If one Googles for "difference between notify() and notifyAll()" then a lot of explanations will pop up (leaving apart the javadoc paragraphs). It all boils down to the number of waiting threads being waken up: one in notify() and all in notifyAll().
However (if I do understand the difference between these methods right), only one thread is always selected for further monitor acquisition; in the first case the one selected by the VM, in the second case the one selected by the system thread scheduler. The exact selection procedures for both of them (in the general case) are not known to the programmer.
What's the useful difference between notify() and notifyAll() then? Am I missing something?
Clearly, notify wakes (any) one thread in the wait set, notifyAll wakes all threads in the waiting set. The following discussion should clear up any doubts. notifyAll should be used most of the time. If you are not sure which to use, then use notifyAll.Please see explanation that follows.
Read very carefully and understand. Please send me an email if you have any questions.
Look at producer/consumer (assumption is a ProducerConsumer class with two methods). IT IS BROKEN (because it uses notify) - yes it MAY work - even most of the time, but it may also cause deadlock - we will see why:
public synchronized void put(Object o) {
while (buf.size()==MAX_SIZE) {
wait(); // called if the buffer is full (try/catch removed for brevity)
}
buf.add(o);
notify(); // called in case there are any getters or putters waiting
}
public synchronized Object get() {
// Y: this is where C2 tries to acquire the lock (i.e. at the beginning of the method)
while (buf.size()==0) {
wait(); // called if the buffer is empty (try/catch removed for brevity)
// X: this is where C1 tries to re-acquire the lock (see below)
}
Object o = buf.remove(0);
notify(); // called if there are any getters or putters waiting
return o;
}
FIRSTLY,
Why do we need a while loop surrounding the wait?
We need a while loop in case we get this situation:
Consumer 1 (C1) enter the synchronized block and the buffer is empty, so C1 is put in the wait set (via the wait call). Consumer 2 (C2) is about to enter the synchronized method (at point Y above), but Producer P1 puts an object in the buffer, and subsequently calls notify. The only waiting thread is C1, so it is woken and now attempts to re-acquire the object lock at point X (above).
Now C1 and C2 are attempting to acquire the synchronization lock. One of them (nondeterministically) is chosen and enters the method, the other is blocked (not waiting - but blocked, trying to acquire the lock on the method). Let's say C2 gets the lock first. C1 is still blocking (trying to acquire the lock at X). C2 completes the method and releases the lock. Now, C1 acquires the lock. Guess what, lucky we have a while loop, because, C1 performs the loop check (guard) and is prevented from removing a non-existent element from the buffer (C2 already got it!). If we didn't have a while, we would get an IndexArrayOutOfBoundsException as C1 tries to remove the first element from the buffer!
NOW,
Ok, now why do we need notifyAll?
In the producer/consumer example above it looks like we can get away with notify. It seems this way, because we can prove that the guards on the wait loops for producer and consumer are mutually exclusive. That is, it looks like we cannot have a thread waiting in the put method as well as the get method, because, for that to be true, then the following would have to be true:
buf.size() == 0 AND buf.size() == MAX_SIZE (assume MAX_SIZE is not 0)
HOWEVER, this is not good enough, we NEED to use notifyAll. Let's see why ...
Assume we have a buffer of size 1 (to make the example easy to follow). The following steps lead us to deadlock. Note that ANYTIME a thread is woken with notify, it can be non-deterministically selected by the JVM - that is any waiting thread can be woken. Also note that when multiple threads are blocking on entry to a method (i.e. trying to acquire a lock), the order of acquisition can be non-deterministic. Remember also that a thread can only be in one of the methods at any one time - the synchronized methods allow only one thread to be executing (i.e. holding the lock of) any (synchronized) methods in the class. If the following sequence of events occurs - deadlock results:
STEP 1:
- P1 puts 1 char into the buffer
STEP 2:
- P2 attempts put - checks wait loop - already a char - waits
STEP 3:
- P3 attempts put - checks wait loop - already a char - waits
STEP 4:
- C1 attempts to get 1 char
- C2 attempts to get 1 char - blocks on entry to the get method
- C3 attempts to get 1 char - blocks on entry to the get method
STEP 5:
- C1 is executing the get method - gets the char, calls notify, exits method
- The notify wakes up P2
- BUT, C2 enters method before P2 can (P2 must reacquire the lock), so P2 blocks on entry to the put method
- C2 checks wait loop, no more chars in buffer, so waits
- C3 enters method after C2, but before P2, checks wait loop, no more chars in buffer, so waits
STEP 6:
- NOW: there is P3, C2, and C3 waiting!
- Finally P2 acquires the lock, puts a char in the buffer, calls notify, exits method
STEP 7:
- P2's notification wakes P3 (remember any thread can be woken)
- P3 checks the wait loop condition, there is already a char in the buffer, so waits.
- NO MORE THREADS TO CALL NOTIFY and THREE THREADS PERMANENTLY SUSPENDED!
