I'm developing a circular buffer with two Threads: Consumer and Producer.
I'm using active waiting with Thread.yield.
I know that it is possible to do that with semaphores, but I wanted the buffer without semaphores.
Both have a shared variable: bufferCircular.
While the buffer is not full of useful information, producer write data in the position pof array, and while there are some useful information consumer read data in the position c of array. The variable nElem from BufferCircular is the number of value datas that haven't been read yet.
The program works quite good 9/10 times that runs. Then, sometimes, it get stucks in a infinite loop before show the last element on screen (number 500 of loop for), or just dont' show any element.
I think is probably a liveLock, but I can't find the mistake.
Shared Variable:
public class BufferCircular {
volatile int[] array;
volatile int p;
volatile int c;
volatile int nElem;
public BufferCircular(int[] array) {
this.array = array;
this.p = 0;
this.c = 0;
this.nElem = 0;
}
public void writeData (int data) {
this.array[p] = data;
this.p = (p + 1) % array.length;
this.nElem++;
}
public int readData() {
int data = array[c];
this.c = (c + 1) % array.length;
this.nElem--;
return data;
}
}
Producer Thread:
public class Producer extends Thread {
BufferCircular buffer;
int bufferTam;
int contData;
public Productor(BufferCircular buff) {
this.buffer = buff;
this.bufferTam = buffer.array.length;
this.contData = 0;
}
public void produceData() {
this.contData++;
this.buffer.writeData(contData);
}
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
while (this.buffer.nElem == this.bufferTam) {
Thread.yield();
}
this.produceData();
}
}
}
Consumer Thread:
public class Consumer extends Thread {
BufferCircular buffer;
int cont;
public Consumer(BufferCircular buff) {
this.buffer = buff;
this.cont = 0;
}
public void consumeData() {
int data = buffer.readData();
cont++;
System.out.println("data " + cont + ": " + data);
}
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
while (this.buffer.nElem == 0) {
Thread.yield();
}
this.consumeData();
}
}
}
Main:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Random ran = new Random();
int tamArray = ran.nextInt(21) + 1;
int[] array = new int[tamArray];
BufferCircular buffer = new BufferCircular(array);
Producer producer = new Producer (buffer);
Consumer consumer = new Consumer (buffer);
producer.start();
consumer.start();
try {
producer.join();
consumer.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("Error with Threads");
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Any help will be welcome.
Your problem here is that your BufferCircular methods are sensitive to race conditions. Take for example writeData(). It executes in 3 steps, some of which are also not atomic:
this.array[p] = data; // 1
this.p = (p + 1) % array.length; // 2 not atomic
this.nElem++; // 3 not atomic
Suppose that 2 threads entered writeData() at the same time. At step 1, they both have the same p value, and both rewrite array[p] value. Now, array[p] is rewritten twice and data that first thread had to write, is lost, because second thread wrote to the same index after. Then they execute step 2--and result is unpredictable since p can be incremented by 1 or 2 (p = (p + 1) % array.length consists of 3 operations, where threads can interact). Then, step 3. ++ operator is also not atomic: it uses 2 operations behind the scenes. So nElem becomes also incremented by 1 or 2.
So we have fully unpredictable result. Which leads to poor execution of your program.
The simplest solution is to make readData() and writeData() methods serialized. For this, declare them synchronized:
public synchronized void writeData (int data) { //...
public synchronized void readData () { //...
If you have only one producer and one consumer threads, race conditions may occur on operations involving nElem. Solution is to use AtomicInteger instead of int:
final AtomicInteger nElem = new AtomicInteger();
and use its incrementAndGet() and decrementAndGet() methods.
Related
I have to insert the elements using three threads by creating three classes, namely Task1,Task2 and Task3. The values to be inserted into the array are 0,1,2,....299.
Override the run method in the threads. Three integer i,j, and k representing the number of elements each thread should append inside the given array.
Thread one should append 0 to i-1 inside the array,thread two should append i to i+j-1 inside the array,and the third thread should append i+j to 299 inide the array.
