We Keep Coding

Getting IllegalMonitorStateException while printing arraylist using threads

I am trying to print out the content of arraylist using 2 threads, my main goal is to make threads read arraylist in a synchronized way and print its content. Eventhough I use synchronized block, I still am getting IllegalMonitorStateException. I know this is a basic question but I can not get it working, pardon me.
import java.util.*;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
public class Q1 {
public static Q1 yeni;
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
yeni = new Q1();
}
Q1() {
List<String> list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<String>());
list.add("a1");
list.add("b1");
list.add("c1");
list.add("d1");
list.add("e1");
list.add("f1");
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10);
synchronized (list) {
myThread thread1 = new myThread(list);
myThread thread2 = new myThread(list);
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
}
}
}
And here is myThread class
import java.util.*;
public class myThread extends Thread {
List<String> liste;
public myThread(List<String> liste) {
this.liste = liste;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
synchronized (Q1.yeni) {
System.out.println("Thread number " + this.getName() + " started running.");
for (int i = 0; i < liste.size(); i++) {
System.out.println(liste.get(i));
this.wait(3000);
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

The reason for the IllegalMonitorStateException is that you are calling wait on an object (this) without holding the monitor for that object. You must either wrap this call with a synchronized (this) block, or call wait on Q1.yeni, which this code already has synchronized.
However, it looks like the use of wait might be mistaken. This method is used to wait on a condition, which is signaled with a call to notify or notifyAll on the same object. Since there is no apparent condition in this code, and no usages of notify or notifyAll, I suspect that what you really want to call is this.sleep(3000), which pauses the thread for three seconds, then resumes it after that duration elapses.
The sleep method does not require ownership of any monitors, and does not release ownership of held monitors, so another thread would not be able to enter the synchronized (Q1.yeni) block while one is currently sleeping. This implies that the first thread to enter that block will run to completion, iterating through the entire list, before the second thread has a chance to begin. It's not totally clear if that's what is intended here.
See the documentation for Object.wait and Thread.sleep for more usage information.
A second problem is that Q1.yeni is accessed by these threads before it is necessarily initialized, because the threads are started in the Q1 constructor, and the statement yeni = new Q1(); only assigns yeni after the constructor completes. In this case, it might be better for the threads to use synchronized (liste) instead.
Other than that, having synchronized (list) in the Q1 constructor does not accomplish much, since the main thread does not access or manipulate the contents of list in that section. The only practical effect is that the threads it starts will block when they reach the first call to liste.size() until the main thread exits the synchronized (list) (immediately after starting the two threads). This has the potential to slightly slow down the first thread that runs, but has no effect on the thread-safety or correctness of the program.
I would also recommend reviewing "How to Handle InterruptedException in Java". In this case, I would recommend restoring the interruption status in the exception handler.
Put together, here is a revised example of this code (including other minor changes to remove unused code and boilerplate comments, improve formatting, and ensure consistency with Java naming conventions):
Q1.java:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collections;
import java.util.List;
public class Q1 {
private static Q1 yeni;
public static void main(String[] args) {
yeni = new Q1();
}
Q1() {
List<String> list = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<>());
list.add("a1");
list.add("b1");
list.add("c1");
list.add("d1");
list.add("e1");
list.add("f1");
MyThread thread1 = new MyThread(list);
MyThread thread2 = new MyThread(list);
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
}
}
MyThread.java:
import java.util.*;
public class MyThread extends Thread {
private final List<String> liste;
public MyThread(List<String> liste) {
this.liste = liste;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
synchronized (liste) {
System.out.println("Thread number " + this.getName() + " started running.");
for (int i = 0; i < liste.size(); i++) {
System.out.println(liste.get(i));
sleep(3000);
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
interrupt();
}
}
}
Output:
Thread number Thread-0 started running.
a1
b1
c1
d1
e1
f1
Thread number Thread-1 started running.
a1
b1
c1
d1
e1
f1

