Thanks for your time.
What am I trying to accomplish?
I'm trying to utilise threads to speed up my program. After some profiling I found that a large portion of my program time (a graphics application) is utilised checking on the status of my socket. Obviously not ideal when trying to trim the fat and get down to <16ms per cycle. I'm currently using the select function to check for new data and read if data is available.
What's the problem?
I can't get my head around threads & objects, I had a play with some textbook examples running and joining local functions with threads which worked fine. Trying to move this into my own code has proved beyond me.
What have I tried?
I've tried looking to smart pointers to allocate my UDPSocket objects on the heap, with the hope that heap memory is accessible by all threads. I've tried good old new & delete for the same reason. I've tried wrapping my UDPSockets inside another object and getting the whole lot to launch on another thread.
In summary It's absolutely certain that I have a big hole in my understanding of threads, I would be grateful for a solution to this specific problem but also links to any good articles, tutorials, video's etc that might help to further my understanding. Perhaps I simply need to re-examine my whole UDPSocket class? Your advice is most welcome.
I'll post my example below, please note I've stripped out all error checking etc for readability.
#pragma once
#define WIN32_MEAN_AND_LEAN
#include <WS2tcpip.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <thread>
#pragma comment(lib, "ws2_32.lib")
class UDPServer
{
public:
UDPServer(unsigned short port_in)
:
port(port_in)
{
// Startup Winsock
WSADATA data;
WORD version = MAKEWORD(2, 2);
int wsOk = WSAStartup(version, &data);
//Bind socket to port, Any Address
s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, IPPROTO_UDP);
//Hint structure
sockaddr_in serverHint;
serverHint.sin_addr.S_un.S_addr = ADDR_ANY;
serverHint.sin_family = AF_INET;
serverHint.sin_port = htons(port);
bind(s, (sockaddr*)&serverHint, sizeof(serverHint));
}
~UDPServer()
{
closesocket(s);
WSACleanup();
}
bool Recieve()
{
ZeroMemory(&client, clientLength);
if (dataAvailable(s))
{
ZeroMemory(messageBuffer, bufferSize);
int bytesIn = recvfrom(s, messageBuffer, bufferSize, 0, (sockaddr*)&client, &clientLength);
char clientIP[bufferSize];
ZeroMemory(clientIP, bufferSize);
inet_ntop(AF_INET, &client.sin_addr, clientIP, 256);
return true;
}
return false;
}
std::string GetNetworkMessage()
{
std::string message = messageBuffer;
return message;
}
private:
bool dataAvailable(int sock, int interval = 6000)
{
fd_set fds;
FD_ZERO(&fds);
FD_SET(sock, &fds);
timeval tv;
tv.tv_sec = 0;
tv.tv_usec = interval;
return (select(sock + 1, &fds, 0, 0, &tv) == 1);
}
private:
SOCKET s;
sockaddr_in client;
int clientLength = sizeof(client);
static constexpr int bufferSize = 512;
unsigned short port;
char messageBuffer[bufferSize] = {};
};
int main()
{
//Create server object on the heap.
std::unique_ptr<UDPServer> udp = std::make_unique<UDPServer>(6000);
//Get some new threads mate.
std::thread theThread;
std::string oldString = "";
while (true)
{
//Problems...
theThread = std::thread{udp->Recieve()};
if (udp->GetNetworkMessage() != oldString)
{
//print out any changed data we find.
oldString = udp->GetNetworkMessage();
std::cout << oldString << std::endl;
}
}
}
One of the items you weren't clear on is memory accessibility in threads. In Windows, and likely most other operating systems, any memory accessible in the main thread is also accessible by every other thread in the same process.
There are two issues with regards to threads and that memory. The first is how can more than one thread know where a given variable or class is in memory. This is generally solved by passing a pointer to the new thread when it is created. Most thread creation mechanisms provide a parameter for this. So this is the easier issue to solve.
The harder issue to solve is making sure that one thread doesn't change a variable or class while another thread is using it. Generally this is solved by using a mutual exclusion synchronization object, generally referred to as a mutex or a lock. I suggest learning about the concept of a mutex. But bottom line it only allows one thread at a time to access whatever is locked by that mutex. So if one thread is busy changing or using that object the other thread will wait until the other thread has unlocked the object before continuing.
