How to correctly wait for condition variable timeout - c++

I'm working on simple cancellation mechanism. But I have found problem with waiting for timeout on condition variable.
Lets consider the sample program from:
https://www.cplusplus.com/reference/condition_variable/condition_variable/wait_for/
It looks like this sample is broken. If someone would provide the data very fast then the program would go into infinite loop. To visualize it I did little modification to the sample program:
#include <iostream> // std::cout
#include <thread> // std::thread
#include <chrono> // std::chrono::seconds
#include <mutex> // std::mutex, std::unique_lock
#include <condition_variable> // std::condition_variable, std::cv_status
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
std::condition_variable cv;
int value = -1;
void compute() {
value = 0;;
cv.notify_one();
}
int main()
{
std::thread th(compute);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(1s);
std::mutex mtx;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mtx);
while (cv.wait_for(lck, std::chrono::seconds(1)) == std::cv_status::timeout) {
std::cout << '.' << std::endl;
}
std::cout << "You entered: " << value << '\n';
th.join();
return 0;
}
As I can't type as fast I just set the value to 0 and execute notify_one.
On the main thread I simulate simple delay. sleep_for(1s).
Finally the program does not see the notify_one and loops infinitely.
The output is: .....
My question is how to implement it correctly ?
I would like to know also if the waiting was stopped by timeout.

If the notify happens before the wait then it indeed gets "lost".
Most usage of CVs also require a flag of some sort which should be checked in the predicate. You already have this flag - value. Just use this as a predicate:
EDIT: Removed wrong code.
Note that as a separate matter you should protect the writing to value with your mutex or you're likely to hit UB. Which means you need to make your mutex global along with the CV/Flag.
Better way:
auto endTime = std::chrono::now() + std::chrono::seconds(1);
while(flag != 0)
{
auto res = cv.wait_until(lck, endTime);
if (res == std::cv_status::timeout)
{
// Add Timeout logic here
break;
}
}

Related

condition_variable wait_for in C++

I am working with condition_variable on Visual studio 2019. The condition_variable.wait_for() function returns std::cv_status::no_timeout without any notification.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
#include <mutex>
std::condition_variable cv;
std::mutex mtx;
bool called = false;
void printThread()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mtx);
while (std::cv_status::timeout == cv.wait_for(lck, std::chrono::seconds(1)))
{
std::cout << "*";
}
std::cout << "thread exits" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
std::thread th(printThread);
th.join();
std::cout << "program exits" << std::endl;
}
I think the code will never exit and keep printing *, but it exits after printing some *.
Here is the output:
********************************************************************thread exits
program exits
Why does this happen? Is it the so-called "spurious wakeups"?
Yes, it's a "spurious wakeup". This is explained on cppreference.com's reference page for wait_for:
It may also be unblocked spuriously. When unblocked, regardless of the
reason, lock is reacquired and wait_for() exits.
Translation: there are gremlins in your computer. They get grumpy, occasionally. And if they do get grumpy, wait_for returns before the requested timeout expires. And when that happens:
Return value
std::cv_status::timeout if the relative timeout specified by
rel_time expired, std::cv_status::no_timeout otherwise.
And that seems to be exactly what you're seeing. The C++ standard permits a C++ implementation to return from wait_for prematurely, for arbitrary reasons, and unless you do return from wait_for when the timeout expires, no_timeout is what you get.
You might be wondering why wait_for (and several other similar functions) may decide to throw up their hands and return "spuriously". But that would be a different question...
As already explained, it is waking up due spurious wakeup. Such thing make the function wait_for completely useless. The solution is to use the wait_until saving the current time before entering the wait loop:
int count = 1;
std::mutex mutex;
std::condition_variable condition_variable;
void wait() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mutex);
count--;
int timeout = 1000; // 1 second
std::chrono::time_point<std::chrono::system_clock> timenow =
std::chrono::system_clock::now();
while(count < 0) {
std::cv_status status = condition_variable.wait_until(
lock,
timenow + std::chrono::duration<double,std::ratio<1,1000>>(timeout));
if ( std::cv_status::timeout == status) {
count++;
break;
}
}
}

std::condition_variable predictable spurious wake-ups?

