We Keep Coding

Java Multithreading - Remove items from list

new to multithreading here please bear with me.
I'm trying to run 2 threads which remove items from a list of tasks (10 tasks in total) until the taskList is empty.
What i have so far is:
Main method:
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Task> taskList = new ArrayList<Task>();
List<Thread> threadList = new ArrayList<Thread>();
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
taskList.add(new Task("some details");
}
TaskManager manager = new TaskManager();
gestor.setTaskList(taskList);
Thread t1 = new Thread(taskManager);
Thread t2 = new Thread(taskManager);
threadList.add(t1);
threadList.add(t2);
if(threadList.size() > 0){
for (Thread thread : threadList){
thread.start();
}
}
for (Thread thread : threadList){
try {
thread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("thread " + Thread.currentThread().getName() + " was interrupted");
}
}
System.out.println("END OF MAIN");
}
Task Manager class:
public class TaskManager implements Runnable {
private List<Task> availableTasks;
private Random random = new Random();
public void setAvailableTasks(List<Task> availableTasks) {
this.availableTasks = availableTasks;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (!availableTasks.isEmpty()) {
takeTask();
}
}
public void takeTask() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
int index = random.nextInt(availableTasks.size());
Task task = availableTasks.get(index);
printDetails(task);
availableTasks.remove(task);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void printDetails(Task task) {
//here it should print the details to the console
}
}
The thing is, it either runs 2 times or it's always the same thread running 10 times. I know it's probably a silly question but I hope someone can clarify it! Thanks in advance
Edit: I was able to make it work using #Lidae's suggestion
Take task method edited like so:
public void takeTask() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
synchronized (this) {
if (!availableTasks.isEmpty()) {
int index = random.nextInt(availableTasks.size());
Task task = availableTasks.get(index);
printDetails(task);
availableTasks.remove(task);
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}

Your code has some concurrency problems as a result of several threads trying to access the same object at the same time. For example one thing that can happen is that thread A gets a task from the list (in Task task = availableTasks.get(index)), then there is a context switch and that very task is removed by thread B, and by the time thread A tries to remove the task, it is already gone (this wouldn't cause an exception in your code, but it could be bad anyway depending on what exactly you plan on doing with the task).
You also can't be sure that the list is not empty when you try to get a task from it: it was empty when it last checked in the while-loop, but between then and the time that it attempts to take a task, another thread might have already taken the last task. This is true even if you remove the call to Thread.sleep.
What you need to is make sure that the availableTasks list is only modified by one thread at a time. This can be done in various ways, for example by using a Semaphore, or by using synchronized methods in the shared data object.

it's always the same thread running 10 times
My guess is because your list is too small, so first thread runs and finishes the job before second thread have a chance to start working. Make task list longer, like 1000+ tasks, maybe even more.
it either runs 2 times
this is probably because your task list is not thread safe, make it thread safe using Collections.SynchronizedList
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
taskList.add(new Task("some details");
}
taskList = Collections.synchronizedList(taskList);
TaskManager manager = new TaskManager();

Can't reproduce this.
I've corrected (quite a few) compilation problems with your code and ran it, getting:
Thread-1 printing some details for task 5
Thread-0 printing some details for task 8
Thread-0 printing some details for task 2
Thread-1 printing some details for task 7
Thread-1 printing some details for task 1
Thread-0 printing some details for task 3
Thread-0 printing some details for task 6
Thread-1 printing some details for task 9
Thread-0 printing some details for task 4
Thread-1 printing some details for task 0
So both threads run and process tasks.
One thing which is important is that the access to the list of tasks should be synchronized. And not just Collections.synchronizedList, you have at least four places where you access your list of tasks. This is why the execution of the program almost always ends with:
java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: n must be positive
at java.util.Random.nextInt(Random.java:250)
at TaskManager.takeTask(TaskManager.java:25)
at TaskManager.run(TaskManager.java:18)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662)
Your TaskManager.run method first check for isEmpty and then gets a random task from the list. Another thread may remove the last task of the list between these two operations. Resulting in random.nextInt(0) despite you've previously checked that the list is not empty.
Better would be something like:
private Task nextTask() {
synchronize(availableTask) {
if (availableTask.isEmpty()) {
return null;
} else {
return availableTasks.get(random.nextInt(availableTasks.size()));
}
}
}

Adding to what #Lidae answered. It is standard multiple-producer to multiple-consumer problem. There are couple of articles on the same..

