Develop Reference

Print 1-1000 with two threads (even and odd) from the same class

So my task is this:
Instantiate two object of the same class
Provide a constructor argument, to designate a thread as even and another as odd .
Start both threads right one after other
Odd thread prints odd numbers from 0 to 1000
Even thread prints even numbers from 0 to 1000
However they should be in sync the prints should be 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .....
One number on each line
However I can't seem to get the locks to release correctly. I've tried reading some of the similar problems on here but they all use multiple classes. What am I doing wrong?
Edit: My main class is doing this -
NumberPrinter oddPrinter = new NumberPrinter("odd");
NumberPrinter evenPrinter = new NumberPrinter("even");
oddPrinter.start();
evenPrinter.start();
and my output is -
odd: 1
even: 2
...
public class NumberPrinter extends Thread {
private String name;
private int starterInt;
private boolean toggle;
public NumberPrinter(String name) {
super.setName(name);
this.name=name;
if(name.equals("odd")) {
starterInt=1;
toggle = true;
}
else if(name.equals("even")) {
starterInt=2;
toggle = false;
}
}
#Override
public synchronized void run() {
int localInt = starterInt;
boolean localToggle = toggle;
if(name.equals("odd")) {
while(localInt<1000) {
while(localToggle == false)
try {
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
System.out.println(name+": "+localInt);
localInt +=2;
localToggle = false;
notify();
}
}
else {
while(localInt<1000) {
while(localToggle == true)
try {
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
System.out.println(name+": "+localInt);
localInt +=2;
localToggle = true;
notify();
}
}
}
}

The key problem here is that the two threads have no way to coordinate with each other. When you have a local variable (localToggle in this case) nothing outside the method can observe or alter its value.
If you share one object with both threads, however, its state can change, and if used correctly, those state changes will be visible to both threads.
You will see examples where the shared object is an AtomicInteger, but when you use synchronized, wait() and notify(), you don't need the extra concurrency overhead built into the atomic wrappers.
Here's a simple outline:
class Main {
public static main(String... args) {
Main state = new Main();
new Thread(new Counter(state, false)).start();
new Thread(new Counter(state, true)).start();
}
int counter;
private static class Counter implements Runnable {
private final Main state;
private final boolean even;
Counter(Main state, boolean even) {
this.state = state;
this.even = even;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(state) {
/* Here, use wait and notify to read and update state.counter
* appropriately according to the "even" flag.
*/
}
}
}
}
I'm not clear whether using wait() and notify() yourself is part of the assignment, but an alternative to this outline would be to use something like a BlockingQueue to pass a token back and forth between the two threads. The (error-prone) condition monitoring would be built into the queue, cleaning up your code and making mistakes less likely.

I finally got it working in a way that meets the standards required by my assignment.
Thank you all for your input. I'll leave the answer here for anyone who might need it.
public class Demo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
NumberPrinter oddPrinter = new NumberPrinter("odd");
NumberPrinter evenPrinter = new NumberPrinter("even");
oddPrinter.start();
evenPrinter.start();
System.out.println("Calling thread Done");
}
public class NumberPrinter extends Thread {
private int max = 1000;
static Object lock = new Object();
String name;
int remainder;
static int startNumber=1;
public NumberPrinter(String name) {
this.name = name;
if(name.equals("even")) {
remainder=0;
}else {
remainder=1;
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(startNumber<max) {
synchronized(lock) {
while(startNumber%2 !=remainder) {
try {
lock.wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(name+": "+startNumber);
startNumber++;
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}

Alternate between two threads (producer-consumer)

I'm attempting to edit my program so that the incrementer and decrementer classes are called alternatively, which incrementer being performed first. My aim is to be able to print the value of a shared variable (sharedValue) after each increment/decrement and hopefully see it toggle between 1 and 0. Below is the code for my main class, a semaphore class and incrementer class (there is a class decrementer which is styled the same way as icrementer so i didn't include it).
main class
public class Main extends Thread {
private static int sharedValue = 0;
private static Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(1);
static int numberOfCycles = 20000;
public static void increment() {
semaphore.down();
sharedValue++;
semaphore.up();
}
public static void decrement() {
semaphore.down();
sharedValue--;
semaphore.up();
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
incrementer inc = new incrementer(numberOfCycles);
inc.start();
inc.join();
decrementer dec = new decrementer(numberOfCycles);
dec.start();
dec.join();
System.out.println(sharedValue);
}
}
Semaphore class
private int count;
// Constructor
public Semaphore(int n) {
count = n;
}
// Only the standard up and down operators are allowed.
public synchronized void down() {
while (count == 0) {
try {
wait(); // Blocking call.
} catch (InterruptedException exception) {
}
}
count--;
}
public synchronized void up() {
count++;
notify();
}
incrementer Class
public class incrementer extends Thread{
private int numberOfIncrements;
public incrementer(int numOfIncrements){
numberOfIncrements = numOfIncrements;
}
public void run(){
for(int i = 0; i <= numberOfIncrements; i++){
Main.increment();
}
}
}
Thanks in advance!
So I have been reading through my notes and it occurred to me that I could use another mutex semaphore which can determine if the buffer is full or empty. Am I right with this approach?

