1

I am a newbie to Java concurrency and am a bit confused by several concepts and implementation issues here. Hope you guys can help.

Say, I have a list of tasks stored in a thread-safe list wrapper:

ListWrapper jobs = ....

'ListWrapper' has synchronized fetch/push/append functions, and this 'jobs' object will be shared by multiple worker threads.

And I have a worker 'Runnable' to execute the tasks:

public class Worker implements Runnable{
    private ListWrapper jobs;
    public Worker(ListWrapper l){
        this.jobs=l;
    }
    public void run(){
        while(! jobs.isEmpty()){
            //fetch an item from jobs and do sth...
        }
    }
}

Now in the main function I execute the tasks:

int NTHREADS =10;
ExecutorService service= Executors.newFixedThreadPool(NTHREADS);

//run threads..
int x=3;
for(int i=0; i<x; i++){
    service.execute(new Worker(jobs) );
}

I tested this code with 'x=3', and I found that only 3 threads are running at the same time; but as I set 'x=20', I found that only 10 (=NTHREADS) are running at the same time. Seems to me the # of actual threads is the min of the two values.

Now my questions are:

1) Which value ('x' or 'NTHREADS') should I set to control the number of concurrent threads? Or it doesn't matter in either I choose?

2) How is this approach different from simply using the Producer-Consumer pattern --creating a fixed number of 'stud' threads to execute the tasks(shown in the code below)?

Thread t1= new Worker(jobs);
Thread t2= new Worker(jobs);
...
t1.join();
t2.join();
...

Thank you very much!!

Improve this question

5 Answers 5

Reset to default
2

[[ There are some good answers here but I thought I'd add some more detail. ]]

I tested this code with 'x=3', and I found that only 3 threads are running at the same time; but as I set 'x=20', I found that only 10 (=NTHREADS) are running at the same time. Seems to me the # of actual threads is the min of the two values.

No, not really. I suspect that the reason you weren't seeing 20 threads is that threads had already finished or had yet to be started. If you call new Thread(...).start() 20 times then you will get 20 threads started. However, if you check immediately none of them may have actually begun to run or if you check later they may have finished.

1) Which value ('x' or 'NTHREADS') should I set to control the number of concurrent threads? Or it doesn't matter in either I choose?

Quoting the Javadocs of Executors.newFixedThreadPool(...):

Creates a thread pool that reuses a fixed number of threads operating off a shared unbounded queue. At any point, at most nThreads threads will be active processing tasks.

So changing the NTHREADS constant changes the number of threads running in the pool. Changing x changes the number of jobs that are executed by those threads. You could have 2 threads in the pool and submit 1000 jobs or you could have 1000 threads and only submit 1 job for them to work on.

Btw, after you have submitted all of your jobs, you should then shutdown the pool which stops all of the threads if all of the jobs have been run.

service.shutdown();

2) How is this approach different from simply using the Producer-Consumer pattern --creating a fixed number of 'stud' threads to execute the tasks(shown in the code below)?

It differs in that it does all of the heavy work for you.

  • You don't have to create a ListWrapper of the jobs since you get one inside of the ExecutorService. You just submit the jobs to the ExecutorService and it keeps track of them until the threads are available to run them.
  • You don't have to create any threads or worry about them throwing exceptions and dying because the ExecutorService starts/restarts the threads for you.
  • If you want your tasks to return information you can make use of the submit(Callable) method and use the Future to get the results of the jobs. Etc, etc..

Doing this code yourself is going to be harder to get right, more code to maintain, and most likely will not perform as well as the code in the JDK that is battle tested and optimized.

Improve this answer
Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

2 Comments

Nice addition! "You don't have to create a ListWrapper of the jobs since you get one inside of the ExecutorService." Not sure how ExecutorService is implemented, but gotta look it up! thx!
There is a BlockingQueue associated with each ExecutorService @pdxhiker.
1

You shouldn't create threads by yourself when using a threadpool. Instead of WorkerThread class you should use a class that implements Runnable but is not a thread. Passing a Thread object to the threadpool won't make the thread run actually. The object will be passed to a different internal thread, which will simply execute the run method of your WorkerThread class.

