Develop Reference

Pause and resume threads in ThreadPool [duplicate]

I submitted bunch of jobs to an executorservice in Java and I somehow want to temporarily pause all these jobs. What's the best way to do this? How can I resume? Or am I doing this completely wrong? Should I follow some other pattern for what I want to achieve (i.e. ability to pause/resume execution services)?

To answer my own question, I found an example of a PausableThreadPoolExecutor in the javadocs of ThreadPoolExecutor itself. Here is my version using Guava's Monitors:
import com.google.common.util.concurrent.Monitor;
import java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor;
import java.util.concurrent.ThreadFactory;
public class PausableExecutor extends ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor {
private boolean isPaused;
private final Monitor monitor = new Monitor();
private final Monitor.Guard paused = new Monitor.Guard(monitor) {
#Override
public boolean isSatisfied() {
return isPaused;
}
};
private final Monitor.Guard notPaused = new Monitor.Guard(monitor) {
#Override
public boolean isSatisfied() {
return !isPaused;
}
};
public PausableExecutor(int corePoolSize, ThreadFactory threadFactory) {
super(corePoolSize, threadFactory);
}
protected void beforeExecute(Thread t, Runnable r) {
super.beforeExecute(t, r);
monitor.enterWhenUninterruptibly(notPaused);
try {
monitor.waitForUninterruptibly(notPaused);
} finally {
monitor.leave();
}
}
public void pause() {
monitor.enterIf(notPaused);
try {
isPaused = true;
} finally {
monitor.leave();
}
}
public void resume() {
monitor.enterIf(paused);
try {
isPaused = false;
} finally {
monitor.leave();
}
}
}

I made some criticisms on your accepted answer, but they weren't very constructive... So here's my solution. I would use a class like this one and then call checkIn wherever/whenever I want pause functionality. Find it on GitHub!
import java.util.Date;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
/**
* Provides a mechanism to pause multiple threads.
* If wish your thread to participate, then it must regularly check in with an instance of this object.
*
* #author Corin Lawson <corin#phiware.com.au>
*/
public class Continue {
private boolean isPaused;
private ReentrantLock pauseLock = new ReentrantLock();
private Condition unpaused = pauseLock.newCondition();
public void checkIn() throws InterruptedException {
if (isPaused) {
pauseLock.lock();
try {
while (isPaused)
unpaused.await();
} finally {
pauseLock.unlock();
}
}
}
public void checkInUntil(Date deadline) throws InterruptedException {
if (isPaused) {
pauseLock.lock();
try {
while (isPaused)
unpaused.awaitUntil(deadline);
} finally {
pauseLock.unlock();
}
}
}
public void checkIn(long nanosTimeout) throws InterruptedException {
if (isPaused) {
pauseLock.lock();
try {
while (isPaused)
unpaused.awaitNanos(nanosTimeout);
} finally {
pauseLock.unlock();
}
}
}
public void checkIn(long time, TimeUnit unit) throws InterruptedException {
if (isPaused) {
pauseLock.lock();
try {
while (isPaused)
unpaused.await(time, unit);
} finally {
pauseLock.unlock();
}
}
}
public void checkInUninterruptibly() {
if (isPaused) {
pauseLock.lock();
try {
while (isPaused)
unpaused.awaitUninterruptibly();
} finally {
pauseLock.unlock();
}
}
}
public boolean isPaused() {
return isPaused;
}
public void pause() {
pauseLock.lock();
try {
isPaused = true;
} finally {
pauseLock.unlock();
}
}
public void resume() {
pauseLock.lock();
try {
if (isPaused) {
isPaused = false;
unpaused.signalAll();
}
} finally {
pauseLock.unlock();
}
}
}
For example:
import java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor;
import java.util.concurrent.ThreadFactory;
public class PausableExecutor extends ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor {
private Continue cont;
public PausableExecutor(int corePoolSize, ThreadFactory threadFactory, Continue c) {
super(corePoolSize, threadFactory);
cont = c;
}
protected void beforeExecute(Thread t, Runnable r) {
cont.checkIn();
super.beforeExecute(t, r);
}
}
This has the added benefit that you can pause many threads with a single call to Continue's pause.