Threads one and two must run simultaneously, and the values of the threads one and two must be inserted inside the indices of the array from 0 to i+j-1 randomly.The third thread should start only after the first two threads have been executed completely.
In these code three task are given.
first task and second task start executing the thread at the same time and after completion of first two task then only third task start. If these situation getting correct then test() method return true.
public static final int[] threadArray = new int[300]; how I add random number into these array using Task1 Task2 and Task3 class.
Input :
80
130
90
Output :
True
import java.util.Scanner;
class Task1 extends Thread
{
static int a = 0;
static int beg = 0;
public void run()
{
for(int i=a;i<=beg;i++)
{
Solution.threadArray[i] = i;
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
class Task2 extends Thread
{
static int a = 0;
static int beg = 0;
#Override
public void run()
{
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
for(int i=a;i<=beg;i++)
{
Solution.threadArray[i] = i;
}
}
}
class Task3 extends Thread
{
static int a = 0;
static int beg = 0;
public void run()
{
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
for(int i=a;i<=beg;i++)
{
Solution.threadArray[i] = i;
}
}
}
public class Solution
{
public static final int[] threadArray = new int[300];
public static volatile String i = 0+"";
public boolean test() throws InterruptedException
{
Task1 task1 = new Task1();
Task2 task2 = new Task2();
Task3 task3 = new Task3();
Thread task2Thread = new Thread(task2);
Thread task3Thread = new Thread(task3);
task1.start();
task2Thread.start();
task1.join();
task2Thread.join();
task3Thread.start();
int first = Task1.a+Task2.a;
int containsSecondThread = Task1.a;
String oneAndTwo = "";
String sizeOfTask1 = "";
for(int i=0;i<first;i++)
{
oneAndTwo += threadArray[i]+" ";
}
for(int i=0;i<containsSecondThread;i++)
{
sizeOfTask1 += threadArray[i]+" ";
}
int begOfTask3 = Task3.beg;
String checkingString = "";
for(int i=begOfTask3;i<threadArray.length;i++)
{
checkingString += i + " ";
}
String task3String = "";
for(int j = begOfTask3;j<threadArray.length;j++)
{
task3String += threadArray[j]+" ";
}
if((!oneAndTwo.contains(begOfTask3+"") && sizeOfTask1.contains(Task2.beg+"")) || task3String.equals(checkingString))
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
Scanner sc= new Scanner(System.in);
Solution solution = new Solution();
int one = sc.nextInt();
Task1.a = one;
Task1.beg = 0;
int two = sc.nextInt();
Task2.a = two;
Task2.beg = one;
int three = sc.nextInt();
Task3.a = three;
Task3.beg = one+two;
System.out.print(solution.test());
}
}
First, some observations regarding your code: Instead of using static variables in the classes (i.e., Task1, Task2, and Task3) that extend the class Thread (to understand why have a look at Why are static variables considered evil?):
static int a = 0;
static int beg = 0;
use non-static final fields, and initialize them via the constructor:
class Task1 extends Thread
{
private final int begin;
private final int end;
Task1(int begin, int end){
this.begin = begin;
this.end = end;
}
public void run(){
for(int i=begin; i<= end; i++)
....
}
}
adapt the main method accordingly:
public static void main(String[] args){
...
Task1 task1 = new Task1(begin, end);
}
and then pass the tasks-related objects as parameters of to the test method:
public boolean test(Task1 task1, Task2 task2, Task3 task3){
...
}
For the concatenation of the strings use StringBuilder:
StringBuilder oneAndTwo = new StringBuilder();
for(int i=0;i<first;i++)
{
oneAndTwo.append(threadArray[i]).append(" ");
}
This looks wrong:
Task1.a = one;
Task1.beg = 0;
by looking at the loop of the run method from Task1, this means that, if Task1.a is not a negative number, then Task1 will not do any work.
To use the threads to generate the random values of the array:
int[] threadArray = new int[300];
you can start by extracting a method to generate those random values, based on formula:
r.nextInt(high-low) + low;
this formula generates a random value between low and high.
