I'm working on a project that uses primitive Java concurrent structures such as wait(), notify(), notifyAll(), Thread.run(), synhronized etc.
On my project, there are multiple threads (a extension of Thread class) who will get an object from a queue periodically. Thus, I use a Timer class which has an inner TimerTask class.
My problem is that, I could not get how to make other threads wake up periodically. My main class is not these threads or timer classes. Thus I call their run from another class. I could not figure out how to make these threads wait and notify for one time per 100 miliseconds. My timer class is:
public class Controller extends Timer{
int counter;
TimerTask task;
final Controller c = this;
public class PeriodicTime extends TimerTask {
#Override
public void run() {
if(counter > 0) {
//do some stuff to wake up threads
}
counter++;
}
}
Controller () {
super ();
this.task = new PeriodicTime();
counter = 0;
this.schedule(task, 300, 100);
}
}
And my thread class is:
public class Element extends Thread {
public void run() {
// do something to get an object from another class (a queue)
}
}
Now, i'm really confused how to make periodic releasing to the thread class. I even could not get whether to use wait()/notify() or not.
As I told before, i'll create multiple Element class. They will work synchronized. Then, what should I do?
Make a list of Objects that will represent mutexes, Each Element thread will get one mutex from the list, while the timer task gets the list.
TimerTask calls notify() on every mutex object when the time period expires. This wakes up the Element threads.
Element threads process data from queue and when they are done they each call wait() on their mutex object.
Now you need thread safety built into the queue since there are multiple consumers, but not the blocking logic since it is handled by the TimerTask.
Also, if I understood you correctly, you want Elements put something back to queue as they process the data. For that you can use an auxilary queue that you can drain into the first one after elements are done or you can just swap them (This is done by TimerTask and requires an atomic counter that will get incremented when Element wakes up and decremented when it goes to sleep). Alternatively, you can use a "stop" value that you can put into queue just before you wake up Elements, and make them work until they reach it. For N element threads you would need to put N stop values so all of them get the message.
How to use mutexes:
List<Object> mutexList;
//initialize the list with plain Objects. You just need them to be separate instances.
....
//When creating Element threads add one object from the list to each Element.
....
//in Element code
public class Element extends Thread {
//This is one element from the list
private Object mutex;
public void run() {
// do something to get an object from another class (a queue)
//....
synchronized(mutex){
mutex.wait();
}
}
}
// in timerTask code
public class PeriodicTime extends TimerTask {
List<Object> mutexList;
#Override
public void run() {
if(counter > 0) {
//do some stuff to wake up threads
for(Object mutex:mutexList){
mutex.notify();
}
}
counter++;
}
}
Related
Briefly, I want to click on a button to run a background task (separated thread). I faced two problems:
What if user click many times on that button ==>Many thread will be
created.
Even if I use Singleton mechanism, I face another problem which is the fact that only one time that instance will be created even though after task accomplishes, user can't anymore re-run the process (second click on the button).
My class:
package mypack.check;
public class RunnableCheck implements Runnable {
private Thread t;
private static RunnableCheckFeeders instance;
public RunnableCheckFeeders getDefault() {
if (instance == null) {
instance = new RunnableCheckFeeders();
}
return instance;
}
#Override
public void run() {
//What the thread is supposed to do...
}
public void start() {
if (t == null) {
t = new Thread(this, "My task");
t.start();
}
}
}
In the caller class:
RunnableCheckFeeders.getDefault().start();
I tried with Synchronized methods but in vain, any proposition is welcome.
I suggest you use an ExecutorService.
enum RunOne {; // no instances
static final ExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadedExecutor();
static Future last = null;
static synchronized void run(Runnable run) {
if (last != null && !last.isDone()) return;
last = service.submit(run);
}
}
This will submit a new task only if there is not already one running. It won't create more than one thread but you can submit tasks after a previous one finishes. You can call service.shutdown() to stop the service.
Your start method doesn't guarantee that only one "my task" thread will be created, even if there is only one instance of RunnableCheck: because the checking of the thread reference and subsequent assignment is not atomic, it is possible for two threads to be created and started if both happen to evaluate t == null to true at the same time (or, at least, a second thread can evaluate it to true before the first thread was able to assign a non-null value to t).
You can guard for this by:
Making the start method synchronized, so multiple threads cannot run the method at the same time;
Add an AtomicBoolean to record if the thread has been created/started. By updating the value of this flag atomically, it is not possible for two threads to set it to true, and thus impossible for two new Threads to be created and started:
private final AtomicBoolean started = new AtomicBoolean();
private Thread t;
public void start() {
if (!started.compareAndSet(false, true)) {
return;
}
t = new Thread(this, "My task");
t.start();
}
When a user clicks multiple times then do you want the event to happen multiple times, or just the once? If multiple times, you don't want a singleton, but rather to create a queue of work.