I was looking for pause/resume functionality in executor, but with additional ability to await for any currently being processed tasks. Below is variant of other great implementations from this SO with addition of await functions. I was testing it on executor with single thread. So basic usage is:
executor.pause();
executor.await(10000); // blocks till current tasks processing ends
class code:
import java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class PausableScheduledThreadPoolExecutor extends ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor {
public boolean isPaused;
private ReentrantLock pauseLock = new ReentrantLock();
private Condition unpaused = pauseLock.newCondition();
private Latch activeTasksLatch = new Latch();
private class Latch {
private final Object synchObj = new Object();
private int count;
public boolean awaitZero(long waitMS) throws InterruptedException {
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
synchronized (synchObj) {
while (count > 0) {
if ( waitMS != 0) {
synchObj.wait(waitMS);
long curTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
if ( (curTime - startTime) > waitMS ) {
return count <= 0;
}
}
else
synchObj.wait();
}
return count <= 0;
}
}
public void countDown() {
synchronized (synchObj) {
if (--count <= 0) {
// assert count >= 0;
synchObj.notifyAll();
}
}
}
public void countUp() {
synchronized (synchObj) {
count++;
}
}
}
/**
* Default constructor for a simple fixed threadpool
*/
public PausableScheduledThreadPoolExecutor(int corePoolSize) {
super(corePoolSize);
}
/**
* Executed before a task is assigned to a thread.
*/
#Override
protected void beforeExecute(Thread t, Runnable r) {
pauseLock.lock();
try {
while (isPaused)
unpaused.await();
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
t.interrupt();
} finally {
pauseLock.unlock();
}
activeTasksLatch.countUp();
super.beforeExecute(t, r);
}
#Override
protected void afterExecute(Runnable r, Throwable t) {
try {
super.afterExecute(r, t);
}
finally {
activeTasksLatch.countDown();
}
}
/**
* Pause the threadpool. Running tasks will continue running, but new tasks
* will not start untill the threadpool is resumed.
*/
public void pause() {
pauseLock.lock();
try {
isPaused = true;
} finally {
pauseLock.unlock();
}
}
/**
* Wait for all active tasks to end.
*/
public boolean await(long timeoutMS) {
// assert isPaused;
try {
return activeTasksLatch.awaitZero(timeoutMS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// log e, or rethrow maybe
}
return false;
}
/**
* Resume the threadpool.
*/
public void resume() {
pauseLock.lock();
try {
isPaused = false;
unpaused.signalAll();
} finally {
pauseLock.unlock();
}
}
}

The problem is that the Runnable/Callable themselves need to check when to pause/resume. That being said there and many ways to do this, and it depends on your requirements on how best to do this. Whatever your solution you need to make the waiting interruptable, so the thread can be shutdown cleanly.

I know this is old, but I tried all of these answers and none of them worked for what I was trying to do with a pausable timer; they all would throw out all of the data it would have been doing on a schedule as soon as it resumed (all at once).
Instead I found this Timer class on GitHub* here. This worked really well for me.
*I did not write this code, just found it.

