We Keep Coding

Java: calling a method from the main thread by signaling in some way from another thread

I have an application with 2 threads (the main and another thread t1) which share a volatile variable myVar. Any ideas on how to make the main thread to call a method myMethod by signaling in some way from t1 ?
I implemented it by using ChangeListener and myMethod is called when myVar changes, BUT the method is called from t1, and not from the main thread (note: I need to call this method from the main thread because this is a call to a JavaScript code from Java, so for a security reason only the main thread can do so). Thanks in advance.

You would have to have your main thread spin in a loop on some scalar, I would recommend one of the Atomics that java provides (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/atomic/package-summary.html), but you could use volatile if you wanted for this I think.
Each thread can only run sequentially - it's just the way computing works. The way you will handle this, is when the main thread spins in some sort of loop, you eventually check to see if this scalar of yours has been set, and when it has, you want unset the variable and execute your JavaScript. In this particular piece of your code, I think the Atomics have an advantage over the volatile with the use of the compareAndSet operations because using volatile can mess you up a bit between threads if you are trying to check the value in one operation and then set it again in another operation which gives the other thread enough time to set it again - meaning you may miss a call to your JS because the other thread set the variable between the main thread checking it and setting it (although the use of volatile vs Atomics may be interpreted as my opinion).
//main thread
AtomicBoolean foo = new AtomicBoolean(false);
while (...somecondition...){
if(foo.compareAndSet(true, false)){
//execute JS
}
//do some other work
}
and in your T1 thread, just call foo.set(true).
If you expect main to call your JS for each time T1 sets foo to true, then you will have to block in T1 until main has unset foo, or use an AtomicInteger to count how many times T1 has set foo - depending on your needs.

Since both tread sharing the same instance of myVar, you can make both thread to synchronize on the shared variable. Have main to wait on myVar notification before executing myMethod. Later, t1 can notify through variable myVar, and the waiting thread can continue and proceed with the method call.
The following snippet fully demonstrated the idea
public class MainPlay {
public static void main(String[] args) {
MainPlay mp = new MainPlay();
mp.execute();
}
public void execute() {
Thread main = new Thread(mainRunnable, "main");
Thread t1 = new Thread(t1Runnable, "t1");
main.start();
t1.start();
}
public Object myVar = new Object();
public void myMethod() {
System.out.println("MyMethodInfoked.");
}
public Runnable t1Runnable = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronized(myVar) {
try {
System.out.println("[t1] sleep for 1 sec");
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.println("[t1] Notifying myVar so Main can invoke myMethod");
myVar.notify();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// interupted.
}
}
}
};
public Runnable mainRunnable = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronized(myVar) {
try {
System.out.println("[main] Waiting for t1 to notify...");
myVar.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// interrupted.
}
System.out.println("[main] executing main method");
myMethod();
}
}
};
}
And the output is
[main] Waiting for t1 to notify...
[t1] sleep for 1 sec
[t1] Notifying sharedObject so Main can invoke myMethod
[main] executing main method
MyMethodInfoked.

You could use wait/notify blocks to prevent the main thread from continuing until signalled to do so.
static Main main = // ...
static boolean signal = false;
// t1:
// Do work
signal = true;
synchronized (main) {
main.notify();
}
// main:
synchronized (main) {
while (!signal) {
main.wait();
}
}
myMethod();

In case the main thread has nothing else to do, the approach proposed by #searchengine27 results in unnecessary processor load generated by this thread.
So instead going with some AtomicXXX class it would be better to use some of the blocking queues which allow writing of data from one thread (with put()) and consumption of that data by the other. The main queue would block (by calling take() method) if such a queue is empty not using any CPU resources.

Run a class instance as a thread by itself

I have this piece of code:
Timeout s = new Timeout();
Timer timer = new Timer();
timer.schedule(s, 1000L); // fires after 1 second
How can I launch the following piece of code as a thread by itself? Would I need to pass the timer and Timeout to a Runnable and then start it? What happens if the thread's Run() ends before the timer is fired?
I am thinking of doing this instead:
ScheduledExecutorService ses = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
Timeout s = new Timeout(); // Timeout is a runnable
ses.schedule(s, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
but how do I exit the thread after the timeout? I run out of thread after a while
Thanks

