Java busy wait sleep

How to deal with: Call to ‘Thread.sleep()’ in a loop, probably busy-waiting

I need to pause current thread for 2 seconds to wait file to be filled, but my Intelij Rise an issue here. And also I am getting error from sonar: SonarLint: Either re-interrupt this method or rethrow the «InterruptedException». I’ve tried already with many ExecutorService , but it is always run in seperate thread, and I need to pause current one. Please help..

May be this will help stackoverflow.com/questions/54394042/…. For your exception, you are just logging it and the while loop continues. That is a potential candidate for an infinite loop I guess

2 Answers 2

The busy-waiting warning

This is a warning coming from intellij that is dubious, in the sense that what you’re doing is often just straight up required. In other words, it is detecting a pattern that is overused, but whose usage cannot be reduced to 0. So, likely the right solution is to just tell intellij to shut up about it here.

The problem it is looking at is not that Thread.sleep . That is not the problem. However, intellij’s detector of this pattern needs it to find this case, but it is not what it is complaining about, which might be a little hard to wrap your head around.

What IntelliJ is worried about, is that you’re wasting cycles continually rechecking log.isEmpty() for no reason. It has a problem with the while aspect of this code, not the sleep. It would prefer to see code where you invoke some sort of logs.poll() method which will just wait until it is actively woken up by the act of new logs appearing.

If this is all running within a single java process, then you can indeed rewrite this entire system (which includes rewrites to whatever log is here, and a complete re-imagining of the checkLogs() method: Instead of going out and checking, whatever is making logs needs to wake up this code instead.

If it’s not, it is likely that you need to tell intellij to shut it: What you are doing is unavoidable without a complete systems redesign.

The re-interrupt warning

You have some deplorable exception handling here.

Your exception handling in general

Do not write catch blocks that log something and keep moving. This is really bad error handling: The system’s variables and fields are now in an unknown state (you just caught and logged some stuff: Surely that means you have no idea what conditions have occurred to cause this line of execution to happen!), and yet code will move right along. It is extremely likely that ‘catch exceptions and just keep going’ style code results in more exceptions down the line: Generally, code that operates on unknown state is going to crash and burn sooner rather than later.

Then, if that crash-and-burn is dealt with in the same fashion (catch it, log it, keep going), then you get another crash-and-burn. You end up with code that will, upon hitting a problem, print 186 exceptions to the log and they are all utterly irrelevant except the first one. That’s bad yuyu.

You’re also making it completely impossible for calling code to recover. The point of exceptions is that they need to bubble upwards endlessly: Either the exception is caught by code that actually knows how to deal with the problem (and logging it is not dealing with it!), which you are making impossible, or, the code exception should bubble up all the way to the entry-point handler which is the right place to log the error and abort the entry-point handler.

An entry-point handler is a generic module or application runner; out of the box, the code baked into java.exe itself that ends up invoking your psv main() method is the most obvious ‘entry point runner’, but there’s more: Web frameworks will eventually invoke some code of yours that is supposed to handle a web request: That code of yours is analogous to psv main() : It is the entry-point, and the code in the web framework that invokes it, is the entry-point runner.

Entry-point runners have a good reason to catch (Throwable t) , and to spend their catch block primarily logging it, though they should generally log a lot more than just the exception (a web handler should for example log the request details, such as which HTTP params were sent and which path request it was, maybe the headers, etc). Any other code should never do this, though.

If you have no idea what to do and don’t want to think about what that exception might mean, the correct ‘whatever, just compile already javac’ code strategy is to add the exception type to your throws line. If that is not feasible, the right code in the catch block is:

> catch (ExceptionIDoNotWantToThinkAboutRightNow e)

This will ensure that code will not just merrily continue onwards, operating on unknown state, and will ensure you get complete details in logs, and ensures that calling code can catch and deal with it if it can, and ensures that any custom logging info such as the HTTP request details get a chance to make it to the logs. Win-win-win-win.

