Java multi-threading run 3 thread - java

public class TaskThreadDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
// Create tasks
Runnable printA = new PrintChar('a', 100);
Runnable printB = new PrintChar('b', 100);
Runnable print100 = new PrintNum(100);
// Create threads
Thread thread1 = new Thread(printA);
Thread thread2 = new Thread(printB);
Thread thread3 = new Thread(print100);
// Start threads
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
thread3.start();
}
}
// The task for printing a specified character in specified times
class PrintChar implements Runnable {
private char charToPrint; // The character to print
private int times; // The times to repeat
/** Construct a task with specified character and number of
* times to print the character
*/
public PrintChar(char c, int t) {
charToPrint = c;
times = t;
}
/** Override the run() method to tell the system
* what the task to perform
*/
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < times; i++) {
System.out.print(charToPrint);
}
}
}
// The task class for printing number from 1 to n for a given n
class PrintNum implements Runnable {
private int lastNum;
/** Construct a task for printing 1, 2, ... i */
public PrintNum(int n) {
lastNum = n;
}
/** Tell the thread how to run */
public void run() {
for (int i = 1; i <= lastNum; i++) {
System.out.print(" " + i);
}
}
}
Here is the previous code, when the code run, the output will be aaaaaa.....bbbbbbbb.........1 2 3 4 5 ......100
How if i wan to change the output become :
1 2 abbbbaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbb 3 4 5 6 7 aaaaaabbbb 8 9 10 aaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbaaa 11 12 13 14 ........ bbaaaabbaaaa ...... 100
Thanks.

Related

How can I ensure that the processes of the threads are completely finished?

I am working on Thread for the first time and I tried to code an example I saw on the internet. An ArrayList of numbers must be divided into 4 parts, and 4 separate threads need to find the odd and even numbers in those parts and add them to the "evens" or "odds" list. Although I do not have any problems with the algorithm, I have problems with Threads.
Since the codes are not very long, I am adding them completely.
My Runnable Class:
package ThreadRace;
public class OddEvenFinder implements Runnable {
private final int id;
private final int size;
public OddEvenFinder(int id, int size) {
this.id = id;
this.size = size;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int start = id * this.size;
int end = start + this.size;
while (start < end) {
if (Starter.numbers.get(start) % 2 == 0) {
Starter.evens.add(start);
}
else {
Starter.odds.add(start);
}
start++;
}
}
}
My testing class:
package ThreadRace;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class Starter {
public static List<Integer> numbers = new ArrayList<>();
public static List<Integer> evens = new ArrayList<>();
public static List<Integer> odds = new ArrayList<>();
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
for (int i = 1; i <= 10000; i++) {
numbers.add(i);
}
OddEvenFinder f1 = new OddEvenFinder(0, numbers.size() / 4);
OddEvenFinder f2 = new OddEvenFinder(1, numbers.size() / 4);
OddEvenFinder f3 = new OddEvenFinder(2, numbers.size() / 4);
OddEvenFinder f4 = new OddEvenFinder(3, numbers.size() / 4);
Thread thread1 = new Thread(f1);
Thread thread2 = new Thread(f2);
Thread thread3 = new Thread(f3);
Thread thread4 = new Thread(f4);
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
thread3.start();
thread4.start();
thread1.join();
thread2.join();
thread3.join();
thread4.join();
System.out.println(evens.size());
System.out.println(odds.size());
}
}
When I run the application this way, the length of the evens and odds lists should be 5000-5000, but I get a result between 3000-4000.
Shouldn't the .join() function wait for threads to finish? How can there be numbers that are not included in the lists?
The interesting part is that the problem is almost resolved when I add a few words to debug.
When I edit the code like this:
#Override
public void run() {
int start = id * this.size;
int end = start + this.size;
while (start < end) {
System.out.println("Thread number " + (this.id + 1) + " is working");
if (Starter.numbers.get(start) % 2 == 0) {
System.out.println(start + " added to evens");
Starter.evens.add(start);
}
else {
System.out.println(start + " added to odds");
Starter.odds.add(start);
}
start++;
}
}
The output I get gives almost accurate results like 4999-5000. When I set the size of the numbers array to a smaller value such as 4000-5000, it gives the correct result.
I have 2 questions:
1- Why .join() is not working or what am I wrong about .join()?
2- How is it that printing a few texts makes the program run more accurately?
In the JavaDocs of ArrayList, it says in bold "Note that this implementation is not synchronised". So if several threads want to add an element at the same time, only the last call of the method will set the real value. The values of the other threads are simply overwritten. Therefore, you will get fewer numbers than expected.
In order for the list to be filled in a synchronised way, you should use the keyword "synchronized" as shown below.
synchronized (Starter.evens) {
Starter.evens.add(start);
}
and
synchronized (Starter.odds) {
Starter.odds.add(start);
}

