Develop Reference

Accurate thread loop. Run a task with precise interval

I want my thread to perform an action 4 or 16 times per bpm (beats per minute). This timer is not 100% accurate, after a few seconds it desynchronizes from the metronome I found on youtube, and it gets a little slower than it should.
bpm = (float) my music bpm;
thread = new Thread(()->{
long now ;
long total ;
while (true) {
long bpmTime = (long) ((1000000000*60d)/(bpm*16));
now = System.nanoTime();
bpmTick(); //<-- my task
try {
total = System.nanoTime() - now;
if(total > bpmTime) {
continue;
}
Thread.sleep((bpmTime - (System.nanoTime() - now)) / 1000000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
thread.start();
I also tried:
Thread.sleep((long)(1000*(60.0/bpm)));
but the same problem occurs
In short, I need a metronome.
Thanks in advance.

What you want to use is a ScheduledExecutorService instance instead. This class can repeat the task in a Thread repeatedly at a fixed rate. The class has a method called scheduleAtFixedRate(task, intialDelay, DelayBetweenExecutions,TimeUnit) just for this purpose.
When the initial delay is set to 0 the task will run as soon as scheduleAtFixedRate is called and will continue doing so until you call shutdown() or shutdownNow() on the service. Here's an example that uses some of your code:
ScheduledExecutorService executorService = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
int timesPerBPM = 16;
long bpmTime = 900; //or whatever the outcome of your formula is.
Thread thread = new Thread(()->{
for (int i = 0; i < timesPerBPM; i++) //do task 16 times
bpmTick(); //<-- my task
});
executorService.scheduleAtFixedRate(thread, 0, bpmTime, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS); //This will start immediately because initialDelay is 0.
executorService.shutdown(); //Always shutdown service when done to avoid memory leaks.
The executorService in the below code will run bpmTick() 16 times every 900 milliseconds. If it takes longer then 900 milliseconds to run bpmTick() 16 times the service will wait for the current task to complete until it starts the next repetition. So to keep things synchronized the 16 bpmTick() must always finish within bpmTime milliseconds. If you want to guarantee a 150 millisecond pause between threadtask executions regardless of how long it takes to execute a task then you should use the method scheduleWithFixedDelay() instead.
If you want the service to repeat the task every minute instead of every 900 milliseconds then it is best to change bpmTime to 1 and TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS to TimeUnit.MINUTES.

Java - Run tasks in varying time intervals

This question is for a college assignment.
I want to run a block of code every n*2 seconds (e.g. wait 1 second and run and wait 2 seconds and run and wait 4 seconds and run, etc) up to 5 times.
I currently have something like this.
int timer = 1000;
int tryCounter = 0;
while( !condition() && counter < 5){
doTask();
Thread.sleep(timer);
timer *= 2;
counter++;
}
Although this works, my grade benefits from not using Thread.sleep(). I figured out using a ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor with a fixed rate would be one way to go but I cannot get it to work due to the fact that the interval is not actually fixed.
This is for a theoretical Distributed System with high concurrency capabilities so what matters is the high scalability.
I could get away with Thread.sleep() if there was really no benefit or a viable way of doing this by writing it on my report. So does anyone have any insight on this?

It is possible to schedule tasks with ScheduledExecutorService combined with some logic. The .schedule argument lets you specify a time unit to use. You can declare a variable that can handle the increment you are trying to do.
int timer = 1000;
ScheduledExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
public void run()
{
//Move your code you want to implement here
}
};
//Increment your variable
while(!condition()) {
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
service.schedule(runnable, timer, TimeUnit.SECOND);
timer *= 2;
}
}
Moving your code execution within the runnable block and then scheduling it within a for loop where the timer is incremented should accomplish the effect you are going for. Hope that helps!

