We Keep Coding

Semaphore-implemented Producer-Consumer oriented thread pool

I am currently working on an educational assignment in which i have to implement a Semaphore only thread-safe thread pool.
I mustn't use during my assignment: Synchronize wait notify sleep or any thread-safe API's.
firstly without getting too much into the code i have:
Implemented a Thread-safe queue (no two threads can queue\dequeue at the same time) (i have tested this problem with ConcurrentLinkedQueue and the problem persists)
The design itself:
Shared:
Tasks semaphore = 0
Available semaphore = 0
Tasks_Queue queue
Available_Queue queue
Worker Threads:
Blocked semaphore = 0
General Info:
Only manager(single thread) can dequeue Tasks_Queue and Available_Queue
Only App-Main(single thread) can enqueue tasks is Tasks_Queue
Each worker thread can enqueue themselves in Available_Queue
So we have a mix of a single producer, a single manager and several consumers.
When the app first starts each of the worker threads gets started and immediately enqueues itself in Available_Queue, releases Available semaphore and gets blocked acquiring it's personal Blocked semaphore.
Whenever App-Main queues a new task it releases Task Semaphore
Whenever Manager wishes to execute a new task it must first acquire both Tasks and Available semaphores.
My question:
during the app's runtime the function dequeue_worker() returns a null worker, even though a semaphore is placed to protect access to the queue when it is known that there are no available worker threads.
i have "solved" the problem by recursively calling dequeue_worker() if it draws a null thread, BUT doing so is suppose to make an acquisition of a semaphore permit lost forever. yet when i limit the amount of workers to 1 the worker does not get blocked forever.
1) what's the break-point of my original design?
2) why doesn't my "solution" break the design even further?!
Code snippets:
// only gets called by Worker threads: enqueue_worker(this);
private void enqueue_worker(Worker worker) {
available_queue.add(worker);
available.release();
}
// only gets called by App-Main (a single thread)
public void enqueue_task(Query query) {
tasks_queue.add(query);
tasks.release();
}
// only gets called by Manager(a single Thread)
private Worker dequeue_worker() {
Worker worker = null;
try {
available.acquire();
worker = available_queue.poll();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// shouldn't happen
} // **** the solution: ****
if (worker==null) worker = dequeue_worker(); // TODO: find out why
return worker;
}
// only gets called by Manager(a single Thread)
private Query dequeue_task() {
Query query = null;
try {
tasks.acquire();
query = tasks_queue.poll();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// shouldn't happen
}
return query;
}
// gets called by Manager (a single thread)
private void execute() { // check if task is available and executes it
Worker worker = dequeue_worker(); // available.down()
Query query = dequeue_task(); //task.down()
worker.setData(query);
worker.blocked.release();
}
And finally Worker's Run() method:
while (true) { // main infinite loop
enqueue_worker(this);
acquire(); // blocked.acquire();
<C.S>
available.release();
}

You are calling available.release() twice, once in enqueue_worker, second time in a main loop.

synchronized block locking object and wait/notify

According to what I understood, when I use a synchronized block it acquires the lock on an object and releases it when the code block is done executing. In the following code
public class WaitAndNotify extends Thread{
long sum;
public static void main(String[] args) {
WaitAndNotify wan = new WaitAndNotify();
//wan.start();
synchronized(wan){
try {
wan.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(WaitAndNotify.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
System.out.println("Sum is : " + wan.sum);
}
}
#Override
public void run(){
synchronized(this){
for(int i=0; i<1000000; i++){
sum = sum + i;
}
notify();
}
}
}
what happens if the synchronized block inside the run method acquires the lock first? Then the synchronized block inside the main method has to wait (not because of the wait(), because the other thread acquired the lock). After the run method is done executing, won't the main method enter its synchronized block and wait for a notify which it will never get? What did I misunderstand here?

wait() implicitly exits the respective monitor temporarily and re-enters it upon returning:
See wait()
The current thread must own this object's monitor. The thread releases
ownership of this monitor and waits until another thread notifies
threads waiting on this object's monitor to wake up either through a
call to the notify method or the notifyAll method. The thread then
waits until it can re-obtain ownership of the monitor and resumes
execution.
That's why and how this sort of synchronization does work at all.

