Minimal mutexes for std::queue producer/consumer - c++

I have two threads that work the producer and consumer sides of a std::queue. The queue isn't often full, so I'd like to avoid the consumer grabbing the mutex that is guarding mutating the queue.
Is it okay to call empty() outside the mutex then only grab the mutex if there is something in the queue?
For example:
struct MyData{
int a;
int b;
};
class SpeedyAccess{
public:
void AddDataFromThread1(MyData data){
const std::lock_guard<std::mutex> queueMutexLock(queueAccess);
workQueue.push(data);
}
void CheckFromThread2(){
if(!workQueue.empty()) // Un-protected access...is this dangerous?
{
queueAccess.lock();
MyData data = workQueue.front();
workQueue.pop();
queueAccess.unlock();
ExpensiveComputation(data);
}
}
private:
void ExpensiveComputation(MyData& data);
std::queue<MyData> workQueue;
std::mutex queueAccess;
}
Thread 2 does the check and isn't particularly time-critical, but will get called a lot (500/sec?). Thread 1 is very time critical, a lot of stuff needs to run there, but isn't called as frequently (max 20/sec).
If I add a mutex guard around empty(), if the queue is empty when thread 2 comes, it won't hold the mutex for long, so might not be a big hit. However, since it gets called so frequently, it might occasionally happen at the same time something is trying to get put on the back....will this cause a substantial amount of waiting in thread 1?

As written in the comments above, you should call empty() only under a lock.
But I believe there is a better way to do it.
You can use a std::condition_variable together with a std::mutex, to achieve synchronization of access to the queue, without locking the mutex more than you must.
However - when using std::condition_variable, you must be aware that it suffers from spurious wakeups. You can read about it here: Spurious wakeup - Wikipedia.
You can see some code examples here:
Condition variable examples.
The correct way to use a std::condition_variable is demonstrated below (with some comments).
This is just a minimal example to show the principle.
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <queue>
#include <iostream>
using MyData = int;
std::mutex mtx;
std::condition_variable cond_var;
std::queue<MyData> q;
void producer()
{
MyData produced_val = 0;
while (true)
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000)); // simulate some pause between productions
++produced_val;
std::cout << "produced: " << produced_val << std::endl;
{
// Access the Q under the lock:
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mtx);
q.push(produced_val);
cond_var.notify_all(); // It's not a must to nofity under the lock but it might be more efficient (see #DavidSchwartz's comment below).
}
}
}
void consumer()
{
while (true)
{
MyData consumed_val;
{
// Access the Q under the lock:
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mtx);
// NOTE: The following call will lock the mutex only when the the condition_varible will cause wakeup
// (due to `notify` or spurious wakeup).
// Then it will check if the Q is empty.
// If empty it will release the lock and continue to wait.
// If not empty, the lock will be kept until out of scope.
// See the documentation for std::condition_variable.
cond_var.wait(lck, []() { return !q.empty(); }); // will loop internally to handle spurious wakeups
consumed_val = q.front();
q.pop();
}
std::cout << "consumed: " << consumed_val << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(200)); // simulate some calculation
}
}
int main()
{
std::thread p(producer);
std::thread c(consumer);
while(true) {}
p.join(); c.join(); // will never happen in our case but to remind us what is needed.
return 0;
}
Some notes:
In your real code, none of the threads should run forever. You should have some mechanism to notify them to gracefully exit.
The global variables (mtx,q etc.) are better to be members of some context class, or passed to the producer() and consumer() as parameters.
This example assumes for simplicity that the producer's production rate is always low relatively to the consumer's rate. In your real code you can make it more general, by making the consumer extract all elements in the Q each time the condition_variable is signaled.
You can "play" with the sleep_for times for the producer and consumer to test varios timing cases.

