I have a requirement wherein I want to make sure that if a particular method "Repo.get()" is getting called from the class, it should get called inside a synchronized block (or a synchronized method). I can modify the "Repo.get()". But I cannot modify the calling classes.
Check the below example:
class A {
public void testA() {
Repo r = new Repo();
synchronized (this) {
r.get();
}
}
}
class B {
public void testB() {
Repo r = new Repo();
r.get();
}
}
class Repo {
public void get() {
// My code goes here.
// When called from A, we should be able to print "YES"
// When called from B, we should be able to print "NO"
}
}
How can we achieve this?
Thanks,
Nikhil
it should get called inside a synchronized block (or a synchronized method).
This is a non-sensical requirement. In that I can trivially adhere to it accomplishing absolutely not a thing.
synchronized (new Object()) {
// this does absolutely nothing
}
synchronized blocks do nothing except interact with other synchronized blocks on the same object reference. Thus, it makes no sense to demand that 'synchronized' is used. It can make sense to demand that 'synchronized on this specific X is used'.
The above code does nothing by definition because it synchronizes on an object that no other thread could possibly reference, thus guaranteeing it is completely useless, which then proves that your requirement is silly.
If you want to upgrade into the non-silly requirement ('must sync on specifically this object reference'):
Thread.holdsLock(objRef) is all you need.
If you want to check if the current thread is holding any lock, well, that's not really possible, but it's good that this isn't possible, because that'd be a silly thing to want to do.
If the code faced a specific case I want to stop the current execution but continue the parent loop.
main() {
while(line not empty) {
// blablabla
method1()
// tadatadatada
}
}
method1() {
// blablabla
method2()
// etcetcetc
}
method2() {
// blablabla
if (var == 1)
stop the execution of the current method and parent method
// etcetcetc
}
In the case explained below, if var == 1, all etcetcetc part of code must not be executed, but tadatadatada must be...
So I want to stop all children executions.
Is there a solution to do that in Java?
Return a value from method2 and check it in method1. If it meets a condition, return from method1 too.
Something like:
method1() {
var shouldBreak = method2();
if (shouldBreak) {
return
}
// more stuff
}
Look into Java Multithreading. This will allow you to run multiple methods simultaneously and give you full control over when to stop a specific thread.
Here's a starting point from another: Threads in Java
I don't quite understand fully what you're asking as your example doesn't have extensive clarity, but hopefully this is what you're looking for.
This question already has answers here:
Why doesnt this Java loop in a thread work?
(4 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
For a recent library I'm writing, I wrote a thread which loops indefinitely. In this loop, I start with a conditional statement checking a property on the threaded object. However it seems that whatever initial value the property has, will be what it returns even after being updated.
Unless I do some kind of interruption such as Thread.sleep or a print statement.
I'm not really sure how to ask the question unfortunately. Otherwise I would be looking in the Java documentation. I have boiled down the code to a minimal example that explains the problem in simple terms.
public class App {
public static void main(String[] args) {
App app = new App();
}
class Test implements Runnable {
public boolean flag = false;
public void run() {
while(true) {
// try {
// Thread.sleep(1);
// } catch (InterruptedException e) {}
if (this.flag) {
System.out.println("True");
}
}
}
}
public App() {
Test t = new Test();
Thread thread = new Thread(t);
System.out.println("Starting thread");
thread.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
t.flag = true;
System.out.println("New flag value: " + t.flag);
}
}
Now, I would presume that after we change the value of the flag property on the running thread, we would immediately see the masses of 'True' spitting out to the terminal. However, we don't..
If I un-comment the Thread.sleep lines inside the thread loop, the program works as expected and we see the many lines of 'True' being printed after we change the value in the App object. As an addition, any print method in place of the Thread.sleep also works, but some simple assignment code does not. I assume this is because it is pulled out as un-used code at compile time.
So, my question is really: Why do I have to use some kind of interruption to get the thread to check conditions correctly?
So, my question is really: Why do I have to use some kind of interruption to get the thread to check conditions correctly?
Well you don't have to. There are at least two ways to implement this particular example without using "interruption".
If you declare flag to be volatile, then it will work.
It will also work if you declare flag to be private, write synchronized getter and setter methods, and use those for all accesses.
public class App {
public static void main(String[] args) {
App app = new App();
}
class Test implements Runnable {
private boolean flag = false;
public synchronized boolean getFlag() {
return this.flag;
}
public synchronized void setFlag(boolean flag) {
return this.flag = flag;
}
public void run() {
while(true) {
if (this.getFlag()) { // Must use the getter here too!
System.out.println("True");
}
}
}
}
public App() {
Test t = new Test();
Thread thread = new Thread(t);
System.out.println("Starting thread");
thread.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
t.setFlag(true);
System.out.println("New flag value: " + t.getFlag());
}
But why do you need to do this?
Because unless you use either a volatile or synchronized (and you use synchronized correctly) then one thread is not guaranteed to see memory changes made by another thread.
In your example, the child thread does not see the up-to-date value of flag. (It is not that the conditions themselves are incorrect or "don't work". They are actually getting stale inputs. This is "garbage in, garbage out".)
