I was trying to write a code that shows the unfairness of ReentrantLock (when ctor is passed fair=false). To my surprise, ReentrantLock was perfectly fair.
My test has the following logic: spawn 20 threads who have an "id" going from 0 to 19. All threads share a ReentrantLock. Then, in chronological order:
Thread 0 locks the lock.
Thread 1 to 19 block on lock(), in order 1, then 2, then 3, .. , then 19
Thread 0 unlocks the lock. This is the first test of fairness, if the lock is fair, thread 1 should get it thereafter
When thread 1 has the lock, he releases it too. Second test of fairness: thread 2 should now get it.
etc
I was expecting that sometimes, a thread gets the lock before another one that was actually waiting for longer. But it never happens
The code:
package jma.test;
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.Queue;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
class ThreadTest extends Thread {
private final int id;
private final int totalNbThreads;
private final ReentrantLock lock1;
private final LinkedList<Integer> checkOrder;
ThreadTest(int id, int totalNbThreads, ReentrantLock lock, LinkedList<Integer> checkOrder) {
this.id = id;
this.totalNbThreads = totalNbThreads;
this.lock1 = lock;
this.checkOrder = checkOrder;
}
public void run() {
try {
// This if is to force threads to get to lock() call below in order of their ids.
// Thread 0 should call lock() first, then threads 1, 2, 3, 4 ...
if (this.id == 1) {
while (!lock1.isLocked()) {
// wait for thread 0 to lock it
}
} else if (this.id > 1) {
while (lock1.getQueueLength() != (this.id - 1)) {
// íf we are thread n, we wait for thread 1 to n-1 to enter the wait queue.
}
}
lock1.lock();
if (this.id == 0) {
while (lock1.getQueueLength() != (totalNbThreads - 1)) {
// Wait for all other threads to bloc on lock1.lock() before releasing lock
}
}
checkOrder.add(this.id);
} finally {
lock1.unlock();
}
}
}
public class Main {
private static final int NB_THREADS = 20; // at least 2
// change the boolean to switch between fair or not-fair lock
private static final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock(false);
private static boolean isLockFair() {
Queue<Thread> allThreads = new LinkedList<>();
LinkedList<Integer> checkOrder = new LinkedList<>();
for (int id=0; id < NB_THREADS; id++) {
allThreads.add(new ThreadTest(id, NB_THREADS, lock, checkOrder));
}
for (Thread t : allThreads) {
t.start();
}
for (Thread t : allThreads) {
try {
t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
int previous = -1;
for (int i : checkOrder) {
if (i != previous + 1) {
System.out.println("not fair: " + i + " got the lock after " + previous);
return false;
}
previous = i;
}
return true;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int ctrUnfair = 0;
int nbTest = 10000;
for (int i=0; i<nbTest; i++) {
if (!isLockFair())
ctrUnfair++;
}
System.out.println("unfairness: " + ctrUnfair + "/" + nbTest);
}
}
I assume that, because the thread releasing the lock does not try to get it again, when unlock is called there is no concurrency between the running thread and the blocked threads, so the thread that will get the lock necessarily comes from the wait queue, and the implementation of the wait queue is probably a FIFO. Is it the explanation ?
I was expecting that sometimes, a thread gets the lock before another one that was actually waiting for longer. But it never happens
In my understanding,this happens in the case below.
1.Thread a call unlock,after execute tryRelease but before unparkSuccessor,thread scheduling happens,Thread b start to execute.
2.Thread b call lock,if it is a none fair lock,it will call compareAndSetState and will success,you see though other threads waiting for the lock,but thread b got it,but if it is a fair lock,it will test if current thread is the first thread waiting for the lock ,see hasQueuedPredecessors.
All these comes from the source code AQS and ReentrantLock.
Back to your code,before thread 0 can unlock,all other threads are in the waiting queue,so different with the case above.Hope this helps and if I am wrong,please let me know.
Related
This question already has answers here:
How threads are executed in the memory?
(2 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
This is a simplified version of the problem. Given n number of threads, each printing a constant number all the time. For example, Thread-1 should always print 1, Thread-2 should always print 2 and so on...
How to ensure, the threads are executed in order i.e. the output should be as below:
Thread-1: 1
Thread-2: 2
Thread-3: 3
.
.
.
Thread-n: n
I have a naïve solution to do it through wait()/notify() but I guess there might be a better solution than that. Perhaps, using Semaphore maybe? I don't know.
Update:
Based on the answers received, I think I was not very clear. There are some constraints:
All threads should start at once (assume we don't really have control on that)
Once all the threads start, there should be some sort of communication between the threads to execute in order.
