Develop Reference

Blocking Queue Take() does not retrieve the item

I have the code below:
#Override
public boolean start() {
boolean b = false;
if (status != RUNNING) {
LOGGER.info("Starting Auto Rescheduler Process...");
try {
b = super.start();
final ThreadFactory threadFactory = new ThreadFactoryBuilder().setNameFormat("Rescheduler-Pool-%d").build();
ExecutorService exServ = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(threadFactory);
service = MoreExecutors.listeningDecorator(exServ);
} catch (Exception e) {
LOGGER.error("Error starting Auto Rescheduler Process! {}", e.getMessage());
LOGGER.debug("{}", e);
b = false;
}
} else {
LOGGER.info("Asked to start Auto Rescheduler Process but it had already started. Ignoring...");
}
return b;
}
The AutoRescheduler is the runnable below:
private class AutoScheduler implements Runnable {
private static final String DEFAULT_CONFIGURABLE_MINUTES_VALUE = "other";
private static final long DEFAULT_DELAY_MINUTES = 60L;
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
//BLOCKS HERE UNTIL A FINISHED EVENT IS PUT IN QUEUE
final FinishedEvent fEvent = finishedEventsQueue.take();
LOGGER.info("Received a finished Event for {} and I am going to reschedule it", fEvent);
final MyTask task = fEvent.getSource();
final LocalDateTime nextRunTime = caclulcateNextRightTime(task);
boolean b = scheduleEventService.scheduleEventANew(task, nextRunTime);
if (b) {
cronController.loadSchedule();
LOGGER.info("Rescheduled event {} for {}", task, nextRunTime);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Interrupted while waiting for a new finishedEventQueue");
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
I see events being caught and put in the queue. Normally I then see them being rescheduled by the AutoReschduler
However from time to time I stop seeing them being rescheduled which leads me to believe that the reschedulingThread dies silently. After this happens no more events are taken from the queue until I restart the process (I have a GUI that allows me to call the stop() and start() methods of the public class). After I restart it though, the blocked events are rescheduled normally which means that they are in the queue indeed.
Does anyone have an idea?
EDIT
I have reproduced the error in Eclipse. The thread does not die (I have tested with the ExecutorService as well. However take() still does not take the item from the queue although it is placed there.

Concurrency Issue - Blocking Queue

I am confused with concurrency - i am trying to stop the consumer thread from running if the producer is shutdown but am having issues if the consumer is blocked on take(). I have tried adding a posion pill, interruptung the current thread, using a boolean flag and still to no avail.
Please can someone help advise where I am going wrong. Thanks.
public class TestPoisonPill implements Runnable {
private BlockingQueue<String> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<String>(1);
private volatile boolean stopped = false;
public void addToQueue(String event) throws InterruptedException{
System.out.println("in add to queue");
if(event != null){
try {
queue.put(event);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
stopped = true;
queue.put("Poison");
System.out.println("Unable to add the event to the queue, order routing processing is stopped");
throw e;
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(!stopped){
try {
if(queue.size() > 0){
String string = queue.take();
System.out.println("taken " + string + "from the queue");
}else{
continue;
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
stopped = true;
}
}
}
public boolean isStopped(){
return stopped;
}
protected BlockingQueue<String> getQueue() {
return queue;
}
protected void setBoolean(boolean b){
this.stopped = b;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final TestPoisonPill t = new TestPoisonPill();
exec.execute(t);
ExecutorService exec2 = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Runnable addTask = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
t.addToQueue("hi");
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
System.out.println("add task interrupted ");
t.setBoolean(true);
break;
}
}
}
};
exec2.execute(addTask);
Thread.sleep(1000);
exec2.shutdownNow();
}
}

am confused with concurrency - i am trying to stop the consumer thread from running if the producer is shutdown but am having issues if the consumer is blocked on take()
If you problem is that you program is not stopping, I think you are missing an exec.shutdownNow() on your first ExecutorService. This will interrupt your first thread, if you change your loop to be something like:
while (!stopped && !Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
Without the interrupt flag check any interrupt will be not been seen by the thread. An interrupt is just a flag that is set on the thread. Certain methods (like Thread.sleep(...) and BlockingQueue.take()) throw InterruptedException when a thread is interrupted but your consumer is spinning and never calling take().
Really, the spin loop in the consumer is an extremely bad pattern. It should just call queue.take() and then either use the interrupt or have your producer actually submit a poisoned pill. Something like:
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
String string;
try {
string = queue.take();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
break;
}
// here is where you could check for a poison pill
// something like: if (string == STOP_PILL) break;
System.out.println("taken " + string + "from the queue");
}
You don't really need the stopped flag if you are using interrupt appropriately.
You mention having tried a "poisoned pill". For others, a poisoned pill is when you put a specific "special" object on the queue which the consumer uses to know when to shutdown. Something like the following should work:
private static final String STOP_PILL = "__STOP_PLEASE!!__";
...
// the consumer removes from the queue
String string = queue.take();
// it tests to see if it a pill, == is better than .equals here
if (string == STOP_PILL) {
// the consumer should stop
break;
}
...
// to stop the consumer, the producer puts the pill into the queue
queue.put(STOP_PILL);
Lastly, you are using 2 ExecutorService instances when you could easily use one. I guess the point here is to interrupt only one of them but FYI. You can use a single Executors.newCachedThreadPool() which will create the number of threads you need.

You never shutdown your exec executor, only exec2, so the thread running your TestPoisonPill never gets interrupted.