Related

How bad it is to lock a mutex in an infinite loop or an update function

std::queue<double> some_q;
std::mutex mu_q;
/* an update function may be an event observer */
void UpdateFunc()
{
/* some other processing */
std::lock_guard lock{ mu_q };
while (!some_q.empty())
{
const auto& val = some_q.front();
/* update different states according to val */
some_q.pop();
}
/* some other processing */
}
/* some other thread might add some values after processing some other inputs */
void AddVal(...)
{
std::lock_guard lock{ mu_q };
some_q.push(...);
}
For this case is it okay to handle the queue this way?
Or would it be better if I try to use a lock-free queue like the boost one?
How bad it is to lock a mutex in an infinite loop or an update function
It's pretty bad. Infinite loops actually make your program have undefined behavior unless it does one of the following:
terminate
make a call to a library I/O function
perform an access through a volatile glvalue
perform a synchronization operation or an atomic operation
Acquiring the mutex lock before entering the loop and just holding it does not count as performing a synchronization operation (in the loop). Also, when holding the mutex, noone can add information to the queue, so while processing the information you extract, all threads wanting to add to the queue will have to wait - and no other worker threads wanting to share the load can extract from the queue either. It's usually better to extract one task from the queue, release the lock and then work with what you got.
The common way is to use a condition_variable that lets other threads acquire the lock and then notify other threads waiting with the same condition_variable. The CPU will be pretty close to idle while waiting and wake up to do the work when needed.
Using your program as a base, it could look like this:
#include <chrono>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <queue>
#include <thread>
std::queue<double> some_q;
std::mutex mu_q;
std::condition_variable cv_q; // the condition variable
bool stop_q = false; // something to signal the worker thread to quit
/* an update function may be an event observer */
void UpdateFunc() {
while(true) {
double val;
{
std::unique_lock lock{mu_q};
// cv_q.wait lets others acquire the lock to work with the queue
// while it waits to be notified.
while (not stop_q && some_q.empty()) cv_q.wait(lock);
if(stop_q) break; // time to quit
val = std::move(some_q.front());
some_q.pop();
} // lock released so others can use the queue
// do time consuming work with "val" here
std::cout << "got " << val << '\n';
}
}
/* some other thread might add some values after processing some other inputs */
void AddVal(double val) {
std::lock_guard lock{mu_q};
some_q.push(val);
cv_q.notify_one(); // notify someone that there's a new value to work with
}
void StopQ() { // a function to set the queue in shutdown mode
std::lock_guard lock{mu_q};
stop_q = true;
cv_q.notify_all(); // notify all that it's time to stop
}
int main() {
auto th = std::thread(UpdateFunc);
// simulate some events coming with some time apart
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
AddVal(1.2);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
AddVal(3.4);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
AddVal(5.6);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
StopQ();
th.join();
}
If you really want to process everything that is currently in the queue, then extract everything first and then release the lock, then work with what you extracted. Extracting everything from the queue is done quickly by just swapping in another std::queue. Example:
#include <atomic>
std::atomic<bool> stop_q{}; // needs to be atomic in this version
void UpdateFunc() {
while(not stop_q) {
std::queue<double> work; // this will be used to swap with some_q
{
std::unique_lock lock{mu_q};
// cv_q.wait lets others acquire the lock to work with the queue
// while it waits to be notified.
while (not stop_q && some_q.empty()) cv_q.wait(lock);
std::swap(work, some_q); // extract everything from the queue at once
} // lock released so others can use the queue
// do time consuming work here
while(not stop_q && not work.empty()) {
auto val = std::move(work.front());
work.pop();
std::cout << "got " << val << '\n';
}
}
}
You can use it like you currently are assuming proper use of the lock across all threads. However, you may run into some frustrations about how you want to call updateFunc().
Are you going to be using a callback?
Are you going to be using an ISR?
Are you going to be polling?
If you use a 3rd party lib it often trivializes thread synchronization and queues
For example, if you are using a CMSIS RTOS(v2). It is a fairly straight forward process to get multiple threads to pass information between each other. You could have multiple producers, and a single consumer.
The single consumer can wait in a forever loop where it waits to receive a message before performing its work
when timeout is set to osWaitForever the function will wait for an
infinite time until the message is retrieved (i.e. wait semantics).
// Two producers
osMessageQueuePut(X,Y,Z,timeout=0)
osMessageQueuePut(X,Y,Z,timeout=0)
// One consumer which will run only once something enters the queue
osMessageQueueGet(X,Y,Z,osWaitForever)
tldr; You are safe to proceed, but using a library will likely make your synchronization problems easier.

