We Keep Coding

For below program, when threads finish their work, why doesn't main thread stops?

This program works fine by printing alternate numbers via different threads but when all the numbers from 0-9 are printed Why does this program not stop? I have to manually stop my application.
public class EvenOddPrinter implements Runnable{
private AtomicInteger num = new AtomicInteger(0);
private Object lock = new Object();
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock){
while (num.get()<10){
System.out.println(num.getAndAdd(1) + " - "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
lock.notify();
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
public class Executor {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
EvenOddPrinter eop = new EvenOddPrinter();
Thread t1 = new Thread(eop);
Thread t2 = new Thread(eop);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}

that's because in the last Thread getting stuck at wait. notifyAll will notify all waiting thread if any there and release lock.
while (num.get()<10){
// existing implementation
}
lock.notifyAll();

The second thread t2 keeps waiting on the lock in the end, and t1 doesnt do the notify() anymore because the while condition becomes false. You must put a lock.notify(); statement outside of the while loop.

As soon as the number reached 8 the first thread calls notify() and goes to wait(). Second thread then makes the number 9 and calls notify() and goes to wait(). First thread is then not able to go inside the loop as specified in the condition, therefore, it exits the synchronized and block and finishes but second thread is still waiting. There has to be a mechanism to notifyAll() as soon as one of the threads exits the synchronized block which is exactly what I did.
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock){
while (num.get()<10){
System.out.println(num.getAndAdd(1) + " - "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
lock.notify();
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
lock.notifyAll();
}
Also, lock is pointless when I am using AtomicInteger (or the other way round).

Thread priority does not work as expected?

i made a program using Thread priority and i got the same number of clicks for both thread with priority 1 and thread with priority 10 , its confusing why i am getting this
class clicker implements Runnable {
int click = 0;
Thread t;
private volatile boolean running = true;
public clicker(int p) {
t = new Thread(this);
t.setPriority(p);
}
public void run() {
while (running) {
click++;
}
}
public void stop() {
running = false;
}
public void start() {
t.start();
}
}
class hilopri {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Thread.currentThread().setPriority(Thread.MAX_PRIORITY);
clicker hi = new clicker(1);
clicker lo = new clicker(10);
lo.start();
hi.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(10000);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread interrupted.");
}
lo.stop();
hi.stop();
// Wait for child threads to terminate.
try {
hi.t.join();
lo.t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("InterruptedException caught");
}
System.out.println("Low-priority thread: " + lo.click);
System.out.println("High-priority thread: " + hi.click);
}
}
the output is almost the same regardless of the priority
Low-priority thread: 322141133
High-priority thread: 477591649

Actually, the behavior of Thread Priority isn't guaranteed. Changing the priority is just a hint / suggestion to the underlying OS that can be totally ignored. A thread with low priority can get more CPU cycles than a thread with high priority. So, bottom line- don't write critical code based on Thread priority.

What #TheLostMind told you is all true, but here's something else to consider.
If your computer has more CPUs than you have runnable threads, then all of the runnable threads are going to be allowed to run. Priority (if it matters at all) can only matter when the threads are in contention for a scarce resource.

