We Keep Coding

Java Thread Synchronization problem in same resource

I am trying to operate on the same source with two threads. I designed a typical producer and consumer problem for it. While setting the value in the resource class with the producer, I want to get setted values with the consumer one by one. The output I want should be like this:
Producer -> Setting data = 0
Consumer -> Getting data = 0
Producer -> Setting data = 1
Consumer -> Getting data = 1
Producer -> Setting data = 2
Consumer -> Getting data = 2
Producer -> Setting data = 3
Consumer -> Getting data = 3
Producer -> Setting data = 4
Consumer -> Getting data = 4
Here is my Resource class:
public class Resource{
private int value;
private boolean current = false;
public synchronized void setValue(int val) {
while(current == true) {
try {
wait();
}catch(Exception ex) {}}
value = val;
current = true;
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized int getValue() {
while(current == false) {
try {
wait();
}catch(Exception ex) {}}
current = false;
notifyAll();
return value;
}
}
And main method and Producer,Consumer class is here:
class Producer extends Thread{
private Resource rs;
public Producer(Resource rs1) {
rs = rs1;
}
public void run() {
for(int i = 0 ; i < 5 ; i++) {
rs.setValue(i);
System.out.println("Producer -> Setting data = " + i);
try {
sleep(100);
}catch(Exception ex){
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
class Consumer extends Thread{
private Resource rs;
public Consumer(Resource rs1) {
rs = rs1;
}
public void run() {
int value = 0;
for(int i = 0 ; i < 5; i++) {
value = rs.getValue();
System.out.println("Consumer -> Getting data= " + i);
try {
sleep(100);
}catch(Exception ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public class Dependent {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
Resource res = new Resource();
Producer p1 = new Producer(res);
Consumer c1 = new Consumer(res);
p1.start();
c1.start();
}
}
Although I use synchronized, wait and notifyAll keywords in the methods in the resource class, the threads continue to work without waiting for each other. Where am I making a mistake? I've seen a code sample similar to this code sample in a java book, there doesn't seem to be a problem.
When I write without adding the current boolean variable, the code doesn't even work. That's why I had to add it by looking from the book. Don't the threads need to work synchronously without checking the Current value?

They do wait for each other, but the thread sync operations are much, much faster than Thread.sleep(100) so you can't tell. Your test code prints 'i' and not 'value', which is suspect. Get rid of Thread.sleep(100) in one of these threads (for example, in the consumer) and you'll find that the consumer nevertheless still requires about half a second to complete - as it will be waiting about 100 msec every time it invokes .getValue() on the resource, because that call will block (stuck in that wait() loop) until the producer calls .setValue which it only does about once every 100 msec.
Your Resource object 'works', for some value of 'works', but is very poorly designed, re-creating already existing and better implemented classes from the core library such as a java.util.concurrent.Latch, and which ignore interrupts and will blindly just keep waiting.
Their APIs are also a tad oddly named, in that a get call has considerably side effects. get is more of a get and clear operation: After a get operation, another get operation will freeze the thread forever, or at least, until some thread sets a value.

How do you think?
import java.io.IOException;
class Resource {
private volatile Integer value;
public synchronized void setValue(int val) {
while(value != null && !value.equals(val)) {
try {
wait();
}catch(Exception ex) {}}
value = val;
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized int getValue() {
while(value == null) {
try {
wait();
}catch(Exception ex) {}}
int answer = value;
value = null;
notifyAll();
return answer;
}
}
class Producer extends Thread{
private Resource rs;
public Producer(Resource rs1) {
rs = rs1;
}
public void run() {
for(int i = 0 ; i < 5 ; i++) {
rs.setValue(i);
System.out.println("Producer -> Setting data = " + i);
try {
sleep(100);
}catch(Exception ex){
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
class Consumer extends Thread{
private Resource rs;
public Consumer(Resource rs1) {
rs = rs1;
}
public void run() {
for(int i = 0 ; i < 5; i++) {
int value = rs.getValue();
System.out.println("Consumer -> Getting data= " + value);
try {
sleep(100);
}catch(Exception ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public class Dependent {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
Resource res = new Resource();
Producer p1 = new Producer(res);
Consumer c1 = new Consumer(res);
p1.start();
c1.start();
}
}
or
class Resource {
private static final int WAIT_VALUE = -1;
private volatile int value = WAIT_VALUE;
public synchronized void setValue(int val) {
while(value > WAIT_VALUE && value != val) {
try {
wait();
}catch(Exception ex) {}}
value = val;
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized int getValue() {
while(value == WAIT_VALUE) {
try {
wait();
}catch(Exception ex) {}}
int answer = value;
value = WAIT_VALUE;
notifyAll();
return answer;
}
}

Why does multithreaded version take the same amount of time as single threaded version?

