Can anyone explain this program on inter-thread communication?
// A correct implementation of a producer and consumer.
class Q {
int n;
boolean valueSet = false;
synchronized int get() {
while(!valueSet)
try {
wait();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("InterruptedException caught");
}
System.out.println("Got: " + n);
valueSet = false;
notify();
return n;
}
synchronized void put(int n) {
while(valueSet)
try {
wait();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("InterruptedException caught");
}
this.n = n;
valueSet = true;
System.out.println("Put: " + n);
notify();
}
}
class Producer implements Runnable {
Q q;
Producer(Q q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Producer").start();
}
public void run() {
int i = 0;
while(true) {
q.put(i++);
}
}
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
Q q;
Consumer(Q q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Consumer").start();
}
public void run() {
while(true) {
q.get();
}
}
}
class PCFixed {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Q q = new Q();
new Producer(q);
new Consumer(q);
System.out.println("Press Control-C to stop.");
}
}
Output
Put: 1
Got: 1
Put: 2
Got: 2
Put: 3
Got: 3
Put: 4
Got: 4
......
It is very confusing as far as I am concerned, especially the put and get methods where notify() and wait() are used. Please also explain why a boolean value is used.
So there are 2 threads. Qne is setting values on this Q data structure and the other is reading them. Q uses a boolean flag to tell whether a new value is present, the flag gets cleared once an existing value is read.
Q.get uses wait to block until a new value is available to read. Once it's read the new value it sets the flag back to false.
Q.put waits until the other queue has read the new value before setting it to a new value, then lets the other thread know by setting the boolean flag and calling notify.
Remember that wait gives up the lock so the other thread can acquire it.
The boolean flag is needed because a thread may stop waiting without having been notified. Just because a thread woke up doesn't mean it got a notification. Also, even if the thread gets notified, since the thread gave up the lock when it started to wait, the current state of things is unknown (in general there are multithreaded programs where another thread might sneak in and snag something between the time a thread is notified and the time it can regain the lock) so the thread has to re-test the condition again once it has the lock.
Constructs like wait and notify are building blocks for large concurrent programs, so some things may not make as much sense in a small example with only two threads.
See basically its a multithreaded communication with synchronized methods.
simple rquirement here is
1)first allow to write for producer.
2)next allow to read for consumer.
that is controlled using boolean flag valueSet.
in case of producer means put method of Q, logic works this way
if the valueSet is is true means already write is done then ask put method called thread to wait. so it goes to wait until someone calls notify.
ofcourse it wont continue further logic and keeps on waiting for someone to call notify.
coming to reader means get() of Q,
if the valueSet is is false means writter is executing then ask get method called thread to wait. so it goes to wait until someone calls notify.
so once writer completes the execution it calls notify at the end and now reader threads awake and starts reading.
Related
I'm looking at some notify/wait examples and came across this one. I understand a synchronized block essentially defines a critical section, but doesn't this present a race condition? Nothing specifies which synchronized block is entered first.
public class ThreadA {
public static void main(String[] args){
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
synchronized(b){
try{
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(this){
for(int i=0; i<100 ; i++){
total += i;
}
notify();
}
}
}
Output per website:
Waiting for b to complete...
Total is: 4950
Right, it's not guaranteed which thread will execute first. The thread b could do its notification before the main thread ever starts to wait.
In addition to that, a thread can return from wait without having been notified, so setting a flag and checking it before entering the wait technically isn't good enough. You could rewrite it to something like
public class ThreadA {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
synchronized(b){
while (!b.isDone()) {
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();
}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
private boolean done = false;
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(this){
for(int i=0; i<100 ; i++){
total += i;
}
done = true;
notify();
}
}
public boolean isDone() {return done;}
}
so that the main thread will wait until b is done with its calculation, regardless who starts first.
By the way, the API documentation recommends you not synchronize on threads. The JDK synchronizes on threads to implement Thread#join. A thread that terminates sends a notifyAll that anything joining on it receives. If you were to call notify or notifyAll from a thread you've acquired the lock on, something joining on it could return early. One side effect of this here is that if you remove the notify the code works the same way.