SOLUTION: Replace notify with notifyAll in the producer/consumer code (above).
However (if I do understand the difference between these methods right), only one thread is always selected for further monitor acquisition.
That is not correct. o.notifyAll() wakes all of the threads that are blocked in o.wait() calls. The threads are only allowed to return from o.wait() one-by-one, but they each will get their turn.
Simply put, it depends on why your threads are waiting to be notified. Do you want to tell one of the waiting threads that something happened, or do you want to tell all of them at the same time?
In some cases, all waiting threads can take useful action once the wait finishes. An example would be a set of threads waiting for a certain task to finish; once the task has finished, all waiting threads can continue with their business. In such a case you would use notifyAll() to wake up all waiting threads at the same time.
Another case, for example mutually exclusive locking, only one of the waiting threads can do something useful after being notified (in this case acquire the lock). In such a case, you would rather use notify(). Properly implemented, you could use notifyAll() in this situation as well, but you would unnecessarily wake threads that can't do anything anyway.
In many cases, the code to await a condition will be written as a loop:
synchronized(o) {
while (! IsConditionTrue()) {
o.wait();
}
DoSomethingThatOnlyMakesSenseWhenConditionIsTrue_and_MaybeMakeConditionFalseAgain();
}
That way, if an o.notifyAll() call wakes more than one waiting thread, and the first one to return from the o.wait() makes leaves the condition in the false state, then the other threads that were awakened will go back to waiting.
Useful differences:
Use notify() if all your waiting threads are interchangeable (the order they wake up doesn't matter), or if you only ever have one waiting thread. A common example is a thread pool used to execute jobs from a queue--when a job is added, one of threads is notified to wake up, execute the next job and go back to sleep.
Use notifyAll() for other cases where the waiting threads may have different purposes and should be able to run concurrently. An example is a maintenance operation on a shared resource, where multiple threads are waiting for the operation to complete before accessing the resource.
I think it depends on how resources are produced and consumed. If 5 work objects are available at once and you have 5 consumer objects, it would make sense to wake up all threads using notifyAll() so each one can process 1 work object.
If you have just one work object available, what is the point in waking up all consumer objects to race for that one object? The first one checking for available work will get it and all other threads will check and find they have nothing to do.
I found a great explanation here. In short:
The notify() method is generally used
for resource pools, where there
are an arbitrary number of "consumers"
or "workers" that take resources, but
when a resource is added to the pool,
only one of the waiting consumers or
workers can deal with it. The
notifyAll() method is actually used in
most other cases. Strictly, it is
required to notify waiters of a
condition that could allow multiple
waiters to proceed. But this is often
difficult to know. So as a general
rule, if you have no particular
logic for using notify(), then you
should probably use notifyAll(),
because it is often difficult to know
exactly what threads will be waiting
on a particular object and why.
Note that with concurrency utilities you also have the choice between signal() and signalAll() as these methods are called there. So the question remains valid even with java.util.concurrent.
Doug Lea brings up an interesting point in his famous book: if a notify() and Thread.interrupt() happen at the same time, the notify might actually get lost. If this can happen and has dramatic implications notifyAll() is a safer choice even though you pay the price of overhead (waking too many threads most of the time).
Here is an example. Run it. Then change one of the notifyAll() to notify() and see what happens.
ProducerConsumerExample class
public class ProducerConsumerExample {
private static boolean Even = true;
private static boolean Odd = false;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Dropbox dropbox = new Dropbox();
(new Thread(new Consumer(Even, dropbox))).start();
(new Thread(new Consumer(Odd, dropbox))).start();
(new Thread(new Producer(dropbox))).start();
}
}
Dropbox class
public class Dropbox {
private int number;
private boolean empty = true;
private boolean evenNumber = false;
public synchronized int take(final boolean even) {
while (empty || evenNumber != even) {
try {
System.out.format("%s is waiting ... %n", even ? "Even" : "Odd");
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
System.out.format("%s took %d.%n", even ? "Even" : "Odd", number);
empty = true;
notifyAll();
return number;
}
public synchronized void put(int number) {
while (!empty) {
try {
System.out.println("Producer is waiting ...");
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
this.number = number;
evenNumber = number % 2 == 0;
System.out.format("Producer put %d.%n", number);
empty = false;
notifyAll();
}
}
Consumer class
import java.util.Random;
public class Consumer implements Runnable {
private final Dropbox dropbox;
private final boolean even;
public Consumer(boolean even, Dropbox dropbox) {
this.even = even;
this.dropbox = dropbox;
}
public void run() {
Random random = new Random();
while (true) {
dropbox.take(even);
try {
Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(100));
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
}
}
Producer class
import java.util.Random;
public class Producer implements Runnable {
private Dropbox dropbox;
public Producer(Dropbox dropbox) {
this.dropbox = dropbox;
}
public void run() {
Random random = new Random();
while (true) {
int number = random.nextInt(10);
try {
Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(100));
dropbox.put(number);
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
}
}
}
Short summary:
Always prefer notifyAll() over notify() unless you have a massively parallel application where a large number of threads all do the same thing.
