We Keep Coding

Notify seems to be waking up more than one thread

I am doing a sample program with wait() and notify(), but when notify() is called, more than one thread is wakes up instead of one.
The code is:
public class MyQueue<T> {
Object[] entryArr;
private volatile int addIndex;
private volatile int pending = -1;
private final Object lock = new Object();
private volatile long notifiedThreadId;
private int capacity;
public MyQueue(int capacity) {
entryArr = new Object[capacity];
this.capacity = capacity;
}
public void add(T t) {
synchronized (lock) {
if (pending >= 0) {
try {
pending++;
lock.wait();
System.out.println(notifiedThreadId + ":" + Thread.currentThread().getId());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
} else if (pending == -1) {
pending++;
}
}
if (addIndex == capacity) { // its ok to replace existing value
addIndex = 0;
}
try {
entryArr[addIndex] = t;
} catch (ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException e) {
System.out.println("ARRAYException:" + Thread.currentThread().getId() + ":" + pending + ":" + addIndex);
e.printStackTrace();
}
addIndex++;
synchronized (lock) {
if (pending > 0) {
pending--;
notifiedThreadId = Thread.currentThread().getId();
lock.notify();
} else if (pending == 0) {
pending--;
}
}
}
}
public class TestMyQueue {
public static void main(String args[]) {
final MyQueue<String> queue = new MyQueue<>(2);
for (int i = 0; i < 200; i++) {
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < Integer.MAX_VALUE; i++) {
queue.add(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ":" + i);
}
}
};
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.start();
}
}
}
After some time, I see two threads being wake up by single thread. The output looks like:
91:114
114:124
124:198
198:106
106:202
202:121
121:40
40:42
42:83
83:81
81:17
17:189
189:73
73:66
66:95
95:199
199:68
68:201
201:70
70:110
110:204
204:171
171:87
87:64
64:205
205:115
Here I see 115 thread notified two threads, and 84 thread notified two threads; because of this we are seeing the ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException.
115:84
115:111
84:203
84:200
ARRAYException:200:199:3
ARRAYException:203:199:3
What is the issue in the program?

What is the issue in the program?
You have a couple of problems with your code that may be causing this behavior. First, as #Holder commented on, there are a lot of code segments that can be run by multiple threads simultaneously that should be protected using synchronized blocks.
For example:
if (addIndex == capacity) {
addIndex = 0;
}
If multiple threads run this then multiple threads might see addIndex == capacity and multiple would be overwriting the 0th index. Another example is:
addIndex++;
This is a classic race condition if 2 threads try to execute this statement at the same time. If addIndex was 0 beforehand, after the 2 threads execute this statement, the value of addIndex might be 1 or 2 depending on the race conditions.
Any statements that could be executed at the same time by multiple threads have to be properly locked within a synchronized block or otherwise protected. Even though you have volatile fields, there can still be race conditions because there are multiple operations being executed.
Also, a classic mistake is to use if statements when checking for over or under flows on your array. They should be while statements to make sure you don't have the class consumer producer race conditions. See my docs here or take a look at the associated SO question: Why does java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue use 'while' loops instead of 'if' around calls to await()?

Error in Two Process critical section solution

I have applied two process critical section solution to two threads instead of processes. My code is:
class Main
{
static boolean flag[];
static int turn;
static int count;
synchronized static void print(char ch,int n)
{
int i;
System.out.println(ch);
for(i=0;i<n;i++){
System.out.println(i);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException
{
flag = new boolean[2];
flag[0] = flag[1] = false;
turn = 0;
count = 0;
ThreadLevelOne t1 = new ThreadLevelOne('a');
ThreadLevelTwo t2 = new ThreadLevelTwo('b');
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
static class ThreadLevelOne extends Thread{
private char ch;
public ThreadLevelOne(char ch){
this.ch = ch;
}
public void run(){
while(true)
{
flag[0] = true;
turn = 1;
while(flag[1] && turn == 1);
print(ch,3);
count++;
System.out.println("Counter is : " + count);
flag[0] = false;
}
}
}
static class ThreadLevelTwo extends Thread{
private char ch;
public ThreadLevelTwo(char ch){
this.ch = ch;
}
public void run()
{
while(true)
{
flag[1] = true;
turn = 0;
while(flag[0] && turn == 0);
print( ch, 4);
count++;
System.out.println("Counter is : " + count);
flag[1] = false;
}
}
}
}
On executing the above code, it does not run infinitely but halts at arbitrary counter value on each execution. Is this a valid application of the two process solution to threads? If yes, then why is program halting at arbitrary counter value? If no, then how can this be achieved in threads?
Edit after the answer of codeBlind:
output: Program execution halts at this stage
Even if i dont increment the counter value, then also the program halts after a certain time