Yes, it's a race condition. Nothing prevents ThreadB from starting, entering its run method, and synchronizing on itself prior to ThreadA from entering its synchronized block (thus waiting indefinitely). However, it's very unlikely to ever happen, considering the time it takes for a new thread to begin execution.
The easiest, and most recommended way to handle this type of situation is to not write your own implementation, but opt to use a callable/future provided by an Executor.
To fix this particular case without following standards:
Set a boolean 'finished' value set at the end of ThreadB's synchronized block.
If the boolean 'finished' is true after entering the synchronized block, then you should not call wait.
Yes - it is a race as to which thread enters which synchronized block first. For most scenarios of the race, the output and the answer will be the same. For one, however, the program will deadlock:
Main starts calls b.start() and immediately schedules out.
Thread B starts, enters synchronized, calls notify().
Main enters its synchronized block, calls wait()
In this case, main will wait forever since thread b called notify before main blocked on wait().
That said, this is unlikely - but with all threading you should conclude that it will happen and then at the worst possible time.
I am trying to achieve this: Created two different threads, one prints odd numbers, one prints even numbers. Once one thread prints a number, it has to wait for the other thread and so on, that is one-after-other.
To achieve this, i am using synchronized block along with wait() and notify().
I am creating a class whose's object will be used to pass to synchronized block in both the threads.
Here is the code:
--> This is used object which will be passed to synchronized block.
package com.vipin.multithread.variousdemos;
public class SyncObject {
public SyncObject () {
}
}
Odd Thread:
package com.vipin.multithread.variousdemos;
public class OddThread implements Runnable {
private Thread t;
int index=0;
SyncObject so=null;
int odd_nums[] = {1,3,5,7,9};
public OddThread(SyncObject so) {
t = new Thread(this,"Odd Thread");
this.so = so;
t.start();
}
public Thread getThreadInstance() {
return t;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized(so) {
System.out.println("Odd num is --->" + odd_nums[index]);
try {
so.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
index++;
so.notify();
if(index>=5) {
return;
}
}
}
}
}
Even Thread: UPDATE
package com.vipin.multithread.variousdemos;
public class EvenThread implements Runnable {
private Thread t;
int index=0;
SyncObject so=null;
int even_nums[] = {2,4,6,8,10};
public EvenThread(SyncObject so) {
t = new Thread(this, "Even thread");
this.so = so;
t.start();
}
public Thread getThreadInstance() {
return t;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
synchronized(so) {
System.out.println("Even num is --->" + even_nums[index]);
so.notify(); <-- Here we are notifying.
try {
so.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
index++;
//so.notify(); <-- commented out.
if(index>=5) {
break;
}
}
}
}
}
Main Application:
package com.vipin.multithread.variousdemos;
public class EvenOddDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
SyncObject so = new SyncObject();
OddThread ot = new OddThread(so);
EvenThread et = new EvenThread(so);
System.out.println("\nIn main thread");
Thread.sleep(1000000000);
System.out.println("Exiting main thread...");
}
}
---> As seen in the code, I am creating two threads to print even and odd numbers. I am using synchronized block, and passing object of type ==> SyncObject.
SyncObject I am passing as argument to these different threads in main.
However, this programs halts, i.e stuck only first statement gets executed, and then it waits forever:
Here is the output:
Odd num is --->1
In main thread
Even num is --->2
I am not able to understand why this program waits for ever, I am using SAME object on which we are invoking synchronized(), wait() and notify(). As per my understanding, it should work, not sure why this is not working.
Any clues as to why this is waiting forever.
UPDATE:
I did some changes in the code, UPDATE and it works fine.
I still have some doubt. Does notify() be called by the thread even if it has not locked the monitor, like in my case after i updated the code.
Sequence of events:
Odd thread gets executed first, then it calls wait() <-- it releases the monitor and now in sleep mode.
Even thread runs, prints msg, and calls notify() <-- here i am not having clear understanding.
When Even thread calls notify(), at that point it has the monitor, so when it calls notify(), does is still own the monitor?