You can do this in one of two ways, the first is to use a a want a thread pool, likely using one from the ExecutorService.
Your second option is to have a single queue reading from a queue and a single thread reading from the queue.
If you want the event to only happen the once then you need to disable the button until it is completed, make start synchronized so only one thread can call it at a time and then set t to null once the thread finishes (i.e. the last item in run()).
I have a MainClass, a Worker class and a Supervisor class. In MainClass i create 10 Worker classes and a Supervisor class that run in separate threads.
class MainClass {
public static void main(String args[]) {
for (int i=0; i<10 ;i++) {
Thread t = new Thread( new Worker());
t.start();
}
(new Thread(new Supervisor()).start();
}
.
class Worker extends Thread {
public void run() {
while(true) {
if(some_condition) {
//do stuff
} else {
// pause thread execution for undefined time.
}
}
}
}
.
class Supervisor extends Thread {
public void run() {
while(true) {
if(some_condition) {
// restart Workers thread that are paused.
}
// do other stuff
}
}
}
I don't know how to implement this, cause the conditions in every thread are independent from each other so i don't need to synchronize, so i can't use wait-notify.
I don't know how to implement this, cause the conditions in every thread are independent from each other so i don't need to synchronize, so i can't use wait-notify.
Sure you can.
The subtlety here is that presumably Supervisor doesn't actually know whether worker threads are really paused. (If it does, then the conditions are not independent.)
Since Supervisor doesn't know whether the threads are actually paused (by assumption), you have to design what you want to happen if it tries to unpause an already-unpaused thread.
a) Should an unpause do nothing?
b) Or should it immediately unpause the next time a worker tries to pause itself?
If the answer is (b), then you have to worry about thread safety. If the answer is (a), then you don't (unless you have some other data to pass between threads!)
Either way, you can still use wait and notify.
As per my understanding u want to create separate thread pools which consist of 10 workers or number as per your requirement.
As far as pools are concerned you can check for ThreadPoolExecutor in java.util.concurrent api. Internally ThreadPoolexecutor also creates worker Threads for running tasks.
Try reading ThreadPoolExecutor it might help you or please elaborate your question whats your ultimate objective you wish to achieve by this problem.
I'm trying to build a cache with Google Guava and want to do some calculation on the expired objects. A removalListener notifies me, if some object was removed.
How can I run the removalListener in a different thread than the main application or pass the expired object (in the simple example below, that would be the Integer 3) to a different thread that handles the calculation?
Edit: As the calculation is rather short, but happens often, I would rather not create a new thread each time (would be thousands of threads), but have one (or maybe two) who calculate all objects.
Simple example:
Cache<String, Integer> cache = CacheBuilder.newBuilder().maximumSize(100)
.expireAfterAccess(100, TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
.removalListener(new RemovalListener<String, Integer>() {
public void onRemoval(final RemovalNotification notification) {
if (notification.getCause() == RemovalCause.EXPIRED) {
System.out.println("removed " + notification.getValue());
// do calculation=> this should be in another thread
}
}
})
.build();
cache.put("test1", 3);
cache.cleanUp();
To run your listener in an executor, wrap it with RemovalListeners.asynchronous.
.removalListener(asynchronous(new RemovalListener() { ... }, executor))
Create an ExecutorService using one of the Executors factory methods, and submit a new Runnable to this executor each time you need to:
private ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
...
public void onRemoval(final RemovalNotification notification) {
if (notification.getCause() == RemovalCause.EXPIRED) {
System.out.println("removed " + notification.getValue());
submitCalculation(notification.getValue());
}
}
private void submitCalculation(final Integer value) {
Runnable task = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
// call your calculation here
}
};
executor.submit(task);
}
You can create a new class, and implement the java.utils.Runnable interface like so;
public class MyWorkerThread implements Runnable {
public MyWorkerThread(/*params*/) {
//set your instance variables here
//then start the thread
(new Thread(this)).start();
}
public void run() {
//do useful things
}
}
When you create a new MyWorkerThread by calling the constructor, execution is returned to the calling code as soon as the constructor is finished, and a separate thread is started that runs the code inside the run() method.
