We Keep Coding

What is the correct way to avoid an empty synchronized block?

Recently I've started looking into multithreading, and I have a question, perhaps more experienced ones could help.
My program creates two parallel threads, each of them prints counts from 0 to 19 (the NumbersPrinter class, which implements the Runnable interface).
class NumbersPrinter implements Runnable {
private Mediator mediator;
private String name;
private int makeActionOnCount;
public NumbersPrinter(Mediator mediator, String name, int makeActionOnCount) {
this.mediator = mediator;
this.name = name;
this.makeActionOnCount = makeActionOnCount;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i = 0; i<20; i++){
try {
synchronized(this.mediator) {
if(this.mediator.actionInProgress.get()) {
System.out.println(name + " waits");
wait();
}
}
System.out.println(this.name + " says " + i);
Thread.sleep(500);
if(i == makeActionOnCount) {
synchronized(this.mediator) {
System.out.println(this.name + " asks Mediator to perform action...");
this.mediator.performAction();
this.mediator.notify();
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
When one of the threads reaches a certain number (defined in the makeActionOnCount variable), it starts performing a certain action that stops the execution of the second counter. The action lasts 5 seconds and after that both counters continue to count.
The counters are interconnected through an instance of the Mediator class, the performAcyion() method also belongs to the instance of the Mediator class.
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean;
class Mediator {
public AtomicBoolean actionInProgress = new AtomicBoolean(false);
public Mediator() {
}
public void performAction() throws InterruptedException {
actionInProgress.set(true);
System.out.println("Action is being performed");
Thread.sleep(5000);
System.out.println("Action has been performed");
actionInProgress.set(false);
}
}
Here's the Main class:
class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{
Mediator mediator = new Mediator();
NumbersPrinter data = new NumbersPrinter(mediator, "Data", 10);
NumbersPrinter lore = new NumbersPrinter(mediator, "Lore", 5);
Thread oneThread = new Thread(data);
Thread twoThread = new Thread(lore);
System.out.println("Program started");
oneThread.start();
twoThread.start();
oneThread.join();
twoThread.join();
System.out.println("Program ended");
}
The way the program is written now - works fine, but I don't quite understand what exactly should I write in the first synchronized block, because if you delete all content from it, the program still works, since the counter that does not execute the performAction() method stops 'cause the counter cannot access the monitor of the Mediator object 'cause it is busy with the parallel counter. AtomicBoolean variable and checking it also makes no sense.
In other words, I may not use the wait () and notify () constructs at all, as well as the value of the AtomicBoolean variable, and just check access to the Mediator object's monitor every new iteration using an empty synchronized block. But I've heard that an empty synchronized block is a bad practice.
I am asking for help on how to rewrite the program to use the synchronized block and the wait() and notify() methods correctly.
Maybe I'm syncing on the wrong object? How would you solve a similar problem?
Thanks in advance

Loop in multiple Threads

right now i'm trying to get my head arround threads and concurrency,
so i tried to make multiple threads which counts together to 1000.
Example: Thread 1=0, Thread 2=1.Thread 3=2, and so on
As you will see in the code i implemented the Runnable interface and started the threads.
What i can see is that every thread starts the loop only for itself even if i use a synchronized method.
This is the loop "class"
private String threadname;
private int counter;
Task3(String threadname,int counter) {
this.threadname = threadname;
this.counter =counter;
}
private synchronized void compute(int i) {
try {
// "simulate" computation
System.out.println(threadname);
Thread.sleep(100);
System.out.println(" " + i);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void run() {
for(int i=0; i <= counter;i++)
compute(i);
}
and in this class i start 4 threads with a for loop and give the method aboce the parameters which is only the thread name and how often they should count...
for(int i=0; i<=3;i++){
Runnable r =new Thread(new Task3("Thread"+i,1000));
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.start();
}
thanks in advance

