I have a worker thread running indefinitely, which goes to sleep for one minute if there's nothing to do. Sometimes, another piece of code produces some work and wants to wake the worker thread immediately.
So I did something like this (code for illustration only):
class Worker {
public void run() {
while (!shuttingDown()) {
step();
}
}
private synchronized void step() {
if (hasWork()) {
doIt();
} else {
wait(60_000);
}
}
public synchronized wakeMeUpInside() {
notify();
}
}
What I dislike is having to enter the monitor only for waking something up, which means that the notifying thread may be delayed for no good reason. As the choices of native synchronization are limited, I thought I'd switch to Condition, but it has exactly the same problem:
An implementation may (and typically does) require that the current thread hold the lock associated with this Condition when this method is called.
Here's a semaphore based solution:
class Worker {
// If 0 there's no work available
private workAvailableSem = new Semaphore(0);
public void run() {
while (!shuttingDown()) {
step();
}
}
private synchronized void step() {
// Try to obtain a permit waiting up to 60 seconds to get one
boolean hasWork = workAvailableSem.tryAquire(1, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
if (hasWork) {
doIt();
}
}
public wakeMeUpInside() {
workAvailableSem.release(1);
}
}
I'm not 100% sure this meets your needs. A few things to note:
This will add one permit each time wakeMeUpInside is called. Thus if two threads wake up the Worker it will run doIt twice without blocking. You can extend the example to avoid that.
This waits 60 seconds for work to do. If none is available it'll end up back in the run method which will send it immediately back to the step method which will just wait again. I did this because I'm assuming you had some reason why you wanted to run every 60 seconds even if there's no work. If that's not the case just call aquire and you'll wait indefinitely for work.
As per comments below the OP wants to run only once. While you could call drainPermits in that case a cleaner solution is just to use a LockSupport like so:
class Worker {
// We need a reference to the thread to wake it
private Thread workerThread = null;
// Is there work available
AtomicBoolean workAvailable = new AtomicBoolean(false);
public void run() {
workerThread = Thread.currentThread();
while (!shuttingDown()) {
step();
}
}
private synchronized void step() {
// Wait until work is available or 60 seconds have passed
ThreadSupport.parkNanos(TimeUnit.MINUTES.toNanos(1));
if (workAvailable.getAndSet(false)) {
doIt();
}
}
public wakeMeUpInside() {
// NOTE: potential race here depending on desired semantics.
// For example, if doIt() will do all work we don't want to
// set workAvailable to true if the doIt loop is running.
// There are ways to work around this but the desired
// semantics need to be specified.
workAvailable.set(true);
ThreadSupport.unpark(workerThread);
}
}
My code:
public class EventHandler implements Runnable, SomeEventListener {
private static final EventHandler INSTANCE = new EventHandler();
private static final Thread THREAD = new Thread(INSTANCE);
private static volatile boolean isRunning = false;
private EventHandler () {}
private static EventHandler getInstance() {
return INSTANCE;
}
public void start() {
isRunning = true;
THREAD.start();
}
public void stop() {
isRunning = false;
}
//Listener method that was overriden
public void onEvent(Event event) {
//...do stuff
}
#Override
public void run() {
//Do nothing, let the listener do its job
while (isRunning) {
try {
logger.info("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep(5000);
logger.info("Done sleeping...");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Basically the run() method does nothing - just sleeps every 5 seconds, wakes up, sleeps again. What I don't understand is when it's asleep, this EventHandler class still gets events. How does this happen? Shouldn't the class stop receiving events since the thread is asleep?
The thread and the class are two different things. EventHandler is an object that has a dedicated thread executing its run method. At the same time it has its onEvent method which is available to get called by other threads.
Log the thread ID in the onEvent method and in the run method to confirm the sleeping thread is not involved in receiving events.
Classes don't own threads. Your THREAD is spinning doing its sleeping, logging, and flag-checking, while other threads in your program call onEvent. (Also the OS-level thread is a separate thing from the object whose reference you saved as THREAD.)
You could use a thread pool and that would keep your application alive until you shut it down. It would be better to submit Runnables to a thread pool than to give each Runnable its own dedicated thread.
That thread seems really useless. I don't know how you think Listeners work, but basically they are just references that some thread you probably never saw will use to call certain methods if they see something happen.
A listener does not just "catch" any events thrown into the room.
Like I said: This thread seems useless because it doesn't do anything. At all. The Events are called from a different thread. You don't need this one for it.
Hallo I've been debugging my code for a whole day already, but I just can't see where could be wrong.
