Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #32937 > unrolled thread

thread sleeping until event

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.java.programmer

Contents

  thread sleeping until event Philipp Kraus <philipp.kraus.flashpixx@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 02:41 -0700
    Re: thread sleeping until event Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-10-27 08:36 -0400
      Re: thread sleeping until event Philipp Kraus <philipp.kraus.flashpixx@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 14:22 -0700

#32937 — thread sleeping until event

Hello,

I have got a main thread running which can be stay in a pause definition. At the moment the main structure is:

volatile boolean mypause = true;

public voud run()
{
while (true)
{
    if (mypause)
         Thread.sleep(1000);

    // thread is working

}
}

public void pause()
{
   mypause = !mypause;
}




If mypause is switch to false the thread should running. So my question is, how can I do a good pause state, so the thread create minimal system  load.

Thanks a lot

Phil

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#32938

On 10/27/2015 5:41 AM, Philipp Kraus wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have got a main thread running which can be stay in a pause definition. At the moment the main structure is:
>
> volatile boolean mypause = true;
>
> public voud run()
> {
> while (true)
> {
>      if (mypause)
>           Thread.sleep(1000);
>
>      // thread is working
>
> }
> }
>
> public void pause()
> {
>     mypause = !mypause;
> }
>
>
>
>
> If mypause is switch to false the thread should running. So my question is, how can I do a good pause state, so the thread create minimal system  load.

     There are several ways.  The "traditional" approach is to use
wait() and notify() or notifyAll():

	private boolean paused = true;

	public void run() {
	    while (true) {
	        synchronized(this) {
	            while(paused) {
	                this.wait();
	            }
	        }
	        do_work();
	    }
	}

	public synchronized void pauseOrResume() {
	    paused = !paused;
	    this.notifyAll();
	}

(I wrote the "this." pieces for clarity's sake; they could be omitted.)

     A few remarks:

     - Your pause() method, which I renamed to pauseOrResume() to better
       indicate what it does, seems peculiar.  An external agency might
       know when it wants the thread to start working, but it won't know
       when to tell the thread *not* to work: It doesn't know whether the
       thread has or has not yet seen the "Go" sign.

     - Along the same lines, I find it surprising that the worker thread
       does not set `paused' to true after (or before) do_work().  As it
       stands, the thread will just run and run and run until an external
       caller flips the `paused' switch.

     - The pause() method in your original code is *not* thread-safe.  It
       manipulates a `volatile' variable, yes, but it both reads *and*
       writes the value.  The read is thread-safe and so is the write,
       but the two operations taken as a pair are not.  That's why I used
       `synchronized' to guard the variable.

-- 
esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
"Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#32943

Am Dienstag, 27. Oktober 2015 13:37:02 UTC+1 schrieb Eric Sosman:
> On 10/27/2015 5:41 AM, Philipp Kraus wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have got a main thread running which can be stay in a pause definition. At the moment the main structure is:
> >
> > volatile boolean mypause = true;
> >
> > public voud run()
> > {
> > while (true)
> > {
> >      if (mypause)
> >           Thread.sleep(1000);
> >
> >      // thread is working
> >
> > }
> > }
> >
> > public void pause()
> > {
> >     mypause = !mypause;
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If mypause is switch to false the thread should running. So my question is, how can I do a good pause state, so the thread create minimal system  load.
> 
>      There are several ways.  The "traditional" approach is to use
> wait() and notify() or notifyAll():
> 
> 	private boolean paused = true;
> 
> 	public void run() {
> 	    while (true) {
> 	        synchronized(this) {
> 	            while(paused) {
> 	                this.wait();
> 	            }
> 	        }
> 	        do_work();
> 	    }
> 	}
> 
> 	public synchronized void pauseOrResume() {
> 	    paused = !paused;
> 	    this.notifyAll();
> 	}
> 
> (I wrote the "this." pieces for clarity's sake; they could be omitted.)
> 
>      A few remarks:
> 
>      - Your pause() method, which I renamed to pauseOrResume() to better
>        indicate what it does, seems peculiar.  An external agency might
>        know when it wants the thread to start working, but it won't know
>        when to tell the thread *not* to work: It doesn't know whether the
>        thread has or has not yet seen the "Go" sign.
> 
>      - Along the same lines, I find it surprising that the worker thread
>        does not set `paused' to true after (or before) do_work().  As it
>        stands, the thread will just run and run and run until an external
>        caller flips the `paused' switch.
> 
>      - The pause() method in your original code is *not* thread-safe.  It
>        manipulates a `volatile' variable, yes, but it both reads *and*
>        writes the value.  The read is thread-safe and so is the write,
>        but the two operations taken as a pair are not.  That's why I used
>        `synchronized' to guard the variable.
> 
> -- 
> esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid
> "Don't be afraid of work. Make work afraid of you." -- TLM


Thanks for your help, the synchronize was the solution :-)
The other hints are existing on my code, but I don't write it to the post, because I would short the code. 
Synchronize, renaming and thread-safe structure are implemented

Thanks

Phil

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.java.programmer

csiph-web