I've implemented thread pooling following the answer of Kerrek SB in this question.
I've implemented MPMC queue for the functions and vector threads for the threads.
Everything worked perfectly, except that I don't know how to terminate the program, in the end if I just do thread.join since the thread is still waiting for more tasks to do, it will not join and the main thread will not continue.
Any idea how to end the program correctly?
For completeness, this is my code:
function_pool.h
#pragma once
#include <queue>
#include <functional>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
class Function_pool
{
private:
std::queue<std::function<void()>> m_function_queue;
std::mutex m_lock;
std::condition_variable m_data_condition;
public:
Function_pool();
~Function_pool();
void push(std::function<void()> func);
std::function<void()> pop();
};
function_pool.cpp
#include "function_pool.h"
Function_pool::Function_pool() : m_function_queue(), m_lock(), m_data_condition()
{
}
Function_pool::~Function_pool()
{
}
void Function_pool::push(std::function<void()> func)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m_lock);
m_function_queue.push(func);
// when we send the notification immediately, the consumer will try to
get the lock , so unlock asap
lock.unlock();
m_data_condition.notify_one();
}
std::function<void()> Function_pool::pop()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m_lock);
m_data_condition.wait(lock, [this]() {return !m_function_queue.empty();
});
auto func = m_function_queue.front();
m_function_queue.pop();
return func;
// Lock will be released
}
main.cpp
#include "function_pool.h"
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <functional>
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
Function_pool func_pool;
void example_function()
{
std::cout << "bla" << std::endl;
}
void infinite_loop_func()
{
while (true)
{
std::function<void()> func = func_pool.pop();
func();
}
}
int main()
{
std::cout << "stating operation" << std::endl;
int num_threads = std::thread::hardware_concurrency();
std::cout << "number of threads = " << num_threads << std::endl;
std::vector<std::thread> thread_pool;
for (int i = 0; i < num_threads; i++)
{
thread_pool.push_back(std::thread(infinite_loop_func));
}
//here we should send our functions
func_pool.push(example_function);
for (int i = 0; i < thread_pool.size(); i++)
{
thread_pool.at(i).join();
}
int i;
std::cin >> i;
}
Your problem is located in infinite_loop_func, which is an infinite loop and by result doesn't terminate. I've read the previous answer which suggests throwing an exception, however, I don't like it since exceptions should not be used for the regular control flow.
The best way to solve this is to explicitly deal with the stop condition. For example:
std::atomic<bool> acceptsFunctions;
Adding this to the function pool allows you to clearly have state and to assert that no new functions being added when you destruct.
std::optional<std::function<void()>> Function_pool::pop()
Returning an empty optional (or function in C++14 and before), allows you to deal with an empty queue. You have to, as condition_variable can do spurious wakeups.
With this, m_data_condition.notify_all() can be used to wake all threads.
Finally we have to fix the infinite loop as it doesn't cover overcommitment and at the same time allows you to execute all functions still in the queue:
while (func_pool.acceptsFunctions || func_pool.containsFunctions())
{
auto f = func_pool.pop();
If (!f)
{
func_pool.m_data_condition.wait_for(1s);
continue;
}
auto &function = *f;
function ();
}
I'll leave it up to you to implement containsFunctions() and clean up the code (infinite_loop_func as member function?) Note that with a counter, you could even deal with background task being spawned.
You can always use a specific exception type to signal to infinite_loop_func that it should return...
class quit_worker_exception: public std::exception {};
Then change infinite_loop_func to...
void infinite_loop_func ()
{
while (true) {
std::function<void()> func = func_pool.pop();
try {
func();
}
catch (quit_worker_exception &ex) {
return;
}
}
}
With the above changes you could then use (in main)...
/*
* Enqueue `thread_pool.size()' function objects whose sole job is
* to throw an instance of `quit_worker_exception' when invoked.
*/
for (int i = 0; i < thread_pool.size(); i++)
func_pool.push([](){ throw quit_worker_exception(); });
/*
* Now just wait for each worker to terminate having received its
* quit_worker_exception.