Two counters on different threads counting until one is done

Make 2 thread counters - counting from start to end value. The value of the counter should be displayed for each count. One thread is set to count to a smaller value than the other. When one of the threads counts to the setpoint, the other stops and completes its execution.
This is my task so I made a solution with a AtomicBoolean run = new AtomicBoolean(true);
/**
* Implements {#link Runnable} and his method {#link Runnable#run} to run until stop is set to true
* and count is less than maxCount.
*/
public class Counter implements Runnable {
private static final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(Counter.class);
private static final String MAX_COUNT_EXCEPTION_MESSAGE = "maxCount should be bigger than zero!";
private static final int NUMBER_TO_CHECK_MAX_COUNT_VALIDATION = 1;
private AtomicBoolean run;
private int count;
private int maxCount;
/**
* Constructs a counter with zero count and run equal to true with a specified maxCount.
*
* #param maxCount of the counter
* #throws IllegalArgumentException if maxCount is smaller than 1
*/
Counter(int maxCount, AtomicBoolean run) {
if (maxCount < NUMBER_TO_CHECK_MAX_COUNT_VALIDATION) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(MAX_COUNT_EXCEPTION_MESSAGE);
}
this.maxCount = maxCount;
this.run = run;
}
/**
* Entry point.
* <p>
* Runs until run is set to false and count is less than maxCount.
* <p>
* On every loop {#link Counter} increment count with 1 and print the count.
*/
#Override
public void run() {
while (count < maxCount && run.get()) {
incrementCount();
logger.info(this + " : " + count);
}
run.set(false);
}
/**
* Used for obtaining current value for the count.
*
* #return count.
*/
int getCount() {
return count;
}
/**
* Increment the count.
*/
private void incrementCount() {
count++;
}
}
/**
* Runs two counters and print the counting for both of them until one reach his maxCount then both are stopped.
*/
public class RunnerTwoCounters {
private static final Logger logger = LoggerFactory.getLogger(RunnerTwoCounters.class);
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
AtomicBoolean run = new AtomicBoolean(true);
Counter counter1 = new Counter(2, run);
Thread thread1 = new Thread(counter1);
Counter counter2 = new Counter(10, run);
Thread thread2 = new Thread(counter2);
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
thread1.join();
thread2.join();
logger.info(counter1 + " " + counter1.getCount());
logger.info(counter2 + " " + counter2.getCount());
}
}
How can I make the same thing to work but without Atomicboolean just to work with Object lock and some synchronization on it?
This does what your recent comment says. Both threads start counting. When one reaches the setPoint, they both stop.
public class ThreadCounting {
int value1;
int value2;
volatile boolean flag = true;
public static void main(String[] args) {
new ThreadCounting().start();
}
public void start() {
int setPoint = 100;
Thread begin = new Thread(() -> {
while(flag && ((value1 = counter1()) <= setPoint)) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " counter1 = " + value1);
}
flag = false;
});
Thread finish = new Thread(() -> {
while(flag && ((value2 = counter2()) <= setPoint)) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() +" counter2 = " + value2);
}
flag = false;
});
begin.start();
finish.start();
}
int val1 = 1;
public int counter1() {
return val1++;
}
int val2 = 1;
public int counter2() {
return val2++;
}
}

Can FairSync guarantee the order of execution?