Bound Thread running time

I'm trying to find more information on how to bound the running time of a task created using ThreadPoolExecutor.
I want to create a self destructing, e.g. when time has passed (1m for example) then the thread will terminate itself automatically and return a null value. The key point here is that waiting for the thread to finish should not block the main thread (UI thread in our example).
I know I can use the get method, however it will block my application.
I was thinking about running an additional internal thread that will sleep for 1m and then will call interrupt on the main thread.
I attached an example code, it looks like a good idea, but I need another pair of eyes telling me if it makes sense.
public abstract class AbstractTask<T> implements Callable<T> {
private final class StopRunningThread implements Runnable {
/**
* Holds the main thread to interrupt. Cannot be null.
*/
private final Thread mMain;
public StopRunningThread(final Thread main) {
mMain = main;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(60 * 1000);
// Stop it.
mMain.interrupt();
} catch (final InterruptedException exception) {
// Ignore.
}
}
}
call() is called via a ThreadPool
public T call() {
try {
// Before running any task initialize the result so that the user
// won't
// think he/she has something.
mResult = null;
mException = null;
// Stop running thread.
mStopThread = new Thread(new StopRunningThread(
Thread.currentThread()));
mStopThread.start();
mResult = execute(); <-- A subclass implements this one
} catch (final Exception e) {
// An error occurred, ignore any result.
mResult = null;
mException = e;
// Log it.
Ln.e(e);
}
// In case it's out of memory do a special catch.
catch (final OutOfMemoryError e) {
// An error occurred, ignore any result.
mResult = null;
mException = new UncheckedException(e);
// Log it.
Ln.e(e);
} finally {
// Stop counting.
mStopThread.interrupt();
}
return mResult;
}
There are couple of points which I'm afraid of:
What will happen if execute() has an exception and immediately afterwards my external thread will interrupt, then I'll never catch the exception.
Memory/CPU consumption, I am using a thread pool to avoid the creation of new threads.
Do you see a better idea for reaching the same functionality ?

Doing this would be somewhat involved. First, you'd need to extend the ThreadPoolExecutor class. You'll need to override the "beforeExecute" and "afterExecute" methods. They would keep track of thread start times, and do cleanup after. Then you'd need a reaper to periodically check to see which threads need cleaning up.
This example uses a Map to record when each thread is started. The beforeExecute method populates this, and the afterExecute method cleans it up. There is a TimerTask which periodically executes and looks at all the current entries (ie. all the running threads), and calls Thread.interrupt() on all of them that have exceeded the given time limit.
Notice that I have given two extra constructor parameters: maxExecutionTime, and reaperInterval to control how long tasks are given, and how often to check for tasks to kill. I've omitted some constructors here for the the sake of brevity.
Keep in mind the tasks you submit have to play nice and allow themselves to be killed. This means you have to:
Check Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() at regular intervals
during execution.
Try to avoid any blocking operation that does not declare
InterruptedException in it's throws clause. A prime example of this
would be InputStream/OutputStream usage, and you would use NIO
Channels instead. If you have to use these methods, check the interrupted flag immediately after returning from such an operation.
.
public class TimedThreadPoolExecutor extends ThreadPoolExecutor {
private Map<Thread, Long> threads = new HashMap<Thread, Long>();
private Timer timer;
public TimedThreadPoolExecutor(int corePoolSize, int maximumPoolSize,
long keepAliveTime, TimeUnit unit, BlockingQueue<Runnable> workQueue,
long maxExecutionTime,
long reaperInterval) {
super(corePoolSize, maximumPoolSize, keepAliveTime, unit, workQueue);
startReaper(maxExecutionTime, reaperInterval);
}
#Override
protected void afterExecute(Runnable r, Throwable t) {
threads.remove(Thread.currentThread());
System.out.println("after: " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
super.afterExecute(r, t);
}
#Override
protected void beforeExecute(Thread t, Runnable r) {
super.beforeExecute(t, r);
System.out.println("before: " + t.getName());
threads.put(t, System.currentTimeMillis());
}
#Override
protected void terminated() {
if (timer != null) {
timer.cancel();
}
super.terminated();
}
private void startReaper(final long maxExecutionTime, long reaperInterval) {
timer = new Timer();
TimerTask timerTask = new TimerTask() {
#Override
public void run() {
// make a copy to avoid concurrency issues.
List<Map.Entry<Thread, Long>> entries =
new ArrayList<Map.Entry<Thread, Long>>(threads.entrySet());
for (Map.Entry<Thread, Long> entry : entries) {
Thread thread = entry.getKey();
long start = entry.getValue();
if (System.currentTimeMillis() - start > maxExecutionTime) {
System.out.println("interrupting thread : " + thread.getName());
thread.interrupt();
}
}
}
};
timer.schedule(timerTask, reaperInterval, reaperInterval);
}
public static void main(String args[]) throws Exception {
TimedThreadPoolExecutor executor = new TimedThreadPoolExecutor(5,5, 1000L, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(20),
1000L,
200L);
for (int i=0;i<10;i++) {
executor.execute(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(5000L);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
});
}
executor.shutdown();
while (! executor.isTerminated()) {
executor.awaitTermination(1000L, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
}
}
}

Java: set timeout on a certain block of code?

Is it possible to force Java to throw an Exception after some block of code runs longer than acceptable?

