We Keep Coding

Java Concurrency in Practice “Listing 7.9. Interrupting a task in a dedicated thread.”. What is the purpose of scheduled taskThread.interrupt()?

I am reading Java Concurrency in Practice and encounter the following code snippet.
public static void timedRun(final Runnable r,
long timeout, TimeUnit unit)
throws InterruptedException {
class RethrowableTask implements Runnable {
private volatile Throwable t;
public void run() {
try { r.run(); }
catch (Throwable t) { this.t = t; }
}
void rethrow() {
if (t != null)
throw launderThrowable(t);
}
}
RethrowableTask task = new RethrowableTask();
final Thread taskThread = new Thread(task);
taskThread.start();
cancelExec.schedule(new Runnable() {
public void run() { taskThread.interrupt(); }
}, timeout, unit);
taskThread.join(unit.toMillis(timeout));
task.rethrow();
}
timedRun method is used to run task r within a time range. This feature can be implemented by taskThread.join(unit.toMillis(timeout));. So, why do we need scheduled taskThread.interrupt();?

This feature can be implemented by taskThread.join(unit.toMillis(timeout));
This isn't true. The time limit of the join just determines when the joining thread will give up waiting. It doesn't affect the thread being limited with a timeout. The scheduled interrupt tells the running thread to shut itself down after the timeout has expired. If it weren't there, that thread would continue to consume resources. Presumably the point of the method is to prevent that.

How to Stop Thread [duplicate]

I need a solution to properly stop the thread in Java.
I have IndexProcessorclass which implements the Runnable interface:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
#Override
public void run() {
boolean run = true;
while (run) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
run = false;
}
}
}
}
And I have ServletContextListener class which starts and stops the thread:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
thread = new Thread(new IndexProcessor());
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (thread != null) {
thread.interrupt();
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}
But when I shutdown tomcat, I get the exception in my IndexProcessor class:
2012-06-09 17:04:50,671 [Thread-3] ERROR IndexProcessor Exception
java.lang.InterruptedException: sleep interrupted
at java.lang.Thread.sleep(Native Method)
at lt.ccl.searchengine.processor.IndexProcessor.run(IndexProcessor.java:22)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
I am using JDK 1.6. So the question is:
How can I stop the thread and not throw any exceptions?
P.S. I do not want to use .stop(); method because it is deprecated.

Using Thread.interrupt() is a perfectly acceptable way of doing this. In fact, it's probably preferrable to a flag as suggested above. The reason being that if you're in an interruptable blocking call (like Thread.sleep or using java.nio Channel operations), you'll actually be able to break out of those right away.
If you use a flag, you have to wait for the blocking operation to finish and then you can check your flag. In some cases you have to do this anyway, such as using standard InputStream/OutputStream which are not interruptable.
In that case, when a thread is interrupted, it will not interrupt the IO, however, you can easily do this routinely in your code (and you should do this at strategic points where you can safely stop and cleanup)
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
// cleanup and stop execution
// for example a break in a loop
}
Like I said, the main advantage to Thread.interrupt() is that you can immediately break out of interruptable calls, which you can't do with the flag approach.

In the IndexProcessor class you need a way of setting a flag which informs the thread that it will need to terminate, similar to the variable run that you have used just in the class scope.
When you wish to stop the thread, you set this flag and call join() on the thread and wait for it to finish.
Make sure that the flag is thread safe by using a volatile variable or by using getter and setter methods which are synchronised with the variable being used as the flag.
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private volatile boolean running = true;
public void terminate() {
running = false;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
running = false;
}
}
}
}
Then in SearchEngineContextListener:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
private IndexProcessor runnable = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
runnable = new IndexProcessor();
thread = new Thread(runnable);
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (thread != null) {
runnable.terminate();
thread.join();
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}

Simple answer:
You can stop a thread INTERNALLY in one of two common ways:
The run method hits a return subroutine.
Run method finishes, and returns implicitly.
You can also stop threads EXTERNALLY:
Call system.exit (this kills your entire process)
Call the thread object's interrupt() method *
See if the thread has an implemented method that sounds like it would work (like kill() or stop())
*: The expectation is that this is supposed to stop a thread. However, what the thread actually does when this happens is entirely up to what the developer wrote when they created the thread implementation.
A common pattern you see with run method implementations is a while(boolean){}, where the boolean is typically something named isRunning, it's a member variable of its thread class, it's volatile, and typically accessible by other threads by a setter method of sorts, e.g. kill() { isRunnable=false; }. These subroutines are nice because they allow the thread to release any resources it holds before terminating.

