I am trying to interrupt a normally running thread (which is not in sleep() or wait() state) .
while going through in net i got to know interrupting a normally running thread will just set the flag true and continue the process.
Code snippet is
one.java
......
......
actionperformedmethod {
if (actionCmd.equals("cancel")) {
try {
r1.stop(); // to two.java
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
....
....
}
}
}
in two.java
.....
.....
stop method() throws InterruptedException{
if(!(t.isInterrupted())){
t.interrupt();
throw new InterruptedException();
}
}
from two.java when i throw InterruptedException i can able to get the exception block at one.java , but how do i stop the thread after that because even after that thread seems to continue the normal process.
Am new to thread concepts please help..
The interrupt() method is co-operative rather than pre-emptive - the background task needs to actively check Thread.interrupted() at suitable intervals, and take action to shut itself down cleanly.
public void run() {
openSomeResources();
try {
while(notFinished) {
if(Thread.interrupted()) return;
doSomeStuff();
}
} finally {
closeTheResources();
}
}
In this example if the thread is interrupted in the middle of doSomeStuff() then it will complete the current "iteration" before responding to the interruption. Getting the correct balance between responding promptly to an interrupt on the one hand, and responding only at a safe point in the execution on the other hand, is something that is inherently specific to the particular task - there is no one-size-fits-all answer.
Note however that any blocking method that throws an InterruptedException will reset the interrupt flag when this exception is thrown. Therefore in order for this sort of checking to work you must re-interrupt yourself whenever you receive an InterruptedException
try {
Thread.sleep(3000);
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
// we were interrupted - set the flag so the next interrupted() check will
// work correctly.
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
Interrupt will not stop the thread. it just sets the flag to true to signal the thread to stop the execution soon.
to stop the execution
add global variable as
private volatile boolean exit = false;
and
you add one method in your 2nd class
public void requestExit(){
exit = true;
}
inside run () of your thread do something like this
if (exit == true){
return;
}
whenever you want to call just call this method requestExit() from your main() or wherever you want to stop
this is the best way to stop the thread.. using stop() on thread is dangerous as it does not clear any resources and its not advisable to use even by oracle hence deprecated.
let me know for any issues
Threads are only running whilst their run() method is on the stack so usually people put a while(true) inside the run method, all you need to do in you thread to stop it is to return somewhere in the run method or break the loop then as soon as the run() method is no longer running the thread has been stopped.
I'm trying to terminate a thread but it doesn't interrupt or stop. All of this are part of controller of a software called Webots. I use this to simulate a multi robot system. In the controller of each robot, I start a thread which receive messages through robots receivers. This thread must start at first, and terminate when simulation ends.
The run method for this thread look like this:
public void run() {
while (true)
{
String M = recieveMessage();
char[] chars = M.toCharArray();
if(chars[0]==robotName||chars[0]=='0')
messages.add(M);
}
}
In the main controller I have code that look like this:
MessageThread MT = new MessageThread(messages, receiver,getName());
MT.start();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
try
{
Thread.sleep(25); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); }
System.out.println(messages.get(messages.size()-1));
}
MT.interrupt();//MT = null;
System.out.println(MT.interrupted());
It's not important what I do in my main controller, so don't judge it. For example, messages is an ArrayList. It's like a buffer which MT put messages in and the main thread reads from. I use it because the receiver and emitter are not synchronized.
If I call interrupt() or MT = null but interrupted() it returns false and MT continues to run. Is there anything wrong in my code?
I read some topics like:
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/guide/misc/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html
How do you kill a Thread in Java?
interrupt() doesn't work
Java: How interrupt/stop a thread?
and so on but I couldn't find any useful answer.
Edit
Thanks everyone, I've made changes to my code. I added this to the MessageThread class:
private volatile boolean isRunning = true;
Then I used while(isRunning) instead of while(true) and I added
public void kill()
{
isRunning = false;
}
and called MT.kill() instead of MT.interrupt().
It worked but I couldn't find out what's wrong with interrupt(). I read the link which #ExtremeCoders recommended. However, I'm still confused. It says "a thread must support its own interruption". So do I have to overwrite the interrupt() method? I can't call interrupt to terminate a thread?
Thanks again.
Interrupting a thread just sets a flag on the thread. If the thread never checks the flag, it won't respond. By creating your own boolean member, you've duplicated that functionality unnecessarily.
