A quick (I think) concurrency question: I'm going through a multithreading course at Udemy.com, and the teacher talked through the code below. Although he explained it, I'm still not sure why you would create the lock1 and lock2 objects rather than locking on list1 and list2.
App.java:
public class App {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Worker worker = new Worker();
worker.main();
}
}
Worker.java:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Random;
public class Worker {
private Random random = new Random();
private Object lock1 = new Object();
private Object lock2 = new Object();
private List<Integer> list1 = new ArrayList<Integer>();
private List<Integer> list2 = new ArrayList<Integer>();
public void stageOne() {
synchronized (lock1) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
list1.add(random.nextInt(100));
}
}
public void stageTwo() {
synchronized (lock2) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
list2.add(random.nextInt(100));
}
}
public void process() {
for(int i=0; i<1000; i++) {
stageOne();
stageTwo();
}
}
public void main() {
System.out.println("Starting ...");
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
process();
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
process();
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Time taken: " + (end - start));
System.out.println("List1: " + list1.size() + "; List2: " + list2.size());
}
}
I don't think the motivation for that is expressed in the code you gave, but it is generally a best practice. However, the same best practice demands that the lock objects be final as well.
If the lists in question were either accepted from the outside or exposed to the outside via a method, then the benefit of the separate lock objects becomes more obvious: it is never a good idea to expose your locks to alien code because the alien code can then use them on its own for locking, breaking your own usage pattern.
If the lists are strictly private, then their monitors would be usable for internal locking; however, a later change to the access policy on the lists may inadvertently affect the locking policies. So, starting out with private locks also serves to avoid any future bugs.
Related
Deadlock describes a situation where two more threads are blocked because of waiting for each other forever. When deadlock occurs, the program hangs forever and the only thing you can do is to kill the program.
why deadlock does not happen in example producer consumer problem given below:
I wonder why call wait method in synchronized block does not causing deadlock when synchronized object is waiting for release of lock from other thread ?
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Random;
public class WaitAndNotify {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Integer> list = new ArrayList<>();
var th1 = new Thread(new Producer(list));
var th2 = new Thread(new Consumer(list));
th1.start();
th2.start();
}
}
class Producer implements Runnable {
private List<Integer> list;
private final Integer MAX_SIZE_LIST = 5;
public Producer(List<Integer> list) {
this.list = list;
}
#Override
public void run() {
Random rand = new Random();
for (;;) {
synchronized (this.list) {
if (list.size() == MAX_SIZE_LIST) { // check list is full or not
try {
System.out.println("list full wait producer");
list.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
var randNumber = rand.nextInt();
System.out.println("produce number => " + randNumber);
list.add(randNumber);
list.notify();
}
}
}
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
private List<Integer> list;
public Consumer(List<Integer> list) {
this.list = list;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (;;) {
synchronized (this.list) {
if (list.size() == 0) {
try {
System.out.println("list empty consumer wait");
list.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("consume number <= " + list.remove(0));
list.notify();
}
}
}
}
You probably think, that Consumer will block at list.wait() and Producer will block at synchronized (this.list).
It works, because list.wait() releases the ownership of list inside a synchronized block. After wait returns, the thread acquires the ownership again.
See Object.wait()
As we have already discussed here Deadlock did not happen because of the use of synchronized block, list.wait() and list.notify() methods.
Here is a nice example of deadlock : https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/deadlock.html
The following code does not work as I expect it to:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Random;
class Worker implements Runnable {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Started.");
process();
}
private Random random = new Random();
private Object lock1 = new Object();
private Object lock2 = new Object();
private static List<Integer> list1 = new ArrayList<Integer>();
private static List<Integer> list2 = new ArrayList<Integer>();
public void stageOne() {
synchronized (lock1) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
list1.add(random.nextInt(100));
}
}
public void stageTwo() {
synchronized (lock2) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
list2.add(random.nextInt(100));
}
}
public void process() {
for(int i=0; i<1000; i++) {
stageOne();
stageTwo();
}
}
public static void show() {
System.out.println("List1: " + list1.size());
System.out.println("List2: " + list2.size());
}
}
public class JavaTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Worker());
t1.start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Worker());
t2.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Completed.");
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Time taken: " + (end - start));
Worker.show();
}
}
When I run this program, I expect list1 and list2 to contain 2000 items each and for the program to take approximately 2000 milliseconds. However, lots of times I get lists less than 2000 items, although it does finish around 2000 milliseconds. Sometimes I even get a ArrayOutOfBounds Exception
Started.
Started.
Exception in thread "Thread-1" java.lang.ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException: 163
at java.util.ArrayList.add(ArrayList.java:459)
at Worker.stageOne(JavaTest.java:34)
at Worker.process(JavaTest.java:53)
at Worker.run(JavaTest.java:14)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
Completed.
Time taken: 2217
List1: 1081
List2: 1079
I expect that each the locks in stageOne and stageTwo should stop the threads from interfering with each other. But that does not seem to be the case. What is the problem with this code?
Your lock objects are not static, so each thread is synchronizing on a different monitor. So the locks are not having any effect at all.
I just write some code to test the multiple threads how to synchronize,but I cannot get my expected result.The code can start 3 threads,but only one thread to process the shared resource.what is wrong with my code.
class ThreadDemo1{
public static void main (String[] args){
MultiThread tt = new MultiThread();
new Thread(tt).start();
new Thread(tt).start();
new Thread(tt).start();
}
}
class MultiThread implements Runnable {
int tickets = 100;
Object _lock = new Object();
public void run () {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
synchronized(_lock) {
while (true) {
if (tickets>0) {
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (Exception e) {}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is selling "+tickets--);
}
}
}
}
}
You are sleeping while holding the lock. There is no reason to multithread if you are going to do that.
public void run () {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
while(tickets > 0) {
synchronized(_lock) {
if (tickets > 0) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is selling " + tickets--);
}
}
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}
I'm guessing the sleep was a placeholder for your processing. If possible, you should do the check and decrement inside the synchronized block, but your lengthy processing outside it.
