I have a thread:
class Foo extends Thread
{
boolean active = true;
public void run()
{
while(active)
{
//do stuff
}
}
public void end()
{
active = false;
}
public void hibernate()
{
synchronized(this)
{
wait();
}
}
}
If another thread calls end(), will Foo immediately see that active is now false? Specifically, because active isn't volatile, I'm not sure that it will. I initially created end() as a clever way of avoiding volatile, but now I'm unsure that it will actually do what I intend.
Additionally, if another thread calls hibernate(), which thread will go to sleep? I'm intending Foo to sleep, so if this doesn't do what I intend, an alternative suggestion would be very welcome.
If another thread calls end(), will Foo immediately see that active is now false?
No it won't. Or at least, it won't see it all of the time.
If you want run to always see the new value immediately, there has to be a "comes after" relationship between the thread assigning to the variable and the thread reading it. This can be achieved:
by declaring active volatile,
by putting synchronized blocks around the statements that read and write the variable,
by making the variable an "atomic" type; e.g. AtomicBoolean, or
by using some other appropriate concurrency class; see the java.util.concurrent.* packages.
... a clever way of avoiding volatile ...
Declaring the variable to be volatile is one way of ensuring proper synchronization. It is a fact that proper synchronization imposes a performance overhead. However, proper synchronization is essential for your application to work reliably, and it is NOT "clever" to avoid it.
(Without proper synchronization, your program will probably still work most of the time, and it might even always work on some machines. However, occasionally it won't work, and the actual behavior is likely to depend on what machine you run the program on, what the machine load is, and other things.)
Additionally, if another thread calls hibernate(), which thread will go to sleep?
The thread that makes the call will go to sleep. And it won't wake up unless some other thread does a notify or notifyAll on the same Foo object.
If you simply want the application to go to sleep and wake up a bit later, use Thread.sleep. But beware that using sleep in the wrong way can make your application slow and unresponsive.
Your suspicion is correct: because active isn't volatile, there is no guarantee that run() will ever see the change made on another thread.
Generally speaking, “clever” ways of avoiding volatile are almost always a bad idea. In fact, even volatile is something you should prefer not to resort to. Most of the time it's safer to stick to locks, monitors, or higher-level synchronization mechanisms.
For your second question, the thread that will go to sleep is the one that called hibernate(). That thread will sleep until it is interrupted, it experiences a spurious wakeup, or some other thread calls notify()/notifyAll() on the Foo instance's monitor. It is usually a mistake to call Object#wait() without surrounding it with a loop that checks the condition being waited for.
You also seem to be confused about the idea of a Foo instance “going to sleep”. A Foo instance isn't a Thread (or even a Runnable), and doesn't create its own thread, so the idea of it going to sleep doesn't make a lot of sense. What you are probably trying to achieve is putting the thread calling Foo#run() to sleep.
Regarding your first question of avoiding volatile , you should try using Thread interruption to signal a running thread to stop.
Use interrupt() instance method from another thread to interrupt running thread.
Use isInterrupted() method in your running thread to check for interruption.
while(!this.isInterrupted()){
//do your work here.
}
Not sure why you want to extend Thread class. If you implements Runnable in that case you should use interrupted in your run method to check for interruption . Please read javadocs to know about some caveats of this method.
Related
Thread class has many static methods that are called by class name. Some of them are:
But yet, we are provided with method currentThread() that returns currently executing thread object. Some are:
Unfortunately, this created confusion in my head. When I think of a method I want, I have no clue whether I would found it as static or instance. So why did they make such two approaches?
I mean, couldn't they all be grouped in same 'calling'? For example why is sleep() static and not instance method called with Thread.currentThread().sleep()? Another weird example is between interrupted() and isInterrupted() defined in different manner. They do exactly the same thing, just interrupted() additionally clears interrupted flag. Has anyone logic answer to this, so I have no struggle where to find each method?
It's tricky; the answer is different for each method. Let's go through the ones you named:
Thread.sleep
Imagine I called: someOtherThread.sleep(1000L);. What would this mean? Surely that ought to mean: Sleep that other thread, not my thread. Except that's not something java offers: You can sleep your own thread, but you cannot arbitrarily tell some other thread to freeze like they're doing a mime act, mid execution of some arbitrary command. For example, if that thread is currently blocked on, say, waiting for the OS to deliver some bytes from a file read, that definitely cannot just fall asleep, and there are many, many other scenarios where a thread cannot do that.
