When i try to kill my Robber threads, some die , but some get stuck in the wait() block , what would be a better way to kill all the threads , or how do i get the blocked threads out to be killed?
private int robberId;
private static int robberGlobalId=0;
private TreasureChest chest;
private boolean alive = true;
public Robber(TreasureChest chest) {
robberId = robberGlobalId;
robberGlobalId++;
this.chest = chest;
}
public void run() {
while (alive) {
try {
synchronized(chest){
robCoin();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("Robber " +robberId +" just died");
}
public void robCoin() throws InterruptedException {
if (chest.getTreasureAmount() <= 0 ) {
chest.wait();
} else {
chest.removeCoin();
}
Thread.sleep(50);
}
public void killRobber() {
alive = false;
}
When i try to kill my Robber threads, some die , but some get stuck in the wait() block , what would be a better way to kill all the threads ,
The right way to "kill" a thread is to interrupt it with thread.interrupt(). If the thread is blocked in a wait(...) call, this will immediately throw InterruptedException. When you catch InterruptedException it is a good idea to immediately re-interrupt the thread to preserve the interrupt flag because when the exception is thrown, the interrupt bit is cleared.
try {
...wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
// handle the interrupt
return;
}
Since not all methods throw InterruptedException, you can also check to make sure the thread has been interrupted with something like the following:
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
// stop processing
return;
}
Or in your case something like:
while (alive && !Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
Btw, alive should be volatile because it looks to be accessed by multiple threads.
Interrupting the thread is one way to do it as demonstrated in #Gray's answer, however it might be cleaner to wake up waiting threads when you "kill" the Robber instead of interrupting them.
In this example below the "Robber task" (implemented by the run() method) will wait as long as the robber is alive and the chest is empty ( less than or equal to 0). If killRobber() is called waiting threads are woken up and exit run() gracefully (alive will be false).
public void run() {
try{
synchronized(chest){
while (chest.getTreasureAmount() <= 0 && alive) {
chest.wait();
}
if(alive){
chest.removeCoin();
}
}
}catch (InterruptedException ie){
/* Thread interrupted do something appropriate,
which may be to do nothing */
}
}
public void killRobber() {
synchronized(chest){
alive = false;
chest.notifyAll();
}
}
Related
I try to restart thread but synchronized block in thread keep locked after restarted. I shouldn't change socket properties because some processes take too long but when network connection lost it hangs forever. I try to use InterruptedException but it doesn't work. Is there any way to release this lock?
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
synchronizedBlock t1 = new synchronizedBlock();
t1.start();
Thread.sleep(500);
t1.cancel();
t1 = new synchronizedBlock();
t1.start();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
while (true) {
}
}
public class synchronizedBlock extends Thread {
boolean isRunning = true;
boolean isRunning2 = true;
public static Object[] locks = new Object[5];
public synchronizedBlock() {
for (Integer i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
synchronizedBlock.locks[i] = i;
}
}
public void cancel() {
isRunning = false;
interrupt();
}
public void socketProces() {
while (isRunning2) {
}
}
public void proces(int index) {
try {
synchronized (locks[index]) {
System.out.println("Synchronized Block Begin");
socketProces();
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println("Run begin");
while (isRunning) {
proces(1);
}
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
//Do Something
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Result:
Run begin
Synchronized Block Begin
Run begin
When you start the synchronizedBlock thread you'll get a stack trace like this I think:
run -> proces -> socketProcess.
Then because isRunning2 = true, the thread will enter an infinite loop in socketProcess and never terminate.
Keep in mind that in Java there is no such thing as 'restarting' a thread. Once started, a thread can never be restarted. Indeed, you are creating two sycnchronizedBlock objects, not restarting a single object.
As a side note, it is generally problematic to overwrite static state in a class constructor, as you're doing with the locks variable, without synchronization.
The issue here is the Integer cache which is used in the for loop to initialize the synchronizedBlock.locks array:
for (Integer i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
synchronizedBlock.locks[i] = i;
}
When this code is run again, due to the constructor of the second synchronizedBlock, the synchronizedBlock.locks array contains the same Integer instances which where created when this for loop was executed for the first time. This means that the synchronized (locks[index]) lock will be on the same Integer object. As you have already one thread holding the lock for the Integer(1) object, the second thread waits outside the lock waiting for it to be released.
This is also problematic in combination with the fact that the first thread is not terminating. Your method
public void socketProces() {
while (isRunning2) {
}
}
is an endless loop as you don't change the value of isRunning2, ever. Also, the interrupt() method itself does not stop any thread. Instead, it sets just an internal flag in the Thread class, which can be checked with isInterrupted() and interrupted(). You have to check this flag and react on it like "Oh, someone wants me to stop, so I stop now".