Explanation
Synchronized only means that it is ensured that a thread waits before entering the method until another thread has finished executing this method. This means that only one thread, at one time, can be inside of this synchronized method.
This can prevent strange behavior when using non-atomic operations. For example threads catching outdated values, thinking they would be up-to-date.
Solution
If you want that all threads count together you need some kind of shared resource, i.e. the counter. Currently every thread has his own counter. You need one counter in total which is shared among all threads.
A quick and dirty method would be to make the counter static. But you can probably do better with a design like this:
Class which manages the threads:
public class Demo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Demo demo = new Demo();
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
Counter counter = new Counter(demo, 1000);
counter.start();
}
}
// Provide a shared resource for all threads
private int sharedCounter = 0;
// Provide a count method for all threads
// which is synchronized to ensure that no
// strange behavior with non-atomic operations occurs
public synchronized void count() {
sharedCounter++;
}
}
And the Thread class:
public class Counter extends Thread {
private Demo mDemo;
private int mAmount;
public Counter(Demo demo, int amount) {
// Remember the shared resource
mDemo = demo;
mAmount = amount;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i < 0; i < mAmount; i++) {
// Call the count method provided
// by the shared resource
mDemo.count();
// Sleep some millis
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}

Accessing a static method when initializing a static field of same class from another thread

I had a very peculiar problem happening to me that I could not solved except splitting up the Problem into two classes.
I would like to know if there is maybe a solution without splitting the class and I would more importantly like to know if anybody has an idea why the Java Engine is deciding to act the way it does.
The Problem:
I have a class with a static method, a static field and a constructor. The static field is initialized to an instance of the class itself. During the instance initialization I want to access the aformentioned static method. See the following code:
public class Simple {
public Simple() {
int count = 4;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
System.out.println("Simple: " + Simple.isFlag());
}
}
private static Simple i = new Simple();
public static boolean isFlag() {
return true;
}
public static void run() {
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Simple.run();
}
}
This code runs absolutely fine. The output can be seen below:
Simple: true
Simple: true
Simple: true
Simple: true
The output is generated after I call the run() method because the stativ field i is only initialized after I access the first static member of that class.
I now want to do the exact same thing except with multiple threads. See here:
public class Parallel {
public Parallel() {
int count = 4;
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(4);
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
System.out.println("Parallel: " + Parallel.isFlag());
latch.countDown();
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
});
t.start();
}
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private static Parallel i = new Parallel();
public static boolean isFlag() {
return true;
}
public static void run() {
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Parallel.run();
}
}
This returns nothing. The main thread is stuck at latch.await();, while the other threads are stuck at Parallel.isFlag(). Edit: as shown by Jaims below, the threads don't even start at all.
This does not make any sense to me. Why is this not working, but the first case is? Essentially they are doing the same.
I would like to know how the Java Engine decides on when to wait and when not. Can this be changed somewhere in code?
Additionally, this has nothing to do with CountDownLatch but solely with the multithreading. Look at this final sample:
public class NonParallel {
public NonParallel() {
int count = 4;
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(4);
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
System.out.println("NonParallel: " + NonParallel.isFlag());
latch.countDown();
}
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private static NonParallel i = new NonParallel();
public static boolean isFlag() {
return true;
}
public static void run() {
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
NonParallel.run();
}
}
This works fine. The output is as following:
NonParallel: true
NonParallel: true
NonParallel: true
NonParallel: true
Edit: none of this applies when the object initlization is not part of the class initilization. This is purely about class initialization which only happens when using a static object as described in this question. See here:
public class NonStaticParallel {
public NonStaticParallel() {
int count = 4;
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(4);
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
System.out.println("NonStaticParallel: " + isFlag());
latch.countDown();
});
t.start();
}
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static boolean isFlag() {
return true;
}
public static void run() {
new NonStaticParallel();
}
}
This one works without any issue:
Parallel: true
Parallel: true
Parallel: true
Parallel: true
Answers:
Andreas provides an explanation as to what is going on.
Jaims is right in that the threads do not even start at all. This probably happens because they need the class to be initialized and they are immediately therefore blocked. (If we use runnables that are in their own classes instead of lambda or anonymous inner classes then they run normally, unless of course they acess the any static members of the class being initialized)
Yoshi provides a link and an excerpt from the the spec, and is therefore marked as the right answer, as this is what I wanted.