Producer-consumer problem - both end up waiting

new to multithreading. I wrote this program which should be a solution to the producer-consumer problem. The problem is that both a producer and a consumer end up in the waiting state. What seems to be wrong? (And everything else what is wrong ^_^) Thanks in advance.
Main class:
package producer.consumer2;
import java.util.Scanner;
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Buffer<Integer> bf = new Buffer<>(10);
Producer prod = new Producer(bf);
Consumer cons = new Consumer(bf);
prod.setConsumer(cons);
cons.setProducer(prod);
new Thread(prod).start();
new Thread(cons).start();
if(quitInput()) {
prod.terminate();
cons.terminate();
}
}
private static boolean quitInput() {
Scanner sc = new Scanner(System.in);
String line = sc.nextLine();
do {
if(line.toLowerCase().equals("q") || line.toLowerCase().equals("quit")) {
sc.close();
return true;
}
line = sc.nextLine();
} while(true);
}
}
Buffer class:
package producer.consumer2;
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class Buffer<E> {
private final int MAX_LENGTH;
private ArrayList<E> values;
public Buffer(int length){
MAX_LENGTH = length;
values = new ArrayList<E>(length);
}
public synchronized void add(E e) {
if(values.size() < MAX_LENGTH) {
values.add(e);
System.out.println(values);
} else {
throw new RuntimeException("Buffer is full at the moment.");
}
}
public synchronized boolean isEmpty() {
return values.size() == 0;
}
public synchronized boolean isFull() {
return values.size() >= MAX_LENGTH ? true : false;
}
public synchronized E remove(int index) {
E val = values.remove(index);
System.out.println(values);
return val;
}
}
Consumer class:
package producer.consumer2;
public class Consumer implements Runnable {
private final Buffer<Integer> bf;
private volatile boolean running = true;
private Producer prod;
public Consumer(Buffer<Integer> bf) {
this.bf = bf;
}
public void setProducer(Producer prod) {
this.prod = prod;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int sum = 0;
int counter = 0;
while (running) {
if (bf.isEmpty()) {
if (prod != null) {
synchronized (prod) {
prod.notify();
}
}
myWait(0);
} else {
sum += bf.remove(0);
counter++;
}
}
System.out.println("for first " + counter + " nums an avg = " + ((double) sum / counter));
}
private void myWait(long millisecs) {
System.out.println("consumer is waiting.");
try {
synchronized (this) {
this.wait(millisecs);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("consumer is NOT waiting.");
}
public void terminate() {
this.running = false;
}
}
Producer class:
package producer.consumer2;
public class Producer implements Runnable {
private final Buffer<Integer> bf;
private volatile boolean running = true;
private Consumer cons;
public Producer(Buffer<Integer> bf) {
this.bf = bf;
}
public void setConsumer(Consumer cons) {
this.cons = cons;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int counter = 1;
while (running) {
if (bf.isFull()) {
if (cons != null) {
synchronized (cons) {
cons.notify();
}
}
myWait(0);
} else {
bf.add(counter);
counter++;
}
}
}
private void myWait(long millisecs) {
System.out.println("producer is waiting.");
try {
synchronized (this) {
this.wait(millisecs);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("producer is NOT waiting.");
}
public void terminate() {
this.running = false;
}
}

Looks like a regular case of 'missed signal'. Since both consumer and producer just wait without checking a condition, yu have no way to ensure the notify actually happens during the waiting.
e.g. in Consumer :
if (prod != null) {
synchronized (prod) {
prod.notify();
}
}
myWait(0);
Note that if, after prod.notify() the Production thread does all of its work, and notifies the consumer, before it even starts waiting, the consumer will start waiting for a signal that's already been given, and missed.
Always take into account that waiting may not be needed anymore. So always check a condition before even starting to wait. In your case here, the consumer should not even begin waiting if the buffer is full. And likewise the producer should not start waiting if the buffer is empty.
It's also possible to get spurious wake ups. So you'll have to re-check the condition when returning from waiting. The typical idiom is this :
synchronized(monitor) {
while (!stateBasedCondition) {
monitor.wait();
}
}