I have the following work queue implementation, which I use to limit the number of threads in use. It works by me initially adding a number of Runnable objects to the queue, and when I am ready to begin, I run "begin()". At this point I do not add any more to the queue.
public class WorkQueue {
private final int nThreads;
private final PoolWorker[] threads;
private final LinkedList queue;
Integer runCounter;
boolean hasBegun;
public WorkQueue(int nThreads) {
runCounter = 0;
this.nThreads = nThreads;
queue = new LinkedList();
threads = new PoolWorker[nThreads];
hasBegun = false;
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; i++) {
threads[i] = new PoolWorker();
threads[i].start();
}
}
public boolean isQueueEmpty() {
synchronized (queue) {
if (queue.isEmpty() && runCounter == 0) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
}
}
public void begin() {
hasBegun = true;
synchronized (queue) {
queue.notify();
}
}
public void add(Runnable r) {
if (!hasBegun) {
synchronized (queue) {
queue.addLast(r);
runCounter++;
}
} else {
System.out.println("has begun executing. Cannot add more jobs ");
}
}
private class PoolWorker extends Thread {
public void run() {
Runnable r;
while (true) {
synchronized (queue) {
while (queue.isEmpty()) {
try {
queue.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ignored) {
}
}
r = (Runnable) queue.removeFirst();
}
// If we don't catch RuntimeException,
// the pool could leak threads
try {
r.run();
synchronized (runCounter) {
runCounter--;
}
} catch (RuntimeException e) {
// You might want to log something here
}
}
}
}
}
This is a runnable I use to keep track of when all the jobs on the work queue have finished:
public class QueueWatcher implements Runnable {
private Thread t;
private String threadName;
private WorkQueue wq;
public QueueWatcher(WorkQueue wq) {
this.threadName = "QueueWatcher";
this.wq = wq;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
if (wq.isQueueEmpty()) {
java.util.Date date = new java.util.Date();
System.out.println("Finishing and quiting at:" + date.toString());
System.exit(0);
break;
} else {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(PlaneGenerator.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
}
}
public void start() {
wq.begin();
System.out.println("Starting " + threadName);
if (t == null) {
t = new Thread(this, threadName);
t.setDaemon(false);
t.start();
}
}
}
This is how I use them:
Workqueue wq = new WorkQueue(9); //Get same results regardless of 1,2,3,8,9
QueueWatcher qw = new QueueWatcher(wq);
SomeRunnable1 sm1 = new SomeRunnable1();
SomeRunnable2 sm2 = new SomeRunnable2();
SomeRunnable3 sm3 = new SomeRunnable3();
SomeRunnable4 sm4 = new SomeRunnable4();
SomeRunnable5 sm5 = new SomeRunnable5();
wq.add(sm1);
wq.add(sm2);
wq.add(sm3);
wq.add(sm4);
wq.add(sm5);
qw.start();
But regardless of how many threads I use, the result is always the same - it always takes about 1m 10seconds to complete. This is about the same as when I just did a single threaded version (when everything ran in main()).
If I set wq to (1,2,3--9) threads it is always between 1m8s-1m10s. What is the problem ? The jobs (someRunnable) have nothing to do with each other and cannot block each other.
EDIT: Each of the runnables just read some image files from the filesystems and create new files in a separate directory. The new directory eventually contains about 400 output files.
EDIT: It seems that only one thread is always doing work. I made the following changes:
I let the Woolworker store an Id
PoolWorker(int id){
this.threadId = id;
}
Before running I print the id of the worker.
System.out.println(this.threadId + " got new task");
r.run();
In WorkQueue constructor when creating the poolworkers I do:
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; i++) {
threads[i] = new PoolWorker(i);
threads[i].start();
}
But it seems that that only thread 0 does any work, as the output is always:
0 got new task

Use queue.notifyAll() to start processing.
Currently you're using queue.notify(), which will only wake a single thread. (The big clue that pointed me to this was when you mentioned only a single thread was running.)
Also, synchronizing on Integer runCounter isn't doing what you think it's doing - runCounter++ is actually assigning a new value to the Integer each time, so you're synchronizing on a lot of different Integer objects.
On a side note, using raw threads and wait/notify paradigms is complicated and error-prone even for the best programmers - it's why Java introduced the java.util.concurrent package, which provide threadsafe BlockingQueue implementations and Executors for easily managing multithreaded apps.

