I have a simple multi-threaded program as follows:
I have T1,T2,T3...Tn threads, which all run in parallel.
Each thread has a queue of objects, which I want to add/remove items from.
In every single addition, I'd like to print it to the screen.
public void run() {
while(!queue.isEmpty()) {
Object obj = queue.poll();
System.out.println(obj.toString());
}
}
And for addition, I simply use:
void addObj(Object obj) {
this.queue.add(obj);
}
In the same class of the thread.
I am using addObj across the program, in different times.
The problem when I add objects to the queue, it doesn't seem that run even cares.
In some cases it did print the new object, but in many cases it did not, and it still considered the queue as empty.
How can I make sure that the thread is aware of this item being added?
Should I use any callback?
What is the right approach for such tasks?
I also noticed that when I use Thred.sleep() it helps, but it looks pretty ugly, I guess.
UPDATE: each thread should have it's own thread. I am creating the threads in a separte "thread-manger" which starts them one by one.
Each thread has it's own private queue, which should be filled on the fly.
Items can be add/removed to the queues in any given time, before and after the threads started.
Your run() method finishes immediately if the queue is empty. If you want threads to work event if queues are empty use something like this:
public void run() {
while(true) {
if (!queue.isEmpty()) {
Object obj = queue.poll();
System.out.println(obj.toString());
}
}
}
Here a even prettier solution. Avoids polling ;)
public void run() {
while(true) {
if (!queue.isEmpty()) {
Object obj = queue.poll();
System.out.println(obj.toString());
}
queue.wait();
}
}
and here the code to add:
void addObj(Object obj) {
this.queue.add(obj);
this.queue.notify();
}
"each thread should have it's own thread" could you explain more?
If you mean that the queue belongs to the thread, after doing an add you do a poll and you print what your message.
This question already has answers here:
Why should wait() always be called inside a loop
(11 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I've tried reading some answers to similar questions here (I always do that) but did not find (or did not understand?) the answer to this particular issue.
I am implementing a fairly simple consumer-producer class, which receives elements to a list from a different thread and consumes them repeatedly. The class has the following code:
public class ProduceConsume implements Runnable
{
LinkedList<Integer> _list = new LinkedList<Integer>();
public synchronized void produce(Integer i)
{
_list.add(i);
notify();
}
public void run()
{
while(true)
{
Integer i = consume();
// Do something with the integer...
}
}
private synchronized Integer consume()
{
if(_list.size() == 0)
{
try
{
wait();
}
catch(InterruptedException e){}
return _list.poll();
}
}
}
The problem is - it usually works fine, but sometimes, the execution gets to
return _list.poll();
with the list still empty. I can't wrap my head around it - am I doing something terribly wrong? Shouldn't the runnable thread, which repeatedly tries to poll detect a zero length list, wait, and be awakened only after the producer method is done, hence making the list non-empty?
Nothing else "touches" the class from the outside, except for calls to produce. No other threads are synchronized on the runnable class.
By the way, for several reasons, I wish to use my own variant and not classes such as CopyOnWriteArrayList, etc.
Thanks! Any help would be greatly appreciated.
P.S - I have not used the wait-notify many times, but when I did, in the past, it worked. So if I apologize if I made some huge stupid error!
As the Javadoc for Object.wait states
As in the one argument version, interrupts and spurious wakeups are possible, and this method should always be used in a loop:
synchronized (obj) {
while (<condition does not hold>)
obj.wait();
... // Perform action appropriate to condition
}
Additionally, you shouldn't ignore an exception like InterruptedException. This will look like a spurious wake up and as you say produces an error.
private synchronized Integer consume() {
try {
while (_list.isEmpty())
wait();
return _list.poll();
} catch(InterruptedException e) {
throw new IllegalStateException("Interrupted");
}
}
Since wait releases the lock you can't reason based on conditions tested before it started waiting, assuming the condition must have changed once wait is exited is not valid. You need to call wait in a loop, so that once the thread ceases waiting and takes the lock again, it checks that the condition it's waiting for has the expected value:
private synchronized Integer consume()
{
try {
while (_list.size() == 0) {
wait();
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
Thread.currentThread().interrupt();
}
return _list.poll();
}
From the Oracle tutorial:
Note: Always invoke wait inside a loop that tests for the condition being waited for.
Also it's not safe to assume that just because wait returned that something sent a notification. wait can return even if there is no notification (the spurious wakeup).
It's hard to say what caused what you're seeing without a complete working example.
The linked Oracle tutorial page has a Producer Consumer example you might want to look at.
