We Keep Coding

how to use multiple threads, in sync?

i have multiple threads, who all run from one object.
i want the "main thread" to run alone until a certain point, then it waits and all the other threads run together, then the main thread wakes, etc.....
i am having trouble synchronizing my threads. i either get an Illegal Monitor State Exception, or it gets stuck in one of the "wait" loops that are suppose to receive a "notify" that never arrives.
more specifically, i have an object with an array. each cell in the array has a thread that checks the adjacent cells and then changes it's cell with that information.
in order to make the changes orderly, i want all the cells to first make the check of their adjacent cells and keep the value they produced, then wait.
when all of them are done, the main thread will wake all of them up and they will update their respective cells.
i looked up how "wait" and "notify" work, but i still don't understand how they sync. from what i understand i need to connect them all to one object, and then that object is the "lock", so if i use "synchronize" on its methods only one thread can approach it at a time? how can i make sure a "wait" method will always have a "notify" to end it?
Edit:
the method basically runs Conway's game of life.
the main orientation of the code is like so:
the class LifeMatrix extends JPanel. it had an array of panels, each is either "dead or alive" (true/false). the class RunMatrixThread extends thread, and is the "main thread" that coordinates the code. the class CellThead extends thread, and a CellThread is made for every cell in the matrix.
so my idea was to give all the threads the "LifeMatrix" as an observer, but if i try to notify the LifeMatrix Object (with matrix.notify()) it gives me the Illigal Monitor State Exception, and if i try to use "notify all" it gets stuck in RunMatrixThread's wait() command.
also, do i notify an object? or do i notify the threads that are waiting?

Don't use parallelization. Before using threads think if you really can parallelize your job because if all of your tasks have to be sync with each other use threads won't give you better perfomance in terms of execution time. Say that you have an array of objects [a,b] if a must waiting for some changes on b, you can't treat a and b separately so you can't parallelize your job. On the contrary if you need to process a, b and all the elements of your array and at the end perform some computation on them you can Join the threads with join() method. When you call join method you basically join threads branches in one (the main thread). A new thread will fork your main thread and join will join these threads.

If you're trying to get "worker threads" to do parcels of work that are authorized/initiated/doled-out by a "main" thread, then you probably should be using a thread pool (e.g, https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ThreadPoolExecutor.html)
A thread pool takes care of creating the worker threads and "synchronizing" their activity with the main thread, and it lets you focus on the task (or tasks) that the workers perform.
each cell in the array has a thread that...
For Conway's Life, that's way too many worker threads. If the work is purely compute-bound, then there's no point in having many more threads than your host has processors to execute them.
If I was coding life for a host with N processors, I would use a thread pool that had N threads. And, In each generation, I would have the main thread submit N tasks to the pool: Each task would do one horizontal stripe of the board.

Ok, first of all i want to thank all of you for trying to help, some of the links you gave me were very helpful.
I found out what my problem was: i was trying to use wait/notify methods from 2 different types of threads at the same time, on the same object. i had the 'CellThread' that used wait and 'notifyAll', and i had the 'RunMatrixThread' that did the same. they of course had "synchronized" methods, but because they were 2 different TYPES of threads, the two types weren't in sync with EACH OTHER.
what solved the problem was that i made 2 new synchronized methods within the 'RunMatrixThread' class, one for waiting and one for notifying, and then just called those methods from all threads (from both thread classes) whenever i wanted to wait/notify. in this way, there was a unified object that had a lock on everything.
PS: i know its a bad idea to use so many threads. it was the coarse's assignment, and they required we do it this way.

How to get threads with loops running concurrently to work with Thread.yield()?

I have the following situation. I have an application that runs mostly on one thread. It has grown large, so I would like to run a watchdog thread that gets called whenever the main thread changes into a different block of code / method / class so I can see there is "movement" in the code. If the watchdog gets called by the same area for more than a second or a few, it shall set a volatile boolean that the main thread reads at the next checkpoint and terminate / restart.
Now the problem is getting either of the threads to run somewhat at the same time. As soon as the main thread is running, it will not let the watchdog timer count properly. I was therefore thinking of yielding every time it calls the watchdog (so it could calculate time passed and set the value) but to no avail. Using Thread.sleep(1) instead of Thread.yield() works. But I don't want to have several areas of code just wasting calculation time, I am sure I am not doing it the way it is meant to be used.
Here a very simple example of how I would use Thread.yield(). I do not understand why the Threads here will not switch (they do, after a "long" and largely unpredictable time). Please give me an advice on how to make this simple example output ONE and TWO after each other. Like written before, if I switch yield() with sleep(1), it will work just like I'd need it to (in spite of waiting senselessly).
Runnable run1 = new Runnable(){
public void run(){
while(true){
System.out.println("ONE");
Thread.yield();
}
}
};
Runnable run2 = new Runnable(){
public void run(){
while(true){
System.out.println("TWO");
Thread.yield();
}
}
};
Thread tr1 = new Thread(run1);
Thread tr2 = new Thread(run2);
tr1.start();
tr2.start();

