How to consume in Producer-Consumer using Semphores?

How to consume in Producer-Consumer using Semphores? - java

I am trying out the Producer-Consumer problem using Semaphore. The program looks fine to me except for one place.
public class ProducerConsumerWithSemaphores
{
private final ArrayList<Integer> list = new ArrayList<>(5);
private final Semaphore semaphoreProducer = new Semaphore(1);
private final Semaphore semaphoreConsumer = new Semaphore(0);
private void produce() throws InterruptedException
{
for(int i = 0;i< 5;i++)
{
semaphoreProducer.acquire();
list.add(i);
System.out.println("Produced: " + i);
semaphoreConsumer.release();
}
}
private void consumer() throws InterruptedException
{
while (!list.isEmpty()) /// This line is where I have the doubt
{
semaphoreConsumer.acquire();
System.out.println("Consumer: " + list.remove(list.size()-1));
semaphoreProducer.release();
Thread.sleep(100);
}
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
final ProducerConsumerWithSemaphores obj = new ProducerConsumerWithSemaphores();
new Thread(new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
try
{
obj.produce();
} catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
new Thread(new Runnable()
{
#Override
public void run()
{
try
{
obj.consumer();
} catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}).start();
}
}
Is it okay to check the list if it is not empty before acquiring the semaphore? Will this cause any problem in multithreaded environment?

private void consumer() throws InterruptedException
{
while (!list.isEmpty()) /// This line is where I have the doubt
The problem is, if consumer runs faster than producer, your consumer quit immediately, then you have no consumer!!
The correct example looks like,
Producer–consumer problem#Using semaphores. I believe your intention is not to use true as endless loop because you want Producer/Consumer to quit when job is done. If that's your intention, you can 1. set a totalCount to end the loop. 2. Or a boolean flag which will be set by producer after putItemIntoBuffer when producer put the last one. The flag must be protected as well as the buffer.(update: this method doesn't work if there's multiple producers/consumers) 3. Simulate EOF ( idea taken from producer - consume; how does the consumer stop?)
Will this cause any problem in multithreaded environment?
Your critical section (your list) is not protected . Usually we use 3 semaphores. The 3rd one is used as a mutex to protect the buffer.
To stop producers/consumers,
Example code with method 1:
public class Test3 {
private Semaphore mutex = new Semaphore(1);
private Semaphore fillCount = new Semaphore(0);
private Semaphore emptyCount = new Semaphore(3);
private final List<Integer> list = new ArrayList<>();
class Producer implements Runnable {
private final int totalTasks;
Producer(int totalTasks) {
this.totalTasks = totalTasks;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < totalTasks; i++) {
emptyCount.acquire();
mutex.acquire();
list.add(i);
System.out.println("Produced: " + i);
mutex.release();
fillCount.release();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
private final int totalTasks;
Consumer(int totalTasks) {
this.totalTasks = totalTasks;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < totalTasks; i++) {
fillCount.acquire();
mutex.acquire();
int item = list.remove(list.size() - 1);
System.out.println("Consumed: " + item);
mutex.release();
emptyCount.release();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public void runTest() {
int numProducer = 3;
int tasksPerProducer = 10;
int numConsumer = 6;
int tasksPerConsumer = 5;
for (int i = 0; i < numProducer; i++) {
new Thread(new Producer(tasksPerProducer)).start();
}
for (int i = 0; i < numConsumer; i++) {
new Thread(new Consumer(tasksPerConsumer)).start();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
Test3 t = new Test3();
t.runTest();
}
}
Example code with method 3:
public class Test4 {
private Semaphore mutex = new Semaphore(1);
private Semaphore fillCount = new Semaphore(0);
private Semaphore emptyCount = new Semaphore(3);
private Integer EOF = Integer.MAX_VALUE;
private final Queue<Integer> list = new LinkedList<>(); // need to put/get data in FIFO
class Producer implements Runnable {
private final int totalTasks;
Producer(int totalTasks) {
this.totalTasks = totalTasks;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < totalTasks + 1; i++) {
emptyCount.acquire();
mutex.acquire();
if (i == totalTasks) {
list.offer(EOF);
} else {
// add a valid value
list.offer(i);
System.out.println("Produced: " + i);
}
mutex.release();
fillCount.release();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
boolean finished = false;
while (!finished) {
fillCount.acquire();
mutex.acquire();
int item = list.poll();
if (EOF.equals(item)) {
// do not consume this item because it means EOF
finished = true;
} else {
// it's a valid value, consume it.
System.out.println("Consumed: " + item);
}
mutex.release();
emptyCount.release();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public void runTest() {
int numProducer = 3;
int tasksPerProducer = 10;
for (int i = 0; i < numProducer; i++) {
new Thread(new Producer(tasksPerProducer)).start();
}
int numConsumer = numProducer; // producers will put N EOFs to kill N consumers.
for (int i = 0; i < numConsumer; i++) {
new Thread(new Consumer()).start();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
Test4 t = new Test4();
t.runTest();
}
}

Instead of using two semaphores why dont you use a single semaphore to such that the synchronization is made between threads link
Additional you can use ArrayBlockingQueue which are thread safe to properly demonstrate the Producer Consumer Problem.

Related

How to run while loops in different threads? [duplicate]

I got asked this question recently in an interview.
Write a program with two threads (A and B), where A prints 1 , B prints 2 and so on until 50 is reached.
How do we go about doing that ?