Last thread is not executing

I am very new to multithreading, was trying a scenario in which a home has a mother(as producer),son,daughter and husband[As consumer] thread.I am trying to understand how wait and notify method can help here.
My classes are as below.
MotherAsProducer
package com.test.All.Threads;
public enum MotherAsProducer {
INSTANCE;
/*
*
*
* son Give request to prepare chapati to mother
* mother accepts it and start preparing , son/husband/daughter should wait by that time.
* mother notifies son/daughtor/husband that chapati is ready start consuming
* */
public synchronized void takeOrderAndMakeChapati(){
try {
System.out.println("Request got from "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
getStatusOfChapati();
wait();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" ate chapati");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
//lock re-entrance
public synchronized void getStatusOfChapati(){
try {
Thread.sleep(1200);
System.out.println("Chapati is prepared for "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
notifyAll();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static MotherAsProducer getMotherInstance(){
return MotherAsProducer.INSTANCE;
}
}
SonAsConsumer class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class SonAsConsumer implements Runnable{
public void run(){
MotherAsProducer.getMotherInstance().takeOrderAndMakeChapati();
}
}
DaughterAsConsumer class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class DaughterAsConsumer implements Runnable {
public void run(){
MotherAsProducer.getMotherInstance().takeOrderAndMakeChapati();
}
}
HusbandAsConsumer class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class HusbandAsConsumer implements Runnable {
public void run(){
MotherAsProducer.getMotherInstance().takeOrderAndMakeChapati();
}
}
Home class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class Home {
public static void main(String args[]){
SonAsConsumer sac = new SonAsConsumer();
DaughterAsConsumer dac = new DaughterAsConsumer();
HusbandAsConsumer hac = new HusbandAsConsumer();
Thread tsac = new Thread(sac);
tsac.setName("Son");
Thread tdac = new Thread(dac);
tdac.setName("Daughter");
Thread thac = new Thread(hac);
thac.setName("Husband");
tsac.start();
tdac.start();
thac.start();
}
}
My output is different, every time as expected by nature of thread but one of the individual either husband, daughtor or son is not getting complete.
one instance of my output is as below.
Order she got from Daughter
Chapati is prepared for Daughter
Order she got from Son
Chapati is prepared for Son
Order she got from Husband
Chapati is prepared for Husband
Son ate chapati
Daughter ate chapati
My understanding here is when son,daughter and husband will start executing one of them will hit the synchronized method and execute wait() and will hold the lock , from that synchronized method again another synchronized method is called which will contain notify and the lock will be released and another thread will try to get the lock from the blocked pool and will execute in the same manner . here two threads are behaving as expected but the last one is not.
Kindly help here.

Briefly looking, it looks like the last thread to get to the wait will never get notified. Sequencing your calls you have each thread getting a lock, notifying all waiting threads, and then waiting. So, the last thread that hits the wait will never have anyone to notify them that they need to exit.
That is, if Thread A gets the lock initially, then it will do a println and a sleep then a println, then notify all waiting threads (there are none), and then become a waiting thread.
Then, lets say Thread B gets the lock. It will do a println and a sleep, then it will notify all (which will "notify" Thread A), then it will wait.
Now, either Thread C or Thread A will get the lock. If Thread A gets it, it will simply fall through and complete with the "ate" message. Then, Thread C can get the lock and it will eventually notify, waking B which can eat once C "waits". Now, there is no thread left to notify so that C will complete.
This make sense? Did I misread anything?
To verify what I'm suggesting is wrong, simply add in more threads. You should always have the last one that prints "Chapati is prepared for ..." will never eat it.
Fundamentally, I think the confusion is that "Mother" is not actually doing any work. What you probably wanted is to have "Mother" be a thread that has its own work log. So, when one of the other threads gives her work, you set a variable then notify mother and wait as the sibling. The mother will then wake up and do the work and notify the current thread waiting.
See what I mean? Metaphorically, you have 4 people in this program. But, you only have 3 threads.

Change the method in the enum class MotherAsProducer as follows: The unnecessary wait() method caused the issue. Since the method is synchronized, all other threads will be blocked before entering into the method until getting a notification from lock holding thread.
public synchronized void takeOrderAndMakeChapati() {
System.out.println("Request got from " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
getStatusOfChapati();
// wait(); - THIS WAIT IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " ate chapati");
}

Remove wait and notifyAll calls from both takeOrderAndMakeChapati and getStatusOfChapati. You will get the expected result.
As precisely mentioned by Josh, one of the threads (last one) is still waiting for some external notification, and there is nobody to notify. You code is still running in the background. Just call wait(5000) and you can see it happening.
Both methods takeOrderAndMakeChapati and getStatusOfChapati are synchronized, therefore synchronization is not the issue.
Generally threads wait for some external dependency or condition, where some other thread(s) notifies the waiting one, when that condition is fulfilled.