My first question, Thank for your help!
I'm trying to print odd and even numbers 1~100 alternatively using two threads.
Expected results:
pool-1-thread-1=> 1
pool-1-thread-2=> 2
pool-1-thread-1=> 3
pool-1-thread-2=> 4
......
pool-1-thread-1=> 99
pool-1-thread-2=> 100
I think i can use FairSync, but it can only guarantee that most of the print is correct. like this:
pool-1-thread-1=> 55
pool-1-thread-2=> 56
pool-1-thread-1=> 57
pool-1-thread-2=> 58
pool-1-thread-2=> 59 //※error print※
pool-1-thread-1=> 60
pool-1-thread-2=> 61
pool-1-thread-1=> 62
I don't know why is the order lost in very few cases?
You can criticize my code and my English.
Here is my code:
private static final int COUNT = 100;
private static final int THREAD_COUNT = 2;
private static int curr = 1;
static ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock(true);
static ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runnable task = () -> {
for (; ; ) {
try {
lock.lock();
if (curr <= COUNT) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + "=> " + curr++);
} else {
System.exit(0);
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
};
for (int i = 0; i < THREAD_COUNT; i++) {
executorService.execute(task);
}
}
No dear your implementation is not correct. Which thread get's the opportunity to RUN is decided by the OS. Thread 1 & 2 will execute one after another cannot be guaranteed.
You can fix your code by checking the previous value of the variable curr and if the value is not what this thread expects don't increment and print.
for eg :
if(curr.threadName.equals("Thread 2") && (curr%2 !=0))
{
// Print
// Increment
}
You cant use single lock to achieve this. Even ReentrantLock gives fairness but it cant control thread schedule.
We can achieve throw inter thread communication like Semaphore. Semaphore controls the thread execution.
We create two threads, an odd thread, and an even thread. The odd thread would print the odd numbers starting from 1, and the even thread will print the even numbers starting from 2.
Create two semaphores, semOdd and semEven which will have 1 and 0 permits to start with. This will ensure that odd number gets printed first.
class SharedPrinter {
private Semaphore semEven = new Semaphore(0);
private Semaphore semOdd = new Semaphore(1);
void printEvenNum(int num) {
try {
semEven.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + num);
semOdd.release();
}
void printOddNum(int num) {
try {
semOdd.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + num);
semEven.release();
}
}
class Even implements Runnable {
private SharedPrinter sp;
private int max;
// standard constructor
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 2; i <= max; i = i + 2) {
sp.printEvenNum(i);
}
}
}
class Odd implements Runnable {
private SharedPrinter sp;
private int max;
// standard constructors
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 1; i <= max; i = i + 2) {
sp.printOddNum(i);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
SharedPrinter sp = new SharedPrinter();
Thread odd = new Thread(new Odd(sp, 10),"Odd");
Thread even = new Thread(new Even(sp, 10),"Even");
odd.start();
even.start();
}
Refer : here

I want to start 10 threads. main thread starts first thread, 1st thread starts 2nd and so on upto 10, but instead of 10 threads 19 threads created