Here's the general pattern for what you are trying to do:
#Override
public void run() {
while(!Thread.interrupted() {
/* Do something. */
}
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
This will allow you to call MT.interrupt() as you expected. It's better than creating your own flag and custom method to set it: you can use your Runnable task with high-level tools like ExecutorService and cancellation will work because you used the standard API; same is true for interruption of an entire ThreadGroup.
Calling Thread.interrupted() clears the interruption status of a thread; we set it by calling Thread.currentThread().interrupt(), the status is set again so that callers of run() can detect the interrupted state. This might not always be desirable however.
I wrote a thread, it is taking too much time to execute and it seems it is not completely done. I want to stop the thread gracefully. Any help ?
The good way to do it is to have the run() of the Thread guarded by a boolean variable and set it to true from the outside when you want to stop it, something like:
class MyThread extends Thread
{
volatile boolean finished = false;
public void stopMe()
{
finished = true;
}
public void run()
{
while (!finished)
{
//do dirty work
}
}
}
Once upon a time a stop() method existed but as the documentation states
This method is inherently unsafe. Stopping a thread with Thread.stop causes it to unlock all of the monitors that it has locked (as a natural consequence of the unchecked ThreadDeath exception propagating up the stack). If any of the objects previously protected by these monitors were in an inconsistent state, the damaged objects become visible to other threads, potentially resulting in arbitrary behavior.
That's why you should have a guard..
The bad part about using a flag to stop your thread is that if the thread is waiting or sleeping then you have to wait for it to finish waiting/sleeping. If you call the interrupt method on the thread then that will cause the wait or sleep call to be exited with an InterruptedException.
(A second bad part about the flag approach is that most nontrivial code is going to be utilizing libraries like java.util.concurrent, where the classes are specifically designed to use interruption to cancel. Trying to use the hand rolled flag in a task passed into an Executor is going to be awkward.)
Calling interrupt() also sets an interrupted property that you can use as a flag to check whether to quit (in the event that the thread is not waiting or sleeping).
You can write the thread's run method so that the InterruptedException is caught outside whatever looping logic the thread is doing, or you can catch the exception within the loop and close to the call throwing the exception, setting the interrupt flag inside the catch block for the InterruptedException so that the thread doesn't lose track of the fact that it was interrupted. The interrupted thread can still keep control and finish processing on its own terms.
Say I want to write a worker thread that does work in increments, where there's a sleep in the middle for some reason, and I don't want quitting the sleep to make processing quit without doing the remaining work for that increment, I only want it to quit if it is in-between increments:
class MyThread extends Thread
{
public void run()
{
while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted())
{
doFirstPartOfIncrement();
try {
Thread.sleep(10000L);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
// restore interrupt flag
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
doSecondPartOfIncrement();
}
}
}
Here is an answer to a similar question, including example code.
You should not kill Thread from other one. It's considered as fairly bad habit. However, there are many ways. You can use return statement from thread's run method.
Or you can check if thread has already been interrupted and then it will cancel it's work. F.e. :
while (!isInterrupted()) {
// doStuff
}
Make a volatile boolean stop somewhere. Then in the code that runs in the thread, regularly do
if (stop) // end gracefully by breaking out of loop or whatever
To stop the thread, set stop to true.
I think you must do it manually this way. After all, only the code running in the thread has any idea what is and isn't graceful.
You need to send a stop-message to the Thread and the Thread itself needs to take action if the message has been received. This is pretty easy, if the long-running action is inside loop:
public class StoppableThread extends Thread {
private volatile boolean stop = false;
public void stopGracefully() {
stop = true;
}
public void run() {
boolean finished = false;
while (!stop && !finished) {
// long running action - finished will be true once work is done
}
}
}
For a thread to stop itself, no one seems to have mentioned (mis)using exception:
abstract class SelfStoppingThread extends Thread {
#Override
public final void run() {
try {
doRun();
} catch (final Stop stop) {
//optional logging
}
}
abstract void doRun();
protected final void stopSelf() {
throw new Stop();
}
private static final class Stop extends RuntimeException {};
}
A subclass just need to override doRun() normally as you would with a Thread, and call stopSelf() whenever it feels like it wants to stop. IMO it feels cleaner than using a flag in a while loop.
