I have a code where I maintain a QList of pointers on a QThread derived class objects.
Simplified example:
main.cpp
#include <QCoreApplication>
#include <QDebug>
#include "myplugin.h"
int main()
{
int loopcount = 0;
myPlugin* plug = new myPlugin();
// Initialization with 2 threads
plug->init(2);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
while(true){
loopcount++;
// a little sleep
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
if(loopcount == 1) {
// simulate detach() condition
plug->genDetach();
}
// check plugin status
bool status = plug->canBeStopped();
// code using status...
// read progress
float prog = plug->getProgress();
// code using progress
}
}
Here is the plugin class:
myplugin.h
#ifndef MYPLUGIN_H
#define MYPLUGIN_H
#include "mythreadedclass.h"
class myPlugin
{
public:
myPlugin();
void init(int nbthreads);
bool canBeStopped();
float getProgress();
void genDetach();
int m_nbthreads;
bool m_detach;
private:
QList <myThreadedClass*> myThreadsList;
};
#endif // MYPLUGIN_H
myplugin.cpp
#include "myplugin.h"
#include <QDebug>
myPlugin::myPlugin()
{
m_nbthreads = 0;
m_detach = false;
}
void myPlugin::genDetach() {
// set a flag to trig the detach()
m_detach = true;
}
void myPlugin::init(int nbthreads) {
m_nbthreads = nbthreads;
myThreadedClass* newthread;
// Create as much threads as required
// and store pointers in a QList
for(int i=0; i<nbthreads;i++){
newthread = new myThreadedClass();
myThreadsList.append(newthread);
newthread->setId(i);
// start the thread
// (QThread::start() calls run()
newthread->start();
}
}
bool myPlugin::canBeStopped() {
bool bRet = true;
QList<myThreadedClass*> tmpThreadList;
// simulate unidentified event leading to a detach() in next range-loop in the real code
if(m_detach){
// This line increments reference count and lead to detach()
// in for range-loop begin() iterator
tmpThreadList = myThreadsList; // QList container copy (on write)
}
// Plugin can be stopped if all his threads can be stopped
// using a range-loop, begin() operator performs a detach()
// if another reference on the QList exists
// detach() will detect that count>1 and make a deep-copy
// of what? (the whole Qlist? the QList item? What if items are pointers?)
// How can m_progress become uninitialized???
// loop shall be changed to for (const auto &i : list) { ... } to avoid detach
for (myThreadedClass * threadInstance: myThreadsList){
// query the thread
bRet &= threadInstance->canBeStopped();
}
// on return, tmpThreadList destructor is called
// can this be a problem?
return bRet;
}
float myPlugin::getProgress() {
float threadProgress = 0;
int threadcount = myThreadsList.count();
myThreadedClass * threadInstance = nullptr;
for (myThreadedClass * threadIter: myThreadsList){
// here getProgress randomly crashes with
// "access to uninitialized value" m_progress after detach
// NOT REPRODUCED WITH THIS EXAMPLE
threadProgress = threadIter->getProgress();
}
return 0;
}
mythreadedclass.h
#ifndef MYTHREADEDCLASS_H
#define MYTHREADEDCLASS_H
#include <QThread>
class myThreadedClass : public QThread
{
public:
// Constructor
myThreadedClass();
void run(); // re-implemented; called by QThread::start()
void setId(int idnum);
bool canBeStopped();
float getProgress() const;
bool running;
int m_id;
int m_loop;
protected:
float m_progress;
};
#endif // MYTHREADEDCLASS_H
mythreadedclass.cpp
#include "mythreadedclass.h"
#include <QDebug>
// Constructor
myThreadedClass::myThreadedClass()
{
running = false;
m_loop = 1;
m_progress = 0; // initialized in the constructor
}
void myThreadedClass::setId(int idnum) {
qDebug()<<"myThreadClass::setId thread id"<<idnum;
m_id = idnum;
}
void myThreadedClass::run()
{
running = true;
while(running) {
qDebug()<<"myThreadClass::run thread id"<<m_id
<<" loop "<< m_loop++;
// Here a lot of processing code...
// modifying m_progress at the end
sleep(2);
}
}
bool myThreadedClass::canBeStopped() {
// Here code setting running value...
return (running == false);
}
float myThreadedClass::getProgress() const
{
// How can the data be uninitialized???
return m_progress; // return protected data value
}
Regularly, I parse this QList to access each of my objects.
The code can run with no problem for hours...
But randomly, the programm crashes on the second loop (in getProgress), with a message saying that I try to access to uninitialized data in myThreadedClass::getProgress().
The data in question is a m_progress, a protected member initialized in the constructor.
(I have no idea if it is linked to the fact it is protected...)