package testpkg;
public class ThreadOrdering {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyRunnable[] threads = new MyRunnable[10];//index 0 represents thread 1;
for(int i=0; i < 10; i++)
threads[i] = new MyRunnable(i, threads);
//threads[0] = new MyRunnable(0, threads);
new Thread(threads[0]).start();
}
}
class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
int threadNumber;
MyRunnable[] threads;
public MyRunnable(int threadNumber, MyRunnable[] threads) {
this.threadNumber = threadNumber;
this.threads = threads;
}
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
if(this.threadNumber!=10)
new Thread(threads[this.threadNumber]).start();
this.threadNumber++;
}
System.out.println("the thread " + Thread.currentThread().getName() + " with num " + this.threadNumber);
}
}
I actually should not be incrementing threadNumber, but if I don't it goes into a infinite loop, and if I do increment 19 threads are created instead of 10
It's the threadNumber++ that's causing duplicate threads to be started.
If you use new Thread(threads[this.threadNumber+1]).start(); (and remove the threadNumber++) only 10 are started.
Let's examine the logic:
new Thread(threads[0]).start(); // Start the first thread
// Inside the first thread's run
if(0 != 10)
new Thread(threads[0]).start(); // Oh noes, we restarted the first thread/runnable
this.threadNumber++; // We restarted the thread, AND incremented its threadnumber!
// Inside the first runnable's run AGAIN!
if(1 != 10)
new Thread(threads[1]).start(); // NOW we started the second thread
this.threadNumber++; // First thread's threadnumber is now 2, but we didn't restart it so it won't run again
So every thread except for the last one (where 10 != 10 returns false) restarts itself once, giving you the total of 19 threads.

