We Keep Coding

Java multi threading - run threads run method only once in sequence

In my applications there are an n number of actions that must happen, one after the other in sequence, for the whole life of the program. Instead of creating methods which implement those actions and calling them in order in a while(true) loop, I decided to create one thread for each action, and make them execute their run method once, then wait until all the other threads have done the same, wait for its turn, and re-execute again, and so on...
To implement this mechanism I created a class called StatusHolder, which has a single field called threadTurn (which signifies which thread should execute), a method to read this value, and one for updating it. (Note, this class uses the Singleton design pattern)
package Test;
public class StatusHolder
{
private static volatile StatusHolder statusHolderInstance = null;
public static volatile int threadTurn = 0;
public synchronized static int getTurn()
{
return threadTurn;
}
public synchronized static void nextTurn()
{
System.out.print("Thread turn: " + threadTurn + " --> ");
if (threadTurn == 1)
{
threadTurn = 0;
}
else
{
threadTurn++;
}
System.out.println(threadTurn);
//Wake up all Threads waiting on this obj for the right turn to come
synchronized (getStatusHolder())
{
getStatusHolder().notifyAll();
}
}
public static synchronized StatusHolder getStatusHolder()
{//Returns reference to this object
if (statusHolderInstance == null)
{
statusHolderInstance = new StatusHolder();
}
return statusHolderInstance;
}
}
Then I have, let's say, two threads which must be execute in the way explained above, t1 and t2.
T1 class looks like this:
package Test;
public class ThreadOne implements Runnable
{
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
ThreadUtils.waitForTurn(0);
//Execute job, code's not here for simplicity
System.out.println("T1 executed");
StatusHolder.nextTurn();
}
}
}
And T2 its the same, just change 0 to 1 in waitForTurn(0) and T1 to T2 in the print statement.
And my main is the following:
package Test;
public class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
Thread t1 = new Thread(new ThreadOne());
Thread t2 = new Thread(new ThreadTwo());
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
So the run method goes like this:
At the start of the loop the thread looks if it can act by checking the turn value with the waitForTurn() call:
package Test;
public class ThreadUtils
{
public static void waitForTurn(int codeNumber)
{ //Wait until turn value is equal to the given number
synchronized (StatusHolder.getStatusHolder())
{
while (StatusHolder.getTurn() != codeNumber)
{
try
{
StatusHolder.getStatusHolder().wait();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
If the two values are equal, the thread executes, otherwise it waits on the StatusHolder object to be awaken from the nextTurn() call, because when the turn value changes all the threads are awaken so that they can check if the new turn value is the one they are waiting for so they can run.
Note thatnextTurn() cycles between 0 and 1: that is because in this scenario I just have two threads, the first executes when the turn flag is 0, and the second when its 1, and then 0 again and so on. I can easily change the number of turns by changing this value.
The problem: If I run it, all goes well and seems to work, but suddenly the output console stops flowing, even if the program doesn't crash at all. I tried to put a t1.join() and then a print in the main but that print never executes, this means that the threads never stop/dies, but instead they remain locked sometimes.
This looks to be even more evident if I put three threads: it stops even sooner than with two threads.
I'm relatively new to threads, so I might be missing something really stupid here...
EDIT: I'd prefer not to delete a thread and create a new one every time: creating and deleting thousands of objs every second seems a big work load for the garbage collector.
The reason why I'm using threads and not functions is because in my real application (this code is just simplified) at a certain turn there actually are multiple threads that must run (in parallel), for example: turn 1 one thread, turn 2 one thread, turn 3 30 threads, repeat. So I thought why not creating threads also for the single functions and make the whole think sequential.