But when you get into multiple locks, there is something called a deadlock. A simple is demonstrated by: Thread A hold lock 1 and is waiting to get access to lock 2. Thread B meanwhile is holding lock 2 and waiting for access to lock 1. So both threads are stuck waiting on the other. The solution is that anytime you have to hold two locks always take them in the same order. So in this case if both threads always took lock 1 then lock 2 they can't deadlock.
The subject matter you want to learn about is threads and thread synchronization.
Related
I am building an application where in I receive socket data. I need to reply this received data after few seconds(say 8 sec after). So I want to know is there a way to schedule an event which sends the socket data after 8 seconds automatically. I don't like to sleep unnecessarily for 8 seconds in the receiving thread or any other thread. This is what I have written so far for receiving socket data which is a pthread.
long DataSock_fd=socket(AF_INET,SOCK_DGRAM,IPPROTO_UDP);
StSocketAddress.sin_family=AF_INET; //address family
StSocketAddress.sin_addr.s_addr=inet_addr("10.10.10.10"); //load ip address
StSocketAddress.sin_port=htons(1234); //load port number
//bind the above socket to the above mentioned address, if result is less than 0(error in binding)
if(bind(DataSock_fd,(struct sockaddr *)&StSocketAddress,sizeof(StSocketAddress))<0)
{
close(DataSock_fd); //close the socket
perror("error while binding\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE); //exit the program
}
char Buff[1024];
long lSize = recvfrom(DataSock_fd,(char *)Buff,sizeof(Buff),0,NULL,NULL);
But I am stuck at scheduling an event that sends data after 8 seconds.
Take a look at this SO answer.
You could use <async> like this to solve your problem:
auto f = std::async(std::launch::async, [] {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
printf("(5 seconds later) Hello");
});
you can either use boost::sleep, or chrono:: sleep_for or chrono:: sleep_until,
but if you don't want to call sleep, my best suggestion for you is to use std::mutex and lock the thread that receive the information from Time.currenttime -startTime == 8.
Approach-1
Since you don't have a C++11 enabled compiler, and am assuming you are not using frameworks such as Qt/boost etc.. Please check if the following code answer your question. It is a simple async timer implementation using pthreads
Sample code:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <time.h>
#define TIME_TO_WAIT_FOR_SEND_SECS (8)
#define FAIL_STATUS_CODE (-1)
#define SUCCESS_STATUS_CODE (0)
typedef void (*TimerThreadCbk)(void *);
typedef struct tTimerThreadInitParams
{
int m_DurationSecs; /* Duration of the timer */
TimerThreadCbk m_Callback; /* Timer callback */
void * m_pAppData; /* App data */
}tTimerThreadInitParams;
void PrintCurrTime()
{
time_t timer;
char buffer[26];
struct tm* tm_info;
time(&timer);
tm_info = localtime(&timer);
strftime(buffer, 26, "%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S", tm_info);
puts(buffer);
}
void* TimerThreadEntry(void *a_pTimerThreadInitParams)
{
tTimerThreadInitParams *pTimerThreadInitParams = (tTimerThreadInitParams *)a_pTimerThreadInitParams;
if(NULL != pTimerThreadInitParams)
{
/*Do validattion of init params */
sleep(pTimerThreadInitParams->m_DurationSecs);
pTimerThreadInitParams->m_Callback(pTimerThreadInitParams->m_pAppData);
}
else
{
printf("pTimerThreadInitParams is (nil)\n");
}
}
TimerCallbackForSend(void *a_pAppData)
{
(void)a_pAppData;
/* Perform action on timer expiry using a_pAppData */
printf("TimerCallbackForSend trigggered at: ");
PrintCurrTime();
}
int main()
{
/* Timer thread initialization parameters */
pthread_t TimerThread;
tTimerThreadInitParams TimerInitParams = {};
TimerInitParams.m_DurationSecs = TIME_TO_WAIT_FOR_SEND_SECS;
TimerInitParams.m_Callback = (TimerThreadCbk) TimerCallbackForSend;
/* Print current time */
printf("Starting timer at:");
PrintCurrTime();
/* Create timer thread*/
if(pthread_create(&TimerThread, NULL, TimerThreadEntry, &TimerInitParams))
{
fprintf(stderr, "Error creating thread\n");
return FAIL_STATUS_CODE;
}
else
{
printf("TimerThread created\n");
}
/* wait for the second thread to finish */
if(pthread_join(TimerThread, NULL))
{
fprintf(stderr, "Error joining thread\n");
return FAIL_STATUS_CODE;
}
else
{
printf("TimerThread finished\n");
}
return SUCCESS_STATUS_CODE;
}
Sample output:
Starting timer at:2017-08-08 20:55:33
TimerThread created
TimerCallbackForSend trigggered at: 2017-08-08 20:55:41
TimerThread finished
Notes:
This is a scratch custom implementation. You can rename main as ScheduleTimer, which will be a generic API which spawns a thread and invokes the registered callback in its own context.