I have catched the segfault with valgrind and gdb, and it appears that because I use a for range-loop to parse the QList (in canBeStopped()), a detach() occurs.
valgrind output:
==4518== Use of uninitialised value of size 8
==4518== at 0xB6C7608: xxx::getProgress() const (xxx.cpp:42)
...
...
==4518== Uninitialised value was created by a heap allocation
==4518== at 0x4A06A2E: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:270)
==4518== by 0x300AC8DB4C: QListData::detach3() (in /usr/lib64/libQtCore.so.4.6.2)
==4518== by 0xB6C27FC: QList<myThreadedClass*>::detach_helper() (qlist.h:604)
==4518== by 0xB6C110B: QList<myThreadedClass*>::detach() (in xxxxxxxx.so)
==4518== by 0xB6BF1C1: QList<myThreadedClass*>::begin() (qlist.h:248)
==4518== by 0xB6BD49B: xxx::canBeStopped() (xxx.cpp:691)
(I have to analyze parts of my code to identify the other reference to my object that lead to the detach, but I can simulate it within the example.)
So my question:
How can the detach() in the 1st loop make the m_progress variable become uninitialized in the 2nd loop???
could the deep-copy occuring with the detach be incomplete?
And for my information, can someone explain what is exacly duplicated during detach(), when the QList only stores pointers to objects?
How can I trace or identify the original and the copy, print their address or something?
Context: QT4.8.7 SL6 or Centos8.3 or Ubuntu
Related
I'm declaring a pointer to a thread in my class.
class A{
std::thread* m_pThread;
bool StartThread();
UINT DisableThread();
}
Here is how I call a function using a thread.
bool A::StartThread()
{
bool mThreadSuccess = false;
{
try {
m_pThread= new std::thread(&A::DisableThread, this);
mThreadSuccess = true;
}
catch (...) {
m_pDisable = false;
}
if(m_pThread)
{
m_pThread= nullptr;
}
}
return mThreadSuccess;
}
Here is the function called by my thread spawned.
UINT A::DisableThread()
{
//print something here.
return 0;
}
If I call this StartThread() function 10 times. Will it have a memory leak?
for (i = 0; i<10; i++){
bool sResult = StartThread();
if (sResult) {
m_pAcceptStarted = true;
}
}
What is the correct way of freeing
m_pThread= new std::thread(&A::DisableThread, this);
The correct way to free a non-array object created using allocating new is to use delete.
Avoid bare owning pointers and avoid unnecessary dynamic allocation. The example doesn't demonstrate any need for dynamic storage, and ideally you should use a std::thread member instead of a pointer.
If I call this StartThread() function 10 times. Will it have a memory leak?
Even a single call will result in a memory leak. The leak happens when you throw away the pointer value here:
m_pThread= nullptr;
could you add your better solution
Here's one:
auto future = std::async(std::launch::async, &A::DisableThread, this);
// do something while the other task executes in another thread
do_something();
// wait for the thread to finish and get the value returned by A::DisableThread
return future.get()
I'd personally would prefer using a threadpool in a real project but this example should give you an idea of how you could handle threads without new/delete.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
class A
{
public:
template<typename Fn>
void CallAsync(Fn fn)
{
// put thread in vector
m_threads.emplace_back(std::thread(fn));
}
~A()
{
for (auto& thread : m_threads)
{
thread.join();
}
}
void someHandler()
{
std::cout << "*";
};
private:
std::vector<std::thread> m_threads;
};
int main()
{
A a;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
a.CallAsync([&a] { a.someHandler(); });
}
}
I have written a multi-threaded app in Qt/C++11 , Windows.
The idea was to have and recycle some strings from a pool, using smart pointers.
Here is stringpool.cpp:
#include "stringpool.h"
QMutex StringPool::m_mutex;
int StringPool::m_counter;
std::stack<StringPool::pointer_type<QString>> StringPool::m_pool;
StringPool::pointer_type<QString> StringPool::getString()
{
QMutexLocker lock(&m_mutex);
if (m_pool.empty())
{
add();
}
auto inst = std::move(m_pool.top());
m_pool.pop();
return inst;
}
void StringPool::add(bool useLock, QString * ptr)
{
if(useLock)
m_mutex.lock();
if (ptr == nullptr)
{
ptr = new QString();
ptr->append(QString("pomo_hacs_%1").arg(++m_counter));
}
StringPool::pointer_type<QString> inst(ptr, [this](QString * ptr) { add(true, ptr); });
m_pool.push(std::move(inst));
if(useLock)
m_mutex.unlock();
}
And here is stringpool.h:
#pragma once
#include <QMutex>
#include <QString>
#include <functional>
#include <memory>
#include <stack>
class StringPool
{
public:
template <typename T> using pointer_type = std::unique_ptr<T, std::function<void(T*)>>;
//
StringPool() = default;
pointer_type<QString> getString();
private:
void add(bool useLock = false, QString * ptr = nullptr);
//
static QMutex m_mutex;
static int m_counter;
static std::stack<pointer_type<QString>> m_pool;
};
And here is the test app:
#include <QtCore>
#include "stringpool.h"
static StringPool Pool;
class Tester : public QThread
{
public:
void run() override
{
for(int i = 0; i < 20; i++)
{
{
auto str = Pool.getString();
fprintf(stderr, "Thread %p : %s \n", QThread::currentThreadId(), str->toUtf8().data());
msleep(rand() % 500);
}
}
fprintf(stderr, "Thread %p : FINITA! \n", QThread::currentThreadId());
}
};
#define MAX_TASKS_NBR 3
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
QCoreApplication app(argc, argv);
Tester tester[MAX_TASKS_NBR];
for(auto i = 0; i < MAX_TASKS_NBR; i++)
tester[i].start();
for(auto i = 0; i < MAX_TASKS_NBR; i++)
tester[i].wait();
//
return 0;
}
It compiles ok, it runs and produces the following result:
Well, the idea is that the app runs (apparently) OK.
