I was asked to write a two-threaded Java program in an interview. In this program one thread should print even numbers and the other thread should print odd numbers alternatively.
Sample output:
Thread1: 1
Thread2: 2
Thread1: 3
Thread2: 4
... and so on
I wrote the following program. One class Task which contains two methods to print even and odd numbers respectively. From main method, I created two threads to call these two methods. The interviewer asked me to improve it further, but I could not think of any improvement. Is there any better way to write the same program?
class Task
{
boolean flag;
public Task(boolean flag)
{
this.flag = flag;
}
public void printEven()
{
for( int i = 2; i <= 10; i+=2 )
{
synchronized (this)
{
try
{
while( !flag )
wait();
System.out.println(i);
flag = false;
notify();
}
catch (InterruptedException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public void printOdd()
{
for( int i = 1; i < 10; i+=2 )
{
synchronized (this)
{
try
{
while(flag )
wait();
System.out.println(i);
flag = true;
notify();
}
catch(InterruptedException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
public class App {
public static void main(String [] args)
{
Task t = new Task(false);
Thread t1 = new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run()
{
t.printOdd();
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run()
{
t.printEven();
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
I think this should work properly and pretty simple.
package com.simple;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
/**
* #author Evgeny Zhuravlev
*/
public class ConcurrentPing
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
Semaphore semaphore1 = new Semaphore(0, true);
Semaphore semaphore2 = new Semaphore(0, true);
new Thread(new Task("1", 1, semaphore1, semaphore2)).start();
new Thread(new Task("2", 2, semaphore2, semaphore1)).start();
semaphore1.release();
}
private static class Task implements Runnable
{
private String name;
private long value;
private Semaphore semaphore1;
private Semaphore semaphore2;
public Task(String name, long value, Semaphore semaphore1, Semaphore semaphore2)
{
this.name = name;
this.value = value;
this.semaphore1 = semaphore1;
this.semaphore2 = semaphore2;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
try
{
semaphore1.acquire();
System.out.println(name + ": " + value);
value += 2;
semaphore2.release();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
}
}
Well, there are many alternatives. I would probably use a SynchronousQueue instead (I don't like low-level wait/notify and try to use higher-level concurrency primitives instead). Also printOdd and printEven could be merged into single method and no additional flags are necessary:
public class App {
static class OddEven implements Runnable {
private final SynchronousQueue<Integer> queue = new SynchronousQueue<>();
public void start() throws InterruptedException {
Thread oddThread = new Thread(this);
Thread evenThread = new Thread(this);
oddThread.start();
queue.put(1);
evenThread.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
int i = queue.take();
System.out.println(i + " (" + Thread.currentThread() + ")");
if (i == 10)
break;
queue.put(++i);
if (i == 10)
break;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
new OddEven().start();
}
}
Is there any better way to write the same program?
Well, the thing is, the only good way to write the program is to use a single thread. If you want a program to do X, Y, and Z in that order, then write a procedure that does X, then Y, then Z. There is no better way than that.
Here's what I would have written after discussing the appropriateness of threads with the interviewer.