Explanation:
notify() [...] wakes up a single
thread. Because notify() doesn't allow you to specify the thread that is
woken up, it is useful only in massively parallel applications — that
is, programs with a large number of threads, all doing similar chores.
In such an application, you don't care which thread gets woken up.
source: https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/guardmeth.html
Compare notify() with notifyAll() in the above described situation: a massively parallel application where threads are doing the same thing. If you call notifyAll() in that case, notifyAll() will induce the waking up (i.e. scheduling) of a huge number of threads, many of them unnecessarily (since only one thread can actually proceed, namely the thread which will be granted the monitor for the object wait(), notify(), or notifyAll() was called on), therefore wasting computing resources.
Thus, if you don't have an application where a huge number of threads do the same thing concurrently, prefer notifyAll() over notify(). Why? Because, as other users have already answered in this forum, notify()
wakes up a single thread that is waiting on this object's monitor. [...] The
choice is arbitrary and occurs at the discretion of the
implementation.
source: Java SE8 API (https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/lang/Object.html#notify--)
Imagine you have a producer consumer application where consumers are ready (i.e. wait() ing) to consume, producers are ready (i.e. wait() ing) to produce and the queue of items (to be produced / consumed) is empty. In that case, notify() might wake up only consumers and never producers because the choice who is waken up is arbitrary. The producer consumer cycle wouldn't make any progress although producers and consumers are ready to produce and consume, respectively. Instead, a consumer is woken up (i.e. leaving the wait() status), doesn't take an item out of the queue because it's empty, and notify() s another consumer to proceed.
In contrast, notifyAll() awakens both producers and consumers. The choice who is scheduled depends on the scheduler. Of course, depending on the scheduler's implementation, the scheduler might also only schedule consumers (e.g. if you assign consumer threads a very high priority). However, the assumption here is that the danger of the scheduler scheduling only consumers is lower than the danger of the JVM only waking up consumers because any reasonably implemented scheduler doesn't make just arbitrary decisions. Rather, most scheduler implementations make at least some effort to prevent starvation.
From Joshua Bloch, the Java Guru himself in Effective Java 2nd edition:
"Item 69: Prefer concurrency utilities to wait and notify".
There are three states for a thread.
WAIT - The thread is not using any CPU cycle
BLOCKED - The thread is blocked trying to acquire a monitor. It might still be using the CPU cycles
RUNNING - The thread is running.
Now, when a notify() is called, JVM picks one thread and move them to the BLOCKED state and hence to the RUNNING state as there is no competition for the monitor object.
When a notifyAll() is called, JVM picks all the threads and move all of them to BLOCKED state. All these threads will get the lock of the object on a priority basis. Thread which is able to acquire the monitor first will be able to go to the RUNNING state first and so on.
This answer is a graphical rewriting and simplification of the excellent answer by xagyg, including comments by eran.
Why use notifyAll, even when each product is intended for a single consumer?
Consider producers and consumers, simplified as follows.
Producer:
while (!empty) {
wait() // on full
}
put()
notify()
Consumer:
while (empty) {
wait() // on empty
}
take()
notify()
Assume 2 producers and 2 consumers, sharing a buffer of size 1. The following picture depicts a scenario leading to a deadlock, which would be avoided if all threads used notifyAll.
Each notify is labeled with the thread being woken up.
I am very surprised that no one mentioned the infamous "lost wakeup" problem (google it).
Basically:
if you have multiple threads waiting on a same condition and,
multiple threads that can make you transition from state A to state B and,
multiple threads that can make you transition from state B to state A (usually the same threads as in 1.) and,
transitioning from state A to B should notify threads in 1.
THEN you should use notifyAll unless you have provable guarantees that lost wakeups are impossible.
A common example is a concurrent FIFO queue where:
multiple enqueuers (1. and 3. above) can transition your queue from empty to non-empty
multiple dequeuers (2. above) can wait for the condition "the queue is not empty"
empty -> non-empty should notify dequeuers
You can easily write an interleaving of operations in which, starting from an empty queue, 2 enqueuers and 2 dequeuers interact and 1 enqueuer will remain sleeping.
This is a problem arguably comparable with the deadlock problem.
Here's a simpler explanation:
You're correct that whether you use notify() or notifyAll(), the immediate result is that exactly one other thread will acquire the monitor and begin executing. (Assuming some threads were in fact blocked on wait() for this object, other unrelated threads aren't soaking up all available cores, etc.) The impact comes later.
Suppose thread A, B, and C were waiting on this object, and thread A gets the monitor. The difference lies in what happens once A releases the monitor. If you used notify(), then B and C are still blocked in wait(): they are not waiting on the monitor, they are waiting to be notified. When A releases the monitor, B and C will still be sitting there, waiting for a notify().