Multi threaded java program to print even and odd numbers alternatively

I was asked to write a two-threaded Java program in an interview. In this program one thread should print even numbers and the other thread should print odd numbers alternatively.
Sample output:
Thread1: 1
Thread2: 2
Thread1: 3
Thread2: 4
... and so on
I wrote the following program. One class Task which contains two methods to print even and odd numbers respectively. From main method, I created two threads to call these two methods. The interviewer asked me to improve it further, but I could not think of any improvement. Is there any better way to write the same program?
class Task
{
boolean flag;
public Task(boolean flag)
{
this.flag = flag;
}
public void printEven()
{
for( int i = 2; i <= 10; i+=2 )
{
synchronized (this)
{
try
{
while( !flag )
wait();
System.out.println(i);
flag = false;
notify();
}
catch (InterruptedException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public void printOdd()
{
for( int i = 1; i < 10; i+=2 )
{
synchronized (this)
{
try
{
while(flag )
wait();
System.out.println(i);
flag = true;
notify();
}
catch(InterruptedException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
public class App {
public static void main(String [] args)
{
Task t = new Task(false);
Thread t1 = new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run()
{
t.printOdd();
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run()
{
t.printEven();
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}

I think this should work properly and pretty simple.
package com.simple;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
/**
* #author Evgeny Zhuravlev
*/
public class ConcurrentPing
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
Semaphore semaphore1 = new Semaphore(0, true);
Semaphore semaphore2 = new Semaphore(0, true);
new Thread(new Task("1", 1, semaphore1, semaphore2)).start();
new Thread(new Task("2", 2, semaphore2, semaphore1)).start();
semaphore1.release();
}
private static class Task implements Runnable
{
private String name;
private long value;
private Semaphore semaphore1;
private Semaphore semaphore2;
public Task(String name, long value, Semaphore semaphore1, Semaphore semaphore2)
{
this.name = name;
this.value = value;
this.semaphore1 = semaphore1;
this.semaphore2 = semaphore2;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
try
{
semaphore1.acquire();
System.out.println(name + ": " + value);
value += 2;
semaphore2.release();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
}
}

Well, there are many alternatives. I would probably use a SynchronousQueue instead (I don't like low-level wait/notify and try to use higher-level concurrency primitives instead). Also printOdd and printEven could be merged into single method and no additional flags are necessary:
public class App {
static class OddEven implements Runnable {
private final SynchronousQueue<Integer> queue = new SynchronousQueue<>();
public void start() throws InterruptedException {
Thread oddThread = new Thread(this);
Thread evenThread = new Thread(this);
oddThread.start();
queue.put(1);
evenThread.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
int i = queue.take();
System.out.println(i + " (" + Thread.currentThread() + ")");
if (i == 10)
break;
queue.put(++i);
if (i == 10)
break;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
new OddEven().start();
}
}

Is there any better way to write the same program?
Well, the thing is, the only good way to write the program is to use a single thread. If you want a program to do X, Y, and Z in that order, then write a procedure that does X, then Y, then Z. There is no better way than that.
Here's what I would have written after discussing the appropriateness of threads with the interviewer.
import java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue;
import java.util.function.Consumer;
public class EvenOdd {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SynchronousQueue<Object> q1 = new SynchronousQueue<>();
SynchronousQueue<Object> q2 = new SynchronousQueue<>();
Consumer<Integer> consumer = (Integer count) -> System.out.println(count);
new Thread(new Counter(q1, q2, 2, 1, consumer)).start();
new Thread(new Counter(q2, q1, 2, 2, consumer)).start();
try {
q1.put(new Object());
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
private static class Counter implements Runnable {
final SynchronousQueue<Object> qin;
final SynchronousQueue<Object> qout;
final int increment;
final Consumer<Integer> consumer;
int count;
Counter(SynchronousQueue<Object> qin, SynchronousQueue<Object> qout,
int increment, int initial_count,
Consumer<Integer> consumer) {
this.qin = qin;
this.qout = qout;
this.increment = increment;
this.count = initial_count;
this.consumer = consumer;
}
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
Object token = qin.take();
consumer.accept(count);
qout.put(token);
count += increment;
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException(ex);
}
}
}
}

