I'm reading Thinking in JAVA (Ed4, by Bruce Eckel), which says:
Note that it’s especially important to make fields private when
working with concurrency; otherwise the synchronized keyword cannot
prevent another task from accessing a field directly, and thus
producing collisions.
I am confused and finally get this demo:
public class SimpleSerial {
public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException {
ShareObject so = new ShareObject();
Thread thread1 = new Thread(new ThreadOperation(so, "add"));
Thread thread2 = new Thread(new ThreadOperation(so, "sub"));
thread1.setDaemon(true);
thread2.setDaemon(true);
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
System.out.println("Press Enter to stop");
System.in.read();
System.out.println("Now, a=" + so.a + " b=" + so.b);
}
}
class ThreadOperation implements Runnable {
private String operation;
private ShareObject so;
public ThreadOperation(ShareObject so, String oper) {
this.operation = oper;
this.so = so;
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
if (operation.equals("add")) {
so.add();
} else {
so.sub();
}
}
}
}
class ShareObject {
int a = 100;
int b = 100;
public synchronized void add() {
++a;
++b;
}
public synchronized void sub() {
--a;
--b;
}
}
Every time the values of a and b are different. So why?
The demo also mentioned if the thread sleep() for short time, i.e., re-write the run() method in ThreadOperation:
public void run() {
while (true) {
if (operation.equals("add")) {
so.add();
} else {
so.sub();
}
try {
TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS.sleep(1);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
then values of a and b are the same.
So again, Why? What happens behind sleep()?
With sleep() it becomes probable that the println() executes while the threads are sleeping. The program is still very not thread-safe.
You could fix it by adding a synchronized print() method to SharedObject eg:
public synchronized void print() {
System.out.println("Now, a=" + a + " b=" + b);
}
and calling that on the last line of main instead of the current unsynchronized accesses.
This question already has answers here:
Code to simulate race condition in Java thread
(4 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I am trying to make a thread race, but my threads run in order instead of running in parallel ...After a thread finishes the race , it has to inform the context and the context should announce the winner and stop the race . How can I repair this ?
My ThreadRaceClass:
public class ThreadRace {
List<ThreadRaceCompetitor> competitors = new ArrayList<>(10);
public ThreadRace() {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
competitors.add(new ThreadRaceCompetitor());
}
}
public void start() {
competitors.forEach(ThreadRaceCompetitor::run);
}
}
The ThreadCompetitor object:
public class ThreadRaceCompetitor implements Runnable {
private static final ThreadRaceContext context = new ThreadRaceContext();
private static AtomicInteger count = new AtomicInteger(0);
private int raceNumber;
private int progress = 0;
public ThreadRaceCompetitor() {
raceNumber = count.incrementAndGet();
}
#Override
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) {
System.out.println("Thread " + raceNumber + " is running with " + i + " speed and has covered " + progress + " kilometers / 20" );
try {
sleep(50);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
progress++;
}
synchronized (context) {
context.announceWinner(raceNumber);
}
}
public int getRaceNumber() {
return raceNumber;
}
public int getProgress() {
return progress;
}
}
And the context:
public class ThreadRaceContext extends Thread {
public void announceWinner(int raceNumber) {
System.out.println("Competitor with number " + raceNumber + " won the race");
}
}
You have to call the start-method. Then it should work.
public void start() {
competitors.forEach(ThreadRaceCompetitor::start); // not sure if that is possible...
}
//alternative
public void start() {
for(ThreadRaceCompetitor c: competitors) {
c.start();
}
}
First of all you are not creating any Thread here. Just by implementing runnable will not make an instance of a class Thread. Using your runnable you have to create an instance of Thread and start it.
One way to achieve this with your existing code is to make your ThreadRaceCompetitor extend Thread and in your ThreadRace class's start method call start method on each ThreadRaceCompetitor in the list instead of calling run directly.