Creating my own Java deadlock program

I was trying to create A Java dead lock program . I know in real time we wont be creating any dead lock in thread. Unfortunately I have been asked in one of the interview to writing a "Deadlock program using two threads". So here it is
package Thread.DeadLock;
public class deadLock2 {
static ThreadSample1 t1 = new ThreadSample1();
static ThreadSample2 t2 = new ThreadSample2();
public static void main(String args[]) {
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
public static class ThreadSample1 extends Thread {
public void run() {
System.out.println("In first run method");
try {
System.out.println("Holding lock in first one");
synchronized (t1) {
System.out.println("t1 going to wait for t2");
t1.wait();
System.out.println("t1 finished for waiting");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static class ThreadSample2 extends Thread {
public void run() {
System.out.println("In second run method");
try {
System.out.println("Holding lock for second one");
synchronized (t2) {
System.out.println("t2 going to wait for t1");
t2.wait();
System.out.println("t2 finished for waiting");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
I can see the program is getting stuck. I am assuming that it in deadlock situation. t1.start() waits for t2 to finish its task and t2.start() waits for t1 to finish its task. Now while I try to remove the deadlock by notifying the waiting thread using using t1.notify() I get IllegalMonitorStateException.
Can somebody tell in this situation how to remove the deadlock without causing any situation.

First, this is not deadlock. As you correctly described, deadlock is usually situation when there is circular dependency between two or more threads waiting for resources that is held by other thread.
Here, each thread independently waits for notification on itself which is actually not delivered by anybody else in the system. Even if there is no deadlock.
Secondly, IllegalMonitorStateException means that you try to notify/wait on monitor which is not held by the thread. In other words, there is no synchronized prior to notify/wait.
Third, to achieve real deadlock you can do something like this:
synchronized(t1) {
synchronized(t2) {
t2.wait();
}
t1.notify();
}
and vice versa for the other thread.

You can not call notify()/notifyAll() unless the current thread owns that object's monitor. To do that, you must synchronize on it, as you did with wait()
The Javadocs for wait() mention this:
This method should only be called by a thread that is the owner of this object's monitor. See the notify method for a description of the ways in which a thread can become the owner of a monitor.
Throws:
IllegalMonitorStateException – if the current thread is not the owner of this object's monitor.
And from notify():
A thread becomes the owner of the object's monitor in one of three
ways:
By executing a synchronized instance method of that object.
By executing the body of a synchronized statement that synchronizes on the object.
For objects of type Class, by executing a synchronized static method of that class.
See this answer:
Java Wait and Notify: IllegalMonitorStateException

package pck.pramod.geekforgeeks;
public class ThreadDeadlock {
public static Object Lock1 = new Object();
public static Object Lock2 = new Object();
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println(Lock1.toString() + " " + Lock2.toString());
ThreadDemo1 T1 = new ThreadDemo1(Lock1, Lock2, "T1");
ThreadDemo1 T2 = new ThreadDemo1(Lock2, Lock1, "T2");
T1.start();
T2.start();
}
}
class ThreadDemo1 extends Thread {
Object lock1;
Object lock2;
String name;
public ThreadDemo1(Object lock1, Object lock2, String name) {
this.lock1 = lock1;
this.lock2 = lock2;
this.name = name;
}
public void run() {
synchronized (lock1) {
System.out.println(name + " Holding lock ..." + lock1.toString());
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println(name + " Waiting for lock ..." + lock2.toString());
synchronized (lock2) {
System.out.println(name + " Holding lock ..." + lock1.toString() + " " + lock2.toString());
}
}
}
}

