I'm trying to suspend (or pause) the active thread using wait() I have implemented this in my code already but when I run the code it doesn't output anything, I think it's because when it runs it starts on "suspend" would appreciate any help solving this issue. Here is the relevant code and a link with everything just in case.
GreenhouseControls.java
public class GreenhouseControls extends Controller implements Serializable {
...
private Boolean suspend = false;
...
public void SuspendEvent() {
suspend = true;
}
public void ResumeEvent() {
suspend = false;
}
public Boolean getSuspend() {
return suspend;
}
...
}
Event.java
public abstract class Event implements Runnable {
...
private boolean suspend;
...
public synchronized void isSuspended() {
suspend = greenhouseControls.getSuspend();
notifyAll();
}
public void run() {
try {
while (suspend = true) {
try {
synchronized(this) {
wait();
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Thread.sleep(delayTime);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
try {
this.action();
}
catch (GreenhouseControls.ControllerException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
...
}
FansOff.java: there are other classes like this one each very similar to each other and they are the ones actually producing the output
public class FansOff extends Event {
...
public void run() {
try {
boolean suspend = false;
while (suspend = true) {
try {
synchronized(this) {
wait();
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Thread.sleep(delayTime);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
try {
this.action();
System.out.println(this.toString());
}
catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Full code: here.
Thanks in advance.
Related
I write a Java program to solve Producer Consumer problem in Multi-Threads. But it can not work correctly.
The program:
public class ConsumerAndProducer {
static int products = 0;
static int capacity = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Thread(new Producer()).start();
new Thread(new Consumer()).start();
}
static class Consumer implements Runnable{
public void consume() {
synchronized (ConsumerAndProducer.class){
if(products <= 0){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
products--;
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Consumer, remain：" + products);
if(products == 9){
notify();
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
consume();
}
}
}
static class Producer implements Runnable{
public void produce() {
synchronized (ConsumerAndProducer.class){
if(products == capacity){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
products++;
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Producer, remain：" + products);
if(products == 1){
notify();
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
produce();
}
}
}
And the errors:
Producer, remain：1
Exception in thread "Thread-0" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at zhousai.ConsumerAndProducer$Producer.produce(ConsumerAndProducer.java:69)
at zhousai.ConsumerAndProducer$Producer.run(ConsumerAndProducer.java:77)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
Consumer, remain：0
Exception in thread "Thread-1" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method)
at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:502)
at zhousai.ConsumerAndProducer$Consumer.consume(ConsumerAndProducer.java:22)
at zhousai.ConsumerAndProducer$Consumer.run(ConsumerAndProducer.java:43)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
When I ran your code, I got the following error:
Exception in thread "Thread-0" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException: current thread is not owner
The line of your code throwing that exception is the call to method wait().
You are calling method wait() of class Producer but you are synchronizing on ConsumerAndProducer.class. The wait() method must be called on the object that you are synchronizing on, because that object owns the lock and you must call wait() on the object that owns the lock. Hence the error message: current thread not owner.
The simplest solution is to change your code such that you call ConsumerAndProducer.class.wait() rather than just wait().
Here is your code with my suggested fix:
public class ConsumerAndProducer {
static int products = 0;
static int capacity = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Thread(new Producer()).start();
new Thread(new Consumer()).start();
}
static class Consumer implements Runnable {
public void consume() {
synchronized (ConsumerAndProducer.class){
if (products <= 0) {
try {
ConsumerAndProducer.class.wait(); // change here
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
products--;
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Consumer, remain：" + products);
if(products == 9){
ConsumerAndProducer.class.notify(); // change here
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
consume();
}
}
}
static class Producer implements Runnable{
public void produce() {
synchronized (ConsumerAndProducer.class){
if (products == capacity) {
try {
ConsumerAndProducer.class.wait(); // change here
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
products++;
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Producer, remain：" + products);
if(products == 1){
ConsumerAndProducer.class.notify(); // change here
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
produce();
}
}
}
}
I visited interview some recently. Interviewer asked me to write guaranteed deadlock.
