I have this scala code, which works just fine (run() is overridden in class)
val processRunnable = new myProcessClassWithOverriddenRunFunction()
val processThread = new Thread(processRunnable)
processThread.start
What I want to do is set a timeout for processThread thread. How can I do that?
I did some research and couldn't find any parameter we can pass to new Thread() or any function in processThread to achieve that.
Found some solutions on stackoveflow which implemented a ExecutorService but unfortunately, that is not implementable in this particular problem as making another new ExecutorService for just a single processThread, everytime this function is called seems inefficient. There are some other reasons as well but my question is how can I implement that functionality on this code?
There is no way to achieve that without the thread cooperating. This is similar in nature to how to make a thread interruptible, and has to do with the fact that it is in general unsafe to stop running threads asynchronously (and a timeout is asynchronous).
Your thread needs to include the timeout capability as part of it's implementation, so that it can act on a timeout condition when it is safe for it to do so.
For example:
public class MyProcessClass {
private final long timeoutMillis = 30000;
public void run() {
long timeout = System.currentTimeMillis() + timeoutMillis;
while (System.currentTimeMillis() < timeout) {
// Process next chunk of work
}
}
}
PS. Don't be misled by the other answer based on the ExecutorService - it requires the thread to be interruptible, i.e. the same solution as shown above.
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
// Process next chunk of work
}
In Java, you can use
CompletableFuture<Void> future = CompletableFuture.runAsync(processRunnable);
future.get(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
To future.get function will throw a TimeOutException when timeout (1 second in the example above) is reached and the timeout case can be handled in catch block.
Complete code will be something like this:
try {
CompletableFuture<Void> future = CompletableFuture.runAsync(processRunnable);
future.get(1000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
}
catch{
case texc : TimeoutException => println("Timeout is reached.")
case exc : Exception => println(exc.getmessage)
}
Related
I am using Java 8, and I want to know the recommended way to enforce timeout on 3 async jobs that I would to execute async and retrieve the result from the future. Note that the timeout is the same for all 3 jobs. I also want to cancel the job if it goes beyond time limit.
I am thinking something like this:
// Submit jobs async
List<CompletableFuture<String>> futures = submitJobs(); // Uses CompletableFuture.supplyAsync
List<CompletableFuture<Void>> all = CompletableFuture.allOf(futures.toArray(new CompletableFuture[0]));
try {
allFutures.get(100L, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
} catch (TimeoutException e){
for(CompletableFuture f : future) {
if(!f.isDone()) {
/*
From Java Doc:
#param mayInterruptIfRunning this value has no effect in this
* implementation because interrupts are not used to control
* processing.
*/
f.cancel(true);
}
}
}
List<String> output = new ArrayList<>();
for(CompeletableFuture fu : futures) {
if(!fu.isCancelled()) { // Is this needed?
output.add(fu.join());
}
}
return output;
Will something like this work? Is there a better way?
How to cancel the future properly? Java doc says, thread cannot be interrupted? So, if I were to cancel a future, and call join(), will I get the result immediately since the thread will not be interrupted?
Is it recommended to use join() or get() to get the result after waiting is over?
It is worth noting that calling cancel on CompletableFuture is effectively the same as calling completeExceptionally on the current stage. The cancellation will not impact prior stages. With that said:
In principle, something like this will work assuming upstream cancellation is not necessary (from a pseudocode perspective, the above has syntax errors).
CompletableFuture cancellation will not interrupt the current thread. Cancellation will cause all downstream stages to be triggered immediately with a CancellationException (will short circuit the execution flow).
'join' and 'get' are effectively the same in the case where the caller is willing to wait indefinitely. Join handles wrapping the checked Exceptions for you. If the caller wants to timeout, get will be needed.
Including a segment to illustrate the behavior on cancellation. Note how downstream processes will not be started, but upstream processes continue even after cancellation.
