Develop Reference

How can I implement this concurrent structure without the queue?

I have a situation in my application where events come in and the thread that handles them (signalling thread) must signal to another thread (working thread), thus far in an idle state, that it can run some code. Once the working thread is done it should wait to be signalled again. It is possible that events will arrive while the working thread is working. In this case it should move on and keep working immediately. One action by the working thread does enough work for any amount of incoming events, so there is no need to work once per event, just once as soon as possible after each event. Example correct behavior:
event comes in
worker thread starts work
worker thread finishes work
event comes in
worker thread starts work
event comes in
event comes in
worker thread finishes work
worker thread starts work
worker thread finishes work
4 events, 3 periods of work. It's an unfortunate but unavoidable requirement that the signalling thread cannot block while handling the event. I have implemented this at the moment using a BlockingQueue, which has the pointless side effect of filling itself up even though the contents are not interesting or even looked at. I was expecting to be able to make this work using CountDownLatch or CyclicBarrier or similar but I haven't been able to find a way. Here is my implementation:
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.LinkedBlockingQueue;
public class Main {
private static final class MyBarrier {
private BlockingQueue<Boolean> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>();
void await() throws InterruptedException {
queue.take();
queue.clear();
}
void signal() {
queue.add(true);
}
}
private static Random random = new Random(0);
private static void sleepForMax(int maxMillis) {
sleep(random.nextInt(maxMillis));
}
private static void sleep(long millis) {
try {
Thread.sleep(millis);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyBarrier myBarrier = new MyBarrier();
final ExecutorService singallingThread = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
singallingThread.submit(() -> {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
sleepForMax(1_000); // simulate period between events arriving
myBarrier.signal();
System.out.println("Signalling work to be done");
}
System.out.println("Thread interrupted");
});
final ExecutorService workingThread = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
workingThread.submit(() -> {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
try {
System.out.println("Waiting for work");
myBarrier.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
break;
}
System.out.println("Doing work...");
sleepForMax(3_000); // simulate work being done
System.out.println("Work done");
}
System.out.println("Thread interrupted");
});
sleep(10_000);
singallingThread.shutdownNow();
workingThread.shutdownNow();
}
}
What's the better way to do this?

When I run your code with your implementation that uses Phaser, having changed the sleep times so that signalling occurs every 800 ms and processing takes 1000 ms, I get e.g. this output:
00008: Waiting for work
00808: Signalling work to be done
00808: Doing work... <-- worker starts working
01608: Signalling work to be done <-- signal came, so there's more work
01808: Work done
01809: Waiting for work <-- waits for work...
02409: Signalling work to be done <-- ...for 600 ms, until the next signal
02409: Doing work...
(The number to the left is milliseconds since start. Also, you can reproduce it with your code with random delays, but that's harder to reproduce and see there.)
If I understood it correctly, this is wrong. E.g. imagine what happens if signals stop coming.
Your code can probably work with this adjustment for your specific case:
private static final class MyBarrierWithPhaser {
private final Phaser phaser = new Phaser(1);
private int lastObservedPhase; // Phaser has initial phase 0
void await() throws InterruptedException {
// only works for 1 producer 1 worker; lastObservedPhase is kind of thread-local
lastObservedPhase = phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(lastObservedPhase);
}
void signal() {
phaser.arrive();
}
}
With this, the worker records the last phase it advanced to, and if the signal thread "arrives" before the next awaitAdvanceInterruptibly, then the Phaser phase gets updated, and when worker tries to wait using a stale phase, it will progress immediately; if the signal thread does not arrive before awaitAdvanceInterruptibly, then the worker will wait until the signal thread finally arrives.
Using simpler synchronization primitives, I can think of how to implement it using the synchronized-wait()-notify() mechanism:
private static final class MyBarrierWithSynchronized {
private boolean hasWork = false;
synchronized void await() throws InterruptedException {
while (!hasWork) {
wait();
}
hasWork = false;
}
synchronized void signal() {
hasWork = true;
notifyAll(); // or notify() if we are sure there is 1 signal thread and 1 worker thread
}
}
It has a couple of drawbacks: await() won't be interrupted if the thread is waiting to enter it. Also, some don't like synchronizing on this, I kept it so in order to be short. This can be rewritten using the java.util.concurrent.* analogues, this implementation will not have both of these drawbacks:
private static final class MyBarrierWithLock {
private boolean hasWorkFlag = false;
private final Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private final Condition hasWorkCond = lock.newCondition();
void await() throws InterruptedException {
lock.lockInterruptibly();
try {
while (!hasWorkFlag) {
hasWorkCond.await();
}
hasWorkFlag = false;
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
void signal() {
lock.lock();
try {
hasWorkFlag = true;
hasWorkCond.signalAll(); // or signal() if we are sure there is 1 signal thread and 1 worker thread
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}

I'm experimenting with this, using java.util.concurrent.Phaser, which may work, but I haven't used Phaser before so I'm not sure.
private static final class MyBarrier2 {
private Phaser phaser = new Phaser(1);
void await() throws InterruptedException {
phaser.awaitAdvanceInterruptibly(phaser.getPhase());
}
void signal() {
phaser.arrive();
}
}

How do I get my threads to run in an orderly sequence?

