We Keep Coding

NoSuchElementException occurs when Iterating through Java ArrayList concurrently

I have a method similar to the one below:
public void addSubjectsToCategory() {
final List<Subject> subjectsList = new ArrayList<>(getSubjectList());
for (final Iterator<Subject> subjectIterator =
subjectsList.iterator(); subjectIterator.hasNext();) {
addToCategory(subjectIterator.next().getId());
}
}
When this runs concurrently for the same user (another instance), sometimes it throws NoSuchElementException. As per my understanding, sometimes subjectIterator.next() get executed when there are no elements in the list. This occurs when being accessed only. Will method synchronization solve this issue?
The stack trace is:
java.util.NoSuchElementException: null
at java.util.ArrayList$Itr.next(Unknown Source)
at org.cmos.student.subject.category.CategoryManager.addSubjectsToCategory(CategoryManager.java:221)
This stack trace fails at the addToCategory(subjectIterator.next().getId()); line.

The basic rule of iterators is that underlying collection must not be modified while the iterator is being used.
If you have a single thread, there seems to be nothing wrong with this code as long as getSubjectsList() does not return null OR addToCategory() or getId() have some strange side-effects that would modify the subjectsList. Note, however, that you could rewrite the for-loop somewhat nicer (for(Subject subject: subjectsList) ...).
Judging by your code, my best guess is that you have another thread which is modifying subjectsList somewhere else. If this is the case, using a SynchronizedList will probably not solve your problem. As far as I know, synchronization only applies to List methods such as add(), remove() etc., and does not lock a collection during iteration.
In this case, adding synchronized to the method will not help either, because the other thread is doing its nasty stuff elsewhere. If these assumptions are true, your easiest and safest way is to make a separate synchronization object (i.e. Object lock = new Object()) and then put synchronized (lock) { ... } around this for loop as well as any other place in your program that modifies the collection. This will prevent the other thread from doing any modifications while this thread is iterating, and vice versa.

subjectIterator.hasNext();) {
--- Imagine a thread switch occurs here, at this point, between the call to hasNext() and next() methods.
addToCategory(subjectIterator.next().getId());
What could happen is the following, assuming you are at the last element in the list:
thread A calls hasNext(), the result is true;
thread switch occurs to thread B;
thread B calls hasNext(), the result is also true;
thread B calls next() and gets the next element from the list; now the list is empty because it was the last one;
thread switch occurs back to thread A;
thread A is already inside the body of the for loop, because this is where it was interrupted, it already called hasNext earlier, which
was true;
so thread A calls next(), which fails now with an exception, because there are no more elements in the list.
So what you have to do in such situations, is to make the operations hasNext and next behave in an atomic way, without thread switches occurring in between.
A simple synchronization on the list solves, indeed, the problem:
public void addSubjectsToCategory() {
final ArrayBlockingQueue<Subject> subjectsList = new ArrayBlockingQueue(getSubjectList());
synchronized (subjectsList) {
for (final Iterator<Subject> subjectIterator =
subjectsList.iterator(); subjectIterator.hasNext();) {
addToCategory(subjectIterator.next().getId());
}
}
}
Note, however, that there may be performance implications with this approach. No other thread will be able to read or write from/to the same list until the iteration is over (but this is what you want). To solve this, you may want to move the synchronization inside the loop, just around hasNext and next. Or you may want to use more sophisticated synchronization mechanisms, such as read-write locks.

It sounds like another thread is calling the method and grabbing the last element while another thread is about to get the next. So when the other thread finishes and comes back to the paused thread there is nothing left. I suggest using an ArrayBlockingQueue instead of a list. This will block threads when one is already iterating.
public void addSubjectsToCategory() {
final ArrayBlockingQueue<Subject> subjectsList = new ArrayBlockingQueue(getSubjectList());
for (final Iterator<Subject> subjectIterator =
subjectsList.iterator(); subjectIterator.hasNext();) {
addToCategory(subjectIterator.next().getId());
}
}
There is a bit of a wrinkle that you may have to sort out. The ArrayBlockingQueue will block if it is empty or full and wait for a thread to either insert something or take something out, respectively, before it will unblock and allow other threads to access.