Use of C++ condition variables with atomic predicate but no mutex

I have two threads. One thread acts as a timer thread which at regular intervals of time needs to send a notification to another thread. I intend to use C++ condition variables. (There is a good article on how to use C++ condition variables along with its traps and pitfalls in the following link)
I have the following constraints/conditions :-
The notifying thread need not lock on to a mutex
The notified (or the receiver) thread does some useful section but there is no critical section
The receiver thread is allowed to miss a notification if and only if it is doing useful work
There should be no spurious wakeups.
Using the above link as a guideline I put together the following piece of code
// conditionVariableAtomic.cpp
#include <atomic>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <iostream> // std::cout, std::endl
#include <thread> // std::this_thread::sleep_for
#include <chrono> // std::chrono::seconds
std::mutex mutex_;
std::condition_variable condVar;
std::atomic<bool> dataReady{false};
void waitingForWork(){
int i = 0;
while (i++ < 10)
{
std::cout << "Waiting " << std::endl;
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mutex_);
condVar.wait(lck, []{ return dataReady.load(); }); // (1)
dataReady = false;
}
std::cout << "Running " << std::endl;
// Do useful work but no critical section.
}
}
void setDataReady(){
int i = 0;
while (i++ < 10)
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for (std::chrono::seconds(1));
dataReady = true;
std::cout << "Data prepared" << std::endl;
condVar.notify_one();
}
}
int main(){
std::cout << std::endl;
std::thread t1(waitingForWork);
std::thread t2(setDataReady);
t1.join();
t2.join();
std::cout << std::endl;
}
I use an atomic predicate to avoid spurious wakeups, but don't use a lock_guard in the notifying thread.
My question is:
does the above piece of code satisfy the constraints/conditions listed above?
I understand that the receiver thread cannot avoid a mutex, hence the need to use std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mutex_); in the receiver. I have however limited the scope of std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mutex_); i.e. put the following section of code
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mutex_);
condVar.wait(lck, []{ return dataReady.load(); }); // (1)
dataReady = false;
inside a scope block aka { .... } so that the mutex is unlocked as soon as the wait condition is over (the receiver then does some useful work but since there is no critical section, it does not need to hold on to the mutex for the entire while loop). Could there still be consequences/side effects of this limited scoping in this context ? Or does the unique_lock<std::mutex> need to be locked for the entire while loop?
Your code has a race condition. Between checking the value of dataReady in your wait predicate and actually starting the wait, the other thread can set dataReady and call notify_one. In your example this isn't critical as you'll just miss one notify and wake up a second later on the next one.
Another race condition is that you can set dataReady to true in one thread, set dataReady back to false in the other thread and then call notify_one in the first thread, again this will cause the wait to block for longer than you intended.
You should hold the mutex in both threads when setting dataReady and using the condition variable to avoid these races.
You could avoid the second race condition by using an atomic counter instead of a boolean, incrementing it on one thread then decrementing on the other and in the predicate checking if it is non-zero.