This case in particular: What does InterruptedEx mean?

When some code running in that java process invokes yourThread.interrupt() , that is how InterruptedException can happen, and it cannot possibly happen in any other way. If the user hits CTRL+C, or goes into task manager and clicks ‘end process’, or if your android phone decides it is time for your app to get out as the memory is needed for something else — none of those cases can possibly result in InterruptedExceptions. Your threads just get killed midstep by java (if you want to act on shutdowns, use Runtime.getRuntime().addShutdownHook ). The only way is for some code to call .interrupt() , and nothing in the core libs is going to do that. Thus, InterruptedException means whatever you think ‘call .interrupt() on this thread’ means. It is up to you.

The most common definition is effectively ‘I ask you to stop’: Just shut down the thread nicely. Generally it is bad to try to shut down threads nicely if you want to exit the entire VM (just invoke System.shutdown — you already need to deal with users hitting CTRL+C, why write shutdown code twice in different ways?) — but sometimes you just want one thread to stop. So, usually the best code to put in a catch (InterruptedException e) block is just return; and nothing else. Don’t log anything: The ‘interrupt’ is intentional: You wrote it. Most likely that is nowhere in your code base and the InterruptedException is moot: It won’t ever happen.

In your specific code, what happens if your code decides to stop the logger thread is that the logger thread will log something to the error logs, and will then shortcut its 2 second wait period to immediately check the logs, and then just keeps going. That sounds completely useless.

But, it means whatever you want it to. If you want an ability for e.g. the user to hit a ‘force check the logs right now’ button, then you can define that interrupting the logging thread just shortcuts the 2 seconds (but then just have an empty catch block with a comment explaining that this is how you designed it, obviously don’t log it). If you ALSO want a button to ‘stop the logging thread’, have an AtomicBoolean that tracks ‘running’ state: When the ‘stop log-refreshes’ button is hit, set the AB to ‘false’ and then interrupt the thread: Then the code you pasted needs to check the AB and return; to close the thread if it is false .

Источник

Thread.sleep and object.wait [duplicate]

Both are trying to do the similar thing, which is make some effect on thread. I know that thread.sleep is to let the CURRENT thread to sleep and wait can let any thread to wait, if they are trying to get the object’s lock. The question is, most of the time they are doing the similar thing — what makes you choose one over another?

4 Answers 4

No, Object.wait() will only ever cause the current thread to block, too.

The main difference is that sleep() instructs the current thread to sleep for a period of time, whereas wait() instructs the current thread to release a monitor, then sleep until the monitor is notified. In other words, wait() is a coordination primitive between threads, whereas sleep() only cares about the passage of time (assuming no interruptions).

Sleep and Wait looks deciving, They differ by a lot :

Sleep — makes the Thread sleep for a given amount of time — good for Schedualing tasks, Animations and more.

Wait — mostly used without limit of time, makes one thread Wait for something to heppen, this is the best practice for synchronization.

if youre trying to Implement Wait by using Sleep, thats bad practice, which somewhat close to some very bad thing called Busy Waiting.

One is used to synchronize Threads together while the other one is used to sleep for a given amount of time.

If you want to synchronize Threads together, user wait/notify. If you want to sleep for a known amount of time, use Thread.sleep.

These two methods do very different things: Thread.sleep waits a specified amount of time while Object.wait waits for a notify event (which may take arbitrary amount of time to happen).

Both can only put the current thread to sleep. Also, Object.wait requires that the current thread is holding the monitor associated with the object.

Highly active question. Earn 10 reputation (not counting the association bonus) in order to answer this question. The reputation requirement helps protect this question from spam and non-answer activity.

Linked

Related

Hot Network Questions

Site design / logo © 2023 Stack Exchange Inc; user contributions licensed under CC BY-SA . rev 2023.7.27.43548

By clicking “Accept all cookies”, you agree Stack Exchange can store cookies on your device and disclose information in accordance with our Cookie Policy.

Источник