In JDK 7, java.util.concurrent
includes a convenience class, ThreadLocalRandom
, for applications that expect to use random numbers from multiple threads or ForkJoinTask
s.
For concurrent access, using ThreadLocalRandom
instead of Math.random()
results in less contention and, ultimately, better performance.
All you need to do is call ThreadLocalRandom.current()
, then call one of its methods to retrieve a random number. Here is one example:
int r = ThreadLocalRandom.current() .nextInt(4, 77);
译文:
在JDK 7中,java.util.concurrent包括了一个便利的类,ThreadLocalRandom,对于应用程序希望用随机数在多线程中或者ForkJoinTasks.
对于并发使用,利用ThreadLocalRandom代替Math.Random()导致一些争议,基本上,性能上更好。
所有你要做的是调用ThreadLocalRandom.current(),然后调用它的方法重新获得一个随机数。这是一个实例:
int r = ThreadLocalRandom.current() .nextInt(4, 77);
译文:
进一步阅读
Thread
object to Executor.execute
? Would such an invocation make sense?BadThreads.java
:
public class BadThreads { static String message; private static class CorrectorThread extends Thread { public void run() { try { sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) {} // Key statement 1: message = "Mares do eat oats."; } } public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException { (new CorrectorThread()).start(); message = "Mares do not eat oats."; Thread.sleep(2000); // Key statement 2: System.out.println(message); } }
The application should print out "Mares do eat oats." Is it guaranteed to always do this? If not, why not? Would it help to change the parameters of the two invocations of Sleep
? How would you guarantee that all changes to message
will be visible in the main thread?
Drop
class.译文:
问题和练习:并发
问题:
1.你能用一个线程对象来执行Executor.execute吗?这样调用有意义吗?
练习:
1.编译和运行BadThreads.java:
1 public class BadThreads { 2 3 static String message; 4 5 private static class CorrectorThread 6 extends Thread { 7 8 public void run() { 9 try { 10 sleep(1000); 11 } catch (InterruptedException e) {} 12 // Key statement 1: 13 message = "Mares do eat oats."; 14 } 15 } 16 17 public static void main(String args[]) 18 throws InterruptedException { 19 20 (new CorrectorThread()).start(); 21 message = "Mares do not eat oats."; 22 Thread.sleep(2000); 23 // Key statement 2: 24 System.out.println(message); 25 } 26 }
这个程序应该打印出"Mares do eat oats."它是否保证一直这样做?如果不,为什么?它是否会改变这个睡眠参数?你会如何保证在主程序中所有的message都是可见的?
2.修改 Guarded Blocks节中生产者-消费者程序利用标准的类库程序代替Drop类。
Thread
object to Executor.execute
? Would such an invocation make sense? Why or why not? Answer: Thread
implements the Runnable
interface, so you can pass an instance of Thread
to Executor.execute
. However it doesn't make sense to useThread
objects this way. If the object is directly instantiated from Thread
, its run
method doesn't do anything. You can define a subclass ofThread
with a useful run
method — but such a class would implement features that the executor would not use.
BadThreads.java
:
public class BadThreads { static String message; private static class CorrectorThread extends Thread { public void run() { try { sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) {} // Key statement 1: message = "Mares do eat oats."; } } public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException { (new CorrectorThread()).start(); message = "Mares do not eat oats."; Thread.sleep(2000); // Key statement 2: System.out.println(message); } }
The application should print out "Mares do eat oats." Is it guaranteed to always do this? If not, why not? Would it help to change the parameters of the two invocations of Sleep
? How would you guarantee that all changes to message
will be visible to the main thread?
Solution: The program will almost always print out "Mares do eat oats." However, this result is not guaranteed, because there is no happens-before relationship between "Key statement 1" and "Key statment 2". This is true even if "Key statement 1" actually executes before "Key statement 2" — remember, a happens-before relationship is about visibility, not sequence.
There are two ways you can guarantee that all changes to message
will be visible to the main thread:
CorrectorThread
instance. Then invoke join
on that instance before referring to message
message
in an object with synchronized methods. Never reference message
except through those methods.Both of these techniques establish the necessary happens-before relationship, making changes to message
visible.
A third technique is to simply declare message
as volatile
. This guarantees that any write to message
(as in "Key statement 1") will have a happens-before relationship with any subsequent reads of message
(as in "Key statement 2"). But it does not guarantee that "Key statement 1" willliterally happen before "Key statement 2". They will probably happen in sequence, but because of scheduling uncertainities and the unknown granularity of sleep
, this is not guaranteed.
Changing the arguments of the two sleep
invocations does not help either, since this does nothing to guarantee a happens-before relationship.
Drop
class. Solution: The java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue
interface defines a get
method that blocks if the queue is empty, and a put
methods that blocks if the queue is full. These are effectively the same operations defined by Drop
— except that Drop
is not a queue! However, there's another way of looking at Drop: it's a queue with a capacity of zero. Since there's no room in the queue for any elements, every get
blocks until the corresponding take
and every take
blocks until the corresponding get
. There is an implementation of BlockingQueue
with precisely this behavior:java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue
.
BlockingQueue
is almost a drop-in replacement for Drop
. The main problem in Producer
is that with BlockingQueue
, the put
and get
methods throwInterruptedException
. This means that the existing try
must be moved up a level:
import java.util.Random; import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue; public class Producer implements Runnable { private BlockingQueue<String> drop; public Producer(BlockingQueue<String> drop) { this.drop = drop; } public void run() { String importantInfo[] = { "Mares eat oats", "Does eat oats", "Little lambs eat ivy", "A kid will eat ivy too" }; Random random = new Random(); try { for (int i = 0; i < importantInfo.length; i++) { drop.put(importantInfo[i]); Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(5000)); } drop.put("DONE"); } catch (InterruptedException e) {} } }
Consumer
:
import java.util.Random; import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue; public class Consumer implements Runnable { private BlockingQueue<String> drop; public Consumer(BlockingQueue<String> drop) { this.drop = drop; } public void run() { Random random = new Random(); try { for (String message = drop.take(); ! message.equals("DONE"); message = drop.take()) { System.out.format("MESSAGE RECEIVED: %s%n", message); Thread.sleep(random.nextInt(5000)); } } catch (InterruptedException e) {} } }
ProducerConsumerExample
, we simply change the declaration for the drop
object:
import java.util.concurrent.BlockingQueue; import java.util.concurrent.SynchronousQueue; public class ProducerConsumerExample { public static void main(String[] args) { BlockingQueue<String> drop = new SynchronousQueue<String> (); (new Thread(new Producer(drop))).start(); (new Thread(new Consumer(drop))).start(); } }
answer 就不翻了