You're a victim of concurrently executing non-atomic operations, specifically count++, as well as the way you are using flags in each thread. But for simplicity's sake, let's talk about count++. The ++ operator actually executes three commands, each in their own clock-cycle:
read value of count
add 1 to value retrieved from count
store new value into count
The problem you're seeing is a result of these commands being interleaved across two threads. Thread A may not have stored the new count value by the time that Thread B attempts to read it.
A quick fix would be to use AtomicInteger for count instead of primitive int - AtomicInteger guarantees thread safety for integer operations.
EDIT
There are other race conditions in this code as well. Each thread's while loop argument (e.g. flag[0] && turn == 0) is non-atomic, but both threads are capable of modifying turn. You've left open the possibility that one thread could set turn before the other thread's while argument is fully evaluated, causing your threads to deadlock down the road.
If you only wish to guarantee that each thread must not be inside the while loop while the other thread is, then you should instead write each of your while loops to look something like this:
while(true){
synchronized(Main.class){
print( ch, 4);
count++;
System.out.println("Counter is : " + count);
}
}
If you want to guarantee that each thread must "take turns", you should look into using wait() and notify().

Ok so I figured it out, the issue is that each thread needs to pause in order for the other thread to run.
Instead of just spinning the cpu using:
while(flag[0] && turn == 0);
You need to pause the thread by calling the sleep method.
while(flag[0] && turn == 0){
try {
this.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}

Depth-first search terminating early

I'm creating a program in Java that solves the n-puzzle, without using heuristics, simply just with depth-first and breadth-first searches of the state space. I'm struggling a little bit with my implementation of depth-first search. Sometimes it will solve the given puzzle, but other times it seems to give up early.
Here's my DFS class. DepthFirstSearch() is passed a PuzzleBoard, which is initially generated by shuffling a solved board (to ensure that the board is in a solvable state).
public class DepthFirst {
static HashSet<PuzzleBoard> usedStates = new HashSet<PuzzleBoard>();
public static void DepthFirstSearch(PuzzleBoard currentBoard)
{
// If the current state is the goal, stop.
if (PuzzleSolver.isGoal(currentBoard)) {
System.out.println("Solved!");
System.exit(0);
}
// If we haven't encountered the state before,
// attempt to find a solution from that point.
if (!usedStates.contains(currentBoard)) {
usedStates.add(currentBoard);
PuzzleSolver.print(currentBoard);
if (PuzzleSolver.blankCoordinates(currentBoard)[1] != 0) {
System.out.println("Moving left");
DepthFirstSearch(PuzzleSolver.moveLeft(currentBoard));
}
if (PuzzleSolver.blankCoordinates(currentBoard)[0] != PuzzleSolver.n-1) {
System.out.println("Moving down");
DepthFirstSearch(PuzzleSolver.moveDown(currentBoard));
}
if (PuzzleSolver.blankCoordinates(currentBoard)[1] != PuzzleSolver.n-1) {
System.out.println("Moving right");
DepthFirstSearch(PuzzleSolver.moveRight(currentBoard));
}
if (PuzzleSolver.blankCoordinates(currentBoard)[0] != 0) {
System.out.println("Moving up");
DepthFirstSearch(PuzzleSolver.moveUp(currentBoard));
}
return;
} else {
// Move up a level in the recursive calls
return;
}
}
}
I can assert that my moveUp(), moveLeft(), moveRight(), and moveDown() methods and logic work correctly, so the problem must lie somewhere else.
Here's my PuzzleBoard object class with the hashCode and equals methods:
static class PuzzleBoard {
short[][] state;
/**
* Default constructor for a board of size n
* #param n Size of the board
*/
public PuzzleBoard(short n) {
state = PuzzleSolver.getGoalState(n);
}
public PuzzleBoard(short n, short[][] initialState) {
state = initialState;
}
#Override
public int hashCode() {
final int prime = 31;
int result = 1;
result = prime * result + Arrays.deepHashCode(state);
return result;
}
#Override
public boolean equals(Object obj) {
if (this == obj) {
return true;
}
if (obj == null) {
return false;
}
if (getClass() != obj.getClass()) {
return false;
}
PuzzleBoard other = (PuzzleBoard) obj;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < n; j++) {
if (state[i][j] != other.state[i][j])
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
}
As previously stated, sometimes the search works properly and finds a path to the solution, but other times it stops before it finds a solution and before it runs out of memory.
Here is a snippet of the output, beginning a few moves before the search stops searching.
...
Moving down
6 1 3
5 8 2
0 7 4
Moving right
6 1 3
5 8 2
7 0 4
Moving left
Moving right
Moving up
6 1 3
5 0 2
7 8 4
Moving left
Moving down
Moving right
Moving up
Moving up
Moving right
Moving down
Moving up
Moving down
Moving up
Moving down
Moving up
Moving down
Moving up
Moving down
...
I truncated it early for brevity, but it ends up just moving up and down dozens of times and never hits the solved state.
Can anyone shed light on what I'm doing wrong?
Edit: Here is MoveUp(). The rest of the move methods are implemented in the same way.
/**
* Move the blank space up
* #return The new state of the board after the move
*/
static PuzzleBoard moveUp(PuzzleBoard currentState) {
short[][] newState = currentState.state;
short col = blankCoordinates(currentState)[0];
short row = blankCoordinates(currentState)[1];
short targetCol = col;
short targetRow = row;
newState[targetCol][targetRow] = currentState.state[col - 1][row];
newState[targetCol - 1][targetRow] = 0;
return new PuzzleBoard(n, newState);
}