Java Threading - Simple wait() notify() issues [duplicate]

I have 2 matrices and I need to multiply them and then print the results of each cell. As soon as one cell is ready I need to print it, but for example I need to print the [0][0] cell before cell [2][0] even if the result of [2][0] is ready first. So I need to print it by order.
So my idea is to make the printer thread wait until the multiplyThread notifies it that the correct cell is ready to be printed and then the printerThread will print the cell and go back to waiting and so on..
So I have this thread that does the multiplication:
public void run()
{
int countNumOfActions = 0; // How many multiplications have we done
int maxActions = randomize(); // Maximum number of actions allowed
for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
{
result[rowNum][colNum] = result[rowNum][colNum] + row[i] * col[i];
countNumOfActions++;
// Reached the number of allowed actions
if (countNumOfActions >= maxActions)
{
countNumOfActions = 0;
maxActions = randomize();
yield();
}
}
isFinished[rowNum][colNum] = true;
notify();
}
Thread that prints the result of each cell:
public void run()
{
int j = 0; // Columns counter
int i = 0; // Rows counter
System.out.println("The result matrix of the multiplication is:");
while (i < creator.getmThreads().length)
{
synchronized (this)
{
try
{
this.wait();
}
catch (InterruptedException e1)
{
}
}
if (creator.getmThreads()[i][j].getIsFinished()[i][j] == true)
{
if (j < creator.getmThreads()[i].length)
{
System.out.print(creator.getResult()[i][j] + " ");
j++;
}
else
{
System.out.println();
j = 0;
i++;
System.out.print(creator.getResult()[i][j] + " ");
}
}
}
Now it throws me these exceptions:
Exception in thread "Thread-9" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at multiplyThread.run(multiplyThread.java:49)
Exception in thread "Thread-6" Exception in thread "Thread-4" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at multiplyThread.run(multiplyThread.java:49)
java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at multiplyThread.run(multiplyThread.java:49)
Exception in thread "Thread-5" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at multiplyThread.run(multiplyThread.java:49)
Exception in thread "Thread-8" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at multiplyThread.run(multiplyThread.java:49)
Exception in thread "Thread-7" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at multiplyThread.run(multiplyThread.java:49)
Exception in thread "Thread-11" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at multiplyThread.run(multiplyThread.java:49)
Exception in thread "Thread-10" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at multiplyThread.run(multiplyThread.java:49)
Exception in thread "Thread-12" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.notify(Native Method)
at multiplyThread.run(multiplyThread.java:49)
line 49 in multiplyThread is the "notify()"..I think I need to use the synchronized differently but I am not sure how.
If anyone can help this code to work I will really appreciate it.

To be able to call notify() you need to synchronize on the same object.
synchronized (someObject) {
someObject.wait();
}
/* different thread / object */
synchronized (someObject) {
someObject.notify();
}

While using the wait and notify or notifyAll methods in Java the following things must be remembered:
Use notifyAll instead of notify if you expect that more than one thread will be waiting for a lock.
The wait and notify methods must be called in a synchronized context. See the link for a more detailed explanation.
Always call the wait() method in a loop because if multiple threads are waiting for a lock and one of them got the lock and reset the condition, then the other threads need to check the condition after they wake up to see whether they need to wait again or can start processing.
Use the same object for calling wait() and notify() method; every object has its own lock so calling wait() on object A and notify() on object B will not make any sense.

Do you need to thread this at all ? I'm wondering how big your matrices are, and whether there's any benefit in having one thread print whilst the other does the multiplication.
Perhaps it would be worth measuring this time before doing the relatively complex threading work ?
If you do need to thread it, I would create 'n' threads to perform the multiplication of the cells (perhaps 'n' is the number of cores available to you), and then use the ExecutorService and Future mechanism to dispatch multiple multiplications simultaneously.
That way you can optimise the work based on the number of cores, and you're using the higher level Java threading tools (which should make life easier). Write the results back into a receiving matrix, and then simply print this once all your Future tasks have completed.

