I've written an example program to demonstrate my problem.
There's a bartender thread and three customer threads.
They run at the same time once created.
The bartender is suppose to serve each customer a drink.
My problem is that the wait() method within the Bartender classes run() method never awakens.
I had intended for the release() method within the run() method of each Customer class to awaken it but it doesn't seem to be working. It never awakens.
How can I go about fixing this?
Thanks to anyone who can offer advice or code snippets.
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
import java.util.logging.Level;
import java.util.logging.Logger;
public class Bar {
Semaphore serving;
boolean isServing = false;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Bar bar = new Bar();
bar.run();
}
public void run() {
serving = new Semaphore(1);
Thread bartender = new Thread(new Bartender());
bartender.start();
threadSleep(1000);
Thread customer1 = new Thread(new Customer());
customer1.start();
threadSleep(2000);
Thread customer2 = new Thread(new Customer());
customer2.start();
threadSleep(2000);
Thread customer3 = new Thread(new Customer());
customer3.start();
}
public void threadSleep(int time) {
try {
Thread.sleep(time);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Bar.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
public class Bartender implements Runnable {
public void run() {
while (true) {
if (serving.availablePermits() == 0) {
synchronized (this) {
try {
System.out.println("Waiting for Customer notify");
wait();
System.out.println("Serve drink");
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Bar.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
}
}
}
public class Customer implements Runnable {
private boolean customerServed = false;
public void run() {
if (!customerServed) {
synchronized (this) {
try {
serving.acquire();
if (serving.availablePermits() == 0 && !serving.hasQueuedThreads()) {
notify();
isServing = true;
System.out.println("Customer: Recieves drink");
customerServed = true;
serving.release();
isServing = false;
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Bar.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
}
}
}
In class Bartender and class Customer
change synchronized (this) { to synchronized (Bar.this) {
change wait() to Bar.this.wait()
change notify() to Bar.this.notify()
Because two this refer to different object, Bartender never wakes up. And because two Bar.this refer to same object, Bartender will wake up!
Related
Say, I've got a javafx.concurrent.Task nested into Thread, ie.:
Task task = new Task();
Thread thread = new Thread(task);
thread.start();
How can I in this situation pause and/or stop executing task nad resume its work?
There is no easy way, except using the deprecated suspend() and resume() methods on the Thread class.
In case you are sure your task doesn't enter synchronized code that would work
Otherwise you would have to have halt points in your task were you check if the Task has been halted and if so call wait() on some object to block the thread. A call to notify on the object would then wake the Thread up and resume. Below is a chunk of pseudo code for that approach.
Note that for this to work as expected you need check the halt variable frequently in the task code.
class MyTask{
volatile boolean halt = false;
Object o = new Object();
public void run(){
while(notDone) {
if (halt) halt();
}
}
private halt(){
synchronized (o){o.wait()}
}
public resume(){
halt = false;
synchronized (o){o.notify()}
}
public suspend(){
halt=true;
}
}
import java.io.IOException;
public class TestThread {
static class PausableRunnable implements Runnable{
volatile boolean shouldHalt = false;
private final Object lock=new Object();
public void run(){
while(true){
if(shouldHalt)halt();
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.print(".");
}
}
private void halt(){
synchronized (lock){
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
void pause(){
shouldHalt = true;
}
void resume(){
synchronized (lock){
shouldHalt=false;
lock.notify();
}
}
}
public static void maipn(String[] args) throws IOException {
PausableRunnable pr = new PausableRunnable();
Thread t = new Thread(pr);
t.start();
while(true) {
char c = (char) System.in.read();
if (c == 'p') {
System.out.println("Pausing");
pr.pause();
}
if (c == 'r') {
System.out.println("Resuming");
pr.resume();
}
}
}
}
I am trying to do it using two threads like below. Can someone point the obvious mistake I am doing here?
public class OddEven {
public static boolean available = false;
public static Queue<Integer> queue = new LinkedList<Integer>();
static Thread threadEven = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
printEven();
}
public synchronized void printEven() {
while (!available) {
try {
wait();
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
System.out.println(queue.remove());
available = false;
notifyAll();
}
};
static Thread threadOdd = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
printOdd();
}
public synchronized void printOdd () {
while (available) {
try {
wait();
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
System.out.println(queue.remove());
available = true;
notifyAll();
}
};
public static void main(String[] args) {
int n = 20;
for (int i = 1; i < n; i++) {
queue.add(i);
}
threadOdd.start();
threadEven.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(60000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
try {
threadOdd.join();
threadEven.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
But this program is only printing 1 and quitting. After printing 1 the available should be true and printEven should wake up, print and set available to false. I don't understand what is going wrong here? I saw other solutions but want to know why my solution is not working.
