I'm having trouble thinking of a way to properly implement a signalling mechanism for multiple listeners waiting in the same function for a producer to signal some new data continuously, without getting "signalled" for the same previous data-
I want all listeners to always see the latest available data (not caring about missed signals if they are busy), without repeats.
My attempt so far:
#include <functional>
#include <shared_mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <thread>
class Signaller {
public:
// Used by producer, will hold on to the mutex uniquely as it modifies data
void Signal(const std::function<void()>& fnIn) {
std::unique_lock lock(m_mtx);
fnIn();
m_newData = true;
m_cv.notify_all();
}
// Used by consumers, will only hold shared mutex to read data
void Wait(const std::function<void()>& fnIn) {
{
std::shared_lock lock(m_mtx);
m_cv.wait(lock, [this](){ return m_newData; });
fnIn();
}
// Need some way to flip m_newData to false when all threads are "done"
// (or some other method of preventing spurious wakeups)
// I don't think this is particularly ideal
{
std::unique_lock lock(m_mtx);
m_newData = false;
}
}
private:
std::condition_variable_any m_cv;
std::shared_mutex m_mtx;
bool m_newData{false}; // To prevent spurious wakeups
};
class Example {
public:
// Multiple threads will call this function in the same instance of Example
void ConsumerLoop()
{
int latestData{0};
while (true){
m_signaller.Wait([this, &latestData](){ latestData = m_latestData; });
// process latestData...
// I want to make sure latestData here is always the latest
// (It's OK to miss a few signals in between if its off processing this latest data)
}
}
// One thread will be using this to signal new data
void ProducerLoop(){
while(true){
int newData = rand();
m_signaller.Signal([this, newData](){ m_latestData = newData; });
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1));
}
}
private:
Signaller m_signaller;
int m_latestData;
};
My main issue (I think) is how to prevent spurious wakeups, while preventing repeated data from waking up the same thread. I've thought about using some sort of counter within each thread to keep track of whether it's receiving the same data, but couldn't get anywhere with that idea (unless I perhaps make some sort of map using std::this_thread::get_id?). Is there a better way to do this?
EDIT:
Expanding on my map of thread ID's idea, I think I've found a solution:
#include <functional>
#include <shared_mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <unordered_map>
#include <thread>
class Signaller {
public:
// Used by producer, will hold on to the mutex uniquely as it modifies data
void Signal(const std::function<void()>& fnIn) {
std::unique_lock lock(m_mtx);
fnIn();
m_ctr++;
m_cv.notify_all();
}
void RegisterWaiter(){
std::unique_lock lock(m_mtx);
auto [itr, emplaced] = m_threadCtrMap.try_emplace(std::this_thread::get_id(), m_ctr);
if (!emplaced) {
itr->second = m_ctr;
}
}
// Used by consumers, will only hold shared mutex to read data
void Wait(const std::function<void()>& fnIn) {
std::shared_lock lock(m_mtx);
m_cv.wait(lock, [this](){ return m_threadCtrMap[std::this_thread::get_id()] != m_ctr; });
fnIn();
m_threadCtrMap[std::this_thread::get_id()] = m_ctr;
}
private:
std::condition_variable_any m_cv;
std::shared_mutex m_mtx;
std::uint32_t m_ctr{0};
std::unordered_map<std::thread::id, std::uint32_t> m_threadCtrMap; // Stores the last signalled ctr for that thread
};
class Example {
public:
// Multiple threads will call this function in the same instance of Example
void ConsumerLoop()
{
int latestData{0};
m_signaller.RegisterWaiter();
while (true){
m_signaller.Wait([this, &latestData](){ latestData = m_latestData; });
}
}
// One thread will be using this to signal new data
void ProducerLoop(){
while(true){
int newData = rand();
m_signaller.Signal([this, newData](){ m_latestData = newData; });
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1));
}
}
private:
Signaller m_signaller;
int m_latestData;
};
Here's my implementation:
#include <unordered_map>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <shared_mutex>
#include <thread>
/*
Example usage:
struct MyClass {
MultiCVSignaller m_signaller;
int m_latestData;
std::atomic<bool> m_stop{false};
~MyClass(){
m_stop = true;
m_signaller.Shutdown();
}
void FuncToWaitOnData() { // e.g. Multiple threads call this fn to "subscribe" to the signal
auto& signalCtr = m_signaller.RegisterListener();
while(!m_stop.load(std::memory_order_relaxed)) {
int latestDataInLocalThread;
// WaitForSignal() calls the provided function while holding on to the shared mutex
m_signaller.WaitForSignal(signalCtr, [this, &latestDataInLocalThread](){
latestDataInLocalThread = m_latestData;
});
// Make use of latest data...