Now, after Even thread calls notify(), then Odd thread gets notified, and hence it starts execution from the point it was sleeping. It is doing some execution and calls notify(), at that points I presume Odd thread is NOT owning the monitor, it calls notify(). So, my question is, does notify() work same whether or not the thread owns the monitor?
It is only when one do the code, one really understands this. I read book and i felt i understood everything, and seems i am back to square one!
The problem here is simply that both threads go straight into wait. Thread 1 gets so, prints value then waits. Thread 2 then gets so, prints value then waits. So both are sleeping away, since nobody is there to notify them. So, a simple fix would be to do so.notify(), right before so.wait(). Then they're not infinitely waiting.
EDIT
Odd thread starts, executes & then waits. Then even thread starts, executes, notifies & then waits. Even thread holds the lock over the monitor until it goes into wait.
When the even thread called on notify, the odd thread awakens & polls for the lock. Once the even thread goes into wait (& releases the lock), then the odd thread can obtain the lock.
If the even thread had not called on notify, then the odd thread would continue to sleep. The even thread would have gone to wait & released the lock. No thread is polling or attempting to obtain the lock, hence the program remains in the suspended state.
The documentation also provides a similar explanation. I hope that clears your doubts.
I was trying to implement something similar to Java's bounded BlockingQueue interface using Java synchronization "primitives" (synchronized, wait(), notify()) when I stumbled upon some behavior I don't understand.
I create a queue capable of storing 1 element, create two threads that wait to fetch a value from the queue, start them, then try to put two values into the queue in a synchronized block in the main thread. Most of the time it works, but sometimes the two threads waiting for a value start seemingly waking up each other and not letting the main thread enter the synchronized block.
Here's my (simplified) code:
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.Queue;
public class LivelockDemo {
private static final int MANY_RUNS = 10000;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
for (int i = 0; i < MANY_RUNS; i++) { // to increase the probability
final MyBoundedBlockingQueue ctr = new MyBoundedBlockingQueue(1);
Thread t1 = createObserver(ctr, i + ":1");
Thread t2 = createObserver(ctr, i + ":2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
System.out.println(i + ":0 ready to enter synchronized block");
synchronized (ctr) {
System.out.println(i + ":0 entered synchronized block");
ctr.addWhenHasSpace("hello");
ctr.addWhenHasSpace("world");
}
t1.join();
t2.join();
System.out.println();
}
}
public static class MyBoundedBlockingQueue {
private Queue<Object> lst = new LinkedList<Object>();;
private int limit;
private MyBoundedBlockingQueue(int limit) {
this.limit = limit;
}
public synchronized void addWhenHasSpace(Object obj) throws InterruptedException {
boolean printed = false;
while (lst.size() >= limit) {
printed = __heartbeat(':', printed);
notify();
wait();
}
lst.offer(obj);
notify();
}
// waits until something has been set and then returns it
public synchronized Object getWhenNotEmpty() throws InterruptedException {
boolean printed = false;
while (lst.isEmpty()) {
printed = __heartbeat('.', printed); // show progress
notify();
wait();
}
Object result = lst.poll();
notify();
return result;
}
// just to show progress of waiting threads in a reasonable manner
private static boolean __heartbeat(char c, boolean printed) {
long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (now % 1000 == 0) {
System.out.print(c);
printed = true;
} else if (printed) {
System.out.println();
printed = false;
}
return printed;
}
}
private static Thread createObserver(final MyBoundedBlockingQueue ctr,
final String name) {
return new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println(name + ": saw " + ctr.getWhenNotEmpty());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace(System.err);
}
}
}, name);
}
}
Here's what I see when it "blocks":
(skipped a lot)
85:0 ready to enter synchronized block
85:0 entered synchronized block
85:2: saw hello
85:1: saw world
86:0 ready to enter synchronized block
86:0 entered synchronized block
86:2: saw hello
86:1: saw world
87:0 ready to enter synchronized block
............................................
..........................................................................
..................................................................................
(goes "forever")
However, if I change the notify() calls inside the while(...) loops of addWhenHasSpace and getWhenNotEmpty methods to notifyAll(), it "always" passes.
