We Keep Coding

Java synchronization: synchronized, wait(), notify()

I am trying to understand inter-thread communication in Java, and read that the support comes by using: wait(), notify(), notifyAll() methods.
In order thread to execute any of these methods, the thread needs to be owner of object's lock for which thread is invoking (any of these) methods. In addition to this, all these methods needs to be in a synchronized block/method. So far good.
I tried to implement a program in which one thread prints odd numbers, and other thread prints even numbers.
The program works correctly, however, at the same time, it raised few more doubts.
Below is the complete source code of the program which I implemented.
PrintEvenNumThread.java // prints the even numbers
package com.example.multithr.implrun;
import com.example.common.ObjectToWaitOn;
public class PrintEvenNumThread implements Runnable {
private ObjectToWaitOn objectToWaitOn;
public PrintEvenNumThread(ObjectToWaitOn objectToWaitOn) {
this.objectToWaitOn = objectToWaitOn;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int numToPrint = 2;
for (;;) {
synchronized (objectToWaitOn) {
while(objectToWaitOn.getPrintEvenOrOdd() != 2) {
try {
objectToWaitOn.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
objectToWaitOn.print("EvenThread",numToPrint);
numToPrint += 2; // Generate next even number
objectToWaitOn.setPrintEvenOrOdd(1);
objectToWaitOn.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
PrintOddNumsThread.java // Prints the odd numbers
package com.example.multithr.implrun;
import com.example.common.ObjectToWaitOn;
public class PrintOddNumsThread implements Runnable {
private ObjectToWaitOn objectToWaitOn;
public PrintOddNumsThread(ObjectToWaitOn objectToWaitOn) {
this.objectToWaitOn = objectToWaitOn;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int numToPrint = 1;
for(;;) {
synchronized(objectToWaitOn) {
while(objectToWaitOn.getPrintEvenOrOdd() != 1) {
try {
objectToWaitOn.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
objectToWaitOn.print("OddThread", numToPrint);
numToPrint += 2; // Generate next odd number
objectToWaitOn.setPrintEvenOrOdd(2);
objectToWaitOn.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
ObjectToWaitOn.java // The "shared" object for inter-thread communication
package com.vipin.common;
public class ObjectToWaitOn {
private int printEvenOrOdd;
public ObjectToWaitOn(int printEvenOrOdd) {
this.printEvenOrOdd = printEvenOrOdd;
}
public int getPrintEvenOrOdd() {
return printEvenOrOdd;
}
public void setPrintEvenOrOdd(int printEvenOrOdd) {
this.printEvenOrOdd = printEvenOrOdd;
}
public void print(String byThread, int numToPrint) {
System.out.println(byThread + ": " +numToPrint);
}
}
PrintEvenOddNumsMainApp.java
package com.example.multithr.main.app1;
import com.example.common.ObjectToWaitOn;
import com.example.multithr.implrun.PrintEvenNumThread;
import com.example.multithr.implrun.PrintOddNumsThread;
public class PrintEvenOddNumsMainApp {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ObjectToWaitOn obj = new ObjectToWaitOn(1); // 1 == odd; 2 == even
PrintEvenNumThread printEvenNumThread = new PrintEvenNumThread(obj);
PrintOddNumsThread printOddNumsThread = new PrintOddNumsThread(obj);
Thread evenNum = new Thread(printEvenNumThread);
Thread oddNum = new Thread(printOddNumsThread);
evenNum.start();
oddNum.start();
}
}
My doubt is:
1) When any of these threads releases lock by calling notifyAll() on object objectToWaitOn (which is shared between these threads), does it release the lock immediately? I have this doubt because these threads are in synchronized block based on objectToWaitOn object; so even if a thread calls the notifyAll(), shouldn't it still hold the lock because it is in synchronized block?
2) When a thread is in waiting condition by calling wait() on objectToWaitOn, and if other thread released the lock by invoking notifyAll(), does the waiting thread waits for lock to release or something else? Doesn't a thread coming out of the synchronized block anyway release the lock on the object it holds; so in above example if a thread is holding lock on objectToWaitOn and comes out of the synchronized block, doesn't it anyway release the lock for objectToWaitOn, and shouldn't based on this the other thread wake up?
Can anyone help me clarify these doubts?