I have made a java program with GUI and I want a stop button functionality in which when a user clicks on the stop button, the program must be stopped.
In my program, the main thread starts other 10 threads and I want that whenever the stop button has been clicked all the 10 threads must be stopped before the main thread.
Second, I also want that whenever any thread of those 10 threads is stopped, it must first close all the resources it had opened before like connection to a database etc.
I have implemented the code as answered by ........
Now there is one problem.
My thread class is like this:
public class ParserThread implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean stopped = false;
public void stopTheThread() {
stopped = true;
}
:
:
}
And below is the main thread that starts 10 threads from the function start()
public class Main() {
Thread [] threads;
public void start() {
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
threads[i] = new Thread(new ParserThread());
}
}
public void stop() {
// code to stop all the threads
}
}
Now I want to call the stop method of the ParserThread to set "stopped = true" to stop the thread. I want this thing to be done for all the 10 threads.
How can I call that stop method. I want it to be done in the stopAllThreads() method of the Main class.
Generally speaking, the way to do this is to have each of the other threads periodically check a flag. Often background threads loop, waiting for work - they just have to check the flag each time they go round a loop. If they're using Object.wait() or something similar to be told that there's more work, the same notification should be used to indicate that the thread should stop too. (Don't just spin until you're stopped - that will suck CPU. Don't just use sleep - that will delay termination.)
That allows all threads to terminate cleanly, releasing resources appropriately. Other options such as interrupt() and the deprecated destroy() method are much harder to control properly, IMO. (Interrupting a thread is better than hard-aborting it, but it has its own set of problems - such as the interruption is only processed at certain points anyway.)
EDIT: In code, it would look something like:
// Client code
for (Task task : tasks) {
task.stop();
}
// Threading code
public abstract class Task implements Runnable {
private volatile boolean stopped = false;
public void stop() {
stopped = true;
}
protected boolean shouldStop() {
return stopped;
}
public abstract void run();
}
Your tasks would then subclass Task. You would need to make it slightly more complicated if you wanted the stop() method to also notify a monitor, but that's the basic idea.
Sample task:
public class SomeTask extends Task {
public void run() {
while (!shouldStop()) {
// Do work
}
}
}
I don't think the answer solve the issue. here the code:
public class SomeTask extends Task {
public void run() {
while (!shouldStop()) {
// Do work
}
}
}
But how to handle if the "Do work" hang and does not return? In this case, the while cannot check the flag. The Thread still cannot stop.
The possible solution to this might be using Process.
Have a controller object which has a flag whether the threads should stop or not and each thread checks the controller periodically and exits if stop button is clicked (for example if you are transferring a file, then after each block is received/sent, check if stop is clicked).
How do you kill a java.lang.Thread in Java?
See this thread by Sun on why they deprecated Thread.stop(). It goes into detail about why this was a bad method and what should be done to safely stop threads in general.
The way they recommend is to use a shared variable as a flag which asks the background thread to stop. This variable can then be set by a different object requesting the thread terminate.
Generally you don't..
You ask it to interrupt whatever it is doing using Thread.interrupt() (javadoc link)
A good explanation of why is in the javadoc here (java technote link)
In Java threads are not killed, but the stopping of a thread is done in a cooperative way. The thread is asked to terminate and the thread can then shutdown gracefully.
Often a volatile boolean field is used which the thread periodically checks and terminates when it is set to the corresponding value.
I would not use a boolean to check whether the thread should terminate. If you use volatile as a field modifier, this will work reliable, but if your code becomes more complex, for instead uses other blocking methods inside the while loop, it might happen, that your code will not terminate at all or at least takes longer as you might want.
Certain blocking library methods support interruption.
Every thread has already a boolean flag interrupted status and you should make use of it. It can be implemented like this:
public void run() {
try {
while (!interrupted()) {
// ...
}
} catch (InterruptedException consumed)
/* Allow thread to exit */
}
}
public void cancel() { interrupt(); }
Source code adapted from Java Concurrency in Practice. Since the cancel() method is public you can let another thread invoke this method as you wanted.
One way is by setting a class variable and using it as a sentinel.
Class Outer {
public static volatile flag = true;
Outer() {
new Test().start();
}
class Test extends Thread {
public void run() {
while (Outer.flag) {
//do stuff here
}
}
}
}
Set an external class variable, i.e. flag = true in the above example. Set it to false to 'kill' the thread.