How about a shorter version like this:
public class OddEven implements Runnable {
private static volatile int n = 1;
public static void main(String [] args) {
new Thread(new OddEven()).start();
new Thread(new OddEven()).start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this.getClass()) {
try {
while (n < 10) {
this.getClass().notify();
this.getClass().wait();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": " + (n++));
this.getClass().notify();
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
There is a bit of a trick to kick-start the threads properly - thus the need to an extra notify() to start the whole thing (instead of have both processes wait, or required the main Thread to call a notify) and also to handle the possibility that a thread starts, does it's work and calls notify before the second thread has started :)

My initial answer was non-functional. Edited:
package test;
public final class App {
private static volatile int counter = 1;
private static final Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String... args) {
for (int t = 0; t < 2; ++t) {
final int oddOrEven = t;
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
while (counter < 100) {
synchronized (lock) {
if (counter % 2 == oddOrEven) {
System.out.println(counter++);
}
}
}
}
}).start();
}
}
}

How to make sure two threads printing even odd numbers maintain even first then odd order for this implementation?

I have created two runnable jobs: PrintEvenNumbersJob and PrintOddNumbersJob and spawned two threads to execute these jobs. This seems to work perfectly fine! But I smell something suspicious about this implementation. Can I have some comments and advice on this implementation?
The problem that I see with this implementation is that the program terminates only when thread1 gains the lock to the object lock first otherwise it print the odd first even second order and doesn't terminate unless I supply yet another statement "lock.notify" after for statement in PrintEvenNumbersJob (as in this implementation). My question here is how to make sure that thread1 is executed first.
public class PrintEvenNumbersJob implements Runnable {
private Object lock;
public PrintEvenNumbersJob(Object lock) {
this.lock = lock;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i = 0; i <= 10; i += 2) {
lock.notify();
System.out.println(i);
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
lock.notify(); // not required if thread1 gains lock first
}
}
}
public class PrintOddNumbersJob implements Runnable {
private Object lock;
public PrintOddNumbersJob(Object lock) {
this.lock = lock;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i = 1; i < 10; i += 2) {
lock.notify();
System.out.println(i);
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
lock.notify();
}
}
}
public class EvenOddManager {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object lock = new Object();
PrintEvenNumbersJob printEvenNumbersJob = new PrintEvenNumbersJob(lock);
PrintOddNumbersJob printOddNumbersJob = new PrintOddNumbersJob(lock);
Thread thread1 = new Thread(printEvenNumbersJob);
Thread thread2 = new Thread(printOddNumbersJob);
thread2.start();
thread1.start();
}
}

Have you try using Semaphores? It's easier because you don't need to worry about the order that wait and notify are called (if you call notify before the wait, it's "lost")
Sample code:
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class Test {
private final Semaphore oddJobPermits = new Semaphore(0);
private final Semaphore evenJobPermits = new Semaphore(1);
private class EvenJob implements Runnable {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
try {
evenJobPermits.acquire();
System.out.println(i * 2);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
oddJobPermits.release();
}
}
}
}
private class OddJob implements Runnable {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
try {
oddJobPermits.acquire();
System.out.println(i * 2 + 1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
evenJobPermits.release();
}
}
}
}
public void run() {
new Thread(new EvenJob()).start();
new Thread(new OddJob()).start();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Test().run();
}
}

I believe you will need a referee:
public class Referee {
private boolean evensTurn = true;
public void waitMyTurn(boolean even) {
synchronized(this) {
while (even != evensTurn) {
try {
wait();
} finally {
}
}
}
}
public void done() {
synchronized(this) {
evensTurn = !evensTurn;
notify();
}
}
}
public class PrintEvenNumbersJob implements Runnable {
private Referee referee;
public PrintEvenNumbersJob(Referee referee) {
this.referee = referee;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i <= 10; i += 2) {
referee.waitMyTurn(true);
System.out.println(i);
referee.done();
}
}
}
public class PrintOddNumbersJob implements Runnable {
private Referee referee;
public PrintOddNumbersJob(Referee referee) {
this.referee = referee;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i <= 10; i += 2) {
referee.waitMyTurn(false);
System.out.println(i);
referee.done();
}
}
}