Does it release the lock immediately?
No, it doesn't. The thread continues executing next statements within the synchronisation block.
Shouldn't it still hold the lock because it is in a synchronized block?
Yes, it should. A thread that calls the notify/notifyAll methods must hold the lock and will continue holding it until it leaves the synchronisation block normally or an exception happens:
If execution of the Block completes normally, then the monitor is unlocked and the synchronized statement completes normally.
If execution of the Block completes abruptly for any reason, then the monitor is unlocked and the synchronized statement completes abruptly for the same reason.
JLS-14.19
The notify/notifyAll methods change the state of the threads1 that are waiting on this monitor from State.WAITING to State.RUNNABLE. When the threads are woken up, they can participate in acquiring the lock.
Coming up to the monitor, some of them2 might get the STATE.BLOCKED state and wait until the other thread releases the lock. Note that it doesn't require any notifications from the thread which holds the lock.
The awakened threads will not be able to proceed until the current thread relinquishes the lock on this object. The awakened threads will compete in the usual manner with any other threads that might be actively competing to synchronize on this object; for example, the awakened threads enjoy no reliable privilege or disadvantage in being the next thread to lock this object.
docs
1. In case of notify, it's a single arbitrary chosen thread.
2. Or all of them - if the thread that notified keeps holding the monitor.

Solving consumer producer concurrency issue with SynchronousQueue. Fairness property not working

I am having a issue debugging my SynchronousQueue. its in android studio but should not matter its java code. I am passing in true to the constructor of SynchronousQueue so its "fair" meaning its a fifo queue. But its not obeying the rules, its still letting the consumer print first and the producer after. The second issue i have is i want these threads to never die, do you think i should use a while loop on the producer and the consumer thread and let them keep "producing and consuming" each other ?
here is my simple code:
package com.example.android.floatingactionbuttonbasic;
import java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue;
import trikita.log.Log;
public class SynchronousQueueDemo {
public SynchronousQueueDemo() {
}
public void startDemo() {
final SynchronousQueue<String> queue = new SynchronousQueue<String>(true);
Thread producer = new Thread("PRODUCER") {
public void run() {
String event = "FOUR";
try {
queue.put(event); // thread will block here
Log.v("myapp","published event:", Thread
.currentThread().getName(), event);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
producer.start(); // starting publisher thread
Thread consumer = new Thread("CONSUMER") {
public void run() {
try {
String event = queue.take(); // thread will block here
Log.v("myapp","consumed event:", Thread
.currentThread().getName(), event);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
};
consumer.start(); // starting consumer thread
}
}
to start the threads i simple call new SynchronousQueueDemo().startDemo();
The logs always look like this no matter what i pass to synchronousQueue constructor to be "fair":
/SynchronousQueueDemo$2$override(26747): myapp consumed event: CONSUMER FOUR
V/SynchronousQueueDemo$1$override(26747): myapp published event:PRODUCER FOUR
Checking the docs here, it says the following:
public SynchronousQueue(boolean fair)
Creates a SynchronousQueue with the specified fairness policy.
Parameters:
fair - if true, waiting threads contend in FIFO order for access; otherwise the order is unspecified.

