Was trying to execute a piece of code only when mutex is locked. Methods in class mainclass does the task only when the mutex is locked. To avoid creating undefined behaviour when the mutex is unlocked without locking ( considering case where locking may fail), lock and unlock is handled with constructor and destructor of mutexclass.
I want to check if mutex is locked before executing the code from mainclass methods calling1() and calling2(). As constructor won't return values, want to know alternate methods of doing this.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class mutexclass
{
public:
pthread_mutex_t *mutex;
bool a = true;
mutexclass(pthread_mutex_t* inmutex)
{ mutex= inmutex;
int err=pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);
cout<<"automutex constructor";
if(err != 0)
a = false;
};
~mutexclass()
{
if(a)
{
pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);
cout<<"automutex destructor";
}
else
cout<<"a is not true";
};
};
class mainclass{
public:
mainclass();
~mainclass();
pthread_mutex_t lock;
void calling1();
void calling2();
};
mainclass::mainclass()
{
pthread_mutex_init(&lock,NULL);
}
mainclass::~mainclass()
{
pthread_mutex_destroy(&lock);
}
void mainclass::calling1()
{
mutexclass m = mutexclass(&lock);
//call cout only if mutex lock is successful
cout<<"calling1";
}
void mainclass::calling2()
{
mutexclass m = mutexclass(&lock);
cout<<"calling2";
}
int main() {
mainclass s;
s.calling1();
s.calling2();
return 0;
}
You should really use std::mutex and std::lock_guard, and in general the standard C++ threading support. But if for some reason you can't (maybe this is a learning exercise?) then I recommend preventing mutexclass from ever being in a state where the mutex is not locked. That should be an error, so throw an exception if the lock can't be acquired.
It's also important to prevent instances from being copied. Otherwise, the same mutex will be unlocked multiple times in the destructor of each copy. To prevent that, delete the copy constructor and assignment operator.
#include <system_error>
class mutexclass
{
public:
explicit mutexclass(pthread_mutex_t* inmutex)
: mutex(inmutex)
{
int err = pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);
if (err != 0) {
throw std::system_error(err, std::generic_category(),
"pthread mutex lock acquisition failure");
}
}
~mutexclass()
{
pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);
}
mutexclass(const mutexclass&) = delete;
mutexclass& operator=(const mutexclass&) = delete;
private:
pthread_mutex_t* mutex;
};
Now you can implement the calling* functions like this:
void mainclass::calling1()
{
try {
mutexclass m(&lock);
cout << "calling1\n";
} catch (const std::exception& e) {
// Could not lock.
}
}
You set a boolean to indicate whether the mutex is locked or not. You can also check that value outside the class:
class mutexclass
{
public:
mutexclass(pthread_mutex_t* inmutex)
{
mutex = inmutex;
int err = pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);
if(err == 0) locked_ = true;
}
~mutexclass()
{
if(locked_) {
pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);
}
}
bool locked() const { return locked_; }
private:
pthread_mutex_t *mutex;
bool locked_ = false;
};
void mainclass::calling1()
{
mutexclass m = mutexclass(&lock);
//call cout only if mutex lock is successful
if (m.locked()) {
cout<<"calling1";
}
}
You could also use std::mutex, which throws an exception on errors.
Related
I'm using this class for producer-consumer setup in C++:
#pragma once
#include <queue>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <memory>
#include <atomic>
template <typename T> class SafeQueue
{
public:
SafeQueue() :
_shutdown(false)
{
}
void Enqueue(T item)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(_queue_mutex);
bool was_empty = _queue.empty();
_queue.push(std::move(item));
lock.unlock();
if (was_empty)
_condition_variable.notify_one();
}
bool Dequeue(T& item)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(_queue_mutex);
while (!_shutdown && _queue.empty())
_condition_variable.wait(lock);
if(!_shutdown)
{
item = std::move(_queue.front());
_queue.pop();
return true;
}
return false;
}
bool IsEmpty()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(_queue_mutex);
return _queue.empty();
}
void Shutdown()
{
_shutdown = true;
_condition_variable.notify_all();
}
private:
std::mutex _queue_mutex;
std::condition_variable _condition_variable;
std::queue<T> _queue;
std::atomic<bool> _shutdown;
};
And I use it like this:
class Producer
{
public:
Producer() :
_running(true),
_t(std::bind(&Producer::ProduceThread, this))
{ }
~Producer()
{
_running = false;
_incoming_packets.Shutdown();
_t.join();
}
SafeQueue<Packet> _incoming_packets;
private:
void ProduceThread()
{
while(_running)
{
Packet p = GetNewPacket();
_incoming_packets.Enqueue(p);
}
}
std::atomic<bool> _running;
std::thread _t;
}
class Consumer
{
Consumer(Producer* producer) :
_producer(producer),
_t(std::bind(&Consumer::WorkerThread, this))
{ }
~Consumer()
{
_t.join();
}
private:
void WorkerThread()
{
Packet p;
while(producer->_incoming_packets.Dequeue(p))
ProcessPacket(p);
}
std::thread _t;
Producer* _producer;
}
This works most of the time. But once in a while when I delete the producer (and causing it's deconstructor to call SafeQueue::Shutdown, the _t.join() blocks forever.
