How to stop a thread whose run() doesnt have a loop.
So basically I want a replacement for the stop() method.
I want to stop one of the Thread when there is a deadlock.
I dont want to use locks. Just want to kill one thread so that the resource will be freed and other Thread will continue thus ending the program.
I tried still using stop() but even that is not stopping the program.
Following is my code:-
public class Deadlock {
public static boolean stop = false;
public static void main(String[] args) {
final String resource1 = "resource1";
final String resource2 = "resource2";
// t1 tries to lock resource1 then resource2
Thread t1 = new Thread() {
public void run() {
// Lock resource 1
synchronized (resource1) {
System.out.println("Thread 1: locked resource 1");
try {
Thread.sleep(50);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
synchronized (resource2) {
System.out.println("Thread 1: locked resource 2");
}
}
}
};
// t2 tries to lock resource2 then resource1
Thread t2 = new Thread() {
public void run() {
synchronized (resource2) {
System.out.println("Thread 2: locked resource 2");
try {
Thread.sleep(50);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
synchronized (resource1) {
System.out.println("Thread 2: locked resource 1");
}
}
}
};
// If all goes as planned, deadlock will occur,
// and the program will never exit.
t1.start();
t2.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
if(t1.isAlive() && t2.isAlive())
{
System.out.println("Deadlock");
// t1.stop(); Deprecated
}
}
}
You can't fix a bug other than by actually fixing the bug. If a thread has a bug, the bug has to be fixed or it will contaminate the process context.
See this answer for just one of the reasons it's not safe to reach into a thread from the outside and release its locks. Also, the link in dst's comment is very helpful.
Related
I have been learning multithreading in Java since recently and I encountered an example in the book. It goes something like this.
class NewThread implements Runnable {
String name;
Thread t;
boolean suspendFlag;
NewThread(String threadname) {
name = threadname;
t = new Thread(this, name);
System.out.println("New thread: " + t);
suspendFlag = false;
t.start();
}
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 15; i > 0; i--) {
System.out.println(name + ": " + i);
Thread.sleep(200);
synchronized(this) {
while(suspendFlag) {
wait();
}
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(name + " interrupted.");
}
System.out.println(name + " exiting.");
}
synchronized void mysuspend() {
suspendFlag = true;
}
synchronized void myresume() {
suspendFlag = false;
notify();
}
}
class Te {
public static void main(String args[]) {
NewThread ob1 = new NewThread("One");
NewThread ob2 = new NewThread("Two");
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
ob1.mysuspend();
System.out.println("Suspending thread One");
Thread.sleep(1000);
ob1.myresume();
System.out.println("Resuming thread One");
ob2.mysuspend();
System.out.println("Suspending thread Two");
Thread.sleep(1000);
ob2.myresume();
System.out.println("Resuming thread Two");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
try {
System.out.println("Waiting for threads to finish.");
ob1.t.join();
ob2.t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
System.out.println("Main thread exiting.");
}
}
Now in this example as you can see, there is a resume and a suspend method which gets called a couple of times in the program's main method. But when I remove the synchronized block in the run method, it displays an error something like this.
Exception in thread "Two" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
I acually wanted to know, why do we need the synchronized block for the while statement. Doesn't the while resume when the value of suspendFlag change?
Here's what could happen if there was no synchronization:
Thread A could check suspendFlag and find it to be true,
Thread B could set suspendFlag=false; and then call notify();
Thread A could then call wait() (because suspendFlag was true when it checked.), and now Thread A is hung, waiting for a notification that will never happen.
The synchronization prevents thread B from changing the suspendFlag in between the moment when thread A checked it, and the moment when thread A actually begins to wait for the notification.
I have the following java code, that uses the ScheduledExecuterService. Basically, there are two important calls made in this method: 1. the integrationMonitor.Processor(...) and 2. the runIntegrationSynching() methods.
The scheduler will make sure that these methods execute according to the time interval. Recently however, I've had the problem where processing of these two methods are very long. If the user then sets the timer interval to too low, the next processing cycle will start, even before the previous one finished.
