We Keep Coding

Waking up a thread without risking to get blocked

I have a worker thread running indefinitely, which goes to sleep for one minute if there's nothing to do. Sometimes, another piece of code produces some work and wants to wake the worker thread immediately.
So I did something like this (code for illustration only):
class Worker {
public void run() {
while (!shuttingDown()) {
step();
}
}
private synchronized void step() {
if (hasWork()) {
doIt();
} else {
wait(60_000);
}
}
public synchronized wakeMeUpInside() {
notify();
}
}
What I dislike is having to enter the monitor only for waking something up, which means that the notifying thread may be delayed for no good reason. As the choices of native synchronization are limited, I thought I'd switch to Condition, but it has exactly the same problem:
An implementation may (and typically does) require that the current thread hold the lock associated with this Condition when this method is called.

Here's a semaphore based solution:
class Worker {
// If 0 there's no work available
private workAvailableSem = new Semaphore(0);
public void run() {
while (!shuttingDown()) {
step();
}
}
private synchronized void step() {
// Try to obtain a permit waiting up to 60 seconds to get one
boolean hasWork = workAvailableSem.tryAquire(1, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
if (hasWork) {
doIt();
}
}
public wakeMeUpInside() {
workAvailableSem.release(1);
}
}
I'm not 100% sure this meets your needs. A few things to note:
This will add one permit each time wakeMeUpInside is called. Thus if two threads wake up the Worker it will run doIt twice without blocking. You can extend the example to avoid that.
This waits 60 seconds for work to do. If none is available it'll end up back in the run method which will send it immediately back to the step method which will just wait again. I did this because I'm assuming you had some reason why you wanted to run every 60 seconds even if there's no work. If that's not the case just call aquire and you'll wait indefinitely for work.
As per comments below the OP wants to run only once. While you could call drainPermits in that case a cleaner solution is just to use a LockSupport like so:
class Worker {
// We need a reference to the thread to wake it
private Thread workerThread = null;
// Is there work available
AtomicBoolean workAvailable = new AtomicBoolean(false);
public void run() {
workerThread = Thread.currentThread();
while (!shuttingDown()) {
step();
}
}
private synchronized void step() {
// Wait until work is available or 60 seconds have passed
ThreadSupport.parkNanos(TimeUnit.MINUTES.toNanos(1));
if (workAvailable.getAndSet(false)) {
doIt();
}
}
public wakeMeUpInside() {
// NOTE: potential race here depending on desired semantics.
// For example, if doIt() will do all work we don't want to
// set workAvailable to true if the doIt loop is running.
// There are ways to work around this but the desired
// semantics need to be specified.
workAvailable.set(true);
ThreadSupport.unpark(workerThread);
}
}

Java - Multiple queue producer consumer

I've got the following code:
while(!currentBoard.boardIsValid()){
for (QueueLocation location : QueueLocation.values()){
while(!inbox.isEmpty(location)){
Cell c = inbox.dequeue(location);
notifyNeighbours(c.x, c.y, c.getCurrentState(),previousBoard);
}
}
}
I've got a consumer with a few queues (all of their methods are synchronised). One queue for each producer. The consumer loops over all the queues and checks if they've got a task for him to consume.
If the queue he's checking has a task in it, he consumes it. Otherwise, he goes to the check the next queue until he finishes iterating over all the queues.
As of now, if he iterates over all the queues and they're all empty, he keeps on looping rather than waiting for one of them to contain something (as seen by the outer while).
How can I make the consumer wait until one of the queues has something in it?
I'm having an issue with the following scenario: Lets say there are only 2 queues. The consumer checked the first one and it was empty. Just as he's checking the second one (which is also empty), the producer put something in the first queue. As far as the consumer is concerned, the queues are both empty and so he should wait (even though one of them isn't empty anymore and he should continue looping).
Edit:
One last thing. This is an exercise for me. I'm trying to implement the synchronisation myself. So if any of the java libraries have a solution that implements this I'm not interested in it. I'm trying to understand how I can implement this.