The essence of the assignment is to demonstrate how a thread can signal another one. Most common way is to use blocking queues, but here a signal does not carry any information, so a Semaphore is sufficient.
Create thread class which is parameterized with 2 Semaphores: input and output:
class ThreadPrinter implements Runnable {
int counter;
Semaphore ins, outs;
ThreadPrinter(int counter, Semaphore ins, Semaphore outs) {
this.counter = counter;
this.ins = ins;
this.outs = outs;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
ins.aquire(); // wait for permission to run
System.out.println("" + counter);
outs.release(); // allow another thread to run
counter += 2;
}
}
Create 2 Semaphores and pass them to 2 threads:
Semaphore a = new Semaphore(1); // first thread is allowed to run immediately
Semaphore b = new Semaphore(0); // second thread has to wait
ThreadPrinter tp1 = new ThreadPrinter(1, a, b);
ThreadPrinter tp2 = new ThreadPrinter(2, b, a);
Note semaphores a and b are passed in different order.

public class Test {
private static int count = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
synchronized (CommonUtil.mLock) {
incrementCount();
CommonUtil.mLock.notify();
try {
CommonUtil.mLock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
synchronized (CommonUtil.mLock) {
incrementCount();
CommonUtil.mLock.notify();
try {
CommonUtil.mLock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
t1.start();
Thread.sleep(400);
t2.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
private static void incrementCount() {
count++;
System.out.println("Count: " + count + " icnremented by: " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
class CommonUtil {
static final Object mLock = new Object();
}

I encountered the same problem and was expected to use only basics so I choose wait notify on shared object between threads
public class Message implements Runnable {
private static final int N = 10;
private Thread thread;
private static Object object = new Object();
public Message(String name){
thread = new Thread(this, name);
thread.start();
}
public void run(){
for(int i=0; i<N; i++){
synchronized (object) {
System.out.println(i + "--" + thread.getName());
object.notify();
try {
object.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
In main method :
Message message1 = new Message("Ping");
Message message2 = new Message("Pong");

public class ThreadCounter implements Runnable {
private static int count = 0;
private Thread t;
public ThreadCounter(String tName){
t= new Thread(this, tName);
t.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i=1; i<=5; i++){
synchronized (CommonUtil.mLock) {
incrementCount(t.getName());
CommonUtil.mLock.notify();
try {
CommonUtil.mLock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
private void incrementCount(String tName){
System.out.println(tName+": "+(++ThreadCounter.count));
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
new ThreadCounter("Thread1");
Thread.sleep(500);
new ThreadCounter("Thread2");
}
}
class CommonUtil{
public static Object mLock = new Object();
}

hi please find answer here...pattern ABABABAB
package com.abhi.ThreadPractice;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final Object lock = new Object();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
synchronized (lock) {
// count++;
System.out.println("A");
try {
lock.wait();
lock.notify();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
synchronized (lock) {
lock.notify();
//count++;
System.out.println("B");
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
}

This is another solution:
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i = 1; i <= 50; i += 2) {
System.out.println("T1=" + i);
t1turn = false;
try {
lock.notifyAll();
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i = 2; i <= 50; i += 2) {
if (t1turn)
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println("T2=" + i);
t1turn = true;
lock.notify();
}
}
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();

May be this is still relevant:
public class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
public static int counter = 0;
public static int turn = 0;
public static Object lock = new Object();
#Override
public void run() {
while (counter < 50) {
synchronized (lock) {
if (turn == 0) {
System.out.println(counter + " from thread "
+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
turn = 1;
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
} else {
turn = 0;
lock.notify();
}
}
}
}
}
and then the main function
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread threadA = new Thread(new MyRunnable());
Thread threadB = new Thread(new MyRunnable ());
threadA.start();
threadB.start();
}

public class PingPong extends Thread {
static StringBuilder object = new StringBuilder("");
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new PingPong();
Thread t2 = new PingPong();
t1.setName("\nping");
t2.setName(" pong");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
working();
}
void working() {
while (true) {
synchronized (object) {
try {
System.out.print(Thread.currentThread().getName());
object.notify();
object.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}

This was the simplest solution, I was able to think of. It uses a synchronized method and uses the notify() and the wait() to alternatively print the numbers. Hope it helps. :)
public class program implements Runnable
{
static int count =1;
private static final int MAX_COUNT = 50;
public synchronized void print ()
{
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is printing " + count);
count++;
notify();
try{
if(count>MAX_COUNT)
return;
wait();
}catch (InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void run()
{
for(int i=0;i<MAX_COUNT/2;i++)
{
print();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
program x= new program();
Thread t0= new Thread(x);
Thread t1= new Thread(x);
t0.start();
try
{
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
t1.start();
}
}

//simply use wait and notify and and set a counter and it will do
public class ThreadalternatePrint implements Runnable {
static int counter =0;
#Override
public synchronized void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e1.printStackTrace();
}
while(counter<51)
{ ++counter;
notify();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadalternatePrint obj1 = new ThreadalternatePrint();
Thread Th1 = new Thread(obj1);
Thread Th2 = new Thread(obj1);
Th1.setName("Thread1");
Th2.setName("Thread2");
Th1.start();
Th2.start();
}
}

public class Testing implements Runnable {
private static int counter = 1;
private static final Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Testing(), "1");
t1.start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Testing(), "2");
t2.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (counter<=100) {
synchronized (lock) {
if (counter % 2 == 0) {
System.out.println(counter +" Written By Thread-"+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
counter++;
try {
lock.notifyAll();
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
} else if (counter % 2 == 1) {
System.out.println(counter +" Written By Thread-"+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
counter++;
try {
lock.notifyAll();
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
}

I have created a pretty basic Solution for it using the Reentrant Lock.
package com.multithreding.trylock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class TryLock extends Thread {
static int intitialCount = 50; //Value till which you want to print
int valueToSubtract = 0; //Value by which difference you want to print the series like 1,2,3
static ReentrantLock alternate = new ReentrantLock();
public TryLock(String name) {
this.setName(name);
}
public void run() {
while (intitialCount > 1) {
if (valueToSubtract > 0) {
alternate.lock();
intitialCount = intitialCount - valueToSubtract;
valueToSubtract = 0;
try {
Thread.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("value Subtracted " + intitialCount + " by the Thread" + this.getName());
alternate.unlock();
} else {
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
valueToSubtract++;
}
}
}
}
package com.multithreding.trylock;
public class AlternatePrint {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{
//You can add as many thread to print then in different number of series
TryLock t1 = new TryLock("Odd One");
TryLock t2 = new TryLock("Even Value");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
This solution is modular as well,
You can add 'n' number of Threads to print the alternate series. i.e Using 3 thread at once
You can also print the series with more than Difference of more than 1. i.e 1,3,5 etc

package thread;
public class Pingpong extends Thread {
static StringBuilder object = new StringBuilder("");
static int i=1;
#Override
public void run() {
working();
}
void working() {
while (i<=10) {
synchronized (object) {
try {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() +" "+ i);
i++;
object.notify();
object.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new Pingpong();
Thread t2 = new Pingpong();
t1.setName("Thread1");
t2.setName("Thread2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
Thread1 1
Thread2 2
Thread1 3
Thread2 4
Thread1 5
Thread2 6
Thread1 7
Thread2 8
Thread1 9
Thread2 10