This sequentially execution of thread can be handled beautifully using Thread.join() method. To handle it properly, you may have to create MyRunnable(or, use any name you prefer) which implements Runnable interface. Inside MyRunnable, you can inject a parent Thread, and call parent.join() at top of MyRunnable.run() method. The code is given below:
public class SequentialThreadsTest {
static class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
static int objCount; // to keep count of sequential object
private int objNum;
private Thread parent; // keep track of parent thread
MyRunnable(Thread parent) {
this.parent = parent;
this.objNum = objCount + 1;
objCount += 1;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
if(parent != null) {
parent.join();
}
System.out.println("Thread-" + objNum + ": " + objNum);
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
// do something else
} finally {
// do what you need to do when thread execution is finished
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int n = 10;
Thread parentThread = null;
for(int i=0; i<n; i++) {
Thread thread = new Thread(new MyRunnable(parentThread));
thread.start();
parentThread = thread;
}
}
}
And the output is:
Thread-1: 1
Thread-2: 2
Thread-3: 3
Thread-4: 4
Thread-5: 5
Thread-6: 6
Thread-7: 7
Thread-8: 8
Thread-9: 9
Thread-10: 10
You haven't specified many details, but if you only want serializable thread execution you can wait for previous thread to finish and then print. Something like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread thread = null;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
int index = i;
Thread previousThread = thread;
thread = new Thread(() -> {
if (previousThread != null) {
try {
previousThread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(index);
});
thread.start();
}
}
Try making a queue - this will do exactly what you want. Simply change the value of n to however many threads you have, and add all the threads sequentially (only once). If ever you want to stop the threads from executing, all you have to do is add end to the queue. Obviously, for a larger project, you will need to modify this code a little bit (I would recommend replacing the main method with a class initializer and pass the LinkedBlockingQueue as a pre-built argument)
import java.util.concurrent.LinkedBlockingQueue;
public class HelloWorld{
private static int n = 2;
private static LinkedBlockingQueue<Thread> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<>(n+1);
static Thread a = new Thread(()->{
System.out.print("a");
});
static Thread b = new Thread(()->{
System.out.print("b");
});
static Thread end = new Thread(()->{
break_ = true;
});
public static final int END = 20;//this and the counter are just here so the code doesn't run forever
public static volatile int i = 0;
public static volatile boolean break_ = false;
public static void main(String []args){
queue.add(a);
queue.add(b);
//queue.add(end);
outerloop:
while(true){
Thread toBeRun = queue.poll();
try{
toBeRun.run();
queue.add(toBeRun);
i++;
if(i>=END || break_){//i>=END does not need to be here, it's just to stop it from running forever in this example
break;
}
}catch(NullPointerException e){
break;
}
}
}
}
Note: This uses java 8 lambdas. If you're using an older version of java, you will need to create the threads using the run method.
What is a way to simply wait for all threaded process to finish? For example, let's say I have:
public class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable{
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int n=0; n<1000; n++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new DoSomethingInAThread());
t.start();
}
// wait for all threads' run() methods to complete before continuing
}
public void run() {
// do something here
}
}
How do I alter this so the main() method pauses at the comment until all threads' run() methods exit? Thanks!
You put all threads in an array, start them all, and then have a loop
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
Each join will block until the respective thread has completed. Threads may complete in a different order than you joining them, but that's not a problem: when the loop exits, all threads are completed.
One way would be to make a List of Threads, create and launch each thread, while adding it to the list. Once everything is launched, loop back through the list and call join() on each one. It doesn't matter what order the threads finish executing in, all you need to know is that by the time that second loop finishes executing, every thread will have completed.
A better approach is to use an ExecutorService and its associated methods:
List<Callable> callables = ... // assemble list of Callables here
// Like Runnable but can return a value
ExecutorService execSvc = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
List<Future<?>> results = execSvc.invokeAll(callables);
// Note: You may not care about the return values, in which case don't
// bother saving them
Using an ExecutorService (and all of the new stuff from Java 5's concurrency utilities) is incredibly flexible, and the above example barely even scratches the surface.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
public class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException
{
//limit the number of actual threads
int poolSize = 10;
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(poolSize);
List<Future<Runnable>> futures = new ArrayList<Future<Runnable>>();
for (int n = 0; n < 1000; n++)
{
Future f = service.submit(new DoSomethingInAThread());
futures.add(f);
}
// wait for all tasks to complete before continuing
for (Future<Runnable> f : futures)
{
f.get();
}
//shut down the executor service so that this thread can exit
service.shutdownNow();
}
public void run()
{
// do something here
}
}
instead of join(), which is an old API, you can use CountDownLatch. I have modified your code as below to fulfil your requirement.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable{
CountDownLatch latch;
public DoSomethingInAThread(CountDownLatch latch){
this.latch = latch;
}
public void run() {
try{
System.out.println("Do some thing");
latch.countDown();
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public class CountDownLatchDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try{
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1000);
for (int n=0; n<1000; n++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new DoSomethingInAThread(latch));
t.start();
}
latch.await();
System.out.println("In Main thread after completion of 1000 threads");
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Explanation:
CountDownLatch has been initialized with given count 1000 as per your requirement.
