We Keep Coding

Need to understand the problem in AtomicInteger code usage in multithreaded environment

In one of the interview, a coding question was asked to me and I had to find the problem in that code and suggest proper solution.
Please find below the entire code:
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class Atomic {
static AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(0);
static int counter = 0;
public static class Runnable extends Thread {
public void run() {
while (count.getAndSet(1) != 0) {
try {
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
counter = counter + 1;
count.set(0);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Runnable runnable = new Runnable();
executor.execute(runnable);
}
executor.shutdown();
}
}
This code is running properly. But question is , there is some problem in this code if number of threads get increased or if I run For loop for almost 10000 times.
I tried to find the problem, but couldn't find one.

There are several things wrong with this code. You've not stated with "there is some problem" means, but here are the things that jump out.
Firstly, the counter variable is not updated safely. Multiple threads don't have guaranteed visibility of the last-written value; nor do you have the guarantee that no other thread has updated its value in between the read and the write.
The simple solution to this: change counter to an AtomicInteger, and use getAndIncrement or incrementAndGet to increment it.
Secondly, public static class Runnable extends Thread { is extremely dubious.
Don't hide the names of commonly-known Java classes (this is hiding java.lang.Runnable)
Don't extend Thread directly, especially when all you need is a java.lang.Runnable to add execute with an ExecutorService.
A more suitable class declaration would be:
public static class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
(or whatever you want to call it)
Or you can just declare an anonymous class:
executor.execute(new Runnable() { /* body */ });
Or you can just declare a lambda:
executor.execute(() -> { /* body */ });
Thirdly, count doesn't really seem to be serving an obvious purpose here. The logic of the runnable seems to be:
If "flag" is false:
Set "flag" to true
Increment a variable
Set "flag" to false
Otherwise:
Wait 3 seconds
Try again
count is playing the role of "flag" here. It's effectively just an AtomicBoolean.
But you don't need a separate count variable at all, if you make the counter an AtomicInteger:
while (true) {
int current = counter.get();
if (counter.compareAndSet(current, current + 1)) {
// Nothing else is trying to update "current" at the same time:
// we updated it. Stop.
break;
}
// Something else is trying to update at the same time.
// Sleep for 3 seconds.
Thread.sleep(3000);
}

Volatile AtomicInteger not working

Hi I was trying volatile. I create 10 threads from my main Thread and I print value of static counter from each thread.
The output is uncertain. Can anyone please let me know why its not working.
public class Main {
static AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(0);
public static void main(String[] args) {
while(counter.getAndIncrement() < 10){
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println(counter.get());
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
}
}
}
In this I also tried changing the counter as
static volatile int counter = 0;
The out put I get is
3 3 6 6 7 7 10 10 11 11
The output is different every-time.
I don't expect them in proper order but I expect unique values from 0 - 10.

You have a single thread that's incrementing the value, and multiple threads that get and display the value. Obviously there's a lot of potential where the incrementing thread does it's thing, then the rest of the threads print the same value. Just because you call start() doesn't mean that the thread would get to run before the value has been incremented.
If instead you put just get() in the while loop, and use incrementAndGet() in the other threads, you'll get unique values (although you'll probably get more than 10).
If you want to print exactly 10 distinct values, the code is not going to work.
With the original code, you create 10 threads, but when they run, they'll print the current value of counter. If 3 of the started threads run, they'll always print the same value.
When you move the get() into the while loop, it can and will create more than 10 threads, since the other threads that increment counter won't have a chance to run yet, resulting in threads being created until 10 of the incrementing threads have run. After that there are still threads left that were created, but haven't run yet -> you get 10 + extra threads.
You can't get the output that you want with a single counter variable, if you want to use threads.

