We Keep Coding

Java: calling a method from the main thread by signaling in some way from another thread

I have an application with 2 threads (the main and another thread t1) which share a volatile variable myVar. Any ideas on how to make the main thread to call a method myMethod by signaling in some way from t1 ?
I implemented it by using ChangeListener and myMethod is called when myVar changes, BUT the method is called from t1, and not from the main thread (note: I need to call this method from the main thread because this is a call to a JavaScript code from Java, so for a security reason only the main thread can do so). Thanks in advance.

You would have to have your main thread spin in a loop on some scalar, I would recommend one of the Atomics that java provides (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/atomic/package-summary.html), but you could use volatile if you wanted for this I think.
Each thread can only run sequentially - it's just the way computing works. The way you will handle this, is when the main thread spins in some sort of loop, you eventually check to see if this scalar of yours has been set, and when it has, you want unset the variable and execute your JavaScript. In this particular piece of your code, I think the Atomics have an advantage over the volatile with the use of the compareAndSet operations because using volatile can mess you up a bit between threads if you are trying to check the value in one operation and then set it again in another operation which gives the other thread enough time to set it again - meaning you may miss a call to your JS because the other thread set the variable between the main thread checking it and setting it (although the use of volatile vs Atomics may be interpreted as my opinion).
//main thread
AtomicBoolean foo = new AtomicBoolean(false);
while (...somecondition...){
if(foo.compareAndSet(true, false)){
//execute JS
}
//do some other work
}
and in your T1 thread, just call foo.set(true).
If you expect main to call your JS for each time T1 sets foo to true, then you will have to block in T1 until main has unset foo, or use an AtomicInteger to count how many times T1 has set foo - depending on your needs.

Since both tread sharing the same instance of myVar, you can make both thread to synchronize on the shared variable. Have main to wait on myVar notification before executing myMethod. Later, t1 can notify through variable myVar, and the waiting thread can continue and proceed with the method call.
The following snippet fully demonstrated the idea
public class MainPlay {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MainPlay mp = new MainPlay();
mp.execute();
}
public void execute() {
Thread main = new Thread(mainRunnable, "main");
Thread t1 = new Thread(t1Runnable, "t1");
main.start();
t1.start();
}
public Object myVar = new Object();
public void myMethod() {
System.out.println("MyMethodInfoked.");
}
public Runnable t1Runnable = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronized(myVar) {
try {
System.out.println("[t1] sleep for 1 sec");
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.println("[t1] Notifying myVar so Main can invoke myMethod");
myVar.notify();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// interupted.
}
}
}
};
public Runnable mainRunnable = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronized(myVar) {
try {
System.out.println("[main] Waiting for t1 to notify...");
myVar.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// interrupted.
}
System.out.println("[main] executing main method");
myMethod();
}
}
};
}
And the output is
[main] Waiting for t1 to notify...
[t1] sleep for 1 sec
[t1] Notifying sharedObject so Main can invoke myMethod
[main] executing main method
MyMethodInfoked.

You could use wait/notify blocks to prevent the main thread from continuing until signalled to do so.
static Main main = // ...
static boolean signal = false;
// t1:
// Do work
signal = true;
synchronized (main) {
main.notify();
}
// main:
synchronized (main) {
while (!signal) {
main.wait();
}
}
myMethod();

In case the main thread has nothing else to do, the approach proposed by #searchengine27 results in unnecessary processor load generated by this thread.
So instead going with some AtomicXXX class it would be better to use some of the blocking queues which allow writing of data from one thread (with put()) and consumption of that data by the other. The main queue would block (by calling take() method) if such a queue is empty not using any CPU resources.

Threading Wait During While Loop

My application has 1 global driver, which is responsible for doing the low-level work.
I then have 2 threads, both of which use infinite loops to get some work done. My question is how to allow 1 thread to use the driver as much as possible, but giving a chance to the second thread to use it when necessary.
To elaborate, the code I have is as follows:
public class Game {
private static final Object LOCK = new Object();
private static final Logger LOGGER = Logger.getLogger(Game.class);
private WebDriverController controller;
public Game(WebDriverController controler) {
this.controller = controller;
}
public void startThreadA() {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (LOCK) {
controller.doSomethingA();
}
}
}
}).start();
}
public void startThreadB() {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
...
...
synchronized (LOCK) {
controller.doSomethingB();
}
...
...
}
}
}).start();
}
}
The logic is to allow the first thread to execute doSomethingA() as much as possible, with the second thread only acquiring the lock to complete little tasks and then giving the lock back to the first thread.
Using this code, the first thread will continuously use the controller to do what it needs to do, whereas the second thread gets stuck waiting at its synchronized block. The way I have currently fixed this is by adding a pause to the first thread, to give the second thread a chance to acquire the lock, as follows:
public void startThreadA() {
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (LOCK) {
controller.doSomethingA();
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error(null, e);
}
}
}
}).start();
}
This does work exactly as intended, but it doesn't seem right. I'm not happy with the manual pause after each iteration, especially if the second thread does not need the lock as it's wasting time.
What do I replace the pause with to make this more efficient?