Someone here suggested I use semaphores to do the synchronization, and I did - it works for one of my test cases, but not the other one.
I am using a semaphore to prevent a new schedule cycle to start, if a previous one is still busy. How can I know when a thread finished so that I can release the semaphore?
Here is the code:
static Semaphore semaphore = new Semaphore(1);
final ScheduledExecutorService service = Executors.newSingleThreadScheduledExecutor();
service.scheduleWithFixedDelay(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
semaphore.acquire();
catch(InterruptedException e1) {}
runIntegrationSynching();
try {
semaphore.release();
} catch(InterruptedException e1) {}
Thread thread = new Thread(){
public void run(){
IntegrationMonitor intgrationMonitor = new IntegrationMonitor();
try {
semaphore.acquire();
} catch(InterruptedException e1) {}
intgrationMonitor.Processing(configXML, rcHost, alarmMonitorMap, blocker);
try {
semaphore.release();
} catch(InterruptedException e1) {}
if(intgrationMonitor != null){
intgrationMonitor = null;
}
}
};
LOGGER.info("Attempting to start the thread for RC " + rcHost + ". Thread ID:" + thread.getId());
thread.start();
}
},2,2,TimeUnit.MINUTES);
I have a requirement threading where I need to initiate a thread which will run continuously doing some DB operations . A second thread will be present which needs to run for every 30 secs. The job of the second thread will be killing the first thread and start a new instance of the first thread.
I tried several ways to achieve this but I am not able to do the same.
public class ThreadMain {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException, BrokenBarrierException{
final CyclicBarrier gate = new CyclicBarrier(3);
Thread t1 = new Thread(){
public void run(){
try {
gate.await();
while(true)
{
System.out.println("Thread1");
break;
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}};
Thread t2 = new Thread(){
public void run(){
try {
gate.await();
while(true)
{
System.out.println("Continiously running thread:-Thread2");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
} catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}};
t1.start();
t2.start();
This seems to work nicely:
// Thread that runs forever.
volatile static Thread forEverThread = null;
static class ForEver implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
Thread.sleep(1000);
System.out.println("For Ever!");
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
// Just quit if I was interrupted.
}
}
}
// Stop the thread if it is running.
private static void stopForeverThread() throws InterruptedException {
// Skip if non-existent.
if (forEverThread != null) {
// Make sure no-one else is already doing it.
synchronized (forEverThread) {
// Still not null?
if (forEverThread != null) {
// Interrupt it.
forEverThread.interrupt();
// Wait for it to finish.
forEverThread.join();
// Clear it.
forEverThread = null;
}
}
}
}
private static void restartForeverThread() throws InterruptedException {
System.out.println("Restarting...");
// Stop it if it is running.
stopForeverThread();
// Start it again.
forEverThread = new Thread(new ForEver());
forEverThread.start();
System.out.println("Restarted");
}
public static void start() throws InterruptedException {
// Start it all up.
restartForeverThread();
// Timed event to restart it.
Timer restartTimer = new Timer(true);
restartTimer.scheduleAtFixedRate(
new TimerTask() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
// Restart every few seconds.
restartForeverThread();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
// We were interrupted during restart - Log it.
}
}
// Every few seconds.
}, 0, 10 * 1000);
}
public static void main(String args[]) {
try {
// Start it all up.
start();
// Hang around for a while - to see what happens.
Thread.sleep(60 * 1000);
} catch (Throwable t) {
t.printStackTrace(System.err);
}
}
If your database task is interruptible (i.e. it reacts on thread interruption and hence can be cancelled by that), the best strategy is to use an ScheduledExecutorService for both, the database task itself and the restart task that runs periodically.
Note that task and thread are two different things: While a task is a piece of work that should be run, threads are the mechanism to do this in parallel.
static class DatabaseTask implements Runnable {
public void run() {
...