But immediately after it finishes, I have this error:
Does anyone have an idea how can I fix this?
The reason for this error has to do with the smart pointer and not the multithreading.
You define pointer_type as an alias for unique_ptr with a custom deleter
template <typename T> using pointer_type = std::unique_ptr<T, std::function<void(T*)>>;
You create strings with custom deleters
void StringPool::add(bool useLock, QString * ptr)
{
if (ptr == nullptr)
{
ptr = new QString();
ptr->append(QString("pomo_hacs_%1").arg(++m_counter));
}
StringPool::pointer_type<QString> inst(ptr, [this](QString * ptr) { add(true, ptr); }); // here
m_pool.push(std::move(inst));
}
At the end of the program, m_pool goes out of scope and runs its destructor.
Consider the path of execution...m_pool will try to destroy all its members. For each member, the custom deleter. The custom deleter calls add. add pushes the pointer to the stack.
Logically this is an infinite loop. But it's more likely to create some kind of undefined behavior by breaking the consistency of the data structure. (i.e. The stack shouldn't be pushing new members while it is being destructed). An exception might occur due to function stack overflow or literal stack overflow (heh) when there is not enough memory to add to the stack data structure. Since the exception occurs in a destructor unhandled, it ends the program immediately. But it could also very likely be a seg fault due to the pushing while destructing.
Fixes:
I already didn't like your add function.
StringPool::pointer_type<QString> StringPool::getString()
{
QMutexLocker lock(&m_mutex);
if (m_pool.empty())
{
auto ptr = new QString(QString("pomo_hacs_%1").arg(++m_counter));
return pointer_type<QString>(ptr, [this](QString* ptr) { reclaim(ptr); });
}
auto inst = std::move(m_pool.top());
m_pool.pop();
return inst;
}
void StringPool::reclaim(QString* ptr)
{
QMutexLocker lock(&m_mutex);
if (m_teardown)
delete ptr;
else
m_pool.emplace(ptr, [this](QString* ptr) { reclaim(ptr); });
}
StringPool::~StringPool()
{
QMutexLocker lock(&m_mutex);
m_teardown = true;
}
StringPool was a static class but with this fix it must now be a singleton class.
It might be tempting to pull m_teardown out of the critical section, but it is shared data, so doing will open the door for race conditions. As a premature optimization, you could make m_teardown an std::atomic<bool> and perform a read check before entering the critical section (can skip the critical section if false) but this requires 1) you check the value again in the critical section and 2) you change from true to false exactly once.
I am having a bit of multi-threading issues with some of my code. The ManagedObject class implements "lazy-initialization", which uses the Initialize method to initialize its state. Every accessor calls Initialize. This is because the initialization can be quite costly for the performance.
Now in a single threaded environment my implementation below has no issues, but in my current situation it can be accessed from multiple threads, so they can both start the Initialization process at the same time.
It gets invalidated 60-100 times a second and does the initialization process again when some other thread tries to access data from the managed object. Because multiple threads can ask for data on the same object the initialization can overlap and mess things up badly.
Would really appreciate if someone could point me at some best practises here!
#include <iostream>
#include <windows.h>
#include <thread>
#include <atomic>
#include <string>
#include <mutex>
using namespace std;
class ManagedObject
{
protected:
std::atomic<bool> initialized = false;
public:
void Initialize(std::string name)
{
if (initialized) return;
// this code should only be ran once. Since initialized can still be false, other threads may start initializing as well, this should not happen.
Sleep(500);
cout << name << ": Initializing 1" << endl << endl;
Sleep(500);
initialized = true;
}
void Invalidate()
{
initialized = false;
}
bool IsActive(std::string name)
{
Initialize(name);
return true;
}
};
int main()
{
auto object1 = make_shared<ManagedObject>();
std::thread([&] {
object1->IsActive("Thread 1");
}).detach();
std::thread([&] {
object1->IsActive("Thread 2");
}).detach();
Sleep(5000);
return 0;
}
The output of this program is:
Thread 1: Initializing 1
Thread 2: Initializing 1
The expected output should be only one thread initializing, while the other waits for the initialized state without doing the initialization process itself.
