The lib I'm using is processing library. I'm currently making a game and I need to remove items from list every 2 seconds after adding it (item will be add by Keypressed SPACE). I've tried this:
List<String> items = new ArrayList<>();
boolean timeStarted;
int timeDuration = 2000;
int startTime = 0;
if (timeStarted) {
int currentDuration = millis() - startTime;
if (currentDuration >= timeDuration) {
items.remove(0);
startTime = millis();
timeStarted = false;
}
}
public void keyPressed(KeyEvent e) {
int keycode = e.getKeyCode();
if (keycode == 32) { // SPACE
startTime = millis();
timeStarted = true;
items.add("new item");
}
But this only remove the first item in the list, and it will stuck if I press the SPACE too fast (add too many items at the same time).
Could anyone help me or give me some idea how to deal with this? Thanks in advance!
I personally wouldn't mix and match threading and Processing together.
If you're using Processing, and are doing this for a game (thus probably dont require milisecond precision), why not just use the framerate as a time measurement? Your Processing programs are always supposed to run at a set frameRate (unless you have some performance issues). You also won't see anything happen untill the frame where the action happens has been drawn anyway, so it doesn't really matter if your action completed halfway between a frame, your end user won't see the difference.
The default frameRate in Processing is 30fps. You can set a custom rate using the frameRate() function (docs). frameCount returns the number of frames drawn (0 on the first frame).
Thus, you can do something like the following pseudocode
int removeItemCheckpoint;
int removeItemDuration;
void setup()
{
// 30 frames per second
frameRate(30);
// window is two seconds, so this duration will last two times the frameRate
removeItemDuration = frameRate * 2;
}
void draw()
{
if (some input)
{
// set checkpoint to current frame count + the duration
removeItemCheckpoint = frameCount + removeItemDuration;
}
// if current frame count is larger than the checkpoint, perform action
if (frameCount > removeItemCheckpoint)
{
// set checkpoint to pseudo infinity
removeItemCheckpoint = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
// remove item here
}
}
If you want to handle this for multiple objects at a time, you could create something like a list of created list index/checkpoint pairs and loop over those instead.
List<Pair<int, int>> toBeRemoved = new List<Pair<int, int>>();
// add a new pair
toBeRemoved.add(new Pair(itemIndex, frameCount + removeItemDuration));
// loop over the list
foreach (Pair<int, int> item in toBeRemoved)
{
if (frameCount > item.getKey())
{
itemList.remove(item.getValue());
}
}
Use while for checking element from list 2 seconds after adding.
// remove element from list 2 seconds after adding it
while (startedTime+timeDuration >= System.currentTimeMillis()) {
// If delete exit while
items.remove(0);
break;
}
and Use thread for removing your item when you can keypress space.
if (keycode == 32) { // SPACE
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
items.add("new item");
// Thread execute
Thread thread = new Thread(new Remover(startTime, items));
thread.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
// remove element from list 2 seconds after adding it
while (startedTime+timeDuration >= System.currentTimeMillis()) {
// If delete exit while
items.remove(0);
break;
}
// whether item is deleted
System.out.println(items);
}
Full code
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Main main = new Main();
main.keyPressed(32);
}
// Integer instead of Keycode
public void keyPressed(Integer keycode) {
List<String> items = new ArrayList<String>();
if (keycode == 32) { // SPACE
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
items.add("new item");
// Check items
System.out.println(items);
// Thread execute
Thread thread = new Thread(new Remover(startTime, items));
thread.start();
}
}
}
class Remover implements Runnable{
List<String> items;
int timeDuration = 2000;
long startedTime;
public Remover(long startedTime,List<String> items) {
this.startedTime = startedTime;
this.items = items;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// remove element from list 2 seconds after adding it
while (startedTime+timeDuration >= System.currentTimeMillis()) {
// If delete items,Exit while
items.remove(0);
break;
}
// whether item is deleted
System.out.println(items);
}
}
I'm a beginner in java, and I just started using threads yesterday. I'm having a problem accessing variables in a thread, which I want to display.
