I have 10 different threads which I want to start at the same time. And by same time, I mean not by starting them sequentially (although this will be close).
What is the best way to achieve this in java?
To be accurate: You will not be able to start all 10 threads at the exact same time. There will be some difference in the order ms or ns. You can just try to minimize this difference. And even then: If you have less cores than threads the first couple of threads will have done some work before the others even run their first instruction.
There's a nice example of using a CountDownLatch for that in the Javaspecialists newsletter The Law of the Corrupt Politician.
public class TestCorruption {
private static final int THREADS = 2;
private static final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(THREADS);
private static final BankAccount heinz = new BankAccount(1000);
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < THREADS; i++) {
addThread();
}
Timer timer = new Timer(true);
timer.schedule(new TimerTask() {
public void run() {
System.out.println(heinz.getBalance());
}
}, 100, 1000);
}
private static void addThread() {
new Thread() {
{
start();
}
public void run() {
latch.countDown();
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
return;
}
while (true) {
heinz.deposit(100);
heinz.withdraw(100);
}
}
};
}
}
It depends on the number of cores your computer have, those will be the number of started threads on the same time, it is my first comment here so i hope this is correct.
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class Practica {
private static final int NUMTHREADS = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
CountDownLatch cdl = new CountDownLatch(NUMTHREADS);
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(NUMTHREADS);
for (int i = 0; i < NUMTHREADS; i++) {
executor.submit(new Imp(cdl));
cdl.countDown();
System.out.println("one thread sumbmited "+cdl.getCount());
}
System.out.println("All threads submmited");
executor.shutdown();
}
}
class Imp implements Runnable {
CountDownLatch cdl;
public Imp(CountDownLatch arg) {
this.cdl = arg;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
cdl.await();
System.out.printf("STARTED %s at %d millis%n",
Thread.currentThread().getName(),
System.currentTimeMillis());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Related
I have a multithreaded Java application that uses several threads that are CPU intensive to gather information. Once every few minutes, a result is found that requires handling by another thread of the program. The found result is added to a list and the other relevant thread is notified (using Lock and Condition), after which it handles the found information. I need the time delay for passing this information from thread to thread to be as small as possible. When measuring the time between wake-up and notify using System.currentTimeMillis(), the delay is usually smaller than 5 ms, and most often less than or equal to 1 ms. Sometimes, the delay is larger (10-20ms). Since milliseconds are macro-units when it comes to computers, I would think that a delay that is reliably smaller than 1ms should be possible, and it would benefit my application.
Do you have any idea what the cause of the larger delays can be, or how I can find out where to look? Could it be Garbage Collection? Or are several milliseconds of variation for thread wakeup considered normal?
I am using Java version 1.8.0 on a Linux Ubuntu virtual private server.
An example of the design of the program is attached. Running this does not simulate the delays as observed by my production program correctly. The 'actual' program uses a lot of memory, CPU and only transmits a bit of info once every few minutes. I tried but failed in simulating this simply.
Thank you.
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Random;
public class Example {
public static void main(String[] args) {
startInfoThreads();
startWatcherThread();
}
private static Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private static Condition condition = lock.newCondition();
private static List<Long> infoList = new ArrayList<>();
private static void startWatcherThread () {
Thread t = new Thread () {
#Override
public void run () {
while (true) {
// Waiting for results...
try {
lock.lock();
while (infoList.size() == 0) {
try {
condition.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
long delta = System.currentTimeMillis() - infoList.remove(0);
if (delta > 0)
System.out.println("Time for waking up: " + delta);
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
// Do something with info
}
}
};
t.start();
}
private static void startInfoThreads () {
for (int i = 0; i < 14; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
Random r = new Random();
while (true) {
// Gather info, 'hits' about once every few minutes!
boolean infoRandomlyFound = r.nextInt(100) >= 99;
if (infoRandomlyFound) {
try {
lock.lock();
infoList.add(System.currentTimeMillis());
condition.signal();
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
}
};
t.start();
}
}
}
System.currentTimeMillis() can be affected by clock drift and usually have a granularity of ~10ms.
