I have a class executing in a thread.
But I only want to allow it to run for 10 seconds.
Note... I have no means of passing any boolean into the class to stop execution.
So, How can I set up a thread to terminate after 10 seconds?
The class I am testing has potential infinite recursion that may take place and it is pointless to let it run longer than 10 seconds.
TEST_METHOD(TM_ClientServer_Threads)
{
bool bDone = false;
int ii = 0;
std::thread tCounter([&bDone, &ii]()
{
// Black Box: can't touch this; can't pass in a Boolean
while(true)
{
ii++;
}
}
);
std::thread tTimer([&bDone, &tCounter]()
{
Sleep(1000);
bDone = true;
// kill the tCounter thread ?
}
);
tCounter.join();
tTimer.join();
ii = ii + 0; // break point here
}
Related
I have some code running on ESP32 microcontroller with arduino core,
In the setup() function I wish to have some code threadPressureCalib run independently in its own thread, so I do the following:
std::unique_ptr<std::thread> sensorCalib;
void setup()
{
sensorCalib.reset(new std::thread(threadPressureCalib));
std::thread* pc = sensorCalib.get();
pc->detach();
}
void loop()
{
...
}
Then, I define threadPressureCalib() as follows:
void threadPressureCalib()
{
float pressure=0;
int count;
for(timestarted = millis();(millis()-timestarted) < 10000;)
{ // THIS ONE BLOCKS SETUP() AND LOOP() CODE EXECUTION
Serial.println("Doing things");
}
Serial.println("Doing other things");
for (count=1; count<= 5;count++)
{ //THIS ONE DOES NOT BLOCK SETUP() and LOOP()
float temp;
while(!timer2.Delay(2000)); //Not sure if this is blocking anything
do{
temp = adc_pressure();
}while(temp>104.0 || temp<70.0); //Catch errors
pressure += temp;
}
changeSetting(pressure/5.0);
return;
}
Problem: During the first for loop, the setup() function's execution is stopped (as well as loop())
During the second for loop, nothing is stopped and the rest of the code runs in parallel (as expected)
Why is it that the first half of this code blocks, and then the second half does not?
Sorry if the question is vague or improperly asked, my first q here.
Explanation of timer2 per request in comments:
timer2 is a custom timer class, timer2.Delay(TIMEOUT) stores timestamp the first time it's called and returns false on every subsequent call until the current time = TIMEOUT, then it returns true and resets itself
NonBlockDelay timer2;
//time delay function (time in seconds to delay)
// Set iTimeout to current millis plus milliseconds to wait for
/**
* Called with milliseconds to delay.
* Return true if timer expired
*
*/
//Borrowed from someone on StackOverflow...
bool NonBlockDelay::Delay (unsigned long t)
{
if(TimingActive)
{
if((millis() >iTimeout)){
TimingActive = 0;
return(1);
}
return(0);
}
iTimeout = millis() + t;
TimingActive = 1;
return(0);
};
// returns true if timer expired
bool NonBlockDelay::Timeout (void)
{
if(TimingActive){
if((millis() >iTimeout)){
TimingActive = 0;
iTimeout = 0;
return(1);
}
}
return(false);
}
// Returns the current timeout value in milliseconds
unsigned long NonBlockDelay::Time(void)
{
return iTimeout;
}
There is not enough information here to tell you the answer but it seems that you have no idea what you are doing.
std::unique_ptr<std::thread> sensorCalib;
void setup(){
sensorCalib.reset(new std::thread(threadPressureCalib));
std::thread* pc = sensorCalib.get();
pc->detach();
}
So here you store a new thread that executes threadPressureCalib then immediately detach it. Once the thread is detached the instance std::thread no longer manages it. So what's the point of even having std::unique_ptr<std::thread> sensorCalib; in the first place if it literally does nothing? Do you realize that normally you need to join the thread if you wish to wait till it's completion? Could it be that you just start a bunch of instances of these threadPressureCalib - as you probably don't verify that they finished execution - and they interfere with each other?
I have a loop which calls pthread_join but the order of the loop does not match the order of thread's termination.
how can i monitor thread completion then call join?
for ( int th=0; th<sections; th++ )
{
cout<<"start joining "<<th<<endl<<flush;
result_code = pthread_join( threads[th] , (void**)&status);
cout<<th<<" join error "<<strerror(result_code)<<endl<<flush;
cout<<"Join status is "<<status<<endl<<flush;
}
This is my solution, which seems to maximize multi-threading throughput by serving the first
done thread . This solution does not depend on pthread_join loop order.