If you used notifyAll(), then B and C have both advanced past the "wait for notification" state and are both waiting to acquire the monitor. When A releases the monitor, either B or C will acquire it (assuming no other threads are competing for that monitor) and begin executing.
notify() will wake up one thread while notifyAll() will wake up all. As far as I know there is no middle ground. But if you are not sure what notify() will do to your threads, use notifyAll(). Works like a charm everytime.
All the above answers are correct, as far as I can tell, so I'm going to tell you something else. For production code you really should use the classes in java.util.concurrent. There is very little they cannot do for you, in the area of concurrency in java.
notify() lets you write more efficient code than notifyAll().
Consider the following piece of code that's executed from multiple parallel threads:
synchronized(this) {
while(busy) // a loop is necessary here
wait();
busy = true;
}
...
synchronized(this) {
busy = false;
notifyAll();
}
It can be made more efficient by using notify():
synchronized(this) {
if(busy) // replaced the loop with a condition which is evaluated only once
wait();
busy = true;
}
...
synchronized(this) {
busy = false;
notify();
}
In the case if you have a large number of threads, or if the wait loop condition is costly to evaluate, notify() will be significantly faster than notifyAll(). For example, if you have 1000 threads then 999 threads will be awakened and evaluated after the first notifyAll(), then 998, then 997, and so on. On the contrary, with the notify() solution, only one thread will be awakened.
Use notifyAll() when you need to choose which thread will do the work next:
synchronized(this) {
while(idx != last+1) // wait until it's my turn
wait();
}
...
synchronized(this) {
last = idx;
notifyAll();
}
Finally, it's important to understand that in case of notifyAll(), the code inside synchronized blocks that have been awakened will be executed sequentially, not all at once. Let's say there are three threads waiting in the above example, and the fourth thread calls notifyAll(). All three threads will be awakened but only one will start execution and check the condition of the while loop. If the condition is true, it will call wait() again, and only then the second thread will start executing and will check its while loop condition, and so on.
notify() - Selects a random thread from the wait set of the object and puts it in the BLOCKED state. The rest of the threads in the wait set of the object are still in the WAITING state.
notifyAll() - Moves all the threads from the wait set of the object to BLOCKED state. After you use notifyAll(), there are no threads remaining in the wait set of the shared object because all of them are now in BLOCKED state and not in WAITING state.
BLOCKED - blocked for lock acquisition.
WAITING - waiting for notify ( or blocked for join completion ).
I would like to mention what is explained in Java Concurrency in Practice:
First point, whether Notify or NotifyAll?
It will be NotifyAll, and reason is that it will save from signall hijacking.
If two threads A and B are waiting on different condition predicates
of same condition queue and notify is called, then it is upto JVM to
which thread JVM will notify.
Now if notify was meant for thread A and JVM notified thread B, then
thread B will wake up and see that this notification is not useful so
it will wait again. And Thread A will never come to know about this
missed signal and someone hijacked it's notification.
So, calling notifyAll will resolve this issue, but again it will have
performance impact as it will notify all threads and all threads will
compete for same lock and it will involve context switch and hence
load on CPU. But we should care about performance only if it is
behaving correctly, if it's behavior itself is not correct then
performance is of no use.
This problem can be solved with using Condition object of explicit locking Lock, provided in jdk 5, as it provides different wait for each condition predicate. Here it will behave correctly and there will not be performance issue as it will call signal and make sure that only one thread is waiting for that condition
Taken from blog on Effective Java:
The notifyAll method should generally be used in preference to notify.
If notify is used, great care must be taken to ensure liveness.
So, what i understand is (from aforementioned blog, comment by "Yann TM" on accepted answer and Java docs):
notify() : JVM awakens one of the waiting threads on this object. Thread selection is made arbitrarily without fairness. So same thread can be awakened again and again. So system's state changes but no real progress is made. Thus creating a livelock.
notifyAll() : JVM awakens all threads and then all threads race for the lock on this object. Now, CPU scheduler selects a thread which acquires lock on this object. This selection process would be much better than selection by JVM. Thus, ensuring liveness.
Take a look at the code posted by #xagyg.
Suppose two different threads are waiting for two different conditions:
The first thread is waiting for buf.size() != MAX_SIZE, and the second thread is waiting for buf.size() != 0.
Suppose at some point buf.size() is not equal to 0. JVM calls notify() instead of notifyAll(), and the first thread is notified (not the second one).
The first thread is woken up, checks for buf.size() which might return MAX_SIZE, and goes back to waiting. The second thread is not woken up, continues to wait and does not call get().
notify will notify only one thread which are in waiting state, while notify all will notify all the threads in the waiting state now all the notified threads and all the blocked threads are eligible for the lock, out of which only one will get the lock and all others (including those who are in waiting state earlier) will be in blocked state.
To summarize the excellent detailed explanations above, and in the simplest way I can think of, this is due to the limitations of the JVM built-in monitor, which 1) is acquired on the entire synchronization unit (block or object) and 2) does not discriminate about the specific condition being waited/notified on/about.