To measure elapsed time you should always use System.nanoTime() as it guarantees accuracy.
It probably will not speed up your process but using a BlockingQueue would certainly make the code clearer.
Also note the Thread.sleep for when there is no info.
final BlockingQueue<Long> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(10);
private void startWatcherThread() {
Thread t = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
// Waiting for results...
try {
Long polled = queue.poll(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
// Do something with info
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
};
t.start();
}
private void startInfoThreads() {
for (int i = 0; i < 14; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
Random r = new Random();
while (true) {
// Gather info, 'hits' about once every few minutes!
boolean infoRandomlyFound = r.nextInt(100) >= 99;
if (infoRandomlyFound) {
queue.put(System.currentTimeMillis());
} else {
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
};
t.start();
}
}
private void test() {
startInfoThreads();
startWatcherThread();
}
I am learning about the use of semaphores and multi threading in general but am kind of stuck. I have two threads printing G and H respectively and my objective is to alternate the outputs of each thread so that the output string is like this;
G
H
G
H
G
H
Each of the two classes has a layout similar to the one below
public class ClassA extends Thread implements Runnable{
Semaphore semaphore = null;
public ClassA(Semaphore semaphore){
this.semaphore = semaphore;
}
public void run() {
while(true)
{
try{
semaphore.acquire();
for(int i=0; i<1000; i++){
System.out.println("F");
}
Thread.currentThread();
Thread.sleep(100);
}catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.println(e.toString());
}
semaphore.release();
}
}
}
below is my main class
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(1);
ClassA clasA = new ClassA(semaphore);
Thread t1 = new Thread(clasA);
ClassB clasB = new ClassB(semaphore);
Thread t2 = new Thread(clasB);
t1.start();
t2.join();
t2.start();
The output I am getting is way too different from my expected result. can anyone help me please? did I misuse the semaphore? any help?
Semaphores can't help you solve such a task.
As far as I know, JVM doesn't promise any order in thread execution. It means that if you run several threads, one thread can execute several times in a row and have more processor time than any other. So, if you want your threads to execute in a particular order you can, for the simplest example, make a static boolean variable which will play a role of a switcher for your threads. Using wait() and notify() methods will be a better way, and Interface Condition will be the best way I suppose.
import java.io.IOException;
public class Solution {
public static boolean order;
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException, InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new ThreadPrint("G", true);
Thread t2 = new ThreadPrint("O", false);
t1.start();
t2.start();
t2.join();
System.out.println("Finish");
}
}
class ThreadPrint extends Thread {
private String line;
private boolean order;
public ThreadPrint(String line, boolean order) {
this.line = line;
this.order = order;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int z = 0;
while (true) {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
if (order == Solution.order) {
System.out.print(line + " ");
Solution.order = !order;
}
}
sleep(100);
} catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println(e.toString());
}
}
}
}
BTW there can be another problem cause System.out is usually an Operation System buffer and your OS can output your messages in an order on its own.
P.S. You shouldn't inherit Thread and implement Runnable at the same time
public class ClassA extends Thread implements Runnable{
because Thread class already implements Runnable. You can choose only one way which will be better for your purposes.
You should start a thread then join to it not vice versa.
t1.start();
t2.join();
t2.start();
As others have pointed out, locks themselves do not enforce any order and on top of that, you cannot be certain when a thread starts (calling Thread.start() will start the thread at some point in the future, but this might take a while).
You can, however, use locks (like a Semaphore) to enforce an order. In this case, you can use two Semaphores to switch threads on and off (alternate). The two threads (or Runnables) do need to be aware of each other in advance - a more dynamic approach where threads can "join in" on the party would be more complex.