To solve your problem you should at least quit your thread when the "isInterrupted" flag of the Thread instance is set. You can do it like this:
public void socketProces() {
while (isRunning2) {
if (Thread.interrupted()) {
return;
}
}
}
Instead of returning from socketProces() normally you could throw an InterruptedException like other methods do.
Also, depending on how you want to initialize/use the instances you want to lock on with synchronized(...), you might want to consider on how you create/fill the synchronizedBlock.locks array and which objects you want to use (the Integer cache might be problematic here). It depends on you if the creation of a new synchronizedBlock instance will/should/shouldn't create new objects to lock on in the synchronizedBlock.locks array.
Consider the following (simplified) class, designed to allow my entire component to enter some interim state before completely stopping. (The purpose of the interim state is to allow the component to complete its existing tasks, but reject any new ones).
The component might be started and stopped multiple times from any number of threads.
class StopHandler {
boolean isStarted = false;
synchronized void start() {isStarted = true;}
//synchronized as I do want the client code to block until the component is stopped.
//I might add some async method as well, but let's concentrate on the sync version only.
synchronized void stop(boolean isUrgent) {
if (isStarted) {
if (!isUrgent) {
setGlobalState(PREPARING_TO_STOP); //assume it is implemented
try {Thread.sleep(10_000L);} catch (InterruptedException ignored) {}
}
isStarted = false;
}
}
The problem with the current implementation is that if some client code needs to urgently stop the component while it is in the interim state, it will still have to wait.
For example:
//one thread
stopHandler.stop(false); //not urgent => it is sleeping
//another thread, after 1 millisecond:
stopHandler.stop(true); //it's urgent, "please stop now", but it will wait for 10 seconds
How would you implement it?
I might need to interrupt the sleeping thread, but I don't have the sleeping thread object on which to call 'interrupt()'.
How about storing a reference to current Thread (returned by Thread.currentThread()) in a field of StopHandler directly before you call sleep? That would allow you you to interrupt it in the subsequent urgent call in case the Thread is still alive.
Couldn't find a better solution than the one suggested by Lars.
Just need to encapsulate the sleep management for completeness.
class SleepHandler {
private final ReentrantLock sleepingThreadLock;
private volatile Thread sleepingThread;
SleepHandler() {
sleepingThreadLock = new ReentrantLock();
}
void sleep(long millis) throws InterruptedException {
setSleepingThread(Thread.currentThread());
Thread.sleep(millis);
setSleepingThread(null);
}
void interruptIfSleeping() {
doWithinSleepingThreadLock(() -> {
if (sleepingThread != null) {
sleepingThread.interrupt();
}
});
}
private void setSleepingThread(#Nullable Thread sleepingThread) {
doWithinSleepingThreadLock(() -> this.sleepingThread = sleepingThread);
}
private void doWithinSleepingThreadLock(Runnable runnable) {
sleepingThreadLock.lock();
try {
runnable.run();
} finally {
sleepingThreadLock.unlock();
}
}
}
With this helper class, handling of the original problem is trivial:
void stop(boolean isUrgent) throws InterruptedException {
if (isUrgent) {sleepHandler.interruptIfSleeping();} //harmless if not sleeping
try {
doStop(isUrgent); //all the stuff in the original 'stop(...)' method
} catch (InteruptedException ignored) {
} finally {
Thread.interrupted(); //just in case, clearing the 'interrupt' flag as no need to propagate it futher
}
I am trying to understand interrupting threads within an ExecutorService and I can't figure out why the following MyNeverEndingRunnable class doesn't get the interrupt signal. I have a class that implements Runnable and simply prints and waits in a loop until it is interrupted:
class MyNeverEndingRunnable
implements Runnable
{
int count = 0;
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
System.out.printf("[%d]:%d\n", Thread.currentThread().getId(), ++count);
try { Thread.sleep(5000L); } catch (Exception ignored) {}
if (Thread.interrupted())
{
break;
}
}
}
}
I spawn a few of these threads then call shutdownNow() on my ExecutorService which should call interrupt on each of the running threads but the below code continues to run forever:
int threadCount = 5;
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threadCount);
Future[] threads = new Future[threadCount];
for (int k = 0; k < threadCount; ++k)
{
threads[k] = executorService.submit(new MyNeverEndingRunnable());
}
Thread.sleep(20000L);
executorService.shutdownNow();
while (!executorService.isShutdown()) Thread.sleep(1000L);
Does anyone know what I am doing wrong here?
From the Javadoc:
InterruptedException - if any thread has interrupted the current thread. The interrupted status of the current thread is cleared when this exception is thrown. [My emphasis]
NB There's nothing that actually guarantees that threads are interrupted by shutdownNow(). It just describes that as a 'typical implementation'.
Your code is a little strange. Try this:
try
{
Thread.sleep(5000L);
}
catch (InterruptedException exc)
{
break;
}
and remove the Thread.interrupted() test.