If you might want to create MyWorkerThread objects without immediately starting them off, you can remove the Thread.start() code from the constructor, and call the thread manually from the instance later like so;
MyWorkerThread t = new MyWorkerThread();
//later
(new Thread(t)).start();
Or if you want to keep a reference to the Thread object so you can do groovy things like interrupt and join, do it like so;
Thread myThread = new Thread(t);
myThread.start();
//some other time
myThread.interrupt();
you can simply create intermediate queue for expired entities (expiration listener will just add expired object to this queue) - say some sort of blocking in-memory queue - ArrayBlockingQueue, LinkedBlockingDeque.
Then you can setup thread-pool and handlers(with configurable size) that will consume objects using poll() method.
For high-performance queue - i can advice more advanced non-blocking queue implementation if needed. also you can read more about high-performance non-blocking queues here Add the first element to a ConcurrentLinkedQueue atomically
Use an executor service to dispatch your task to a different thread.
ExecutorService have an internal blocking queue that is used for safe publishing of references between the producer and the consumer threads. The factory class Executors can be used to create different ExecutorService with different thread management strategies.
private ExecutorService cleanupExecutor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(CLEANUP_THREADPOOL_SIZE);
...
public void onRemoval(final RemovalNotification notification) {
if (notification.getCause() == RemovalCause.EXPIRED) {
System.out.println("removed " + notification.getValue());
doAsyncCalculation(notification.getValue());
}
}
private void doAsyncCalculation(final Object obj) {
cleanupExecutor.submit(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
expensiveOperation(obj);
}
}
}
In doAsyncCalculation you are creating new tasks to be run but not new threads. The executor service takes care of dispatching the task to the threads in the executorService's associated thread pool.
I need to provide a method that blocks until all outstanding work in a BlockingQueue has been processed.
I was thinking I could handle this with a counted semaphore which would start at 0 and decrement as items are added to the queue and increment as they are completed. finish() would just acquire the semaphore, release it again and leave.
I could perhaps call reducePermits(). Does this work if permit count is already < 0? It's protected, so I would need to extend the Semaphore class to make it work.
My second best idea is to check the contents of the queue in a loop and sleep 100ms or so between checks. It works but seems kludgey.
Does this make sense? Anybody have an easier / cleaner way to suggest?
TIA,
- Tim.
public MyClass {
public class MySemaphore extends Semaphore {
public void seize() {
reducePermits(1);
}
}
private MySemaphore allDone = new MySemaphore();
void startSomething() {
allDone.seize();
}
void finishSomething() {
allDone.release();
}
void finish() {
allDone.acquire();
allDone.release();
}
}
You could drain the queue by calling drainTo(collection), then invoke processing yourself on all items (possibly via Futures etc), then your final processing.
I have an object with a method named StartDownload(), that starts three threads.
How do I get a notification when each thread has finished executing?
Is there a way to know if one (or all) of the thread is finished or is still executing?
There are a number of ways you can do this:
Use Thread.join() in your main thread to wait in a blocking fashion for each Thread to complete, or
Check Thread.isAlive() in a polling fashion -- generally discouraged -- to wait until each Thread has completed, or
Unorthodox, for each Thread in question, call setUncaughtExceptionHandler to call a method in your object, and program each Thread to throw an uncaught Exception when it completes, or
Use locks or synchronizers or mechanisms from java.util.concurrent, or
More orthodox, create a listener in your main Thread, and then program each of your Threads to tell the listener that they have completed.
How to implement Idea #5? Well, one way is to first create an interface:
public interface ThreadCompleteListener {
void notifyOfThreadComplete(final Thread thread);
}
then create the following class:
public abstract class NotifyingThread extends Thread {
private final Set<ThreadCompleteListener> listeners
= new CopyOnWriteArraySet<ThreadCompleteListener>();
public final void addListener(final ThreadCompleteListener listener) {
listeners.add(listener);
}
public final void removeListener(final ThreadCompleteListener listener) {
listeners.remove(listener);
}
private final void notifyListeners() {
for (ThreadCompleteListener listener : listeners) {
listener.notifyOfThreadComplete(this);
}
}
#Override
public final void run() {
try {
doRun();
} finally {
notifyListeners();
}
}
public abstract void doRun();
}
and then each of your Threads will extend NotifyingThread and instead of implementing run() it will implement doRun(). Thus when they complete, they will automatically notify anyone waiting for notification.
Finally, in your main class -- the one that starts all the Threads (or at least the object waiting for notification) -- modify that class to implement ThreadCompleteListener and immediately after creating each Thread add itself to the list of listeners:
NotifyingThread thread1 = new OneOfYourThreads();
thread1.addListener(this); // add ourselves as a listener
thread1.start(); // Start the Thread
then, as each Thread exits, your notifyOfThreadComplete method will be invoked with the Thread instance that just completed (or crashed).