You should always end threads by checking a flag in the run() loop (if any).
Your thread should look like this:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private volatile boolean execute;
#Override
public void run() {
this.execute = true;
while (this.execute) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
this.execute = false;
}
}
}
public void stopExecuting() {
this.execute = false;
}
}
Then you can end the thread by calling thread.stopExecuting(). That way the thread is ended clean, but this takes up to 15 seconds (due to your sleep).
You can still call thread.interrupt() if it's really urgent - but the prefered way should always be checking the flag.
To avoid waiting for 15 seconds, you can split up the sleep like this:
...
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
for (int i = 0; (i < 150) && this.execute; i++) {
Thread.sleep((long) 100);
}
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
...

Typically, a thread is terminated when it's interrupted. So, why not use the native boolean? Try isInterrupted():
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
// do stuff
}
}});
t.start();
// Sleep a second, and then interrupt
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
t.interrupt();
ref- How can I kill a thread? without using stop();

For synchronizing threads I prefer using CountDownLatch which helps threads to wait until the process being performed complete. In this case, the worker class is set up with a CountDownLatch instance with a given count. A call to await method will block until the current count reaches zero due to invocations of the countDown method or the timeout set is reached. This approach allows interrupting a thread instantly without having to wait for the specified waiting time to elapse:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private final CountDownLatch countdownlatch;
public IndexProcessor(CountDownLatch countdownlatch) {
this.countdownlatch = countdownlatch;
}
public void run() {
try {
while (!countdownlatch.await(15000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
LOGGER.debug("Processing...");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
run = false;
}
}
}
When you want to finish execution of the other thread, execute countDown on the CountDownLatch and join the thread to the main thread:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
private IndexProcessor runnable = null;
private CountDownLatch countdownLatch = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
countdownLatch = new CountDownLatch(1);
Thread thread = new Thread(new IndexProcessor(countdownLatch));
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (countdownLatch != null)
{
countdownLatch.countDown();
}
if (thread != null) {
try {
thread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
}
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}

Some supplementary info.
Both flag and interrupt are suggested in the Java doc.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/concurrency/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html
private volatile Thread blinker;
public void stop() {
blinker = null;
}
public void run() {
Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread();
while (blinker == thisThread) {
try {
Thread.sleep(interval);
} catch (InterruptedException e){
}
repaint();
}
}
For a thread that waits for long periods (e.g., for input), use Thread.interrupt
public void stop() {
Thread moribund = waiter;
waiter = null;
moribund.interrupt();
}

I didn't get the interrupt to work in Android, so I used this method, works perfectly:
boolean shouldCheckUpdates = true;
private void startupCheckForUpdatesEveryFewSeconds() {
threadCheckChat = new Thread(new CheckUpdates());
threadCheckChat.start();
}
private class CheckUpdates implements Runnable{
public void run() {
while (shouldCheckUpdates){
System.out.println("Do your thing here");
}
}
}
public void stop(){
shouldCheckUpdates = false;
}

Brian Goetz in his book suggests to use Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() flag and interrupt() method for cancellation.
Blocking library methods like sleep() and wait() try to detect when a thread has been interrupted and return early. They respond to interruption by clearing the interrupted status and throwing InterruptedException, indicating that the blocking operation completed early due to interruption.
The JVM makes no guarantees on how quickly a blocking method will detect interruption, but in practice this happens reasonably quickly.
class PrimeProducer extends Thread {
private final BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue;
PrimeProducer(BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
public void run() {
try {
BigInteger p = BigInteger.ONE;
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
queue.put(p = p.nextProbablePrime()); // blocking operation
}
} catch (InterruptedException consumed) {
// allow thread to exit
}
// any code here will still be executed
}
public void cancel() {
interrupt();
}
}
If you put any code after catch block, it will still be executed as we swallow InterruptedException to exit from run() gracefully.
Just a couple words on how interrupt() works.
If interrupt is called on non-blocked thread, interrupt() will not cause InterruptedException inside run() but will just change flag isInterrupted to true and thread will continue its work until it reaches Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() check and exit from run().
If interrupt is called on blocked thread (sleep() or wait()was called, in our case it's put() that might block a thread) then isInterrupted will be set to false and InterruptedException will be thrown inside put().