Long story short, I made a (shitty) clock loop, that runs when the program starts. After certain actions, I have a method that checks the time, but I don't know how to access the variables in the thread to make this possible.
This is my main method:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread timeRunning = new Thread(new Clock());
Clock clock = new Clock();
Commands command = new Commands();
timeRunning.start();
command.whatsTheTime();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
command.whatsTheTime();
This is my clock loop:
public class Clock implements Runnable{
public void run(){
//Time
int seconds = 0;
int minutes = 0;
int hours = 0;
//"Clock" loop
while(hours < 24) {
while (minutes < 59) {
while (seconds < 59) {
seconds++;
try {
Thread.sleep(30);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
if(seconds == 59) {
minutes++;
seconds = 0;
}
if(minutes == 59) {
hours++;
minutes = 0;
}
}
}
}
}
This is the "whatsTheTime()" method:
public void whatsTheTime() {
System.out.println("The time is: " + clock.hours + ":" + clock.minutes + ":" + clock.seconds);
}
But it doesn't work. What I want to know is, how can I access the seconds, minutes and hours from the run() in the Clock class.
I'm sorry if this is a very basic question, but I don't know how to access it. I tried googling the solution, but can't seem to find it. I might be seraching for the wrong thing, but as I said, I'm only a few months into java, so searching for the solution is one of the things I need to get better at aswell.
I have a Runnable "NanoClock" class which keeps updating a private volatile double value in its run() method.
This class also has a getTime() method which returns the double value. Another class ("Master") is constructing the NanoClock class and creates a thread, as well as calling the start() method.
After it did this it calls the getTime() method several times (with a delay), but the value is not updating. What am I doing wrong?
NanoClock.java :
public class NanoClock implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean running;
private volatile double time;
public NanoClock() {
time = System.currentTimeMillis();
}
#Override
public void run() {
running = true;
while(running) {
try {
if(System.currentTimeMillis() > time) {
time = System.currentTimeMillis();
}
//This returns the updated value continuously when commented out
//System.out.println("Time: " + String.format("%.6f", unix_time));
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch(Exception exc) {
exc.printStackTrace();
System.exit(1);
}
}
}
public double getTime() {
return time;
}
public void end() {
running = false;
}
}
Master.java:
public class Master {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try {
NanoClock nClock = new NanoClock();
Thread clockThread = new Thread(new NanoClock());
clockThread.setPriority(10);
clockThread.start();
//MY_ISSUE: This returns the same value every time
for(int a = 0; a < 10; a++) {
System.out.println("Time: " + nClock.getTime());
}
//MY_ISSUE: This cannot stop the while loop - I tested it with
//the println in the NanoClock class.
nClock.end();
System.out.println("Done!");
catch(Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
System.exit(1);
}
}
}
You've got two instances of NanoClock: one of them is an anonymous new NanoClock() which, as the Runnable in your other thread is happily keeping time in the backgound; the other is nClock, which is sitting idly by in the foreground in your main thread.
nClock should have been the Runnable in that other thread:
Thread clockThread = new Thread(nClock); // not new NanoClock()
This may not be the entire solution, but it should be a big step in the right direction.
System.currentTimeMillis() returns a long, but you store it in a double, which causes a loss of precision. When you change the member time (and also the return type of its getter) to a long you should get the expected result.
As a rule of thumb: When working with time units long is most appropriate datatype most of the time. Floating point numbers are not suitable to store precise results.
Thread.sleep(2000);
System.out.println("Time: " + nClock.getTime());
the for in main() must be sleep(2000)
If the code below will take 2 seconds, then the time will change.
//MY_ISSUE: This returns the same value every time
for(int a = 0; a < 10; a++) {
System.out.println("Time: " + nClock.getTime());
}
However a for loop with 10 iterations and a system.out will not even take a millisecond so it will not change.
Why 2 seconds? because you have a Thread.sleep in your runnable code.
Thread.sleep(2000);
Which means, the next update will be in 2 seconds.
And use System.nanoTime() instead of System.currentTimeMillis() since you really wanted nano time not millis.