#Abe was close. I would use signal and wait - use the Object class built-ins as they are the lightest weight.
Object sync = new Object(); // Can use an existing object if there's an appropriate one
// On submit to queue
synchronized ( sync ) {
queue.add(...); // Must be inside to avoid a race condition
sync.notifyAll();
}
// On check for work in queue
synchronized ( sync ) {
item = null;
while ( item == null ) {
// Need to check all of the queues - if there will be a large number, this will be slow,
// and slow critical sections (synchronized blocks) are very bad for performance
item = getNextQueueItem();
if ( item == null ) {
sync.wait();
}
}
}
Note that sync.wait releases the lock on sync until the notify - and the lock on sync is required to successfully call the wait method (it's a reminder to the programmer that some type of critical section is really needed for this to work reliably).
By the way, I would recommend a queue dedicated to the consumer (or group of consumers) rather than a queue dedicated to the producer, if feasible. It will simplify the solution.

If you want to block across multiple queues, then one option is to use java's Lock and Condition objects and then use the signal method.
So whenever the producer has data, it should invoke the signallAll.
Lock fileLock = new ReentrantLock();
Condition condition = fileLock.newCondition();
...
// producer has to signal
condition.signalAll();
...
// consumer has to await.
condition.await();
This way only when the signal is provided will the consumer go and check the queues.

I solved a similar situation along the lines of what #Abe suggests, but settled on using a Semaphore in combination with an AtomicBoolean and called it a BinarySemaphore. It does require the producers to be modified so that they signal when there is something to do.
Below the code for the BinarySemaphore and a general idea of what the consumer work-loop should look like:
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicBoolean;
public class MultipleProdOneConsumer {
BinarySemaphore workAvailable = new BinarySemaphore();
class Consumer {
volatile boolean stop;
void loop() {
while (!stop) {
doWork();
if (!workAvailable.tryAcquire()) {
// waiting for work
try {
workAvailable.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
if (!stop) {
// log error
}
}
}
}
}
void doWork() {}
void stopWork() {
stop = true;
workAvailable.release();
}
}
class Producer {
/* Must be called after work is added to the queue/made available. */
void signalSomethingToDo() {
workAvailable.release();
}
}
class BinarySemaphore {
private final AtomicBoolean havePermit = new AtomicBoolean();
private final Semaphore sync;
public BinarySemaphore() {
this(false);
}
public BinarySemaphore(boolean fair) {
sync = new Semaphore(0, fair);
}
public boolean release() {
boolean released = havePermit.compareAndSet(false, true);
if (released) {
sync.release();
}
return released;
}
public boolean tryAcquire() {
boolean acquired = sync.tryAcquire();
if (acquired) {
havePermit.set(false);
}
return acquired;
}
public boolean tryAcquire(long timeout, TimeUnit tunit) throws InterruptedException {
boolean acquired = sync.tryAcquire(timeout, tunit);
if (acquired) {
havePermit.set(false);
}
return acquired;
}
public void acquire() throws InterruptedException {
sync.acquire();
havePermit.set(false);
}
public void acquireUninterruptibly() {
sync.acquireUninterruptibly();
havePermit.set(false);
}
}
}

Java wait() does not get waked by notify()

Hallo I've been debugging my code for a whole day already, but I just can't see where could be wrong.
I use SerialPortEventListener on a main thread, in a working thread I have a client socket communicating to a server.
Since after this working thread reach return, I still need some wrap up work done in the main thread, i want to create a "pseudothread" that wait in the main thread until the it is notified from the listener onEvent method.
but this pseudothread seems to be waiting forever.
I checked the locked thread pseudoThread, they should have the same object id in the Runnable and in Listener class.
"PseudoThread waiting" got displayed, but PseudoThread awake is never showed.
Console output shows:
PseudoThread waiting
..
..
false notified pseudothread.
PS if I create a lock in Main class with public final Object lock = new Object(); and replace all main.pseudoThread with main.lock, I get java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException.
private class Pseudo implements Runnable{
Main main;
public Pseudo(Main main) {
this.main = main;
}
#Override
public void run() {
synchronized(main.pseudoThread){
try {
System.out.println("PseudoThread waiting");
main.pseudoThread.wait();
System.out.println("PseudoThread awake");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
return;
}
}
}
}
in main method:
public static void main(String[] args) {
Main main = new Main();
main.initArduino();
//more code. including starting the working thread
main.pseudoThread = new Thread(main.new Pseudo(main));
main.pseudoThread.start();
try {
main.pseudoThread.join();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
private void initArduino() {
arduino = new Arduino(this);
if(!arduino.initialize())
System.exit(1);
}
and in the listener class (which also runs in main thread)
//class constructor;
public Arduino(Main Main){
this.main = Main;
}
//listening method
public void serialEvent(SerialPortEvent oEvent){
//some code to interract with working thread.
record();
}
private void record(){
synchronized(main.pseudoThread){
main.pseudoThread.notify();
System.out.println("notified pseudothread.");
}
}