}
}
static class RestartTask implements Runnable {
private final ExecutorService executor;
private volatile Future<Void> future;
public RestartTask(ExecutorService executor) {
this.executor = executor;
}
public void run() {
if (future != null) {
future.cancel(true);
}
future = executor.submit(new DatabaseTask());
}
}
ScheduledExecutorService executor = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
executor.scheduleAtFixedRate(new RestartTask(executor), 0, 30, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
Note that if your DatabaseTask is NOT sensitive to thread interruption and continues to perform database operations, the number of threads executing database tasks will grow continously - probably not what you want. So make sure, all blocking database operations are either interruptible, or terminate within a reasonable amount of time.
Please show me how to make thread wait. for example wait if i == 0 and go again when i == 1
public class Main {
public Main() {
}
public void method() {
Thread thread = new Thread(new Task());
// I want to make wait it when I want
// for example wait if i == 0 and go again when i = 1
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Main();
}
}
This is suitable for a CountDownLatch.
public static void main( String[] args ) throws Exception {
final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch( 1 );
System.out.println( "Starting main thread" );
new Thread( new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println( "Starting second thread" );
System.out.println( "Waiting in second thread" );
try {
latch.await();
} catch ( InterruptedException e ) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println( "Stopping second thread" );
}
} ).start();
Thread.sleep( 5000 );
System.out.println( "Countdown in main thread" );
latch.countDown();
Thread.sleep( 1000 );
System.out.println( "Stopping main thread" );
}
You might be able to do this with a semaphore
To avoid active waiting try use wait() and notify() or notifyAll() methods. Wait() can make thread stop until someone call notify() or notifyAll() on same object as wait(). One of condition is that thread must be in possession of monitor of object on which will be invoking wait(), notify() or notifyAll().
Here is an example
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
public class StartPauseDemo extends Thread {
volatile int i = 1;
public void pause() {
i = 0;
}
public synchronized void unPause() {
i = 1;
notify();// wake up thread
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (i==1) {
// logic of method for example printing time every 200 miliseconds
System.out.println(System.currentTimeMillis());
try {
TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
if (i==0) {
synchronized (this) {// thread must possess monitor of object on
// which will be called wait() method,
// in our case current thread object
try {
wait();// wait until someone calls notify() or notifyAll
// on this thred object
// (in our case it is done in unPause() method)
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
}
// test - pausing and unpausing every 1 sec
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
StartPauseDemo sp = new StartPauseDemo();
sp.start();// start thread
while (true) {
System.out.println("pausing");
sp.pause();
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(1);
System.out.println("unpausing");
sp.unPause();
TimeUnit.SECONDS.sleep(1);
}
}
}
Output:
pausing
unpausing
1338726153307
1338726153507
1338726153709
1338726153909
1338726154109
pausing
unpausing
1338726155307
1338726155507
... and so on
Using such a flag is not necessarily the best approach, but to answer your specific question: you could make your int volatile. See below a simple example that you can run as is - the fact that i is volatile is crucial for this to work.
The output is (it could be different from run to run due to thread interleaving):
i=1
I'm doing something
I'm doing something
i=0
I'm waiting
I'm waiting
i=1
I'm doing something
I'm doing something
I'm doing something
i=0
I'm waiting
I'm waiting
interrupting
I was interrupted: bye bye
public class TestThread {
private static volatile int i = 0;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
Runnable r = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
while (i == 1) {
System.out.println("I'm doing something");
Thread.sleep(5);
}
while (i == 0) {
System.out.println("I'm waiting");
Thread.sleep(5);
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
System.out.println("I was interrupted: bye bye");
return;
}
}
};
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.start();
i = 1;
System.out.println("i=1");
Thread.sleep(10);
i = 0;
System.out.println("i=0");
Thread.sleep(10);
i = 1;
System.out.println("i=1");
Thread.sleep(10);
i = 0;
System.out.println("i=0");
Thread.sleep(10);
t.interrupt();
System.out.println("interrupting");
}
}
I believe that the main thread cannot die before the child thread. But is there any way to check that ? I wrote a simple program below. Can anyone prove it practically leaving theory aside ?