Using CountDownLatch & Object.wait inside recursive block hangs

Problem: While trying to retrieve values inside a recursive block in a phased manner, the execution gets hung.
Description: CountDownLatch & Object.wait are used to achieve the phased manner access of value inside the recursive block. But, the program hangs with following output:
2 < 16
3 < 16
4 < 16
5 < 16
Current total: 5
Inside of wait
Inside of wait
Program:
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class RecursiveTotalFinder {
private static CountDownLatch latch1;
private static CountDownLatch latch2;
private static CountDownLatch latch3;
public static void main(String... args) {
latch1 = new CountDownLatch(1);
latch2 = new CountDownLatch(1);
latch3 = new CountDownLatch(1);
//Create object
TotalFinder tf = new TotalFinder(latch1,latch2,latch3);
//Start the thread
tf.start();
//Wait for results from TotalFinder
try {
latch1.await();
} catch(InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
//Print the result after 5th iteration
System.out.println("Current total: "+tf.getCurrentTotal());
tf.releaseWaitLock();
tf.resetWaitLock();
//Wait for results again
try {
latch2.await();
} catch(InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
//Print the result after 10th iteration
System.out.println("Current total: "+tf.getCurrentTotal());
tf.releaseWaitLock();
tf.resetWaitLock();
//Wait for results again
try {
latch3.await();
} catch(InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
//Print the result after 15th iteration
System.out.println("Current total: "+tf.getCurrentTotal());
tf.releaseWaitLock();
tf.resetWaitLock();
}
}
class TotalFinder extends Thread{
CountDownLatch tfLatch1;
CountDownLatch tfLatch2;
CountDownLatch tfLatch3;
private static int count = 1;
private static final class Lock { }
private final Object lock = new Lock();
private boolean gotSignalFromMaster = false;
public TotalFinder(CountDownLatch latch1, CountDownLatch latch2,
CountDownLatch latch3) {
tfLatch1 = latch1;
tfLatch2 = latch2;
tfLatch3 = latch3;
}
public void run() {
findTotal(16);
}
//Find total
synchronized void findTotal(int cnt) {
if(count%5==0) {
if(count==5)
tfLatch1.countDown();
if(count==10)
tfLatch2.countDown();
if(count==15)
tfLatch3.countDown();
//Sleep for sometime
try {
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch(InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
//Wait till current total is printed
synchronized(lock) {
while(gotSignalFromMaster==false) {
try {
System.out.println(" Inside of wait");
lock.wait();
} catch(InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("Came outside of wait");
}
}
count +=1;
if(count < cnt) {
System.out.println(count +" < "+cnt);
findTotal(cnt);
}
}
//Return the count value
public int getCurrentTotal() {
return count;
}
//Release lock
public void releaseWaitLock() {
//Sleep for sometime
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch(InterruptedException ie) {
ie.printStackTrace();
}
synchronized(lock) {
gotSignalFromMaster=true;
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
//Reset wait lock
public void resetWaitLock() {
gotSignalFromMaster = false;
}
}
Analysis:
In my initial analysis it looks like the wait is happening recursively eventhough notifyAll is invoked from the main program.
Help:
Why free lock using notfiyAll after a CountDownLatch didn't take effect? Need someone's help in understanding what exactly is happening in this program.

The main message about wait and notify that I got from JCIP was that I'd probably use them wrongly, so better to avoid using them directly unless strictly necessary. As such, I think that you should reconsider the use of these methods.
In this case, I think that you can do it more elegantly using SynchronousQueue. Perhaps something like this might work:
import java.util.concurrent.*;
public class RecursiveTotalFinder {
public static void main(String... args) throws InterruptedException {
SynchronousQueue<Integer> syncQueue = new SynchronousQueue<>();
//Create object
TotalFinder tf = new TotalFinder(syncQueue, 5);
//Start the thread
tf.start();
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
System.out.println("Current total: " + syncQueue.take());
}
}
}
class TotalFinder extends Thread{
private final SynchronousQueue<Integer> syncQueue;
private final int syncEvery;
private int count;
public TotalFinder(SynchronousQueue<Integer> syncQueue,
int syncEvery) {
this.syncQueue = syncQueue;
this.syncEvery = syncEvery;
}
public void run() {
try {
findTotal(16);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
//Find total
void findTotal(int cnt) throws InterruptedException {
if((count > 0) && (count%syncEvery==0)) {
syncQueue.put(count);
}
count +=1;
if(count < cnt) {
System.out.println(count +" < "+cnt);
findTotal(cnt);
}
}
}
As to why your original approach doesn't work, it's because the main thread sets gotSignalFromMaster to true and then immediately back to false, and this happens before the other thread is able to check its value. If you stick a bit of a sleep into the resetWaitLock, it proceeds beyond the point where it currently hangs; however, it then hangs at the end instead of terminating.
Note that having to use Thread.sleep to wait for another thread to change some state is a poor approach - not least because it makes your program really slow. Using synchronization utilities leads to faster and much easier-to-reason-about program.