}
}
void ProducerLoop() {
while(!m_stop.load(std::memory_order_relaxed)) {
// Signal() holds on to the mutex uniquely while calling the provided function.
m_signaller.Signal([&latestData](){
m_latestData = rand();
});
}
}
};
*/
class MultiCVSignaller
{
public:
using SignalCtr = std::uint32_t;
public:
MultiCVSignaller() = default;
~MultiCVSignaller() { Shutdown(); }
/*
Call to set and signal shutdown state, cancelling waits (and skipping the functions provided if any)
This should be added in the class' destructor before threads are joined.
*/
void Shutdown() {
std::unique_lock lock(m_mtx);
m_shutdown = true;
m_cv.notify_all();
}
// Calls the function if specified while holding on to the mutex with a UNIQUE lock
template<class Func = void(*)()>
void Signal(Func fnIn = +[]{})
{
std::unique_lock lock(m_mtx);
fnIn();
m_ctr++;
m_cv.notify_all();
}
MultiCVSignaller::SignalCtr& RegisterListener(){
std::unique_lock lock(m_mtx);
auto [itr, emplaced] = m_threadCtrMap.try_emplace(std::this_thread::get_id(), m_ctr);
if (!emplaced) {
itr->second = m_ctr;
}
return itr->second;
}
/*
Calls the optional function while holding on to the SHARED lock when signalled. The signalCtr argument should be provided by the return of RegisterListener() (see example)
*/
template<class Func = void(*)()>
void WaitForSignal(MultiCVSignaller::SignalCtr& signalCtr, Func fnIn = +[]{})
{
std::shared_lock lock(m_mtx);
m_cv.wait(lock, [this, &signalCtr](){ return ( m_shutdown || signalCtr != m_ctr); });
if (!m_shutdown)
{
fnIn();
signalCtr = m_ctr;
}
}
private:
std::condition_variable_any m_cv;
std::shared_mutex m_mtx;
bool m_shutdown{false};
SignalCtr m_ctr{0}; // Latest ctr from Signal()
// This map stores the signal count received for registered listeners.
// We use an unordered_map as references are never invalidated (unless erased),
// which is not the case for a vector
std::unordered_map<std::thread::id, SignalCtr> m_threadCtrMap;
};
Related
When trying to learn threads most examples suggests that I should put std::mutex, std::condition_variable and std::queue global when sharing data between two different threads and it works perfectly fine for simple scenario. However, in real case scenario and bigger applications this may soon get complicated as I may soon lose track of the global variables and since I am using C++ this does not seem to be an appropriate option (may be I am wrong)
My question is if I have a producer/consumer problem and I want to put both in separate classes, since they will be sharing data I would need to pass them the same mutex and queue now how do I share these two variables between them without defining it to be global and what is the best practice for creating threads?
Here is a working example of my basic code using global variables.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <queue>
#include <condition_variable>
std::queue<int> buffer;
std::mutex mtx;
std::condition_variable cond;
const int MAX_BUFFER_SIZE = 50;
class Producer
{
public:
void run(int val)
{
while(true) {
std::unique_lock locker(mtx) ;
cond.wait(locker, []() {
return buffer.size() < MAX_BUFFER_SIZE;
});
buffer.push(val);
std::cout << "Produced " << val << std::endl;
val --;
locker.unlock();
// std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(2));
cond.notify_one();
}
}
};
class Consumer
{
public:
void run()
{
while(true) {
std::unique_lock locker(mtx);
cond.wait(locker, []() {
return buffer.size() > 0;
});
int val = buffer.front();
buffer.pop();
std::cout << "Consumed " << val << std::endl;
locker.unlock();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
cond.notify_one();
}
}
};
int main()
{
std::thread t1(&Producer::run, Producer(), MAX_BUFFER_SIZE);
std::thread t2(&Consumer::run, Consumer());
t1.join();
t2.join();
return 0;
}
Typically, you want to have synchronisation objects packaged alongside the resource(s) they are protecting.
A simple way to do that in your case would be a class that contains the buffer, the mutex, and the condition variable. All you really need is to share a reference to one of those to both the Consumer and the Producer.
