Develop Reference

Threads producer consumer in java

Below is the consumer producer problem code, but the code is not working as expected. Here the consumer and producer are supposed to be just producing and consuming one object.
public class ProducerConsumer {
private static LinkedList<Integer> linkedList = new LinkedList<>();
public static void main(String a[]) throws InterruptedException {
Thread producer = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
while (linkedList.size() == 1) {
try {
wait();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("Produced");
linkedList.add(1);
notify();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
});
Thread consume = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// produce
synchronized(this) {
while (linkedList.isEmpty()) {
try {
wait();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("Consumed");
linkedList.removeFirst();
notify();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
});
producer.start();
consume.start();
producer.join();
consume.join();
}
}
We get the output as : Produced
And the program hangs.
Please help with possible solutions/ explanations

Use a shared lock. In the posted code each Runnable is using itself as a lock so no actual locking takes place.
When a thread waits, another thread needs to call notify on the same lock in order to wake up the waiting thread. We know from your logging that the Producer thread does its thing, but since the notify acts on a lock that is not the same as the one the Consumer is using, the consumer thread never wakes up.
Changing the code to use a shared lock works:
import java.util.*;
public class ProducerConsumer { private static LinkedList linkedList = new LinkedList();
public static void main(String a[]) throws InterruptedException {
final Object lock = new Object();
Thread producer = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
while (linkedList.size() ==1) {
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("Produced");
linkedList.add(1);
lock.notify();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
});
Thread consume = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// produce
synchronized (lock) {
while (linkedList.isEmpty()) {
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("Consumed");
linkedList.removeFirst();
lock.notify();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
});
producer.start();
consume.start();
producer.join();
consume.join();
}
}
Output for this is:
c:\example>java ProducerConsumer
Produced
Consumed
which I think is what you're expecting.
Btw see this other answer I wrote for a dirt-simple implementation of a queue; you are better off protecting the shared data structure than putting the code in the threads accessing the data structure, especially look at how much easier the code is to write.

Concurrency means that you can not know before runtime which Thread will end first. So you can not know which of the Consumer and Producer is launched, executed or finished first.
To help you, you can use a cyclic barrier https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/CyclicBarrier.html or applying the Fork/Join Framework https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/forkjoin.html
Your synchronized blocs just say : only one Thread at a time can execute this part of code, not execute the first and the second after.
An example of how CyclicBarrier works :
service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(numThreadsTotal);
CyclicBarrier c = new CyclicBarrier(numThreadsToWait);
runProducer();
c.await();
runConsumer();
It will wait until the there is as much Threads as numThreadsToWait that have execute the runProducer to execute the runConsumer().
Perhaps using a Thread Pool with a size of 1 could help you, but you will loose the benefits of concurrency.

I think best what you can do, is use BlockingQueue.

Ending console based multi threaded program gracefully

I have the following class, I usually run about 10 threads of it
public class MyClass implements Runnable {
private volatile Device device = null;
public MyClass(Device device) {
this.device = device;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) { // <--- I do know that the "true" has to be changed to a Boolean
try {
Worker worker = new Worker();
worker.work();
System.out.println("Waiting 6 seconds!");
Thread.sleep(6 * 1000);
System.out.println("------------------------------------");
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("Thread in program ended!");
}
}
and in my main I start the threads like this
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
(new Thread(new MyClass())).start();
}
This is a console based program. What is the most reliable way to end the program? I think the best way would be to change while (true) to while (Boolean) and somehow change that Boolean for all threads, then when the loop ends, the program will end gracefully.

Here i'm ending it by waiting for a user input but you can change it to fire the stop method from anywhere
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<MyClass> myThreads = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
MyClass myClass = new MyClass();
Thread t = new Thread(myClass);
t.start();
myThreads.add(myClass);
}
Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in);
in.next();
for(MyClass t : myThreads){
t.stop();
}
}
class MyClass implements Runnable {
private Boolean flag;
public MyClass() {
this.flag = true;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (flag) { // <--- I do know that the "true" has to be changed to a Boolean
try {
System.out.println("Waiting 6 seconds!");
Thread.sleep(6 * 1000);
System.out.println("------------------------------------");
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("Thread in program ended!");
}
public void stop(){
this.flag = false;
} }