C++ thread from thread

Please consider this code:
#include <stdio>
int myInt = 10;
bool firstTime = true;
void dothings(){
/*repeatedly check for myInt here*/
while(true) {
if(myInt > 200) { /*send an alert to a socket*/}
}
}
void launchThread() {
if (firsttime) {
std::thread t2(dothings);
t2.detach();
firsttime = false;
} else {
/* update myInt with some value here*/
}
return;
}
int main() {
/* sleep for 4 seconds */
while(true) {
std::thread t1(launchThread);
t1.detach();
}
}
I have to call launchthread - there is no other way around to update a value or to start the thread t2 - this is how a third party SDK is designed.
Note that launchThread is exiting first. Main will keep on looping.
To my understanding, however, dothings() will continue to run.
My question is - can dothings still access the newly updated values of myInt after subsequent calls of launchThread from main?
I can't find a definite answer on google - but I believe it will - but it is not thread safe and data corruption can happen. But may be experts here can correct me. Thank you.
About the lifetime of myInt and firsttime
The lifetime of both myInt and firstime will start before main() runs, and end after main() returns. Neither launchThread nor doThings manage the lifetime of any variables (except for t2, which is detached anyway, so it shouldn't matter).
Whether a thread was started by the main thread, or by any other thread, doesn't have any relevance. Once a thread starts, and specially when it is detached, it is basically independent: It has no relation to the other threads running in the program.
Thou shalt not access shared memory without synchronization
But yes, you will run into problems. myInt is shared between multiple threads, so you have to synchronize acesses to it. If you don't, you will eventually run into undefined behavior caused by simultaneous access to shared memory. The simplest way to synchronize myInt is to make it into an atomic.
I'm assuming only one thread is running launchThread at each given time. Looking at your example, though, that may be not the case. If it is not, you also need to synchronize firsttime.
Alternatives
However, your myInt looks a lot like a Condition Variable. Maybe you want to have doThings be blocked until your condition (myInt > 200) is fulfilled. An std::condition_variable will help you with that. This will avoid a busy wait and save your processor some cycles. Some kind of event system using Message Queues can also help you with that, and it will even make your program cleaner and easier to maintain.
Following is a small example on using condition variables and atomics to synchronize your threads. I've tried to keep it simple, so there's still some improvements to be made here. I leave those to your discretion.
#include <atomic>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
std::mutex cv_m; // This mutex will be used both for myInt and cv.
std::condition_variable cv;
int myInt = 10; // myInt is already protected by the mutex, so there's not need for it to be an atomic.
std::atomic<bool> firstTime{true}; // firstTime does need to be an atomic, because it may be accessed by multiple threads, and is not protected by a mutex.
void dothings(){
while(true) {
// std::condition_variable only works with std::unique_lock.
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(cv_m);
// This will do the same job of your while(myInt > 200).
// The difference is that it will only check the condition when
// it is notified that the value has changed.
cv.wait(lock, [](){return myInt > 200;});
// Note that the lock is reaquired after waking up from the wait(), so it is safe to read and modify myInt here.
std::cout << "Alert! (" << myInt << ")\n";
myInt -= 40; // I'm making myInt fall out of the range here. Otherwise, we would get multiple alerts after the condition (since it would be now true forever), and it wouldn't be as interesting.
}
}
void launchThread() {
// Both the read and the write to firstTime need to be a single atomic operation.
// Otherwise, two or more threads could read the value as "true", and assume this is the first time entering this function.
if (firstTime.exchange(false)) {
std::thread t2(dothings);
t2.detach();
} else {
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(cv_m);
myInt += 50;
}
// Value of myInt has changed. Notify all waiting threads.
cv.notify_all();
}
return;
}
int main() {
for (int i = 0; i < 6; ++i) { // I'm making this a for loop just so I can be sure the program exits
std::thread t1(launchThread);
t1.detach();
}
// We sleep only to wait for anything to be printed. Your program has an infinite loop on main() already, so you don't have this problem.
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(10));
}
See it live on Coliru!

multithreaded program producer/consumer [boost]