My guess is the that the problem is here (in SafeQueue::Dequeue):
while (!_shutdown && _queue.empty())
_condition_variable.wait(lock);
SafeQueue::Shutdown from thread #1 gets called while thread #2 finished checking _shutdown but before it executed _condition_variable.wait(lock), so it "misses" the notify_all(). Can this happen?
If that's the problem, what's the best way to solve it?
Since the SafeQueue object is owned by the producer, deleting the producer causes a race condition between the consumer being notified and the SafeQueue being deleted out from under it when ~Producer completes.
I suggest having the shared resource being owned by neither the producer nor consumer, but passed as a reference to the constructor of each.
Change the Producer and Consumer constructors;
Producer( SafeQueue<Packet> & queue ) :
_running(false), _incoming_packets(queue) {}
Consumer( SafeQueue<Packet> & queue ) :
_running(false), _incoming_packets(queue) {}
Use your instances this way;
SafeQueue<Packet> queue;
Producer producer(queue);
Consumer consumer(queue);
...do stuff...
queue.shutdown();
This also resolves a poor design issue you have in the Consumer class being so tightly coupled to the Producer class.
Also, it's probably a bad idea to kill and join threads in a destructor, as you do for ~Producer. Better to add a Shutdown() method to each thread class, and call them explicitly;
producer.shutdown();
consumer.shutdown();
queue.shutdown();
Shutdown order doesn't really matter, unless you are concerned about losing unprocessed packets that are still in the queue when you stop the consumer.
In your SafeQueue::Dequeue, you are probably using std::condition_variable the wrong way... Change this:
bool Dequeue(T& item)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(_queue_mutex);
while (!_shutdown && _queue.empty())
_condition_variable.wait(lock);
if(!_shutdown)
{
item = std::move(_queue.front());
_queue.pop();
return true;
}
return false;
}
to
bool Dequeue(T& item)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(_queue_mutex);
_condition_variable.wait(lock, []{ return _shutdown || !_queue.empty() });
if(!_shutdown)
{
item = std::move(_queue.front());
_queue.pop();
return true;
}
return false;
}
Secondly, the order of initialization of the data members in Consumer isn't right with regards to its constructor
class Consumer
{
Consumer(Producer* producer) :
_producer(producer),
_t(std::bind(&Consumer::WorkerThread, this))
{ }
......
// _t will be constructed first, regardless of your constructor initializer list
// Meaning, the thread can even start running using an unintialized _producer
std::thread _t;
Producer* _producer;
}
It should be reordered to:
class Consumer
{
Consumer(Producer* producer) :
_producer(producer),
_t(std::bind(&Consumer::WorkerThread, this))
{ }
......
Producer* _producer;
std::thread _t;
}
Another part of your problem is covered by CAB's answer
There is a shared_mutex class planned for C++17. And shared_timed_mutex already in C++14. (Who knows why they came in that order, but whatever.) Then there is a recursive_mutex and a recursive_timed_mutex since C++11. What I need is a shared_recursive_mutex. Did I miss something in the standard or do I have to wait another three years for a standardized version of that?
If there is currently no such facility, what would be a simple (first priority) and efficient (2nd priority) implementation of such a feature using standard C++ only?
Recursive property of the mutex operates with the term "owner", which in case of a shared_mutex is not well-defined: several threads may have .lock_shared() called at the same time.
