Develop Reference

Producer consumer problems without semaphores in java threads synchronization

Hi I have been trying to solve the producer consumer problem in java without semaphores. When I use single producer and single consumer then my code is working fine. But when I add more than one consumer then it is completely messing up, all the consumer threads are going into the synchronized block. I'm not sure why this is happening. Here is my code :
Producer class:
public class Producer implements Runnable {
Object SharedObject = null;
String producerName= null;
Random rn = new Random();
public Producer(Main m, String s) {
this.SharedObject = m;
this.producerName=s;
}
public Producer(Main m) {
this.SharedObject = m;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (SharedObject) {
if (Main.itemCount == Main.bufferSize) {
try {
System.out.println("Producer is sleeping and waiting for notification form Consumer");
SharedObject.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Main.itemCount++;
System.out.println(this.producerName+" Produced the item and the item count is : " + Main.itemCount);
if (Main.itemCount == 1) {
SharedObject.notify();
System.out.println("Producer Notified the cosumer to wake up");
}
}
try {
int i = rn.nextInt(100);
Thread.sleep(i);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Consumer Class:
public class Consumer implements Runnable {
Object SharedObject = null;
String consumerName= null;
Random rn = new Random();
public Consumer(Main m, String s) {
SharedObject = m;
this.consumerName=s;
}
Consumer c= new Consumer((Main) SharedObject,consumerName);
synchronized void consume(){
synchronized (SharedObject) {
if (Main.itemCount == 0) {
try {
System.out.println(this.consumerName+" is sleeping and waiting for notify from Producer");
SharedObject.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Main.itemCount--;
System.out.println(this.consumerName+" consumed 1 item and the item Count is " + Main.itemCount);
if (Main.itemCount == 4) {
SharedObject.notifyAll();
System.out.println("Consumer notified the producer to wake up");
}
}
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
c.consume();
try {
int i = rn.nextInt(100);
Thread.sleep(i);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Main Class:
public class Main {
static int itemCount = 0;
static int bufferSize = 5;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Main m = new Main();
Thread objP = new Thread(new Producer(m, "Producer1"));
Thread objC = new Thread(new Consumer(m, "Consumer1"));
Thread objC2 = new Thread(new Consumer(m, "Consumer2"));
Thread objC3 = new Thread(new Consumer(m, "Consumer3"));
objP.start();
objC.start();
objC2.start();
objC3.start();
}
}

You are using notifyAll in the producer, which wakes up all consumer threads waiting on the monitor. If you want only one consumer to wake up, you should use notify From the API documentation:
notify()
Wakes up a single thread that is waiting on this object's monitor.
notifyAll()
Wakes up all threads that are waiting on this object's monitor.
It would also be better for your consumers to actually check that they can consume a resource when they are woken up. If you want to continue to use notifyAll, a consumer should be able to be awoken, and if insufficient resource is available, go back to waiting.
I suggest printing the main.itemCount. This will make it more obvious what the problems you have are.
You have to pay attention to when you are calling notify.
Why does your producer only call notify when there is exactly one item available? Shouldn't the producer call notify whenever there is an item available?
The consumer only tells the producer to wake up when there are 4 items (isn't this full?).