Print 1 to 100 using 10 threads in java

I'm new to muti-threading and I got a question to print 1 to 100 using 10 threads in Java with below constrain.
Thread t1 should print:
1, 11, 21, 31, ... 91
t2 should print:
2, 12, 22, 32, ... 92
likewise
t10 should print:
10, 20, 30, ... 100
The final output should be
1 2 3 .. 100
I have tried it, but it is throwing the following exception in all 10 threads:
java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method)
at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:485)
at thread.run(MyThread.java:58)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source)
Please let me know how I can solve this problem.
public class MyThread {
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
thread.setSequence();
for(int i = 1; i <= 10; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new thread(i));
t.setName(i + "");
t.start();
}
}
}
class thread implements Runnable {
private static HashMap< String, String> sequence = new HashMap<String, String>();
public static final Object lock = new Object();
public static String turn = "1";
private int startValue = 0;
private AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(1);
public thread(int startValue){
this.startValue = startValue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (!counter.equals(10)){
synchronized (lock) {
if(Thread.currentThread().getName().equals(turn)){
System.out.print(startValue + " ");
startValue += 10;
counter.incrementAndGet();
turn = getNextTurn(turn);
try {
this.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
else{
try {
this.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
this.notifyAll();
}
}
}
public static void setSequence(){
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++)
if (i == 10)
sequence.put(i + "", 1 + "");
else
sequence.put(i + "", (i + 1) + "");
}
public static String getNextTurn(String currentTurn){
return sequence.get(currentTurn);
}
}
The simplest way would be to have a volatile variable from which each thread reads in and update according to its turn, otherwise it just waits until his turn. When counter is equals to 100 you stop all threads to run by breaking the outer loop.
class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
private static final int LIMIT = 20;
private static volatile int counter = 0;
private int id;
public MyRunnable(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
#Override
public void run() {
outer:
while(counter < LIMIT) {
while (counter % NB_THREADS != id) {
if(counter == LIMIT) break outer;
}
System.out.println("Thread "+Thread.currentThread().getName()+ " printed " + counter);
counter += 1;
}
}
}
Given a LIMIT of 20 and 10 threads, it outputs:
Thread 0 printed 0
Thread 1 printed 1
Thread 2 printed 2
Thread 3 printed 3
Thread 4 printed 4
Thread 5 printed 5
Thread 6 printed 6
Thread 7 printed 7
Thread 8 printed 8
Thread 9 printed 9
Thread 0 printed 10
Thread 1 printed 11
Thread 2 printed 12
Thread 3 printed 13
Thread 4 printed 14
Thread 5 printed 15
Thread 6 printed 16
Thread 7 printed 17
Thread 8 printed 18
Thread 9 printed 19
Of course, this is a very bad usage of multithreading because each thread waits its turn to print and increment the counter.
Multithreading works well when threads can work independently of another for relatively long time's window, and then may occasionally meet up to compare or combine their results if needed.
For example in the fork-join model, each thread does its task independently then their results are merged to produce the final outcome, such as in a merge sort for example. But this assume that the task can be easily parallelizable into independant subtasks, which is not the case here because your final output should be consecutive numbers.
So here a simple loop would be largely more efficient, but I can understand it's for learning purposes.
Here is a solution for the problem.The current thread acquire the lock and we decide if the thread is eligible to execute (printing the number here). If so perform the operation and notify all threads that they can try now. Else wait till its notified by other threads.
public class MyThread extends Thread{
//define the Total No.Of Threads needed
public static final int TOTAL_THREADS = 10;
public final static Object obj = new Object();
int threadNo;
static volatile int counter = 1;
public MyThread(int threadNo){
this.threadNo= threadNo;
}
#Override
public void run(){
//in a synchronized block to acquire lock
synchronized (obj) {
while(counter<=100){
/*
* counter==threadNo => To print the initial numbers till TOTAL_THREADS
* counter%TOTAL_THREADS == threadNo => e.g 11%10 = 1 -> 1 will print this, 12%10 = 2 ..
* (counter%TOTAL_THREADS == 0) && (TOTAL_THREADS == threadNo) => 10%10 will be 0,
* and this must be printed by 10 th thread only, ie the highest thread.
*/
if(counter == threadNo || (counter%TOTAL_THREADS == threadNo) ||
((counter%TOTAL_THREADS == 0) && (TOTAL_THREADS == threadNo))){
//Display the output as desired
