When I execute the following piece of code
public class ThreadTalk {
public static void main(String[] args) {
SimpleThread obj = new SimpleThread();
Thread t = new Thread(obj, "NewThread");
t.start();
synchronized (obj) {
System.out.println("In Synchronized BLOCK");
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Out of Synchronized BLOCK");
}
}
}
class SimpleThread implements Runnable {
public void run() {
System.out.println("The thread running now " + Thread.currentThread());
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
System.out.println("The val of i= " + i);
}
}
}
The output that I am getting is
In Synchronized BLOCK
The thread running now Thread[NewThread,5,main]
The val of i= 0
The val of i= 1
The val of i= 2
The val of i= 3
The val of i= 4
The val of i= 5
The val of i= 6
The val of i= 7
The val of i= 8
The val of i= 9
Out of Synchronized BLOCK
where as I am expecting an output like
In Synchronized BLOCK
Out of Synchronized BLOCK
The thread running now Thread[NewThread,5,main]
The val of i= 0
The val of i= 1
The val of i= 2
The val of i= 3
The val of i= 4
The val of i= 5
The val of i= 6
The val of i= 7
The val of i= 8
The val of i= 9
If I am putting a Lock on the SimpleThread object using the Synchronized block of main thread, how is my NewThread running when main thread is going to sleep.I mean shouldn't the NewThread wait till the Main thread has removed the lock on the SimpleThread object, as both threads are running on the same object.
run() and/or start() do not take any locks. They just run code. You need to actually have SimpleTread take the same lock as the main thread for those two threads to synchronize in some fashion.
Rather than try to synchronize on the the Runnable object, I think best practice would be to explicitly declare a separate object to use as a lock.
class ThreadTalk{
public static void main(String[] args){
Object lock = new Object();
SimpleThread obj=new SimpleThread( lock );
Thread t=new Thread(obj,"NewThread");
t.start();
synchronized(lock){
System.out.println("In Synchronized BLOCK");
try{
Thread.sleep(5000);
}catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Out of Synchronized BLOCK");
}
}
}
class SimpleThread implements Runnable{
private final Object lock;
public SimpleThread( Object lock ) { this.lock = lock;}
public void run(){
synchronized( lock ) {
System.out.println("The thread running now "+Thread.currentThread());
for(int i=0;i<10;i++){
System.out.println("The val of i= "+i);
}
}
}
}
synchronized block does not do what you think. It means that only one thread can be inside of it (or rather inside any synchronized block on the same object) at the same time. In your case, there is only one (main) thread inside the block. The other one is executing different code. That is expected.
You need to synchronize in both threads on the same object (the so-called "monitor") to make them mutually exclusive.
The simplest way to do that is to make the run() method itself synchronized:
class SimpleThread implements Runnable {
// See the synchronized modifier on the next line
public synchronized void run() {
System.out.println("The thread running now " + Thread.currentThread());
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
System.out.println("The val of i= " + i);
}
}
}
You would also need to make sure that you synchronize on the SimpleThread object before you start it in a Thread, so you need to move the t.start(); statement inside the synchronized (obj) { block. If you don't do that, the two threads are still improperly synchronized, and there's no telling which thread will run first.
Related
I've already read a great number of articles where is said that AtomicInteger class works faster than a synchronize construction. I did some tests on AtomicInteger and "synchronized" and in my tests, it occurs that synchronized is much faster than AtomicInteger. I would like to understand what is going wrong: my test class is incorrect or AtomicInteger works faster in other situations?
Here is my test class:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
// creating tester "synchronized" class
TesterSynchronized testSyn = new TesterSynchronized();
// Creating 3 threads
Thread thread1 = new Thread(testSyn);
Thread thread2 = new Thread(testSyn);
Thread thread3 = new Thread(testSyn);
// start time
long beforeSyn = System.currentTimeMillis();
// start
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
thread3.start();
thread1.join();
thread2.join();
thread3.join();
long afterSyn = System.currentTimeMillis();
long delta = afterSyn - beforeSyn;
System.out.println("Test synchronized: " + delta + " ms");
// _______________________________________________________
// creating tester "atomicInteger" class
TesterAtomicInteger testAtomic = new TesterAtomicInteger();
thread1 = new Thread(testAtomic);
thread2 = new Thread(testAtomic);
thread3 = new Thread(testAtomic);
// start time
long beforeAtomic = System.currentTimeMillis();
// start
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
thread3.start();
thread1.join();
thread2.join();
thread3.join();
long afterAtomic = System.currentTimeMillis();
long deltaAtomic = afterAtomic - beforeAtomic;
System.out.println("Test atomic integer: " + deltaAtomic + " ms");
}
}
// Synchronized tester
class TesterSynchronized implements Runnable {
public int integerValue = 0;
public synchronized void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 1_000_000; i++)
integerValue++;
}
}
// AtomicInteger class tester
class TesterAtomicInteger implements Runnable {
AtomicInteger atomicInteger = new AtomicInteger(0);
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 1_000_000; i++)
atomicInteger.incrementAndGet();
}
}
Test parameters: 3 threads and 1_000_000 increments;
Result:
Test synchronized: 7 ms. Test atomic integer: 51 ms
I would be glad to understand why this is happening.