import java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue;
import java.util.function.Consumer;
public class EvenOdd {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SynchronousQueue<Object> q1 = new SynchronousQueue<>();
SynchronousQueue<Object> q2 = new SynchronousQueue<>();
Consumer<Integer> consumer = (Integer count) -> System.out.println(count);
new Thread(new Counter(q1, q2, 2, 1, consumer)).start();
new Thread(new Counter(q2, q1, 2, 2, consumer)).start();
try {
q1.put(new Object());
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
private static class Counter implements Runnable {
final SynchronousQueue<Object> qin;
final SynchronousQueue<Object> qout;
final int increment;
final Consumer<Integer> consumer;
int count;
Counter(SynchronousQueue<Object> qin, SynchronousQueue<Object> qout,
int increment, int initial_count,
Consumer<Integer> consumer) {
this.qin = qin;
this.qout = qout;
this.increment = increment;
this.count = initial_count;
this.consumer = consumer;
}
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
Object token = qin.take();
consumer.accept(count);
qout.put(token);
count += increment;
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
}
}
How about a shorter version like this:
public class OddEven implements Runnable {
private static volatile int n = 1;
public static void main(String [] args) {
new Thread(new OddEven()).start();
new Thread(new OddEven()).start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this.getClass()) {
try {
while (n < 10) {
this.getClass().notify();
this.getClass().wait();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": " + (n++));
this.getClass().notify();
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
There is a bit of a trick to kick-start the threads properly - thus the need to an extra notify() to start the whole thing (instead of have both processes wait, or required the main Thread to call a notify) and also to handle the possibility that a thread starts, does it's work and calls notify before the second thread has started :)
My initial answer was non-functional. Edited:
package test;
public final class App {
private static volatile int counter = 1;
private static final Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String... args) {
for (int t = 0; t < 2; ++t) {
final int oddOrEven = t;
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
while (counter < 100) {
synchronized (lock) {
if (counter % 2 == oddOrEven) {
System.out.println(counter++);
}
}
}
}
}).start();
}
}
}
I want to build an application that executes a certain utility with multi threads. I want to control the amount of threads. Here is what I want to do:
//initialize the number of threads to be 10
for(int i = 0; i < BIG_VALUE; i++) {
RunnableObject rb = new RunnableObject(i);
rb.run();
//the for loop should run for 10 loops. When one of the threads finish its job
//the for loop continues and runs another thread. The amount of threads should
//always be 10
}
How can I do so in Java?
You can try with Java Executor framework http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/executors.html
Here an example of how to used
public class SimpleThreadPool {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Runnable worker = new WorkerThread('' + i);
executor.execute(worker);
}
executor.shutdown();
while (!executor.isTerminated()) {
}
System.out.println('Finished all threads');
}
}
public class WorkerThread implements Runnable {
private String command;
public WorkerThread(String s){
this.command=s;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+' Start. Command = '+command);
processCommand();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+' End.');
}
private void processCommand() {
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
#Override
public String toString(){
return this.command;
}
}
I am trying to create an implementation where multiple threads print alternate values of sequence. So here thread1 will print 1,4,7 thread2 will print 2,5,8 thread3 will print 3,6,9. I am using Atomic integer and modulo function.
Below implementation works fine in the sense that first thread prints 1,4,7 while second prints 2,5,8 and third prints 3,6,9 but problem is that sequence is not maintained i.e output can be like 1,3,2,4,5,7,8,6,9 while i want sequence to be maintained as proper threads shld print those values.
One condition is i don't want to use synchronize. [Just for learning purpose]
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class ThreeThreadsOrderedLockLess {
AtomicInteger sharedOutput = new AtomicInteger(0);
public static void main(String args[]) {
ThreeThreadsOrderedLockLess t = new ThreeThreadsOrderedLockLess();
ThreadTasks t1 = t.new ThreadTasks(0);
ThreadTasks t2 = t.new ThreadTasks(1);
ThreadTasks t3 = t.new ThreadTasks(2);
Thread ts1 = new Thread(t1);
Thread ts2 = new Thread(t2);
Thread ts3 = new Thread(t3);
ts1.start();
ts2.start();
ts3.start();
}
private class ThreadTasks implements Runnable {
private final int threadPosition;
public ThreadTasks(int threadPosition) {
super();
this.threadPosition = threadPosition;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (sharedOutput.get() < 9) {
if (sharedOutput.get() % 3 == this.threadPosition) {
System.out.println("Printing output for Thread: "
+ this.threadPosition + " "
+ sharedOutput.incrementAndGet());
}
}
}
}
}
You should print first, and increment after:
int value = sharedOutput.get() + 1;
System.out.println("Printing output for Thread: "
+ this.threadPosition + " "
+ value);
sharedOutput.incrementAndGet();
That said, all the threads are busy looping, which will lead to 100% CPU usage. You should synchronize the threads instead.