This answer is generic i.e. not only to print numbers alternately from 2 threads but to execute 2 threads alternately.
The above approaches are commendable but this one doesn't need any lock but instead it uses an AtomicInteger variable alongwith 2 AtomicBooleans to indicate when one thread has finished executing so that the other can finish executing the rest of its remaining execution.
This will work in all 3 cases:
When number of executions of both threads are same.
When first thread finishes before second thread and second thread has more number of executions than first thread.
When second thread finishes before first thread and first thread has more number of executions than second thread.
public class TestAlternateExecutionOfTwoThreads
{
private static final AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(0);
private static final AtomicBoolean firstIsDone = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private static final AtomicBoolean secondIsDone = new AtomicBoolean(false);
// change the below values to change the number of iterations each thread should
// run. In this example, the initial value are hard-coded but you can change
// them as well.
private static final int finalOfFirstThread = 10;
private static final int finalOfSecondThread = 109;
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Runnable r1 = () -> {
int i = 1;
for(; i <= finalOfFirstThread; )
{
while(count.get() == 0)
{
System.out.println(i);
count.incrementAndGet();
i++;
}
if(count.get() == 1 && secondIsDone.get() && i != (finalOfFirstThread + 1))
{
System.out.println(i);
i++;
}
}
firstIsDone.set(true);
};
Runnable r2 = () -> {
int j = 100;
for (; j <= finalOfSecondThread; )
{
while(count.get() == 1)
{
System.out.println(j);
count.decrementAndGet();
j++;
}
if(count.get() == 0 && firstIsDone.get() && j != (finalOfSecondThread + 1))
{
System.out.println(j);
j++;
}
}
secondIsDone.set(true);
};
Thread t1 = new Thread(r1);
Thread t2 = new Thread(r2);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}

I guess this might help.
Although it is not standard but i hope it provides a simpler approach.
public class ThreadDemo
{
public static void main (String [] args)
{
PrintDemo pd=new PrintDemo();
MyThread1 mt1 = new MyThread1 ("T1",pd);
MyThread2 mt2 = new MyThread2 ("T2",pd);
mt1.start ();
mt2.start();
}
}
class PrintDemo {
private boolean oddFlag=true;
public synchronized void printOdd(int i,String tName){
if(oddFlag==false){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}else{
System.out.println("\nThread "+tName+" count:"+i);
oddFlag=false;
notify();
}
}
public synchronized void printEven(int i,String tName){
if(oddFlag==true){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}else{
System.out.println("\nThread "+tName+" count:"+i);
oddFlag=true;
notify();
}
}
}
class MyThread1 extends Thread
{
private PrintDemo pd;
private String name;
MyThread1(String threadName,PrintDemo pd){
this.name=threadName;
this.pd=pd;
}
public void run ()
{
for(int i=1;i<=50;i+=2){
pd.printOdd(i,name);
}
}
}
class MyThread2 extends Thread
{
private PrintDemo pd;
private String name;
MyThread2(String threadName,PrintDemo pd){
this.name=threadName;
this.pd=pd;
}
public void run ()
{
for(int i=2;i<=50;i+=2){
pd.printEven(i,name);
}
}
}

How to execute four threads consecutively one by one in java? [duplicate]

I have 3 threads
1st printing A
2nd printing B
3rd printing C
I want to print in sequence A B C A B C A B C and so on.....
So I wrote the program below, but I am not able to achieve the same.
I am aware of the problem that when status=1 at that time say for example B1 and C1 thread are waiting and when I do notifyAll() both waiting thread wake up and depending on CPU allocation it might print B or C.
in this case I want only B to be printed after A.
what modification I need to do.
public class NotifyAllExample {
int status=1;
public static void main(String[] args) {
NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample = new NotifyAllExample();
A1 a=new A1(notifyAllExample);
B1 b=new B1(notifyAllExample);
C1 c=new C1(notifyAllExample);
a.start();
b.start();
c.start();
}
}
class A1 extends Thread{
NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample;
A1(NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample){
this.notifyAllExample = notifyAllExample;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try{
synchronized (notifyAllExample) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if(notifyAllExample.status!=1){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
System.out.print("A ");
notifyAllExample.status = 2;
notifyAllExample.notifyAll();
}
}
}catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception 1 :"+e.getMessage());
}
}
}
class B1 extends Thread{
NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample;
B1(NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample){
this.notifyAllExample = notifyAllExample;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try{
synchronized (notifyAllExample) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if(notifyAllExample.status!=2){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
System.out.print("B ");
notifyAllExample.status = 3;
notifyAllExample.notifyAll();
}
}
}catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception 2 :"+e.getMessage());
}
}
}
class C1 extends Thread{
NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample;
C1(NotifyAllExample notifyAllExample){
this.notifyAllExample = notifyAllExample;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try{
synchronized (notifyAllExample) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
if(notifyAllExample.status!=3){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
System.out.print("C ");
notifyAllExample.status = 1;
notifyAllExample.notifyAll();
}
}
}catch (Exception e) {
System.out.println("Exception 3 :"+e.getMessage());
}
}
}

Convert those IF statements to WHILE statements to get the desired behavior:
if (notifyAllExample.status != 2){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
to
while (notifyAllExample.status != 2){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
This will ensure that if a thread is notified, it won't go out of the while loop until the status value is what it expects.
Also, mark status as volatile so that the threads won't have a local copy.