I use SerialPortEventListener on a main thread, in a working thread I have a client socket communicating to a server.
Since after this working thread reach return, I still need some wrap up work done in the main thread, i want to create a "pseudothread" that wait in the main thread until the it is notified from the listener onEvent method.
but this pseudothread seems to be waiting forever.
I checked the locked thread pseudoThread, they should have the same object id in the Runnable and in Listener class.
"PseudoThread waiting" got displayed, but PseudoThread awake is never showed.
Console output shows:
PseudoThread waiting
..
..
false notified pseudothread.
PS if I create a lock in Main class with public final Object lock = new Object(); and replace all main.pseudoThread with main.lock, I get java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException.
private class Pseudo implements Runnable{
Main main;
public Pseudo(Main main) {
this.main = main;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(main.pseudoThread){
try {
System.out.println("PseudoThread waiting");
main.pseudoThread.wait();
System.out.println("PseudoThread awake");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
return;
}
}
}
}
in main method:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Main main = new Main();
main.initArduino();
//more code. including starting the working thread
main.pseudoThread = new Thread(main.new Pseudo(main));
main.pseudoThread.start();
try {
main.pseudoThread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void initArduino() {
arduino = new Arduino(this);
if(!arduino.initialize())
System.exit(1);
}
and in the listener class (which also runs in main thread)
//class constructor;
public Arduino(Main Main){
this.main = Main;
}
//listening method
public void serialEvent(SerialPortEvent oEvent){
//some code to interract with working thread.
record();
}
private void record(){
synchronized(main.pseudoThread){
main.pseudoThread.notify();
System.out.println("notified pseudothread.");
}
}
Without looking too deeply into what might actually be happening, I can see that your use of wait()/notify() is all wrong. Probably you are experiencing a "lost notification." The notify() function does nothing if there is no thread waiting for it at the moment when it is called. If your serialEvent() function calls notify() before the other thread calls wait(), then the notification will be lost.
Consider this example:
class WaitNotify() {
private final Object lock = new Object();
private long head = 0;
private long tail = 0;
public void consumer() {
synchronized (lock) {
while(head == tail) {
lock.wait();
}
doSomething();
count head += 1;
}
}
public void producer() {
synchronized (lock) {
tail += 1;
lock.notify();
}
}
}
The essential points are:
(1) The consumer() function waits for some relationship between data to become true: Here, it waits for head != tail.
(2) The consumer() function waits in a loop. There's two reasons for that: (a) Many programs have more than one consumer thread. If consumer A wakes up from the wait(), there's no guarantee that consumer B hasn't already claimed whatever it was that they both were waiting for. And (b) The Java language spec allows foo.wait() to sometimes return even when foo.notify() has not been called. That's known as a "spurious wakeup." Allowing spurious wakeups (so long as they don't happen too often) makes it easier to implement a JVM.
(3) The lock object is the same lock that is used by the program to protect the variables upon which the condition depends. If this example was part of a larger program, you would see synchronized(lock) surrounding every use of head and tail regardless of whether the synchronized code is wait()ing or notify()ing.
If your own code obeys all three of the above rules when calling wait() and notify(), then your program will be far more likely to behave the way you expect it to behave.
As suggested by james it could be lost notification case or it could be that.. Two Threads 1- Your Main Thread and 2- Pseudo thread Are waiting on the same Thread Instance Lock (main.pseudoThread)( Main thread waits on the same lock by calling join method).
Now you are using notify which wakes the Main thread from join method and not the one
waiting in your Pseudo. To check for the second case try calling notifyall in record this will either
confirm the second case or will rule this possibility.
Anyways please refactor your code not to use synch on Thread instance its bad practice. Go for ReentrantLock or CoundDownLatch something.
Usage of notify and wait seem to be incorrect. Method name notify can be a bit misleading because it is not for general purpose "notifying". These methods are used to control the execution of synchronization blocks. Wait will allow some other thread to synchronize with same object while current threads pauses. Basically this is used when some resource is not available and execution can not continue. On the other hand notify will wake one waiting thread wake from wait after notifying thread has completed its synchronized-block. Only one thread can be in synchronized block of the same object at the same time.
If the idea is just keep the main program running until notified then semaphore would be much more appropriate. Something like this.
public void run() {
System.out.println("PseudoThread waiting");
main.semaphore.acquireUninterruptibly();
System.out.println("PseudoThread awake");
}
//...
private void record(){
main.semaphore.release();
}
//...
public static void main(String[] args) {
main.semaphore = new Semaphore(0);
//...
