We Keep Coding

Displaying threads alternatively in JAVA

I want to display this two threads alternatively like that :
Thread 1
Thread 0
Thread 1
Thread 0
...
That's the basic code from where I started, I tried with wait() notify() Methods but I couldn't get the result wanted.
class Task extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 0; i<10; i++){
double dure = Math.random()*200 ;
sleep((long) dure);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}
public class App {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Task t1 = new Task() ;
Task t2 = new Task() ;
t1.start();
t2.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
} ```

I see two solutions:
Busy Wait
Each thread wait before printing. And release when the condition is true. I used AtomicInteger for indexToPrint to make this value sync for every thread.
This solution works with n number of threads.
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
class Task extends Thread {
final static private AtomicInteger indexToPrint = new AtomicInteger(0);
static private int threadNumber = 0;
final private int index;
/**
*
*/
public Task() {
index = threadNumber++;
}
private int nextIndex() {
return (index + 1) % threadNumber;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 0; i<10; i++){
double dure = Math.random()*200 ;
sleep((long) dure);
while (indexToPrint.get() != index) {
sleep((long) 10);
}
indexToPrint.set(nextIndex());
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
} catch (Exception e) {}
}
}
wait and notify
A bit more complex to understand, but no useless CPU use. Let's explain how the synchronized block synchronized (indexToPrint) {...} works.
The block is synchronized monitoring the static object indexToPrint. This object is static (common to every thread), so only one thread can simultaneously enter this block.
When one thread enter the block, if its index is different from indexToPrint then the thread is stopped with wait() making it possible for another thread to enter the block. Else, the thread name is printed, the indexToPrint is updated to next thread index and all thread are waken up with notifyAll(). Finally, it left the block.
All threads waiting are now awake, and the actual thread left the block. So one thread can try again to print.
It's important to understand that when a thread is put to wait and then notify, it runs exactly where it was stopped. Here, a thread can be stopped at two positions: before the synchronized block and at the wait call.
The while is very essential here. All thread are waking up with notifyAll(), so after waking up they should test themselves again.
You can find a good documentation here.
The code is based on the previous one. With same use of indexToPrint.
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
class Task extends Thread {
static private final AtomicInteger indexToPrint = new AtomicInteger(0);
static private int threadNumber = 0;
final private int index;
final private static ArrayList<Task> tasks = new ArrayList<>();
/**
*
*/
public Task() {
index = threadNumber++;
tasks.add(this);
}
private int nextIndex() {
return (index + 1) % threadNumber;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 0; i<10; i++){
double dure = Math.random()*200 ;
sleep((long) dure);
synchronized (indexToPrint) {
while (indexToPrint.get() != index) {
indexToPrint.wait();
}
indexToPrint.set(nextIndex());
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
indexToPrint.notifyAll();
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}

The random sleep time can cause the unexpected result also within the main method making the main thread sleep between the start of Thread1 and Thread2 can help you to know who is the first thread that will start the print task , after that you should give the right sleep time inside the task to give the Threads the possibility to prints alternatively .
class Task extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 0; i<10; i++){
sleep(2000);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}
public class App {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Task t1 = new Task() ;
Task t2 = new Task() ;
t1.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
t2.start();
}
}

Producer-Consumer Problem with 2 processes in Java

I got task from my professor related to Producer-Consumer problem.
The task is implement Producer-Consumer process, but
first process should increase its value by 5 each time
second process should divide its value by 2 each time.
I found some examples of code, but nothing about multiple processes. Here is one of them.
--
// Java program to implement solution of producer
// consumer problem.
import java.util.LinkedList;
public class Threadexample {
public static void main(String[] args)
throws InterruptedException
{
// Object of a class that has both produce()
// and consume() methods
final PC pc = new PC();
// Create producer thread
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run()
{
try {
pc.produce();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
// Create consumer thread
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run()
{
try {
pc.consume();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
// Start both threads
t1.start();
t2.start();
// t1 finishes before t2
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
// This class has a list, producer (adds items to list
// and consumber (removes items).
public static class PC {
// Create a list shared by producer and consumer
// Size of list is 2.
LinkedList<Integer> list = new LinkedList<>();
int capacity = 2;
// Function called by producer thread
public void produce() throws InterruptedException
{
int value = 0;
while (true) {
synchronized (this)
{
// producer thread waits while list
// is full
while (list.size() == capacity)
wait();
System.out.println("Producer produced-"
+ value);
// to insert the jobs in the list
list.add(value++);
// notifies the consumer thread that
// now it can start consuming
notify();
// makes the working of program easier
// to understand
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
}
// Function called by consumer thread
public void consume() throws InterruptedException
{
while (true) {
synchronized (this)
{
// consumer thread waits while list
// is empty
while (list.size() == 0)
wait();
// to retrive the ifrst job in the list
int val = list.removeFirst();
System.out.println("Consumer consumed-"
+ val);
// Wake up producer thread
notify();
// and sleep
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
}
}
}
}
Output:
Producer produced-0
Producer produced-1
Consumer consumed-0
Consumer consumed-1
Producer produced-2
I am not sure if I understand my task completely. Is it possible to implement given task on this code? I want you to give me some suggestions or any sources, so I can understand what to do.
Thank you all in advance!