The Java Language Specification sets out precisely the conditions under which one thread is guaranteed to see (previous) writes made by another thread. This part of the spec is called the Java Memory Model, and it is in JLS 17.4. There is a more easy to understand explanation in Java Concurrency in Practice by Brian Goetz et al.
Note that the unexpected behavior could be due to the JIT deciding to keep the flag in a register. It could also be that the JIT compiler has decided it does not need force memory cache write-through, etcetera. (The JIT compiler doesn't want to force write-through on every memory write to every field. That would be a major performance hit on multi-core systems ... which most modern machines are.)
The Java interruption mechanism is yet another way to deal with this. You don't need any synchronization because the method calls that. In addition, interruption will work when the thread you are trying to interrupt is currently waiting or blocked on an interruptible operation; e.g. in an Object::wait call.
Because the variable is not modified in that thread, the JVM is free to effectively optimize the check away. To force an actual check, use the volatile keyword:
public volatile boolean flag = false;
I have a program which can be defined as something like this
reset() {
//sets all variables to initial values
//clears all arrays
method1();
}
method1 (){
//doSomeStuff;
method2();
}
method2(){
//doStuff
method3();
}
method3(){
//doStuff
if (jobDone) reset(); //here the cycle closes
else method2();
}
All these methods are quite calculations heavy.
Depending on the input data and the result the program may do just a couple of cycles and throw a 'stack overflow' error.
I have changed the VM flag -Xss (-Xss8M) but this doesn't really solve the problem.
Is there any way to make it working almost infinitely?
Solution previously mentioned by Luiggi Mendoza: How to avoid stack overflow error
When you call reset, it calls method1, it calls method2, it calls method3 and it calls either reset or method2 both causing infinite cycle in recursion.
You probably want:
if (jobDone) return; // here the cycle realy closes
instead of
if (jobDone) reset(); //here the do _not_ close
In case you realy want infinite cycling of your code this will not cause SO due to method calling of reset or methodi:
// assuming jobDone is actually a method, you might need this variable
boolean startReset = true;
while (true) {
if (startReset) {
//sets all variables to initial values
//clears all arrays
//doSomeStuff from method1;
}
//doStuff from method2
//doStuff
startReset = jobDone;
}
}
I have a method that I would like to call. However, I'm looking for a clean, simple way to kill it or force it to return if it is taking too long to execute.
I'm using Java.
to illustrate:
logger.info("sequentially executing all batches...");
for (TestExecutor executor : builder.getExecutors()) {
logger.info("executing batch...");
executor.execute();
}
I figure the TestExecutor class should implement Callable and continue in that direction.
But all i want to be able to do is stop executor.execute() if it's taking too long.
Suggestions...?
EDIT
Many of the suggestions received assume that the method being executed that takes a long time contains some kind of loop and that a variable could periodically be checked.
However, this is not the case. So something that won't necessarily be clean and that will just stop the execution whereever it is is acceptable.
You should take a look at these classes :
FutureTask, Callable, Executors
Here is an example :
public class TimeoutExample {
public static Object myMethod() {
// does your thing and taking a long time to execute
return someResult;
}
public static void main(final String[] args) {
Callable<Object> callable = new Callable<Object>() {
public Object call() throws Exception {
return myMethod();
}
};
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
Future<Object> task = executorService.submit(callable);
try {
// ok, wait for 30 seconds max
Object result = task.get(30, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
System.out.println("Finished with result: " + result);
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
System.out.println("timeout...");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("interrupted");
}
}
}
Java's interruption mechanism is intended for this kind of scenario. If the method that you wish to abort is executing a loop, just have it check the thread's interrupted status on every iteration. If it's interrupted, throw an InterruptedException.
Then, when you want to abort, you just have to invoke interrupt on the appropriate thread.
Alternatively, you can use the approach Sun suggest as an alternative to the deprecated stop method. This doesn't involve throwing any exceptions, the method would just return normally.
I'm assuming the use of multiple threads in the following statements.
I've done some reading in this area and most authors say that it's a bad idea to kill another thread.
If the function that you want to kill can be designed to periodically check a variable or synchronization primitive, and then terminate cleanly if that variable or synchronization primitive is set, that would be pretty clean. Then some sort of monitor thread can sleep for a number of milliseconds and then set the variable or synchronization primitive.
Really, you can't... The only way to do it is to either use thread.stop, agree on a 'cooperative' method (e.g. occassionally check for Thread.isInterrupted or call a method which throws an InterruptedException, e.g. Thread.sleep()), or somehow invoke the method in another JVM entirely.
For certain kinds of tests, calling stop() is okay, but it will probably damage the state of your test suite, so you'll have to relaunch the JVM after each call to stop() if you want to avoid interaction effects.
For a good description of how to implement the cooperative approach, check out Sun's FAQ on the deprecated Thread methods.
For an example of this approach in real life, Eclipse RCP's Job API's 'IProgressMonitor' object allows some management service to signal sub-processes (via the 'cancel' method) that they should stop. Of course, that relies on the methods to actually check the isCancelled method regularly, which they often fail to do.
