In my code I want my system to sleep, until a condition has been met. An after having searched i have found #include <unistd.h>, but to me it just looks like it sleeps until the time frame has been met. I was wondering if there was a easy way to make the program wait until the condition has been reached.
Here you have a sample of the code to clarify my point
bool check() {
while (condition) {
sleep.here();
} else {
run.the.rest();
}
}
Based on your incomplete pseudo-code and description, here is a class contidion_t, where you can set your condition via set_condition, and a thread blocking in loop will wake up, every time you set it.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <atomic>
struct condition_t {
public:
template <typename T>
void loop(T the_rest) {
while(running) {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock_guard(m);
cv.wait(lock_guard, [this] { return ready.load(); });
the_rest();
ready = false;
}
}
void set_condition(bool value) {
ready = value;
if (value) {
cv.notify_one();
}
}
void stop_running() {
running = false;
ready = true;
cv.notify_all();
}
~condition_t () {stop_running();}
private:
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
std::atomic<bool> ready{false};
std::atomic<bool> running{true};
};
int main() {
condition_t condition;
std::thread thread(&condition_t::loop<void (void)>, &condition, [] () {
std::cout << "Doing the rest" << std::endl;
});
std::cout << "Thread created but waits\nInput something for continue:";
int something;
std::cin >> something;
std::cout << "Continueing\n";
condition.set_condition(true);
std::cout << "Input something to stop running:";
std::cin >> something;
condition.stop_running();
thread.join();
}
Related
In C++ how i can write two parallel threads which will work one by one.For example in below code it need to print 0 t 100 sequentially.In below code the numbers are printing ,but all are not sequential.I need to print like 1,2,3,4,5,6.....99.If any body know , try to add with sample code also.
#pragma once
#include <mutex>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <thread>
#include <condition_variable>
using namespace std;
class CuncurrentThread
{
public:
mutex mtx;
condition_variable cv;
static bool ready;
static bool processed;
void procThread1()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i += 2)
{
unique_lock<mutex> lk(mtx);
cv.notify_one();
if(lk.owns_lock())
cv.wait(lk);
cout << "procThread1 : " << i << "\n";
lk.unlock();
cv.notify_one();
}
};
void procThread2()
{
for (int i = 1; i < 100; i += 2)
{
unique_lock<mutex> lk(mtx);
cv.notify_one();
if (lk.owns_lock())
cv.wait(lk);
cout << "procThread2 : " << i << "\n";
lk.unlock();
cv.notify_one();
}
};
static void ThreadDriver(CuncurrentThread* thr)
{
vector<thread> threads;
threads.push_back(thread(&CuncurrentThread::procThread1, thr));
threads.push_back(thread(&CuncurrentThread::procThread2, thr));
for (auto& thread : threads)
thread.join();
};
};
bool CuncurrentThread::ready = false;
int main()
{
CuncurrentThread tr;
CuncurrentThread::ThreadDriver(&tr);
}
Assuming you have a valid use case for using two threads like this, here is an example. I prefer using std::async over std::thread it has better abstraction and information exchange with the main thread.
The example is written for 2 threads but can easily be changed to more threads.
Live demo here : https://onlinegdb.com/eQex9o_nMz
#include <future>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
// Setup a helper class that sets up
// the three things needed to correctly
// use a condition variable
// 1) a mutex
// 2) a variable
// 3) a condition_variable (which is more of a signal then a variable)
//
// also give this class some functions
// so the the code becomes more self-explaining
class thread_switcher_t
{
public:
void thread1_wait_for_turn()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock{ m_mtx };
m_cv.wait(lock, [&] {return (thread_number==0); });
}
void thread2_wait_for_turn()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock{ m_mtx };
m_cv.wait(lock, [&] {return (thread_number==1); });
}
void next_thread()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock{ m_mtx };
thread_number = (thread_number + 1) % 2;
m_cv.notify_all();
}
private:
std::size_t thread_number{ 0 };
std::mutex m_mtx;
std::condition_variable m_cv;
};
int main()
{
thread_switcher_t switcher;
auto future1 = std::async(std::launch::async, [&]
{
for(std::size_t n = 0; n <= 100; n+=2)
{
switcher.thread1_wait_for_turn();
std::cout << "thread 1 : " << n << "\n";
switcher.next_thread();
}
});
auto future2 = std::async(std::launch::async, [&]
{
for (std::size_t n = 1; n <= 100; n += 2)
{
switcher.thread2_wait_for_turn();
std::cout << "thread 2 : " << n << "\n";
switcher.next_thread();
}
});
future1.get();
future2.get();
return 0;
}
You can use ready variable as a condition for condition variable.