Please consider the below code.
import static java.lang.System.out;
public class Task
{
public Integer k = new Integer(10) ;
public Task()
{
out.println(k + " constructor of Task : " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
import static java.lang.System.out;
public class Executor2 implements Runnable
{
private Task task;
public Executor2(Task t)
{
out.println("constructor of Executor2 : " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
task = t;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
synchronized(task.k)
{
task.k = 88;
out.println("changed value of task.k to : " + task.k + " " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
try
{
out.println("sleeping");
Thread.sleep(5000);
}
catch (InterruptedException ex)
{
ex.printStackTrace(out);
}
out.println("done");
}
}
}
import static java.lang.System.out;
public class Executor3 implements Runnable
{
private Task task;
public Executor3(Task t)
{
out.println("constructor of Executor3 : " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
task = t;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
synchronized(task.k)
{
task.k = 888;
out.println("changed value of task.k to : " + task.k + " " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
}
}
------------------------------------------------------------
public class Main
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
Task task = new Task();
Executor2 executor2 = new Executor2(task);
Thread thread2 = new Thread(executor2);
thread2.start();
Executor3 executor3 = new Executor3(task);
Thread thread3 = new Thread(executor3);
thread3.start();
}
}
Below is the output of the program.
10 constructor of Task : main
constructor of Executor2 : main
constructor of Executor3 : main
changed value of task.k to : 88 Thread-0
sleeping
changed value of task.k to : 888 Thread-1
done
The surprising thing here is output line : changed value of task.k to : 888 Thread-1 which is not expected to be printed before output line : done.
How come the lock on Integer object is released before sleep duration has passed?
Thanks.
synchronized(task.k)
{
task.k = 888;
Changing the object you're synchronizing on kind of defeats the point of the synchronization. You then try to print the new object while you're still synchronized on the old one. Don't replace objects threads are synchronizing on!
Extending what David Schwartz said: In almost all cases, if you're going to write this:
synchronized (foo) {
...
}
Then the variable that refers to the lock object should be a final field:
class MyClass {
final Object foo = new Object();
...
void someMethod(...) {
synchronized (foo) {
...
}
}
...
}
That will prevent you from making the same mistake in the future.
Agree with above. Also while using private lock, one pitfall is not to lock on string literals - String literals are shared resource.
private final String lock = “xx”;
private final String lock = new String(“xxx”);
The second locking is fine.
I'm trying to interleave the execution of two independent threads. such that both have a run method with 10 iterations and after every iteration i want to context switch the threads.
thread A starts and after doing something like printing passes control to thread B. then thread B prints and passes control back to A and so on until both finish.
What is the effective mechanism to do this?
I'm attaching a sample code. hope you can help.
// Suspending and resuming a thread for Java 2
class NewThread implements Runnable {
String name; // name of thread
Thread t;
// boolean suspendFlag;
NewThread(String threadname) {
name = threadname;
t = new Thread(this, name);
System.out.println("New thread: " + t);
// suspendFlag = false;
t.start(); // Start the thread
}
public String getState()
{
Thread t=Thread.currentThread();
return t.getState().toString();
}
// This is the entry point for thread.
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 15; i > 0; i--) {
System.out.println(name + ": " + i);
Thread.sleep(200);
synchronized(this) {
//SuspendResume.suspendFlag2=false;
SuspendResume.suspendFlag1=true;
while(SuspendResume.suspendFlag1) {
wait();
//System.out.println(SuspendResume.ob1.t.getState().toString());
// if(SuspendResume.ob2.t.getState().toString()=="WAITING")
// SuspendResume.ob2.t.notify();
}
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(name + " interrupted.");
}
System.out.println(name + " exiting.");
}
void mysuspend() {
// suspendFlag = true;
}
synchronized void myresume() {
// suspendFlag = false;
notify();
}
}
class NewThread2 implements Runnable {
String name; // name of thread
Thread t;
// boolean suspendFlag;
NewThread2(String threadname) {
name = threadname;
t = new Thread(this, name);
System.out.println("New thread: " + t);
// suspendFlag = false;
t.start(); // Start the thread
}
public String getState()
{
Thread t=Thread.currentThread();
return t.getState().toString();
}
// This is the entry point for thread.