Putting synchronized on an instance method means that the thread calling that method has to acquire the lock on that instance; public void synchronized printOdd() is syntax sugar for
public void printOdd() {
synchronized(this) {
...
}
}
where this is different for each instance, since ThreadOdd and threadEven are two different objects and each one uses its own lock. The methods notifyAll and wait are called on the object that is being used as the lock. When one thread waits it never gets notified because the notification only applies to other threads waiting on the same lock as the notifying thread.
I was reading this post and the suggestions given to interrupt one thread from another is
" " " Here are a couple of approaches that should work, if implemented correctly.
You could have both threads regularly check some common flag variable (e.g. call it stopNow), and arrange that both threads set it when they finish. (The flag variable needs to be volatile ... or properly synchronized.)
You could have both threads regularly call the Thread.isInterrupted() method to see if it has been interrupted. Then each thread needs to call Thread.interrupt() on the other one when it finishes." " "
I do not understand how the second approach is possible that is using Thread.isInterrupted().
That is, how can Thread-1 call Thread.interrupt() on Thread-2.
Consider this example, in the main method I start two threads t1 and t2. I want t1 to stop t2 after reaching certain condition. how can I achieve this?
class Thread1 extends Thread {
public void run(){
while (!isDone){
// do something
}
} //now interrupt Thread-2
}
class Thread2 extends Thread {
public void run(){
try {
while(!Thread.isInterupted()){
//do something;
}
catch (InterruptedExecption e){
//do something
}
}
}
public class test {
public static void main(String[] args){
try {
Thread1 t1 = new Thread1();
Thread2 t2 = new Thread2();
t1.start();
t2.start();
} catch (IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
The context of this is that you are trying to implement your scheme using thread interrupts.
In order for that to happen, the t1 object needs the reference to the t2 thread object, and then it simply calls t2.interrupt().
There are a variety of ways that t1 could get the reference to t2.
It could be passed as a constructor parameter. (You would need to instantiate Thread2 before Thread1 ...)
It could be set by calling a setter on Thread1.
It could be retrieved from a static variable or array, or a singleton "registry" object of some kind.
It could be found by enumerating all of the threads in the ThreadGroup looking for one that matches t2's name.
public class test {
private static boolean someCondition = true;
public static void main(String[]args){
Thread t2 = new Thread(new someOtherClass("Hello World"));
Thread t1 = new Thread(new someClass(t2));
t2.start();
t1.start();
try {
t1.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
static class someClass implements Runnable{
Thread stop;
public someClass(Thread toStop){
stop = toStop;
}
public void run(){
while(true){
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
if(someCondition && !stop.isInterrupted()){
stop.interrupt();
}
}
}
}
static class someOtherClass implements Runnable{
String messageToPrint;
public someOtherClass(String s){
messageToPrint = s;
}
public void run(){
while(true){
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(messageToPrint);
}
}
}
}
You could consider the use of Future interface. It provides a cancel() method.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Future.html
Playing with interruption makes your life unnecessarily hard. Besides the fact that your code must know the threads, interruption does not provide any context information about the reason of the interruption.
If you have a condition that is shared by your code possibly executed by different threads, just encapsulate that condition into an object and share that object:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Condition c=new Condition();
new Thread(new Setter(c)).start();
new Thread(new Getter(c, "getter 1")).start();
// you can simply extend it to more than one getter:
new Thread(new Getter(c, "getter 2")).start();
}
}
class Getter implements Runnable {
final Condition condition;
final String name;
Getter(Condition c, String n) { condition=c; name=n; }
public void run() {
while(!condition.isSatisfied()) {
System.out.println(name+" doing something else");
try { Thread.sleep(300); } catch(InterruptedException ex){}
}
System.out.println(name+" exiting");
}
}
class Setter implements Runnable {
final Condition condition;
Setter(Condition c) { condition=c; }
public void run() {
System.out.println("setter: doing my work");
try { Thread.sleep(3000); }
catch(InterruptedException ex){}
System.out.println("setting condition to satisfied");
condition.setSatisfied();
}
}
class Condition {
private volatile boolean satisfied;
public void setSatisfied() {
satisfied=true;
}
public boolean isSatisfied() {
return satisfied;
}
}
The big advantage of this encapsulation is that it is easy to extend. Suppose you want to allow a thread to wait for the condition instead of polling it. Taking the code above it’s easy:
class WaitableCondition extends Condition {
public synchronized boolean await() {
try {