Java basic synchronized threads [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Odd even number printing using thread
(13 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I am learning Java but have trouble with synchronized. i want print list of numbers from many Java threads and have each thread go in order.I get problem when using synchronized because i not much understand. Can help understand?
I want output to see this but sometimes threads in wrong order.i want:
1-thread1
2-thread2
3-thread1
4-thread2
5-thread1
6-thread2
...
48-thread2
49-thread1
My broken codes:
public class ManyThreadsAdd {
public static int index = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ManyThreadsAdd myClass = new ManyThreadsAdd();
Thread thread1 = new Thread(myClass.new RunnableClass());
Thread thread2 = new Thread(myClass.new RunnableClass());
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
}
class RunnableClass implements Runnable {
public synchronized void run() {
while (index < 49) {
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
System.out.println(index+"-" +Thread.currentThread());
index = index + 1;
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}

It depends on what you want to do.
A simple way to alternate the order of the print is to synchronize on the same object, in this case you can use the index or any other object.
public class ManyThreadsAdd {
public static AtomicInteger index = new AtomicInteger(0);
public static void main(String[] args) {
ManyThreadsAdd myClass = new ManyThreadsAdd();
Thread thread1 = new Thread(myClass.new RunnableClass());
Thread thread2 = new Thread(myClass.new RunnableClass());
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
}
class RunnableClass implements Runnable {
public void run(){
synchronized(index){
while(index.get() < 49){
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
System.out.println(index.get()+"-" +Thread.currentThread());
index.incrementAndGet();
index.notify();
index.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
}

Firstly, multithreading by nature is asynchronous, you cannot specify the order in which these threads get executed. If you want output like below, use a loop:
1-thread1
2-thread2
3-thread1
4-thread2
5-thread1
6-thread2
...
48-thread2
49-thread1
Secondly, you gain nothing by adding the synchronized keyword in public synchronized void run(). This just means that at any time, only one thread at a time can call that method. As you are constructing new classes for each thread, this is meaningless.
Thirdly, if you did need to synchronise between your threads, use a queue to which you add tasks, and which your threads read one at a time.

Last thread is not executing

I am very new to multithreading, was trying a scenario in which a home has a mother(as producer),son,daughter and husband[As consumer] thread.I am trying to understand how wait and notify method can help here.
My classes are as below.
MotherAsProducer
package com.test.All.Threads;
public enum MotherAsProducer {
INSTANCE;
/*
*
*
* son Give request to prepare chapati to mother
* mother accepts it and start preparing , son/husband/daughter should wait by that time.
* mother notifies son/daughtor/husband that chapati is ready start consuming
* */
public synchronized void takeOrderAndMakeChapati(){
try {
System.out.println("Request got from "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
getStatusOfChapati();
wait();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+" ate chapati");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
//lock re-entrance
public synchronized void getStatusOfChapati(){
try {
Thread.sleep(1200);
System.out.println("Chapati is prepared for "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
notifyAll();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static MotherAsProducer getMotherInstance(){
return MotherAsProducer.INSTANCE;
}
}
SonAsConsumer class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class SonAsConsumer implements Runnable{
public void run(){
MotherAsProducer.getMotherInstance().takeOrderAndMakeChapati();
}
}
DaughterAsConsumer class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class DaughterAsConsumer implements Runnable {
public void run(){
MotherAsProducer.getMotherInstance().takeOrderAndMakeChapati();
}
}
HusbandAsConsumer class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class HusbandAsConsumer implements Runnable {
public void run(){
MotherAsProducer.getMotherInstance().takeOrderAndMakeChapati();
}
}
Home class
package com.test.All.Threads;
public class Home {
public static void main(String args[]){
SonAsConsumer sac = new SonAsConsumer();
DaughterAsConsumer dac = new DaughterAsConsumer();
HusbandAsConsumer hac = new HusbandAsConsumer();
Thread tsac = new Thread(sac);
tsac.setName("Son");
Thread tdac = new Thread(dac);
tdac.setName("Daughter");
Thread thac = new Thread(hac);
thac.setName("Husband");
tsac.start();
tdac.start();
thac.start();
}
}
My output is different, every time as expected by nature of thread but one of the individual either husband, daughtor or son is not getting complete.
one instance of my output is as below.
Order she got from Daughter
Chapati is prepared for Daughter
Order she got from Son
Chapati is prepared for Son
Order she got from Husband
Chapati is prepared for Husband
Son ate chapati
Daughter ate chapati
My understanding here is when son,daughter and husband will start executing one of them will hit the synchronized method and execute wait() and will hold the lock , from that synchronized method again another synchronized method is called which will contain notify and the lock will be released and another thread will try to get the lock from the blocked pool and will execute in the same manner . here two threads are behaving as expected but the last one is not.
Kindly help here.