*/
for (int i = 0; i < thread_pool.size(); i++)
thread_pool.at(i).join();
Each instance of infinite_loop_func will dequeue one function object which, when called, throws a quit_worker_exception causing it to return.
Follwoing [JVApen](https://stackoverflow.com/posts/51382714/revisions) suggestion, I copy my code in case anyone will want a working code:
function_pool.h
#pragma once
#include <queue>
#include <functional>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <atomic>
#include <cassert>
class Function_pool
{
private:
std::queue<std::function<void()>> m_function_queue;
std::mutex m_lock;
std::condition_variable m_data_condition;
std::atomic<bool> m_accept_functions;
public:
Function_pool();
~Function_pool();
void push(std::function<void()> func);
void done();
void infinite_loop_func();
};
function_pool.cpp
#include "function_pool.h"
Function_pool::Function_pool() : m_function_queue(), m_lock(), m_data_condition(), m_accept_functions(true)
{
}
Function_pool::~Function_pool()
{
}
void Function_pool::push(std::function<void()> func)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m_lock);
m_function_queue.push(func);
// when we send the notification immediately, the consumer will try to get the lock , so unlock asap
lock.unlock();
m_data_condition.notify_one();
}
void Function_pool::done()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m_lock);
m_accept_functions = false;
lock.unlock();
// when we send the notification immediately, the consumer will try to get the lock , so unlock asap
m_data_condition.notify_all();
//notify all waiting threads.
}
void Function_pool::infinite_loop_func()
{
std::function<void()> func;
while (true)
{
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m_lock);
m_data_condition.wait(lock, [this]() {return !m_function_queue.empty() || !m_accept_functions; });
if (!m_accept_functions && m_function_queue.empty())
{
//lock will be release automatically.
//finish the thread loop and let it join in the main thread.
return;
}
func = m_function_queue.front();
m_function_queue.pop();
//release the lock
}
func();
}
}
main.cpp
#include "function_pool.h"
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <functional>
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
Function_pool func_pool;
class quit_worker_exception : public std::exception {};
void example_function()
{
std::cout << "bla" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
std::cout << "stating operation" << std::endl;
int num_threads = std::thread::hardware_concurrency();
std::cout << "number of threads = " << num_threads << std::endl;
std::vector<std::thread> thread_pool;
for (int i = 0; i < num_threads; i++)
{
thread_pool.push_back(std::thread(&Function_pool::infinite_loop_func, &func_pool));
}
//here we should send our functions
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
func_pool.push(example_function);
}
func_pool.done();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < thread_pool.size(); i++)
{
thread_pool.at(i).join();
}
}
Related
I am new to C++11 and using threading features. In the following program, the main thread starts 9 worker threads and pushes data into a queue and then goes to wait for thread termination. I see that the worker threads don't get woken up and the program just hangs.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <queue>
#include <vector>
#include <chrono>
#include <future>
#include <atomic>
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
std::mutex _rmtx;
std::mutex _wmtx;
std::queue<unsigned long long> dataq;
std::condition_variable _rcv;
std::condition_variable _wcv;
std::atomic_bool termthd;
void thdfunc(const int& num)
{
std::cout << "starting thread#" << num << std::endl;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> rul(_rmtx);
while (true) {
while(!_rcv.wait_until(rul, std::chrono::steady_clock::now() + 10ms, [] {return !dataq.empty() || termthd.load(); }));
if (termthd.load()) {
std::terminate();
}
std::cout<<"thd#" << num << " : " << dataq.front() <<std::endl;
dataq.pop();
_wcv.notify_one();
}
}
int main()
{
std::vector<std::thread*> thdvec;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> wul(_rmtx);
unsigned long long data = 0ULL;
termthd.store(false);
for (int i = 0; i < 9; i++) {
thdvec.push_back(new std::thread(thdfunc, i));
}
for ( data = 0ULL; data < 2ULL; data++) {
_wcv.wait_until(wul, std::chrono::steady_clock::now() + 10ms, [&] {return data > 1000000ULL; });
dataq.push(std::ref(data));
_rcv.notify_one();
}
termthd.store(true);
_rcv.notify_all();
//std::this_thread::yield();
for (int i = 0; i < 9; i++) {
thdvec[i]->join();
}
}
I am unable to figure out the problem. How can I make sure the threads get woken up and processes the requests and terminates normally?