I tried your code and did two things:
First, I made the lambda a static inner class of Parallel ... just in case; this didn't change anything.
Since you commented that the threads are stuck on Parallel.isFlag() I tried replacing the call with just true... and it worked!
So, I did a little research and I found this, which sounds like a promising explanation for what is going on: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-12.html#jls-12.4.2
Specifically this part:
For each class or interface C, there is a unique initialization lock LC. The mapping from C to LC is left to the discretion of the Java Virtual Machine implementation. The procedure for initializing C is then as follows:
Synchronize on the initialization lock, LC, for C. This involves waiting until the current thread can acquire LC.
If the Class object for C indicates that initialization is in progress for C by some other thread, then release LC and block the current thread until informed that the in-progress initialization has completed, at which time repeat this step.
(Emphasis added.) So this would suggest the following:
Main thread started class initialization while evaluating private static Parallel i = new Parallel(); and started up the threads. Then it waited on latch.await(). Class object for Parallel should indicate that initialization is "in progress."
Started threads also try to reference a static member of Parallel. Each thread sees that initialization is in progress and decides to wait until the Main thread (which is now waiting on the threads to count down the latch) is done. Clearly this is a deadlock.

When you call run(), the current thread will begin class initialization. Any code referring to the class, e.g. call to isFlag() will also require class initialization.
In your Simple and NonParallel versions, the current thread is doing it all, and recursive class initialization is allowed (ignored actually), so isFlag() is executed, even though the class initialization is not yet complete.
In your Parallel version however, the call to isFlag() is done from another thread, and so that other thread has to wait for the class to be fully initialized. Since your constructor won't return until the threads run, and the threads can't run until the constructor returns and completes the class initialization, you have a deadlock.
Conclusion: You cannot perform class initialization code in parallel. Class initialization has to complete in a single thread.
You can start threads during class initialization if you want, but you cannot wait for them to complete (if they also access your class, and what would be the point of they didn't?).

Your threads are not started until the object is created correctly. Consider the following snippet:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Parallel.run();
}
}
class Parallel {
private static Parallel i = new Parallel();
public Parallel() {
try {
System.out.println("Inside constructor.");
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
System.out.println("Running thread.");
});
System.out.println("Starting thread.");
t.start();
}
System.out.println("Sleeping 2 seconds.");
Thread.sleep(2000);
System.out.println("Leaving constructor.");
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Parallel.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
public static void run() {
}
}
It'll produce the following output:
Inside constructor.
Starting thread.
Starting thread.
Starting thread.
Starting thread.
Sleeping 2 seconds.
Leaving constructor.
Running thread.
Running thread.
Running thread.
Running thread.
The threads are started within the constructor 4 times, as the output shows. It starts sleeping for 2 seconds, leaves the constructor and then runs your threads. Not like it takes 2 seconds for your threads to run.
So the core issue with your problem, is that you're calling latch.await(), but your threads never get the chance to actually run. Meaning the latch isn't decremented and simply keeps waiting. You could move the logic to your run() method, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve in the first place. e.g.
public static void run() {
int count = 4;
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(4);
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
latch.countDown();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Parallel.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
});
System.out.println("Starting thread.");
t.start();
}
try {
System.out.println("Current count: " + latch.getCount());
latch.await();
System.out.println("Current count: " + latch.getCount());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}

Java - While loop with embedded threads bug

I have this code below, that evaluates if three threads are done, and if yes, it continues with the code. The problem is that when I include some sort of print statement before the if statement, it works as usual. However, when I don't include the print, it continues forever. Here it is:
while (!are_we_done) {
System.out.println(are_we_done);
if (thread_arr[0].are_we_done==true && thread_arr[1].are_we_done==true && thread_arr[2].are_we_done==true) {
are_we_done=true;
}
}
Any clue as to what's going on?
Thanks in advance for any help/advice.

The problem was that I had to specify the are_we_done variable in the thread class as volatile.