I have had many problems with hashset in the past best thing to try is not to store object in hashset but try to encode your object into string.
Here is a way to do it:-
StringBuffer encode(PuzzleBoard b) {
StringBuffer buff = new StringBuffer();
for(int i=0;i<b.n;i++) {
for(int j=0;j<b.n;j++) {
// "," is used as separator
buff.append(","+b.state[i][j]);
}
}
return buff;
}
Make two changes in the code:-
if(!usedStates.contains(encode(currentBoard))) {
usedStates.add(encode(currentBoard));
......
}
Note:- Here no need to write your own hashcode function & also no need to implement equals function as java has done it for you in StringBuffer.

I got one of the problems in your implementation:-
In th following code:-
static PuzzleBoard moveUp(PuzzleBoard currentState) {
short[][] newState = currentState.state;
short col = blankCoordinates(currentState)[0];
short row = blankCoordinates(currentState)[1];
short targetCol = col;
short targetRow = row;
newState[targetCol][targetRow] = currentState.state[col - 1][row];
newState[targetCol - 1][targetRow] = 0;
return new PuzzleBoard(n, newState);
}
Here you are using the reference of same array as newState from currentState.state so when you make changes to newState your currentState.state will also change which will affect DFS when the call returns. To prevent that you should initialize a new array. Heres what to be done:-
static PuzzleBoard moveUp(PuzzleBoard currentState) {
short[][] newState = new short[n][n];
short col = blankCoordinates(currentState)[0];
short row = blankCoordinates(currentState)[1];
short targetCol = col;
short targetRow = row;
for(int i=0;i<n;i++) {
for(int j=0;j<n;j++) {
newState[i][j] = currentState.state[i][j];
}
}
newState[targetCol][targetRow] = currentState.state[col - 1][row];
newState[targetCol - 1][targetRow] = 0;
return new PuzzleBoard(n, newState);
}
Do this change for all moveup,movedown....
Moreover I donot think your hashset is working properly because if it was then you would always find your new state in hashset and your program would stop. As in equals you comparing the state arrays with same reference hence will always get true. Please try and use my encode function as hash.