This is a bad approach. Multiple threads allow you to execute tasks concurrently. Executing actions "one after the other in sequence" is a job for a single thread.
Just do something like this:
List<Runnable> tasks = new ArrayList<>();
tasks.add(new ThreadOne()); /* Pick better names for tasks */
tasks.add(new ThreadTwo());
...
ExecutorService worker = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
worker.submit(() -> {
while (!Thread.interrupted())
tasks.forEach(Runnable::run);
});
worker.shutdown();
Call worker.shutdownNow() when your application is cleanly exiting to stop these tasks at the end of their cycle.

you can use Semaphore class it's more simple
class t1 :
public class t1 implements Runnable{
private Semaphore s2;
private Semaphore s1;
public t1(Semaphore s1,Semaphore s2){
this.s1=s1;
this.s2=s2;
}
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
try {
s1.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(t1.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
//Execute job, code's not here for simplicity
System.out.println("T1 executed");
s2.release();
}
}
}
class t2:
public class t2 implements Runnable{
private Semaphore s2;
private Semaphore s1;
public t2(Semaphore s1,Semaphore s2){
this.s1=s1;
this.s2=s2;
}
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
try {
s2.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(t2.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
//Execute job, code's not here for simplicity
System.out.println("T2 executed");
s1.release();
}
}
}
class main:
public class Testing {
/**
* #param args the command line arguments
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
Semaphore s2=new Semaphore(0);
Semaphore s1=new Semaphore(1);
Thread th1 = new Thread(new t1(s1,s2));
Thread th2 = new Thread(new t2(s1,s2));
th1.start();
th2.start();
}}

Accessing a static method when initializing a static field of same class from another thread

I had a very peculiar problem happening to me that I could not solved except splitting up the Problem into two classes.
I would like to know if there is maybe a solution without splitting the class and I would more importantly like to know if anybody has an idea why the Java Engine is deciding to act the way it does.
The Problem:
I have a class with a static method, a static field and a constructor. The static field is initialized to an instance of the class itself. During the instance initialization I want to access the aformentioned static method. See the following code:
public class Simple {
public Simple() {
int count = 4;
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
System.out.println("Simple: " + Simple.isFlag());
}
}
private static Simple i = new Simple();
public static boolean isFlag() {
return true;
}
public static void run() {
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Simple.run();
}
}
This code runs absolutely fine. The output can be seen below:
Simple: true
Simple: true
Simple: true
Simple: true
The output is generated after I call the run() method because the stativ field i is only initialized after I access the first static member of that class.
I now want to do the exact same thing except with multiple threads. See here:
public class Parallel {
public Parallel() {
int count = 4;
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(4);
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
System.out.println("Parallel: " + Parallel.isFlag());
latch.countDown();
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
});
t.start();
}
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private static Parallel i = new Parallel();
public static boolean isFlag() {
return true;
}
public static void run() {
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Parallel.run();
}
}
This returns nothing. The main thread is stuck at latch.await();, while the other threads are stuck at Parallel.isFlag(). Edit: as shown by Jaims below, the threads don't even start at all.
This does not make any sense to me. Why is this not working, but the first case is? Essentially they are doing the same.
I would like to know how the Java Engine decides on when to wait and when not. Can this be changed somewhere in code?
Additionally, this has nothing to do with CountDownLatch but solely with the multithreading. Look at this final sample:
public class NonParallel {
public NonParallel() {
int count = 4;
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(4);
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
System.out.println("NonParallel: " + NonParallel.isFlag());
latch.countDown();
}
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private static NonParallel i = new NonParallel();
public static boolean isFlag() {
return true;
}
public static void run() {
}
}
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
NonParallel.run();
}
}
This works fine. The output is as following:
NonParallel: true
NonParallel: true
NonParallel: true
NonParallel: true
Edit: none of this applies when the object initlization is not part of the class initilization. This is purely about class initialization which only happens when using a static object as described in this question. See here:
public class NonStaticParallel {
public NonStaticParallel() {
int count = 4;
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(4);
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
System.out.println("NonStaticParallel: " + isFlag());
latch.countDown();
});
t.start();
}
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
public static boolean isFlag() {
return true;
}
public static void run() {
new NonStaticParallel();
}
}
This one works without any issue:
Parallel: true
Parallel: true
Parallel: true
Parallel: true
Answers:
Andreas provides an explanation as to what is going on.
Jaims is right in that the threads do not even start at all. This probably happens because they need the class to be initialized and they are immediately therefore blocked. (If we use runnables that are in their own classes instead of lambda or anonymous inner classes then they run normally, unless of course they acess the any static members of the class being initialized)
Yoshi provides a link and an excerpt from the the spec, and is therefore marked as the right answer, as this is what I wanted.

