Trying to make a simple multi-threaded programme where it prints Factorial series where each number is printed by different Thread and at the end I am giving a report of which number printed by which thread.I have got the desired output but somehow my program is not terminating.
Constraint: I am not allowed to use Concurrent Package
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Scanner;
class Report {
private long factorial;
private String threadName;
private int activeThreads;
public Report(long factorial, String threadName, int activeThreads) {
this.factorial = factorial;
this.threadName = threadName;
this.activeThreads = activeThreads;
}
public long getFactorial() {
return factorial;
}
public String getThreadName() {
return threadName;
}
public int getActiveThreads() {
return activeThreads;
}
public void setActiveThreads(int activeThreads) {
this.activeThreads = activeThreads;
}
}
public class Factorial implements Runnable {
public static ArrayList<Report> report = new ArrayList<Report>();
private static int count;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in);
System.out.print("N: ");
int n = in.nextInt();
count = n;
Factorial f = new Factorial();
f.series(n);
Thread.sleep(1000);
// Series
for(Report r : report) {
if(r.getFactorial() == 1) {
System.out.print(r.getFactorial());
}
else {
System.out.print(r.getFactorial() + "*");
}
}
System.out.println();
// Report
for(Report r : report) {
System.out.println(r.getFactorial() + " printed by " + r.getThreadName() + " " + r.getActiveThreads());
}
ThreadGroup threadGroup = Thread.currentThread().getThreadGroup();
System.out.println("In Main");
in.close();
}
public void series(int n) throws InterruptedException {
for(int i=0;i<n;i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(new Factorial());
t.start();
}
}
public synchronized void generate() {
ThreadGroup threadGroup = Thread.currentThread().getThreadGroup();
report.add(new Report(count--, Thread.currentThread().getName(), threadGroup.activeCount()));
notifyAll();
System.out.println("In generate" + threadGroup.activeCount());
}
#Override
public void run() {
generate();
synchronized (this) {
try {
wait();
}
catch(Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
ThreadGroup threadGroup = Thread.currentThread().getThreadGroup();
System.out.println("In Run" + threadGroup.activeCount());
}
public static int getCount() {
return count;
}
public static void setCount(int count) {
Factorial.count = count;
}
}
Although I know that we can kill the threads using .stop() but I think it's not recommended.
To make synchronization effective (synchronized, wait, notify), you have to use the same instance.
In series, you create a new Factorial instance on each loop, making every thread to wait indefinitely.
public void series(int n) throws InterruptedException {
for(int i=0;i<n;i++) {
// Thread t = new Thread(new Factorial()); // creates an new instance
Thread t = new Thread(this);
t.start();
}
}
In the run method, you first call notifyAll() (through generate), and then wait.
The last created thread will wait after all the others are done.
One way or another, this last thread has to be notified.
It could be right after the sleep call, with:
synchronized(f) {
f.notify();
}
or maybe with a dedicated synchronized method.
I have to create a hedge simulator. There is eg. 10 segments of it and each of them should have its own dedicated Thread simulating grow of the segment (each time we're about to calculate whether segment growed up, we should perform random test).
In addition there should be one additional, gardener Thread.
Gardener should cut segment of hence, when its size reaches 10 (then he cuts its size back to initial level of 1 and adds notifies it in his notes).
My attempt to make it working was like this:
public class Segment implements Runnable {
private int currentSize;
#Override
public void run() {
if(Math.random() < 0.3)
incrementSize();
}
private synchronized void incrementSize() {
currentSize++;
}
public synchronized int getCurrentSize() {
return currentSize;
}
public synchronized void setCurrentSize(int newSize) {
currentSize = newSize;
}
}
public class Gardener implements Runnable {
private int[] segmentsCutAmount = new int[10]; //Gardener notes
private Collection<Segment> segments;
public Gardener(Collection<Segment> segmentsToLookAfter) {
segments = segmentsToLookAfter;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
//Have no idea how to deal with 10 different segments here
}
}
}
public class Main {
private Collection<Segment> segments = new ArrayList<>():
public void main(String[] args) {
Main program = new Main();
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
program.addSegment();
Thread gardenerThread = new Thread(new Gardener(program.segments));
}
private void addSegment(Collection<Segment> segments) {
Segment segment = new Segment();
Thread segmentThread = new Thread(segment);
segmentThread.start();
segments.add(segment);
}
}
I am not sure what am I supposed to do, when segment reaches max height.
