Develop Reference

Will this code deadlock if it runs long enough?

This contrived project will eventually deadlock, won't it?
Two methods are synchronized in a shared object. The two threads will eventually find themselves in one of those methods and trying to invoke the other method. I think.
package main;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import myThread.MyThread;
import sharedObject.SharedObject;
import uncooperativeThread.UncooperativeThread;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
competingThreads();
//uncooperativeThreads();
}
private static void competingThreads() {
List<MyThread> myThreads = new ArrayList<MyThread>();
SharedObject sharedObject = new SharedObject();
int threads = 2;
for (int i = 0; i < threads; i++) {
myThreads.add(new MyThread(i, sharedObject));
}
for (MyThread t : myThreads) {
t.start();
}
for (MyThread t : myThreads) {
try {t.join();} catch (Exception ex) {}
}
}
/**
* We will try to call SharedObject.methodC from two threads. The first one will get in, the second will have to wait.
*/
private static void uncooperativeThreads() {
SharedObject sharedObject = new SharedObject();
UncooperativeThread t1 = new UncooperativeThread(1, sharedObject);
UncooperativeThread t2 = new UncooperativeThread(2, sharedObject);
t1.start();
t2.start();
try {t1.join();} catch (Exception ex) {}
try {t2.join();} catch (Exception ex) {}
}
}
package myThread;
import sharedObject.SharedObject;
public class MyThread extends Thread {
private int id;
SharedObject sharedObject;
public MyThread(int id, SharedObject sharedObject) {
this.id = id;
this.sharedObject = sharedObject; // Reference
}
public void run() {
doStuff();
}
private void doStuff() {
int counter = 0;
while (true) {
System.out.println(++counter);
if (id % 2 == 1) {
sharedObject.methodA(id);
} else {
sharedObject.methodB(id);
}
}
}
}
package sharedObject;
import java.util.Random;
public class SharedObject {
public synchronized void methodA(int id) {
//System.out.println("methodA(): Thread " + id);
try {Thread.sleep((new Random()).nextInt(1000));} catch(Exception ex) {}
if (id == 0) {return;}
// What I want is for one thread to try to call methodB() while the *other* thread is in methodB() trying to call methodA().
methodB(id);
}
public synchronized void methodB(int id) {
//System.out.println("methodB(): Thread " + id);
try {Thread.sleep((new Random()).nextInt(1000));} catch(Exception ex) {}
if (id == 1) {return;}
methodA(id);
}
}

// What I want is for one thread to try to call methodB() while the other thread is in methodB() trying to call methodA().
That's not a deadlock. The thread that's trying to call methodB() simply will be forced to wait until the other thread releases the lock by returning from its methodB() call.
To get a classic deadlock, you need to have two locks. Your program has only one lock—the intrinsic lock belonging to the single instance of SharedObject that your program creates.
A classic deadlock is when one thread has already acquired lock A and is waiting to acquire lock B while the other thread has acquired lock B, and it's waiting to acquire lock A. In that case, neither thread can make progress until the other thread releases its lock. But, neither thread will release its lock because neither thread can make progress.
You need two locks. You have two methods (methodA() and methodB()), but they both lock the same lock.

How to share a variable among the threads?

I have two threads named t1 and t2. They only make an addition to total integer variable. But the variable total isn't shared among these threads. I want to use same total variable in both the t1 and t2 threads. How can I do that?
My Adder runnable class:
public class Adder implements Runnable{
int a;
int total;
public Adder(int a) {
this.a=a;
total = 0;
}
public int getTotal() {
return total;
}
#Override
public void run() {
total = total+a;
}
}
My Main class:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Adder adder1=new Adder(2);
Adder adder2= new Adder(7);
Thread t1= new Thread(adder1);
Thread t2= new Thread(adder2);
thread1.start();
try {
thread1.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
t2.start();
try {
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(adder1.getTotal()); //prints 7 (But it should print 9)
System.out.println(adder2.getTotal()); //prints 2 (But it should print 9)
}
}
Both print statements should give 9 but they give 7 and 2 respectively (because the total variable doesn't isn't by t1 and t2).