I also tried to understand wait and notify when I started with multithreading. But as soon as I learned to use a Semaphore, I never looked back. Hopefully, the example below will give you some insight into the benefits of using a Semaphore. There is also a lot more useful stuff in the java.util.concurrent package that can be of great help.
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class EatChapati {
static int CHAPATI_PREPARE_TIME_MS = 100;
static long RUN_TIME_MS = 2000;
static long SHUTDOWN_TIME_MS = 500;
static int CHAPATI_CONSUMERS = 5;
static volatile boolean stop;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for (int i = 0; i < CHAPATI_CONSUMERS; i++) {
executor.execute(new ChapatiConsumer(i + 1));
}
try { Thread.sleep(RUN_TIME_MS); } catch (Exception ignored) {}
stop = true;
executor.shutdownNow();
try { executor.awaitTermination(SHUTDOWN_TIME_MS, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS); } catch (Exception ignored) {}
}
// 1 producer making chapati's
// 'true' for a fair semaphore: longest waiting consumer gets served
static Semaphore chapatiTurn = new Semaphore(1, true);
static AtomicInteger chapatiCount = new AtomicInteger();
static int getChapati(int consumerNumber) {
int chapatiNumber = 0;
boolean haveTurn = false;
try {
chapatiTurn.acquire();
// start of 'synchronized' block
haveTurn = true;
Thread.sleep(CHAPATI_PREPARE_TIME_MS);
chapatiNumber = chapatiCount.incrementAndGet();
System.out.println("Chapati " + chapatiNumber + " prepared for consumer " + consumerNumber);
} catch (Exception e) {
// Triggered by executor.shutdownNow
stop = true;
} finally {
if (haveTurn) {
chapatiTurn.release();
// end of 'synchronized' block
}
}
return chapatiNumber;
}
static class ChapatiConsumer implements Runnable {
int number;
ChapatiConsumer(int number) {
this.number = number;
}
public void run() {
int chapatisConsumed = 0;
while (!stop) {
if (getChapati(number) > 0) {
chapatisConsumed++;
}
}
System.out.println("Consumer " + number + " stopped after consuming " + chapatisConsumed + " chapatis.");
}
}
}

Why doesn't thread wait for notify()?

Why doesn't thread wait for notify()? The thread starts and then goes to the waiting pool, but it proceeds to execute after that moment.
public class JavaApplication2 {
public static void main(String [] args) {
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
synchronized(b) {
b.start();
try {
System.out.println("1");
b.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
total += 1;
//notify();
}
}
}

You are synchronizing on the thread object itself, which is wrong usage. What happens is that the dying thread-of-execution always calls notify on its Thread object: Thread.join relies on this. Therefore it is clear why you get the same behavior with and without your own notify in there.
Solution: use a separate object for thread coordination; this is the standard practice.

The method notifyAll() is invoked for the Thread object of the terminating thread. This fact is strangely documented in the description of the Thread.join, with the following sentence:
As a thread terminates the this.notifyAll method is invoked. It is recommended that applications not use wait, notify, or notifyAll on Thread instances.
Thus, if you don't explicitly read the description of join, which you don't necessarily have to, you don't get to know the reason for the strange behavior.

You cannot depend on not returning from wait until a notify: "interrupts and spurious wakeups are possible". In general, you should wrap a wait call in a loop while the thread should go on waiting.

If you try your code synchronizing on any object other that ThreadB you will find it never terminates. This is because there is a hidden call to notify.
Although I am not aware of anywhere that this is specified, Thread notifies itself when it ends. This is implicit in the way the join method is implemented. This is the code for join:
public final synchronized void join(long millis)
throws InterruptedException {
long base = System.currentTimeMillis();
long now = 0;
if (millis < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("timeout value is negative");
}
if (millis == 0) {
while (isAlive()) {
wait(0);
}
} else {
while (isAlive()) {
long delay = millis - now;
if (delay <= 0) {
break;
}
wait(delay);
now = System.currentTimeMillis() - base;
}
}
}
(From the JDK7 source code)
As you can see, the calls to wait only make sense if somewhere there is a call to notify that is called after the thread ends. The same call to notify is what allows your program to terminate.

You have nested synchronized {} constructs in the two places. These constructs seem doing something weird: the thread does not react into notify at all and only resumes when ThreadB (b) terminates. Remove this:
public class JavaApplication2 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
try {
System.out.println(" ### Waiting for notify");
synchronized (b) {
b.wait();
}
System.out.println(" ### Notified");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println("### Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
#Override
public void run() {
total += 1;
System.out.println(" *** Ready to notify in 5 secs");
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println(" *** Notification sent");
synchronized (this) {
notify();
}
System.out.println(" *** 5 sec post notification");
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println(" *** ThreadB exits");
}
}
The code above probably works correctly: with notify() present the main thread resumes after 5 seconds and before we see the message that ThreadB terminates. With notify() commented out the main thread resumes after 10 seconds and after the message about the termination of the ThreadB because notify() is called anywhay from the other code. Marko Topolnik explains why and from where this "behind the scene" notify() call comes from.

I was doing the same testing on the wait/notify opertaions while reading OCP SE 7, good catch. I think we should let the authoer to explain.