This means that if multiple threads are waiting on different conditions and notify() is used, the selected thread may not be the one which would make progress on the newly fulfilled condition - causing that thread (and other currently still waiting threads which would be able to fulfill the condition, etc..) not to be able to make progress, and eventually starvation or program hangup.
In contrast, notifyAll() enables all waiting threads to eventually re-acquire the lock and check for their respective condition, thereby eventually allowing progress to be made.
So notify() can be used safely only if any waiting thread is guaranteed to allow progress to be made should it be selected, which in general is satisfied when all threads within the same monitor check for only one and the same condition - a fairly rare case in real world applications.
notify() wakes up the first thread that called wait() on the same object.
notifyAll() wakes up all the threads that called wait() on the same object.
The highest priority thread will run first.
When you call the wait() of the "object"(expecting the object lock is acquired),intern this will release the lock on that object and help's the other threads to have lock on this "object", in this scenario there will be more than 1 thread waiting for the "resource/object"(considering the other threads also issued the wait on the same above object and down the way there will be a thread that fill the resource/object and invokes notify/notifyAll).
Here when you issue the notify of the same object(from the same/other side of the process/code),this will release a blocked and waiting single thread (not all the waiting threads -- this released thread will be picked by JVM Thread Scheduler and all the lock obtaining process on the object is same as regular).
If you have Only one thread that will be sharing/working on this object , it is ok to use the notify() method alone in your wait-notify implementation.
if you are in situation where more than one thread read's and writes on resources/object based on your business logic,then you should go for notifyAll()
now i am looking how exactly the jvm is identifying and breaking the waiting thread when we issue notify() on a object ...
Waiting queue and blocked queue
You can assume there are two kinds of queues associated with each lock object. One is blocked queue containing thread waiting for the monitor lock, other is waiting queue containing thread waiting to be notified. (Thread will be put into waiting queue when they call Object.wait).
Each time the lock is available, the scheduler choose one thread from blocked queue to execute.
When notify is called, there will only be one thread in waiting queue are put into blocked queue to contend for the lock, while notifyAll will put all thread in waiting queue into blocked queue.
Now can you see the difference?
Although in both case there will only be one thread get executed, but with notifyAll, other threads still get a change to be executed(Because they are in the blocked queue) even if they failed to contend the lock.
some guidline
I basically recommend use notifyAll all the time althrough there may be a little performance penalty.
And use notify only if :
Any waked thread can make the programe proceed.
performance is important.
For example:
#xagyg 's answer gives a example which notify will cause deadlock. In his example, both producer and consumer are related with the same lock object. So when a producer calls notify, either a producer or a consumer can be notified. But if a producer is woken up it can not make the programe proceed because the buffer is already full.So a deadlock happens.
There are two ways to solve it :
use notifyALl as #xagyg suggests.
Make procuder and consumer related with different lock object and procuder can only wake up consumer, consumer can only wake up producer. In that case, no matter which consumer is waked, it can consumer the buffer and make the programe proceed.
While there are some solid answers above, I am surprised by the number of confusions and misunderstandings I have read. This probably proves the idea that one should use java.util.concurrent as much as possible instead of trying to write their own broken concurrent code.
Back to the question: to summarize, the best practice today is to AVOID notify() in ALL situations due to the lost wakeup problem. Anyone who doesn't understand this should not be allowed to write mission critical concurrency code. If you are worried about the herding problem, one safe way to achieve waking one thread up at a time is to:
Build an explicit waiting queue for the waiting threads;
Have each of the thread in the queue wait for its predecessor;
Have each thread call notifyAll() when done.
Or you can use Java.util.concurrent.*, which have already implemented this.
Waking up all does not make much significance here.
wait notify and notifyall, all these are put after owning the object's monitor. If a thread is in the waiting stage and notify is called, this thread will take up the lock and no other thread at that point can take up that lock. So concurrent access can not take place at all. As far as i know any call to wait notify and notifyall can be made only after taking the lock on the object. Correct me if i am wrong.
I have read that we should always call a wait() from within a loop:
while (!condition) { obj.wait(); }
It works fine without a loop so why is that?
You need not only to loop it but check your condition in the loop. Java does not guarantee that your thread will be woken up only by a notify()/notifyAll() call or the right notify()/notifyAll() call at all. Because of this property the loop-less version might work on your development environment and fail on the production environment unexpectedly.
For example, you are waiting for something:
synchronized (theObjectYouAreWaitingOn) {
while (!carryOn) {
theObjectYouAreWaitingOn.wait();
}
}
An evil thread comes along and:
theObjectYouAreWaitingOn.notifyAll();
If the evil thread does not/can not mess with the carryOn you just continue to wait for the proper client.
Edit: Added some more samples.
The wait can be interrupted. It throws InterruptedException and you might need to wrap the wait in a try-catch. Depending on your business needs, you can exit or suppress the exception and continue waiting.