public class RunThreadsInOrder implements Runnable {
static int numThread = 1;
static int threadAllowedToRun = 1;
int myThreadID;
private static Object myLock = new Object();
public RunThreadsInOrder() {
this.myThreadID = numThread++;
System.out.println("Thread ID:" + myThreadID);
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (myLock) {
while (myThreadID != threadAllowedToRun) {
try {
myLock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
} catch (Exception e) {}
}
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println("myThreadID is running: " + myThreadID);
myLock.notifyAll();
threadAllowedToRun++;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
Thread t1 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t2 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t3 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t4 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t5 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t6 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
Thread t7 = new Thread(new RunThreadsInOrder());
t7.start();
t6.start();
t5.start();
t4.start();
t3.start();
t2.start();
t1.start();
}
}

public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException{
Thread t1 = new Thread(new A(), "1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(new A(), "2");
Thread t3 = new Thread(new A(), "3");
t1.start();
try{
t1.join();
}catch (Exception e){
}
t2.start();
try{
t2.join();
}catch (Exception e){
}
t3.start();
try{
t3.join();
}catch (Exception e){
}
}
}
class A implements Runnable{
public void run(){
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
or you can use Executor Framework
public class Sequence {
int valve = 1;
public static void main(String[] args){
Sequence s = new Sequence();
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
List<Runnable> rList = new ArrayList<>();
rList.add(new A(s));
rList.add(new B(s));
rList.add(new C(s));
for(int i = 0; i < rList.size(); i++){
es.submit(rList.get(i));
}
es.shutdown();
}
}
class A implements Runnable{
Sequence s;
A(Sequence s){
this.s = s;
}
public void run(){
synchronized (s) {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
while (s.valve != 1) {
try {
s.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("A");
s.valve = 2;
s.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
class B implements Runnable{
Sequence s;
B(Sequence s){
this.s = s;
}
public void run() {
synchronized (s) {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
while (s.valve != 2) {
try {
s.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("B");
s.valve = 3;
s.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
class C implements Runnable{
Sequence s;
C(Sequence s){
this.s = s;
}
public void run() {
synchronized (s) {
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
while (s.valve != 3) {
try {
s.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("C");
s.valve = 1;
s.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
In the first case the join for each thread causes the threads to wait for one another. In the second case a list stores the threads and executor executes them one after another creating 3 threads
Another way to do this is where only one runnable class is present and communication between thread is done via static variable in the main class and a variable in the runnable class
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.Executor;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class Seq {
int i = 1;
public static void main(String[] args){
Seq s = new Seq();
Common c1 = new Common(s, 1);
Common c2 = new Common(s, 2);
Common c3 = new Common(s, 3);
List<Runnable> l = new ArrayList<>();
l.add(c1);
l.add(c2);
l.add(c3);
ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(3);
for(int i = 0; i < 3; i++){
es.submit(l.get(i));
}
es.shutdown();
}
}
class Common implements Runnable{
Seq s;
int o;
Common(Seq s, int o){
this.s = s;
this.o = o;
}
public void run(){
synchronized (s) {
for (int z = 0; z < 100; z++) {
if(s.i > 3)
s.i = 1;
while (s.i != o) {
try {
s.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(o);
s.i++;
s.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}

I was asked to write a similar program in an interview with the added condition that it should be extensible in a way that we can provide our own count of threads and they should print characters with the first thread printing 'A' and then the subsequent threads printing B, C, D and so on. Here's how I did it.
public class AlternateCharPrinter {
public static char ch = 65;
private static void createAndStartThreads(int count) {
Object lock = new Object();
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
new Thread(new AlternateCharRunner((char) (65 + i), lock)).start();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
createAndStartThreads(4);
}
}
class AlternateCharRunner implements Runnable {
private char ch;
private Object lock;
private static int runnerCount;
public AlternateCharRunner(char ch, Object lock) {
this.ch = ch;
this.lock = lock;
runnerCount++;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (lock) {
while (ch != AlternateCharPrinter.ch) {
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(AlternateCharPrinter.ch++);
if (AlternateCharPrinter.ch == (65 + runnerCount)) {
AlternateCharPrinter.ch = 65;
}
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}

You need to replace
if (notifyAllExample.status!=1)
with
while (notifyAllExample.status!=1)
and same thing in the other 2 classes. If not, then as soon as the wait exits the thread continues without knowing if it is its turn.

Replace:
if(notifyAllExample.status!=1){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
with:
while(notifyAllExample.status!=1){
notifyAllExample.wait();
}
in all classes accordingly.

The simplest solution to solve this can be following way:
public class PrintInOrder implements Runnable {
private int valueToPrint;
private int id;
private static int turn = 1;
private static int RESET_TURN_THRESHOLD = 3;
public PrintInOrder() {
this.valueToPrint = -1;
}
public PrintInOrder(int id, int val) {
this.id = id;
this.valueToPrint = val;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
if (turn == this.id) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + "::::" + valueToPrint);
turn++;
}
if (turn > RESET_TURN_THRESHOLD) {
turn = 1;
}
}
}
public static void main(String []args) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new PrintInOrder(1, 1));
t1.setName("THREAD-1");
t1.start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(new PrintInOrder(2, 2));
t2.setName("THREAD-2");
t2.start();
Thread t3 = new Thread(new PrintInOrder(3, 3));
t3.setName("THREAD-3");
t3.start();
}
}
/*
OUTPUT::::
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
THREAD-1::::1
THREAD-2::::2
THREAD-3::::3
...
*/