Without looking too deeply into what might actually be happening, I can see that your use of wait()/notify() is all wrong. Probably you are experiencing a "lost notification." The notify() function does nothing if there is no thread waiting for it at the moment when it is called. If your serialEvent() function calls notify() before the other thread calls wait(), then the notification will be lost.
Consider this example:
class WaitNotify() {
private final Object lock = new Object();
private long head = 0;
private long tail = 0;
public void consumer() {
synchronized (lock) {
while(head == tail) {
lock.wait();
}
doSomething();
count head += 1;
}
}
public void producer() {
synchronized (lock) {
tail += 1;
lock.notify();
}
}
}
The essential points are:
(1) The consumer() function waits for some relationship between data to become true: Here, it waits for head != tail.
(2) The consumer() function waits in a loop. There's two reasons for that: (a) Many programs have more than one consumer thread. If consumer A wakes up from the wait(), there's no guarantee that consumer B hasn't already claimed whatever it was that they both were waiting for. And (b) The Java language spec allows foo.wait() to sometimes return even when foo.notify() has not been called. That's known as a "spurious wakeup." Allowing spurious wakeups (so long as they don't happen too often) makes it easier to implement a JVM.
(3) The lock object is the same lock that is used by the program to protect the variables upon which the condition depends. If this example was part of a larger program, you would see synchronized(lock) surrounding every use of head and tail regardless of whether the synchronized code is wait()ing or notify()ing.
If your own code obeys all three of the above rules when calling wait() and notify(), then your program will be far more likely to behave the way you expect it to behave.

As suggested by james it could be lost notification case or it could be that.. Two Threads 1- Your Main Thread and 2- Pseudo thread Are waiting on the same Thread Instance Lock (main.pseudoThread)( Main thread waits on the same lock by calling join method).
Now you are using notify which wakes the Main thread from join method and not the one
waiting in your Pseudo. To check for the second case try calling notifyall in record this will either
confirm the second case or will rule this possibility.
Anyways please refactor your code not to use synch on Thread instance its bad practice. Go for ReentrantLock or CoundDownLatch something.

Usage of notify and wait seem to be incorrect. Method name notify can be a bit misleading because it is not for general purpose "notifying". These methods are used to control the execution of synchronization blocks. Wait will allow some other thread to synchronize with same object while current threads pauses. Basically this is used when some resource is not available and execution can not continue. On the other hand notify will wake one waiting thread wake from wait after notifying thread has completed its synchronized-block. Only one thread can be in synchronized block of the same object at the same time.
If the idea is just keep the main program running until notified then semaphore would be much more appropriate. Something like this.
public void run() {
System.out.println("PseudoThread waiting");
main.semaphore.acquireUninterruptibly();
System.out.println("PseudoThread awake");
}
//...
private void record(){
main.semaphore.release();
}
//...
public static void main(String[] args) {
main.semaphore = new Semaphore(0);
//...
}