producer - consumer multithreading in Java

I want to write program using multithreading wait and notify methods in Java.
This program has a stack (max-length = 5). Producer generate number forever and put it in the stack, and consumer pick it from stack.
When stack is full producer must wait and when stack is empty consumers must wait.
The problem is that it runs just once, I mean once it produce 5 number it stops but i put run methods in while(true) block to run nonstop able but it doesn't.
Here is what i tried so far.
Producer class:
package trail;
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.Stack;
public class Thread1 implements Runnable {
int result;
Random rand = new Random();
Stack<Integer> A = new Stack<>();
public Thread1(Stack<Integer> A) {
this.A = A;
}
public synchronized void produce()
{
while (A.size() >= 5) {
System.out.println("List is Full");
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
result = rand.nextInt(10);
System.out.println(result + " produced ");
A.push(result);
System.out.println(A);
this.notify();
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Producer get started");
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
while (true) {
produce();
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
And the consumer:
package trail;
import java.util.Stack;
public class Thread2 implements Runnable {
Stack<Integer> A = new Stack<>();
public Thread2(Stack<Integer> A) {
this.A = A;
}
public synchronized void consume() {
while (A.isEmpty()) {
System.err.println("List is empty" + A + A.size());
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.err.println(A.pop() + " Consumed " + A);
this.notify();
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("New consumer get started");
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
while (true) {
consume();
}
}
}
and here is the main method:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Stack<Integer> stack = new Stack<>();
Thread1 thread1 = new Thread1(stack);// p
Thread2 thread2 = new Thread2(stack);// c
Thread A = new Thread(thread1);
Thread B = new Thread(thread2);
Thread C = new Thread(thread2);
A.start();
B.start();
C.start();
}

I think it will be better for understanding and dealing with synchronisation in general if you try to separate three things which are currently mixed:
Task which is going to do the actual job. Names for classes Thread1 & Thread2 are misleading. They are not Thread objects, but they are actually jobs or tasks implementing Runnable interface you are giving to Thread objects.
Thread object itself which you are creating in main
Shared object which encapsulates synchronised operations/logic on a queue, a stack etc. This object will be shared between tasks. And inside this shared object you will take care of add/remove operations (either with synchronized blocks or synchronized methods). Currently (as it was pointed out already), synchronization is done on a task itself (i.e. each task waits and notifies on its own lock and nothing happens). When you separate concerns, i.e. let one class do one thing properly it will eventually become clear where is the problem.

Your consumer and you producer are synchronized on different objects and do not block each other. If this works, I daresay it's accidental.
Read up on java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue and java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue. These provide you with more modern and easier way to implement this pattern.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/BlockingQueue.html

You should synchronize on the stack instead of putting it at the method level try this code.
Also don't initalize the stack in your thread classes anyways you are passing them in the constructor from the main class, so no need of that.
Always try to avoid mark any method with synchronized keyword instead of that try to put critical section of code in the synchronized block because the more size of your synchronized area more it will impact on performance.
So, always put only that code into synchronized block that need thread safety.
Producer Code :
public void produce() {
synchronized (A) {
while (A.size() >= 5) {
System.out.println("List is Full");
try {
A.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
result = rand.nextInt(10);
System.out.println(result + " produced ");
A.push(result);
System.out.println("stack ---"+A);
A.notifyAll();
}
}
Consumer Code :
public void consume() {
synchronized (A) {
while (A.isEmpty()) {
System.err.println("List is empty" + A + A.size());
try {
System.err.println("wait");
A.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.err.println(A.pop() + " Consumed " + A);
A.notifyAll();
}
}