Updated:
In my machine
public static void main(String args[]) {
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
for(int a = 0; a < 10; a++) {
System.out.println("Iterating " + a);
}
long end = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println("Start = " + start);
System.out.println("End = " + end);
}
Result, there is no difference in the start time and end time
Iterating 0
Iterating 1
Iterating 2
Iterating 3
Iterating 4
Iterating 5
Iterating 6
Iterating 7
Iterating 8
Iterating 9
Start = 1499592836298
End = 1499592836298
That code block executed so fast that it did not take even a single millisecond. Depending on the timing, it may take 1 millisecond.
Changing it to System.nanoTime()
public static void main(String args[]) {
long start = System.nanoTime();
for(int a = 0; a < 10; a++) {
System.out.println("Iterating " + a);
}
long end = System.nanoTime();
System.out.println("Start = " + start);
System.out.println("End = " + end);
}
Result, there is a difference in the start time and end time.
Iterating 0
Iterating 1
Iterating 2
Iterating 3
Iterating 4
Iterating 5
Iterating 6
Iterating 7
Iterating 8
Iterating 9
Start = 1012518090518837
End = 1012518091012960
Though there are similar issues, I couldn't found any similar examples like the one I got. I really appreciate any help understanding where I got wrong with my implementation.
What I'm trying to do:
I have a Main class Driver, which can instantiates unknown number of threads. Each thread call a singleton class which should simulate a 'fake' file transfer action.
The issue I have is that I need to limit the concurrent transfers to 2 transfers, regardless the number of concurrent requests.
The way I tried to solve my problem is by adding each new Thread in a ConcurrentLinkedQueue and managing it by using Executors.newFixedThreadPool(POOL_SIZE) to limit the concurrent threads to be 2. for every interation - I poll new thread from the pool using pool.submit.
The Problem I have is my output is like this:
[Thread1], [Thread1, Thread2], [Thread1, Thread2, Thread3]...
While it should be:
[Thread1, Thread2], [Thread3, Thread4]
Why the limitation doesn't work here?
My implementation:
Copier - this is my singleton class.
public class Copier {
private final int POOL_SIZE = 2;
private static volatile Copier instance = null;
private Queue<Reportable> threadQuere = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue();
private static FileCopier fileCopier = new FileCopier();
private Copier() {
}
public static Copier getInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
synchronized (Copier.class) {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new Copier();
}
}
}
return instance;
}
public void fileTransfer(Reportable reportable) {
threadQuere.add(reportable);
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(POOL_SIZE);
for (int i=0; i < threadQuere.size(); i++) {
System.out.println("This is the " + (i+1) + " thread");
pool.submit(new CopyThread());
}
pool.shutdown();
try {
pool.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
CopyThread - represend a thread class
public class CopyThread implements Reportable, Runnable {
private static FileCopier fileCopier = new FileCopier();
#Override
public void report(String bitrate) {
System.out.println(bitrate);
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(fileCopier) {
long startTime = System.nanoTime();
long bytes = fileCopier.copyFile();
long endTime = System.nanoTime();
double duration = (double)(endTime - startTime) / 1000000000; // get in seconds
double bytesInMegas = (double) bytes / 1000000;
report(bytesInMegas + "MB were transferred in " + duration + " seconds");
}
}
}
Driver - my main class where do I create all the threads
public class Driver {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Copier copier = Copier.getInstance();
CopyThread copyThread1 = new CopyThread();
CopyThread copyThread2 = new CopyThread();
CopyThread copyThread3 = new CopyThread();
CopyThread copyThread4 = new CopyThread();
copier.fileTransfer(copyThread1);
copier.fileTransfer(copyThread2);
copier.fileTransfer(copyThread3);
copier.fileTransfer(copyThread4);
int q = 0;
}
}
A simpler solution would be a Semaphore with 2 permits.
This makes sure that "outside" threads can't bypass the limit either, since your solution expects that the simultaneous tasks are limited by the size of the threadpool.
Your solution uses several concurrency tools when a single one would suffice. Your DCL singleton is a bit outdated too.