You can use Collections.synchronizedList(list) if all you need is a simple invocation Sycnchronization. But do note that the iterator that you use must be inside the Synchronized block.

As I get you are adding elements to a list which might be under reading process.
Imagine the list is empty and your other thread is reading it. These kinds of problems might lead into your problem. You could never be sure that an element is written to your list which you are trying to read , in this approach.

I was surprised not to see an answer involving the use of a CopyOnWriteArrayList or Guava's ImmutableList so I thought that I would add such an answer here.
Firstly, if your use case is such that you only have a few additions relative to many reads, consider using the CopyOnWriteArrayList to solve the concurrent list traversal problem. Method synchronization could solve your issue, but CopyOnWriteArrayList will likely have better performance if the number of concurrent accesses "vastly" exceeds the number of writes, as per that class's Javadoc.
Secondly, if your use case is such that you can add everything to your list upfront in a single-threaded manner and only then do you need iterate across it concurrently, then consider Guava's ImmutableList class. You accomplish this by first using a standard ArrayList or a LinkedList or a builder for your ImmutableList. Once your single-threaded data entry is complete, then you instantiate your ImmutableList using either ImmutableList.copyOf() or ImmutableList.build(). If your use case will allow for this write/read pattern, this will probably be your most performant option.
Hope that helps.

I would like to make a suggestion that would probably solve your problem, considering that this is a concurrency issue.
If making the method addSubjectsToCategory() synchronized solves your problem, then you have located where your concurrency issue is. It is important to locate where the problem occurs, otherwise the information you provided is useless to us, we can't help you.
IF using synchronized in your method solves your problem, then consider this answer as educational or as a more elegant solution. Otherwise, share the code where you implement your threading environment, so we can have a look.
public synchronized void addSubjectsToCategory(List subjectsList){
Iterator iterator = subjectsList.iterator();
while(iterator.hasNext())
addToCategory(iterator.next().getId());
}
or
//This semaphore should be used by all threads. Be careful not to create a
//different semaphore each time.
public static Semaphore mutex = new Semaphore(1);
public void addSubjectsToCategory(List subjectsList){
Iterator<Subject> iterator = subjectsList.iterator();
mutex.acquire();
while(iterator.hasNext())
addToCategory(iterator.next().getId());
mutex.release();
}
Synchronized is clean, tidy and elegant. You have a really small method and creating locks, imho is unnecessary.
Synchronized means that only 1 thread will be able to enter the method at a time. Which means, you should use it only if you want 1 thread active each time.
If you actually need parallel execution, then your problem is not thread-related, but has something to do with the rest of your code, which we can not see.

Can objects get lost if a LinkedList is add/remove fast by lots of threads?

sound like a silly question. I just started Java Concurrency.
I have a LinkedList that acts as a task queue and is accessed by multiple threads. They removeFirst() and execute it, other threads put more tasks (.add()). Tasks can have the thread put them back to the queue.
I notice that when there are a lot of tasks and they are put back to the queue a lot, the number of tasks I add to the queue initially are not what come out, 1, or sometimes 2 is missing.
I checked everything and I synchronized every critical section + notifyAll().
Already mark the LinkedList as 'volatile'.
Exact number is 384 tasks, each is put back 3072 times.
The problem doesn't occur if there is a small number of tasks & put back. Also if I System.out.println() all the steps then it doesn't happens anymore so I can't debug.
Could it be possible that LinkedList.add() is not fast enough so the threads somehow miss it?
Simplified code:
public void callByAllThreads() {
Task executedTask = null;
do
{
// access by multiple thread
synchronized(asyncQueue) {
executedTask = asyncQueue.poll();
if(executedTask == null) {
inProcessCount.incrementAndGet(); // mark that there is some processing going on
}
}
if(executedTask != null) {
executedTask.callMethod(); // subclass of task can override this method
synchronized(asyncQueue) {
inProcessCount.decrementAndGet();
asyncQueue.notifyAll();
}
}
}
while(executedTask != null);
}
The Task can override callMethod:
public void callMethodOverride() {
synchronized(getAsyncQueue()) {
getAsyncQueue().add(this);
getAsyncQueue().notifyAll();
}
}

