We Keep Coding

How to synchronize code based on boolean value?

I have this code:
private volatile boolean immortal;
private Object lock = new Object();
public void set(boolean immortal) {
this.immortal = immortal;
}
public void kill() {
// .... contains some other code.
synchronized(lock) {
if (!immortal) {
for (int i = 0; i < numThreads; i++) {
runnableList.add(POISON_PILL);
}
}
}
}
My use case is that I would like the if statement in the kill method to run to completion before immortal value is changed. Is there a better way of doing this without locking on an object?
I mean what is the best way to synchronize a block only if the value of a boolean variable is false and not allow the boolean value to be changed till it runs to completion? Can I achieve this using AtomicBoolean?

A neat way to do this could be to declare your runnableList as a synchronized list:
// where T is whatever type it needs to be
List<T> runnableList = Collections.synchronizedList(new ArrayList<>());
Then you could add to it without explicit synchronization:
if (!immortal) {
runnableList.addAll(Collections.nCopies(numThreads, POISON_PILL));
}
This works because a single call to addAll is atomic.
This isn't doing it without synchronization, though, it's just internal to the list.
With this said, it's hard to recommend a "better" solution because it's not clear what the requirements are. Synchronization (etc) is used to preserve the invariants of your object when operated on by multiple threads.
For example, why do you need immortal to remain unchanged while you add things to runnableList? How else do you access immortal and runnableList? etc

Use two locks:
private boolean immortal;
private final Object killMonitor = new Object();
private final Object flagMonitor = new Object();
public void set(boolean immortal) {
synchronized (flagMonitor) {
this.immortal = immortal;
}
}
public void kill() {
// ...
synchronized (flagMonitor) {
if (!immortal) {
synchronized (killMonitor) {
runnableList.addAll(Collections.nCopies(numThreads, POISON_PILL));
}
}
}
}

All threads get locked in wait() state [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Notify not getting the thread out of wait state
(3 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
Basically I have to create 3 classes (2 threaded).
First one holds some cargo (has a minimum capacity (0) and a maximum (200))
Second one supplies the cargo every 500ms.
Third one takes away from cargo every 500ms.
Main program has one cargo class(1), 2 supplier classes(2) and 2 substraction classes(3). Problem I'm having is that one by one, they're falling into a wait(); state and never get out. Eventually all of them get stucked in the wait() state, with the program running, but without them actually doing anything.
First class:
public class Storage {
private int maxCapacity;
private int currentCapacity;
public Storage( int currentCapacity, int maxCapacity ) {
this.currentCapacity = currentCapacity;
this.maxCapacity = maxCapacity;
}
public int getCapacity(){ return this.currentCapacity; }
public void increase( int q ) {
this.currentCapacity += q;
System.out.println("increase" + q + ". Total: " + currentCapacity);
}
public int getMax() { return this.maxCapacity; }
public void decrease( int q ) {
this.currentCapacity -= q;
System.out.println("decrease - " + q + ". Total: " + currentCapacity);
}
}
2nd class (supplier):
public class Supplier implements Runnable {
private int capacity;
private Storage storage;
private volatile boolean run;
public Supplier( int capacity, Storage storage ) {
this.capacity = capacity;
this.storage = storage;
this.run = true;
}
public void kiss_kill() { run = !run; }
public synchronized void add() {
while(storage.getCapacity() + capacity > storage.getMax()) {
try {
System.out.println("wait - supplier");
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
storage.increase(capacity);
notifyAll();
}
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
while(run) {
add();
Thread.yield(); //would be wait(500), but this just speeds it up
}
}
}
}
3rd class (taker/demander):
public class Taker implements Runnable {
private int capacity;
private Storage storage;
private volatile boolean run;
public Taker( int capacity, Storage storage ) {
this.capacity = capacity;
this.storage = storage;
this.run = true;
}
public void kiss_kill() { run = !run; }
public synchronized void take() {
while(storage.getCapacity() - capacity < 0) {
try {
System.out.println("wait - taker");
wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
storage.decrease(capacity);
notifyAll();
}
public void run() {
synchronized (this) {
while(run) {
take();
Thread.yield(); //again, wait(500) should be instead
}
}
}
}
Main is something like this:
public class Main{
public static void main(String... args) {
Storage sk = new Storage(100, 200);
Supplier[] s = { new Supplier(10, sk), new Supplier(15, sk) };
Taker[] p = { new Taker(15, sk), new Taker(20, sk) };
Thread t[] = {
new Thread(s[0]),
new Thread(s[1]),
new Thread(p[0]),
new Thread(p[1]) };
for(Thread th : t) th.start();
try {
Thread.sleep(60000); //program should last for 60s.
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
s[0].kiss_kill(); s[1].kiss_kill(); p[0].kiss_kill(); p[1].kiss_kill();
}
}
Why doesn't notifyAll() release the wait() state of other object? What could I do to fix this?
Sorry, I know it's a long example, I hate posting too many classes like this. Thanks for reading!
I translated the code, so if you spot anything that you're unsure about that I've missed, please tell me and I'll fix it right away!