Thus, java does not offer this functionality - you can't sleep other threads. Only your own. There are two different ways to make this at least somewhat clear in API design:
The first is to have sleep be an instance method (thus, you'd have to write e.g. Thread.currentThread().sleep(1000L);), and spec the method that it will guaranteed, always, immediately throw an IllegalStateException if you invoke it on any thread except your own. This means a compile/write-time detectable error condition would only be caught at runtime (this is bad; catching a problem earlier is obviously better than catching it later), it makes the code you'd have to write to sleep needlessly longer, and the existence of a sleep method you can invoke on thread instances sure suggests that you can sleep other threads. It'd just be crappy API design.
The second is to make sleep static.
Think of it this way: java.lang.Thread is a container for two mostly unrelated batches of methods: One is a set of methods you can use on threads (those'd be the instance methods). The other is a bunch of thread and flow related primitives, such as 'sleep', 'yield', and interrupt interaction. They just happen to be shoved into the same class.
interrupt
This is probably the trickiest. Unlike sleeping, you can in fact ask another thread's interrupt flag status.
The reason there are two methods are because of the more or less intended API design of the interrupt system.
The interrupt system is designed as follows:
If you want some thread to stop what it is doing for some unspecified reason (for example, you want it to re-check some condition, or just cease running, or anything else you can think of) then you need a mechanism to signal this. In particular, you'd want such a mechanism to ensure that any interruptable blocking operations, such as Thread.sleep(100000L) are interrupted. In other words, you can't just say: Whatever, it's up to the code itself, just, um, make an AtomicBoolean and check it a lot.
That's where the 'interrupt' system comes in. The idea is:
To interrupt any thread, raise its interrupt flag, with thatThread.interrupt();
All methods that do interruptable things should check this flag. The procedure is: If it is raised, then [A] clear it, and [B] handle the interruption, doing whatever the programmer intended to happen upon interruption (just stop running, or re-check some condition, re-read some config file, who knows - it's programming, whatever you want it to mean). If you CAN handle the notion of aborting some operation, but you CANNOT handle it, then instead clear that flag and throw InterruptedException, so that the caller can handle it.
As a result, any code that knows what 'I was interrupted!' means should BOTH check the flag (especially if that code has an event loop, which most thread-based code does have), AND catch InterruptedException from any method specced to throw it, and react in the exact same way to either catching that exception or having Thread.interrupted() return true.
Things go all sorts of wrong if you handle the fact that the interrupt flag is up, but you do NOT lower it. For example, if you abort your CPU-bound bitcoin mining or whatnot and just return back to your caller whilst leaving the flag up, then the next time caller invokes Thread.sleep, thread.sleep will notice the flag is up and IMMEDIATELY exit, not sleeping at all (exit by throwing InterruptedException, to be specific). That isn't intended. Hence why it is important that if you respond to an interrupt, you lower that flag.
So, let's go back to API design. There are two strategies:
Hypothetical design A
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) {
mineAnotherBitCoin();
}
Thread.currentThread().clearInterruptFlag();
Design B
while (!Thread.checkAndClearInterruptFlag()) {
mineAnotherBitCoin();
}
Note how design B is conceptually a lot shorter, does not have a 'gap' between checking the flag and clearing it, and therefore is fundamentally less error prone. Furthermore, for, well, reasons, it has been decided that raising an interrupt flag is something you can do to other threads (there is no point interrupting yourself, after all), but clearing one is a thing you can only do to your own thread.
B is what java actually has, except the method is somewhat strangely named interrupted(), and not checkAndClearInterruptFlag(). If you want an explanation of why some methods in java are somewhat suspectly named, it's because java does not like breaking backwards compatibility.
Fundamentally then, while they sound real similar, isInterrupted() and interrupted() do two very different things.
isInterrupted() is to check if some thread has already been interrupted and its response to this interruption is still pending (nothing has yet handled it).
interrupted() is something you put in the condition in your while loops that define the core body of your thread implementation (your 'event loop').
*) It doesn't help that the vast majority of examples of how to make threads in java are erroneous in that they don't properly do this. They tend to be while (true) or while (!running) {} or similar, either ignoring interruptions entirely or with a handrolled interrupt-esque 'running' concept.