I'm playing with boost library and C++. I want to create a multithreaded program that contains a producer, conumer, and a stack. The procuder fills the stack, the consumer remove items (int) from the stack. everything work (pop, push, mutex) But when i call the pop/push winthin a thread, i don't get any effect
i made this simple code :
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <stack>
#include <iostream>
#include <algorithm>
#include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#include <boost/date_time.hpp>
#include <boost/signals2/mutex.hpp>
#include <ctime>
using namespace std;
/ *
* this class reprents a stack which is proteced by mutex
* Pop and push are executed by one thread each time.
*/
class ProtectedStack{
private :
stack<int> m_Stack;
boost::signals2::mutex m;
public :
ProtectedStack(){
}
ProtectedStack(const ProtectedStack & p){
}
void push(int x){
m.lock();
m_Stack.push(x);
m.unlock();
}
void pop(){
m.lock();
//return m_Stack.top();
if(!m_Stack.empty())
m_Stack.pop();
m.unlock();
}
int size(){
return m_Stack.size();
}
bool isEmpty(){
return m_Stack.empty();
}
int top(){
return m_Stack.top();
}
};
/*
*The producer is the class that fills the stack. It encapsulate the thread object
*/
class Producer{
public:
Producer(int number ){
//create thread here but don't start here
m_Number=number;
}
void fillStack (ProtectedStack& s ) {
int object = 3; //random value
s.push(object);
//cout<<"push object\n";
}
void produce (ProtectedStack & s){
//call fill within a thread
m_Thread = boost::thread(&Producer::fillStack,this, s);
}
private :
int m_Number;
boost::thread m_Thread;
};
/* The consumer will consume the products produced by the producer */
class Consumer {
private :
int m_Number;
boost::thread m_Thread;
public:
Consumer(int n){
m_Number = n;
}
void remove(ProtectedStack &s ) {
if(s.isEmpty()){ // if the stack is empty sleep and wait for the producer to fill the stack
//cout<<"stack is empty\n";
boost::posix_time::seconds workTime(1);
boost::this_thread::sleep(workTime);
}
else{
s.pop(); //pop it
//cout<<"pop object\n";
}
}
void consume (ProtectedStack & s){
//call remove within a thread
m_Thread = boost::thread(&Consumer::remove, this, s);
}
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
ProtectedStack s;
Producer p(0);
p.produce(s);
Producer p2(1);
p2.produce(s);
cout<<"size after production "<<s.size()<<endl;
Consumer c(0);
c.consume(s);
Consumer c2(1);
c2.consume(s);
cout<<"size after consumption "<<s.size()<<endl;
getchar();
return 0;
}
After i run that in VC++ 2010 / win7
i got :
0
0
Could you please help me understand why when i call fillStack function from the main i got an effect but when i call it from a thread nothing happens?
Thank you
Your example code suffers from a couple synchronization issues as noted by others:
Missing locks on calls to some of the members of ProtectedStack.
Main thread could exit without allowing worker threads to join.
The producer and consumer do not loop as you would expect. Producers should always (when they can) be producing, and consumers should keep consuming as new elements are pushed onto the stack.
cout's on the main thread may very well be performed before the producers or consumers have had a chance to work yet.
I would recommend looking at using a condition variable for synchronization between your producers and consumers. Take a look at the producer/consumer example here: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/condition_variable
It is a rather new feature in the standard library as of C++11 and supported as of VS2012. Before VS2012, you would either need boost or to use Win32 calls.
Using a condition variable to tackle a producer/consumer problem is nice because it almost enforces the use of a mutex to lock shared data and it provides a signaling mechanism to let consumers know something is ready to be consumed so they don't have so spin (which is always a trade off between the responsiveness of the consumer and CPU usage polling the queue). It also does so being atomic itself which prevents the possibility of threads missing a signal that there is something to consume as explained here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleeping_barber_problem
To give a brief run-down of how a condition variable takes care of this...
A producer does all time consuming activities on its thread without the owning the mutex.
The producer locks the mutex, adds the item it produced to a global data structure (probably a queue of some sort), lets go of the mutex and signals a single consumer to go -- in that order.
A consumer that is waiting on the condition variable re-acquires the mutex automatically, removes the item out of the queue and does some processing on it. During this time, the producer is already working on producing a new item but has to wait until the consumer is done before it can queue the item up.
This would have the following impact on your code:
No more need for ProtectedStack, a normal stack/queue data structure will do.
No need for boost if you are using a new enough compiler - removing build dependencies is always a nice thing.
I get the feeling that threading is rather new to you so I can only offer the advice to look at how others have solved synchronization issues as it is very difficult to wrap your mind around. Confusion about what is going on in an environment with multiple threads and shared data typically leads to issues like deadlocks down the road.
The major problem with your code is that your threads are not synchronized.
Remember that by default threads execution isn't ordered and isn't sequenced, so consumer threads actually can be (and in your particular case are) finished before any producer thread produces any data.
To make sure consumers will be run after producers finished its work you need to use thread::join() function on producer threads, it will stop main thread execution until producers exit:
// Start producers
...
p.m_Thread.join(); // Wait p to complete
p2.m_Thread.join(); // Wait p2 to complete
// Start consumers
...
This will do the trick, but probably this is not good for typical producer-consumer use case.
To achieve more useful case you need to fix consumer function.
Your consumer function actually doesn't wait for produced data, it will just exit if stack is empty and never consume any data if no data were produced yet.
It shall be like this:
void remove(ProtectedStack &s)
{
// Place your actual exit condition here,
// e.g. count of consumed elements or some event
// raised by producers meaning no more data available etc.
// For testing/educational purpose it can be just while(true)
while(!_some_exit_condition_)
{
if(s.isEmpty())
{
// Second sleeping is too big, use milliseconds instead
boost::posix_time::milliseconds workTime(1);
boost::this_thread::sleep(workTime);
}
else
{
s.pop();
}
}
}
Another problem is wrong thread constructor usage:
m_Thread = boost::thread(&Producer::fillStack, this, s);
Quote from Boost.Thread documentation:
Thread Constructor with arguments
template <class F,class A1,class A2,...>
thread(F f,A1 a1,A2 a2,...);
Preconditions:
F and each An must by copyable or movable.
Effects:
As if thread(boost::bind(f,a1,a2,...)). Consequently, f and each an are copied into
internal storage for access by the new thread.
This means that each your thread receives its own copy of s and all modifications aren't applied to s but to local thread copies. It's the same case when you pass object to function argument by value. You need to pass s object by reference instead - using boost::ref:
void produce(ProtectedStack& s)
{
m_Thread = boost::thread(&Producer::fillStack, this, boost::ref(s));
}
void consume(ProtectedStack& s)
{
m_Thread = boost::thread(&Consumer::remove, this, boost::ref(s));
}
Another issues is about your mutex usage. It's not the best possible.
Why do you use mutex from Signals2 library? Just use boost::mutex from Boost.Thread and remove uneeded dependency to Signals2 library.
Use RAII wrapper boost::lock_guard instead of direct lock/unlock calls.
As other people mentioned, you shall protect with lock all members of ProtectedStack.
Sample:
boost::mutex m;
void push(int x)
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(m);
m_Stack.push(x);
}
void pop()
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(m);
if(!m_Stack.empty()) m_Stack.pop();
}
int size()
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(m);
return m_Stack.size();
}
bool isEmpty()
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(m);
return m_Stack.empty();
}
int top()
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(m);
return m_Stack.top();
}
You're not checking that the producing thread has executed before you try to consume. You're also not locking around size/empty/top... that's not safe if the container's being updated.