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but I'll give it a shot.
How can I launch the following piece of code as a thread by itself?
In short...
Timeout.java
public class Timeout extends TimerTask {
boolean isDone = false;
#Override
public void run() {
// TODO something
synchronized(this) {
isDone=true;
this.notifyAll();
}
}
public synchronized void join() throws InterruptedException {
while(!this.isDone)
this.wait();
}
}
TimeoutRunner.java
public class TimerRunner implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
Timeout timeout = new Timeout();
Timer timer = new Timer();
timer.schedule(timeout, 1000L);
try {
timeout.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
timer.cancel();
}
}
}
Run the TimeoutRunner using:
new Thread(new TimeoutRunner()).start();
The join method will block the thread until the timeout task has completed execution. At that time you can close the Timer. This is, however, a lot of thread creation, and IMO bad programming.
When you create a Timer instance, a thread is created to execute the Timeout#run() method. The timer has it's own run method that blocks until your task is ready for execution. After the given timeout period elapses, the timer unblocks and executes your timeout.
Your TimeoutRunner thread will block until the timeout operation completes. Only then can this thread die.
The Timer class is very limited. You need to create a new instance for every task. In my option, the ScheduledExecutorService is a better option. Keep the ScheduledExecutorService open for as long as you plan on executing tasks. If you need something like a scheduled cached thread pool, feel free to use this class from one of my open-source projects (Scheduler). This works great with a cached thread pool.

Java for newbies - DeadLock imitation

I'm trying to write very simple program which will imitate simple DeadLock, where Thread A waits for Resource A locked by Thread B and Thread B waits for Resource B locked by Thread A.
Here is my code:
//it will be my Shared resource
public class Account {
private float amount;
public void debit(double amount){
this.amount-=amount;
}
public void credit(double amount){
this.amount+=amount;
}
}
This is my runnable which performs Operation on the resource above:
public class BankTransaction implements Runnable {
Account fromAccount,toAccount;
float ammount;
public BankTransaction(Account fromAccount, Account toAccount,float ammount){
this.fromAccount = fromAccount;
this.toAccount = toAccount;
this.ammount = ammount;
}
private void transferMoney(){
synchronized(fromAccount){
synchronized(toAccount){
fromAccount.debit(ammount);
toAccount.credit(ammount);
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Current Transaction Completed!!!");
}
}
}
#Override
public void run() {
transferMoney();
}
}
and finally my main class:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Account a = new Account();
Account b = new Account();
Thread thread1 = new Thread(new BankTransaction(a,b,500));
Thread thread2 = new Thread(new BankTransaction(b,a,500));
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
System.out.println("Transactions Completed!!!");
}
}
Why does this code run execute successfully and I don't have and deadLock?

It's got the potential for deadlock - but both locks are acquired so quickly together that one thread can get both before the other has the chance to acquire its first one.
Put another Thread.sleep(500); call between the two synchronized statements and it does deadlock: both threads will enter "their" outer lock, sleep, then when they wake up they'll both find that their "inner" lock is already acquired.
This is due to the fact that you synchronized statements are anti-symetrical : for one thread, the outer synchronized lock is the inner one for the other thread and the other way around.

It's possible that one of the threads will enter both synchronized sections, blocking the other thread entirely until it's finished.

You need to simulate 'unfortunate timing'. Try adding sleep between two locks:
synchronized(fromAccount){
Thread.sleep(2000);
synchronized(toAccount){

Sleeps as suggested by Jon above can introduce non-determinism, you could make it deterministic using some coordinator like a latch instead. To clarify though, I'm thinking of it as a testing problem: how to prove a deadlock every time and that may not be what you're looking for.
See this code for an example and a blog post describing it a little.

The reason of deadlock is that thread A is wait for Thread B to release some resource before A continue; the same to thread B, it wont continue until thread A releases some resource. In other words, A and B wait forever to each other.
In the code snippet, synchronized can block other threads for while because only one thread can execute the block at the moment. thread.sleep() suspend the thread for 500 millisecond, then continue. The wait forever mutually condition doesnt satisfy, that why it is not deadlock.
Following snippet is a good example to illustrate deadlock
public class threadTest{
public class thread1 implements Runnable{
private Thread _th2;
private int _foo;
public thread1(Thread th2){};
public void run(){
for(int i = 0; i<100; i++){foo += foo;};
synchronized(this){this.notify()};
synchronized(_th2){
_th2.wait();
_foo += _th2.foo;
System.out.print(" final result " + _foo);
}
}
}
public class thread2 implements Runnable{
private final thread1 _th1; private int _foo;
public thread2(thread1 th1){};
public void Run(){
synchronized(_th1){_th1.wait()};
synchronized(this){
_foo += th1._foo();
this.notify();
}
}
}
}
}
//just ignore the way to access private variable in the class
Because there is no mechanism assuring the execution order of two threads, it is very possible thread 2 wont receive the notification from thread1 since it starts lately, thus it waits for the notification before continue execution. Same to thread1, it cant do next execution until it receives notification from thread2. both of them wait for each other forever, typical deadlock.