Java : how to end and get out from inheritIO process [duplicate]

I need a solution to properly stop the thread in Java.
I have IndexProcessorclass which implements the Runnable interface:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
#Override
public void run() {
boolean run = true;
while (run) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
run = false;
}
}
}
}
And I have ServletContextListener class which starts and stops the thread:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
thread = new Thread(new IndexProcessor());
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (thread != null) {
thread.interrupt();
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}
But when I shutdown tomcat, I get the exception in my IndexProcessor class:
2012-06-09 17:04:50,671 [Thread-3] ERROR IndexProcessor Exception
java.lang.InterruptedException: sleep interrupted
at java.lang.Thread.sleep(Native Method)
at lt.ccl.searchengine.processor.IndexProcessor.run(IndexProcessor.java:22)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
I am using JDK 1.6. So the question is:
How can I stop the thread and not throw any exceptions?
P.S. I do not want to use .stop(); method because it is deprecated.

Using Thread.interrupt() is a perfectly acceptable way of doing this. In fact, it's probably preferrable to a flag as suggested above. The reason being that if you're in an interruptable blocking call (like Thread.sleep or using java.nio Channel operations), you'll actually be able to break out of those right away.
If you use a flag, you have to wait for the blocking operation to finish and then you can check your flag. In some cases you have to do this anyway, such as using standard InputStream/OutputStream which are not interruptable.
In that case, when a thread is interrupted, it will not interrupt the IO, however, you can easily do this routinely in your code (and you should do this at strategic points where you can safely stop and cleanup)
if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
// cleanup and stop execution
// for example a break in a loop
}
Like I said, the main advantage to Thread.interrupt() is that you can immediately break out of interruptable calls, which you can't do with the flag approach.

In the IndexProcessor class you need a way of setting a flag which informs the thread that it will need to terminate, similar to the variable run that you have used just in the class scope.
When you wish to stop the thread, you set this flag and call join() on the thread and wait for it to finish.
Make sure that the flag is thread safe by using a volatile variable or by using getter and setter methods which are synchronised with the variable being used as the flag.
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private volatile boolean running = true;
public void terminate() {
running = false;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
running = false;
}
}
}
}
Then in SearchEngineContextListener:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
private IndexProcessor runnable = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
runnable = new IndexProcessor();
thread = new Thread(runnable);
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (thread != null) {
runnable.terminate();
thread.join();
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}

Simple answer:
You can stop a thread INTERNALLY in one of two common ways:
The run method hits a return subroutine.
Run method finishes, and returns implicitly.
You can also stop threads EXTERNALLY:
Call system.exit (this kills your entire process)
Call the thread object's interrupt() method *
See if the thread has an implemented method that sounds like it would work (like kill() or stop())
*: The expectation is that this is supposed to stop a thread. However, what the thread actually does when this happens is entirely up to what the developer wrote when they created the thread implementation.
A common pattern you see with run method implementations is a while(boolean){}, where the boolean is typically something named isRunning, it's a member variable of its thread class, it's volatile, and typically accessible by other threads by a setter method of sorts, e.g. kill() { isRunnable=false; }. These subroutines are nice because they allow the thread to release any resources it holds before terminating.

You should always end threads by checking a flag in the run() loop (if any).
Your thread should look like this:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private volatile boolean execute;
#Override
public void run() {
this.execute = true;
while (this.execute) {
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
Thread.sleep((long) 15000);
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
this.execute = false;
}
}
}
public void stopExecuting() {
this.execute = false;
}
}
Then you can end the thread by calling thread.stopExecuting(). That way the thread is ended clean, but this takes up to 15 seconds (due to your sleep).
You can still call thread.interrupt() if it's really urgent - but the prefered way should always be checking the flag.
To avoid waiting for 15 seconds, you can split up the sleep like this:
...
try {
LOGGER.debug("Sleeping...");
for (int i = 0; (i < 150) && this.execute; i++) {
Thread.sleep((long) 100);
}
LOGGER.debug("Processing");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
...