This std::unique_lock<std::mutex> wul(_rmtx); will lock the _rmtx mutex until the end of main scope. It's surely an issue, because other threads trying to get the lock on _rmtx will block:
int main()
{
std::vector<std::thread*> thdvec;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> wul(_rmtx); // <- locking mutex until end of main.
// other threads trying to lock _rmtx will block
unsigned long long data = 0ULL;
// ... rest of the code ...
I have the program to count all words in all .log files in given directory using N threads.
I wrote something like this.
ThreadPool.h
#ifndef THREAD_POOL_H
#define THREAD_POOL_H
#include <boost/thread/condition_variable.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#include <future> // I don't how to work with boost future
#include <queue>
#include <vector>
#include <functional>
class ThreadPool
{
public:
using Task = std::function<void()>; // Our task
explicit ThreadPool(int num_threads)
{
start(num_threads);
}
~ThreadPool()
{
stop();
}
template<class T>
auto enqueue(T task)->std::future<decltype(task())>
{
// packaged_task wraps any Callable target
auto wrapper = std::make_shared<std::packaged_task<decltype(task()) ()>>(std::move(task));
{
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock{ mutex_p };
tasks_p.emplace([=] {
(*wrapper)();
});
}
event_p.notify_one();
return wrapper->get_future();
}
/*void enqueue(Task task)
{
{
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock { mutex_p };
tasks_p.emplace(std::move(task));
event_p.notify_one();
}
}*/
private:
std::vector<boost::thread> threads_p; // num of threads
std::queue<Task> tasks_p; // Tasks to make
boost::condition_variable event_p;
boost::mutex mutex_p;
bool isStop = false;
void start(int num_threads)
{
for (int i = 0; i < num_threads; ++i)
{
// Add to the end our thread
threads_p.emplace_back([=] {
while (true)
{
// Task to do
Task task;
{
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(mutex_p);
event_p.wait(lock, [=] { return isStop || !tasks_p.empty(); });
// If we make all tasks
if (isStop && tasks_p.empty())
break;
// Take new task from queue
task = std::move(tasks_p.front());
tasks_p.pop();
}
// Execute our task
task();
}
});
}
}
void stop() noexcept
{
{
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(mutex_p);
isStop = true;
}
event_p.notify_all();
for (auto& thread : threads_p)
{
thread.join();
}
}
};
#endif
main.cpp
#include "ThreadPool.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <iomanip>
#include <Windows.h>
#include <chrono>
#include <vector>
#include <map>
#include <boost/filesystem.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#include <locale.h>
namespace bfs = boost::filesystem;
//int count_words(boost::filesystem::ifstream& file)
//{
// int counter = 0;
// std::string buffer;
// while (file >> buffer)
// {
// ++counter;
// }
//
// return counter;
//}
//
int count_words(boost::filesystem::path filename)
{
boost::filesystem::ifstream ifs(filename);
return std::distance(std::istream_iterator<std::string>(ifs), std::istream_iterator<std::string>());
}
int main(int argc, const char* argv[])
{
std::cin.tie(0);
std::ios_base::sync_with_stdio(false);
bfs::path path = argv[1];
// If this path is exist and if this is dir
if (bfs::exists(path) && bfs::is_directory(path))
{
// Number of threads. Default = 4
int n = (argc == 3 ? atoi(argv[2]) : 4);
ThreadPool pool(n);
// Container to store all filenames and number of words inside them
//std::map<bfs::path, std::future<int>> all_files_and_sums;
std::vector<std::future<int>> futures;
auto start = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
// Iterate all files in dir
for (auto& p : bfs::directory_iterator(path)) {
// Takes only .txt files
if (p.path().extension() == ".log") {
// Future for taking value from here
auto fut = pool.enqueue([p]() {
// In this lambda function I count all words in file and return this value
int result = count_words(p.path());
static int count = 0;
++count;
std::ostringstream oss;
oss << count << ". TID, " << GetCurrentThreadId() << "\n";
std::cout << oss.str();
return result;
});
// "filename = words in this .txt file"
futures.emplace_back(std::move(fut));
}
}
int result = 0;
for (auto& f : futures)
{
result += f.get();
}
auto stop = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
auto duration = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::seconds>(stop - start);
std::cout << "Result: " << result << "\n";
std::cout << duration.count() << '\n';
}
else
std::perror("Dir is not exist");
}
Variable N is 4(Number of threads). I've 320 .log files in my directory and I need count words in this files. Everything works fine but when variable "count" is 180 - the program stops for a while and then continues but much slower.