Yes, it's possible to perform a notify() before a wait() causing a hung thread, so you need to be careful that it can't happen.
For that reason (and others) it's generally better to use the higher level constructs of java.util.concurrent, since they generally give you less possibilities to shoot yourself in the foot.

You won't see the 'waiting forever' issue here, because you are calling the version of wait() with a timeout; so, after 5 seconds it returns even if it doesn't receive a notify. The 'wait forever' version of the wait() call could indeed exhibit the problem you describe.

You've got two threads here: your WaitAndNotify (WAN) thread, and Java's main execution thread. Both are vying for the same lock.
If the WAN thread gets the lock first, the main thread will be blocked. Being in a blocked state is NOT the same as being in a wait state. A thread in the wait state will wait for notification before moving forward. A thread in the blocked state will actively try to get the lock when it becomes available (and keep trying until it does).
Assuming the run method executes normally, it will call notify(), which will have no effect because no other threads are currently in a wait state. Even if there were, WAN still holds the lock until it exits the synchronized block of code. Once WAN exits the block, THEN Java would notify a waiting thread (if there was one, which there is not).
At this point, the main execution thread now obtains the lock (it is no longer blocked) and enters the wait state. Now you've used the version of wait that will wait up to 5000 milliseconds before continuing. If you used the vanilla version (wait()) it would wait forever because no other process would notify it.

Here is a version of the example program changed to introduce a loop that tests a condition variable. This way you avoid bad assumptions about the state of things after a thread re-acquires a lock upon waking from a wait, and there's no order dependence between the two threads:
public class W extends Thread {
long sum;
boolean done;
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
W w = new W();
w.start();
synchronized(w) {
while (!w.done) {
w.wait();
}
// move to within synchronized block so sum
// updated value is required to be visible
System.out.println(w.sum);
}
}
#Override public synchronized void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
sum += i;
}
done = true;
// no notify required here, see nitpick at end
}
}
It's not sufficient to wait on a notification, for the reason you point out (order dependence, where you're relying on a race condition hoping one thread acquires the monitor before another) as well as for other reasons. For one thing, a thread can wake up from waiting without ever having received a notification, you can't assume that there was a notify call at all.
When a thread waits, it needs to do so in a loop, where in the test on the loop it checks some condition. The other thread should set that condition variable so the first thread can check it. The recommendation that the Oracle tutorial makes is:
Note: Always invoke wait inside a loop that tests for the condition being waited for. Don't assume that the interrupt was for the particular condition you were waiting for, or that the condition is still true.
Other nitpicks:
As your example is written, the JVM is not required to make the changes to your sum variable visible to the main thread. If you add a synchronized instance method to access the sum variable, or access the sum within a synchronized block, then the main thread will be guaranteed to see the updated value of sum.
Looking at your logging, there is nothing SEVERE about an InterruptedException, it doesn't mean anything went wrong. An InterruptedException is caused when you call interrupt on a thread, setting its interrupt flag, and that thread is either currently waiting or sleeping, or enters a wait or sleep method with the flag still set. In my toy example at the top of this answer I put the exception in the throws clause because I know it's not going to happen.
When the thread terminates it issues a notifyAll that anything waiting on that object will receive (again, that's how join is implemented). It's better style to use Runnable instead of Thread, partly because of this.
In this particular example it would make more sense to call Thread#join on the summing thread, rather than calling wait.
Here's the example re-written to use join instead:
public class J extends Thread {
private long sum;
synchronized long getSum() {return sum;}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
J j = new J();
j.start();
j.join();
System.out.println(j.getSum());
}
#Override public synchronized void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) {
sum += i;
}
}
}
Thread#join calls wait, locking on the thread object. When the summing thread terminates it sends a notification and sets its isAlive flag to false. Meanwhile in the join method, the main thread is waiting on the summing thread object, it receives the notification, checks the isAlive flag, and realizes it doesn't have to wait anymore, so it can leave the join method and print the result.

how to synchronize a set of multiple threads with respect to a single thread in Java

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.