Java: Calling method from threads one after another

I have class Server and subclass ClientThread. ClientThread has methods receive() and broadcast(String[] msg) used to receive and send messages from/to clients connected to server.
Scheme:
public class Server extends Thread {
private ArrayList<ClientThread> clientThreads;
class ClientThread extends Thread {
public void broadcast(String[] msg) {...}
public void receive() {
...
if (msg.equals("CHANGED")) {
resumeOthers();
}
public void suspendOthers() {
for (ClientThread c: clientThreads)
if (c!=this)
try {
c.wait();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {}
}
public void resumeOthers() {
for (ClientThread c: clientThreads)
if (c!=this)
c.notify();
}
}
public void run() {
...
cmd = new String[1];
cmd[0] = "PROMPTCHANGE";
for (ClientThread currPlayer: clientThreads) {
currPlayer.broadcast(cmd);
currPlayer.suspendOthers();
}
}
}
Now, I would like to make this ClientThreads work one after another, like this:
1. ClientThread number 1 is calling method broadcast.
Now any other ClientThread existing is freezed
(they are stored in ArrayList on Server)
2. Client (another class) replies with a message that is being caught by receive()
Now this thread is freezed, and the next one starts running
Unfortunately, my approach doesn't work.
Could somebody explain me in details how to achieve that?

by calling Object.wait(), you are are suspending the CALLING thread, not the thread that this object happens to be.
so in effect, you are doing a loop that blocks the calling thread N times, definitely not what you intended.
in order to pause a thread, you need to have IT wait on an objet, or have it block entering a synchronized block (or use Thread.sleep(), but usually its not a good solution).
in other words, the client threads need to call wait, not the calling thread.
One addition:
it seems you are new to Java threading and synchronization, I strongly suggest that you read about it before attempting this.
Google around for some docs on the subject.
here is something to get you started:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/guardmeth.html

It's not clear how the sequence of execution works.
Anyway, as already said by previous answers, calling x.wait() on a Object makes the current thread block on object x. Moreover, in order to call wait() and notify(), you first have to synchronize on that object, AND, when you call wait(), you should do it in a loop, checking for an external condition, because spurious wakeups can happen.
So, the correct pattern should be something like:
void waitForCondition() {
synchronized (lockObject) {
while (!condition) {
lockObject.wait();
}
}
}
void setCondition() {
synchronized (lockObject) {
condition = true;
lockObject.notify(); //or .notifyAll()
}
}
If you want to make the threads run one after another, try http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Exchanger.html

DB connection pool getting exhausted -- Java

I am using Connection Pool (snaq.db.ConnectionPool) in my application. The connection pool is initialized like:
String dburl = propertyUtil.getProperty("dburl");
String dbuserName = propertyUtil.getProperty("dbuserName");
String dbpassword = propertyUtil.getProperty("dbpassword");
String dbclass = propertyUtil.getProperty("dbclass");
String dbpoolName = propertyUtil.getProperty("dbpoolName");
int dbminPool = Integer.parseInt(propertyUtil.getProperty("dbminPool"));
int dbmaxPool = Integer.parseInt(propertyUtil.getProperty("dbmaxPool"));
int dbmaxSize = Integer.parseInt(propertyUtil.getProperty("dbmaxSize"));
long dbidletimeout = Long.parseLong(propertyUtil.getProperty("dbidletimeout"));
Class.forName(dbclass).newInstance();
ConnectionPool moPool = new ConnectionPool(dbpoolName, dbminPool, dbmaxPool, dbmaxSize,
dbidletimeout, dburl, dbuserName, dbpassword);
DB Pool values used are:
dbminPool=5
dbmaxPool=30
dbmaxSize=30
dbclass=org.postgresql.Driver
dbidletimeout=25
My application was leaking connection somewhere (connection was not released) and due to which the connection pool was getting exhausted. I have fixed that code for now.
Shouldn't the connections be closed after idle timeout period? If that is not correct assumption, Is there any way to close the open idle connections anyway (through java code only)?