Thread missing updates from other threads

I have created three threads in a java program. One is the main program, the others are two classes that extend Thread. The main thread represent a controller for a machine. Another thread is the actuators and the third is the sensors. The controller sets variables in its own class which is read by the actuator thread. The actuator performs certain actions according to the instructions and update its own internal variables. These are in turn read by the sensor thread which reads the actuator variables (representing real world actions) and sets its own internal variables which in turn is read by the controller and we have come full circle. The controller then sets variables according to the new sensed world etc.
The actuators are in a eternal loop sleeping 100 ms in each loop.
The sensors are also in an eternal loop sleeping 20ms per loop.
The system almost works. The main loop will miss the updates from the sensor unless I add a sleep to it as well. My question is now why that is? Even sleep(0) makes the system work. I've placed the statement inside the performJob(Job input) while loop. How does the java main thread without a sleep call act differently than the same thread with?
Concurrency is a fairly new subject to me.
This is the code I am using:
Main:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Controller Press = new Controller();
Press.processUnits(1); // no reset code at the moment, only use 1 at a time
Press.shutdownThreads();
}
}
Controller:
import java.util.LinkedList;
public class Controller extends Thread {
// Constants
static final int STATE_WAITING = 0;
static final int STATE_MOVE_ARMS = 1;
static final int STATE_MOVE_PRESS = 2;
static final int LOADINGARM = 2;
static final int UNLOADINGARM = 1;
static final int NOARM = 0;
static final boolean EXTEND = true;
static final boolean RETRACT = false;
private enum Jobs {
EXTENDRETRACT, ROTATE, MAGNETONOFF, PRESSLOWERRAISE
}
// Class variables
private int currentState;
// Component instructions
private int armChoice = 0;
private boolean bool = false; // on, up, extend / off, down, retract
private boolean[] rotInstr = {false, false}; // {rotate?, left true/right false}
private boolean errorHasOccurred = false;
private boolean pressDir = false;
private Sensors sense = null;
private Actuators act = null;
private LinkedList<Job> queue = null;
// Constructor
public Controller() {
act = new Actuators(0.0f, this);
sense = new Sensors();
act.start();
sense.start();
currentState = STATE_WAITING;
queue = new LinkedList<Job>();
}
// Methods
int[] getArmInstructions() {
int extret = (bool) ? 1 : 0;
int[] ret = {armChoice, extret};
return ret;
}
boolean[] getRotation() {
return rotInstr;
}
int getControllerState() {
return currentState;
}
boolean getPressDirection() {
return pressDir;
}
public boolean processUnits(int nAmount) {
if (run(nAmount)) {
System.out.println("Controller: All units have been processed successfully.");
return true;
} else { // procUnits returning false means something went wrong
System.out.println("Controller: An error has occured. The process cannot complete.");
return false;
}
}
/*
* This is the main run routine. Here the controller analyses its internal state and its sensors
* to determine what is happening. To control the arms and press, it sets variables, these symbolize
* the instructions that are sent to the actuators. The actuators run in a separate thread which constantly
* reads instructions from the controller and act accordingly. The sensors and actuators are dumb, they
* will only do what they are told, and if they malfunction it is up to the controller to detect dangers or
* malfunctions and either abort or correct.
*/
private boolean run(int nUnits) {
/*
Here depending on internal state, different actions will take place. The process uses a queue of jobs
to keep track of what to do, it reads a job, sets the variables and then waits until that job has finished
according to the sensors, it will listen to all the sensors to make sure the correct sequence of events is
taking place. The controller reads the sensor information from the sensor thread which runs on its own
similar to the controller.
In state waiting the controller is waiting for input, when given the thread cues up the appropriate sequence of jobs
and changes its internal state to state move arms
In Move arms, the controller is actively updating its variables as its jobs are performed,
In this state the jobs are, extend, retract and rotate, pickup and drop.
From this state it is possible to go to move press state once certain conditions apply
In Move Press state, the controller through its variables control the press, the arms must be out of the way!
In this state the jobs are press goes up or down. Pressing is taking place at the topmost position, middle position is for drop off