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception
{
int maxSleepTime = 1000;
Random random = new Random();
AtomicInteger value = new AtomicInteger();
List<String> calculatedValues = new ArrayList<>();
Supplier<String> process = () -> { try { Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(maxSleepTime)); System.out.println("Stage 1 Running!"); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } return Integer.toString(value.getAndIncrement()); };
List<CompletableFuture<String>> stage1 = IntStream.range(0, 10).mapToObj(val -> CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(process)).collect(Collectors.toList());
List<CompletableFuture<String>> stage2 = stage1.stream().map(Test::appendNumber).collect(Collectors.toList());
List<CompletableFuture<String>> stage3 = stage2.stream().map(Test::printIfCancelled).collect(Collectors.toList());
CompletableFuture<Void> awaitAll = CompletableFuture.allOf(stage2.toArray(new CompletableFuture[0]));
try
{
/*Wait 1/2 the time, some should be complete. Some not complete -> TimeoutException*/
awaitAll.get(maxSleepTime / 2, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
}
catch(TimeoutException ex)
{
for(CompletableFuture<String> toCancel : stage2)
{
boolean irrelevantValue = false;
if(!toCancel.isDone())
toCancel.cancel(irrelevantValue);
else
calculatedValues.add(toCancel.join());
}
}
System.out.println("All futures Cancelled! But some Stage 1's may still continue printing anyways.");
System.out.println("Values returned as of cancellation: " + calculatedValues);
Thread.sleep(maxSleepTime);
}
private static CompletableFuture<String> appendNumber(CompletableFuture<String> baseFuture)
{
return baseFuture.thenApply(val -> { System.out.println("Stage 2 Running"); return "#" + val; });
}
private static CompletableFuture<String> printIfCancelled(CompletableFuture<String> baseFuture)
{
return baseFuture.thenApply(val -> { System.out.println("Stage 3 Running!"); return val; }).exceptionally(ex -> { System.out.println("Stage 3 Cancelled!"); return ex.getMessage(); });
}
If it is necessary to cancel the upstream process (ex: cancel some network call), custom handling will be needed.
After calling cancel you cannot join the furure, since you get an exception.
One way to terminate the computation is to let it have a reference to the future and check it periodically: if it was cancelled abort the computation from inside.
This can be done if the computaion is a loop where at each iteration you can do the check.
Do you need it to be a CompletableFuture? Cause another way is to avoid to use a CompleatableFuture, and use a simple Future or a FutureTask instead: if you execute it with an Executor calling future.cancel(true) will terminate the computation if possbile.
Answerring to the question: "call join(), will I get the result immediately".
No you will not get it immediately, it will hang and wait to complete the computation: there is no way to force a computation that takes a long time to complete in a shorter time.
You can call future.complete(value) providing a value to be used as default result by other threads that have a reference to that future.
I have method as
public List<SenderResponse> sendAllFiles(String folderName) {
List<File> allFiles = getListOfFiles();
List<SenderResponse> finalResponse = new ArrayList<SenderResponse>();
for (File file : allFiles) {
finalResponse.getResults().add(sendSingleFile(file));
}
return finalResponse;
}
which is running as a single thread. I want run sendSingleFile(file) using multithread so I can reduce the total time taken to send files.
how can I run sendSingleFile(file) using multithreads for various files and get the final response?
I found few articles using threadpoolexecutor. But how to handle the response got during the sendSingleFile(file) and add it to one Final SenderResponse?
I am kind of new to multi-thread. Please suggest the best way to process these files.
Define an executor service
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(MAX_THREAD); //Define integer value of MAX_THREAD
Then for each job you can do something like this:-
Callable<SenderResponse> task = () -> {
try {
return sendSingleFile(file);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Interrupted", e);
}
};
Future<SenderResponse> future = executor.submit(task);
future.get(MAX_TIME_TO_WAIT, TimeUnit.SECONDS); //Blocking call. MAX_TIME_TO_WAIT is max time future will wait for the process to execute.
You start by writing code that works works for the single-thread solution. The code you posted wouldn't even compile; as the method signature says to return SenderResponse; whereas you use/return a List<SenderResponse> within the method!
When that stuff works, you continue with this:
You create an instance of
ExecutorService, based on as many threads as you want to
You submit tasks into that service.
Each tasks knows about that result list object. The task does its work, and adds the result to that result list.
The one point to be careful about: making sure that add() is synchronized somehow - having multiple threads update an ordinary ArrayList is not safe.
For your situation, I would use a work stealing pool (ForkJoin executor service) and submit "jobs" to it. If you're using guava, you can wrap that in a listeningDecorator which will allow you to add a listener on the futures it returns.
Example:
// create the executor service
ListeningExecutorService exec = MoreExecutors.listeningDecorator(Executors.newWorkStealingPool());
for(Foo foo : bar) {
// submit can accept Runnable or Callable<T>
final ListenableFuture<T> future = exec.submit(() -> doSomethingWith(foo));
// Run something when it is complete.
future.addListener(() -> doSomeStuff(future), exec);
}
Note that the listener will be called whether the future was successful or not.