Why you use synchronized in run()? Use synchronized or Lock in your methods in WebDriverController.
public void doSomeThingA(){
lock.lock();
try {
//your stuff
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
And in run method of Thread invoke these methods.

I think you are approaching this from the wrong direction, as in your current setup 99.999% of the time thread A calls for a monitor the processing time is wasted. However as I do not have enough details about your actual problem, here is a quick solution using a ReentrantLock with fair scheduling (FIFO):
protected final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock(true); // fair scheduling
public void functionA() {
lock.lock();
try {
controller.functionA();
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
public void functionB() {
lock.lock();
try {
controller.functionB();
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
Explanation:
If Thread A is currently holding the lock and Thread B calls, B is guaranteed to receive the monitor right after A releases it, even if A immediately (before any thread switch occurs) calls for it again.

There are a few options here. The best bet in this instance is likely to be remove the responsibility of deciding when to do work from the threads and instead, waiting for an event from a monitor to release the threads to do work. You can then schedule the work in whichever ratio is best suited to the purpose.
Alternatively, remove the lack of thread safety from your controller code.

Assuming that above thread organization is the best way to go for your particular case, your problem is that first thread holds the lock too long, thus starving the second one.
You can check if doSomethingA function really needs locked driver all the time while it is being executed (in most cases it doesn't), and if not split it into multiple smaller execution blocks, some of which hold the lock while other's don't. This will create more time for second thread to kick in when it needs to.
If that cannot be done then you really need to rethink your app, because you have created a resource bottleneck.

It looks like Thread.yield () is what you are looking for.

Two thread which invokes wait and notify

The code I've witten doesn't work as I expected.
static Integer sync = 1;
static void m() throws Exception {
synchronized (sync) {
System.err.println("First");
sync.notify();
sync.wait(1000L);
System.err.println("Second");
System.err.println("Third");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
m();
} catch (Exception ex) {
Logger.getLogger(IO.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
};
Runnable t = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
m();
} catch (Exception ex) {
Logger.getLogger(IO.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
};
Thread th1 = new Thread(r);
Thread th2 = new Thread(t);
th1.run();
th2.run();
}
We have two threads which execute m()'s syncjronized statement. When the first thread executes one and come across the wait() it'll be added to the wait set. After this, the second thread is starting to execute the synchronized statement, and perform notify(). Since the output must be
First
First
....
But actually it is
First
Second
Third
First
Second
Third
Why?

First of all, your program is not creating any threads. You must call th1.start() and th2.start() to create threads.
t.start() is the method that the library provides for your code to call when you want to start a thread. run() is the method that you provide for the library to call in the new thread. Your run() method defines what the thread will do. IMO, run() was a really misleading name.
Second, notify() and wait() don't do what it looks like you think they will do. In particular, sync.notify() will not do anything at all if there are no other threads currently in sync.wait().
The correct way to use notify() and wait() is, one thread does this:
synchronized(lock) {
while (! someCondition()) {
lock.wait()
}
doSomethingThatRequiresSomeConditionToBeTrue();
}
The other thread does this
synchronized(lock) {
doSomethingThatMakesSomeConditionTrue();
lock.notify();
}
When you use this pattern, no thread should ever change the result of someCondition() except from inside a synchronized(lock) block.

Firstly, To actually create new threads please use
th1.start()
th2.start()
inplace of run() , which is just a regular method call on the thread object.
Secondly, it is possible that the second thread 'th2' did not start running by the time 1000 ms was fninshed , so the first thread finished wait(1000) and executed the remainging lines of code.
if you want the output like so :
first
first
second
third
second
third
then remove the time interval for wait() which will make the threads wait until notified.
as in :
static void m() throws Exception {
synchronized (sync) {
System.err.println("First");
sync.notify();
sync.wait();
System.err.println("Second");
System.err.println("Third");
}
}

Use .start() instead of run() to add runables to the queue instead of running them immediately
Documentation says that wait with timeout waits for any notify on this object or the timeout. In your case when runnables are being executed one by one it goes:
r: First
r: waits 1000ms and try to get lock
r: it already have access to lock object (exactly this code got lock) so continue
r: Second
r: Third
t: First, and so on ...
PS. calling run() and not setting timeout will cause deadlock on t's wait, cause it already has the object but will wait never be notified about it.
Hope this helps.

