Under what conditions will BlockingQueue.take thro

问题:

Let us suppose that I have a thread that consumes items produced by another thread. Its run method is as follows, with inQueue being a BlockingQueue

boolean shutdown = false;
while (!shutdown) {
    try {
        WorkItem w = inQueue.take();
        w.consume();
    } catch (InterruptedException e) { 
        shutdown = true;
    }
}

Furthermore, a different thread will signal that there are no more work items by interrupting this running thread. Will take() throw an interrupted exception if it does not need to block to retrieve the next work item. i.e. if the producer signals that it is done filling the work queue, is it possible to accidentally leave some items in inQueue or miss the interrupt?

回答1:

A good way to signal termination of a blocking queue is to submit a 'poison' value into the queue that indicates a shutdown has occurred. This ensures that the expected behavior of the queue is honored. Calling Thread.interupt() is probably not a good idea if you care about clearing the queue.

To provide some code:

boolean shutdown = false;
while (!shutdown) {
    try {
        WorkItem w = inQueue.take();
        if (w == QUEUE_IS_DEAD)
          shutdown = true;
        else
          w.consume();
    } catch (InterruptedException e) { 
        // possibly submit QUEUE_IS_DEAD to the queue
    }
}

回答2:

According to javadoc, the take() method will throw InterruptedException if interrupted while waiting.

回答3:

I wondered about the same thing and reading the javadoc for take() I believed that it would throw an interrupted exception only after having taken all the items in the queue, since if the queue had items, it would not have to "wait". But I made a small test:

package se.fkykko.slask;
import java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicLong;

public class BlockingQueueTakeTest {

public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
    Runner t = new Runner();
    Thread t1 = new Thread(t);
    for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++) {
        t.queue.add(i);
    }
    System.out.println(("Number of items in queue: " + t.queue.size()));
    t1.start();
    Thread.sleep(1000);
    t1.interrupt();
    t1.join();
    System.out.println(("Number of items in queue: " + t.queue.size()));
    System.out.println(("Joined t1. Finished"));

}

private static final class Runner implements Runnable {
    BlockingQueue<Integer> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Integer>(100);
    AtomicLong m_count = new AtomicLong(0);

    @Override
    public void run() {
        try {
            while (true) {
                queue.take();
                System.out.println("Took item " + m_count.incrementAndGet());
                final long start = System.currentTimeMillis();
                while ((System.currentTimeMillis() - start) < 100) {
                    Thread.yield(); //Spin wait
                }
            }
        }
        catch (InterruptedException ex) {
            System.out.println("Interrupted. Count: " + m_count.get());
        }
    }
}

}

The runner will take 10-11 items and then finish i.e. take() will throw InterruptedException even if there still is items in the queue.

Summary: Use the Poison pill approach instead, then you have full control over how much is left in the queue.

回答4:

You can't in general interrupt the threads of an ExecutorService from external code if you used ExecutorService::execute(Runnable) to start the threads, because external code does not have a reference to the Thread objects of each of the running threads (see the end of this answer for a solution though, if you need ExecutorService::execute). However, if you instead use ExecutorService::submit(Callable<T>) to submit the jobs, you get back a Future<T>, which internally keeps a reference to the running thread once Callable::call() begins execution. This thread can be interrupted by calling Future::cancel(true). Any code within (or called by) the Callable that checks the current thread's interrupt status can therefore be interrupted via the Future reference. This includes BlockingQueue::take(), which, even when blocked, will respond to thread interruption. (JRE blocking methods will typically wake up if interrupted while blocked, realize they have been interrupted, and throw an InterruptedException.)

To summarize: Future::cancel() and Future::cancel(true) both cancel future work, while Future::cancel(true) also interrupts ongoing work (as long as the ongoing work responds to thread interrupt). Neither of the two cancel invocations affects work that has already successfully completed.