System.out.println(this.threadNo+" printing"+" "+counter++);
//notify
obj.notifyAll();
}else{
//current thread not eligible for printing the current counter value, so wait till its notified
try {
obj.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
public static void main (String args[]) {
/*
* Creating as many threads as needed.
*/
for(int i = 1; i<=TOTAL_THREADS;i++){
MyThread th = new MyThread(i);
th.start();
}
}
}
The output will be
1 printing 1,
2 printing 2,
3 printing 3,
4 printing 4,
5 printing 5,
6 printing 6,
7 printing 7,
8 printing 8,
9 printing 9,
10 printing 10,
1 printing 11,
2 printing 12,
3 printing 13,
4 printing 14,
...
7 printing 97,
8 printing 98,
9 printing 99,
10 printing 100
Hope this helps =) Took me an hour to do it.
package com.xxxx.simpleapp;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class TenThreads {
public int currentTaskValue = 1;
public static void main(String[] args) {
TenThreads monitor = new TenThreads();
List<ModThread> list = new ArrayList();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
ModThread modThread = new ModThread(i, monitor);
list.add(modThread);
}
for (ModThread a : list) {
a.start();
}
}
}
class ModThread extends Thread {
private int modValue;
private TenThreads monitor;
public ModThread(int modValue, TenThreads monitor) {
this.modValue = modValue;
this.monitor = monitor;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (monitor) {
try {
while (true) {
while (monitor.currentTaskValue % 10 != modValue) {
monitor.wait();
}
if (monitor.currentTaskValue == 101) {
break;
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " : "
+ monitor.currentTaskValue + " ,");
monitor.currentTaskValue = monitor.currentTaskValue + 1;
monitor.notifyAll();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
output
Thread-1 : 1 ,
Thread-2 : 2 ,
Thread-3 : 3 ,
Thread-4 : 4 ,
Thread-5 : 5 ,
Thread-6 : 6 ,
Thread-7 : 7 ,
Thread-8 : 8 ,
Thread-9 : 9 ,
......
.....
...
Thread-4 : 94 ,
Thread-5 : 95 ,
Thread-6 : 96 ,
Thread-7 : 97 ,
Thread-8 : 98 ,
Thread-9 : 99 ,
Thread-0 : 100 ,
Documentation are intentionally left out for you to figure it out, there are minor bugs too!
Error is thrown due to calling of wait not on proper object. wait() should be called on object on which lock is acquired, the one implied by synchronized keyword.
Well I do not have the code...but the perspective seems to be
that there are 100 tasks to be executed each of incrementing
a count by 1.
So there could be a ThreadPool of say 10 threads and these
threads are incrementing the shared count value...
Only point to consider is that the Thread pools worker threads
have to sequentially execute their tasks one after the other
and the thread sequence for the 10 have to be maintained...
One simple way to solve this is use below state in runnable class
private final int index;
private final AtomicInteger atomicInteger;
private final CyclicBarrier cyclicBarrier;
index - is responsible for conditional verification i.e., which number this thread should print.
atomicInteger - shared across all threads for current number.
Cyclic barrier - makes all threads to wait unit a every thread completes a cycle/iteration.
Code sample:
public class PrintSequence {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
final AtomicInteger atomicInteger = new AtomicInteger(1);
final CyclicBarrier cyclicBarrier = new CyclicBarrier(10, ()-> {
System.out.println("a cycle done");
});
IntStream.rangeClosed(0, 9)
.boxed()
.map(i -> new PrintSequenceTask(i, atomicInteger, cyclicBarrier))
.map(p -> executorService.submit(p))
.collect(Collectors.toList());
executorService.shutdown();
}
}
class PrintSequenceTask implements Runnable {
private final int index;
private final AtomicInteger atomicInteger;
private final CyclicBarrier cyclicBarrier;
PrintSequenceTask(int index, AtomicInteger atomicInteger, CyclicBarrier cyclicBarrier) {
this.index = index;
this.atomicInteger = atomicInteger;
this.cyclicBarrier = cyclicBarrier;
}
#Override
public void run(){
for(int i=1; i<10;i++){
while (((atomicInteger.get()-index-1)%10 != 0)){}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" "+(atomicInteger.get()));
atomicInteger.getAndIncrement();
await();
}
}
public void await(){
try {
cyclicBarrier.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public class BigSequence {
public static void main(String[] args) {
BigPrintNum p = new BigPrintNum();
int max = 20;
int no_threads = 11;
for(int i=0;i<no_threads;i++){
boolean b[] = new boolean[no_threads];
b[i] = true;
Thread t = new Thread(new BigPrint(p, max, b,no_threads));
t.start();
}
}
}
class BigPrint implements Runnable {
int num=0;
BigPrintNum p;
int max;
int no_threads;
boolean b[];
public BigPrint(BigPrintNum p,int max,boolean b[],int no_threads){
this.p = p;
this.max = max;
this.b = b;
this.no_threads = no_threads;
}
#Override
public void run() {
int n = 0;
for(int i=0;i<no_threads;i++){
if(b[i] == true){
n = i;
num = i;
}
}
while(num<=max){
p.print(num, n, no_threads);