Thread.yield()
This static method is essentially used to notify the system that the
current thread is willing to "give up the CPU" for a while. The
general idea is that:
The thread scheduler will select a different thread to run instead of
the current one.
However, the details of how yielding is implemented by the thread
scheduler differ from platform to platform. In general, you shouldn't
rely on it behaving in a particular way. Things that differ include:
when, after yielding, the thread will get an opportunity to run again;
whether or not the thread foregoes its remaining quantum.
The take away is this behavior is pretty much optional and not guaranteed to actually do anything deterministically.
What you are trying to do is serialize the output of two threads in your example and synchronize the output in your stated problem ( which is a different problem ), and that will require some sort of lock or mutex to block the second thread until the first thread is done, which kind of defeats the point of concurrency which is usually the reason threads are used.
Solution
What you really want is a shared piece of data for a flag status that the second thread can react to the first thread changing. Preferably and event driven message passing pattern would be even easier to implement in a concurrently safe manner.
The second thread would be spawned by the first thread and a method called on it to increment the counter for which block it is in, you would just use pure message passing and pass in a state flag Enum or some other notification of a state change.
What you don't want to do is do any kind of polling. Make it event driven and just have the second thread running always and checking the state of its instance variable that gets set by the parent thread.

I do not understand why the Threads here will not switch (they do, after a "long" and largely unpredictable time). Please give me an advice on how to make this simple example output ONE and TWO after each other. Like written before, if I switch yield() with sleep(1), it will work just like I'd need it to (in spite of waiting senselessly).
I think this is more about the difference between ~1000 println calls in a second (when you use sleep(1)) and many, many more without the sleep. I think the Thread is actually yielding but it may be that it is on a multiple processor box so the yield is effectively a no-op.
So what you are seeing is purely a race condition high volume blast to System.out. If you ran this for a minute with the results going to a file I think you'd see a similar number of "ONE" and "TWO" messages in the output. Even if you removed the yield() you would see this behavior.
I just ran a quick trial with your code sending the output to /tmp/x. The program with yield() ran for 5 seconds, generated 1.9m/483k lines, with the output sort | uniq -c of:
243152 ONE
240409 TWO
This means that each thread is generating upwards of 40,000 lines/second. Then I removed the yield() statements and I got just about the same results with different counts of lines like you'd expect with the race conditions -- but the same order of magnitude.

Is possible to control the amount of time that each thread executes in Java?

I want to control the amount of time that each thread uses.
One thread does some processing and another processes data in the database, but the insertion is slower than processing because of the amount of generated data. I want to give more processor time to insert that data.
Is it possible do this with threads? At the moment, I'm putting a sleep in the thread doing the processing, but the time of insertion changes according to the machine. Is there another way I can do this? Is the way involving the use of thread synchronization inside my program?

You can increase the priority of a thread using Thread.setPriority(...) but this is not ideal.
Perhaps you can use some form of blocking queue from the java.util.concurrent package to make one Thread wait while another Thread is doing something. For example, a SynchronousQueue can be used to send a message from one Thread to another Thread that it can now do something.
Another approach is to use Runnables instead of Threads, and submit the Runnables to an Executor, such as ThreadPoolExecutor. This executor will have the role of making sure Runnables are using a fair amount of time.

The first thing to mention is that thread priority doesn't per se mean "share of the CPU". There seems to be a lot of confusion about what thread priority actually means, partly because it actually means different things under different OS's. If you're working in Linux, it actually does mean something close to relative share of CPU. But under Windows, it definitely doesn't. So in case it's of any help, you may firstly want to look at some information I compiled a little while ago about thread priorities in Java, which explains what Thread Priorities Actually Mean on different systems.
The general answer to your question is that if you want a thread to take a particular share of CPU, it's better to implicitly do that programmatically: periodically, for each "chunk" of processing, measure how much time elapsed (or how much CPU was used-- they're not strictly speaking the same thing), then sleep an appropriate amount of time so that the processing/sleep ratio comes to roughly the % of processing time you intended.
However, I'm not sure that will actually help your task here.
As I understand, basically you have an insertion task which is the rate determining step. Under average circumstances, it's unlikely that the system is "deliberately dedicating less CPU than it can or needs to" to the thread running that insertion.
So there's probably more mileage in looking at that insertion task and seeing if programmatically you can change how that insertion task functions. For example: can you insert in larger batches? if the insertion process really is CPU bound for some reason (which I am suspicious of), can you multi-thread it? why does your application actually care about waiting for the insertion to finish, and can you change that dependency?
If the insertion is to a standard DB system, I wonder if that insertion is terribly CPU bound anyway?