Here's one way to go about it while keeping most of your code as-is:
class Channel {
std::queue<int> buffer;
std::mutex mtx;
std::condition_variable cond;
// Since we know `Consumer` and `Producer` are the only entities
// that will ever access buffer, mtx and cond, it's better to
// not provide *any* public (direct or indirect) interface to
// them, and use `friend` to grant access.
friend class Producer;
friend class Consumer;
public:
// ...
};
class Producer {
Channel* chan_;
public:
explicit Producer(Channel* chan) : chan_(chan) {}
// ...
};
class Consumer {
Channel* chan_;
public:
explicit Consumer(Channel* chan) : chan_(chan) {}
// ...
};
int main() {
Channel channel;
std::thread t1(&Producer::run, Producer(&channel), MAX_BUFFER_SIZE);
std::thread t2(&Consumer::run, Consumer(&channel));
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
However, (Thanks for the prompt, #Ext3h) a better way to go about this would be to encapsulate access to the synchronisation objects as well, i.e. keep them hidden in the class. At that point Channel becomes what is commonly known as a Synchronised Queue
Here's what I'd subjectively consider a nicer-looking implementation of your example code, with a few misc improvements thrown in as well:
#include <cassert>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <queue>
#include <optional>
#include <condition_variable>
template<typename T>
class Channel {
static constexpr std::size_t default_max_length = 10;
public:
using value_type = T;
explicit Channel(std::size_t max_length = default_max_length)
: max_length_(max_length) {}
std::optional<value_type> next() {
std::unique_lock locker(mtx_);
cond_.wait(locker, [this]() {
return !buffer_.empty() || closed_;
});
if (buffer_.empty()) {
assert(closed_);
return std::nullopt;
}
value_type val = buffer_.front();
buffer_.pop();
cond_.notify_one();
return val;
}
void put(value_type val) {
std::unique_lock locker(mtx_);
cond_.wait(locker, [this]() {
return buffer_.size() < max_length_;
});
buffer_.push(std::move(val));
cond_.notify_one();
}
void close() {
std::scoped_lock locker(mtx_);
closed_ = true;
cond_.notify_all();
}
private:
std::size_t max_length_;
std::queue<value_type> buffer_;
bool closed_ = false;
std::mutex mtx_;
std::condition_variable cond_;
};
void producer_main(Channel<int>& chan, int val) {
// Don't use while(true), it's Undefined Behavior
while (val >= 0) {
chan.put(val);
std::cout << "Produced " << val << std::endl;
val--;
}
}
void consumer_main(Channel<int>& chan) {
bool running = true;
while (running) {
auto val = chan.next();
if (!val) {
running = false;
continue;
}
std::cout << "Consumed " << *val << std::endl;
};
}
int main()
{
// You are responsible for ensuring the channel outlives both threads.
Channel<int> channel;
std::thread producer_thread(producer_main, std::ref(channel), 13);
std::thread consumer_thread(consumer_main, std::ref(channel));
producer_thread.join();
channel.close();
consumer_thread.join();
return 0;
}
I want to create a thread that can be interrupted while waiting (it waits data from other processes and I want to stop the process in nice way).
I've read the 9.2 part of C++ Concurrency in Action 2nd Edition, and I've tried to implement that ideas, but I've some problem and I don't know where to check.
This is my code based on that example:
#include <iostream>
#include <stdexcept>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <atomic>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <future>
// Exception that should be raised when there's an interruption.
// It's raised when the thread is interrupted, so we can catch
// it and finish the thread execution.
class InterruptedException : public std::runtime_error {
public:
InterruptedException(const std::string& message) : std::runtime_error(message) {}
virtual ~InterruptedException() {}
};
// Interrupt flag. This class represents a local-thread flag that
// tells if the thread is interrupted or not.
class InterruptFlag {
public:
InterruptFlag() :
m_threadConditionVariable(nullptr),
m_threadConditionVariableAny(nullptr) {}
void set() {
m_flag.store(true, std::memory_order_relaxed);
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lk(m_setClearMutex);
if (m_threadConditionVariable) {
m_threadConditionVariable->notify_all();
}
else if (m_threadConditionVariableAny) {
m_threadConditionVariableAny->notify_all();
}
}
template <typename Lockable>
void wait(std::condition_variable_any& cv, Lockable& lk) {
struct CustomLock {
InterruptFlag* m_self;
Lockable& m_lk;
CustomLock(InterruptFlag* self, std::condition_variable_any& cond, Lockable& lk) :
m_self(self),
m_lk(lk) {
m_self->m_setClearMutex.unlock();
m_self->m_threadConditionVariableAny = &cond;
}
void unlock() {
m_lk.unlock();
m_self->m_setClearMutex.unlock();
}
void lock() {
std::lock(m_self->m_setClearMutex, lk);
}
~CustomLock() {
m_self->m_threadConditionAny = nullptr;
m_self->m_setClearMutex.unlock();
}
};
CustomLock cl(this, cv, lk);
InterruptPoint();
cv.wait(cl);
InterruptPoint();
}
void setConditionVariable(std::condition_variable& cv) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lk(m_setClearMutex);
m_threadConditionVariable = &cv;
}
void clearConditionVariable() {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lk(m_setClearMutex);
m_threadConditionVariable = nullptr;
}
bool isSet() const {
return m_flag.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
}
private:
std::atomic<bool> m_flag;
std::condition_variable* m_threadConditionVariable;
std::condition_variable_any* m_threadConditionVariableAny;
std::mutex m_setClearMutex;
};
// Thread-local interrupt flag instance. The variable should be
// created for every thread, since it's thread_local.
