We Keep Coding

Java: Is volatile access necessary when threads set different cells of an array?

Consider the following code:
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
int nThreads = 10;
MyThread[] threads = new MyThread[nThreads];
AtomicReferenceArray<Object> array = new AtomicReferenceArray<>(nThreads);
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; i++) {
MyThread thread = new MyThread(array, i);
threads[i] = thread;
thread.start();
}
for (MyThread thread : threads)
thread.join();
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; i++) {
Object obj_i = array.get(i);
// do something with obj_i...
}
}
private static class MyThread extends Thread {
private final AtomicReferenceArray<Object> pArray;
private final int pIndex;
public MyThread(final AtomicReferenceArray<Object> array, final int index) {
pArray = array;
pIndex = index;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// some entirely local time-consuming computation...
pArray.set(pIndex, /* result of the computation */);
}
}
Each MyThread computes something entirely locally (without need to synchronize with other threads) and writes the result to its specific array cell. The main thread waits until all MyThreads have finished, and then retrieves the results and does something with them.
Using the get and set methods of AtomicReferenceArray provides a memory ordering which guarantees that the main thread will see the results written by the MyThreads.
However, since every array cell is written only once, and no MyThread has to see the result written by any other MyThread, I wonder if these strong ordering guarantees are actually necessary or if the following code, with plain array cell accesses, would be guaranteed to always yield the same results as the code above:
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
int nThreads = 10;
MyThread[] threads = new MyThread[nThreads];
Object[] array = new Object[nThreads];
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; i++) {
MyThread thread = new MyThread(array, i);
threads[i] = thread;
thread.start();
}
for (MyThread thread : threads)
thread.join();
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; i++) {
Object obj_i = array[i];
// do something with obj_i...
}
}
private static class MyThread extends Thread {
private final Object[] pArray;
private final int pIndex;
public MyThread(final Object[] array, final int index) {
pArray = array;
pIndex = index;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// some entirely local time-consuming computation...
pArray[pIndex] = /* result of the computation */;
}
}
On the one hand, under plain mode access the compiler or runtime might happen to optimize away the read accesses to array in the final loop of the main thread and replace Object obj_i = array[i]; with Object obj_i = null; (the implicit initialization of the array) as the array is not modified from within that thread. On the other hand, I have read somewhere that Thread.join makes all changes of the joined thread visible to the calling thread (which would be sensible), so Object obj_i = array[i]; should see the object reference assigned by the i-th MyThread.
So, would the latter code produce the same results as the above?

So, would the latter code produce the same results as the above?
Yes.
The "somewhere" that you've read about Thread.join could be JLS 17.4.5 (The "Happens-before order" bit of the Java Memory Model):
All actions in a thread happen-before any other thread successfully returns from a join() on that thread.
So, all of your writes to individual elements will happen before the final join().
With this said, I would strongly recommend that you look for alternative ways to structure your problem that don't require you to be worrying about the correctness of your code at this level of detail (see my other answer).

An easier solution here would appear to be to use the Executor framework, which hides typically unnecessary details about the threads and how the result is stored.
For example:
ExecutorService executor = ...
List<Future<Object>> futures = new ArrayList<>();
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; i++) {
futures.add(executor.submit(new MyCallable<>(i)));
}
executor.shutdown();
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; ++i) {
array[i] = futures.get(i).get();
}
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; i++) {
Object obj_i = array[i];
// do something with obj_i...
}
where MyCallable is analogous to your MyThread:
private static class MyCallable implements Callable<Object> {
private final int pIndex;
public MyCallable(final int index) {
pIndex = index;
}
#Override
public Object call() {
// some entirely local time-consuming computation...
return /* result of the computation */;
}
}
This results in simpler and more-obviously correct code, because you're not worrying about memory consistency: this is handled by the framework. It also gives you more flexibility, e.g. running it on fewer threads than work items, reusing a thread pool etc.