and lower is for pickup. When the press is considered done, the state reverts to move arms,
*/
//PSEUDO CODE:
//This routine being called means that there are units to be processed
//Make sure the controller is not in a blocking state, that is, it shut down previously due to errors
//dangers or malfunctions
//If all ok - ASSUMED SO AS COMPONENTS ARE FAULT FREE IN THIS VERSION
if (!errorHasOccurred) {
//retract arms
currentState = STATE_MOVE_ARMS;
queue.add(new Job(Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT, LOADINGARM, RETRACT));
queue.add(new Job(Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT, UNLOADINGARM, RETRACT));
performWork();
//System.out.println("Jobs added");
//while there are still units to process
for (;nUnits != 0; nUnits--) {
//move the press to lower position, for unloading
currentState = STATE_MOVE_PRESS;
//rotate to pickup area and pickup the metal, also pickup processed
currentState = STATE_MOVE_ARMS;
queue.add(new Job(Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT, LOADINGARM, EXTEND));
queue.add(new Job(Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT, UNLOADINGARM, EXTEND));
performWork();
//retract and rotate
queue.add(new Job(Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT, LOADINGARM, RETRACT));
queue.add(new Job(Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT, UNLOADINGARM, RETRACT));
performWork();
//state change, press moves to middle position
currentState = STATE_MOVE_PRESS;
//state change back, put the metal on the press, drop processed and pull arms back
currentState = STATE_MOVE_ARMS;
queue.add(new Job(Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT, LOADINGARM, EXTEND));
queue.add(new Job(Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT, UNLOADINGARM, EXTEND));
queue.add(new Job(Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT, LOADINGARM, RETRACT));
queue.add(new Job(Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT, UNLOADINGARM, RETRACT));
performWork();
//state change, press the metal in upper position
currentState = STATE_MOVE_PRESS;
//repeat until done
}
//unload final piece
//move the press to lower position for unload
//rotate and pickup processed piece
//drop it off at unloading and wait for more orders
currentState = STATE_WAITING;
}
return true;
}
private boolean performWork() {
while (!queue.isEmpty()) {
performJob(queue.removeFirst());
}
return true;
}
private boolean performJob(Job input) {
//The purpose of this function is to update the variables and wait until they are completed
// read in the job and check appropriate sensors
boolean[] data = sense.getSensorData(); // LExt, LRet, UlExt, UlRet
printBools(data);
int Instruction = input.Instruction;
boolean skipVars = false;
if (input.Job == Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT) {
if (currentState != STATE_MOVE_ARMS){
System.out.println("Wrong state in performJob. State is "+currentState+" expected "+STATE_MOVE_ARMS);
return false;
}
if ((Instruction == LOADINGARM) && (input.Bool)) skipVars = data[0];
if ((Instruction == LOADINGARM) && (!input.Bool)) skipVars = data[1];
if ((Instruction == UNLOADINGARM) && (input.Bool)) skipVars = data[2];
if ((Instruction == UNLOADINGARM) && (!input.Bool)) skipVars = data[3];
}
if (!skipVars) {
// if sensors not at intended values, update correct variables
System.out.println("Controller: Did not skip vars");
switch (input.Job) {
case EXTENDRETRACT:
armChoice = (Instruction == LOADINGARM) ? LOADINGARM : UNLOADINGARM;
bool = input.Bool;
break;
case ROTATE:
break;
case MAGNETONOFF:
break;
case PRESSLOWERRAISE:
break;
default:
System.out.println("Default called in performJob()");
break;
}
}
// listen to sensors until completed
boolean done = false;
System.out.println("Waiting for sensor data.");
//System.out.print("Instruction is "+Instruction+" and bool is "); if (input.Bool) System.out.print("true\n"); else System.out.print("false\n");
while (!done) {
data = sense.getSensorData();
// REMOVING THIS TRY STATEMENT BREAKS THE PROGRAM
try {
Thread.currentThread().sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread couldn't sleep.");
}
// Check appropriate sensors
if (input.Job == Jobs.EXTENDRETRACT) {
if ((Instruction == LOADINGARM) && (input.Bool)) done = data[0];
if ((Instruction == LOADINGARM) && (!input.Bool)) done = data[1];
if ((Instruction == UNLOADINGARM) && (input.Bool)) done = data[2];
if ((Instruction == UNLOADINGARM) && (!input.Bool)) done = data[3];
}
}
// reset all variables
armChoice = 0;
bool = false;
// when done return
System.out.println("Finished "+input.Job);
return true;
}
public void shutdownThreads() {
sense.shutDown();
act.shutDown();
}
private class Job {
// Class variables
Jobs Job;
int Instruction;
boolean Bool; // used for directions, up/down, left/right, extend/retract
// Constructor
