Develop Reference

Stopping a thread in java CompletableFuture after timeout

I have an async chain in my java code that i want to stop after a certain timeout
so i created a threadPool with some threads and called the CompletableFuture like this
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
than i have a cyclic method that loads data from the db and executes some task on it, once all the CompletableFutures are completed its doing it again
CompletableFuture<MyObject> futureTask =
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> candidate, pool)
.thenApply(Task1::doWork).thenApply(Task2::doWork).thenApply(Task3::doWork)
.thenApply(Task4::doWork).thenApply(Task5::doWork).orTimeout(30,TimeUnit.SECONDS)
.thenApply(Task6::doWork).orTimeout(30,TimeUnit.SECONDS)
.exceptionally(ExceptionHandlerService::handle);
My problem is in task6, that has a very intensive task (its a network connection task that sometimes hangs forever)
i noticed that my orTimeout is being fired correctly after 30 seconds, but the thread running Task6 is still being running
after few cycles like this, all my threads are drained and my app dies
How can i cancel the running threads on the pool after the timeout has reached?
(without calling pool.shutdown())
UPDATE*
inside the main thread i did a simple check as shown here
for (int i = TIME_OUT_SECONDS; i >= 0; i--) {
unfinishedTasks = handleFutureTasks(unfinishedTasks, totalBatchSize);
if(unfinishedTasks.isEmpty()) {
break;
}
if(i==0) {
//handle cancelation of the tasks
for(CompletableFuture<ComplianceCandidate> task: unfinishedTasks) {
**task.cancel(true);**
log.error("Reached timeout on task, is canceled: {}", task.isCancelled());
}
break;
}
try {
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(1);
} catch (Exception ex) {
}
}
What i see is that after few cycles, all the tasks complain about timeout...
in the first 1-2 cycles, i still get epected responses (while there are threads to process it)
i still feel that the thread pool is exhausted

I know you said without calling pool.shutDown, but there is simply no other way. When you look at your stages though, they will run in either the thread that "appends" them (adding those thenApply) or a thread from that pool that you define. May be an example should make more sense.
public class SO64743332 {
static ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
public static void main(String[] args) {
CompletableFuture<String> f1 = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> dbCall(), pool);
//simulateWork(4);
CompletableFuture<String> f2 = f1.thenApply(x -> {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
return transformationOne(x);
});
CompletableFuture<String> f3 = f2.thenApply(x -> {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
return transformationTwo(x);
});
f3.join();
}
private static String dbCall() {
simulateWork(2);
return "a";
}
private static String transformationOne(String input) {
return input + "b";
}
private static String transformationTwo(String input) {
return input + "b";
}
private static void simulateWork(int seconds) {
try {
Thread.sleep(TimeUnit.SECONDS.toMillis(seconds));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Interrupted!");
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
They key point of the above code is this : simulateWork(4);. Run the code with it commented out and then uncomment it. See what thread is actually going to execute all those thenApply. It is either main or the same thread from the pool, meaning although you have a pool defined - it's only a single thread from that pool that will execute all those stages.
In this context, you could define a single thread executor (inside a method let's say) that will run all those stages. This way you could control when to call shutDownNow and potentially interrupt (if your code responds to interrupts) the running task. Here is a made-up example that simulates that:
public class SO64743332 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
execute();
}
public static void execute() {
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
CompletableFuture<String> cf1 = CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> dbCall(), pool);
CompletableFuture<String> cf2 = cf1.thenApply(x -> transformationOne(x));
// give enough time for transformationOne to start, but not finish
simulateWork(2);
try {
CompletableFuture<String> cf3 = cf2.thenApply(x -> transformationTwo(x))
.orTimeout(4, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
cf3.get(10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (ExecutionException | InterruptedException | TimeoutException e) {
pool.shutdownNow();
}
}
private static String dbCall() {
System.out.println("Started DB call");
simulateWork(1);
System.out.println("Done with DB call");
return "a";
}
private static String transformationOne(String input) {
System.out.println("Started work");
simulateWork(10);
System.out.println("Done work");
return input + "b";
}
private static String transformationTwo(String input) {
System.out.println("Started transformation two");
return input + "b";
}
private static void simulateWork(int seconds) {
try {
Thread.sleep(TimeUnit.SECONDS.toMillis(seconds));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Interrupted!");
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Running this you should notice that transformationOne starts, but it is interrupted because of the shutDownNow.
The drawback of this should be obvious, every invocation of execute will create a new thread pool...