// loop & wait for the first done thread
std::bitset<Nsections> ready;
std::bitset<Nsections> done;
ready.reset();
for (unsigned b=0; b<sections; b++) ready.flip(b);
done = ready;
unsigned currIdx = 1;
int th = 0;
int th_= 0;
int stat;
while ( done.any() )
{
// main loops waiting for 1st thread to complete.
// completion is checked by global vector
// vStatus (singlton write protected)
// and not by pthread_exit returned value,
// in ordder to maximize throughput by
// post processig the first
// finished thread.
if ( (obj.vStatus).empty() ) { Sleep (5); continue; }
while ( ready.any() )
{
if ( sections == 1 ) break;
if ( !(obj.vStatus).empty() )
{
if ( currIdx <= (obj.vStatus).size() )
{
th_ = currIdx-1;
std::string s =
ready.to_string<char,std::string::traits_type,std::string::allocator_type>();
cout<<"checking "<<th_<<"\t"<<s<<"\t"
<<(ready.test(th_)?"T":"F")<<"\t"<<(obj.vStatus)[th_].retVal <<endl;
if ((obj.vStatus)[th_].retVal < 1)
{
if (ready.test(th_))
{
th=th_;
ready.reset(th);
goto retry;
}
}
}
}
Sleep (2);
} // while ready
retry:
cout<<"start joining "<<th<<endl<<flush;
result_code = pthread_join( threads[th] , (void**)&status);
switch (result_code)
{
case EDEADLK: goto retry; break;
case EINVAL:
case ESRCH:
case 0:
currIdx++;
stat = status->retVal;
free (status);
done.reset(th);
std::string s =
done.to_string<char,std::string::traits_type,std::string::allocator_type>();
cout<<"joined thread "<<th<<"\t"<<s<<"\t"
<<(done.test(th)?"T":"F")<<"\t"<<stat <<endl;
while (true)
{
auto ret=pthread_cancel ( threads[th] ) ;
if (ret == ESRCH) { netTH--; break; }
Sleep (20);
}
break;
}
How can I monitor thread completion then call join ?
By letting join detect the completion. (i.e. do nothing special)
I have a loop which calls pthread_join but the order of the loop does not match the order of thread's termination.
The order of the loop does not matter.
a) thread[main] calling thread[1].'join' will simply be suspended until thread[1] exits. After that, thread[main] will be allowed to continue with the rest of the loop.
b) When thread[2] terminates before thread[1], thread[main] calling thread[2].join simply returns immediately. Again, thread[main] continues.
c) The effort to ensure thread[1] terminates prior to thread[2] (to match the loop sequence) is a surprisingly time consuming effort, with no benefit.
Update in progress ... looking for code I thought I have already submitted.
I have two algorithms to solve a task X ().
How can I get a thread started for algorithm 1 and a thread started for algorithm 2 and wait for the first algorithm to finish after which I kill the other one and proceed?
I have seen that join from std::thread will make me wait for it to finish but I can't do join for both threads, otherwise I will wait for both to complete. I want to issue both of them and wait until one of them completes. What's the best way to achieve this?
You can't kill threads in C++11 so you need to orchestrate their demise.
This could be done by having them loop on an std::atomic<bool> variable and getting the winner to std::call_once() in order to set the return value and flag the other threads to end.
Perhaps a bit like this:
std::once_flag once; // for std::call_once()
void algorithm1(std::atomic<bool>& done, int& result)
{
// Do some randomly timed work
for(int i = 0; !done && i < 3; ++i) // end if done is true
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(std::rand() % 3));
// Only one thread gets to leave a result
std::call_once(once, [&]
{
done = true; // stop other threads
result = 1;
});
}
void algorithm2(std::atomic<bool>& done, int& result)
{
// Do some randomly timed work
for(int i = 0; !done && i < 3; ++i) // end if done is true
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(std::rand() % 3));
// Only one thread gets to leave a result
std::call_once(once, [&]
{
done = true; // stop other threads
result = 2;
});
}
int main()
{
std::srand(std::time(0));
std::atomic<bool> done(false);
int result = 0;
std::thread t1(algorithm1, std::ref(done), std::ref(result));
std::thread t2(algorithm2, std::ref(done), std::ref(result));
t1.join(); // this will end if t2 finishes
t2.join();
std::cout << "result : " << result << '\n';
}
Firstly, don't kill the losing algorithm. Just let it run to completion and ignore the result.
Now, the closest thing to what you asked for is to have a mutex+condvar+result variable (or more likely two results, one for each algorithm).
