We Keep Coding

Why am I getting IllegalMonitorStateException for the Thread t1

I'm getting this error for the code below
First thread about to sleep
thread 1 run
Boolean assignment done.
Woke up and about to invoke wait()
Exception in thread "Thread-0" java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException
at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method)
at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:502)
at IncorrectSynchronization$1.run(HelloWorld.java:23)
at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:748)
When the Thread t1 is sleeping, I modified the lock to false from another thread.
It then throws this IllegalMonitorStateException. It's still the same object, why would modifying the value cause IllegalMonitorStateException?
When I modify the lock to false from another thread inside a synchronized block, I no longer get that error. Can anyone explain the reason for what's happening under the hood?
public class HelloWorld{
public static void main( String args[] ) throws InterruptedException {
SampleTest.runExample();
}
}
class SampleTest{
Boolean flag = new Boolean(true);
public void example() throws InterruptedException {
Thread t0 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronized (flag) {
try {
while (flag) {
System.out.println("First thread about to sleep");
Thread.sleep(2000);
System.out.println("Woke up and about to invoke wait()");
flag.wait();
System.out.println("wait() called");
}
} catch (InterruptedException ie) {
}
}
}
});
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
System.out.println("thread 1 run");
flag = false;
}
});
t0.start();
Thread.sleep(200);
t1.start();
t0.join();
t1.join();
}
public static void runExample() throws InterruptedException {
SampleTest test = new SampleTest();
test.example();
}
}

The problem is with this line:
flag = false;
This changes the reference of the flag Boolean variable, from the original Boolean object (which is created by the deprecated constructor which should not be used) to the pre-created Boolean.FALSE instance (due to autoboxing). By the time the first thread calls flag.wait(), the object is no longer the same as the one it used to synchronize, hence the IllegalMonitorStateException.
In this scenario, it's much better to use an AtomicBoolean and mutate its value in the other thread:
AtomicBoolean flag = new AtomicBoolean(true);
Now the second thread can update the value of the same object. It should also probably notify the first thread that is waiting on the object (like wait(), notify() also requires synchronizing on the object on which it is invoked):
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronized(flag) {
System.out.println("thread 1 run");
flag.set(false);
flag.notify();
}
}
});

How locking works in java

I am writing a program to test how a thread can keep waiting if another thread has acquired lock on same object but after looking at output I am not sure how locking works in java. Here is what i have written:
public class Locking {
synchronized void methodA() {
System.out.println("inside A , " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
new Locking().execute();
}
private void execute() throws InterruptedException {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new MyThread());
t1.setName("t1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(new MyThread());
t2.setName("t2");
t1.start();
Thread.sleep(5000);
t2.start();
}
class MyThread implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
methodA();
}
}
}
}
I expected thread t2 to be waiting forever and program will print only
inside A , t1
but when i run the program , I get following output:
inside A , t1
inside A , t2
Can anyone explain what is going on here?

I am writing a program to test how a thread can keep waiting if
another thread has acquired lock on same object
The single lock is here :
synchronized void methodA() {
System.out.println("inside A , " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
It takes the locks on the current instance but no statement in your code locks in a way where a thread could wait forever the lock.
Look at my comments :
#Override
public void run() {
while (true) {
try {
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
// the lock is set here
methodA();
// and that is released here
}
}
Make the synchronized method never releases the lock and only one of the thread will be able to enter in :
synchronized void methodA() {
while (true) {
System.out.println("inside A , " + Thread.currentThread()
.getName());
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// handle it
}
}
}
prints :
inside A , t1
inside A , t1
inside A , t1
...
Her are some other examples to play with threads.
Replace sleep() by wait() and the current thread will release the lock :
synchronized void methodA() {
while (true) {
System.out.println("inside A , " + Thread.currentThread()
.getName());
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// handle it
}
}
}
prints :
inside A , t1
inside A , t2
Use notify() (to notify a waiting thread) and wait() (to make the current thread wait and release the lock if it has) to make threads collaborating between them :
synchronized void methodA() {
while (true) {
notify();
System.out.println("inside A , " + Thread.currentThread()
.getName());
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// handle it
}
}
}
prints :
inside A , t1
inside A , t2
inside A , t1
inside A , t2
...