How do I get my threads to run in an orderly sequence?

I'm learning Java threads and want my code to output threads 0-9 in sequential order. I used the synchronized keyword but I don't get the results I expect.
What should I do to correct my code?
public class MyThread extends Thread {
private static final int threadMax = 10;
private static int runCount = 0;
public void printThread() {
synchronized (this) {
while (runCount++ < 100) {
System.out.println(runCount + ": " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public void run() {
printThread();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < threadMax; i++) {
new MyThread().start();
}
}
}

It is not working as every time you are creating new MyThread object and you are synchronized over that new object. So, every Thread you created will get a lock on the diffrent object. So, you should pass a common object to take the lock like below.
class MyThread extends Thread {
private static int runCount = 0;
Object lock;
public MyThread(Object lock) {
this.lock = lock;
}
public void printThread() {
synchronized (lock) {
// your code here
}
}
//.........
}
And then call it like :
Object lock = new Object();
for (int i = 0; i < threadMax; i++) {
new MyThread(lock).start();
}
However, the above program will not ensure you that it will run in sequence. There are several ways to do that. You can use wait() and notify() to achieve your goal. Refer the below example :
public void printThread() {
while (runCount < 90) {
synchronized (lock) {
while (runCount % 10 != remainder) {
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(runCount + ": " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
runCount++;
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
And call the thread like :
Object lock = new Object();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
new MyThread(lock, i).start();
}

You are synchronizing the context of the thread, which is different for each one. You should put into the synchronized key any common object for all diferent threads. This won't make them run in any certain secuence, just to wait each other to end.
If you want to test the synchronized keyword for any purpose, you could pass the constructor a common variable and use it in every thread:
public class MyThread extends Thread {
private static final int threadMax = 10;
private static int runCount = 0;
private Object test; //Object pointing main method
public MyThread(Object test){
this.test = test; //This won't copy values as it is an object and not a number, string...
}
public void printThread() {
synchronized (test) { //Same object for all threads
while (runCount++ < 100) {
System.out.println(runCount + ": " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public void run() {
printThread();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object test; //common object
for (int i = 0; i < threadMax; i++) {
new MyThread(test).start();
}
}
}
If you want also to make them start in order, you should "synchronize" the loop making wait and notify calls.
Anyway, the point about multithreading is to have several threads running at the "same" time and not in sequence, as that would be the same as a linear execution.

You have several tasks that you want to delegate to threads but have them executed sequentially.
As others have pointed out, wait & notify can help you achieve that : wait until Nth have finished then notify the next. However, if you wait/notify inside your printThread method, as all your threads are waiting simultaneously on the same lock, there is no guaranties that N+1th thread will be next. So you may have
1: thread-1
...
10: thread-1
11: thread-5
...
20: thread-5
21: thread-2
...
If that's ok for you, you're done. However, in a situation where you specifically want your threads to be ordered, what you need is a waiting queue (FIFO : First In First Out).
To achieve that, you can use the awesome ExecutorService. Be aware however that they hide the Threads from you and picking that solution should not be at the cost of understanding the basics of them beforehand.
An ExecutorService is a very convenient class that can receive tasks (in the form of a Runnable, see below) and will execute them in separate Threads.
Here, I'm using a SingleThreadExecutor which execute the submitted tasks sequentially. So all you have to do is call it's execute method with your tasks as arguments, and the ExecutorService will run them in the right order, one after the other.
Here's what you can do with a few notes :
public class ThreadRunner {
// Note : Constants are usually all uppercase in Java
private static final int MAX_THREADS = 10;
private final int threadName;
public ThreadRunner(int threadName) {
this.threadName = threadName;
}
public void printThread() {
// Note: For loops are better than while when you already know the number of iterations
for (int runCount = 0; runCount < 10; runCount++) {
System.out.println(runCount + "th run from thread " + threadName);
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS; i++) {
int threadName = i + 1;
// Submit a task to the executor
executorService.execute(() -> new ThreadRunner(threadName).printThread());
}
// Nicely ask for the executor to shutdown.
// Then wait for already submitted tasks to terminate.
executorService.shutdown();
try {
executorService.awaitTermination(120, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
I changed a few details, here are the reasons :
Thread creation : don't inherit from Thread
I would advise you not to inherit from Thread, but create a local instance of it, as all you need is to use a Thread ; you don't want to be a Thread :
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Using Java 1.8+ lambda
Thread lambdaThread = new Thread(() -> System.out.println("Hello from a lambda in a Thread"));
lambdaThread.start();
// Using an anonymous class for java <1.8
Thread anonClassThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Hello from an anonymous class in a Thread");
}
});
anonClassThread.start();
}
You're creating a new Thread passing a Runnable as constructor argument, using either lambda or anonymous class, depending of your Java version.
A Runnable is simply a portion of code that will be executed (by a Thread, in this case).
Same apply to ExecutorService, it's execute methode takes a Runnable which I've created through lambdas.
Sharing static counter between threads
Your line private static int runCount = 0; is a static field, which means it is shared by all instances of the class MyThread. When you increase it in a thread, all threads will read (and write) to the same variable.
If your threads were running sequentially, the first would do it's 100 iterations, then when the second thread starts, runCount is already at 100 and you're not entering your while loop. If that wasn't intended, it may be confusing when you'll test your code.
Based on your expected output in a comment, I believe you want your threads to do 10 iterations each, not share a pool of 100 iterations and manage somehow to have each of them only perform 10.
Having the name of the thread belong to each ThreadRunner
Small detail here : previously, you were creating 10 threads. Here, the ExecutorService only creates one that he reuse for each task you submit. So Thread.currentThread().getName() would always be thread-1.
You wouldn't be able to see which task is running without this field.
If each task is started after the previous, you don't need 10 Threads, but a single Thread performing the 10 tasks sequentially.
I've been as complete as possible, but some points might be a little bit tricky, so don't hesitate to ask for clarifications!

