i have a main thread in my app and inside this main thread i create another thread, let's say it is named named "WorkerThread".
The WorkerThread has an infinite loop that does some database search and eventually communicates via Serial Port with a thermal printer.
But when the user closes the application, it remains alive because the thread is still running.
I know i can just set my thread as daemon, which means the thread will stop when the application closes, but also i know that this may cause IO errors.
So, what is the most efficient way of achieving this behavior in a non-daemon thread?
Add the boolean flag to stop your thread on application exit.
public class WorkerThread extends Thread {
private boolean running = false;
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
// do smth
}
}
#Override
public void start() {
setRunning(true);
super.start();
}
#Override
public void setRunning(boolean value) {
this.running = running;
}
}
To stop the thread, call workerThread.setRunning(false).
Use some kind of flag (boolean?) to signal your worker thread to stop after finishing what it is processing right now.
You should interrupt it from the main thread using Thread.interrupt(). In the worker thread, on each loop iteration, it should check for the return of workerThread.interrupted() and if it is true then clean up and return.
Check the documentation, cause blocking methods like wait() will throw an InterruptedException you might have to evaluate.
Related
I wrote a thread, it is taking too much time to execute and it seems it is not completely done. I want to stop the thread gracefully. Any help ?
The good way to do it is to have the run() of the Thread guarded by a boolean variable and set it to true from the outside when you want to stop it, something like:
class MyThread extends Thread
{
volatile boolean finished = false;
public void stopMe()
{
finished = true;
}
public void run()
{
while (!finished)
{
//do dirty work
}
}
}
Once upon a time a stop() method existed but as the documentation states
This method is inherently unsafe. Stopping a thread with Thread.stop causes it to unlock all of the monitors that it has locked (as a natural consequence of the unchecked ThreadDeath exception propagating up the stack). If any of the objects previously protected by these monitors were in an inconsistent state, the damaged objects become visible to other threads, potentially resulting in arbitrary behavior.
That's why you should have a guard..
The bad part about using a flag to stop your thread is that if the thread is waiting or sleeping then you have to wait for it to finish waiting/sleeping. If you call the interrupt method on the thread then that will cause the wait or sleep call to be exited with an InterruptedException.
(A second bad part about the flag approach is that most nontrivial code is going to be utilizing libraries like java.util.concurrent, where the classes are specifically designed to use interruption to cancel. Trying to use the hand rolled flag in a task passed into an Executor is going to be awkward.)
Calling interrupt() also sets an interrupted property that you can use as a flag to check whether to quit (in the event that the thread is not waiting or sleeping).
You can write the thread's run method so that the InterruptedException is caught outside whatever looping logic the thread is doing, or you can catch the exception within the loop and close to the call throwing the exception, setting the interrupt flag inside the catch block for the InterruptedException so that the thread doesn't lose track of the fact that it was interrupted. The interrupted thread can still keep control and finish processing on its own terms.
Say I want to write a worker thread that does work in increments, where there's a sleep in the middle for some reason, and I don't want quitting the sleep to make processing quit without doing the remaining work for that increment, I only want it to quit if it is in-between increments:
class MyThread extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted())
{
doFirstPartOfIncrement();
try {
Thread.sleep(10000L);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// restore interrupt flag
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
doSecondPartOfIncrement();
}
}
}
Here is an answer to a similar question, including example code.
You should not kill Thread from other one. It's considered as fairly bad habit. However, there are many ways. You can use return statement from thread's run method.
Or you can check if thread has already been interrupted and then it will cancel it's work. F.e. :
while (!isInterrupted()) {
// doStuff
}
Make a volatile boolean stop somewhere. Then in the code that runs in the thread, regularly do
if (stop) // end gracefully by breaking out of loop or whatever
To stop the thread, set stop to true.
I think you must do it manually this way. After all, only the code running in the thread has any idea what is and isn't graceful.