I want to add several observations, based on the comments that have accumulated.
Thread.stop() will stop a thread if the security manager allows it.
Thread.stop() is dangerous. Having said that, if you are working in a JEE environment and you have no control over the code being called, it may be necessary; see Why is Thread.stop deprecated?
You should never stop stop a container worker thread. If you want to run code that tends to hang, (carefully) start a new daemon thread and monitor it, killing if necessary.
stop() creates a new ThreadDeathError error on the calling thread and then throws that error on the target thread. Therefore, the stack trace is generally worthless.
In JRE 6, stop() checks with the security manager and then calls stop1() that calls stop0(). stop0() is native code.
As of Java 13 Thread.stop() has not been removed (yet), but Thread.stop(Throwable) was removed in Java 11. (mailing list, JDK-8204243)
There is a way how you can do it. But if you had to use it, either you are a bad programmer or you are using a code written by bad programmers. So, you should think about stopping being a bad programmer or stopping using this bad code.
This solution is only for situations when THERE IS NO OTHER WAY.
Thread f = <A thread to be stopped>
Method m = Thread.class.getDeclaredMethod( "stop0" , new Class[]{Object.class} );
m.setAccessible( true );
m.invoke( f , new ThreadDeath() );
I'd vote for Thread.stop().
As for instance you have a long lasting operation (like a network request).
Supposedly you are waiting for a response, but it can take time and the user navigated to other UI.
This waiting thread is now a) useless b) potential problem because when he will get result, it's completely useless and he will trigger callbacks that can lead to number of errors.
All of that and he can do response processing that could be CPU intense. And you, as a developer, cannot even stop it, because you can't throw if (Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) lines in all code.
So the inability to forcefully stop a thread it weird.
The question is rather vague. If you meant “how do I write a program so that a thread stops running when I want it to”, then various other responses should be helpful. But if you meant “I have an emergency with a server I cannot restart right now and I just need a particular thread to die, come what may”, then you need an intervention tool to match monitoring tools like jstack.
For this purpose I created jkillthread. See its instructions for usage.
There is of course the case where you are running some kind of not-completely-trusted code. (I personally have this by allowing uploaded scripts to execute in my Java environment. Yes, there are security alarm bell ringing everywhere, but it's part of the application.) In this unfortunate instance you first of all are merely being hopeful by asking script writers to respect some kind of boolean run/don't-run signal. Your only decent fail safe is to call the stop method on the thread if, say, it runs longer than some timeout.
But, this is just "decent", and not absolute, because the code could catch the ThreadDeath error (or whatever exception you explicitly throw), and not rethrow it like a gentlemanly thread is supposed to do. So, the bottom line is AFAIA there is no absolute fail safe.
'Killing a thread' is not the right phrase to use. Here is one way we can implement graceful completion/exit of the thread on will:
Runnable which I used:
class TaskThread implements Runnable {
boolean shouldStop;
public TaskThread(boolean shouldStop) {
this.shouldStop = shouldStop;
}
#Override
public void run() {
System.out.println("Thread has started");
while (!shouldStop) {
// do something
}
System.out.println("Thread has ended");
}
public void stop() {
shouldStop = true;
}
}
The triggering class:
public class ThreadStop {
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("Start");
// Start the thread
TaskThread task = new TaskThread(false);
Thread t = new Thread(task);
t.start();
// Stop the thread
task.stop();
System.out.println("End");
}
}
There is no way to gracefully kill a thread.
You can try to interrupt the thread, one commons strategy is to use a poison pill to message the thread to stop itself
public class CancelSupport {
public static class CommandExecutor implements Runnable {
private BlockingQueue<String> queue;
public static final String POISON_PILL = “stopnow”;
public CommandExecutor(BlockingQueue<String> queue) {
this.queue=queue;
}
#Override
public void run() {
boolean stop=false;
while(!stop) {
try {
String command=queue.take();
if(POISON_PILL.equals(command)) {
stop=true;
} else {
// do command
System.out.println(command);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
stop=true;
}
}
System.out.println(“Stopping execution”);
}
}
}
BlockingQueue<String> queue=new LinkedBlockingQueue<String>();
Thread t=new Thread(new CommandExecutor(queue));
queue.put(“hello”);
queue.put(“world”);
t.start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
queue.put(“stopnow”);
http://anandsekar.github.io/cancel-support-for-threads/
Generally you don't kill, stop, or interrupt a thread (or check wheter it is interrupted()), but let it terminate naturally.