Java Multi-threading and atomic gap between while() and synchronized block that waits

We have two threads, Thread2 waits for Thread1 (receiving the messages from it)
class Thread1 .. {
run() {
synchronized(this) { some-work; notify(); }
}
}
class Thread2 .. {
run() {
while(true) {
synchronized(thread1) {
...
thread1.wait();
...
println("Got here"); // has received the notify() from Thread1
}
}
}
}
thread2.start() // thred2 is first to be ready to receive all messages from thread1
thread1.start()
After starting these threads in that sequence, we have the situation when thread2 is waiting for the notify() from thread1, and this will happen in couple of moments - the message "Got here" will be appeared.
But if I put a delay here:
class Thread2
run() {
while(true) {
sleep(1000); // the dalay
synchronized(thread1) { ..
}
Then the message 'Got Here' will be never appeared - because thread2 will miss the notify() from thread1 before the sycnronized(thread1) is reached - then we have a situation when Nothing To Wait.
The question is:
1.
Are these two lines atomic. Or better say is this gap between these two lines atomic?:
while(true) {
// gap
synchronized(thread1) {..thread.wait() ..}
}
2.
Or does it mean that we should not put any expression between while() and synchronized block? For example, we could have:
while(true) {
int a = 0; a++;
synchronized(thread1) {..thread.wait() ..}
Because it we have those expressions there then we have a risk of 'nothing-to-wait' situation?

wait and notify are not sufficient to create a signalling mechanism, for the reason that you've discovered: if you don't have any waiters, then the notify goes into the bit bucket.
A Semaphore is sufficient: if the sender returns the permit while the receiver is doing something else, then the receiver will immediately get that permit.
But, as some commenters said, a BlockingQueue is a better solution, as it means your code doesn't have to know anything about threading.

No gap between lines is "atomic", the concept of atomicity does not apply here.
If you want to avoid missing the notify, start thread1 in the body of thread2's run method.

Actually, you ask whether this could happen without the sleep(), right? Imho the answer is yes. While the "gap" is just that - nothing - the loop itself consists of actual instructions as well. In between them, the threads can get switched. IMHO it is also not garantueed that you reach Thread2.run before Thread1.run just because you started Thread2 first. I'm not sure how to solve this problem, though. Maybe have Thread1 wait for Thread2 somehow?

Does notify/notifyall release the lock being held

I am confused a bit about wait and notify/notifyAll.
I know there is a lock for every java object. I know wait will release the lock for other thread. How about notify/notifyall? Does notify/notifyAll release the lock it is holding for other thread?

No -- notify/notifyAll don't release locks like wait does. The awakened thread can't run until the code which called notify releases its lock.
This is what the Javadoc says:
The thread releases ownership of this monitor and waits until another thread notifies threads waiting on this object's monitor to wake up either through a call to the notify method or the notifyAll method. The thread then waits until it can re-obtain ownership of the monitor and resumes execution.

wait( ) tells the calling thread to give up the monitor and go to sleep until some other
thread enters the same monitor and calls notify( ).
notify( ) wakes up a thread that called wait( ) on the same object.
notifyAll( ) wakes up all the threads that called wait( ) on the same object. The
highest priority thread will run first.