If there was 10 gardeners, every of them could observe one segment, but, unfortunelly, gardener is a lonely shooter - he has no family and his friends are very busy and are not willing to help him. And are you willing to help me? :D
I generally know basics of synchronization - synchronized methods/blocks, Locks, wait and notify methods, but this time I have totally no idea what to do :(
Its like horrible deadlock! Of course I am not expecting to be spoonfeeded. Any kind of hint would be very helpful as well. Thank you in advance and have a wonderful day!
About that queue. You can use the ExecutorService for that.
Letting the Hedge grow
So let's you have a hedge that can grow and be cut.
class Hedge {
private AtomicInteger height = new AtomicInteger(1);
public int grow() {
return height.incrementAndGet();
}
public int cut() {
return height.decrementAndGet();
}
}
And then you have an environment that will let the hedge grow. This will simulate the hedge sections; each environment is responsible for one of the sections only. It will also notify a Consumer<Integer> when the hedge size has gone.
class SectionGrower implements Runnable {
public static final Random RANDOM = new Random();
private final Hedge hedge;
private final Consumer<Integer> hedgeSizeListener;
public SectionGrower (Hedge h, Consumer<Integer> hl) {
hedge = h;
hedgeSizeListener = hl
}
public void run() {
while (true) { // grow forever
try {
// growing the hedge takes up to 20 seconds
Thread.sleep(RANDOM.nextInt(20)*1000);
int sectionHeight = hedge.grow();
hedgeSizeListener.accept(sectionHeight);
} catch (Exception e) {} // do something here
}
}
}
So at this point, you can do this.
ExecutorService growingExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
Consumer<Integer> printer = i -> System.out.printf("hedge section has grown to %d\n", i.intValue());
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Hedge section = new Hedge();
Environment grower = new SectionGrower(section, printer);
growingExecutor.submit(grower::run);
}
This will grow 10 hedge sections and print the current height for each as they grow.
Adding the Gardener
So now you need a Gardener that can cut the hedge.
class Gardener {
public static final Random RANDOM = new Random();
public void cutHedge(Hedge h) {
try {
// cutting the hedge takes up to 10 seconds
Thread.sleep(RANDOM.nextInt(10)*1000);
h.cut();
} catch (Exception e) {} // do something here
}
}
Now you need some construct to give him work; this is where the BlockingQueue comes in. We've already made sure the Environment can notify a Consumer<Integer> after a section has grown, so that's what we can use.
ExecutorService growingExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
// so this is the queue
ExecutorService gardenerExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadPool();
Gardener gardener = new Gardener();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Hedge section = new Hedge();
Consumer<Integer> cutSectionIfNeeded = i -> {
if (i > 8) { // size exceeded?
// have the gardener cut the section, ie adding item to queue
gardenerExecutor.submit(() -> gardener.cutHedge(section));
}
};
SectionGrower grower = new SectionGrower(section, cutSectionIfNeeded);
growingExecutor.submit(grower::run);
}
So I haven't actually tried this but it should work with some minor adjustments.
Note that I use the AtomicInteger in the hedge because it might grow and get cut "at the same time", because that happens in different threads.
The in following code Gardner waits for Segment to get to an arbitrary value of 9.
When Segment gets to 9, it notifies Gardner, and waits for Gardner to finish trimming:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
public class Gardening {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Collection<Segment> segments = new ArrayList<>();
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
addSegment(segments);
}
Thread gardenerThread = new Thread(new Gardener(segments));
gardenerThread.start();
}
private static void addSegment(Collection<Segment> segments) {
Segment segment = new Segment();
Thread segmentThread = new Thread(segment);
segmentThread.start();
segments.add(segment);
}
}
class Gardener implements Runnable {
private Collection<Segment> segments;
private boolean isStop = false; //add stop flag
public Gardener(Collection<Segment> segmentsToLookAfter) {
segments = segmentsToLookAfter;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (Segment segment : segments) {
follow(segment);
}
}
private void follow(Segment segment) {
new Thread(() -> {
Thread t = new Thread(segment);
t.start();
synchronized (segment) {
while(! isStop) {
try {
segment.wait(); //wait for segment
} catch (InterruptedException ex) { ex.printStackTrace();}
System.out.println("Trimming Segment " + segment.getId()+" size: "
+ segment.getCurrentSize() ); //add size to notes
segment.setCurrentSize(0); //trim size
segment.notify(); //notify so segment continues
}
}
}).start();
}
}
class Segment implements Runnable {
private int currentSize;
private boolean isStop = false; //add stop flag
private static int segmentIdCounter = 0;
private int segmentId = segmentIdCounter++; //add an id to identify thread
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
while ( ! isStop ) {
if(Math.random() < 0.0000001) {
incrementSize();
}
if(getCurrentSize() >= 9) {
notify(); //notify so trimming starts
try {
wait(); //wait for gardener to finish
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
private synchronized void incrementSize() {
currentSize++;
System.out.println("Segment " + getId()+" size: "
+ getCurrentSize() );
}
public synchronized int getCurrentSize() { return currentSize; }
public synchronized void setCurrentSize(int newSize) {
currentSize = newSize;
}
public int getId() { return segmentId; }
}
The mutual waiting mechanizem can be implemented also with CountDownLatch.