Editable queue of tasks running in background thread

I know this question was answered many times, but I'm struggling to understand how it works.
So in my application the user must be able to select items which will be added to a queue (displayed in a ListView using an ObservableList<Task>) and each item needs to be processed sequentially by an ExecutorService.
Also that queue should be editable (change the order and remove items from the list).
private void handleItemClicked(MouseEvent event) {
if (event.getClickCount() == 2) {
File item = listView.getSelectionModel().getSelectedItem();
Task<Void> task = createTask(item);
facade.getTaskQueueList().add(task); // this list is bound to a ListView, where it can be edited
Future result = executor.submit(task);
// where executor is an ExecutorService of which type?
try {
result.get();
} catch (Exception e) {
// ...
}
}
}
Tried it with executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1) but I don't have control over the queue.
I read about ThreadPoolExecutor and queues, but I'm struggling to understand it as I'm quite new to Concurrency.
I need to run that method handleItemClicked in a background thread, so that the UI does not freeze, how can I do that the best way?
Summed up: How can I implement a queue of tasks, which is editable and sequentially processed by a background thread?
Please help me figure it out
EDIT
Using the SerialTaskQueue class from vanOekel helped me, now I want to bind the List of tasks to my ListView.
ListProperty<Runnable> listProperty = new SimpleListProperty<>();
listProperty.set(taskQueue.getTaskList()); // getTaskList() returns the LinkedList from SerialTaskQueue
queueListView.itemsProperty().bind(listProperty);
Obviously this doesn't work as it's expecting an ObservableList. There is an elegant way to do it?