I have to disagree with people who say notifyAll() releases the lock on the object over which waiting and notifying threads are being synchronized.
An example:
Consumer class contains a block:
synchronized(sharedObject){
if(sharedObject.isReadyToConsume() == false){
sharedObject.wait();
}else {
sharedObject.doTheThing();
System.out.println("consumer consuming...");
}
}
Scenario: Consumer class gets the lock on the sharedObject object, enters exclusively (it's inside the sync block) and sees that sharedObject has nothing ready yet (nothing to consume :) ) and it calls wait() method on the sharedObject. That way it releases the lock (stops the execution there!) and waits to be notified to continue when another Thread (Producer maybe) calls sharedObject.notify(); or sharedObject.notifyAll();. When it gets notified it continues from the wait() line
It's the sharedObject that keeps track of threads that asked it to be notified. When some Thread calls sharedObject.notifyAll() method the sharedObject will notify the waiting threads to wake up...
Now, the tricky part is that a thread naturally releases the lock of the object when it reaches the end of its synchronized(sharedObject){} block. THe question is what happens if I call notifyAll() in that block??? notifyAll() wakes up the waiting threads, but the lock is still owned by the Thread that has just call notifyAll()
Look at the Producer snippet:
synchronized(sharedObject){
//We are exlusively working with sharedObject and noone can enter it
[... changing the object ...]
sharedObject.notifyAll(); //notifying the waiting threads to wake up
Thread.sleep(1000); //Telling the current thread to go to sleep. It's holding the LOCK
System.out.println("awake...");
}
If notifyAll() would release the lock then the "awake..." would get printed out after the Consumer classes already start working with the sharedObject. This is not the case... The output shows that the Consumer is consuming the sharedObject after the Producer exits its sync block...
wait() - releases the lock and continues on the next line when it gets notified
notify(), notifyAll() - don't release the lock. They simply make waiting threads runnable again (not idle). They will have the right to enter when the
current thread reaches the end of its sync block and the Thread
scheduleder tells them that the lock has been released. The fight for
the lock begins again