My question is this: why does the behavior vary between notify() and notifyAll() methods in this case, and also why is the behavior of notify() the way it is?
I would expect both methods to behave in the same way in this case (two threads WAITING, one BLOCKED), because:
it seems to me that in this case notifyAll() would only wake up the other thread, same as notify();
it looks like the choice of the method which wakes up a thread affects how the thread that is woken up (and becomes RUNNABLE I guess) and the main thread (that has been BLOCKED) later compete for the lock — not something I would expect from the javadoc as well as searching the internet on the topic.
Or maybe I'm doing something wrong altogether?
Without looking too deeply into your code, I can see that you are using a single condition variable to implement a queue with one producer and more than one consumer. That's a recipe for trouble: If there's only one condition variable, then when a consumer calls notify(), there's no way of knowing whether it will wake the producer or wake the other consumer.
There are two ways out of that trap: The simplest is to always use notifyAll().
The other way is to stop using synchronized, wait(), and notify(), and instead use the facilities in java.util.concurrent.locks.
A single ReentrantLock object can give you two (or more) condition variables. Use one exclusively for the producer to notify the consumers, and use the other exclusively for the consumers to notify the producer.
Note: The names change when you switch to using ReentrantLocks: o.wait() becomes c.await(), and o.notify() becomes c.signal().
There appears to be some kind of fairness/barging going on using intrinsic locking - probably due to some optimization. I am guessing, that the native code checks to see if the current thread has notified the monitor it is about to wait on and allows it to win.
Replace the synchronized with ReentrantLock and it should work as you expect it. The different here is how the ReentrantLock handles waiters of a lock it has notified on.
Update:
Interesting find here. What you are seeing is a race between the main thread entering
synchronized (ctr) {
System.out.println(i + ":0 entered synchronized block");
ctr.addWhenHasSpace("hello");
ctr.addWhenHasSpace("world");
}
while the other two thread enter their respective synchronized regions. If the main thread does not get into its sync region before at least one of the two, you will experience this live-lock output you are describing.
What appears to be happening is that if both the two consumer threads hit the sync block first they will ping-pong with each other for notify and wait. It may be the case the JVM gives threads that are waiting priority to the monitor while threads are blocked.
Hello I'm having problems understand this code that is presented here, this code shows an example of how to correctly implement wait() and notify() into a thread.
Here's the code:
class Q {
int n;
boolean valueSet = false;
synchronized int get() {
if(!valueSet)
try {
wait();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("InterruptedException caught");
}
System.out.println("Got: " + n);
valueSet = false;
notify();
return n;
}
synchronized void put(int n) {
if(valueSet)
try {
wait();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("InterruptedException caught");
}
this.n = n;
valueSet = true;
System.out.println("Put: " + n);
notify();
}
}
class Producer implements Runnable {
Q q;
Producer(Q q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Producer").start();
}
public void run() {
int i = 0;
while(true) {
q.put(i++);
}
}
}
class Consumer implements Runnable {
Q q;
Consumer(Q q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Consumer").start();
}
public void run() {
while(true) {
q.get();
}
}
}
class PCFixed {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Q q = new Q();
new Producer(q);
new Consumer(q);
System.out.println("Press Control-C to stop.");
}
}
I have a hard time understanding the usage of a boolean here, if the boolean variable stays, the the code will print correctly.
However if I take away the boolean, then it will ONLY print "Press Control-C to stop". Why is that?
Why is the boolean so important here and what is its usage?
thanks.
The class Q implements a container for one single integer stored in n. This container is used pass that value from the Producer to the Consumer. Since only one value can be kept at a time by the container, both Producer and Consumer must know somehow if the Container is full or not. The boolean value valueSet is this indicator.
If set to true, the container is full, and therefore Producer must wait until it's emptied before filling it again. Likewise, if valueSet is false, the Consumer may not try to retrieve the content of the Q instance until there is something to retrieve.
By removing the boolean (and the tests for its state), you put both Producer and Consumer threads in wait state for a notification (which will likely never happen, since only them were able to generate it in the code), hence the only message appearing is the one from the main thread.
