multiple threads accessing an ArrayList

Question

i have an ArrayList that's used to buffer data so that other threads can read them

this array constantly has data added to it since it's reading from a udp source, and the other threads constantly reading from that array.Then the data is removed from the array.

this is not the actual code but a simplified example :

 public class PacketReader implements Runnable{

   pubic static ArrayList<Packet> buffer = new ArrayList() ;
    @Override 
    public void run(){
    while(bActive){
    //read from udp source and add data to the array
  }
 }

 public class Player implements Runnable(){

 @Override 
 public void run(){


 //read packet from buffer
 //decode packets

 // now for the problem :

 PacketReader.buffer.remove(the packet that's been read);
     }
   }

The remove() method removes packets from the array and then shifts all the packets on the right to the left to cover the void.

My concern is : since the buffer is constantly being added to and read from by multiple threads , would the remove() method make issues since its gonna have to shift packets to the left?

i mean if .add() or .get() methods get called on that arraylist at the same time that shift is being done would it be a problem ?

i do get index out of bounds exception sometimes and its something like : index : 100 size 300 , which is strange cuz index is within size , so i want to know if this is what may possibly be causing the problem or should i look for other problems .

thank you

possible duplicate of Best Java thread-safe locking mechanism for collections? — aruisdante
– aruisdante, Commented Jul 23, 2014 at 18:21
Basically, yes, you'd expect to get ConcurrentModificationException out of this if you were using an Iterator. Best to use something else entirely. — markspace
– markspace, Commented Jul 23, 2014 at 18:24
never had this error , thats what is confusing me ... i guess its not the problem ? — vlatkozelka
– vlatkozelka, Commented Jul 23, 2014 at 18:26
ConcurrentModificationException is a symptom of multiple accesses to the structure that are sufficiently organized that they are detected by the implementation. For this sort of uncontrolled parallel access, I would expect wrong answers instead. — Patricia Shanahan
– Patricia Shanahan, Commented Jul 23, 2014 at 18:37

yshavit · Accepted Answer · 2014-07-23 18:40:05Z

7

It sounds like what you really want is a BlockingQueue. ArrayBlockingQueue is probably a good choice. If you need an unbounded queue and don't care about extra memory utilization (relative to ArrayBlockingQueue), LinkedBlockingQueue also works.

It lets you push items in and pop them out, in a thread-safe and efficient way. The behavior of those pushes and pops can differ (what happens when you try to push to a full queue, or pop from an empty one?), and the JavaDocs for the BlockingQueue interface have a table that shows all of these behaviors nicely.

A thread-safe List (regardless of whether it comes from synchronizedList or CopyOnWriteArrayList) isn't actually enough, because your use case uses a classic check-then-act pattern, and that's inherently racy. Consider this snippet:

if(!list.isEmpty()) {
    Packet p = list.remove(0); // remove the first item
    process(p);
}

Even if list is thread-safe, this usage is not! What if list has one element during the "if" check, but then another thread removes it before you get to remove(0)?

You can get around this by synchronizing around both actions:

Pattern p;
synchronized (list) {
    if (list.isEmpty()) {
        p = null;
    } else {
        p = list.remove(0);
    }
}
if (p != null) {
    process(p);  // we don't want to call process(..) while still synchronized!
}

This is less efficient and takes more code than a BlockingQueue, though, so there's no reason to do it.

edited Jul 23, 2014 at 18:40

answered Jul 23, 2014 at 18:32

yshavit

43.7k8 gold badges89 silver badges127 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

2 Comments

Leon Over a year ago

Agreed, from the question it sounds like this will be the best solution

vlatkozelka Over a year ago

replaced ArrayList with ArrayBlockingQueue , and add()/remove() with put() take() ... less cpu and memory usage , and no crashes :)

NESPowerGlove · Accepted Answer · 2014-07-23 18:35:40Z

3

Yes there would be problems because ArrayList is not thread-safe, the internal state of the ArrayList object would be corrupted and eventually you would have some incorrect output or runtime exceptions appearing. You can try using synchronizedList(List list), or if it's a good fit you could try using a CopyOnWriteArrayList.

This issue is the Producer–consumer problem. You can see how much people fix it by using a lock of some kind taking turns extracting an object out of a buffer (a List in your case). There are thread safe buffer implementations you could look at as well if you don't necessarily need a List.

edited Jul 23, 2014 at 18:35

answered Jul 23, 2014 at 18:28

NESPowerGlove

5,49619 silver badges28 bronze badges

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

multiple threads accessing an ArrayList

2 Answers 2

2 Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Linked

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

2 Answers 2

2 Comments

Comments

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Linked

Related