There's a thread pool with a single thread that is used to perform tasks submitted by multiple threads. The task is actually comprised of two parts - perform with meaningful result and cleanup that takes quite some time but returns no meaningful result. At the moment (obviously incorrect) implementation looks something like this. Is there an elegant way to ensure that another perform task will be executed only after previous cleanup task?
public class Main {
private static class Worker {
int perform() {
return 1;
}
void cleanup() {
}
}
private static void perform() throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
ExecutorService pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
Worker w = new Worker();
Future f = pool.submit(() -> w.perform());
pool.submit(w::cleanup);
int x = (int) f.get();
System.out.println(x);
}
}
Is there an elegant way to ensure that another perform task will be executed only after previous cleanup task?
The most obvious thing to do is to call cleanup() from perform() but I assume there is a reason why you aren't doing that.
You say that your solution is currently "obviously incorrect". Why? Because of race conditions? Then you could add a synchronized block:
synchronized (pool) {
Future f = pool.submit(() -> w.perform());
pool.submit(w::cleanup);
}
That would ensure that the cleanup() would come immediately after a perform(). If you are worried about the performance hit with the synchronized, don't be.
Another solution might be to use the ExecutorCompletionService class although I'm not sure how that would help with one thread. I've used it before when I had cleanup tasks running in another thread pool.
If you are using java8, you can do this with CompletableFuture
CompletableFuture.supplyAsync(() -> w.perform(), pool)
.thenApplyAsync(() -> w.cleanup(), pool)
.join();
OK, I created couples of threads to do some complex task. Now How may I check each threads whether it has completed successfully or not??
class BrokenTasks extends Thread {
public BrokenTasks(){
super();
}
public void run(){
//Some complex tasks related to Networking..
//Example would be fetching some data from the internet and it is not known when can it be finished
}
}
//In another class
BrokenTasks task1 = new BrokenTasks();
BrokenTasks task2 = new BrokenTasks();
BrokenTasks task3 = new BrokenTasks();
BrokenTasks task4 = new BrokenTasks();
task1.start();
.....
task4.start();
So how can I check if these all tasks completed successfully from
i) Main Program (Main Thread)
ii)From each consecutive threads.For example: checking if task1 had ended or not from within task2..
A good way to use threads is not to use them, directly. Instead make a thread pool. Then in your POJO task encapsulation have a field that is only set at the end of computation.
There might be 3-4 milliseconds delay when another thread can see the status - but finally the JVM makes it so. As long as other threads do not over write it. That you can protect by making sure each task has a unique instance of work to do and status, and other threads only poll that every 1-5 seconds or have a listener that the worker calls after completion.
A library I have used is my own
https://github.com/tgkprog/ddt/tree/master/DdtUtils/src/main/java/org/s2n/ddt/util/threads
To use : in server start or static block :
package org.s2n.ddt.util;
import org.apache.log4j.Logger;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.s2n.ddt.util.threads.PoolOptions;
import org.s2n.ddt.util.threads.DdtPools;
public class PoolTest {
private static final Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(PoolTest.class);
#Test
public void test() {
PoolOptions options = new PoolOptions();
options.setCoreThreads(2);
options.setMaxThreads(33);
DdtPools.initPool("a", options);
Do1 p = null;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
p = new Do1();
DdtPools.offer("a", p);
}
LangUtils.sleep(3 + (int) (Math.random() * 3));
org.junit.Assert.assertNotNull(p);
org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Do1.getLs(), 10);
}
}
class Do1 implements Runnable {
volatile static long l = 0;
public Do1() {
l++;
}
public void run() {
// LangUtils.sleep(1 + (int) (Math.random() * 3));
System.out.println("hi " + l);
}
public static long getLs() {
return l;
}
}
Things you should not do:
* Don't do things every 10-15 milliseconds
* Unless academic do not make your own thread
* don't make it more complex then it needs for 97% of cases
You can use Callable and ForkJoinPool for this task.
class BrokenTasks implements Callable {
public BrokenTasks(){
super();
}
public Object call() thrown Exception {
//Some complex tasks related to Networking..