I tried your code and did two things:
First, I made the lambda a static inner class of Parallel ... just in case; this didn't change anything.
Since you commented that the threads are stuck on Parallel.isFlag() I tried replacing the call with just true... and it worked!
So, I did a little research and I found this, which sounds like a promising explanation for what is going on: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-12.html#jls-12.4.2
Specifically this part:
For each class or interface C, there is a unique initialization lock LC. The mapping from C to LC is left to the discretion of the Java Virtual Machine implementation. The procedure for initializing C is then as follows:
Synchronize on the initialization lock, LC, for C. This involves waiting until the current thread can acquire LC.
If the Class object for C indicates that initialization is in progress for C by some other thread, then release LC and block the current thread until informed that the in-progress initialization has completed, at which time repeat this step.
(Emphasis added.) So this would suggest the following:
Main thread started class initialization while evaluating private static Parallel i = new Parallel(); and started up the threads. Then it waited on latch.await(). Class object for Parallel should indicate that initialization is "in progress."
Started threads also try to reference a static member of Parallel. Each thread sees that initialization is in progress and decides to wait until the Main thread (which is now waiting on the threads to count down the latch) is done. Clearly this is a deadlock.

When you call run(), the current thread will begin class initialization. Any code referring to the class, e.g. call to isFlag() will also require class initialization.
In your Simple and NonParallel versions, the current thread is doing it all, and recursive class initialization is allowed (ignored actually), so isFlag() is executed, even though the class initialization is not yet complete.
In your Parallel version however, the call to isFlag() is done from another thread, and so that other thread has to wait for the class to be fully initialized. Since your constructor won't return until the threads run, and the threads can't run until the constructor returns and completes the class initialization, you have a deadlock.
Conclusion: You cannot perform class initialization code in parallel. Class initialization has to complete in a single thread.
You can start threads during class initialization if you want, but you cannot wait for them to complete (if they also access your class, and what would be the point of they didn't?).

Your threads are not started until the object is created correctly. Consider the following snippet:
public class Main {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Parallel.run();
}
}
class Parallel {
private static Parallel i = new Parallel();
public Parallel() {
try {
System.out.println("Inside constructor.");
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
System.out.println("Running thread.");
});
System.out.println("Starting thread.");
t.start();
}
System.out.println("Sleeping 2 seconds.");
Thread.sleep(2000);
System.out.println("Leaving constructor.");
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Parallel.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
public static void run() {
}
}
It'll produce the following output:
Inside constructor.
Starting thread.
Starting thread.
Starting thread.
Starting thread.
Sleeping 2 seconds.
Leaving constructor.
Running thread.
Running thread.
Running thread.
Running thread.
The threads are started within the constructor 4 times, as the output shows. It starts sleeping for 2 seconds, leaves the constructor and then runs your threads. Not like it takes 2 seconds for your threads to run.
So the core issue with your problem, is that you're calling latch.await(), but your threads never get the chance to actually run. Meaning the latch isn't decremented and simply keeps waiting. You could move the logic to your run() method, but I'm not really sure what you're trying to achieve in the first place. e.g.
public static void run() {
int count = 4;
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(4);
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
Thread t = new Thread(() -> {
try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
latch.countDown();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Parallel.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
});
System.out.println("Starting thread.");
t.start();
}
try {
System.out.println("Current count: " + latch.getCount());
latch.await();
System.out.println("Current count: " + latch.getCount());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}

Stop the running thread [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How interrupt/stop a thread in Java?
(8 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
public class Threadsample implements ActionListener {
HelloRunner hr = new HelloRunner();
Thread tr1 = new Thread(hr, "ThreadOne");
public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent ae)
{
Object source = ae.getSource();
if (source == b2){
hr.stopRunning();
}
if (source== b1){
tr1.start();
}
}
public class HelloRunner implements Runnable
{
private volatile boolean timeToQuit=false;
int i = 0;
public void run(){
while ( ! timeToQuit ){
System.Out.Println(i);
i++
}
}
public void stopRunning() {
timeToQuit=true;
}
}
}
How do I stop the running thread?