I'm learning Java threads and want my code to output threads 0-9 in sequential order. I used the synchronized keyword but I don't get the results I expect.
What should I do to correct my code?
public class MyThread extends Thread {
private static final int threadMax = 10;
private static int runCount = 0;
public void printThread() {
synchronized (this) {
while (runCount++ < 100) {
System.out.println(runCount + ": " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public void run() {
printThread();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < threadMax; i++) {
new MyThread().start();
}
}
}

It is not working as every time you are creating new MyThread object and you are synchronized over that new object. So, every Thread you created will get a lock on the diffrent object. So, you should pass a common object to take the lock like below.
class MyThread extends Thread {
private static int runCount = 0;
Object lock;
public MyThread(Object lock) {
this.lock = lock;
}
public void printThread() {
synchronized (lock) {
// your code here
}
}
//.........
}
And then call it like :
Object lock = new Object();
for (int i = 0; i < threadMax; i++) {
new MyThread(lock).start();
}
However, the above program will not ensure you that it will run in sequence. There are several ways to do that. You can use wait() and notify() to achieve your goal. Refer the below example :
public void printThread() {
while (runCount < 90) {
synchronized (lock) {
while (runCount % 10 != remainder) {
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(runCount + ": " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
runCount++;
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
And call the thread like :
Object lock = new Object();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
new MyThread(lock, i).start();
}

You are synchronizing the context of the thread, which is different for each one. You should put into the synchronized key any common object for all diferent threads. This won't make them run in any certain secuence, just to wait each other to end.
If you want to test the synchronized keyword for any purpose, you could pass the constructor a common variable and use it in every thread:
public class MyThread extends Thread {
private static final int threadMax = 10;
private static int runCount = 0;
private Object test; //Object pointing main method
public MyThread(Object test){
this.test = test; //This won't copy values as it is an object and not a number, string...
}
public void printThread() {
synchronized (test) { //Same object for all threads
while (runCount++ < 100) {
System.out.println(runCount + ": " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public void run() {
printThread();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object test; //common object
for (int i = 0; i < threadMax; i++) {
new MyThread(test).start();
}
}
}
If you want also to make them start in order, you should "synchronize" the loop making wait and notify calls.
Anyway, the point about multithreading is to have several threads running at the "same" time and not in sequence, as that would be the same as a linear execution.

You have several tasks that you want to delegate to threads but have them executed sequentially.
As others have pointed out, wait & notify can help you achieve that : wait until Nth have finished then notify the next. However, if you wait/notify inside your printThread method, as all your threads are waiting simultaneously on the same lock, there is no guaranties that N+1th thread will be next. So you may have
1: thread-1
...
10: thread-1
11: thread-5
...
20: thread-5
21: thread-2
...
If that's ok for you, you're done. However, in a situation where you specifically want your threads to be ordered, what you need is a waiting queue (FIFO : First In First Out).
To achieve that, you can use the awesome ExecutorService. Be aware however that they hide the Threads from you and picking that solution should not be at the cost of understanding the basics of them beforehand.
An ExecutorService is a very convenient class that can receive tasks (in the form of a Runnable, see below) and will execute them in separate Threads.
Here, I'm using a SingleThreadExecutor which execute the submitted tasks sequentially. So all you have to do is call it's execute method with your tasks as arguments, and the ExecutorService will run them in the right order, one after the other.
Here's what you can do with a few notes :
public class ThreadRunner {
// Note : Constants are usually all uppercase in Java
private static final int MAX_THREADS = 10;
private final int threadName;
public ThreadRunner(int threadName) {
this.threadName = threadName;
}
public void printThread() {
// Note: For loops are better than while when you already know the number of iterations
for (int runCount = 0; runCount < 10; runCount++) {
System.out.println(runCount + "th run from thread " + threadName);
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS; i++) {
int threadName = i + 1;
// Submit a task to the executor
executorService.execute(() -> new ThreadRunner(threadName).printThread());
}
// Nicely ask for the executor to shutdown.
// Then wait for already submitted tasks to terminate.
executorService.shutdown();
try {
executorService.awaitTermination(120, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
I changed a few details, here are the reasons :
Thread creation : don't inherit from Thread
I would advise you not to inherit from Thread, but create a local instance of it, as all you need is to use a Thread ; you don't want to be a Thread :
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Using Java 1.8+ lambda
Thread lambdaThread = new Thread(() -> System.out.println("Hello from a lambda in a Thread"));
lambdaThread.start();
// Using an anonymous class for java <1.8
Thread anonClassThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Hello from an anonymous class in a Thread");
}
});
anonClassThread.start();
}
You're creating a new Thread passing a Runnable as constructor argument, using either lambda or anonymous class, depending of your Java version.
A Runnable is simply a portion of code that will be executed (by a Thread, in this case).
Same apply to ExecutorService, it's execute methode takes a Runnable which I've created through lambdas.
Sharing static counter between threads
Your line private static int runCount = 0; is a static field, which means it is shared by all instances of the class MyThread. When you increase it in a thread, all threads will read (and write) to the same variable.
If your threads were running sequentially, the first would do it's 100 iterations, then when the second thread starts, runCount is already at 100 and you're not entering your while loop. If that wasn't intended, it may be confusing when you'll test your code.
Based on your expected output in a comment, I believe you want your threads to do 10 iterations each, not share a pool of 100 iterations and manage somehow to have each of them only perform 10.
Having the name of the thread belong to each ThreadRunner
Small detail here : previously, you were creating 10 threads. Here, the ExecutorService only creates one that he reuse for each task you submit. So Thread.currentThread().getName() would always be thread-1.
You wouldn't be able to see which task is running without this field.
If each task is started after the previous, you don't need 10 Threads, but a single Thread performing the 10 tasks sequentially.
I've been as complete as possible, but some points might be a little bit tricky, so don't hesitate to ask for clarifications!