The easy way out would be to make total static so it's shared between all Adder instances.
Note that such a simplistic approach would be sufficient for the main method you shared here (which doesn't really run anything in parallel, since each thread is joined right after being started). For a thread-safe solution, you'll need to protect the addition, e.g., by using an AtomicInteger:
public class Adder implements Runnable {
int a;
static AtomicInteger total = new AtomicInteger(0);
public Adder(int a) {
this.a = a;
}
public int getTotal() {
return total.get();
}
#Override
public void run() {
// return value is ignored
total.addAndGet(a);
}
}

Print 1-1000 with two threads (even and odd) from the same class

So my task is this:
Instantiate two object of the same class
Provide a constructor argument, to designate a thread as even and another as odd .
Start both threads right one after other
Odd thread prints odd numbers from 0 to 1000
Even thread prints even numbers from 0 to 1000
However they should be in sync the prints should be 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 .....
One number on each line
However I can't seem to get the locks to release correctly. I've tried reading some of the similar problems on here but they all use multiple classes. What am I doing wrong?
Edit: My main class is doing this -
NumberPrinter oddPrinter = new NumberPrinter("odd");
NumberPrinter evenPrinter = new NumberPrinter("even");
oddPrinter.start();
evenPrinter.start();
and my output is -
odd: 1
even: 2
...
public class NumberPrinter extends Thread {
private String name;
private int starterInt;
private boolean toggle;
public NumberPrinter(String name) {
super.setName(name);
this.name=name;
if(name.equals("odd")) {
starterInt=1;
toggle = true;
}
else if(name.equals("even")) {
starterInt=2;
toggle = false;
}
}
#Override
public synchronized void run() {
int localInt = starterInt;
boolean localToggle = toggle;
if(name.equals("odd")) {
while(localInt<1000) {
while(localToggle == false)
try {
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
System.out.println(name+": "+localInt);
localInt +=2;
localToggle = false;
notify();
}
}
else {
while(localInt<1000) {
while(localToggle == true)
try {
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
System.out.println(name+": "+localInt);
localInt +=2;
localToggle = true;
notify();
}
}
}
}

The key problem here is that the two threads have no way to coordinate with each other. When you have a local variable (localToggle in this case) nothing outside the method can observe or alter its value.
If you share one object with both threads, however, its state can change, and if used correctly, those state changes will be visible to both threads.
You will see examples where the shared object is an AtomicInteger, but when you use synchronized, wait() and notify(), you don't need the extra concurrency overhead built into the atomic wrappers.
Here's a simple outline:
class Main {
public static main(String... args) {
Main state = new Main();
new Thread(new Counter(state, false)).start();
new Thread(new Counter(state, true)).start();
}
int counter;
private static class Counter implements Runnable {
private final Main state;
private final boolean even;
Counter(Main state, boolean even) {
this.state = state;
this.even = even;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(state) {
/* Here, use wait and notify to read and update state.counter
* appropriately according to the "even" flag.
*/
}
}
}
}
I'm not clear whether using wait() and notify() yourself is part of the assignment, but an alternative to this outline would be to use something like a BlockingQueue to pass a token back and forth between the two threads. The (error-prone) condition monitoring would be built into the queue, cleaning up your code and making mistakes less likely.

I finally got it working in a way that meets the standards required by my assignment.
Thank you all for your input. I'll leave the answer here for anyone who might need it.
public class Demo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
NumberPrinter oddPrinter = new NumberPrinter("odd");
NumberPrinter evenPrinter = new NumberPrinter("even");
oddPrinter.start();
evenPrinter.start();
System.out.println("Calling thread Done");
}
public class NumberPrinter extends Thread {
private int max = 1000;
static Object lock = new Object();
String name;
int remainder;
static int startNumber=1;
public NumberPrinter(String name) {
this.name = name;
if(name.equals("even")) {
remainder=0;
}else {
remainder=1;
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(startNumber<max) {
synchronized(lock) {
while(startNumber%2 !=remainder) {
try {
lock.wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(name+": "+startNumber);
startNumber++;
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}

Thread output inconsistent even when using synchronized keyword

I am very new to threads. I wrote a code and expected my output as 20000 consistently. But that's not the case. Please find the code below:
class Runner4 implements Runnable {
static int count = 0;
public synchronized void increase() {
count++;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
increase();
}
}
}
public class threading4 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runner4());
t1.start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runner4());
t2.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(Runner4.count);
}
}
Any explanation?
Thanks!!