Adapt the tasks, accordingly:
class Task1 extends Thread
{
private final Random random_values = new Random();
private final int low;
private final int high;
...
public int generate_random(){
return r.nextInt(high-low) + low;
}
public void run()
{
for(....)
{
Solution.threadArray[i] = generate_random();
...
}
}
}
Make sure to pass to the threads the information about the range of the random values to be generated (i.e., the low and high parameters), and the reference to the array that will be filled up with those random values (i.e., array int[] threadArray) . Also make sure that you split the iterations int[] threadArray among the threads. Therefore, each thread should generate a chunk of the random values. An example of such distribution would be:
Thread 1 : 0 to 100;
Thread 2 : 100 to 200;
Thread 3 : 200 to 300;
You can make this more robust and divide the array length by the number to threads and assign the work among threads, accordingly.
I could have provided you with the entire solution, but I feel that is better instead if I give you the pointers so that you can do it in your own.
EDIT: Based on the new edit of your question:
You just need to adapt the Task classes as follows:
class Task1 extends Thread {
static int a = 0;
static int beg = 0;
public void run(){
for(int i=beg;i < a;i++)
Solution.threadArray[i] = i;
}
}
class Task2 extends Thread {
static int a = 0;
static int beg = 0;
public void run(){
for(int i=beg; i< beg + a;i++)
Solution.threadArray[i] = i;
}
}
class Task3 extends Thread{
static int a = 0;
static int beg = 0;
public void run(){
for(int i=beg;i< a + beg;i++)
Solution.threadArray[i] = i;
}
}
Thread1 and Thread2 are supposed to access Common Resource in threadArray[0... Task1.a+Task2+a]. So we have to make use of static volatile variable i declared in Solution Class.
class Task1 extends Thread
{
static int a=0,beg=0;
public void run()
{
int k=Task1.beg;
int i1=0;
while(i1<Task1.a)
{
Solution.threadArray[Integer.parseInt(Solution.i)]=k++;
int a1=Integer.parseInt(Solution.i);
a1++;i1++;
Solution.i=a1+"";
try{
Thread.sleep(1);
}
catch(InterruptedException e){}
}
}
}
class Task2 extends Thread
{
static int a=0,beg=0;
public void run()
{
int y=0;
int k=Task2.beg;
while(y<Task2.a)
{
Solution.threadArray[Integer.parseInt(Solution.i)]=k++;
int a1=Integer.parseInt(Solution.i);
a1++;y++;
Solution.i=a1+"";
try{
Thread.sleep(1);
}
catch(InterruptedException e){}
}
}
}
Thread3 work independently after First 2 threads complete.
class Task3 extends Thread
{
static int beg=0,a=0;
public void run()
{
for(int i=Task3.beg;i<Task3.beg+Task3.a;i++)
{
Solution.threadArray[i]=i;
}
}
}
This question already has answers here:
How to pass parameter to an already running thread in java?
(4 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I want to implement Circular Buffer using 2 threads. One Thread that reads from the buffer and the other one writes to the buffer as follow:
Assuming that process P is the writer process and process Q is the reader process.
After starting both processes from the main class, how can I pass to process P (the writer) the value I want it to write to the buffer each time I want to write to the buffer? Similarly, how can I ask process Q (the reader) to read from the buffer (i.e. how can I call it to return the value that it has read from the buffer)?
I am confused because the implementation of both processes is done in the run() method and this method is executed when we issue the .start() command. However, once started, how can we keep passing and reading parameters while it is in the run mode.