}
I have class Server and subclass ClientThread. ClientThread has methods receive() and broadcast(String[] msg) used to receive and send messages from/to clients connected to server.
Scheme:
public class Server extends Thread {
private ArrayList<ClientThread> clientThreads;
class ClientThread extends Thread {
public void broadcast(String[] msg) {...}
public void receive() {
...
if (msg.equals("CHANGED")) {
resumeOthers();
}
public void suspendOthers() {
for (ClientThread c: clientThreads)
if (c!=this)
try {
c.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
public void resumeOthers() {
for (ClientThread c: clientThreads)
if (c!=this)
c.notify();
}
}
public void run() {
...
cmd = new String[1];
cmd[0] = "PROMPTCHANGE";
for (ClientThread currPlayer: clientThreads) {
currPlayer.broadcast(cmd);
currPlayer.suspendOthers();
}
}
}
Now, I would like to make this ClientThreads work one after another, like this:
1. ClientThread number 1 is calling method broadcast.
Now any other ClientThread existing is freezed
(they are stored in ArrayList on Server)
2. Client (another class) replies with a message that is being caught by receive()
Now this thread is freezed, and the next one starts running
Unfortunately, my approach doesn't work.
Could somebody explain me in details how to achieve that?
by calling Object.wait(), you are are suspending the CALLING thread, not the thread that this object happens to be.
so in effect, you are doing a loop that blocks the calling thread N times, definitely not what you intended.
in order to pause a thread, you need to have IT wait on an objet, or have it block entering a synchronized block (or use Thread.sleep(), but usually its not a good solution).
in other words, the client threads need to call wait, not the calling thread.
One addition:
it seems you are new to Java threading and synchronization, I strongly suggest that you read about it before attempting this.
Google around for some docs on the subject.
here is something to get you started:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/guardmeth.html
It's not clear how the sequence of execution works.
Anyway, as already said by previous answers, calling x.wait() on a Object makes the current thread block on object x. Moreover, in order to call wait() and notify(), you first have to synchronize on that object, AND, when you call wait(), you should do it in a loop, checking for an external condition, because spurious wakeups can happen.
So, the correct pattern should be something like:
void waitForCondition() {
synchronized (lockObject) {
while (!condition) {
lockObject.wait();
}
}
}
void setCondition() {
synchronized (lockObject) {
condition = true;
lockObject.notify(); //or .notifyAll()
}
}
If you want to make the threads run one after another, try http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Exchanger.html
I have an object with a method named StartDownload(), that starts three threads.
How do I get a notification when each thread has finished executing?
Is there a way to know if one (or all) of the thread is finished or is still executing?
There are a number of ways you can do this:
Use Thread.join() in your main thread to wait in a blocking fashion for each Thread to complete, or
Check Thread.isAlive() in a polling fashion -- generally discouraged -- to wait until each Thread has completed, or
Unorthodox, for each Thread in question, call setUncaughtExceptionHandler to call a method in your object, and program each Thread to throw an uncaught Exception when it completes, or
Use locks or synchronizers or mechanisms from java.util.concurrent, or
More orthodox, create a listener in your main Thread, and then program each of your Threads to tell the listener that they have completed.
How to implement Idea #5? Well, one way is to first create an interface:
public interface ThreadCompleteListener {
void notifyOfThreadComplete(final Thread thread);
}
then create the following class:
public abstract class NotifyingThread extends Thread {
private final Set<ThreadCompleteListener> listeners
= new CopyOnWriteArraySet<ThreadCompleteListener>();
public final void addListener(final ThreadCompleteListener listener) {
listeners.add(listener);
}
public final void removeListener(final ThreadCompleteListener listener) {
listeners.remove(listener);
}
private final void notifyListeners() {
for (ThreadCompleteListener listener : listeners) {
listener.notifyOfThreadComplete(this);
}
}
#Override
public final void run() {
try {
doRun();
} finally {
notifyListeners();
}
}
public abstract void doRun();
}
and then each of your Threads will extend NotifyingThread and instead of implementing run() it will implement doRun(). Thus when they complete, they will automatically notify anyone waiting for notification.
Finally, in your main class -- the one that starts all the Threads (or at least the object waiting for notification) -- modify that class to implement ThreadCompleteListener and immediately after creating each Thread add itself to the list of listeners:
NotifyingThread thread1 = new OneOfYourThreads();
thread1.addListener(this); // add ourselves as a listener
thread1.start(); // Start the Thread
then, as each Thread exits, your notifyOfThreadComplete method will be invoked with the Thread instance that just completed (or crashed).