Doing concurrency is easy:
Anyone can slap synchronized on methods and synchronized () {} around blocks of code. It does not mean it is correct. And then they can continue to slap synchronized on everything until it works until it doesn't.
Doing concurrency correctly is Hard:
You should lock on the data that needs to be consistent not the methods making the changes. And you have to use the same lock instance for everything.
In this case that is the currentCapacity in Storage. That is the only thing that is shared and the only thing that needs to be consistent.
What you are doing now is having the classes lock on instances of themselves which means nothing shared is being protected because there is no shared lock.
Think about it, if you are not locking on the same exact instance which must be final of an object then what are you protecting?
Also what about code that has access to the object that needs to be consistent and does not request a lock on it. Well it just does what it wants. synchronized() {} in calling classes is not how you protect shared data from external manipulation.
Thread safe objects are NOT about the synchronized keyword:
Read up on the java.util.concurrent package it has all the things you need already. Use the correct data structure for your use case.
In this particular case if you use AtomicInteger for your counter, you do not need any error prone manual locking, no need for synchronized anywhere, it is already thread safe.
Immutable Data:
If you work with immutable data exclusively you do not need any of this silly locking semantics that are extremely error prone for even those that understand it and even more so for those that think they understand it.
Here is a working idiomatic example:
This is a good chance to learn what non-deterministic means and how to use the step debugger in your IDE to debug concurrent programs.
Q33700412.java
import java.util.Random;
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
import com.vertigrated.FormattedRuntimeException;
public class Q33700412
{
public static void main(final String[] args)
{
final Storage s = new Storage(100);
final int ap = Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors();
final ExecutorService es = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(ap);
for (int i = 0; i < ap; i++)
{
es.execute(new Runnable()
{
final Random r = new Random();
#Override
public void run()
{
while (true)
{
/* this if/else block is NOT thread safe, I did this on purpose
the state can change between s.remainingCapacity() and
the call to s.increase/s.decrease.
This is ok, because the Storage object is internally consistent.
This thread might fail if this happens, this is the educational part.
*/
if (s.remainingCapacity() > 0)
{
if (r.nextBoolean()) { s.increase(r.nextInt(10)); }
else { s.decrease(10); }
System.out.format("Current Capacity is %d", s.getCurrentCapacity());
System.out.println();
}
else
{
System.out.format("Max Capacity %d Reached", s.getMaxCapacity());
System.out.println();
}
try { Thread.sleep(r.nextInt(5000)); }
catch (InterruptedException e) { throw new RuntimeException(e); }
}
}
});
}
es.shutdown();
try
{
Thread.sleep(TimeUnit.MINUTES.toMillis(1));
es.shutdown();
}
catch (InterruptedException e) { System.out.println("Done!"); }
}
public static final class Storage
{
/* AtomicInteger is used so that it can be mutable and final at the same time */
private final AtomicInteger currentCapacity;
private final int maxCapacity;
public Storage(final int maxCapacity) { this(0, maxCapacity); }
public Storage(final int currentCapacity, final int maxCapacity)
{
this.currentCapacity = new AtomicInteger(currentCapacity);
this.maxCapacity = maxCapacity;
}
public int remainingCapacity() { return this.maxCapacity - this.currentCapacity.get(); }
public int getCurrentCapacity() { return this.currentCapacity.get(); }
public void increase(final int q)
{
synchronized (this.currentCapacity)
{
if (this.currentCapacity.get() < this.maxCapacity)
{
this.currentCapacity.addAndGet(q);
}
else
{
throw new FormattedRuntimeException("Max Capacity %d Exceeded!", this.maxCapacity);
}
}
}
public int getMaxCapacity() { return this.maxCapacity; }
public void decrease(final int q)
{
synchronized (this.currentCapacity)
{
if (this.currentCapacity.get() - q >= 0)
{
this.currentCapacity.addAndGet(q * -1);
}
else
{
this.currentCapacity.set(0);
}
}
}
}
}
Notes:
Limit the scope of synchronized blocks to the minimum they need to protect and lock on the object that needs to stay consistent.
The lock object must be marked final or the reference can change and you will be locking on different instances.
The more final the more correct your programs are likely to be the first time.