thread_local InterruptFlag ThisThreadInterruptFlag;
// Convenience class for cleaning the flag due to RAII.
struct ClearConditionVariableOnDestruct {
~ClearConditionVariableOnDestruct() {
ThisThreadInterruptFlag.clearConditionVariable();
}
};
// Function that throws the exception that tells that the thread
// is interrupted. For doing it checks the state of ThisThreadInterruptFlag.
void InterruptionPoint() {
if (ThisThreadInterruptFlag.isSet()) {
throw InterruptedException("Interrupted");
}
}
// Function that must be used inside the thread function body for waiting.
// It waits for the condition variable, when it notifies from other threads,
// but it also notifies if the thread is interrupted.
void InterruptibleWait(std::condition_variable& cv, std::unique_lock<std::mutex>& lk) {
InterruptionPoint();
ThisThreadInterruptFlag.setConditionVariable(cv);
ClearConditionVariableOnDestruct guard;
InterruptionPoint();
cv.wait_for(lk, std::chrono::milliseconds(1));
InterruptionPoint();
}
// This class represents the interruptible thread. It adds a interrupt()
// method that when called interupts the thread execution, if it's waiting
// at some point where InterruptibleWait function is locked.
class Interruptible {
public:
template <typename FunctionType>
Interruptible(FunctionType f) {
std::promise<InterruptFlag*> p;
m_internalThread = std::thread([f, &p]() {
p.set_value(&ThisThreadInterruptFlag);
try {
f();
}
catch (InterruptedException) {
}
});
m_flag = p.get_future().get();
}
void join() {
m_internalThread.join();
}
void detach() {
m_internalThread.detach();
}
bool joinable() const {
return m_internalThread.joinable();
}
void interrupt() {
if (m_flag) {
m_flag->set();
}
}
private:
std::thread m_internalThread;
InterruptFlag* m_flag;
};
std::mutex mtx;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(mtx);
int main(int argc, char* argv[]) {
std::cout << "Interrupting thread example" << std::endl;
bool test = false;
std::condition_variable cv;
auto f = [&cv, &test]() {
test = true;
InterruptibleWait(cv, lk);
// Since it locks forever, it should never reach this point.
test = false;
};
Interruptible interruptibleThread(f);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(30));
// We interrupt the function while it's blocked in InterruptibleWait
interruptibleThread.interrupt();
interruptibleThread.join();
std::cout << "test value is " << std::boolalpha << test << ". It should be true." << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Basically I create a Interruptible class representing a thread that can be interrupted. I interrupt it during its execution by calling its interrupt() method. The thread can be interrupted if it's locked with in a InterruptibleWait function call. This function behave like a std::condition.wait(), in fact it wants a reference to it, but it also handle the interruption flag.
If I start the program. I obtain an error from Visual Studio when running.
I don't know what I'm doing wrong. What should I do in order to make InterruptibleWait work correctly?
My best guess based on the given information:
The exception isn't caught in the thread entry point function, and escapes that function. When this happens in a thread started by std::thread, abort is called for you (indirectly through std::terminate) by the std::thread implementation, as required by the standard. To fix this, try catching all exceptions in the function passed to std::thread.
See the cppreference articles on std::thread and std::terminate
I have two threads, one is the producer and other is consumer. My consumer is always late (due to some costly function call, simulated in below code using sleeps) so I have used ring buffer as I can afford to loose some events.
Questions:
I am wondering if it would be better to use condition variable instead of what I currently have : continuous monitoring of the ring buffer size to see if the events got generated. I know that the current while loop of checking the ring buffer size is expensive, so I can probably add some yield calls to reduce the tight loop. I want to reduce the chances of dropped events.