Code would look something like
X result1, result2;
bool complete1 = false;
bool complete2 = false;
std::mutex result_mutex;
std::condition_variable result_cv;
// simple wrapper to signal when algoN has finished
std::thread t1([&]() { result1 = algo1();
std::unique_lock lock(result_mutex);
complete1 = true;
result_cv.notify_one();
});
std::thread t2([&]() { result2 = algo2();
std::unique_lock lock(result_mutex);
complete2 = true;
result_cv.notify_one();
});
t1.detach();
t2.detach();
// wait until one of the algos has completed
int winner;
{
std::unique_lock lock(result_mutex);
result_cv.wait(lock, [&]() { return complete1 || complete2; });
if (complete1) winner=1;
else winner=2;
}
The other mechanisms, including the future/promise one, require the main thread to busy-wait. The only non-busy-waiting alternative is to move the post-success processing to a call_once: in this case the master thread should just join both children, and the second child will simply return when it finishes processing and realises it lost.
The new C++11 standard offers some methods to solve those problems by using, e.g., futures, promises.
Please have a look at http://de.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/future and When is it a good idea to use std::promise over the other std::thread mechanisms?.
Hy,
I'm writing my first Qt program and getting now in troubles with:
QObject::killTimer: timers cannot be stopped from another thread
QObject::startTimer: timers cannot be started from another thread
My program will communicate to a CANOpen bus for that I'm using the Canfestival Stack. The Canfestival will work with callback methods. To detects timeout in communication I setup a timer function (somehow like a watchdog). My timer package consist out of a "tmr" module, a "TimerForFWUpgrade" module and a "SingleTimer" module. The "tmr" module was originally C programmed so the static "TimerForFWUpgrade" methods will interface it. The "tmr" module will be part of a C programed Firmware update package.
The timer will work as follows. Before a message is sent I will call TMR_Set method. An then in my idle program loop with TMR_IsElapsed we check for a timer underflow. If TMR_IsElapsed I will do the errorhandling. As you see the TMR_Set method will be called continuously and restart the QTimer again and again.
The above noted errors are appearing if I start my program. Can you tell me if my concept could work? Why does this errors appear? Do I have to use additional threads (QThread) to the main thread?
Thank you
Matt
Run and Idle loop:
void run
{
// start communicate with callbacks where TMR_Set is set continously
...
while(TMR_IsElapsed(TMR_NBR_CFU) != 1);
// if TMR_IsElapsed check for errorhandling
....
}
Module tmr (interface to C program):
extern "C"
{
void TMR_Set(UINT8 tmrnbr, UINT32 time)
{
TimerForFWUpgrade::set(tmrnbr, time);
}
INT8 TMR_IsElapsed(UINT8 tmrnbr)
{
return TimerForFWUpgrade::isElapsed(tmrnbr);
}
}
Module TimerForFWUpgrade:
SingleTimer* TimerForFWUpgrade::singleTimer[NR_OF_TIMERS];
TimerForFWUpgrade::TimerForFWUpgrade(QObject* parent)
{
for(unsigned char i = 0; i < NR_OF_TIMERS; i++)
{
singleTimer[i] = new SingleTimer(parent);
}
}
//static
void TimerForFWUpgrade::set(unsigned char tmrnbr, unsigned int time)
{
if(tmrnbr < NR_OF_TIMERS)
{
time *= TimerForFWUpgrade::timeBase;
singleTimer[tmrnbr]->set(time);
}
}
//static
char TimerForFWUpgrade::isElapsed(unsigned char tmrnbr)
{
if(true == singleTimer[tmrnbr]->isElapsed())
{
return 1;
}
else
{
return 0;
}
}
Module SingleTimer:
SingleTimer::SingleTimer(QObject* parent) : QObject(parent),
pTime(new QTimer(this)),
myElapsed(true)
{
connect(pTime, SIGNAL(timeout()), this, SLOT(slot_setElapsed()));
pTime->setTimerType(Qt::PreciseTimer);
pTime->setSingleShot(true);
}
void SingleTimer::set(unsigned int time)
{
myElapsed = false;
pTime->start(time);
}
bool SingleTimer::isElapsed()
{
QCoreApplication::processEvents();
return myElapsed;
}
void SingleTimer::slot_setElapsed()
{
myElapsed = true;
}
Use QTimer for this purpose and make use of SIGNALS and SLOT for the purpose of starting and stopping the timer/s from different threads. You can emit the signal from any thread and catch it in the thread which created the timer to act on it.
Since you say you are new to Qt, I suggest you go through some tutorials before proceeding so that you will know what Qt has to offer and don't end up trying to reinvent the wheel. :)
VoidRealms is a good starting point.
You have this problem because the timers in the static array is created in Thread X, but started and stopped in Thread Y. This is not allowed, because Qt rely on thread affinity to timeout timers.