Each worker thread DoSomethingInAThread will decrement the CountDownLatch, which has been passed in constructor.
Main thread CountDownLatchDemo await() till the count has become zero. Once the count has become zero, you will get below line in output.
In Main thread after completion of 1000 threads
More info from oracle documentation page
public void await()
throws InterruptedException
Causes the current thread to wait until the latch has counted down to zero, unless the thread is interrupted.
Refer to related SE question for other options:
wait until all threads finish their work in java
Avoid the Thread class altogether and instead use the higher abstractions provided in java.util.concurrent
The ExecutorService class provides the method invokeAll that seems to do just what you want.
Consider using java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch. Examples in javadocs
Depending on your needs, you may also want to check out the classes CountDownLatch and CyclicBarrier in the java.util.concurrent package. They can be useful if you want your threads to wait for each other, or if you want more fine-grained control over the way your threads execute (e.g., waiting in their internal execution for another thread to set some state). You could also use a CountDownLatch to signal all of your threads to start at the same time, instead of starting them one by one as you iterate through your loop. The standard API docs have an example of this, plus using another CountDownLatch to wait for all threads to complete their execution.
As Martin K suggested java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch seems to be a better solution for this. Just adding an example for the same
public class CountDownLatchDemo
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
int noOfThreads = 5;
// Declare the count down latch based on the number of threads you need
// to wait on
final CountDownLatch executionCompleted = new CountDownLatch(noOfThreads);
for (int i = 0; i < noOfThreads; i++)
{
new Thread()
{
#Override
public void run ()
{
System.out.println("I am executed by :" + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try
{
// Dummy sleep
Thread.sleep(3000);
// One thread has completed its job
executionCompleted.countDown();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
}
try
{
// Wait till the count down latch opens.In the given case till five
// times countDown method is invoked
executionCompleted.await();
System.out.println("All over");
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
If you make a list of the threads, you can loop through them and .join() against each, and your loop will finish when all the threads have. I haven't tried it though.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html#join()
Create the thread object inside the first for loop.
for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) {
threads[i] = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// some code to run in parallel
}
});
threads[i].start();
}
And then so what everyone here is saying.
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
You can do it with the Object "ThreadGroup" and its parameter activeCount:
As an alternative to CountDownLatch you can also use CyclicBarrier e.g.
public class ThreadWaitEx {
static CyclicBarrier barrier = new CyclicBarrier(100, new Runnable(){
public void run(){
System.out.println("clean up job after all tasks are done.");
}
});
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new MyCallable(barrier));
t.start();
}
}
}
class MyCallable implements Runnable{
private CyclicBarrier b = null;
public MyCallable(CyclicBarrier b){
this.b = b;
}
#Override
public void run(){
try {
//do something
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" is waiting for barrier after completing his job.");
b.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
To use CyclicBarrier in this case barrier.await() should be the last statement i.e. when your thread is done with its job. CyclicBarrier can be used again with its reset() method. To quote javadocs:
A CyclicBarrier supports an optional Runnable command that is run once per barrier point, after the last thread in the party arrives, but before any threads are released. This barrier action is useful for updating shared-state before any of the parties continue.