#include <mutex>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <thread>
#include <condition_variable>
using namespace std;
class CuncurrentThread
{
public:
mutex mtx;
condition_variable cv;
static bool ready;
//static bool processed;
void procThread1()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i += 2)
{
unique_lock<mutex> lk(mtx);
// cv.notify_one();
// if(lk.owns_lock())
// wait until this condition is true i.e. until ready is false
cv.wait(lk, [&]() { return !ready; });
cout << "procThread1 : " << i << "\n";
// set ready to true and notify waiting thread
ready = true;
lk.unlock();
cv.notify_one();
}
};
void procThread2()
{
for (int i = 1; i < 100; i += 2)
{
unique_lock<mutex> lk(mtx);
// cv.notify_one();
// if (lk.owns_lock())
// wait until this condition is true i.e. until ready is true
cv.wait(lk, [&]() { return ready; });
cout << "procThread2 : " << i << "\n";
// set ready to false and notify waiting thread
ready = false;
lk.unlock();
cv.notify_one();
}
};
static void ThreadDriver(CuncurrentThread* thr)
{
vector<thread> threads;
threads.push_back(thread(&CuncurrentThread::procThread1, thr));
threads.push_back(thread(&CuncurrentThread::procThread2, thr));
for (auto& thread : threads)
thread.join();
};
};
bool CuncurrentThread::ready = false;
int main()
{
CuncurrentThread tr;
CuncurrentThread::ThreadDriver(&tr);
}
Link where I tested this: https://godbolt.org/z/4jEns16oq
I am trying to create a data structure, ExpiringDeque. It should be somewhat similar to std::deque. Let's say I need only push_back(), size() and pop_front(). The data structure needs to automatically expire up to N first elements every T seconds.
This data structure needs to manage its own queue and expiration thread internally.
How do I write it in a thread safe way? This is an example that I came up with, does this seem reasonable? What am I missing?
#include <algorithm>
#include <atomic>
#include <cassert>
#include <deque>
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <iostream>
template <typename T>
class ExpiringDeque {
public:
ExpiringDeque(int n, int t) : numElements_(n), interval_(t), running_(true), items_({}) {
expiringThread_ = std::thread{[&] () {
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
int waitCounter = 0;
while (true) {
if (!running_) {
return;
}
std::this_thread::sleep_for(1s);
if (waitCounter++ < interval_) {
continue;
}
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(mutex_);
waitCounter = 0;
int numToErase = std::min(numElements_, static_cast<int>(items_.size()));
std::cout << "Erasing " << numToErase << " elements\n";
items_.erase(items_.begin(), items_.begin() + numToErase);
}
}};
}
~ExpiringDeque() {
running_ = false;
expiringThread_.join();
}
T pop_front() {
if (items_.size() == 0) {
throw std::out_of_range("Empty deque");
}
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(mutex_);
T item = items_.front();
items_.pop_front();
return item;
}
int size() {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(mutex_);
return items_.size();
}
void push_back(T item) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(mutex_);
items_.push_back(item);
}
private:
int numElements_;
int interval_;
std::atomic<bool> running_;
std::thread expiringThread_;
std::mutex mutex_;
std::deque<T> items_;
};
int main() {
ExpiringDeque<int> ed(10, 3);
ed.push_back(1);
ed.push_back(2);
ed.push_back(3);
assert(ed.size() == 3);
assert(ed.pop_front() == 1);
assert(ed.size() == 2);
// wait for expiration
sleep(5);
assert(ed.size() == 0);
ed.push_back(10);
assert(ed.size() == 1);
assert(ed.pop_front() == 10);
return 0;
}
You can avoid an unnecessary wait in the destructor of ExpiringDeque by using a condition variable. I would also use std::condition_variable::wait_for with a predicate to check the running_ flag. This will ensure that you either wait for a timeout or a notification, whichever is earlier. You avoid using waitCounter and continue this way.