Here is my solution -
I have created three threads each thread knows what it needs to print and what comes after it.
I have also created a Class NLock which holds the next word which needs to be printed.
Whenever a thread is able to acquire NLock lock then it checks
if it's his turn if yes then it prints the word and set the next value to be printed in NLock or else it waits till it's his turn
public class SynchronizeThreeThreads {
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException {
NLock lock=new NLock("A");
Thread a =new Thread(new PrintInOrder("A","B",lock));
Thread b =new Thread(new PrintInOrder("B","C",lock));
Thread c =new Thread(new PrintInOrder("C","A",lock));
a.start();
b.start();
c.start();
c.join(); // Once all is done main thread will exit
System.out.println("Done");
}
}
class NLock{
private String value;
public NLock(String value) {
this.value=value;
}
public String getValue() {
return value;
}
public void setValue(String next) {
this.value=next;
}
}
class PrintInOrder implements Runnable{
private String word;
private String next;
private NLock lock;
public PrintInOrder(String word, String next,NLock lock){
this.word=word;
this.next=next;
this.lock=lock;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int i=0;
while(i<3) {
synchronized (lock) {
try {
//Check if it's my turn
if(lock.getValue().equals(word)) {
System.out.println(this.word);
//Set what next needs to be printed
//So that when that thread wakes up it knows that it's his turn
lock.setValue(next);
i++;
lock.notifyAll();
Thread.sleep(100);
}
else //Nope not my turn wait
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
Below is the output
A
B
C
A
B
C
A
B
C
Done

This is my attempt to solve the same. Any suggestions are welcome. This is the complete running code.
import lombok.SneakyThrows;
import lombok.extern.slf4j.Slf4j;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
#Slf4j
public class SeqExecution {
static class SeqThread extends Thread {
private static final Object lock = new Object();
private static final AtomicInteger AUTO_COUNTER = new AtomicInteger();
private static final TrackExecution trackExecution = new TrackExecution();
private final int seqNo;
SeqThread(Runnable runnable) {
super(runnable);
this.seqNo = AUTO_COUNTER.getAndIncrement();
}
#SneakyThrows
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (lock) {
while (trackExecution.CUR_EXECUTION.get() != this.seqNo) {
try {
lock.wait(100);
} catch (Exception e) {}
}
//log.info("Thread: {} is running", this.seqNo);
super.run();
sleep(1000);
trackExecution.increment();
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
static class TrackExecution {
private final AtomicInteger CUR_EXECUTION = new AtomicInteger();
int get() {
return CUR_EXECUTION.get();
}
synchronized void increment() {
var val = CUR_EXECUTION.incrementAndGet();
if (val >= SeqThread.AUTO_COUNTER.get()) {
CUR_EXECUTION.set(0);
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final var seqThreads = List.of(new SeqThread(() -> System.out.print("A ")),
new SeqThread(() -> System.out.print("B ")),
new SeqThread(() -> System.out.print("C ")));
seqThreads.forEach(Thread::start);
seqThreads.forEach(t -> {
try {
t.join();
} catch (Exception e) {
log.warn(e.getMessage(), e);
}
});
}
}

I think it's simpler to achieve this using join.
Example:
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Thread t1 = new Thread("t1") {
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("i am thread: " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
};
final Thread t2 = new Thread(t1, "t2") {
#Override
public void run() {
t1.start();
try {
t1.join();
} catch ( InterruptedException e ) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("i am thread: " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
};
Thread t3 = new Thread(t2, "t3") {
#Override
public void run() {
t2.start();
try {
t2.join();
} catch ( InterruptedException e ) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("i am thread: " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
};
t3.start();
}

Here is my solution please try and let me know
package thread;
class SyncPrinter {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SyncPrinterAction printAction1 = new SyncPrinterAction(new int[]{1,5,9,13}, true);
SyncPrinterAction printAction2 = new SyncPrinterAction(new int[]{2,6,10,14}, true);
SyncPrinterAction printAction3 = new SyncPrinterAction(new int[]{3,7,11,15}, true);
SyncPrinterAction printAction4 = new SyncPrinterAction(new int[]{4,8,12,16}, false);
printAction1.setDependentAction(printAction4);
printAction2.setDependentAction(printAction1);
printAction3.setDependentAction(printAction2);
printAction4.setDependentAction(printAction3);
new Thread(printAction1, "T1").start();;
new Thread(printAction2, "T2").start();
new Thread(printAction3, "T3").start();
new Thread(printAction4, "T4").start();
}
}
class SyncPrinterAction implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean dependent;
private SyncPrinterAction dependentAction;
int[] data;
public void setDependentAction(SyncPrinterAction dependentAction){
this.dependentAction = dependentAction;
}
public SyncPrinterAction( int[] data, boolean dependent) {
this.data = data;
this.dependent = dependent;
}
public SyncPrinterAction( int[] data, SyncPrinterAction dependentAction, boolean dependent) {
this.dependentAction = dependentAction;
this.data = data;
this.dependent = dependent;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
for (int value : data) {
try {
while(dependentAction.isDependent())
//System.out.println("\t\t"+Thread.currentThread().getName() + " :: Waithing for dependent action to complete");
wait(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
dependentAction.setDependent(true);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " :: " +value);
dependent = false;
}
}
}
private void setDependent(boolean dependent) {
this.dependent = dependent;
}
private boolean isDependent() {
return dependent;
}
}