Assuming "owner" to be a thread which calls .lock() (not .lock_shared()!), an implementation of the recursive shared mutex can be simply derived from shared_mutex:
class shared_recursive_mutex: public shared_mutex
{
public:
void lock(void) {
std::thread::id this_id = std::this_thread::get_id();
if(owner == this_id) {
// recursive locking
count++;
}
else {
// normal locking
shared_mutex::lock();
owner = this_id;
count = 1;
}
}
void unlock(void) {
if(count > 1) {
// recursive unlocking
count--;
}
else {
// normal unlocking
owner = std::thread::id();
count = 0;
shared_mutex::unlock();
}
}
private:
std::atomic<std::thread::id> owner;
int count;
};
The field .owner needs to be declared as atomic, because in the .lock() method this field is checked without a protection from the concurrent access.
If you want to recursively call .lock_shared() method, you need to maintain a map of owners, and accesses to that map should be protected with some additional mutex.
Allowing a thread with active .lock() to call .lock_shared() makes implementation to be more complex.
Finally, allowing a thread to advance locking from .lock_shared() to .lock() is no-no, as it leads to possible deadlock when two threads attempt to perform that advancing.
Again, semantic of recursive shared mutex would be very fragile, so it is better to not use it at all.
If you are on Linux / POSIX platform, you are in luck because C++ mutexes are modelled after POSIX ones. The POSIX ones provide more features, including being recursive, process shared and more. And wrapping POSIX primitives into C++ classes is straight-forward.
Good entry point into POSIX threads documentation.
Here is a quick thread-safety wrapper around a type T:
template<class T, class Lock>
struct lock_guarded {
Lock l;
T* t;
T* operator->()&&{ return t; }
template<class Arg>
auto operator[](Arg&&arg)&&
-> decltype(std::declval<T&>()[std::declval<Arg>()])
{
return (*t)[std::forward<Arg>(arg)];
}
T& operator*()&&{ return *t; }
};
constexpr struct emplace_t {} emplace {};
template<class T>
struct mutex_guarded {
lock_guarded<T, std::unique_lock<std::mutex>>
get_locked() {
return {{m},&t};
}
lock_guarded<T const, std::unique_lock<std::mutex>>
get_locked() const {
return {{m},&t};
}
lock_guarded<T, std::unique_lock<std::mutex>>
operator->() {
return get_locked();
}
lock_guarded<T const, std::unique_lock<std::mutex>>
operator->() const {
return get_locked();
}
template<class F>
std::result_of_t<F(T&)>
operator->*(F&& f) {
return std::forward<F>(f)(*get_locked());
}
template<class F>
std::result_of_t<F(T const&)>
operator->*(F&& f) const {
return std::forward<F>(f)(*get_locked());
}
template<class...Args>
mutex_guarded(emplace_t, Args&&...args):
t(std::forward<Args>(args)...)
{}
mutex_guarded(mutex_guarded&& o):
t( std::move(*o.get_locked()) )
{}
mutex_guarded(mutex_guarded const& o):
t( *o.get_locked() )
{}
mutex_guarded() = default;
~mutex_guarded() = default;
mutex_guarded& operator=(mutex_guarded&& o)
{
T tmp = std::move(o.get_locked());
*get_locked() = std::move(tmp);
return *this;
}
mutex_guarded& operator=(mutex_guarded const& o):
{
T tmp = o.get_locked();
*get_locked() = std::move(tmp);
return *this;
}
private:
std::mutex m;
T t;
};
You can use either:
mutex_guarded<std::vector<int>> guarded;
auto s0 = guarded->size();
auto s1 = guarded->*[](auto&&e){return e.size();};
both do roughly the same thing, and the object guarded is only accessed when the mutex is locked.
