Develop Reference

Imitation of Thread Pool doesn't work correctly

I've been trying to make a simple implementation of Thread-Pool using Active Objects.
Here is my Main:
public static void main(String[] args){
MyThreadPool tp = new MyThreadPool(100,3);
tp.execute(()->{
try { Thread.sleep(5*1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println("42");
});
tp.shutDown();
}
The shutDown method is usually called first through the Main and therefore keeps the Active Objects "alive" unwantedly, but sometimes I get the wanted outcome.
Any idea why there is uncertainty about the result?
Below you can see the rest of the classes:
public class MyThreadPool {
ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable> q;
ArrayBlockingQueue<ActiveObject> activeObjects;
volatile boolean stop;
AtomicInteger count;
Thread t;
Runnable stopTask;
public MyThreadPool(int capacity, int maxThreads) {
activeObjects = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(maxThreads);
q = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(capacity);
count = new AtomicInteger(0);
stopTask = ()->stop = true;
t=new Thread(()->{
//System.out.println("Thread-Pool Started");
while(!stop){
//if queue is empty it is gonna be a blocking call
try {
Runnable task = q.take();
if(task==stopTask)
stopTask.run();
else
//size() is atomic integer
if (count.get() < maxThreads) {
ActiveObject a = new ActiveObject(capacity);
activeObjects.put(a);
count.incrementAndGet();
a.execute(task);
}
//we will assign the next task to the least busy ActiveObject
else {
int minSize = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
ActiveObject choice = null;
for (ActiveObject a : activeObjects) {
if (a.size() < minSize) {
minSize = a.size();
choice = a;
}
}
choice.execute(task);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
//System.out.println("Thread-Pool Ended");
});
t.start();
}
//execute returns right away - just puts into the queue
public void execute(Runnable r ){
// if capacity is full it is gonna be a blocking call
if(!stop)
try { q.put(r); } catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
public void shutDownNow(){
activeObjects.forEach(a->a.shutDownNow());
stop = true;
t.interrupt();
}
public void shutDown(){
activeObjects.forEach(a->a.shutDown());
execute(stopTask);
}
public class ActiveObject {
ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable> q;
volatile boolean stop;
Thread t;
public ActiveObject(int capacity) {
q = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(capacity);
t=new Thread(()->{
//System.out.println("Active Object Started");
while(!stop){
//if queue is empty it is gonna be a blocking call
try {
q.take().run();
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
//System.out.println("Active Object Ended");
});
t.start();
}
//execute returns right away - just puts into the queue
public void execute(Runnable r ){
// if capacity is full it is gonna be a blocking call
if(!stop)
try { q.put(r); } catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
public void shutDownNow(){
stop = true;
t.interrupt();
}
public void shutDown(){
execute(()->stop=true);
}
public int size(){
return q.size();
}
}

In your main method you create a thread pool (which also creates and starts tp.t thread), enqueue a task into tp.q, and then call tp.shutDown():
MyThreadPool tp = new MyThreadPool(100, 3);
tp.execute(() -> {...});
tp.shutDown();
Imagine that tp.shutDown() in the main thread is executed before the MyThreadPool.t thread processes the enqueued task:
activeObjects.forEach(a -> a.shutDown());
execute(stopTask);
here activeObjects is empty, you enqueue stopTask into tp.q, and main thread finishes.
Now we only have MyThreadPool.t thread, let's see what it does:
while (!stop) {
try {
Runnable task = q.take();
if (task == stopTask)
stopTask.run();
else
if (count.get() < maxThreads) {
ActiveObject a = new ActiveObject(capacity);
activeObjects.put(a);
count.incrementAndGet();
a.execute(task);
}
else {
...
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
At this point q contains 2 tasks: a normal task and stopTask.
In the first loop iteration the normal task is taken from q, and is given for processing to a newly created ActiveObject:
ActiveObject a = new ActiveObject(capacity);
activeObjects.put(a);
count.incrementAndGet();
a.execute(task);
new ActiveObject() also creates and starts its own internal ActiveObject.t thread.
The second loop iteration processes stopTask:
if (task == stopTask)
stopTask.run();
which sets stop = true.
As a result, the next check while (!stop) returns false and MyThreadPool.t thread finishes.
Now we only have ActiveObject.t thread, which hasn't been stopped:
while (!stop) {
try {
q.take().run();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
here the thread will keep waiting on q.take() forever.