The simplest solution I can think of is to maintain the task-list outside of the executor and use a callback to feed the executor the next task if it is available. Unfortunately, it involves synchronization on the task-list and an AtomicBoolean to indicate a task executing.
The callback is simply a Runnable that wraps the original task to run and then "calls back" to see if there is another task to execute, and if so, executes it using the (background) executor.
The synchronization is needed to keep the task-list in order and at a known state. The task-list can be modified by two threads at the same time: via the callback running in the executor's (background) thread and via handleItemClicked method executed via the UI foreground thread. This in turn means that it is never exactly known when the task-list is empty for example. To keep the task-list in order and at a known fixed state, synchronization of the task-list is needed.
This still leaves an ambiguous moment to decide when a task is ready for execution. This is where the AtomicBoolean comes in: a value set is always immediatly availabe and read by any other thread and the compareAndSet method will always ensure only one thread gets an "OK".
Combining the synchronization and the use of the AtomicBoolean allows the creation of one method with a "critical section" that can be called by both foreground- and background-threads at the same time to trigger the execution of a new task if possible. The code below is designed and setup in such a way that one such method (runNextTask) can exist. It is good practice to make the "critical section" in concurrent code as simple and explicit as possible (which, in turn, generally leads to an efficient "critical section").
import java.util.*;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean;
public class SerialTaskQueue {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
// all operations on this list must be synchronized on the list itself.
SerialTaskQueue tq = new SerialTaskQueue(executor);
try {
// test running the tasks one by one
tq.add(new SleepSome(10L));
Thread.sleep(5L);
tq.add(new SleepSome(20L));
tq.add(new SleepSome(30L));
Thread.sleep(100L);
System.out.println("Queue size: " + tq.size()); // should be empty
tq.add(new SleepSome(10L));
Thread.sleep(100L);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}
// all lookups and modifications to the list must be synchronized on the list.
private final List<Runnable> tasks = new LinkedList<Runnable>();
// atomic boolean used to ensure only 1 task is executed at any given time
private final AtomicBoolean executeNextTask = new AtomicBoolean(true);
private final Executor executor;
public SerialTaskQueue(Executor executor) {
this.executor = executor;
}
public void add(Runnable task) {
synchronized(tasks) { tasks.add(task); }
runNextTask();
}
private void runNextTask() {
// critical section that ensures one task is executed.
synchronized(tasks) {
if (!tasks.isEmpty()
&& executeNextTask.compareAndSet(true, false)) {
executor.execute(wrapTask(tasks.remove(0)));
}
}
}
private CallbackTask wrapTask(Runnable task) {
return new CallbackTask(task, new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
if (!executeNextTask.compareAndSet(false, true)) {
System.out.println("ERROR: programming error, the callback should always run in execute state.");
}
runNextTask();
}
});
}
public int size() {
synchronized(tasks) { return tasks.size(); }
}
public Runnable get(int index) {
synchronized(tasks) { return tasks.get(index); }
}
public Runnable remove(int index) {
synchronized(tasks) { return tasks.remove(index); }
}
// general callback-task, see https://stackoverflow.com/a/826283/3080094
static class CallbackTask implements Runnable {
private final Runnable task, callback;
public CallbackTask(Runnable task, Runnable callback) {
this.task = task;
this.callback = callback;
}
#Override public void run() {
try {
task.run();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
try {
callback.run();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
// task that just sleeps for a while
static class SleepSome implements Runnable {
static long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
private final long sleepTimeMs;
public SleepSome(long sleepTimeMs) {
this.sleepTimeMs = sleepTimeMs;
}
#Override public void run() {
try {
System.out.println(tdelta() + "Sleeping for " + sleepTimeMs + " ms.");
Thread.sleep(sleepTimeMs);
System.out.println(tdelta() + "Slept for " + sleepTimeMs + " ms.");
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private String tdelta() { return String.format("% 4d ", (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime)); }
}
}
Update: if groups of tasks need to be executed serial, have a look at the adapted implementation here.

Parallel execution and termination of multiple threads

I have a simple application in which I create 3 threads inside a class to ping 3 different websites and note the time taken to do so.
I wish to enhance it by seeing which thread out of the 3 executes successfully first and terminating the other two .
Which class of the JDK would be helpful in doing so ? and how ?
Sample code to ping websites :
public static boolean pingUrl(final String address) {
try {
final URL url = new URL("http://" + address);
final HttpURLConnection urlConn = (HttpURLConnection) url.openConnection();
urlConn.setConnectTimeout(1000 * 10); // mTimeout is in seconds
final long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
urlConn.connect();
final long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (urlConn.getResponseCode() == HttpURLConnection.HTTP_OK) {
System.out.println("Time (ms) : " + (endTime - startTime));
System.out.println("Ping to "+address +" was success");
return true;
}
} catch (final MalformedURLException e1) {
e1.printStackTrace();
} catch (final IOException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return false;
}