Read the Javadoc on Thread.sleep():
Throws:
...
InterruptedException - if any thread has interrupted the current thread. The interrupted status of the current thread is cleared when this exception is thrown.
As soon as the exception is thrown, it's no longer interrupted. In your case, you can immediately break out of the loop and let the thread die, as #EJP suggested. But if your code doesn't have ownership of the thread (e.g. a separate method), you'll want to make sure the interruption is propagated to the caller, either by propagating the exception, or by re-interrupting:
try {
while (true) {
System.out.printf("[%d]:%d\n", Thread.currentThread().getId(), ++count);
Thread.sleep(5000L);
}
} catch (InterruptedException notIgnored)
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
Or similarly:
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
System.out.printf("[%d]:%d\n", Thread.currentThread().getId(), ++count);
try {
Thread.sleep(5000L);
} catch (InterruptedException notIgnored)
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
I am confused with concurrency - i am trying to stop the consumer thread from running if the producer is shutdown but am having issues if the consumer is blocked on take(). I have tried adding a posion pill, interruptung the current thread, using a boolean flag and still to no avail.
Please can someone help advise where I am going wrong. Thanks.
public class TestPoisonPill implements Runnable {
private BlockingQueue<String> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<String>(1);
private volatile boolean stopped = false;
public void addToQueue(String event) throws InterruptedException{
System.out.println("in add to queue");
if(event != null){
try {
queue.put(event);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
stopped = true;
queue.put("Poison");
System.out.println("Unable to add the event to the queue, order routing processing is stopped");
throw e;
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(!stopped){
try {
if(queue.size() > 0){
String string = queue.take();
System.out.println("taken " + string + "from the queue");
}else{
continue;
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
stopped = true;
}
}
}
public boolean isStopped(){
return stopped;
}
protected BlockingQueue<String> getQueue() {
return queue;
}
protected void setBoolean(boolean b){
this.stopped = b;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final TestPoisonPill t = new TestPoisonPill();
exec.execute(t);
ExecutorService exec2 = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Runnable addTask = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
t.addToQueue("hi");
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
System.out.println("add task interrupted ");
t.setBoolean(true);
break;
}
}
}
};
exec2.execute(addTask);
Thread.sleep(1000);
exec2.shutdownNow();
}
}
am confused with concurrency - i am trying to stop the consumer thread from running if the producer is shutdown but am having issues if the consumer is blocked on take()
If you problem is that you program is not stopping, I think you are missing an exec.shutdownNow() on your first ExecutorService. This will interrupt your first thread, if you change your loop to be something like:
while (!stopped && !Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
Without the interrupt flag check any interrupt will be not been seen by the thread. An interrupt is just a flag that is set on the thread. Certain methods (like Thread.sleep(...) and BlockingQueue.take()) throw InterruptedException when a thread is interrupted but your consumer is spinning and never calling take().
Really, the spin loop in the consumer is an extremely bad pattern. It should just call queue.take() and then either use the interrupt or have your producer actually submit a poisoned pill. Something like:
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
String string;
try {
string = queue.take();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
break;
}
// here is where you could check for a poison pill
// something like: if (string == STOP_PILL) break;
System.out.println("taken " + string + "from the queue");
}
You don't really need the stopped flag if you are using interrupt appropriately.
You mention having tried a "poisoned pill". For others, a poisoned pill is when you put a specific "special" object on the queue which the consumer uses to know when to shutdown. Something like the following should work:
private static final String STOP_PILL = "__STOP_PLEASE!!__";
...
// the consumer removes from the queue
String string = queue.take();
// it tests to see if it a pill, == is better than .equals here
if (string == STOP_PILL) {
// the consumer should stop
break;
}
...
// to stop the consumer, the producer puts the pill into the queue
queue.put(STOP_PILL);
Lastly, you are using 2 ExecutorService instances when you could easily use one. I guess the point here is to interrupt only one of them but FYI. You can use a single Executors.newCachedThreadPool() which will create the number of threads you need.
You never shutdown your exec executor, only exec2, so the thread running your TestPoisonPill never gets interrupted.
I'm trying to understand how threads work in Java and currently investigating how to implement looped threads that can be cancelled. Here's the code:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Thread t = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("THREAD: started");
try {
while(!isInterrupted()) {
System.out.printf("THREAD: working...\n");
Thread.sleep(100);
}
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
// we're interrupted on Thread.sleep(), ok
// EDIT
interrupt();
} finally {
// we've either finished normally
// or got an InterruptedException on call to Thread.sleep()
// or finished because of isInterrupted() flag
// clean-up and we're done
System.out.println("THREAD: done");
}
}
};
t.start();
Thread.sleep(500);
System.out.println("CALLER: asking to stop");
t.interrupt();
t.join();
System.out.println("CALLER: thread finished");
}
The thread I create is indended to be interrupted sooner or later. So, I check isInterrupted() flag to decide whether I need to go on and also catch InterruptedException to handle cases when I'm in a kind of waiting operation (sleep, join, wait).