Below a runnable example class with repeatable results (always a good thing to have when testing multi-threading). I will leave it up to you to figure out why and how it works.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class AlternateSem implements Runnable {
static final CountDownLatch DONE_LATCH = new CountDownLatch(2);
static final int TIMEOUT_MS = 1000;
static final int MAX_LOOPS = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
try {
AlternateSem as1 = new AlternateSem(false);
AlternateSem as2 = new AlternateSem(true);
as1.setAlternate(as2);
as2.setAlternate(as1);
executor.execute(as1);
executor.execute(as2);
if (DONE_LATCH.await(TIMEOUT_MS, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
System.out.println();
System.out.println("Done");
} else {
System.out.println("Timeout");
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}
final Semaphore sem = new Semaphore(0);
final boolean odd;
AlternateSem other;
public AlternateSem(boolean odd) {
this.odd = odd;
}
void setAlternate(AlternateSem other) { this.other = other; }
void release() { sem.release(); }
void acquire() throws Exception { sem.acquire(); }
#Override
public void run() {
if (odd) {
other.release();
}
int i = 0;
try {
while (i < MAX_LOOPS) {
i++;
other.acquire();
System.out.print(odd ? "G " : "H ");
release();
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
DONE_LATCH.countDown();
}
}
I was asked to write a two-threaded Java program in an interview. In this program one thread should print even numbers and the other thread should print odd numbers alternatively.
Sample output:
Thread1: 1
Thread2: 2
Thread1: 3
Thread2: 4
... and so on
I wrote the following program. One class Task which contains two methods to print even and odd numbers respectively. From main method, I created two threads to call these two methods. The interviewer asked me to improve it further, but I could not think of any improvement. Is there any better way to write the same program?
class Task
{
boolean flag;
public Task(boolean flag)
{
this.flag = flag;
}
public void printEven()
{
for( int i = 2; i <= 10; i+=2 )
{
synchronized (this)
{
try
{
while( !flag )
wait();
System.out.println(i);
flag = false;
notify();
}
catch (InterruptedException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public void printOdd()
{
for( int i = 1; i < 10; i+=2 )
{
synchronized (this)
{
try
{
while(flag )
wait();
System.out.println(i);
flag = true;
notify();
}
catch(InterruptedException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
public class App {
public static void main(String [] args)
{
Task t = new Task(false);
Thread t1 = new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run()
{
t.printOdd();
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run()
{
t.printEven();
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
I think this should work properly and pretty simple.
package com.simple;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
/**
* #author Evgeny Zhuravlev
*/
public class ConcurrentPing
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
Semaphore semaphore1 = new Semaphore(0, true);
Semaphore semaphore2 = new Semaphore(0, true);
new Thread(new Task("1", 1, semaphore1, semaphore2)).start();
new Thread(new Task("2", 2, semaphore2, semaphore1)).start();
semaphore1.release();
}
private static class Task implements Runnable
{
private String name;
private long value;
private Semaphore semaphore1;
private Semaphore semaphore2;
public Task(String name, long value, Semaphore semaphore1, Semaphore semaphore2)
{
this.name = name;
this.value = value;
this.semaphore1 = semaphore1;
this.semaphore2 = semaphore2;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
try
{
semaphore1.acquire();
System.out.println(name + ": " + value);
value += 2;
semaphore2.release();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
}
}
Well, there are many alternatives. I would probably use a SynchronousQueue instead (I don't like low-level wait/notify and try to use higher-level concurrency primitives instead). Also printOdd and printEven could be merged into single method and no additional flags are necessary:
public class App {
static class OddEven implements Runnable {
private final SynchronousQueue<Integer> queue = new SynchronousQueue<>();
public void start() throws InterruptedException {
Thread oddThread = new Thread(this);
Thread evenThread = new Thread(this);
oddThread.start();
queue.put(1);
evenThread.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
int i = queue.take();
System.out.println(i + " (" + Thread.currentThread() + ")");
if (i == 10)
break;
queue.put(++i);
if (i == 10)
break;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
new OddEven().start();
}
}
Is there any better way to write the same program?
Well, the thing is, the only good way to write the program is to use a single thread. If you want a program to do X, Y, and Z in that order, then write a procedure that does X, then Y, then Z. There is no better way than that.