The timeout variable does not seem to correspond to the time the connection is being idle but to how much time the pool can wait to return a new connection or throw an exception (I had a look at this source code, don't know if it is up-to-date). I think that it would be rather difficult to keep track of "idle" connections because what "idle" really means in this case? You might want to get a connection for later use. So I would say that the only safe way for the connection pool to know that you are done with the connection, is to call close() on it.
If you are worried about the development team forgetting to call close() in their code, there is a technique which I describe below and I have used in the past (in my case we wanted to keep track of unclosed InputStreams but the concept is the same).
Disclaimer:
I assume that the connections are only used during a single request and do not span during consecutive requests. In the latter case you can't use the solution below.
Your connection pool implementation seems to already use similar techniques with the ones I describe below (i.e. it already wraps the connections) so I cannot possibly know if this will work for your case or not. I have not tested the code below, I just use it to describe the concept.
Please use that only in your development environment. In production you should feel confident that your code is tested and that it behaves correctly.
Having said the above, the main idea is this: We have a central place (the connection pool) from where we acquire resources (connections) and we want to keep track if those resources are released by our code. We can use a web Filter that uses a ThreadLocal object that keeps track of the connections used during the request. I named this class TrackingFilter and the object that keeps track of the resources is the Tracker class.
public class TrackingFilter implements Filter {
#Override
public void doFilter(ServletRequest request, ServletResponse response, FilterChain chain) throws IOException, ServletException {
Tracker.start();
try {
chain.doFilter(request, response);
} finally {
Tracker.stop();
}
}
...
}
For the Tracker to be able to keep track of the connections, it needs to be notified every time a connection is acquired with getConnection() and every time a connection is closed with a close() call. To be able to do that in a way that is transparent to the rest of the code we need to wrap the ConnectionPool and the returned Connection objects. Your code should return the new TrackingConnectionPool instead of the original pool (I assume the way to access the connection pool is at a single place). This new pool will wrap in turn, every Connection it provides, as a TrackableConnection. The TrackableConnection is the object that knows how to notify our Tracker when created and when closed.
When you call Tracker.stop() at the end of the request it will report any connections for which close() has not been called yet. Since this is a per request operation you will identify only the faulty operations (i.e. during your "Create new product" functionality) and then hopefully you will be able to track down those queries that leave open connections and fix them.
Below you can find code and comments for the TrackingConnectionPool, TrackableConnection and the Tracker class. The delegate methods were left out for brevity. I hope that helps.
Note: For the wrappers use an automated IDE feature (like Eclipse's "Generate delegate methods") otherwise it would be a time-consuming and error prone task.
//------------- Pool Creation
ConnectionPool original = new ConnectionPool(String dbpoolName, ...);
TrackingConnectionPool trackingCP = new TrackingConnectionPool(original);
// ... or without creating the ConnectionPool yourself
TrackingConnectionPool trackingCP = new TrackingConnectionPool(dbpoolName, ...);
// store the reference to the trackingCP instead of the original
//------------- TrackingConnectionPool
public class TrackingConnectionPool extends ConnectionPool {
private ConnectionPool originalPool; // reference to the original pool
// Wrap all available ConnectionPool constructors like this
public TrackingConnectionPool(String dbpoolName, ...) {
originalPool = new ConnectionPool(dbpoolName, ...);
}
// ... or use this convenient constructor after you create a pool manually
public TrackingConnectionPool(ConnectionPool pool) {
this.originalPool = pool;
}
#Override
public Connection getConnection() throws SQLException {
Connection con = originalPool.getConnection();
return new TrackableConnection(con); // wrap the connections with our own wrapper
}
#Override
public Connection getConnection(long timeout) throws SQLException {
Connection con = originalPool.getConnection(timeout);
return new TrackableConnection(con); // wrap the connections with our own wrapper
}
// for all the rest public methods of ConnectionPool and its parent just delegate to the original
#Override
public void setCaching(boolean b) {
originalPool.setCaching(b);
}
...
}
//------------- TrackableConnection
public class TrackableConnection implements Connection, Tracker.Trackable {
private Connection originalConnection;
private boolean released = false;
public TrackableConnection(Connection con) {
this.originalConnection = con;
Tracker.resourceAquired(this); // notify tracker that this resource is aquired
}
// Trackable interface
#Override
public boolean isReleased() {
return this.released;
}
// Note: this method will be called by Tracker class (if needed). Do not invoke manually
#Override
public void release() {
if (!released) {
try {
// attempt to close the connection
originalConnection.close();
this.released = true;
} catch(SQLException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
}
}
// Connection interface
#Override
public void close() throws SQLException {
originalConnection.close();
this.released = true;
Tracker.resourceReleased(this); // notify tracker that this resource is "released"
}
// rest of the methods just delegate to the original connection
#Override
public Statement createStatement() throws SQLException {
return originalConnection.createStatement();
}
....
}
//------------- Tracker
public class Tracker {
// Create a single object per thread
private static final ThreadLocal<Tracker> _tracker = new ThreadLocal<Tracker>() {
#Override
protected Tracker initialValue() {
return new Tracker();
};
};
public interface Trackable {
boolean isReleased();
void release();
}
// Stores all the resources that are used during the thread.
// When a resource is used a call should be made to resourceAquired()
// Similarly when we are done with the resource a call should be made to resourceReleased()
private Map<Trackable, Trackable> monitoredResources = new HashMap<Trackable, Trackable>();
// Call this at the start of each thread. It is important to clear the map
// because you can't know if the server reuses this thread
public static void start() {
Tracker monitor = _tracker.get();
monitor.monitoredResources.clear();
}
// Call this at the end of each thread. If all resources have been released
// the map should be empty. If it isn't then someone, somewhere forgot to release the resource
// A warning is issued and the resource is released.
public static void stop() {
Tracker monitor = _tracker.get();
if ( !monitor.monitoredResources.isEmpty() ) {
// there are resources that have not been released. Issue a warning and release each one of them
for (Iterator<Trackable> it = monitor.monitoredResources.keySet().iterator(); it.hasNext();) {
Trackable resource = it.next();
if (!resource.isReleased()) {
System.out.println("WARNING: resource " + resource + " has not been released. Releasing it now.");
resource.release();
} else {
System.out.println("Trackable " + resource
+ " is released but is still under monitoring. Perhaps you forgot to call resourceReleased()?");
}
}
monitor.monitoredResources.clear();
}
}
// Call this when a new resource is acquired i.e. you a get a connection from the pool
public static void resourceAquired(Trackable resource) {
Tracker monitor = _tracker.get();
monitor.monitoredResources.put(resource, resource);
}
// Call this when the resource is released
public static void resourceReleased(Trackable resource) {
Tracker monitor = _tracker.get();
monitor.monitoredResources.remove(resource);
}
}