Briefly looking, it looks like the last thread to get to the wait will never get notified. Sequencing your calls you have each thread getting a lock, notifying all waiting threads, and then waiting. So, the last thread that hits the wait will never have anyone to notify them that they need to exit.
That is, if Thread A gets the lock initially, then it will do a println and a sleep then a println, then notify all waiting threads (there are none), and then become a waiting thread.
Then, lets say Thread B gets the lock. It will do a println and a sleep, then it will notify all (which will "notify" Thread A), then it will wait.
Now, either Thread C or Thread A will get the lock. If Thread A gets it, it will simply fall through and complete with the "ate" message. Then, Thread C can get the lock and it will eventually notify, waking B which can eat once C "waits". Now, there is no thread left to notify so that C will complete.
This make sense? Did I misread anything?
To verify what I'm suggesting is wrong, simply add in more threads. You should always have the last one that prints "Chapati is prepared for ..." will never eat it.
Fundamentally, I think the confusion is that "Mother" is not actually doing any work. What you probably wanted is to have "Mother" be a thread that has its own work log. So, when one of the other threads gives her work, you set a variable then notify mother and wait as the sibling. The mother will then wake up and do the work and notify the current thread waiting.
See what I mean? Metaphorically, you have 4 people in this program. But, you only have 3 threads.

Change the method in the enum class MotherAsProducer as follows: The unnecessary wait() method caused the issue. Since the method is synchronized, all other threads will be blocked before entering into the method until getting a notification from lock holding thread.
public synchronized void takeOrderAndMakeChapati() {
System.out.println("Request got from " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
getStatusOfChapati();
// wait(); - THIS WAIT IS CAUSING THE PROBLEM
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " ate chapati");
}

Remove wait and notifyAll calls from both takeOrderAndMakeChapati and getStatusOfChapati. You will get the expected result.
As precisely mentioned by Josh, one of the threads (last one) is still waiting for some external notification, and there is nobody to notify. You code is still running in the background. Just call wait(5000) and you can see it happening.
Both methods takeOrderAndMakeChapati and getStatusOfChapati are synchronized, therefore synchronization is not the issue.
Generally threads wait for some external dependency or condition, where some other thread(s) notifies the waiting one, when that condition is fulfilled.

I also tried to understand wait and notify when I started with multithreading. But as soon as I learned to use a Semaphore, I never looked back. Hopefully, the example below will give you some insight into the benefits of using a Semaphore. There is also a lot more useful stuff in the java.util.concurrent package that can be of great help.
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class EatChapati {
static int CHAPATI_PREPARE_TIME_MS = 100;
static long RUN_TIME_MS = 2000;
static long SHUTDOWN_TIME_MS = 500;
static int CHAPATI_CONSUMERS = 5;
static volatile boolean stop;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
for (int i = 0; i < CHAPATI_CONSUMERS; i++) {
executor.execute(new ChapatiConsumer(i + 1));
}
try { Thread.sleep(RUN_TIME_MS); } catch (Exception ignored) {}
stop = true;
executor.shutdownNow();
try { executor.awaitTermination(SHUTDOWN_TIME_MS, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS); } catch (Exception ignored) {}
}
// 1 producer making chapati's
// 'true' for a fair semaphore: longest waiting consumer gets served
static Semaphore chapatiTurn = new Semaphore(1, true);
static AtomicInteger chapatiCount = new AtomicInteger();
static int getChapati(int consumerNumber) {
int chapatiNumber = 0;
boolean haveTurn = false;
try {
chapatiTurn.acquire();
// start of 'synchronized' block
haveTurn = true;
Thread.sleep(CHAPATI_PREPARE_TIME_MS);
chapatiNumber = chapatiCount.incrementAndGet();
System.out.println("Chapati " + chapatiNumber + " prepared for consumer " + consumerNumber);
} catch (Exception e) {
// Triggered by executor.shutdownNow
stop = true;
} finally {
if (haveTurn) {
chapatiTurn.release();
// end of 'synchronized' block
}
}
return chapatiNumber;
}
static class ChapatiConsumer implements Runnable {
int number;
ChapatiConsumer(int number) {
this.number = number;
}
public void run() {
int chapatisConsumed = 0;
while (!stop) {
if (getChapati(number) > 0) {
chapatisConsumed++;
}
}
System.out.println("Consumer " + number + " stopped after consuming " + chapatisConsumed + " chapatis.");
}
}
}