The join() was not helpful to me. see this sample in Kotlin:
val timeInMillis = System.currentTimeMillis()
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
for (i in 1..5) {
val t = Thread(Runnable {
Thread.sleep(50)
var a = i
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "a=$a")
Thread.sleep(200)
for (j in 1..5) {
a *= j
Thread.sleep(100)
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "$a*$j=$a")
}
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|TaskDurationInMillis = " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - timeInMillis))
})
t.start()
}
})
The result:
Thread-5|a=5
Thread-1|a=1
Thread-3|a=3
Thread-2|a=2
Thread-4|a=4
Thread-2|2*1=2
Thread-3|3*1=3
Thread-1|1*1=1
Thread-5|5*1=5
Thread-4|4*1=4
Thread-1|2*2=2
Thread-5|10*2=10
Thread-3|6*2=6
Thread-4|8*2=8
Thread-2|4*2=4
Thread-3|18*3=18
Thread-1|6*3=6
Thread-5|30*3=30
Thread-2|12*3=12
Thread-4|24*3=24
Thread-4|96*4=96
Thread-2|48*4=48
Thread-5|120*4=120
Thread-1|24*4=24
Thread-3|72*4=72
Thread-5|600*5=600
Thread-4|480*5=480
Thread-3|360*5=360
Thread-1|120*5=120
Thread-2|240*5=240
Thread-1|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-3|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-4|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-5|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-2|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Now let me use the join() for threads:
val timeInMillis = System.currentTimeMillis()
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
for (i in 1..5) {
val t = Thread(Runnable {
Thread.sleep(50)
var a = i
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "a=$a")
Thread.sleep(200)
for (j in 1..5) {
a *= j
Thread.sleep(100)
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "$a*$j=$a")
}
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|TaskDurationInMillis = " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - timeInMillis))
})
t.start()
t.join()
}
})
And the result:
Thread-1|a=1
Thread-1|1*1=1
Thread-1|2*2=2
Thread-1|6*3=6
Thread-1|24*4=24
Thread-1|120*5=120
Thread-1|TaskDurationInMillis = 815
Thread-2|a=2
Thread-2|2*1=2
Thread-2|4*2=4
Thread-2|12*3=12
Thread-2|48*4=48
Thread-2|240*5=240
Thread-2|TaskDurationInMillis = 1568
Thread-3|a=3
Thread-3|3*1=3
Thread-3|6*2=6
Thread-3|18*3=18
Thread-3|72*4=72
Thread-3|360*5=360
Thread-3|TaskDurationInMillis = 2323
Thread-4|a=4
Thread-4|4*1=4
Thread-4|8*2=8
Thread-4|24*3=24
Thread-4|96*4=96
Thread-4|480*5=480
Thread-4|TaskDurationInMillis = 3078
Thread-5|a=5
Thread-5|5*1=5
Thread-5|10*2=10
Thread-5|30*3=30
Thread-5|120*4=120
Thread-5|600*5=600
Thread-5|TaskDurationInMillis = 3833
As it's clear when we use the join:
The threads are running sequentially.
The first sample takes 765 Milliseconds while the second sample takes 3833 Milliseconds.
Our solution to prevent blocking other threads was creating an ArrayList:
val threads = ArrayList<Thread>()
Now when we want to start a new thread we most add it to the ArrayList:
addThreadToArray(
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
...
})
)
The addThreadToArray function:
#Synchronized
fun addThreadToArray(th: Thread) {
threads.add(th)
}
The startNewThread funstion:
fun startNewThread(runnable: Runnable) : Thread {
val th = Thread(runnable)
th.isDaemon = false
th.priority = Thread.MAX_PRIORITY
th.start()
return th
}
Check the completion of the threads as below everywhere it's needed:
val notAliveThreads = ArrayList<Thread>()
for (t in threads)
if (!t.isAlive)
notAliveThreads.add(t)
threads.removeAll(notAliveThreads)
if (threads.size == 0){
// The size is 0 -> there is no alive threads.
}
The problem with:
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
...is, that threads[i + 1] never can join before threads[i].
Except the "latch"ed ones, all solutions have this lack.
No one here (yet) mentioned ExecutorCompletionService, it allows to join threads/tasks according to their completion order:
public class ExecutorCompletionService<V>
extends Object
implements CompletionService<V>
A CompletionService that uses a supplied Executor to execute tasks. This class arranges that submitted tasks are, upon completion, placed on a queue accessible using take. The class is lightweight enough to be suitable for transient use when processing groups of tasks.
Usage Examples.
Suppose you have a set of solvers for a certain problem, each returning a value of some type Result, and would like to run them concurrently, processing the results of each of them that return a non-null value, in some method use(Result r). You could write this as:
void solve(Executor e, Collection<Callable<Result>> solvers) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
CompletionService<Result> cs = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(e);
solvers.forEach(cs::submit);
for (int i = solvers.size(); i > 0; i--) {
Result r = cs.take().get();
if (r != null)
use(r);
}
}
Suppose instead that you would like to use the first non-null result of the set of tasks, ignoring any that encounter exceptions, and cancelling all other tasks when the first one is ready:
void solve(Executor e, Collection<Callable<Result>> solvers) throws InterruptedException {
CompletionService<Result> cs = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(e);
int n = solvers.size();
List<Future<Result>> futures = new ArrayList<>(n);
Result result = null;
try {
solvers.forEach(solver -> futures.add(cs.submit(solver)));
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
try {
Result r = cs.take().get();
if (r != null) {
result = r;
break;
}
} catch (ExecutionException ignore) {}
}
} finally {
futures.forEach(future -> future.cancel(true));
}
if (result != null)
use(result);
}
Since: 1.5 (!)
Assuming use(r) (of Example 1) also asynchronous, we had a big advantage. #
This is kind of a big question.