How would you implement your own reader/writer lock in C++11?

I have a set of data structures I need to protect with a readers/writer lock. I am aware of boost::shared_lock, but I would like to have a custom implementation using std::mutex, std::condition_variable and/or std::atomic so that I can better understand how it works (and tweak it later).
Each data structure (moveable, but not copyable) will inherit from a class called Commons which encapsulates the locking. I'd like the public interface to look something like this:
class Commons {
public:
void read_lock();
bool try_read_lock();
void read_unlock();
void write_lock();
bool try_write_lock();
void write_unlock();
};
...so that it can be publicly inherited by some:
class DataStructure : public Commons {};
I'm writing scientific code and can generally avoid data races; this lock is mostly a safeguard against the mistakes I'll probably make later. Thus my priority is low read overhead so I don't hamper a correctly-running program too much. Each thread will probably run on its own CPU core.
Could you please show me (pseudocode is ok) a readers/writer lock? What I have now is supposed to be the variant that prevents writer starvation. My main problem so far has been the gap in read_lock between checking if a read is safe to actually incrementing a reader count, after which write_lock knows to wait.
void Commons::write_lock() {
write_mutex.lock();
reading_mode.store(false);
while(readers.load() > 0) {}
}
void Commons::try_read_lock() {
if(reading_mode.load()) {
//if another thread calls write_lock here, bad things can happen
++readers;
return true;
} else return false;
}
I'm kind of new to multithreading, and I'd really like to understand it. Thanks in advance for your help!
Here's pseudo-code for a ver simply reader/writer lock using a mutex and a condition variable. The mutex API should be self-explanatory. Condition variables are assumed to have a member wait(Mutex&) which (atomically!) drops the mutex and waits for the condition to be signaled. The condition is signaled with either signal() which wakes up one waiter, or signal_all() which wakes up all waiters.
read_lock() {
mutex.lock();
while (writer)
unlocked.wait(mutex);
readers++;
mutex.unlock();
}
read_unlock() {
mutex.lock();
readers--;
if (readers == 0)
unlocked.signal_all();
mutex.unlock();
}
write_lock() {
mutex.lock();
while (writer || (readers > 0))
unlocked.wait(mutex);
writer = true;
mutex.unlock();
}
write_unlock() {
mutex.lock();
writer = false;
unlocked.signal_all();
mutex.unlock();
}
That implementation has quite a few drawbacks, though.
Wakes up all waiters whenever the lock becomes available
If most of the waiters are waiting for a write lock, this is wastefull - most waiters will fail to acquire the lock, after all, and resume waiting. Simply using signal() doesn't work, because you do want to wake up everyone waiting for a read lock unlocking. So to fix that, you need separate condition variables for readability and writability.
No fairness. Readers starve writers
You can fix that by tracking the number of pending read and write locks, and either stop acquiring read locks once there a pending write locks (though you'll then starve readers!), or randomly waking up either all readers or one writer (assuming you use separate condition variable, see section above).
Locks aren't dealt out in the order they are requested
To guarantee this, you'll need a real wait queue. You could e.g. create one condition variable for each waiter, and signal all readers or a single writer, both at the head of the queue, after releasing the lock.
Even pure read workloads cause contention due to the mutex
This one is hard to fix. One way is to use atomic instructions to acquire read or write locks (usually compare-and-exchange). If the acquisition fails because the lock is taken, you'll have to fall back to the mutex. Doing that correctly is quite hard, though. Plus, there'll still be contention - atomic instructions are far from free, especially on machines with lots of cores.
Conclusion