I wish to enhance it by seeing which thread out of the 3 executes successfully first and terminating the other two .
I would use an ExecutorService combined with a ExecutorCompletionService. Then, when the first Future is returned from the completion service when the first task completes, you would call shutdownNow() on the ExecutorService.
The javadocs for ExecutorCompletionService are pretty good and show how to use it.
// maybe you want 10 threads working on your tasks
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
CompletionService<Result> ecs
= new ExecutorCompletionService<Result>(threadPool);
for (Callable<Result> task : tasks) {
// submit your tasks to the completion service, they run in the thread-pool
ecs.submit(task);
}
// once you get one result
Future<Result> future = ecs.take();
// kill the rest of the tasks
threadPool.shutdownNow();
Result result = future.get();
// probably will need to close the thread connections, see below
// maybe call threadPool.awaitShutdown(...) here to wait for the others to die
The only problem with this mechanism is that this will only interrupt the threads. In your case they are going to be stuck in urlConn.connect(); which is not interruptible. Once the ecs.take() returns, you are going to have to run back over your tasks and call disconnect() on the the HttpURLConnection that are still in progress. Even then I'm not sure if it will stop a connection that is currently underway. If that doesn't work then you may need to switch to using Apache HttpClient or some other class that you can close to stop the threads from waiting longer.
for (Callable<Result> task : tasks) {
// you'll need to do something like this
task.closeConnection();
}
In your case, your task might look something like:
public class MyPingTask implements Callable<Boolean> {
private String address;
public MyPingTask(String address) {
this.address = address;
}
public Boolean call() throws Exception {
// obviously the pingUrl code could go right here
return pingUrl(address);
}
}
Here is the Java tutorial on ExecutorService and related classes.

I suppose BlockingQueue may be useful. The main idea that spawned thread writes some value to BlockingQueue when finished and gracefully closes on InterruptedException
For example:
public void runPing(List<String> urls) {
Collection<Thread> runningThreads = new ArrayList<>(urls.size());
final BlockingQueue<Integer> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(urls.size());
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
final String url = urls.get(i);
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
pingUrl(url);
queue.add(1);
}
});
runningThreads.add(t);
}
try {
queue.poll(1, TimeUnit.HOURS);
interruptChilds(runningThreads);
} catch (Exception e) {
interruptChilds(runningThreads);
}
}
private void interruptChilds(Collection<Thread> runningThreads) {
for (Thread t : runningThreads) {
t.interrupt();
}
}
Please note that in there are no handling of InterruptedException. It should be added in your method