Stealing from #tsyvarev 's answer (with some minor changes) we get:
class shared_recursive_mutex
{
std::shared_mutex m
public:
void lock(void) {
std::thread::id this_id = std::this_thread::get_id();
if(owner == this_id) {
// recursive locking
++count;
} else {
// normal locking
m.lock();
owner = this_id;
count = 1;
}
}
void unlock(void) {
if(count > 1) {
// recursive unlocking
count--;
} else {
// normal unlocking
owner = std::thread::id();
count = 0;
m.unlock();
}
}
void lock_shared() {
std::thread::id this_id = std::this_thread::get_id();
if (shared_counts->count(this_id)) {
++(shared_count.get_locked()[this_id]);
} else {
m.lock_shared();
shared_count.get_locked()[this_id] = 1;
}
}
void unlock_shared() {
std::thread::id this_id = std::this_thread::get_id();
auto it = shared_count->find(this_id);
if (it->second > 1) {
--(it->second);
} else {
shared_count->erase(it);
m.unlock_shared();
}
}
private:
std::atomic<std::thread::id> owner;
std::atomic<std::size_t> count;
mutex_guarded<std::map<std::thread::id, std::size_t>> shared_counts;
};
try_lock and try_lock_shared left as an exercise.
Both lock and unlock shared lock the mutex twice (this is safe, as the branches are really about "is this thread in control of the mutex", and another thread cannot change that answer from "no" to "yes" or vice versa). You could do it with one lock with ->* instead of ->, which would make it faster (at the cost of some complexity in the logic).
The above does not support having an exclusive lock, then a shared lock. That is tricky. It cannot support having a shared lock, then upgrading to an unique lock, because that is basically impossible to stop it from deadlocking when 2 threads try that.
That last issue may be why recursive shared mutexes are a bad idea.
It is possible to construct a shared recursive mutex using existing primitives. I don't recommend doing it, though.
It isn't simple, and wrapping the existing POSIX implementation (or whatever is native to your platform) is very likely to be more efficient.
If you do decide to write your own implementation, making it efficient still depends on platform-specific details, so you're either writing an interface with a different implementation for each platform, or you're selecting a platform and could just as easily use the native (POSIX or whatever) facilities instead.
I'm certainly not going to provide a sample recursive read/write lock implementation, because it's a wholly unreasonable amount of work for an Stack Overflow answer.
Sharing my implementation, no promises
recursive_shared_mutex.h
#ifndef _RECURSIVE_SHARED_MUTEX_H
#define _RECURSIVE_SHARED_MUTEX_H
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <map>
struct recursive_shared_mutex
{
public:
recursive_shared_mutex() :
m_mtx{}, m_exclusive_thread_id{}, m_exclusive_count{ 0 }, m_shared_locks{}
{}
void lock();
bool try_lock();
void unlock();
void lock_shared();
bool try_lock_shared();
void unlock_shared();
recursive_shared_mutex(const recursive_shared_mutex&) = delete;
recursive_shared_mutex& operator=(const recursive_shared_mutex&) = delete;
private:
inline bool is_exclusive_locked()
{
return m_exclusive_count > 0;
}
inline bool is_shared_locked()
{
return m_shared_locks.size() > 0;
}
inline bool can_exclusively_lock()
{
return can_start_exclusive_lock() || can_increment_exclusive_lock();
}
inline bool can_start_exclusive_lock()
{
return !is_exclusive_locked() && (!is_shared_locked() || is_shared_locked_only_on_this_thread());
}
inline bool can_increment_exclusive_lock()
{
return is_exclusive_locked_on_this_thread();
}
inline bool can_lock_shared()
{
return !is_exclusive_locked() || is_exclusive_locked_on_this_thread();
}
inline bool is_shared_locked_only_on_this_thread()
{
return is_shared_locked_only_on_thread(std::this_thread::get_id());
}
inline bool is_shared_locked_only_on_thread(std::thread::id id)
{
return m_shared_locks.size() == 1 && m_shared_locks.find(id) != m_shared_locks.end();
}
inline bool is_exclusive_locked_on_this_thread()
{
return is_exclusive_locked_on_thread(std::this_thread::get_id());
}
inline bool is_exclusive_locked_on_thread(std::thread::id id)