I am attempting to create an ordered multiple producer and single consumer scenario in Java. It is ordered in the sense that after producer1, only producer2 gets control of the queue, after which producer3, after which producer1 again and so on and so forth. Just to check if that will work under every scenario, I provided the three producers with three different priorities
producer1 - Thread.NORM_PRIORITY - 4
producer2 - Thread.NORM_PRIORITY + 5
producer3 - Thread.NORM_PRIORITY
Now instead of printing what is being put in the queue and what is being consumed, I'm keeping a counter to count how many times each of the producer threads are being handed control of the queue and in what order, and printing those counts in the consumer thread.
Code is provided after the outputs.
I am confused by one particular behaviour of the threads, the code posted below works as I wanted it to, but if I replace this
while(flag==false)
wait();
if(getIndex()!=next)
return;
in the put() function of q.java, with this
while(flag==false && getIndex()!=next)
wait();
The producer threads are being handed control of the queue erratically. Like with the first code snippet, I am getting the following output, for producers 1,2 and 3 respectively
125 125 125
126 125 125
126 126 125
126 126 126
Producer1 is getting control of the queue first, then 2 then 3, and then 1 again.
But with the alternate option I am getting this output
2 6 8
2 6 8
2 6 8
The same producer keeps getting control of the queue.
Shouldn't the waiting thread NOT gain control of the queue unless it's index matches with the index of the thread which is supposed to get control of the q, like if next is 2, and producer3 is handled control of the queue, shouldn't it go into wait because of the while condition, and the queue be free to be approached by some other thread again, the process repeating until producer2 gets it?
QUEUE
import java.util.*;
class q
{
private volatile int size;
private volatile int clicks[];
private volatile boolean flag;
private volatile int next;
public q(int size)
{
this.size = size;
clicks = new int[size+1];
flag = true;
next = 1;
}
private synchronized int getIndex()
{
String name = Thread.currentThread().getName();
return (int)(name.charAt(name.length()-1))-48;
}
private synchronized void show()
{
//System.out.println("Got control -> "+name+" for index "+index);
if(flag==true)
{
int index = getIndex();
/*
System.out.println("Control provided to "+index);
Scanner s = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.println("Press enter to continue");
String c = s.next();
*/
clicks[index]+=1;
next = (index%size)+1;
//System.out.println("Provide control to "+next);
}
else
{
int i;
for(i = 1;i<=size;i++)
System.out.print(clicks[i]+" ");
System.out.println();
}
}
public synchronized void put()
{
try
{
while(flag==false)
wait();
if(getIndex()!=next)
return;
show();
flag = false;
notify();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.println("Exception caught - "+e);
}
}
public synchronized void get()
{
try
{
while(flag==true)
wait();
show();
flag = true;
notifyAll();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.println("Exception caught - "+e);
}
}
}
PRODUCER
class producer implements Runnable
{
private q queue;
public producer(q queue)
{
this.queue = queue;
}
public void run()
{
try
{
//int i;
while(true)
queue.put();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.println("Exception caught - "+e);
}
}
}
CONSUMER
class consumer implements Runnable
{
private q queue;
public consumer(q queue)
{
this.queue = queue;
}
public void run()
{
try
{
while(true)
queue.get();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.println("Exception caught - "+e);
}
}
}
TESTCLASS
class testclass
{
private q queue;
private producer p1; //lowest priority
private producer p2; //highest priority
private producer p3; //normal priority
private consumer c;
private Thread pt1;
private Thread pt2;
private Thread pt3;
private Thread ct;
public testclass()
{
queue = new q(3);
p1 = new producer(queue);
p2 = new producer(queue);
p3 = new producer(queue);
c = new consumer(queue);
pt1 = new Thread(p1,"producer1");
pt2 = new Thread(p2,"producer2");
pt3 = new Thread(p3,"producer3");
ct = new Thread(c,"consumer");
}
public void begin()
{
pt2.setPriority(Thread.NORM_PRIORITY + 5);
pt1.setPriority(Thread.NORM_PRIORITY - 4);
//pt3.setPriority(Thread.NORM_PRIORITY - 3);
pt1.start();
pt2.start();
pt3.start();
ct.start();
}
public static void main(String args[])
{
try
{
testclass t = new testclass();
t.begin();
}
catch(Exception e)
{
System.out.println("Exception caught - "+e);
}
}
}
It looks like you are dealing with threads and concurrency but not.
You are dealing with logical operators:
Your code
while(flag==false && getIndex()!=next)
wait();
If flag is true then your logical expression will be false and the execution will go on. What you really need is:
while(flag==false || getIndex()!=next)
wait();
There are so many things wrong with this code, it is hard to tell where the actual problem is. I strongly suggest that you upgrade your knowledge on threading first by reading a good book on the topic.