If I correctly understand your problem from your description, you should change the field's value from two threads. You would like to create a class-level field and two synchronized methods for changing his value after that create two threads and call from them both operations alternately. I think you can write that:
public class Solution0 {
private volatile int count;
public synchronized void increment() throws InterruptedException {
count = count + 5;
Thread.sleep(1000);
notifyAll();
wait();
}
public synchronized void divide() throws InterruptedException {
count = count / 2;
Thread.sleep(1000);
notifyAll();
wait();
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Solution0 solution = new Solution0();
Thread t1 = new Thread(() -> {
try {
while (true){
solution.increment();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(() -> {
try {
while (true){
solution.divide();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
});
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}
Also, you can change the type of field count from int to double, if you need a real number.

Java - two threads with wait() and notify()

I am new to Java programming. i want to run two threads using wait() and notify(). But I cant use task flags for thread synchronization,sleep, yield or wait(parameter).I wrote it, but i had to use sleep. can someone help me to change it to without sleep.
This is my main class
public class mainClass{
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException {
final Processor processor = new Processor();
for(int i=0; i<100; i++){
final int z = i;
Thread trainer = new Thread(new Runnable(){
public void run(){
try{
processor.produce(z);
}catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
Thread sportsman = new Thread(new Runnable(){
public void run(){
try{
processor.consume(z);
}catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
trainer.start();
sportsman.start();
trainer.join();
sportsman.join();
}
System.out.println("100 Tasks are Finished.");
}
}
this is my second class.
public class Processor {
public void produce(int n) throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (this){
System.out.println("Trainer making " + (n+1) + " Task..." );
wait();
System.out.println("");
}
}
public void consume(int m) throws InterruptedException {
Thread.sleep(1);
//I want to run the code without using sleep and get same output
synchronized (this){
System.out.println("Sportman doing " + (m+1) + " Task...");
notify();
}
}
}
this is my output.
Trainer making 1 Task...
Sportman doing 1 Task...
Trainer making 2 Task...
Sportman doing 2 Task...
.
.
.
Trainer making 99 Task...
Sportman doing 99 Task...
Trainer making 100 Task...
Sportman doing 100 Task...
100 Tasks are Finished.
thank you. my english is bad. sorry for it.

Hints:
The correct use of wait involves waiting for something specific to happen. The correct implementation is something like this
synchronize (x) {
while (!x.itHasHappened()) {
x.wait(); // for it to happen
}
}
The loop is necessary since it is possible to get spurious notifies on a primitive lock.
In your specific example, ask yourself what must wait for what to happen. I think you've got it wrong. What is produce(N) actually waiting for, and why?

In mainClass you created 100 times two threads, I think you should create two threads only and in those two threads run the loop 100 times.
Probably you needed to do something like this...
The producer should create together 100 task (one at a time) and wait after each task for the consumer to be done.
The consumer should wait for a task and notify the producer when finished with the current task, them wait for the next task.
So your mainClass should look like this, loops should be in the producer() and consumer() methods.
public class mainClass {
public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException {
final Processor processor = new Processor();
Thread trainer = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
processor.produce();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
Thread sportsman = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
try {
processor.consume();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
});
trainer.start();
sportsman.start();
trainer.join();
sportsman.join();
System.out.println("100 Tasks are Finished.");
}
}
And the Processor maybe something like this...
public class Processor {
private int taskNo = 0; // the number of the current task
// (0 = there is no task, but will be)
// (-1 = there won't be more task)
public void produce() throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (this) {
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
taskNo = i + 1; // making a task number (i+1)
System.out.println("Trainer making " + taskNo + " Task...");
notify(); // notifies the consumer that the task was made
wait(); // and waiting the consumer to finish... zzzz...
System.out.println("");
}
taskNo = -1; // there will be no more task
notify(); // notify the consumer about it
}
}
public void consume() throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (this) {
do {
if (taskNo == 0) {
wait(); // there is no task to do, waiting... zzzz...
}
if (taskNo != -1) {
System.out.println("Sportman doing " + taskNo + " Task...");
taskNo = 0; // sets the task to done
notify(); // notifies the producer that the task was done
}
} while (taskNo != -1);
}
}
}
Typically there is a queue instead of the taskNo variable, where the producer puts tasks and the consumer takes tasks from in. But in your case the queue can have only 1 task at a time, because the producer should wait for the consumer to finish. So you can use a simple variable (taskNo) instead of a queue.