You need to send a stop-message to the Thread and the Thread itself needs to take action if the message has been received. This is pretty easy, if the long-running action is inside loop:
public class StoppableThread extends Thread {
private volatile boolean stop = false;
public void stopGracefully() {
stop = true;
}
public void run() {
boolean finished = false;
while (!stop && !finished) {
// long running action - finished will be true once work is done
}
}
}
For a thread to stop itself, no one seems to have mentioned (mis)using exception:
abstract class SelfStoppingThread extends Thread {
#Override
public final void run() {
try {
doRun();
} catch (final Stop stop) {
//optional logging
}
}
abstract void doRun();
protected final void stopSelf() {
throw new Stop();
}
private static final class Stop extends RuntimeException {};
}
A subclass just need to override doRun() normally as you would with a Thread, and call stopSelf() whenever it feels like it wants to stop. IMO it feels cleaner than using a flag in a while loop.
I have a worker Thread with a Handler associated with it. The Handler receives Messages and perform some operations in the worker Thread. I would like to "stop" the Thread in onPause() of my Activity. In the onPause() method of my Activity, i send a quit message to my Handler so that my worker Thread will break out of Looper.loop() and return from run().
Is this the correct way to stop a Thread? If not, how should it be done?
I have seen code examples calling t1.join() from the main Thread where t1 is their worker Thread.
What is the purpose of join()?
Do i need to do a join() in my example?
My worker Thread:
class WorkerThread extends Thread {
private static final int QUIT = -1;
public Handler mHandler;
public void run() {
Looper.prepare();
mHandler = new Handler() {
public void handleMessage(Message msg) {
// do stuff
if(msg.what == QUIT){
Looper.myLooper().quit();
}
// do stuff
}
};
Looper.loop();
}
}
I have not worked on android but in java a thread can be stopped in following ways -
Use a volatile Boolean flag - Use this flag in loop(while(flag)). Which keeps running till the flag is true. If you want to stop thread set flag to false.
Checking for interrupt flag- You have static Boolean method in thread class as Thread.interrupted() which checks for interrupt flag. You can interrupt a waiting thread by calling Thread.interrupt().
Join() method - the Join method makes the current thread to wait for a thread to die. This is used in the case when you have some logic which is to be executed only after a thread completes its execution. So you can't use join to stop a thread but make a thread to wait for another thread completion.
Hope it helps. Thanks
I have a class which is a listener for incoming messages and should be alive forever (So that it can listen for incoming messages) until i explicitly disconnect the connection for it. I have declared the thread as setDaemon(false) but it terminates with the calling methods termination.
Please tell me how to keep that thread alive and also please throw some light on how to implement the Spring TaskExecutor to achieve same.
Thanks in advance.
it is a listener it gets notified when someone sends message... so how do i keep it running ?
The Listener Class
public class MyListnerImpl implements Listener {
private final connectionImpl con;
public MyListnerImpl(ConnectionImpl con) {
if (con.isAuthenticated() && con.isConnected()) {
if (logger.isInfoEnabled()) {
logger.info("Initializing XmppListner:");
}
this.itsCon = con;
Thread t1 = new Thread(this);
t1.setDaemon(false);
t1.start();
}
}
public final void listnerInterfaceMethod(final Chat chat, final Message message) {
System.out.println("Message" + message);
}
public final void run() {
itsCon.getChatManager().addChatListener(new ChatManagerListener() {
public void chatCreated(final Chat chat, final boolean createdLocally) {
if (!createdLocally) {
chat.addMessageListener(itsFbml);
}
}
});
}
}
Calling class simply creates its object and thread gets started by the Listeners constructor.
I want to keep this thread created run until i interrupt it.
There are a few things you could do that would be better than hanging the initial thread forever:
Use otherThread.join(). This will cause the current thread you are running in to sleep until the other thread has finished executing.
As #nanda suggests, use ExcecutorService.shutdown() to wait until a pool of threads has finished.
Use otherThread.setDaemon(false) and simply let your initial thread exit. This will set your new threads as user threads. Java will not shut down until the only threads running are daemon threads.
synchronized(this) {
while (true) {
this.wait();
}
}
This will make the current thread wait on the monitor of the current class until someone calls notify(), or forever.
copied from How do you hang a thread in Java in one line?
A thread says alive until run() returns (or throw an error/exception) If you want to keep it alive, use a loop, don't return and catch any error/exception.
This is how i solved the problems that time,
So this case was not of multi threading , had just a single thread which needed to run for ever,
So Inserted
public final void run() {
while(true)
{
//Run Method Logic...
}
}
And instantiated it from a spring bean.
