Java Multithreading - Threadsafe Counter

You could use the AtomicInteger. It is a class that can be incremented atomically, so two seperate threads calling its increment method do not interleave.

public class ThreadsExample implements Runnable {     static AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(1); // a global counter     public ThreadsExample() {     }     static void incrementCounter() {          System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": " + counter.getAndIncrement());     }     @Override     public void run() {          while(counter.get() < 1000){               incrementCounter();          }     }     public static void main(String[] args) {          ThreadsExample te = new ThreadsExample();          Thread thread1 = new Thread(te);          Thread thread2 = new Thread(te);          thread1.start();          thread2.start();               }}

Both threads have access to your variable.

The phenomenon you are seeing is called thread starvation. Upon entering the guarded portion of your code (sorry I missed this earlier), other threads will need to block until the thread holding the monitor is done (i.e. when the monitor is released). Whilst one may expect the current thread pass the monitor to the next thread waiting in line, for synchronized blocks, java does not guarantee any fairness or ordering policy to which thread next recieves the monitor. It is entirely possible (and even likely) for a thread that releases and attempts to reacquire the monitor to get hold of it over another thread that has been waiting for a while.

From Oracle:

Starvation describes a situation where a thread is unable to gain regular access to shared resources and is unable to make progress. This happens when shared resources are made unavailable for long periods by "greedy" threads. For example, suppose an object provides a synchronized method that often takes a long time to return. If one thread invokes this method frequently, other threads that also need frequent synchronized access to the same object will often be blocked.

Whilst both of your threads are examples of "greedy" threads (since they repeatedly release and reacquire the monitor), thread-0 is technically started first, thus starving thread-1.

The solution is to use a concurrent synchronization method that supports fairness (e.g. ReentrantLock) as shown below:

public class ThreadsExample implements Runnable {    static int counter = 1; // a global counter    static ReentrantLock counterLock = new ReentrantLock(true); // enable fairness policy    static void incrementCounter(){        counterLock.lock();        // Always good practice to enclose locks in a try-finally block        try{            System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + ": " + counter);            counter++;        }finally{             counterLock.unlock();        }     }    @Override    public void run() {        while(counter<1000){            incrementCounter();        }    }    public static void main(String[] args) {        ThreadsExample te = new ThreadsExample();        Thread thread1 = new Thread(te);        Thread thread2 = new Thread(te);        thread1.start();        thread2.start();              }}

note the removal of the synchronized keyword in favor of the ReentrantLock within the method. Such a system, with a fairness policy, allows long waiting threads a chance to execute, removing the starvation.

Well, with your code I don't know how to get "exactly" intermittently, but if you use Thread.yield() after call incrementCounter() you will have a better distribution.

public void run() {         while(counter<1000){              incrementCounter();              Thread.yield();         }    }

Otherwise, to get what you propose, you can create two different thread class (ThreadsExample1 and ThreadsExample2 if you want), and another class to be a shared variable.

public class SharedVariable {    private int value;    private boolean turn; //false = ThreadsExample1 --> true = ThreadsExample2    public SharedVariable (){        this.value = 0;        this.turn = false;    }    public void set (int v){        this.value = v;    }    public int get (){        return this.value;    }    public void inc (){        this.value++;    }    public void shiftTurn(){        if (this.turn){            this.turn=false;        }else{            this.turn=true;        }    }    public boolean getTurn(){        return this.turn;    }}

Now, the main can be:

public static void main(String[] args) {        SharedVariable vCom = new SharedVariable();        ThreadsExample1 hThread1 = new ThreadsExample1 (vCom);        ThreadsExample2 hThread2 = new ThreadsExample2 (vCom);        hThread1.start();        hThread2.start();        try {            hThread1.join();            hThread2.join();        } catch (InterruptedException e) {            e.printStackTrace();        }    }

And you have to change your line static int counter = 1; // a global counterfor private SharedVariable counter;

And the new run is:

public void run() {    for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) {        while (!counter.getTurno()){            Thread.yield();        }        System.out.println(this.counter.get());        this.counter.cambioTurno();    }}

}

Yes, it is another code, but I think it can help you a little bit.