Here's what I would have written after discussing the appropriateness of threads with the interviewer.
import java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue;
import java.util.function.Consumer;
public class EvenOdd {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SynchronousQueue<Object> q1 = new SynchronousQueue<>();
SynchronousQueue<Object> q2 = new SynchronousQueue<>();
Consumer<Integer> consumer = (Integer count) -> System.out.println(count);
new Thread(new Counter(q1, q2, 2, 1, consumer)).start();
new Thread(new Counter(q2, q1, 2, 2, consumer)).start();
try {
q1.put(new Object());
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
private static class Counter implements Runnable {
final SynchronousQueue<Object> qin;
final SynchronousQueue<Object> qout;
final int increment;
final Consumer<Integer> consumer;
int count;
Counter(SynchronousQueue<Object> qin, SynchronousQueue<Object> qout,
int increment, int initial_count,
Consumer<Integer> consumer) {
this.qin = qin;
this.qout = qout;
this.increment = increment;
this.count = initial_count;
this.consumer = consumer;
}
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
Object token = qin.take();
consumer.accept(count);
qout.put(token);
count += increment;
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
}
}
How about a shorter version like this:
public class OddEven implements Runnable {
private static volatile int n = 1;
public static void main(String [] args) {
new Thread(new OddEven()).start();
new Thread(new OddEven()).start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this.getClass()) {
try {
while (n < 10) {
this.getClass().notify();
this.getClass().wait();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": " + (n++));
this.getClass().notify();
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
There is a bit of a trick to kick-start the threads properly - thus the need to an extra notify() to start the whole thing (instead of have both processes wait, or required the main Thread to call a notify) and also to handle the possibility that a thread starts, does it's work and calls notify before the second thread has started :)
My initial answer was non-functional. Edited:
package test;
public final class App {
private static volatile int counter = 1;
private static final Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String... args) {
for (int t = 0; t < 2; ++t) {
final int oddOrEven = t;
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
while (counter < 100) {
synchronized (lock) {
if (counter % 2 == oddOrEven) {
System.out.println(counter++);
}
}
}
}
}).start();
}
}
}
I want to build an application that executes a certain utility with multi threads. I want to control the amount of threads. Here is what I want to do:
//initialize the number of threads to be 10
for(int i = 0; i < BIG_VALUE; i++) {
RunnableObject rb = new RunnableObject(i);
rb.run();
//the for loop should run for 10 loops. When one of the threads finish its job
//the for loop continues and runs another thread. The amount of threads should
//always be 10
}
How can I do so in Java?
You can try with Java Executor framework http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/executors.html
Here an example of how to used
public class SimpleThreadPool {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Runnable worker = new WorkerThread('' + i);
executor.execute(worker);
}
executor.shutdown();
while (!executor.isTerminated()) {
}
System.out.println('Finished all threads');
}
}
public class WorkerThread implements Runnable {
private String command;
public WorkerThread(String s){
this.command=s;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+' Start. Command = '+command);
processCommand();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+' End.');
}
private void processCommand() {
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
#Override
public String toString(){
return this.command;
}
}
Problem description : -
Step 1: Take input FILE_NAME from user at main thread.
Step 2: Perform 10 operations on that file (i.e count chars, count lines etc.. ), and all those 10 operations must be in septate threads. It means there must be 10 child threads.
Step 3: Main thread waits until all those child threads completed.
Step 4: Print result.
What I did :-
I did a sample code with 3 threads. I don't want file operation code from your side.
public class ThreadTest {
// This is object to synchronize on.
private static final Object waitObject = ThreadTest.class;
// Your boolean.
private static boolean boolValue = false;
public final Result result = new Result();
public static void main(String[] args) {
final ThreadTest mytest = new ThreadTest();
System.out.println("main started");
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Inside thread");
//Int initialiser
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Setting integer value");
mytest.result.setIntValue(346635);
System.out.println("Integer value seted");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
//String initialiser
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Setting string value");
mytest.result.setStringValue("Hello hi");
System.out.println("String value seted");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
//Boolean initialiser
new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Setting boolean value");
mytest.result.setBoolValue(true);
System.out.println("Boolean value seted");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
System.out.println("Thread is finished");
//Notify to main thread
synchronized (ThreadTest.waitObject) {
ThreadTest.boolValue = true;
ThreadTest.waitObject.notifyAll();
}
}
}).start();
try {
synchronized (ThreadTest.waitObject) {
while (!ThreadTest.boolValue) {
ThreadTest.waitObject.wait();
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("main finished");
System.out.println("Result is : " + mytest.result.toString());
}
}
Problem :-
My above code is not giving correct answer. How can I do that?