Note that better would be to implements Runnable rather than extends Thread for NotifyingThread as extending Thread is usually discouraged in new code. But I'm coding to your question. If you change the NotifyingThread class to implement Runnable then you have to change some of your code that manages Threads, which is pretty straightforward to do.
Solution using CyclicBarrier
public class Downloader {
private CyclicBarrier barrier;
private final static int NUMBER_OF_DOWNLOADING_THREADS;
private DownloadingThread extends Thread {
private final String url;
public DownloadingThread(String url) {
super();
this.url = url;
}
#Override
public void run() {
barrier.await(); // label1
download(url);
barrier.await(); // label2
}
}
public void startDownload() {
// plus one for the main thread of execution
barrier = new CyclicBarrier(NUMBER_OF_DOWNLOADING_THREADS + 1); // label0
for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_DOWNLOADING_THREADS; i++) {
new DownloadingThread("http://www.flickr.com/someUser/pic" + i + ".jpg").start();
}
barrier.await(); // label3
displayMessage("Please wait...");
barrier.await(); // label4
displayMessage("Finished");
}
}
label0 - cyclic barrier is created with number of parties equal to the number of executing threads plus one for the main thread of execution (in which startDownload() is being executed)
label 1 - n-th DownloadingThread enters the waiting room
label 3 - NUMBER_OF_DOWNLOADING_THREADS have entered the waiting room. Main thread of execution releases them to start doing their downloading jobs in more or less the same time
label 4 - main thread of execution enters the waiting room. This is the 'trickiest' part of the code to understand. It doesn't matter which thread will enter the waiting room for the second time. It is important that whatever thread enters the room last ensures that all the other downloading threads have finished their downloading jobs.
label 2 - n-th DownloadingThread has finished its downloading job and enters the waiting room. If it is the last one i.e. already NUMBER_OF_DOWNLOADING_THREADS have entered it, including the main thread of execution, main thread will continue its execution only when all the other threads have finished downloading.
You should really prefer a solution that uses java.util.concurrent. Find and read Josh Bloch and/or Brian Goetz on the topic.
If you are not using java.util.concurrent.* and are taking responsibility for using Threads directly, then you should probably use join() to know when a thread is done. Here is a super simple Callback mechanism. First extend the Runnable interface to have a callback:
public interface CallbackRunnable extends Runnable {
public void callback();
}
Then make an Executor that will execute your runnable and call you back when it is done.
public class CallbackExecutor implements Executor {
#Override
public void execute(final Runnable r) {
final Thread runner = new Thread(r);
runner.start();
if ( r instanceof CallbackRunnable ) {
// create a thread to perform the callback
Thread callerbacker = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// block until the running thread is done
runner.join();
((CallbackRunnable)r).callback();
}
catch ( InterruptedException e ) {
// someone doesn't want us running. ok, maybe we give up.
}
}
});
callerbacker.start();
}
}
}
The other sort-of obvious thing to add to your CallbackRunnable interface is a means to handle any exceptions, so maybe put a public void uncaughtException(Throwable e); line in there and in your executor, install a Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler to send you to that interface method.
But doing all that really starts to smell like java.util.concurrent.Callable. You should really look at using java.util.concurrent if your project permits it.
Many things have been changed in last 6 years on multi-threading front.
Instead of using join() and lock API, you can use
1.ExecutorService invokeAll() API
Executes the given tasks, returning a list of Futures holding their status and results when all complete.
2.CountDownLatch
A synchronization aid that allows one or more threads to wait until a set of operations being performed in other threads completes.
A CountDownLatch is initialized with a given count. The await methods block until the current count reaches zero due to invocations of the countDown() method, after which all waiting threads are released and any subsequent invocations of await return immediately. This is a one-shot phenomenon -- the count cannot be reset. If you need a version that resets the count, consider using a CyclicBarrier.
3.ForkJoinPool or newWorkStealingPool() in Executors is other way
4.Iterate through all Future tasks from submit on ExecutorService and check the status with blocking call get() on Future object
Have a look at related SE questions:
How to wait for a thread that spawns it's own thread?
Executors: How to synchronously wait until all tasks have finished if tasks are created recursively?
Do you want to wait for them to finish? If so, use the Join method.
There is also the isAlive property if you just want to check it.
You can interrogate the thread instance with getState() which returns an instance of Thread.State enumeration with one of the following values:
* NEW
A thread that has not yet started is in this state.
* RUNNABLE
A thread executing in the Java virtual machine is in this state.
* BLOCKED
A thread that is blocked waiting for a monitor lock is in this state.
* WAITING
A thread that is waiting indefinitely for another thread to perform a particular action is in this state.