Sequence number using thread Synchronization

I want to print a series of 1 to 100 number using n number of threads (lets take 10 threads for this). Condition is 1st thread will have a sequence number from 1, 11,21....91, 2nd thread will have a sequence 2,12,22.....92 and so on. All other threads will have a sequence number like that. Now I want to print number in sequence 1 to 100. I know we can use synchronization, wait and notify method and using a variable or flag counter but I don't think this is a good idea to use it. I want to use without concurrency (like executors etc) how will I do that. Please suggest.
public class PrintNumberSequenceUsingRunnable {
int notifyValue = 1;
public static void main(String[] args) {
PrintNumberSequenceUsingRunnable sequence = new PrintNumberSequenceUsingRunnable();
Thread f = new Thread(new First(sequence), "Fisrt");
Thread s = new Thread(new Second(sequence), "Second");
Thread t = new Thread(new Third(sequence), "Third");
f.start();
s.start();
t.start();
}
}
class First implements Runnable {
PrintNumberSequenceUsingRunnable sequence;
public First(PrintNumberSequenceUsingRunnable sequence) {
this.sequence = sequence;
}
#Override
public void run() {
printFist();
}
private void printFist() {
synchronized (sequence) {
for (int i = 1; i <= 20; i += 3) {
while (sequence.notifyValue != 1) {
try {
sequence.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " + i);
sequence.notifyValue = 2;
sequence.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
class Second implements Runnable {
PrintNumberSequenceUsingRunnable sequence;
public Second(PrintNumberSequenceUsingRunnable sequence) {
this.sequence = sequence;
}
#Override
public void run() {
printSecond();
}
private void printSecond() {
synchronized (sequence) {
for (int i = 2; i <= 20; i += 3) {
while (sequence.notifyValue != 2) {
try {
sequence.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " + i);
sequence.notifyValue = 3;
sequence.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
class Third implements Runnable {
PrintNumberSequenceUsingRunnable sequence;
public Third(PrintNumberSequenceUsingRunnable sequence) {
this.sequence = sequence;
}
#Override
public void run() {
printThrid();
}
private void printThrid() {
synchronized (sequence) {
for (int i = 3; i <= 20; i += 3) {
while (sequence.notifyValue != 3) {
try {
sequence.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " + i);
sequence.notifyValue = 1;
sequence.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}

You need to have values sorted on each threads. Each time a thread writes a number, it triggers an event in an event bus. All threads are subscribed to the event.
You start the system by triggering the event [minimum value - 1].
Each thread will receive a notification that the value [minimum value - 1] has been published. Only the thread that has the value [minimum value] will act and will trigger a new event for value [minimum value + 1].
Edit: I haven't tested it, but something like this.
static void main(String[] args) {
List<Deque<Integer>> publishQueues = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
new Thread(new Worker(i, publishQueues)).start();
}
}
class Worker implements Runnable {
Deque subscriberQueue;
List<Deque<Integer>> publishQueues;
int i;
Worker(int i, List<Deque<Integer>> publishQueues) {
this.i = i;
this.publishQueues = publishQueues;
this.subscriberQueue = new ConcurrentLinkedDeque<>();
this.publishQueues.add(this.subscriberQueue);
}
void Run() {
LinkedList<Integer> ints = new LinkedList<>();
for (int j = i; j <= 100; j+=10) {
ints.add(j);
}
while (true) {
Integer publishedInteger = subscriberQueue.poll();
if (publishedInteger == ints.getFirst() - 1) {
Integer integer = ints.poll();
System.out.println(integer);
for (Dequeu<Integer> publishQueue : publishQueues) {
publishQueue.addLast(integer);
}
}
}
}
}

Trying to solve consumer-producer in java with multithreading

I'm trying to solve the producer consumer problem with threads in java, but the code won't run in parallell/concurrently. The producer always fills up the buffer completely before the consumer starts to consume, and I don't get why. The point is trying to do it using only synchronized blocks, wait() and notify().
Main :
String [] data = {"Fisk", "Katt", "Hund", "Sau", "Fugl", "Elg", "Tiger",
"Kameleon", "Isbjørn", "Puma"};
ProducerConsumer pc = new ProducerConsumer(5);
Thread[] thrds = new Thread[2];
thrds[0] = new Thread(new MyThread1(pc, data)); // producer
thrds[1] = new Thread(new MyThread2(pc)); // consumer
thrds[0].start();
thrds[1].start();
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) { // wait for all threads to die
try {
thrds[i].join();
}
catch (InterruptedException ie) {}
}
System.exit(0);
ProducerConsumer.java:
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.Queue;
public class ProducerConsumer implements Runnable {
private int bufferSize;
private Queue<String> buffer;
public ProducerConsumer(int size) {
bufferSize = size;
buffer = new LinkedList<String>();
}
public void produce(String item) throws InterruptedException {
synchronized(buffer) {
while (buffer.size() >= bufferSize) {
try {
System.out.println("Full buffer. Waiting for consumer...");
buffer.wait();
}catch (Exception e) {}
}
buffer.add(item);
System.out.println("Producer is putting " + item + " in the buffer");
buffer.notify();
}
}
public void consume() throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (buffer) {
while (buffer.size() == 0) {
try {
System.out.println("Empty buffer. Waiting for production...");
buffer.wait();
}catch (Exception e) {}
}
System.out.println("Consumer is consuming " + buffer.remove() + ".");
buffer.notify();
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
}
}
MyThread1 :
/*
* PRODUCER - Thread
*/
public class MyThread1 implements Runnable {
private String [] data;
private ProducerConsumer pc;
public MyThread1(ProducerConsumer pc, String [] data) {
this.pc = pc;
this.data = data;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
try {
pc.produce(data[i]);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {}
}
}
}
MyThread2:
//THE CONSUMER - Thread
public class MyThread2 implements Runnable{
private ProducerConsumer pc;
public MyThread2(ProducerConsumer pc) {
this.pc = pc;
}
//Run consume
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
pc.consume();
Thread.sleep(2);
}
catch(InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
}

On recent machines, with short queues like this, you will never see actual multithreading effects like, in this case, producer and consumer taking turns unless you slow both of them down a bit. You only slowed down the consumer. Instead of using a short array, put a million Integers in a queue and see what happens.

import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.CopyOnWriteArrayList;
public class ProduserConsumerDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
List<Integer> list = new CopyOnWriteArrayList<>();
int size = 5;
Producer producer = new Producer(list, size);
Consumer consumer = new Consumer(list);
Thread t1 = new Thread(producer, "Producer");
Thread t2 = new Thread(consumer, "Consumer");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
class Producer implements Runnable {
private final List<Integer> list;
private final int size;
public Producer(List<Integer> list, final int size) {
this.list = list;
this.size = size;
}
public void run() {
try {
produce();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void produce() throws InterruptedException {
int i = 0;
while (i >= 0) {
synchronized (list) {
while (list.size() == size) {
System.out.println(
"List is full." + Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is waiting. Size:" + list.size());
list.wait();
}
System.out.println("Produce :" + i);
list.add(i++);
Thread.sleep(50);
list.notify();
}
}
}
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
private final List<Integer> list;
public Consumer(List<Integer> list) {
this.list = list;
}
public void run() {
try {
consume();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void consume() throws InterruptedException {
while (true) {
synchronized (list) {
while (list.isEmpty()) {
System.out.println(
"List is empty. " + Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is waiting. Size:" + list.size());
list.wait();
}
System.out.println("Consumed item:" + list.remove(0));
Thread.sleep(50);
list.notify();
}
}
}
}

Writing a program with 2 threads which prints alternatively

I got asked this question recently in an interview.
Write a program with two threads (A and B), where A prints 1 , B prints 2 and so on until 50 is reached.
How do we go about doing that ?