Typically, a thread is terminated when it's interrupted. So, why not use the native boolean? Try isInterrupted():
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable(){
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
// do stuff
}
}});
t.start();
// Sleep a second, and then interrupt
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
t.interrupt();
ref- How can I kill a thread? without using stop();

For synchronizing threads I prefer using CountDownLatch which helps threads to wait until the process being performed complete. In this case, the worker class is set up with a CountDownLatch instance with a given count. A call to await method will block until the current count reaches zero due to invocations of the countDown method or the timeout set is reached. This approach allows interrupting a thread instantly without having to wait for the specified waiting time to elapse:
public class IndexProcessor implements Runnable {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(IndexProcessor.class);
private final CountDownLatch countdownlatch;
public IndexProcessor(CountDownLatch countdownlatch) {
this.countdownlatch = countdownlatch;
}
public void run() {
try {
while (!countdownlatch.await(15000, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS)) {
LOGGER.debug("Processing...");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
run = false;
}
}
}
When you want to finish execution of the other thread, execute countDown on the CountDownLatch and join the thread to the main thread:
public class SearchEngineContextListener implements ServletContextListener {
private static final Logger LOGGER = LoggerFactory.getLogger(SearchEngineContextListener.class);
private Thread thread = null;
private IndexProcessor runnable = null;
private CountDownLatch countdownLatch = null;
#Override
public void contextInitialized(ServletContextEvent event) {
countdownLatch = new CountDownLatch(1);
Thread thread = new Thread(new IndexProcessor(countdownLatch));
LOGGER.debug("Starting thread: " + thread);
thread.start();
LOGGER.debug("Background process successfully started.");
}
#Override
public void contextDestroyed(ServletContextEvent event) {
LOGGER.debug("Stopping thread: " + thread);
if (countdownLatch != null)
{
countdownLatch.countDown();
}
if (thread != null) {
try {
thread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
LOGGER.error("Exception", e);
}
LOGGER.debug("Thread successfully stopped.");
}
}
}

Some supplementary info.
Both flag and interrupt are suggested in the Java doc.
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/concurrency/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html
private volatile Thread blinker;
public void stop() {
blinker = null;
}
public void run() {
Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread();
while (blinker == thisThread) {
try {
Thread.sleep(interval);
} catch (InterruptedException e){
}
repaint();
}
}
For a thread that waits for long periods (e.g., for input), use Thread.interrupt
public void stop() {
Thread moribund = waiter;
waiter = null;
moribund.interrupt();
}

I didn't get the interrupt to work in Android, so I used this method, works perfectly:
boolean shouldCheckUpdates = true;
private void startupCheckForUpdatesEveryFewSeconds() {
threadCheckChat = new Thread(new CheckUpdates());
threadCheckChat.start();
}
private class CheckUpdates implements Runnable{
public void run() {
while (shouldCheckUpdates){
System.out.println("Do your thing here");
}
}
}
public void stop(){
shouldCheckUpdates = false;
}

Brian Goetz in his book suggests to use Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() flag and interrupt() method for cancellation.
Blocking library methods like sleep() and wait() try to detect when a thread has been interrupted and return early. They respond to interruption by clearing the interrupted status and throwing InterruptedException, indicating that the blocking operation completed early due to interruption.
The JVM makes no guarantees on how quickly a blocking method will detect interruption, but in practice this happens reasonably quickly.
class PrimeProducer extends Thread {
private final BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue;
PrimeProducer(BlockingQueue<BigInteger> queue) {
this.queue = queue;
}
public void run() {
try {
BigInteger p = BigInteger.ONE;
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
queue.put(p = p.nextProbablePrime()); // blocking operation
}
} catch (InterruptedException consumed) {
// allow thread to exit
}
// any code here will still be executed
}
public void cancel() {
interrupt();
}
}
If you put any code after catch block, it will still be executed as we swallow InterruptedException to exit from run() gracefully.
Just a couple words on how interrupt() works.
If interrupt is called on non-blocked thread, interrupt() will not cause InterruptedException inside run() but will just change flag isInterrupted to true and thread will continue its work until it reaches Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() check and exit from run().
If interrupt is called on blocked thread (sleep() or wait()was called, in our case it's put() that might block a thread) then isInterrupted will be set to false and InterruptedException will be thrown inside put().