One way would be to set the priority of the processing thread to be lower than the other. But beware this is not recommended as it wont keep your code platform independent. (DIfferent thread priorities behave differently on different platforms).
Another way would be to use a service where database thread would keep sending messages about its current status (probably some flag "aboutToOver").
Or use synchronization say a binary semaphore. When the database thread is working, the other thread would be blocked and hence db thread would be using all the resources. But again processing thread would be blocked in the mean time. Actually this will be the best solution as the processign thread can perform say 3-4 tasks and then will get blocked by semaphore till later when it can again get up and do task

Why we should use Join in threads?

I have 2 threads T1 and T2 ,both have different jobs so usually we prefer to accomplish this task by thread Joins.
But we can do this with out using join(). We can add T2 thread's code inside T1 thread.
What difference does this make ?

Joining a thread means that one waits for the other to end, so that you can safely access its result or continue after both have finished their jobs.
Example: if you start a new thread in the main thread and both do some work, you'd join the main thread on the newly created one, causing the main thread to wait for the second thread to finish. Thus you can do some work in parallel until you reach the join.
If you split a job into two parts which are executed by different threads you may get a performance improvement, if
the threads can run independently, i.e. if they don't rely on each other's data, otherwise you'd have to synchronize which costs performance
the JVM is able to execute multiple threads in parallel, i.e. you have a hyperthreading/multicore machine and the JVM utilizes that

usually we prefer to accomplish this task by thread Joins.
No we don't. We accomplish this task by starting two threads. There is no obligation to use join() so there is no 'should' about it. If you want to pause the current thread while another thread completes, do so. If you don't, don't.

If you call T1.join(); from T2 it will wait for T1 to die (finish). It is a form of thread synchronization, but from what you describe you can simply fire of two thread and simply do not use join. If you use two threads then the work will be done in parallel, if you put the code only in one thread then the work will be done sequentially.

Here is the reason to use join: You use it when final result depends on result of two tasks which could run at the same time.
Example1:
After user clicks submit button the program has to call two external webservices to update their respective systems. It can be done at the same time that is why we would create a separate thread for one of webservices.
The user will sit before the screen and wait for a notification: Your submission is OK! The screen should say OK only after both threads finished.

Two things.
Join is used only when one thread must wait for the open to finish (lets say thread A prepares a file and thread B cannot continue until the file is ready). There are instance where threads are independent and no join is needed (for example most of daemon threads).
With threading you get several things:
- mainly, independence in the order of execution. Lets say that you have a program that when you push a button does some heavy processing. If you do that processing in the main thread, you GUI will freeze until the task is finished. If you do the processing in another thread, then the GUI thread is "freed" and the GUI keeps working.
- in some (most) of modern computers, creating several threads could allow the OS to use the different cores to serve different threads, improving performance.
The drawback is bigger complexity, as you need information of other threads execution state.

You could use something like a java.util.concurrent.CountDownLatch, eg:
CountDownLatch doneSignal = new CountDownLatch(2);
and have each thread countDown() when they're done, so a main thread knows when both threads have completed.

using Join also like we can add the T2 thread's code inside T1 thread
join() like the method name implies waits for the thread to die and joins it at the end of execution. You can add one thread's code inside another but that would destroy the purpose of using 2 separate threads to run your jobs concurrently. Placing one code after the other would run your statements in sequence. There is no concurrency.
When in doubt, consult the javadocs - http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html#join%28%29

If T1 and T2 do different tasks which do not depend on state changes caused by each other - you should not join them to reap advantages of parallel execution. In case there are state dependenices you should synchronize both threads using mechanisms like wait/notify or even .Join() depending on your use case.
And as for, combining the run() methods of both threads, it's entirely left to you. I mean, you should understand why both threads are of different "types" (as they have different run() body) in the first place . It's a design aspect and not a performance aspect.

All the parallel threads typically needs to join at some point in the code thereby allowing them to wait until all threads terminate. After this point typically the serial processing continues. This ensures proper synchronisation between peer threads so that subsequent serial code does not begin abruptly before all parallel threads complete the collective activity.

The main difference is when we join T2 thread with T1 ,the time T2 is executing the job can be utilised by T1 also ,that means they will do different job parllely.But this cann't happen when you include the T2 thread code inside T1 thread.