When you call
counter.getAndIncrement();
and much later in another thread call
System.out.println(counter.get());
then the values has nothing to do with one another.
If you want to retain a value, you need to do this in a variable which is not changing.
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
final threadId = i;
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(threadId);
}
}).start();
}
The use of a volatile variable isn't needed but if you really want it you can do
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println(counter.getAndIncrement());
}
}).start();
}

Concurrent checking if collection is empty

I have this piece of code:
private ConcurrentLinkedQueue<Interval> intervals = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue();
#Override
public void run(){
while(!intervals.isEmpty()){
//remove one interval
//do calculations
//add some intervals
}
}
This code is being executed by a specific number of threads at the same time. As you see, loop should go on until there are no more intervals left in the collection, but there is a problem. In the beginning of each iteration an interval gets removed from collection and in the end some number of intervals might get added back into same collection.
Problem is, that while one thread is inside the loop the collection might become empty, so other threads that are trying to enter the loop won't be able to do that and will finish their work prematurely, even though collection might be filled with values after the first thread will finish the iteration. I want the thread count to remain constant (or not more than some number n) until all work is really finished.
That means that no threads are currently working in the loop and there are no elements left in the collection. What are possible ways of accomplishing that? Any ideas are welcomed.
One way to solve this problem in my specific case is to give every thread a different piece of the original collection. But after one thread would finish its work it wouldn't be used by the program anymore, even though it could help other threads with their calculations, so I don't like this solution, because it's important to utilize all cores of the machine in my problem.
This is the simplest minimal working example I could come up with. It might be to lengthy.
public class Test{
private ConcurrentLinkedQueue<Interval> intervals = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue();
private int threadNumber;
private Thread[] threads;
private double result;
public Test(int threadNumber){
intervals.add(new Interval(0, 1));
this.threadNumber = threadNumber;
threads = new Thread[threadNumber];
}
public double find(){
for(int i = 0; i < threadNumber; i++){
threads[i] = new Thread(new Finder());
threads[i].start();
}
try{
for(int i = 0; i < threadNumber; i++){
threads[i].join();
}
}
catch(InterruptedException e){
System.err.println(e);
}
return result;
}
private class Finder implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run(){
while(!intervals.isEmpty()){
Interval interval = intervals.poll();
if(interval.high - interval.low > 1e-6){
double middle = (interval.high + interval.low) / 2;
boolean something = true;
if(something){
intervals.add(new Interval(interval.low + 0.1, middle - 0.1));
intervals.add(new Interval(middle + 0.1, interval.high - 0.1));
}
else{
intervals.add(new Interval(interval.low + 0.1, interval.high - 0.1));
}
}
}
}
}
private class Interval{
double low;
double high;
public Interval(double low, double high){
this.low = low;
this.high = high;
}
}
}
What you might need to know about the program: After every iteration interval should either disappear (because it's too small), become smaller or split into two smaller intervals. Work is finished after no intervals are left. Also, I should be able to limit number of threads that are doing this work with some number n. The actual program looks for a maximum value of some function by dividing the intervals and throwing away the parts of those intervals that can't contain the maximum value using some rules, but this shouldn't really be relevant to my problem.

The CompletableFuture class is also an interesting solution for these kind of tasks.
It automatically distributes workload over a number of worker threads.
static CompletableFuture<Integer> fibonacci(int n) {
if(n < 2) return CompletableFuture.completedFuture(n);
else {
return CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread());
CompletableFuture<Integer> f1 = fibonacci(n - 1);
CompletableFuture<Integer> f2 = fibonacci(n - 2);
return f1.thenCombineAsync(f2, (a, b) -> a + b);
}).thenComposeAsync(f -> f);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
int fib = fibonacci(10).get();
System.out.println(fib);
}

You can use atomic flag, i.e.:
private ConcurrentLinkedQueue<Interval> intervals = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue<>();
private AtomicBoolean inUse = new AtomicBoolean();
#Override
public void run() {
while (!intervals.isEmpty() && inUse.compareAndSet(false, true)) {
// work
inUse.set(false);
}
}
UPD
Question has been updated, so I would give you better solution. It is more "classic" solution using blocking queue;
private BlockingQueue<Interval> intervals = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Object>();
private volatile boolean finished = false;
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (!finished) {
Interval next = intervals.take();
// put work there
// after you decide work is finished just set finished = true
intervals.put(interval); // anyway, return interval to queue
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
}
UPD2
Now it seems better to re-write solution and divide range to sub-ranges for each thread.