The easy way would be to store all your threads in a set and make loop joining them at the end.
Be aware that this is not the most ortodox neither the most efficient way to do this.
In your main:
HashSet<Thread> threads = new HashSet();
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new MyClass());
threads.add(t);
t.start();
}
for (Thread thread: threads) {
thread.join();
}
some more material

The following code uses an executor service to fix the number of threads that run at any time, it provides a Future object that also tells you when your thread has shutdown gracefully. They share a shutdown object as well. This offers you a bit more flexibility as the executor service can let you decide how many threads run at any one time gracefully.
First lets created a shared shutdown object that will notify all the threads it is time to shut down. There will be one instance of this and each thread will have a copy.
public static class Shutdown {
private boolean running;
public void shutdown() {
this.running = false;
}
public boolean isRunning() {
return running;
}
}
Next let me just create a dummy thread that does nothing more than sleep forever while it is running. Obviously you can simply replace this with your own thread to do something useful.
public static class MyClass implements Runnable {
final Shutdown shutdown;
public MyClass(Shutdown shutdown) {
this.shutdown = shutdown;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (shutdown.isRunning()) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Did not gracefully shut down");
}
}
System.out.println("Thread in program ended!");
}
}
}
Now for the main class which will run everything, this is where the magic happens.
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
//run exactly 10 threads at a time
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
//this is how we shut it down
Shutdown globalShutdown = new Shutdown();
//start up the 10 threads
List<Future<?>> futures = new ArrayList<>();
for(int i = 0; i< 10; i++)
futures.add(executorService.submit(new MyClass(globalShutdown)));
//gracefully shut them down
globalShutdown.shutdown();
try {
//wait for them all to shutdown
for(Future<?> future : futures)
future.get();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException("This should never happen");
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException("This should never happen");
}
//everything got shutdown!
}
in practice however you probably also want to handle the case where your thread may not end gracefully due to a bug. Rather than stall forever you might want to add a timeout and if that timeout is exceeded then simply forcibly terminate all remaining threads. To do that replace the above try-catch block with this.
try {
//wait for them all to shutdown
boolean timedout = false;
for(Future<?> future : futures) {
if( !timedout ) {
try {
future.get(30, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
timedout = true;
}
}
if(timedout) {
future.cancel(true);
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException | ExecutionException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException("This should never happen");
}

how to pause a thread and resume it exactly where it was left off

I'm trying to come with a solution for a thread to pause and resume exactly where it was left off.
So here's a sample code emulating my problem: 2 threads are running in the background: taskThread & busyThread. When busyThread is in system is busy area, taskThread must alt/pause immediately and resume exactly where it was left off. Example, if taskThread was paused at task C (finished) it should resume at D.
I tried to use wait, notify on taskThread but without success.
public class Test
{
private Thread taskThread;
private Thread busyThread;
public static void main(String args[]) throws Exception
{
Test t = new Test();
t.runTaskThread();
t.runBusyThread();
}
public void runTaskThread()
{
taskThread = new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run()
{
for (int x=0; x<100; x++)
{
try
{
System.out.println("I'm doing task A for process #"+x);
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.println("I'm doing task B for process #"+x);
Thread.sleep(200);
System.out.println("I'm doing task C for process #"+x);
Thread.sleep(300);
System.out.println("I'm doing task D for process #"+x);
Thread.sleep(800);
System.out.println("\n\n");
} catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}});
taskThread.start();
}
public void runBusyThread()
{
busyThread = new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
Random rand = new Random();
int randomNum = rand.nextInt(1000);
if (randomNum<400)
{
System.out.println("Wait...system is busy!!!");
try
{ //what should come here to to signal taskThread to paused
Thread.sleep(3000);
//what should come here to to signal taskThread to resume
} catch (InterruptedException e)
{
}
} else
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(300);
} catch (InterruptedException e)
{
}
}
}
}});
busyThread.start();
}
}