Actually changing notifyAll() to notify() kindoff worked!!! thanks for ua suggestion guys. Here is my code:
Producer class:
package com.source;
import java.util.Random;
public class Producer implements Runnable {
Object SharedObject = null;
String producerName = null;
Random rn = new Random();
public Producer(Main m, String s) {
this.SharedObject = m;
this.producerName = s;
}
public Producer(Main m) {
this.SharedObject = m;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (SharedObject) {
if (Main.itemCount == Main.bufferSize) {
try {
System.out
.println(this.producerName + "is sleeping and waiting for notification form Consumer");
SharedObject.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Main.itemCount++;
System.out.println(this.producerName + " Produced the item and the item count is : " + Main.itemCount);
if (Main.itemCount == 1) {
SharedObject.notify();
System.out.println("Producer Notified the cosumer to wake up");
}
}
try {
int i = rn.nextInt(100);
Thread.sleep(i);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Consumer Class:
package com.source;
import java.util.Random;
public class Consumer implements Runnable {
Object SharedObject = null;
String consumerName = null;
Random rn = new Random();
public Consumer(Main m, String s) {
SharedObject = m;
this.consumerName = s;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (SharedObject) {
if (Main.itemCount == 0) {
try {
System.out.println(this.consumerName + " is sleeping and waiting for notify from Producer");
SharedObject.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Main.itemCount--;
System.out.println(this.consumerName + " consumed 1 item and the item Count is " + Main.itemCount);
if (Main.itemCount == 4) {
SharedObject.notify();
System.out.println("Consumer notified the producer to wake up");
}
}
try {
int i = rn.nextInt(1000);
Thread.sleep(i);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Main Class:
package com.source;
public class Main {
static int itemCount = 0;
static int bufferSize = 5;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Main m = new Main();
Thread objP = new Thread(new Producer(m, "Producer1"));
Thread objC = new Thread(new Consumer(m, "Consumer1"));
Thread objC2 = new Thread(new Consumer(m, "Consumer2"));
Thread objC3 = new Thread(new Consumer(m, "Consumer3"));
Thread objP2 = new Thread(new Producer(m, "Producer2"));
Thread objP3 = new Thread(new Producer(m, "Producer3"));
objP.start();
objC.start();
objC2.start();
objC3.start();
objP2.start();
objP3.start();
}
}
Once again thanks to everyone for your valuable time and suggestions.

Sounds like you are past your initial problem but here's some more feedback.
I believe your real problem was not because of notifyAll() but because your buffer tests were if tests instead of while loops. There are classic race conditions where a thread gets awaken but there are no elements in the buffer. See my notes here. So you code should be something like:
while (Main.itemCount == Main.bufferSize) {
and
while (Main.itemCount == 0) {
Calling notifyAll() exacerbated the problem but the race conditions still exist even with just notify(). As you add more consumers or another producer you will see more problems.
Here is some other feedback.
Be very careful of locks within locks. That is a bad pattern typically and one that I use very infrequently. Do you really need consume() to be synchronized?
Object instance names should start with a lowercase letter so it should be sharedObject.
Any object that you are locking on should be private final if at all possible. You wouldn't want it changing to another object.
Using Main. anything is a bad pattern. How about creating an object with the itemCount and bufferSize and then passing the same instance of that object to all of our producer and consumers? It would also be the object you would lock on.
Be careful of sprinkling your thread code with System.out.println(...) messages as others have recommended. System.out is a synchronized class so this will add locks and memory synchronization that may move or fix the problem. Yes. Debugging threaded programs is hard.

Cannot .stop() .wait() or stop the thread in any way

I am having troubles with stopping a thread which is started from outside the class using a actionPerformed on a JButton. Code of the thread class below.
public synchronized void run ()
{
try
{
do
{
int minuta = vrijeme / 60;
int sekundi = vrijeme % 60;
System.out.println(minuta+" "+sekundi);
vrijeme = vrijeme - 1;
delay = delay - 1000;
if (minuta == stani && sekundi == 0)
{
}
try
{
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
while (delay != 0);
{
//
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
System.out.println("Stao" + e);
}
}
void pokreniThread()
{
(new Thread(new OdredenoVrijeme())).start();
}
synchronized public void zaustaviThread()
{
try
{
(new Thread(new OdredenoVrijeme())).wait();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
System.out.println("stao" +e);
}
}
}
Every time i call .sleep() .wait() or anything similar i get the following catch message:
java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException

Under Java, you cannot have a sleep in the main process. Create a sub-thread, which will do the sleep, then post a message to a handler in the main-thread, to do something after the timeout.
If you want to stop a thread itself, set a variable inside the thread like is_stopping=true, then inside the thread you could set a variable is_running=false after the thread stops itself.
is_running=true;
while (is_running & !is_stopping)
{
do_something();
sleep();
}
is_stopping=false;
is_running=false;

In java the main thread is playing a scheduler part in the program. So in a multithreading situation you have these parts:
scheduler/controller
provider
customer
The main thread should always play the scheduler/controller part of the program. BTW you are not using multithreading in a good way. use synchronized when its absolutely necessary.
look at the following code. you should use synchronization like this:
public class BlockingQueue<T> {
private Queue<T> queue = new LinkedList<T>();
private int capacity;
public BlockingQueue(int capacity) {
this.capacity = capacity;
}
public synchronized void put(T element) throws InterruptedException {
while(queue.size() == capacity) {
wait();
}
queue.add(element);
notify(); // notifyAll() for multiple producer/consumer threads
}
public synchronized T take() throws InterruptedException {
while(queue.isEmpty()) {
wait();
}
T item = queue.remove();
notify(); // notifyAll() for multiple producer/consumer threads
return item;
}

You cannot stop a thread from an external context. The thread should stop itself when some condition changes.
You have to hold a flag in your thread that you want to stop, and the thread to check the flag in a loop. If the flag is changed, then the thread itself should do nothing and it will exit by itself

How to stop the printing in thread A from thread B?

I have written some Java code, which will call a C interrupt handler.
In Java thread A, I use waitFor() to wait the interrupt coming and then execute reboot.
In Java thread B, I will loop printing a counter value and sleep several milliseconds.
And I hope when I detect the interrupt, and then stop the printing in thread B at once, but failed. In fact, the system detects the interrupt in time, but the printing continues for maybe 10 seconds and then reboot. Note: reboot occurs maybe 11 seconds after the interrupt(press a button), the hardware is not fast.
Below is my code, any suggestion? Thanks!
import java.io.IOException;
class ThreadTesterA implements Runnable
{
private int counter;
private String cmds[] = new String[1];
private Process pcs;
#Override
public void run()
{
cmds[0] = "./gpio-interrupt";
try {
pcs = Runtime.getRuntime().exec(cmds);
if(pcs.waitFor() != 0) {
System.out.println("error");
} else {
ThreadTesterB.setClosed(true);
}
} catch (IOException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class ThreadTesterB implements Runnable
{
private int i;
private static boolean closed=false;
public static void setClosed(boolean closed)
{
closed = closed;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
// replace it with what you need to do
while (!closed) {
System.out.println("i = " + i);
i++;
try {
Thread.sleep(20);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println();
}
}
public class ThreadTester
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
Thread t1 = new Thread(new ThreadTesterA());
Thread t2 = new Thread(new ThreadTesterB());
t1.start();
t1.setPriority(Thread.MAX_PRIORITY);
//t1.join(); // wait t1 to be finished
t2.start();
//t2.join();
}
}

You're writing and reading a boolean variable (closed) from 2 different threads without any kind of synchronization. There is thus no guarantee that what you wrote in one thread is visible in the other thread. You need to either
make the boolean variable volatile
access the boolean variable (writing and reading) using blocks or methods synchronized on the same lock
use an AtomicBoolean instead of a boolean
I would use the third solution.

Suggestions on my implementation of Producer Consumer

I am naive in multi-threading and is trying to learn it's concepts. This is my implementation for Producer-Consumer problem. Please have a look and suggest me if it is incorrect/crude/any other suggestions that could improve my design.
static int data = 0;
static Object obj1 = new Object();
static class Producer implements Runnable {
public void run() {
produce();
}
void produce() {
while (true) {
if (data < 5){
synchronized(obj1){
System.out.println("Producing Data. Now Data is "+data++);
obj1.notifyAll();
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
else{
try {
System.out.println("Producer inactive");
synchronized(obj1){
obj1.wait();
}
System.out.println("Producer active");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
static class Consumer implements Runnable{
public void run(){
consume();
}
void consume() {
while (true) {
if (data > 0){
synchronized(obj1){
System.out.println("Consuming Data. Now Data is "+data--);
obj1.notifyAll();
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
else{
try {
System.out.println("Consumer Inactive");
synchronized(obj1){
obj1.wait();
}
System.out.println("Consumer Active");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}