Your work with threads is awesome - google for 'busy waiting'.
in main thread introduce 'latch = new CountDownLatch(<number of threads>)' variable
pass it into all your threads
on finish of the thread call 'latch.countDown()'
in main thread wait for all spawned threads complete with 'latch.await(...)'
Example:
public static void main(String... args) throws Exception {
Thread[] threads = new Thread[3];
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(threads.length);
for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) {
threads[i] = new Thread(new YourRunnable(latch));
threads[i].start();
}
while (!latch.await(1000)) {
System.out.println("Not complete yet");
}
System.out.println("Complete!");
}
public class YourRunndable implements Runnable {
... // fields + constructor
public void run() {
try {
... // do your staff
} finally {
latch.countDown();
}
}
}

Java: Threads, how to make them all do something

I am trying to implement nodes talking to each other in Java. I am doing this by creating a new thread for every node that wants to talk to the server.
When the given number of nodes, i.e. that many threads have been created, have connected to the server I want each thread to execute their next bit of code after adding to the "sharedCounter".
I think I need to use 'locks' on the shared variable, and something like signalAll() or notifyAll() to get all the threads going, but I can't seem to make clear sense of exactly how this works or to implement it.
Any help explaining these Java concepts would be greatly appreciated :D
Below is roughly the structure of my code:
import java.net.*;
import java.io.*;
public class Node {
public static void main(String[] args) {
...
// Chooses server or client launchers depend on parameters.
...
}
}
class sharedResource {
private int sharedCounter;
public sharedResource(int i) {
sharedCounter = i;
}
public synchronized void incSharedCounter() {
sharedCounter--;
if (sharedCounter == 0)
// Get all threads to do something
}
}
class Server {
...
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++) {
new serverThread(serverSocket.accept()).start();
}
...
sharedResource threadCount = new sharedResource(numberOfThreads);
...
}
class serverThread extends Thread {
...
//some code
Server.threadCount.incSharedCounter();
// Some more code to run when sharedCounte == 0
...
}
class Client {
...
}

　　　　　// Get all threads to do something
Threads (or rather Runnables, which you should implement rather than extending Thread) have a run method that contains the code they are expected to execute.
Once you call Thread#start (which in turn calls Runnable#run), the thread will start doing exactly that.
Since you seem to be new to multi-threading in Java, I recommend that you read an introduction to the Concurrency Utility package, that has been introduced in Java5 to make it easier to implement concurrent operations.
Specifically what you seem to be looking for is a way to "pause" the operation until a condition is met (in your case a counter having reached zero). For this, you should look at a CountDownLatch.

