Develop Reference

WorkerThread: Wait for processing done (BlockingQueue)

im an building a multithreaded application, using WorkerThreads which process Tasks from BlockingQueues. The worker looks as follws (as an abstract class. subclasses implement processItem()).
abstract class WorkerThread extends Thread {
BlockingQueue<Task> q;
int tasksInSystem; // globally available
public void run() {
while(!interrupted()) {
Task t = q.take();
process(t);
tasksInSystem--;
}
}
abstract void process(Task t);
}
The special thing is that i'd like to wait for all tasks to complete.
My first idea was to:
count each added task
decrease the counter when processing completed.
But:
But there are different types of Tasks and different worker implementations and multiple queues. So I would have to maintain tons of different counters.
What I'd like to have:
q.waitForEmptyAndCompleted()
That would require the queue to keep track of the Tasks "in flight" and require the Worker Processes to signal when they are done (instead of tasksInsystem---;).
The worker is not able to increase that counter, because he would have to count the tasks after he took them from the queue. But another thread may become running right after the take() call, such that the worker was not able to increase the counter beforehand.
Hence, the counter increase and take() must be tied together (atomar). Which leads me to a specialized BlockingQueue.
I didn't find a premade solution. So my best guess is to implement my own BlockingQueue. Is there something that I could use instead (to avoid implementing and testing a thread-safe blocking queue on my own)? Or do you have any idea to implement that wait call differently?

OK, since general ExecutorService is not enough perhaps ForkJoinPool will work, it does not expose queue explicitly, but should be very easy to use given what you have described.
Key method is awaitQuiescence(long timeout, TimeUnit unit) which will wait until all submitted tasks have finished execution.

Java Executor with throttling/throughput control

I'm looking for a Java Executor that allows me to specify throttling/throughput/pacing limitations, for example, no more than say 100 tasks can be processed in a second -- if more tasks get submitted they should get queued and executed later. The main purpose of this is to avoid running into limits when hitting foreign APIs or servers.
I'm wondering whether either base Java (which I doubt, because I checked) or somewhere else reliable (e.g. Apache Commons) provides this, or if I have to write my own. Preferably something lightweight. I don't mind writing it myself, but if there's a "standard" version out there somewhere I'd at least like to look at it first.

Take a look at guavas RateLimiter:
A rate limiter. Conceptually, a rate limiter distributes permits at a
configurable rate. Each acquire() blocks if necessary until a permit
is available, and then takes it. Once acquired, permits need not be
released. Rate limiters are often used to restrict the rate at which
some physical or logical resource is accessed. This is in contrast to
Semaphore which restricts the number of concurrent accesses instead of
the rate (note though that concurrency and rate are closely related,
e.g. see Little's Law).
Its threadsafe, but still #Beta. Might be worth a try anyway.
You would have to wrap each call to the Executor with respect to the rate limiter. For a more clean solution you could create some kind of wrapper for the ExecutorService.
From the javadoc:
final RateLimiter rateLimiter = RateLimiter.create(2.0); // rate is "2 permits per second"
void submitTasks(List<Runnable> tasks, Executor executor) {
for (Runnable task : tasks) {
rateLimiter.acquire(); // may wait
executor.execute(task);
}
}

The Java Executor doesn't offer such a limitation, only limitation by amount of threads, which is not what you are looking for.
In general the Executor is the wrong place to limit such actions anyway, it should be at the moment where the Thread tries to call the outside server. You can do this for example by having a limiting Semaphore that threads wait on before they submit their requests.
Calling Thread:
public void run() {
// ...
requestLimiter.acquire();
connection.send();
// ...
}
While at the same time you schedule a (single) secondary thread to periodically (like every 60 seconds) releases acquired resources:
public void run() {
// ...
requestLimiter.drainPermits(); // make sure not more than max are released by draining the Semaphore empty
requestLimiter.release(MAX_NUM_REQUESTS);
// ...
}