Thread interruption is the way to go:
// computingThread computing here
while (!Thread.currentThread.isInterrupted()){
System.Out.Println(i);
i++;
}
//.... in other part of your program, your main thread for instance:
public void stopComptuterThread() {
computingThread.interrupt(); // assuming computingThread reference reachable
}
Indeed, some people would use Thread.stop() method.. => here's why it would be very bad: https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/java/THI05-J.+Do+not+use+Thread.stop()+to+terminate+threads

Thread.stop is deprecated and should not be used.
Sample code is here:
pause-and-resume-thread

Your code will do. You can use build-in interrupt method, which does mostly the same, but also awakes thread with InterruptedException, if it sleeps/waits. It's good to know, that Java doesn't allow to stop threads "the hard way" (except for using .stop() method on thread, which is deprecated).
So process, in general, looks as following:
user requests thread to stop, either by setting a flag (your case) or by invoking .interrupt() method, which sets the flag .interrupted() and "shakes" the thread so it awakes if was sleeping/waiting.
it's thread resonsibility to stop it's execution. If you don't implement some logic handling interruption flag, thread could not react to external thread trying to interrupt it and will die after JVM ends it's execution.

Are you sure, that it's thread issue? Have you checked, if .actionPerformed actually calls .stopRunning method?
Anyway, try following code sample. It works for 100%.
class HelloRunner implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean timeToQuit = false;
int i = 0;
public void run() {
while (!timeToQuit) {
System.out.println(i);
i++;
}
}
public void stopRunning() {
timeToQuit = true;
}
}
public class MainRunner {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
HelloRunner hr = new HelloRunner();
Thread tr1 = new Thread(hr, "ThreadOne");
tr1.start();
Thread.sleep(100);
hr.stopRunning();
}
}

Identifying the threads accessing a static block of code?

I have a static function like:
public static void foo()
{
//code follows
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
//code follows
}
and multiple threads are calling this function concurrently. I have set the names of threads using
Thread.setName(String)
When i execute the code, the print statement will print the name of only one thread. How can i identify the names of all the threads currently executing the foo() function?
EDIT:
public class FooThread extends Thread
{
public FooThread(String name)
{
this.setName(name);
}
#Override public void run()
{
//do something
//do something
Main.foo();
}
}
//Main Class
public class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
for(int i=0;i<6;++i)
{
new FooThread("Thread"+i).start();
}
}
public static void foo()
{
//do something
while(true)
{
//do something
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
}

You're already showing the name of the Thread that is calling your code. Code that proves this:
public class Foo2 {
public static synchronized void foo() {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
int maxCount = 10;
for (int i = 0; i < maxCount; i++) {
Thread thread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
foo();
}
});
thread.setName("Thread " + i);
thread.start();
long sleepTime = 1000;;
try {
Thread.sleep(sleepTime);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
}
Return:
Thread 0
Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 3
Thread 4
Thread 5
Thread 6
Thread 7
Thread 8
Thread 9
Your problem lies in code not shown.
Either your method is being called by one and only one thread, or
Or you're giving all your threads the same name.
Again, for a complete solution as to what is actually wrong with your current set up, create and post an sscce similar to what I've posted above. For all we know you could be calling run() on your Threads, and until we can see and reproduce your problem, I don't think that we'll be able to fully understand it.
EDIT
Regarding your SSCCE: Compare the results of the two methods below, foo1() and foo2()
class FooThread extends Thread {
public FooThread(String name) {
this.setName(name);
}
#Override
public void run() {
// do something
// do something
Main.foo1(); // !! Swap comments
// Main.foo2(); // !! Swap comments
}
}
// Main Class
public class Main {
private static final long SLEEP_TIME = 4;
public static void main(String[] args) {
for (int i = 0; i < 6; ++i) {
new FooThread("Thread" + i).start();
}
}
public static void foo1() {
// do something
while (true) {
// do something
synchronized (Main.class) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
try {
Thread.sleep(SLEEP_TIME);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
}
public static void foo2() {
while (true) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
}
If your while loop isn't so tight, but yields the CPU with say a short Thread.sleep, you'll see more of the different threads sharing foo in closer proximity.
But again, your code also proves that your Thread names *are8 being displayed, but that you're only seeing one name likely because that thread is hogging the CPU.