Here's the simplest way that I know of to do this:
final Runnable stuffToDo = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
/* Do stuff here. */
}
};
final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final Future future = executor.submit(stuffToDo);
executor.shutdown(); // This does not cancel the already-scheduled task.
try {
future.get(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
}
catch (InterruptedException ie) {
/* Handle the interruption. Or ignore it. */
}
catch (ExecutionException ee) {
/* Handle the error. Or ignore it. */
}
catch (TimeoutException te) {
/* Handle the timeout. Or ignore it. */
}
if (!executor.isTerminated())
executor.shutdownNow(); // If you want to stop the code that hasn't finished.
Alternatively, you can create a TimeLimitedCodeBlock class to wrap this functionality, and then you can use it wherever you need it as follows:
new TimeLimitedCodeBlock(5, TimeUnit.MINUTES) { #Override public void codeBlock() {
// Do stuff here.
}}.run();

I compiled some of the other answers into a single utility method:
public class TimeLimitedCodeBlock {
public static void runWithTimeout(final Runnable runnable, long timeout, TimeUnit timeUnit) throws Exception {
runWithTimeout(new Callable<Object>() {
#Override
public Object call() throws Exception {
runnable.run();
return null;
}
}, timeout, timeUnit);
}
public static <T> T runWithTimeout(Callable<T> callable, long timeout, TimeUnit timeUnit) throws Exception {
final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
final Future<T> future = executor.submit(callable);
executor.shutdown(); // This does not cancel the already-scheduled task.
try {
return future.get(timeout, timeUnit);
}
catch (TimeoutException e) {
//remove this if you do not want to cancel the job in progress
//or set the argument to 'false' if you do not want to interrupt the thread
future.cancel(true);
throw e;
}
catch (ExecutionException e) {
//unwrap the root cause
Throwable t = e.getCause();
if (t instanceof Error) {
throw (Error) t;
} else if (t instanceof Exception) {
throw (Exception) t;
} else {
throw new IllegalStateException(t);
}
}
}
}
Sample code making use of this utility method:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
final long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
log(startTime, "calling runWithTimeout!");
try {
TimeLimitedCodeBlock.runWithTimeout(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
log(startTime, "starting sleep!");
Thread.sleep(10000);
log(startTime, "woke up!");
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
log(startTime, "was interrupted!");
}
}
}, 5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
}
catch (TimeoutException e) {
log(startTime, "got timeout!");
}
log(startTime, "end of main method!");
}
private static void log(long startTime, String msg) {
long elapsedSeconds = (System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime);
System.out.format("%1$5sms [%2$16s] %3$s\n", elapsedSeconds, Thread.currentThread().getName(), msg);
}
Output from running the sample code on my machine:
0ms [ main] calling runWithTimeout!
13ms [ pool-1-thread-1] starting sleep!
5015ms [ main] got timeout!
5016ms [ main] end of main method!
5015ms [ pool-1-thread-1] was interrupted!

Yes, but its generally a very bad idea to force another thread to interrupt on a random line of code. You would only do this if you intend to shutdown the process.
What you can do is to use Thread.interrupt() for a task after a certain amount of time. However, unless the code checks for this it won't work. An ExecutorService can make this easier with Future.cancel(true)
Its much better for the code to time itself and stop when it needs to.

If it is test code you want to time, then you can use the time attribute:
#Test(timeout = 1000)
public void shouldTakeASecondOrLess()
{
}
If it is production code, there is no simple mechanism, and which solution you use depends upon whether you can alter the code to be timed or not.
If you can change the code being timed, then a simple approach is is to have your timed code remember it's start time, and periodically the current time against this. E.g.
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
// .. do stuff ..
long elapsed = System.currentTimeMillis()-startTime;
if (elapsed>timeout)
throw new RuntimeException("tiomeout");
If the code itself cannot check for timeout, you can execute the code on another thread, and wait for completion, or timeout.
Callable<ResultType> run = new Callable<ResultType>()
{
#Override
public ResultType call() throws Exception
{
// your code to be timed
}
};
RunnableFuture<ResultType> future = new FutureTask<>(run);
ExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
service.execute(future);
ResultType result = null;
try
{
result = future.get(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS); // wait 1 second
}
catch (TimeoutException ex)
{
// timed out. Try to stop the code if possible.
future.cancel(true);
}
service.shutdown();
}

I can suggest two options.
Within the method, assuming it is looping and not waiting for an external event, add a local field and test the time each time around the loop.
void method() {
long endTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis() + 10000;
while (true) {
// method logic
if (System.currentTimeMillis() > endTimeMillis) {
// do some clean-up
return;
}
}
}
Run the method in a thread, and have the caller count to 10 seconds.
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
method();
}
});
thread.start();
long endTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis() + 10000;
while (thread.isAlive()) {
if (System.currentTimeMillis() > endTimeMillis) {
// set an error flag
break;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
}
catch (InterruptedException t) {}
}
The drawback to this approach is that method() cannot return a value directly, it must update an instance field to return its value.

EDIT: Peter Lawrey is completely right: it's not as simple as interrupting a thread (my original suggestion), and Executors & Callables are very useful ...
Rather than interrupting threads, you could set a variable on the Callable once the timeout is reached. The callable should check this variable at appropriate points in task execution, to know when to stop.
Callables return Futures, with which you can specify a timeout when you try to 'get' the future's result. Something like this:
try {
future.get(timeoutSeconds, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
myCallable.setStopMeAtAppropriatePlace(true);
}
See Future.get, Executors, and Callable ...
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Future.html#get-long-java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit-
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Callable.html
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Executors.html#newFixedThreadPool%28int%29