Below code snippet will print numbers in sequence and all threads will be terminated gracefully after the task.
Used AtomicInteger, which is thread-safe for printing the numbers and same logic can be applied to print as till any number with any number of threads.
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class PrintNumSequence
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
AtomicInteger atomicInteger = new AtomicInteger(0);
new NumPrinter(atomicInteger, 0).start();// thread0
new NumPrinter(atomicInteger, 1).start();// thread1
new NumPrinter(atomicInteger, 2).start();// thread2
}
}
class NumPrinter extends Thread
{
private AtomicInteger atomicInteger;
private int threadNum;
public NumPrinter(AtomicInteger atomicInteger, int threadNum)
{
this.atomicInteger = atomicInteger;
this.threadNum = threadNum;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
int num = atomicInteger.intValue();
do
{
synchronized (atomicInteger)
{
num = atomicInteger.intValue();
// If number is 9 then stop.
if (num > 9)
{
atomicInteger.notifyAll();
break;
}
// 3 is number of threads
if ((num % 3) == threadNum)
{
System.out.println("Thread-" + threadNum + " -->" + num);
num = atomicInteger.incrementAndGet();
}
atomicInteger.notifyAll();
try
{
atomicInteger.wait();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
} while (true);
}
}
This is because the time slice for each thread is determined by the OS. So it is possible that thread x increments the shared number but before printing the time slice is passed to the next thread y which now reads the shared number and prints it after incrementing (assuming that thread y got more time than thread x to increament and print the shared number)
.
use wait(), notify(), notifyall() methods of the Java.
you can also take a look at this Tutorial of these methods.
Hope this would be helpful to solve your issue. . .
the output of this example is as under.
Put: 1
Got: 1
Put: 2
Got: 2
Put: 3
Got: 3
Put: 4
Got: 4
Put: 5
Got: 5
This should work:
package com.sid;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class NumberSequence {
private AtomicInteger sharedOutput = new AtomicInteger(0);
private Object object = new Object();
public static void main(String args[]) {
NumberSequence t = new NumberSequence();
ThreadTasks t1 = t.new ThreadTasks(0);
ThreadTasks t2 = t.new ThreadTasks(1);
ThreadTasks t3 = t.new ThreadTasks(2);
Thread ts1 = new Thread(t1);
Thread ts2 = new Thread(t2);
Thread ts3 = new Thread(t3);
ts1.start();
ts2.start();
ts3.start();
}
private class ThreadTasks implements Runnable {
private final int threadPosition;
public ThreadTasks(int threadPosition) {
super();
this.threadPosition = threadPosition;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (sharedOutput.get() < 10) {
synchronized (object) {
if (sharedOutput.get() % 3 == this.threadPosition) {
if(sharedOutput.get() < 10)
System.out.println("Printing output for Thread: "
+ this.threadPosition + " "
+ sharedOutput.incrementAndGet());
}
}
}
}
}
}
Proper synchronization would help you get the clear answer. I've improved the implementation, you should solve your questions.