Everything is probably fine here (although a bit weird). You are printing the thread numbers before submiting, what you need to do is put print in a run method, and you will see that everything works fine. The print are all gonna go off normally, because the area where you are using print has nothing to do with Executors. There is more problems with your code, but I think you did all that just for testing/learning so that's why it's like that.
In that case, like I said, put prints in the run method (you can use some static variable in CopyThread class for counting threads). Your output will be something like 2 prints about thread numbers (1 and 2), 2 prints about how long transfer took and then prints about thread 3 and 4 (I say probably, because we are working with threads, can't be sure of anything) - all this at the step 4 ofcourse, when your fileTransfer submits 4 runnables. Your singleton is outdated, because it uses double checked locking, which is wrong on multithreaded machine, check this: here. That's not ruining your program so worry about it later. About everything else (weird queue usage, fileTransfer method making new threads pools etc.) like I said, it's probably for learning, but if it's not - your queue may as well be deleted, you are using it only for counting and counting like this could be done with some counter variable, and your fileTransfer method should just submit new runnable to pool (which would be instance variable) to transfer a file, not create pool and submit few runnables, it's kinda anty-intuitive.
Edit: check this, I put all in Cat.java for simplicity, changed some things that I had to change (I don't have FileCopier class etc., but answer to your problem is here):
import java.util.*;
import java.util.concurrent.*;
class Copier {
private final int POOL_SIZE = 2;
private static volatile Copier instance = null;
private Copier() {
}
public static Copier getInstance() {
if (instance == null) {
synchronized (Copier.class) {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new Copier();
}
}
}
return instance;
}
public void fileTransfer() {
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(POOL_SIZE);
for (int i=0; i < 4; i++) {
pool.submit(new CopyThread());
}
pool.shutdown();
try {
pool.awaitTermination(Long.MAX_VALUE, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class CopyThread implements Runnable {
private static int counter = 0;
public void report(String bitrate) {
System.out.println(bitrate);
}
Object obj = new Object();
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(obj) {
System.out.println("This is the " + (++counter) + " thread");
long startTime = System.nanoTime();
long bytes = 0;
for(int i=0; i<100000; i++)
bytes+=1;
long endTime = System.nanoTime();
double duration = (double)(endTime - startTime) / 1000000000; // get in seconds
double bytesInMegas = (double) bytes / 1000000;
report(bytesInMegas + "MB were transferred in " + duration + " seconds");
}
}
}
public class Cat {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Copier copier = Copier.getInstance();
copier.fileTransfer();
}
}
I need a component/class that throttles execution of some method to maximum M calls in N seconds (or ms or nanos, does not matter).
In other words I need to make sure that my method is executed no more than M times in a sliding window of N seconds.
If you don't know existing class feel free to post your solutions/ideas how you would implement this.
I'd use a ring buffer of timestamps with a fixed size of M. Each time the method is called, you check the oldest entry, and if it's less than N seconds in the past, you execute and add another entry, otherwise you sleep for the time difference.
What worked out of the box for me was Google Guava RateLimiter.
// Allow one request per second
private RateLimiter throttle = RateLimiter.create(1.0);
private void someMethod() {
throttle.acquire();
// Do something
}
In concrete terms, you should be able to implement this with a DelayQueue. Initialize the queue with M Delayed instances with their delay initially set to zero. As requests to the method come in, take a token, which causes the method to block until the throttling requirement has been met. When a token has been taken, add a new token to the queue with a delay of N.
Read up on the Token bucket algorithm. Basically, you have a bucket with tokens in it. Every time you execute the method, you take a token. If there are no more tokens, you block until you get one. Meanwhile, there is some external actor that replenishes the tokens at a fixed interval.
I'm not aware of a library to do this (or anything similar). You could write this logic into your code or use AspectJ to add the behavior.
If you need a Java based sliding window rate limiter that will operate across a distributed system you might want to take a look at the https://github.com/mokies/ratelimitj project.
