We Keep Coding

Is there a race condition in this example? If so, how could it be avoided?

I'm looking at some notify/wait examples and came across this one. I understand a synchronized block essentially defines a critical section, but doesn't this present a race condition? Nothing specifies which synchronized block is entered first.
public class ThreadA {
public static void main(String[] args){
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
synchronized(b){
try{
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();
}catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(this){
for(int i=0; i<100 ; i++){
total += i;
}
notify();
}
}
}
Output per website:
Waiting for b to complete...
Total is: 4950

Right, it's not guaranteed which thread will execute first. The thread b could do its notification before the main thread ever starts to wait.
In addition to that, a thread can return from wait without having been notified, so setting a flag and checking it before entering the wait technically isn't good enough. You could rewrite it to something like
public class ThreadA {
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
synchronized(b){
while (!b.isDone()) {
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();
}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
private boolean done = false;
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(this){
for(int i=0; i<100 ; i++){
total += i;
}
done = true;
notify();
}
}
public boolean isDone() {return done;}
}
so that the main thread will wait until b is done with its calculation, regardless who starts first.
By the way, the API documentation recommends you not synchronize on threads. The JDK synchronizes on threads to implement Thread#join. A thread that terminates sends a notifyAll that anything joining on it receives. If you were to call notify or notifyAll from a thread you've acquired the lock on, something joining on it could return early. One side effect of this here is that if you remove the notify the code works the same way.

Yes, it's a race condition. Nothing prevents ThreadB from starting, entering its run method, and synchronizing on itself prior to ThreadA from entering its synchronized block (thus waiting indefinitely). However, it's very unlikely to ever happen, considering the time it takes for a new thread to begin execution.
The easiest, and most recommended way to handle this type of situation is to not write your own implementation, but opt to use a callable/future provided by an Executor.
To fix this particular case without following standards:
Set a boolean 'finished' value set at the end of ThreadB's synchronized block.
If the boolean 'finished' is true after entering the synchronized block, then you should not call wait.

Yes - it is a race as to which thread enters which synchronized block first. For most scenarios of the race, the output and the answer will be the same. For one, however, the program will deadlock:
Main starts calls b.start() and immediately schedules out.
Thread B starts, enters synchronized, calls notify().
Main enters its synchronized block, calls wait()
In this case, main will wait forever since thread b called notify before main blocked on wait().
That said, this is unlikely - but with all threading you should conclude that it will happen and then at the worst possible time.

Java: two WAITING + one BLOCKED threads, notify() leads to a livelock, notifyAll() doesn't, why?

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.

Synchronized blocks and Locks

I have two threads and I am currently doing locking using an Object's notify() and wait() methods inside Synchronized blocks. I wanted to make sure that the main thread is never blocked so I used a boolean this way (only relevant code provided.)
//Just to explain an example queue
private Queue<CustomClass> queue = new Queue();
//this is the BOOLEAN
private boolean isRunning = false;
private Object lock;
public void doTask(){
ExecutorService service = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
//the invocation of the second thread!!
service.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
if (queue.isEmpty()){
synchronized (lock){
isRunning = false; //usage of boolean
lock.wait();
}
}
else{
process(queue.remove());
}
}
});
}
//will be called from a single thread but multiple times.
public void addToQueue(CustomClass custObj){
queue.add(custObj);
//I don't want blocking here!!
if (!isRunning){
isRunning = true; //usage of BOOLEAN!
synchronized(lock){
lock.notify();
}
}
}
Does anything seems wrong here? thanks.
Edit:
Purpose: This way when add() will be called the second time and more, it won't get blocked on notify(). Is there a better way to achieve this non blocking behavior of the main thread?

Although you do not show the addToQueue code I am fairly certain that this code will not work properly, as you are accessing the shared queue (which is not thread-safe) without any synchronization.
process(queue.remove());
Instead of trying to make your custom queue work (I doubt that your plan with the boolean flag is possible), save the time and work and use one of the BlockingQueues or ConcurrentLinkedQueue provided in the JDK.

The Queue is not synchronized and therefore the above code can suffer from the lost wake-up call typical for conditional variables and monitors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producer%E2%80%93consumer_problem
For example, here is a problematic sequence:
At the beginning of the run the Q is empty and isRunning is false.
Thread 1 (t1) checks if Q is empty (which is true) and then stops running.
Than Thread 2 (t2) starts running and execute the addToQ method.
and then t1 continues running and waits on the lock although the Q is not empty.
If you want a non-blocking solution you can use the non-blocking Q java is offering (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentLinkedQueue.html)Of course, you can use java own blockingQueue, but this is blocking.