I have two threads and I am currently doing locking using an Object's notify() and wait() methods inside Synchronized blocks. I wanted to make sure that the main thread is never blocked so I used a boolean this way (only relevant code provided.)
//Just to explain an example queue
private Queue<CustomClass> queue = new Queue();
//this is the BOOLEAN
private boolean isRunning = false;
private Object lock;
public void doTask(){
ExecutorService service = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
//the invocation of the second thread!!
service.execute(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while(true){
if (queue.isEmpty()){
synchronized (lock){
isRunning = false; //usage of boolean
lock.wait();
}
}
else{
process(queue.remove());
}
}
});
}
//will be called from a single thread but multiple times.
public void addToQueue(CustomClass custObj){
queue.add(custObj);
//I don't want blocking here!!
if (!isRunning){
isRunning = true; //usage of BOOLEAN!
synchronized(lock){
lock.notify();
}
}
}
Does anything seems wrong here? thanks.
Edit:
Purpose: This way when add() will be called the second time and more, it won't get blocked on notify(). Is there a better way to achieve this non blocking behavior of the main thread?
Although you do not show the addToQueue code I am fairly certain that this code will not work properly, as you are accessing the shared queue (which is not thread-safe) without any synchronization.
process(queue.remove());
Instead of trying to make your custom queue work (I doubt that your plan with the boolean flag is possible), save the time and work and use one of the BlockingQueues or ConcurrentLinkedQueue provided in the JDK.
The Queue is not synchronized and therefore the above code can suffer from the lost wake-up call typical for conditional variables and monitors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producer%E2%80%93consumer_problem
For example, here is a problematic sequence:
At the beginning of the run the Q is empty and isRunning is false.
Thread 1 (t1) checks if Q is empty (which is true) and then stops running.
Than Thread 2 (t2) starts running and execute the addToQ method.
and then t1 continues running and waits on the lock although the Q is not empty.
If you want a non-blocking solution you can use the non-blocking Q java is offering (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/1.5.0/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentLinkedQueue.html)Of course, you can use java own blockingQueue, but this is blocking.
I have a ArrayBlocking queue, , upon which a single thread fixed rate Scheduled works.
I may have failed task. I want re-run that or re-insert in queue at high priority or top level
Some thoughts here -
Why are you using ArrayBlockingQueue and not PriorityBlockingQueue ? Sounds like what you need to me . At first set all your elements to be with equal priority.
In case you receive an exception - re-insert to the queue with a higher priority
Simplest thing might be a priority queue. Attach a retry number to the task. It starts as zero. After an unsuccessful run, throw away all the ones and increment the zeroes and put them back in the queue at a high priority. With this method, you can easily decide to run everything three times, or more, if you want to later. The down side is you have to modify the task class.
The other idea would be to set up another, non-blocking, thread-safe, high-priority queue. When looking for a new task, you check the non-blocking queue first and run what's there. Otherwise, go to the blocking queue. This might work for you as is, and so far it's the simplest solution. The problem is the high priority queue might fill up while the scheduler is blocked on the blocking queue.
To get around this, you'd have to do your own blocking. Both queues should be non-blocking. (Suggestion: java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentLinkedQueue.) After polling both queues with no results, wait() on a monitor. When anything puts something in a queue, it should call notifyAll() and the scheduler can start up again. Great care is needed lest the notification occur after the scheduler has checked both queues but before it calls wait().
Addition:
Prototype code for third solution with manual blocking. Some threading is suggested, but the reader will know his/her own situation best. Which bits of code are apt to block waiting for a lock, which are apt to tie up their thread (and core) for minutes while doing extensive work, and which cannot afford to sit around waiting for the other code to finish all needs to be considered. For instance, if a failed run can immediately be rerun on the same thread with no time-consuming cleanup, most of this code can be junked.
private final ConcurrentLinkedQueue mainQueue = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue();
private final ConcurrentLinkedQueue prioQueue = new ConcurrentLinkedQueue();
private final Object entryWatch = new Object();
/** Adds a new job to the queue. */
public void addjob( Runnable runjob ) {
synchronized (entryWatch) { entryWatch.notifyAll(); }
}
/** The endless loop that does the work. */
public void schedule() {
for (;;) {
Runnable run = getOne(); // Avoids lock if successful.
if (run == null) {
// Both queues are empty.
synchronized (entryWatch) {
// Need to check again. Someone might have added and notifiedAll
// since last check. From this point until, wait, we can be sure
// entryWatch is not notified.
run = getOne();
if (run == null) {
// Both queues are REALLY empty.
try { entryWatch.wait(); }
catch (InterruptedException ie) {}
}
}
}
runit( run );
}
}
/** Helper method for the endless loop. */
private Runnable getOne() {
Runnable run = (Runnable) prioQueue.poll();
if (run != null) return run;
return (Runnable) mainQueue.poll();
}
/** Runs a new job. */
public void runit( final Runnable runjob ) {
// Do everthing in another thread. (Optional)
new Thread() {
#Override public void run() {
// Run run. (Possibly in own thread?)