Ok several points. Producer and Consumer usually share a data structure. The use of the static data is very odd and quite frankly makes no sense. Typically what you'll want to share is a data structure like a queue between producer and consumer. The producer will add things on to the tail of the queue and the consumer(s) will draw things from the head of the queue (FIFO - first in first out). Right now I see none of that so what exactly is it producing vs consuming?
A good producer consumer architecture doesn't care too much about what type of data is exchanged so you can pass many different types of things over it. That's where object oriented command architecture will help you out. In this example SomeMessage represents the root of some object hierarchy so a variety of messages can be exchanged.
Here is a simple example of how you should instantiate a Producer-Consumer architecture in your program:
public class SomeClient {
public void start() {
Queue sharedQueue = new LinkedList();
producer = new Producer( sharedQueue );
consumer = new Consumer( sharedQueue );
producer.start();
consumer.start();
}
}
Here is the implementation of that:
public class Producer implements Runnable {
Thread thread;
Queue queue;
public Producer(Queue queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
public void start() {
thread = new Thread(this);
thread.start();
}
public void shutdown() {
thread.interrupt(); // request a shutdown
thread.join(); // make sure we wait until Producer.thread exits before this thread continues
}
public void run() {
try {
while( !Thread.isInterrupted() ) {
SomeMessage message = produceAMessage();
synchronized( queue ) {
queue.add( message );
queue.notifyAll();
}
}
} catch( InterruptedException ex ) {
System.out.println("Producer shutting down per request.");
} finally {
thread = null;
}
}
}
public class Consumer implements Runnable {
Thread thread;
Queue queue;
public Consumer( Queue queue ) {
this.queue = queue;
}
public void start() {
thread = new Thread( this );
thread.start();
}
public void shutdown() {
thread.interrupt(); // request a shutdown
thread.join(); // make sure we wait until Consumer.thread exits before this thread continues
}
public void run() {
try {
while( !thread.isInterrupted() ) {
SomeMessage message = take();
doSomethingWithMessage( message );
}
} catch( InterruptedException ex ) {
System.out.println("Stop processing - consumer per request.");
} finally {
thread = null;
}
}
private SomeMessage take() throws InterruptedException {
synchronized( queue ) {
queue.wait();
return queue.remove();
}
}
}
A couple of things that differ in this implementation. Producer and Consumer share a Queue instance and they use that instance to perform synchronized calls on. That way neither write or read from that structure without owning the lock. After they have either added to the queue (producer) or removed from the queue (consumer) they are free from needing to use synchronization. They are free to process without needing to communicate with each other. They trade instances of SomeMessage between each instance by adding to the tail and drawing from the head.
The take() method is very important in this code. Without the helper method you can't process the message AND release the lock. This important so that your Consumer can receive a message and let go of the lock to allow other Producers/Consumers to add/remove messages while this particular Consumer is processing a message. This keeps throughput as fast as possible.
And yes I said Producers. This architecture allows for multiple Producers AND multiple Consumers without needing to change the internals of either Producer or Consumer.
Notice that catching InterruptedException is outside the while loop. This is very important if you want a predictable program that shuts down cleanly. An InterruptedException and interrupted concept is the heart of well behaving Java threads. If you don't know under what conditions this exception is generated you'll never understand multi-threaded apps in Java. It's not a random occurrence. Java threads can't be stopped programatically. Another thread must request it to interrupt itself. And the thread must obey the request or else it won't stop. So if we get one. Shutdown. In this program we'll only get it when we call wait or notify which means while we're processing a message we won't be interrupted. Consumers will finish processing messages before halting.
Finally, it's actually much easier to implement a Producer-Consumer relationship given the concurrency libraries in Java, but this is a good example of how you do it at the lowest level of Java to understand what those libraries are doing for you.