It's answered in documentation for Object.wait(long milis)
A thread can also wake up without being notified, interrupted, or timing out, a so-called spurious wakeup. While this will rarely occur in practice, applications must guard against it by testing for the condition that should have caused the thread to be awakened, and continuing to wait if the condition is not satisfied. In other words, waits should always occur in loops, like this one:
synchronized (obj) {
while (<condition does not hold>)
obj.wait(timeout);
... // Perform action appropriate to condition
}
(For more information on this topic,
see Section 3.2.3 in Doug Lea's
"Concurrent Programming in Java
(Second Edition)" (Addison-Wesley,
2000), or Item 50 in Joshua Bloch's
"Effective Java Programming Language
Guide" (Addison-Wesley, 2001).
Why should wait() always be called inside a loop
The primary reason why while loops are so important is race conditions between threads. Certainly spurious wakeups are real and for certain architectures they are common, but race conditions are a much more likely reason for the while loop.
For example:
synchronized (queue) {
// this needs to be while
while (queue.isEmpty()) {
queue.wait();
}
queue.remove();
}
With the above code, there may be 2 consumer threads. When the producer locks the queue to add to it, consumer #1 may be blocked at the synchronized lock while consumer #2 is waiting on the queue. When the item is added to the queue and notify called by the producer, #2 is moved from the wait queue to be blocked on the queue lock, but it will be behind the #1 consumer which was already blocked on the lock. This means that the #1 consumer gets to go forward first to call remove() from the queue. If the while loop is just an if, then when consumer #2 gets the lock after #1 and calls remove(), an exception would occur because the queue is now empty -- the other consumer thread already removed the item. Even though it was notified, it needs to be make sure the queue is for sure not empty because of this race condition.
This well documented. Here's a web page I created a while back which explains the race condition in detail and has some sample code.
There might be more then just one worker waiting for a condition to become true.
If two or more worker get awake (notifyAll) they have to check the condition again.
otherwise all workers would continue even though there might only be data for one of them.
I think I got #Gray 's answer.
Let me try to rephrase that for newbies like me and request the experts to correct me if I am wrong.
Consumer synchronized block::
synchronized (queue) {
// this needs to be while
while (queue.isEmpty()) {
queue.wait();
}
queue.remove();
}
Producer synchronized block::
synchronized(queue) {
// producer produces inside the queue
queue.notify();
}
Assume the following happens in the given order:
1) consumer#2 gets inside the consumer synchronized block and is waiting since queue is empty.
2) Now, producer obtains the lock on queueand inserts inside the queue and calls notify().
Now,either consumer#1 can be chosen to run which is waiting for queue lock to enter the synchronized block for the first time
or
consumer#2 can be chosen to run.
3) say, consumer#1 is chosen to continue with the execution. When it checks the condition,it will be true and it will remove() from the queue.
4) say,consumer#2 is proceeding from where it halted its execution (the line after the wait() method). If 'while' condition is not there (instead an if condition), it will just proceed to call remove() which might result in an exception/unexpected behaviour.
Because wait and notify are used to implement [condition variables](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitor_(synchronization)#Blocking_condition_variables) and so you need to check whether the specific predicate you're waiting on is true before continuing.
Both safety and liveness are concerns when using the wait/notify mechanism. The safety property requires that all objects maintain consistent states in a multithreaded environment. The liveness property requires that every operation or method invocation execute to completion without interruption.
To guarantee liveness, programs must test the while loop condition before invoking the wait() method. This early test checks whether another thread has already satisfied the condition predicate and sent a notification. Invoking the wait() method after the notification has been sent results in indefinite blocking.
To guarantee safety, programs must test the while loop condition after returning from the wait() method. Although wait() is intended to block indefinitely until a notification is received, it still must be encased within a loop to prevent the following vulnerabilities:
Thread in the middle: A third thread can acquire the lock on the shared object during the interval between a notification being sent and the receiving thread resuming execution. This third thread can change the state of the object, leaving it inconsistent. This is a time-of-check, time-of-use (TOCTOU) race condition.
Malicious notification: A random or malicious notification can be received when the condition predicate is false. Such a notification would cancel the wait() method.
Misdelivered notification: The order in which threads execute after receipt of a notifyAll() signal is unspecified. Consequently, an unrelated thread could start executing and discover that its condition predicate is satisfied. Consequently, it could resume execution despite being required to remain dormant.
Spurious wakeups: Certain Java Virtual Machine (JVM) implementations are vulnerable to spurious wakeups that result in waiting threads waking up even without a notification.
For these reasons, programs must check the condition predicate after the wait() method returns. A while loop is the best choice for checking the condition predicate both before and after invoking wait().