Lets say bunch of Readers wants to read updated Value of certain Resource, which is going to be updated by Writer. Then how Reader knows that Resource Fields have been updated by Writer.
Therefore to Synchronize such cases between Readers and Writers on common resource, three final methods of Object class have been used.
wait()
notify()
notifyAll()
Wait : Readers wants to read updated value of resource, they register with resource object i.e when update happens on same object and when Writer notify it, readers will try to acquire lock on resource and read the updated resource.
- Wait only being invoked when Reader have Lock Object, here in our case it is resource.
- Once wait method is called, Reader releases the Lock Object.
- Now Only for the same registered Object(resource) Reader will get notification signals.
- If Reader invokes wait on Object, which is different from Object Writer used for sending notification, Reader will never gets the notification signal.
- Once Reader(s) are notified, now Reader(s) will try to content for the Lock(one of them gets the lock) read the updated value of resource. Similarly other Readers also gets turn to acquire lock and read the updated value.
- Once Reader read the updated value, perform there Business Logic and come out from Synchronized Block, Reader will release the lock so that other Readers can acquire it.
Notify: Writer enters the Synchronized Block, after acquiring lock performs his Business Logic, update the resource Object, once resource Object is updated it will notify the waiting threads(Readers) whom are waiting on same Lock.
- Notify signal to only one waiting Thread, which is decided by underlying Java Thread Manager
- Once Writer signals notify(), then it doesn't means Reader rushed immediately to read the updates values. Firstly writer must release the Lock, which it will do once it comes out of Synchronized block.Once Lock is being released and waiting threads are notified, then [In case of notify()] notified Thread will acquire the Lock[Released by Writer] and then enter the Synchronized Block and completes from where he left[i.e statements after wait()].
Notify-All: In notifyAll, all threads who are registered with resource lock, will get the notifications.
- Once notifyAll() is triggered, all threads waiting on same lock will get the signal and are ready in contention to acquire the lock.
- Once Writer finishes its Job and release the Lock, Any one Reader will acquire the lock[which Thread, again decided by underlying Java Thread Manager Implementation].
- Once the Reader gets the Lock, it will enter in Synchronized Block, where he left[i.e after wait() method] performs it tasks and on completing the Synchronized Block releases the Lock.
- Now Other remaining Threads will try to acquire the Lock, anyone of them will get it, enters synchronized block, completes its task and then release the Lock.
- This process will keep on till all Registered Readers complete there Job.
Now we will see the Code for it. Also we will discuss the Code also. :
Basic Overview Of code : It consists of Three classes
Resource Class : On which Lock will be acquired and wait() and notify(), notifyAll() will be invoked.
ReaderTask : Implements Runnable interface, implies readers jobs, wants to read updated Value of resource object.
WriterTask : Implements Runnable interface, implies writer jobs, will update the resource object and notify registered waiting threads.
Demo Class: which will create Let say 3 Readers and 1 Writer Thread, Bind Respective Tasks to them and start the threads.
Resource.java
public class Resource {
private String mesg;
public void setMesg(String mesg){
this.mesg =mesg;
}
public String getMesg(){
return this.mesg;
}
}
WaitThreadTask.java
public class WaitThreadTask implements Runnable {
private Resource resource;
public WaitThreadTask(Resource resource){
this.resource = resource;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
synchronized(resource){
System.out.println("Before Reading Updated Value By : " +Thread.currentThread().getName() );
//We need to Take care to get the updated value, so waiting for writer thread to update value.
try {
//Release resource Lock & wait till any notification from Writer.
resource.wait();
System.out.println("Waiting is Over For : "+ Thread.currentThread().getName());
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// TODO Auto-generated catch block
e.printStackTrace();
}
//Read Updated Value
System.out.println("Updated Value of Resource Mesg :" + resource.getMesg() + " Read By :" +Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
}
WriterThreadTask.java
public class WriterThreadTask implements Runnable{
private Resource resource;
public WriterThreadTask(Resource resource){
this.resource = resource;
}
#Override
public void run() {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
synchronized(resource){
System.out.println("Before Updating Resource By : " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
//Updating resource Object Message
resource.setMesg("Hi How are You !!!");
resource.notify();
//resource.notifyAll();
//Once Writer Comes Out from Synch Block, Readers will Content to read the values.
System.out.println("Task Done By Writer Thread.");
}
}
}
ThreadDemo.java
public class ThreadDemo {
public static void main(String args[]){
//Create Single Resource Object, which can act as Lock on Writer and Readers.
Resource lock = new Resource();
//Three Readers and One Writer runnable Tasks.
Runnable taskR1 = new WaitThreadTask(lock);
Runnable taskR2 = new WaitThreadTask(lock);
Runnable taskR3 = new WaitThreadTask(lock);
Runnable taskW1 = new WriterThreadTask(lock);
Thread t1 = new Thread(taskR1, "Reader1");
Thread t2 = new Thread(taskR2, "Reader2");
Thread t3 = new Thread(taskR3, "Reader3");
Thread t4 = new Thread(taskW1, "Writer1");
t1.start();
t2.start();
t3.start();
/*try{
Thread.sleep(5000);
} catch(InterruptedException e){
e.printStackTrace();
}*/
t4.start();
}
}
Code Observations :
Both notify()/notifyAll() and wait() : works only on the Lock Objects they already acquire. For example : Synchornized(ObjectA) {......// ... // ObjectB.wait() or ObjectB.notify() or ObjectB.notifyAll() ...} then It will throw IllegalMonitorStateException. Therefore care must be taken that lock must be acquired before calling any of above three methods with same lock.Even If you simply write notify() or wait() or notifyAll(), then still it will throw IllegalMonitorStateException because [It suggest lock must be acquired on this Object, again which is not the case].
Reader will only able to receive signals on which same notification is send. If wait is happening on Object which is different from Object on which notification is being send, then Readers will never get the notification and hence they will wait forever.
Readers which are registered before Writer able to send the notification, Only those readers will get it. Because if Writer sends notification first, before reader registered to Object, they will not receive the signals as Signals are already being missed : Missed Signals
Reader and Writer should acquire Lock on same Object and should invoke wait/notification signals on same Object. If the above code is modified as, instead of using resource for locks and wait and notify, If we use this. What will happen ? Well .. All readers will wait forever, Because readers registered with different Objects of WaitThreadTask and writer notify on WriterThreadTask. Therefore none of the Reader will receive notification signals, as they registered to receive signals on respective WaitThreadTask Object and not on WriterThreadTask Object.