A hybrid approach might be to ask the thread nicely with interrupt, then insist a couple of seconds later with stop. Again, you shouldn't use stop in production code, but it might be fine in this case, esp. if you exit the JVM soon after.
To test this approach, I wrote a simple harness, which takes a runnable and tries to execute it. Feel free to comment/edit.
public void testStop(Runnable r) {
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.start();
try {
t.join(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
if (!t.isAlive()) {
System.err.println("Finished on time.");
return;
}
try {
t.interrupt();
t.join(2000);
if (!t.isAlive()) {
System.err.println("cooperative stop");
return;
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
System.err.println("non-cooperative stop");
StackTraceElement[] trace = Thread.getAllStackTraces().get(t);
if (null != trace) {
Throwable temp = new Throwable();
temp.setStackTrace(trace);
temp.printStackTrace();
}
t.stop();
System.err.println("stopped non-cooperative thread");
}
To test it, I wrote two competing infinite loops, one cooperative, and one that never checks its thread's interrupted bit.
public void cooperative() {
try {
for (;;) {
Thread.sleep(500);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("cooperative() interrupted");
} finally {
System.err.println("cooperative() finally");
}
}
public void noncooperative() {
try {
for (;;) {
Thread.yield();
}
} finally {
System.err.println("noncooperative() finally");
}
}
Finally, I wrote the tests (JUnit 4) to exercise them:
#Test
public void testStopCooperative() {
testStop(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
cooperative();
}
});
}
#Test
public void testStopNoncooperative() {
testStop(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
noncooperative();
}
});
}
I had never used Thread.stop() before, so I was unaware of its operation. It works by throwing a ThreadDeath object from whereever the target thread is currently running. This extends Error. So, while it doesn't always work cleanly, it will usually leave simple programs with a fairly reasonable program state. For example, any finally blocks are called. If you wanted to be a real jerk, you could catch ThreadDeath (or Error), and keep running, anyway!
If nothing else, this really makes me wish more code followed the IProgressMonitor approach - adding another parameter to methods that might take a while, and encouraging the implementor of the method to occasionally poll the Monitor object to see if the user wants the system to give up. I'll try to follow this pattern in the future, especially methods that might be interactive. Of course, you don't necessarily know in advance which methods will be used this way, but that is what Profilers are for, I guess.
As for the 'start another JVM entirely' method, that will take more work. I don't know if anyone has written a delegating class loader, or if one is included in the JVM, but that would be required for this approach.
Nobody answered it directly, so here's the closest thing i can give you in a short amount of psuedo code:
wrap the method in a runnable/callable. The method itself is going to have to check for interrupted status if you want it to stop (for example, if this method is a loop, inside the loop check for Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted and if so, stop the loop (don't check on every iteration though, or you'll just slow stuff down.
in the wrapping method, use thread.join(timeout) to wait the time you want to let the method run. or, inside a loop there, call join repeatedly with a smaller timeout if you need to do other things while waiting. if the method doesn't finish, after joining, use the above recommendations for aborting fast/clean.
so code wise, old code:
void myMethod()
{
methodTakingAllTheTime();
}
new code:
void myMethod()
{
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable()
{
public void run()
{
methodTakingAllTheTime(); // modify the internals of this method to check for interruption
}
});
t.join(5000); // 5 seconds
t.interrupt();
}
but again, for this to work well, you'll still have to modify methodTakingAllTheTime or that thread will just continue to run after you've called interrupt.
The correct answer is, I believe, to create a Runnable to execute the sub-program, and run this in a separate Thread. THe Runnable may be a FutureTask, which you can run with a timeout ("get" method). If it times out, you'll get a TimeoutException, in which I suggest you
call thread.interrupt() to attempt to end it in a semi-cooperative manner (many library calls seem to be sensitive to this, so it will probably work)
wait a little (Thread.sleep(300))
and then, if the thread is still active (thread.isActive()), call thread.stop(). This is a deprecated method, but apparently the only game in town short of running a separate process with all that this entails.
In my application, where I run untrusted, uncooperative code written by my beginner students, I do the above, ensuring that the killed thread never has (write) access to any objects that survive its death. This includes the object that houses the called method, which is discarded if a timeout occurs. (I tell my students to avoid timeouts, because their agent will be disqualified.) I am unsure about memory leaks...
I distinguish between long runtimes (method terminates) and hard timeouts - the hard timeouts are longer and meant to catch the case when code does not terminate at all, as opposed to being slow.
From my research, Java does not seem to have a non-deprecated provision for running non-cooperative code, which, in a way, is a gaping hole in the security model. Either I can run foreign code and control the permissions it has (SecurityManager), or I cannot run foreign code, because it might end up taking up a whole CPU with no non-deprecated means to stop it.
double x = 2.0;
while(true) {x = x*x}; // do not terminate
System.out.print(x); // prevent optimization
I can think of a not so great way to do this. If you can detect when it is taking too much time, you can have the method check for a boolean in every step. Have the program change the value of the boolean tooMuchTime to true if it is taking too much time (I can't help with this). Then use something like this:
Method(){
//task1
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task2
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task3
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task4
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task5
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//final task
}