Implementing synchronization primitives correctly is hard. Implementing efficient and fair synchronization primitives is even harder. And it hardly ever pays off. pthreads on linux, e.g. contains a reader/writer lock which uses a combination of futexes and atomic instructions, and which thus probably outperforms anything you can come up with in a few days of work.
Check this class:
//
// Multi-reader Single-writer concurrency base class for Win32
//
// (c) 1999-2003 by Glenn Slayden (glenn#glennslayden.com)
//
//
#include "windows.h"
class MultiReaderSingleWriter
{
private:
CRITICAL_SECTION m_csWrite;
CRITICAL_SECTION m_csReaderCount;
long m_cReaders;
HANDLE m_hevReadersCleared;
public:
MultiReaderSingleWriter()
{
m_cReaders = 0;
InitializeCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
InitializeCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
m_hevReadersCleared = CreateEvent(NULL,TRUE,TRUE,NULL);
}
~MultiReaderSingleWriter()
{
WaitForSingleObject(m_hevReadersCleared,INFINITE);
CloseHandle(m_hevReadersCleared);
DeleteCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
DeleteCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
}
void EnterReader(void)
{
EnterCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
EnterCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
if (++m_cReaders == 1)
ResetEvent(m_hevReadersCleared);
LeaveCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
LeaveCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
}
void LeaveReader(void)
{
EnterCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
if (--m_cReaders == 0)
SetEvent(m_hevReadersCleared);
LeaveCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
}
void EnterWriter(void)
{
EnterCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
WaitForSingleObject(m_hevReadersCleared,INFINITE);
}
void LeaveWriter(void)
{
LeaveCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
}
};
I didn't have a chance to try it, but the code looks OK.
You can implement a Readers-Writers lock following the exact Wikipedia algorithm from here (I wrote it):
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
int g_sharedData = 0;
int g_readersWaiting = 0;
std::mutex mu;
bool g_writerWaiting = false;
std::condition_variable cond;
void reader(int i)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lg{mu};
while(g_writerWaiting)
cond.wait(lg);
++g_readersWaiting;
// reading
std::cout << "\n reader #" << i << " is reading data = " << g_sharedData << '\n';
// end reading
--g_readersWaiting;
while(g_readersWaiting > 0)
cond.wait(lg);
cond.notify_one();
}
void writer(int i)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lg{mu};
while(g_writerWaiting)
cond.wait(lg);
// writing
std::cout << "\n writer #" << i << " is writing\n";
g_sharedData += i * 10;
// end writing
g_writerWaiting = true;
while(g_readersWaiting > 0)
cond.wait(lg);
g_writerWaiting = false;
cond.notify_all();
}//lg.unlock()
int main()
{
std::thread reader1{reader, 1};
std::thread reader2{reader, 2};
std::thread reader3{reader, 3};
std::thread reader4{reader, 4};
std::thread writer1{writer, 1};
std::thread writer2{writer, 2};
std::thread writer3{writer, 3};
std::thread writer4{reader, 4};
reader1.join();
reader2.join();
reader3.join();
reader4.join();
writer1.join();
writer2.join();
writer3.join();
writer4.join();
return(0);
}
I believe this is what you are looking for:
class Commons {
std::mutex write_m_;
std::atomic<unsigned int> readers_;
public:
Commons() : readers_(0) {
}
void read_lock() {
write_m_.lock();
++readers_;
write_m_.unlock();
}
bool try_read_lock() {
if (write_m_.try_lock()) {
++readers_;
write_m_.unlock();
return true;
}
return false;
}
// Note: unlock without holding a lock is Undefined Behavior!
void read_unlock() {
--readers_;
}
// Note: This implementation uses a busy wait to make other functions more efficient.
// Consider using try_write_lock instead! and note that the number of readers can be accessed using readers()
void write_lock() {
while (readers_) {}
if (!write_m_.try_lock())
write_lock();
}
bool try_write_lock() {
if (!readers_)
return write_m_.try_lock();
return false;
}
// Note: unlock without holding a lock is Undefined Behavior!
void write_unlock() {
write_m_.unlock();
}
int readers() {
return readers_;
}
};
For the record since C++17 we have std::shared_mutex, see: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/shared_mutex