Job(Jobs newJob, int newInstruction, boolean dir) {
Job = newJob;
Instruction = newInstruction;
Bool = dir;
}
}
private void printBools(boolean[] input) {
System.out.println();
for (int i = 0; i < input.length; i++) {
if (input[i]) System.out.print("true "); else System.out.print("false ");
}
System.out.println();
}
}
Actuators:
public class Actuators extends Thread {
// Constants
private final int ARM = 0, ROTATE = 0; // array indexes - which arm, rotate yes/no?
private final int DIR = 1, ROTDIR = 1; // array indexes - which direction ext/ret, rotate direction
private final int EXT = 1;//, RET = 0;
private final double ARM_SPEED = 5.0;
// Class variables
private Controller Owner = null;
private boolean run = true;
// Constructor
Actuators(float nPos, Controller Owner) {
Reality.changeAngle(nPos);
this.Owner = Owner;
}
// Methods
private void rotate(boolean dir) {
float nAngle = dir ? 0.1f : -0.1f;
Reality.changeAngle(nAngle);
}
public void run() {
while (run) {
try {
sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Actuators couldn't sleep");
}
// read variables in controller
int nState = Owner.getControllerState();
if (nState == Controller.STATE_MOVE_ARMS) {
boolean[] rot = Owner.getRotation();
if (rot[ROTATE]) { // Rotation?
rotate(rot[ROTDIR]);
} else { // or arm extensions
int[] instr = Owner.getArmInstructions();
if (instr[ARM] != Controller.NOARM) { // 0 = no arm movement
//System.out.println("Actuator arm is "+instr[ARM]);
double dir = (instr[DIR] == EXT) ? ARM_SPEED : -ARM_SPEED; // 1 = extend, 0 = retract
Reality.changeArmLength(instr[ARM], dir);
}
}
}
}
}
void shutDown() {
run = false;
}
}
Reality is a class composed of static fields and methods, written to by the actuators and read by sensors.
public class Reality {
// Constants
static private final double EXTEND_LIMIT = 100.0;
static private final double RETRACT_LIMIT = 0.0;
// Variables
private static float ArmsAngle = 0.0f;
// Read by Sensor
static double LoadingArmPos = 0.0;
static double UnloadingArmPos = 0.0;
// Methods
static void changeAngle(float newAngle) {
ArmsAngle = ArmsAngle + newAngle;
if ((ArmsAngle < 0.0f) || (ArmsAngle > 90.0f))
System.out.println("Reality: Unallowed Angle");
}
static void changeArmLength(int nArm, double dPos) { // true = extend, false = retract
switch (nArm) {
case Controller.LOADINGARM:
LoadingArmPos += dPos;
checkArmPos(LoadingArmPos);
break;
case Controller.UNLOADINGARM:
UnloadingArmPos += dPos;
checkArmPos(UnloadingArmPos);
break;
default:
System.out.println("Arm other than 2 (load) or 1 (unload) in changeArmLength in Reality");
break;
}
}
static float senseAngle() {
return ArmsAngle;
}
static private boolean checkArmPos(double dPos) {
// Allowed positions are 100.0 to 0.0
if ((dPos > EXTEND_LIMIT) || (dPos < RETRACT_LIMIT)) {
System.out.println("Arm position impossible in reality. Is "+dPos);
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
}
Finally the sensors:
public class Sensors extends Thread {
// Constants
private final double EXTENDED = 100.0;
private final double RETRACTED = 0.0;
private final double MARGIN = 0.1;
// Class Variables
private boolean run = true;
// Read by Controller
private boolean LoadingExtended = true;
private boolean LoadingRetracted = true;
private boolean UnloadingExtended = true;
private boolean UnloadingRetracted = true;
// Constructor
Sensors() {
LoadingExtended = false;
LoadingRetracted = true;
UnloadingExtended = false;
UnloadingRetracted = true;
}
// Methods
boolean senseLoadingExtended() {
return (Math.abs(Reality.LoadingArmPos - EXTENDED) < MARGIN);
}
boolean senseLoadingRetracted() {
return (Math.abs(Reality.LoadingArmPos - RETRACTED) < MARGIN);
}
boolean senseUnloadingExtended() {
return (Math.abs(Reality.UnloadingArmPos - EXTENDED) < MARGIN);
}
boolean senseUnloadingRetracted() {
return (Math.abs(Reality.UnloadingArmPos - RETRACTED) < MARGIN);
}
// called by Controller
boolean[] getSensorData() {
boolean[] ret = {LoadingExtended, LoadingRetracted, UnloadingExtended, UnloadingRetracted};
return ret;
}
// Sensor primary loop
public void run() {
while (run) {
try {
sleep(20);
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Sensors couldn't sleep");
}
LoadingExtended = senseLoadingExtended();
LoadingRetracted = senseLoadingRetracted();
UnloadingExtended = senseUnloadingExtended();
UnloadingRetracted = senseUnloadingRetracted();
}
}
void shutDown() {
run = false;
}
}
Not all fields and functions are read in this version. The program is a reworking of a previous single thread application mostly using function calls. I've cleaned up the code a bit for readability. Constructive design remarks are welcome even though it was not the original question. There is something really fishy going on. I am usually not a superstitious coder but I can for example replace the sleep call with a System.out.println() call and the program will work.