Java multithreading with wait and notify

I have this piece of code
public MultiThreadedSum(ArrayBuffer ArrayBufferInst)
{
this.ArrayBufferInst = ArrayBufferInst;
Sum = 0;
Flag = false;
StopFlag = false;
}
public synchronized void Sum2Elements()
{
while(Flag)
{
try {wait();}
catch (InterruptedException e){}
}
Flag = true;
if (StopFlag)
{
notifyAll();
return;
}
System.out.println("Removing and adding 2 elements.");
Sum = ArrayBufferInst.Sum2Elements();
notifyAll();
}
public synchronized void InsertElement()
{
while(!Flag)
{
try {wait();}
catch (InterruptedException e){}
}
Flag = false;
if (StopFlag)
{
notifyAll();
return;
}
System.out.println("Inserting the sum.");
ArrayBufferInst.InsertElement(Sum);
if (ArrayBufferInst.RetunrSize() == 1)
{
StopFlag = true;
}
System.out.println(ArrayBufferInst);
notifyAll();
}
As you can see, I set the Flag to be false first so one of the threads can enter the Sum2Elements method and change it to true and by that, making everyone wait.
I know that in synchronized code, only one thread can do its thing, well here I have two synchronized methods, does it mean that 2 threads are trying to conduct this methods after each notifyall?
And if so, is it not possible for one thread to enter Sum2Elements, change the flag to true before the other thread enters InsertElement, and by that skipping the while loop?
Thanks

Only one thread can hold the lock of the object. And then it's only that thread that can enter the synchronized methods on that object.
The thread can however release the lock without returning from the method, by calling Object.wait().
So your code looks good!
does it mean that 2 threads are trying to conduct this methods after each notifyall?
Ans : It is very much possible for two threads to be in two of your synchronized methods since you are calling wait().
is it not possible for one thread to enter Sum2Elements, change the flag to true before the other thread enters InsertElement, and by that skipping the while loop?
Ans : Yes this is possible again for the same reason specified above.

Locks are obtained on objects of a class & not on any particular synchronized method.
Both the methods are instance methods. So if one of the threads have entered any synchronized method for an object, A say, then any other thread cant enter any synchronized method for that object until the running thread doesnt call notifyAll() method. At that stage all the waiting threads compete to become active but it depends on the thread scheduler to choose a thread which is to become active.
If you want that two different threads should access these synchronized methods simultaneously then the 2 threads should operate on 2 different objects of the class.

Only one thread can execute one of two method at a time because both are synchronized though order is undefined
As I said one method can be executed by one thread at a time only unless executing thread release the lock by callingwait method and other thread get the lock and execute other synchronized method which make your both the statements possible.

Java threads: wait and notify methods

I have a thread that calls the wait method and can only be awoken when the notify method called from some other class:
class ThreadA {
public static void main(String [] args) {
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
synchronized(b) {
try {
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
b.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println("Total is: " + b.total);
}
}
}
class ThreadB extends Thread {
int total;
public void run() {
synchronized(this) {
for(int i=0;i<100;i++) {
total += i;
}
notify();
}
}
}
In the above code if the synchronized block in main, if the ThreadA does not execute first and instead the other synchronization block executing and completes to completion, then ThreadA executes its synchronized block and calls wait, what is going to happen and how it will be notified again?

If ThreadB gets through its synchronized block before ThreadA does, then ThreadA will block indefinitely on the call to wait. It won't somehow be notified that the other thread has already completed.
The problem is that you're trying to use wait and notify in ways that they are not designed to be used. Usually, wait and notify are used to have one thread wait until some condition is true, and then to have another thread signal that the condition may have become true. For example, they're often used as follows:
/* Producer */
synchronized (obj) {
/* Make resource available. */
obj.notify();
}
/* Consumer */
synchronized (obj) {
while (/* resource not available */)
obj.wait();
/* Consume the resource. */
}
The reason that the above code works is that it doesn't matter which thread runs first. If the producer thread creates a resource and no one is waiting on obj, then when the consumer runs it will enter the while loop, notice that the resource has been produced, and then skip the call to wait. It can then consume the resource. If, on the other hand, the consumer runs first, it will notice in the while loop that the resource is not yet available and will wait for some other object to notify it. The other thread can then run, produce the resource, and notify the consumer thread that the resource is available. Once the original thread is awoken, it will notice that the condition of the loop is no longer true and will consume the resource.
More generally, Java suggests that you always call wait in a loop because of spurious notifications in which a thread can wake up from a call to wait without ever being notified of anything. Using the above pattern can prevent this.
In your particular instance, if you want to ensure that ThreadB has finished running before ThreadA executes, you may want to use Thread.join(), which explicitly blocks the calling thread until some other thread executes. More generally, you may want to look into some of the other synchronization primitives provided by Java, as they often are much easier to use than wait and notify.