The major problem here is that you confuse thread priority with order of execution. In general the order of execution with threads is undefined, and unless you enforce the order, there is no order. The only thing that thread priority does is to specify which thread is put on hold if there are more running threads than CPUs that can execute them. It will not enforce any order of execution otherwise.
I.E. when several threads try to enter a synchronized function, then one of them is granted access, but which one that will be is not specified. It could be the high priority thread, but it could also be any other as well. Since all your functions are synchronized all threads are constantly put on hold, therefore even thread priority won't do a thing, because most of the time threads are waiting on their lock anyways.
What is a way to simply wait for all threaded process to finish? For example, let's say I have:
public class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable{
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int n=0; n<1000; n++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new DoSomethingInAThread());
t.start();
}
// wait for all threads' run() methods to complete before continuing
}
public void run() {
// do something here
}
}
How do I alter this so the main() method pauses at the comment until all threads' run() methods exit? Thanks!
You put all threads in an array, start them all, and then have a loop
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
Each join will block until the respective thread has completed. Threads may complete in a different order than you joining them, but that's not a problem: when the loop exits, all threads are completed.
One way would be to make a List of Threads, create and launch each thread, while adding it to the list. Once everything is launched, loop back through the list and call join() on each one. It doesn't matter what order the threads finish executing in, all you need to know is that by the time that second loop finishes executing, every thread will have completed.
A better approach is to use an ExecutorService and its associated methods:
List<Callable> callables = ... // assemble list of Callables here
// Like Runnable but can return a value
ExecutorService execSvc = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
List<Future<?>> results = execSvc.invokeAll(callables);
// Note: You may not care about the return values, in which case don't
// bother saving them
Using an ExecutorService (and all of the new stuff from Java 5's concurrency utilities) is incredibly flexible, and the above example barely even scratches the surface.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
public class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws ExecutionException, InterruptedException
{
//limit the number of actual threads
int poolSize = 10;
ExecutorService service = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(poolSize);
List<Future<Runnable>> futures = new ArrayList<Future<Runnable>>();
for (int n = 0; n < 1000; n++)
{
Future f = service.submit(new DoSomethingInAThread());
futures.add(f);
}
// wait for all tasks to complete before continuing
for (Future<Runnable> f : futures)
{
f.get();
}
//shut down the executor service so that this thread can exit
service.shutdownNow();
}
public void run()
{
// do something here
}
}
instead of join(), which is an old API, you can use CountDownLatch. I have modified your code as below to fulfil your requirement.
import java.util.concurrent.*;
class DoSomethingInAThread implements Runnable{
CountDownLatch latch;
public DoSomethingInAThread(CountDownLatch latch){
this.latch = latch;
}
public void run() {
try{
System.out.println("Do some thing");
latch.countDown();
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public class CountDownLatchDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
try{
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1000);
for (int n=0; n<1000; n++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new DoSomethingInAThread(latch));
t.start();
}
latch.await();
System.out.println("In Main thread after completion of 1000 threads");
}catch(Exception err){
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Explanation:
CountDownLatch has been initialized with given count 1000 as per your requirement.
Each worker thread DoSomethingInAThread will decrement the CountDownLatch, which has been passed in constructor.
Main thread CountDownLatchDemo await() till the count has become zero. Once the count has become zero, you will get below line in output.
In Main thread after completion of 1000 threads
More info from oracle documentation page
public void await()
throws InterruptedException
Causes the current thread to wait until the latch has counted down to zero, unless the thread is interrupted.
Refer to related SE question for other options:
wait until all threads finish their work in java
Avoid the Thread class altogether and instead use the higher abstractions provided in java.util.concurrent
The ExecutorService class provides the method invokeAll that seems to do just what you want.
Consider using java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch. Examples in javadocs
Depending on your needs, you may also want to check out the classes CountDownLatch and CyclicBarrier in the java.util.concurrent package. They can be useful if you want your threads to wait for each other, or if you want more fine-grained control over the way your threads execute (e.g., waiting in their internal execution for another thread to set some state). You could also use a CountDownLatch to signal all of your threads to start at the same time, instead of starting them one by one as you iterate through your loop. The standard API docs have an example of this, plus using another CountDownLatch to wait for all threads to complete their execution.
As Martin K suggested java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch seems to be a better solution for this. Just adding an example for the same
public class CountDownLatchDemo
{
public static void main (String[] args)
{
int noOfThreads = 5;
// Declare the count down latch based on the number of threads you need
// to wait on
final CountDownLatch executionCompleted = new CountDownLatch(noOfThreads);
for (int i = 0; i < noOfThreads; i++)
{
new Thread()
{
#Override
public void run ()
{
System.out.println("I am executed by :" + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try
{
// Dummy sleep
Thread.sleep(3000);
// One thread has completed its job
executionCompleted.countDown();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}.start();
}
try
{
// Wait till the count down latch opens.In the given case till five
// times countDown method is invoked
executionCompleted.await();
System.out.println("All over");
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
If you make a list of the threads, you can loop through them and .join() against each, and your loop will finish when all the threads have. I haven't tried it though.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html#join()
Create the thread object inside the first for loop.
for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) {
threads[i] = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
// some code to run in parallel
}
});
threads[i].start();
}
And then so what everyone here is saying.