I created a very simple solution without using any frameworks or APIs. This looks more elegant and understandable. The class is called TimeoutBlock.
public class TimeoutBlock {
private final long timeoutMilliSeconds;
private long timeoutInteval=100;
public TimeoutBlock(long timeoutMilliSeconds){
this.timeoutMilliSeconds=timeoutMilliSeconds;
}
public void addBlock(Runnable runnable) throws Throwable{
long collectIntervals=0;
Thread timeoutWorker=new Thread(runnable);
timeoutWorker.start();
do{
if(collectIntervals>=this.timeoutMilliSeconds){
timeoutWorker.stop();
throw new Exception("<<<<<<<<<<****>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Execution Time Exceeded In "+timeoutMilliSeconds+" Milli Seconds. Thread Block Terminated.");
}
collectIntervals+=timeoutInteval;
Thread.sleep(timeoutInteval);
}while(timeoutWorker.isAlive());
System.out.println("<<<<<<<<<<####>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Executed Within "+collectIntervals+" Milli Seconds.");
}
/**
* #return the timeoutInteval
*/
public long getTimeoutInteval() {
return timeoutInteval;
}
/**
* #param timeoutInteval the timeoutInteval to set
*/
public void setTimeoutInteval(long timeoutInteval) {
this.timeoutInteval = timeoutInteval;
}
}
example :
try {
TimeoutBlock timeoutBlock = new TimeoutBlock(10 * 60 * 1000);//set timeout in milliseconds
Runnable block=new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//TO DO write block of code to execute
}
};
timeoutBlock.addBlock(block);// execute the runnable block
} catch (Throwable e) {
//catch the exception here . Which is block didn't execute within the time limit
}
This was so much useful for me when i had to connect to a FTP account. Then download and upload stuff. sometimes FTP connection hangs or totally breaks. This caused whole system to go down. and i needed a way to detect it and prevent it from happening . So i created this and used it. Works pretty well.

I faced a similar kind of issue where my task was to push a message to SQS within a particular timeout. I used the trivial logic of executing it via another thread and waiting on its future object by specifying the timeout. This would give me a TIMEOUT exception in case of timeouts.
final Future<ISendMessageResult> future =
timeoutHelperThreadPool.getExecutor().submit(() -> {
return getQueueStore().sendMessage(request).get();
});
try {
sendMessageResult = future.get(200, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
logger.info("SQS_PUSH_SUCCESSFUL");
return true;
} catch (final TimeoutException e) {
logger.error("SQS_PUSH_TIMEOUT_EXCEPTION");
}
But there are cases where you can't stop the code being executed by another thread and you get true negatives in that case.
For example - In my case, my request reached SQS and while the message was being pushed, my code logic encountered the specified timeout. Now in reality my message was pushed into the Queue but my main thread assumed it to be failed because of the TIMEOUT exception.
This is a type of problem which can be avoided rather than being solved. Like in my case I avoided it by providing a timeout which would suffice in nearly all of the cases.
If the code you want to interrupt is within you application and is not something like an API call then you can simply use
future.cancel(true)
However do remember that java docs says that it does guarantee that the execution will be blocked.
"Attempts to cancel execution of this task. This attempt will fail if the task has already completed, has already been cancelled,or could not be cancelled for some other reason. If successful,and this task has not started when cancel is called,this task should never run. If the task has already started,then the mayInterruptIfRunning parameter determines whether the thread executing this task should be interrupted inan attempt to stop the task."

If you want a CompletableFuture way you could have a method like
public MyResponseObject retrieveDataFromEndpoint() {
CompletableFuture<MyResponseObject> endpointCall
= CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() ->
yourRestService.callEnpoint(withArg1, withArg2));
try {
return endpointCall.get(10, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
} catch (TimeoutException
| InterruptedException
| ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Unable to fetch data", e);
}
}
If you're using spring, you could annotate the method with a #Retryable so that it retries the method three times if an exception is thrown.

Instead of having the task in the new thread and the timer in the main thread, have the timer in the new thread and the task in the main thread:
public static class TimeOut implements Runnable{
public void run() {
Thread.sleep(10000);
if(taskComplete ==false) {
System.out.println("Timed Out");
return;
}
else {
return;
}
}
}
public static boolean taskComplete = false;
public static void main(String[] args) {
TimeOut timeOut = new TimeOut();
Thread timeOutThread = new Thread(timeOut);
timeOutThread.start();
//task starts here
//task completed
taskComplete =true;
while(true) {//do all other stuff }
}

There is a hacky way to do it.
Set some boolean field to indicate whether the work was completed. Then before the block of code, set a timer to run a piece of code after your timeout. The timer will check if the block of code had finished executing, and if not, throw an exception. Otherwise it will do nothing.
The end of the block of code should, of course, set the field to true to indicate the work was done.

There's a very simple option that nobody's mentioned yet:
Duration timeout = Duration.ofMinutes(5);
Thread thread = new Thread(() -> {
// your code here
});
thread.start();
thread.join(timeout.toMillis());
if (thread.isAlive()) {
thread.interrupt();
throw new MyTimeoutException();
}
If the thread running your code block fails to complete within the timeout, it is interrupted and whatever exception you want can be thrown.
It is possible to write code that will simply ignore the interruption and carry on. If you're dealing with this can cannot fix it then there is thread.stop(), but that can break any synchronisation mechanisms that you are relying on. See its deprecation notice.
You can also capture exceptions from the thread:
AtomicReference<Throwable> uncaughtException = new AtomicReference<>();
thread.setUncaughtExceptionHandler((t, ex) -> uncaughtException.setRelease(ex));
// ...
Throwable ex = uncaughtException.getAcquire();
if (ex != null) {
throw ex;
}

I had this problem too, my logs print out with ‘’Unexpected end of stream‘’.and ‘’Could not get a resource from the pool‘’，
I set the timeout of brpop to 30s, redis to 31s, and mysql database connection pool to 300s. For now, this error is not printed on the log, but I don't know if this error will be reported in the future.I don't know if it has a bad effect on my writing to the database