A very important point: as hinted by Freedom_Ben in his own answer, this code works because both get and put methods are made synchronised, meaning that they will block all other threads trying to access the object through synchronized calls during their execution, making these calls atomic with regard to each other. This point is important since it pretty much guarantee that read and write on both valueSet and n are made atomically. Without that property set on both methods, the notification from put might occur after Consumer has checked valueSet but before it calls wait. Depending on the implementation of the notification mechanism (*), this could lead to Consumer missing the notification and going into wait state, even though there's a value in Q.
With the synchronized attribute on these method, we are assured that these calls will behave as intended.
synchronized keyword
notify and wait methods
(*) The wait and notifiy code can be implemented in two ways:
the quick way is to have notify simply check if a thread is waiting, and wake it up if so, or do nothing otherwise. This is the scenario leading to a race condition without properly synchronized method calls.
the more correct way is to use a dedicated semaphore initialized at 0, and alias the notifiy and wait to the increment (aka release) and decrement (aka acquire) operations on the semaphore respectively.
The name of the boolean is valueSet. When it is true, it means that a value has been set. When it is false, it means that a value has not been set. Think of the boolean as a flag, and when it is true there is data to be consumed (the flag is up), when it is false there is no data to be consumed (the flag is down).
The producer thread will set a value only if the flag is false. If it is true, it will wait to be notified by the consumer.
The consumer thread will only read the value if the flag is true. If it is false, it will wait to be notified by the producer.
Do you have access to and experience with a debugger? Stepping through the two threads and seeing how they interact with each other might help you. If you haven't used a debugger before, multithreading might not be the ideal learning scenario.
It looks like the boolean is being used to avoid waiting if the last value hasn't yet been processed. For example, in the put method we are skipping the wait() if valueSet is true, because that means that get() has not yet run since the last time we updated the value of this.n. if we wait() each time regardless of the boolean, chances of a deadlock are pretty good, where both threads are waiting and none will notify.
This is a reason why I don't like applying the synchronized keyword to methods. It can be confusing as to which object is being used as the mutex. I prefer this style because it is more clear which resource is being waited for. I also find that this style discourages lazyiness by doing work under a mutex that doesn't need to be synchronized. It is all personal preference though:
void get(int n){
synchronized(this){
// do the work
}
}
void put(int n){
synchronized(this){
// do the work
}
}
I have a thread that calls the wait method and can only be awoken when the notify method called from some other class:
class ThreadA {
public static void main(String [] args) {
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
synchronized(b) {
try {
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
for(int i=0;i<100;i++) {
total += i;
}
notify();
}
}
}
In the above code if the synchronized block in main, if the ThreadA does not execute first and instead the other synchronization block executing and completes to completion, then ThreadA executes its synchronized block and calls wait, what is going to happen and how it will be notified again?
If ThreadB gets through its synchronized block before ThreadA does, then ThreadA will block indefinitely on the call to wait. It won't somehow be notified that the other thread has already completed.
The problem is that you're trying to use wait and notify in ways that they are not designed to be used. Usually, wait and notify are used to have one thread wait until some condition is true, and then to have another thread signal that the condition may have become true. For example, they're often used as follows:
/* Producer */
synchronized (obj) {
/* Make resource available. */
obj.notify();
}
/* Consumer */
synchronized (obj) {
while (/* resource not available */)
obj.wait();
/* Consume the resource. */
}
The reason that the above code works is that it doesn't matter which thread runs first. If the producer thread creates a resource and no one is waiting on obj, then when the consumer runs it will enter the while loop, notice that the resource has been produced, and then skip the call to wait. It can then consume the resource. If, on the other hand, the consumer runs first, it will notice in the while loop that the resource is not yet available and will wait for some other object to notify it. The other thread can then run, produce the resource, and notify the consumer thread that the resource is available. Once the original thread is awoken, it will notice that the condition of the loop is no longer true and will consume the resource.
More generally, Java suggests that you always call wait in a loop because of spurious notifications in which a thread can wake up from a call to wait without ever being notified of anything. Using the above pattern can prevent this.