Note that my experience with threads is limited. I hope other users comment and suggest improvements.
My program require to print backward from 10 to 1. Each number print from
one thread. It uses one lock with multiple condition objects. But the
program cause a dead lock when I run it. This is my program.
This class working fine
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.*;
public class Backward {
public static void main(String[] args) {
BackwardThread[] threads = new BackwardThread[10];
MonitorArray monitorArray = new MonitorArray(10);
for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
threads[i] = new BackwardThread("thread" + i, i, monitorArray);
threads[i].start();
}
}
}
This class is working fine
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.*;
public class BackwardThread extends Thread {
private int id;
private MonitorArray monitorArray;
public BackwardThread(String name, int id, MonitorArray monitorArray) {
super(name);
this.id = id;
this.monitorArray = monitorArray;
}
public void run() {
monitorArray.waitTurn(id);
System.out.println("hello world thread id = " + id);
monitorArray.signalDone(id);
}
}
It seem all thread is lock forever on and conditions[id].signal() doesn't work.
import java.util.concurrent.locks.*;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
public class MonitorArray {
private Lock lockvar;
private Condition[] conditions;
private int turn;
public MonitorArray(int num) {
this.lockvar = new ReentrantLock();
this.conditions = new Condition[num];
turn = num;
for (int i = 0; i < num; ++i) {
conditions[i] = lockvar.newCondition();
}
// TODO: need to initialize new variable here
}
public void waitTurn(int id) {
lockvar.lock();
while (id != turn) {
try {
conditions[id].await();
} catch (Exception exception) {
exception.printStackTrace();
}
}
lockvar.unlock();
}
public void signalDone(int id) {
lockvar.lock();
// TODO: Need to modify new variable here to allow one of the threads
// blocked on the while to continue
turn--;
if (id != 0) {
conditions[id].signal();
}
lockvar.unlock();
}
}
I have found the solution for this, I will give my explanation in the comment of my code
import java.util.concurrent.locks.*;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
public class MonitorArray {
private Lock lockvar;
private Condition[] conditions;
private int turn;
public MonitorArray(int num) {
this.lockvar = new ReentrantLock();
this.conditions = new Condition[num];
/*
/ the turn value should should be num-1(9) instead of num(10)
/ because if turn = 10 so all threads will be in waiting section,
/ so there will be no thread to send the signal to wake up other threads
*/
turn = num-1;
for (int i = 0; i < num; ++i) {
conditions[i] = lockvar.newCondition();
}
}
public void waitTurn(int id) {
lockvar.lock();
while (id != turn) {
try {
conditions[id].await();
} catch (Exception exception) {
exception.printStackTrace();
}
}
lockvar.unlock();
}
public void signalDone(int id) {
lockvar.lock();
// TODO: Need to modify new variable here to allow one of the threads
// blocked on the while to continue
turn--;
if (id != 0) {
/*
/ this should be conditions[turn].signal(), not conditions[id]
/ because a thread cannot wake up themself,
/ when we use condition[turn] we are in thread 9 and we sent signal to wake up thread 8,
/ and furthermore, turn is reduced value and wake up the next smaller thread.
*/
conditions[turn].signal();
}
lockvar.unlock();
}
}
I have a following code as below:
class Example {
private volatile int testValue = 0;
public int getTestValue() {
return testValue;
}
public void setTestValue(int testValue) {
this.testValue = testValue;
}
public void increment() {
this.testValue += 1;
}
}
class PrintThread extends Thread {
private Example example;
private int x = 0;
public PrintThread(Example example) {
this.example = example;
x = example.getTestValue();
}
public void run() {
while(true) {
if(x != example.getTestValue()) { // block 1
System.out.println("printThread: " + example.getTestValue());
x = example.getTestValue();
}
}
}
}
class IncrementorThread extends Thread {
private Example example;
public IncrementorThread(Example example) {
this.example = example;
}
public void run() {
while(true) {
example.increment();
System.out.println("incrementorThread: " + example.getTestValue());
try {
Thread.sleep(800);
} catch(Exception ex) {
}
}
}
}
public class VolatileExample {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Example ex = new Example();
new IncrementorThread(ex).start();
new PrintThread(ex).start();
}
}
When I remove volatile keyword in Example class then I never see the output of PrintThread. In PrintThread when I print out the testValue of example, value of example object still updated but the code in 'block 1' never be executed. Both thread still access the same object, can anyone explain me more detail about this? About the volatile keyword affected in this case
You should use atomic integers insteed of volatile fields. To get the idea why that is important try running code below. Here you have 3 types of variables, normal int, volatile int and AtomicInteger. Only AtomicInteger assure the thread safety of value. After running this simple code, you will see why.