Looks like a classic race condition to me. Can easily be solved by using a mutex within IsActive() or Initialize().
Like so
bool IsActive(std::string name)
{
initMutex.lock();
Initialize(name);
initMutex.unlock();
return true;
}
Where initMutex is a private variable of the class ManagedObject or a global variable.
In a comment you state:
I am not sure if a mutex will help here, since it will block the execution, not prevent it. The Initialize() method should only be ran when initialized = false
Without a mutex then it is possible for there to be multiple instances where initialized = false.
I ended up implementing it like this, which works pretty well for me. It probably isn't the fastest way because of the mutex, but this is the best I could come up with right now.
class ManagedObject
{
protected:
std::mutex initMutex;
bool initialized = false;
bool isInitializing = false;
virtual void DoInitialize() {}
virtual void Initialize()
{
if (initialized) return;
initMutex.lock();
if (!isInitializing)
{
isInitializing = true;
DoInitialize();
isInitializing = false;
}
initMutex.unlock();
initialized = true;
}
public:
virtual void Invalidate()
{
initialized = false;
}
}
class Player : public ManagedObject
{
public:
void DoInitialize()
{
// initialize its members here.
}
bool DoSomethingUseful()
{
Initialize();
return true; // use some member here
}
}
I am trying to implement a simple thread starter class. Below you find a Simple base class implementation and 2 derived variations that are supposed to work as starters. The first one throws segfaults at static void* Threaded::run (void* self) sporadically. I suppose this might a pointer issue but I am not able to figure out why?
Does this in Threaded::start point to a wrong address or is there any other issue with my first derivation?
This is how it's used:
Thread thread (ptr_to_some_obj);
thread.start (&this_obj::callback);
thread.detach ();
Simple base class
class Threaded
{
public:
Threaded () {/* empty */}
virtual ~Threaded () {/* empty */}
/** Returns true if the thread was successfully started, false if there was an error starting the thread */
bool start ()
{
return (pthread_create (&_thread, NULL, run, this) == 0);
}
/** Implement this method in your subclass with the code which allows to gently stop execution. */
virtual void stop () = 0;
/** Will not return until the internal thread has exited. */
void wait ()
{
(void) pthread_join (_thread, NULL);
}
bool detach ()
{
return (pthread_detach (_thread) == 0);
}
protected:
/** Implement this method in your subclass with the code you want your thread to run. */
virtual void run () = 0;
static void* run (void* self)
{
((Threaded*) self) -> run ();
return NULL;
}
pthread_t _thread;
};
Derived class 1 (throws segfault at ((Threaded*) self) -> run (); above)
typedef void (*staticcall)(void*);
class Thread : public Threaded
{
public:
Thread (void* passthru)
:_call (NULL)
{
_passthru = passthru;
}
~Thread () { /* empty */ }
bool start (staticcall call)
{
_call = call;
assert (_call);
return start ();
}
void stop ()
{
// nothing
}
protected:
void run ()
{
(_call) (_passthru);
}
bool start ()
{
return Threaded::start ();
}
private:
Thread () { };
void* _passthru;
staticcall _call;
};
Derived class 2 (works, but i'd rather have Derived class 1 implementation)
typedef void (*staticcall)(void*);
class Thread2 : public Threaded
{
public:
Thread2 (void* passthru)
{
_passthru = passthru;
}
~Thread2 () { /* empty */ }
bool start (staticcall call)
{
_call = call;
assert (_call);
return start ();
}
void stop ()
{
// nothing
}
protected:
void run () { }
static void* run2 (void*)
{
(_call) (_passthru);
return NULL;
}
bool start ()
{
return (pthread_create (&_thread, NULL, run2, NULL) == 0);
}
private:
Thread2 () { };
static void* _passthru;
static staticcall _call;
};
void* Thread2::_passthru;
staticcall Thread2::_call;
As pointed out by molbdnilo:
pthread_create only queues the new thread. There are no guarantees regarding when the thread function will be called, and thread must be alive at that time.