no more than say 100 tasks can be processed in a second -- if more
tasks get submitted they should get queued and executed later
You need to look into Executors.newFixedThreadPool(int limit). This will allow you to limit the number of threads that can be executed simultaneously. If you submit more than one thread, they will be queued and executed later.
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(100);
Future<?> result1 = threadPool.submit(runnable1);
Future<?> result2 = threadPool.submit(runnable2);
Futurte<SomeClass> result3 = threadPool.submit(callable1);
...
Snippet above shows how you would work with an ExecutorService that allows no more than 100 threads to be executed simultaneously.
Update:
After going over the comments, here is what I have come up with (kinda stupid). How about manually keeping a track of threads that are to be executed ? How about storing them first in an ArrayList and then submitting them to the Executor based on how many threads have already been executed in the last one second.
So, lets say 200 tasks have been submitted into our maintained ArrayList, We can iterate and add 100 to the Executor. When a second passes, we can add few more threads based on how many have completed in theExecutor and so on

Depending on the scenario, and as suggested in one of the previous responses, the basic functionalities of a ThreadPoolExecutor may do the trick.
But if the threadpool is shared by multiple clients and you want to throttle, to restrict the usage of each one of them, making sure that one client won't use all the threads, then a BoundedExecutor will do the work.
More details can be found in the following example:
http://jcip.net/listings/BoundedExecutor.java

Personally I found this scenario quite interesting. In my case, I wanted to stress that the interesting phase to throttle is the consuming side one, as in classical Producer/Consumer concurrent theory. That's the opposite of some of the suggested answers before. This is, we don't want to block the submitting thread, but block the consuming threads based in a rate (tasks/second) policy. So, even if there are tasks ready in the queue, executing/consuming Threads may block waiting to meet the throtle policy.
That said, I think a good candidate would be the Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(int corePoolSize). This way you would need a simple queue in front of the executor (a simple LinkedBlockingQueue would suit), and then schedule a periodic task to pick actual tasks from the queue (ScheduledExecutorService.scheduleAtFixedRate). So, is not an straightforward solution, but it should perform goog enough if you try to throttle the consumers as discussed before.

Can limit it inside Runnable:
public static Runnable throttle (Runnable realRunner, long delay) {
Runnable throttleRunner = new Runnable() {
// whether is waiting to run
private boolean _isWaiting = false;
// target time to run realRunner
private long _timeToRun;
// specified delay time to wait
private long _delay = delay;
// Runnable that has the real task to run
private Runnable _realRunner = realRunner;
#Override
public void run() {
// current time
long now;
synchronized (this) {
// another thread is waiting, skip
if (_isWaiting) return;
now = System.currentTimeMillis();
// update time to run
// do not update it each time since
// you do not want to postpone it unlimited
_timeToRun = now+_delay;
// set waiting status
_isWaiting = true;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(_timeToRun-now);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
// clear waiting status before run
_isWaiting = false;
// do the real task
_realRunner.run();
}
}};
return throttleRunner;
}
Take from JAVA Thread Debounce and Throttle

How to use Thread Pool concept in Java?

I am creating a http proxy server in java. I have a class named Handler which is responsible for processing the requests and responses coming and going from web browser and to web server respectively. I have also another class named Copy which copies the inputStream object to outputStream object . Both these classes implement Runnable interface. I would like to use the concept of Thread pooling in my design, however i don't know how to go about that! Any hint or idea would be highly appreciated.