UPD
The test will be correct if change the synchronized method to a synchronized block.
// Synchronized tester
class TesterSynchronized implements Runnable {
public int integerValue = 0;
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 1_000_000; i++) {
synchronized (this) {
integerValue++;
}
}
}
}
The obvious difference in your code is that the AtomicIntger version allows interleaving of threads with ever access, whereas the synchronized version does the entire loop each thread in turn.
There may be other issues. For instance, the JVM may merge multiple invocations of a synchronized block. Depending on the platform, incrementAndGet may not be an atomic operation but implemented as a CAS-loop - if contention is high that could be a problem (I am not entirely sure on that).
Whichever way it is arranged, if you have multiple threads concurrently modifying the same memory location it will not be fast.
I am trying to print even and odd using two separate threads which communicate with each other by wait and notify.
I do know that i refers to Integer object which is in heap. hence changes made by one thread should be visible to both thread. Also I am using volatile keyword for declaration of Integet i.
I cant seem to understand how value of variable i is shown as 1 even after it has been incremented.
The output of code is
Even Thread got lock i=1
Even Thread waiting.. i=1
Odd Thread got lock i=1
Odd Thread : i=2
Odd Thread Run called NotifyAll
Odd Thread got lock i=2
Odd Thread waiting.. i=2
Even Thread woken up.. i=1
Even Thread waiting.. i=1
package programs;
public class EvenOdd {
static Object lck = new Object();
volatile static Integer i=1;
volatile static Integer N = 1000;
public static void main(String args[]){
EvenRunner e = new EvenRunner(lck, i, N);
OddRunner o = new OddRunner(lck, i, N);
Thread t1 = new Thread(e,"Even Thread ");
Thread t2 = new Thread(o,"Odd Thread ");
t1.start();
t2.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
}catch(InterruptedException ex) {
System.out.println("Interrupted : "+ex);
}
}
}
class EvenRunner implements Runnable{
Object lck;
Integer i;
Integer N;
EvenRunner(Object lck,Integer i,Integer N){
this.lck=lck;
this.i=i;
this.N=N;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(i<N) {
synchronized(lck) {
System.out.println(" Even Thread got lock i="+i);
while(i%2==1){
try {
System.out.println(" Even Thread waiting.. i="+i);
lck.wait();
System.out.println(" Even Thread woken up.. i="+i);
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Interrupted thread : "+e);
}
}
++i;
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" : i="+i);
System.out.println(" Even Thread Run called NotifyAll");
lck.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
class OddRunner implements Runnable{
Object lck;
Integer i;
Integer N;
OddRunner(Object lck,Integer i,Integer N){
this.lck=lck;
this.i=i;
this.N=N;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(i<N) {
synchronized(lck) {
System.out.println(" Odd Thread got lock i="+i);
while(i%2==0){
try {
System.out.println(" Odd Thread waiting.. i="+i);
lck.wait();
System.out.println(" Odd Thread woken up.. i="+i);
}catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Interrupted thread : "+e);
}
}
++i;
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" : i="+i);
System.out.println(" Odd Thread Run called NotifyAll");
lck.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
Expected Result: should be that other thread should also see the value of variable I as 2 after it has been incremented.
Actual result: value of variable i is read as 1 by other thread even after incrementing it.
Expected output should be that other thread should also see the value of variable I as 2 after it has been incremented.
When you construct evenRunner and oddRunner, you're copying the same Integer reference into each class as an instance field.