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);
//...
}

Why is this thread allowing another one to access its synchronized method?

I have the following codes. I expected one thread to execute its synchronized method completely and then allow another one to access the same method. However, this is not the case.
public class Threads {
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
//Thread Th = new Threads();
Thread th = new Thread (new thread1 ());
th.start();
Thread th1 = new Thread (new thread1 ());
th1.start();
}
}
class thread1 implements Runnable{
String name = "vimal";
public void run() {
System.out.println("Runnable "+this.name);
setNAme("Manish");
}
public synchronized void setNAme(String name){
try {
System.out.println("Thread "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
wait(1000);
this.name = name;
System.out.println("Name "+this.name);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
I have one output as
Runnable vimal
Thread Thread-0
Runnable vimal
Thread Thread-1
Name Manish
Name Manish
What is the use of synchronized here and how do I make my method to run completely before another accesses it?

synchronized has no effect here because you are not synchronizing on the same object in both cases. When applied to an instance method, the synchronized keyword causes the method to be synchronized on this. So in each case you are synchronizing on the instance of thread1, and there are two of those.
The more interesting test would be when you run the same instance of thread1 in two threads simultaneously. In that case, calling wait(1000) is a very bad thing to do because (as documented) it releases the lock on this. You want to use Thread.sleep(1000) instead in your code.
If you need to have two instances of thread1, you need to synchronize on some shared object, possibly like this:
private static final Object lockObject = new Object();
public void setName(String newName) {
synchronized(lockObject) {
doSetName(newName);
}
}

You will have to remove the call to wait(1000). It looks like what you actually want is a call to Thread.sleep(1000), if you simply want to pause the current thread, this does not release ownership of any monitors.
From the javadoc for Object.wait().
This method causes the current thread (call it T) to place itself in
the wait set for this object and then to relinquish any and all
synchronization claims on this object. Thread T becomes disabled for
thread scheduling purposes and lies dormant until one of four things
happens:
Some other thread invokes the notify method for this object and thread T happens to be arbitrarily chosen as the thread to be
awakened.
Some other thread invokes the notifyAll method for this object.
Some other thread interrupts thread T.
The specified amount of real time has elapsed, more or less. If timeout is zero, however, then real time is not taken into
consideration and the thread simply waits until notified.
The thread T is then removed from the wait set for this object and
re-enabled for thread scheduling. It then competes in the usual manner
with other threads for the right to synchronize on the object; once it
has gained control of the object, all its synchronization claims on
the object are restored to the status quo ante - that is, to the
situation as of the time that the wait method was invoked. Thread T
then returns from the invocation of the wait method. Thus, on return
from the wait method, the synchronization state of the object and of
thread T is exactly as it was when the wait method was invoked.
UPDATE: As has been mentioned in other answers, you are not synchronizing on the same object. Once you do, you will still suffer the same output, due to the issue I have mentioned. You will need to fix both for your desired results.

The output is correct, you are creating to independent threads that do not share any data. Thus both threads start with first string, and after some time, the string is changed and printed.

You're creating 2 thread1 objects. They each have their own setNAme method. Synchronized methods only synchronize on the object, not the class. Unless the method is static.

You have two Threads here with independent name variables and independent monitors, so each Thread is only accessing its own members. If you want to have the threads interact with each other you'll have to implement such an interaction.

you are creating two separate thread1 objects and running them. Each thread has it's own copy of the name variable as well as the setName function. Make them both static and you will see the effects of synchronization.

You are locking on two different instance of the objects where you dont need any synchronization at all. You need to synchronize only if you are working on a shared data. I think you meant to write a test like the below.
If you test this, you will realize that the second thread will wait until the first thread is completed with the synchronized method. Then take out the synchronized word and you will see both threads are executing at the same time.
public class SynchronizeTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Data data = new Data();
Thread task1 = new Thread(new UpdateTask(data));
task1.start();
Thread task2 = new Thread(new UpdateTask(data));
task2.start();
}
}
class UpdateTask implements Runnable {
private Data data;
public UpdateTask(Data data) {
this.data = data;
}
public void run() {
try {
data.updateData();
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class Data {
public synchronized void updateData() throws InterruptedException {
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
Thread.sleep(5000);
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}