Specifically, can somebody tell me what is wrong with this piece of code. It should start the threads, so should print "Entering thread.." 5 times and then wait until notifyAll() is called. But, it randomly prints "Entering.." and "Done.." and still keeps waiting on others.
public class ThreadTest implements Runnable {
private int num;
private static Object obj = new Object();
ThreadTest(int n) {
num=n;
}
@Override
public void run() {
synchronized (obj) {
try {
System.out.println("Entering thread "+num);
obj.wait();
System.out.println("Done Thread "+num);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args) {
Runnable tc;
Thread t;
for(int i=0;i<5;i++) {
tc = new ThreadTest(i);
t = new Thread(tc);
t.start();
}
synchronized (obj) {
obj.notifyAll();
}
}
}
You're not doing anything blatantly wrong with the method calls, but you have a race condition.
Although in an ideal world the main thread will reach its synchronized block after all the worker threads reach the wait() call, there is no guarantee of that (you explicitly told the virtual machine that you didn't want the threads to execute in sequence with the main thread by making them threads). It may happen (e.g. if you have only one core) that the thread scheduler decides to block all the worker threads immediately they start to allow the main thread to continue. It may be that the worker threads are context switched out because of a cache miss. It may be that one worker thread blocks for I/O (the print statement) and the main thread is switched in in its place.
Thus, if the main thread manages to reach the synchronized block before all the worker threads have reached the wait() call, those worker threads that have not reached the wait() call will fail to operate as intended. Since the current set up does not allow you to control this, you must add explicit handling of this. You could either add some sort of variable that is incremented as each worker thread reaches wait() and have the main thread not call notifyAll() until this variable reaches 5, or you could have the main thread loop and repeatedly call notifyAll(), so that worker threads are released in multiple groups.
Have a look in the java.util.concurrent
package - there are several lock classes that provide more powerful capabilities than basic synchronized locks - as ever, Java saves you from re-inventing the wheel. CountDownLatch would seem to be particularly relevant.
In summary, concurrency is hard. You have to design to make sure that everything still works when the threads execute in the orders you don't want, as well as the orders you would like.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With