I suggest you look at Executor and ExecutorService. They add a lot of good stuff to make it easier to use Thread pools.
...
#Azad provided some good information and links. You should also buy and read the book Java Concurrency in Practice. (often abbreviated as JCiP) Note to stackoverflow big-wigs - how about some revenue link to Amazon???
Below is my brief summary of how to use and take advantage of ExecutorService with thread pools. Let's say you want 8 threads in the pool.
You can create one using the full featured constructors of ThreadPoolExecutor, e.g.
ExecutorService service = new ThreadPoolExecutor(8,8, more args here...);
or you can use the simpler but less customizable Executors factories, e.g.
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(8);
One advantage you immediately get is the ability to shutdown() or shutdownNow() the thread pool, and to check this status via isShutdown() or isTerminated().
If you don't care much about the Runnable you wish to run, or they are very well written, self-contained, never fail or log any errors appropriately, etc... you can call
execute(Runnable r);
If you do care about either the result (say, it calculates pi or downloads an image from a webpage) and/or you care if there was an Exception, you should use one of the submit methods that returns a Future. That allows you, at some time in the future, check if the task isDone() and to retrieve the result via get(). If there was an Exception, get() will throw it (wrapped in an ExecutionException). Note - even of your Future doesn't "return" anything (it is of type Void) it may still be good practice to call get() (ignoring the void result) to test for an Exception.
However, this checking the Future is a bit of chicken and egg problem. The whole point of a thread pool is to submit tasks without blocking. But Future.get() blocks, and Future.isDone() begs the questions of which thread is calling it, and what it does if it isn't done - do you sleep() and block?
If you are submitting a known chunk of related of tasks simultaneously, e.g., you are performing some big mathematical calculation like a matrix multiply that can be done in parallel, and there is no particular advantage to obtaining partial results, you can call invokeAll(). The calling thread will then block until all the tasks are complete, when you can call Future.get() on all the Futures.
What if the tasks are more disjointed, or you really want to use the partial results? Use ExecutorCompletionService, which wraps an ExecutorService. As tasks get completed, they are added to a queue. This makes it easy for a single thread to poll and remove events from the queue. JCiP has a great example of an web page app that downloads all the images in parallel, and renders them as soon as they become available for responsiveness.

I hope below will help you:,
class Executor
An object that executes submitted Runnable tasks. This interface provides a way of decoupling task submission from the mechanics of how each task will be run, including details of thread use, scheduling, etc. An Executor is normally used instead of explicitly creating threads. For example, rather than invoking new Thread(new(RunnableTask())).start() for each of a set of tasks, you might use:
Executor executor = anExecutor;
executor.execute(new RunnableTask1());
executor.execute(new RunnableTask2());
...
class ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor
A ThreadPoolExecutor that can additionally schedule commands to run after a given delay, or to execute periodically. This class is preferable to Timer when multiple worker threads are needed, or when the additional flexibility or capabilities of ThreadPoolExecutor (which this class extends) are required.
Delayed tasks execute no sooner than they are enabled, but without any real-time guarantees about when, after they are enabled, they will commence. Tasks scheduled for exactly the same execution time are enabled in first-in-first-out (FIFO) order of submission.
and
Interface ExecutorService
An Executor that provides methods to manage termination and methods that can produce a Future for tracking progress of one or more asynchronous tasks.
An ExecutorService can be shut down, which will cause it to stop accepting new tasks. After being shut down, the executor will eventually terminate, at which point no tasks are actively executing, no tasks are awaiting execution, and no new tasks can be submitted.
Edited:
you can find example to use Executor and ExecutorService herehereand here Question will be useful for you.

What are the advantages of using an ExecutorService?

What is the advantage of using ExecutorService over running threads passing a Runnable into the Thread constructor?