But Integer is immutable - when you execute ++i; that changes the field to refer to a different Integer object. It doesn't modify the content of the existing integer object... so your two threads are operating on entirely separate fields, and won't interact at all.
If you want to have a single object that both threads can modify, use AtomicInteger instead.
Synchronization works correctly in this code:
class PrintNumbers {
synchronized public void display() {
System.out.println("in display");
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
System.out.println("Thread name : "+ Thread.currentThread().getName() + " i= " + i);
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.getMessage();
}
}
System.out.println("out of display");
}
}
class MyThread implements Runnable {
Thread t;
PrintNumbers printNumbers;
MyThread(PrintNumbers printNumbers, String s) {
this.printNumbers = printNumbers;
t = new Thread(this,s);
t.start();
}
public void run() {
printNumbers.display();
}
}
class SyncExample {
public static void main(String[] args) {
PrintNumbers printNumbers = new PrintNumbers();
new MyThread(printNumbers, "My Thread 1");
new MyThread(printNumbers, "My Thread 2");
}
}
Output:
in display
Thread name : My Thread 1 i= 0
Thread name : My Thread 1 i= 1
Thread name : My Thread 1 i= 2
out of display
in display
Thread name : My Thread 2 i= 0
Thread name : My Thread 2 i= 1
Thread name : My Thread 2 i= 2
out of display
but not in this code:
class PrintNumbers {
synchronized public void display() {
System.out.println("in display");
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
System.out.println("Thread name : "+ Thread.currentThread().getName() + " i= " + i);
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.getMessage();
}
}
System.out.println("out of display");
}
}
class MyThread implements Runnable {
Thread t;
PrintNumbers printNumbers;
MyThread(String s) {
this.printNumbers = new PrintNumbers();
t = new Thread(this,s);
t.start();
}
public void run() {
printNumbers.display();
}
}
class SyncExample {
public static void main(String[] args) {
new MyThread("My Thread 1");
new MyThread("My Thread 2");
}
}
Output:
in display
Thread name : My Thread 1 i= 0
in display
Thread name : My Thread 2 i= 0
Thread name : My Thread 1 i= 1
Thread name : My Thread 2 i= 1
Thread name : My Thread 2 i= 2
Thread name : My Thread 1 i= 2
out of display
out of display
I cannot understand what difference wrt Synchronization does it make to initialize PrintNumbers in the Runnable MyThread and in the SyncExample class. Please explain.
I cannot understand what difference wrt Synchronization does it make to initialize PrintNumbers in the Runnable MyThread and in the SyncExample class.
It doesn't. What does matter is that in your first example, you have only one PrintNumbers instance which both threads share. But in your second example, you have two separate PrintNumbers instances, one for each thread.
Since PrintNumbers#display synchronizes on the instance (synchronized instance methods synchronize on this), it only synchronizes within the instance, not across multiple instances.
When both threads share an instance, the two calls to display are serialized. But when the threads each have their own instance, the two calls to display are on separate instances, and thus there is no serialization of the calls, they can overlap.
Because in the second code each thread has its own PrintNumbers object so they work in parallel. In the first one they share the single PrintNumbers object and work with it in synchronized way.
PS.
Remember that synchronized for non-static methods makes synchronization on object (for static methods on class).
It is working in both cases as it should. The difference is that in the first case you have a single object that is synchronized. In to second one you have two. They both are called only once so they are synchronized perfectly.
synchronized doesn't work between objects, only within one.
I have a requirement in which 28 threads have to complete some functionality. I have created these threads as in anonymous inner classes like :
Thread t=new Thread(new Runnable(){public void run()
{//code
}}
);
t.start();
Now I want that the further execution should start after all these threads have finished there work.
Note : I am confused about join() method as it makes my threads run sequentially.
So can anyone suggest me how can I make main thread run once these threads are done with work.
Note : I am confused about join() method as it makes my threads run sequentially.
It will do that if you have code like this:
for (Runnable runnable : runnables) {
Thread t = new Thread(runnable);
t.start();
t.join();
}
However, you can start all the threads you want to run in parallel, then call join on them all. For example:
List<Thread> threads = new ArrayList<>();
for (Runnable runnable : runnables) {
Thread t = new Thread(runnable);
t.start();
threads.add(t);
}
// Now everything's running - join all the threads
for (Thread thread : threads) {
thread.join();
}
// Now you can do whatever you need to after all the
// threads have finished.