Let's say you have 'black box' application with some class named BlackBoxClass that has method doSomething();.
Further, you have observer or listener named onResponse(String resp) that will be called by BlackBoxClass after unknown time.
The flow is simple:
private String mResponse = null;
...
BlackBoxClass bbc = new BlackBoxClass();
bbc.doSomething();
...
#override
public void onResponse(String resp){
mResponse = resp;
}
Lets say we don't know what is going on with BlackBoxClass and when we should get answer but you don't want to continue your code till you get answer or in other word get onResponse call. Here enters 'Synchronize helper':
public class SyncronizeObj {
public void doWait(long l){
synchronized(this){
try {
this.wait(l);
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
public void doNotify() {
synchronized(this) {
this.notify();
}
}
public void doWait() {
synchronized(this){
try {
this.wait();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}
Now we can implement what we want:
public class Demo {
private String mResponse = null;
...
SyncronizeObj sync = new SyncronizeObj();
public void impl(){
BlackBoxClass bbc = new BlackBoxClass();
bbc.doSomething();
if(mResponse == null){
sync.doWait();
}
/** at this momoent you sure that you got response from BlackBoxClass because
onResponse method released your 'wait'. In other cases if you don't want wait too
long (for example wait data from socket) you can use doWait(time)
*/
...
}
#override
public void onResponse(String resp){
mResponse = resp;
sync.doNotify();
}
}

You can only call notify on objects where you own their monitor. So you need something like
synchronized(threadObject)
{
threadObject.notify();
}

notify() needs to be synchronized as well

I'll right simple example show you the right way to use wait and notify in Java.
So I'll create two class named ThreadA & ThreadB. ThreadA will call ThreadB.
public class ThreadA {
public static void main(String[] args){
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();//<----Create Instance for seconde class
b.start();//<--------------------Launch thread
synchronized(b){
try{
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();//<-------------WAIT until the finish thread for class B finish
}catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
and for Class ThreadB:
class ThreadB extends Thread{
int total;
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(this){
for(int i=0; i<100 ; i++){
total += i;
}
notify();//<----------------Notify the class wich wait until my finish
//and tell that I'm finish
}
}
}

Simple use if you want How to execute threads alternatively :-
public class MyThread {
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Object lock = new Object();
new Thread(() -> {
try {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i = 0; i <= 5; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ":" + "A");
lock.notify();
lock.wait();
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {}
}, "T1").start();
new Thread(() -> {
try {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i = 0; i <= 5; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ":" + "B");
lock.notify();
lock.wait();
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {}
}, "T2").start();
}
}
response :-
T1:A
T2:B
T1:A
T2:B
T1:A
T2:B
T1:A
T2:B
T1:A
T2:B
T1:A
T2:B

we can call notify to resume the execution of waiting objects as
public synchronized void guardedJoy() {
// This guard only loops once for each special event, which may not
// be the event we're waiting for.
while(!joy) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
System.out.println("Joy and efficiency have been achieved!");
}
resume this by invoking notify on another object of same class
public synchronized notifyJoy() {
joy = true;
notifyAll();
}

For this particular problem, why not store up your various results in variables and then when the last of your thread is processed you can print in whatever format you want. This is especially useful if you are gonna be using your work history in other projects.

This looks like a situation for producer-consumer pattern. If you’re using java 5 or up, you may consider using blocking queue(java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue) and leave the thread coordination work to the underlying framework/api implementation.
See the example from
java 5:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/BlockingQueue.html
or java 7 (same example):
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/BlockingQueue.html

You have properly guarded your code block when you call wait() method by using synchronized(this).
But you have not taken same precaution when you call notify() method without using guarded block : synchronized(this) or synchronized(someObject)
If you refer to oracle documentation page on Object class, which contains wait() ,notify(), notifyAll() methods, you can see below precaution in all these three methods
This method should only be called by a thread that is the owner of this object's monitor
Many things have been changed in last 7 years and let's have look into other alternatives to synchronized in below SE questions:
Why use a ReentrantLock if one can use synchronized(this)?
Synchronization vs Lock
Avoid synchronized(this) in Java?

Trying to understand synchronized methods

For the code below, the expected output is:
Waiting for b to complete...
Total is: 4950
How come it can't print the Total is.. first then Waiting for b.. after? I'd think b.start() could be executed first in some cases, then it holds onto ThreadB's lock with synchronized(this) in ThreadB.run() thus blocking main from entering in synchronized(b).
Is anything wrong with what I just stated?
public class ThreadA {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
synchronized(b) {
try{
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
for(int i=0; i<100 ; i++) {
total += i;
}
notify();
}
}
}

The two output statements will always have the same order, because they are executed on one thread. Waiting for another thread to finish between them will not change their execution order.
If you put the "Total is ..." output to the end of b's run() then there might be a chance for seeing indeterministic orders of the outputs.
EDIT - Please also note #Holger 's comment to this answer:
[...] in the unlikely, but still possible case that ThreadB’s synchronized block is executed first, its notify() call will have no effect as no-one is waiting yet and then, ThreadA’s wait() call may hang forever as there will be no subsequent notification.