Atomic operations are required to ensure memory barriers are present when multiple threads access the same memory location. Without memory barriers, there is no happened-before relationship between the threads and there is no guarantee that the main thread will see the modifications done by the other threads, hence data rance. So what you really need is memory barriers for the write and read operations. You can achieve that using AtomicReferenceArray or a synchronized block on a common object.
You have Thread.join in the second program before the read operations. That should remove the data race. Without the join, you need explicit synchronization.

Java-threadPool - synchronize Threds

edit: 1.) Why is "globalCounter" synchronized , but not "Thread.currentThread().getId()"
2.) Can I assign a calculation to each thread? how? Can i work with the results?
public class Hauptprogramm {
public static final int MAX_THREADS = 10;
public static int globalCounter;
public static Integer syncObject = new Integer(0);
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService threadPool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(MAX_THREADS);
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS; i++) {
threadPool.submit(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronized (syncObject) {
globalCounter++;
System.out.println(globalCounter);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getId());
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}});
}
threadPool.shutdown();
}
}

1.) Why is "globalCounter" synchronized , but not "Thread.currentThread().getId()"
I can answer why globalCounter is synchronized. To avoid data race and race condition.
In case if it is not synchronized - globalCounter++ computation is a three step process (Read-Modify-Write) -
Read the current value of globalCounter varaible.
Modify its value.
Write/ Assign the modified value back to the globalCounter.
In the absence of synchronization in multi threaded environment, there is a possibility that a thread might read/ modifies the value of globalCounter when another thread is in the mid of this 3 step process.
This can result into thread/s reading stale values or loss of update count.
2) Can I assign a calculation to each thread? how? Can i work with the results?
This is possible. You can look into Future/ FutureTask to work with the result

Performing a long calculation that returns after a timeout

I want to perform a search using iterative deepening, meaning every time I do it, I go deeper and it takes longer. There is a time limit (2 seconds) to get the best result possible. From what I've researched, the best way to do this is using an ExecutorService, a Future and interrupting it when the time runs out. This is what I have at the moment:
In my main function:
ExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
ab = new AB();
Future<Integer> f = service.submit(ab);
Integer x = 0;
try {
x = f.get(1990, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
}
catch(TimeoutException e) {
System.out.println("cancelling future");
f.cancel(true);
}
catch(Exception e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
finally {
service.shutdown();
}
System.out.println(x);
And the Callable:
public class AB implements Callable<Integer> {
public AB() {}
public Integer call() throws Exception {
Integer x = 0;
int i = 0;
while (!Thread.interrupted()) {
x = doLongComputation(i);
i++;
}
return x;
}
}
I have two problems:
doLongComputation() isn't being interrupted, the program only checks if Thread.interrupted() is true after it completes the work. Do I need to put checks in doLongComputation() to see if the thread has been interrupted?
Even if I get rid of the doLongComputation(), the main method isn't receiving the value of x. How can I ensure that my program waits for the Callable to "clean up" and return the best x so far?

To answer part 1: Yes, you need to have your long task check the interrupted flag. Interruption requires the cooperation of the task being interrupted.
Also you should use Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted() unless you specifically want to clear the interrupt flag. Code that throws (or rethrows) InterruptedException uses Thread#interrupted as a convenient way to both check the flag and clear it, when you're writing a Runnable or Callable this is usually not what you want.
Now to answer part 2: Cancellation isn't what you want here.
Using cancellation to stop the computation and return an intermediate result doesn't work, once you cancel the future you can't retrieve the return value from the get method. What you could do is make each refinement of the computation its own task, so that you submit one task, get the result, then submit the next using the result as a starting point, saving the latest result as you go.
Here's an example I came up with to demonstrate this, calculating successive approximations of a square root using Newton's method. Each iteration is a separate task which gets submitted (using the previous task's approximation) when the previous task completes:
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.math.*;
public class IterativeCalculation {
static class SqrtResult {
public final BigDecimal value;
public final Future<SqrtResult> next;
public SqrtResult(BigDecimal value, Future<SqrtResult> next) {
this.value = value;
this.next = next;
}
}
static class SqrtIteration implements Callable<SqrtResult> {
private final BigDecimal x;
private final BigDecimal guess;
private final ExecutorService xs;
public SqrtIteration(BigDecimal x, BigDecimal guess, ExecutorService xs) {
this.x = x;
this.guess = guess;
this.xs = xs;
}
public SqrtResult call() {
BigDecimal nextGuess = guess.subtract(guess.pow(2).subtract(x).divide(new BigDecimal(2).multiply(guess), RoundingMode.HALF_EVEN));
return new SqrtResult(nextGuess, xs.submit(new SqrtIteration(x, nextGuess, xs)));
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
long timeLimit = 10000L;
ExecutorService xs = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
try {
long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
Future<SqrtResult> f = xs.submit(new SqrtIteration(new BigDecimal("612.00"), new BigDecimal("10.00"), xs));
for (int i = 0; System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime < timeLimit; i++) {
f = f.get().next;
System.out.println("iteration=" + i + ", value=" + f.get().value);
}
f.cancel(true);
} finally {
xs.shutdown();
}
}
}