Jarrod Roberson gave you the "how" half of the answer. Here's the other half--the "why".
Your Supplier object's add() method waits on itself (i.e., on the supplier object), and it notifies itself.
Your Taker object's take() method waits on its self (i.e., on the taker object), and it notifies its self.
The supplier never notifies the taker, and taker never notifies the supplier.
You should do all of your synchronization on the shared object (i.e., on the Storage object.
So I should convert storage into a thread?
No, you don't want Storage to be a thread, you want it to be the lock. Instead of having your Supplier objects and your Taker objects synchronize on themselves, they should all synchronize on the shared Storage object.
E.g., do this:
public void take() {
synchronized(storage) {
while(...) {
try {
storage.wait();
} catch ...
}
...
storage.notifyAll();
}
}
Instead of this:
public synchronized void take() {
while(...) {
try {
wait();
} catch ...
}
...
notifyAll();
}
And do the same for all of your other synchronized methods.

How to use lock wrapper for autocloseable?

I have wrote following wrapepr:
public class AutoCloseableLockWrapper implements AutoCloseable, Lock{
private final Lock lock;
public AutoCloseableLockWrapper(Lock l) {
this.lock = l;
}
#Override
public void lock() {
this.lock.lock();
}
#Override
public void lockInterruptibly() throws InterruptedException {
lock.lockInterruptibly();
}
#Override
public boolean tryLock() {
return lock.tryLock();
}
#Override
public boolean tryLock(long time, TimeUnit unit) throws InterruptedException {
return lock.tryLock(time,unit);
}
#Override
public void unlock() {
lock.unlock();
}
#Override
public Condition newCondition() {
return lock.newCondition();
}
#Override
public void close() {
this.lock.unlock();
}
}
In my code I use it like this:
public class ReadWriteMap implements Map {
private HashMap map = new HashMap();
private ReadWriteLock readWriteLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock();
private Lock readLock = readWriteLock.readLock();
private Lock writeLock = readWriteLock.writeLock();
#Override
public int size() {
try (AutoCloseableLockWrapper autoCloseableLockWrapper = new AutoCloseableLockWrapper(readLock)) {
autoCloseableLockWrapper.lock();
return map.size();
}
}
#Override
public boolean isEmpty() {
try (AutoCloseableLockWrapper autoCloseableLockWrapper = new AutoCloseableLockWrapper(readLock)) {
autoCloseableLockWrapper.lock();
return map.isEmpty();
}
}
#Override
public boolean containsKey(Object key) {
try (AutoCloseableLockWrapper autoCloseableLockWrapper = new AutoCloseableLockWrapper(readLock)) {
autoCloseableLockWrapper.lock();
return map.containsKey(key);
}
}
...
}
I don't want to create wrapper in each method.
Is there way to combine single wrapper and try with resources ?

You are over-complicating your design. If your AutoCloseableLockWrapper intentionally exposes all operations supported by the underlying Lock, there is no point in making it private and adding delegation methods for each of Lock’s methods. You could simply make the Lock reference public to allow its use, or leave it off entirely, as the code which creates the wrapper already has a reference to the Lock.
All you want to do, is to support a single operation, unlock, which should be viewed as AutoCloseable.
A Java 8 solution may look like
import java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock;
public interface AutoUnlock extends AutoCloseable {
public static AutoUnlock lock(Lock lock) {
lock.lock();
return lock::unlock;
}
#Override
public void close(); // no checked exceptions
}
It can be used like:
Lock lock=…
// …
try(AutoUnlock u=AutoUnlock.lock(lock)) {
// critical code
}
// …
try(AutoUnlock u=AutoUnlock.lock(lock)) {
// critical code
}
If you worry about the instance creation (usually this is not an issue), you can re-use AutoCloseables:
AutoUnlock reusable=lock::unlock;
// …
lock.lock();
try(AutoUnlock u=reusable) {
// critical code
}
// …
lock.lock();
try(AutoUnlock u=reusable) {
// critical code
}
To me, it looks less clear since the lock(); and try statements are not syntactically coupled and could be separated by accident. But if the lock has a non-local scope, you could solve this by creating a utility method:
final Lock lockInstance; // this field name is to prevent confusion with the lock() method
final AutoUnlock reusable;
YourConstructor(Lock lock) {// you may get the Lock as a parameter
lockInstance=lock; // or create one here, right in the constructor
reusable=lockInstance::unlock;
}
AutoUnlock lock() {
lockInstance.lock();
return reusable;
}
void doSomething() {
// …
try(AutoUnlock u=lock()) {
// critical code
}
// …
try(AutoUnlock u=lock()) {
// critical code
}
}
I think, it’s not too hard to back-port this logic into Java 7 code, if needed.