So how do I know where to look?
Simple enough: If it's a thing that conceptually doesn't belong to any particular thread (such as 'how many threads are active right now'), or it is a utility concept (such as 'sleep'), or it is a thing that from a VM design principle can only be done to your own thread and not to anything else, then it is a static method in Thread.
If it's a thing that does belong to a particular thread AND the VM would let you do it to other threads (such as interrupting it, asking for its name, id, or priority, getting a stack dump, freezing this thread until the other thread completes, or setting its priority), then it's an instance method.
In many ways you can reverse this logic: If you want to do some thread related business, check the Thread class for something that seems to describe what you want. Then check if the method is static or not. If it is static, you don't get to do it to any other thread (such as clearing the interrupt flag, or sleep). If it's instance, you CAN do that to other threads (such as changing its priority level).
Because you can't make another thread sleep that is not the thread you are on. Even when you call Thread.currentThread().sleep(), you are calling the static method 'sleep'. If you were to call the sleep method on a different Thread object, it would still make the current thread sleep.
If you want to make a different thread sleep, you should set a flag that the other thread reads, which causes it to sleep.
is there any kind of Runnable, Callable or Thread with capability of stopping it in any duration of time?
I wrote something like this
public class ThreadRunner {
private ExecutorService threadPoolExecutor;
ThreadRunner() {
threadPoolExecutor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor();
}
public void startThread(String endPoint, ProgressBar progressBar) {
Runnable task = () -> {
// some code which saves images from URL (1230 images) and updates progress bar
};
threadPoolExecutor.execute(task);
}
public void stopThread() {
threadPoolExecutor.shutdownNow();
}
}
Thread runs correctly, images are being saved, progress bar being updated, but when I want to stop thread (or maybe even pause process of saving if possible) by calling ThreadRunner class's method - nothing happens.
Am I doing something wrong - or most likely - what am I doing wrong?
is there any kind of Runnable, Callable or Thread with capability of stopping it in any duration of time?
You can implement such a thing yourself, but there is no generic support available for it, unless you count the long-deprecated Thread.stop() methods. Under no circumstances should you use those methods, but do read their API docs for a discussion of why they are deprecated and what you can do instead. You can find a longer-form version of the discussion in Java's technical notes.
The bottom line is that the computation you want to be able to stop needs to periodically check some shared variable or built-in condition to determine whether to do so. You arrange for that variable to be set when you want the thread to stop, and if you need to block until it does stop then you join() it. Under some circumstances, it can be helpful to interrupt() the thread to get it to check the variable (or being interrupted can itself serve as the termination condition). The user-facing end of this can be wrapped up in a method.
In any case, an ExecutorService cannot give you a handle on this. Requesting such a service to shut down will prevent it from dispatching any more tasks, but there is no safe, general-purpose mechanism by which it could force a premature shutdown of tasks that are already running.
Once started, a thread will run until Runnable.run() exits. Due to several issues you should never use Thread.stop() or Thread.interrupt().
Instead, you will have to implement your own logic for exit/pause. A few suggestions:
For stopping the thread, you can make a boolean variable shouldExit. In your thread, check this variable every now and then, and just do "return" or break the for/while loop when it becomes true. Setting this variable from another thread should now make the downloader exit. If necessary, you should surround access to this variable with synchronized block as to prevent any race conditions.
For pausing the thread, you can use a similar approach. When you set a certain variable to true (e.g. isPaused), make the thread react by going into an Object.sleep(). This way, it won't consume any CPU during sleep. You can then use Object.notify() from another thread to "kick" the sleeping thread out ouf sleep. You will need a synchronized block here, too.
I am actually looking for an easier way to kill the thread not matter where the thread is running at. But most of the solutions in internet point me to use boolean flag to control the execution of the thread, if I want to stop the thread then set the boolean variable to false.
But what if the task that in the runnable is a LONG linear task, which mean the task is not repeating? In that case, it is not so easy to create a 'while' loop to cover the whole block of task.
It is really so temptative to use Thread.stop but the warning "Deprecated" seem like quite dangerous to use. I have read through this article
Why Are Thread.stop, Thread.suspend, Thread.resume and Runtime.runFinalizersOnExit Deprecated?
but I can't understand
If any of the objects previously protected by these monitors were in
an inconsistent state, other threads may now view these objects in an
inconsistent state. Such objects are said to be damaged.