A Redis backed configuration, to limit requests by IP to 50 per minute would look like this:
import com.lambdaworks.redis.RedisClient;
import es.moki.ratelimitj.core.LimitRule;
RedisClient client = RedisClient.create("redis://localhost");
Set<LimitRule> rules = Collections.singleton(LimitRule.of(1, TimeUnit.MINUTES, 50)); // 50 request per minute, per key
RedisRateLimit requestRateLimiter = new RedisRateLimit(client, rules);
boolean overLimit = requestRateLimiter.overLimit("ip:127.0.0.2");
See https://github.com/mokies/ratelimitj/tree/master/ratelimitj-redis fore further details on Redis configuration.
This depends in the application.
Imagine the case in which multiple threads want a token to do some globally rate-limited action with no burst allowed (i.e. you want to limit 10 actions per 10 seconds but you don't want 10 actions to happen in the first second and then remain 9 seconds stopped).
The DelayedQueue has a disadvantage: the order at which threads request tokens might not be the order at which they get their request fulfilled. If multiple threads are blocked waiting for a token, it is not clear which one will take the next available token. You could even have threads waiting forever, in my point of view.
One solution is to have a minimum interval of time between two consecutive actions, and take actions in the same order as they were requested.
Here is an implementation:
public class LeakyBucket {
protected float maxRate;
protected long minTime;
//holds time of last action (past or future!)
protected long lastSchedAction = System.currentTimeMillis();
public LeakyBucket(float maxRate) throws Exception {
if(maxRate <= 0.0f) {
throw new Exception("Invalid rate");
}
this.maxRate = maxRate;
this.minTime = (long)(1000.0f / maxRate);
}
public void consume() throws InterruptedException {
long curTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
long timeLeft;
//calculate when can we do the action
synchronized(this) {
timeLeft = lastSchedAction + minTime - curTime;
if(timeLeft > 0) {
lastSchedAction += minTime;
}
else {
lastSchedAction = curTime;
}
}
//If needed, wait for our time
if(timeLeft <= 0) {
return;
}
else {
Thread.sleep(timeLeft);
}
}
}
My implementation below can handle arbitrary request time precision, it has O(1) time complexity for each request, does not require any additional buffer, e.g. O(1) space complexity, in addition it does not require background thread to release token, instead tokens are released according to time passed since last request.
class RateLimiter {
int limit;
double available;
long interval;
long lastTimeStamp;
RateLimiter(int limit, long interval) {
this.limit = limit;
this.interval = interval;
available = 0;
lastTimeStamp = System.currentTimeMillis();
}
synchronized boolean canAdd() {
long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
// more token are released since last request
available += (now-lastTimeStamp)*1.0/interval*limit;
if (available>limit)
available = limit;
lastTimeStamp = now;
if (available<1)
return false;
else {
available--;
return true;
}
}
}
Although it's not what you asked, ThreadPoolExecutor, which is designed to cap to M simultaneous requests instead of M requests in N seconds, could also be useful.
I have implemented a simple throttling algorithm.Try this link,
http://krishnaprasadas.blogspot.in/2012/05/throttling-algorithm.html
A brief about the Algorithm,
This algorithm utilizes the capability of Java Delayed Queue.
Create a delayed object with the expected delay (here 1000/M for millisecond TimeUnit).
Put the same object into the delayed queue which will intern provides the moving window for us.
Then before each method call take the object form the queue, take is a blocking call which will return only after the specified delay, and after the method call don't forget to put the object into the queue with updated time(here current milliseconds).
Here we can also have multiple delayed objects with different delay. This approach will also provide high throughput.
Try to use this simple approach:
public class SimpleThrottler {
private static final int T = 1; // min
private static final int N = 345;
private Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
private Condition newFrame = lock.newCondition();
private volatile boolean currentFrame = true;
public SimpleThrottler() {
handleForGate();
}
/**
* Payload
*/
private void job() {
try {
Thread.sleep(Math.abs(ThreadLocalRandom.current().nextLong(12, 98)));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.err.print(" J. ");
}
public void doJob() throws InterruptedException {
lock.lock();
try {
while (true) {
int count = 0;
while (count < N && currentFrame) {
job();
count++;
}
newFrame.await();
currentFrame = true;
}
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
public void handleForGate() {
Thread handler = new Thread(() -> {
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1 * 900);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
currentFrame = false;
lock.lock();
try {
newFrame.signal();
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
});
handler.start();
}
}
Apache Camel also supports comes with Throttler mechanism as follows:
from("seda:a").throttle(100).asyncDelayed().to("seda:b");
This is an update to the LeakyBucket code above.