I was also looking at more fancy things for this single threaded scenario like awaitTermination(); or something like that.
I want to achieve the following: When my application starts, the main thread will start 1+ worker threads that should run in the background, and periodically do things behind the scenes. These should not block the main thread: once main starts the workers, it continues doing its own thing until:
The main thread finishes (normal application termination) - in the case of a command-line utility this is when the end of the main(String[]) method is reached; in the case of a Swing GUI it could be when the user selects the File >> Exit menu, etc.
The operating system throws a kill command (SIGKILL, etc.)
An unexpected, uncaught exception occurs in the main thread, effectively killing it (this is just an unpolite version of #1 above)
Once started/submitted from the main thread, I want all the worker threads (Runnables) to essentially have their own life cycle, and exist independently of the main thread. But, if the main thread dies at any time, I want to be able to block (if at all possible) the main thread until all the workers are finished shutting down, and then "allow" the main thread to die.
My best attempt so far, although I know I'm missing pieces here and there:
public class MainDriver {
private BaneWorker baneWorker;
private ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
public static void main(String[] args) {
MainDriver driver = new MainDriver();
driver.run();
// We've now reached the end of the main method. All workers should block while they shutdown
// gracefully (if at all possible).
if(executor.awaitTermination(30, TimeUnit.SECONDS))
System.out.println("Shutting down...");
else {
System.out.println("Forcing shut down...");
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}
private void run() {
// Start all worker threads.
baneWorker = new BaneWorker(Thread.currentThread());
// More workers will be used once I get this simple example up and running...
executor.submit(baneWorker);
// Eventually submit the other workers here as well...
// Now start processing. If command-line utility, start doing whatever the utility
// needs to do. If Swing GUI, fire up a parent JFrame and draw the application to the
// screen for the user, etc.
doStuff();
}
private void doStuff() {
// ??? whatever
}
}
public class BaneWorker implements Runnable {
private Timer timer;
private TimerTask baneTask;
private Thread mainThread;
public BaneWorker(Thread mainThread) {
super();
this.mainThread = mainThread;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
timer = new Timer();
baneTask = new TimerTask() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("When the main thread is ashes...");
}
};
// Schedule the baneTask to kick off every minute starting now.
timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(baneTask, new Date(), 60 * 1000);
} catch(InterruptedException interrupt) {
// Should be thrown if main thread dies, terminates, throws an exception, etc.
// Should block main thread from finally terminating until we're done shutting down.
shutdown();
}
}
private void shutdown() {
baneTask.cancel();
System.out.println("...then you have my permission to die.");
try {
mainThread.join();
} catch(InterruptedException interrupt) {
interrupt.printStackTrace;
}
}
}
Am I on-track or way off-base here? What do I need to change to make this work the way I need it to? I'm new to Java concurrency and am trying my best to use the Concurrency API correctly, but stumbling around a bit. Any ideas? Thanks in advance!
The main thread must signal the worker threads to terminate (generally this is achieved just by using a flag) and then it should call join on every thread to wait for their termination. Have a look here: Java: How to use Thread.join
You can use Runtime.addShutdownHook to register an un-started thread that is executed when a JVM is terminated, the system is shutting down etc. This code can do some cleanup itself, or perhaps notify running daemon threads to finish their work. Any such cleanup code must be relatively fast, because on many systems programs have only a limited time to do cleanup before they're forcibly terminated.
Perhaps you could also consider making your background thread daemon threads. Then they will not block the JVM when main finishes and will be still running during the clean-up phase.
Note that you can't intercept SIGKILL - this signal is designed to be unavoidable and immediate. But it should work with SIGTERM, SIGHUP and similar signals.
Update: You can easily create ExecutorServices that run daemon threads. All you need is to create a proper ThreadFactory:
public static class DaemonFactory
implements ThreadFactory
{
#Override
public Thread newThread(Runnable r) {
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.setDaemon(true);
return t;
}
}
than you create an ExecutorService like
public static void main(String argv[])
throws Exception
{
ExecutorService es
= Executors.newCachedThreadPool(new DaemonFactory());
// ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
es.submit(new Callable<Object>() {
public Object call() throws Exception {
Thread.sleep(100);
System.err.println("Daemon: " +
Thread.currentThread().isDaemon());
return null;
}
});
// Without this, JVM will terminate before the daemon thread prints the
// message, because JVM doesn't wait for daemon threads when
// terminating:
es.awaitTermination(3, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
}
Concerning Thread.join(), you shouldn't try to use it on threads managed by an ExecutorService. It's the responsibility of the executor to manage them. You have no reliable way how to enumerate its threads, the executor can create and destroy threads depending on its configuration etc. The only reliable way is to call shutdown(); and then awaitTermination(...);.