Java Multithreading doesn't seem to be correctly working

I have a class which processes something. I'm trying to run a number of instances of this class in parallel.
However, I'm not sure if in TaskManager.startAll(), when I call r.go(), whether this would cause r to start running in its own thread, or within the main thread?
The total execution time that I'm getting seems to be very high, and despite my attempts at optimizing, nothing seems to be having any effect. Also, if I run a profiler on my project in Netbeans, it shows all the threads as sleeping. So I'd like to know if I'm doing something wrong?
This is the structure of the class:
public class TaskRunner implements Runnable {
private boolean isRunning = false;
public void run() {
while(true) {
while (! running) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
process();
}
}
public void go() {
isRunning = true;
}
public void stop() {
isRunning = false;
}
private void process() {
//Do some number crunching and processing here
}
}
Here's how these are being run / managed:
public class TaskManager {
private ArrayList<TaskRunner> runners = new ArrayList<>();
public TaskManager() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
TaskRunner r = new TaskRunner();
new Thread(r).start();
runners.add(r);
}
}
public void startAll() {
for (TaskRunner r : runners) {
r.go();
}
}
}

Indeed, you are not "doing it right." If you want to create a multi-threaded Java application, the place to start is with the java.util.concurrent package.
It appears from your code that you want to run ten tasks in parallel. I assume that after "number crunching and processing," you'll want to aggregate the results and do something with them in the main thread. For this, the invokeAll() method of ExecutorService works well.
First, implement Callable to do the work you show in your process() method.
final class YourTask implements Callable<YourResults> {
private final YourInput input;
YourTask(YourInput input) {
this.input = input;
}
#Override
public YourResults call()
throws Exception
{
/* Do some number crunching and processing here. */
return new YourResults(...);
}
}
Then create your tasks and run them. This would take the place of your main() method:
Collection<Callable<YourResults>> tasks = new List<>(inputs.size());
for (YourInput i : inputs)
tasks.add(new YourTask(i));
ExecutorService workers = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
/* The next call blocks while the worker threads complete all tasks. */
List<Future<YourResult>> results = workers.invokeAll(tasks);
workers.shutdown();
for (Future<YourResult> f : results) {
YourResult r = f.get();
/* Do whatever it is you do with the results. */
...
}

However, I'm not sure if in TaskManager.startAll(), when I call r.go(), whether this would cause r to start running in its own thread, or within the main thread?
So my first comment is that you should make isRunning be volatile since it is being shared between threads. If the threads are not starting when it goes to true (or seem to be delayed in starting) then I suspect that's your problem. volatile provides memory synchronization between the threads so the thread that calls go() and makes a change to isRunning will be seen immediately by the thread waiting for the change.
Instead of spinning like this, I would use wait/notify:
// this synchronizes on the instance of `TaskRunner`
synchronized (this) {
// always do your wait in a while loop to protect against spurious wakeups
while (!isRunning && !Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
try {
// wait until the notify is called on this object
this.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
Then in the go() method you should do the following. stop() would be similar.
public void go() {
synchronized (this) {
isRunning = true;
this.notifyAll();
}
}
Notice that you should handle thread interrupts carefully. Test for isInterrupted() in the while running loop and re-interrupt a thread when InterruptedException is thrown is always a good pattern.
The total execution time that I'm getting seems to be very high, and despite my attempts at optimizing, nothing seems to be having any effect. Also, if I run a profiler on my project in Netbeans, it shows all the threads as sleeping.
So although the threads are mostly sleeping, they are still each looping 1000 times a second because of your Thread.sleep(1). If you increased the time sleeping (after making isRunning be volatile) they would loop less but the right mechanism is to use the wait/notify to signal the thread.