What could be the reason?
CPU - Xeon e5430 (I have tested this program on another CPU - the result is the same).
It depends on how you measure "slow" but basically you are using one of the worst models possible:
one task queue shared between all threads.
The problem with this approach is blocking in each thread on the shared queue.
A much better model is something like
task stealing - you can try creating a task queue pro thread and then use try_lock (which doesnt block) with enabling each thread "stealing" work from some other thread's tasks if it has nothing else to do.
This is very nice explained in excellent Sean Parent Talk about Concurrency.
My question is, if I run io_service::run () on multiple threads, do I need to implement blocking on these asynchronous functions?
example:
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
void test_timer(boost::system::error_code ec)
{
//I need to lock up here ?
if (i++ == 10)
{
j = i * 10;
}
timer.expires_at(timer.expires_at() + boost::posix_time::milliseconds(500));
timer.async_wait(&test_timer);
}
void threadMain()
{
io_service.run();
}
int main()
{
boost::thread_group workers;
timer.async_wait(&test_timer);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
workers.create_thread(&threadMain);
}
io_service.run();
workers.join_all();
return 0;
}
The definition of async is that it is non-blocking.
If you mean to ask "do I have to synchronize access to shared objects from different threads" - that question is unrelated and the answer depends on the thread-safety documented for the object you are sharing.
For Asio, basically (rough summary) you need to synchronize concurrent access (concurrent as in: from multiple threads) to all types except boost::asio::io_context¹,².
Your Sample
Your sample uses multiple threads running the io service, meaning handlers run on any of those threads. This means that effectively you're sharing the globals and indeed they need protection.
However Because your application logic (the async call chain) dictates that only one operation is ever pending, and the next async operation on the shared timer object is always scheduled from within that chain, the access is logically all from a single thread (called an implicit strand. See Why do I need strand per connection when using boost::asio?
The simplest thing that would work:
Logical Strand
Live On Coliru
#include <boost/asio.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#include <iostream>
boost::asio::io_service io_service;
boost::asio::deadline_timer timer { io_service };
struct state_t {
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
} state;
void test_timer(boost::system::error_code ec)
{
if (ec != boost::asio::error::operation_aborted) {
{
if (state.i++ == 10) {
state.j = state.i * 10;
if (state.j > 100)
return; // stop after 5 seconds
}
}
timer.expires_at(timer.expires_at() + boost::posix_time::milliseconds(50));
timer.async_wait(&test_timer);
}
}
int main()
{
boost::thread_group workers;
timer.expires_from_now(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(50));
timer.async_wait(&test_timer);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
workers.create_thread([] { io_service.run(); });
}
workers.join_all();
std::cout << "i = " << state.i << std::endl;
std::cout << "j = " << state.j << std::endl;
}
Note I removed the io_service::run() from the main thread as it is redundant with the join() (unless you really wanted 6 threads running the handlers, not 5).
