-static method synchronizes on the instance object (ie this), so all three threads will run in parallel.
Go through the code comments and uncomment and run the different blocks to clearly see the difference, note synchronization will have a difference only if the same runnable instance is used, if each thread started gets a new runnable it won't make any difference.
class Kat{
public static void main(String... args){
Thread t1;
// MyUsualRunnable is usual stuff, only this will allow concurrency
MyUsualRunnable m0 = new MyUsualRunnable();
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
t1 = new Thread(m0);//*imp* here all threads created are passed the same runnable instance
t1.start();
}
// run() method is synchronized , concurrency killed
// uncomment below block and run to see the difference
MySynchRunnable1 m1 = new MySynchRunnable1();
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
t1 = new Thread(m1);//*imp* here all threads created are passed the same runnable instance, m1
// if new insances of runnable above were created for each loop then synchronizing will have no effect
t1.start();
}
// run() method has synchronized block which lock on runnable instance , concurrency killed
// uncomment below block and run to see the difference
/*
MySynchRunnable2 m2 = new MySynchRunnable2();
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
// if new insances of runnable above were created for each loop then synchronizing will have no effect
t1 = new Thread(m2);//*imp* here all threads created are passed the same runnable instance, m2
t1.start();
}*/
}
}
class MyUsualRunnable implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run(){
try {Thread.sleep(1000);} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
class MySynchRunnable1 implements Runnable{
// this is implicit synchronization
//on the runnable instance as the run()
// method is synchronized
#Override
public synchronized void run(){
try {Thread.sleep(1000);} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
class MySynchRunnable2 implements Runnable{
// this is explicit synchronization
//on the runnable instance
//inside the synchronized block
// MySynchRunnable2 is totally equivalent to MySynchRunnable1
// usually we never synchronize on this or synchronize the run() method
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(this){
try {Thread.sleep(1000);} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
}