The ExecutorService is simply incompatible with the way you want to write your program.

In the code you have right now, these WorkerThreads will stop to work when your ListWrapper is empty. If you then add something to the list, nothing will happen. This is definitely not what you wanted.

You should get rid of ListWrapper and simply put your tasks directly into the threadpool. The threadpool already incorporates an internal list of jobs shared between the threads. You should just submit your jobs to the threadpool and it will handle them accordingly.

To answer your questions:

1) Which value ('x' or 'NTHREADS') should I set to control the number of concurrent threads? Or it doesn't matter in either I choose?

NTHREADS, the threadpool will create the necessary number of threads.

2) How is this approach different from simply using the Producer-Consumer pattern --creating a fixed number of 'stud' threads to execute the tasks(shown in the code below)?

It's just that ExecutorService automates a lot of things for you. You can choose from a lot of different implementations of threadpools and you can substitute them easily. You can use for instance a scheduled executor. You get extra functionality. Why reinvent the wheel?

Improve this answer

5 Comments

Thanks for your input. Yes, 'WorkerThread' does implement 'Runnable', I just edited the name to 'Worker' to avoid confusion with the 'Thread' object.
@pdxhiker oh right, I didn't notice it doesn't actually derive from Thread. But the idea is still the same - your run method shouldn't even have a loop inside. The object should concern a single task. And you should submit these runnable tasks to the executor. So it's a different philosophy.
so by "should get rid of ListWrapper and sipmly put your tasks directly into the threadpool", did you mean I don't actually need a "tasklist" shared by all the threads, and what I should do is to assign each single task to a 'Runnable'?
yes, exactly, put your tasks directly to the ExecutorService
thanks, that makes sense. Indeed that's a different philosophy.
0

For 1) NTHREADS is the maximum threads that the pool will ever run concurrently, but that doesn't mean there will always be that many running. It will only use as many as is needed up to that max value... which in your case is 3.

As the docs say:

At any point, at most nThreads threads will be active processing tasks. If additional tasks are submitted when all threads are active, they will wait in the queue until a thread is available

http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/Executors.html#newFixedThreadPool-int-

As for 2) using Java's concurrent executors framework is preferred with new code. You get a lot of stuff for free and removes the need for having to handle all of the fiddly thread work yourself.

Improve this answer

Comments

0

The number of threads passed into newFixedThreadPool is at most how many threads could be running executing your tasks. If you only have three tasks ever submitted I'd expect the ExecutorService to only create three threads.

To answer your questions:

  1. You should use the number you pass into the constructor to control how many threads are going to be used to execute your tasks.

  2. This differs because of the extra functionality the ExecutorService gives you, as well as the flexibility it gives you such as in the case you need to change your ExecutorService type or number of tasks you'll run (less lines of code to change).

Improve this answer

Comments

0

All that is happening is the executor service is only creating as many threads as it needs. NTHREADS is effectively the maximum number of threads it'll create.

There is no point creating ten threads up front if it only has 3 tasks to complete, the other 7 will just be hanging around consuming resources.

If you submit more than NTHREADS number of tasks then it will process that number concurrently and the rest will wait on a queue until a thread becomes free.

This isn't any different from creating a fixed set of your own threads, except the thread management and scheduling is handled for you. The executor service also restarts threads if they are killed by rogue exceptions in your task which you'd otherwise have to code for.

See: The Javadoc on Executorservice.newFixedThreadPool

Improve this answer

2 Comments

Thanks for noting "The executor service also restarts threads if..."!
The threads are not necessarily restarted. It depends on if you use execute(...) versus submit(...). With submit(...), the ExecutorService code wraps your jobs to catch and ignore exceptions.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.