How can I start a service in a different thread without affecting debbuging? [duplicate]

I'm having a strange issue with multiple threads and breakpoints in IntelliJ IDEA 14.0.2. Code after the breakpoint is executed before it stops on it.
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class Main {
private static final int NUM_CLIENTS = 1000;
static class TestRunnable implements Runnable {
AtomicInteger lock;
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this.lock) {
int curCounter = this.lock.addAndGet(1);
System.out.println("Thread: " + Thread.currentThread().getName() + "; Count: " + curCounter);
if (curCounter >= NUM_CLIENTS) {
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
public static void main(final String args[]) {
final AtomicInteger lock = new AtomicInteger(0);
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_CLIENTS; i++) {
TestRunnable tr1 = new TestRunnable();
tr1.lock = lock;
new Thread(tr1).start();
}
synchronized (lock) {
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Main woken up");
}
}
}
When I put a breakpoint (Suspend All) at line 12, synchronized (this.lock), System.out.println still executes (sometimes several times). Here's a screenshot:
As far as I know, all threads should stop at the breakpoint.

The documentation reads confusingly, but this is the relevant block. What it distills down to is setting the property to suspend on threads, and not the entire application instead. This will cause you to hit the break point on each individual thread instead of an arbitrary, indeterminate thread.
Suspend Policy: All
When a breakpoint is hit, all threads are suspended.
Suspend Policy: Thread
When the breakpoint is hit, the thread where the breakpoint is hit is suspended.

How to terminate all other running threads after any of one thread is finish

Problem: I have collection of threads start in a loop parallelly. After exiting anyone of thread first ,all other running threads must be terminated. This is what I tried but it doesn't work. Any help is appreciated.
public class ThreadsMain {
public static void main(String[] args) {
int SIZE = 3;
Thread t[] = new Thread[SIZE];
for (int i = 0; i < SIZE; i++) {
myThreads th = new myThreads();
t[i] = new Thread(th);
t[i].start();
}
}
}