Another thing you should do is lock the mutex before checking the size of your deque in pop_front(), otherwise it's not thread safe.
Here's an updated version of your code:
template <typename T>
class ExpiringDeque {
public:
ExpiringDeque(int n, int t) : numElements_(n), interval_(t), running_(true), items_({}), cv_() {
expiringThread_ = std::thread{ [&]() {
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
while (true) {
//Wait for timeout or notification
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(mutex_);
cv_.wait_for(lk, interval_ * 1s, [&] { return !running_; });
if (!running_)
return;
//Mutex is locked already - no need to lock again
int numToErase = std::min(numElements_, static_cast<int>(items_.size()));
std::cout << "Erasing " << numToErase << " elements\n";
items_.erase(items_.begin(), items_.begin() + numToErase);
}
} };
}
~ExpiringDeque() {
//Set flag and notify worker thread
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lk(mutex_);
running_ = false;
}
cv_.notify_one();
expiringThread_.join();
}
T pop_front() {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(mutex_);
if (items_.size() == 0) {
throw std::out_of_range("Empty deque");
}
T item = items_.front();
items_.pop_front();
return item;
}
...
private:
int numElements_;
int interval_;
bool running_;
std::thread expiringThread_;
std::mutex mutex_;
std::deque<T> items_;
std::condition_variable cv_;
};
You can make the running_ flag a normal bool since the std::condition_variable::wait_for atomically checks for the timeout or notification.
I am trying to make a thread safe queue in C++17 based on condition variables.
How do I correctly interrupt the WaitAndPop() method in the queue's destructor?
The problem is that user classes will be waiting on the WaitAndPop() call to return before they destruct, meaning that their member queue never destructs, meaning that the return never happens, and I have a deadlock.
Here is a simplified example that illustrates the problem:
#include <condition_variable>
#include <future>
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <queue>
#include <thread>
using namespace std;
using namespace chrono_literals;
class ThreadsafeQueue {
private:
condition_variable cv_;
bool cancel_;
mutex mut_;
queue<int> queue_;
public:
ThreadsafeQueue() : cancel_(false){};
~ThreadsafeQueue() {
// although this would stop the cv, it never runs.
cancel_ = true;
cv_.notify_all();
scoped_lock<mutex> lk(mut_);
}
void Push(int x) {
{
scoped_lock<mutex> lk(mut_);
queue_.push(x);
}
cv_.notify_all();
}
// returns true if successful
bool WaitAndPop(int &out) {
unique_lock<mutex> lk(mut_);
cv_.wait(lk, [this]() { return cancel_ || ! queue_.empty(); });
if (cancel_) return false;
out = queue_.front();
queue_.pop();
return true;
}
};
class MyClass {
private:
future<void> fill_fut_;
future<void> serve_fut_;
ThreadsafeQueue queue_;
bool running_;
public:
MyClass() : running_(true) {
fill_fut_ = async(launch::async, &MyClass::FillThread, this);
serve_fut_ = async(launch::async, &MyClass::ServeThread, this);
};
~MyClass() {
running_ = false;
fill_fut_.get();
serve_fut_.get(); // this prevents the threadsafe queue from destructing,
// which
// prevents the serve thread from stopping.