Similarly, the await() method of the Condition interface also must be invoked inside a loop. According to the Java API, Interface Condition
When waiting upon a Condition, a "spurious wakeup" is permitted to
occur, in general, as a concession to the underlying platform
semantics. This has little practical impact on most application
programs as a Condition should always be waited upon in a loop,
testing the state predicate that is being waited for. An
implementation is free to remove the possibility of spurious wakeups
but it is recommended that applications programmers always assume that
they can occur and so always wait in a loop.
New code should use the java.util.concurrent.locks concurrency utilities in place of the wait/notify mechanism. However, legacy code that complies with the other requirements of this rule is permitted to depend on the wait/notify mechanism.
Noncompliant Code Example
This noncompliant code example invokes the wait() method inside a traditional if block and fails to check the postcondition after the notification is received. If the notification were accidental or malicious, the thread could wake up prematurely.
synchronized (object) {
if (<condition does not hold>) {
object.wait();
}
// Proceed when condition holds
}
Compliant Solution
This compliant solution calls the wait() method from within a while loop to check the condition both before and after the call to wait():
synchronized (object) {
while (<condition does not hold>) {
object.wait();
}
// Proceed when condition holds
}
Invocations of the java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition.await() method also must be enclosed in a similar loop.
Before getting to the answer, lets see how wait is probably implemented.
wait(mutex) {
// automatically release mutex
// and go on wait queue
// ... wait ... wait ... wait ...
// remove from queue
// re-acquire mutex
// exit the wait operation
}
In your example mutex is the obj with the assumption that your code is running inside synchronized(obj) { } block.
A mutex is called as monitor in Java [some subtle differences though]
A concurrency example using condition variable with if
synchronized(obj) {
if (!condition) {
obj.wait();
}
// Do some stuff related to condition
condition = false;
}
Lets say we have 2 threads. Thread 1 and Thread 2.
Lets see some states along the timeline.
at t = x
Thread 1 state:
waiting on ... wait ... wait ... wait ..
Thread 2 state:
Just entered the synchronised section, since as per the thread 1's state, the mutex/monitor is released.
You can read more about wait() here java.sun.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/Object.html#wait(long).
This is the only thing that is tricky to understand. When 1 thread is inside the synchronized block. Another thread can still enter the synchronized block because wait() causes the monitor/mutex to be released.
Thread 2 is about to read if (!condition) statement.
at t = x + 1
notify() is triggered by some thread on this mutex/monitor.
condition becomes true
Thread 1 state:
Waiting at re-acquire mutex, [Since thread-2 has the lock now]
Thread 2 state:
Doesn't go inside if condition and marks the condition = false.
at t = x + 2
Thread 1 state:
Exits the wait operation and about to mark condition = false.
This state is inconsistent as condition is supposed to be true but is false already, because thread 2 marked it false previously.
And thats the reason, while is required instead of if. As while would trigger the condition to be checked again for thread 1 and thread 1 will begin waiting again.
Result
In order to avoid this inconsistency the correct code seems to be like this:
synchronized(obj) {
while (!condition) {
obj.wait();
}
// Do some stuff related to condition
condition = false;
}
From your Question:
I have read that we should always called a wait() from within a loop:
Although wait( ) normally waits until notify( ) or notifyAll( ) is called, there is a possibility that in very rare cases the waiting thread could be awakened due to a spurious wakeup. In this case, a waiting thread resumes without notify( ) or notifyAll( ) having been called.
In essence, the thread resumes for no apparent reason.
Because of this remote possibility, Oracle recommends that calls to wait( ) should take place within a loop that checks the condition on which the thread is waiting.
Three things you will see people do:
Using wait without checking anything (BROKEN)
Using wait with a condition, using an if check first (BROKEN).
Using wait in a loop, where the loop test checks the condition (NOT BROKEN).
Not appreciating these details about how wait and notify work leads people to choose the wrong approach:
One is that a thread doesn't remember notifications that happened before it got around to waiting. The notify and notifyAll methods only effect threads that are already waiting, if a thread isn't waiting at the time it is out of luck.
Another is that a thread releases the lock once it starts waiting. Once it gets a notification it re-acquires the lock and continues on where it left off. Releasing the lock means that thread does not know anything about the current state once it wakes back up, any number of other threads could have made changes since then. The check made before the thread started waiting doesn't tell you anything about what the state is currently.
So the first case, with no checking, makes your code vulnerable to race conditions. It might happen to work by accident if one thread has enough of a head start over another. Or you may have threads waiting forever. If you sprinkle in timeouts then you end up with slow code that sometimes doesn't do what you want.
Adding a condition to check apart from the notification itself protects your code from these race conditions and gives your code a way to know what the state is even if the thread wasn't waiting at the right time.
The second case, with if-checks, is likely to work if you have only 2 threads. That puts a limit on the number of states things can get into and when you made faulty assumptions you don't get burned so badly. This is the situation for lots of toy example code exercises. The result is people come away thinking they understand, when they really don't.
Protip: Real world code has more than two threads.
Using the loop lets you re-check the condition once you re-acquire the lock so that you're moving forward based on current state, not on stale state.