Actual problem over here is you have only one thread "b" over here and you are calling wait() on b which is taking b thread to WAIT state and there is no other thread which can notify this thread and bring b back to runnign state.

Program gets halted: wait() and notify()

I am trying to achieve this: Created two different threads, one prints odd numbers, one prints even numbers. Once one thread prints a number, it has to wait for the other thread and so on, that is one-after-other.
To achieve this, i am using synchronized block along with wait() and notify().
I am creating a class whose's object will be used to pass to synchronized block in both the threads.
Here is the code:
--> This is used object which will be passed to synchronized block.
package com.vipin.multithread.variousdemos;
public class SyncObject {
public SyncObject () {
}
}
Odd Thread:
package com.vipin.multithread.variousdemos;
public class OddThread implements Runnable {
private Thread t;
int index=0;
SyncObject so=null;
int odd_nums[] = {1,3,5,7,9};
public OddThread(SyncObject so) {
t = new Thread(this,"Odd Thread");
this.so = so;
t.start();
}
public Thread getThreadInstance() {
return t;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized(so) {
System.out.println("Odd num is --->" + odd_nums[index]);
try {
so.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
index++;
so.notify();
if(index>=5) {
return;
}
}
}
}
}
Even Thread: UPDATE
package com.vipin.multithread.variousdemos;
public class EvenThread implements Runnable {
private Thread t;
int index=0;
SyncObject so=null;
int even_nums[] = {2,4,6,8,10};
public EvenThread(SyncObject so) {
t = new Thread(this, "Even thread");
this.so = so;
t.start();
}
public Thread getThreadInstance() {
return t;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
synchronized(so) {
System.out.println("Even num is --->" + even_nums[index]);
so.notify(); <-- Here we are notifying.
try {
so.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
index++;
//so.notify(); <-- commented out.
if(index>=5) {
break;
}
}
}
}
}
Main Application:
package com.vipin.multithread.variousdemos;
public class EvenOddDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
SyncObject so = new SyncObject();
OddThread ot = new OddThread(so);
EvenThread et = new EvenThread(so);
System.out.println("\nIn main thread");
Thread.sleep(1000000000);
System.out.println("Exiting main thread...");
}
}
---> As seen in the code, I am creating two threads to print even and odd numbers. I am using synchronized block, and passing object of type ==> SyncObject.
SyncObject I am passing as argument to these different threads in main.
However, this programs halts, i.e stuck only first statement gets executed, and then it waits forever:
Here is the output:
Odd num is --->1
In main thread
Even num is --->2
I am not able to understand why this program waits for ever, I am using SAME object on which we are invoking synchronized(), wait() and notify(). As per my understanding, it should work, not sure why this is not working.
Any clues as to why this is waiting forever.
UPDATE:
I did some changes in the code, UPDATE and it works fine.
I still have some doubt. Does notify() be called by the thread even if it has not locked the monitor, like in my case after i updated the code.
Sequence of events:
Odd thread gets executed first, then it calls wait() <-- it releases the monitor and now in sleep mode.
Even thread runs, prints msg, and calls notify() <-- here i am not having clear understanding.
When Even thread calls notify(), at that point it has the monitor, so when it calls notify(), does is still own the monitor?
Now, after Even thread calls notify(), then Odd thread gets notified, and hence it starts execution from the point it was sleeping. It is doing some execution and calls notify(), at that points I presume Odd thread is NOT owning the monitor, it calls notify(). So, my question is, does notify() work same whether or not the thread owns the monitor?
It is only when one do the code, one really understands this. I read book and i felt i understood everything, and seems i am back to square one!

