I do need a separate threads for each running task, so changing the architecture isn't an option.
If that is true (for example, making a call to an external blocking function), then create separate threads for them and start them. You can't create a thread pool with a limited number of threads, as a blocking function in one of threads will prevent any other runnable being put into it, and don't gain much creating a thread pool with one thread per task.
I tried making my threadPool size equal to Runtime.getRuntime().availableProcessors() which attempted to run all 500 threads, but only let 8 (4xhyperthreading) of them execute.
When you pass the Thread objects you are creating to thread pool, it only sees that they implement Runnable. Therefore it will run each Runnable to completion. Any loop which stops the run() method returning will not allow the next enqueued task to run; eg:
public static void main (String...args) {
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(2);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
final int task = i;
executor.execute(new Runnable () {
private long lastRunTime = 0;
@Override
public void run () {
for (int iteration = 0; iteration < 4; )
{
if (System.currentTimeMillis() - this.lastRunTime > TIME_OUT)
{
// do your work here
++iteration;
System.out.printf("Task {%d} iteration {%d} thread {%s}.\n", task, iteration, Thread.currentThread());
this.lastRunTime = System.currentTimeMillis();
}
else
{
Thread.yield(); // otherwise, let other threads run
}
}
}
});
}
executor.shutdown();
}
prints out:
Task {0} iteration {1} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-1,5,main]}.
Task {1} iteration {1} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-2,5,main]}.
Task {0} iteration {2} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-1,5,main]}.
Task {1} iteration {2} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-2,5,main]}.
Task {0} iteration {3} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-1,5,main]}.
Task {1} iteration {3} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-2,5,main]}.
Task {0} iteration {4} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-1,5,main]}.
Task {2} iteration {1} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-1,5,main]}.
Task {1} iteration {4} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-2,5,main]}.
Task {3} iteration {1} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-2,5,main]}.
Task {2} iteration {2} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-1,5,main]}.
Task {3} iteration {2} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-2,5,main]}.
Task {2} iteration {3} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-1,5,main]}.
Task {3} iteration {3} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-2,5,main]}.
Task {2} iteration {4} thread {Thread[pool-1-thread-1,5,main]}.
...
showing that the first (thread pool size) tasks run to completion before the next tasks get scheduled.
What you need to do is create tasks which run for a while, then let other tasks run. Quite how you structure these depends on what you want to achieve
- whether you want all the tasks to run at the same time, the all wait for a minute, then all run at the same time again, or whether the tasks are not synchronised with each other
- whether you really wanted each task to run at a one-minute interval
- whether your tasks are potentially blocking or not, and so really require separate threads
- what behaviour is expected if a task blocks longer than the expected window for running
- what behaviour is expected if a task blocks longer than the repeat rate (blocks for more than one minute)
Depending on the answers to these, some combination of ScheduledExecutorService, semaphores or mutexes can be used to co-ordinate the tasks. The simplest case is the non-blocking, non-synchronous tasks, in which case use a ScheduledExecutorService directly to run your runnables once every minute.