There are many other approaches, of course - starting threads directly may well not be as suitable in your code as using a higher level abstraction; it depends on what you're trying to achieve. The above should work fine though - assuming all the Runnables are able to run in parallel without blocking each other through synchronization.
Make use of CountDownLatch.
public static void main(String... args) {
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(28);
for(int i=0;i<28;i++) {
Thread t=new Thread(new Runnable(){
public void run()
{
try {
//code
} finally {
latch.countDown();
}
}
});
t.start();
}
latch.await();
// Continue Code
}
Use a CountDownLatch and wait for all your threads to complete. :) .
PS : I gotto agree, using join() is also correct and more efficient.
example code :
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
System.out.println("t1 : " + i);
}
}
});
t1.start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
System.out.println("t2 : " + i);
}
}
});
t2.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
System.out.println("main");
}
O/P :
t1 : 0
t1 : 1
t2 : 0
t1 : 2
t1 : 3
t2 : 1
t1 : 4
t1 : 5
t2 : 2
t1 : 6
t1 : 7
t2 : 3
t1 : 8
t1 : 9
t2 : 4
t2 : 5
t2 : 6
t2 : 7
t2 : 8
t2 : 9
main
According to the behaviour you're giving for join, I'm guessing you're starting and joining the threads within a single loop.
If you check the javadoc on this page, you'll note that a call to join will halt the execution of the calling thread until the other thread has finished executing.
You might want to keep an array or a list of threads when creating them, and starting them all in one loop, and only then joining them all.
Thread[] workers = new Thread[28];
for (int i = 0; i < workers.length; i++) {
workers[i] = new Thread { ... };
}
// Start running all threads
for (Thread worker: workers) {
worker.start();
}
// Make sure all threads are completed
for (Thread worker: workers) {
worker.join(); // if the worker already stopped, it'll return immediately.
}
// Now all threads have finished running and you can start post-processing
It's not the most elegant solution, but it'll do the trick.
As mentioned by others, you should probably use a CountDownLatch (haven't used one yet, so I can't provide feedback)
Edit: I've been beaten to it by Jon Skeet, sorry for the redundant answer...
CountDownLatch is better option.
I have created dummy program.
In this program I am sum 1000 number. I created 10 thread. In main thread I am doing dome of all child thread sum. you will get understand to simply viewing the code.
package Test1;
import java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch;
class Sum extends Thread {
private int from;
private int to;
private int sum = 0;
CountDownLatch latch;
public int getSum() {
return sum;
}
public Sum(int from, int to, CountDownLatch latch) {
this.from = from;
this.to = to;
this.latch = latch;
}
public void run() {
for (int i = from; i < to; i++) {
sum += i;
}
latch.countDown();
}
}
public class Test5 {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
int n = 1000;
int tn = 10;
int from = 1;
int to;
int sum = 0;
Sum[] sumArray = new Sum[tn];
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(tn);
for (int i = 0; i < tn; i++) {
to = from + n / tn;
Sum s = new Sum(from, to, latch);
sumArray[i] = s;
s.start();
from = to;
}
// Thread.sleep(1000);
latch.await();
for (int i = 0; i < tn; i++) {
sum += sumArray[i].getSum();
}
System.out.println(sum);
}
}
I have a problem with Threads in Java.
I would like to write a program where there is Class Main which has ArrayList of Threads of some class (Class Task) which just writes a letter and the number. Object Main just wakes one Thread from ArrayList and let it to do something while the same object(Main) sleeps another one.
