Why doesn't ScheduledExecutorService spawn threads as needed?

Question

In my application I use ScheduledExecutorService, but only one thread is spawned to handle the scheduled tasks. Is this because ScheduledExecutorService does not spawn threads to handle the pending tasks?

Here is a code snippet that will output only "run() 1" instead of the expected "run() 1" followed by "run() 2" ... "run() 10."

public class App {

    public static void main(String[] args) {
        int N = 10;
        Runnable runner = new Runnable() {

            public void run() {
                foo();
            }
        };
        for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
            executor.schedule(runner, i, TimeUnit.MILLISECONDS);
        }
    }

    private static void foo() {
        System.out.println("run() " + (++n));
        synchronized (executor) {
            try {
                executor.wait();
            } catch (InterruptedException ex) {
                Logger.getLogger(App.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
            }
        }
        System.out.println("finished()");
    }
    private static Logger logger = Logger.getLogger(App.class.getName());
    private static int n = 0;
    private static ScheduledExecutorService executor = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1);
}

Related: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3353002/why-does-scheduledthreadpoolexecutor-only-accept-a-fixed-number-of-threads — AlikElzin-kilaka, Feb 27 '17 at 20:39
Related: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/42495659/how-to-create-a-scheduledexecutorservice-bound-by-only-the-cpu-usage — AlikElzin-kilaka, Feb 27 '17 at 20:59

score 15 · Accepted Answer · edited Feb 27 '17 at 19:29

15

There is only one thread because you create the thread pool with Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1), which means that the thread pool contains only 1 thread. If you want 10 threads, pass 10 as argument. Note that the documentation of ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor, which is what this method returns, explicitly says that the thread pool has a fixed size.

edited Feb 27 '17 at 19:29

Matt Ball

354,903
100
647
710

answered Jul 26 '12 at 21:22

JB Nizet

678,734
91
1,224
1,255

1

THANK YOU! My problem is with the documentation of **Executors**.newScheduledThreadPool(), which explicitly **does not** state this feature and the used variable name and the identical description everywhere suggests differently. – Ivin Feb 11 '13 at 09:36

score 6 · Answer 2 · answered Jul 26 '12 at 21:20

From the javadoc for ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor:

While this class inherits from ThreadPoolExecutor, a few of the inherited tuning methods are not useful for it. In particular, because it acts as a fixed-sized pool using corePoolSize threads and an unbounded queue, adjustments to maximumPoolSize have no useful effect. Additionally, it is almost never a good idea to set corePoolSize to zero or use allowCoreThreadTimeOut because this may leave the pool without threads to handle tasks once they become eligible to run.

In other words, maximumPoolSize == corePoolSize. You set corePoolSize to 1, so that's all it will spawn.

Why doesn't ScheduledExecutorService spawn threads as needed?

2 Answers2

Linked