public class ProducerConsumerInJava {
public static void main(String args[]) {
System.out.println("How to use wait and notify method in Java");
System.out.println("Solving Producer Consumper Problem");
Queue<Integer> buffer = new LinkedList<>();
int maxSize = 10;
Thread producer = new Producer(buffer, maxSize, "PRODUCER");
Thread consumer = new Consumer(buffer, maxSize, "CONSUMER");
producer.start();
consumer.start();
}
}
class Producer extends Thread {
private Queue<Integer> queue;
private int maxSize;
public Producer(Queue<Integer> queue, int maxSize, String name){
super(name); this.queue = queue; this.maxSize = maxSize;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (queue) {
while (queue.size() == maxSize) {
try {
System.out .println("Queue is full, " +
"Producer thread waiting for " + "consumer to take
something from queue");
queue.wait();
} catch (Exception ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
Random random = new Random();
int i = random.nextInt();
System.out.println("Producing value : " + i);
queue.add(i);
queue.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
class Consumer extends Thread {
private Queue<Integer> queue;
private int maxSize;
public Consumer(Queue<Integer> queue, int maxSize, String name){
super(name); this.queue = queue; this.maxSize = maxSize;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
synchronized (queue) {
while (queue.isEmpty()) {
try {
System.out .println("Queue is empty," +
"Consumer thread is waiting" +
" for producer thread to put something in queue");
queue.wait();
} catch (Exception ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("Consuming value : " + queue.remove());
queue.notifyAll();
}
}
}
}
This is an example of Consumer and Producer program.
Output of the above program after execution is written below:
How to use wait and notify
method in Java Solving Producer Consumper Problem
Queue is empty,Consumer thread is waiting for producer thread to put
something in queue
Producing value : -1692411980
Producing value : 285310787
Producing value : -1045894970
Producing value : 2140997307
Producing value : 1379699468
Producing value : 912077154
Producing value : -1635438928
Producing value : -500696499
Producing value : -1985700664
Producing value : 961945684
Queue is full, Producer thread waiting for consumer to take something from
queue Consuming value : -1692411980
Consuming value : 285310787
Consuming value : -1045894970
Consuming value : 2140997307
Consuming value : 1379699468
Consuming value : 912077154
Consuming value : -1635438928
Consuming value : -500696499
Consuming value : -1985700664
Consuming value : 961945684
Queue is empty,Consumer thread is waiting for producer thread to put
something in queue
Producing value : 118213849
So, what we can conclude is, notifyAll() or notify() will not release the lock. have a look at the output, Producing value and Consuming value are not printed alternatively i.e there are printed separately.
Hence, notify/ notifyAll will not release lock
Read more: http://javarevisited.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-to-use-wait-notify-and-notifyall-in.html#ixzz57kdToLX6