}
void FillThread() {
while (running_) {
queue_.Push(rand() & 100);
this_thread::sleep_for(200ms);
}
}
void ServeThread() {
while (running_) {
int x;
bool ok = queue_.WaitAndPop(x); // this never returns because the queue
// never destructs
if (ok)
cout << "popped: " << x << endl; // prints five times
else
cout << "pop failed"; // does not reach here
}
}
};
int main() {
MyClass obj;
this_thread::sleep_for(1s);
return 0;
}
This is a simple program which has a function start() which waits for user to enter something(using infinite loop) and stores it in queue. start() runs in a separate thread. After user enters some value, the size of queue remains zero in main. How can the queue be synchronized?
code: source.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "kl.h"
using namespace std;
int main()
{
std::thread t1(start);
while (1)
{
if (q.size() > 0)
{
std::cout << "never gets inside this if\n";
std::string first = q.front();
q.pop();
}
}
t1.join();
}
code: kl.h
#include <queue>
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
void start();
static std::queue<std::string> q;
code: kl.cpp
#include "kl.h"
using namespace std;
void start()
{
char i;
string str;
while (1)
{
for (i = 0; i <= 1000; i++)
{
//other stuff and str input
q.push(str);
}
}
}
Your code contains a race - by me it crashed; both threads are potentially modifying a shared queue. (Also, you're looping with char i for values up to 1000 - not a good idea, probably.)
You should protect your shared queue with a std::mutex, and use a std::condition_variable to notify that there is a reason to check the queue.
Specifically, you should consider the following (which is very common for your case of a producer consumer):
Access the queue only when holding the mutex.
Use the condition variable to notify that you've pushed something into it.
Use the condition variable to specify a condition on when there's a point to continue processing.
Here is a rewrite of your code:
#include <iostream>
#include <queue>
#include <thread>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <mutex>
using namespace std;
std::queue<std::string> q;
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
void start()
{
string str;
for (std::size_t i = 0; i <= 1000; i++) {
//other stuff and str input
std::cout << "here" << std::endl;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
q.push(str);
lk.unlock();
cv.notify_one();
}
}
int main()
{
std::thread t1(start);
for (std::size_t i = 0; i <= 1000; i++)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
cv.wait(lk, []{return !q.empty();});
std::string first = q.front();
q.pop();
}
t1.join();
}
My synced queue class example and its usage:
template<typename T>
class SyncQueue
{
std::queue<T> m_Que;
std::mutex m_Lock;
std::condition_variable m_ConVar;
public:
void enque(T item)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m_Lock);
m_Que.push(item);
lock.unlock();
m_ConVar.notify_all();
}
T deque()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m_Lock);
do
{
m_ConVar.wait(lock);
} while(m_Que.size() == 0); // extra check from spontaneous notifications
auto ret = m_Que.front();
m_Que.pop();
return ret;
}
};
int main()
{
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
SyncQueue<int> sq;
std::thread consumer([&sq]()
{
std::cout << "consumer" << std::endl;
for(;;)
{
std::cout << sq.deque() << std::endl;
}
});
std::thread provider([&sq]()
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(1s);
sq.enque(1);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(3s);
sq.enque(2);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(5s);
sq.enque(3);
});
consumer.join();
return 0;
}
/* Here I have a code snippate with Separate class for
Producing and Consuming along with buffer class */
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <thread>
#include <deque>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
mutex _mutex_1,_mutex_2;
condition_variable cv;
template <typename T>
class Queue
{
deque<T> _buffer;
const unsigned int max_size = 10;
public:
Queue() = default;
void push(const T& item)
{
while(1)
{
unique_lock<mutex> locker(_mutex_1);
cv.wait(locker,[this](){ return _buffer.size() < max_size; });
_buffer.push_back(item);
locker.unlock();
cv.notify_all();
return;
}
}
T pop()
{
while(1)
{
unique_lock<mutex> locker(_mutex_1);
cv.wait(locker,[this](){ return _buffer.size() > 0; });
int back = _buffer.back();
_buffer.pop_back();
locker.unlock();
cv.notify_all();
return back;
}
}
};
class Producer
{
Queue<int>* _buffer;
public:
Producer(Queue<int>* _buf)
{
this->_buffer = _buf;
}
void run()
{
while(1)
{
auto num = rand()%100;
_buffer->push(num);
_mutex_2.lock();
cout<<"Produced:"<<num<<endl;
this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(50));
_mutex_2.unlock();
}
}
};
class Consumer
{
Queue<int>* _buffer;
public:
Consumer(Queue<int>* _buf)
{
this->_buffer = _buf;
}
void run()
{
while(1)
{
auto num = _buffer->pop();
_mutex_2.lock();
cout<<"Consumed:"<<num<<endl;
this_thread::sleep_for(chrono::milliseconds(50));
_mutex_2.unlock();
}
}
};
void client()
{
Queue<int> b;
Producer p(&b);
Consumer c(&b);
thread producer_thread(&Producer::run, &p);
thread consumer_thread(&Consumer::run, &c);
producer_thread.join();
consumer_thread.join();
}
int main()
{
client();
return 0;
}
Suppose to have a thread like this
void mythread()
{
int res;
while(1) {
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mylock);
res = do_my_stuff();
}
boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::seconds(5));
}
}
and that the thread is currently sleeping. If something happens outside of the thread, I'd like to be able to increase the sleep time.