You are synchronizing on two different objects in your code (corresponding to the two objects you created). As such, there is no protection of the shared static variable, and you get unpredictable results. Basically, there is no effective synchronization going on in your program. You can fix this with a simple modification.
Change:
public synchronized void increase(){
count++;
}
To:
public void increase(){
synchronized(Runner4.class) {
count++;
}
}
Note that I am not saying this is the best way to accomplish this kind of synchronization - but the important take-away is that, if you are modifying a class level variable, you need class level synchronization as well.

Your code would work if count was not static.
public synchronized void increase() {
// method body
}
is equivalent to
public void increase() {
synchronized(this) {
// method body
}
}
Since count is static, both t1 and t2 are accessing it with different locks, resulting in non-deterministic behavior. Either make Runner4.increase synchronize on a common lock (Runner4.class or a private static lock object would work just fine), or make count non-static.

The way you're trying to achieve what you want is is not really the best way.
A better way to do it is define a class called Counter, as the following:
public class Counter
{
int count;
public Counter()
{
count = 0;
}
public synchronized void increase() {
count++;
}
public int getCount()
{
return count;
}
}
The class has the methods of increasing the counter and getting it.
What you need to do now is have a Counter object to be shared by two threads that call the increase() method. So your thread class would look like this:
class Runner4 extends Thread {
Counter count;
public Runner4(Counter c)
{
count = c;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
count.increase();
}
}
}
Notice that the class takes a Counter object and calls the increase method. Also the class extends Thread instead of implementing Runnable. There is really no much difference, it's just now your Runner4 can use Thread class methods.
From your main defines a Counter object and two Runner4 threads, and then pass the Counter object to each one of them:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Counter count = new Counter();
Thread t1 = new Runner4(count);
t1.start();
Thread t2 = new Runner4(count);
t2.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(count.getCount());
}

IlleagalMonitorStateException when I am trying to run this program

public class ThreadTest
{
public static Integer i = new Integer(0);
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
ThreadTest threadTest = new ThreadTest();
Runnable odd = threadTest.new Numbers(1, "thread1");
Runnable even = threadTest.new Numbers(0, "thread2");
((Thread) odd).start();
((Thread) even).start();
}
class Numbers extends Thread
{
int reminder;
String threadName;
Numbers(int reminder, String threadName)
{
this.reminder = reminder;
this.threadName = threadName;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
while (i < 20)
{
synchronized (i)
{
if (i % 2 == reminder)
{
System.out.println(threadName + " : " + i);
i++;
i.notify();
}
else
{
try
{
i.wait();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
}
}

You can't synchronize on i because it changes during execution of your program.
Since Integer in Java is immutable, after executing i++ i will contain a reference to another object, not the object you have synchronized on. So, you can't call wait()/notify() on this new object, because these methods may be only called on the object you are synchronized on, otherwise you get IllegalMonitorStateException.
You need to synchronize on some other object that doesn't change during execution. For example, you may create a separate object for this purpose:
public class ThreadTest {
public static Integer i = new Integer(0);
public static Object lock = new Object();
...
class Numbers extends Thread {
...
#Override
public void run() {
...
synchronized (lock) {
...
lock.notify();
...
lock.wait();
...
}
}
}
}

This line:
i++;
is equivalent to:
i = i + 1;
which (due to autoboxing) becomes something like:
i = new Integer(i.intValue() + 1);
So, when you call i.notify() you are synchronized on the old i, not the new one.
I'd suggest changing i into an ordinary int variable, and create a separate object to synchronize on:
static int i = 0;
static Object iMonitor = new Object();

As documentation states the exception is thrown when
the current thread is not the owner of the object's monitor
It also states that
This method should only be called by a thread that is the owner of this object's monitor.
And this condition can be obtained by
By executing a synchronized instance method of that object.
By executing the body of a synchronized statement that synchronizes on the object.
For objects of type Class, by executing a synchronized static method of that class.
You could try calling the wait method from inside the class that uses i. This could be done by extending the class and writing two new methods for notify and wait..

You cannot put wait() and notify() in the same synchronized block because that will just cause a deadlock. Make sure only the wait and notify functions are wrapped with a synchronized block like this:
synchronized (i) {
i.wait(); // or i.notify();
}