Can I get rid of pointers? In my current code I am passing pointers to my ring buffer from main function to the threads. Wondering if there is any fancy or better way to do the same?
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
#include <vector>
#include <atomic>
#include <boost/circular_buffer.hpp>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <functional>
std::atomic<bool> mRunning;
std::mutex m_mutex;
std::condition_variable m_condVar;
long int data = 0;
class Detacher {
public:
template<typename Function, typename ... Args>
void createTask(Function &&func, Args&& ... args) {
m_threads.emplace_back(std::forward<Function>(func), std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
Detacher() = default;
Detacher(const Detacher&) = delete;
Detacher & operator=(const Detacher&) = delete;
Detacher(Detacher&&) = default;
Detacher& operator=(Detacher&&) = default;
~Detacher() {
for (auto& thread : m_threads) {
thread.join();
}
}
private:
std::vector<std::thread> m_threads;
};
void foo_1(boost::circular_buffer<int> *cb)
{
while (mRunning) {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> mlock(m_mutex);
if (!cb->size())
continue;
int data = cb[0][0];
cb->pop_front();
mlock.unlock();
if (!mRunning) {
break;
}
//simulate time consuming function call
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(16));
}
}
void foo_2(boost::circular_buffer<int> *cb)
{
while (mRunning) {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> mlock(m_mutex);
cb->push_back(data);
data++;
mlock.unlock();
//simulate time consuming function call
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1));
}
}
int main()
{
mRunning = true;
boost::circular_buffer<int> cb(100);
Detacher thread_1;
thread_1.createTask(foo_1, &cb);
Detacher thread_2;
thread_2.createTask(foo_2, &cb);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(20000));
mRunning = false;
}
The producer is faster (16x) than the consumer, so ~93% of all events will always be discarded.
#ifndef THREADPOOL_H
#define THREADPOOL_H
#include <iostream>
#include <deque>
#include <functional>
#include <thread>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <mutex>
#include <atomic>
#include <vector>
//thread pool
class ThreadPool
{
public:
ThreadPool(unsigned int n = std::thread::hardware_concurrency())
: busy()
, processed()
, stop()
{
for (unsigned int i=0; i<n; ++i)
workers.emplace_back(std::bind(&ThreadPool::thread_proc, this));
}
template<class F> void enqueue(F&& f)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(queue_mutex);
tasks.emplace_back(std::forward<F>(f));
cv_task.notify_one();
}
void waitFinished()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(queue_mutex);
cv_finished.wait(lock, [this](){ return tasks.empty() && (busy == 0); });
}
~ThreadPool()
{
// set stop-condition
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> latch(queue_mutex);
stop = true;
cv_task.notify_all();
latch.unlock();
// all threads terminate, then we're done.
for (auto& t : workers)
t.join();
}
unsigned int getProcessed() const { return processed; }
private:
std::vector< std::thread > workers;
std::deque< std::function<void()> > tasks;
std::mutex queue_mutex;
std::condition_variable cv_task;
std::condition_variable cv_finished;
unsigned int busy;
std::atomic_uint processed;
bool stop;
void thread_proc()
{
while (true)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> latch(queue_mutex);
cv_task.wait(latch, [this](){ return stop || !tasks.empty(); });
if (!tasks.empty())
{
// got work. set busy.
++busy;
// pull from queue
auto fn = tasks.front();
tasks.pop_front();
// release lock. run async
latch.unlock();
// run function outside context
fn();
++processed;
latch.lock();
--busy;
cv_finished.notify_one();
}
else if (stop)
{
break;
}
}
}
};
#endif // THREADPOOL_H
I have the above thread pool implementation using a latch. However, every time I add a task through the enqueue call, the overhead is quite large, it takes about 100 micro seconds.
How can I improve the performance of the threadpool?
Your code looks fine. The comments above in your question about compiling with release optimizations on are probably correct and all you need to do.
Disclaimer: Always measure code first with appropriate tools to identify where the bottlenecks are before attempting to improve it's performance. Otherwise, you might not get the improvements you seek.
But a couple of potential micro-optimizations I see are this.
Change this in your thread_proc function
while (true)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> latch(queue_mutex);
cv_task.wait(latch, [this](){ return stop || !tasks.empty(); });
if (!tasks.empty())
To this:
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> latch(queue_mutex);
while (!stop)
{
cv_task.wait(latch, [this](){ return stop || !tasks.empty(); });
while (!tasks.empty() && !stop)
And then remove the else if (stop) block and the end of the function.