Encapsulating the consume and produce behaviors could be more more reusable. In the code below I decoupled the shared resource synchronization issues from consumer/producer thread which could be useful in solving similar problems like Object Pool and Connection Pool.
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.Queue;
public class ProducerConsumer {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SyncQueue syncQueue = new SyncQueue(1);
Producer producer = new Producer(syncQueue , 10);
Consumer consumer = new Consumer(syncQueue,10);
producer.start();
consumer.start();
}
}
class SyncQueue {
private Queue<Integer> queue = new LinkedList<Integer>();
private Integer size;
public SyncQueue(Integer size) {
super();
this.size = size;
this.signalledBefore = false;
}
public synchronized void put(Integer data){
while(queue.size() == size){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
queue.add(data);
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized Integer get(){
while(queue.isEmpty()){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Integer data = queue.remove();
notifyAll();
return data;
}
}
class Producer extends Thread{
private SyncQueue syncQueue;
private Integer size;
public Producer(SyncQueue syncQueue, Integer size) {
this.syncQueue = syncQueue;
this.size = size;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (Integer i = 0; i < size; i++) {
syncQueue.put(i);
System.out.println("Produced:" + i);
try {
sleep((int)Math.random()*100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
class Consumer extends Thread{
private SyncQueue syncQueue;
private Integer size;
public Consumer(SyncQueue syncQueue, Integer size) {
this.syncQueue = syncQueue;
this.size = size;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (Integer i = 0; i < size; i++) {
try {
sleep((int)Math.random()*100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Consumed:" + syncQueue.get());
}
}
}

How to pass parameter to an already running thread in java?

How to pass parameter to an already running thread in java -- not in the constructor, & probably without using wait() (possible ??)
Something similar to a comment in How can I pass a parameter to a Java Thread?
Do you mean passing a parameter to an already running thread ? Because all the current answers are about passing parameters to new threads... – Valentin Rocher May 18 '09 at 10:43
[edited]
yes, I was looking for something like the producer/consumer pattern.
I wanted something like a thread in which has the processing & is ready
for keyboard input. The other thread is just to monitor network and pass
on the received text to the processing thread.

Maybe what you really need is blocking queue.When you create the thread, you pass the blocking queue in and the thread should keep checking if there is any element in the queue. Outside the thread, you can put elements to the queue while the thread is "running". Blocking queue can prevent the thread from quit if their is nothing to do.
public class Test {
public static void main(String... args) {
final BlockingQueue<String> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<String>();
Thread running = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
String data = queue.take();
//handle the data
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("Error occurred:" + e);
}
}
}
});
running.start();
// Send data to the running thread
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
queue.offer("data " + i);
}
}
}

The "other thread" will have its own life, so you can't really communicate with it / pass parameters to it, unless it actively reads what you gives to it.
A thread which you allows you to communicate with it typically reads data from some buffered queue.
Have a look at ArrayBlockingQueue for instance, and read up on the Consumer-Producer pattern.

public class T1 implements Runnable {
//parameter of thread T1
public static AtomicBoolean flag = new AtomicBoolean();
#Override
public void run() {
}
}
public class T2 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
//parameter to an already running thread
T1.flag.set(true);
}
}

What about such way:
class TestRun implements Runnable
{
private int testInt = -1;
public void setInt(int i)
{
this.testInt = i;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
while (!isFinishing())
{
System.out.println("Working thread, int : " + testInt);
try
{
Thread.sleep(2500);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
.....
TestRun first = new TestRun();
TestRun second = new TestRun();
(new Thread(first)).start();
(new Thread(second)).start();
try
{
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
}
first.setInt(101);
second.setInt(102);