{
return m_exclusive_count > 0 && m_exclusive_thread_id == id;
}
inline void start_exclusive_lock()
{
m_exclusive_thread_id = std::this_thread::get_id();
m_exclusive_count++;
}
inline void increment_exclusive_lock()
{
m_exclusive_count++;
}
inline void decrement_exclusive_lock()
{
if (m_exclusive_count == 0)
{
throw std::logic_error("Not exclusively locked, cannot exclusively unlock");
}
if (m_exclusive_thread_id == std::this_thread::get_id())
{
m_exclusive_count--;
}
else
{
throw std::logic_error("Calling exclusively unlock from the wrong thread");
}
}
inline void increment_shared_lock()
{
increment_shared_lock(std::this_thread::get_id());
}
inline void increment_shared_lock(std::thread::id id)
{
if (m_shared_locks.find(id) == m_shared_locks.end())
{
m_shared_locks[id] = 1;
}
else
{
m_shared_locks[id] += 1;
}
}
inline void decrement_shared_lock()
{
decrement_shared_lock(std::this_thread::get_id());
}
inline void decrement_shared_lock(std::thread::id id)
{
if (m_shared_locks.size() == 0)
{
throw std::logic_error("Not shared locked, cannot shared unlock");
}
if (m_shared_locks.find(id) == m_shared_locks.end())
{
throw std::logic_error("Calling shared unlock from the wrong thread");
}
else
{
if (m_shared_locks[id] == 1)
{
m_shared_locks.erase(id);
}
else
{
m_shared_locks[id] -= 1;
}
}
}
std::mutex m_mtx;
std::thread::id m_exclusive_thread_id;
size_t m_exclusive_count;
std::map<std::thread::id, size_t> m_shared_locks;
std::condition_variable m_cond_var;
};
#endif
recursive_shared_mutex.cpp
#include "recursive_shared_mutex.h"
#include <condition_variable>
void recursive_shared_mutex::lock()
{
std::unique_lock sync_lock(m_mtx);
m_cond_var.wait(sync_lock, [this] { return can_exclusively_lock(); });
if (is_exclusive_locked_on_this_thread())
{
increment_exclusive_lock();
}
else
{
start_exclusive_lock();
}
}
bool recursive_shared_mutex::try_lock()
{
std::unique_lock sync_lock(m_mtx);
if (can_increment_exclusive_lock())
{
increment_exclusive_lock();
return true;
}
if (can_start_exclusive_lock())
{
start_exclusive_lock();
return true;
}
return false;
}
void recursive_shared_mutex::unlock()
{
{
std::unique_lock sync_lock(m_mtx);
decrement_exclusive_lock();
}
m_cond_var.notify_all();
}
void recursive_shared_mutex::lock_shared()
{
std::unique_lock sync_lock(m_mtx);
m_cond_var.wait(sync_lock, [this] { return can_lock_shared(); });
increment_shared_lock();
}
bool recursive_shared_mutex::try_lock_shared()
{
std::unique_lock sync_lock(m_mtx);
if (can_lock_shared())
{
increment_shared_lock();
return true;
}
return false;
}
void recursive_shared_mutex::unlock_shared()
{
{
std::unique_lock sync_lock(m_mtx);
decrement_shared_lock();
}
m_cond_var.notify_all();
}
If a thread owns a shared lock, it may also obtain an exclusive lock without giving up it's shared lock. (This of course requires no other thread currently has a shared or exclusive lock)
Vice-versa, a thread which owns an exclusive lock may obtain a shared lock.
Interestingly, these properties also allow locks to be upgradable/downgradable.
Temporarily upgrading lock:
recusrive_shared_mutex mtx;
foo bar;
mtx.lock_shared();
if (bar.read() == x)
{
mtx.lock();
bar.write(y);
mtx.unlock();
}
mtx.unlock_shared();
Downgrading from an exclusive lock to a shared lock
recusrive_shared_mutex mtx;
foo bar;
mtx.lock();
bar.write(x);
mtx.lock_shared();
mtx.unlock();
while (bar.read() != y)
{
// Something
}
mtx.unlock_shared();
I searched for a C++ read-write-lock and came across this related question. We did need exactly such a shared_recursive_mutex to control access to our "database" class from multiple threads. So, for completeness: If you are looking for another implementation example (like I was), you may want to consider this link too: shared_recursive_mutex implementation using C++17 (on github).
Features
C++17
Single Header
Dependency-free
It has a disadvantage though: static thread_local members specialized for a PhantomType class via template. So, you can't really use this shared_recursive_mutex in multiple separate instances of the same (PhantomType) class. Try it, if that is no restriction for you.