I ran into this interesting behavior of spurious wake-ups. Consider this simple demo code:
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <mutex>
using namespace std; // I know
using namespace std::chrono;
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
mutex mtx; // used for cv and synchronized access to counter
condition_variable cv;
int counter = 0; // (1)
bool keep_running = true; // flag for signaling an exit condition
int main()
{
// thread that decrements counter every time it is woken up and the counter is > 0
thread t([&] {
while (keep_running)
{
unique_lock<mutex> lock(mtx);
cv.wait(lock, [&] {
cout << "Woken up" << endl;
return !keep_running || counter > 0;
});
if (!keep_running) { // check for exit condition
break;
}
--counter;
}
});
this_thread::sleep_for(1s); // some work
unique_lock<mutex> lock(mtx);
counter = 5; // set the counter
cout << "Notifying" << endl;
lock.unlock();
cv.notify_one(); // wake the thread up
this_thread::sleep_for(1s); // some more work
cout << "Exiting" << endl;
lock.lock();
keep_running = false; // ask the thread to exit
lock.unlock();
cv.notify_one(); // wake up one last time
t.join(); // join and exit
cout << "Counter: " << counter << endl;
}
Compiling with g++ cv_test.cpp -o cv_test -pthread and executing produces the following output:
Woken up
Notifying
Woken up
Woken up
Woken up
Woken up
Woken up
Woken up
Exiting
Woken up
Counter: 0
Notice that I call notify_one only once, but the thread is woken up continuously until the predicate returns false. No matter what the counter is initialized to, the thread is woken up until it goes to 0 (which is the predicate).
Even at the beginning of the execution, the thread is woken up once as if to "check" that the predicate returns false. Consequently, if I initialize the counter to a positive value: int counter = 3; // (1), the spurious wake-ups seem to "ensure" the predicate returns false even before the first notify_one is called.
My question is, is this really a feature and can it be relied upon? Is there any documentation on this behavior?
PS. I know this worker thread can be fixed by a simple check for the counter (read: work queue length) before waiting on the condition_variable, but this kind of predictable behavior of the spurious wake-ups intrigued me.
I realized immediately after I posted this question that this overload of condition_variable::wait (as described here) is equivalent to:
while (!pred()) {
wait(lock);
}
I was imagining it being equivalent to a do while instead. So really there are no spurious wake-ups here. Just that it wasn't waiting at all until the predicate returned false.

program went into dead lock using condition variable in c++11

I am currently trying to learn how to use a condition_variable for thread synchronization. For testing, I have made the demo application shown below. When I start it, it runs into a dead lock. I know the location where this happens, but I'm unable to understand why the deadlock occurs.
I know that a condition_variable's wait function will automatically unlock the mutex when the condition is not true, so the main thread should not be blocked in the second pass. But it is just this what happens.
Could anybody explain why?
#include <thread>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
bool flag = false;
std::mutex g_mutex;
std::condition_variable cv;
void threadProc()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(g_mutex);
while (true)
{
static int count = 0;
std::cout << "wait for flag" << ++count << std::endl;
cv.wait(lck, []() {return flag; }); // !!!It will blocked at the second round
std::cout << "flag is true " << count << std::endl;
flag = false;
lck.unlock();
}
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
std::thread t(threadProc);
while (true)
{
static int count = 0;
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(g_mutex); // !!!It will blocked at the second round
flag = true;
std::cout << "set flag " << ++count << std::endl;
}
cv.notify_one();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
}
t.join();
return 0;
}
I know that a condition_variable's wait function will automatically unlock the mutex when the condition is not true.
Um..., yes..., Just to be absolutely clear, cv.wait(lck, f) does this:
while(! f()) {
cv.wait(lck);
}
And each call to cv.wait(lck) will;
unlock lck,
wait until some other thread calls cv.notify_one() or cv.notify_all(),
re-lock lck, and then
return.
You can fix the problem by moving the unique_lock(...) statement inside the while loop. As it is now, you're attempting to unlock lck on round 2 but it was not in a locked state, since, after round 1 you never locked it again.