ExecutorService abstracts away many of the complexities associated with the lower-level abstractions like raw Thread. It provides mechanisms for safely starting, closing down, submitting, executing, and blocking on the successful or abrupt termination of tasks (expressed as Runnable or Callable).
From JCiP, Section 6.2, straight from the horse's mouth:
Executor may be a simple interface, but it forms the basis for a flexible and powerful framework for asynchronous task execution that supports a wide variety of task execution policies. It provides a standard means of decoupling task submission from task execution, describing tasks as Runnable. The Executor implementations also provide lifecycle support and hooks for adding statistics gathering, application management, and monitoring.
...
Using an Executor is usually the easiest path to implementing a producer-consumer design in your application.
Rather than spending your time implementing (often incorrectly, and with great effort) the underlying infrastructure for parallelism, the j.u.concurrent framework allows you to instead focus on structuring tasks, dependencies, potential parallelism. For a large swath of concurrent applications, it is straightforward to identify and exploit task boundaries and make use of j.u.c, allowing you to focus on the much smaller subset of true concurrency challenges which may require more specialized solutions.
Also, despite the boilerplate look and feel, the Oracle API page summarizing the concurrency utilities includes some really solid arguments for using them, not least:
Developers are likely to already
understand the standard library
classes, so there is no need to learn
the API and behavior of ad-hoc
concurrent components. Additionally,
concurrent applications are far
simpler to debug when they are built
on reliable, well-tested components.
Java concurrency in practice is a good book on concurrency. If you haven't already, get yourself a copy. The comprehensive approach to concurrency presented there goes well beyond this question, and will save you a lot of heartache in the long run.

An advantage I see is in managing/scheduling several threads. With ExecutorService, you don't have to write your own thread manager which can be plagued with bugs. This is especially useful if your program needs to run several threads at once. For example you want to execute two threads at a time, you can easily do it like this:
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
exec.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("Hello world");
}
});
exec.shutdown();
The example may be trivial, but try to think that the "hello world" line consists of a heavy operation and you want that operation to run in several threads at a time in order to improve your program's performance. This is just one example, there are still many cases that you want to schedule or run several threads and use ExecutorService as your thread manager.
For running a single thread, I don't see any clear advantage of using ExecutorService.

The following limitations from traditional Thread overcome by Executor framework(built-in Thread Pool framework).
Poor Resource Management i.e. It keep on creating new resource for every request. No limit to creating resource. Using Executor framework we can reuse the existing resources and put limit on creating resources.
Not Robust : If we keep on creating new thread we will get StackOverflowException exception consequently our JVM will crash.
Overhead Creation of time : For each request we need to create new resource. To creating new resource is time consuming. i.e. Thread Creating > task. Using Executor framework we can get built in Thread Pool.
Benefits of Thread Pool
Use of Thread Pool reduces response time by avoiding thread creation during request or task processing.
Use of Thread Pool allows you to change your execution policy as you need. you can go from single thread to multiple thread by just replacing ExecutorService implementation.
Thread Pool in Java application increases stability of system by creating a configured number of threads decided based on system load and available resource.
Thread Pool frees application developer from thread management stuff and allows to focus on business logic.
Source

Below are some benefits:
Executor service manage thread in asynchronous way
Use Future callable to get the return result after thread completion.
Manage allocation of work to free thread and resale completed work from thread for assigning new work automatically
fork - join framework for parallel processing
Better communication between threads
invokeAll and invokeAny give more control to run any or all thread at once
shutdown provide capability for completion of all thread assigned work
Scheduled Executor Services provide methods for producing repeating invocations of runnables and callables
Hope it will help you

Is it really that expensive to create a new thread?
As a benchmark, I just created 60,000 threads with Runnables with empty run() methods. After creating each thread, I called its start(..) method immediately. This took about 30 seconds of intense CPU activity. Similar experiments have been done in response to this question. The summary of those is that if the threads do not finish immediately, and a large number of active threads accumulate (a few thousand), then there will be problems: (1) each thread has a stack, so you will run out of memory, (2) there might be a limit on the number of threads per process imposed by the OS, but not necessarily, it seems.
So, as far as I can see, if we're talking about launching say 10 threads per second, and they all finish faster than new ones start, and we can guarantee that this rate won't be exceeded too much, then the ExecutorService doesn't offer any concrete advantage in visible performance or stability. (Though it may still make it more convenient or readable to express certain concurrency ideas in code.) On the other hand, if you might be scheduling hundreds or thousands of tasks per second, which take time to run, you could run into big problems straight away. This might happen unexpectedly, e.g. if you create threads in response to requests to a server, and there is a spike in the intensity of requests that your server receives. But e.g. one thread in response to every user input event (key press, mouse motion) seems to be perfectly fine, as long as the tasks are brief.

