views:

1014

answers:

7

exampl:

new Thread(new Runnable() {
  public void run() {
    while(condition) {

      *code that must not be interrupted*

      *some more code*
    }
  }
}).start();

SomeOtherThread.start();

YetAntherThread.start();

How can you ensure that code that must not be interrupted won't be interrupted?

A: 

Best halfway solution would be to synchronize all threads on some common object so that no other threads are runnable while you're in the critical section.

Other than that I do not think it's possible. And I'm quite curious as to what kind of problem that requires this type of solution ?

krosenvold
Synchronizing on 1 single object would make *all* thread uninterruptible *everywhere*. You need a ReadWriteLock.
Chris Conway
+7  A: 

You can't - at least not with normal Java, running on a normal, non-real-time operating system. Even if other threads don't interrupt yours, other processes might well do so. Basically you won't be able to guarantee that you get a CPU all to yourself until you're done. If you want this sort of guarantee you should use something like Java Real-Time System. I don't know enough about it to know whether that would definitely provide the facility you want though.

The best thing to do is avoid that requirement in the first place.

Jon Skeet
Good comment!. Do you know how this works for a multiprocessor machines? I'm aware of single CPU, but I don't know if there's a way to dedicate let's say 1 CPU to a single process.
OscarRyz
It really depends on the operating system. I believe Windows has a bitmask to say which processors a process is willing to run on, but I'm not sure whether you can specify "and don't run anything else on that core!"
Jon Skeet
+1  A: 

Assuming you're only concerned with application-level thread contention, and assuming you are willing to fuss with locks as suggested by others (which, IMHO, is a really bad idea), then you should use a ReadWriteLock and not simple object synchronization:

import java.java.util.concurrent.locks.*;

// create a fair read/write lock
final ReadWriteLock rwLock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock(true);

// the main thread grabs the write lock to exclude other threads
final Lock writeLock = rwLock.writeLock();

// All other threads hold the read lock whenever they do 
// *anything* to make sure the writer is exclusive when 
// it is running. NOTE: the other threads must also 
// occasionally *drop* the lock so the writer has a chance 
// to run!
final Lock readLock = rwLock.readLock();

new Thread(new Runnable() {
  public void run() {
    while(condition) {

      writeLock.lock();
      try {
        *code that must not be interrupted*
      } finally {
        writeLock.unlock();
      }

      *some more code*
    }
  }
}).start();

new SomeOtherThread(readLock).start();
new YetAntherThread(readLock).start();
Chris Conway
can you explain what is wrong with a simple synchronized block?
Johannes Schaub - litb
This solution fails to address the many threads started by the runtime itself. Making un-interruptible code, even at the JVM-level, requires realtime support.
erickson
@litb If all threads synchronize on the same lock, then no two threads can ever run concurrently. With a ReadWriteLock, the readers can execute concurrently, but the writer gets to run alone.
Chris Conway
@erickson I agree. This is a better solution (to a sort of a fake problem) than some offered, but not a good solution.
Chris Conway
chris, wasn't that exactly what we wanted to tell him? i.e that only one threads gets into the critical section and no other thread concurrently? in your code, you have exactly the same stuff like if you did it with synchronized, as far as i can tell.
Johannes Schaub - litb
@litb If the main thread is not in the critical sections, then how many other threads are runnable? Look at the docs for ReadWriteLock.
Chris Conway
A: 

Actually, you can do this if you control the thread instance you are running on. Obviously, there are a ton of caveats on this (like hanging io operations), but essentially you can subclass Thread and override the interrupt() method. you can then put some sort of boolean in place such that when you flip a flag, interrupt() calls on your thread are either ignored or better yet stored for later.

james
Normal Thread scheduling in Java is something entirely different from interrupting a Thread. This approach isn't going to do it.
Mocky
+2  A: 

You really need to leave more info.

You cannot stop other system processes from executing unless you run on a real-time OS. Is that what you mean?

You cannot stop garbage collection, etc unless you run a real-time java. Is that what you wanted?

The only thing left is: If you simply want all YOUR other java threads to not interrupt each other because they all tend to access some resource willy-nilly without control, you are doing it wrong. Design it correctly so that objects/data that NEED to be accessed in a synchronized manner are synchronized then don't worry about other threads interrupting you because your synchronized objects are safe.

Did I miss any possible cases?