In order for locks and multi-threading to do anything useful for you, you must make sure that your synchronized code takes as little time as possible, since that is the code that can be run by only one thread at a time.
In your code, the only thing that wasn't effectively single-threaded was your first System.println.
FYI, with that in mind, if you could have your print statements accurate but possibly out of order, it would be even better to have:
public void run () {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
while(tickets > 0) {
int oldTickets = 0;
synchronized(_lock) {
if (tickets > 0) {
oldTickets = tickets--;
}
}
if(oldTickets > 0) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is selling " + oldTickets);
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}
[1]First, there are several bad practice/mistakes in your posted code:
(1) It's better that the Lock Object to be singleton. You can use an static field object or the Class itself(Since there is only one Class in memory)
Object _lock = new Object();
private static final Object _lock = new Object();
(2) Put the while(true) {...} out of the synchronized block. In your code, if the 1st thread obtains the Lock, it will process ALL the tickets and will not stop.
Should make every thread try to obtain the Lock in each iteration of the loop.
(3) For the Thread.sleep(10), I guess you mean the thread is doing some heavy job. But it's not a good practice to put this kind of code in synchronized block(Or another name: critical region). Because there is only one thread can access the synchronized block at one time. The behavior of you code is like a single thread program, because other threads must wait until the currently running thread finishes its job.
Pls see below code:
public class ThreadDemo1 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MultiThread tt = new MultiThread();
new Thread(tt).start();
new Thread(tt).start();
new Thread(tt).start();
}
}
public class MultiThread implements Runnable {
private static int tickets = 100;
private static final Object _lock = new Object();
public void run() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
while (tickets > 0) {
try {
synchronized (_lock) {
if (tickets > 0) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is selling " + tickets--);
}
}
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}
}
[2]Second, if you just want to synchronize the threads in picking the tickets. Try to use Atomic* Classes instead of synchronized block, it’s No-lock and will bring you a better performance. Example:
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class MultiThreadAtomic implements Runnable {
private static AtomicInteger tickets = new AtomicInteger(100);
public void run() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
int ticketsRemaining = 0;
while ((ticketsRemaining = tickets.getAndDecrement()) > 0) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is selling " + ticketsRemaining);
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
}
catch(InterruptedException ie) {}
}
}
}
hello guys this is my code , problem am facing is that despite calling notifyAll, it is not releasing the lock , can you please state the reason and tell the solution. Am new to threads. Thanks in advance.
class Lock1 {}
class Home1 implements Runnable {
private static int i = 0;
private Lock1 object;
private Thread th;
public Home1(Lock1 ob, String t) {
object = ob;
th = new Thread(this);
th.start();
}
public void run() {
synchronized (object) {
while (i != 10) {
++i;
System.out.println(i);
}
try {
// System.out.println("here");
object.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("here thread 1");
}
}
}
class Home2 implements Runnable {
private static int i = 0;
private Lock1 object;
Thread th;
public Home2(Lock1 ob, String t) {
object = ob;
th = new Thread(this);
th.start();
}
public void run() {
synchronized (object) {
while (i != 10) {
++i;
System.out.println(i);
}
try {
// System.out.println("here");
object.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("here thread 2");
}
}
}
public class Locking {
public static void main(String arg[]) {
Lock1 ob = new Lock1();
new Home1(ob, "thread 1");
new Home2(ob, "thread 2");
synchronized (ob) {
ob.notifyAll();
}
}
}
When you use notifyAll, you should also have a state changed and when you use wait, you should check that state change.
In your case it is likely that notifyAll will be called long before the threads really have time to start. (For a computer, starting a thread takes an eternity, like 10,000,000 clock cycles) This means the notifyAll is lost. (It only notifies threads which are actually waiting right at that moment)
Is there any neat solution of knowing when a thread has been put into wait status? I am putting threads to wait and I notify them when i need it. But sometimes I want to know if a thread is currently waiting, and if so, I have to do something else.
I could probably set a flag myself to true/false. But I can't imagine there is a better way to do this?
The method getState() of a thread returns a Thread.State which can be:
NEW, RUNNABLE, BLOCKED, WAITING, TIMED_WAITING or TERMINATED
See Thread.State.
Have you looked at Thread.getState?
Check
public Thread.State getState()
Thread.State.WAITING
Thread.State: Differences between BLOCKED vs WAITING
You can have all info that you want using the ThreadMXBean.
Try this code:
package com.secutix.gui.seatmap;
import java.lang.management.ManagementFactory;
import java.lang.management.ThreadInfo;
import java.lang.management.ThreadMXBean;
public class ThreadStatus {
private static final ThreadMXBean mbean = ManagementFactory.getThreadMXBean();
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
buildAndLaunchThread(i);
}
Thread t = new Thread(){
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
printThreadStatus();
try {
sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
};
t.setName("detector");
t.start();
}
protected static void printThreadStatus() {
ThreadInfo[] infos = mbean.dumpAllThreads(true, true);
for (ThreadInfo threadInfo : infos) {
System.out.println(threadInfo.getThreadName() + " state = " + threadInfo.getThreadState());
}
}
private static void buildAndLaunchThread(int i) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(){
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
try {
sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
};
t1.setName("t" + i);
t1.start();
}
}