There are two very useful classes in concurrency package - CountDownLatch and CyclicBarrier. If you need this behaviour only once, you probably want the first one (as it cannot be reset).
Thread 1 will await until notified by thread 2. Once it was counted down to 0, thread 1 will never block again at await():
CountDownLatch cdl = new CountDownLatch(1);
// thread 1:
cdl.await();
// thread 2:
cdl.countDown();
Threads will block at await() until there are exactly two threads waiting:
CyclicBarrier barrier = new CyclicBarrier(2);
// both threads:
barrier.await();
EDIT:
Here is what I came up with when modifying your code, however it is unclear to me whether it is expected behaviour.
Note a volatile keyword on the CountDownLatch - it is very important here, otherwise taskThread may cache the initial object (new CountDownLatch(0)) and hence never block.
public class Test {
private Thread taskThread;
private Thread busyThread;
private volatile CountDownLatch cdl = new CountDownLatch(0);
public static void main(String args[]) throws Exception {
Test t = new Test();
t.runTaskThread();
t.runBusyThread();
}
public void runTaskThread() {
taskThread = new Thread(() -> {
for (int x = 0; x < 100; x++) {
waitIfSystemBusy();
System.out.println("I'm doing task A for process #" + x);
sleep(1000);
waitIfSystemBusy();
System.out.println("I'm doing task B for process #" + x);
sleep(200);
waitIfSystemBusy();
System.out.println("I'm doing task C for process #" + x);
sleep(300);
waitIfSystemBusy();
System.out.println("I'm doing task D for process #" + x);
sleep(800);
System.out.println("\n\n");
}
});
taskThread.start();
}
public void runBusyThread() {
busyThread = new Thread(() -> {
while (true) {
Random rand = new Random();
int randomNum = rand.nextInt(1000);
if (randomNum < 400) {
System.out.println("Wait...system is busy!!!");
cdl = new CountDownLatch(1); // signal taskThread to pause
sleep(3000);
cdl.countDown(); // signal taskThread to resume
} else {
sleep(300);
}
}
});
busyThread.start();
}
private void waitIfSystemBusy() {
try {
cdl.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
private static void sleep(int millis) {
try {
Thread.sleep(millis);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}

It would be done using the deprecated methods Thread.suspend/resume.
They are deprecated as they are deadlock prone, whereas concurrency mechanisms like locks behave in a designed explicit manner (but still deadlock prone).

I would suggest create a class that implements Runnable which simply keep track of the stages you are in
just as an example (please change accordingly)
class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
private int stage = 0; // if you want it gloabally, then use static
#Override
public void run() {
try{
switch(stage){
case 1:
System.out.println("1");
stage++;
case 2:
System.out.println("2");
Thread.sleep(2000);
stage++;
default:
stage = 0;
}
}catch (Exception e){
}
}
}
now to use such class you just need to create a new thread
for example:
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
MyRunnable myRunnable=new MyRunnable();
new Thread(myRunnable).start(); //it prints 1
Thread.sleep(1000);
new Thread(myRunnable).start(); //prints 2 follow by 2 sec sleep
}
NOTE:
this example wasn't intended to answer the question exactly but rather show a logic how it can be done.
EDIT 1:
what should come here to to signal taskThread to paused
taskThread.interupt();
what should come here to to signal taskThread to resume
taskThread=new Thread(myRunnable);
taskThread.start();

Instead of sleep() I would prefer wait() and notifyAll().
have a Boolean systemBusy, implement get and set methods;
now in thread1
run(){
synchronize(something){
while(isSystemBusy()){
try{
wait();}
catch{}
}
}
}
and on the other thread
run(){
setSystemBusy(true);
//piece of code
//task finished
notifyAll();
setSystemBusy(false);
}
you can use this in multiple waiting threads just remember to set appropriate while condition false after notify all.

Time out method in java

In a java class I have a method that sometimes takes a long time for execution. Maybe it hangs in that method flow. What I want is if the method doesn't complete in specific time, the program should exit from that method and continue with the rest of flow.
Please let me know is there any way to handle this situation.

You must use threads in order to achieve this. Threads are not harmful :) Example below run a piece of code for 10 seconds and then ends it.
public class Test {
public static void main(String args[])
throws InterruptedException {
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("0");
method();
}
});
thread.start();
long endTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis() + 10000;
while (thread.isAlive()) {
if (System.currentTimeMillis() > endTimeMillis) {
System.out.println("1");
break;
}
try {
System.out.println("2");
Thread.sleep(500);
}
catch (InterruptedException t) {}
}
}
static void method() {
long endTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis() + 10000;
while (true) {
// method logic
System.out.println("3");
if (System.currentTimeMillis() > endTimeMillis) {
// do some clean-up
System.out.println("4");
return;
}
}
}
}

Execute the method in a different thread, you can end a thread at anytime.