Bill K
Yes you did. Assuming that somebody is doing it wrong just because you can't think of cases in which this would be desirable is not being constructive.
I suppose the other case is that you didn't ask the right question. If your question was "How can I make this section of code perform as well as possible", then you shouldn't be asking about interrupts, you should be looking into thread priorities.
Bill K
Would you agree that if I had displayed more knowledge of java implemantation details you would have anwsered differently? Or not at all maybe?
No, I honestly can't see any other reason to do what you are asking. You still haven't clarified. Is it for performance, or safety (Both of which I addressed) or is there some third possibility you are keeping secret? You said there was a third possibility, but didn't elaborate, I'm quite curious
Bill K
A: 

Before a thread is interrupted, security manager's checkAccess() method is called. Implement your own security manager, call System.setSecurityManager to install it and make sure it doesn't let any other thread interrupt you while it is in critical section.

Yoni Roit
This sounds interesting. You actually ever did this?
+1  A: 

Using the synchronized approach ( in the various forms posted here ) doesn't help at all.

That approach only helps to make sure that one thread executes the critical section at a time, but this is not what you want. You need to to prevent the thread from being interrupted.

The read/write lock seems to help, but makes no difference since no other thread is attempting to use the write lock.

It only makes the application a little slower because the JVM has to perform extra validations to execute the synchronized section ( used only by one thread , thus a waste of CPU )

Actually in the way you have it, the thread is not "really" being interrupted. But it seems like it does, because it has to yield CPU time to other threads. The way threads works is; the CPU gives to each thread a chance to run for a little while for very shorts periods of time. Even one when a single thread running, that thread is yielding CPU time with other threads of other applications ( Assuming a single processor machine to keep the discussion simple ).

That's probably the reason it seems to you like the thread is being paused/interrupted from time to time, because the system is letting each thread in the app run for a little while.

So, what can you do?

To increase the perception of no interruptions, one thing you can do is assign a higher priority to your thread and decrease it for the rest.

If all the threads have the same priority one possible schedule of threads 1,2,3 could be like this:

evenly distributed

1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2,3

While setting max for 1, and min for 2,3 it could be like this:

More cpu to thread 1

1,1,1,2,1,1,3,1,1,1,2,1,1,1,3,1,2,1,1,1

For a thread to be interrupted by another thread, it has to be in an interruptable state, achieved by calling, Object.wait, Thread.join, or Thread.sleep

Below some amusing code to experiment.


Code 1: Test how to change the priority of the threads. See the patterns on the ouput.

public class Test {
    public static void main( String [] args ) throws InterruptedException {
        Thread one = new Thread(){
            public void run(){
                while ( true ) {
                    System.out.println("eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee");
                }
            }
        };
        Thread two = new Thread(){
            public void run(){
                while ( true ) {
                    System.out.println(".............................................");
                }
            }
        };
        Thread three = new Thread(){
            public void run(){
                while ( true ) {
                    System.out.println("------------------------------------------");
                }
            }
        };

        // Try uncommenting this one by one and see the difference.

        //one.setPriority( Thread.MAX_PRIORITY );
        //two.setPriority( Thread.MIN_PRIORITY );
        //three.setPriority( Thread.MIN_PRIORITY );
        one.start();
        two.start();
        three.start();

        // The code below makes no difference
        // because "one" is not interruptable
        Thread.sleep( 10000 ); // This is the "main" thread, letting the others thread run for aprox 10 secs.
        one.interrupt();  // Nice try though.
    }
}

Code 2. Sample of how can be a thread actually be interrupted ( while sleeping in this case )

public class X{
    public static void main( String [] args ) throws InterruptedException  {
        Thread a = new Thread(){ 

            public void run(){ 

                int i = 1 ; 
                while ( true ){ 
                    if ( i++ % 100 == 0 ) try {
                        System.out.println("Sleeping...");
                        Thread.sleep(500);
                    } catch ( InterruptedException ie ) {
                        System.out.println( "I was interrpted from my sleep. We all shall die!! " );
                        System.exit(0);
                    }
                    System.out.print("E,"); 
                }
            }

         };
        a.start();


        Thread.sleep( 3000 ); // Main thread letting run "a" for 3 secs. 
        a.interrupt(); // It will succeed only if the thread is in an interruptable state
    }
}
OscarRyz