The problem here is simply that both threads go straight into wait. Thread 1 gets so, prints value then waits. Thread 2 then gets so, prints value then waits. So both are sleeping away, since nobody is there to notify them. So, a simple fix would be to do so.notify(), right before so.wait(). Then they're not infinitely waiting.
EDIT
Odd thread starts, executes & then waits. Then even thread starts, executes, notifies & then waits. Even thread holds the lock over the monitor until it goes into wait.
When the even thread called on notify, the odd thread awakens & polls for the lock. Once the even thread goes into wait (& releases the lock), then the odd thread can obtain the lock.
If the even thread had not called on notify, then the odd thread would continue to sleep. The even thread would have gone to wait & released the lock. No thread is polling or attempting to obtain the lock, hence the program remains in the suspended state.
The documentation also provides a similar explanation. I hope that clears your doubts.

Thread Synchronization - How to execute threads alternatively

I have been trying to solve a problem involving thread communication using wait() and notify(). Basically i have 2 threads T1 and T2 and i want them to be executed in the following order
T1 , T2, T1, T2 ..... How can i achieve that?
Actual Problem: There are 2 threads T1 - which prints odd numbers (say 1 - 100) and T2 - which prints even numbers (1 - 100). Now, the output should be 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5 , .... 100

You describe a Producer-Consumer pattern.
It's java implementations described in numerous java books including M.Grand "Patterns in Java. Volume I" and "Java 2: The Complete Reference" by Naughton and Schildt.
Basic idea: both threads should use 1 monitor (i.e. their code should be inside synchronized(monitor) {} blocks). You also need some flag variable which should indicate which of two threads should work at the moment.
When one of your threads is inside synchronized block it should check flag variable whether it's his turn to do the job. If yes, let it work and then change flag value and then notify all waiting threads. If no, then it should wait.

Look at the java.util.concurrent package, specifically the Exchanger

You're trying to parallelize a multistep process right? If so, see my answer here for an approach and some working code to do that. The answer involves an ExecutorService (or two) and one or more work queues.
For this approach, your processing needs to be able to fit into a Runnable, along with intermediate state information for the processing. You feed each step to the ExecutorService as a Runnable, which will add a second Runnable to perform the next step. This maintains the order of execution, but lets you effectively run as many threads as you wish in parallel.
:EDIT:
As another has suggested, the Exchanger library class can be used for this if you explicitly want to limit processing to 2 threads. I prefer the above approach because it maintains order of execution and allows you to use the modern 4-core (and 8-core) systems fully. It should also reduce synchronization a bit.

If T1 and T2 are 2 different implementations of the Runnable interface, with T1 being a thread that prints just odd numbers (1,3,...) and T2 being one that prints even number (1,2.....), this can be done by using the wait() and notify() methods on a shared monitor. The important thing is for each thread to check for a shared flag before printing its value. The below code works;
//The shared monitor
public class Mutex {
public static boolean oddFlag;
}
//The Thread that is supposed to print Odd numbers (assuming an upper limit of 99)
public class OddPrinter implements Runnable {
private Mutex mutex;
public OddPrinter(Mutex mutex) {
this.mutex = mutex;
}
public synchronized void run() {
System.out.println("Started Thread: OddPrinter");
int i;
for(i=1; i<100; i+=2 ) {
synchronized (mutex) {
while(!Mutex.oddFlag) {
try {
mutex.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupted();
}
}
if(Mutex.oddFlag == true) {
System.out.println("Print from OddPrinter: "+i);
Mutex.oddFlag = false;
mutex.notify();
}
}
}
System.out.println("Finished Thread: OddPrinter: "+i);
}
}
//The Thread that is supposed to print Odd numbers (assuming an upper limit of 98)
public class EvenPrinter implements Runnable {
private Mutex mutex;
public EvenPrinter(Mutex mutex) {
this.mutex = mutex;
}
public synchronized void run() {
System.out.println("Started Thread: EvenPrinter");
int i;
for(i=2; i<100; i+=2) {
synchronized (mutex) {
while(Mutex.oddFlag) {
try {
mutex.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupted();
}
}
if(!(Mutex.oddFlag == true)) {
System.out.println("Print from EvenPrinter: "+i);
Mutex.oddFlag = true;
mutex.notify();
}
}
}
System.out.println("Finished Thread: EvenPrinter: "+i);
}
}
//The test harness that executes the threads
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public class NumberPrinterTest {
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception{
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
Mutex mutex = new Mutex();
OddPrinter op = new OddPrinter(mutex);
EvenPrinter ep = new EvenPrinter(mutex);
Mutex.oddFlag = true;
es.execute(op);
es.execute(ep);
if(null != es){
es.shutdown();
try {
es.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupted();
}
}
}
}