I am following the implementation in the following example mentioned in the following question :
Circular Buffer with Threads Consumer and Producer: it get stucks some executions
Shared Variables:
public class BufferCircular {
volatile int[] array;
volatile int p;
volatile int c;
volatile int nElem;
public BufferCircular(int[] array) {
this.array = array;
this.p = 0;
this.c = 0;
this.nElem = 0;
}
public void writeData (int data) {
this.array[p] = data;
this.p = (p + 1) % array.length;
this.nElem++;
}
public int readData() {
int data = array[c];
this.c = (c + 1) % array.length;
this.nElem--;
return data;
}
}
Writer Process:
public class Producer extends Thread {
BufferCircular buffer;
int bufferTam;
int contData;
public Productor(BufferCircular buff) {
this.buffer = buff;
this.bufferTam = buffer.array.length;
this.contData = 0;
}
public void produceData() {
this.contData++;
this.buffer.writeData(contData);
}
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
while (this.buffer.nElem == this.bufferTam) {
Thread.yield();
}
this.produceData();
}
}
}
Reader Process:
public class Consumer extends Thread {
BufferCircular buffer;
int cont;
public Consumer(BufferCircular buff) {
this.buffer = buff;
this.cont = 0;
}
public void consumeData() {
int data = buffer.readData();
cont++;
System.out.println("data " + cont + ": " + data);
}
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 500; i++) {
while (this.buffer.nElem == 0) {
Thread.yield();
}
this.consumeData();
}
}
}
Main:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Random ran = new Random();
int tamArray = ran.nextInt(21) + 1;
int[] array = new int[tamArray];
BufferCircular buffer = new BufferCircular(array);
Producer producer = new Producer (buffer);
Consumer consumer = new Consumer (buffer);
producer.start();
consumer.start();
try {
producer.join();
consumer.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("Error with Threads");
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
You main thread should not be responsible for passing value to producer thread and in same way it should not be responsible to print the data from consumer.
Producer: this should be responsible to getting the data and inserting into your queue, in your case its currently increment int value and passing it, but you can also read data from file or db or use std input to take user input and pass that data in the queue.
Consumer: this should be responsible to process the data from the queue in ur case printing the numbers.
Check online
I would like to make a programm which count prime numbers using Erastotenes Sieve. In this issue I want to use semaphore to communicate between thread to make calculations on table with numbers.
So far I have written code like that.
public static void main( String[] args ) throws InterruptedException {
System.out.println("Podaj gorny zakres\n");
Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in);
Erastotenes erastotenes = new Erastotenes(Integer.parseInt(scanner.nextLine()));
erastotenes.initializeTable();
long start = System.nanoTime();
List<SingleProcess.MyThread> list = new ArrayList<>();
List<Integer> numbers = Dollar.$(2,erastotenes.getMaximumNumber()+1).toList();
for(int i=0;i<2;i++)
{
list.add(new SingleProcess.MyThread(erastotenes,numbers.subList((numbers.size()/2)*i,(numbers.size()/2)*i+numbers.size()/2)));
list.get(list.size()-1).start();
list.get(list.size()-1).join();
}
System.out.println(System.nanoTime() - start);
//System.out.println("Liczba elementów: "+erastotenes.countPrimeElements());
}
Erastotenes class.
public class Erastotenes {
private int upperRange;
private int maximumNumber;
private int table[];
public Erastotenes(int upperRange) {
this.upperRange = upperRange;
this.maximumNumber = (int)(Math.floor(Math.sqrt(upperRange)));
this.table = new int[upperRange+1];
}
public int getMaximumNumber() {
return maximumNumber;
}
public int getUpperRange() {
return upperRange;
}
public void initializeTable()
{
for(int i=1;i<=upperRange;i++) {
table[i] = i;
}
}
public void makeSelectionOfGivenNumber(int number)
{
if (table[number] != 0) {
int multiple;
multiple = number+number;
while (multiple<=upperRange) {
table[multiple] = 0;
multiple += number;
}
}
}
public List<Integer> getList()
{
List<Integer> list = Ints.asList(table);
return list.stream().filter(item->item.intValue()!=0 && item.intValue()!=1).collect(Collectors.toList());
}
}
The class describing single Thread to make calculations with static Semaphore looks like this.
public class SingleProcess {
static Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(1);
static class MyThread extends Thread {
Erastotenes erastotenes;
List<Integer> numbers;
MyThread(Erastotenes erastotenes,List<Integer> numbers) {
this.erastotenes = erastotenes;
this.numbers=numbers;
}
public void run() {
for(int number:numbers) {
try {
semaphore.acquire();
//1System.out.println(number + " : got the permit!");
erastotenes.makeSelectionOfGivenNumber(number);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
semaphore.release();
}
}
}
}
}
I thought that splitting on half table with numbers from 2 to maximum numbers as square root like in erastotrenes algorithm for these two Threads will boost calculations, but with upperRange to 100000000 the difference between paraller and sequence is not so big. How can I in another realize this problem of paraller programming Erastotenes Sieve?