Try this:
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantLock;
public class CircularArrayQueue<T> {
private volatile Lock rwLock = new ReentrantLock();
private volatile Condition emptyCond = rwLock.newCondition();
private volatile Condition fullCond = rwLock.newCondition();
private final int size;
private final Object[] buffer;
private volatile int front;
private volatile int rare;
/**
* #param size
*/
public CircularArrayQueue(int size) {
this.size = size;
this.buffer = new Object[size];
this.front = -1;
this.rare = -1;
}
public boolean isEmpty(){
return front == -1;
}
public boolean isFull(){
return (front == 0 && rare == size-1) || (front == rare + 1);
}
public void enqueue(T item){
try {
// get a write lock
rwLock.lock();
// if the Q is full, wait the write lock
if(isFull())
fullCond.await();
if(rare == -1){
rare = 0;
front = 0;
} else if(rare == size - 1){
rare = 0;
} else {
rare ++;
}
buffer[rare] = item;
//System.out.println("Added\t: " + item);
// notify the reader
emptyCond.signal();
} catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
} finally {
// unlock the write lock
rwLock.unlock();
}
}
public T dequeue(){
T item = null;
try{
// get the read lock
rwLock.lock();
// if the Q is empty, wait the read lock
if(isEmpty())
emptyCond.await();
item = (T)buffer[front];
//System.out.println("Deleted\t: " + item);
if(front == rare){
front = rare = -1;
} else if(front == size - 1){
front = 0;
} else {
front ++;
}
// notify the writer
fullCond.signal();
} catch (InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
} finally{
// unlock read lock
rwLock.unlock();
}
return item;
}
}

You can use Java's awesome java.util.concurrent package and its classes.
You can easily implement the producer consumer problem using the
BlockingQueue. A BlockingQueue already supports operations that wait
for the queue to become non-empty when retrieving an element, and wait
for space to become available in the queue when storing an element.
Without BlockingQueue, every time we put data to queue at the producer
side, we need to check if queue is full, and if full, wait for some
time, check again and continue. Similarly on the consumer side, we
would have to check if queue is empty, and if empty, wait for some
time, check again and continue. However with BlockingQueue we don’t
have to write any extra logic than to just add data from Producer and
poll data from Consumer.
Read more From:
http://javawithswaranga.blogspot.in/2012/05/solving-producer-consumer-problem-in.html
http://www.javajee.com/producer-consumer-problem-in-java-using-blockingqueue

use BlockingQueue,LinkedBlockingQueue this was really simple.
http://developer.android.com/reference/java/util/concurrent/BlockingQueue.html

package javaapplication;
import java.util.Stack;
import java.util.logging.Level;
import java.util.logging.Logger;
public class ProducerConsumer {
public static Object lock = new Object();
public static Stack stack = new Stack();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread producer = new Thread(new Runnable() {
int i = 0;
#Override
public void run() {
do {
synchronized (lock) {
while (stack.size() >= 5) {
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
stack.push(++i);
if (stack.size() >= 5) {
System.out.println("Released lock by producer");
lock.notify();
}
}
} while (true);
}
});
Thread consumer = new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
do {
synchronized (lock) {
while (stack.empty()) {
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(ProdCons1.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
}
while(!stack.isEmpty()){
System.out.println("stack : " + stack.pop());
}
lock.notifyAll();
}
} while (true);
}
});
producer.start();
consumer.start();
}
}

Have a look at this code example:
import java.util.concurrent.*;
import java.util.Random;
public class ProducerConsumerMulti {
public static void main(String args[]){
BlockingQueue<Integer> sharedQueue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Integer>();
Thread prodThread = new Thread(new Producer(sharedQueue,1));
Thread consThread1 = new Thread(new Consumer(sharedQueue,1));
Thread consThread2 = new Thread(new Consumer(sharedQueue,2));
prodThread.start();
consThread1.start();
consThread2.start();
}
}
class Producer implements Runnable {
private final BlockingQueue<Integer> sharedQueue;
private int threadNo;
private Random rng;
public Producer(BlockingQueue<Integer> sharedQueue,int threadNo) {
this.threadNo = threadNo;
this.sharedQueue = sharedQueue;
this.rng = new Random();
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
try {
int number = rng.nextInt(100);
System.out.println("Produced:" + number + ":by thread:"+ threadNo);
sharedQueue.put(number);
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (Exception err) {
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
class Consumer implements Runnable{
private final BlockingQueue<Integer> sharedQueue;
private int threadNo;
public Consumer (BlockingQueue<Integer> sharedQueue,int threadNo) {
this.sharedQueue = sharedQueue;
this.threadNo = threadNo;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
try {
int num = sharedQueue.take();
System.out.println("Consumed: "+ num + ":by thread:"+threadNo);
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (Exception err) {
err.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
Notes:
Started one Producer and two Consumers as per your problem statement
Producer will produce random numbers between 0 to 100 in infinite loop
Consumer will consume these numbers in infinite loop
Both Producer and Consumer share lock free and Thread safe LinkedBlockingQueue which is Thread safe. You can remove wait() and notify() methods if you use these advanced concurrent constructs.