Since I do not want to keep a list of spawned threads around I solved this with the use of pthread_cond_wait and pthread_cond_signal. The spawner will wait for a signal that is emitted by the method that runs in the thread. This way the thread creator won't destroy the thread object before the to-be-threaded method is called.
class ThreadSpawner
{
public:
ThreadSpawner ()
{
pthread_mutex_init (&MtxThreadStarter, 0);
pthread_cond_init (&CondThreadStarter, 0);
}
~ThreadSpawner ()
{
pthread_cond_destroy (&CondThreadStarter);
pthread_mutex_destroy (&MtxThreadStarter);
}
void spawn ()
{
Thread thread (pass_object);
pthread_mutex_lock (&MtxThreadStarter);
if (thread.start (&ThreadSpawner::callback))
{
// wait here for signal
pthread_cond_wait (&CondThreadStarter, &MtxThreadStarter);
thread.detach ();
}
pthread_mutex_unlock (&MtxThreadStarter);
}
static void callback (void* passthru)
{
// send signal to thread spawner
pthread_mutex_lock (&MtxThreadStarter);
pthread_cond_signal (&CondThreadStarter);
pthread_mutex_unlock (&MtxThreadStarter);
// do threaded work
}
private:
static pthread_mutex_t MtxThreadStarter;
static pthread_cond_t CondThreadStarter;
}
pthread_mutex_t ThreadSpawner::MtxThreadStarter = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
pthread_cond_t ThreadSpawner::CondThreadStarter = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
Edit: a solution to let a thread execute as a method invokation
Well the solution I thought about in the recent discussion would work if the thread entry point was a simple function.
However, I suppose the idea is more to take advantage of an actual object, so that the thread body is actually an invokation of the body() method.
This is more tricky, since there must be a live instance of the derived class for the whole thread duration, and yet the original instance is likely to get out of scope after a start / detach sequence.
One possible (though somewhat costly) solution is to have the thread body stub create a local copy of the original instance on the stack. So the thread launcher will construct a thread object, and the thread itself will copy it.
With this system, you only need to make sure the original instance will be kept live in the interval between pthread_create and thread activation by the scheduler.
This requires a semaphore (which will be done by hand with a mutex/cond. var. pair for the 1.000.000th time, since bloody C++11 does not have one in store).
To hide this messy code inside the base class, you need to downcast the base pointer into the appropriate subclass type.
I resorted to templating the base class, though there might be smarter solutions out there. I just could not think of any.
To test the solution, I use a counter system that detects whether the original Thread instance has been deleted before the thread stub could make a local copy.
The SYNC compilation flag activates the semaphore. The expected program output is 0->0. If other numbers appear, it means some threads ran on messed-up instances.
I tested it on Ubuntu in a VM, and it seemed to work well enough.
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstdio>
#include <cassert>
#include <thread> // sleep_for
#include <chrono> // milliseconds
#include <pthread.h>
#define SYNC // undefine this to see what happens without synchronization
typedef void *(*tEntryPoint) (void *);
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
class semaphore {
private:
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable v;
int c;
public:
semaphore (int count = 0):c(count){}
void V()
{
#ifdef SYNC
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(m);
c++;
v.notify_one();
#endif
}
void P()
{
#ifdef SYNC
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(m);
while (c == 0) v.wait(l);
c--;
#endif
}
};
template<typename Derived>
class Threaded
{
public:
/** Returns true if the thread was successfully started, false if there was an error starting the thread */
bool start(void)
{
destructor_guard = new semaphore();
bool res = (pthread_create(&_thread, NULL, (tEntryPoint)entry_point, this) == 0);
if (res) destructor_guard->P(); // wait fot thread to start execution
delete destructor_guard;
return res;
}
/** This optional method will be executed after the thread main body */
virtual void stop() {}
/** Will not return until the internal thread has exited. */
void wait()
{
(void)pthread_join(_thread, NULL);
}
/** Will let the underlying task run independently */
bool detach()
{
return (pthread_detach(_thread) == 0);
}
private:
static void * entry_point(Derived * self)
{
Derived local_self = *self;
local_self.destructor_guard->V(); // original can be deleted
local_self.body();
local_self.stop();
return NULL;
}
pthread_t _thread;
semaphore* destructor_guard;
};
#define NUM_THREADS 9
#define REPEAT 3000
static int signature[NUM_THREADS + 1] = { 0, };
class Thread : public Threaded<Thread>
{
unsigned id;
public:
Thread(unsigned id) : id(id) {}
~Thread() { id = 0; }
void body(void)
{
signature[id%(NUM_THREADS+1)]++;
}
void stop(void)
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(10));
signature[id%(NUM_THREADS+1)]++;
}
};
void launch_a_thread(int id)
{
Thread thread (id);
if (thread.start())
{
// thread.wait();
thread.detach();
}
}
int main(void)
{
for (unsigned i = 0; i != REPEAT*NUM_THREADS; i++) launch_a_thread(1+i%NUM_THREADS);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(100)); // leave enough time for free running threads to terminate
for (int i = 0 ; i <= NUM_THREADS ; i++) if (signature[i] != 2*REPEAT) printf ("%d -> %d\n", i, signature[i]);
return 0;
}
I am trying to design a multithreaded event system in C++. In it, the objects may be located in different threads and every object should be able to queue events for other threads. Each thread has its own event queue and event dispatcher, as well as an event loop. It should be possible to change the thread affinity of the objects.