Sharing an object between multiple threads java

I would like to be able to run two methods at the same time that rely on the same global variable. The first method periodically updates the shared variable, but never finishes running. The second method keeps track of time. When time runs out, the second method returns the last result of the shared variable from the first method. Below is what I have so far, with commented out pseduocode in the places where I need help.
package learning;
public class testmath{
public static void main(String[] args){
long finishBy = 10000;
int currentresult = 0;
/*
* run eversquare(0) in a seperate thread /in parallel
*/
int finalresult = manager(finishBy);
System.out.println(finalresult);
}
public static int square(int x){
return x * x;
}
public static void eversquare(int x){
int newresult;
while(2 == 2){
x += 1;
newresult = square(x);
/*
* Store newresult as a global called currentresult
*/
}
}
public static int manager(long finishBy){
while(System.currentTimeMillis() + 1000 < finishBy){
Thread.sleep(100);
}
/*
* Access global called currentresult and create a local called currentresult
*/
return currentresult;
}
}

You only need to run one additional thread:
public class Main {
/**
* Delay in milliseconds until finished.
*/
private static final long FINISH_BY = 10000;
/**
* Start with this number.
*/
private static final int START_WITH = 1;
/**
* Delay between eversquare passes in milliseconds.
*/
private static final long DELAY_BETWEEN_PASSES = 50;
/**
* Holds the current result. The "volatile" keyword tells the JVM that the
* value could be changed by another thread, so don't cache it. Marking a
* variable as volatile incurs a *serious* performance hit so don't use it
* unless really necessary.
*/
private static volatile int currentResult = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
// create a Thread to run "eversquare" in parallel
Thread eversquareThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override public void run() {
eversquare(START_WITH, DELAY_BETWEEN_PASSES);
}
});
// make the eversquare thread shut down when the "main" method exits
// (otherwise the program would never finish, since the "eversquare" thread
// would run forever due to its "while" loop)
eversquareThread.setDaemon(true);
// start the eversquare thread
eversquareThread.start();
// wait until the specified delay is up
long currentTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
final long stopTime = currentTime + FINISH_BY;
while (currentTime < stopTime) {
final long sleepTime = stopTime - currentTime;
try {
Thread.sleep(sleepTime);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
// in the unlikely event of an InterruptedException, do nothing since
// the "while" loop will continue until done anyway
}
currentTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
}
System.out.println(currentResult);
}
/**
* Increment the value and compute its square. Runs forever if left to its own
* devices.
*
* #param startValue
* The value to start with.
*
* #param delay
* If you were to try to run this without any delay between passes, it would
* max out the CPU and starve any other threads. This value is the wait time
* between passes.
*/
private static void eversquare(final int startValue, final long delay) {
int currentValue = startValue;
while (true) { // run forever (just use "true"; "2==2" looks silly)
currentResult = square(currentValue); // store in the global "currentResult"
currentValue++; // even shorter than "x += 1"
if (delay > 0) {
try { // need to handle the exception that "Thread.sleep()" can throw
Thread.sleep(delay);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) { // "Thread.sleep()" can throw this
// just print to the console in the unlikely event of an
// InterruptedException--things will continue fine
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
private static int square(int x) {
return x * x;
}
}
I should also mention that the "volatile" keyword works for (most) primitives, since any JVM you'll see these days guarantees they will be modified atomically. This is not the case for objects, and you will need to use synchronized blocks and locks to ensure they are always "seen" in a consistent state.
Most people will also mention that you really should not use the synchronized keyword on the method itself, and instead synchronize on a specific "lock" object. And generally this lock object should not be visible outside your code. This helps prevent people from using your code incorrectly, getting themselves into trouble, and then trying to blame you. :)