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
You can do it with the Object "ThreadGroup" and its parameter activeCount:
As an alternative to CountDownLatch you can also use CyclicBarrier e.g.
public class ThreadWaitEx {
static CyclicBarrier barrier = new CyclicBarrier(100, new Runnable(){
public void run(){
System.out.println("clean up job after all tasks are done.");
}
});
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new MyCallable(barrier));
t.start();
}
}
}
class MyCallable implements Runnable{
private CyclicBarrier b = null;
public MyCallable(CyclicBarrier b){
this.b = b;
}
#Override
public void run(){
try {
//do something
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" is waiting for barrier after completing his job.");
b.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
To use CyclicBarrier in this case barrier.await() should be the last statement i.e. when your thread is done with its job. CyclicBarrier can be used again with its reset() method. To quote javadocs:
A CyclicBarrier supports an optional Runnable command that is run once per barrier point, after the last thread in the party arrives, but before any threads are released. This barrier action is useful for updating shared-state before any of the parties continue.
The join() was not helpful to me. see this sample in Kotlin:
val timeInMillis = System.currentTimeMillis()
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
for (i in 1..5) {
val t = Thread(Runnable {
Thread.sleep(50)
var a = i
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "a=$a")
Thread.sleep(200)
for (j in 1..5) {
a *= j
Thread.sleep(100)
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "$a*$j=$a")
}
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|TaskDurationInMillis = " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - timeInMillis))
})
t.start()
}
})
The result:
Thread-5|a=5
Thread-1|a=1
Thread-3|a=3
Thread-2|a=2
Thread-4|a=4
Thread-2|2*1=2
Thread-3|3*1=3
Thread-1|1*1=1
Thread-5|5*1=5
Thread-4|4*1=4
Thread-1|2*2=2
Thread-5|10*2=10
Thread-3|6*2=6
Thread-4|8*2=8
Thread-2|4*2=4
Thread-3|18*3=18
Thread-1|6*3=6
Thread-5|30*3=30
Thread-2|12*3=12
Thread-4|24*3=24
Thread-4|96*4=96
Thread-2|48*4=48
Thread-5|120*4=120
Thread-1|24*4=24
Thread-3|72*4=72
Thread-5|600*5=600
Thread-4|480*5=480
Thread-3|360*5=360
Thread-1|120*5=120
Thread-2|240*5=240
Thread-1|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-3|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-4|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-5|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Thread-2|TaskDurationInMillis = 765
Now let me use the join() for threads:
val timeInMillis = System.currentTimeMillis()
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
for (i in 1..5) {
val t = Thread(Runnable {
Thread.sleep(50)
var a = i
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "a=$a")
Thread.sleep(200)
for (j in 1..5) {
a *= j
Thread.sleep(100)
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|" + "$a*$j=$a")
}
kotlin.io.println(Thread.currentThread().name + "|TaskDurationInMillis = " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - timeInMillis))
})
t.start()
t.join()
}
})
And the result:
Thread-1|a=1
Thread-1|1*1=1
Thread-1|2*2=2
Thread-1|6*3=6
Thread-1|24*4=24
Thread-1|120*5=120
Thread-1|TaskDurationInMillis = 815
Thread-2|a=2
Thread-2|2*1=2
Thread-2|4*2=4
Thread-2|12*3=12
Thread-2|48*4=48
Thread-2|240*5=240
Thread-2|TaskDurationInMillis = 1568
Thread-3|a=3
Thread-3|3*1=3
Thread-3|6*2=6
Thread-3|18*3=18
Thread-3|72*4=72
Thread-3|360*5=360
Thread-3|TaskDurationInMillis = 2323
Thread-4|a=4
Thread-4|4*1=4
Thread-4|8*2=8
Thread-4|24*3=24
Thread-4|96*4=96
Thread-4|480*5=480
Thread-4|TaskDurationInMillis = 3078
Thread-5|a=5
Thread-5|5*1=5
Thread-5|10*2=10
Thread-5|30*3=30
Thread-5|120*4=120
Thread-5|600*5=600
Thread-5|TaskDurationInMillis = 3833
As it's clear when we use the join:
The threads are running sequentially.
The first sample takes 765 Milliseconds while the second sample takes 3833 Milliseconds.