You can either create, start stop in the same thread or use signal and slots to trigger start and stop operations for timers. The signal and slot solution is a bit problematic Because you have n QTimer objects (Hint: how do you start the timer at position i?)
What you can do instead is create and initialize the timer at position tmrnbr in
TimerForFWUpgrade::set(unsigned char tmrnbr, unsigned int time)
{
singleTimer[tmrnbr] = new SingleTimer(0);
singleTimer[tmrnbr]->set(time);
}
which is executed by the same thread.
Futhermore, you don't need a SingleTimer class. You are using Qt5, and you already have all you need at your disposal:
SingleTimer::isElapsed is really QTimer::remainingTime() == 0;
SingleTimer::set is really QTimer::setSingleShot(true); QTimer::start(time);
SingleTimer::slot_setElapsed becomes useless
ThusSingleTimer::SingleTimer becomes useless and you dont need a SingleTimer class anymore
I got the errors away after changing my timer concept. I'dont use anymore my SingleTimer module. Before the QTimer I won't let timeout and maybe because of that I run into problems. Now I have a cyclic QTimer that times out every 100ms in slot function I will then count the events. Below my working code:
TimerForFWUpgrade::TimerForFWUpgrade(QObject* parent) : QObject(parent),
pTime(new QTimer(this))
{
connect(pTime, SIGNAL(timeout()), this, SLOT(slot_handleTimer()));
pTime->setTimerType(Qt::PreciseTimer);
pTime->start(100);
}
void TimerForFWUpgrade::set(unsigned char tmrnbr, unsigned int time)
{
if(tmrnbr < NR_OF_TIMERS)
{
if(timeBase != 0)
{
myTimeout[tmrnbr] = time / timeBase;
}
else
{
myTimeout[tmrnbr] = 0;
}
myTimer[tmrnbr] = 0;
myElapsed[tmrnbr] = false;
myActive[tmrnbr] = true;
}
}
char TimerForFWUpgrade::isElapsed(unsigned char tmrnbr)
{
QCoreApplication::processEvents();
if(tmrnbr < NR_OF_TIMERS)
{
if(true == myElapsed[tmrnbr])
{
return 1;
}
else
{
return 0;
}
}
else
{
return 0; // NOK
}
}
void TimerForFWUpgrade::slot_handleTimer()
{
for(UINT8 i = 0; i < NR_OF_TIMERS; i++)
{
if(myActive[i] == true)
{
myTimer[i]++;
if(myTimeout[i] < myTimer[i])
{
myTimer[i] = 0;
myElapsed[i] = true;
myActive[i] = false;
}
}
}
}
I am working with a application where the requirement is execute a function after every 100ms.
Below is my code
checkOCIDs()
{
// Do something that might take more than 100ms of time
}
void TimeOut_CallBack(int w)
{
struct itimerval tout_val;
int ret = 0;
signal(SIGALRM,TimeOut_CallBack);
/* Configure the timer to expire after 100000 ... */
tout_val.it_value.tv_sec = 0;
tout_val.it_value.tv_usec = 100000; /* 100000 timer */
/* ... and every 100 msec after that. */
tout_val.it_interval.tv_sec = 0 ;
tout_val.it_interval.tv_usec = 100000;
checkOCIDs();
setitimer(ITIMER_REAL, &tout_val,0);
return ;
}
Function TimeOut_CallBack ( ) is called only once and then on checkOCIDs( ) function must be executed after a wait of 100ms continuously.
Currently, The application is going for a block as checkOCIDs( ) function takes more than 100ms of time to complete and before that the Timer Out is triggered.
I do not wish to use while(1) with sleep( ) / usleep( ) as it eats up my CPU enormously.
Please suggest a alternative to achieve my requirement.
It is not clear whether the "check" function should be executed while it is in progress and timer expires. Maybe it would be ok to you to introduce variable to indicate that timer expired and your function should be executed again after it completes, pseudo-code:
static volatile bool check_in_progress = false;
static volatile bool timer_expired = false;
void TimeOut_CallBack(int w)
{
// ...
if (check_in_progress) {
timer_expired = true;
return;
}
// spawn/resume check function thread
// ...
}
void checkThreadProc()
{
check_in_progress = true;
do {
timer_expired = false;
checkOCIDs();
} while(timer_expired);
check_in_progress = false;
// end thread or wait for a signal to resume
}
Note, that additional synchronization may be required to avoid race conditions (for instance when one thread exists do-while loop and check_in_progress is still set and the other sets timer_expired, check function will not be executed), but that's depends on your requirements details.