Multi-threading a merge sorting algorithm

I have a class that does some recursive merge sorting on a generic List, as long as the element implements Comparable. I'm trying to make the code multi-threaded to improve performance, and to do this, I have a static variable maxThreads which keeps the number of threads I create from not exploding, and I have a static variable currentThreads that keeps track of the number of threads I currently have running. There seems to be a race condition on my currentThreads variable, but I haven't been able to come up with a solution to fix it.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
public class ThreadedMergeSorter<E extends Comparable<? super E>> implements, Runnable
{
private List<E> list;
private List<E> left, right;
private Thread t1, t2;
private static final int maxThreads = 4;
private static AtomicInteger currentThreads = new AtomicInteger(0);
private ThreadedMergeSorter(List<E> list)
{
this.list = list;
}
public ThreadedMergeSorter(){}
/**
* Sorts a List<E> using the merge sorting algorithm
* #param list the list to be merge sorted
* #return
* #throws InterruptedException
*/
public void sort(List<E> list)
{
if(list.size() > 1)
{
left = new ArrayList<E>(list.subList(0, list.size()/2));
right = new ArrayList<E>(list.subList(list.size()/2, list.size()));
list.clear();
if(currentThreads.get() < maxThreads)
{
t1 = new Thread(new ThreadedMergeSorter<E>(left));
t1.start();
currentThreads.incrementAndGet();
}
else sort(left);
if(currentThreads.get() < maxThreads)
{
t2 = new Thread(new ThreadedMergeSorter<E>(right));
t2.start();
currentThreads.incrementAndGet();
}
else sort(right);
try{
if(t1 != null)
{
t1.join();
currentThreads.decrementAndGet();
}
if(t2 != null)
{
t2.join();
currentThreads.decrementAndGet();
}
}catch(InterruptedException e){}
list.addAll(mergeSortedLists(left, right));
}
}
/**
* Merges two previously sorted List<E extends Comparable<E>> into a single List
* #param leftArray a List of previously sorted elements
* #param rightArray a List of previously sorted elements
* #return an new sorted List
*/
private List<E> mergeSortedLists(List<E> leftList, List<E> rightList)
{
ArrayList<E> list = new ArrayList<E>();
while(!leftList.isEmpty() && !rightList.isEmpty())
{
if((leftList.get(0)).compareTo(rightList.get(0)) <= 0)
list.add(leftList.remove(0));
else
list.add(rightList.remove(0));
}
if(!leftList.isEmpty())
list.addAll(leftList);
if(!rightList.isEmpty())
list.addAll(rightList);
return list;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
sort(this.list);
}
}
The problem is in the sort(List<E> list) method by the if statements and the try catch block.

First off, you are not running anything in parallel. Threads are started with start(), not run(), which simply calls the run method on the current thread.
Second, if you have shared variables being updated, try to declare them as AtomicInteger:
private static AtomicInteger currentThreads = new AtomicInteger(0);
Then use these methods to atomically increment/decrement:
currentThreads.incrementAndGet();
currentThreads.decrementAndGet();

Don't continually create, terminate and destroy threads. Don't try to micro-manage threads - it's very difficult and error-prone, as you have found out.
If you want to thread off a merge sort, (and it's not a bad idea:), look at ThreadPoolExecutor and CountDownLatch.

If you are using Java 7 I would recommend to use the new Fork/Join, and use an AtomicReferenceArray<E> instead of a List so that you can do sorting in place in a thread-safe way.

Another solution (assuming you are running Java 5 and newer) can be declaring currentThreads as a volatile class member:
private static volatile int currentThreads = 0;
You can read more about volatile keyword here.