How to timeout a thread

I want to run a thread for some fixed amount of time. If it is not completed within that time, I want to either kill it, throw some exception, or handle it in some way. How can it be done?
One way of doing it as I figured out from this thread
is to use a TimerTask inside the run() method of the Thread.
Are there any better solutions for this?
EDIT: Adding a bounty as I needed a clearer answer. The ExecutorService code given below does not address my problem. Why should I sleep() after executing (some code - I have no handle over this piece of code)? If the code is completed and the sleep() is interrupted, how can that be a timeOut?
The task that needs to be executed is not in my control. It can be any piece of code. The problem is this piece of code might run into an infinite loop. I don't want that to happen. So, I just want to run that task in a separate thread. The parent thread has to wait till that thread finishes and needs to know the status of the task (i.e whether it timed out or some exception occured or if its a success). If the task goes into an infinite loop, my parent thread keeps on waiting indefinitely, which is not an ideal situation.

Indeed rather use ExecutorService instead of Timer, here's an SSCCE:
package com.stackoverflow.q2275443;
import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Future<String> future = executor.submit(new Task());
try {
System.out.println("Started..");
System.out.println(future.get(3, TimeUnit.SECONDS));
System.out.println("Finished!");
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
future.cancel(true);
System.out.println("Terminated!");
}
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}
class Task implements Callable<String> {
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
Thread.sleep(4000); // Just to demo a long running task of 4 seconds.
return "Ready!";
}
}
Play a bit with the timeout argument in Future#get() method, e.g. increase it to 5 and you'll see that the thread finishes. You can intercept the timeout in the catch (TimeoutException e) block.
Update: to clarify a conceptual misunderstanding, the sleep() is not required. It is just used for SSCCE/demonstration purposes. Just do your long running task right there in place of sleep(). Inside your long running task, you should be checking if the thread is not interrupted as follows:
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
// Do your long running task here.
}

There isn't a 100% reliable way to do this for any old task. The task has to be written with this ability in mind.
Core Java libraries like ExecutorService cancel asynchronous tasks with interrupt() calls on the worker thread. So, for example, if the task contains some sort of loop, you should be checking its interrupt status on each iteration. If the task is doing I/O operations, they should be interruptible too—and setting that up can be tricky. In any case, keep in mind that code has to actively check for interrupts; setting an interrupt doesn't necessarily do anything.
Of course, if your task is some simple loop, you can just check the current time at each iteration and give up when a specified timeout has elapsed. A worker thread isn't needed in that case.

Consider using an instance of ExecutorService. Both invokeAll() and invokeAny() methods are available with a timeout parameter.
The current thread will block until the method completes (not sure if this is desirable) either because the task(s) completed normally or the timeout was reached. You can inspect the returned Future(s) to determine what happened.

Assuming the thread code is out of your control:
From the Java documentation mentioned above:
What if a thread doesn't respond to Thread.interrupt?
In some cases, you can use application specific tricks. For example,
if a thread is waiting on a known socket, you can close the socket to
cause the thread to return immediately. Unfortunately, there really
isn't any technique that works in general. It should be noted that in
all situations where a waiting thread doesn't respond to
Thread.interrupt, it wouldn't respond to Thread.stop either. Such
cases include deliberate denial-of-service attacks, and I/O operations
for which thread.stop and thread.interrupt do not work properly.
Bottom Line:
Make sure all threads can be interrupted, or else you need specific knowledge of the thread - like having a flag to set. Maybe you can require that the task be given to you along with the code needed to stop it - define an interface with a stop() method. You can also warn when you failed to stop a task.

BalusC said:
Update: to clarify a conceptual misunderstanding, the sleep() is not required. It is just used for SSCCE/demonstration purposes. Just do your long running task right there in place of sleep().
But if you replace Thread.sleep(4000); with for (int i = 0; i < 5E8; i++) {} then it doesn't compile, because the empty loop doesn't throw an InterruptedException.
And for the thread to be interruptible, it needs to throw an InterruptedException.
This seems like a serious problem to me. I can't see how to adapt this answer to work with a general long-running task.
Edited to add: I reasked this as a new question: [ interrupting a thread after fixed time, does it have to throw InterruptedException? ]

I created a helper class just for this some time ago. Works great:
import java.util.concurrent.BrokenBarrierException;
import java.util.concurrent.CyclicBarrier;
/**
* TimeOut class - used for stopping a thread that is taking too long
* #author Peter Goransson
*
*/
public class TimeOut {
Thread interrupter;
Thread target;
long timeout;
boolean success;
boolean forceStop;
CyclicBarrier barrier;
/**
*
* #param target The Runnable target to be executed
* #param timeout The time in milliseconds before target will be interrupted or stopped
* #param forceStop If true, will Thread.stop() this target instead of just interrupt()
*/
public TimeOut(Runnable target, long timeout, boolean forceStop) {
this.timeout = timeout;
this.forceStop = forceStop;
this.target = new Thread(target);
this.interrupter = new Thread(new Interrupter());
barrier = new CyclicBarrier(2); // There will always be just 2 threads waiting on this barrier
}
public boolean execute() throws InterruptedException {
// Start target and interrupter
target.start();
interrupter.start();
// Wait for target to finish or be interrupted by interrupter
target.join();
interrupter.interrupt(); // stop the interrupter
try {
barrier.await(); // Need to wait on this barrier to make sure status is set
} catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
// Something horrible happened, assume we failed
success = false;
}
return success; // status is set in the Interrupter inner class
}
private class Interrupter implements Runnable {
Interrupter() {}
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(timeout); // Wait for timeout period and then kill this target
if (forceStop) {
target.stop(); // Need to use stop instead of interrupt since we're trying to kill this thread
}
else {
target.interrupt(); // Gracefully interrupt the waiting thread
}
System.out.println("done");
success = false;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
success = true;
}
try {
barrier.await(); // Need to wait on this barrier
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// If the Child and Interrupter finish at the exact same millisecond we'll get here
// In this weird case assume it failed
success = false;
}
catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
// Something horrible happened, assume we failed
success = false;
}
}
}
}
It is called like this:
long timeout = 10000; // number of milliseconds before timeout
TimeOut t = new TimeOut(new PhotoProcessor(filePath, params), timeout, true);
try {
boolean sucess = t.execute(); // Will return false if this times out
if (!sucess) {
// This thread timed out
}
else {
// This thread ran completely and did not timeout
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}