From the docs for LinkedList:
Note that this implementation is not synchronized. If multiple threads access a linked list concurrently, and at least one of the threads modifies the list structurally, it must be synchronized externally.
i.e. you should synchronize access to the list. You say you are, but if you are seeing items get "lost" then you probably aren't synchronizing properly. Instead of trying to do that, you could use a framework class that does it for you ...
... If you are always removing the next available (first) item (effectively a producer/consumer implementation) then you could use a BlockingQueue implementation, This is guaranteed to be thread safe, and has the advantage of blocking the consumer until an item is available. An example is the ArrayBlockingQueue.
For non-blocking thread-safe queues you can look at ConcurrentLinkedQueue
Marking the list instance variable volatile has nothing to do with your list being synchronized for mutation methods like add or removeFirst. volatile is simply to do with ensuring that read/write for that instance variable is communicated correctly between, and ordered correctly within, threads. Note I said that variable, not the contents of that variable (see the Java Tutorials > Atomic Access)

LinkedList is definitely not thread safe; you cannot use it safely with multiple threads. It's not a question of "fast enough," it's a question of changes made by one thread being visible to other threads. Marking it volatile doesn't help; that only affects references to the LinkedList being changed, not changes to the contents of the LinkedList.
Consider ConcurrentLinkedQueue or ConcurrentLinkedDeque.

LinkedList is not thread safe, so yes, multiple threads accessing it simultaneously will lead to problems. Synchronizing critical sections can solve this, but as you are still having problems you probably made a mistake somewhere. Try wrapping it in a Collections.synchronizedList() to synchronize all method calls.

Linked list is not thread safe , you can use ConcurrentLinkedQueue if it fits your need,which seems possibly can.
As documentation says
An unbounded thread-safe queue based on linked nodes. This queue
orders elements FIFO (first-in-first-out). The head of the queue is
that element that has been on the queue the longest time. The tail of
the queue is that element that has been on the queue the shortest
time. New elements are inserted at the tail of the queue, and the
queue retrieval operations obtain elements at the head of the queue. A
ConcurrentLinkedQueue is an appropriate choice when many threads will
share access to a common collection. This queue does not permit null
elements.

You increment your inProcessCount when executedTask == null which is obviously the opposite of what you want to do. So it’s no wonder that it will have inconsistent values.
But there are other issues as well. You call notifyAll() at several places but as long as there is no one calling wait() that has no use.
Note further that if you access an integer variable consistently from inside synchronized blocks only throughout the code, there is no need to make it an AtomicInteger. On the other hand, if you use it, e.g. because it will be accessed at other places without additional synchronization, you can move the code updating the AtomicInteger outside the synchronized block.
Also, a method which calls a method like getAsyncQueue() three times looks suspicious to a reader. Just call it once and remember the result in a local variable, then everone can be confident that it is the same reference on all three uses. Generally, you have to ensure that all code is using the same list, hence the appropriate modifier for the variable holding it is final, not volatile.

Understanding collections concurrency and Collections.synchronized*

I learned yesterday that I've been incorrectly using collections with concurrency for many, many years.
Whenever I create a collection that needs to be accessed by more than one thread I wrap it in one of the Collections.synchronized* methods. Then, whenever mutating the collection I also wrap it in a synchronized block (I don't know why I was doing this, I must have thought I read it somewhere).
However, after reading the API more closely, it seems you need the synchronized block when iterating the collection. From the API docs (for Map):
It is imperative that the user manually synchronize on the returned map when iterating over any of its collection views:
And here's a small example:
List<O> list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<O>());
...
synchronized(list) {
for(O o: list) { ... }
}
So, given this, I have two questions:
Why is this even necessary? The only explanation I can think of is they're using a default iterator instead of a managed thread-safe iterator, but they could have created a thread-safe iterator and fixed this mess, right?
More importantly, what is this accomplishing? By putting the iteration in a synchronized block you are preventing multiple threads from iterating at the same time. But another thread could mutate the list while iterating so how does the synchronized block help there? Wouldn't mutating the list somewhere else screw with the iteration whether it's synchronized or not? What am I missing?
Thanks for the help!