class childre extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
for( int i=0 ; i<10 ;i++)
{
System.out.println( " child " + i);
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public class ChildThreadb4main
{
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
System.out.println("main");
childre c1 = new childre();
c1.start();
for(int i=0;i<5;i++)
{
try {
Thread.sleep(500);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println( " child thread alive ? " + c1.isAlive());
}
}
After suggestion from James. I tried the following program.
public class MainChildDie {
public static void main(String ar[]){
final Thread mainThread = Thread.currentThread();
System.out.println("main run ");
new Thread(){
public void run(){
Thread childThread= Thread.currentThread();
for(int i=0; i<10;i++){
System.out.println( "child"+i);
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("main alive " + mainThread.isAlive());
}
}.start();
}
}
From http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html :
The Java Virtual Machine continues to execute threads until either of
the following occurs:
The exit method of class Runtime has been called and the security
manager has permitted the exit operation to take place.
All threads
that are not daemon threads have died, either by returning from the
call to the run method or by throwing an exception that propagates
beyond the run method.
In your case, when the main thread dies, the JVM does not exit, because you still have the created threads running, and they're daemon by default, because of this:
The newly created thread is initially marked as being a daemon thread if and only if the thread creating it is currently marked as a daemon thread. The method setDaemon may be used to change whether or not a thread is a daemon.
Cite: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/java/lang/Thread.html#setDaemon(boolean)
While the code is executing, take a Full Thread dump and see what all Threads are active.
class AnotherClass {
public static void main(String arrp[]) throws Exception {
Thread t = new Thread() {
public void run() {
while (true) {
// do nothing
}
}
};
t.start();
//Sleep for 15 seconds
Thread.sleep(15000);
}
}
Compile and Execute it:
$ javac AnotherClass.java
$ java AnotherClass
Find the process:
$ ps -ef | grep AnotherClass
nikunj <<10720>> 10681 2 12:01:02 pts/9 0:04 java AnotherClass
nikunj 10722 10693 0 12:01:05 pts/6 0:00 grep Another
Take the Thread dump:
$ kill -3 <<10720>>
Output (excerpts):
"main" prio=10 tid=0x00039330 nid=0x1 waiting on condition [0xffbfe000..0xffbfe2a8]
at java.lang.Thread.sleep(Native Method)
at AnotherClass.main(AnotherClass.java:12)
"Thread-0" prio=10 tid=0x00a1b770 nid=0x12 runnable [0xadc7f000..0xadc7f970]
at AnotherClass$1.run(AnotherClass.java:7)
Take Another Thread dump (after 15 seconds):
$ kill -3 <<10720>>
New Output (excerpts):
"Thread-0" prio=10 tid=0x00a1b770 nid=0x12 runnable [0xadc7f000..0xadc7f970]
at AnotherClass$1.run(AnotherClass.java:7)
Conclusion:
main is gone.
Thread.currentThread().getThreadGroup().activeCount()
will return the active threads of a threadgroup of current thread default main
class childre extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
for( int i=0 ; i<10 ;i++)
{
System.out.println( " child " + i);
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getThreadGroup().activeCount());
}
}
You can use 'join' method to make sure that main thread waits till the child thread is completed.
childre c1 = new childre();
c1.start();
try {
c1.join();
} catch (InterruptedException exception) {
exception.printStackTrace();
}
class Print implements Runnable
{
Thread thread, mainThread;
Print(Thread t)
{
mainThread = t;
thread = new Thread(this, "Thread");
thread.start();
}
#Override
public void run()
{
for(int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
System.out.println(thread.getName() + "\t" + (i+1));
try
{
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
catch(InterruptedException ie)
{
System.out.println("Interrupted Exception " + thread.getName());
}
System.out.println("Is main thread alive "+mainThread.isAlive());
}
}
}
public class ThreadOne
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Print p1 = new Print(Thread.currentThread());
System.out.println("Main Thread Ends");
}
}
The above code will show you that the main thread has completed execution while the newThread spawned still running.