Getting a thread to pause - Thread.wait()/Thread.notify()

I'm trying to understand how threads work, and I wrote a simple example where I want to create and start a new thread, the thread, display the numbers from 1 to 1000 in the main thread, resume the secondary thread, and display the numbers from 1 to 1000 in the secondary thread. When I leave out the Thread.wait()/Thread.notify() it behaves as expected, both threads display a few numbers at a time. When I add those functions in, for some reason the main thread's numbers are printed second instead of first. What am I doing wrong?
public class Main {
public class ExampleThread extends Thread {
public ExampleThread() {
System.out.println("ExampleThread's name is: " + this.getName());
}
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().go();
}
public void go() {
Thread t = new ExampleThread();
t.start();
synchronized(t) {
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
synchronized(t) {
t.notify();
}
}
}

You misunderstand how wait/notify works. wait does not block the thread on which it is called; it blocks the current thread until notify is called on the same object (so if you have threads A and B and, while in thread A, called B.wait(), this will stop thread A and not thread B - for as long as B.notify() is not called).
So, in your specific example, if you want main thread to execute first, you need to put wait() inside the secondary thread. Like this:
public class Main {
public class ExampleThread extends Thread {
public ExampleThread() {
System.out.println("ExampleThread's name is: " + this.getName());
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().go();
}
public void go() {
Thread t = new ExampleThread();
t.start();
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
synchronized(t) {
t.notify();
}
}
}
However, even this code may not work like you want. In a scenario where the main thread gets to the notify() part before the secondary thread had a chance to get to the wait() part (unlikely in your case, but still possible - you can observe it if you put Thread.sleep at the beginning of the secondary thread), the secondary thread will never be waken up. Therefore, the safest method would be something similar to this:
public class Main {
public class ExampleThread extends Thread {
public ExampleThread() {
System.out.println("ExampleThread's name is: " + this.getName());
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
try {
notify();
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().go();
}
public void go() {
Thread t = new ExampleThread();
synchronized (t) {
t.start();
try {
t.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
System.out.println(i);
}
synchronized(t) {
t.notify();
}
}
}
In this example the output is completely deterministic. Here's what happens:
Main thread creates a new t object.
Main thread gets a lock on the t monitor.
Main thread starts the t thread.
(these can happen in any order)
Secondary thread starts, but since main thread still owns the t monitor, the secondary thread cannot proceed and must wait (because its first statement is synchronized (this), not because it happens to be the t object - all the locks, notifies and waits could as well be done on an object completely unrelated to any of the 2 threads with the same result.
Primary thread continues, gets to the t.wait() part and suspends its execution, releasing the t monitor that it synchronized on.
Secondary thread gains ownership of t monitor.
Secondary thread calls t.notify(), waking the main thread. The main thread cannot continue just yet though, since the secondary thread still holds ownership of the t monitor.
Secondary thread calls t.wait(), suspends its execution and releases the t monitor.
Primary thread can finally continue, since the t monitor is now available.
Primary thread gains ownership of the t monitor but releases it right away.
Primary thread does its number counting thing.
Primary thread again gains ownership of the t monitor.
Primary thread calls t.notify(), waking the secondary thread. The secondary thread cannot continue just yet, because the primary thread still holds the t monitor.
Primary thread releases the t monitor and terminates.
Secondary thread gains ownership of the t monitor, but releases it right away.
Secondary thread does its number counting thing and then terminates.
The entire application terminates.
As you can see, even in such a deceptively simple scenario there is a lot going on.

You are lucky that your program terminates at all.
When you call t.wait() your main threads stops and waits indefinitely on a notification.
It never gets it, but I believe is awaken by spurious wakeup when the secondary thread finishes. (Read here on what a spurious wakeup is).

ExampleThread doesn't wait() or notify(), and isn't synchronized on anything. So it will run whenever it can without any coordination with other threads.
The main thread is waiting for a notification which never comes (this notification should be sent by another thread). My guess is that when the ExampleThread dies, the main thread is woken "spuriously," and completes.
The thread that should wait for another to complete must perform the call to wait() inside a loop that checks for a condition:
class ExampleThread extends Thread {
private boolean ready = false;
synchronized void ready() {
ready = true;
notifyAll();
}
#Override
public void run() {
/* Wait to for readiness to be signaled. */
synchronized (this) {
while (!ready)
try {
wait();
} catch(InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
return; /* Interruption means abort. */
}
}
/* Now do your work. */
...
Then in your main thread:
ExampleThread t = new ExampleThread();
t.start();
/* Do your work. */
...
/* Then signal the other thread. */
t.ready();