Google for 'Producer consumer queue'.
Don't use sleep() for inter-thread comms unless you want latency, inefficiency and lost data. There are much better mechanisms available that avoid sleep() and trying to read valid data directly from some shared/locked object.
If you load up 'comms' objects with commands/requests/data, queue them off to other threads and immediately create another comms object for subsequent communication, your inter-thread comms will be fast and safe, no sleep() latency and no chance of any thread reading data that is stale or being changed by another thread.

What occurred here was most probably a Memory Consistency Error. When the controller class set the internal control variables and then entered the loop waiting for sensors it most likely prevented the Actuators and Sensors classes from properly updating the readings seen to the controller and as such prevented the controller from seeing the correct values. By adding the synchronize statement to all functions which read from another class the problem was solved. I can only speculate that the sleep call had the controller thread enter a synchronized block of some kind which let the other threads' changes to the variables become visible.

Which JVM are you using?
As fast workaround you can set volatile for fields that shared between threads.
Also please look to actors' approach for messaging: http://doc.akka.io/docs/akka/snapshot/java/untyped-actors.html

comparison of code performance, threaded versus non-threaded

I have some thread-related questions, assuming the following code. Please ignore the possible inefficiency of the code, I'm only interested in the thread part.
//code without thread use
public static int getNextPrime(int from) {
int nextPrime = from+1;
boolean superPrime = false;
while(!superPrime) {
boolean prime = true;
for(int i = 2;i &lt nextPrime;i++) {
if(nextPrime % i == 0) {
prime = false;
}
}
if(prime) {
superPrime = true;
} else {
nextPrime++;
}
}
return nextPrime;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int primeStart = 5;
ArrayList list = new ArrayList();
for(int i = 0;i &lt 10000;i++) {
list.add(primeStart);
primeStart = getNextPrime(primeStart);
}
}
If I'm running the code like this and it takes about 56 seconds. If, however, I have the following code (as an alternative):
public class PrimeRunnable implements Runnable {
private int from;
private int lastPrime;
public PrimeRunnable(int from) {
this.from = from;
}
public boolean isPrime(int number) {
for(int i = 2;i &lt from;i++) {
if((number % i) == 0) {
return false;
}
}
lastPrime = number;
return true;
}
public int getLastPrime() {
return lastPrime;
}
public void run() {
while(!isPrime(++from))
;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int primeStart = 5;
ArrayList list = new ArrayList();
for(int i = 0;i &lt 10000;i++) {
PrimeRunnable pr = new PrimeRunnable(primeStart);
Thread t = new Thread(pr);
t.start();
t.join();
primeStart = pr.getLastPrime();
list.add(primeStart);
}
}
The whole operation takes about 7 seconds. I am almost certain that even though I only create one thread at a time, a thread doesn't always finish when another is created. Is that right? I am also curious: why is the operation ending so fast?
When I'm joining a thread, do other threads keep running in the background, or is the joined thread the only one that's running?