Note that once a thread is interrupted by cancellation, an InterruptException will be thrown within the thread (e.g. by BlockingQueue::take() in this case). However, you a CancellationException will be thrown back in the main thread the next time you call Future::get() on a successfully cancelled Future (i.e. a Future that was cancelled before it completed). This is different from what you would normally expect: if a non-cancelled Callable throws InterruptedException, the next call to Future::get() will throw InterruptedException, but if a cancelled Callable throws InterruptedException, the next call to Future::get() will through CancellationException.

Here's an example that illustrates this:

import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.Callable;
import java.util.concurrent.CancellationException;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.Future;
import java.util.concurrent.LinkedBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor;

public class Test {
    public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
        // Start Executor with 4 threads
        int numThreads = 4;
        ThreadPoolExecutor executor = (ThreadPoolExecutor) Executors.newFixedThreadPool(numThreads);
        try {
            // Set up BlockingQueue for inputs, and List<Future> for outputs
            BlockingQueue<Integer> queue = new LinkedBlockingQueue<Integer>();
            List<Future<String>> futures = new ArrayList<>(numThreads);
            for (int i = 0; i < numThreads; i++) {
                int threadIdx = i;
                futures.add(executor.submit(new Callable<String>() {
                    @Override
                    public String call() throws Exception {
                        try {
                            // Get an input from the queue (blocking)
                            int val = queue.take();
                            return "Thread " + threadIdx + " got value " + val;
                        } catch (InterruptedException e) {
                            // Thrown once Future::cancel(true) is called
                            System.out.println("Thread " + threadIdx + " got interrupted");
                            // This value is returned to the Future, but can never
                            // be read, since the caller will get a CancellationException
                            return "Thread " + threadIdx + " got no value";
                        }
                    }
                }));
            }

            // Enqueue (numThreads - 1) values into the queue, so that one thread blocks
            for (int i = 0; i < numThreads - 1; i++) {
                queue.add(100 + i);
            }

            // Cancel all futures
            for (int i = 0; i < futures.size(); i++) {
                Future<String> future = futures.get(i);
                // Cancel the Future -- this doesn't throw an exception until
                // the get() method is called
                future.cancel(/* mayInterruptIfRunning = */ true);
                try {
                    System.out.println(future.get());
                } catch (CancellationException e) {
                    System.out.println("Future " + i + " was cancelled");
                }
            }
        } finally {
            // Terminate main after all threads have shut down (this call does not block,
            // so main will exit before the threads stop running)
            executor.shutdown();
        }
    }
}

Each time you run this, the output will be different, but here's one run:

Future 1 was cancelled
Future 0 was cancelled
Thread 2 got value 100
Thread 3 got value 101
Thread 1 got interrupted

This shows that Thread 2 and Thread 3 completed before Future::cancel() was called. Thread 1 was cancelled, so internally InterruptedException was thrown, and externally CancellationException was thrown. Thread 0 was cancelled before it started running. (Note that the thread indices won't in general correlate with the Future indices, so Future 0 was cancelled could correspond to either thread 0 or thread 1 being cancelled, and the same for Future 1 was cancelled.)

Advanced: one way to achieve the same effect with Executor::execute (which does not return a Future reference) rather than Executor::submit would be to create a ThreadPoolExecutor with a custom ThreadFactory, and have your ThreadFactory record a reference in a concurrent collection (e.g. a concurrent queue) for every thread created. Then to cancel all threads, you can simply call Thread::interrupt() on all previously-created threads. However, you will need to deal with the race condition that new threads may be created while you are interrupting existing threads. To handle this, set an AtomicBoolean flag, visible to the ThreadFactory, that tells it not to create any more threads, then once that is set, cancel the existing threads.

回答5:

The java.concurrency.utils package was designed and implemented by some of the finest minds in concurrent programming. Also, interrupting threads as a means to terminate them is explicitly endorsed by their book "Java Concurrency in Practice". Therefore, I would be extremely surprised if any items were left in the queue due to an interrupt.