Note that better would be to implements Runnable rather than extends Thread for NotifyingThread as extending Thread is usually discouraged in new code. But I'm coding to your question. If you change the NotifyingThread class to implement Runnable then you have to change some of your code that manages Threads, which is pretty straightforward to do.
Solution using CyclicBarrier
public class Downloader {
private CyclicBarrier barrier;
private final static int NUMBER_OF_DOWNLOADING_THREADS;
private DownloadingThread extends Thread {
private final String url;
public DownloadingThread(String url) {
super();
this.url = url;
}
#Override
public void run() {
barrier.await(); // label1
download(url);
barrier.await(); // label2
}
}
public void startDownload() {
// plus one for the main thread of execution
barrier = new CyclicBarrier(NUMBER_OF_DOWNLOADING_THREADS + 1); // label0
for (int i = 0; i < NUMBER_OF_DOWNLOADING_THREADS; i++) {
new DownloadingThread("http://www.flickr.com/someUser/pic" + i + ".jpg").start();
}
barrier.await(); // label3
displayMessage("Please wait...");
barrier.await(); // label4
displayMessage("Finished");
}
}
label0 - cyclic barrier is created with number of parties equal to the number of executing threads plus one for the main thread of execution (in which startDownload() is being executed)
label 1 - n-th DownloadingThread enters the waiting room
label 3 - NUMBER_OF_DOWNLOADING_THREADS have entered the waiting room. Main thread of execution releases them to start doing their downloading jobs in more or less the same time
label 4 - main thread of execution enters the waiting room. This is the 'trickiest' part of the code to understand. It doesn't matter which thread will enter the waiting room for the second time. It is important that whatever thread enters the room last ensures that all the other downloading threads have finished their downloading jobs.
label 2 - n-th DownloadingThread has finished its downloading job and enters the waiting room. If it is the last one i.e. already NUMBER_OF_DOWNLOADING_THREADS have entered it, including the main thread of execution, main thread will continue its execution only when all the other threads have finished downloading.
You should really prefer a solution that uses java.util.concurrent. Find and read Josh Bloch and/or Brian Goetz on the topic.
If you are not using java.util.concurrent.* and are taking responsibility for using Threads directly, then you should probably use join() to know when a thread is done. Here is a super simple Callback mechanism. First extend the Runnable interface to have a callback:
public interface CallbackRunnable extends Runnable {
public void callback();
}
Then make an Executor that will execute your runnable and call you back when it is done.
public class CallbackExecutor implements Executor {
#Override
public void execute(final Runnable r) {
final Thread runner = new Thread(r);
runner.start();
if ( r instanceof CallbackRunnable ) {
// create a thread to perform the callback
Thread callerbacker = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// block until the running thread is done
runner.join();
((CallbackRunnable)r).callback();
}
catch ( InterruptedException e ) {
// someone doesn't want us running. ok, maybe we give up.
}
}
});
callerbacker.start();
}
}
}
The other sort-of obvious thing to add to your CallbackRunnable interface is a means to handle any exceptions, so maybe put a public void uncaughtException(Throwable e); line in there and in your executor, install a Thread.UncaughtExceptionHandler to send you to that interface method.
But doing all that really starts to smell like java.util.concurrent.Callable. You should really look at using java.util.concurrent if your project permits it.
Many things have been changed in last 6 years on multi-threading front.
Instead of using join() and lock API, you can use
1.ExecutorService invokeAll() API
Executes the given tasks, returning a list of Futures holding their status and results when all complete.
2.CountDownLatch
A synchronization aid that allows one or more threads to wait until a set of operations being performed in other threads completes.
A CountDownLatch is initialized with a given count. The await methods block until the current count reaches zero due to invocations of the countDown() method, after which all waiting threads are released and any subsequent invocations of await return immediately. This is a one-shot phenomenon -- the count cannot be reset. If you need a version that resets the count, consider using a CyclicBarrier.
3.ForkJoinPool or newWorkStealingPool() in Executors is other way
4.Iterate through all Future tasks from submit on ExecutorService and check the status with blocking call get() on Future object
Have a look at related SE questions:
How to wait for a thread that spawns it's own thread?
Executors: How to synchronously wait until all tasks have finished if tasks are created recursively?
Do you want to wait for them to finish? If so, use the Join method.
There is also the isAlive property if you just want to check it.
You can interrogate the thread instance with getState() which returns an instance of Thread.State enumeration with one of the following values:
* NEW
A thread that has not yet started is in this state.
* RUNNABLE
A thread executing in the Java virtual machine is in this state.
* BLOCKED
A thread that is blocked waiting for a monitor lock is in this state.
* WAITING
A thread that is waiting indefinitely for another thread to perform a particular action is in this state.