Just now saw that you don't want to sleep in any of the threads.
Approach-2
Refer C: SIGALRM - alarm to display message every second for SIGALRM. May be in the signal handler you can post an event to the queue which your thread will be monitoring
Sleeping, whether by a C++ wrapper or by the system's nanosleep function -- it cannot be said often enough -- is... wrong. Unless precision and reliability doesn't matter at all, do not sleep. Never.
For anything related to timing, use a timer.
If portability is not a high priority, and since the question is tagged "Linux", a timerfd would be one of the best solutions.
The timerfd can be waited upon with select/poll/epoll while waiting for something to be received, and other stuff (signals, events) at the same time. That's very elegant, and it is quite performant, too.
Admitted, since you are using UDP, there is the temptation to not wait for readiness in the first place but to just have recvfrom block. There is however nothing inherently wrong with waiting for readiness. For moderate loads, the extra syscall doesn't matter, but for ultra-high loads, you might even consider going a step further into non-portable land and use recvmmsg to receive several datagrams in one go as indicated by the number of datagrams reported by epoll (see code example on the recvmmsg man page, which combines recvmmsg with epoll_wait).
With an eventfd, you have everything in one single event loop, in one single thread, reliable and efficient. No trickery needed, no need to be extra smart, no worries about concurrency issues.
So I have this winsock application (a server, able to accept multiple clients), where in the main thread I setup the socket and create another thread where I listen for clients (listen_for_clients function).
I also constantly receive data from a device in the main thread, which I afterwards concatenate to char arrays (buffers) of Client objects (BroadcastSample function). Currently I create a thread for each connected client (ProcessClient function), where I initialize a Client object and push it to a global vector of clients after which I send data to this client through the socket whenever the buffer in the corresponding Client object exceeds 4000 characters.
Is there a way I can send data from the main thread to the separate client threads so I don't have to use structs/classes (also to send a green light if I want to send the already accumulated data) and also if I'm going to keep a global container of objects, what is a good way to remove a disconnected client object from it without crashing the program because another thread is using the same container?
struct Client{
int buffer_len;
char current_buffer[5000];
SOCKET s;
};
std::vector<Client*> clientBuffers;
DWORD WINAPI listen_for_clients(LPVOID Param)
{
SOCKET client;
sockaddr_in from;
int fromlen = sizeof(from);
char buf[100];
while(true)
{
client = accept(ListenSocket,(struct sockaddr*)&from,&fromlen);
if(client != INVALID_SOCKET)
{
printf("Client connected\n");
unsigned dwThreadId;
HANDLE hThread = (HANDLE)_beginthreadex(NULL, 0, &ProcessClient, (void*)client, 0, &dwThreadId);
}
}
closesocket(ListenSocket);
WSACleanup();
ExitThread(0);
}
unsigned __stdcall ProcessClient(void *data)
{
SOCKET ClientSocket = (SOCKET)data;
Client * a = new Client();
a->current_buffer[0] = '\0';
a->buffer_len = 0;
a->s = ClientSocket;
clientBuffers.push_back(a);
char szBuffer[255];
while(true)
{
if(a->buffer_len > 4000)
{
send(ClientSocket,a->current_buffer,sizeof(a->current_buffer),0);
memset(a->current_buffer,0,5000);
a->buffer_len = 0;
a->current_buffer[0] = '\0';
}
}
exit(1);
}
//function below is called only in main thread, about every 100ms
void BroadcastSample(Sample s)
{
for(std::vector<Client*>::iterator it = clientBuffers.begin(); it != clientBuffers.end(); it++)
{
strcat((*it)->current_buffer,s.to_string);
(*it)->buffer_len += strlen(s.to_string);
}
}
This link has some Microsoft documentation on MS-style mutexes (muticies?).
This other link has some general info on mutexes.
Mutexes are the general mechanism for protecting data which is accessed by multiple threads. There are data structures with built-in thread safety, but in my experience, they usually have caveats that you'll eventually miss. That's just my two cents.
Also, for the record, you shouldn't use strcat, but rather strncat. Also, if one of your client servicing threads accesses one of those buffers after strncat overwrites the old '\0' but before it appends the new one, you'll have a buffer overread (read past end of allocated buffer).
Mutexes will also solve your current busy-waiting problem. I'm not currently near a windows compiler, or I'd try to help more.
I'm currently working on simple HTTP server. I use Winsock and standard threads from C++11. For each connected (accepted) client there is new thread created.
std::map<SOCKET, std::thread> threads;
bool server_running = true;
while(server_running) {
SOCKET client_socket;
client_socket = accept(listen_socket, NULL, NULL);
if(client_socket == INVALID_SOCKET) {
// some error handling
}
threads[client_socket] = std::thread(clientHandler, client_socket);
}
clientHandler function looks generally like this:
while(1) {
while(!all_data_received) {
bytes_received = recv(client_socket, recvbuf, recvbuflen, 0);
if(bytes_received > 0) {
// do something
} else {
goto client_cleanup;
}
}
// do something
}
client_cleanup: // we also get here when Connection: close was received
closesocket(client_socket);
And here we come to my problem - how to handle all the threads which ended but haven't been joined with main thread and references to them still exist in threads map?
The simplest solution would be probably to iterate over threads frequently (e.q. from another thread?) and join and delete those which returned.
Please share your expertise. :)
PS. Yes, I know about thread pool pattern. I'm not using it in my app (for better or worse). I'm looking for answer concerning my current architecture.
Simple solution? Just detach() after you start the thread. This will mean that once the thread terminates the resources will be cleaned up and you don't need to keep the std::map<SOCKET, std::thread> threads.
std::thread(clientHandler, client_socket).detach();
Otherwise create a thread-safe LIFO queue where during cleanup you push the socket to it.
Then in the main loop you alternately check accept and that queue and when the queue has sockets in them you do threads.erase(socket); for each socket in the queue.
However if you do that then you may as well putt he LIFO in the other direction and use a thread pool.
I have written a client/server application where the server spawns multiple threads depending upon the request from client.
These threads are expected to send some data to the client(string).
The problem is, data gets overwritten on the client side. How do I tackle this issue ?
I have already read some other threads on similar issue but unable to find the exact solution.
Here is my client code to receive data.
while(1)
{
char buff[MAX_BUFF];
int bytes_read = read(sd,buff,MAX_BUFF);
if(bytes_read == 0)
{
break;
}
else if(bytes_read > 0)
{
if(buff[bytes_read-1]=='$')
{
buff[bytes_read-1]='\0';
cout<<buff;
}
else
{
cout<<buff;
}
}
}
Server Thread code :
void send_data(int sd,char *data)
{
write(sd,data,strlen(data));
cout<<data;
}
void *calcWordCount(void *arg)
{
tdata *tmp = (tdata *)arg;
string line = tmp->line;
string s = tmp->arg;
int sd = tmp->sd_c;
int line_no = tmp->line_no;
int startpos = 0;
int finds = 0;
while ((startpos = line.find(s, startpos)) != std::string::npos)
{
++finds;
startpos+=1;
pthread_mutex_lock(&myMux);
tcount++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&myMux);
}
pthread_mutex_lock(&mapMux);
int t=wcount[s];
wcount[s]=t+finds;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mapMux);
char buff[MAX_BUFF];
sprintf(buff,"%s",s.c_str());
sprintf(buff+strlen(buff),"%s"," occured ");
sprintf(buff+strlen(buff),"%d",finds);
sprintf(buff+strlen(buff),"%s"," times on line ");
sprintf(buff+strlen(buff),"%d",line_no);
sprintf(buff+strlen(buff),"\n",strlen("\n"));
send_data(sd,buff);
delete (tdata*)arg;
}
On the server side make sure the shared resource (the socket, along with its associated internal buffer) is protected against the concurrent access.