ExecutorService also gives access to FutureTask which will return to the calling class the results of a background task once completed. In the case of implementing Callable
public class TaskOne implements Callable<String> {
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
String message = "Task One here. . .";
return message;
}
}
public class TaskTwo implements Callable<String> {
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
String message = "Task Two here . . . ";
return message;
}
}
// from the calling class
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
// set of Callable types
Set<Callable<String>>callables = new HashSet<Callable<String>>();
// add tasks to Set
callables.add(new TaskOne());
callables.add(new TaskTwo());
// list of Future<String> types stores the result of invokeAll()
List<Future<String>>futures = service.invokeAll(callables);
// iterate through the list and print results from get();
for(Future<String>future : futures) {
System.out.println(future.get());
}

Prior to java 1.5 version, Thread/Runnable was designed for two separate services
Unit of work
Execution of that unit of work
ExecutorService decouples those two services by designating Runnable/Callable as unit of work and Executor as a mechanism to execute ( with lifecycling) the unit of work

Executor Framework
//Task
Runnable someTask = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Hello World!");
}
};
//Thread
Thread thread = new Thread(someTask);
thread.start();
//Executor
Executor executor = new Executor() {
#Override
public void execute(Runnable command) {
Thread thread = new Thread(someTask);
thread.start();
}
};
Executor is just an interface which accept Runnable. execute() method can just call command.run() or working with other classes which use Runnable(e.g. Thread)
interface Executor
execute(Runnable command)
ExecutorService interface which extends Executor and adds methods for managing - shutdown() and submit() which returns Future[About] - get(), cancel()
interface ExecutorService extends Executor
Future<?> submit(Runnable task)
shutdown()
...
ScheduledExecutorService extends ExecutorService for planning executing tasks
interface ScheduledExecutorService extends ExecutorService
schedule()
Executors class which is a Factory to provide ExecutorService realisations for running async tasks[About]
class Executors
newFixedThreadPool() returns ThreadPoolExecutor
newCachedThreadPool() returns ThreadPoolExecutor
newSingleThreadExecutor() returns FinalizableDelegatedExecutorService
newWorkStealingPool() returns ForkJoinPool
newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor() returns DelegatedScheduledExecutorService
newScheduledThreadPool() returns ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor
...
Conclusion
Working with Thread is an expensive operation for CPU and memory.
ThreadPoolExecutor consist of Task Queue(BlockingQueue) and Thread Pool(Set of Worker) which have better performance and API to handle async tasks

Creating a large number of threads with no restriction to the maximum threshold can cause application to run out of heap memory. Because of that creating a ThreadPool is much better solution. Using ThreadPool we can limit the number of threads can be pooled and reused.
Executors framework facilitate process of creating Thread pools in java. Executors class provide simple implementation of ExecutorService using ThreadPoolExecutor.
Source:
What is Executors Framework

How to wait for all tasks in an ThreadPoolExecutor to finish without shutting down the Executor?

I can't use shutdown() and awaitTermination() because it is possible new tasks will be added to the ThreadPoolExecutor while it is waiting.
So I'm looking for a way to wait until the ThreadPoolExecutor has emptied it's queue and finished all of it's tasks without stopping new tasks from being added before that point.
If it makes any difference, this is for Android.
Thanks
Update: Many weeks later after revisiting this, I discovered that a modified CountDownLatch worked better for me in this case. I'll keep the answer marked because it applies more to what I asked.