Thread.Join causes your main thread to wait for the completion of the incrementer, then starts the decrementer and then waits for decrementer to complete. If you want them to run concurrently, remove the two Thread.Join calls:
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
incrementer inc = new incrementer(numberOfCycles);
decrementer dec = new decrementer(numberOfCycles);
inc.start();
dec.start();
}
To print the shared value after each increment or decrement, move the println call to the increment and decrement functions of your main class:
public static void increment() {
semaphore.down();
sharedValue++;
System.out.println(sharedValue);
semaphore.up();
}
public static void decrement() {
semaphore.down();
sharedValue--;
System.out.println(sharedValue);
semaphore.up();
}
Also note that even with these changes you won't be observing the toggling between 1 and 0. This is because the two threads don't start at the same time, and even if they did (e.g. using CyclicBarrier) you can't control the scheduling so they would progress differently. If you really want to observe this output, you should make each thread wait for 1ms before and after calling semaphore.up() in order to give the other thread a chance to wait and acquire a permit from the semaphore.
public static void increment() {
semaphore.down();
sharedValue++;
System.out.println(sharedValue);
try {
Thread.sleep(1); //give time to other threads to wait for permit
semaphore.up();
Thread.sleep(1); //give time to other threads to acquire permit
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
}
There are more robust ways to get this kind of output from two threads, but I didn't want to make major modifications to your code.

How to create a thread synhronization a method that can be executed by N threads?

I whould like to block a method execution from more thab 3 threads. The method can be executed recursively. I have following agly code. Can I achive this by using better way?
private static class MyHolder {
private static Semaphore limitThreadsSemaphore = new Semaphore(3);
private static Set<Thread> asquiredThreads = new HashSet<Thread>();
}
#Override
public void someMethod() {
if (!MyHolder.asquiredThreads.contains(Thread.currentThread())) {
synchronized (MyHolder.asquiredThreads) {
if (!MyHolder.asquiredThreads.contains(Thread.currentThread())) {
try {
MyHolder.limitThreadsSemaphore.acquire();
MyHolder.asquiredThreads.add(Thread.currentThread());
} finally {
MyHolder.limitThreadsSemaphore.release();
MyHolder.asquiredThreads.remove(Thread.currentThread());
}
}
}
}
return super.someMethod();
}
Thanks.

The simplest approach would be to refactor the recursive method to be private and then have the public method unconditionally acquire the semaphore, call the private method and then release the semaphore again. The recursive calls route straight to the private method so don't go through the semaphore guard code.
If that is not an option then the simplest approach I can think of would be to use a ThreadLocal flag
ThreadLocal<Object> alreadyIn = new ThreadLocal<>();
public void someMethod() {
boolean needSem = (alreadyIn.get() == null);
if(needSem) {
semaphore.acquire();
alreadyIn.set(new Object());
}
try {
// do stuff
} finally {
if(needSem) {
alreadyIn.remove();
semaphore.release();
}
}
}

I guess "someMethod" is the method you want to block execution,yeah?. Why don'y you do this? :
private static class MyHolder {
private static Semaphore limitThreadsSemaphore = new Semaphore(3);
public boolean semaphoreAdquired = false; //Make it private
public Semaphore getSemaphore()
{
return limitThreadsSemaphore;
}
}
#Override
public void someMethod() {
boolean ReleaseSemaphore = false;
if(!semaphoreAdquired)
{
MyHolder.getSemaphore().acquire();
semaphoreAdquired = true;
ReleaseSemaphore = true;
}
super.someMethod();
if(ReleaseSemaphore)
{
MyHolder.getSemaphore().release();
semaphoreAdquired = false;
}
}

Based on the documentation for Semaphor, this should be achievable using only acquire() and release() around the critical section. Also, you should be able to put the semaphor in the current class, no need for a separate class to contain the Semaphor.
private static Semaphore limitThreadsSemaphore = new Semaphore(3);
#Override
public void someMethod() {
limitThreadsSemaphore.acquire();
// do work.
limitThreadsSemaphore.release();
}
Update: If you need to call a method recursively within a thread, then the easiest way is to use a helper method to acquire the semaphor, and then invoke the recursive method from that helper method after acquiring the sempahor. You would call the helper instead of the original method in all the initial calls.
private static Semaphore limitThreadsSemaphore = new Semaphore(3);
public void someMethodHelper() {
limitThreadsSemaphore.acquire();
someMethod();
limitThreadsSemaphore.release();
}
#Override
public void someMethod() {
// do work, with recursive calls.
}