num += no_threads;
}
}
}
class BigPrintNum {
int turn = 0;
public synchronized void print(int n,int i,int no_threads){
while(this.turn != i){
try{
wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(i + "th seq = " + n);
this.turn = (i+1)%no_threads;
notifyAll();
}
}
Its a generic one, where we can use any number of threads and use any max value.
public class ThreadSequence
{
public static int totalThread;
public static void main(String[] args)
{
MyLock myLock = new MyLock();
totalThread = 10;
for(int i=1;i<=totalThread;i++)
{
MyThread myThread = new MyThread(i,myLock);
myThread.start();
}
}
}
class MyLock
{
public int counter = 0;
}
MyThread Class
class MyThread extends Thread{
public MyLock lock;
public int no;
public MyThread(int no,MyLock lock)
{
super("My Thread No "+no);
this.no = no;
this.lock = lock;
}
public void run()
{
synchronized (lock)
{
while(true)
{
while(lock.counter%ThreadSequence.totalThread !=(this.no-1))
{
try
{
if(lock.counter > 99)
{
break;
}
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
if(lock.counter > 99)
{
break;
}
System.out.println("Current Thread "+Thread.currentThread().currentThread()+" --- Current Count "+(lock.counter+1));
lock.counter = lock.counter +1 ;
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
print 1 to 100 number alternatively by each thread similar way you can print for 10 threads- m1 and m2 like
m1-1
m2-2
m3-3
m4-4
public class MultiThread extends Thread {
static volatile int num=0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
MultiThread m1= new MultiThread();
MultiThread m2= new MultiThread();
m1.setName("m1");
m1.setPriority(5);
m2.setName("m2");
m2.setPriority(5);
m1.start();
m2.start();
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(num<100) {
num +=1;
print();
}
}
private void print(){
synchronized(this) {
System.out.println(currentThread().getName()+" "+ num);
try {
currentThread().wait(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
}
The simple thing to do is to hold common resource for all of them.
Hold a List and every thread will insert into the list, in the end you can sort and print..
If you want them to do it on your order it won't be very effective because you won't need 10 threads to do it..
This way it will be faster and will use 10 threads to do some work, but when everyone finish you still need to do some work
public class PrintNumbersbyThreads implements Runnable {
private int i;
public PrintNumbersbyThreads(int i) {
this.i = i;
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
PrintNumbersbyThreads p = new PrintNumbersbyThreads(1);
PrintNumbersbyThreads p2 = new PrintNumbersbyThreads(2);
PrintNumbersbyThreads p3 = new PrintNumbersbyThreads(3);
Thread t1 = new Thread(p, "t1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(p2, "t2");
Thread t3 = new Thread(p3, "t3");
t1.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.start();
t2.join();
t3.start();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("\n" + Thread.currentThread().getName() + " prints ");
for (int j = 0; j < 10; j++) {
System.out.print(i + " ");
i = i + 10;
}
}
}
Written sample code 3 Threads and the output is
t1 prints:
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91
t2 prints:
2 12 22 32 42 52 62 72 82 92
t3 prints:
3 13 23 33 43 53 63 73 83 93
Hope this is what you are Looking for?
I have written one generic code which will take the number till where you want to print and the number of threads to be used.
public class ThreadedPrinting {
private Object locks[];
private static class Printer extends Thread {
int curVal;
int endVal;
Object myLock;
Object nextLock;
int step;
public Printer(int startFrom, int endVal, int step, Object myLock, Object nextLock){
this.curVal = startFrom;
this.endVal = endVal;
this.step = step;
this.myLock = myLock;
this.nextLock = nextLock;
this.step = step;
}
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(myLock) {
while (curVal <= endVal) {
try {
myLock.wait();
System.out.println(curVal);
curVal += step;
}
catch(InterruptedException e) {}
synchronized(nextLock) {
nextLock.notify();
}
}
}
synchronized(nextLock) {
nextLock.notify(); /// this ensures all worker threads exiting at the end
}
}
} // Printer
public ThreadedPrinting(int maxNum, int threads) {
locks = new Object[threads];
int i;
for(i = 0; i < threads; ++i) locks[i] = new Object();
for(i = 0; i < threads -1 ; ++i) {
Printer curPrinter = new Printer(i, maxNum, threads, locks[i], locks[i+1]);
curPrinter.start();
}
Printer lastPrinter = new Printer(i, maxNum, threads, locks[threads - 1], locks[0]);
lastPrinter.start();
}
public void start() {
synchronized (locks[0]) {
locks[0].notify();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadedPrinting printer = new ThreadedPrinting(1000,7);
printer.start();
}
}
The same problem can be solved by usign Phaser as well but the order is not restrictive but will be in round-robin fashion. I have provided the solution for similar problem here.

Categories