int threadId;
int moduluos;
int numOfThreads;
public ThreadTasks(int id, int nubOfThreads) {
threadId = id;
this.numOfThreads = nubOfThreads;
moduluos = threadId%numOfThreads;
}
public void run() {
print();
}
private void print() {
try {
while (true) {
synchronized (monitor) {
if (number.get() % numOfThreads != moduluos) {
monitor.wait();
} else {
System.out.println("ThreadId [" + threadId
+ "] printing -->"
+ number.getAndIncrement());
monitor.notifyAll();
}
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
package test.mk.thread;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class MkThread2 {
int nextThreadToRun = 1;
int[] arr = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11};
AtomicInteger nextArrayIndex = new AtomicInteger(0);
boolean token = true;
public static void main(String[] args) {
MkThread2 mkThread = new MkThread2();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Worker2(1, mkThread));
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Worker2(2, mkThread));
Thread t3 = new Thread(new Worker2(3, mkThread));
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
}
}
class Worker2 implements Runnable{
volatile int threadNo;
private MkThread2 mkThread;
private String threadName;
Worker2(int threadNo, MkThread2 mkThread){
this.threadNo = threadNo;
this.mkThread = mkThread;
this.threadName = "Thread:"+threadNo ;
}
public void run(){
try{
synchronized (mkThread) {
while(mkThread.token){
while(threadNo != mkThread.nextThreadToRun){
mkThread.wait();
}
if(mkThread.token){//double checking
System.out.print(threadName+ "->" + mkThread.arr[mkThread.nextArrayIndex.get()]);
if(threadNo == 3) System.out.println();
mkThread.nextThreadToRun = getNextThread(threadNo);
if(mkThread.nextArrayIndex.get() == mkThread.arr.length-1){
mkThread.token = false;
}
mkThread.nextArrayIndex.incrementAndGet();
}
mkThread.notifyAll();
}
}
}
catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private int getNextThread(int threadNo){
int result = -1;
switch (threadNo) {
case (1):
result = 2;
break;
case (2):
result = 3;
break;
case (3):
result = 1;
break;
}
return result;
}
}
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class Print123456789 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
print p1 = new print(0);
print p2 = new print(1);
print p3 = new print(2);
Thread t1 = new Thread(p1);
Thread t2 = new Thread(p2);
Thread t3 = new Thread(p3);
t1.start();
t2.start();t3.start();
}
}
class print implements Runnable {
private int threadNumber;
private static AtomicInteger atomicInteger = new AtomicInteger(0);
public print(int threadNumber) {
super();
this.threadNumber = threadNumber;
}
public void run(){
try{
while(atomicInteger.get() < 10){
synchronized (atomicInteger) {
if((atomicInteger.get()%3) == this.threadNumber){
System.out.println(atomicInteger.getAndIncrement() + " Thread :" + this.threadNumber );
atomicInteger.notifyAll();
}
else
atomicInteger.wait();
}
}
}catch(InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
This can be better implemented using blocking queues. Define a worker holding a blocking queue. The workers waits on the queue until it receives a number in it. It prints the number it receives, increments it and passes it on to the next worker in the chain. Refer here for the full solution.
package threeThread;
class Task implements Runnable {
String message;
ThreeThread lock;
int i = 0;
int p;
public Task(String text, ThreeThread obj, int p) {
message = text;
this.lock = obj;
this.p = p;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
synchronized (lock) {
while(!((lock.status % 3) == 0) && p == 1){
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
while(!((lock.status % 3) == 1) && p == 2){
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
while(!((lock.status % 3) == 2) && p == 3){
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("thread: " + p + " : " + message);
lock.status++;
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
public class ThreeThread {
volatile int status = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreeThread lock = new ThreeThread();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Task("Hello", lock,1));
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Task("Good", lock,2));
Thread t3 = new Thread(new Task("Morning", lock,3));
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
}
}
I am putting code to print 1-100 using 5 threads. One can use any number of thread to print output in round robin fashion.
Basic concept is to lock one object and notify other for executing the printing of value.