What does the "inconsistent state" mean? I appreciate if anyone can explain about this.
I want to extend my question to a more lower level of view, let say i = i + 1; in JVM (perhaps assembly language alike), maybe this Java statement will be split into few smaller instructions, for example like move i ; add i ; get i into memory 0x0101 (This is an example! I totally don't know assembly language!)
Now, if we call thread.stop, where actually will it stop at? Will the thread stop after a COMPLETED Java statement, or could be in the middle of the "assemble language"? If the answer is the second, could it be reason that we said
Such objects are said to be damaged.
?
Ok, my question is kind of confused, hope someone can understand and explain. Thanks in advance.
"Damaged object" is a high-level concept, it doesn't happen at the JVM level. A programmer designs his class with thread safety in mind by guarding critical sections with locks. It is an invariant of his class that each critical section either runs in full, or doesn't run at all. When you stop a thread, a critical section may have been interrupted in the middle, so disrupting the invariant. At that moment the object is damaged.
Stopping a thread conceals many more dangers, like no cleanup performed, no acquired resources released, etc. If a thread doesn't give up what it is doing, there is no way to make it stop without compromising the entire application.
In practice, whenever one faces the need to run alien code that may need to be forcefully aborted, this must be done in a separate process because killing a process at least performs OS-level cleanup and does a much better job of containing the damage.
The "inconsistent state" means state of data as your application cares about, state that your application logic have carefully produced by making your application thread-safe with locks/monitors etc.
Imagine you have this simple method:
public synchronized void doSomething()
{
count++;
average = count/total;
}
This method, along with other methods are synchronized, as multiple threads are using this object.
Perhaps there's a
public synchronized AverageAndCount getMeasurement()
{
return new AverageAndCount(average, count);
}
This assures that a thread can't read an incomplete measurement, i.e. if the current measurement is in the process of being calculated inside e.g. doSomething(), getMeasurement() will block/wait until that's finished.
Now, imagine the doSomething is run in a thread, and you call .stop() on that thread.
So the thread might be stopped right after it performs count++;, the monitor that's held is unlocked and the method terminates and average = count/total; is not executed,
That means the data is now inconsistent. Anyone calling getMeasurement() afterwards will now get inconsistent data.
Note also that at this point it is not very relevant whether this happens at a java statement level, or at a lower level, the data can be in an inconsistent state that you can't reason about in any case.
I'm no expert but this is what I think.
If you use Thread.stop() you cause the ThreadDeath exception that will cause all monitors to be released.
Since you provoke an exception you are applying an unnatural behaviour to the state of things.
Other threads relying on those monitors could enter in an inconsistent situation because they were not expecting it. And I don't think you can even anticipate the monitors releasing order.
I believe the concern is that the thread may be in the middle of a synchronize block performing multi-step updates to an object's members. If the thread is stopped abruptly, then some updates will have occurred but not others and now the object's state may render it unusable.
I have my doubts that the ThreadDeath handling will release a Lock backed by the AbstractQueuedSynchronizer which could leave the application on the path to a sort of deadlock.
At any logical point in your long sequence of code you can simply add:
if (Thread.interrupted()) {
throw new InterruptedException();
}
...this will exit execution at this point if it is determined that Thread.interupt() was called on the Thread executing the long running task.
It's not clear way to stop the thread.actually deprecated the stop() method whenever run() method is completed or any exception is occurred then thread is stop.by using the boolean flag variable .Bydefault "false"
I'm synchronizing on the object of the thread like this:
synchronized(threadObject){
try{
threadObject.interrupt();
}catch(Exception ex){
//catch error here.
}finally{
threadObject.notifyAll();
}
}
Now, my questions are:
It is possible to interrupt a thread
inside a synchronized block whose
object that was synchronized was the
thread to be interrupted? Like in
the sample code.
Can I still notify other threads
holding the interrupted thread's
object? Like in the sample code.
It is possible to interrupt a thread inside a synchronized block whose object that was synchronized was the thread to be interrupted? Like in the sample code.
Yes. I can't see why that wouldn't work. The synchronized keyword is quite orthogonal to the interrupt method. (Note that contrary to await and notify, you're not required to own the objects monitor when calling interrupt.)