I have wrote following:
public class DeadLockThreadSleep {
private static class MyThread implements Runnable {
private Object o1;
private Object o2;
#Override
public void run() {
try {
test(o1, o2);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public MyThread(Object o1, Object o2) {
this.o1 = o1;
this.o2 = o2;
}
public void test(Object o1, Object o2) throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (o1) {
System.out.println("1.acquired: " + o1);
Thread.sleep(1000);
synchronized (o2) {
System.out.println("2.acquired: " + o2);
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object o1 = new Object();
Object o2 = new Object();
new Thread(new MyThread(o1, o2)).start();
new Thread(new MyThread(o2, o1)).start();
}
}
Then he asked if I sure that it is guaranted. I rememebered that Thread.sleep nothing guaranteed.
Then I wrote this code:
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Thread mainThread = Thread.currentThread();
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
mainThread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
thread.start();
try {
thread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
this answer was accepted.
Also he asked to write analog via wait/notify. I thought a lot and I cannot imagine how to write this.
Is it possible?
This may be done by creating a cycle where one thread holds a resource and waits for another resource whereas the other thread does the same but in reverse order.
Thread tholds resourceOne and waits for resourceTwo , whereas t1holds resourceTwo and waits for resourceOne
Below is a sample code:
public class WaitNotifyLock {
boolean isONHold = false;
public synchronized void hold(){
while(isONHold){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
isONHold = true;
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getId() + " : Holded");
}
public synchronized void unHold(){
while(!isONHold){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getId() + " : Produced");
isONHold = false;
notify();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
WaitNotifyLock resourceOne = new WaitNotifyLock();
WaitNotifyLock resourceTwo = new WaitNotifyLock();
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
resourceOne.hold();
try {
Thread.sleep(2);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
resourceTwo.hold();
resourceOne.unHold();
resourceTwo.unHold();
}
});
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
resourceTwo.hold();
try {
Thread.sleep(2);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
resourceOne.hold();
resourceTwo.unHold();
resourceOne.unHold();
}
});
t.start();
t1.start();
}
}
A deadlock is a so-called liveness hazard (others are starvation, poor responsiveness, or livelocks), where two main types can be considered:
Lock-ordering deadlocks
Resource deadlocks
However, the Java documentation simplifies this as follows:
Deadlock describes a situation where two or more threads are blocked forever, waiting for each other.
Hence, IMHO you could simply enforce a deadlock with this:
public class DeadlockDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Object a = new Object();
Object b = new Object();
new Thread(() -> waitLeftNotifyRight(a, b)).start();
waitLeftNotifyRight(b, a);
}
public static void waitLeftNotifyRight(Object left, Object right) {
synchronized (left) {
try {
System.out.println("Wait");
left.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) { /* NOP */ }
}
synchronized (right) {
System.out.println("Notify");
right.notify();
}
}
}
This demo never terminates because the created thread waits on a's monitor, whereas the main thread waits on b's monitor. As a result, the corresponding notify() methods aren't invoked (which would terminate the program).
I'm learning concurrency and made some naive program to play with ExecutorService and Future tasks.
Also I want to check why instanceof is bad in some cases.
public class Test {
static enum Some {
FOO;
}
static abstract class Foo {
public abstract Some getType();
}
static class FooExt extends Foo {
public Some getType() {
return Some.FOO;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
final CountDownLatch start = new CountDownLatch(1);
Future<Integer> f1 = service.submit(new Callable<Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer call() {
try {
start.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Task started...");
int a = 0;
Foo foo = new FooExt();
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
if (foo instanceof FooExt) {
a++;
}
}
System.out.println("Task ended...");
return a;
}
});
Future<Integer> f2 = service.submit(new Callable<Integer>() {
#Override
public Integer call() {
try {
start.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Task started...");
int a = 0;
Foo foo = new FooExt();
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
if (foo.getType() == Some.FOO) {
a++;
}
}
System.out.println("Task ended...");
return a;
}
});
start.countDown();
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
service.shutdownNow();
System.out.println("service is shutdowned...");
try {
System.out.println("instanceof: "+f1.get());
System.out.println("enum: "+f2.get());
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
but unfortunately my code is never terminated, and I cant get any values from my tasks :(
Hi I have executed your program. I got the following output:
Task started...