Java stop scheduled task if it takes more than a specific time

I have a scheduled job which runs every 100 seconds. Sometimes the execution of this method takes a lot of time (which is ok and there is no problem with that). In this situation, the result of the running method is not important to me and I want to re-schedule the job for next 100 second.
What is the best way to force the running job to terminate (return) after a specific time?
My scheduled code is like below:
#Scheduled(fixedDelay = 100*1000)
fun calculateLastDaysStatistics() {
logger.info("affiliate statistics thread Started Successfully")
val processStartDate = Date()
for (i in 1..prevDaysToConsider) {
logger.info("AdZone-Stats prev days $i")
val yesterday = DateUtility.addDay(Date(), -i)
val startDate = DateUtility.getZeroDayTime(yesterday.time)
val endDate = DateUtility.addDay(startDate, 1)
/* This method is probable to take a lot of time */
calculateStatistics(startDate, endDate)
}
val processLength = (Date().time - processStartDate.time) / 1000
logger.info("affiliate statistics thread finished in " + processLength + "s")
}
Thanks.

Try using Fixed Rate instead of Fixed Delay
Here is the article from
Paraschiv.E. The #Scheduled Annotation in Spring. Referred from https://www.baeldung.com/spring-scheduled-tasks
Schedule a Task at a Fixed Rate
#Scheduled(fixedRate = 1000)
public void scheduleFixedRateTask() {
System.out.println(
"Fixed rate task - " + System.currentTimeMillis() / 1000);
}
Note that the beginning of the task execution doesn’t wait for the completion of the previous execution.
This option should be used when each execution of the task is independent.

You can implement a custom Task scheduler using, org.springframework.scheduling.TaskScheduler instead of Annotation based method.
private final TaskScheduler scheduler;
#Autowired
public SchedulingManager(TaskScheduler scheduler) {
this.scheduler = scheduler;
}
In this case,
ScheduledFuture scheduledeFuture = scheduler.schedule(()->{
....You job goes here..
}, new CronTrigger("*/100 * * * * *"));
You can keep track of the scheduled future to make sure it runs max time intended.
scheduledeFuture.get(100,TimeUnit.SECONDS)

Load Test using Java - timer task vs scheduler

I need to execute a load test using Java in which one of the test strategies require x threads to be fired of every y period of time for z minutes and thereafter have a constant totalThread amount of threads running for the load test duration (eg with a total of 100 threads, start 10 threads at 5 second intervals until all 100 threads have started, and continue to keep all 100 threading running (once it has finished execution it should restart) for the specified duration of the test, say one hour)
I have attempted to use the timer task but it seems limiting, would thread pool scheduler be a better option? What would be the best approach?
public class MyTask extends TimerTask{
public void run() {
System.out.println("STARTING THREAD "+ counter +" "+ new Date());
//execute test
counter++;
if (counter > maxIterations) {
MyTask.this.cancel();
return;
}
}
List<TimerTask> MyTaskList = new ArrayList<TimerTask>();
for (int i = 1 ; i <= threadsPerIteration ; i++) {
TimerTask MyTimerTask = new MyTask(NumberOfIterations);
MyTaskList.add(MyTimerTask);
timer.schedule(MyTimerTask, initialDelayMilli, threadDelayMilli);
}
Thank You

Don't use a TimerTask for each thread. Instead, use a single TimerTask, that fires once per interval, with your example numbers once every 5 seconds.
Each of the first 10 times the TimerTask fires, it spawns off 10 threads. On each subsequent firing, it checks for the number of active threads, and spawns off enough new threads to bring the total to 100, until the end of your test.

Thanks for the help, i decided to use the threadpool executor together with the timertask class as follows:
I used the Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(int x) method to control the amount of threads able to run concurrently, together with a timer task that is set to increase the threadpool size every y amount of time :
TimerTask DelayTimerTask = new TimerTask() { //task to increase threadpool size
public void run() {
MyExecutor.setCorePoolSize(i * incrementAmount); //timer task increments threadpool size by threadPoolIncrement
i++;
}
};
timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(DelayTimerTask,0,intervalLength);
in this way the amount of concurrent threads will increase by incrementAmount every intervalLength.