Why is this even necessary? The only explanation I can think of is
they're using a default iterator instead of a managed thread-safe
iterator, but they could have created a thread-safe iterator and fixed
this mess, right?
Iterating works with one element at a time. For the Iterator to be thread-safe, they'd need to make a copy of the collection. Failing that, any changes to the underlying Collection would affect how you iterate with unpredictable or undefined results.
More importantly, what is this accomplishing? By putting the iteration
in a synchronized block you are preventing multiple threads from
iterating at the same time. But another thread could mutate the list
while iterating so how does the synchronized block help there?
Wouldn't mutating the list somewhere else screw with the iteration
whether it's synchronized or not? What am I missing?
The methods of the object returned by synchronizedList(List) work by synchronizing on the instance. So no other thread could be adding/removing from the same List while you are inside a synchronized block on the List.

The basic case
All of the methods of the object returned by Collections.synchronizedList() are synchronized to the list object itself. Whenever a method is called from one thread, every other thread calling any method of it is blocked until the first call finishes.
So far so good.
Iterare necesse est
But that doesn't stop another thread from modifying the collection when you're between calls to next() on its Iterator. And if that happens, your code will fail with a ConcurrentModificationException. But if you do the iteration in a synchronized block too, and you synchronize on the same object (i.e. the list), this will stop other threads from calling any mutator methods on the list, they have to wait until your iterating thread releases the monitor for the list object. The key is that the mutator methods are synchronized to the same object as your iterator block, this is what's stopping them.
We're not out of the woods yet...
Note though that while the above guarantees basic integrity, it doesn't guarantee correct behaviour at all times. You might have other parts of your code that make assumptions which don't hold up in a multi-threaded environment:
List<Object> list = Collections.synchronizedList( ... );
...
if (!list.contains( "foo" )) {
// there's nothing stopping another thread from adding "foo" here itself, resulting in two copies existing in the list
list.add( "foo" );
}
...
synchronized( list ) { //this block guarantees that "foo" will only be added once
if (!list.contains( "foo" )) {
list.add( "foo" );
}
}
Thread-safe Iterator?
As for the question about a thread-safe iterator, there is indeed a list implementation with it, it's called CopyOnWriteArrayList. It is incredibly useful but as indicated in the API doc, it is limited to a handful of use cases only, specifically when your list is only modified very rarely but iterated over so frequently (and by so many threads) that synchronizing iterations would cause a serious bottle-neck. If you use it inappropriately, it can vastly degrade the performance of your application, as each and every modification of the list creates an entire new copy.

Synchronizing on the returned list is necessary, because internal operations synchronize on a mutex, and that mutex is this, i.e. the synchronized collection itself.
Here's some relevant code from Collections, constructors for SynchronizedCollection, the root of the synchronized collection hierarchy.
SynchronizedCollection(Collection<E> c) {
if (c==null)
throw new NullPointerException();
this.c = c;
mutex = this;
}
(There is another constructor that takes a mutex, used to initialize synchronized "view" collections from methods such as subList.)
If you synchronize on the synchronized list itself, then that does prevent another thread from mutating the list while you're iterating over it.
The imperative that you synchronize of the synchronized collection itself exists because if you synchronize on anything else, then what you have imagined could happen - another thread mutating the collection while you're iterating over it, because the objects locked are different.