It is simple. You can use any loop together with (volatile) boolean variable inside run() method to control thread's activity. You can also return from active thread to the main thread to stop it.
This way you gracefully kill a thread :) .
Attempts of abrupt thread termination are well-known bad programming practice and evidence of poor application design. All threads in the multithreaded application explicitly and implicitly share the same process state and forced to cooperate with each other to keep it consistent, otherwise your application will be prone to the bugs which will be really hard to diagnose. So, it is a responsibility of developer to provide an assurance of such consistency via careful and clear application design.
There are two main right solutions for the controlled threads terminations:
Use of the shared volatile flag
Use of the pair of Thread.interrupt() and Thread.interrupted() methods.
Good and detailed explanation of the issues related to the abrupt threads termination as well as examples of wrong and right solutions for the controlled threads termination can be found here:
https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/java/THI05-J.+Do+not+use+Thread.stop%28%29+to+terminate+threads
Here are a couple of good reads on the subject:
What Do You Do With InterruptedException?
Shutting down threads cleanly
I didn't get the interrupt to work in Android, so I used this method, works perfectly:
boolean shouldCheckUpdates = true;
private void startupCheckForUpdatesEveryFewSeconds() {
Thread t = new Thread(new CheckUpdates());
t.start();
}
private class CheckUpdates implements Runnable{
public void run() {
while (shouldCheckUpdates){
//Thread sleep 3 seconds
System.out.println("Do your thing here");
}
}
}
public void stop(){
shouldCheckUpdates = false;
}
Thread.stop is deprecated so how do we stop a thread in java ?
Always use interrupt method and future to request cancellation
When the task responds to interrupt signal, for example, blocking queue take method.
Callable < String > callable = new Callable < String > () {
#Override
public String call() throws Exception {
String result = "";
try {
//assume below take method is blocked as no work is produced.
result = queue.take();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
return result;
}
};
Future future = executor.submit(callable);
try {
String result = future.get(5, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
logger.error("Thread timedout!");
return "";
} finally {
//this will call interrupt on queue which will abort the operation.
//if it completes before time out, it has no side effects
future.cancel(true);
}
When the task does not respond to interrupt signal.Suppose the task performs socket I/O which does not respond to interrupt signal and thus using above approach will not abort the task, future would time out but the cancel in finally block will have no effect, thread will keep on listening to socket. We can close the socket or call close method on connection if implemented by pool.
public interface CustomCallable < T > extends Callable < T > {
void cancel();
RunnableFuture < T > newTask();
}
public class CustomExecutorPool extends ThreadPoolExecutor {
protected < T > RunnableFuture < T > newTaskFor(Callable < T > callable) {
if (callable instanceof CancellableTask)
return ((CancellableTask < T > ) callable).newTask();
else
return super.newTaskFor(callable);
}
}
public abstract class UnblockingIOTask < T > implements CustomCallable < T > {
public synchronized void cancel() {
try {
obj.close();
} catch (IOException e) {
logger.error("io exception", e);
}
}
public RunnableFuture < T > newTask() {
return new FutureTask < T > (this) {
public boolean cancel(boolean mayInterruptIfRunning) {
try {
this.cancel();
} finally {
return super.cancel(mayInterruptIfRunning);
}
}
};
}
}
After 15+ years of developing in Java there is one thing I want to say to the world.
Deprecating Thread.stop() and all the holy battle against its use is just another bad habit or design flaw unfortunately became a reality... (eg. want to talk about the Serializable interface?)
The battle is focusing on the fact that killing a thread can leave an object into an inconsistent state. And so? Welcome to multithread programming. You are a programmer, and you need to know what you are doing, and yes.. killing a thread can leave an object in inconsistent state. If you are worried about it use a flag and let the thread quit gracefully; but there are TONS of times where there is no reason to be worried.
But no.. if you type thread.stop() you're likely to be killed by all the people who looks/comments/uses your code. So you have to use a flag, call interrupt(), place if(!flag) all around your code because you're not looping at all, and finally pray that the 3rd-party library you're using to do your external call is written correctly and doesn't handle the InterruptException improperly.