How to test task performance, using multitheading?

I have some exercises, and one of them refers to concurrency. This theme is new for me, however I spent 6 hours and finally solve my problem. But my knowledge of corresponding API is poor, so I need advice: is my solution correct or may be there is more appropriate way.
So, I have to implement next interface:
public interface PerformanceTester {
/**
* Runs a performance test of the given task.
* #param task which task to do performance tests on
* #param executionCount how many times the task should be executed in total
* #param threadPoolSize how many threads to use
*/
public PerformanceTestResult runPerformanceTest(
Runnable task,
int executionCount,
int threadPoolSize) throws InterruptedException;
}
where PerformanceTestResult contains total time (how long the whole performance test took in total), minimum time (how long the shortest single execution took) and maximum time (how long the longest single execution took).
So, I learned many new things today - about thread pools, types Executors, ExecutorService, Future, CompletionService etc.
If I had Callable task, I could make next:
Return current time in the end of call() procedure.
Create some data structure (some Map may be) to store start time and Future object, that retuned by fixedThreadPool.submit(task) (do this executionCount times, in loop);
After execution I could just subtract start time from end time for every Future.
(Is this right way in case of Callable task?)
But! I have only Runnable task, so I continued looking. I even create FutureListener implements Callable<Long>, that have to return time, when Future.isDone(), but is seams little crazy for my (I have to double threads count).
So, eventually I noticed CompletionService type with interesting method take(), that Retrieves and removes the Future representing the next completed task, waiting if none are yet present., and very nice example of using ExecutorCompletionService. And there is my solution.
public class PerformanceTesterImpl implements PerformanceTester {
#Override
public PerformanceTestResult runPerformanceTest(Runnable task,
int executionCount, int threadPoolSize) throws InterruptedException {
long totalTime = 0;
long[] times = new long[executionCount];
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threadPoolSize);
//create list of executionCount tasks
ArrayList<Runnable> solvers = new ArrayList<Runnable>();
for (int i = 0; i < executionCount; i++) {
solvers.add(task);
}
CompletionService<Long> ecs = new ExecutorCompletionService<Long>(pool);
//submit tasks and save time of execution start
for (Runnable s : solvers)
ecs.submit(s, System.currentTimeMillis());
//take Futures one by one in order of completing
for (int i = 0; i < executionCount; ++i) {
long r = 0;
try {
//this is saved time of execution start
r = ecs.take().get();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
return null;
}
//put into array difference between current time and start time
times[i] = System.currentTimeMillis() - r;
//calculate sum in array
totalTime += times[i];
}
pool.shutdown();
//sort array to define min and max
Arrays.sort(times);
PerformanceTestResult performanceTestResult = new PerformanceTestResult(
totalTime, times[0], times[executionCount - 1]);
return performanceTestResult;
}
}
So, what can you say? Thanks for replies.

I would use System.nanoTime() for higher resolution timings. You might want to ignroe the first 10,000 tests to ensure the JVM has warmed up.
I wouldn't bother creating a List of Runnable and add this to the Executor. I would instead just add them to the executor.
Using Runnable is not a problem as you get a Future<?> back.
Note: Timing how long the task spends in the queue can make a big difference to the timing. Instead of taking the time from when the task was created you can have the task time itself and return a Long for the time in nano-seconds. How the timing is done should reflect the use case you have in mind.
A simple way to convert a Runnable task into one which times itself.
finla Runnable run = ...
ecs.submit(new Callable<Long>() {
public Long call() {
long start = System.nanoTime();
run.run();
return System.nanoTime() - start;
}
});

There are many intricacies when writing performance tests in the JVM. You probably aren't worried about them as this is an exercise, but if you are this question might have more information:
How do I write a correct micro-benchmark in Java?
That said, there don't seem to be any glaring bugs in your code. You might want to ask this on the lower traffic code-review site if you want a full review of your code:
http://codereview.stackexchange.com