I think you should take a look at proper concurrency handling mechanisms (threads running into infinite loops doesn't sound good per se, btw). Make sure you read a little about the "killing" or "stopping" Threads topic.
What you are describing,sound very much like a "rendezvous", so you may want to take a look at the CyclicBarrier.
There may be other constructs (like using CountDownLatch for example) that can resolve your problem (one thread waiting with a timeout for the latch, the other should count down the latch if it has done it's work, which would release your first thread either after a timeout or when the latch countdown is invoked).
I usually recommend two books in this area: Concurrent Programming in Java and Java Concurrency in Practice.

In the solution given by BalusC, the main thread will stay blocked for the timeout period. If you have a thread pool with more than one thread, you will need the same number of additional thread that will be using Future.get(long timeout,TimeUnit unit) blocking call to wait and close the thread if it exceeds the timeout period.
A generic solution to this problem is to create a ThreadPoolExecutor Decorator that can add the timeout functionality. This Decorator class should create as many threads as ThreadPoolExecutor has, and all these threads should be used only to wait and close the ThreadPoolExecutor.
The generic class should be implemented like below:
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class TimeoutThreadPoolDecorator extends ThreadPoolExecutor {
private final ThreadPoolExecutor commandThreadpool;
private final long timeout;
private final TimeUnit unit;
public TimeoutThreadPoolDecorator(ThreadPoolExecutor threadpool,
long timeout,
TimeUnit unit ){
super( threadpool.getCorePoolSize(),
threadpool.getMaximumPoolSize(),
threadpool.getKeepAliveTime(TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS),
TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS,
threadpool.getQueue());
this.commandThreadpool = threadpool;
this.timeout=timeout;
this.unit=unit;
}
#Override
public void execute(Runnable command) {
super.execute(() -> {
Future<?> future = commandThreadpool.submit(command);
try {
future.get(timeout, unit);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
} catch (ExecutionException | TimeoutException e) {
throw new RejectedExecutionException(e);
} finally {
future.cancel(true);
}
});
}
#Override
public void setCorePoolSize(int corePoolSize) {
super.setCorePoolSize(corePoolSize);
commandThreadpool.setCorePoolSize(corePoolSize);
}
#Override
public void setThreadFactory(ThreadFactory threadFactory) {
super.setThreadFactory(threadFactory);
commandThreadpool.setThreadFactory(threadFactory);
}
#Override
public void setMaximumPoolSize(int maximumPoolSize) {
super.setMaximumPoolSize(maximumPoolSize);
commandThreadpool.setMaximumPoolSize(maximumPoolSize);
}
#Override
public void setKeepAliveTime(long time, TimeUnit unit) {
super.setKeepAliveTime(time, unit);
commandThreadpool.setKeepAliveTime(time, unit);
}
#Override
public void setRejectedExecutionHandler(RejectedExecutionHandler handler) {
super.setRejectedExecutionHandler(handler);
commandThreadpool.setRejectedExecutionHandler(handler);
}
#Override
public List<Runnable> shutdownNow() {
List<Runnable> taskList = super.shutdownNow();
taskList.addAll(commandThreadpool.shutdownNow());
return taskList;
}
#Override
public void shutdown() {
super.shutdown();
commandThreadpool.shutdown();
}
}
The above decorator can be used as below:
import java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args){
long timeout = 2000;
ThreadPoolExecutor threadPool = new ThreadPoolExecutor(3, 10, 0, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, new SynchronousQueue<>(true));
threadPool = new TimeoutThreadPoolDecorator( threadPool ,
timeout,
TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
threadPool.execute(command(1000));
threadPool.execute(command(1500));
threadPool.execute(command(2100));
threadPool.execute(command(2001));
while(threadPool.getActiveCount()>0);
threadPool.shutdown();
}
private static Runnable command(int i) {
return () -> {
System.out.println("Running Thread:"+Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println("Starting command with sleep:"+i);
try {
Thread.sleep(i);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Thread "+Thread.currentThread().getName()+" with sleep of "+i+" is Interrupted!!!");
return;
}
System.out.println("Completing Thread "+Thread.currentThread().getName()+" after sleep of "+i);
};
}
}