That is intended situation.
Your t1 thread is waiting in another thread not main thread.
In your main thread(make threads and call start()), just waiting 5 seconds and start thread2
your synchronized method is synchronizing only when thread 1 calls that method not forever.
After thread1 calls synchorinized method and return, thread1 is stopping 5seconds.
In that time, thread2 can use that method.

The keyword synchronized infront of a method means, that the method cannot be called by two threads at the same time.
As soon as the method is called by a thread, other threads trying to call that same method are blocked until the first thread returns from that method. Afterwards the other threads calling the same method can automatically continue with the call (one at a time).

You implicit lock with synchronized is working for a short period - that is the println after that the lock is released. Both of your threads are racing to obtain the lock there.
Change your code to this and you will see the behavior you want
class MyThread implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
methodA();
}
}
synchronized void methodA() {
while(true)
System.out.println("inside A , " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}

Why does this contrived Java code deadlock?

I'm having a hard time understanding synchronized. Since the first thread doesn't do anything with the object 2, doesn't it "unlock" everything in a second?
public class Uninterruptible {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
final Object o1 = new Object(); final Object o2 = new Object();
Thread t1 = new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
synchronized(o1) {
Thread.sleep(1000);
synchronized(o2) {}
}
} catch(InterruptedException e) { System.out.println("t1 interrupted"); }
}
};
Thread t2 = new Thread() {
public void run() {
try {
synchronized(o2) {
Thread.sleep(1000);
synchronized(o1) {}
}
} catch(InterruptedException e) { System.out.println("t2 interrupted"); }
}
};
t1.start(); t2.start();
Thread.sleep(2000);
t1.interrupt(); t2.interrupt();
t1.join(); t2.join();
System.out.println("Donezo!");
}
}

It doesn't matter that the inner synchronized blocks do nothing. Java will still attempt to acquire the lock on the the object specified.
No matter whether you have nothing or a huge amount of processing in the inner synchronized blocks, what you have is the minimal example to create a deadlock: two different threads, each owning the lock on a distinct resource, each attempting to acquire the lock on each other's resource.
The deadlock occurs before either thread even gets to executing the inner synchronized block, because neither thread can get locks on both resources at the same time.
The code winds up doing nothing but hanging, with each thread blocked. Your calls to interrupt are too late to cause an InterruptedException; they only set the "interrupted status" in the Thread. Commenting out Thread.sleep(2000) will let the calls to interrupt catch the Threads while they are still sleeping, before they even attempt to acquire the second lock.

Creating my own Java deadlock program

I was trying to create A Java dead lock program . I know in real time we wont be creating any dead lock in thread. Unfortunately I have been asked in one of the interview to writing a "Deadlock program using two threads". So here it is
package Thread.DeadLock;
public class deadLock2 {
static ThreadSample1 t1 = new ThreadSample1();
static ThreadSample2 t2 = new ThreadSample2();
public static void main(String args[]) {
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
public static class ThreadSample1 extends Thread {
public void run() {
System.out.println("In first run method");
try {
System.out.println("Holding lock in first one");
synchronized (t1) {
System.out.println("t1 going to wait for t2");
t1.wait();
System.out.println("t1 finished for waiting");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static class ThreadSample2 extends Thread {
public void run() {
System.out.println("In second run method");
try {
System.out.println("Holding lock for second one");
synchronized (t2) {
System.out.println("t2 going to wait for t1");
t2.wait();
System.out.println("t2 finished for waiting");
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
I can see the program is getting stuck. I am assuming that it in deadlock situation. t1.start() waits for t2 to finish its task and t2.start() waits for t1 to finish its task. Now while I try to remove the deadlock by notifying the waiting thread using using t1.notify() I get IllegalMonitorStateException.
Can somebody tell in this situation how to remove the deadlock without causing any situation.

First, this is not deadlock. As you correctly described, deadlock is usually situation when there is circular dependency between two or more threads waiting for resources that is held by other thread.
Here, each thread independently waits for notification on itself which is actually not delivered by anybody else in the system. Even if there is no deadlock.
Secondly, IllegalMonitorStateException means that you try to notify/wait on monitor which is not held by the thread. In other words, there is no synchronized prior to notify/wait.
Third, to achieve real deadlock you can do something like this:
synchronized(t1) {
synchronized(t2) {
t2.wait();
}
t1.notify();
}
and vice versa for the other thread.