Let's say we have two threads: A and B, and an object myobj, which belongs to B. Obviously, A needs a pointer to myobj in order to be able to send events to it. A doesn't have any pointer to B, but it needs some way to get a reference to it in order to be able to lock the event queue and add the event to it.
I could store a pointer to B in myobj, but then I obviously need to protect myobj. If I place a mutex in myobj, myobj could be destructed while the mutex is being locked, thus causing a segmentation fault.
I could also use a global table where I associate each object with its corresponding thread. However, this would consume a lot of memory and cause any thread that wants to send an event to block until A has finish
ed.
What is the most efficient safe strategy to implement this? Is there perhaps some kind of design pattern for this?
Thanks in advance.
I've implemented a thread wrapper base class ThreadEventComponent for sending and processing events between instances of itself. Each ThreadEventComponent has it's own event queue that is automatically locked internally whenever used. The events themselves are negotiated by a static map of type map<EventKey, vector<ThreadEventComponent*>> that is also automatically locked whenever used. As you can see, multiple ThreadEventComponent derived instances can subscribe to the same event. Each event sent with SendEvent(Event*) is copied per instance to insure that multiple threads aren't fighting over the same data held within the event.
Admittedly, this is not the most efficient strategy, opposed to sharing memory. There are optimizations to be made regarding the addEvent(Event&)method. With drawbacks aside, it does work well for configuring a thread to do some operation outside of the main thread.
Both MainLoop() and ProcessEvent(Event*) are virtual functions to be implemented by the derived class. ProcessEvent(Event*) is called whenever an event is available in the queue. After that, MainLoop() is called regardless of the event queue state. MainLoop() is where you should tell your thread to sleep and where any other operations such as file reading/writing or network reading/writing should go.
The following code is something I've been working on for my own person use to get my head wrapped around threading in C++. This code has never been reviewed, so I'd love to hear any suggestions you have. I am aware of two elements that are less than desirable in this code sample. 1) I'm using new at run-time, the drawback being that finding memory takes time, but this can be mitigated by creating a memory buffer to construct new events over in the ThreadEventComponent base class. 2)Event casting to TEvent<T> can cause run-time errors if not implemented correctly in ProcessEvent. I'm not sure what the best solution for this is.
Note: I have EventKey implemented as a string, but you can change it to whatever type you wish as long as it has a default value along with the equality and assignment operators available.
Event.h
#include <string>
using namespace std;
typedef string EventKey;
class Event
{
public:
Event()
: mKey()
{
}
Event(EventKey key)
: mKey(key)
{
}
Event(const Event& e)
: mKey(e.mKey)
{
}
virtual ~Event()
{
}
EventKey GetKey()
{
return mKey;
}
protected:
EventKey mKey;
};
template<class T>
class TEvent : public Event
{
public:
TEvent()
: Event()
{
}
TEvent(EventKey type, T& object)
: Event(type), mObject(object)
{
}
TEvent(const TEvent<T>& e)
: Event(e.mKey), mObject(e.mObject)
{
}
virtual ~TEvent()
{
}
T& GetObject()
{
return mObject;
}
private:
T mObject;
};
ThreadEventComponent.h
#include "Event.h"
#include <thread>
#include <atomic>
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>
#include <queue>
#include <map>
#include <mutex>
#include <assert.h>
class ThreadEventComponent
{
public:
ThreadEventComponent();
~ThreadEventComponent();
void Start(bool detached = false);
void Stop();
void ForceStop();
void WaitToFinish();
virtual void Init() = 0;
virtual void MainLoop() = 0;
virtual void ProcessEvent(Event* incoming) = 0;
template<class T>
void SendEvent(TEvent<T>& e)
{
sEventListLocker.lock();
EventKey key = e.GetKey();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < sEventList[key].size(); i++)
{
assert(sEventList[key][i] != nullptr);
sEventList[key][i]->addEvent<T>(e);
}
sEventListLocker.unlock();
}
void SendEvent(Event& e);
void Subscribe(EventKey key);
void Unsubscribe(EventKey key);
protected:
template<class T>
void addEvent(TEvent<T>& e)
{
mQueueLocker.lock();
// The event gets copied per thread
mEventQueue.push(new TEvent<T>(e));
mQueueLocker.unlock();
}
void addEvent(Event& e);
thread mThread;
atomic<bool> mShouldExit;
private:
void threadLoop();
queue<Event*> mEventQueue;
mutex mQueueLocker;
typedef map<EventKey, vector<ThreadEventComponent*>> EventMap;
static EventMap sEventList;
static mutex sEventListLocker;
};
ThreadEventComponent.cpp
#include "ThreadEventComponent.h"
ThreadEventComponent::EventMap ThreadEventComponent::sEventList = ThreadEventComponent::EventMap();
std::mutex ThreadEventComponent::sEventListLocker;
ThreadEventComponent::ThreadEventComponent()
{
mShouldExit = false;
}
ThreadEventComponent::~ThreadEventComponent()
{
}
void ThreadEventComponent::Start(bool detached)