Your problem looks like a recursive one - processing one task (interval) might produce some sub-tasks (sub intervals).
For that purpose I would use ForkJoinPool and RecursiveTask:
class Interval {
...
}
class IntervalAction extends RecursiveAction {
private Interval interval;
private IntervalAction(Interval interval) {
this.interval = interval;
}
#Override
protected void compute() {
if (...) {
// we need two sub-tasks
IntervalAction sub1 = new IntervalAction(new Interval(...));
IntervalAction sub2 = new IntervalAction(new Interval(...));
sub1.fork();
sub2.fork();
sub1.join();
sub2.join();
} else if (...) {
// we need just one sub-task
IntervalAction sub3 = new IntervalAction(new Interval(...));
sub3.fork();
sub3.join();
} else {
// current task doesn't need any sub-tasks, just return
}
}
}
public static void compute(Interval initial) {
ForkJoinPool pool = new ForkJoinPool();
pool.invoke(new IntervalAction(initial));
// invoke will return when all the processing is completed
}

I had the same problem, and I tested the following solution.
In my test example I have a queue (the equivalent of your intervals) filled with integers. For the test, at each iteration one number is taken from the queue, incremented and placed back in the queue if the new value is below 7 (arbitrary). This has the same impact as your interval generation on the mechanism.
Here is an example working code (Note that I develop in java 1.8 and I use the Executor framework to handle my thread pool.) :
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.LinkedBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.PriorityBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor;
public class Test {
final int numberOfThreads;
final BlockingQueue<Integer> queue;
final BlockingQueue<Integer> availableThreadsTokens;
final BlockingQueue<Integer> sleepingThreadsTokens;
final ThreadPoolExecutor executor;
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Test test = new Test(2); // arbitrary number of thread => 2
test.launch();
}
private Test(int numberOfThreads){
this.numberOfThreads = numberOfThreads;
this.queue = new PriorityBlockingQueue<Integer>();
this.availableThreadsTokens = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Integer>(numberOfThreads);
this.sleepingThreadsTokens = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Integer>(numberOfThreads);
this.executor = (ThreadPoolExecutor) Executors.newFixedThreadPool(numberOfThreads);
}
public void launch() {
// put some elements in queue at the beginning
queue.add(1);
queue.add(2);
queue.add(3);
for(int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){
availableThreadsTokens.add(1);
}
System.out.println("Start");
boolean algorithmIsFinished = false;
while(!algorithmIsFinished){
if(sleepingThreadsTokens.size() != numberOfThreads){
try {
availableThreadsTokens.take();
} catch (final InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
// some treatment should be put there in case of failure
break;
}
if(!queue.isEmpty()){ // Continuation condition
sleepingThreadsTokens.drainTo(availableThreadsTokens);
executor.submit(new Loop(queue.poll(), queue, availableThreadsTokens));
}
else{
sleepingThreadsTokens.add(1);
}
}
else{
algorithmIsFinished = true;
}
}
executor.shutdown();
System.out.println("Finished");
}
public static class Loop implements Runnable{
int element;
final BlockingQueue<Integer> queue;
final BlockingQueue<Integer> availableThreadsTokens;
public Loop(Integer element, BlockingQueue<Integer> queue, BlockingQueue<Integer> availableThreadsTokens){
this.element = element;
this.queue = queue;
this.availableThreadsTokens = availableThreadsTokens;
}
#Override
public void run(){
System.out.println("taking element "+element);
for(Long l = (long) 0; l < 500000000L; l++){
}
for(Long l = (long) 0; l < 500000000L; l++){
}
for(Long l = (long) 0; l < 500000000L; l++){
}
if(element < 7){
this.queue.add(element+1);
System.out.println("Inserted element"+(element + 1));
}
else{
System.out.println("no insertion");
}
this.availableThreadsTokens.offer(1);
}
}
}
I ran this code for check, and it seems to work properly. However there are certainly some improvement that can be made :
sleepingThreadsTokens do not have to be a BlockingQueue, since only the main accesses it. I used this interface because it allowed a nice sleepingThreadsTokens.drainTo(availableThreadsTokens);
I'm not sure whether queue has to be blocking or not, since only main takes from it and does not wait for elements (it waits only for tokens).
...
The idea is that the main thread checks for the termination, and for this it has to know how many threads are currently working (so that it does not prematurely stops the algorithm because the queue is empty). To do so two specific queues are created : availableThreadsTokens and sleepingThreadsTokens. Each element in availableThreadsTokens symbolizes a thread that have finished an iteration, and wait to be given another one. Each element in sleepingThreadsTokens symbolizes a thread that was available to take a new iteration, but the queue was empty, so it had no job and went to "sleep". So at each moment availableThreadsTokens.size() + sleepingThreadsTokens.size() = numberOfThreads - threadExcecutingIteration.
Note that the elements on availableThreadsTokens and sleepingThreadsTokens only symbolizes thread activity, they are not thread nor design a specific thread.
Case of termination : let suppose we have N threads (aribtrary, fixed number). The N threads are waiting for work (N tokens in availableThreadsTokens), there is only 1 remaining element in the queue and the treatment of this element won't generate any other element. Main takes the first token, finds that the queue is not empty, poll the element and sends the thread to work. The N-1 next tokens are consumed one by one, and since the queue is empty the token are moved into sleepingThreadsTokens one by one. Main knows that there is 1 thread working in the loop since there is no token in availableThreadsTokens and only N-1 in sleepingThreadsTokens, so it waits (.take()). When the thread finishes and releases the token Main consumes it, discovers that the queue is now empty and put the last token in sleepingThreadsTokens. Since all tokens are now in sleepingThreadsTokens Main knows that 1) all threads are inactive 2) the queue is empty (else the last token wouldn't have been transferred to sleepingThreadsTokens since the thread would have take the job).
Note that if the working thread finishes the treatment before all the availableThreadsTokens are moved to sleepingThreadsTokens it makes no difference.
Now if we suppose that the treatment of the last element would have generated M new elements in the queue then the Main would have put all the tokens from sleepingThreadsTokens back to availableThreadsTokens, and start to assign them treatments again. We put all the token back even if M < N because we don't know how much elements will be inserted in the future, so we have to keep all the thread available.