The fairness policy relates to the order in which the queue is read. The order of execution for a producer/consumer is for the consumer to take(), releasing the producer (which was blocking on put()). Set fairness=true if the order of consumption is important.
If you want to keep the threads alive, have a loop condition which behaves well when interrupted (see below). Presumably you want to put a Thread.sleep() in the Producer, to limit the rate at which events are produced.
public void run() {
boolean interrupted = false;
while (!interrupted) {
try {
// or sleep, then queue.put(event)
queue.take(event);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
interrupted = true;;
}
}
}

SynchronousQueue work on a simple concept. You can only produce if you have a consumer.
1) Now if you start doing queue.put() without any queue.take(), the thread will block there. So any soon as you have queue.take(), the Producer thread will be unblocked.
2) Similarly if you start doing queue.take() it will block until there is a producer. So once you have queue.put(), the Consumer Thread will be blocked.
So as soon as queue.take() is executed, both Producer and Consumer threads are unblocked. But you do realize that Producer and Consumer are both running in seperate threads. So any of the messages you put after the blocking calls can be executed. In my case the order of the output was this. Producer was getting printed first.
V/SynchronousQueueDemo$1$override(26747): myapp published event:PRODUCER FOUR
/SynchronousQueueDemo$2$override(26747): myapp consumed event: CONSUMER FOUR

Java wait() does not get waked by notify()

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);
//...
}

Java threading notify() method

Consider there are two threads which are waiting to execute synchronized block. Now one get chance one is waiting in this case do I really need to call notify() ? I think as synchronized block execution completes other thread will release the lock ? what is the exact use of notify() method ?
Threading experts please explain ?

No, you wouldn't need to use notify() in that case. You are correct, the thread that had to wait to acquire the lock would automatically proceed after the lock was released.
The notify() method works in conjunction with the wait() method. When one thread invokes wait(), it may release the lock and begin waiting. One of the conditions that can end the wait is when another thread invokes notify(). Both wait() and notify() must be invoked on an instance on which the current thread is synchronized.
This can be used, for example, to create a channel between two threads, where one thread is consuming information produced by another. If the consumer runs out of information to process, it might wait() until the producer does a notify() that more data are available.

When a thread enter synchronized block and calls wait the lock acquired while entering the synchronized block is released and the thread waits for other thread to notify it in which case it will reacquire the lock and proceed.Lock is again released when the thread comes out of the synchronized block.

from the doc,
Wakes up a single thread that is waiting on this object's monitor. If
any threads are waiting on this object, one of them is chosen to be
awakened. The choice is arbitrary and occurs at the discretion of the
implementation. A thread waits on an object's monitor by calling one
of the wait methods.
so if an object is waiting by calling a wait method. then you can awake them using notify.

Description
The java.lang.Object.notify() wakes up a single thread that is waiting
on this object's monitor. If any threads are waiting on this object,
one of them is chosen to be awakened. The choice is arbitrary and
occurs at the discretion of the implementation. A thread waits on an
object's monitor by calling one of the wait methods.
For more information refer below links.
notify()
Documentation
Doc
I hope it will help you.

Like if you are using Multiple threads the method is synchronized which means it will share among all the threads but any thread will use it after the execution another thread.
and if there is any change is made by any thread then it will visible for all by using notify method below code is example for that:
class Detail {
public String name = "", sername = "";
Scanner sc;
public synchronized String getData() {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
return name+""+sername;
}
public synchronized void show() {
try {
name = "hello";
sername = "hii";
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
notify();
}
}
class Data1 extends Thread {
Detail detail;
public Data1(Detail detail1)
{
// super("1");
this.detail = detail1;
start();
}
public void run()
{
System.out.println("name is :"+detail.getData());
}
}
class Data2 extends Thread {
Detail detail2;
public Data2(Detail detail1)
{
//super("2");
this.detail2 = detail1;
start();
}
public void run()
{
detail2.show();
}
}
public class SyncDemo {
public static void main(String ar[])
{
Detail det = new Detail();
Data1 d1= new Data1(det);
Data2 d2= new Data2(det);
}
}

Java wait()/join(): Why does this not deadlock?