Here is one way to do it, with a synchronizer implemented with intrinsic locks, and using interruption to cancel the unfinished tasks. The data structure makes a consumer thread block until a producer has submitted a result, then it cancels the other worker threads.
This is a toy example, see the link at the end for the real-world way to do this.
First, here's a threadsafe data structure that accepts results, it allows threads to register as listeners and interrupts them once it has a result submitted to it:
class MyQueue<T> {
private java.util.List<T> results = new java.util.ArrayList<T>();
private java.util.List<Thread> listeners = new java.util.ArrayList<Thread>();
public synchronized void put(T o) {
results.add(o);
notifyAll();
for (Thread listener : listeners) {
listener.interrupt();
}
}
public synchronized T take() throws InterruptedException {
while (results.size() == 0) {
wait();
}
return results.remove(0);
}
public synchronized void addListener(Thread t) {
listeners.add(t);
}
}
(I don't like having this class know so much about the listeners but I don't want to overthink a toy example either.)
The wait method releases the lock and makes the calling thread go dormant until a notification occurs (or it can just stop waiting arbitrarily). It uses the size property of the results list to know when a result has been submitted. It's not safe to assume that because a thread stopped waiting that you can infer something about the current state, once the thread reacquires the lock it needs to check what the current state actually is. For more about how wait works see this tutorial.
Here's a task that calculates a result (sleeping between iterations just so these threads can run for a while):
class FibTask implements Runnable {
private final MyQueue<BigInteger> queue;
private final int n;
private long sleepTime;
public FibTask(int n, long sleepTime, MyQueue<BigInteger> queue) {
this.n = n;
this.sleepTime = sleepTime;
this.queue = queue;
}
#Override public void run() {
BigInteger a = BigInteger.valueOf(0);
BigInteger b = BigInteger.valueOf(1);
int i = 0;
try {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() && i < n) {
i = i + 1;
BigInteger temp = a;
a = b;
b = a.add(temp);
Thread.sleep(sleepTime);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
if (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
queue.put(b);
}
}
}
Notice in the code above how the Runnable needs to be aware of attempts to interrupt it. Interruption is cooperative, the task is responsible for deciding when to detect interruption and for handling the termination process.
Also if a task involves IO then in some cases interruption doesn't work and you have to close the socket, see this article for more discussion of this.
Here's the main program that runs the threads and gets the result. The MyQueue class is already doing most of the work so this doesn't have to do much:
class Completion {
public static void main(String ... args) throws Exception {
MyQueue<BigInteger> queue = new MyQueue<BigInteger>();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new FibTask(10, 1000L, queue));
Thread t2 = new Thread(new FibTask(20, 10000L, queue));
Thread t3 = new Thread(new FibTask(25, 50000L, queue));
queue.addListener(t1);
queue.addListener(t2);
queue.addListener(t3);
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
System.out.println(queue.take());
}
}
Be aware this isn't a fair race because of how the threads' starts are staggered, later threads are at a disadvantage. Submitting tasks to an Executor that initializes a threadpool up front would make sure that the time to start a thread didn't cause a delay here.
For a better way that makes use of java.util.concurrent features like Executors and Futures, see the example given in the API documentation for ExecutorCompletionService.

A simple approach, use a synchronized class to handle the loop condition:
class ThreadHandler
{
static Object lock = new Object();
static boolean finished = false;
static void finishThreads()
{
synchronized(lock)
{
finished = true;
}
}
static boolean isFinished()
{
boolean result;
synchronized(lock)
{
result = finished;
}
return result;
}
}
And in your runnable
class myThreads implements Runnable
{
#Override
public void run()
{
while(!ThreadHandler.isFinished())
{
}
}
}

concurrency in java - how to test it?

I'm on Java concurrency at the moment.
I don't know how to write negative scenario test.
I need a way to make deadlocks and I need a way to see that without using synchronization
I could end up with problems like inconsistency.
What is generally best way to write some stress test code
that could show me bad results if synch is omitted?
Any code example would be really appriciated.
Thank you all in advance!

The following code will almost certainly create a deadlock and demonstrates the classic deadlock scenario whereby two different threads acquire locks in an inconsistent order.
public class Main {
private final Object lockA = new Object();
private final Object lockB = new Object();
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main();
}
public Main() {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
a();
sleep(3000L); // Add a delay here to increase chance of deadlock.
b();
}
}, "Thread-A").start();
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// Note: Second thread acquires locks in the reverse order of the first!
b();
sleep(3000L); // Add a delay here to increase chance of deadlock.
a();
}
}, "Thread-A").start();
}
private void a() {
log("Trying to acquire lock A.");
synchronized(lockA) {
log("Acquired lock A.");
}
}
private void b() {
log("Trying to acquire lock B.");
synchronized(lockB) {
log("Acquired lock B.");
}
}
private void sleep(long millis) {
try {
Thread.sleep(millis);
} catch(InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
private void log(String msg) {
System.err.println(String.format("Thread: %s, Message: %s",
Thread.currentThread().getName(), msg));
}
}
The following code demonstrates a situation likely to create inconsistent results due to lack of concurrency control between two threads.
public class Main {
// Non-volatile integer "result".
private int i;
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main();
}
public Main() {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
countUp();
}
}, "Thread-1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
countDown();
}
}, "Thread-2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
// Wait for two threads to complete.
t1.join();
t2.join();
// Print out result. With correct concurrency control we expect the result to
// be 0. A non-zero result indicates incorrect use of concurrency. Also note
// that the result may vary between runs because of this.
System.err.println("i: " + i);
}
private void countUp() {
// Increment instance variable i 1000,000 times. The variable is not marked
// as volatile, nor is it accessed within a synchronized block and hence
// there is no guarantee that the value of i will be reconciled back to main
// memory following the increment.
for (int j=0; j<1000000; ++j) {
++i;
}
}
private void countDown() {
// Decrement instance variable i 1000,000 times. Same consistency problems
// as mentioned above.
for (int j=0; j<1000000; ++j) {
--i;
}
}
}

In above deadlock example. Period for deadlock is 3 second. After which lockA and lockB are released and occupied by Thread 2 and Thread 1