public class Test {
private int threadCount = 10;
private int nonVolatileCount = 0;
private volatile int volatileCount = 0;
private AtomicInteger atomicCount = new AtomicInteger(0);
private CountDownLatch startLatch = new CountDownLatch(threadCount);
private CountDownLatch endLatch = new CountDownLatch(threadCount);
private class Task implements Runnable {
public void run() {
startLatch.countDown();
try {
startLatch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
nonVolatileCount++;
volatileCount++;
atomicCount.incrementAndGet();
}
endLatch.countDown();
};
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
new Test().go();
}
public void go() throws InterruptedException {
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++) {
new Thread(new Task()).start();
}
endLatch.await();
System.out.println("non volatile counter: " + nonVolatileCount);
System.out.println(" volatile counter: " + volatileCount);
System.out.println(" atomic counter: " + atomicCount.get());
}
}
How can i order threads in the order they were instantiated.e.g. how can i make the below program print the numbers 1...10 in order.
public class ThreadOrdering {
public static void main(String[] args) {
class MyRunnable implements Runnable{
private final int threadnumber;
MyRunnable(int threadnumber){
this.threadnumber = threadnumber;
}
public void run() {
System.out.println(threadnumber);
}
}
for(int i=1; i<=10; i++){
new Thread(new MyRunnable(i)).start();
}
}
}
Sounds like you want ExecutorService.invokeAll, which will return results from worker threads in a fixed order, even though they may be scheduled in arbitrary order:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
public class ThreadOrdering {
static int NUM_THREADS = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(NUM_THREADS);
class MyCallable implements Callable<Integer> {
private final int threadnumber;
MyCallable(int threadnumber){
this.threadnumber = threadnumber;
}
public Integer call() {
System.out.println("Running thread #" + threadnumber);
return threadnumber;
}
}
List<Callable<Integer>> callables =
new ArrayList<Callable<Integer>>();
for(int i=1; i<=NUM_THREADS; i++) {
callables.add(new MyCallable(i));
}
try {
List<Future<Integer>> results =
exec.invokeAll(callables);
for(Future<Integer> result: results) {
System.out.println("Got result of thread #" + result.get());
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
} finally {
exec.shutdownNow();
}
}
}
"I actually have some parts that i want to execute in parallel, and then once the results are generated, I want to merge the results in certain order." Thanks, this clarifies what you're asking.
You can run them all at once, but the important thing is to get their results in order when the threads finish their computation. Either Thread#join() them in the order in which you want to get their results, or just Thread#join() them all and then iterate through them to get their results.
// Joins the threads back to the main thread in the order we want their results.
public class ThreadOrdering {
private class MyWorker extends Thread {
final int input;
int result;
MyWorker(final int input) {
this.input = input;
}
#Override
public void run() {
this.result = input; // Or some other computation.
}
int getResult() { return result; }
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
MyWorker[] workers = new MyWorker[10];
for(int i=1; i<=10; i++) {
workers[i] = new MyWorker(i);
workers[i].start();
}
// Assume it may take a while to do the real computation in the threads.
for (MyWorker worker : workers) {
// This can throw InterruptedException, but we're just passing that.
worker.join();
System.out.println(worker.getResult());
}
}
}
Simply put, the scheduling of threads is indeterminate.
http://www.janeg.ca/scjp/threads/scheduling.html Dead domain - do not click
WaybackMachine version of the above page
The longer answer is that if you want to do this, you'll need to manually wait for each thread to complete its work before you allow another to run. Note that in this fashion, all the threads will still interleave but they won't accomplish any work until you give the go-ahead. Have a look at the synchronize reserved word.