{
mShouldExit = false;
mThread = thread(&ThreadEventComponent::threadLoop, this);
if (detached)
mThread.detach();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::Stop()
{
mShouldExit = true;
}
void ThreadEventComponent::ForceStop()
{
mQueueLocker.lock();
while (!mEventQueue.empty())
{
delete mEventQueue.front();
mEventQueue.pop();
}
mQueueLocker.unlock();
mShouldExit = true;
}
void ThreadEventComponent::WaitToFinish()
{
if(mThread.joinable())
mThread.join();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::SendEvent(Event& e)
{
sEventListLocker.lock();
EventKey key = e.GetKey();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < sEventList[key].size(); i++)
{
assert(sEventList[key][i] != nullptr);
sEventList[key][i]->addEvent(e);
}
sEventListLocker.unlock();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::Subscribe(EventKey key)
{
sEventListLocker.lock();
if (find(sEventList[key].begin(), sEventList[key].end(), this) == sEventList[key].end())
{
sEventList[key].push_back(this);
}
sEventListLocker.unlock();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::Unsubscribe(EventKey key)
{
sEventListLocker.lock();
// Finds event listener of correct type
EventMap::iterator mapIt = sEventList.find(key);
assert(mapIt != sEventList.end());
// Finds the pointer to itself
std::vector<ThreadEventComponent*>::iterator elIt =
std::find(mapIt->second.begin(), mapIt->second.end(), this);
assert(elIt != mapIt->second.end());
// Removes it from the event list
mapIt->second.erase(elIt);
sEventListLocker.unlock();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::addEvent(Event& e)
{
mQueueLocker.lock();
// The event gets copied per thread
mEventQueue.push(new Event(e));
mQueueLocker.unlock();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::threadLoop()
{
Init();
bool shouldExit = false;
while (!shouldExit)
{
if (mQueueLocker.try_lock())
{
if (mEventQueue.empty())
{
mQueueLocker.unlock();
if(mShouldExit)
shouldExit = true;
}
else
{
Event* e = mEventQueue.front();
mEventQueue.pop();
mQueueLocker.unlock();
ProcessEvent(e);
delete e;
}
}
MainLoop();
}
}
Example Class - A.h
#include "ThreadEventComponent.h"
class A : public ThreadEventComponent
{
public:
A() : ThreadEventComponent()
{
}
void Init()
{
Subscribe("a stop");
Subscribe("a");
}
void MainLoop()
{
this_thread::sleep_for(50ms);
}
void ProcessEvent(Event* incoming)
{
if (incoming->GetKey() == "a")
{
auto e = static_cast<TEvent<vector<int>>*>(incoming);
mData = e->GetObject();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < mData.size(); i++)
{
mData[i] = sqrt(mData[i]);
}
SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("a done", mData));
}
else if(incoming->GetKey() == "a stop")
{
StopWhenDone();
}
}
private:
vector<int> mData;
};
Example Class - B.h
#include "ThreadEventComponent.h"
int compare(const void * a, const void * b)
{
return (*(int*)a - *(int*)b);
}
class B : public ThreadEventComponent
{
public:
B() : ThreadEventComponent()
{
}
void Init()
{
Subscribe("b stop");
Subscribe("b");
}
void MainLoop()
{
this_thread::sleep_for(50ms);
}
void ProcessEvent(Event* incoming)
{
if (incoming->GetKey() == "b")
{
auto e = static_cast<TEvent<vector<int>>*>(incoming);
mData = e->GetObject();
qsort(&mData[0], mData.size(), sizeof(int), compare);
SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("b done", mData));
}
else if (incoming->GetKey() == "b stop")
{
StopWhenDone();
}
}
private:
vector<int> mData;
};
Test Example - main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <random>
#include "A.h"
#include "B.h"
class Master : public ThreadEventComponent
{
public:
Master() : ThreadEventComponent()
{
}
void Init()
{
Subscribe("a done");
Subscribe("b done");
}
void MainLoop()
{
this_thread::sleep_for(50ms);
}
void ProcessEvent(Event* incoming)
{
if (incoming->GetKey() == "a done")
{
TEvent<vector<int>>* e = static_cast<TEvent<vector<int>>*>(incoming);
cout << "A finished" << endl;
mDataSetA = e->GetObject();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < mDataSetA.size(); i++)
{
cout << mDataSetA[i] << " ";
}
cout << endl << endl;
}
else if (incoming->GetKey() == "b done")
{
TEvent<vector<int>>* e = static_cast<TEvent<vector<int>>*>(incoming);
cout << "B finished" << endl;
mDataSetB = e->GetObject();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < mDataSetB.size(); i++)
{
cout << mDataSetB[i] << " ";
}
cout << endl << endl;
}
}
private:
vector<int> mDataSetA;
vector<int> mDataSetB;
};
int main()
{
srand(time(0));
A a;
B b;
a.Start();
b.Start();
vector<int> data;
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
data.push_back(rand() % 100);
}
Master master;
master.Start();
master.SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("a", data));
master.SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("b", data));
master.SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("a", data));
master.SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("b", data));
master.SendEvent(Event("a stop"));
master.SendEvent(Event("b stop"));
a.WaitToFinish();
b.WaitToFinish();
// cin.get();
master.StopWhenDone();
master.WaitToFinish();
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
I have not used it myself, but Boost.Signals2 claims to be thread-safe.