You can use a factory method that returns a singleton. Nothing is forcing you to use a constructor.
BTW you should not call lock inside the try-block. That should have already happened in the "acquire the resource" phase (within the constructor in your current design, inside the factory method in my proposal).
I see that the above note is already posted on the Q&A page where you contributed your wrapper. The page already has very good content; I advise to study it well.

I'd prefer just creating a new lock (not a wrapper around a lock):
public class AutoReentrantLock implements AutoCloseable {
private final ReentrantLock lock = new ReentrantLock();
public AutoReentrantLock lock() {
lock.lock();
return this;
}
public void earlyUnlock() {
lock.unlock();
}
#Override
public void close() {
if(lock.isHeldByCurrentThread()) {
lock.unlock();
}
}
}
Use like this:
private AutoReentrantLock consistencyLock = new AutoReentrantLock();
try(AutoReentrantLock lock = consistencyLock.lock()) {
// other code
}
Or a more complicated use case, where you unlock halfway:
private AutoReentrantLock consistencyLock = new AutoReentrantLock();
try(AutoReentrantLock lock = consistencyLock.lock()) {
// Place code here that gathers information (while under lock)
// but may exit early or throw exceptions
lock.earlyUnlock();
// ... followed by code that is slow that acts upon above gathered information.
}

Uses of volatile without synchronization

Knowing that
Reads and writes are atomic for all variables declared volatile
Question1: Can this be understood as if
private volatile int x = 0;
x++; operation is atomic?
And that
Marking variable volatile does not eliminate all need to synchronize
atomic actions, because memory consistency errors are still possible.
Question2: I wonder under what circumstances (if any) it is possible to see a variable marked volatile and not see any methods of blocks marked synchronized (that attempt to access/ modify the variable)?
In other words, should all variables that need to be protected from concurrent modification be marked volatile?

The volatile only gives you additional visibility guarantees, atomic writes/reads for longs/doubles (otherwise not guaranteed by the JLS, yes) and some memory order guarantees. No synchronization (it is possible though to build synchronization blocks starting with just volatile - Dekker's algorithm )
So no, it does not help you with x++ - that's still a read, inc and write and needs some form of synchronization.
One example of volatile is the famous double-checked locking, where we avoid synchronization most of the time because the ordering guarantees are all we need:
private volatile Helper helper = null;
public Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
synchronized(this) {
if (helper == null) {
helper = new Helper();
}
}
}
return helper;
}
An example where there's absolutely no synchronization involved, is a simple exit flag, here it's not about ordering guarantees but only about the guaranteed visibility
public volatile boolean exit = false;
public void run() {
while (!exit) doStuff();
// exit when exit set to true
}
If another thread sets exit = true the other thread doing the while loop is guaranteed to see the update - without volatile it may not.

x++; operation is atomic?
No. This reduces to x = x + 1. The read of x is atomic, and the write to x is atomic, but x = x + 1 as a whole is not atomic.
I wonder under what circumstances (if any) it is possible to see a variable marked volatile and not see any methods of blocks marked synchronized (that attempt to access/ modify the variable)?
Well, there are all kinds of approaches to concurrency that don't use synchronized. There's a wide variety of other locking utilities in Java, and lock-free algorithms that still require things like volatile: ConcurrentLinkedQueue is a specific example, though it makes extensive use of "magical" compareAndSet atomics.