Thread.interrupt() and java.io.InterruptedIOException

I'm running Java 1.5 on Solaris 10.
My program is a standalone java program, using java concurrency package and log4j-1.2.12.jar to log certain information. primary logic is as below
ExecutorService executor = new AppThreadPoolExecutor(10, 10, 0L, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>(Integer.MAX_VALUE), new AppThreadFactory("BSRT", true), new ThreadPoolExecutor.CallerRunsPolicy());
CompletionService<Integer> completionService = new ExecutorCompletionService<Integer>(executor);
for (final Integer id : taskList) {
Callable<Integer> c = new Callable<Integer>() {
public Integer call() throws Exception {
int newId = DB operation(id);
return newId;
}
};
completionService.submit(c);
}
logger.debug("Start retrievie result");
for (Integer id : taskList) {
try {
Future<Integer> future = completionService.poll(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
Integer taskId=null;
if (future != null) {
logger.debug("future is obtained.");
taskId = future.get();
} else {
logger.error("wait too long and get nothing!");
break;
}
if (taskId != null) {
taskIdList.add(taskId);
}
} catch (ExecutionException ignore) {
// log the cause and ignore this aborted task,coninue with
// next available task.
logger.warn(ignore.getCause());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
logger.warn("interrupted...");
// Re-assert the thread’s interrupted status
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}executor.shutdown();
During the execution of my program, Sometimes (not always) I'm getting this error ...
executor.shutdown();
will not be able to interrupt AppThread after return from the call super.run();
because the woker is already removed from workers set used internally by ThreadPoolExecutor, executor does not have reference to AppThread from that point of time.
btw: the log file is accessible and size is big enough.
log4j:ERROR Failed to flush writer,
java.io.InterruptedIOException
at java.io.FileOutputStream.writeBytes(Native Method)
at java.io.FileOutputStream.write(FileOutputStream.java:260)
at sun.nio.cs.StreamEncoder$CharsetSE.writeBytes(StreamEncoder.java:336)
at sun.nio.cs.StreamEncoder$CharsetSE.implFlushBuffer(StreamEncoder.java:404)
at sun.nio.cs.StreamEncoder$CharsetSE.implFlush(StreamEncoder.java:408)
at sun.nio.cs.StreamEncoder.flush(StreamEncoder.java:152)
at java.io.OutputStreamWriter.flush(OutputStreamWriter.java:213)
at org.apache.log4j.helpers.QuietWriter.flush(QuietWriter.java:57)
at org.apache.log4j.WriterAppender.subAppend(WriterAppender.java:315)
at org.apache.log4j.DailyRollingFileAppender.subAppend(DailyRollingFileAppender.java:358)
at org.apache.log4j.WriterAppender.append(WriterAppender.java:159)
at org.apache.log4j.AppenderSkeleton.doAppend(AppenderSkeleton.java:230)
at org.apache.log4j.helpers.AppenderAttachableImpl.appendLoopOnAppenders(AppenderAttachableImpl.java:65)
at org.apache.log4j.Category.callAppenders(Category.java:203)
at org.apache.log4j.Category.forcedLog(Category.java:388)
at org.apache.log4j.Category.debug(Category.java:257)
at AppThread.run( AppThread.java: 33)
33 is the line: if (debug)
logger.info("Exiting " + getName());
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import org.apache.log4j.Logger;
public class AppThread extends Thread {
public static final String DEFAULT_NAME = "MyAppThread";
private static volatile boolean debugLifecycle = false;
private static final AtomicInteger created = new AtomicInteger();
private static final AtomicInteger alive = new AtomicInteger();
private static final Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(AppThread.class);
private boolean dump = false;
public AppThread(Runnable r) {
this(r, DEFAULT_NAME);
}
public AppThread(Runnable runnable, String name) {
super(runnable, name + "-" + created.incrementAndGet());
logger.debug(name + "'s constructor running");
}
public void interrupt() {
if (!dump) {
super.interrupt();
}
if (dump) {
logger.debug("interrupt : " + getName() + " <<<");
Thread.dumpStack();
logger.debug("interrupt : " + getName() + " >>>");
}
}
public void run() {
boolean debug = debugLifecycle;
if (debug)
logger.info("Created " + getName());
try {
alive.incrementAndGet();
super.run();
logger.debug("running!");
} finally {
alive.decrementAndGet();
dump = true;
try {
Thread.sleep(100000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
logger.debug(e);
}
if (debug)
logger.info("Exiting " + getName());
}
}
public static int getThreadsCreated() {
return created.get();
}
public static int getThreadsAlive() {
return alive.get();
}
public static boolean getDebug() {
return debugLifecycle;
}
public static void setDebug(boolean b) {
debugLifecycle = b;
}
}
Another problem is that in order to debug the cause of java.io.InterruptedIOException , I added
try {
Thread.sleep(100000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
logger.debug(e);
}
in finally clause in the run method for AppThread. when InterruptedException is catched in the finally clause, the override interrupt() method is never called. so who interrupt AppThread? is the same guy cause java.io.InterruptedIOException?

Yes:
shutdownNow
Attempts to stop all actively executing tasks, halts the processing of waiting tasks, and returns a list of the tasks that were awaiting execution.
There are no guarantees beyond best-effort attempts to stop processing actively executing tasks. For example, typical implementations will cancel via Thread.interrupt(), so any task that fails to respond to interrupts may never terminate.
JavaDoc.
Simply use shutdown() instead of shutdownNow(). When you are forcibly calling shutdownNow() this is what you should expect - JVM gracefully interrupts I/O and shuts down the thread as fast as possible.
However I would make sure that logging isn't the bottleneck in your application. Simply make few thread dumps during the execution of your program and see how often threads are writing or waiting for I/O. Poor man's profiling.

Interrupting the worker threads is actually a feature of the Executor framework to allow worker threads to gracefully shut down when asked to do so through interrupt(). It's documented behavior for shutdownNow().
If you don't want this, call shutdown() -- it won't interrupt() your worker threads, the Executor will just stop accepting new tasks.

I have similar problems.
My research went so far that Thread.interrupt() sets the interrupt flag. This leads to an interrupted IO operation deep in the Java Stack. But the IO methods are typically not declared to throw an InterruptedException.
Instead an InterruptedIOException is thrown and the interrupted state of the Thread is cleared!. If you wrote a Worker that expects (catches) IOExceptions, you have to catch the InterruptedIOException separately and call Thead.currentThread().interrupt() in the catch clause.