* TIMED_WAITING
A thread that is waiting for another thread to perform an action for up to a specified waiting time is in this state.
* TERMINATED
A thread that has exited is in this state.
However I think it would be a better design to have a master thread which waits for the 3 children to finish, the master would then continue execution when the other 3 have finished.
You could also use the Executors object to create an ExecutorService thread pool. Then use the invokeAll method to run each of your threads and retrieve Futures. This will block until all have finished execution. Your other option would be to execute each one using the pool and then call awaitTermination to block until the pool is finished executing. Just be sure to call shutdown() when you're done adding tasks.
I would suggest looking at the javadoc for Thread class.
You have multiple mechanisms for thread manipulation.
Your main thread could join() the three threads serially, and would then not proceed until all three are done.
Poll the thread state of the spawned threads at intervals.
Put all of the spawned threads into a separate ThreadGroup and poll the activeCount() on the ThreadGroup and wait for it to get to 0.
Setup a custom callback or listener type of interface for inter-thread communication.
I'm sure there are plenty of other ways I'm still missing.
I guess the easiest way is to use ThreadPoolExecutor class.
It has a queue and you can set how many threads should be working in parallel.
It has nice callback methods:
Hook methods
This class provides protected overridable beforeExecute(java.lang.Thread, java.lang.Runnable) and afterExecute(java.lang.Runnable, java.lang.Throwable) methods that are called before and after execution of each task. These can be used to manipulate the execution environment; for example, reinitializing ThreadLocals, gathering statistics, or adding log entries. Additionally, method terminated() can be overridden to perform any special processing that needs to be done once the Executor has fully terminated.
which is exactly what we need. We will override afterExecute() to get callbacks after each thread is done and will override terminated() to know when all threads are done.
So here is what you should do
Create an executor:
private ThreadPoolExecutor executor;
private int NUMBER_OF_CORES = Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors();
private void initExecutor() {
executor = new ThreadPoolExecutor(
NUMBER_OF_CORES * 2, //core pool size
NUMBER_OF_CORES * 2, //max pool size
60L, //keep aive time
TimeUnit.SECONDS,
new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>()
) {
#Override
protected void afterExecute(Runnable r, Throwable t) {
super.afterExecute(r, t);
//Yet another thread is finished:
informUiAboutProgress(executor.getCompletedTaskCount(), listOfUrisToProcess.size());
}
}
};
#Override
protected void terminated() {
super.terminated();
informUiThatWeAreDone();
}
}
And start your threads:
private void startTheWork(){
for (Uri uri : listOfUrisToProcess) {
executor.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
doSomeHeavyWork(uri);
}
});
}
executor.shutdown(); //call it when you won't add jobs anymore
}
Inside method informUiThatWeAreDone(); do whatever you need to do when all threads are done, for example, update UI.
NOTE: Don't forget about using synchronized methods since you do your work in parallel and BE VERY CAUTIOUS if you decide to call synchronized method from another synchronized method! This often leads to deadlocks
Hope this helps!
Here's a solution that is simple, short, easy to understand, and works perfectly for me. I needed to draw to the screen when another thread ends; but couldn't because the main thread has control of the screen. So:
(1) I created the global variable: boolean end1 = false; The thread sets it to true when ending. That is picked up in the mainthread by "postDelayed" loop, where it is responded to.
(2) My thread contains:
void myThread() {
end1 = false;
new CountDownTimer(((60000, 1000) { // milliseconds for onFinish, onTick
public void onFinish()
{
// do stuff here once at end of time.
end1 = true; // signal that the thread has ended.
}
public void onTick(long millisUntilFinished)
{
// do stuff here repeatedly.
}
}.start();
}
(3) Fortunately, "postDelayed" runs in the main thread, so that's where in check the other thread once each second. When the other thread ends, this can begin whatever we want to do next.
Handler h1 = new Handler();
private void checkThread() {
h1.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
if (end1)
// resond to the second thread ending here.
else
h1.postDelayed(this, 1000);
}
}, 1000);
}
(4) Finally, start the whole thing running somewhere in your code by calling:
void startThread()
{
myThread();
checkThread();
}
You could also use SwingWorker, which has built-in property change support. See addPropertyChangeListener() or the get() method for a state change listener example.
Look at the Java documentation for the Thread class. You can check the thread's state. If you put the three threads in member variables, then all three threads can read each other's states.
You have to be a bit careful, though, because you can cause race conditions between the threads. Just try to avoid complicated logic based on the state of the other threads. Definitely avoid multiple threads writing to the same variables.