In your particular instance, if you want to ensure that ThreadB has finished running before ThreadA executes, you may want to use Thread.join(), which explicitly blocks the calling thread until some other thread executes. More generally, you may want to look into some of the other synchronization primitives provided by Java, as they often are much easier to use than wait and notify.
You could loop and wait until the total has been computed :
synchronized(b) {
while (total == 0) {
b.wait();
}
}
You could also use a higher-level abstraction like a CountDownLatch.
It is possible for ThreadB's run method to complete before you enter the synchronized block in ThreadA.main. In that situation, since the notify call has happened before you started waiting, ThreadA will block forever on the wait call.
A simple workaround would be to grab the lock on b in main before you start the second thread to ensure the wait happens first.
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
synchronized(b) {
b.start();
...
b.wait();
}
You probably want to use a java.util.concurrent.Semaphore for this.
1) You need to add some flag that is used to communicate between the threads, so that B can signal to A when it is finished. A simple boolean variable is fine, as long as it is only read and written within the synchronized blocks.
synchronized(this) {
for(int i=0;i<100;i++) {
total += i;
}
isDone = true;
notify();
}
2) A needs to loop while waiting. So if your boolean variable was called isDone, and was set to true by threadB, then threadA should have some code like this:
synchronized(b) {
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
while( ! isDone ) b.wait();
}
In this particular case, there's actually no reason to have the synchronized block in A - since threadB doesn't do anything after it finishes running, and A doesn't do anything except wait for B, threadA could simply call b.join() to block until it finishes. I assume that your actual use case is more complex than this.
Why to make that complex ? Just use join() function of Thread.
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
b.join();
// now print b.total
do not synchronized(thread), don't do it, do not synchronized(thread).. repat: no synchronized(thread) :)
And if you need to wait for the thread 'b' to finish, use b.join(), now your code is free to hang in b.wait()
--
Hopefully the source below can grant you an insight while sync(thread)/notify() I consider bad practice. (cut-cut)
Enjoy
To proceeed below you make sure you have accepted Oracle's License aggreement, found there:
https://cds.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/CDS-CDS_Developer-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewLicense-Start?LicenseUUID=7HeJ_hCwhb4AAAEtmC8ADqmR&ProductUUID=pGqJ_hCwj_AAAAEtB8oADqmS&cnum=&evsref=&sln=
Java sources (incl), called in init(), effectively called by any java c-tor, since java 1.5
private static **synchronized int** nextThreadNum() {
return threadInitNumber++;
}
//join (the method w/ nanos only increase millis by one, if nanos>500000, millis==0 and nanos>0
public final **synchronized** void join(long millis)
throws InterruptedException {
long base = System.currentTimeMillis();
long now = 0;
if (millis < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("timeout value is negative");
}
if (millis == 0) {
while (isAlive()) {
wait(0);
}
} else {
while (isAlive()) {
long delay = millis - now;
if (delay <= 0) {
break;
}
wait(delay);
now = System.currentTimeMillis() - base;
}
}
}
public **synchronized** void start() {
/**
* This method is not invoked for the main method thread or "system"
* group threads created/set up by the VM. Any new functionality added
* to this method in the future may have to also be added to the VM.
*
* A zero status value corresponds to state "NEW".
*/
if (threadStatus != 0)
throw new IllegalThreadStateException();
group.add(this);
start0();
if (stopBeforeStart) {
stop0(throwableFromStop);
}
}
//stop1 is called after stop ensures proper priviledges
private final **synchronized** void stop1(Throwable th) {
SecurityManager security = System.getSecurityManager();
if (security != null) {
checkAccess();
if ((this != Thread.currentThread()) ||
(!(th instanceof ThreadDeath))) {
security.checkPermission(SecurityConstants.STOP_THREAD_PERMISSION);
}
}
// A zero status value corresponds to "NEW"
if (threadStatus != 0) {
resume(); // Wake up thread if it was suspended; no-op otherwise
stop0(th);
} else {
// Must do the null arg check that the VM would do with stop0
if (th == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
// Remember this stop attempt for if/when start is used
stopBeforeStart = true;
throwableFromStop = th;
}
}