Another option is to get all the Thread stacks and look for all the threads in the foo() This has the benefit of no overhead or extra code, except to capture the information you want.
BTW: Can you make it clearer why do you need this information as I suspect there is a better way to do what you really want?

If you only want to get the count of threads, use a thread-safe counter to store number of threads. Increase the counter when foo() begins, and decrease the counter when foo() exits.
If you need to get the names, use a hash set (or list if there are duplicates of thread names) to store the names: Add the name when foo() begins, and remove the name when foo() exits. Make sure the access to hash set is thread safe. You also need another method to print out the content of the hash set, so you can call it any time to see what are the name of threads executing foo().

You can put the name into a list when the method starts (in a synchronized block) and remove it at the end again.
List allTheNames = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<String>());
public void foo() {
allTheNames.add(Thread.currentThread().getName());
// now allTheNames contains all the names of all threads currently in this method.
System.out.println(allTheNames.toString());
allTheNames.remove(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
Of course, if you change the name of the thread in the meantime that wont work, but why would you do so?
You could also store the Thread itself if you need other informations that the name.

threads and synchronization example

I am new to Java. Below is a code as an example of threads and synchronization.
public class A implements Runnable{
public synchronized void run(){
/*
some code here
*/
}
}
public class B {
public static void main(String[] args){
A obj1 = new A();
Thread t = new Thread(obj1);
A obj2 = obj1;
Thread t1 = new Thread(obj2);
t.start();
t1.start();
}
}
Now will this two threads block each other for same lock or will they get two different locks?
Thank you!!

(First, please stick to the Java coding conventions. A class name should always start with a capital letter. No exceptions.)
Only one of the threads will execute the run() method at a time.
The A.run() method is an instance method, and it is declared as synchronized. These two facts mean that it will acquire a lock on this (i.e. the instance of A) before entering the method body, and release it on exiting. In short, run() locks this.
So in your main program you are creating a single A instance and passing it as the target object for two threads. They both need to execute the run() method on the same object, and this cannot happen at the same time ... by the reasoning of the previous paragraph.
This does not necessarily mean that one thread will block the other. It is also possible that the first thread to be started will have completed its run() call before the second thread is ready to try the call. But we can say ... definitively ... that the two threads' calls to run() will NOT overlap in time.

They will block each other, since they're both synchronized on the same object.
For example, this program:
public class Foo
{
public static void main(final String... args)
{
final Runnable r =
new Runnable()
{
public synchronized void run()
{
for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
System.out.println(i);
try
{ Thread.sleep(1000L); }
catch(final InterruptedException ie)
{ throw new RuntimeException(ie); }
}
}
};
new Thread(r).start();
new Thread(r).start();
}
}
will print 0 through 9, pausing for a second after number, and then do it again. It will not interlace the two sets of numbers.

Synchronization forces the threads to run in order (block).
Synchronization, by definition, means that a method is run "one at a time". The first thread to be executed (likely "t") will thus complete before the 2nd thread (probably "t1")'s run() method is entered.
To test the synchronization effects:
The best experiment to run will be to fill the run() method with a call to
Thread.sleep(1000);
Then run your code with, and without the "synchronized" keyword, and time the programs execution .

The output of this code is getting intermixing of thread1 and thread0
package oopd;
/**
*
* #author mani deepak
*/
public class Oopd {
/**
* #param args the command line arguments
*/
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// TODO code application logic here
Deepak d,d1;
d=new Deepak();
d1=new Deepak();
Thread t,t1;
t=new Thread(d);
t1=new Thread(d1);
t.start();
t1.start();
}
}
class Deepak implements Runnable
{
#Override
public synchronized void run()
{
String s=Thread.currentThread().getName();
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(100);
}
catch(Exception e)
{
}
System.out.println(s+" "+i);
}
}
}