public void run() {
try {
for(int i = 15; i > 0; i--) {
System.out.println(name + ": " + i);
Thread.sleep(1000);
synchronized(this) {
//SuspendResume.suspendFlag1=false;
//while(SuspendResume.suspendFlag1) {
// while(suspendFlag) {
//wait();
//System.out.println(SuspendResume.ob2.t.getState().toString());
//if(SuspendResume.ob1.t.getState().toString()=="WAITING")
//SuspendResume.ob1.t.notify();
//}
SuspendResume.suspendFlag1=false;
notify();
}
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println(name + " interrupted.");
}
System.out.println(name + " exiting.");
}
void mysuspend() {
// suspendFlag = true;
}
synchronized void myresume() {
// suspendFlag = false;
notify();
}
}
class SuspendResume {
static boolean suspendFlag1=false;
static NewThread ob1 = new NewThread("One");
static NewThread2 ob2 = new NewThread2("Two");
// static boolean suspendFlag2=false;
public static void main(String args[]) {
try {
//Thread.sleep(1000);
//ob1.mysuspend();
//System.out.println("Suspending thread One");
//Thread.sleep(1000);
//ob1.myresume();
//System.out.println("Resuming thread One");
// ob2.mysuspend();
//System.out.println("Suspending thread Two");
Thread.sleep(1000);
// ob2.myresume();
//System.out.println("Resuming thread Two");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
// wait for threads to finish
try {
System.out.println("Waiting for threads to finish.");
System.out.println(ob1.getState());
System.out.println(ob1.getState());
ob1.t.join();
ob2.t.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Main thread Interrupted");
}
System.out.println("Main thread exiting.");
}
}
First off, I'm not sure what kind of scenario you have where you want to run two threads sequentially over and over again. That sounds like a single thread running two different methods in a loop. None-the-less, it sounds like an interesting challenge so I took it up.
Making use of Java 5's Exchanger class, the solution gets pretty small. I ended up with a single Runnable class. I use two instances of them to pass around a boolean true and boolean false to each other. The Exchanger class facilitates the passing around of the boolean values in a thread safe manner. A Runnable only 'executes' its code when it has the boolean true value.
package interleavedexample;
import java.util.concurrent.Exchanger;
import java.util.logging.Logger;
/**
*
*/
public class InterleavedRunnable implements Runnable {
private final String name;
private final Exchanger<Boolean> exchanger;
private Boolean state;
public InterleavedRunnable(String name, Exchanger<Boolean> exchanger,
Boolean state) {
this.name = name;
this.exchanger = exchanger;
this.state = state;
}
#Override
public void run() {
try {
while (true) {
if (state) {
Logger.getLogger(getClass().getName()).info(name + " is running");
}
state = exchanger.exchange(state);
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(name).info("Interrupted");
}
}
Setting up the runnables are quite easy:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Exchanger<Boolean> exchanger = new Exchanger<Boolean>();
Thread thread1 = new Thread(new InterleavedRunnable("Thread 1", exchanger, true));
Thread thread2 = new Thread(new InterleavedRunnable("Thread 2", exchanger, false));
thread1.start();
thread2.start();
}
Anytime you can find existing functionality within the Java API (or well known libraries), you should utilize them to the fullest extent. The less lines of code you write the less lines there are to maintain.
The 'OS Sycnro 101' solution is to use two semaphores, one for each thread, and swap over one 'GO' token/unit between them. Start both threads and then give the token to whichever thread you want to go first.
Use wait and notify for this.
public class Thread1 implements Runnable {
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
synchronized (Main.obj) {
try {
Main.obj.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("1");
synchronized (Main.obj) {
Main.obj.notify();
}
}
}
}
public class Thread2 implements Runnable{
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
synchronized (Main.obj) {
try {
Main.obj.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("2");
synchronized (Main.obj) {
Main.obj.notify();
}
}
}
}
public class Main {
public volatile static Object obj = new Object();
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args) {
Thread t1 = new Thread(new Thread1());
Thread t2 = new Thread(new Thread2());
t1.start();
t2.start();
synchronized (obj) {
obj.notifyAll();
}
}
}
Did not get your question correctly. If you want to execute thread B only after thread A execution is over, then there is no point of multi-threading at all. You can simply put the thread B contents in thread A run() method.
Still if it is very much required then you can try using wait() and notify() methods on two objects . Something like this.
Class ClassA implements runnable{
Message messageA;
Message messageB;
public ClassA(Message messageA,,Message messageB){
this.messageA = messageA;
this.messageB = messageB;
}
public void run(){
for(;loop contition;){
//code here
messageB.notify();
messageA.wait();
}
}
}
Class ClassB implements runnable{
Message messageA;
Message messageB;
public ClassB(Message messageA,Message messageB){
this.messageA = messageA;
this.messageB = messageB;
}
public void run(){
for(;loop condition;){
messageB.wait();
//code here
messageA.notify();
}
}
}
now create two objects in main messageA and messageB and pass both of them in the constructor of each thread.