The following implementation supports first having a unique_lock and then acquiring an additional shared_lock in the same thread:
#include <shared_mutex>
#include <thread>
class recursive_shared_mutex: public std::shared_mutex {
public:
void lock() {
if (owner_ != std::this_thread::get_id()) {
std::shared_mutex::lock();
owner_ = std::this_thread::get_id();
}
++count_;
}
void unlock() {
--count_;
if (count_ == 0) {
owner_ = std::thread::id();
std::shared_mutex::unlock();
}
}
void lock_shared() {
if (owner_ != std::this_thread::get_id()) {
std::shared_mutex::lock_shared();
}
}
void unlock_shared() {
if (owner_ != std::this_thread::get_id()) {
std::shared_mutex::unlock_shared();
}
}
private:
std::atomic<std::thread::id> owner_;
std::atomic_uint32_t count_ = 0;
};
I have an object which contains a thread which indirectly accesses this object like so:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <atomic>
class A;
class Manager
{
public:
Manager(void) = default;
void StartA(void)
{
a = std::make_unique<A>(*this);
}
void StopA(void)
{
a = nullptr;
}
A& GetA(void)
{
return *a;
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<A> a;
};
class A
{
public:
A(Manager& manager)
: manager{manager},
shouldwork{true},
thread{[&]{ this->Run(); }}
{
}
~A(void)
{
shouldwork = false;
thread.join();
}
private:
Manager& manager;
std::atomic<bool> shouldwork;
std::thread thread;
void Run(void)
{
while (shouldwork)
{
// Here goes a lot of code which calls manager.GetA().
auto& a = manager.GetA();
}
}
};
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
try
{
Manager man;
man.StartA();
man.StopA();
}
catch (std::exception& e)
{
std::cerr << "Exception caught: " << e.what() << '\n';
}
catch (...)
{
std::cerr << "Unknown exception.\n";
}
The problem is that when one thread calls Manager::StopA and enters destructor of A, the thread inside A segfaults at Manager::GetA. How can I fix this?
In StopA() you set a = nullptr;, this in turn destroys the a object and all further access to its members result in undefined behaviour (a likely cause the segmentation fault).
Simply moving the a = nullptr; to the destructor of the Manager could resolve this problem. Even better, allow the RAII mechanism of the std::unique_ptr to destroy the a object when the destructor of the Manager runs (i.e. remove the line of code completely).
With active object implementations, careful control of the member variables is important, especially the "stop variable/control" (here the shouldwork = false;). Allow the manager to access the variable directly or via a method to stop the active object before its destruction.
Some of the code here looks out of place or obscure, e.g. a = std::make_unique<A>(*this);. A redesign could help simplify some of the code. The Manager class could be removed.
class A
{
public:
A(): shouldwork{true}, thread{[&]{ this->Run(); }}
{
}
void StopA()
{
shouldwork = false;
thread.join();
}
private:
std::atomic<bool> shouldwork;
std::thread thread;
void Run(void)
{
while (shouldwork)
{
// code...
}
}
};
The code is modelled along the lines of std::thread, were the stopping of the tread is more controlled before an attempt is made to join it. The destructor is left empty in this case, to mimic the termination (calling std::terminate) result, as is the case with the standard thread library. Threads must be explicitly joined (or detached) before destruction.
Re-introducing the Manager, the code could look as follows;
class A
{
public:
A() : shouldwork{true}, thread{[&]{ this->Run(); }} {}
void StopA() { shouldwork = false; thread.join(); }
private:
void Run();
std::atomic<bool> shouldwork;
std::thread thread;
};
class Manager
{
public:
Manager() = default;
void StartA(void)
{
a = std::make_unique<A>();
}
void StopA(void)
{
a->StopA();
}
A& GetA(void)
{
return *a;
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<A> a;
};
void A::Run()
{
while (shouldwork)
{
// Here goes a lot of code which calls manager.GetA().
auto& a = manager.GetA();
}
}
And your main remains as it is.
