I am following examples from here
I've modified the processCommand as-
private void processCommand() throws InterruptedException {
this.command = "xyz";
}
Full code-
import java.util.logging.Level;
import java.util.logging.Logger;
public class WorkerThread implements Runnable {
private String command;
public WorkerThread(String s) {
this.command = s;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(WorkerThread.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " Commad at start :" + command);
try {
processCommand();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
}
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " Command after processCommand : " + command);
}
private void processCommand() throws InterruptedException {
this.command = "xyz";
}
}
Now, I expect to see synchronization issue, right? Basically, when
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+' Start. Command = '+command);
is executed, it CAN pick-up the value xyz, right? but I never see it. I've experimented with various values in Thread.Sleep.
So what makes this.command = "xyz"; statement threadsafe in this case?
I am starting thread in this way -
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(5);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Runnable worker = new WorkerThread("" + i);
executor.execute(worker);
}
UPDATE
It is still not entirely what the complete program looks like ... but based on what I think it is, I cannot see any point where it is not thread-safe.
There are two points where command is assigned and two points where the value is read.
The main thread assigns command in the constructor.
A second thread reads command in run() before calling processCommand.
The second thread assigns command in processCommand
The second thread reads command in run() after calling processCommand.
The last three events occur on the same thread, so no synchronization is required. The first and second events occur on different threads, but there should be a "happens before" relation between the main thread and worker thread at that point.
If the main thread were to start() the second thread, that would provide the happens before. (The JLS says so.)
But actually we are using ThreadPoolExecutor.execute(Runnable) to do the hand-over, and according to the javadoc for Executor:
Memory consistency effects: Actions in a thread prior to submitting a Runnable object to an Executor happen-before its execution begins, perhaps in another thread.
In summary, all 4 events of interest are properly synchronized, and there are no race conditions involving command.
However, even if this was not thread-safe you would have difficulty demonstrating that non-thread-safe behaviour.
The main reason you cannot demonstrate it is that the actual non-safeness is due to Java memory model. Changes to the command variable only need to be flushed to main memory if there is synchronization point or something to establish the "happens before". But they can be flushed anyway ... and they usually are ... especially if there is a long enough time gap, or a system call that causes a context switch. In this case you have both.
A second reason is that the System.err and System.out objects are internally synchronized, and if you are not careful with the way you call them you can eliminate the thread-safety problem you trying to demonstrate.
This is "the thing" about thread-safety issues involving non-synchronised access to shared variables. The actual race conditions often involve very small time windows; i.e. two events that need to happen within a few clock cycles (certainly less than a microsecond) for the race to be noticed. This is likely to happen rarely, which is why problems involving race conditions are typically so hard to reproduce.
The reason you don't see a race condition here is
Runnable worker = new WorkerThread('' + i);
A race condition involves a shared resource. All your worker threads on the other hand are changing their own private member command. To induce a race condition you would need to do something like
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
Runnable worker = new WorkerThread('' + 0);
executor.execute(worker);
worker.setCommand('' + i);
}
Now when the worker tries to access the command field it could get the stale 0 value or the i value.
Related
I am trying to create a simple Java Swing-based application that manually controls two threads which are both trying to continually increment an integer value. The application should be able to 'Start' and 'Stop' either of the threads (both threads incrementing the value simultaneously) and put either of the threads in the critical region (only one thread allowed to increment value).
Here's a screenshot of what I have, so that you may better understand what I am aiming for:
https://i.imgur.com/sQueUD7.png
I've created an "Incrementor" class which does the job of incrementing the int value, but if I try adding the synchronized keyword to the increment() method, I do not get the result I want.
private void increment() {
while (Thread.currentThread().isAlive()) {
if (Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("Thread 1")) {
if (t1Stop.isEnabled()) {
value++;
t1TextField.setText("Thread 1 has incremented value by 1. Current value = " + value + "\n");
}
} else if (Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("Thread 2")) {
if (t2Stop.isEnabled()) {
value++;
t2TextField.setText("Thread 2 has incremented value by 1. Current value = " + value + "\n");
}
}
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
Any advice on how to proceed?
I hope I've made it clear what it is I am looking for, if not, let me know and I'll update this post.
your problem is the dreaded thread lock !!
but if I try adding the synchronized keyword to the increment() method, I do not get the result I want.
of course ! Thread manager changes the "Working" thread whenever he feels like it !, and you should post more code here , but from the first look , you are running the same method in both threads , so it will be dropped down to 2 case :-
the good case !
the Thread Manager changes the thread after it finishes calling the increment method(good old win win for both threads ^-^).
the bad case (and this is what you have faced)
imagine that a thread accessed the method and before completing the method the thread managers changes it and when the other method tries to access it find's a big nasty synchronized in it's face with the lock in the other thread !from here is their is no guarantee what will happen but i can assure you that 90% of this cases result's only pleases the thread manager .
The application should be able to 'Start' and 'Stop' either of the threads (both threads incrementing the value simultaneously) and put either of the threads in the critical region (only one thread allowed to increment value).
sorry to break it to you but the thread manager is not-controllable my friend .
but we can suggest a fair amount of thing's to the thread manager , so what you are trying to achieve is not possible at the java thread manager .
and stopping thread's ooky dooky , but starting a thread after stopping it is big NO !!!
from the Thread.start() documentation
It is never legal to start a thread more than once.
In particular, a thread may not be restarted once it has completed
execution.
throws IllegalThreadStateException if the thread was already
started.
here's a very rich link were you can get the topic explained more widely at the oracle's
You can use object-level lock using synchronized keyword.
=> Object-level lock : To synchronize a non static method or block so that it can be accessed by only one thread at a time for that instance. It is used to protect non static data.
Example :
public class ClasswithCriticalSections {
private AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(0);
public synchronized int increment() {
count.incrementAndGet();
return count;
}
}
or
public class ClasswithCriticalSections {
Object lock1 = new Object();
Object lock2 = new Object();
private AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(0);
public int increment() {
synchronized(lock1) {
count.incrementAndGet();
return count;
}
}
public int decrement() {
synchronized(lock2) {
count.addAndGet(-1);
return count;
}
}
}
I have the following piece of code. It has two objects, namely MultiThreadingTest, and the ThreadB object. When we say synchronized(b), what does it mean exactly? Can the 'main' thread get a lock on b before ThreadB finishes it's execution? I can't understand the significance of monitor object in the synchronized block.
package threads;
class MultiThreadingTest
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.setName("Thread B");
b.start();
synchronized(b)
{
System.out.println("Current thread : "+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
try
{
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();
}
catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Total = "+b.total );
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread
{
int total;
public void run()
{
synchronized(this)
{
System.out.println("Current thread : "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
for(int i=0;i<100;i++)
{
total = total + i;
}
notify();
}
}
}
Think of it like the child's game, whoever holds the [whatever object] gets to speak. Whoever holds the monitor object gets to execute in computing terms.
The monitor is the object you are locking upon, at any given time, only one thread accesses code protected by a synchronization block per monitor object. The object itself is arbitrary and doesn't hold much weight onto synchronization (though you have to watch out for reassigning variables as well as null references). Also, JB Nizet raises a good point here on synchronizing on a Thread object since many internal VM methods do that, you can cause bazaar, hard to detect bugs and deadlocks.
Two threads entering different synchronization blocks locking on different monitors will execute concurrently, analogous to two separate groups of people playing/enacting the "who ever holds to xxx gets to speak" game. Locking on this is just a convenient way to manifest a single lock synchronization without creating additional lock objects.
In your case, ThreadB b is the same object pointed to as this from within the ThreadB class meaning that only one thread can enter any of your defined synchronization blocks at once. The order is highly dependent on which thread ran first, the thread scheduler and even the underlying system.
The main reason for monitor objects is so that complex thread-safety mechanisms can be realized. Imagine a system where every synchronization block is single thread access (i.e. at any time, any thread enters a synchronization block will hold every other thread in the whole VM trying to enter a sync block) not only will this cause a massive performance slowdown, it just doesn't make sense. Why should two unrelated application modules lock on each other if they share no data and never interact?
The solution of course is to have one module use one (or several) monitor objects that are unrelated/unassociated with the other module, so both can execute concurrently independent of each other (assuming this is the desired behavior).
To further clarify, you could write:
class MultiThreadingTest{
public static void main(String[] args){
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.setName("Thread B");
b.start();
synchronized(b.lock){
System.out.println("Current thread : "+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
try{
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.lock.wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Total = " + b.total );
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread{
public final Object lock = new Object();
int total;
public void run(){
synchronized(lock){
System.out.println("Current thread : "+Thread.currentThread().getName());
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++){
total = total + i;
}
lock.notify();
}
}
}
to exactly the same effect as the code you've used (even better, since it resolves the conflict with Thread.join() and other methods).
synchronized(this) means that you won't be able to enter this block of code if another thread is inside a block of code that is also synchronized on the object referenced by this.
synchronized(b) means that you won't be able to enter this block of code if another thread is inside a block of code that is also synchronized on the object referenced by b.
They thus do the exact same thing. The only difference is the object that is used to lock.
Note that waiting, synchronizing and notifying on an object of type Thread is a really really bad idea. It confuses things, and will lead to unwanted behavior because other methods (join() for example) also use the Thread as a monitor.
As per my understanding, no. The 'this' object within the run() method and the 'b' object in the main() method are the same.
Hence it would not be possible for the 'main' thread to acquire the lock until the thread completes execution.
Also the notify() within the run() method seems to be redundant in this case since its at the end of the method and the lock on the monitor would be relinquished any how.
PS: Do look around for similar questions that may already have been asked in the forum. They may help in providing additional understanding.
I'm trying to learn about threads and I do not understand the join() method.
I have a Thread (ThreadAdd.java) which adds 1 to a static int.
public class ThreadAdd extends Thread{
public static int count;
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(ThreadAdd.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
ThreadAdd.count++;
}
}
In my main method I launch 2 threads :
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
ThreadAdd s1 = new ThreadAdd();
ThreadAdd s2 = new ThreadAdd();
s1.start();s2.start();
s1.join();
s2.join();
System.out.println(ThreadAdd.count);
}
I do not understand why most of the time the result is 2 but sometimes it returns 1.
The reason why you sometimes see 1 is not because join() fails to wait for the thread to finish, but because both threads tried to modify the value concurrently. When this happens, you may see unexpected results: for example, when both threads try to increment count which is zero, they both could read zero, then add 1 to it, and store the result. Both of them will store the same exact result, i.e. 1, so that's what you are going to see no matter how long you wait.
To fix this problem, add synchronized around the increment, or use AtomicInteger:
public static AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(0);
#Override
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(100);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(ThreadAdd.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
ThreadAdd.count.incrementAndGet();
}
The join method is not the real issue here. The problem is that your counter is not prepared for interthread synchronization, which may lead to each thread observing a different value in count.
It is highly recommended that you study some topics of concurrent programming, including how it is handled in Java.
Because you're not synchronizing the increment of the integer count. The two threads may interleave while incrementing the variable.
See http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/interfere.html for an explanation. The example in the link is similar to your example and a solution provided to avoid this thread interference is to use atomic variables like java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger.
Your count variable isn't volatile, and so there's no requirement for threads to check its value each time, and occasionally instruction ordering will cause errors like that.
In fact, though, since count++ is syntactic sugar for count = count + 1, even making the variable volatile won't ensure that you don't have the problem, since there's a race condition between the read and the subsequent write.
To make code like this safe, use an AtomicInteger instead.
This has nothing to do with the join. The thread that waits by using join() is your main thread. The two other threads are not waiting for anything. And the join is not causing them to do anything differently.
And as the other answers said, the two threads are concurrently writing to the same variable, and therefore you get the result you see.
Perhaps you were expecting the join() to delay one of the threads so that it doesn't work concurrently with the other, but that's not how it works. The only thread that is delayed is the caller of join(), not the target thread.
I was trying to implement something similar to Java's bounded BlockingQueue interface using Java synchronization "primitives" (synchronized, wait(), notify()) when I stumbled upon some behavior I don't understand.
I create a queue capable of storing 1 element, create two threads that wait to fetch a value from the queue, start them, then try to put two values into the queue in a synchronized block in the main thread. Most of the time it works, but sometimes the two threads waiting for a value start seemingly waking up each other and not letting the main thread enter the synchronized block.
Here's my (simplified) code:
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.Queue;
public class LivelockDemo {
private static final int MANY_RUNS = 10000;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
for (int i = 0; i < MANY_RUNS; i++) { // to increase the probability
final MyBoundedBlockingQueue ctr = new MyBoundedBlockingQueue(1);
Thread t1 = createObserver(ctr, i + ":1");
Thread t2 = createObserver(ctr, i + ":2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
System.out.println(i + ":0 ready to enter synchronized block");
synchronized (ctr) {
System.out.println(i + ":0 entered synchronized block");
ctr.addWhenHasSpace("hello");
ctr.addWhenHasSpace("world");
}
t1.join();
t2.join();
System.out.println();
}
}
public static class MyBoundedBlockingQueue {
private Queue<Object> lst = new LinkedList<Object>();;
private int limit;
private MyBoundedBlockingQueue(int limit) {
this.limit = limit;
}
public synchronized void addWhenHasSpace(Object obj) throws InterruptedException {
boolean printed = false;
while (lst.size() >= limit) {
printed = __heartbeat(':', printed);
notify();
wait();
}
lst.offer(obj);
notify();
}
// waits until something has been set and then returns it
public synchronized Object getWhenNotEmpty() throws InterruptedException {
boolean printed = false;
while (lst.isEmpty()) {
printed = __heartbeat('.', printed); // show progress
notify();
wait();
}
Object result = lst.poll();
notify();
return result;
}
// just to show progress of waiting threads in a reasonable manner
private static boolean __heartbeat(char c, boolean printed) {
long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
if (now % 1000 == 0) {
System.out.print(c);
printed = true;
} else if (printed) {
System.out.println();
printed = false;
}
return printed;
}
}
private static Thread createObserver(final MyBoundedBlockingQueue ctr,
final String name) {
return new Thread(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
try {
System.out.println(name + ": saw " + ctr.getWhenNotEmpty());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace(System.err);
}
}
}, name);
}
}
Here's what I see when it "blocks":
(skipped a lot)
85:0 ready to enter synchronized block
85:0 entered synchronized block
85:2: saw hello
85:1: saw world
86:0 ready to enter synchronized block
86:0 entered synchronized block
86:2: saw hello
86:1: saw world
87:0 ready to enter synchronized block
............................................
..........................................................................
..................................................................................
(goes "forever")
However, if I change the notify() calls inside the while(...) loops of addWhenHasSpace and getWhenNotEmpty methods to notifyAll(), it "always" passes.
My question is this: why does the behavior vary between notify() and notifyAll() methods in this case, and also why is the behavior of notify() the way it is?
I would expect both methods to behave in the same way in this case (two threads WAITING, one BLOCKED), because:
it seems to me that in this case notifyAll() would only wake up the other thread, same as notify();
it looks like the choice of the method which wakes up a thread affects how the thread that is woken up (and becomes RUNNABLE I guess) and the main thread (that has been BLOCKED) later compete for the lock — not something I would expect from the javadoc as well as searching the internet on the topic.
Or maybe I'm doing something wrong altogether?
Without looking too deeply into your code, I can see that you are using a single condition variable to implement a queue with one producer and more than one consumer. That's a recipe for trouble: If there's only one condition variable, then when a consumer calls notify(), there's no way of knowing whether it will wake the producer or wake the other consumer.
There are two ways out of that trap: The simplest is to always use notifyAll().
The other way is to stop using synchronized, wait(), and notify(), and instead use the facilities in java.util.concurrent.locks.
A single ReentrantLock object can give you two (or more) condition variables. Use one exclusively for the producer to notify the consumers, and use the other exclusively for the consumers to notify the producer.
Note: The names change when you switch to using ReentrantLocks: o.wait() becomes c.await(), and o.notify() becomes c.signal().
There appears to be some kind of fairness/barging going on using intrinsic locking - probably due to some optimization. I am guessing, that the native code checks to see if the current thread has notified the monitor it is about to wait on and allows it to win.
Replace the synchronized with ReentrantLock and it should work as you expect it. The different here is how the ReentrantLock handles waiters of a lock it has notified on.
Update:
Interesting find here. What you are seeing is a race between the main thread entering
synchronized (ctr) {
System.out.println(i + ":0 entered synchronized block");
ctr.addWhenHasSpace("hello");
ctr.addWhenHasSpace("world");
}
while the other two thread enter their respective synchronized regions. If the main thread does not get into its sync region before at least one of the two, you will experience this live-lock output you are describing.
What appears to be happening is that if both the two consumer threads hit the sync block first they will ping-pong with each other for notify and wait. It may be the case the JVM gives threads that are waiting priority to the monitor while threads are blocked.
Suppose that I have an arraylist called myList of threads all of which are created with an instance of the class myRunnable implementing the Runnable interface, that is, all the threads share the same code to execute in the run() method of myRunnable. Now suppose that I have another single thread called singleThread that is created with an instance of the class otherRunnable implementing the Runnable interface.
The synchornization challenge I have to resolve for these threads is the following: I need all of the threads in myList to execute their code until certain point. Once reached this point, they shoud sleep. Once all and only all of the threads in myList are sleeping, then singleThread should be awakened (singleThread was already asleep). Then singleThread execute its own stuff, and when it is done, it should sleep and all the threads in myList should be awakened. Imagine that the codes are wrapped in while(true)'s, so this process must happen again and again.
Here is an example of the situation I've just described including an attempt of solving the synchronization problem:
class myRunnable extends Runnable
{
public static final Object lock = new Object();
static int count = 0;
#override
run()
{
while(true)
{
//do stuff
barrier();
//do stuff
}
}
void barrier()
{
try {
synchronized(lock) {
count++;
if (count == Program.myList.size()) {
count = 0;
synchronized(otherRunnable.lock) {
otherRunnable.lock.notify();
}
}
lock.wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {}
}
}
class otherRunnable extend Runnable
{
public static final Object lock = new Object();
#override
run()
{
while(true)
{
try {
synchronized(lock) {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {}
// do stuff
try {
synchronized(myRunnable.lock) {
myRunnable.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
class Program
{
public static ArrayList<Thread> myList;
public static void main (string[] args)
{
myList = new ArrayList<Thread>();
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
myList.add(new Thread(new myRunnable()));
myList.get(i).start();
}
new Thread(new OtherRunnable()).start();
}
}
Basically my idea is to use a counter to make sure that threads in myList just wait except the last thread incrementing the counter, which resets the counter to 0, wakes up singleThread by notifying to its lock, and then this last thread goes to sleep as well by waiting to myRunnable.lock. In a more abstract level, my approach is to use some sort of barrier for threads in myList to stop their execution in a critical point, then the last thread hitting the barrier wakes up singleThread and goes to sleep as well, then singleThread makes its stuff and when finished, it wakes up all the threads in the barrier so they can continue again.
My problem is that there is a flaw in my logic (probably there are more). When the last thread hitting the barrier notifies otherRunnable.lock, there is a chance that an immediate context switch could occur, giving the cpu to singleThread, before the last thread could execute its wait on myRunnable.lock (and going to sleep). Then singleThread would execute all its stuff, would execute notifyAll on myRunnable.lock, and all the threads in myList would be awakened except the last thread hitting the barrier because it has not yet executed its wait command. Then, all those threads would do their stuff again and would hit the barrier again, but the count would never be equal to myList.size() because the last thread mentioned earlier would be eventually scheduled again and would execute wait. singleThread in turn would also execute wait in its first line, and as a result we have a deadlock, with everybody sleeping.
So my question is: what would be a good way to synchronize these threads in order to achieve the desired behaviour described before but at the same time in a way safe of deadlocks??
Based on your comment, sounds like a CyclicBarrier would fit your need exactly. From the docs (emphasis mine):
A synchronization aid that allows a set of threads to all wait for each other to reach a common barrier point. CyclicBarriers are useful in programs involving a fixed sized party of threads that must occasionally wait for each other. The barrier is called cyclic because it can be re-used after the waiting threads are released.
Unfortunately, I haven't used them myself, so I can't give you specific pointers on them. I think the basic idea is you construct your barrier using the two-argument constructor with the barrierAction. Have your n threads await() on this barrier after this task is done, after which barrierAction is executed, after which the n threads will continue.
From the javadoc for CyclicBarrier#await():
If the current thread is the last thread to arrive, and a non-null barrier action was supplied in the constructor, then the current thread runs the action before allowing the other threads to continue. If an exception occurs during the barrier action then that exception will be propagated in the current thread and the barrier is placed in the broken state.