// (Perhaps best in thread from a thread pool.)
runjob.run();
// Handle failure (runit only, NOT in runitLast).
// Defining "failure" left as exercise for reader.
if (failure) {
// Put code here to handle failure.
// Put back in queue.
prioQueue.add( runjob );
synchronized (entryWatch) { entryWatch.notifyAll(); }
}
}
}.start();
}
/** Reruns a job. */
public void runitLast( final Runnable runjob ) {
// Same code as "runit", but don't put "runjob" in "prioQueue" on failure.
}
I have a method that I would like to call. However, I'm looking for a clean, simple way to kill it or force it to return if it is taking too long to execute.
I'm using Java.
to illustrate:
logger.info("sequentially executing all batches...");
for (TestExecutor executor : builder.getExecutors()) {
logger.info("executing batch...");
executor.execute();
}
I figure the TestExecutor class should implement Callable and continue in that direction.
But all i want to be able to do is stop executor.execute() if it's taking too long.
Suggestions...?
EDIT
Many of the suggestions received assume that the method being executed that takes a long time contains some kind of loop and that a variable could periodically be checked.
However, this is not the case. So something that won't necessarily be clean and that will just stop the execution whereever it is is acceptable.
You should take a look at these classes :
FutureTask, Callable, Executors
Here is an example :
public class TimeoutExample {
public static Object myMethod() {
// does your thing and taking a long time to execute
return someResult;
}
public static void main(final String[] args) {
Callable<Object> callable = new Callable<Object>() {
public Object call() throws Exception {
return myMethod();
}
};
ExecutorService executorService = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
Future<Object> task = executorService.submit(callable);
try {
// ok, wait for 30 seconds max
Object result = task.get(30, TimeUnit.SECONDS);
System.out.println("Finished with result: " + result);
} catch (ExecutionException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
} catch (TimeoutException e) {
System.out.println("timeout...");
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("interrupted");
}
}
}
Java's interruption mechanism is intended for this kind of scenario. If the method that you wish to abort is executing a loop, just have it check the thread's interrupted status on every iteration. If it's interrupted, throw an InterruptedException.
Then, when you want to abort, you just have to invoke interrupt on the appropriate thread.
Alternatively, you can use the approach Sun suggest as an alternative to the deprecated stop method. This doesn't involve throwing any exceptions, the method would just return normally.
I'm assuming the use of multiple threads in the following statements.
I've done some reading in this area and most authors say that it's a bad idea to kill another thread.
If the function that you want to kill can be designed to periodically check a variable or synchronization primitive, and then terminate cleanly if that variable or synchronization primitive is set, that would be pretty clean. Then some sort of monitor thread can sleep for a number of milliseconds and then set the variable or synchronization primitive.
Really, you can't... The only way to do it is to either use thread.stop, agree on a 'cooperative' method (e.g. occassionally check for Thread.isInterrupted or call a method which throws an InterruptedException, e.g. Thread.sleep()), or somehow invoke the method in another JVM entirely.
For certain kinds of tests, calling stop() is okay, but it will probably damage the state of your test suite, so you'll have to relaunch the JVM after each call to stop() if you want to avoid interaction effects.
For a good description of how to implement the cooperative approach, check out Sun's FAQ on the deprecated Thread methods.
For an example of this approach in real life, Eclipse RCP's Job API's 'IProgressMonitor' object allows some management service to signal sub-processes (via the 'cancel' method) that they should stop. Of course, that relies on the methods to actually check the isCancelled method regularly, which they often fail to do.
A hybrid approach might be to ask the thread nicely with interrupt, then insist a couple of seconds later with stop. Again, you shouldn't use stop in production code, but it might be fine in this case, esp. if you exit the JVM soon after.