While loop and checking static variable

I have two threads and in one thread I set static variable and in another I check static variable via function like this
Test test= new Test();
while(!Temp.isVarSet()){
}
System.out.println("Variable set");
But this codes hangs - doesn't go to println statement. But the following code works
Test test= new Test();
while(!Temp.isVarSet()){
System.out.println("I am still here");
}
System.out.println("Variable set");
The Temp class
public class Temp {
private volatile static boolean varSet=false;
public synchronized static void setVarSet() {
Temp.varSet=true;
}
public synchronized static boolean isVarSet() {
return Temp.varSet;
}
}
Test class
public class Test{
public Test() {
java.awt.EventQueue.invokeLater(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
Model model= new Model();
View view = new View();
Controller controller=new Controller(model, view);
Temp.setVarSet();
...
}
});
}
}
What can be reason? I set method isVarSet() synchronized but it didn't help.
EDIT
This code works too.
Test test = Test()
while(!Temp.isVarSet()){
Thread.sleep(100);
}

You didn't publish what happens in Temp and isVarSet but most probably you change a variable. This variable must be marked volatile.
If your class looks like this:
public class Temp {
private static boolean someFlag;
public static boolean isVarSet() {
return someFlag;
}
}
And your loop is the same as the example, the compiler thinks that there's no need to read the flag over and over again because the flag is not changed inside the loop and it optimizes to not read the flag over and over.
Marking someFlag as volatile:
private static volatile boolean someFlag;
Will force the runtime to check the flag on each iteration and not just assume that the value hasn't changed. In this case, it will work.
From Oracle docs about atomic access:
Atomic actions cannot be interleaved, so they can be used without fear
of thread interference. However, this does not eliminate all need to
synchronize atomic actions, because memory consistency errors are
still possible. Using volatile variables reduces the risk of memory
consistency errors, because any write to a volatile variable
establishes a happens-before relationship with subsequent reads of
that same variable. This means that changes to a volatile variable are
always visible to other threads. What's more, it also means that when
a thread reads a volatile variable, it sees not just the latest change
to the volatile, but also the side effects of the code that led up the
change.

Even after you made variable as volatile .
if you add SOP in while loop it is working
These two usecase gives me another thought. just try it.
Since your read and write methods are sync , in your while loop
while(!Temp.isVarSet()){
}
It is nothing doing other than calling the method, it may possible this sync method holds the lock on the Temp Object which does not allow other thread to modify the values (though sync setMethod) .
While add SOP inside the while , it is doing some work on IO and thus it is allowing some time slice to other thread get the lock of Temp and modify the same.
Could you please try remove Sync from read method , just for testing purpose and post your results.
public class Temp {
private volatile static boolean varSet=false;
public synchronized static void setVarSet() {
Temp.varSet=true;
}
public static boolean isVarSet() {
return Temp.varSet;
}
}

This works perfect for me:
public class ThreadTest {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Thread t1 = new TheThread();
t1.start();
// wait
Thread.sleep(500);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getId() + " will now setVarSet()");
Temp.setVarSet();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getId() + " setVarSet() setted");
t1.join();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getId() + " end programm");
}
private static class TheThread extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getId() + " enter run");
while (!Temp.isVarSet()) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getId() + " running");
try {
Thread.sleep((int) (Math.random() * 100));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// ignore
}
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getId() + " exit run");
}
}
private static class Temp {
private volatile static boolean varSet = false;
public static void setVarSet() {
Temp.varSet = true;
}
public static boolean isVarSet() {
return Temp.varSet;
}
}
}
Can you please post a complete example?

Its working as expected without hanging the program.
private volatile static boolean varSet = false;
public synchronized static void setVarSet() {
varSet = true;
}
public synchronized static boolean isVarSet() {
return varSet;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (!TestDemo.isVarSet()) {
// System.out.println("I am still here");
}
System.out.println("Variable set");
}
});
t1.start();
Thread.sleep(1000); // put delay to give the chance to execute above thread
java.awt.EventQueue.invokeLater(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// Model model= new Model();
// View view = new View();
// Controller controller=new Controller(model, view);
setVarSet();
}
});
}

How can I make a public static unsynchronized getInstance() method return multiple instances of a private static reference variable to an object?