Alternate solutions:
CountDownLatch class does the same. But I don't want to use that class.
I looked this similar solution and I want to use methods of Thread only.
You can do:
Thread t = new Thread() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("text");
// other complex code
}
};
t.start();
t.join();
This way you will wait until the thread finishes and just then continue. You can join multiple threads:
for (Thread thread : threads) {
thread.join();
}
I would recommend looking at the Executors framework first, and then look into the CompletionService.
Then you can write something like this:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(maxThreadsToUse);
CompletionService completion = new ExecutorCompletionService(executor);
for (each sub task) {
completion.submit(new SomeTaskYouCreate())
}
// wait for all tasks to complete.
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfSubTasks; ++i) {
completion.take(); // will block until the next sub task has completed.
}
executor.shutdown();
In Java 8 a far better approach is to use parallelStream()
Note: it is far easier to see exactly what these background tasks are doing.
public static void main(String[] args) {
Stream.<Runnable>of(
() -> mytest.result.setIntValue(346635),
() -> mytest.result.setStringValue("Hello hi"),
() -> mytest.result.setBoolValue(true) )
.parallel()
.forEach(Runnable::run);
System.out.println("main finished");
System.out.println("Result is : " + mytest.result.toString());
}
I took out the debug information and the sleep as these don't alter the outcome.
You may want to choose CountDownLatch from java.util.concurrent. From JavaDocs:
A synchronization aid that allows one or more threads to wait until a
set of operations being performed in other threads completes.
Sample code:
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
public class Test {
private final ChildThread[] children;
private final CountDownLatch latch;
public Test() {
this.children = new ChildThread[4];
this.latch = new CountDownLatch(children.length);
children[0] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 1");
children[1] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 2");
children[2] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 3");
children[3] = new ChildThread(latch, "Task 4");
}
public void run() {
startChildThreads();
waitForChildThreadsToComplete();
}
private void startChildThreads() {
Thread[] threads = new Thread[children.length];
for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) {
ChildThread child = children[i];
threads[i] = new Thread(child);
threads[i].start();
}
}
private void waitForChildThreadsToComplete() {
try {
latch.await();
System.out.println("All child threads have completed.");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private class ChildThread implements Runnable {
private final String name;
private final CountDownLatch latch;
protected ChildThread(CountDownLatch latch, String name) {
this.latch = latch;
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// Implementation
System.out.println(name + " has completed.");
} finally {
latch.countDown();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Test test = new Test();
test.run();
}
}
Output:
Task 1 has completed.
Task 4 has completed.
Task 3 has completed.
Task 2 has completed.
All child threads have completed.
There are many ways to approach this. Consider CountDownLatch:
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
public class WorkerTest {
final int NUM_JOBS = 3;
final CountDownLatch countDownLatch = new CountDownLatch(NUM_JOBS);
final Object mutex = new Object();
int workData = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
WorkerTest workerTest = new WorkerTest();
workerTest.go();
workerTest.awaitAndReportData();
}
private void go() {
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_JOBS; i++) {
final int fI = i;
Thread t = new Thread() {
public void run() {
synchronized(mutex) {
workData++;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(fI * 1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
countDownLatch.countDown();
}
};
t.start();
}
}
private void awaitAndReportData() throws InterruptedException {
countDownLatch.await();
synchronized(mutex) {
System.out.println("All workers done. workData=" + workData);
}
}
}
Check if all child threads are dead, every n seconds. Simple, yet effective method:
boolean allDead=false;
while(! allDead){
allDead=true;
for (int t = 0; t < threadCount; t++)
if(threads[t].isAlive()) allDead=false;
Thread.sleep(2000);
}