Can I still notify other threads holding the interrupted thread's object? Like in the sample code.
Yes, you can call notifyAll on any object as long as you own the objects monitor. Again, the wait/notify-mechanism is quite orthogonal to the interrupt method.
Your question seem to indicate that you've misunderstood the use of synchronized. The usual use-case is to synchronize on an object representing some resource which you like to avoid concurrent access to. The thread itself rarely represent such resource.
The object works as it normally does. The only stipulation is that other threads that synchronize on threadObject's monitor will block until you're complete with your thread. So yes, you can do both of those.
Yes: But you don't really need to have the lock before calling interrupt.
Yes
The answer to both questions is yes.
However, there is something a bit strange about your example. I've never come across a case where you would use a Thread as a primitive lock. And it what you are doing in the example doesn't seem to achieve anything.
If threadObject is the same as Thread.currentThread(), then the call to interrupt() will just set this thread's interrupted flag ... which be noticed in that code fragment.
if threadObject is some other Thread object then that thread will be interrupted. But we can't see (here) the code that that thread will be executing, and we don't know if it will be waiting on threadObject. If not the interrupt() and notify() well got to different threads ...
The bottom line is that you wouldn't normally use a Thread object as a lock, and you wouldn't normally send use an interrupt() as an ersatz notify().
(Maybe this example is not intended to represent a real use-case.)
I've read and re-read Java Concurrency in Practice, I've read several threads here on the subject, I've read the IBM article Dealing with InterruptedException and yet there's something I'm simply not grasping which I think can be broken down into two questions:
If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself, what can trigger an InterruptedException?
If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself using interrupt() (say because I'm using other means to cancel my working threads, like poison pills and while (!cancelled) style loop [as both explained in JCIP]), what does an InterruptedException then mean? What am I supposed to do upon catching one? Shutdown my app?
The Thread interrupt mechanism is the preferred way to get a (cooperating) thread to respond a request to stop what it is doing. Any thread (including the thread itself I think) could call interrupt() on a Thread.
In practice, the normal use-cases for interrupt() involve some kind of framework or manager telling some worker thread to stop what they are doing. If the worker thread is "interrupt aware" it will notice that it has been interrupted via an exception, or by periodically checking its interrupted flag. On noticing that it has been interrupted, a well-behaved thread would abandon what it is doing and end itself.
Assuming the above use-case, your code is likely to be interrupted if it is run within a Java framework or from some worker thread. And when it is interrupted, your code should abandon what it is doing and cause itself to end by the most appropriate means. Depending on how your code was called, this might be done by returning or by throwing some appropriate exception. But it probably should not call System.exit(). (Your application does not necessarily know why it was interrupted, and it certainly does not know if there are other threads that need to be interrupted by the framework.)
On the other hand, if your code is not designed to run under the control of some framework, you could argue that the InterruptedException is an unexpected exception; i.e. a bug. In that case, you should treat the exception as you would other bugs; e.g. wrap it in an unchecked exception, and catch and log it at the same point you deal with other unexpected unchecked exceptions. (Alternatively, your application could simply ignore the interrupt and continue doing what it was doing.)
1) If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself, what can trigger an InterruptedException?
One example is if your Runnable objects are executed using an ExecutorService and shutdownNow() is called on the service. And in theory, any 3rd-party thread pool or thread management framework could legitimately do something like this.
2) If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself using interrupt() ... what does an InterruptedException then mean? What am I supposed to do upon catching one? Shutdown my app?
You need analyze the codebase to figure out what is making the interrupt() calls and why. Once you have figured that out, you can work out what >>your<< part of the app needs to do.
Until you know why InterruptedException is being thrown, I would advise treating it as a hard error; e.g. print a stacktrace to the log file and shut down the app. (Obviously, that's not always the right answer ... but the point is that this is "a bug", and it needs to be brought to the attention of the developer / maintainer.)
3) How do I find out who / what is calling interrupt()?
There is no good answer to this. The best I can suggest is to set a breakpoint on the Thread.interrupt() and look at the call stack.
If you decide to integrate your code with other libraries, they can call interrupt() on your code. e.g. if you decide in the future to execute your code within an ExecutorService, then that may force a shutdown via interrupt().