You can not call notify()/notifyAll() unless the current thread owns that object's monitor. To do that, you must synchronize on it, as you did with wait()
The Javadocs for wait() mention this:
This method should only be called by a thread that is the owner of this object's monitor. See the notify method for a description of the ways in which a thread can become the owner of a monitor.
Throws:
IllegalMonitorStateException – if the current thread is not the owner of this object's monitor.
And from notify():
A thread becomes the owner of the object's monitor in one of three
ways:
By executing a synchronized instance method of that object.
By executing the body of a synchronized statement that synchronizes on the object.
For objects of type Class, by executing a synchronized static method of that class.
See this answer:
Java Wait and Notify: IllegalMonitorStateException

package pck.pramod.geekforgeeks;
public class ThreadDeadlock {
public static Object Lock1 = new Object();
public static Object Lock2 = new Object();
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println(Lock1.toString() + " " + Lock2.toString());
ThreadDemo1 T1 = new ThreadDemo1(Lock1, Lock2, "T1");
ThreadDemo1 T2 = new ThreadDemo1(Lock2, Lock1, "T2");
T1.start();
T2.start();
}
}
class ThreadDemo1 extends Thread {
Object lock1;
Object lock2;
String name;
public ThreadDemo1(Object lock1, Object lock2, String name) {
this.lock1 = lock1;
this.lock2 = lock2;
this.name = name;
}
public void run() {
synchronized (lock1) {
System.out.println(name + " Holding lock ..." + lock1.toString());
try {
Thread.sleep(10);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println(name + " Waiting for lock ..." + lock2.toString());
synchronized (lock2) {
System.out.println(name + " Holding lock ..." + lock1.toString() + " " + lock2.toString());
}
}
}
}

Simultaneous access to a Java synchronized block using threads?

How can two threads access a synchronized block simultaneously? That is, how can I make one thread give the chance for the other thread to execute a synchronized block, even before this thread finishes the execution of the same synchronized block?

See wait(), notify(), and notifyAll().
Edit: The edit to your question is incorrect. The sleep() method does not release the monitor.
For example:
private static final Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
executorService.execute(new One());
executorService.execute(new Two());
}
static class One implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
System.out.println("(One) I own the lock");
System.out.println("(One) Giving up the lock and waiting");
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("(One) I shouldn't have been interrupted");
}
System.out.println("(One) I have the lock back now");
}
}
}
static class Two implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("(Two) I shouldn't have been interrupted");
}
synchronized (lock) {
System.out.println("(Two) Now I own the lock (Two)");
System.out.println("(Two) Giving up the lock using notify()");
lock.notify();
}
}
}

It sounds like you might want to consider using more than one synchronized block, particularly if there's a blocking operation that one thread is getting caught on and thus blocking another thread that wants to execute something else in the block.

A synchronized block is a block of code which can (by definition) only be accessed by one thread at a time.
Saying that you want another thread to enter this block while another thread also currently processes it, does make the synchronized block scheme useless.
You probably want to split the synchronized block into many other ones.

The only way I can see if one thread calls wait() on monitor object. Then it will release monitor and wait for notification while other thread can execute synchronized block. Then other thread will have to call notify()/notifyAll() so first thread gets monitor back and continue.

A thread can release its monitor using lock.wait(). Another thread can then pick up the monitor and enter the synchronized block.
Example:
public class MultipleThreadsInSynchronizedBlock {
public static void main(String... args) {
final Object lock = new Object();
Runnable runnable = new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
System.out.println("Before wait");
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
System.out.println("After wait");
}
}
};
new Thread(runnable).start();
new Thread(runnable).start();
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
synchronized (lock) {
lock.notifyAll();
}
}
}
This prints:
Before wait
Before wait
After wait
After wait
However it's not a "hack" to allow a mutually exclusive block to be run non-atomically. If you're going to use very low-level synchronization primitives like this you need to know what you're doing.