Java wait()/join(): Why does this not deadlock?

Given the following Java code:
public class Test {
static private class MyThread extends Thread {
private boolean mustShutdown = false;
#Override
public synchronized void run() {
// loop and do nothing, just wait until we must shut down
while (!mustShutdown) {
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception on wait()");
}
}
}
public synchronized void shutdown() throws InterruptedException {
// set flag for termination, notify the thread and wait for it to die
mustShutdown = true;
notify();
join(); // lock still being held here, due to 'synchronized'
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyThread mt = new MyThread();
mt.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
mt.shutdown();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception in main()");
}
}
}
Running this will wait for one second and then properly exit. But that is unexpected to me, I expect a dead-lock to happen here.
My reasoning is as follows: The newly created MyThread will execute run(), which is declared as 'synchronized', so that it may call wait() and safely read 'mustShutdown'; during that wait() call, the lock is released and re-acquired upon returning, as described in the documentation of wait(). After one second, the main thread executes shutdown(), which is again synchronized as to not access mustShutdown at the same time as it's being read by the other thread. It then wakes up the other thread via notify() and the waits for its completion via join().
But in my opinion, there's no way that the other thread can ever return from wait(), since it needs to re-acquire the lock on the thread object before returning. It cannot do so because shutdown() still holds the lock while inside join(). Why does it still work and exit properly?

join() method internally calls wait() which will result in releasing of the lock(of Thread object).
See the code of join() below:
public final synchronized void join(long millis)
throws InterruptedException {
....
if (millis == 0) {
while (isAlive()) {
wait(0); //ends up releasing lock
}
}
....
}
Reason why your code sees this and not seen in general:: The reason why your code see this and not is not observed in general, is because the join() method waits() on Thread object itself and consequently relinquishes lock on the Thread object itself and as your run() method also synchronizes on the same Thread object, you see this otherwise unexpected scenario.

The implementation of Thread.join uses wait, which lets go of its lock, which is why it doesn't prevent the other thread from acquiring the lock.
Here is a step-by-step description of what happens in this example:
Starting the MyThread thread in the main method results in a new thread executing the MyThread run method. The main Thread sleeps for a whole second, giving the new Thread plenty of time to start up and acquire the lock on the MyThread object.
The new thread can then enter the wait method and release its lock. At this point the new thread goes dormant, it won't try to acquire the lock again until it is woken up. The thread does not return from the wait method yet.
At this point the main thread wakes up from sleeping and calls shutdown on the MyThread object. It has no problem acquiring the lock because the new thread released it once it started waiting. The main thread calls notify now. Entering the join method, the main thread checks that the new thread is still alive, then waits, releasing the lock.
The notification happens once the main thread releases the lock. Since the new thread was in the wait set for the lock at the time the main thread called notify, the new thread receives the notification and wakes up. It can acquire the lock, leave the wait method, and finish executing the run method, finally releasing the lock.
The termination of the new thread causes all threads waiting on its lock to receive a notification. This wakes up the main thread, it can acquire the lock and check that the new thread is dead, then it will exit the join method and finish executing.
/**
* Waits at most <code>millis</code> milliseconds for this thread to
* die. A timeout of <code>0</code> means to wait forever.
*
* #param millis the time to wait in milliseconds.
* #exception InterruptedException if any thread has interrupted
* the current thread. The <i>interrupted status</i> of the
* current thread is cleared when this exception is thrown.
*/
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;
}
}
}

To complement the other answers: I see no mention of join() releasing any locks in the API-documentation, so this behavior is actually implementation-specific.
Learn from this:
don't subclass Thread, instead use a Runnable implementation passed to your thread object.
don't synchronize/wait/notify on objects you don't "own", e.g. where you don't know who else might synchronize/wait/notify on it.

How to know if other threads have finished?

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.