I think your main problem is this:
for(int i=0;i<2;i++)
{
list.add(new SingleProcess.MyThread(erastotenes,numbers.subList((numbers.size()/2)*i,(numbers.size()/2)*i+numbers.size()/2)));
list.get(list.size()-1).start();
list.get(list.size()-1).join();
}
You start a thread and then immediately wait for it to finish; that kills the parallelism entirely. You can start and wait in the end:
for(int i=0;i<2;i++)
{
list.add(new SingleProcess.MyThread(erastotenes,numbers.subList((numbers.size()/2)*i,(numbers.size()/2)*i+numbers.size()/2)));
list.get(list.size()-1).start();
}
for (Thread t : list) {
t.join();
}
But, there's also a problem with your semaphore tbh. Each thread blocks all other threads from doing anything as long as it's working on a number; that means that again, all parallelism is gone.
You can do away with the semaphore altogether IMO; there's not really a lot of danger in setting the same index to 0 several times, which is all that happens in this "critical section" - but it's not critical at all because no one ever reads the array value in question before all threads are finished.
I know it means the reference to the array is volatile not the items in the array if you declare an array volatile.
I am learning mutex algorithm, so I write some test code:
public class MutualExclusion {
static final int N = 10;
static final int M = 100000;
volatile static int count = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread[] threads = new Thread[N];
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
Thread t = new Worker(i);
threads[i] = t;
t.start();
}
for (Thread t: threads) {
try {
t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
if (count != N * M) {
System.out.println("count (" + count + ") != N * M (" + String.valueOf(N * M) + ")");
}
}
static class Worker extends Thread {
int id;
Worker(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < M; i++) {
this.lock();
// critical section
count++;
if (i % 1000 == 0) {
System.out.println(this.getName() + ": " + count);
}
this.unlock();
}
}
void lock() {
filterLock();
}
void unlock() {
filterUnlock();
}
static volatile int level[] = new int[N];
static volatile int lastToEnter[] = new int[N - 1];
void filterLock() {
for (int i = 0; i < (N - 1); i++) {
level[this.id] = i;
lastToEnter[i] = this.id;
outer:
while (lastToEnter[i] == this.id) {
for (int k = 0; k < N; k++ ) {
if (k != this.id && level[k] >= i) {
continue outer;
}
}
break;
}
}
}
void filterUnlock() {
level[this.id] = -1;
}
}
}
In my first implementation of filter algorithm, I missed volatile for variable level and lastToEnter, not surprisingly, the program went into a infinite loop. After I added the missing volatile, the program can end as expected.
As I said in beginning, a volatile array doesn't mean items in the array are volatile, so why can the program end as expected after I added the missing volatile?
I asked myself this question when I was implementing another mutex algorithm which still doesn't run correctly after I added volatile keyword. I have to use a trick (Java volatile array?) to make items in the array looks like being volatile: (code below can be pasted into Worker class directly)
volatile static boolean[] b = new boolean[N];
volatile static boolean[] c = new boolean[N];
volatile static int k = 0;
void dijkstraLock() {
b[this.id] = false;
outer:
for (;;) {
if (k == this.id) {
c[this.id] = false;
c = c; // IMPORTANT! the trick
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
if (i != this.id && !c[i]) {
continue outer;
}
}
break;
} else {
c[this.id] = true;
if (b[k]) {
k = this.id;
}
}
}
}
void dijkstraUnlock() {
b[this.id] = true;
c[this.id] = true;
}
Volatile arrays in Java do not contain volatile elements - but if you access them via the array reference (which is volatile) you will get a volatile read. For instance, in the code above:
static volatile int lastToEnter[] = new int[N - 1];
is a volatile write, whereas
lastToEnter[i] = this.id;
is not. however, the evaluating of the array value - such as:
lastToEnter[i] == this.id
is a volatile read - you first read the reference to the array which is volatile, and only then access the i'th element to evaluate its value.