I tried and tested this code. It works using Semaphore
public class TestSemaphore
{
public static void main(String[] args)
throws Exception
{
AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger();
Semaphore s = new Semaphore(1, true);
Semaphore t = new Semaphore(1, true);
OddNumberThread oThread = new OddNumberThread(count, s, t);
EvenNumberThread eThread = new EvenNumberThread(count, s, t);
eThread.start();
oThread.start();
}
static class EvenNumberThread
extends Thread
{
private AtomicInteger count;
private Semaphore s, t;
public EvenNumberThread(AtomicInteger pCount, Semaphore pS, Semaphore pT)
{
super("Even");
count = pCount;
s = pS;
t = pT;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
// Make this thread wait until even thread starts, Order will be incorrect if removed these lines.
s.acquireUninterruptibly();
while (count.intValue() <= 10)
{
try
{
// Double checking to make it work
s.acquireUninterruptibly();
System.out.println(getName() + " " + count.getAndIncrement());
}
finally
{
t.release();
}
}
}
}
static class OddNumberThread
extends Thread
{
private AtomicInteger count;
private Semaphore s, t;
public OddNumberThread(AtomicInteger pCount, Semaphore pS, Semaphore pT)
{
super("Odd");
count = pCount;
s = pS;
t = pT;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
// Start this thread first and start printing, Order will be incorrect if removed these lines.
t.acquireUninterruptibly();
s.release();
while (count.intValue() <= 10)
{
try
{
t.acquireUninterruptibly();
System.out.println(getName() + " " + count.getAndIncrement());
}
finally
{
s.release();
}
}
}
}
}

Is my producer/consumer solution correct?

I'm trying to learn more about threads and thought that coming up with a solution to the producer/consumer problem would be a good start. One of the constraints I put on the solution was that the consumer does not know ahead of time how much the producer is producing. The code runs as expected and I've run it many many times, but that doesn't mean that it is free of flaws. Are there any problems with this solution?
package Multithreading.ProducerConsumer;
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
public class ProducerConsumer
{
private class Producer implements Runnable
{
#Override
public void run()
{
for(int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
try
{
canProduce.acquire();
mutex.acquire();
queue.add(i);
mutex.release();
canConsume.release();
}
catch (InterruptedException ex)
{
;
}
}
try
{
canConsume.acquire();
isTryingToFinish = true;
canConsume.release();
}
catch (InterruptedException ex)
{
;
}
}
}
private class Consumer implements Runnable
{
#Override
public void run()
{
while(!isDone)
{
try
{
canConsume.acquire();
mutex.acquire();
System.out.println(queue.pop());
if(isTryingToFinish && queue.isEmpty())
{
isDone = true;
}
mutex.release();
canProduce.release();
}
catch (InterruptedException ex)
{
;
}
}
}
}
Semaphore canProduce;
Semaphore canConsume;
Semaphore mutex;
boolean isTryingToFinish = false;
boolean isDone = false;
final static int bufferSize = 100;
LinkedList<Integer> queue;
public ProducerConsumer()
{
queue = new LinkedList<>();
canProduce = new Semaphore(bufferSize);
canConsume = new Semaphore(0);
mutex = new Semaphore(1);
}
public void Go() throws InterruptedException
{
Thread p = new Thread(new Producer());
Thread c = new Thread(new Consumer());
p.start();
c.start();
p.join();
c.join();
System.out.println("Job Complete!");
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
ProducerConsumer p = new ProducerConsumer();
p.Go();
}
}

You could look at MSDN's 'Example 2: Synchronizing two threads: a producer and a consumer'. It's c# but that should not be a problem.