while(!super.isSatisfied()) wait();
return true;
} catch(InterruptedException ex){ return false; }
}
public synchronized void setSatisfied() {
if(!isSatisfied()) {
super.setSatisfied();
notifyAll();
}
}
}
class Waiter implements Runnable {
final WaitableCondition condition;
final String name;
Waiter(WaitableCondition c, String n) { condition=c; name=n; }
public void run() {
System.out.println(name+": waiting for condition");
boolean b=condition.await();
System.out.println(name+": "+(b? "condition satisfied": "interrupted"));
}
}
Without changing the other classes you can now extend your test case:
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) {
WaitableCondition c=new WaitableCondition();
new Thread(new Setter(c)).start();
new Thread(new Getter(c, "getter 1")).start();
// you can simply extend it to more than one getter:
new Thread(new Getter(c, "getter 2")).start();
// and you can have waiters
new Thread(new Waiter(c, "waiter 1")).start();
new Thread(new Waiter(c, "waiter 2")).start();
}
}
class firstThread extends Helper1
{
Thread thread_1 = new Thread(new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 1; i <= 20; i++) {
System.out.println("Hello World");
Thread.sleep(500);
if (i == 10) {
Notify();
Wait();
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
}
class secondThread extends firstThread
{
Thread thread_2 = new Thread(new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
try {
Wait();
for(int i = 1; i<=20; i++)
{
System.out.println("Welcome");
Thread.sleep(100);
}
Notify();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
}
class Helper1
{
public synchronized void Wait() throws InterruptedException
{
wait();
}
public synchronized void Notify() throws InterruptedException
{
notify();
}
}
public class InheritanceClass {
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Thread f = new Thread(new firstThread().thread_1);
Thread s = new Thread(new secondThread().thread_2);
f.start();
s.start();
}
}
Only the first Thread has an output. Please try my code. I don't know why it happens.
The second thread does not give output, I suppose it's because of Wait() in the secondThread, I don't know what to do.
The problem is with the following code:
class Helper1
{
public synchronized void Wait() throws InterruptedException
{
wait();
}
public synchronized void Notify() throws InterruptedException
{
notify();
}
}
Above, the wait() and notify() calls are equivalent to this.wait() and this.notify(). However, thread1 and thread2 are separate objects so they are not ever going to communicate via this method.
In order for communication to occur, you need a shared lock object. For example:
Object lock = new Object();
firstThread = new firstThread(lock);
secondThread = new secondThread(lock);
and synchronizations like:
void wait(Object lock) {
synchronized(lock) {
lock.wait();
}
}
void notify(Object lock) {
synchronized(lock) {
lock.notify();
}
}
Disclaimer: I would never do this personally, however it does answer the OP's question.
This code is really confusing, which is making it hard to see the underlying problem.
You should never start a class with a lower-case letter since it makes it look like a method/field name (e.g. firstThread).
I'm pretty sure Wait and Notify have no reason to be synchronized.
Why does secondThread inherit from firstThread??? Actually, why do you have those two classes at all? You should just make an anonymous inner class from Helper1 or something.
Anyway, the problem is that when you call Notify() in thread1 it notifies itself, not thread2.
Is there any neat solution of knowing when a thread has been put into wait status? I am putting threads to wait and I notify them when i need it. But sometimes I want to know if a thread is currently waiting, and if so, I have to do something else.
I could probably set a flag myself to true/false. But I can't imagine there is a better way to do this?
The method getState() of a thread returns a Thread.State which can be:
NEW, RUNNABLE, BLOCKED, WAITING, TIMED_WAITING or TERMINATED
See Thread.State.
Have you looked at Thread.getState?
Check
public Thread.State getState()
Thread.State.WAITING
Thread.State: Differences between BLOCKED vs WAITING
You can have all info that you want using the ThreadMXBean.
Try this code:
package com.secutix.gui.seatmap;
import java.lang.management.ManagementFactory;
import java.lang.management.ThreadInfo;
import java.lang.management.ThreadMXBean;
public class ThreadStatus {
private static final ThreadMXBean mbean = ManagementFactory.getThreadMXBean();
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
buildAndLaunchThread(i);
}
Thread t = new Thread(){
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
printThreadStatus();
try {
sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
};
t.setName("detector");
t.start();
}
protected static void printThreadStatus() {
ThreadInfo[] infos = mbean.dumpAllThreads(true, true);
for (ThreadInfo threadInfo : infos) {
System.out.println(threadInfo.getThreadName() + " state = " + threadInfo.getThreadState());
}
}
private static void buildAndLaunchThread(int i) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(){
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
try {
sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
};
t1.setName("t" + i);
t1.start();
}
}