Java threads query

Im working on a java application that involves threads. So i just wrote a piece of code to just familiarize myself with the execution of multiple yet concurrent threads
public class thready implements Runnable{
private int num;
public thready(int a) {
this.num=a;
}
public void run() {
System.out.println("This is thread num"+num);
for (int i=num;i<100;i++)
{
System.out.println(i);
}
}
public static void main(String [] args)
{
Runnable runnable =new thready(1);
Runnable run= new thready(2);
Thread t1=new Thread(runnable);
Thread t2=new Thread(run);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}}
Now from the output of this code, I think at any point in time only 1 thread is executing and the execution seems to alternate between the threads. Now i would like to know if my understanding of the situation is correct. And if it is I would like to know if there is any way in which i could get both threads to executing simultaneously as i wish to incorporate this scenario in a situation wherein i want to write a tcp/ip socket listener that simultaneously listens on 2 ports, at the same time. And such a scenario cant have any downtime.
Any suggestions/advice would be of great help.
Cheers

How many processors does your machine have? If you have multiple cores, then both threads should be running at the same time. However, console output may well be buffered and will require locking internally - that's likely to be the effect you're seeing.
The easiest way to test this is to make the threads do some real work, and time them. First run the two tasks sequentially, then run them in parallel on two different threads. If the two tasks don't interact with each other at all (including "hidden" interactions like the console) then you should see a roughly 2x performance improvement using two threads - if you have two cores or more.
As Thilo said though, this may well not be relevant for your real scenario anyway. Even a single-threaded system can still listen on two sockets, although it's easier to have one thread responsible for each socket. In most situations where you're listening on sockets, you'll spend a lot of the time waiting for more data anyway - in which case it doesn't matter whether you've got more than one core or not.
EDIT: As you're running on a machine with a single core (and assuming no hyperthreading) you will only get one thread executing at a time, pretty much by definition. The scheduler will make sure that both threads get CPU time, but they'll basically have to take turns.

If you have more than one CPU, both threads can run simultaneously. Even if you have only one CPU, as soon as one of the threads waits for I/O, the other can use the CPU. The JVM will most likely also try to dice out CPU time slices fairly. So for all practical purposes (unless all they do is use the CPU), your threads will run simultaneously (as in: within a given second, each of them had access to the CPU).
So even with a single CPU, you can have two threads listening on a TCP/IP socket each.

Make the threads sleep in between the println statements. What you have executes too fast for you to see the effect.

Threads are just a method of virtualizing the CPU so that it can be used by several applications/threads simultaneously. But as the CPU can only execute one program at a time, the Operating System switches between the different threads/processes very fast.
If you have a CPU with just one core (leaving aside hyperthreading) then your observation, that only one thread is executing at a time, is completely correct. And it's not possible in any other way, you're not doing anything wrong.

If the threads each take less than a single CPU quantum, they will appear to run sequentially. Printing 100 numbers in a row is probably not intensive enough to use up an entire quantum, so you're probably seeing sequential running of threads.
As well, like others have suggested, you probably have two CPU, or a hyperthreaded CPU at least. The last pure single core systems were produced around a decade ago, so it's unlikely that your threads aren't running side-by-side.
Try increasing the amount of processing that you do, and you might see the output intermingle. Be aware that when you do, System.out.println is NOT threadsafe, as far as I know. You'll get one thread interrupting the output of another mid-line.

They do run simultaneously, they just can't use the outputstream at the same time.
Replace your run- method with this:
public void run() {
for (int i=num;i<100;i++) {
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
System.out.println("Thread " + num + ": " + i);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

If you are getting many messages per second and processing each piece of data takes few milliseconds to few seconds, it is not a good idea to start one-thread per message. Ultimately number of threads spawned are limited by the underlying OS. You may get out-of-threads error or something like that.
Java 5 introduced Thread Pool framework where you can allocate a fixed number of threads and submit the job (instance of Runnable). This framework will run the job in one of the available thread in the pool. It is more efficient as there is not much context switching done. I wrote a blog entry to jump-start on this framework.
http://dudefrommangalore.blogspot.com/2010/01/concurrency-in-java.html
Cheers,
-- baliga

For the question on listening on 2 ports, clients has to send message to one of them. But since both ports are opened to accept connections within a single JVM, if the JVM fails having 2 ports does not provide you high-availability.
Usual pattern for writing a server which listen on a port is to have one thread listen on the port. As soon as the data arrives, spawn another thread, hand-over the content as well as the client socket to the newly spawned thread and continue accepting new messages.
Another pattern is to have multiple threads listen on the same socket. When client connects, connection is made to one of the thread.

Two ways this could go wrong:
System.out.println() may use a buffer, you should call flush() to get it to the screen.
There has to be some synchronisation
build into the System.out object or
you couldn't use it in a
multithreaded application without
messing up the output, so it is
likely that one thread holds a lock
for most of the time, making the other thread wait. Try using System.out in one thread and Sytem.err in the other.

Go and read up on multitasking and multiprogramming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking