We Keep Coding

How does Java non-fair ReentrantReadWriteLock really work?

I have written the following test code in Java using ReentrantReadWriteLock to understand the difference between fair and non-fair mode. However, I see in both modes the result and output is always the same. It seems it's always working in fair mode. Can anybody explain in which case fair and non-fair mode will result in different behaviors?
package lockTest;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReadWriteLock;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;
public class MyLockTest {
static private ReadWriteLock myLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock(false);
public class Reader extends Thread {
int val_;
public Reader(int val) {
val_ = val;
}
public void run() {
if (val_ > 0) {
try {
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
myLock.readLock().lock();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": Reader inside critical section - val: " + val_ + "-----");
try {
Thread.sleep(6000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
myLock.readLock().unlock();
}
}
public class Writer extends Thread {
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
myLock.writeLock().lock();
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": Writer inside critical section *****");
try {
Thread.sleep(6000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
myLock.writeLock().unlock();
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
MyLockTest test1 = new MyLockTest();
MyLockTest.Reader reader1 = test1.new Reader(0);
MyLockTest.Writer writer1 = test1.new Writer();
MyLockTest.Reader reader2 = test1.new Reader(1);
reader2.start();
writer1.start();
reader1.start();
}
}
The output is always:
Thread-0: Reader inside critical section - val: 0-----
Thread-1: Writer inside critical section *****
Thread-2: Reader inside critical section - val: 1-----
The output above is what I expect to see when I change Lock creation to fair mode:
static private ReadWriteLock myLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock(true);
For non-fair mode I would expect to see the following output:
Thread-0: Reader inside critical section - val: 0-----
Thread-2: Reader inside critical section - val: 1-----
Thread-1: Writer inside critical section *****

Using "fair" versus "non-fair" mode affects how the lock is assigned to threads in case of contention.
From the Javadoc for ReentrantReadWriteLock: using the "non-fair" mode, the order of entry to the read and write lock is unspecified, while using the "fair" mode, threads contend for entry using an approximately arrival-order policy.
We can see how using fair/non-fair affects program execution by having some thread contend over the same lock; see the program below.
Running the sample code, a ReentrantWriteLock is contended by different threads; after 1000 lock operations, we dump how many times each thread acquired the lock.
In case USE_FAIR=false is used, counts are random, and a possible output is:
Thread thread-B finished, count=920
Thread thread-A finished, count=79
Thread thread-D finished, count=0
Thread thread-C finished, count=0
in case USE_FAIR=true is used, the output is always like
Thread thread-D finished, count=249
Thread thread-A finished, count=250
Thread thread-C finished, count=250
Thread thread-B finished, count=250
Sample code
package sample1;
import java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock;
public class UseLock {
public static void main(String[] args) {
UseLock o = new UseLock();
o.go();
}
private void go() {
TotalPermits tp = new TotalPermits();
tp.lock.writeLock().lock();
Contender a = new Contender(tp, "thread-A");
Contender b = new Contender(tp, "thread-B");
Contender c = new Contender(tp, "thread-C");
Contender d = new Contender(tp, "thread-D");
a.start();
b.start();
c.start();
d.start();
tp.lock.writeLock().unlock();
}
}
class TotalPermits {
private static final boolean USE_FAIR = true;
private int count = 1_000;
ReentrantReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock(USE_FAIR);
public boolean get() {
try {
lock.writeLock().lock();
try {
Thread.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) { }
return --count>0;
} finally {
lock.writeLock().unlock();
}
}
}
class Contender extends Thread {
private int count = 0;
final String name;
final TotalPermits tp;
Contender(TotalPermits tp, String name) {
this.tp = tp;
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while ( tp.get() ) {
count++;
}
System.out.printf("Thread %s finished, count=%d%n", name, count);
}
}
Note:
The sample code above uses a "write" lock, which can only be held by one thread at a time. So we can use that to divide N permits across the contenders. On the other hand, the "read" lock can be held by multiple threads, as long as none is holding the write lock.

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.

Does ReentrantReadWriteLock read while writeLock locked?

I research ReentrantReadWriteLock.
I write simple code for test(I know that use Thread.sleep() can not guarantee predictable result but I think that I am lucky:)):
public class RWLock {
private static String val = "old";
private static ReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
private static long time = System.currentTimeMillis();
public void read() {
try {
lock.readLock().lock();
System.out.println("read " + val +" - "+(System.currentTimeMillis()-time));
Thread.sleep(300);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
} finally {
lock.readLock().unlock();
}
}
public void write() {
try {
lock.writeLock().lock();
val = "new";
System.out.println("write " + val+" - "+(System.currentTimeMillis()-time));
Thread.sleep(10000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
} finally {
lock.writeLock().unlock();
}
}
}
class Tester {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
new MyThreadRead().start();
Thread.sleep(400);
new MyThreadWrite().start();
}
}
class MyThreadRead extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
new RWLock().read();
try {
Thread.sleep(200);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
}
}
}
class MyThreadWrite extends Thread {
#Override
public void run() {
new RWLock().write();
}
}
output:
read old - 0
write new - 401
read new - 10401
read new - 10902
read new - 11402
read new - 11902
read new - 12402
read new - 12902
read new - 13402
read new - 13902
read new - 14402
10401 - 401 == 10000
10000 it is time of writing.
As I understood second read thread cannot finish before writing. Thus writing and second reading performs in parallel. It is not predictable behaviour for me.
What do you think about it?

Maybe you have more sleep() calls than you realize. The sleep calls in MyThreadRead#run() and in RWLock()#read() add up to 500 ms. So here's what's happening.
At T=0, the reader thread grabs the read lock and sleeps for 300ms.
At T=300, the reader releases the lock, and then sleeps for another 200ms.
At T=400, the writer grabs the write lock and sleeps for ten seconds,
At T=500, the reader tries to grab the read lock, but it is blocked by the writer.
At T=10400, the writer gives up the lock, and then the reader gets to go round
its loop nine more times.
P.S.: Move your lock() calls out of the try/finally statements. E.g.,
...lock()
try {
...
} finally {
...unlock();
}
That way, if the lock() call throws an exception, the unlock() will not be called.

Print Natural Sequence with help of 2 threads(1 is printing even and 2'nd is printing odd)

I have tired this question, and i ended up with some doubts. Please help me out
Doubt : If any thread is in wait state , and no other thread is notifying that one , so will it never come to and end ? Even after using wait(long milliseconds).
For Code : What my requirement is from the code(Please Refer My Code) :
a : Should print "Even Thread Finish " and "Odd Thread Finish" (Order is not imp , but must print both)
b: Also in main function should print " Exit Main Thread"
What is actually happening :
After lot of runs , in some cases , it prints "Even Thread Finish" then hangs here or vice-versa. In some cases it prints both.
Also it never prints "Exit Main Thread".
So How to modify code , so it must print all 3 statement .(Of Course "Exit Main.. " in last , as i am using join for main.)
In brief : Main start-> t1 start -> t2 start ,, then i need t2/t1 finish -> main finish.
Please help me out for this problem
Here is my code :
import javax.sql.CommonDataSource;
public class ThreadTest {
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
Share commonObj = new Share();
Thread even = new Thread(new EvenThread(commonObj));
Thread odd = new Thread(new OddThread(commonObj));
even.start();
odd.start();
try {
Thread.currentThread().join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Exit Main Thread");
}
}
class EvenThread implements Runnable {
private Share commShare;
public EvenThread(Share obj) {
// TODO Auto-generated constructor stub
this.commShare = obj;
}
private int number = 2;
public void run() {
System.out.println("Even Thread start");
while (number <= 50) {
if (commShare.flag == true) {
System.out.println("Even Thread" + number);
number += 2;
commShare.flag = false;
synchronized(commShare) {
try {
commShare.notify();
commShare.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
commShare.notify();
}
} else {
synchronized(commShare) {
try {
commShare.notify();
commShare.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
commShare.notify();
}
}
}
System.out.println("Even Thread Finish");
}
}
class OddThread implements Runnable {
private int number = 1;
private Share commShare;
public OddThread(Share obj) {
// TODO Auto-generated constructor stub
this.commShare = obj;
}
public void run() {
System.out.println("Odd Thread start");
while (number <= 50) {
if (commShare.flag == false) {
System.out.println("Odd Thread :" + number);
number += 2;
commShare.flag = true;
synchronized(commShare) {
try {
commShare.notify();
commShare.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
commShare.notify();
}
}
}
System.out.println("Odd Thread Finish");
}
}
class Share {
Share sharedObj;
public boolean flag = false;
}

Although this is not the exact answer of your question, but this implementation is an alternative of your problem .
public class EvenOddThreads {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread odd = new Thread(new OddThread(), "oddThread");
Thread even = new Thread(new EvenThread(), "Even Thread");
odd.start();
even.start();
try {
odd.join();
even.join();
System.out.println("Main thread exited");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class OddThread implements Runnable{
public void run() {
synchronized (CommonUtil.mLock) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+"---> job starting");
int i = 1;
while(i<50){
System.out.print(i + "\t");
i = i + 2;
CommonUtil.mLock.notify();
try {
CommonUtil.mLock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("OddThread---> job completed");
CommonUtil.mLock.notify();
}
}
}
class EvenThread implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized (CommonUtil.mLock) {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+"---> job started");
int i =2;
while(i<50){
System.out.print(i + "\t");
i = i+2;
CommonUtil.mLock.notify();
try {
CommonUtil.mLock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("EvenThread---> job completed");
CommonUtil.mLock.notify();
}
}
}
class CommonUtil{
static final Object mLock= new Object();
}
Output:
oddThread---> job starting
1 Even Thread---> job started
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 EvenThread---> job completed
OddThread---> job completed
Main thread exited

Well, I have spent last three hours reading a Java sychronization tutorial (a very good one) followed by more info about wait, notify and notifyAll, and i ended up with program that uses N threads to count from A to B, set N to 2 and you have odd and even.
pastebin
Also, my program has no comments whatsoever, so make sure you read the tutorial(s) before you try understand this code.

Also it never prints "Exit Main Thread".
That is because maybe because your threads are waiting on the lock for someone to notify() but due to missed signal or no one signalling them, they never get out of waiting state. For that the best solution is to use:
public final void wait(long timeout)
throws InterruptedException
Causes the current thread to wait until either another thread invokes
the notify() method or the notifyAll() method for this object, or a
specified amount of time has elapsed.
This overloaded method will wait for other thread to notify for specific amount of time and then return if timeout occurs. So in case of a missed signal the thread will still resume its work.
NOTE: After returning from wait state always check for
PRE-CONDITION again, as it can be a Spurious Wakeup.
Here is my flavor of program that I coded some time back for the same.
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class Main {
private static int range = 10;
private static volatile AtomicInteger present = new AtomicInteger(0);
private static Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Thread(new OddRunnable()).start();
new Thread(new EvenRunnable()).start();
}
static class OddRunnable implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run() {
while(present.get() <= range){
if((present.get() % 2) != 0){
System.out.println(present.get());
present.incrementAndGet();
synchronized (lock) {
lock.notifyAll();
}
}else{
synchronized (lock) {
try {
lock.wait(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
break;
}
}
}
}
}
}
static class EvenRunnable implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run() {
while(present.get() <= range){
if((present.get() % 2) == 0){
System.out.println(present.get());
present.incrementAndGet();
synchronized (lock) {
lock.notifyAll();
}
}else{
synchronized (lock) {
try {
lock.wait(1000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
break;
}
}
}
}
}
}
}
See the solution, I have kept a lock that works for notifying the chance of even or odd thread. If even thread finds that the present number is not even it waits on the lock and
hopes that odd thread will notify it when it prints that odd number. And similarly it works for odd thread too.
I am not suggesting that this is the best solution but this is something that came out in the first try, some other options are also possible.
Also I would like to point out that this question though as a practice is good, but do keep in mind that you are not doing anything parallel there.

This could be an exercise on threads and lock monitors, but there is nothing to do in parallel that give you advantages.
In your code when a thread 1 (OddThread or EvenThread) ends his work and prints out "Odd Thread Finish" (or "Even Thread Finish") the other thread 2 is waiting a notify() or a notifyAll() that never will happen because the first is over.
You have to change EvenThread and OddThread adding a synchronized block with a notify call on commShare just after the while cycle. I removed the second if-branch because in this way you don't continue to check the while condition but get a wait on commShare soon.
class EvenThread implements Runnable {
private Share commShare;
private int number = 2;
public EvenThread(Share obj) {
this.commShare = obj;
}
public void run() {
System.out.println("Even Thread start");
while (number <= 50) {
synchronized (commShare) {
if (commShare.flag) {
System.out.println("Even Thread:" + number);
number += 2;
commShare.flag = false;
}
commShare.notify();
try {
commShare.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
synchronized (commShare) {
commShare.notify();
System.out.println("Even Thread Finish");
}
}
}
class OddThread implements Runnable {
private int number = 1;
private Share commShare;
public OddThread(Share obj) {
this.commShare = obj;
}
public void run() {
System.out.println("Odd Thread start");
while (number <= 50) {
synchronized (commShare) {
if (!commShare.flag) {
System.out.println("Odd Thread: " + number);
number += 2;
commShare.flag = true;
}
commShare.notify();
try {
commShare.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
synchronized (commShare) {
commShare.notify();
System.out.println("Odd Thread Finish");
}
}
Finally, in the main you have to join for each thread you started. It's sure that Thread.currentThread() returns just one of yours threads? We have started two threads and those threads we should join.
try {
even.join();
odd.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}

I will not vote for using wait() and notify(). The things that you can do with wait and notify can be done through more sophisticated tools like semaphore, countDownLatch, CyclicBarrier. You can find this advice in the famous book Effective java in item number 69 prefer concurrency utilities to wait and notify.
Even in this case we don't need this things at all, we can achieve this functionality by a simple volatile boolean variable. And for stopping a thread the best possible way is to use interrupt. After certain amount of time or some predefined condition we can interrupt threads. Please find my implementation attached:
Thread 1 for printing even numbers:
public class MyRunnable1 implements Runnable
{
public static volatile boolean isRun = false;
private int k = 0 ;
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
if(isRun){
System.out.println(k);
k+=2;
isRun=false;
MyRunnable2.isRun=true;
}
}
}
}
Thread 2 for printing even numbers:
public class MyRunnable2 implements Runnable{
public static volatile boolean isRun = false;
private int k = 1 ;
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()){
if(isRun){
System.out.println(k);
k+=2;
isRun=false;
MyRunnable1.isRun=true;
}
}
}
}
Now main method which drives the above threads
public class MyMain{
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{
Thread t1 = new Thread(new MyRunnable1());
Thread t2 = new Thread(new MyRunnable2());
MyRunnable1.isRun=true;
t1.start();
t2.start();
Thread.currentThread().sleep(1000);
t1.interrupt();
t2.interrupt();
}
}
There may be some places you need to change a bit this is just a skeletal implementation. Hope it helps and please let me know if you need something else.

public class PrintNumbers {
public static class Condition {
private boolean start = false;
public boolean getStart() {
return start;
}
public void setStart(boolean start) {
this.start = start;
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
final Object lock = new Object();
// condition used to start the odd number thread first
final Condition condition = new Condition();
Thread oddThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i = i + 2) { //For simplicity assume only printing till 10;
System.out.println(i);
//update condition value to signify that odd number thread has printed first
if (condition.getStart() == false) {
condition.setStart(true);
}
lock.notify();
try {
if (i + 2 <= 10) {
lock.wait(); //if more numbers to print, wait;
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
Thread evenThread = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
synchronized (lock) {
for (int i = 2; i <= 10; i = i + 2) { //For simplicity assume only printing till 10;
// if thread with odd number has not printed first, then wait
while (condition.getStart() == false) {
try {
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(i);
lock.notify();
try {
if (i + 2 <= 10) { //if more numbers to print, wait;
lock.wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
});
oddThread.start();
evenThread.start();
}
}

I did it using ReentrantLock with 25 threads . One thread Print One number and it will notify to other .
public class ReentrantLockHolder
{
private Lock lock;
private Condition condition;
public ReentrantLockHolder(Lock lock )
{
this.lock=lock;
this.condition=this.lock.newCondition();
}
public Lock getLock() {
return lock;
}
public void setLock(Lock lock) {
this.lock = lock;
}
public Condition getCondition() {
return condition;
}
public void setCondition(Condition condition) {
this.condition = condition;
}
}
public class PrintThreadUsingReentrantLock implements Runnable
{
private ReentrantLockHolder currHolder;
private ReentrantLockHolder nextHolder;
private PrintWriter writer;
private static int i=0;
public PrintThreadUsingReentrantLock(ReentrantLockHolder currHolder, ReentrantLockHolder nextHolder ,PrintWriter writer)
{
this.currHolder=currHolder;
this.nextHolder=nextHolder;
this.writer=writer;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
writer.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+ " "+ ++i);
try{
nextHolder.getLock().lock();
nextHolder.getCondition().signal();
}finally{
nextHolder.getLock().unlock();
}
try {
currHolder.getLock().lock();
currHolder.getCondition().await();
}catch (InterruptedException e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
finally{
currHolder.getLock().unlock();
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
PrintWriter printWriter =null;
try {
printWriter=new PrintWriter(new FileOutputStream(new File("D://myFile.txt")));
} catch (FileNotFoundException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
ReentrantLockHolder obj[]=new ReentrantLockHolder[25];
for(int i=0;i<25;i++)
{
obj[i]=new ReentrantLockHolder(new ReentrantLock());
}
for(int i=0;i<25;i++)
{
Thread t1=new Thread(new PrintThreadUsingReentrantLock(obj[i], obj[i+1 == 25 ? 0 : i+1],printWriter ),"T"+i );
t1.start();
}
}

I tried the similar stuff where Thread 1 prints Odd numbers and Thread 2 prints even numbers in a correct order and also when the printing is over, the desired messages as you had suggested will be printed. Please have a look at this code
package practice;
class Test {
private static boolean oddFlag = true;
int count = 1;
private void oddPrinter() {
synchronized (this) {
while(true) {
try {
if(count < 10) {
if(oddFlag) {
Thread.sleep(500);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": " + count++);
oddFlag = !oddFlag;
notifyAll();
}
else {
wait();
}
}
else {
System.out.println("Odd Thread finished");
notify();
break;
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
private void evenPrinter() {
synchronized (this) {
while (true) {
try {
if(count < 10) {
if(!oddFlag) {
Thread.sleep(500);
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": " + count++);
oddFlag = !oddFlag;
notify();
}
else {
wait();
}
}
else {
System.out.println("Even Thread finished");
notify();
break;
}
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{
final Test test = new Test();
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
test.oddPrinter();
}
}, "Thread 1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
test.evenPrinter();
}
}, "Thread 2");
t1.start();
t2.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
System.out.println("Main thread finished");
}
}

package test;
public class Interview2 {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Obj obj = new Obj();
Runnable evenThread = ()-> {
synchronized (obj) {
for(int i=2;i<=50;i+=2) {
while(!obj.printEven) {
try {
obj.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(i);
obj.printEven = false;
obj.notify();
}
}
};
Runnable oddThread = ()-> {
synchronized (obj) {
for(int i=1;i<=49;i+=2) {
while(obj.printEven) {
try {
obj.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println(i);
obj.printEven = true;
obj.notify();
}
}
};
new Thread(evenThread).start();
new Thread(oddThread).start();
}
}
class Obj {
boolean printEven;
}

This is very generic solution. It uses semaphores to do signaling among threads.
This is general solution where N threads prints M natural numbers in sequence turn by turn.
that is if we have 3 threads and we want to print 7 natural numbers, output would be:
Thread 1 : 1
Thread 2 : 2
Thread 3 : 3
Thread 1 : 4
Thread 2 : 5
Thread 3 : 6
Thread 1 : 7
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
/*
* Logic is based on simple idea
* each thread should wait for previous thread and then notify next thread in circular fashion
* There is no locking required
* Semaphores will do the signaling work among threads.
*/
public class NThreadsMNaturalNumbers {
private static volatile int nextNumberToPrint = 1;
private static int MaxNumberToPrint;
public static void main(String[] args) {
int numberOfThreads = 2;
MaxNumberToPrint = 50;
Semaphore s[] = new Semaphore[numberOfThreads];
// initialize Semaphores
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++) {
s[i] = new Semaphore(0);
}
// Create threads and initialize which thread they wait for and notify to
for (int i = 1; i <= numberOfThreads; i++) {
new Thread(new NumberPrinter("Thread " + i, s[i - 1], s[i % numberOfThreads])).start();
}
s[0].release();// So that First Thread can start Processing
}
private static class NumberPrinter implements Runnable {
private final Semaphore waitFor;
private final Semaphore notifyTo;
private final String name;
public NumberPrinter(String name, Semaphore waitFor, Semaphore notifyTo) {
this.waitFor = waitFor;
this.notifyTo = notifyTo;
this.name = name;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while (NThreadsMNaturalNumbers.nextNumberToPrint <= NThreadsMNaturalNumbers.MaxNumberToPrint) {
waitFor.acquireUninterruptibly();
if (NThreadsMNaturalNumbers.nextNumberToPrint <= NThreadsMNaturalNumbers.MaxNumberToPrint) {
System.out.println(name + " : " + NThreadsMNaturalNumbers.nextNumberToPrint++);
notifyTo.release();
}
}
notifyTo.release();
}
}
}

This Class prints Even Number:
public class EvenThreadDetails extends Thread{
int countNumber;
public EvenThreadDetails(int countNumber) {
this.countNumber=countNumber;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
for (int i = 0; i < countNumber; i++) {
if(i%2==0)
{
System.out.println("Even Number :"+i);
}
try {
Thread.sleep(2);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
// code to resume or terminate...
}
}
}
}
This Class prints Odd Numbers:
public class OddThreadDetails extends Thread {
int countNumber;
public OddThreadDetails(int countNumber) {
this.countNumber=countNumber;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
for (int i = 0; i < countNumber; i++) {
if(i%2!=0)
{
System.out.println("Odd Number :"+i);
}
try {
Thread.sleep(2);
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
// code to resume or terminate...
}
}
}
}
This is Main class:
public class EvenOddDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException
{
Thread eventhread= new EvenThreadDetails(100);
Thread oddhread=new OddThreadDetails(100);
eventhread.start();
oddhread.start();
}
}

I have done it this way and its working...
class Printoddeven{
public synchronized void print(String msg){
try {
if(msg.equals("Even"))
{
for(int i=0;i<=10;i+=2){
System.out.println(msg+" "+i);
Thread.sleep(2000);
notify();
wait();
}
}
else{
for(int i=1;i<=10;i+=2){
System.out.println(msg+" "+i);
Thread.sleep(2000);
notify();
wait();
}
}
} catch (Exception e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
class PrintOdd extends Thread{
Printoddeven oddeven;
public PrintOdd(Printoddeven oddeven){
this.oddeven=oddeven;
}
public void run(){
oddeven.print("ODD");
}
}
class PrintEven extends Thread{
Printoddeven oddeven;
public PrintEven(Printoddeven oddeven){
this.oddeven=oddeven;
}
public void run(){
oddeven.print("Even");
}
}
public class mainclass
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Printoddeven obj = new Printoddeven();//only one object
PrintEven t1=new PrintEven(obj);
PrintOdd t2=new PrintOdd(obj);
t1.start();
t2.start();
}
}

public class Driver {
static Object lock = new Object();
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
for (int itr = 1; itr < 51; itr = itr + 2) {
synchronized (lock) {
System.out.print(" " + itr);
try {
lock.notify();
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
System.out.println("\nEven Thread Finish ");
}
});
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Runnable() {
public void run() {
for (int itr = 2; itr < 51; itr = itr + 2) {
synchronized (lock) {
System.out.print(" " + itr);
try {
lock.notify();
if(itr==50)
break;
lock.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
System.out.println("\nOdd Thread Finish ");
}
});
try {
t1.start();
t2.start();
t1.join();
t2.join();
System.out.println("Exit Main Thread");
} catch (Exception e) {
}
}
}

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.