Task started...
Task ended...
service is shutdowned...
Task ended...
instanceof: 1287184
enum: 1247375
This code terminates.
I have this exercise, a kind of hospital simulation in which I have to control the accesses to each singular room. Doctors can enter the room one at the time, and can enter only if no visitors are in. A visitor, instead, can only access the room if no doctors are in it and a max of 4 more visitors are in. Here's my code:
public class Room {
public Room(){
}
public synchronized void friendVisit() throws InterruptedException{
if(visitors>4 || doctors>0)
wait();
visitors++;
}
public synchronized void exitFriend(){
visitors--;
notify();
}
public synchronized void doctorVisit() throws InterruptedException{
if(doctors>0 || visitors>0)
wait();
doctors++;
}
public synchronized void exitDoctor(){
--doctors;
notify();
}
public int getVisitors(){
return visitors;
}
public int getDoctors(){
return doctors;
}
int visitors=0; //number of visitors in the room
int doctors=0; //number of doctors in the room
Doctors and Visitors(the class it's called Friend) are threads
public class Friend extends Thread{
public Friend(Room room_reference){
room=room_reference;
}
public void run(){
try {
sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
try {
room.friendVisit();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
try {
sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
room.exitFriend();
}
private Room room; //reference to the room
Here's the doctor thread:
public class Doctor extends Thread{
public Doctor(Room room_reference){
room=room_reference;
}
public void run(){
try {
sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
try {
room.doctorVisit();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
try {
sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
room.exitDoctor();
}
private Room room; //reference to the room
Here's a Display thread to keep trace of the number of visitors and doctors:
public class Display extends Thread{
public Display(Room room_reference){
room=room_reference;
}
public void run(){
while(true)
{
try {
sleep(300);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("The room contains "+room.getDoctors()+
" doctors and "+room.getVisitors()+" visitors.");
}
}
private Room room;
And here's my main:
public class Demo {
public static void main(String[]args){
Room room=new Room();
Friend friend=new Friend(room);
Doctor doctor=new Doctor(room);
Display display=new Display(room);
display.start();
while(true){
if(new Random().nextBoolean()==true){
friend=new Friend(room);
friend.start();
}
if(new Random().nextInt(5)==3){
doctor=new Doctor(room);
doctor.start();
}
}
}
The problem is that more than one doctor can access the room and I don't understand why, since the methods in the Room class work for the Visitors. Thanks in advance.
I think one of your mistakes is assuming that wait() will return only when the condition above it is satisfied:
if(doctors>0 || visitors>0)
wait();
You may return from this call to wait() with the condition in your if statement false. Perhaps try a while loop:
while (doctors>0 || visitors>0) {
wait();
}
(adding brackets, of course, because you know a lack of brackets is evillll.....)
There may be other problems - I've not yet fired up your code.
I've got some code that submits a request to another thread which may or may not submit that request to yet another thread. That yields a return type of Future<Future<T>>. Is there some non-heinous way to immediately turn this into Future<T> that waits on the completion of the entire future chain?
I'm already using the Guava library to handle other fun concurrency stuff and as a replacement for Google Collections and its working well but I can't seem to find something for this case.