By putting the join() in the loop, you're starting a thread, then waiting for that thread to stop before running the next one. I think you probably want something more like this:
public static void main(String[] args) {
int primeStart = 5;
// Make thread-safe list for adding results to
List list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList());
// Pull thread pool count out into a value so you can easily change it
int threadCount = 10000;
Thread[] threads = new Thread[threadCount];
// Start all threads
for(int i = 0;i < threadCount;i++) {
// Pass list to each Runnable here
// Also, I added +i here as I think the intention is
// to test 10000 possible numbers>5 for primeness -
// was testing 5 in all loops
PrimeRunnable pr = new PrimeRunnable(primeStart+i, list);
Thread[i] threads = new Thread(pr);
threads[i].start(); // thread is now running in parallel
}
// All threads now running in parallel
// Then wait for all threads to complete
for(int i=0; i<threadCount; i++) {
threads[i].join();
}
}
By the way pr.getLastPrime() will return 0 in the case of no prime, so you might want to filter that out before adding it to your list. The PrimeRunnable has to absorb the work of adding to the final results list. Also, I think PrimeRunnable was actually broken by still having incrementing code in it. I think this is fixed, but I'm not actually compiling this.
public class PrimeRunnable implements Runnable {
private int from;
private List results; // shared but thread-safe
public PrimeRunnable(int from, List results) {
this.from = from;
this.results = results;
}
public void isPrime(int number) {
for(int i = 2;i < from;i++) {
if((number % i) == 0) {
return;
}
}
// found prime, add to shared results
this.results.add(number);
}
public void run() {
isPrime(from); // don't increment, just check one number
}
}
Running 10000 threads in parallel is not a good idea. It's a much better idea to create a reasonably sized fixed thread pool and have them pull work from a shared queue. Basically every worker pulls tasks from the same queue, works on them and saves the results somewhere. The closest port of this with Java 5+ is to use an ExecutorService backed by a thread pool. You could also use a CompletionService which combines an ExecutorService with a result queue.
An ExecutorService version would look like:
public static void main(String[] args) {
int primeStart = 5;
// Make thread-safe list for adding results to
List list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList());
int threadCount = 16; // Experiment with this to find best on your machine
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threadCount);
int workCount = 10000; // See how # of work is now separate from # of threads?
for(int i = 0;i < workCount;i++) {
// submit work to the svc for execution across the thread pool
exec.execute(new PrimeRunnable(primeStart+i, list));
}
// Wait for all tasks to be done or timeout to go off
exec.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.DAYS);
}
Hope that gave you some ideas. And I hope the last example seemed a lot better than the first.

You can test this better by making the exact code in your first example run with threads. Sub your main method with this:
private static int currentPrime;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
for (currentPrime = 0; currentPrime < 10000; currentPrime++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
getNextPrime(currentPrime);
}});
t.run();
t.join();
}
}
This will run in the same time as the original.
To answer your "join" question: yes, other threads can be running in the background when you use "join", but in this particular case you will only have one active thread at a time, because you are blocking the creation of new threads until the last thread is done executing.

JesperE is right, but I don't believe in only giving hints (at least outside a classroom):
Note this loop in the non-threaded version:
for(int i = 2;i < nextPrime;i++) {
if(nextPrime % i == 0) {
prime = false;
}
}
As opposed to this in the threaded version:
for(int i = 2;i < from;i++) {
if((number % i) == 0) {
return false;
}
}
The first loop will always run completely through, while the second will exit early if it finds a divisor.
You could make the first loop also exit early by adding a break statement like this:
for(int i = 2;i < nextPrime;i++) {
if(nextPrime % i == 0) {
prime = false;
break;
}
}

Read your code carefully. The two cases aren't doing the same thing, and it has nothing to do with threads.
When you join a thread, other threads will run in the background, yes.

Running a test, the second one doesn't seem to take 9 seconds--in fact, it takes at least as long as the first (which is to be expected, threding can't help the way it's implemented in your example.
Thread.join will only return when the thread.joined terminates, then the current thread will continue, the one you called join on will be dead.
For a quick reference--think threading when starting one iteration does not depend on the result of the previous one.