Indeed, the subject is broad, but I'll try to explain the basics. More details can be read from various blogs and articles. One of which is the Java trail.
It is best to see each thread as being runners (physical persons) that run alongside each other in a race. Each runner may perform any task while running. For example, take a cup of water from a table at a given moment in the race. Physically, they cannot both drink from the same cup at once, but in the virtual world, it is possible (this is where the line is drawn).
For example, take again two runners; each of them has to run back and forth a track, and push a button (shared by the runners) at each end for 1'000'000 times, the button is simply incrementing a counter by one each time. When they completed their run, what would be the value of the counter? In the physical world, it would be 2'000'000 because the runners cannot push the button at the same time, they would wait for the first one to leave first... that is unless they fight over it... Well, this is exactly what two threads would do. Consider this code :
public class ThreadTest extends Thread {
static public final int TOTAL_INC = 1000000;
static public int counter = 0;
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i=0; i<TOTAL_INC; i++) {
counter++;
}
System.out.println("Thread stopped incrementing counter " + TOTAL_INC + " times");
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new ThreadTest();
Thread t2 = new ThreadTest();
t1.start();
t2.start();
t1.join(); // wait for each thread to stop on their own...
t2.join(); //
System.out.println("Final counter is : " + counter + " which should be equal to " + TOTAL_INC * 2);
}
}
An output could be something like
Thread stopped incrementing counter 1000000 times
Thread stopped incrementing counter 1000000 times
Final counter is : 1143470 which should be equal to 2000000
Once in a while, the two thread would just increment the same value twice; this is called a race condition.
Synchronizing the run method will not work, and you'd have to use some locking mechanism to prevent this from happening. Consider the following changes in the run method :
static private Object lock = new Object();
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i=0; i<TOTAL_INC; i++) {
synchronized(lock) {
counter++;
}
}
System.out.println("Thread stopped incrementing counter " + TOTAL_INC + " times");
}
Now the expected output is
...
Final counter is : 2000000 which should be equal to 2000000
We have synchronized our counter with a shared object. This is like putting a queue line before only one runner can access the button at once.
NOTE : this locking mechanism is called a mutex. If a resource can be accessed by n threads at once, you might consider using a semaphore.
Multithreading is also associated with deadlocking. A deadlock is when two threads mutually waits for the other to free some synchronized resource to continue. For example :
Thread 1 starts
Thread 2 starts
Thread 1 acquire synchronized object1
Thread 2 acquire synchronized object2
Thread 2 needs to acquire object2 for continuing (locked by Thread 1)
Thread 1 needs to acquire object1 for continuing (locked by Thread 2)
Program hangs in deadlock
While there are many ways to prevent this from happening (it depends on what your threads are doing, and how they are implemented...) You should read about that particularly.
NOTE : the methods wait, notify and notifyAll can only be called when an object is synchronized. For example :
static public final int TOTAL_INC = 10;
static private int counter = 0;
static private Object lock = new Object();
static class Thread1 extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i=0; i<TOTAL_INC; i++) {
try {
lock.wait();
counter++;
lock.notify();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
static class Thread2 extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i=0; i<TOTAL_INC; i++) {
try {
lock.notify();
counter--;
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
/* ignored */
}
}
}
}
}
Notice that both threads are running their for...loop blocks within the synchronized block. (The result of counter == 0 when both threads end.) This can be achieved because they "let each other" access the synchronized resource via the resource's wait and notify methods. Without using those two methods, both threads would simply run sequentially and not concurrently (or more precisely, alternately).
I hope this shed some light about threads (in Java).
** UPDATE **
Here is a little proof of concept of everything discussed above, using the CountDownLatch class suggested by Thilo earlier :
static class Server {
static public final int NODE_COUNT = 5;
private List<RunnableNode> nodes;
private CountDownLatch startSignal;
private Object lock = new Object();
public Server() {
nodes = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<RunnableNode>());
startSignal = new CountDownLatch(Server.NODE_COUNT);
}
public Object getLock() {
return lock;
}
public synchronized void connect(RunnableNode node) {
if (startSignal.getCount() > 0) {
startSignal.countDown();
nodes.add(node);
System.out.println("Received connection from node " + node.getId() + " (" + startSignal.getCount() + " remaining...)");
} else {
System.out.println("Client overflow! Refusing connection from node " + node.getId());
throw new IllegalStateException("Too many nodes connected");
}
}
public void shutdown() {
for (RunnableNode node : nodes) {
node.shutdown();
}
}
public void awaitAllConnections() {
try {
startSignal.await();
synchronized (lock) {
lock.notifyAll(); // awake all nodes
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
/* ignore */
shutdown(); // properly close any connected node now
}
}
}
static class RunnableNode implements Runnable {
private Server server;
private int id;
private boolean working;
public RunnableNode(int id, Server server) {
this.id = id;
this.server = server;
this.working = true;
}
public int getId() {
return id;
}
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep((long) (Math.random() * 5) * 1000); // just wait randomly from 0 to 5 seconds....
synchronized (server.getLock()) {
server.connect(this);
server.getLock().wait();
}
if (!Thread.currentThread().isAlive()) {
throw new InterruptedException();
} else {
System.out.println("Node " + id + " started successfully!");
while (working) {
Thread.yield();
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
System.out.print("Ooop! ...");
} catch (IllegalStateException e2) {
System.out.print("Awwww! Too late! ...");
}
System.out.println("Node " + id + " is shutting down");
}
public void shutdown() {
working = false; // shutdown node here...
}
}
static public void main(String...args) throws InterruptedException {
Server server = new Server();
for (int i=0; i<Server.NODE_COUNT + 4; i++) { // create 4 more nodes than needed...
new Thread(new RunnableNode(i, server)).start();
}
server.awaitAllConnections();
System.out.println("All connection received! Server started!");
Thread.sleep(6000);
server.shutdown();
}

This is a broad topic. You might try reading through the official guides for concurrency (i.e. threading, more or less) in Java. This isn't something with cut-and-dried solutions; you have to design something.