I post you a piece of code which show a way how to solve the problem.
As exemple I'm reading a file.
You could use this method for another operation, but you need to implements the kill() method so that the main operation will be interrupted.
hope it helps
import java.io.File;
import java.io.FileInputStream;
import java.io.FileNotFoundException;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.io.InputStream;
/**
* Main class
*
* #author el
*
*/
public class Main {
/**
* Thread which perform the task which should be timed out.
*
* #author el
*
*/
public static class MainThread extends Thread {
/**
* For example reading a file. File to read.
*/
final private File fileToRead;
/**
* InputStream from the file.
*/
final private InputStream myInputStream;
/**
* Thread for timeout.
*/
final private TimeOutThread timeOutThread;
/**
* true if the thread has not ended.
*/
boolean isRunning = true;
/**
* true if all tasks where done.
*/
boolean everythingDone = false;
/**
* if every thing could not be done, an {#link Exception} may have
* Happens.
*/
Throwable endedWithException = null;
/**
* Constructor.
*
* #param file
* #throws FileNotFoundException
*/
MainThread(File file) throws FileNotFoundException {
setDaemon(false);
fileToRead = file;
// open the file stream.
myInputStream = new FileInputStream(fileToRead);
// Instantiate the timeout thread.
timeOutThread = new TimeOutThread(10000, this);
}
/**
* Used by the {#link TimeOutThread}.
*/
public void kill() {
if (isRunning) {
isRunning = false;
if (myInputStream != null) {
try {
// close the stream, it may be the problem.
myInputStream.close();
} catch (IOException e) {
// Not interesting
System.out.println(e.toString());
}
}
synchronized (this) {
notify();
}
}
}
/**
* The task which should be timed out.
*/
#Override
public void run() {
timeOutThread.start();
int bytes = 0;
try {
// do something
while (myInputStream.read() >= 0) {
// may block the thread.
myInputStream.read();
bytes++;
// simulate a slow stream.
synchronized (this) {
wait(10);
}
}
everythingDone = true;
} catch (IOException e) {
endedWithException = e;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
endedWithException = e;
} finally {
timeOutThread.kill();
System.out.println("-->read " + bytes + " bytes.");
isRunning = false;
synchronized (this) {
notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
/**
* Timeout Thread. Kill the main task if necessary.
*
* #author el
*
*/
public static class TimeOutThread extends Thread {
final long timeout;
final MainThread controlledObj;
TimeOutThread(long timeout, MainThread controlledObj) {
setDaemon(true);
this.timeout = timeout;
this.controlledObj = controlledObj;
}
boolean isRunning = true;
/**
* If we done need the {#link TimeOutThread} thread, we may kill it.
*/
public void kill() {
isRunning = false;
synchronized (this) {
notify();
}
}
/**
*
*/
#Override
public void run() {
long deltaT = 0l;
try {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
while (isRunning && deltaT < timeout) {
synchronized (this) {
wait(Math.max(100, timeout - deltaT));
}
deltaT = System.currentTimeMillis() - start;
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// If the thread is interrupted,
// you may not want to kill the main thread,
// but probably yes.
} finally {
isRunning = false;
}
controlledObj.kill();
}
}
/**
* Start the main task and wait for the end.
*
* #param args
* #throws FileNotFoundException
*/
public static void main(String[] args) throws FileNotFoundException {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
MainThread main = new MainThread(new File(args[0]));
main.start();
try {
while (main.isRunning) {
synchronized (main) {
main.wait(1000);
}
}
long stop = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (main.everythingDone)
System.out.println("all done in " + (stop - start) + " ms.");
else {
System.out.println("could not do everything in "
+ (stop - start) + " ms.");
if (main.endedWithException != null)
main.endedWithException.printStackTrace();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("You've killed me!");
}
}
}
Regards

Here is my really simple to use helper class to run or call piece of Java code :-)
This is based on the excellent answer from BalusC
package com.mycompany.util.concurrent;
import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException;
/**
* Calling {#link Callable#call()} or Running {#link Runnable#run()} code
* with a timeout based on {#link Future#get(long, TimeUnit))}
* #author pascaldalfarra
*
*/
public class CallableHelper
{
private CallableHelper()
{
}
public static final void run(final Runnable runnable, int timeoutInSeconds)
{
run(runnable, null, timeoutInSeconds);
}
public static final void run(final Runnable runnable, Runnable timeoutCallback, int timeoutInSeconds)
{
call(new Callable<Void>()
{
#Override
public Void call() throws Exception
{
runnable.run();
return null;
}
}, timeoutCallback, timeoutInSeconds);
}
public static final <T> T call(final Callable<T> callable, int timeoutInSeconds)
{
return call(callable, null, timeoutInSeconds);
}
public static final <T> T call(final Callable<T> callable, Runnable timeoutCallback, int timeoutInSeconds)
{
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
try
{
Future<T> future = executor.submit(callable);
T result = future.get(timeoutInSeconds, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
System.out.println("CallableHelper - Finished!");
return result;
}
catch (TimeoutException e)
{
System.out.println("CallableHelper - TimeoutException!");
if(timeoutCallback != null)
{
timeoutCallback.run();
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
catch (ExecutionException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
finally
{
executor.shutdownNow();
executor = null;
}
return null;
}
}

The following snippet will start an operation in a separate thread, then wait for up to 10 seconds for the operation to complete. If the operation does not complete in time, the code will attempt to cancel the operation, then continue on its merry way. Even if the operation cannot be cancelled easily, the parent thread will not wait for the child thread to terminate.
ExecutorService executorService = getExecutorService();
Future<SomeClass> future = executorService.submit(new Callable<SomeClass>() {
public SomeClass call() {
// Perform long-running task, return result. The code should check
// interrupt status regularly, to facilitate cancellation.
}
});
try {
// Real life code should define the timeout as a constant or
// retrieve it from configuration
SomeClass result = future.get(10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
// Do something with the result
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
future.cancel(true);
// Perform other error handling, e.g. logging, throwing an exception
}
The getExecutorService() method can be implemented in a number of ways. If you do not have any particular requirements, you can simply call Executors.newCachedThreadPool() for thread pooling with no upper limit on the number of threads.