In simple words,
'if' is a conditional statement , once condition is satisfied remaining block of code will get executed.
'while' is a loop which going check the condition unless condition is not satisfied.
Someone at work just asked for the reasoning behind having to wrap a wait inside a synchronized.
Honestly I can't see the reasoning. I understand what the javadocs say--that the thread needs to be the owner of the object's monitor, but why? What problems does it prevent? (And if it's actually necessary, why can't the wait method get the monitor itself?)
I'm looking for a fairly in-depth why or maybe a reference to an article. I couldn't find one in a quick google.
Oh, also, how does thread.sleep compare?
edit: Great set of answers--I really wish I could select more than one because they all helped me understand what was going on.
Lots of good answers here already. But just want to mention here that the other MUST DO when using wait() is to do it in a loop dependent on the condition you are waiting for in case you are seeing spurious wakeups, which in my experience do happen.
To wait for some other thread to change a condition to true and notify:
synchronized(o) {
while(! checkCondition()) {
o.wait();
}
}
Of course, these days, I'd recommend just using the new Condition object as it is clearer and has more features (like allowing multiple conditions per lock, being able to check wait queue length, more flexible schedule/interrupt, etc).
Lock lock = new ReentrantLock();
Condition condition = lock.newCondition();
lock.lock();
try {
while (! checkCondition()) {
condition.await();
}
} finally {
lock.unlock();
}
}
If the object does not own the object monitor when it calls Object.wait(), it will not be able to access the object to setup a notify listener until the the monitor is released. Instead, it will be treated as a thread attempting to access a method on a synchronized object.
Or to put it another way, there is no difference between:
public void doStuffOnThisObject()
and the following method:
public void wait()
Both methods will be blocked until the object monitor is released. This is a feature in Java to prevent the state of an object from being updated by more than one thread. It simply has unintended consequences on the wait() method.
Presumably, the wait() method is not synchronized because that could create situations where the Thread has multiple locks on the object. (See Java Language Specifications/Locking for more info on this.) Multiple locks are a problem because the wait() method will only undo one lock. If the method were synchronized, it would guarantee that only the method's lock would be undone while still leaving a potential outer lock undone. This would create a deadlock condition in the code.
To answer your question on Thread.sleep(), Thread.sleep() does not guarantee that whatever condition you are waiting on has been met. Using Object.wait() and Object.notify() allows a programmer to manually implement blocking. The threads will unblock once a notify is sent that a condition has been met. e.g. A read from disk has finished and data can be processed by the thread. Thread.sleep() would require the programmer to poll if the condition has been met, then fall back to sleep if it has not.
It needs to own the monitor, since the purpose of the wait() is to release the monitor and let other threads obtain the monitor to do processing of their own. The purpose of these methods (wait/notify) is to coordinate access to synchronized code blocks between two threads that require each other to perform some functionality. It is not simply a matter of making sure access to a data structure is threadsafe, but to coordinate events between multiple threads.
A classic example would be a producer/consumer case where one thread pushes data to a queue, and another thread consumes the data. The consuming thread would always require the monitor to access the queue, but would release the monitor once the queue is empty. The producer thread would then only get access to write to the thread when the consumer is no longer processing. It would notify the consumer thread once it has pushed more data into the queue, so it can regain the monitor and access the queue again.
Wait gives up the monitor, so you must have it to give it up. Notify must have the monitor as well.
The main reason why you want to do this is to ensure that you have the monitor when you come back from wait() -- typically, you are using the wait/notify protocol to protect some shared resource and you want it to be safe to touch it when wait returns. The same with notify -- usually you are changing something and then calling notify() -- you want to have the monitor, make changes, and call notify().
If you made a function like this:
public void synchWait() {
syncronized { wait(); }
}
You would not have the monitor when wait returned -- you could get it, but you might not get it next.
Here's my understanding on why the restriction is actually a requirement. I'm basing this on a C++ monitor implementation I made a while back by combining a mutex and a condition variable.
In a mutex+condition_variable=monitor system, the wait call sets the condition variable into a wait state and releases the mutex. The condition variable is shared state, so it needs to be locked to avoid race conditions between threads that want to wait and threads that want to notify. Instead of introducing yet another mutex to lock its state, the existing mutex is used. In Java, the mutex is correctly locked when the about-to-wait thread owns the monitor.
Mostly wait is done if there is a condition say a queue is empty.
If(queue is empty)
queue.wait();
Let us assume the queue is empty.
In case if the current thread pre-empts after checking the queue, then if another
thread adds few elements to queue, the current thread will not know and will go for wait
state. Thats wrong.
So we should have something like
Synchornized(queue)
{
if(queue is empty)
queue.wait();
}
Now let us consider what if they made wait itself as synchronized. As already mentioned in one of the comments, it releases only one lock. That means if wait() was synchronized in the above code only one lock would have been released. Implies that current thread will go for wait with the lock for the queue.