Define and implement an application level protocol used by the server to make it possible for the client to distinguish what the different threads sent.
As an additional note: One cannot rely on read()/write() reading/writing as much bytes as those two functions were told to read/write. It is an essential necessity to check their return value to learn how much bytes those functions actually read/wrote and loop around them until all data that was intended to be read/written had been read/written.
You should put some mutex to your socket.
When a thread use the socket it should block the socket.
Some mutex example.
I can't help you more without the server code. Because the problem is probably in the server.
I am trying to port to Linux an existing Windows C++ code that uses IOCP. Having decided to use epoll_wait to achieve high concurrency, I am already faced with a theoretical issue of when we try to process received data.
Imagine two threads calling epoll_wait, and two consequetives messages being received such that Linux unblocks the first thread and soon the second.
Example :
Thread 1 blocks on epoll_wait
Thread 2 blocks on epoll_wait
Client sends a chunk of data 1
Thread 1 deblocks from epoll_wait, performs recv and tries to process data
Client sends a chunk of data 2
Thread 2 deblocks, performs recv and tries to process data.
Is this scenario conceivable ? I.e. can it occure ?
Is there a way to prevent it so to avoid implementing synchronization in the recv/processing code ?
If you have multiple threads reading from the same set of epoll handles, I would recommend you put your epoll handles in one-shot level-triggered mode with EPOLLONESHOT. This will ensure that, after one thread observes the triggered handle, no other thread will observe it until you use epoll_ctl to re-arm the handle.
If you need to handle read and write paths independently, you may want to completely split up the read and write thread pools; have one epoll handle for read events, and one for write events, and assign threads to one or the other exclusively. Further, have a separate lock for read and for write paths. You must be careful about interactions between the read and write threads as far as modifying any per-socket state, of course.
If you do go with that split approach, you need to put some thought into how to handle socket closures. Most likely you will want an additional shared-data lock, and 'acknowledge closure' flags, set under the shared data lock, for both read and write paths. Read and write threads can then race to acknowledge, and the last one to acknowledge gets to clean up the shared data structures. That is, something like this:
void OnSocketClosed(shareddatastructure *pShared, int writer)
{
epoll_ctl(myepollhandle, EPOLL_CTL_DEL, pShared->fd, NULL);
LOCK(pShared->common_lock);
if (writer)
pShared->close_ack_w = true;
else
pShared->close_ack_r = true;
bool acked = pShared->close_ack_w && pShared->close_ack_r;
UNLOCK(pShared->common_lock);
if (acked)
free(pShared);
}
I'm assuming here that the situation you're trying to process is something like this:
You have multiple (maybe very many) sockets that you want to receive data from at once;
You want to start processing data from the first connection on Thread A when it is first received and then be sure that data from this connection is not processed on any other thread until you have finished with it in Thread A.
While you are doing that, if some data is now received on a different connection you want Thread B to pick that data and process it while still being sure that no one else can process this connection until Thread B is done with it etc.
Under these circumstances it turns out that using epoll_wait() with the same epoll fd in multiple threads is a reasonably efficient approach (I'm not claiming that it is necessarily the most efficient).
The trick here is to add the individual connections fds to the epoll fd with the EPOLLONESHOT flag. This ensures that once an fd has been returned from an epoll_wait() it is unmonitored until you specifically tell epoll to monitor it again. This ensures that the thread processing this connection suffers no interference as no other thread can be processing the same connection until this thread marks the connection to be monitored again.
You can set up the fd to monitor EPOLLIN or EPOLLOUT again using epoll_ctl() and EPOLL_CTL_MOD.
A significant benefit of using epoll like this in multiple threads is that when one thread is finished with a connection and adds it back to the epoll monitored set, any other threads still in epoll_wait() are immediately monitoring it even before the previous processing thread returns to epoll_wait(). Incidentally that could also be a disadvantage because of lack of cache data locality if a different thread now picks up that connection immediately (thus needing to fetch the data structures for this connection and flush the previous thread's cache). What works best will sensitively depend on your exact usage pattern.