How can i order threads in the order they were instantiated.e.g. how can i make the below program print the numbers 1...10 in order.
public class ThreadOrdering {
public static void main(String[] args) {
class MyRunnable implements Runnable{
private final int threadnumber;
MyRunnable(int threadnumber){
this.threadnumber = threadnumber;
}
public void run() {
System.out.println(threadnumber);
}
}
for(int i=1; i<=10; i++){
new Thread(new MyRunnable(i)).start();
}
}
}
Sounds like you want ExecutorService.invokeAll, which will return results from worker threads in a fixed order, even though they may be scheduled in arbitrary order:
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
public class ThreadOrdering {
static int NUM_THREADS = 10;
public static void main(String[] args) {
ExecutorService exec = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(NUM_THREADS);
class MyCallable implements Callable<Integer> {
private final int threadnumber;
MyCallable(int threadnumber){
this.threadnumber = threadnumber;
}
public Integer call() {
System.out.println("Running thread #" + threadnumber);
return threadnumber;
}
}
List<Callable<Integer>> callables =
new ArrayList<Callable<Integer>>();
for(int i=1; i<=NUM_THREADS; i++) {
callables.add(new MyCallable(i));
}
try {
List<Future<Integer>> results =
exec.invokeAll(callables);
for(Future<Integer> result: results) {
System.out.println("Got result of thread #" + result.get());
}
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
} catch (ExecutionException ex) {
ex.printStackTrace();
} finally {
exec.shutdownNow();
}
}
}
"I actually have some parts that i want to execute in parallel, and then once the results are generated, I want to merge the results in certain order." Thanks, this clarifies what you're asking.
You can run them all at once, but the important thing is to get their results in order when the threads finish their computation. Either Thread#join() them in the order in which you want to get their results, or just Thread#join() them all and then iterate through them to get their results.
// Joins the threads back to the main thread in the order we want their results.
public class ThreadOrdering {
private class MyWorker extends Thread {
final int input;
int result;
MyWorker(final int input) {
this.input = input;
}
#Override
public void run() {
this.result = input; // Or some other computation.
}
int getResult() { return result; }
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException {
MyWorker[] workers = new MyWorker[10];
for(int i=1; i<=10; i++) {
workers[i] = new MyWorker(i);
workers[i].start();
}
// Assume it may take a while to do the real computation in the threads.
for (MyWorker worker : workers) {
// This can throw InterruptedException, but we're just passing that.
worker.join();
System.out.println(worker.getResult());
}
}
}
Simply put, the scheduling of threads is indeterminate.
http://www.janeg.ca/scjp/threads/scheduling.html Dead domain - do not click
WaybackMachine version of the above page
The longer answer is that if you want to do this, you'll need to manually wait for each thread to complete its work before you allow another to run. Note that in this fashion, all the threads will still interleave but they won't accomplish any work until you give the go-ahead. Have a look at the synchronize reserved word.
You can chain them – that is, have the first one start the second, the second start the third, etc. They won't really be running at the same time except for a bit of overlap when each one is started.
public class ThreadOrdering
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
MyRunnable[] threads = new MyRunnable[10];//index 0 represents thread 1;
for(int i=1; i<=10; i++)
threads[i] = new MyRunnable(i, threads);
new Thread(threads[0].start);
}
}
public class MyRunnable extends Runnable
{
int threadNumber;
MyRunnable[] threads;
public MyRunnable(int threadNumber, MyRunnable[] threads)
{
this.threadnumber = threadnumber;
this.threads = threads;
}
public void run()
{
System.out.println(threadnumber);
if(threadnumber!=10)
new Thread(threadnumber).start();
}
}
Here's a way to do it without having a master thread that waits for each result. Instead, have the worker threads share an object which orders the results.