Awful solution, terrible. first I highly recommend you start reading some tutorial like [this]
Second, if threads should wait for a signal to go for some job, so why just don't you wait them!!!!!, something like this
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class TaskManager
{
//////////////////////
public volatile static Signal wait=new Signal();
//////////////////////
private ArrayList<TaskRunner> runners = new ArrayList<>();
public TaskManager()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
TaskRunner r = new TaskRunner();
new Thread(r).start();
runners.add(r);
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
startAll();
Thread.sleep(1000);
pauseAll();
Thread.sleep(1000);
startAll();
Thread.sleep(1000);
haltAll();System.out.println("DONE!");
}catch(Exception ex){}
}
public void startAll()
{
synchronized(wait){
wait.setRun(true);;
wait.notifyAll();
}
}
public void pauseAll(){
wait.setRun(false);
}
public void haltAll(){
for(TaskRunner tx:runners){tx.halt();}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new TaskManager();
}
}
class TaskRunner implements Runnable
{
private Thread thisThread;
private volatile boolean run=true;
public void run()
{
thisThread=Thread.currentThread();
while(run){
if(!TaskManager.wait.isRun()){
synchronized(TaskManager.wait)
{
if(!TaskManager.wait.isRun()){
System.out.println("Wait!...");
try
{
TaskManager.wait.wait();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
break;
}
}
}}
process();
}
}
private double r=Math.random();
private void process(){System.out.println(r);try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (Exception e) {
// TODO: handle exception
}}
public void halt(){run=false;thisThread.interrupt();}
}
class Signal{
private boolean run=false;
public boolean isRun() {
return run;
}
public void setRun(boolean run) {
this.run = run;
}
}
in above sample, all runners works till the Signal run boolean is true, and simple TaskManager class set tit as false for every time it needs to pause the threads. and about the halt, it just set the shutdown(run) flag to false, and also interrupt the thread because of if thread is in wait state.
I hope I could prove your solution is like dream-on story, and also could explained enough about my solution.
have a good parallel application :)

How do I call some blocking method with a timeout in Java?

Is there a standard nice way to call a blocking method with a timeout in Java? I want to be able to do:
// call something.blockingMethod();
// if it hasn't come back within 2 seconds, forget it
if that makes sense.
Thanks.

You could use an Executor:
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
Callable<Object> task = new Callable<Object>() {
public Object call() {
return something.blockingMethod();
}
};
Future<Object> future = executor.submit(task);
try {
Object result = future.get(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (TimeoutException ex) {
// handle the timeout
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// handle the interrupts
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
// handle other exceptions
} finally {
future.cancel(true); // may or may not desire this
}
If the future.get doesn't return in 5 seconds, it throws a TimeoutException. The timeout can be configured in seconds, minutes, milliseconds or any unit available as a constant in TimeUnit.
See the JavaDoc for more detail.

You could wrap the call in a FutureTask and use the timeout version of get().
See http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/FutureTask.html

See also Guava's TimeLimiter which uses an Executor behind the scenes.

It's really great that people try to implement this in so many ways. But the truth is, there is NO way.
Most developers would try to put the blocking call in a different thread and have a future or some timer. BUT there is no way in Java to stop a thread externally, let alone a few very specific cases like the Thread.sleep() and Lock.lockInterruptibly() methods that explicitly handle thread interruption.
So really you have only 3 generic options:
Put your blocking call on a new thread and if the time expires you just move on, leaving that thread hanging. In that case you should make sure the thread is set to be a Daemon thread. This way the thread will not stop your application from terminating.
Use non blocking Java APIs. So for network for example, use NIO2 and use the non blocking methods. For reading from the console use Scanner.hasNext() before blocking etc.
If your blocking call is not an IO, but your logic, then you can repeatedly check for Thread.isInterrupted() to check if it was interrupted externally, and have another thread call thread.interrupt() on the blocking thread
This course about concurrency https://www.udemy.com/java-multithreading-concurrency-performance-optimization/?couponCode=CONCURRENCY
really walks through those fundamentals if you really want to understand how it works in Java. It actually talks about those specific limitations and scenarios, and how to go about them in one of the lectures.
I personally try to program without using blocking calls as much as possible. There are toolkits like Vert.x for example that make it really easy and performant to do IO and no IO operations asynchronously and in a non blocking way.
I hope it helps

There is also an AspectJ solution for that with jcabi-aspects library.
#Timeable(limit = 30, unit = TimeUnit.MINUTES)
public Soup cookSoup() {
// Cook soup, but for no more than 30 minutes (throw and exception if it takes any longer
}
It can't get more succinct, but you have to depend on AspectJ and introduce it in your build lifecycle, of course.
There is an article explaining it further: Limit Java Method Execution Time