This works for a more that 1000 requests per sec.
import lombok.SneakyThrows;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
class LeakyBucket {
private long minTimeNano; // sec / billion
private long sched = System.nanoTime();
/**
* Create a rate limiter using the leakybucket alg.
* #param perSec the number of requests per second
*/
public LeakyBucket(double perSec) {
if (perSec <= 0.0) {
throw new RuntimeException("Invalid rate " + perSec);
}
this.minTimeNano = (long) (1_000_000_000.0 / perSec);
}
#SneakyThrows public void consume() {
long curr = System.nanoTime();
long timeLeft;
synchronized (this) {
timeLeft = sched - curr + minTimeNano;
sched += minTimeNano;
}
if (timeLeft <= minTimeNano) {
return;
}
TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS.sleep(timeLeft);
}
}
and the unittest for above:
import com.google.common.base.Stopwatch;
import org.junit.Ignore;
import org.junit.Test;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.stream.IntStream;
public class LeakyBucketTest {
#Test #Ignore public void t() {
double numberPerSec = 10000;
LeakyBucket b = new LeakyBucket(numberPerSec);
Stopwatch w = Stopwatch.createStarted();
IntStream.range(0, (int) (numberPerSec * 5)).parallel().forEach(
x -> b.consume());
System.out.printf("%,d ms%n", w.elapsed(TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS));
}
}
Here is a little advanced version of simple rate limiter
/**
* Simple request limiter based on Thread.sleep method.
* Create limiter instance via {#link #create(float)} and call {#link #consume()} before making any request.
* If the limit is exceeded cosume method locks and waits for current call rate to fall down below the limit
*/
public class RequestRateLimiter {
private long minTime;
private long lastSchedAction;
private double avgSpent = 0;
ArrayList<RatePeriod> periods;
#AllArgsConstructor
public static class RatePeriod{
#Getter
private LocalTime start;
#Getter
private LocalTime end;
#Getter
private float maxRate;
}
/**
* Create request limiter with maxRate - maximum number of requests per second
* #param maxRate - maximum number of requests per second
* #return
*/
public static RequestRateLimiter create(float maxRate){
return new RequestRateLimiter(Arrays.asList( new RatePeriod(LocalTime.of(0,0,0),
LocalTime.of(23,59,59), maxRate)));
}
/**
* Create request limiter with ratePeriods calendar - maximum number of requests per second in every period
* #param ratePeriods - rate calendar
* #return
*/
public static RequestRateLimiter create(List<RatePeriod> ratePeriods){
return new RequestRateLimiter(ratePeriods);
}
private void checkArgs(List<RatePeriod> ratePeriods){
for (RatePeriod rp: ratePeriods ){
if ( null == rp || rp.maxRate <= 0.0f || null == rp.start || null == rp.end )
throw new IllegalArgumentException("list contains null or rate is less then zero or period is zero length");
}
}
private float getCurrentRate(){
LocalTime now = LocalTime.now();
for (RatePeriod rp: periods){
if ( now.isAfter( rp.start ) && now.isBefore( rp.end ) )
return rp.maxRate;
}
return Float.MAX_VALUE;
}
private RequestRateLimiter(List<RatePeriod> ratePeriods){
checkArgs(ratePeriods);
periods = new ArrayList<>(ratePeriods.size());
periods.addAll(ratePeriods);
this.minTime = (long)(1000.0f / getCurrentRate());
this.lastSchedAction = System.currentTimeMillis() - minTime;
}
/**
* Call this method before making actual request.
