我在使用Java 6的ThreadPoolExecutor时遇到了一个奇怪的问题。当我不时动态地更改corePoolSize时,我观察到线程池未处理应做的任务。
例如,如果我有4个corePoolSize且队列中有许多任务等待执行,则执行程序最多只能处理3个,有时甚至要处理2个。
在调查问题时,我注意到当我增加或减少corePoolSize时,我从未更改过maxPoolSize。从我的应用程序开始,它始终为1。
在Java文档中从未发现有声明提到maxPoolSize的作用小于核心。
然后,当我检查源代码时,我注意到在costructor和setCorePoolSize方法中,都会检查是否在maximumPoolSize小于corePoolSize的情况下抛出异常ArgumentException。查看以下代码。
建设者
public ThreadPoolExecutor(
int corePoolSize,
int maximumPoolSize,
long keepAliveTime,
TimeUnit unit,
BlockingQueue<Runnable> workQueue,
ThreadFactory threadFactory,
RejectedExecutionHandler handler
) {
if (corePoolSize < 0 ||
maximumPoolSize <= 0 ||
maximumPoolSize < corePoolSize ||
keepAliveTime < 0)
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
if (workQueue == null || threadFactory == null || handler == null)
throw new NullPointerException();
this.corePoolSize = corePoolSize;
this.maximumPoolSize = maximumPoolSize;
this.workQueue = workQueue;
this.keepAliveTime = unit.toNanos(keepAliveTime);
this.threadFactory = threadFactory;
this.handler = handler;
}
设置最大池大小
public void setMaximumPoolSize(int maximumPoolSize) {
if (maximumPoolSize <= 0 || maximumPoolSize < corePoolSize)
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
final ReentrantLock mainLock = this.mainLock;
mainLock.lock();
try {
int extra = this.maximumPoolSize - maximumPoolSize;
this.maximumPoolSize = maximumPoolSize;
if (extra > 0 && poolSize > maximumPoolSize) {
try {
Iterator<Worker> it = workers.iterator();
while (it.hasNext() &&
extra > 0 &&
poolSize > maximumPoolSize) {
it.next().interruptIfIdle();
--extra;
}
} catch (SecurityException ignore) {
// Not an error; it is OK if the threads stay live
}
}
} finally {
mainLock.unlock();
}
}
因此,显然这是不希望的情况。但是在setCorePoolSize中没有检查,这会导致maximumPoolSize最终小于corePoolSize,并且这种情况的影响没有记录。
设置核心池大小
public void setCorePoolSize(int corePoolSize) {
if (corePoolSize < 0)
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
final ReentrantLock mainLock = this.mainLock;
mainLock.lock();
try {
int extra = this.corePoolSize - corePoolSize;
this.corePoolSize = corePoolSize;
if (extra < 0) {
int n = workQueue.size(); // don't add more threads than tasks
while (extra++ < 0 && n-- > 0 && poolSize < corePoolSize) {
Thread t = addThread(null);
if (t == null)
break;
}
}
else if (extra > 0 && poolSize > corePoolSize) {
try {
Iterator<Worker> it = workers.iterator();
while (it.hasNext() &&
extra-- > 0 &&
poolSize > corePoolSize &&
workQueue.remainingCapacity() == 0)
it.next().interruptIfIdle();
} catch (SecurityException ignore) {
// Not an error; it is OK if the threads stay live
}
}
} finally {
mainLock.unlock();
}
}
您不认为应该有一种机制来阻止这种情况的发生吗?
最佳答案
我认为,您是对的,应该进行类似的测试
if (corePoolSize < 0 || corePoolSize > maxPoolSize)
throw new IllegalArgumentException();
但是您可以在调用
setCorePoolSize
之前轻松进行测试,并在必要时调整最大池大小。即使在那里进行了这样的测试,您也必须在调用setCorePoolSize
之前检查最大池大小,以避免得到IllegalArgumentException
...