You can chain them – that is, have the first one start the second, the second start the third, etc. They won't really be running at the same time except for a bit of overlap when each one is started.
public class ThreadOrdering
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
MyRunnable[] threads = new MyRunnable[10];//index 0 represents thread 1;
for(int i=1; i<=10; i++)
threads[i] = new MyRunnable(i, threads);
new Thread(threads[0].start);
}
}
public class MyRunnable extends Runnable
{
int threadNumber;
MyRunnable[] threads;
public MyRunnable(int threadNumber, MyRunnable[] threads)
{
this.threadnumber = threadnumber;
this.threads = threads;
}
public void run()
{
System.out.println(threadnumber);
if(threadnumber!=10)
new Thread(threadnumber).start();
}
}
Here's a way to do it without having a master thread that waits for each result. Instead, have the worker threads share an object which orders the results.
import java.util.*;
public class OrderThreads {
public static void main(String... args) {
Results results = new Results();
new Thread(new Task(0, "red", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(1, "orange", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(2, "yellow", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(3, "green", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(4, "blue", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(5, "indigo", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(6, "violet", results)).start();
}
}
class Results {
private List<String> results = new ArrayList<String>();
private int i = 0;
public synchronized void submit(int order, String result) {
while (results.size() <= order) results.add(null);
results.set(order, result);
while ((i < results.size()) && (results.get(i) != null)) {
System.out.println("result delivered: " + i + " " + results.get(i));
++i;
}
}
}
class Task implements Runnable {
private final int order;
private final String result;
private final Results results;
public Task(int order, String result, Results results) {
this.order = order;
this.result = result;
this.results = results;
}
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(Math.abs(result.hashCode() % 1000)); // simulate a long-running computation
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {} // you'd want to think about what to do if interrupted
System.out.println("task finished: " + order + " " + result);
results.submit(order, result);
}
}
If you need that fine-grained control, you should not use threads but instead look into using a suitable Executor with Callables or Runnables. See the Executors class for a wide selection.
A simple solution would be to use an array A of locks (one lock per thread). When thread i begins its executions, it acquires its associated lock A[i]. When it's ready to merge its results, it releases its lock A[i] and waits for locks A[0], A[1], ..., A[i - 1] to be released; then it merges the results.
(In this context, thread i means the i-th launched thread)
I don't know what classes to use in Java, but it must be easy to implement. You can begin reading this.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask.
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{
MyRunnable r = new MyRunnable();
Thread t1 = new Thread(r,"A");
Thread t2 = new Thread(r,"B");
Thread t3 = new Thread(r,"C");
t1.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
t2.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
t3.start();
}
Control of thread execution order may be implemented quite easily with the semaphores. The code attached is based on the ideas presented in Schildt's book on Java (The complete reference....).
// Based on the ideas presented in:
// Schildt H.: Java.The.Complete.Reference.9th.Edition.
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
class Manager {
int n;
// Initially red on semaphores 2&3; green semaphore 1.
static Semaphore SemFirst = new Semaphore(1);
static Semaphore SemSecond = new Semaphore(0);
static Semaphore SemThird = new Semaphore(0);
void firstAction () {
try {
SemFirst.acquire();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception InterruptedException catched");
}
System.out.println("First: " );
System.out.println("-----> 111");
SemSecond.release();
}
void secondAction() {
try{
SemSecond.acquire();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception InterruptedException catched");
}
System.out.println("Second: ");
System.out.println("-----> 222");
SemThird.release();
}
void thirdAction() {
try{
SemThird.acquire();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception InterruptedException catched");
}
System.out.println("Third: ");
System.out.println("-----> 333");
SemFirst.release();
}
}
class Thread1 implements Runnable {
Manager q;
Thread1(Manager q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Thread1").start();
}
public void run() {
q.firstAction();
}
}
class Thread2 implements Runnable {
Manager q;
Thread2(Manager q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Thread2").start();
}
public void run() {
q.secondAction();
}
}
class Thread3 implements Runnable {
Manager q;
Thread3(Manager q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Thread3").start();
}
public void run() {
q.thirdAction();
}
}
class ThreadOrder {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Manager q = new Manager();
new Thread3(q);
new Thread2(q);
new Thread1(q);
}
}
This can be done without using synchronized keyword and with the help of volatile keyword. Following is the code.
package threadOrderingVolatile;
public class Solution {
static volatile int counter = 0;
static int print = 1;
static char c = 'A';
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
Thread[] ths = new Thread[4];
for (int i = 0; i < ths.length; i++) {
ths[i] = new Thread(new MyRunnable(i, ths.length));
ths[i].start();
}
}
static class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
final int thID;
final int total;
public MyRunnable(int id, int total) {
thID = id;
this.total = total;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
if (thID == (counter%total)) {
System.out.println("thread " + thID + " prints " + c);
if(c=='Z'){
c='A';
}else{
c=(char)((int)c+1);
}
System.out.println("thread " + thID + " prints " + print++);
counter++;
} else {
try {
Thread.sleep(30);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// log it
}
}
}
}
}
}
Following is the github link which has a readme, that gives detailed explanation about how it happens.
https://github.com/sankar4git/volatile_thread_ordering