If you are interested in knowing when a certain task completes, or a certain batch of tasks, you may use ExecutorService.submit(Runnable). Invoking this method returns a Future object which may be placed into a Collection which your main thread will then iterate over calling Future.get() for each one. This will cause your main thread to halt execution until the ExecutorService has processed all of the Runnable tasks.
Collection<Future<?>> futures = new LinkedList<Future<?>>();
futures.add(executorService.submit(myRunnable));
for (Future<?> future:futures) {
future.get();
}

My Scenario is a web crawler to fetch some information from a web site then processing them. A ThreadPoolExecutor is used to speed up the process because many pages can be loaded in the time. So new tasks will be created in the existing task because the crawler will follow hyperlinks in each page. The problem is the same: the main thread do not know when all the tasks are completed and it can start to process the result. I use a simple way to determine this. It is not very elegant but works in my case:
while (executor.getTaskCount()!=executor.getCompletedTaskCount()){
System.err.println("count="+executor.getTaskCount()+","+executor.getCompletedTaskCount());
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
executor.shutdown();
executor.awaitTermination(60, TimeUnit.SECONDS);

Maybe you are looking for a CompletionService to manage batches of task, see also this answer.

(This is an attempt to reproduce Thilo's earlier, deleted answer with my own adjustments.)
I think you may need to clarify your question since there is an implicit infinite condition... at some point you have to decide to shut down your executor, and at that point it won't accept any more tasks. Your question seems to imply that you want to wait until you know that no further tasks will be submitted, which you can only know in your own application code.
The following answer will allow you to smoothly transition to a new TPE (for whatever reason), completing all the currently-submitted tasks, and not rejecting new tasks to the new TPE. It might answer your question. #Thilo's might also.
Assuming you have defined somewhere a visible TPE in use as such:
AtomicReference<ThreadPoolExecutor> publiclyAvailableTPE = ...;
You can then write the TPE swap routine as such. It could also be written using a synchronized method, but I think this is simpler:
void rotateTPE()
{
ThreadPoolExecutor newTPE = createNewTPE();
// atomic swap with publicly-visible TPE
ThreadPoolExecutor oldTPE = publiclyAvailableTPE.getAndSet(newTPE);
oldTPE.shutdown();
// and if you want this method to block awaiting completion of old tasks in
// the previously visible TPE
oldTPE.awaitTermination();
}
Alternatively, if you really no kidding want to kill the thread pool, then your submitter side will need to cope with rejected tasks at some point, and you could use null for the new TPE:
void killTPE()
{
ThreadPoolExecutor oldTPE = publiclyAvailableTPE.getAndSet(null);
oldTPE.shutdown();
// and if you want this method to block awaiting completion of old tasks in
// the previously visible TPE
oldTPE.awaitTermination();
}
Which could cause upstream problems, the caller would need to know what to do with a null.
You could also swap out with a dummy TPE that simply rejected every new execution, but that's equivalent to what happens if you call shutdown() on the TPE.

If you don't want to use shutdown, follow below approaches:
Iterate through all Future tasks from submit on ExecutorService and check the status with blocking call get() on Future object as suggested by Tim Bender
Use one of
Using invokeAll on ExecutorService
Using CountDownLatch
Using ForkJoinPool or newWorkStealingPool of Executors(since java 8)
invokeAll() on executor service also achieves the same purpose of CountDownLatch
Related SE question:
How to wait for a number of threads to complete?

You could call the waitTillDone() on Runner class:
Runner runner = Runner.runner(10);
runner.runIn(2, SECONDS, runnable);
runner.run(runnable); // each of this runnables could submit more tasks
runner.waitTillDone(); // blocks until all tasks are finished (or failed)
// and now reuse it
runner.runIn(500, MILLISECONDS, callable);
runner.waitTillDone();
runner.shutdown();
To use it add this gradle/maven dependency to your project: 'com.github.matejtymes:javafixes:1.0'
For more details look here: https://github.com/MatejTymes/JavaFixes or here: http://matejtymes.blogspot.com/2016/04/executor-that-notifies-you-when-task.html

Try using queue size and active tasks count as shown below
while (executor.getThreadPoolExecutor().getActiveCount() != 0 || !executor.getThreadPoolExecutor().getQueue().isEmpty()){
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}