Semaphore with queue

public class SemaphoreWithQueues implements Semaphore {
private List<Object> queue;
private AtomicInteger current = new AtomicInteger(0);
private int permits;
public SemaphoreWithQueues(int permits) {
this.permits = permits;
this.queue = Collections.synchronizedList(new LinkedList<>());
}
#Override
public void enter() throws InterruptedException {
if (current.get() < permits) {
current.incrementAndGet();
} else {
Object block = new Object();
synchronized (block) {
queue.add(block);
block.wait();
current.incrementAndGet();
}
}
}
#Override
public void leave() {
if(queue.size() != 0) {
Object block = queue.get(0);
queue.remove(0);
synchronized (block) {
block.notify(); //Unblock quenue
}
}
current.decrementAndGet();
//current lessen and current thread have time come in block if(...)
// in enter() faster then another thread increased current
}
}
> The program usually output:
>
> 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2
**Where run() of both threads is almost the same, such as:**
public void run(){
for (int i = 0; i <5; i++) {
try {
semaphore.enter();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println(e);
}
System.out.println(2);
semaphore.leave();
}
}
There are 2 threads using this semaphore. When 1 thread increases the queue, the second is waiting, the problem is that if we extracted the object from quene and unblocked it, then the thread that finished leave() start enter() faster and again increments the counter, while the awaked thread also increments the counter, current = 2, and the list is empty.
SORRY FOR BAD ENGLISH

There are many problems in the code.
Synchronization: Synchronization should be done for a shareable
resource. Why it is done for a local object which has scope only for
that method.
Object block = new Object();
synchronized (block) {
Both current and queue are independent properties, they should be
synchronized together.
Now let's come to point If you really want to create a semaphore using Queue. You do not need all this logic. You can use existing Java class e.g. BlockingQueue. Here is the implementation
class SemaphoreWithQueues implements Semaphore{
private BlockingQueue<Integer> queue;
public SemaphoreWithQueues(int permits) {
if(queue == null){
queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<>(permits);
}
}
public void enter() {
queue.offer(1);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " got a permit.");
}
public void leave() throws InterruptedException {
queue.take();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " left the permit.");
}
}
And Task to use the semaphore
class Task implements Runnable {
private SemaphoreWithQueues semaphore;
public Task(SemaphoreWithQueues semaphore){
this.semaphore = semaphore;
}
public void run(){
for (int i = 0; i <5; i++) {
semaphore.enter();
try {
semaphore.leave();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SemaphoreWithQueues semaphoreWithQueues = new SemaphoreWithQueues(5);
Thread th1 = new Thread(new Task(semaphoreWithQueues));
Thread th2 = new Thread(new Task(semaphoreWithQueues));
Thread th3 = new Thread(new Task(semaphoreWithQueues));
th1.start();
th2.start();
th3.start();
}
}
But personally I do not like using Queue to create Semaphores, as it wastes memory unnecessary by creating elements in queue. Despite of this you can create a semaphore using single shareable object with permits using wait and notify mechanism. You can try with this approach. If you would like.

Print odd and even using two threads in Java

I am trying to do it using two threads like below. Can someone point the obvious mistake I am doing here?
public class OddEven {
public static boolean available = false;
public static Queue<Integer> queue = new LinkedList<Integer>();
static Thread threadEven = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
printEven();
}
public synchronized void printEven() {
while (!available) {
try {
wait();
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
System.out.println(queue.remove());
available = false;
notifyAll();
}
};
static Thread threadOdd = new Thread() {
#Override
public void run() {
printOdd();
}
public synchronized void printOdd () {
while (available) {
try {
wait();
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
System.out.println(queue.remove());
available = true;
notifyAll();
}
};
public static void main(String[] args) {
int n = 20;
for (int i = 1; i < n; i++) {
queue.add(i);
}
threadOdd.start();
threadEven.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(60000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
try {
threadOdd.join();
threadEven.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
But this program is only printing 1 and quitting. After printing 1 the available should be true and printEven should wake up, print and set available to false. I don't understand what is going wrong here? I saw other solutions but want to know why my solution is not working.