One of the SCJP practice exam questions I ran across supplied the code in the SafeDeposit class. The answer to the question claimed that if another class used multiple threads that it would be possible for the unsynchronized (non thread safe) getInstance() method to return multiple instances of SafeDeposit. I have tried, and tried and cannot get the toString() method to indicate that there is ever more than one SafeDeposit instance created. Am I missing something, or is this just one of those things that "could" happen but is really, really, really unlikely to happen?
class SafeDeposit {
private static SafeDeposit sd;
public static SafeDeposit getInstance() {
if(sd == null) sd = new SafeDeposit();
return sd;
}
private SafeDeposit() { }
}
public class PrivCon {
public static void main(String[] args) {
String checker;
SafeThief wizard = new SafeThief();
SafeThief wizard2 = new SafeThief();
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i ++) {
new Thread(wizard).start();
new Thread(wizard2).start();
}
}
}
class SafeThief implements Runnable {
public void run() {
System.out.println(SafeDeposit.getInstance().toString());
}
}

is this just one of those things that "could" happen but is really, really, really unlikely to happen?
Try this code and see how unlikely it really is:
class SafeDeposit {
private static SafeDeposit sd;
public static SafeDeposit getInstance() {
if(sd == null) sd = new SafeDeposit();
return sd;
}
private SafeDeposit() { }
static void warmup() {
for (int i = 0; i < 100_000; i++) getInstance();
sd = null;
}
}
public class PrivCon {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SafeDeposit.warmup();
SafeThief wizard = new SafeThief();
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i ++) new Thread(wizard).start();
}
}
class SafeThief implements Runnable {
public void run() {
try { Thread.sleep(100); } catch (InterruptedException e) { }
System.out.println(SafeDeposit.getInstance().toString());
}
}
This is my typical output:
test.SafeDeposit#52e5376a
test.SafeDeposit#34780af5
test.SafeDeposit#351775bc
test.SafeDeposit#2b1be57f
test.SafeDeposit#6ae6235d
test.SafeDeposit#6276e1db
test.SafeDeposit#52e5376a
test.SafeDeposit#302b2c81
test.SafeDeposit#60f00e0f
test.SafeDeposit#1732a4df
Hardly any duplicates at all.
If you want to know why, it's because I added warmup code, which caused the getInstance() method to be JIT-compiled into an aggressively optimized piece of code which leverages the liberties given by the Java Memory Model.
I also added some sleep time to the beginning of the Runnable because as soon as one thread writes the value, those threads which start after that point will reliably observe the write. So it is better to first let all threads start, then let them call getInstance.

Correct. This is NOT thread safe,
if(sd == null) // Thread B here <---
sd = new SafeDeposit(); // Thread A here <---
return sd;
So if you have Thread A and B as above you will get two instances of your Singleton instantiated. To see it, add a print method in the constructor like this =
private SafeDeposit() {
System.out.println("In SafeDeposit constructor - Should only print ONCE");
try {
Thread.sleep(2000); // <-- Added to help reproduce multiple
// instances being created.
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}

SafeDeposit constructor is running atomically in your code and you're not seeing the problem. To simulate a more real situation, change SafeDeposit constructor to the code below and you will see the result by yourself.
private SafeDeposit() {
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}

The way to stress a singleton is to use a CountDownLatch to make a horde of threads descend on it all at once. Sadly this code fails to print anything other than 1 but I suspect that is because I am testing it on a one-core laptop. Would someone test it on a multicore CPU and see if it prints anything else?
See comments below for tests results returning result > 1 meaning that more than one instance of the supposed singleton was actually created.
public class Test {
static class SafeDeposit {
private static SafeDeposit sd;
public static SafeDeposit getInstance() {
if (sd == null) {
sd = new SafeDeposit();
}
return sd;
}
private SafeDeposit() {
}
}
static final Set<SafeDeposit> deposits = Collections.newSetFromMap(new ConcurrentHashMap<SafeDeposit,Boolean>());
static class Gun implements Runnable {
private final CountDownLatch wait;
public Gun (CountDownLatch wait) {
this.wait = wait;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// One more thread here and ready.
wait.countDown();
// Wait for the starting pistol.
wait.await();
// Grab an instance - nnnnnnnnow!!!.
SafeDeposit safe = SafeDeposit.getInstance();
// Store it in the Set.
deposits.add(safe);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Test.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
// Use that many Threads
private static final int ArmySize = 1000;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
// The Latch will wait for all threads to be ready.
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(ArmySize);
Thread[] threads = new Thread[ArmySize];
for ( int i = 0; i < ArmySize; i++ ) {
// Make all threads and start them.
threads[i] = new Thread(new Gun(latch));
threads[i].start();
}
// Wait for all to complete.
for ( int i = 0; i < ArmySize; i++ ) {
threads[i].join();
}
// How many unique Safes did we et?
System.out.println(deposits.size());
}
}