You don't have your full code posted so I assume you are not closing your connections. You STILL need to close the connection object obtained from the pool as you would if you were not using a pool. Closing the connection makes it available for the pool to reissue to another caller. If you fail to do this, you will eventually consume all available connections from your pool. A pool's stale connection scavenger is not the best place to clean up your connections. Like your momma told you, put your things away when you are done with them.
try {
conn = moPool.getConnection(timeout);
if (conn != null)
// do something
} catch (Exception e) {
// deal with me
} finally {
try {
conn.close();
} catch (Exception e) {
// maybe deal with me
}
}
E

The whole point of connection pooling is to let pool handle all such things for you.
Having a code for closing open idle connections of java pool will not help in your case.
Think about connection pool maintaining MAPs for IDLE or IN-USE connections.
IN-USE: If a connection object is being referenced by application, it is put in to in-use-map by pool.
IDLE: If a connection object is not being referenced by application / or closed, it is put into idle-map by pool.
Your pool exhausted because you were not closing connections. Not closing connections resulted all idle connections to be put into in-use-map.
Since idle-pool does not have any entry available, pool is forced to create more of them.
In this way all your connections got marked as IN-USE.
Your pool does not have any open-idle-connections, which you can close by code.
Pool is not in position to close any connection even if time-out occurs, because nothing is idle.
You did your best when you fixed connection leakage from your code.
You can force release of pool and recreate one. But you will have to be carefull because of existing connections which are in-use might get affected in their tasks.

In most connection pools, the idle timeout is the maximum time a connection pool is idle in the connection pool (waiting to be requested), not how long it is in use (checked out from the connection pool).
Some connection pools also have timeout settings for how long a connection is allowed to be in use (eg DBCP has removeAbandonedTimeout, c3p0 has unreturnedConnectionTimeout), and if those are enabled and the timeout has expired, they will be forcefully revoked from the user and either returned to the pool or really closed.

log4jdbc can be used to mitigate connection leak troubleshooting by means of jdbc.connection logger.
This technique doesn't require any modification of the code.