Putting synchronized on an instance method means that the thread calling that method has to acquire the lock on that instance; public void synchronized printOdd() is syntax sugar for
public void printOdd() {
synchronized(this) {
...
}
}
where this is different for each instance, since ThreadOdd and threadEven are two different objects and each one uses its own lock. The methods notifyAll and wait are called on the object that is being used as the lock. When one thread waits it never gets notified because the notification only applies to other threads waiting on the same lock as the notifying thread.

Suggestions on my implementation of Producer Consumer

I am naive in multi-threading and is trying to learn it's concepts. This is my implementation for Producer-Consumer problem. Please have a look and suggest me if it is incorrect/crude/any other suggestions that could improve my design.
static int data = 0;
static Object obj1 = new Object();
static class Producer implements Runnable {
public void run() {
produce();
}
void produce() {
while (true) {
if (data < 5){
synchronized(obj1){
System.out.println("Producing Data. Now Data is "+data++);
obj1.notifyAll();
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
else{
try {
System.out.println("Producer inactive");
synchronized(obj1){
obj1.wait();
}
System.out.println("Producer active");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
static class Consumer implements Runnable{
public void run(){
consume();
}
void consume() {
while (true) {
if (data > 0){
synchronized(obj1){
System.out.println("Consuming Data. Now Data is "+data--);
obj1.notifyAll();
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
else{
try {
System.out.println("Consumer Inactive");
synchronized(obj1){
obj1.wait();
}
System.out.println("Consumer Active");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}

Ok several points. Producer and Consumer usually share a data structure. The use of the static data is very odd and quite frankly makes no sense. Typically what you'll want to share is a data structure like a queue between producer and consumer. The producer will add things on to the tail of the queue and the consumer(s) will draw things from the head of the queue (FIFO - first in first out). Right now I see none of that so what exactly is it producing vs consuming?
A good producer consumer architecture doesn't care too much about what type of data is exchanged so you can pass many different types of things over it. That's where object oriented command architecture will help you out. In this example SomeMessage represents the root of some object hierarchy so a variety of messages can be exchanged.
Here is a simple example of how you should instantiate a Producer-Consumer architecture in your program:
public class SomeClient {
public void start() {
Queue sharedQueue = new LinkedList();
producer = new Producer( sharedQueue );
consumer = new Consumer( sharedQueue );
producer.start();
consumer.start();
}
}
Here is the implementation of that:
public class Producer implements Runnable {
Thread thread;
Queue queue;
public Producer(Queue queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
public void start() {
thread = new Thread(this);
thread.start();
}
public void shutdown() {
thread.interrupt(); // request a shutdown
thread.join(); // make sure we wait until Producer.thread exits before this thread continues
}
public void run() {
try {
while( !Thread.isInterrupted() ) {
SomeMessage message = produceAMessage();
synchronized( queue ) {
queue.add( message );
queue.notifyAll();
}
}
} catch( InterruptedException ex ) {
System.out.println("Producer shutting down per request.");
} finally {
thread = null;
}
}
}
public class Consumer implements Runnable {
Thread thread;
Queue queue;
public Consumer( Queue queue ) {
this.queue = queue;
}
public void start() {
thread = new Thread( this );
thread.start();
}
public void shutdown() {
thread.interrupt(); // request a shutdown
thread.join(); // make sure we wait until Consumer.thread exits before this thread continues
}
public void run() {
try {
while( !thread.isInterrupted() ) {
SomeMessage message = take();
doSomethingWithMessage( message );
}
} catch( InterruptedException ex ) {
System.out.println("Stop processing - consumer per request.");
} finally {
thread = null;
}
}
private SomeMessage take() throws InterruptedException {
synchronized( queue ) {
queue.wait();
return queue.remove();
}
}
}
A couple of things that differ in this implementation. Producer and Consumer share a Queue instance and they use that instance to perform synchronized calls on. That way neither write or read from that structure without owning the lock. After they have either added to the queue (producer) or removed from the queue (consumer) they are free from needing to use synchronization. They are free to process without needing to communicate with each other. They trade instances of SomeMessage between each instance by adding to the tail and drawing from the head.
The take() method is very important in this code. Without the helper method you can't process the message AND release the lock. This important so that your Consumer can receive a message and let go of the lock to allow other Producers/Consumers to add/remove messages while this particular Consumer is processing a message. This keeps throughput as fast as possible.
And yes I said Producers. This architecture allows for multiple Producers AND multiple Consumers without needing to change the internals of either Producer or Consumer.
Notice that catching InterruptedException is outside the while loop. This is very important if you want a predictable program that shuts down cleanly. An InterruptedException and interrupted concept is the heart of well behaving Java threads. If you don't know under what conditions this exception is generated you'll never understand multi-threaded apps in Java. It's not a random occurrence. Java threads can't be stopped programatically. Another thread must request it to interrupt itself. And the thread must obey the request or else it won't stop. So if we get one. Shutdown. In this program we'll only get it when we call wait or notify which means while we're processing a message we won't be interrupted. Consumers will finish processing messages before halting.
Finally, it's actually much easier to implement a Producer-Consumer relationship given the concurrency libraries in Java, but this is a good example of how you do it at the lowest level of Java to understand what those libraries are doing for you.