Make one thread wait for another to finish

I have two thread classes: one that prints numbers from 0 to 9, and another from 100 to 109. What I want is to make the first thread wait for the other one to finish. For this, I used the join() method, but it's not working. Please tell me where I'm going wrong:
//demonstrates the use of join() to wait for another thread to finish
class AThread implements Runnable {
Thread t;
AThread() {
t = new Thread(this);
}
public void run() {
try {
for (int i=0; i<10; i++) {
System.out.println(i);
Thread.sleep(10);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(t + " interruped.");
}
}
public void halt(Thread th) {
try {
th.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(t + " interruped.");
}
}
}
//a different thread class (we distinguish threads by their output)
class BThread implements Runnable {
Thread t;
BThread() {
t = new Thread(this);
}
public void run() {
try {
for (int i=100; i<110; i++) {
System.out.println(i);
Thread.sleep(10);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(t + " interruped.");
}
}
}
public class WaitForThread {
public static void main(String[] args) {
AThread t1 = new AThread();
BThread t2 = new BThread();
t1.t.start();
t1.halt(t2.t); //wait for the 100-109 thread to finish
t2.t.start();
}
}

You call join on the thread before it has started. That doesn't work; in that case, join will return immediately, it's not going to wait until the other thread has started and stopped later. You can see this in the API documentation:
Thread.join()
This implementation uses a loop of this.wait calls conditioned on this.isAlive.
Thread.isAlive()
Tests if this thread is alive. A thread is alive if it has been started and has not yet died.
Reorder the statements in your main method
t1.t.start();
t2.t.start();
t1.halt(t2.t); //wait for the 100-109 thread to finish
edit to answer your questions in the comments:
If you want the thread in AThread to wait for the thread in BThread to finish before doing its job, then you'll need to call join in AThread.run, and change your main method:
class AThread implements Runnable {
Thread t;
Thread threadToWaitFor;
AThread(Thread threadToWaitFor) {
t = new Thread(this);
this.threadToWaitFor = threadToWaitFor;
}
public void run() {
// First wait for the other thread to finish
threadToWaitFor.join();
// ...
}
// ...
}
public class WaitForThread {
public static void main(String[] args) {
BThread t2 = new BThread();
AThread t1 = new AThread(t2.t);
t2.t.start();
t1.t.start();
}
}

wait for N-1 out of N threads to end, then issue an instruction for the last thread

So, i apologize for the title. It's quite hard to explain in one sentence what i would like to do if you have no idea on how it is called.
So assume i can only use primitive thread functions (wait, notify, no concurrent package)
The program has 3 threads, all of them are the same and are called by the main thread. They behave normally until one of the three get an exception and so it must wait for the end of the remaining 2 threads in order to start a recovery process.
I was thinking about a static variable but I'm not really sure about it, i would love to keep it as simple as possible.
Each thread starts at the same time.

I don't see any reason why you can't use a static variable like you suggest. Here's how I would do it with an inner class...
private static boolean running = true;
public void test26546397() {
while (true) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new MyRunnable());
Thread t2 = new Thread(new MyRunnable());
Thread t3 = new Thread(new MyRunnable());
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
try {
t1.join();
t2.join();
t3.join();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
running = true;
// Do recovery
}
}
public class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while (running) {
try {
// doStuff
} catch (Exception ex) {
running = false;
}
}
}
}
I would of course replace the while (true) with something a little more suitable.

I think you need java.concurrent.CountdownLatch, however if the java.concurrent package is not available to you can code this yourself using Object.wait/notify and synchronized blocks.
The latch can then be decremented in a finally {} on each Thread, this will be run if the Thread completes, or an exception occurs.
Your main program then just needs to wait for count to become 0.
public class StackOverflow26546397 {
static class CountdownLatch {
private int count;
private Object monitor = new Object();
public CountdownLatch(int count) {
this.count = count;
}
public void countDown() {
synchronized (monitor) {
count--;
monitor.notifyAll();
}
}
public void await() throws InterruptedException {
synchronized (monitor) {
while (count > 0) {
monitor.wait();
}
}
}
}
static class Job implements Runnable {
private CountdownLatch latch;
public Job(CountdownLatch latch) {
this.latch = latch;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// do work.
Thread.sleep((long) (Math.random() * 3000d));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
//
} finally {
latch.countDown();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
CountdownLatch latch = new CountdownLatch(3);
new Thread(new Job(latch)).start();
new Thread(new Job(latch)).start();
new Thread(new Job(latch)).start();
latch.await();
System.out.println("All threads finished");
}
}

Not sure what you are trying to do but this is as simple as I can think of (just native concurrency):
Create a static or shared volatile boolean
private static volatile boolean exceptionOccured=false
Set the above to 'true' when exception occurs:
....}catch(Exception e){
exceptionOccured=true;
}
Check this periodically in you normal thread flow:
if (exceptionOccured)
//enter you synchronized call here
the synchronized method could look something like:
public synchronized void checkAndRecover(){
//decrement a counter or other logic to identify which is the last Thread and then
//perform any recovery logic
}