One thing that I've not seen mentioned is that killing threads is generally a Bad Idea. There are techniques for making threaded methods cleanly abortable, but that's different to just killing a thread after a timeout.
The risk with what you're suggesting is that you probably don't know what state the thread will be in when you kill it - so you risk introducing instability. A better solution is to make sure your threaded code either doesn't hang itself, or will respond nicely to an abort request.

Great answer by BalusC's:
but Just to add that the timeout itself does not interrupt the thread itself. even if you are checking with while(!Thread.interrupted()) in your task. if you want to make sure thread is stopped you should also make sure future.cancel() is invoked when timeout exception is catch.
package com.stackoverflow.q2275443;
import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeoutException;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Future<String> future = executor.submit(new Task());
try {
System.out.println("Started..");
System.out.println(future.get(3, TimeUnit.SECONDS));
System.out.println("Finished!");
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
//Without the below cancel the thread will continue to live
// even though the timeout exception thrown.
future.cancel();
System.out.println("Terminated!");
}
executor.shutdownNow();
}
}
class Task implements Callable<String> {
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
while(!Thread.currentThread.isInterrupted()){
System.out.println("Im still running baby!!");
}
}
}

I think the answer mainly depends on the task itself.
Is it doing one task over and over again?
Is it necessary that the timeout interrupts a currently running task immediately after it expires?
If the first answer is yes and the second is no, you could keep it as simple as this:
public class Main {
private static final class TimeoutTask extends Thread {
private final long _timeoutMs;
private Runnable _runnable;
private TimeoutTask(long timeoutMs, Runnable runnable) {
_timeoutMs = timeoutMs;
_runnable = runnable;
}
#Override
public void run() {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
while (System.currentTimeMillis() < (start + _timeoutMs)) {
_runnable.run();
}
System.out.println("execution took " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - start) +" ms");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
new TimeoutTask(2000L, new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("doing something ...");
try {
// pretend it's taking somewhat longer than it really does
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}).start();
}
}
If this isn't an option, please narrow your requirements - or show some code.

I was looking for an ExecutorService that can interrupt all timed out Runnables executed by it, but found none. After a few hours I created one as below. This class can be modified to enhance robustness.
public class TimedExecutorService extends ThreadPoolExecutor {
long timeout;
public TimedExecutorService(int numThreads, long timeout, TimeUnit unit) {
super(numThreads, numThreads, 0L, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS, new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(numThreads + 1));
this.timeout = unit.toMillis(timeout);
}
#Override
protected void beforeExecute(Thread thread, Runnable runnable) {
Thread interruptionThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// Wait until timeout and interrupt this thread
Thread.sleep(timeout);
System.out.println("The runnable times out.");
thread.interrupt();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
interruptionThread.start();
}
}
Usage:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runnable abcdRunnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("abcdRunnable started");
try {
Thread.sleep(20000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// logger.info("The runnable times out.");
}
System.out.println("abcdRunnable ended");
}
};
Runnable xyzwRunnable = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("xyzwRunnable started");
try {
Thread.sleep(20000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// logger.info("The runnable times out.");
}
System.out.println("xyzwRunnable ended");
}
};
int numThreads = 2, timeout = 5;
ExecutorService timedExecutor = new TimedExecutorService(numThreads, timeout, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
timedExecutor.execute(abcdRunnable);
timedExecutor.execute(xyzwRunnable);
timedExecutor.shutdown();
}

Now , l meet a issue like this. It happens to decode picture. The process of decode takes too much time that the screen keep black. l add a time controler: when the time is too long, then pop up from the current Thread.
The following is the diff:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
Future<Bitmap> future = executor.submit(new Callable<Bitmap>() {
#Override
public Bitmap call() throws Exception {
Bitmap bitmap = decodeAndScaleBitmapFromStream(context, inputUri);// do some time consuming operation
return null;
}
});
try {
Bitmap result = future.get(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (TimeoutException e){
future.cancel(true);
}
executor.shutdown();
return (bitmap!= null);

I had the same problem. So i came up with a simple solution like this.
public class TimeoutBlock {
private final long timeoutMilliSeconds;
private long timeoutInteval=100;
public TimeoutBlock(long timeoutMilliSeconds){
this.timeoutMilliSeconds=timeoutMilliSeconds;
}
public void addBlock(Runnable runnable) throws Throwable{
long collectIntervals=0;
Thread timeoutWorker=new Thread(runnable);
timeoutWorker.start();
do{
if(collectIntervals>=this.timeoutMilliSeconds){
timeoutWorker.stop();
throw new Exception("<<<<<<<<<<****>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Execution Time Exceeded In "+timeoutMilliSeconds+" Milli Seconds. Thread Block Terminated.");
}
collectIntervals+=timeoutInteval;
Thread.sleep(timeoutInteval);
}while(timeoutWorker.isAlive());
System.out.println("<<<<<<<<<<####>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Executed Within "+collectIntervals+" Milli Seconds.");
}
/**
* #return the timeoutInteval
*/
public long getTimeoutInteval() {
return timeoutInteval;
}
/**
* #param timeoutInteval the timeoutInteval to set
*/
public void setTimeoutInteval(long timeoutInteval) {
this.timeoutInteval = timeoutInteval;
}
}
Guarantees that if block didn't execute within the time limit. the process will terminate and throws an exception.
example :
try {
TimeoutBlock timeoutBlock = new TimeoutBlock(10 * 60 * 1000);//set timeout in milliseconds
Runnable block=new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//TO DO write block of code
}
};
timeoutBlock.addBlock(block);// execute the runnable block
} catch (Throwable e) {
//catch the exception here . Which is block didn't execute within the time limit
}