Sotirios Delimanolis answered your second question "What is this accomplishing?" effectively. I wanted to amplify his answer to your first question:
Why is this even necessary? The only explanation I can think of is they're using a default iterator instead of a managed thread-safe iterator, but they could have created a thread-safe iterator and fixed this mess, right?
There are several ways to approach making a "thread-safe" iterator. As is typical with software systems, there are multiple possibilities, and they offer different tradeoffs in terms of performance (liveness) and consistency. Off the top of my head I see three possibilities.
1. Lockout + Fail-fast
This is what's suggested by the API docs. If you lock the synchronized wrapper object while iterating it (and the rest of the code in the system written correctly, so that mutation method calls also all go through the synchronized wrapper object), the iteration is guaranteed to see a consistent view of the contents of the collection. Each element will be traversed exactly once. The downside, of course, is that other threads are prevented from modifying or even reading the collection while it's being iterated.
A variation of this would use a reader-writer lock to allow reads but not writes during iteration. However, the iteration itself can mutate the collection, so this would spoil consistency for readers. You'd have to write your own wrapper to do this.
The fail-fast comes into play if the lock isn't taken around the iteration and somebody else modifies the collection, or if the lock is taken and somebody violates the locking policy. In this case if the iteration detects that the collection has been mutated out from under it, it throws ConcurrentModificationException.
2. Copy-on-write
This is the strategy employed by CopyOnWriteArrayList among others. An iterator on such a collection does not require locking, it will always show consistent results during iterator, and it will never throw ConcurrentModificationException. However, writes will always copy the entire array, which can be expensive. Perhaps more importantly, the notion of consistency is altered. The contents of the collection might have changed while you were iterating it -- more precisely, while you were iterating a snapshot of its state some time in the past -- so any decisions you might make now are potentially out of date.
3. Weakly Consistent
This strategy is employed by ConcurrentLinkedDeque and similar collections. The specification contains the definition of weakly consistent. This approach also doesn't require any locking, and iteration will never throw ConcurrentModificationException. But the consistency properties are extremely weak. For example, you might attempt to copy the contents of a ConcurrentLinkedDeque by iterating over it and adding each element encountered to a newly created List. But other threads might be modifying the deque while you're iterating it. In particular, if a thread removes an element "behind" where you've already iterated, and then adds an element "ahead" of where you're iterating, the iteration will probably observe both the removed element and the added element. The copy will thus have a "snapshot" that never actually existed at any point in time. Ya gotta admit that's a pretty weak notion of consistency.
The bottom line is that there's no simple notion of making an iterator thread safe that would "fix this mess". There are several different ways -- possibly more than I've explained here -- and they all involve differing tradeoffs. It's unlikely that any one policy will "do the right thing" in all circumstances for all programs.

Reason for ConcurrentModificationException on ArrayLists iterator.next()

I have no idea why a ConcurrentModificationException occurs when i iterate over an ArrayList. The ArrayList is methode scoped, so it should not be visible by other threads which execute the same code. At least if i understodd multi threading and variable scopes correctly.
Caused by: java.util.ConcurrentModificationException
at java.util.AbstractList$SimpleListIterator.next(AbstractList.java:64)
at com....StrategyHandler.applyStrategy(StrategyHandler.java:184)
private List<Order> applyStrategy(StorageObjectTree storageObjectTree) {
...
List<OrderHeader> finalList = new ArrayList<Order>();
for (StorageObject storageObject : storageObjectTree.getStorageObjects()) {
List<Order> currentOrders = strategy.process(storageObject);
...
if (currentOrders != null) {
Iterator<Order> iterator = currentOrders.iterator();
while (iterator.hasNext()) {
Order order = (Order) iterator.next(); // line 64
// read some values from order
}
finalList.addAll(currentOrders);
}
}
return finalList;
}
Can anybody give me an hint what could be the source of the problem?