What is the best way to do it?
Using a condition_variable to signal changes to the deadline
This has the benefit of supporting scenarios where the timeout is shortened:
See it Live On Coliru
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>
#include <condition_variable>
namespace demo
{
namespace chrono = std::chrono;
using our_clock = chrono::system_clock;
struct Worker
{
mutable std::mutex _mx;
// shared, protected by _mx:
our_clock::time_point _deadline;
mutable std::condition_variable _cv;
Worker(our_clock::time_point deadline) : _deadline(deadline) {}
void operator()() const {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(_mx);
_cv.wait_until(lk, _deadline, [this]
{
std::cout << "worker: Signaled\n";
auto now = our_clock::now();
if (now >= _deadline)
return true;
std::cout << "worker: Still waiting " << chrono::duration_cast<chrono::milliseconds>(_deadline - now).count() << "ms...\n";
return false;
});
std::cout << "worker: Done\n";
}
};
}
int main()
{
using namespace demo;
Worker worker(our_clock::now() + chrono::seconds(2));
auto th = std::thread(std::cref(worker));
// after 2 seconds, update the timepoint
std::this_thread::sleep_for(chrono::seconds(1));
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lk(worker._mx);
std::cout << "Updating shared delay value..." << "\n";
worker._deadline = our_clock::now() + chrono::seconds(1);
worker._cv.notify_all();
}
th.join();
}
C++11 standard library (no signaling)
Here's a standard-library only approach which uses no synchronization around the deadline.
I'd have preferred to use atomic time_point for the deadline value itself, but that's not supported. Next best thing would have been shared_ptr<time_point> (with std::atomic_load/atomic_store) but my compiler's library doesn't implement this yet (grrr).
So, instead, I share the 'offset' since a start time:
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
namespace demo
{
namespace chrono = std::chrono;
using our_clock = chrono::system_clock;
using shared_delay = std::atomic<our_clock::duration>;
void worker(our_clock::time_point const start, shared_delay const& delay)
{
for (our_clock::time_point deadline; our_clock::now() < (deadline = start + delay.load());)
{
std::cout << "worker: Sleeping for " << chrono::duration_cast<chrono::milliseconds>(deadline - our_clock::now()).count() << "ms...\n";
std::this_thread::sleep_until(deadline);
}
std::cout << "worker: Done\n";
}
}
int main()
{
using namespace demo;
shared_delay delay(chrono::seconds(2));
auto th = std::thread(worker, our_clock::now(), std::cref(delay));
// after 2 seconds, update the timepoint
std::this_thread::sleep_for(chrono::seconds(1));
std::cout << "Updating shared delay value..." << "\n";
delay.store(chrono::seconds(3));
th.join();
}
See it Live on Coliru
Here is a quick and dirty method:
volatile bool someCondition = false;
void callFromOtherThread(bool x) {
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mylock2);
someCondition = x;
}
void mythread()
{
int res;
while(1) {
bool keepwaiting = false;
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mylock2);
keepwaiting = someCondition;
}
if (!keepwaiting) {
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mylock);
res = do_my_stuff();
}
boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::seconds(5));
}
}
When your thread finished sleeping, it checks it 'something else' happened, and if it did, it skips 'do_my_stuff()' and goes back to sleep again.
I suspect with somewhat more information about your use case it might be possible to rewrite things to use a condition variable.