To clarify my understanding and to provide an example for all to show when the lock is released, I have added print statements to the following code after the call to notify()/NotifyAll():
class ThreadDemo {
public static void main(String[] args) {
Shared s = new Shared();
new Producer(s).start();
new Consumer(s).start();
}
}
class Shared {
private char c = '\u0000';
private boolean writeable = true;
synchronized void setSharedChar(char c) {
while (!writeable)
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
this.c = c;
writeable = false;
notifyAll();
System.out.println("setSharedChar notify() called - still in synchronized block.");
}
synchronized char getSharedChar() {
while (writeable)
try {
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
writeable = true;
notifyAll();
System.out.println("getSharedChar notify() called - still in synchronized block.");
return c;
}
}
class Producer extends Thread {
private Shared s;
Producer(Shared s) {
this.s = s;
}
public void run() {
System.out.println("Starting producer thread.");
for (char ch = 'A'; ch <= 'Z'; ch++) {
System.out.println("Producer thread getting ready to create a char.");
try {
Thread.sleep((int) (Math.random() * 1000));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
s.setSharedChar(ch);
System.out.println(ch + " produced by producer.");
}
}
}
class Consumer extends Thread {
private Shared s;
Consumer(Shared s) {
this.s = s;
}
public void run() {
System.out.println("Starting consumer thread.");
char ch;
do {
System.out.println("Consumer thread getting ready to read a char.");
try {
Thread.sleep((int) (Math.random() * 1000));
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
}
ch = s.getSharedChar();
System.out.println(ch + " consumed by consumer.");
} while (ch != 'Z');
}
}
When I ran this example enough times, there was a point where I did eventually see the output of the program show:
...
F produced by producer.
Producer thread getting ready to create a char.
getSharedChar notify() called - still in synchronized block.
F consumed by consumer.
Consumer thread getting ready to read a char.
setSharedChar notify() called - still in synchronized block.
G produced by producer.
Producer thread getting ready to create a char.
getSharedChar notify() called - still in synchronized block.
setSharedChar notify() called - still in synchronized block.
G consumed by consumer.
Since the output getSharedChar is able to appear before setSharedChar, it appears that the lock is being released immediately or not required to reenter the synchronized getSharedChar() function by the call to notifyAll(). The lock may still be in place, but if you can reenter the function without it, what is the difference?
I was able to see similar output substituting notify() for notifyAll(). This was done on Java 1.7.0_15 on a 64 bit Windows 7 system.

wait(): Virtually every object in Java posses a monitor, to enter inside any synchronized block a thread has to first acquire this monitor and then only he can enter this synchronized block. As critical section of the code is executed by a single thread at a time so it has a great impact on overall performance of the application. So in place of holding the resource(monitor) threads can be asked to leave the critical section and wait for some time. To achieve this behaviour Java has provided a wait() api directly in Object class.
So any time a thread encounter a wait() API, it drops the current monitor plus all other monitors it holds and go to waiting state linked the current object. Its important to understand that that went to the waiting state in the context of object for which thread acquired the monitor first.. In a conceptual way i explain, every object holds a container house where all waiting threads are held.
There are multiple ways a Thread can come out of this container house of Object. Lets see..
When another thread comes and rings the bell once, In Java by calling
notify() method on the same object.
When another thread comes and rings multiple time, one of the Thread
gets a chance to come out of Object’s container house. In Java we can
do this by calling notifyAll() on the same object.
If we have the reference of the Thread waiting in container house.
Calling interrupt() on the Thread object pops it out of waiting state
and brings it the exception block of the Object.
There are overloaded wait(long milliseconds) and wait(long millSec,
int nanos) methods. As the time over the Thread is eligible to come
out of waiting state and contest for Object monitor again. In case
Thread fails to acquire the monitor after timeout also then it has to
wait for notify() calls only.
notify(): If the objects container house has multiple threads in waiting state then calling notify() on the this object given chance to one the thread to proceed. But after coming out of the waiting state the thread still has to contest for the object monitor and if it succeeds in getting the monitor it continue its execution otherwise thread will come back to waiting state. So notify() also has to be called from the synchronized block. If the notify() is not called from synchronized context then it thorws IllegalMonitorStateException.
notifyAll(): Calling notifyAll() on the Object makes sure all the threads in Object container house are awakened but once awakened they have to compete with each other or any other thread wants to acquire the object monitor. Which ever thread succeeds continue its executions others have to go back to waiting state and settle in object container house. As notify(), notifyAll() should also be called in synchronized context.
Explanation Taken from http://coder2design.com/thread-communication/

Calling notify() method on an object changes the state of the waiting threads.
The notifying thread only releases the lock once it completes the execution of its synchronized code on the lock object it is going to release.
So here's how it is:
wait()
If a thread calls wait() method on an object, the thread IMMEDIATELY releases the lock of that object and goes into waiting state.
notify()
But when a thread calls notify() method on an object, the thread does not release the lock of that object immediately, if the thread have some more job to do (i.e code to execute after notify() call). If the execution of the synchronized code is completed or there are no statements after notify(), then the thread releases the lock for waken up threads from waiting state.