import java.util.*;
public class OrderThreads {
public static void main(String... args) {
Results results = new Results();
new Thread(new Task(0, "red", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(1, "orange", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(2, "yellow", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(3, "green", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(4, "blue", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(5, "indigo", results)).start();
new Thread(new Task(6, "violet", results)).start();
}
}
class Results {
private List<String> results = new ArrayList<String>();
private int i = 0;
public synchronized void submit(int order, String result) {
while (results.size() <= order) results.add(null);
results.set(order, result);
while ((i < results.size()) && (results.get(i) != null)) {
System.out.println("result delivered: " + i + " " + results.get(i));
++i;
}
}
}
class Task implements Runnable {
private final int order;
private final String result;
private final Results results;
public Task(int order, String result, Results results) {
this.order = order;
this.result = result;
this.results = results;
}
public void run() {
try {
Thread.sleep(Math.abs(result.hashCode() % 1000)); // simulate a long-running computation
}
catch (InterruptedException e) {} // you'd want to think about what to do if interrupted
System.out.println("task finished: " + order + " " + result);
results.submit(order, result);
}
}
If you need that fine-grained control, you should not use threads but instead look into using a suitable Executor with Callables or Runnables. See the Executors class for a wide selection.
A simple solution would be to use an array A of locks (one lock per thread). When thread i begins its executions, it acquires its associated lock A[i]. When it's ready to merge its results, it releases its lock A[i] and waits for locks A[0], A[1], ..., A[i - 1] to be released; then it merges the results.
(In this context, thread i means the i-th launched thread)
I don't know what classes to use in Java, but it must be easy to implement. You can begin reading this.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask.
public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{
MyRunnable r = new MyRunnable();
Thread t1 = new Thread(r,"A");
Thread t2 = new Thread(r,"B");
Thread t3 = new Thread(r,"C");
t1.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
t2.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
t3.start();
}
Control of thread execution order may be implemented quite easily with the semaphores. The code attached is based on the ideas presented in Schildt's book on Java (The complete reference....).
// Based on the ideas presented in:
// Schildt H.: Java.The.Complete.Reference.9th.Edition.
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
class Manager {
int n;
// Initially red on semaphores 2&3; green semaphore 1.
static Semaphore SemFirst = new Semaphore(1);
static Semaphore SemSecond = new Semaphore(0);
static Semaphore SemThird = new Semaphore(0);
void firstAction () {
try {
SemFirst.acquire();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception InterruptedException catched");
}
System.out.println("First: " );
System.out.println("-----> 111");
SemSecond.release();
}
void secondAction() {
try{
SemSecond.acquire();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception InterruptedException catched");
}
System.out.println("Second: ");
System.out.println("-----> 222");
SemThird.release();
}
void thirdAction() {
try{
SemThird.acquire();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Exception InterruptedException catched");
}
System.out.println("Third: ");
System.out.println("-----> 333");
SemFirst.release();
}
}
class Thread1 implements Runnable {
Manager q;
Thread1(Manager q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Thread1").start();
}
public void run() {
q.firstAction();
}
}
class Thread2 implements Runnable {
Manager q;
Thread2(Manager q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Thread2").start();
}
public void run() {
q.secondAction();
}
}
class Thread3 implements Runnable {
Manager q;
Thread3(Manager q) {
this.q = q;
new Thread(this, "Thread3").start();
}
public void run() {
q.thirdAction();
}
}
class ThreadOrder {
public static void main(String args[]) {
Manager q = new Manager();
new Thread3(q);
new Thread2(q);
new Thread1(q);
}
}
This can be done without using synchronized keyword and with the help of volatile keyword. Following is the code.
package threadOrderingVolatile;
public class Solution {
static volatile int counter = 0;
static int print = 1;
static char c = 'A';
public static void main(String[] args) {
// TODO Auto-generated method stub
Thread[] ths = new Thread[4];
for (int i = 0; i < ths.length; i++) {
ths[i] = new Thread(new MyRunnable(i, ths.length));
ths[i].start();
}
}
static class MyRunnable implements Runnable {
final int thID;
final int total;
public MyRunnable(int id, int total) {
thID = id;
this.total = total;
}
#Override
public void run() {
while(true) {
if (thID == (counter%total)) {
System.out.println("thread " + thID + " prints " + c);
if(c=='Z'){
c='A';
}else{
c=(char)((int)c+1);
}
System.out.println("thread " + thID + " prints " + print++);
counter++;
} else {
try {
Thread.sleep(30);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// log it
}
}
}
}
}
}
Following is the github link which has a readme, that gives detailed explanation about how it happens.
https://github.com/sankar4git/volatile_thread_ordering