I would suggest a master/worker approach then.
The master process goes through the intervals and assigns the calculations of that interval to a different process. It also removes/adds as necessary. This way, all the cores are utilized, and only when all intervals are finished, the process is done. This is also known as dynamic work allocation.
A possible example:
public void run(){
while(!intervals.isEmpty()){
//remove one interval
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable()
{
//do calculations
});
t.run();
//add some intervals
}
}
The possible solution you provided is known as static allocation, and you're correct, it will finish as fast as the slowest processor, but the dynamic approach will utilize all memory.

I've run into this problem as well. The way I solved it was to use an AtomicInteger to know what is in the queue. Before each offer() increment the integer. After each poll() decrement the integer. The CLQ has no real isEmpty() since it must look at head/tail nodes and this can change atomically (CAS).
This doesn't guarantee 100% that some thread may increment after another thread decrements so you need to check again before ending the thread. It is better than relying on while(...isEmpty())
Other than that, you may need to synchronize.

Some problems with Threads

I'm having a-bit of trouble with threads in java. Basically Im creating an array of threads and starting them. the point of the program is to simulate a race, total the time for each competitor ( i.e. each thread ) and pick the winner.
The competitor moves one space, waits ( i.e. thread sleeps for a random period of time between 5 and 6 seconds ) and then continues. The threads don't complete in the order that they started as expected.
Now for the problem. I can get the total time it takes for a thread to complete; what I want is to store all the times from the threads into a single array and be able to calculate the fastest time.
To do this should I place the array in the main.class file? Would I be right in assuming so because if it was placed in the Thread class it wouldn't work. Or should I create a third class?
I'm alittle confused :/

It's fine to declare it in the method where you invoke the threads, with a few notes:
each thread should know its index in the array. Perhaps you should pass this in constructor
then you have three options for filling the array
the array should be final, so that it can be used within anonymous classes
the array can be passed to each thread
the threads should notify a listener when they're done, which in turn will increment an array.
consider using Java 1.5 Executors framework for submitting Runnables, rather than working directly with threads.

EDIT: The solution below assumes you need the times only after all competitors have finished the race.
You can use a structure that looks like below, (inside your main class). Typically you want to add a lot of you own stuff; this is the main outline.
Note that concurrency is not an issue at all here because you get the value from the MyRunnable instance once its thread has finished running.
Note that using a separate thread for each competitor is probably not really necessary with a modified approach, but that would be a different issue.
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyRunnable[] runnables = new MyRunnable[NUM_THREADS];
Thread[] threads = new Thread[NUM_THREADS];
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
runnables[i] = new MyRunnable();
threads[i] = new Thread(runnables[i]);
}
// start threads
for (Thread thread : threads) {
thread.start();
}
// wait for threads
for (Thread thread : threads) {
try {
thread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// ignored
}
}
// get the times you calculated for each thread
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
int timeSpent = runnables[i].getTimeSpent();
// do something with the time spent
}
}
static class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
private int timeSpent;
public MyRunnable(...) {
// initialize
}
public void run() {
// whatever the thread should do
// finally set the time
timeSpent = ...;
}
public int getTimeSpent() {
return timeSpent;
}
}