public class PrintOneToHundredUsing5Threads {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Object> objList = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
objList.add(new Object());
}
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new PrintThread(objList.get(i), objList.get((i + 1) % 5)));
t.setName("Thread" + i);
t.start();
}
}
}
class PrintThread implements Runnable {
Object current;
Object next;
volatile static int i = 1;
PrintThread(Object cur, Object next) {
this.current = cur;
this.next = next;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (; i <= 100;) {
synchronized (current) {
synchronized (next) {
next.notify();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " Value : " + i++);
}
try {
current.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
You can use below code to print sequential numbers using multiple threads -
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
public class ThreadCall extends Thread {
private BlockingQueue<Integer> bq = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Integer>(10);
private ThreadCall next;
public void setNext(ThreadCall t) {
this.next = t;
}
public void addElBQ(int a) {
this.bq.add(a);
}
public ThreadCall(String name) {
this.setName(name);
}
#Override
public void run() {
int x = 0;
while(true) {
try {
x = 0;
x = bq.take();
if (x!=0) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " =>" + x);
if (x >= 100) System.exit(0); // Need to stop all running threads
next.addElBQ(x+1);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int THREAD_COUNT = 10;
List<ThreadCall> listThread = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i=1; i<=THREAD_COUNT; i++) {
listThread.add(new ThreadCall("Thread " + i));
}
for (int i = 0; i < listThread.size(); i++) {
if (i == listThread.size()-1) {
listThread.get(i).setNext(listThread.get(0));
}
else listThread.get(i).setNext(listThread.get(i+1));
}
listThread.get(0).addElBQ(1);
for (int i = 0; i < listThread.size(); i++) {
listThread.get(i).start();
}
}
}
Hope this will resolve your problem.
public class PrintThreadsInSerial {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t = new Thread(new Job());
t.start();
}
}
class Job implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
for (int i = 1; i <= 3; i++) {
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
}
The ThreadSynchronization class can be used to print numbers between 'n' no. of threads in sequence.
The logic is to create a common object between each of the consecutive threads and use 'wait', 'notify' to print the numbers in sequence.
Note: Last thread will share an object with the first thread.
You can change the 'maxThreads' value to increase or decrease the number of thread in the program before running it.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class ThreadSynchronization {
public static int i = 1;
public static final int maxThreads = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Object> list = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < maxThreads; i++) {
list.add(new Object());
}
Object currObject = list.get(maxThreads - 1);
for (int i = 0; i < maxThreads; i++) {
Object nextObject = list.get(i);
RunnableClass1 a = new RunnableClass1(currObject, nextObject, i == 0 ? true : false);
Thread th = new Thread(a);
th.setName("Thread - " + (i + 1));
th.start();
currObject = list.get(i);
}
}
}
class RunnableClass implements Runnable {
private Object currObject;
private Object nextObject;
private boolean firstThread;
public RunnableClass(Object currObject, Object nextObject, boolean first) {
this.currObject = currObject;
this.nextObject = nextObject;
this.firstThread = first;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int i = 0;
try {
if (firstThread) {
Thread.sleep(5000);
firstThread = false;
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " - " + ThreadSynchronization.i++);
synchronized (nextObject) {
nextObject.notify();
}
}
while (i++ < Integer.MAX_VALUE) {
synchronized (currObject) {
currObject.wait();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " - " + ThreadSynchronization.i++);
Thread.sleep(1000);
synchronized (nextObject) {
nextObject.notify();
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public class PrintSeqNumUsingAltThreads {
public static void main(String[] args) {
AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(0);
int numThreads = 3;
Thread t1 = new Thread(new SeqNumPrinter(counter, 0, numThreads));
Thread t2 = new Thread(new SeqNumPrinter(counter, 1, numThreads));
Thread t3 = new Thread(new SeqNumPrinter(counter, 2, numThreads));
t1.currentThread().setName("T1");
t2.currentThread().setName("T2");
t3.currentThread().setName("T3");
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
}
}
public class SeqNumPrinter implements Runnable {
AtomicInteger atmCounter;
Integer threadPosition;
Integer numThreads;
public SeqNumPrinter(AtomicInteger counter, int position, int numThreads) {
this.atmCounter = counter;
this.threadPosition = position;
this.numThreads = numThreads;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (atmCounter.get() < 10) {
if (atmCounter.get() % numThreads == threadPosition) {
System.out.println("Printing value : " + atmCounter.getAndIncrement() + ", by thread : " +
Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
}
}
Output :
Printing value : 0, by thread : Thread-0 Printing value : 1, by
thread : Thread-1 Printing value : 3, by thread : Thread-0
Printing value : 2, by thread : Thread-2 Printing value : 4, by
thread : Thread-1 Printing value : 6, by thread : Thread-0
Printing value : 5, by thread : Thread-2 Printing value : 7, by
thread : Thread-1 Printing value : 9, by thread : Thread-0
Printing value : 8, by thread : Thread-2
I have a multithreaded program where I want the one of the thread to print the statement after all the thread finished.How can I do that? and How do I know that all the threads finished?