The primary motivation for Boost.Signals2 is to provide a version of the original Boost.Signals library which can be used safely in a multi-threaded environment.
Of course, using this would make your project depend on boost, which might not be in your interest.
[edit] It seems slots are executed in the emitting thread (no queue), so this might not be what you had in mind after all.
I'd consider making the thread part of classes to encapsulate them. That way you can easily design your interfaces around the thread loops (provided as member functions of these classes) and have defined entry points to send data to the thread loop (e.g. using a std::queue protected with a mutex).
I don't know if this is a designated, well known design pattern, but that's what I'm using for my all day productive code at work, and I (and my colleagues) feel and experience pretty good with it.
I'll try to give you a point:
class A {
public:
A() {}
bool start();
bool stop();
bool terminate() const;
void terminate(bool value);
int data() const;
void data(int value);
private:
std::thread thread_;
void threadLoop();
bool terminate_;
mutable std::mutex internalDataGuard_;
int data_;
};
bool A::start() {
thread_ = std::thread(std::bind(this,threadLoop));
return true;
}
bool A::stop() {
terminate(true);
thread_.join();
return true;
}
bool A::terminate() const {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(internalDataGuard_);
return terminate_;
}
void A::terminate(bool value) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(internalDataGuard_);
terminate_ = value;
}
int A::data() const {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(internalDataGuard_);
return data_;
}
void A::data(int value) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(internalDataGuard_);
data_ = value;
// Notify thread loop about data changes
}
void A::threadLoop() {
while(!terminate())
{
// Wait (blocking) for data changes
}
}
To setup signalling of data changes there are several choices and (OS) constraints:
The simplest thing you could use to wake up the thread loop to process changed/new data is a semaphore. In c++11 the nearest approx for a semaphore is a condition variable. Advanced versions of the pthreads API also provide condition variable support. Anyway since only one thread should be waiting there, and no kind of event broadcasing is necessary, it should be easy to implement with simple locking mechanisms.
If you have the choice to use an advanced OS, you might prefer implementing event signalling using s.th. like poll(), which provides lock-free implementation at the user space.
Some frameworks like boost, Qt, Platinum C++, and others also support event handling by signal/slot abstractions, you might have a look at their documentation and implementation to get a grip what's necessary/state of the art.
Obviously, A needs a pointer to myobj in order to be able to send
events to it.
I question the above assumption -- To me, allowing thread A to have a pointer to an object that is controlled/owned/accessed by thread B is kind of asking for trouble... in particular, some code running in thread A might be tempted later on to use that pointer to directly call methods on myobj, causing race conditions and discord; or B might delete myobj, at which point A is holding a dangling-pointer and is thereby in a precarious state.
If I was designing the system, I would try to do it in such a way that cross-thread messaging was done without requiring pointers-to-objects-in-other-threads, for the reasons you mention -- they are unsafe, in particular such a pointer might become a dangling-pointer at any time.
So then the question becomes, how do I send a message to an object in another thread, if I don't have a pointer to that object?
One way would be to give each object a unique ID by which it can be specified. This ID could be an integer (either hard-coded or dynamically assigned using an atomic counter or similar), or perhaps a short string if you wanted it to be more easily human-readable.
Then instead of the code in thread A sending the message directly to myobj, it would send a message to thread B, and the message would include a field indicating the ID of the object that is intended to receive the message.
When thread B's event loop receives the message, it would use the included ID value to look up the appropriate object (using an efficient key-value lookup mechanism such as std::unordered_map) and call the appropriate method on that object. If the object had already been destroyed, then the key-value lookup would fail (because you'd have a mechanism to make sure that the object removed itself from its thread's object-map as part of its destructor), and thus trying to send a message to a destroyed-object would fail cleanly (as opposed to invoking undefined behavior).
Note that this approach does mean that thread A's code has to know which thread myobj is owned by, in order to know which thread to send the message to. Typically thread A would need to know that anyway, but if you're going for a design that abstracts away even the knowledge about which thread a given object is running in, you could include an owner-thread-ID as part of the object-ID, so that your postMessage() method could examine the destination-object-ID to figure out which thread to send the message to.