Based on the above snipplet, I tried creating a glorified spring bean.
Such executor runs the passed limitedRuntimeTask in limited runtimeInMs.
If the task finishes within its time limits, the caller continues normally in execution.
If the limitedRuntimeTask fails to finish in the defined runtimeInMs,
the caller will receive the thread execution back. If a timeBreachedTask was defined,
it will be executed before returning to caller.
public class LimitedRuntimeExecutorImpl {
public void runTaskInLessThanGivenMs(int runtimeInMs, final Callable limitedRuntimeTask, final Callable timeBreachedTask) {
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
LOGGER.info("Started limitedRuntimeTask");
limitedRuntimeTask.call();
LOGGER.info("Finished limitedRuntimeTask in time");
} catch (Exception e) {
LOGGER.error("LimitedRuntimeTask exception", e);
}
}
});
thread.start();
long endTimeMillis = System.currentTimeMillis() + runtimeInMs;
while (thread.isAlive()) {
if (System.currentTimeMillis() > endTimeMillis) {
LOGGER.warn("LmitedRuntimeTask did not finish in time (" + runtimeInMs + ")ms. It will run in vain.");
if(timeBreachedTask != null ){
try {
LOGGER.info("Executing timeBreachedTask");
timeBreachedTask.call();
LOGGER.info("Finished timeBreachedTask");
} catch (Exception e) {
LOGGER.error("timeBreachedTask exception", e);
}
}
return;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
}
catch (InterruptedException t) {}
}
}
}

I feel the approach in accepted answer is a bit outdated. With Java8, it can be done much simpler.
Say, you have a method
MyResult conjureResult(String param) throws MyException { ... }
then you can do this (keep reading, this is just to show the approach):
private final ExecutorService timeoutExecutorService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
MyResult conjureResultWithTimeout(String param, int timeoutMs) throws Exception {
Future<MyResult> future = timeoutExecutorService.submit(() -> conjureResult(param));
return future.get(timeoutMs, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
}
of course, throwing Exception is bad, here is the correct extended version with proper error processing, but I suggest you examine it carefully, your may want to do some things differently (logging, returning timeout in extended result etc.):
private final ExecutorService timeoutExecutorService = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
MyResult conjureResultWithTimeout(String param, int timeoutMs) throws MyException {
Future<MyResult> future = timeoutExecutorService.submit(() -> conjureResult(param));
try {
return future.get(timeoutMs, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
//something interrupted, probably your service is shutting down
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
throw new RuntimeException(e);
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
//error happened while executing conjureResult() - handle it
if (e.getCause() instanceof MyException) {
throw (MyException)e.getCause();
} else {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
//timeout expired, you may want to do something else here
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}

Need sample program to throw InterruptedException

I am going through the kathy sierra SCJP 1.5 Chapter 9(threads) and there it is mentioned as:
Notice that the sleep() method can throw a checked InterruptedException
(you'll usually know if that is a possibility, since another thread has to explicitly do
the interrupting), so you must acknowledge the exception with a handle or declare
I just need a sample program to know when it happens (which i can run on my machine)?
I googled but could not find any sample code to test this functionality..
Thanks in Advance

Here's an example:
public class Test
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
final Thread mainThread = Thread.currentThread();
Thread interruptingThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
// Let the main thread start to sleep
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
mainThread.interrupt();
}
});
interruptingThread.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("I was interrupted!");
}
}
}
To walk through it:
Set up a new thread which will sleep for a short time, then interrupt the main thread
Start that new thread
Sleep for a long-ish time (in the main thread)
Print out a diagnostic method when we're interrupted (again, in the main thread)
The sleep in the main thread isn't strictly necessary, but it means that the main thread does get to really start sleeping before it's interrupted.

public class SleepTest1 extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
Thread.sleep(1000);
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
SleepTest1 st1 = new SleepTest1();
st1.start();
}
}