If you are trying to process messages received subsequently on the same connection in different threads then this scheme to use epoll is not going to be appropriate for you, and an approach using a listening thread feeding an efficient queue feeding worker threads might be better.
Previous answers that point out that calling epoll_wait() from multiple threads is a bad idea are almost certainly right, but I was intrigued enough by the question to try and work out what does happen when it is called from multiple threads on the same handle, waiting for the same socket. I wrote the following test code:
#include <netinet/in.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/epoll.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>
struct thread_info {
int number;
int socket;
int epoll;
};
void * thread(struct thread_info * arg)
{
struct epoll_event events[10];
int s;
char buf[512];
sleep(5 * arg->number);
printf("Thread %d start\n", arg->number);
do {
s = epoll_wait(arg->epoll, events, 10, -1);
if (s < 0) {
perror("wait");
exit(1);
} else if (s == 0) {
printf("Thread %d No data\n", arg->number);
exit(1);
}
if (recv(arg->socket, buf, 512, 0) <= 0) {
perror("recv");
exit(1);
}
printf("Thread %d got data\n", arg->number);
} while (s == 1);
printf("Thread %d end\n", arg->number);
return 0;
}
int main()
{
pthread_attr_t attr;
pthread_t threads[2];
struct thread_info thread_data[2];
int s;
int listener, client, epollfd;
struct sockaddr_in listen_address;
struct sockaddr_storage client_address;
socklen_t client_address_len;
struct epoll_event ev;
listener = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0);
if (listener < 0) {
perror("socket");
exit(1);
}
memset(&listen_address, 0, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in));
listen_address.sin_family = AF_INET;
listen_address.sin_addr.s_addr = INADDR_ANY;
listen_address.sin_port = htons(6799);
s = bind(listener,
(struct sockaddr*)&listen_address,
sizeof(listen_address));
if (s != 0) {
perror("bind");
exit(1);
}
s = listen(listener, 1);
if (s != 0) {
perror("listen");
exit(1);
}
client_address_len = sizeof(client_address);
client = accept(listener,
(struct sockaddr*)&client_address,
&client_address_len);
epollfd = epoll_create(10);
if (epollfd == -1) {
perror("epoll_create");
exit(1);
}
ev.events = EPOLLIN;
ev.data.fd = client;
if (epoll_ctl(epollfd, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, client, &ev) == -1) {
perror("epoll_ctl: listen_sock");
exit(1);
}
thread_data[0].number = 0;
thread_data[1].number = 1;
thread_data[0].socket = client;
thread_data[1].socket = client;
thread_data[0].epoll = epollfd;
thread_data[1].epoll = epollfd;
s = pthread_attr_init(&attr);
if (s != 0) {
perror("pthread_attr_init");
exit(1);
}
s = pthread_create(&threads[0],
&attr,
(void*(*)(void*))&thread,
&thread_data[0]);
if (s != 0) {
perror("pthread_create");
exit(1);
}
s = pthread_create(&threads[1],
&attr,
(void*(*)(void*))&thread,
&thread_data[1]);
if (s != 0) {
perror("pthread_create");
exit(1);
}
pthread_join(threads[0], 0);
pthread_join(threads[1], 0);
return 0;
}
When data arrives, and both threads are waiting on epoll_wait(), only one will return, but as subsequent data arrives, the thread that wakes up to handle the data is effectively random between the two threads. I wasn't able to to find a way to affect which thread was woken.
It seems likely that a single thread calling epoll_wait makes most sense, with events passed to worker threads to pump the IO.
I believe that the high performance software that uses epoll and a thread per core creates multiple epoll handles that each handle a subset of all the connections. In this way the work is divided but the problem you describe is avoided.
Generally, epoll is used when you have a single thread listening for data on a single asynchronous source. To avoid busy-waiting (manually polling), you use epoll to let you know when data is ready (much like select does).
It is not standard practice to have multiple threads reading from a single data source, and I, at least, would consider it bad practice.
If you want to use multiple threads, but you only have one input source, then designate one of the threads to listen and queue the data so the other threads can read individual pieces from the queue.