* Method call locks until current rate falls down below the limit
* #throws InterruptedException
*/
public void consume() throws InterruptedException {
long timeLeft;
synchronized(this) {
long curTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
minTime = (long)(1000.0f / getCurrentRate());
timeLeft = lastSchedAction + minTime - curTime;
long timeSpent = curTime - lastSchedAction + timeLeft;
avgSpent = (avgSpent + timeSpent) / 2;
if(timeLeft <= 0) {
lastSchedAction = curTime;
return;
}
lastSchedAction = curTime + timeLeft;
}
Thread.sleep(timeLeft);
}
public synchronized float getCuRate(){
return (float) ( 1000d / avgSpent);
}
}
And unit tests
import org.junit.Assert;
import org.junit.Test;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
public class RequestRateLimiterTest {
#Test(expected = IllegalArgumentException.class)
public void checkSingleThreadZeroRate(){
// Zero rate
RequestRateLimiter limiter = RequestRateLimiter.create(0);
try {
limiter.consume();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
#Test
public void checkSingleThreadUnlimitedRate(){
// Unlimited
RequestRateLimiter limiter = RequestRateLimiter.create(Float.MAX_VALUE);
long started = System.currentTimeMillis();
for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ ){
try {
limiter.consume();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
long ended = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println( "Current rate:" + limiter.getCurRate() );
Assert.assertTrue( ((ended - started) < 1000));
}
#Test
public void rcheckSingleThreadRate(){
// 3 request per minute
RequestRateLimiter limiter = RequestRateLimiter.create(3f/60f);
long started = System.currentTimeMillis();
for ( int i = 0; i < 3; i++ ){
try {
limiter.consume();
Thread.sleep(20000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
long ended = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println( "Current rate:" + limiter.getCurRate() );
Assert.assertTrue( ((ended - started) >= 60000 ) & ((ended - started) < 61000));
}
#Test
public void checkSingleThreadRateLimit(){
// 100 request per second
RequestRateLimiter limiter = RequestRateLimiter.create(100);
long started = System.currentTimeMillis();
for ( int i = 0; i < 1000; i++ ){
try {
limiter.consume();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
long ended = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println( "Current rate:" + limiter.getCurRate() );
Assert.assertTrue( (ended - started) >= ( 10000 - 100 ));
}
#Test
public void checkMultiThreadedRateLimit(){
// 100 request per second
RequestRateLimiter limiter = RequestRateLimiter.create(100);
long started = System.currentTimeMillis();
List<Future<?>> tasks = new ArrayList<>(10);
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
for ( int i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) {
tasks.add( exec.submit(() -> {
for (int i1 = 0; i1 < 100; i1++) {
try {
limiter.consume();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}) );
}
tasks.stream().forEach( future -> {
try {
future.get();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
});
long ended = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println( "Current rate:" + limiter.getCurRate() );
Assert.assertTrue( (ended - started) >= ( 10000 - 100 ) );
}
#Test
public void checkMultiThreaded32RateLimit(){
// 0,2 request per second
RequestRateLimiter limiter = RequestRateLimiter.create(0.2f);
long started = System.currentTimeMillis();
List<Future<?>> tasks = new ArrayList<>(8);
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(8);
for ( int i = 0; i < 8; i++ ) {
tasks.add( exec.submit(() -> {
for (int i1 = 0; i1 < 2; i1++) {
try {
limiter.consume();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}) );
}
tasks.stream().forEach( future -> {
try {
future.get();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
});
long ended = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println( "Current rate:" + limiter.getCurRate() );
Assert.assertTrue( (ended - started) >= ( 10000 - 100 ) );
}
#Test
public void checkMultiThreadedRateLimitDynamicRate(){
// 100 request per second
RequestRateLimiter limiter = RequestRateLimiter.create(100);
long started = System.currentTimeMillis();
List<Future<?>> tasks = new ArrayList<>(10);
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
for ( int i = 0; i < 10; i++ ) {
tasks.add( exec.submit(() -> {
Random r = new Random();
for (int i1 = 0; i1 < 100; i1++) {
try {
limiter.consume();
Thread.sleep(r.nextInt(1000));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}) );
}
tasks.stream().forEach( future -> {
try {
future.get();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
});
long ended = System.currentTimeMillis();
System.out.println( "Current rate:" + limiter.getCurRate() );
Assert.assertTrue( (ended - started) >= ( 10000 - 100 ) );
}
}
My solution: A simple util method, you can modify it to create a wrapper class.