Seems like you skipped something about wait(), notify() and synchronized.
See this example, it should help you.

IllegalMonitorStateException when notifying threads

I have a program that simulates Gates to a ship. They run in threads. The idea is to let them run and pause during a random moment in the run method to simulate persons passing. This is done by all threads, meanwhile the main thread is waiting for notification and checking if the ship is getting full when notified by the threads that they added a person passing through the gate the main thread checks again if the ship is full. The program has three classes:
A counter:
public class Counter {
private int currentValue[];
private int maxValue;
public Counter(int[] nrOfPeople, int max) {
currentValue = nrOfPeople;
currentValue[0] = 0;
maxValue = max;
}
public synchronized void addPersons(int nr_p) {
currentValue[0] += nr_p;
}
public synchronized int getValue() {
return currentValue[0];
}
public synchronized boolean isFull() {
if(currentValue[0] < maxValue)
return false;
return true;
}
}
A Gate Class:
public abstract class Gate implements Runnable {
int nrOfPassengers;
int gatenr;
int gatesize;
Counter c;
private Thread t;
private Random r;
private boolean blocked; /* suspends people from passing */
public Gate(Counter c, int nr) {
this.c = c;
gatenr = nr;
this.open();
r = new Random();
t = new Thread(this);
t.start();
}
public void setGatesize(int size) {
gatesize = size;
}
public void close() {
blocked = true;
}
public void open() {
blocked = false;
}
public int getNoOfPassangers() {
return nrOfPassengers;
}
public int getId() {
return gatenr;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(!blocked) {
int waitTime = (r.nextInt(5) + 1) * 1000; /* between 1-5 seconds */
System.out.println("Person-Gate " + gatenr + ": adding one to " + c.getValue());
try {
/* bigger throughput => amount can vary */
if(gatesize > 1) {
int persons = r.nextInt(gatesize)+1;
c.addPersons(persons);
nrOfPassengers += persons;
} else {
c.addPersons(1);
nrOfPassengers++;
}
Thread.sleep(waitTime);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Person-Gate " + gatenr + ": was interrupted adding person");
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Person-Gate " + gatenr + ": added one to " + c.getValue());
t.notify();
}
}
public void join() {
try {
t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
And a Simulator that runs the main method:
/*
* This class simulates cars and persons- entering a ferry.
*/
public class Simulator {
public static final int MAX = 30;
public static void main(String[] args) {
int nrOfPeople[] = new int[1]; /* array of size one for keeping count */
ArrayList<Gate> gates = new ArrayList<Gate>();
Counter counter = new Counter(nrOfPeople, MAX);
Thread mainThread = Thread.currentThread();
/* adding 3 person-gates */
for(int i=1; i<4; i++) {
gates.add(new PersonGate(counter, i));
}
/* let all gates work as long as passengers is under MAX */
while(!counter.isFull()) {
try {
mainThread.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("Announcement: Ship is full!");
/* wait for child threads to finish */
for(Gate g: gates) {
g.close();
try {
g.join();
} catch (Exception e) { /* InterruptedException */
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println(g.getNoOfPassangers() + " passed through gate nr " + g.getId());
System.out.println(counter.getValue() + " has passed in total");
}
}
}
Im getting a error
Person-Gate 1: adding one to 0
Person-Gate 2: adding one to 1
Person-Gate 3: adding one to 2
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method)
at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:485)
at Simulator.main(Simulator.java:24)
Person-Gate 3: added one to 3Exception in thread "Thread-3"
Does anyone now whats going on?

You can only call wait and notify/notifyAll from within synchronized blocks.

t.notify();
You are notifying wrong monitor. This exception occurs, when you do not wrap monitor object with synchronize section. However, objects which you are using for notify and for wait methods are different. Create new Object() monitor and pass it to the constructor of Gate.
Also you can take a look at CountDownLatch, it does exactly what you are trying to achieve.

You must own the monitor of the object on which you call wait or notify. Meaning, you must be in a synchonize-Block, like
synchronized( objectUsedAsSynchronizer) {
while ( mustStillWait) {
objectUsedAsSynchronizer.wait();
}
}
This has been the subject of many other questions.