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for(int i = 0; i < myList.size(); ++i) {
pool.execute (new ThreadProcessRunnable (args));
}
public class ThreadProcessRunnable implements Runnable {
public void run() {
System.out.println("last thread should execute this");
}
}
That sounds like an ideal use case for ExecutorService.invokeAll:
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
List<Callable<Object>> tasks = new ArrayList<Callable<Object>>();
for(int i = 0; i < myList.size(); ++i) {
tasks.add (Executors.callable(new ThreadProcessRunnable (args)));
}
List<Future<Object>> futures = pool.invokeAll(tasks);
System.out.println("All tasks finished");
public class ThreadProcessRunnable implements Runnable {
public void run() {
// do some stuff
}
}
invokeAll blocks until all the tasks in the supplied List are complete.
If you absolutely must have the println inside one of the threads' run methods, then the simplest approach I can think of would be to keep some sort of counter in an AtomicInteger
public class ThreadProcessRunnable implements Runnable {
private AtomicInteger taskCounter;
public ThreadProcessRunnable(AtomicInteger counter) {
this.taskCounter = counter;
}
public void run() {
// do stuff
if(taskCounter.decrementAndGet() == 0) {
System.out.println("I am the last thread and I am about to finish");
}
}
}
// Main class
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
AtomicInteger taskCounter = new AtomicInteger(myList.size());
for(int i = 0; i < myList.size(); ++i) {
pool.execute(new ThreadProcessRunnable(taskCounter));
}
The key thing that makes this work is that taskCounter.decrementAndGet is atomic - if the value of taskCounter is initially 2, for example, and two different threads call decrementAndGet at the same time then it is guaranteed that one thread will see the value 1 and the other thread will see the value 0, so exactly one thread will print the "about to finish" message. This is different from MadProgrammer's answer, which involves a race condition:
latch.countDown();
if(latch.getCount() == 0) { ... }
where it is possible to have thread 1 decrement the value (to 1), then thread 2 decrement it again (to 0), then both threads see the value 0 when they call getCount and both print the message.
This is a REALLY basic example/concept of using a CountDownLatch
public class TestCountDownLatch {
private static CountDownLatch latch;
public static void main(String[] args) {
latch = new CountDownLatch(10);
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
pool.execute(new Worker(i));
}
}
public static class Worker implements Runnable {
private int number;
public Worker(int number) {
this.number = number;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println(number + " is sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) (Math.round(Math.random() * 1000)));
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
System.out.println(number + " is Completed...");
latch.countDown();
if (latch.getCount() == 0) {
System.out.println(number + " was last...");
}
}
}
}
Simple Single Thread Test Case
public class TestCountDownLatch {
private static CountDownLatch latch;
public static void main(String[] args) {
latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for (int i = 0; i < 1; ++i) {
pool.execute(new Worker(i));
}
}
public static class Worker implements Runnable {
private int number;
public Worker(int number) {
this.number = number;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println(number + " is sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) (Math.round(Math.random() * 1000)));
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
System.out.println(number + " is Completed...");
latch.countDown();
if (latch.getCount() == 0) {
System.out.println(number + " was last...");
}
}
}
}
You can use a CyclicBarrier with a barrier action (documentation).
Creates a new CyclicBarrier that will trip when the given number of
parties (threads) are waiting upon it, and which will execute the
given barrier action when the barrier is tripped, performed by the
last thread entering the barrier.