In Java we can create a class
class Test {
public synchronized void fn1() {
}
public synchronized void fn2() {
}
public synchronized void fn3() {
fn1(); // Calling another method
}
}
In C++ if I want to mimic the functionality one way is
class Test {
private:
mutex obj;
public:
void fn1(bool calledFromWithinClass = false) {
if(calledFromWithinClass)
fn1Helper();
else
unique_lock<mutex> lock(obj);
fn1Helper();
}
void fn2(bool calledFromWithinClass = false) {
if(calledFromWithinClass)
fn2Helper();
else
unique_lock<mutex> lock(obj);
fn2Helper();
}
void fn3(bool calledFromWithinClass = false) {
if(calledFromWithinClass)
fn3Helper();
else {
unique_lock<mutex> lock(obj);
fn3Helper();
}
}
private:
void fn1Helper() {
}
void fn2Helper() {
}
void fn3Helper() {
fn1(true);
}
}
int main() {
Test obj;
obj.fn1();
obj.fn2();
// i.e from outside the class the methods are called with calledFromWithinClass as false.
}
In short all I am trying to do is to use RAII for locking as well as allow functions to call each other. In C++ without the calledFromWithinClass flag if the outer function has acquired the lock the inner function can't acquire the lock and the code gets stuck.
As you can see the code is complicated, is there any other way to do this in C++.
I can only use C++98 and you can assume that all methods in the class are synchronized (i.e need the lock)
I can suggest two options:
Just use boost::recursive_mutex instead (or std::recursive_mutex in C++11).
(better) Always call non-synchronized private implementations from your synchronized code:
class Test {
private:
mutex obj;
public:
void fn1() {
unique_lock<mutex> lock(obj);
fn1Helper();
}
void fn2(bool calledFromWithinClass = false) {
unique_lock<mutex> lock(obj);
fn2Helper();
}
private:
void fn1Helper() {
}
void fn2Helper() {
fn1Helper();
}
}
I'm updating my C++ skills to C++11. I'm up to threads, always a problem area. Consider this testing code:
// threaded.h
class MyThreadedClass
{
public:
MyThreadClass();
bool StartThread();
bool IsThreadDone();
inline void WorkThread();
private:
std::thread* workThread;
atomic<bool> threadDone;
}
// threaded.cpp
MyThreadedClass::MyThreadedClass() {
workThread = nullptr;
threadDone.store(true);
}
bool MyThreadedClass::StartThread() {
if (!threadDone.load()) { return false; }
threadDone.store(false);
workThread = new std::thread(&MyThreadedClass:WorkThread, this);
workThread->detach();
return true;
}
bool MyThreadedClass:IsThreadDone() {
return threadDone.load();
}
inline void MyThreadedClass::WorkThread() {
while (some_condition) { /*Do work*/ }
threadDone.store(true);
}
// main.cpp
int main() {
MyThreadedClass testInstance;
testInstance.StartThread();
for (int x = 0; x < 10; x++) {
do {
// This is sometimes true:
if (testInstance.StartThread()) { return 1;}
} while (!testInstance.IsThreadDone())
}
return 0;
}
I wanted to look at a worst case scenario for this type of code therefore I'm pounding it continually in main while waiting for thread to terminate. Sometimes the failure condition in main is triggered. As with many threading problems it's not consistent and therefore not easy to debug.
The threadDone variable is used because I access a file in my actual code and don't want multiple threads accessing the same file.
Insight into what I'm missing or ways to redesign this with C++11 idioms welcome.
With std::mutex instead of std::atomic, the implementation is quite simple.
class MyThreadedClass
{
std::mutex _mutex;
std::unique_ptr<std::thread> _thread;
bool _done{false};
public:
MyThreadClass() = default;
bool StartThread()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(_mutex);
if (_thread || _done) return false;
_thread = std::make_unique<std::thread>(&MyThreadedClass, this);
return true;
}
bool IsThreadDone()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(_mutex);
return _done;
}
void WorkThread()
{
// do some work
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(_mutex);
_done = true;
}
}
The best reference / learning book I know of for C++11 concurrency is here: C++ Concurrency in Action: Practical Multithreading by Anthony Williams.
You have a race condition (though not a "data race") in your main() function, which I've transcribed, inlined, and simplified below:
void MyThreadedClass::WorkThread() {
threadDone.store(true);
}
int main() {
MyThreadedClass testInstance;
testInstance.threadDone.store(false);
new std::thread(&MyThreadedClass::WorkThread, &testInstance)->detach();
// This sometimes fails:
assert(!testInstance.threadDone.load());
return 0;
}
That assertion will fail if WorkThread happens to run to completion before the main thread is scheduled again. Since the standard doesn't constrain the scheduling, you'd need to write some code to block if you need the worker thread to wait.