As a quickly testable example that may illustrate the previous answers, this yields always a final count of 8:
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger;
public class ThreadTest_synchronize {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadTest_synchronize tt = new ThreadTest_synchronize ();
try {
tt.go();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void go() throws InterruptedException{
MyRunnable t = new MyRunnable();
Thread myThread_1 = new Thread( t, "t1");
Thread myThread_2 = new Thread( t, "t2");
myThread_1.start();
myThread_2.start();
myThread_1.join();
myThread_2.join();
System.out.println("Processing count="+t.getCount());
}
private class MyRunnable implements Runnable{
private AtomicInteger count=new AtomicInteger(0);
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i=1; i< 5; i++){
doSomething(i);
count.getAndAdd(1);
}
}
public AtomicInteger getCount() {
return this.count;
}
private void doSomething(int i) {
try {
Thread.sleep(i*300);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}
while this generally does not:
public class ThreadTest_volatile {
public static void main(String[] args) {
ThreadTest_volatile tt = new ThreadTest_volatile ();
try {
tt.go();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void go() throws InterruptedException{
MyRunnable t = new MyRunnable();
Thread myThread_1 = new Thread( t, "t1");
Thread myThread_2 = new Thread( t, "t2");
myThread_1.start();
myThread_2.start();
myThread_1.join();
myThread_2.join();
System.out.println("Processing count="+t.getCount());
}
private class MyRunnable implements Runnable{
private volatile int count = 0;
#Override
public void run() {
for(int i=1; i< 5; i++){
doSomething(i);
count++;
}
}
private int add(int count){
return ++count;
}
public int getCount(){
return count;
}
private void doSomething(int i) {
try {
Thread.sleep(i*300);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
}

Controlling race condition at startup

I have some code that I want to have some one time initialisation performed. But this code doesn't have a definite lifecycle, so my logic can be potentially invoked by multiple threads before my initialisation is done. So, I want to basically ensure that my logic code "waits" until initialisation is done.
This is my first cut.
public class MyClass {
private static final AtomicBoolean initialised = new AtomicBoolean(false);
public void initialise() {
synchronized(initialised) {
initStuff();
initialised.getAndSet(true);
initialised.notifyAll();
}
}
public void doStuff() {
synchronized(initialised) {
if (!initialised.get()) {
try {
initialised.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException("Uh oh!", ex);
}
}
}
doOtherStuff();
}
}
I basically want to make sure this is going to do what I think it's going to do -- block doStuff until the initialised is true, and that I'm not missing a race condition where doStuff might get stuck on a Object.wait() that will never arrive.
Edit:
I have no control over the threads. And I want to be able to control when all of the initialisation is done, which is why doStuff() can't call initialise().
I used an AtomicBoolean as it was a combination of a value holder, and an object I could synchronize. I could have also simply had a "public static final Object lock = new Object();" and a simple boolean flag. AtomicBoolean conveniently gave me both. A Boolean can not be modified.
The CountDownLatch is exactly what I was looking for. I also considered using a Sempahore with 0 permits. But the CountDownLatch is perfect for just this task.

That's a strange mix of library and built-in concurrency controls. Something like this is much cleaner:
public class MyClass {
private static final CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(1);
public void initialise() {
initStuff();
latch.countDown();
}
public void doStuff() {
try {
latch.await();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
throw new RuntimeException("Uh oh!", ex);
}
doOtherStuff();
}
}

A synchronized block will automatically block other threads. Just use a simple lock object + status variable:
public class MyClass {
private static boolean initialised;
private static final Object lockObject = new Object();
public void initialise() {
synchronized (lockObject) {
if (!initialised) {
initStuff();
initialised = true;
}
}
}
public void doStuff() {
initialise();
doOtherStuff();
}
}

The best may be to use a static initializer (as mentioned by SB):
public class MyClass {
public static void doInitialize() {
...
}
public void doStuff() {
doOtherStuff();
}
static {
doInitialize();
}
}
This will get executed once before any other code is allowed to be called. If you will always have to initialize anytime the class is used then there is no performance hit as the class will not be loaded until it is used. See the answers to this question for more details.

It this is right at startup, why not wait to start the other threads until the initialization is complete?
Also, you can do a thread-synchronized IsComplete boolean that is set to false until it is set to true by the initialization routine.

You're using AtomicBoolean always from inside a synchronized block. There's not much point to that since only one thread can access it. Atomic variables are intended for use in lock-free solutions - you can get and set the value as an uninterruptable unit.
I guess you are looking for a lock free solution once the intiialization has happened:
public class MyClass {
private static final AtomicBoolean initialised = new AtomicBoolean(false);
public void initialise() {
if (!intialized.get())
{
synchornized (this)
{
if (!initialized.getAndSet(true))
doInitialize();
}
}
}
public void doStuff() {
initialize();
doOtherStuff();
}
You could also do this with a simple volatile boolean which is actually a little more efficient than an AtomicBoolean.