The essence of the assignment is to demonstrate how a thread can signal another one. Most common way is to use blocking queues, but here a signal does not carry any information, so a Semaphore is sufficient.
Create thread class which is parameterized with 2 Semaphores: input and output:
class ThreadPrinter implements Runnable {
int counter;
Semaphore ins, outs;
ThreadPrinter(int counter, Semaphore ins, Semaphore outs) {
this.counter = counter;
this.ins = ins;
this.outs = outs;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
ins.aquire(); // wait for permission to run
System.out.println("" + counter);
outs.release(); // allow another thread to run
counter += 2;
}
}
Create 2 Semaphores and pass them to 2 threads:
Semaphore a = new Semaphore(1); // first thread is allowed to run immediately
Semaphore b = new Semaphore(0); // second thread has to wait
ThreadPrinter tp1 = new ThreadPrinter(1, a, b);
ThreadPrinter tp2 = new ThreadPrinter(2, b, a);
Note semaphores a and b are passed in different order.

public class Test {
private static int count = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
synchronized (CommonUtil.mLock) {
incrementCount();
CommonUtil.mLock.notify();
try {
CommonUtil.mLock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 25; i++) {
synchronized (CommonUtil.mLock) {
incrementCount();
CommonUtil.mLock.notify();
try {
CommonUtil.mLock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
t1.start();
Thread.sleep(400);
t2.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
private static void incrementCount() {
count++;
System.out.println("Count: " + count + " icnremented by: " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
class CommonUtil {
static final Object mLock = new Object();
}

I encountered the same problem and was expected to use only basics so I choose wait notify on shared object between threads
public class Message implements Runnable {
private static final int N = 10;
private Thread thread;
private static Object object = new Object();
public Message(String name){
thread = new Thread(this, name);
thread.start();
}
public void run(){
for(int i=0; i<N; i++){
synchronized (object) {
System.out.println(i + "--" + thread.getName());
object.notify();
try {
object.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
In main method :
Message message1 = new Message("Ping");
Message message2 = new Message("Pong");

public class ThreadCounter implements Runnable {
private static int count = 0;
private Thread t;
public ThreadCounter(String tName){
t= new Thread(this, tName);
t.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i=1; i<=5; i++){
synchronized (CommonUtil.mLock) {
incrementCount(t.getName());
CommonUtil.mLock.notify();
try {
CommonUtil.mLock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
private void incrementCount(String tName){
System.out.println(tName+": "+(++ThreadCounter.count));
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
new ThreadCounter("Thread1");
Thread.sleep(500);
new ThreadCounter("Thread2");
}
}
class CommonUtil{
public static Object mLock = new Object();
}

hi please find answer here...pattern ABABABAB
package com.abhi.ThreadPractice;
public class Test {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final Object lock = new Object();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
synchronized (lock) {
// count++;
System.out.println("A");
try {
lock.wait();
lock.notify();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
synchronized (lock) {
lock.notify();
//count++;
System.out.println("B");
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
}

This is another solution:
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i = 1; i <= 50; i += 2) {
System.out.println("T1=" + i);
t1turn = false;
try {
lock.notifyAll();
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i = 2; i <= 50; i += 2) {
if (t1turn)
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println("T2=" + i);
t1turn = true;
lock.notify();
}
}
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();

May be this is still relevant:
public class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
public static int counter = 0;
public static int turn = 0;
public static Object lock = new Object();
#Override
public void run() {
while (counter < 50) {
synchronized (lock) {
if (turn == 0) {
System.out.println(counter + " from thread "
+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
turn = 1;
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
} else {
turn = 0;
lock.notify();
}
}
}
}
}
and then the main function
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread threadA = new Thread(new MyRunnable());
Thread threadB = new Thread(new MyRunnable ());
threadA.start();
threadB.start();
}

public class PingPong extends Thread {
static StringBuilder object = new StringBuilder("");
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new PingPong();
Thread t2 = new PingPong();
t1.setName("\nping");
t2.setName(" pong");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
working();
}
void working() {
while (true) {
synchronized (object) {
try {
System.out.print(Thread.currentThread().getName());
object.notify();
object.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}

This was the simplest solution, I was able to think of. It uses a synchronized method and uses the notify() and the wait() to alternatively print the numbers. Hope it helps. :)
public class program implements Runnable
{
static int count =1;
private static final int MAX_COUNT = 50;
public synchronized void print ()
{
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is printing " + count);
count++;
notify();
try{
if(count>MAX_COUNT)
return;
wait();
}catch (InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public void run()
{
for(int i=0;i<MAX_COUNT/2;i++)
{
print();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
program x= new program();
Thread t0= new Thread(x);
Thread t1= new Thread(x);
t0.start();
try
{
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
t1.start();
}
}