If SIGKILL is a unix "kill -9" there's nothing you can do about it.
For graceful exits, use a try/catch/finally in your main. The catch will catch your exceptions and allow you to do what needs to be done (recover? abort?) The finally will give you the hook to spin down your threads gracefully.
Reviewing your code quickly, I don't see where you're keeping track of your thread instances. You'll need those if you're going to tell them to spin down.
psuedocode:
static Main(...) {
ArrayList threads = new ArrayList();
try {
for (each thread you want to spin up) {
threads.add(a new Thread())
}
}
catch { assuming all are fatal. }
finally {
for(each thread t in threads) {
t.shutdown();
t.join(); /* Be prepared to catch (and probably ignore) an exception on this, if shutdown() happens too fast! */
}
}
I am new to Java/threads and I inherited something like the following code. It is a command line program that main() only starts 5-6 different kind of threads and exits with ^C. I want to add a shutdown hook to close all threads properly and adapted it the following way.
I added a Shutdown hook and a stopThread() method in all threads (like the one in MyWorker class)
The problem is that when I press ^C I don't see the end message from the Thread's run method. Is this done in the background or is there something wrong with my method. Also, Is there a better pattern I should follow?
Thanks
public class Main {
public static MyWorker worker1 = new MyWorker();
// .. various other threads here
public static void startThreads() {
worker1.start();
// .. start other threads
}
public static void stopThreads() {
worker1.stopThread();
// .. stop other threads
}
public static void main(String[] args)
throws Exception {
startThreads();
// TODO this needs more work (later)
Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook(new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
stopThreads();
} catch (Exception exp) {
}
}
});
} }
public class MyWorker extends Thread {
private volatile boolean stop = false;
public void stopThread() {
stop = true;
}
public void run() {
while (!stop) {
// Do stuff here
}
// Print exit message with logger
}
}
Shutdown Hooks may not be executed in some cases!
First thing to keep in mind is that it is not guaranteed that shutdown hooks will always run. If the JVM crashes due to some internal error, then it might crash down without having a chance to execute a single instruction.
Also, if the O/S gives a SIGKILL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGKILL) signal (kill -9 in Unix/Linux) or TerminateProcess (Windows), then the application is required to terminate immediately without doing even waiting for any cleanup activities. In addition to the above, it is also possible to terminate the JVM without allowing the shutdown hooks to run by calling Runime.halt() method.
Shutdown hooks are called when the application terminates normally (when all threads finish, or when System.exit(0) is called). Also, when the JVM is shutting down due to external causes such as user requesting a termination (Ctrl+C), a SIGTERM being issued by O/S (normal kill command, without -9), or when the operating system is shutting down.
When you call System.exit() or terminate via a signal, it stop all the existing threads and starts all the shutdown hooks. i.e. all your threads could be dead by the time you hook starts.
Instead of trying to stop threads cleanly, you should ensure resources are closed cleanly.
I guess you can shift your code to ExecutorService
private final ExecutorService pool;
pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(poolSize);
pool.execute(Instance of Runnable);
pool.shutdown();
ExecutorService.shutdown
Initiates an orderly shutdown in which previously submitted tasks are executed, but no new tasks will be accepted. Invocation has no additional effect if already shut down.
Try making your threads as daemon threads.
Add a constructor
public MyWorker(boolean isDaemon) {
this.setDaemon(true);
}
or set to daemon before calling start.
worker1.setDaemon(true);
worker1.start();
When you press Ctrl C and exit, the threads will be stopped.
What is happening here is that you invoke the stopThread() method, but you don't wait the the threads are actually finished before terminating.
If you invoke a join() on all threads before stoping the JVM, you will probably see your 'stop logs'.
public static void stopThreads() {
worker1.stopThread();
// .. stop other threads
for(Thread t: workers) {
t.join();
}
}