I'm giving you here the complete code. In place of the method I'm calling, you can use your method:
public class NewTimeout {
public String simpleMethod() {
return "simple method";
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
Callable<Object> task = new Callable<Object>() {
public Object call() throws InterruptedException {
Thread.sleep(1100);
return new NewTimeout().simpleMethod();
}
};
Future<Object> future = executor.submit(task);
try {
Object result = future.get(1, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
System.out.println(result);
} catch (TimeoutException ex) {
System.out.println("Timeout............Timeout...........");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// handle the interrupts
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
// handle other exceptions
} finally {
executor.shutdown(); // may or may not desire this
}
}
}

Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
something.blockingMethod();
}
});
thread.start();
thread.join(2000);
if (thread.isAlive()) {
thread.stop();
}
Note, that stop is deprecated, better alternative is to set some volatile boolean flag, inside blockingMethod() check it and exit, like this:
import org.junit.*;
import java.util.*;
import junit.framework.TestCase;
public class ThreadTest extends TestCase {
static class Something implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean stopRequested;
private final int steps;
private final long waitPerStep;
public Something(int steps, long waitPerStep) {
this.steps = steps;
this.waitPerStep = waitPerStep;
}
#Override
public void run() {
blockingMethod();
}
public void blockingMethod() {
try {
for (int i = 0; i < steps && !stopRequested; i++) {
doALittleBit();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
public void doALittleBit() throws InterruptedException {
Thread.sleep(waitPerStep);
}
public void setStopRequested(boolean stopRequested) {
this.stopRequested = stopRequested;
}
}
#Test
public void test() throws InterruptedException {
final Something somethingRunnable = new Something(5, 1000);
Thread thread = new Thread(somethingRunnable);
thread.start();
thread.join(2000);
if (thread.isAlive()) {
somethingRunnable.setStopRequested(true);
thread.join(2000);
assertFalse(thread.isAlive());
} else {
fail("Exptected to be alive (5 * 1000 > 2000)");
}
}
}

You need a circuit breaker implementation like the one present in the failsafe project on GitHub.

Try this. More simple solution. Guarantees that if block didn't execute within the time limit. the process will terminate and throws an exception.
public class TimeoutBlock {
private final long timeoutMilliSeconds;
private long timeoutInteval=100;
public TimeoutBlock(long timeoutMilliSeconds){
this.timeoutMilliSeconds=timeoutMilliSeconds;
}
public void addBlock(Runnable runnable) throws Throwable{
long collectIntervals=0;
Thread timeoutWorker=new Thread(runnable);
timeoutWorker.start();
do{
if(collectIntervals>=this.timeoutMilliSeconds){
timeoutWorker.stop();
throw new Exception("<<<<<<<<<<****>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Execution Time Exceeded In "+timeoutMilliSeconds+" Milli Seconds. Thread Block Terminated.");
}
collectIntervals+=timeoutInteval;
Thread.sleep(timeoutInteval);
}while(timeoutWorker.isAlive());
System.out.println("<<<<<<<<<<####>>>>>>>>>>> Timeout Block Executed Within "+collectIntervals+" Milli Seconds.");
}
/**
* #return the timeoutInteval
*/
public long getTimeoutInteval() {
return timeoutInteval;
}
/**
* #param timeoutInteval the timeoutInteval to set
*/
public void setTimeoutInteval(long timeoutInteval) {
this.timeoutInteval = timeoutInteval;
}
}
example :
try {
TimeoutBlock timeoutBlock = new TimeoutBlock(10 * 60 * 1000);//set timeout in milliseconds
Runnable block=new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
//TO DO write block of code
}
};
timeoutBlock.addBlock(block);// execute the runnable block
} catch (Throwable e) {
//catch the exception here . Which is block didn't execute within the time limit
}

In special case of a blocking queue:
Generic java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue has a poll method with timeout parameter.

Assume blockingMethod just sleep for some millis:
public void blockingMethod(Object input) {
try {
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
My solution is to use wait() and synchronized like this:
public void blockingMethod(final Object input, long millis) {
final Object lock = new Object();
new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
blockingMethod(input);
synchronized (lock) {
lock.notify();
}
}
}).start();
synchronized (lock) {
try {
// Wait for specific millis and release the lock.
// If blockingMethod is done during waiting time, it will wake
// me up and give me the lock, and I will finish directly.
// Otherwise, when the waiting time is over and the
// blockingMethod is still
// running, I will reacquire the lock and finish.
lock.wait(millis);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
So u can replace
something.blockingMethod(input)
to
something.blockingMethod(input, 2000)
Hope it helps.