* TIMED_WAITING
A thread that is waiting for another thread to perform an action for up to a specified waiting time is in this state.
* TERMINATED
A thread that has exited is in this state.
However I think it would be a better design to have a master thread which waits for the 3 children to finish, the master would then continue execution when the other 3 have finished.
You could also use the Executors object to create an ExecutorService thread pool. Then use the invokeAll method to run each of your threads and retrieve Futures. This will block until all have finished execution. Your other option would be to execute each one using the pool and then call awaitTermination to block until the pool is finished executing. Just be sure to call shutdown() when you're done adding tasks.
I would suggest looking at the javadoc for Thread class.
You have multiple mechanisms for thread manipulation.
Your main thread could join() the three threads serially, and would then not proceed until all three are done.
Poll the thread state of the spawned threads at intervals.
Put all of the spawned threads into a separate ThreadGroup and poll the activeCount() on the ThreadGroup and wait for it to get to 0.
Setup a custom callback or listener type of interface for inter-thread communication.
I'm sure there are plenty of other ways I'm still missing.
I guess the easiest way is to use ThreadPoolExecutor class.
It has a queue and you can set how many threads should be working in parallel.
It has nice callback methods:
Hook methods
This class provides protected overridable beforeExecute(java.lang.Thread, java.lang.Runnable) and afterExecute(java.lang.Runnable, java.lang.Throwable) methods that are called before and after execution of each task. These can be used to manipulate the execution environment; for example, reinitializing ThreadLocals, gathering statistics, or adding log entries. Additionally, method terminated() can be overridden to perform any special processing that needs to be done once the Executor has fully terminated.
which is exactly what we need. We will override afterExecute() to get callbacks after each thread is done and will override terminated() to know when all threads are done.
So here is what you should do
Create an executor:
private ThreadPoolExecutor executor;
private int NUMBER_OF_CORES = Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors();
private void initExecutor() {
executor = new ThreadPoolExecutor(
NUMBER_OF_CORES * 2, //core pool size
NUMBER_OF_CORES * 2, //max pool size
60L, //keep aive time
TimeUnit.SECONDS,
new LinkedBlockingQueue<Runnable>()
) {
#Override
protected void afterExecute(Runnable r, Throwable t) {
super.afterExecute(r, t);
//Yet another thread is finished:
informUiAboutProgress(executor.getCompletedTaskCount(), listOfUrisToProcess.size());
}
}
};
#Override
protected void terminated() {
super.terminated();
informUiThatWeAreDone();
}
}
And start your threads:
private void startTheWork(){
for (Uri uri : listOfUrisToProcess) {
executor.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
doSomeHeavyWork(uri);
}
});
}
executor.shutdown(); //call it when you won't add jobs anymore
}
Inside method informUiThatWeAreDone(); do whatever you need to do when all threads are done, for example, update UI.
NOTE: Don't forget about using synchronized methods since you do your work in parallel and BE VERY CAUTIOUS if you decide to call synchronized method from another synchronized method! This often leads to deadlocks
Hope this helps!
Here's a solution that is simple, short, easy to understand, and works perfectly for me. I needed to draw to the screen when another thread ends; but couldn't because the main thread has control of the screen. So:
(1) I created the global variable: boolean end1 = false; The thread sets it to true when ending. That is picked up in the mainthread by "postDelayed" loop, where it is responded to.
(2) My thread contains:
void myThread() {
end1 = false;
new CountDownTimer(((60000, 1000) { // milliseconds for onFinish, onTick
public void onFinish()
{
// do stuff here once at end of time.
end1 = true; // signal that the thread has ended.
}
public void onTick(long millisUntilFinished)
{
// do stuff here repeatedly.
}
}.start();
}
(3) Fortunately, "postDelayed" runs in the main thread, so that's where in check the other thread once each second. When the other thread ends, this can begin whatever we want to do next.
Handler h1 = new Handler();
private void checkThread() {
h1.postDelayed(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
if (end1)
// resond to the second thread ending here.
else
h1.postDelayed(this, 1000);
}
}, 1000);
}
(4) Finally, start the whole thing running somewhere in your code by calling:
void startThread()
{
myThread();
checkThread();
}
You could also use SwingWorker, which has built-in property change support. See addPropertyChangeListener() or the get() method for a state change listener example.
Look at the Java documentation for the Thread class. You can check the thread's state. If you put the three threads in member variables, then all three threads can read each other's states.
You have to be a bit careful, though, because you can cause race conditions between the threads. Just try to avoid complicated logic based on the state of the other threads. Definitely avoid multiple threads writing to the same variables.