public static Runnable throttle (Runnable realRunner, long delay) {
Runnable throttleRunner = new Runnable() {
// whether is waiting to run
private boolean _isWaiting = false;
// target time to run realRunner
private long _timeToRun;
// specified delay time to wait
private long _delay = delay;
// Runnable that has the real task to run
private Runnable _realRunner = realRunner;
#Override
public void run() {
// current time
long now;
synchronized (this) {
// another thread is waiting, skip
if (_isWaiting) return;
now = System.currentTimeMillis();
// update time to run
// do not update it each time since
// you do not want to postpone it unlimited
_timeToRun = now+_delay;
// set waiting status
_isWaiting = true;
}
try {
Thread.sleep(_timeToRun-now);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
// clear waiting status before run
_isWaiting = false;
// do the real task
_realRunner.run();
}
}};
return throttleRunner;
}
Take from JAVA Thread Debounce and Throttle
Here is a rate limiter implementation based on #tonywl (and somewhat relates to Duarte Meneses's leaky bucket). The idea is the same - use a "token pool" to allow both rate limiting and bursting (make multiple calls in a short time after idling for a bit).
This implementation offers two main differences:
Lock-less concurrent access using atomic operations.
Instead of blocking a request, calculate a delay needed to enforce the rate limit and offers that as the response, allow the caller to enforce the delay - this will work better with asynchronous programming that you can find in modern networking frameworks.
The full implementation with documentation can be found in this Github Gist, which is where I'll also post updates, but here's the gist of it:
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicLong;
public class RateLimiter {
private final static long TOKEN_SIZE = 1_000_000 /* tockins per token */;
private final double tokenRate; // measured in tokens per ms
private final double tockinRate; // measured in tockins per ms
private final long tockinsLimit;
private AtomicLong available;
private AtomicLong lastTimeStamp;
public RateLimiter(int prefill, int limit, int fill, long interval) {
this.tokenRate = (double)fill / interval;
this.tockinsLimit = TOKEN_SIZE * limit;
this.tockinRate = tokenRate * TOKEN_SIZE;
this.lastTimeStamp = new AtomicLong(System.nanoTime());
this.available = new AtomicLong(Math.max(prefill, limit) * TOKEN_SIZE);
}
public boolean allowRequest() {
return whenNextAllowed(1, false) == 0;
}
public boolean allowRequest(int cost) {
return whenNextAllowed(cost, false) == 0;
}
public long whenNextAllowed(boolean alwaysConsume) {
return whenNextAllowed(1, alwaysConsume);
}
/**
* Check when will the next call be allowed, according to the specified rate.
* The value returned is in milliseconds. If the result is 0 - or if {#code alwaysConsume} was
* specified then the RateLimiter has recorded that the call has been allowed.
* #param cost How costly is the requested action. The base rate is 1 token per request,
* but the client can declare a more costly action that consumes more tokens.
* #param alwaysConsume if set to {#code true} this method assumes that the caller will delay
* the action that is rate limited but will perform it without checking again - so it will
* consume the specified number of tokens as if the action has gone through. This means that
* the pool can get into a deficit, which will further delay additional actions.
* #return how long before this request should be let through.
*/
public long whenNextAllowed(int cost, boolean alwaysConsume) {
var now = System.nanoTime();
var last = lastTimeStamp.getAndSet(now);
// calculate how many tockins we got since last call
// if the previous call was less than a microsecond ago, we still accumulate at least
// one tockin, which is probably more than we should, but this is too small to matter - right?
var add = (long)Math.ceil(tokenRate * (now - last));
var nowAvailable = available.addAndGet(add);
while (nowAvailable > tockinsLimit) {
available.compareAndSet(nowAvailable, tockinsLimit);
nowAvailable = available.get();
}
// answer the question
var toWait = (long)Math.ceil(Math.max(0, (TOKEN_SIZE - nowAvailable) / tockinRate));
if (alwaysConsume || toWait == 0) // the caller will let the request go through, so consume a token now
available.addAndGet(-TOKEN_SIZE);
return toWait;
}
}