You could loop and wait until the total has been computed :
synchronized(b) {
while (total == 0) {
b.wait();
}
}
You could also use a higher-level abstraction like a CountDownLatch.

It is possible for ThreadB's run method to complete before you enter the synchronized block in ThreadA.main. In that situation, since the notify call has happened before you started waiting, ThreadA will block forever on the wait call.
A simple workaround would be to grab the lock on b in main before you start the second thread to ensure the wait happens first.
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
synchronized(b) {
b.start();
...
b.wait();
}

You probably want to use a java.util.concurrent.Semaphore for this.

1) You need to add some flag that is used to communicate between the threads, so that B can signal to A when it is finished. A simple boolean variable is fine, as long as it is only read and written within the synchronized blocks.
synchronized(this) {
for(int i=0;i<100;i++) {
total += i;
}
isDone = true;
notify();
}
2) A needs to loop while waiting. So if your boolean variable was called isDone, and was set to true by threadB, then threadA should have some code like this:
synchronized(b) {
System.out.println("Waiting for b to complete...");
while( ! isDone ) b.wait();
}
In this particular case, there's actually no reason to have the synchronized block in A - since threadB doesn't do anything after it finishes running, and A doesn't do anything except wait for B, threadA could simply call b.join() to block until it finishes. I assume that your actual use case is more complex than this.

Why to make that complex ? Just use join() function of Thread.
ThreadB b = new ThreadB();
b.start();
b.join();
// now print b.total

do not synchronized(thread), don't do it, do not synchronized(thread).. repat: no synchronized(thread) :)
And if you need to wait for the thread 'b' to finish, use b.join(), now your code is free to hang in b.wait()
--
Hopefully the source below can grant you an insight while sync(thread)/notify() I consider bad practice. (cut-cut)
Enjoy
To proceeed below you make sure you have accepted Oracle's License aggreement, found there:
https://cds.sun.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/CDS-CDS_Developer-Site/en_US/-/USD/ViewLicense-Start?LicenseUUID=7HeJ_hCwhb4AAAEtmC8ADqmR&ProductUUID=pGqJ_hCwj_AAAAEtB8oADqmS&cnum=&evsref=&sln=
Java sources (incl), called in init(), effectively called by any java c-tor, since java 1.5
private static **synchronized int** nextThreadNum() {
return threadInitNumber++;
}
//join (the method w/ nanos only increase millis by one, if nanos>500000, millis==0 and nanos>0
public final **synchronized** void join(long millis)
throws InterruptedException {
long base = System.currentTimeMillis();
long now = 0;
if (millis < 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("timeout value is negative");
}
if (millis == 0) {
while (isAlive()) {
wait(0);
}
} else {
while (isAlive()) {
long delay = millis - now;
if (delay <= 0) {
break;
}
wait(delay);
now = System.currentTimeMillis() - base;
}
}
}
public **synchronized** void start() {
/**
* This method is not invoked for the main method thread or "system"
* group threads created/set up by the VM. Any new functionality added
* to this method in the future may have to also be added to the VM.
*
* A zero status value corresponds to state "NEW".
*/
if (threadStatus != 0)
throw new IllegalThreadStateException();
group.add(this);
start0();
if (stopBeforeStart) {
stop0(throwableFromStop);
}
}
//stop1 is called after stop ensures proper priviledges
private final **synchronized** void stop1(Throwable th) {
SecurityManager security = System.getSecurityManager();
if (security != null) {
checkAccess();
if ((this != Thread.currentThread()) ||
(!(th instanceof ThreadDeath))) {
security.checkPermission(SecurityConstants.STOP_THREAD_PERMISSION);
}
}
// A zero status value corresponds to "NEW"
if (threadStatus != 0) {
resume(); // Wake up thread if it was suspended; no-op otherwise
stop0(th);
} else {
// Must do the null arg check that the VM would do with stop0
if (th == null) {
throw new NullPointerException();
}
// Remember this stop attempt for if/when start is used
stopBeforeStart = true;
throwableFromStop = th;
}
}