To test this approach, I wrote a simple harness, which takes a runnable and tries to execute it. Feel free to comment/edit.
public void testStop(Runnable r) {
Thread t = new Thread(r);
t.start();
try {
t.join(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
if (!t.isAlive()) {
System.err.println("Finished on time.");
return;
}
try {
t.interrupt();
t.join(2000);
if (!t.isAlive()) {
System.err.println("cooperative stop");
return;
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
throw new RuntimeException(e);
}
System.err.println("non-cooperative stop");
StackTraceElement[] trace = Thread.getAllStackTraces().get(t);
if (null != trace) {
Throwable temp = new Throwable();
temp.setStackTrace(trace);
temp.printStackTrace();
}
t.stop();
System.err.println("stopped non-cooperative thread");
}
To test it, I wrote two competing infinite loops, one cooperative, and one that never checks its thread's interrupted bit.
public void cooperative() {
try {
for (;;) {
Thread.sleep(500);
}
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.err.println("cooperative() interrupted");
} finally {
System.err.println("cooperative() finally");
}
}
public void noncooperative() {
try {
for (;;) {
Thread.yield();
}
} finally {
System.err.println("noncooperative() finally");
}
}
Finally, I wrote the tests (JUnit 4) to exercise them:
#Test
public void testStopCooperative() {
testStop(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
cooperative();
}
});
}
#Test
public void testStopNoncooperative() {
testStop(new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
noncooperative();
}
});
}
I had never used Thread.stop() before, so I was unaware of its operation. It works by throwing a ThreadDeath object from whereever the target thread is currently running. This extends Error. So, while it doesn't always work cleanly, it will usually leave simple programs with a fairly reasonable program state. For example, any finally blocks are called. If you wanted to be a real jerk, you could catch ThreadDeath (or Error), and keep running, anyway!
If nothing else, this really makes me wish more code followed the IProgressMonitor approach - adding another parameter to methods that might take a while, and encouraging the implementor of the method to occasionally poll the Monitor object to see if the user wants the system to give up. I'll try to follow this pattern in the future, especially methods that might be interactive. Of course, you don't necessarily know in advance which methods will be used this way, but that is what Profilers are for, I guess.
As for the 'start another JVM entirely' method, that will take more work. I don't know if anyone has written a delegating class loader, or if one is included in the JVM, but that would be required for this approach.
Nobody answered it directly, so here's the closest thing i can give you in a short amount of psuedo code:
wrap the method in a runnable/callable. The method itself is going to have to check for interrupted status if you want it to stop (for example, if this method is a loop, inside the loop check for Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted and if so, stop the loop (don't check on every iteration though, or you'll just slow stuff down.
in the wrapping method, use thread.join(timeout) to wait the time you want to let the method run. or, inside a loop there, call join repeatedly with a smaller timeout if you need to do other things while waiting. if the method doesn't finish, after joining, use the above recommendations for aborting fast/clean.
so code wise, old code:
void myMethod()
{
methodTakingAllTheTime();
}
new code:
void myMethod()
{
Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable()
{
public void run()
{
methodTakingAllTheTime(); // modify the internals of this method to check for interruption
}
});
t.join(5000); // 5 seconds
t.interrupt();
}
but again, for this to work well, you'll still have to modify methodTakingAllTheTime or that thread will just continue to run after you've called interrupt.
The correct answer is, I believe, to create a Runnable to execute the sub-program, and run this in a separate Thread. THe Runnable may be a FutureTask, which you can run with a timeout ("get" method). If it times out, you'll get a TimeoutException, in which I suggest you
call thread.interrupt() to attempt to end it in a semi-cooperative manner (many library calls seem to be sensitive to this, so it will probably work)
wait a little (Thread.sleep(300))
and then, if the thread is still active (thread.isActive()), call thread.stop(). This is a deprecated method, but apparently the only game in town short of running a separate process with all that this entails.
In my application, where I run untrusted, uncooperative code written by my beginner students, I do the above, ensuring that the killed thread never has (write) access to any objects that survive its death. This includes the object that houses the called method, which is discarded if a timeout occurs. (I tell my students to avoid timeouts, because their agent will be disqualified.) I am unsure about memory leaks...
I distinguish between long runtimes (method terminates) and hard timeouts - the hard timeouts are longer and meant to catch the case when code does not terminate at all, as opposed to being slow.
From my research, Java does not seem to have a non-deprecated provision for running non-cooperative code, which, in a way, is a gaping hole in the security model. Either I can run foreign code and control the permissions it has (SecurityManager), or I cannot run foreign code, because it might end up taking up a whole CPU with no non-deprecated means to stop it.
double x = 2.0;
while(true) {x = x*x}; // do not terminate
System.out.print(x); // prevent optimization
I can think of a not so great way to do this. If you can detect when it is taking too much time, you can have the method check for a boolean in every step. Have the program change the value of the boolean tooMuchTime to true if it is taking too much time (I can't help with this). Then use something like this:
Method(){
//task1
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task2
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task3
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task4
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//task5
if (tooMuchTime == true) return;
//final task
}