The main impact this has is that it avoids the extra "unlock" and "lock" on queue_mutex as a result of latch going out of scope on each iteration of the while loop. The changing of if (!tasks.empty()) to while (!tasks.empty()) might save a cycle or two as well by letting the currently executing thread which has the quantum keep the lock and try to deque the next work item.
<opinion>
One final thing. I'm always of the opinion that the notify should be outside the lock. That way, there's no lock contention when the other thread is woken up by the thread that just updated the queue. But I've never actually measured this assumption, so take it with a grain of salt:
template<class F> void enqueue(F&& f)
{
queue_mutex.lock();
tasks.emplace_back(std::forward<F>(f));
queue_mutex.unlock();
cv_task.notify_one();
}
On Ubuntu, I have a shared library mylibrary.so, with a function AlphaFunction. I want to load this function in C++ using dlopen, and then call it in two different threads. However, this is giving me run-time errors, presumably because the two threads are both trying to access the same memory where the function is stored.
The library itself controls a robot arm via USB, and the actual run-time error I get is: LIBUSB_ERROR_NO_DEVICE returned by the Write operation.
I know how to use std::atomic for dealing with shared variables, but what about a shared function?
For example:
void Foo(int (*FooFunction)())
{
while(true)
{
FooFunction();
}
}
void Bar(int (*BarFunction)())
{
while(true)
{
BarFunction();
}
}
int main()
{
void* api_handle = dlopen("mylibrary.so", RTLD_NOW|RTLD_GLOBAL);
int (*MoveRobot)() = (int (*)()) dlsym(api_handle, "Move");
std::thread t1(Foo, MoveRobot);
std::thread t2(Bar, MoveRobot);
t1.join();
t2.join();
return 0;
}
I've had a look at the comments. Here's a solution that covers all concerns:
the robot library is not thread safe, and
all calls to the robot library must be on the same thread
This answer proposes a solution in which a third thread is started up which acts as the robot request marshaller. The other threads post tasks to this thread's queue, which are executed one at a time, with the result of the call being returned via a future on which the caller can wait.
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <queue>
#include <future>
#include <functional>
// these definitions here just to make the example compile
#define RTLD_NOW 1
#define RTLD_GLOBAL 2
extern "C" void* dlopen(const char*, int);
extern "C" void* dlsym(void*, const char*);
struct RobotCaller final
{
RobotCaller()
{
_library_handle = dlopen("mylibrary.so", RTLD_NOW|RTLD_GLOBAL);
_Move = (int (*)()) dlsym(_library_handle, "Move");
// caution - thread starts. do not derive from this class
start();
}
void start()
{
_robot_thread = std::thread([this]{
consume_queue();
});
}
~RobotCaller() {
if (_robot_thread.joinable()) {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(_queue_mutex);
_should_quit = true;
lock.unlock();
_queue_condition.notify_all();
_robot_thread.join();
}
// close library code goes here
}
std::future<int> Move()
{
return queue_task(_Move);
}
private:
void consume_queue() {
;
for(std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(_queue_mutex) ; !_should_quit ; lock.lock()) {
_queue_condition.wait(lock, [this]{
return _should_quit || (!_task_queue.empty());
});
if (!_task_queue.empty()) {
auto task = std::move(_task_queue.front());
_task_queue.pop();
lock.unlock();
task();
}
}
}
std::future<int> queue_task(int (*f)())
{
std::packaged_task<int()> task(f);
auto fut = task.get_future();
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(_queue_mutex);
_task_queue.push(std::move(task));
return fut;
}
private:
// library management
void* _library_handle = nullptr;
int (*_Move)() = nullptr;
// queue management
std::thread _robot_thread;
std::queue<std::packaged_task<int()>> _task_queue;
bool _should_quit = false;
std::mutex _queue_mutex;
std::condition_variable _queue_condition;
};
void Foo(std::function<std::future<int>()> FooFunction)
{
while(true)
{
// marshal the call onto the robot queue and wait for a result
auto result = FooFunction().get();
}
}
void Bar(std::function<std::future<int>()> BarFunction)
{
while(true)
{
// marshal the call onto the robot queue and wait for a result
auto result = BarFunction().get();
}
}
int main()
{
RobotCaller robot_caller;
std::thread t1(Foo, std::bind(&RobotCaller::Move, &robot_caller));
std::thread t2(Bar, std::bind(&RobotCaller::Move, &robot_caller));
t1.join();
t2.join();
return 0;
}