To put it briefly, I would consider not just where your code is running now, but in what context it may run in the future. e.g. are you going to put it in a library ? A container ? How will other people use it ? Are you going to reuse it ?
As others have pointed out, interrupting a thread (actually, interrupting a blocking call) is usually used for purposes of exiting cleanly or cancelling an ongoing activity.
However, you should not treat an InterruptedException alone as a "quit command". Instead, you should think of interrupts as a means to control the running status of threads, much in the same way as Object.notify() does. In the same way that you'd check the current state after waking up from a call to Object.wait() (you don't assume that the wakeup means your wait condition has been satisfied), after being nudged with an interrupt you should check why you were interrupted. There is usually a way to do this. For example, java.util.concurrent.FutureTask has an isCancelled() method.
Code sample:
public void run() {
....
try {
.... // Calls that may block.
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
if (!running) { // Add preferred synchronization here.
return; // Explicit flag says we should stop running.
}
// We were interrupted, but the flag says we're still running.
// It would be wrong to always exit here. The interrupt 'nudge'
// could mean something completely different. For example, it
// could be that the thread was blocking on a read from a particular
// file, and now we should read from a different file.
// Interrupt != quit (not necessarily).
}
....
}
public void stop() {
running = false; // Add preferred synchronization here.
myThread.interrupt();
}
The problem with the question is "I". "I" usually refers to a single instance of a class. I mean by that, that any particular piece of low-level code (class) should not rely upon the implementation of the entire system. Having said that you do have make some "architectural" decisions (like what platform to run on).
Possible unexpected interrupts coming from the JRE are canceled tasks in java.util.concurrent and shutting down applets.
Handling of thread interrupts is usually written incorrectly. Therefore, I suggest the architectural decision to avoid causing interrupts where possible. However, code handling interrupts should always be written correctly. Can't take interrupts out of the platform now.
You could learn this by creating your own thread class (extending java.lang.Thread) and overriding interrupt() method, in which you record the stacktrace into, say, a String field, and then transfer to super.interrupt().
public class MyThread extends Thread {
public volatile String interruptStacktrace; // Temporary field for debugging purpose.
#Override
public void interrupt() {
interruptStacktrace = dumpStack(); // You implement it somehow...
super.interrupt();
}
}
As already mentioned, another library can interrupt your threads. Even if the library doesn't have explicit access to the threads from your code, they can still get the list of threads that are running and interrupt them that way with the following method.
I think I understand why you are a bit confused about interruption. Please consider my answers in line:
If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself, what can trigger an InterruptedException?
Firstly you may interrupt other threads; I know that in JCiP it is mentioned that you should never interrupt threads you do not own; however, this statement has to be properly understood. What it means is that your code which might be running in any arbitrary thread should not handle interruption because since it is not the owner of the thread it has no clue of its interruption policy. So you may request interruption on other threads, but let its owner take the course of interruption action; it has the interruption policy encapsulated within it, not your task code; at least be courteous to set the interruption flag!
There are many ways why there could be interruptions still, may be timeouts, JVM interrupts etc.
If I'm never ever interrupting other threads myself using interrupt() (say because I'm using other means to cancel my working threads, like poison pills and while (!cancelled) style loop [as both explained in JCIP]), what does an InterruptedException then mean? What am I supposed to do upon catching one? Shutdown my app?
You need to be very careful here; if you own the thread which threw InterruptedException (IE), then you know what to do upon catching it, say you may shutdown your app/service or you may replace this killed thread with a new one! However, if you do not own the thread then upon catching IE either rethrow it higher up the call stack or after doing something (may be logging), reset the interrupted status so that the code which owns this thread, when control reaches it, may learn that the thread was interrupted and hence take actions as it will since only it knows the interruption policy.
Hope this helped.
The InterruptedException says that a routine may be interrupted, but not necessarily that it will be.
If you don't expect the interrupt then you should treat it as you might any other unexpected exception. If it's in a critical section where an unexpected exception could have heinous consequences, it might be best to try and clean up resources and gracefully shutdown (because getting the interrupt signals that your well-engineered application that doesn't rely on interrupts is being used in a way it wasn't designed, and so there must be something wrong). Alternatively, if the code in question is something non-critical or trivial, you might want to ignore (or log) the interrupt and keep going.