You can place it in the main thread. Call pool.await() to block the main thread until all threads in the pool have finished, then do the extra work. The code would look like this:
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for(int i = 0; i < myList.size(); ++i) {
pool.execute (new ThreadProcessRunnable (args));
}
pool.shutdown();
pool.awaitTermination();//blocks the main thread
System.out.println("last thread should execute this");
I have the following 2 classes code that produce this result for instance:
Wainting for calculation to complete...
Calculator thread says HELLO!
T1 says that total is 10
Wainting for calculation to complete...
Wainting for calculation to complete...
Now threads are waiting but nobody is going to notify them.
How can I force the threads from T1 to T3 to run before the "Calculator thread" wake em up?
public class Calculator implements Runnable{
private int total;
public int getTotal() {
return total;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
total += i;
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " says HELLO!");
notifyAll();
}
}
}
import static java.lang.System.out;
public class Reader implements Runnable{
private Calculator c;
public Reader(Calculator calc) {
c = calc;
}
public Calculator getCalculator() {
return c;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Calculator calc = new Calculator();
Reader read = new Reader(calc);
Thread thread1 = new Thread(read);
Thread thread2 = new Thread(read);
Thread thread3 = new Thread(read);
thread1.setName("T1");
thread2.setName("T2");
thread3.setName("T3");
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
thread3.start();
Thread calcThread = new Thread(read.getCalculator());
calcThread.setName("Calculator thread");
calcThread.start();
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (c) {
try {
out.println("Wainting for calculation to complete...");
c.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " says that " + "total is " + c.getTotal());
}
}
}
This is how I would write the code. Rather than trying to re-invent the wheel with wait/notify I would use concurrency library to do what is needed, a Future.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class Main {
static final long start = System.nanoTime();
static void log(String text) {
double seconds = (System.nanoTime() - start) / 1e9;
System.out.printf("%s %.6f - %s%n", Thread.currentThread().getName(), seconds, text);
}
static class Calculator implements Callable<Integer> {
#Override
public Integer call() throws Exception {
int total = 0;
log("calculating total");
for (int i = 0; i < 50000; i++)
total += i;
log("total is " + total);
return total;
}
}
static class Reader implements Callable<Void> {
private final Future<Integer> totalFuture;
public Reader(Future<Integer> totalFuture) {
this.totalFuture = totalFuture;
}
#Override
public Void call() throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException {
log("Waiting for total.");
int total = totalFuture.get();
log("... got total= " + total);
return null;
}
}
public static void main(String... args) {
ExecutorService es = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
Future<Integer> totalFuture = es.submit(new Calculator());
es.submit(new Reader(totalFuture));
es.submit(new Reader(totalFuture));
es.submit(new Reader(totalFuture));
es.shutdown();
}
}
prints
pool-1-thread-1 0.008154 - calculating total
pool-1-thread-4 0.011356 - Waiting for total.
pool-1-thread-3 0.011292 - Waiting for total.
pool-1-thread-2 0.011128 - Waiting for total.
pool-1-thread-1 0.025097 - total is 1249975000
pool-1-thread-4 0.025351 - ... got total= 1249975000
pool-1-thread-3 0.025372 - ... got total= 1249975000
pool-1-thread-2 0.025380 - ... got total= 1249975000
After
thread3.start();
add the following to wait for the threads to finish.
thread1.join();
thread2.join();
thread3.join();
Thread.join() may seem like an option in this particular situation. Since you have control of the main() function and you know exactly when each thread is starting.
A more general way to handle this situation is use a conditional variable and call the c.wait() within a loop to check the condition variable.
Basically add the isFinished field in the Calculator class :
public class Calculator implements Runnable {
...
public volatile boolean isFinished = false
..
..
Then you replace c.wait() with :
...
while (!c.isFinished) {
c.wait();
}
...
Finally in the `run() method of your Calculator class after calculating total, set the isFinished field
....
for(int i = 0; ....
total = += i;
}
c.isFinished = true
....
U may use Thread.join() method.. I'm not sure how abouts of good programming practices but that will work..