Why doesn't thread wait for notify()?

Why doesn't thread wait for notify()? The thread starts and then goes to the waiting pool, but it proceeds to execute after that moment.
public class JavaApplication2 {
public static void main(String [] args) {
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
synchronized(b) {
b.start();
try {
System.out.println("1");
b.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
total += 1;
//notify();
}
}
}

You are synchronizing on the thread object itself, which is wrong usage. What happens is that the dying thread-of-execution always calls notify on its Thread object: Thread.join relies on this. Therefore it is clear why you get the same behavior with and without your own notify in there.
Solution: use a separate object for thread coordination; this is the standard practice.

The method notifyAll() is invoked for the Thread object of the terminating thread. This fact is strangely documented in the description of the Thread.join, with the following sentence:
As a thread terminates the this.notifyAll method is invoked. It is recommended that applications not use wait, notify, or notifyAll on Thread instances.
Thus, if you don't explicitly read the description of join, which you don't necessarily have to, you don't get to know the reason for the strange behavior.

You cannot depend on not returning from wait until a notify: "interrupts and spurious wakeups are possible". In general, you should wrap a wait call in a loop while the thread should go on waiting.

If you try your code synchronizing on any object other that ThreadB you will find it never terminates. This is because there is a hidden call to notify.
Although I am not aware of anywhere that this is specified, Thread notifies itself when it ends. This is implicit in the way the join method is implemented. This is the code for join:
public final synchronized void join(long millis)
throws InterruptedException {
long base = System.currentTimeMillis();
long now = 0;
if (millis < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("timeout value is negative");
}
if (millis == 0) {
while (isAlive()) {
wait(0);
}
} else {
while (isAlive()) {
long delay = millis - now;
if (delay <= 0) {
break;
}
wait(delay);
now = System.currentTimeMillis() - base;
}
}
}
(From the JDK7 source code)
As you can see, the calls to wait only make sense if somewhere there is a call to notify that is called after the thread ends. The same call to notify is what allows your program to terminate.

You have nested synchronized {} constructs in the two places. These constructs seem doing something weird: the thread does not react into notify at all and only resumes when ThreadB (b) terminates. Remove this:
public class JavaApplication2 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
try {
System.out.println(" ### Waiting for notify");
synchronized (b) {
b.wait();
}
System.out.println(" ### Notified");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println("### Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
#Override
public void run() {
total += 1;
System.out.println(" *** Ready to notify in 5 secs");
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println(" *** Notification sent");
synchronized (this) {
notify();
}
System.out.println(" *** 5 sec post notification");
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println(" *** ThreadB exits");
}
}
The code above probably works correctly: with notify() present the main thread resumes after 5 seconds and before we see the message that ThreadB terminates. With notify() commented out the main thread resumes after 10 seconds and after the message about the termination of the ThreadB because notify() is called anywhay from the other code. Marko Topolnik explains why and from where this "behind the scene" notify() call comes from.

I was doing the same testing on the wait/notify opertaions while reading OCP SE 7, good catch. I think we should let the authoer to explain.