Encapsulating the consume and produce behaviors could be more more reusable. In the code below I decoupled the shared resource synchronization issues from consumer/producer thread which could be useful in solving similar problems like Object Pool and Connection Pool.
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.Queue;
public class ProducerConsumer {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SyncQueue syncQueue = new SyncQueue(1);
Producer producer = new Producer(syncQueue , 10);
Consumer consumer = new Consumer(syncQueue,10);
producer.start();
consumer.start();
}
}
class SyncQueue {
private Queue<Integer> queue = new LinkedList<Integer>();
private Integer size;
public SyncQueue(Integer size) {
super();
this.size = size;
this.signalledBefore = false;
}
public synchronized void put(Integer data){
while(queue.size() == size){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
queue.add(data);
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized Integer get(){
while(queue.isEmpty()){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Integer data = queue.remove();
notifyAll();
return data;
}
}
class Producer extends Thread{
private SyncQueue syncQueue;
private Integer size;
public Producer(SyncQueue syncQueue, Integer size) {
this.syncQueue = syncQueue;
this.size = size;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (Integer i = 0; i < size; i++) {
syncQueue.put(i);
System.out.println("Produced:" + i);
try {
sleep((int)Math.random()*100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
class Consumer extends Thread{
private SyncQueue syncQueue;
private Integer size;
public Consumer(SyncQueue syncQueue, Integer size) {
this.syncQueue = syncQueue;
this.size = size;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (Integer i = 0; i < size; i++) {
try {
sleep((int)Math.random()*100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Consumed:" + syncQueue.get());
}
}
}

release lock from object in java

hello guys this is my code , problem am facing is that despite calling notifyAll, it is not releasing the lock , can you please state the reason and tell the solution. Am new to threads. Thanks in advance.
class Lock1 {}
class Home1 implements Runnable {
private static int i = 0;
private Lock1 object;
private Thread th;
public Home1(Lock1 ob, String t) {
object = ob;
th = new Thread(this);
th.start();
}
public void run() {
synchronized (object) {
while (i != 10) {
++i;
System.out.println(i);
}
try {
// System.out.println("here");
object.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("here thread 1");
}
}
}
class Home2 implements Runnable {
private static int i = 0;
private Lock1 object;
Thread th;
public Home2(Lock1 ob, String t) {
object = ob;
th = new Thread(this);
th.start();
}
public void run() {
synchronized (object) {
while (i != 10) {
++i;
System.out.println(i);
}
try {
// System.out.println("here");
object.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("here thread 2");
}
}
}
public class Locking {
public static void main(String arg[]) {
Lock1 ob = new Lock1();
new Home1(ob, "thread 1");
new Home2(ob, "thread 2");
synchronized (ob) {
ob.notifyAll();
}
}
}

When you use notifyAll, you should also have a state changed and when you use wait, you should check that state change.
In your case it is likely that notifyAll will be called long before the threads really have time to start. (For a computer, starting a thread takes an eternity, like 10,000,000 clock cycles) This means the notifyAll is lost. (It only notifies threads which are actually waiting right at that moment)