Missing notification of condition variable

In the following code I've a worker thread which is going to have one major state - Started. Started isn't the thread launch state but the state when a blocking call finally returns which I've replaced with a random delay and comment.
What I'm trying here is to first launch the worker thread asap, block on it's blocking call while keeping started = false till it doesn't returns. As soon as it returns, I'll put started = true and notify main thread's infinite loop to launch another thread and wait again. The previous worker thread can resume doing its work now. And then repeat this process. The launch of new thread must wait for the START state of previous thread.
But in my previous question, someone mentioned this -
If cv.notify_one is called before cv.wait is running the notification
will be missed. In the presented code it most probably will.
For now I tried to manually test it in various ways possible but couldn't get an error and everything is working as I thought. So I want to know in what situation will it actually miss it, anyway to make it reproducible, and how to actually solve it if it is a problem?
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <future>
#include <atomic>
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
#include <random>
std::mt19937_64 eng{std::random_device{}()};
std::uniform_int_distribution<> dist{100, 2000};
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
bool started = false;
std::atomic<int> count(0);
void worker_thread()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
int local_cnt = count++;
// some blocking call represented by random delay
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds{dist(eng)});
std::cerr << "Enter Accept: " << local_cnt << "\n";
started = true;
lk.unlock();
cv.notify_one(); // notify to launch other threads
// complete other work here
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds{dist(eng) + 2000});
std::cerr << "Exit Accept: " << local_cnt << "\n";
}
int main()
{
while(1){
std::thread(worker_thread).detach();
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
cv.wait(lk, []{return started;});
started = false;
}
}

simultaneously run different thread without waiting for other thread to complete

The thing is i want to use c++ library which runs different threads simultaneously without having other threads to wait until the preceding thread is complete and their functionality within each thread is run simultaneuslly,I am talking about the code which is to be run in the thread;the sample code is shown below.
while(condition is true<it is infinite loop >){
running sleep here with random time
sleep(random time(sec))
rest of the code is here
}
This infinite while loop is run in each thread. I want to run this while loop in each thread to be run simultaneously without being stuck at the first thread to be completed. In other words all the infinite while loop(in each thread context) is to be run simultaneously. How do I achieve that? If you can please share some sample code actually I have used future with async but I get the same behavior as normal <thread> using join().
The issue you are encountering is because of the rather silly definition of std::async (in my opinion) that it doesn't have to execute your code asynchronously, but can instead run it when you attempt to get from its std::future return value.
No matter. If you set the first parameter of your call to std::launch::async you force it to run asynchronously. You can then save the future in a container, and if you retire futures from this container regularly, you can run as many threads as the system will let you.
Here's an example:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <future>
#include <chrono>
#include <vector>
#include <mutex>
using future_store = std::vector<std::future<void>>;
void retireCompletedThreads(future_store &threadList)
{
for (auto i = threadList.begin(); i != threadList.end(); /* ++i */)
{
if (i->wait_for(std::chrono::seconds(0)) == std::future_status::ready)
{
i->get();
i = threadList.erase(i);
}
else
{
++i;
}
}
}
void waitForAllThreads(future_store &threadList)
{
for (auto& f : threadList)
{
f.get();
}
}
std::mutex coutMutex;
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
future_store threadList;
// No infinite loop here, but you can if you want.
// You do need to limit the number of threads you create in some way though,
// for example, only create new threads if threadList.size() < 20.
for (auto i = 0; i < 20; ++i)
{
auto f = std::async(std::launch::async,
[i]() {
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(coutMutex);
std::cout << "Thread " << i << " started" << std::endl;
}
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(coutMutex);
std::cout << "Thread " << i << " completed" << std::endl;
}
});
threadList.push_back(std::move(f));
// Existing threads need to be checked for completion every so often
retireCompletedThreads(threadList);
}
waitForAllThreads(threadList);
}