If You have read the Java Doc for ConcurrentModifcationException :
It clearly states the condition in which it occurs:
This exception may be thrown by methods that have detected concurrent
modification of an object when such modification is not permissible.
For example, it is not generally permissible for one thread to modify
a Collection while another thread is iterating over it. In general,
the results of the iteration are undefined under these circumstances.
Some Iterator implementations (including those of all the general
purpose collection implementations provided by the JRE) may choose to
throw this exception if this behavior is detected. Iterators that do
this are known as fail-fast iterators, as they fail quickly and
cleanly, rather that risking arbitrary, non-deterministic behavior at
an undetermined time in the future.
Note that this exception does not always indicate that an object has
been concurrently modified by a different thread. If a single thread
issues a sequence of method invocations that violates the contract of
an object, the object may throw this exception. For example, if a
thread modifies a collection directly while it is iterating over the
collection with a fail-fast iterator, the iterator will throw this
exception.
Note that fail-fast behavior cannot be guaranteed as it is, generally
speaking, impossible to make any hard guarantees in the presence of
unsynchronized concurrent modification. Fail-fast operations throw
ConcurrentModificationException on a best-effort basis. Therefore, it
would be wrong to write a program that depended on this exception for
its correctness: ConcurrentModificationException should be used only
to detect bugs.
In your case as you said, you do not have multiple threads accessing this list. it might still be possible as per second paragraph above if your single thread that is reading from iterator might be trying to write to it as well.
Hope this helps.

This exception occurred when you changing/adding/removing values from your list and in the same time you are iterating it. And if you use many threads at the same time...
Try to surround your if by synchronized(currentOrders) { /* YOUR LAST CODE */ }.
I'm not sure of this but try it.

Depending on the implementation of strategy.process(..) it could be that this implementation has still a reference to the List it passed back as a result. If there are multiple Threads involved in this implementation it might be possible that the List is modified by one of these threads even after it is passed back as a result.
(If you know the "Future" pattern, you could perhaps imagine an implementation where a method immediately returns an empty List and adds the actual results later using another Thread)
You could try to create a new ArrayList "around" the result list and iterate over this copied list.

You might want to read this SO post. Basically switch and use CopyOnWriteArrayList if you can't see where the problem is coming from.

Synchronized collections list

I have 2 threads needing access to a Queue, one for putting and one for getting.
So I have an initiation
public static Queue<WorldData> blockDestructionQueue = Collections.synchronizedList(new LinkedList<WorldData>());
With the above I get a Type mismatch: cannot convert from List to Queue
I tried casting it to a Queue but this did not work.
public static Queue<WorldData> blockDestructionQueue = (Queue<WorldData>)Collections.synchronizedList(new LinkedList<WorldData>());
I was wondering as to why this is not working.
I got this information from another stack overflow answer.
How to use ConcurrentLinkedQueue?
In the correct answer paragraph 6
If you only have one thread putting stuff into the queue, and another
thread taking stuff out of the queue, ConcurrentLinkingQueue is
probably overkill. It's more for when you may have hundreds or even
thousands of threads accessing the queue at the same time. Your needs
will probably be met by using:
Queue<YourObject> queue = Collections.synchronizedList(new LinkedList<YourObject>());
A plus of this is that it locks on the instance (queue), so you can
synchronize on queue to ensure atomicity of composite operations (as
explained by Jared). You CANNOT do this with a ConcurrentLinkingQueue,
as all operations are done WITHOUT locking on the instance (using
java.util.concurrent.atomic variables). You will NOT need to do this
if you want to block while the queue is empty, because poll() will
simply return null while the queue is empty, and poll() is atomic.
Check to see if poll() returns null. If it does, wait(), then try
again. No need to lock.
Additional Information:
edit: Eclipse was trying to be too helpful and decided to add a break point exception where it was not needed and was not asked to put one.

A queue is not a list and a Queue is not an implementation of List, although you can implement a queue with a list.
Have a look at BlockingQueue it is probably a better fit for what you need:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/BlockingQueue.html

Collections.synchronizedList returns an instance of SynchronizedList which does not extend Queue. LinkedList is a Queue but that's not what you're using at that point.