Given the following Java code:
public class Test {
static private class MyThread extends Thread {
private boolean mustShutdown = false;
#Override
public synchronized void run() {
// loop and do nothing, just wait until we must shut down
while (!mustShutdown) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception on wait()");
}
}
}
public synchronized void shutdown() throws InterruptedException {
// set flag for termination, notify the thread and wait for it to die
mustShutdown = true;
notify();
join(); // lock still being held here, due to 'synchronized'
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyThread mt = new MyThread();
mt.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
mt.shutdown();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception in main()");
}
}
}
Running this will wait for one second and then properly exit. But that is unexpected to me, I expect a dead-lock to happen here.
My reasoning is as follows: The newly created MyThread will execute run(), which is declared as 'synchronized', so that it may call wait() and safely read 'mustShutdown'; during that wait() call, the lock is released and re-acquired upon returning, as described in the documentation of wait(). After one second, the main thread executes shutdown(), which is again synchronized as to not access mustShutdown at the same time as it's being read by the other thread. It then wakes up the other thread via notify() and the waits for its completion via join().
But in my opinion, there's no way that the other thread can ever return from wait(), since it needs to re-acquire the lock on the thread object before returning. It cannot do so because shutdown() still holds the lock while inside join(). Why does it still work and exit properly?

join() method internally calls wait() which will result in releasing of the lock(of Thread object).
See the code of join() below:
public final synchronized void join(long millis)
throws InterruptedException {
....
if (millis == 0) {
while (isAlive()) {
wait(0); //ends up releasing lock
}
}
....
}
Reason why your code sees this and not seen in general:: The reason why your code see this and not is not observed in general, is because the join() method waits() on Thread object itself and consequently relinquishes lock on the Thread object itself and as your run() method also synchronizes on the same Thread object, you see this otherwise unexpected scenario.

The implementation of Thread.join uses wait, which lets go of its lock, which is why it doesn't prevent the other thread from acquiring the lock.
Here is a step-by-step description of what happens in this example:
Starting the MyThread thread in the main method results in a new thread executing the MyThread run method. The main Thread sleeps for a whole second, giving the new Thread plenty of time to start up and acquire the lock on the MyThread object.
The new thread can then enter the wait method and release its lock. At this point the new thread goes dormant, it won't try to acquire the lock again until it is woken up. The thread does not return from the wait method yet.
At this point the main thread wakes up from sleeping and calls shutdown on the MyThread object. It has no problem acquiring the lock because the new thread released it once it started waiting. The main thread calls notify now. Entering the join method, the main thread checks that the new thread is still alive, then waits, releasing the lock.
The notification happens once the main thread releases the lock. Since the new thread was in the wait set for the lock at the time the main thread called notify, the new thread receives the notification and wakes up. It can acquire the lock, leave the wait method, and finish executing the run method, finally releasing the lock.
The termination of the new thread causes all threads waiting on its lock to receive a notification. This wakes up the main thread, it can acquire the lock and check that the new thread is dead, then it will exit the join method and finish executing.
/**
* Waits at most <code>millis</code> milliseconds for this thread to
* die. A timeout of <code>0</code> means to wait forever.
*
* #param millis the time to wait in milliseconds.
* #exception InterruptedException if any thread has interrupted
* the current thread. The <i>interrupted status</i> of the
* current thread is cleared when this exception is thrown.
*/
public final synchronized void join(long millis)
throws InterruptedException {
long base = System.currentTimeMillis();
long now = 0;
if (millis < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("timeout value is negative");
}
if (millis == 0) {
while (isAlive()) {
wait(0);
}
} else {
while (isAlive()) {
long delay = millis - now;
if (delay <= 0) {
break;
}
wait(delay);
now = System.currentTimeMillis() - base;
}
}
}

To complement the other answers: I see no mention of join() releasing any locks in the API-documentation, so this behavior is actually implementation-specific.
Learn from this:
don't subclass Thread, instead use a Runnable implementation passed to your thread object.
don't synchronize/wait/notify on objects you don't "own", e.g. where you don't know who else might synchronize/wait/notify on it.