Another possible implementation that uses the guava libraries and is a lot simpler.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import com.google.common.util.concurrent.*;
import com.google.common.base.*;
public class FFutures {
public <T> Future<T> flatten(Future<Future<T>> future) {
return Futures.chain(Futures.makeListenable(future), new Function<Future<T>, ListenableFuture<T>>() {
public ListenableFuture<T> apply(Future<T> f) {
return Futures.makeListenable(f);
}
});
}
}
Guava 13.0 adds Futures.dereference to do this. It requires a ListenableFuture<ListenableFuture>, rather than a plain Future<Future>. (Operating on a plain Future would require a makeListenable call, each of which requires a dedicated thread for the lifetime of the task (as is made clearer by the method's new name, JdkFutureAdapters.listenInPoolThread).)
I think this is the best that can be done to implement the contract of Future. I took the tack of being as unclever as possible so as to be sure that it meets the contract. Not especially the implementation of get with timeout.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class Futures {
public <T> Future<T> flatten(Future<Future<T>> future) {
return new FlattenedFuture<T>(future);
}
private static class FlattenedFuture<T> implements Future<T> {
private final Future<Future<T>> future;
public FlattenedFuture(Future<Future<T>> future) {
this.future = future;
}
public boolean cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning) {
if (!future.isDone()) {
return future.cancel(mayInterruptIfRunning);
} else {
while (true) {
try {
return future.get().cancel(mayInterruptIfRunning);
} catch (CancellationException ce) {
return true;
} catch (ExecutionException ee) {
return false;
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
// pass
}
}
}
}
public T get() throws InterruptedException,
CancellationException,
ExecutionException
{
return future.get().get();
}
public T get(long timeout, TimeUnit unit) throws InterruptedException,
CancellationException,
ExecutionException,
TimeoutException
{
if (future.isDone()) {
return future.get().get(timeout, unit);
} else {
return future.get(timeout, unit).get(0, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
}
}
public boolean isCancelled() {
while (true) {
try {
return future.isCancelled() || future.get().isCancelled();
} catch (CancellationException ce) {
return true;
} catch (ExecutionException ee) {
return false;
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
// pass
}
}
}
public boolean isDone() {
return future.isDone() && innerIsDone();
}
private boolean innerIsDone() {
while (true) {
try {
return future.get().isDone();
} catch (CancellationException ce) {
return true;
} catch (ExecutionException ee) {
return true;
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
// pass
}
}
}
}
}
You could create a class like:
public class UnwrapFuture<T> implements Future<T> {
Future<Future<T>> wrappedFuture;
public UnwrapFuture(Future<Future<T>> wrappedFuture) {
this.wrappedFuture = wrappedFuture;
}
public boolean cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning) {
try {
return wrappedFuture.get().cancel(mayInterruptIfRunning);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
//todo: do something
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
//todo: do something
}
}
...
}
You'll have to deal with exceptions that get() can raise but other methods cannot.
This was my first stab at it but I'm sure there is plenty wrong with it. I'd be more than happy to just replace it with something like Futures.compress(f).
public class CompressedFuture<T> implements Future<T> {
private final Future<Future<T>> delegate;
public CompressedFuture(Future<Future<T>> delegate) {
this.delegate = delegate;
}
#Override
public boolean cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning) {
if (delegate.isDone()) {
return delegate.cancel(mayInterruptIfRunning);
}
try {
return delegate.get().cancel(mayInterruptIfRunning);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Error fetching a finished future", e);
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Error fetching a finished future", e);
}
}
#Override
public T get() throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
return delegate.get().get();
}
#Override
public T get(long timeout, TimeUnit unit) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException, TimeoutException {
long endTime = System.currentTimeMillis() + unit.toMillis(timeout);
Future<T> next = delegate.get(timeout, unit);
return next.get(endTime - System.currentTimeMillis(), TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
}
#Override
public boolean isCancelled() {
if (!delegate.isDone()) {
return delegate.isCancelled();
}
try {
return delegate.get().isCancelled();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Error fetching a finished future", e);
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Error fetching a finished future", e);
}
}
#Override
public boolean isDone() {
if (!delegate.isDone()) {
return false;
}
try {
return delegate.get().isDone();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Error fetching a finished future", e);
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException("Error fetching a finished future", e);
}
}
}