Things I'd like to clarify are:
Is it fine to use interruption mechanism for this kind of task? (comparing to having volatile boolean shouldStop)
Is this solution correct?
Is it normal that I swallow InterruptedException? I'm not really interested what was the piece of code where someone asked my thread to interrupt.
Are there any shorter ways to solve this problem? (the main point is having 'infinite' loop)
EDIT
Added call to interrupt() in catch for InterruptedException.
I am answering no. 3:
Basically the question is: What purpose does an Interrupted exception have? It tells you to stop blocking (e.g. sleeping) and return early.
There are two ways dealing with an InterruptedException:
Rethrow it, so the thread remains interrupted
set Thread.currentThread.interrupt() again and do your cleanup work. This way you can be sure that another method in your thread starting to sleep will throw again
Simply swallowing an InterruptedException is not a good idea regarding the purpose of such an interrupt which is to finally terminate. But you are only asked to interrupt so you still have time to clean up.
In this case this might be an 'overreaction' of myself, but typically such code is much more complicated and how do you know, that some follow-up-code in this Thread would not call a blocking method again?
EDIT
Otherwise I think what you're doing is fine. For me a bit surprising, though, because I never saw anyone in his own code actually doing it.
And interesting article explaining why can be found here: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp05236/index.html
Yes, it's fine. You should document how a Thread/Runnable must be stopped. You could add a dedicated stop method on your Runnable implementation that encapsulates the stopping mechanism. Either use interrupt, or use a dedicated boolean value, or both.
Yes, except the good practice is to restore the interrupt status when catching InterruptedException: Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
No, you should restore the interrupt status
None that I'm aware of
1) The way in your example is preferable to using a volatile flag (which is redundant since you already have the interrupted flag), according to the Java Concurrency in Practice book. It is how InterruptedExceptions were intended to be used.
2) Yes
3) you can eat the exception as long as you restore the interrupt flag status. The exception doesn't represent an error so eating it doesn't lose any information, it is purely a means of transferring control. (Restoring the interrupt flag status is important for cases where you have nested control structures that each need to be informed that the thread is cancelling, for a simple example like yours it's good form but if it's missing it won't hurt anything.)
4) no
It's fine to use Interruption, but use them well. You have to re-throw Thread.currentThread().interrupt() in your catch. Here is a piece of code showing why :
public class MyThread extends Thread {
private static boolean correct = true;
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
// Do Something 1
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { // combined loop
// Do Something 2
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
if (correct)
Thread.currentThread().interrupt(); // reinterrupting
System.out.println("First Catch");
break; // for
}
}
try {
// Do Something 3
System.out.print("before sleep, ");
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.print("After sleep, ");
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
if (correct)
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
System.out.println("Second catch");
break; // while
}
}
System.out.println("Thread closing");
}
private static void test() throws InterruptedException {
Thread t = new MyThread();
t.start();
Thread.sleep(2500);
t.interrupt();
t.join();
System.out.println("End of Thread");
}
public static void main(String[] args)
throws InterruptedException {
test();
correct = false; // test "bad" way
test();
}
}
Another thing is, Interruptions don't always work when waiting on InputStreams. You then can use (for some) InterruptedIOException, but it won't always work. To understand these cases, you might want to try this piece of code :
public class Mythread extends Thread {
private InputStream in;
public Mythread(InputStream in) {
this.in = in;
}
#Override
public void interrupt() {
super.interrupt();
try {
in.close(); // Close stream if case interruption didn't work
} catch (IOException e) {}
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println("Before read");
in.read();
System.out.println("After read");
} catch (InterruptedIOException e) { // Interruption correctly handled
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
System.out.println("Interrupted with InterruptedIOException");
} catch (IOException e) {
if (!isInterrupted()) { // Exception not coming from Interruption
e.printStackTrace();
} else { // Thread interrupted but InterruptedIOException wasn't handled for this stream
System.out.println("Interrupted");
}
}
}
public static void test1() // Test with socket
throws IOException, InterruptedException {
ServerSocket ss = new ServerSocket(4444);
Socket socket = new Socket("localhost", 4444);
Thread t = new Mythread(socket.getInputStream());
t.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
t.interrupt();
t.join();
}
public static void test2() // Test with PipedOutputStream
throws IOException, InterruptedException {
PipedInputStream in = new PipedInputStream(new PipedOutputStream());
Thread t = new Mythread(in);
t.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
t.interrupt();
t.join();
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException, InterruptedException {
test1();
test2();
}
}