Our solution to prevent blocking other threads was creating an ArrayList:
val threads = ArrayList<Thread>()
Now when we want to start a new thread we most add it to the ArrayList:
addThreadToArray(
ThreadUtils.startNewThread(Runnable {
...
})
)
The addThreadToArray function:
#Synchronized
fun addThreadToArray(th: Thread) {
threads.add(th)
}
The startNewThread funstion:
fun startNewThread(runnable: Runnable) : Thread {
val th = Thread(runnable)
th.isDaemon = false
th.priority = Thread.MAX_PRIORITY
th.start()
return th
}
Check the completion of the threads as below everywhere it's needed:
val notAliveThreads = ArrayList<Thread>()
for (t in threads)
if (!t.isAlive)
notAliveThreads.add(t)
threads.removeAll(notAliveThreads)
if (threads.size == 0){
// The size is 0 -> there is no alive threads.
}
The problem with:
for(i = 0; i < threads.length; i++)
threads[i].join();
...is, that threads[i + 1] never can join before threads[i].
Except the "latch"ed ones, all solutions have this lack.
No one here (yet) mentioned ExecutorCompletionService, it allows to join threads/tasks according to their completion order:
public class ExecutorCompletionService<V>
extends Object
implements CompletionService<V>
A CompletionService that uses a supplied Executor to execute tasks. This class arranges that submitted tasks are, upon completion, placed on a queue accessible using take. The class is lightweight enough to be suitable for transient use when processing groups of tasks.
Usage Examples.
Suppose you have a set of solvers for a certain problem, each returning a value of some type Result, and would like to run them concurrently, processing the results of each of them that return a non-null value, in some method use(Result r). You could write this as:
void solve(Executor e, Collection<Callable<Result>> solvers) throws InterruptedException, ExecutionException {
CompletionService<Result> cs = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(e);
solvers.forEach(cs::submit);
for (int i = solvers.size(); i > 0; i--) {
Result r = cs.take().get();
if (r != null)
use(r);
}
}
Suppose instead that you would like to use the first non-null result of the set of tasks, ignoring any that encounter exceptions, and cancelling all other tasks when the first one is ready:
void solve(Executor e, Collection<Callable<Result>> solvers) throws InterruptedException {
CompletionService<Result> cs = new ExecutorCompletionService<>(e);
int n = solvers.size();
List<Future<Result>> futures = new ArrayList<>(n);
Result result = null;
try {
solvers.forEach(solver -> futures.add(cs.submit(solver)));
for (int i = n; i > 0; i--) {
try {
Result r = cs.take().get();
if (r != null) {
result = r;
break;
}
} catch (ExecutionException ignore) {}
}
} finally {
futures.forEach(future -> future.cancel(true));
}
if (result != null)
use(result);
}
Since: 1.5 (!)
Assuming use(r) (of Example 1) also asynchronous, we had a big advantage. #
So I have a code:
public void runThreads(int number)
{
List<Thread> threadList = new ArrayList<Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < number; i++)
{
Thread t = new MyThread(getRandomPerson(),i);
threadList.add(t);
}
for (Thread x : threadList)
{
x.start();
}
}
So I am adding threads to my list of threads and then starting this threads.
This is MyThread class:
public class MyThread extends Thread
{
Person person;
int number;
public MyThread(Person person, int number)
{
this.person = person;
this.number = number;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
try
{
synchronized (this)
{
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.println(number + "\t" + person.getSurname());
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.println(number + "\t" + person.toString());
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
I wanted to make a program which creates the threads, adds them to the list, invokes them but each thread should wait until the previous ended its task.
So output should be like :
1 Surname
/** Waitning second */
1 person.toString()
/** Waiting second*/
And then the second thread start invoking:
2 Surname
....
How to achieve this using synchronized? I tried different ways to use synchronized but it failed.
public class MyThread extends Thread
{
private static Object lock = new Object();
...
synchronized (lock)
{
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.println(number + "\t" + person.getSurname());
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.println(number + "\t" + person.toString());
}
...
That way you will get the same person's surname and toString() in order. You won't enforce strict ordering on the people, person 7 may still go before person 1.
You need a common lock - at the moment you are synchronizing on this, which is different for each thread. Try something like:
private static final Object lock = new Object();
and synchronize on that static (therefore shared) variable instead.
If you must use threads and if you must have order of execution, then you can do a t.join() immediately after t.start() - this will ensure the following flow:
- Main Thread
- loop
- start child thread
- wait for child thread to finish
- continue loop
- Exit Main thread
But, as pointed before, you don't need threads to do this since you can see that there is absolutely no gain from this approach (apart from academical) and it's detrimental in fact.
And special thanks to #assylias.