//Example would be fetching some data from the internet and it is not known when can it be finished
}
}
//In another class
BrokenTasks task1 = new BrokenTasks();
BrokenTasks task2 = new BrokenTasks();
BrokenTasks task3 = new BrokenTasks();
BrokenTasks task4 = new BrokenTasks();
ForkJoinPool pool = new ForkJoinPool(4);
Future result1 = pool.submit(task1);
Future result2 = pool.submit(task2);
Future result3 = pool.submit(task3);
Future result4 = pool.submit(task4);
value4 = result4.get();//blocking call
value3 = result3.get();//blocking call
value2 = result2.get();//blocking call
value1 = result1.get();//blocking call
And don't forget to shutdown pool after that.
Classically you simply join on the threads you want to finish. Your thread does not proceed until join completes. For example:
// await all threads
task1.join();
task2.join();
task3.join();
task4.join();
// continue with main thread logic
(I probably would have put the tasks in a list for cleaner handling)
If a thread has not been completed its task then it is still alive. So for testing whether the thread has completed its task you can use isAlive() method.
There are two different questions here
One is if the thread still working.
The other one is if the task still not finished.
Thread is a very expensive method to solve problem, when we start a thread in java, the VM has to store context informations and solve synchronize problems(such as lock). So we usually use thread pool instead of directly thread. The benefit of thread pool is that we can use few thread to handle many different tasks. That means few threads keeps alive, while many tasks are finished.
Don’t find task status from a thread.
Thread is a worker, and tasks are jobs.
A thread may work on many different jobs one by one.
I don’t think we should ask a worker if he has finished a job. I’d rather ask the job if it is finished.
When I want to check if a job is finished, I use signals.
Use signals (synchronization aid)
There are many synchronization aid tools since JDK 1.5 works like a signal.
CountDownLatch
This object provides a counter(can be set only once and count down many times). This counter allows one or more threads to wait until a set of operations being performed in other threads completes.
CyclicBarrier
This is another useful signal that allows a set of threads to all wait for each other to reach a common barrier point.
more tools
More tools could be found in JDK java.util.concurrent package.
You can use Thread.isAlive method, see API: "A thread is alive if it has been started and has not yet died". That is in task2 run() you test task1.isAlive()
To see task1 from task2 you need to pass it as an argument to task2's construtor, or make tasks fields instead of local vars
You can use the following..
task1.join();
task2.join();
task3.join();
task4.join();
// and then check every thread by using isAlive() method
e.g : task1.isAlive();
if it return false means that thread had completed it's task
otherwise it will true
I'm not sure of your exact needs, but some Java application frameworks have handy abstractions for dealing with individual units of work or "jobs". The Eclipse Rich Client Platform comes to mind with its Jobs API. Although it may be overkill.
For plain old Java, look at Future, Callable and Executor.
How can I test behavior of my application code for the case of very bad IO performance without using mock streams that sleep (because they would react to interrupts)?
For instance, I want to test a ConcurrentWrapper utility that has a pool of threads for file IO. It submits each operation to an ExecutorService with invokeAll() with timeout. I want to confirm not only that the call with ConcurrentWrapper exits before timeout, but also that it somehow made the thread of its inner ExecutorService terminate (to avoid leakage).
I need to somehow simulate slow IO in the inner thread, but in a way that will ignore interrupts (like real IO does).
A bit of clarification: No answer like "sleep and swallow InterruptedException" or "sleep, catch InterruptedException and go back to sleep" is acceptable. I want to test how my code handles interrupts and such instrumentation would defeat the purpose by handling them itself.
You can sleep in a way that will insist on sleeping through interrupts:
long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
long end = start + sleepTime;
for (long now = start; now < end; now = System.currentTimeMillis()) {
try {
Thread.sleep(end - now);
} catch (InterruptedException ignored) {
}
}
For testing with timeouts, you can actually put a maximum time to execute the test, in JUnit you can include the annotation timeout:
#Test(timeout=100)
public void method_withTimeout() {
while(true);
}
For the part of testing that the method exits, you could use the Future interface that provides a timeout for getting the results.
If i understand your question correctly, ReentrantLock might help.
final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();
Callable<Void> c = new Callable<Void>() {
public void call() {
lock.lock();
try {
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
...
}
}
finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
// Submit to the pool
Future<Void> future = executorService.submit(c);
// you might want to sleep a bit to give the pool a chance
// to pull off the queue.
// Issue a cancel
future.cancel();
// Now release the lock, which should let your
// callable continue onto to the interrupted check.
lock.unlock();
Note that the "lock" method does not throw any InterruptedException (though there is a method for that called "lockInterruptibly"), and if you look at the code for that class, it's not catching and swallowing (as you've stated would not be what you want).