I suspect this is the reason your execution succeeds once the array is declared as volatile.
I have a fairly straightforward task: I have a list of strings each of which is processed and a score is produced. The string and its score then get added to a map:
public class My1Thread
{
final private static List<String> ids = Arrays.asList("id1","id2","id3","id4","id5");
private static HashMap<String,Double> result = null;
private Double computeResult(String id)
{
Double res = 0.0;
// do stuff to compute result
return res;
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
result = new HashMap<String,Double>();
for (String id: ids)
{
result.put(id,computeResult(id));
}
}
}
Since scores of any two strings are independent of each other, this seems to be a perfect case to use multithreading. However, I am getting unexpected results, which is probably a typical result for a multithreading newbie.
Here's a m/t version of the above:
public class MyMultiThread
{
final private static int nWorkers = 3; // number of threads
final private static List<String> ids = Arrays.asList("id1","id2","id3","id4","id5");
private static int curIndex = 0; // indexing pointing to position in ids currently being processed
private static HashMap<String,Double> result = null;
public static class Worker implements Runnable {
private int id;
public Worker(int id) {
this.id = id;
}
synchronized void setCounter(final int counter)
{
curIndex = counter;
}
synchronized int getCounter()
{
return curIndex;
}
synchronized void addToResult(final String id, final Double score)
{
result.put(id,score);
}
#Override
public void run()
{
try {
while (true)
{
int index = getCounter();
if (index >= ids.size())
{
// exit thread
return;
}
String id = ids.get(index);
setCounter(index+1);
System.out.print(String.format("Thread %d: processing %s from pos %d\n", id, id, curIndex-1));
Double score = ... // compute score here
addToResult(id,score);
}
} catch (Exception ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
result = new HashMap<String,ArrayList<Pair<Document,Double>>>();
for (int i = 0; i < nWorkers; i++) {
Thread worker = new Thread(new MyMultiThread.Worker(i));
worker.start();
}
}
}
According to the output produced by System.out.print, this code appears to be processing some elements of ids more than once while not processing others at all. What am I doing wrong here?
Your while(true) loop inside the thread starts at the index specified in the constructor, and then increment it by one, and then the loop starts again. So thread 0 does index 0, then index 1, etc.. Thread 1 does index 1, then index 2, etc... So index 2 will be done 3 times.
I would use a synchronized linked list for ids, and have each thread take and remove the first element of the list, until the list is empty. Use LinkedList.removeFirst().
Also the result hash map also needs to be synchronized, since multiple threads may write to it at the same time.
The problem is that the map is being modified concurrently in multiple threads, so some updates are getting lost.
You declared the methods that modify the map as synchronized, but note that they are synchronized on multiple worker objects: not on a single object, which would provide the locking you are after.
I'd recommend using ConcurrentHashMap and getting rid of all the synchronized declarations.
Some of your synchronization is too narrow - for example, this bit here:
int index = getCounter();
if (index >= ids.size())
{
// exit thread
return;
}
String id = ids.get(index);
setCounter(index+1);
What happens if thread A reads the counter, thread B reads the counter, then thread A updates the counter?
A: int index = getCounter(); // returns 3
B: int index = getCounter(); // returns 3
...
A: setCounter(index + 1); // sets it to 4
B: setCounter(index + 1); // Uh-oh, sets it to 4 as well, we lost an update!
In this case, when you read a variable, then write to it based on the value you read, both the read and the write need to be within the same synchronization block. Declaring getCounter and setCounter as synchronized is not enough.
Simply use Java 8 Stream API :
Map<String, Double> map = ids.parallelStream().collect(Collectors.toConcurrentMap(id -> id, id -> computeScore(id)));
...
Double computeScore(String id) {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
return ThreadLocalRandom.current().nextDouble(100);
}
Here's a nice tutorial.