Java multithreaded parser

I am writing a multithreaded parser.
Parser class is as follows.
public class Parser extends HTMLEditorKit.ParserCallback implements Runnable {
private static List<Station> itemList = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<Item>());
private boolean h2Tag = false;
private int count;
private static int threadCount = 0;
public static List<Item> parse() {
for (int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++) { //1000 of the same type of pages that need to parse
while (threadCount == 20) { //limit the number of simultaneous threads
try {
Thread.sleep(50);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
Thread thread = new Thread(new Parser());
thread.setName(Integer.toString(i));
threadCount++; //increase the number of working threads
thread.start();
}
return itemList;
}
public void run() {
//Here is a piece of code responsible for creating links based on
//the thread name and passed as a parameter remained i,
//connection, start parsing, etc.
//In general, nothing special. Therefore, I won't paste it here.
threadCount--; //reduce the number of running threads when current stops
}
private static void addItem(Item item) {
itenList.add(item);
}
//This method retrieves the necessary information after the H2 tag is detected
#Override
public void handleText(char[] data, int pos) {
if (h2Tag) {
String itemName = new String(data).trim();
//Item - the item on which we receive information from a Web page
Item item = new Item();
item.setName(itemName);
item.setId(count);
addItem(item);
//Display information about an item in the console
System.out.println(count + " = " + itemName);
}
}
#Override
public void handleStartTag(HTML.Tag t, MutableAttributeSet a, int pos) {
if (HTML.Tag.H2 == t) {
h2Tag = true;
}
}
#Override
public void handleEndTag(HTML.Tag t, int pos) {
if (HTML.Tag.H2 == t) {
h2Tag = false;
}
}
}
From another class parser runs as follows:
List<Item> list = Parser.parse();
All is good, but there is a problem. At the end of parsing in the final list "List itemList" contains 980 elements onto, instead of 1000. But in the console there is all of 1000 elements (items). That is, some threads for some reason did not call in the handleText method the addItem method.
I already tried to change the type of itemList to ArrayList, CopyOnWriteArrayList, Vector. Makes the method addItem synchronized, changed its call on the synchronized block. All this only changes the number of elements a little, but the final thousand can not be obtained.
I also tried to parse a smaller number of pages (ten). As the result the list is empty, but in the console all 10.
If I remove multi-threading, then everything works fine, but, of course, slowly. That's not good.
If decrease the number of concurrent threads, the number of items in the list is close to the desired 1000, if increase - a little distanced from 1000. That is, I think, there is a struggle for the ability to record to the list. But then why are synchronization not working?
What's the problem?

After your parse() call returns, all of your 1000 Threads have been started, but it is not guaranteed that they are finished. In fact, they aren't that's the problem you see. I would heavily recommend not write this by yourself but use the tools provided for this kind of job by the SDK.
The documentation Thread Pools and the ThreadPoolExecutor are e.g. a good starting point. Again, don't implement this yourself if you are not absolutely sure you have too, because writing such multi-threading code is pure pain.
Your code should look something like this:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(20);
List<Future<?>> futures = new ArrayList<Future<?>>(1000);
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++) {
futures.add(executor.submit(new Runnable() {...}));
}
for (Future<?> f : futures) {
f.get();
}

There is no problem with the code, it is working as you have coded. the problem is with the last iteration. rest all iterations will work properly, but during the last iteration which is from 980 to 1000, the threads are created, but the main process, does not waits for the other thread to complete, and then return the list. therefore you will be getting some odd number between 980 to 1000, if you are working with 20 threads at a time.
Now you can try adding Thread.wait(50), before returning the list, in that case your main thread will wait, some time, and may be by the time, other threads might finish the processing.
or you can use some syncronization API from java. Instead of Thread.wait(), use CountDownLatch, this will help you to wait for the threads to complete the processing, and then you can create new threads.