//simply use wait and notify and and set a counter and it will do
public class ThreadalternatePrint implements Runnable {
static int counter =0;
#Override
public synchronized void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e1) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e1.printStackTrace();
}
while(counter<51)
{ ++counter;
notify();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadalternatePrint obj1 = new ThreadalternatePrint();
Thread Th1 = new Thread(obj1);
Thread Th2 = new Thread(obj1);
Th1.setName("Thread1");
Th2.setName("Thread2");
Th1.start();
Th2.start();
}
}

public class Testing implements Runnable {
private static int counter = 1;
private static final Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Testing(), "1");
t1.start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Testing(), "2");
t2.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (counter<=100) {
synchronized (lock) {
if (counter % 2 == 0) {
System.out.println(counter +" Written By Thread-"+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
counter++;
try {
lock.notifyAll();
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
} else if (counter % 2 == 1) {
System.out.println(counter +" Written By Thread-"+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
counter++;
try {
lock.notifyAll();
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
}

I have created a pretty basic Solution for it using the Reentrant Lock.
package com.multithreding.trylock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class TryLock extends Thread {
static int intitialCount = 50; //Value till which you want to print
int valueToSubtract = 0; //Value by which difference you want to print the series like 1,2,3
static ReentrantLock alternate = new ReentrantLock();
public TryLock(String name) {
this.setName(name);
}
public void run() {
while (intitialCount > 1) {
if (valueToSubtract > 0) {
alternate.lock();
intitialCount = intitialCount - valueToSubtract;
valueToSubtract = 0;
try {
Thread.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("value Subtracted " + intitialCount + " by the Thread" + this.getName());
alternate.unlock();
} else {
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
valueToSubtract++;
}
}
}
}
package com.multithreding.trylock;
public class AlternatePrint {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{
//You can add as many thread to print then in different number of series
TryLock t1 = new TryLock("Odd One");
TryLock t2 = new TryLock("Even Value");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
This solution is modular as well,
You can add 'n' number of Threads to print the alternate series. i.e Using 3 thread at once
You can also print the series with more than Difference of more than 1. i.e 1,3,5 etc

package thread;
public class Pingpong extends Thread {
static StringBuilder object = new StringBuilder("");
static int i=1;
#Override
public void run() {
working();
}
void working() {
while (i<=10) {
synchronized (object) {
try {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() +" "+ i);
i++;
object.notify();
object.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new Pingpong();
Thread t2 = new Pingpong();
t1.setName("Thread1");
t2.setName("Thread2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
Thread1 1
Thread2 2
Thread1 3
Thread2 4
Thread1 5
Thread2 6
Thread1 7
Thread2 8
Thread1 9
Thread2 10

This answer is generic i.e. not only to print numbers alternately from 2 threads but to execute 2 threads alternately.
The above approaches are commendable but this one doesn't need any lock but instead it uses an AtomicInteger variable alongwith 2 AtomicBooleans to indicate when one thread has finished executing so that the other can finish executing the rest of its remaining execution.
This will work in all 3 cases:
When number of executions of both threads are same.
When first thread finishes before second thread and second thread has more number of executions than first thread.
When second thread finishes before first thread and first thread has more number of executions than second thread.
public class TestAlternateExecutionOfTwoThreads
{
private static final AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(0);
private static final AtomicBoolean firstIsDone = new AtomicBoolean(false);
private static final AtomicBoolean secondIsDone = new AtomicBoolean(false);
// change the below values to change the number of iterations each thread should
// run. In this example, the initial value are hard-coded but you can change
// them as well.
private static final int finalOfFirstThread = 10;
private static final int finalOfSecondThread = 109;
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Runnable r1 = () -> {
int i = 1;
for(; i <= finalOfFirstThread; )
{
while(count.get() == 0)
{
System.out.println(i);
count.incrementAndGet();
i++;
}
if(count.get() == 1 && secondIsDone.get() && i != (finalOfFirstThread + 1))
{
System.out.println(i);
i++;
}
}
firstIsDone.set(true);
};
Runnable r2 = () -> {
int j = 100;
for (; j <= finalOfSecondThread; )
{
while(count.get() == 1)
{
System.out.println(j);
count.decrementAndGet();
j++;
}
if(count.get() == 0 && firstIsDone.get() && j != (finalOfSecondThread + 1))
{
System.out.println(j);
j++;
}
}
secondIsDone.set(true);
};
Thread t1 = new Thread(r1);
Thread t2 = new Thread(r2);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}

I guess this might help.
Although it is not standard but i hope it provides a simpler approach.
public class ThreadDemo
{
public static void main (String [] args)
{
PrintDemo pd=new PrintDemo();
MyThread1 mt1 = new MyThread1 ("T1",pd);
MyThread2 mt2 = new MyThread2 ("T2",pd);
mt1.start ();
mt2.start();
}
}
class PrintDemo {
private boolean oddFlag=true;
public synchronized void printOdd(int i,String tName){
if(oddFlag==false){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}else{
System.out.println("\nThread "+tName+" count:"+i);
oddFlag=false;
notify();
}
}
public synchronized void printEven(int i,String tName){
if(oddFlag==true){
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}else{
System.out.println("\nThread "+tName+" count:"+i);
oddFlag=true;
notify();
}
}
}
class MyThread1 extends Thread
{
private PrintDemo pd;
private String name;
MyThread1(String threadName,PrintDemo pd){
this.name=threadName;
this.pd=pd;
}
public void run ()
{
for(int i=1;i<=50;i+=2){
pd.printOdd(i,name);
}
}
}
class MyThread2 extends Thread
{
private PrintDemo pd;
private String name;
MyThread2(String threadName,PrintDemo pd){
this.name=threadName;
this.pd=pd;
}
public void run ()
{
for(int i=2;i<=50;i+=2){
pd.printEven(i,name);
}
}
}

We Keep Coding

Java is a programming language and computing platform first released by Sun Microsystems in 1995.

How to consume in Producer-Consumer using Semphores? - java

Instead of using two semaphores why dont you use a single semaphore to such that the synchronization is made between threads link Additional you can use ArrayBlockingQueue which are thread safe to properly demonstrate the Producer Consumer Problem.

Related

How to run while loops in different threads? [duplicate]

How to execute four threads consecutively one by one in java? [duplicate]

Sequence number using thread Synchronization

Trying to solve consumer-producer in java with multithreading

Writing a program with 2 threads which prints alternatively

Categories

Resources