But there is one problem even if I change the Main.ACTIVE to false it does not end all of the Threads some stay on, and it's random, I just would like to make them end and write:
I am saying goodbay + character - sth like that
public class Main extends Thread {
ArrayList<Thread> threads;
static boolean ACTIVE = true;
public Main() {
super();
threads = new ArrayList<Thread>();
}
public void run(){
Object monitor = new Object();
for (int i = 0; i <= 5; i++) {
threads.add(new Thread(new Task(i + 65, monitor)));
}
long cT = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < threads.size(); i++) {
threads.get(i).start();
}
System.out.println("BEFORE synchronized(monitor)");
synchronized(monitor){
while (System.currentTimeMillis() - cT < 1000) {
try{
monitor.notify();
Thread.sleep(50);
monitor.wait();
} catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();}
}
System.out.println("BEFORE ACTIVE= FALSE and after WHILE in Main");
ACTIVE = false;
for(int i = 0; i < threads.size(); i++){
System.out.println(threads.get(i).getState());
}
}
System.out.println("LAST COMMAND IN MAIN");
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().start();
//new Thread(new Task(65)).start();
}
}
And the Task Class
public class Task implements Runnable {
int nr;
char character;
Object monitor;
public Task(int literaASCII, Object monitor) {
this.nr = 0;
this.monitor = monitor;
character = (char) (literaASCII);
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (monitor) {
while (Main.ACTIVE) {
try {
System.out.println("ENTERING WHILE IN TASK");
monitor.wait();
System.out.print(nr + "" + character + ", ");
nr++;
int r = (int) ((Math.random() * 50) + 50); // <500ms,1000ms)
Thread.sleep(r);
} catch (Exception e) {e.printStackTrace();}
monitor.notify();
System.out.println("YYYYYYYYY");
}
System.out.println("AFTER WHILE IN Task");
}
System.out.println("I am saying goodbye " + character);
}
}
I would recommend that you look at the more modern concurrency classes in java.util.concurrent package, especially ExecutorService. And read "Java Concurrency In Practice."
Your problem is for starters that ACTIVE should be marked as volatile. Any variable that is shared by multiple threads needs to somehow be synchronized or marked as volatile so that it will have a memory barrier around its reading and writing.
Another thing you can do from a boolean standpoint is to use the AtomicBoolean class instead of a volatile boolean.
Instead of a static volatile boolean, you might instead consider to have a volatile boolean for each Task object so that Main has more fine grained control over the individual tasks and you are using a static "global" variable. You could even add a task.shutdown() method to set the active flag.
Lastly, as #duffmo mentioned, you should always consider using one of the thread-pools ExecutorService if you always just want to have one thread running. Something like Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1). But I can't quite tell if you only want one thread all of the time. If you used an ExecutorService then main would just do:
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
List<Future> futures = new ArrayList<Future>();
for (int i = 0; i <= 5; i++) {
// the monitor would not be needed
threadPool.submit(new Task(i + 65));
}
threadPool.shutdown();
for (Future future : futures) {
// this waits for the working task to finish
future.get();
}
But if you need your background task to stop and start like it is currently doing with the monitor then this model might not work.
Now naswer is
0A, 0B, 0C, 0D, 0E, 0F, 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F, WAITING
WAITING
WAITING
WAITING
WAITING
WAITING
LAST COMMAND IN MAIN
I added sleep after starting threads
import java.util.ArrayList;
public class Main extends Thread {
ArrayList<Thread> threads;
volatile static boolean ACTIVE = true;
public Main() {
super();
threads = new ArrayList<Thread>();
}
public void run(){
Object monitor = new Object();
for (int i = 0; i <= 5; i++) {
threads.add(new Thread(new Task(i + 65, monitor)));
}
long cT = System.currentTimeMillis();
for (int i = 0; i < threads.size(); i++) {
threads.get(i).start();
}
try{Thread.sleep(50);}catch(Exception e){e.printStackTrace();}
// System.out.println("BEFORE synchronized(monitor)");
synchronized(monitor){
while (System.currentTimeMillis() - cT < 1000) {
try{
monitor.notify();
Thread.sleep(500);
monitor.wait();}catch(Exception e){e.printStackTrace();}
}
// System.out.println("BEFORE ACTIVE= FALSE and after WHILE in Main");
ACTIVE = false;
for(int i = 0; i < threads.size(); i++){
System.out.println(threads.get(i).getState());
}
}
System.out.println("LAST COMMAND IN MAIN");
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main().start();
//new Thread(new Task(65)).start();
}
}
and the TASK
public class Task implements Runnable {
int nr;
char character;
Object monitor;
public Task(int literaASCII, Object monitor) {
this.nr = 0;
this.monitor = monitor;
character = (char) (literaASCII);
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (monitor) {
while (Main.ACTIVE) {
try {
// System.out.println("ENTERING WHILE IN TASK");
monitor.wait();
System.out.print(nr + "" + character + ", ");
nr++;
int r = (int) ((Math.random() * 50) + 50); // <500ms,1000ms)
Thread.sleep(r);
} catch (Exception e) {e.printStackTrace();}
monitor.notify();
// System.out.println("YYYYYYYYY");
}
System.out.println("AFTER WHILE IN Task");
}
System.out.println("I am saying goodbye " + character);
}
}