Prints
i = 11
j = 110
Caveat
There's a pitfall lurking here. Say, you didn't want to bail at a fixed number, like I did, but want to stop, you'd be tempted to do:
timer.cancel();
from main. That's not legal, because the deadline_timer object is not thread safe. You'd need to either
use a global atomic_bool to signal the request for termination
post the timer.cancel() on the same strand as the timer async chain. However, there is only an explicit strand, so you can't do it without changing the code to use an explicit strand.
More Timers
Let's complicate things by having two timers, with their own implicit strands. This means access to the timer instances still need not be synchronized, but access to i and j does need to be.
Note In this demo I use synchronized_value<> for elegance. You can write similar logic manually using mutex and lock_guard.
Live On Coliru
#include <boost/asio.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#include <boost/thread/synchronized_value.hpp>
#include <iostream>
boost::asio::io_service io_service;
struct state {
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
};
boost::synchronized_value<state> shared_state;
struct TimerChain {
boost::asio::deadline_timer _timer;
TimerChain() : _timer{io_service} {
_timer.expires_from_now(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(50));
resume();
}
void resume() {
_timer.async_wait(boost::bind(&TimerChain::test_timer, this, _1));
};
void test_timer(boost::system::error_code ec)
{
if (ec != boost::asio::error::operation_aborted) {
{
auto state = shared_state.synchronize();
if (state->i++ == 10) {
state->j = state->i * 10;
}
if (state->j > 100) return; // stop after some iterations
}
_timer.expires_at(_timer.expires_at() + boost::posix_time::milliseconds(50));
resume();
}
}
};
int main()
{
boost::thread_group workers;
TimerChain timer1;
TimerChain timer2;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
workers.create_thread([] { io_service.run(); });
}
workers.join_all();
auto state = shared_state.synchronize();
std::cout << "i = " << state->i << std::endl;
std::cout << "j = " << state->j << std::endl;
}
Prints
i = 12
j = 110
Adding The Explicit Strands
Now it's pretty straight-forward to add them:
struct TimerChain {
boost::asio::io_service::strand _strand;
boost::asio::deadline_timer _timer;
TimerChain() : _strand{io_service}, _timer{io_service} {
_timer.expires_from_now(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(50));
resume();
}
void resume() {
_timer.async_wait(_strand.wrap(boost::bind(&TimerChain::test_timer, this, _1)));
};
void stop() { // thread safe
_strand.post([this] { _timer.cancel(); });
}
// ...
Live On Coliru
#include <boost/asio.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#include <boost/thread/synchronized_value.hpp>
#include <iostream>
boost::asio::io_service io_service;
struct state {
int i = 0;
int j = 0;
};
boost::synchronized_value<state> shared_state;
struct TimerChain {
boost::asio::io_service::strand _strand;
boost::asio::deadline_timer _timer;
TimerChain() : _strand{io_service}, _timer{io_service} {
_timer.expires_from_now(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(50));
resume();
}
void resume() {
_timer.async_wait(_strand.wrap(boost::bind(&TimerChain::test_timer, this, _1)));
};
void stop() { // thread safe
_strand.post([this] { _timer.cancel(); });
}
void test_timer(boost::system::error_code ec)
{
if (ec != boost::asio::error::operation_aborted) {
{
auto state = shared_state.synchronize();
if (state->i++ == 10) {
state->j = state->i * 10;
}
}
// continue indefinitely
_timer.expires_at(_timer.expires_at() + boost::posix_time::milliseconds(50));
resume();
}
}
};
int main()
{
boost::thread_group workers;
TimerChain timer1;
TimerChain timer2;
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++){
workers.create_thread([] { io_service.run(); });
}
boost::this_thread::sleep_for(boost::chrono::seconds(10));
timer1.stop();
timer2.stop();
workers.join_all();
auto state = shared_state.synchronize();
std::cout << "i = " << state->i << std::endl;
std::cout << "j = " << state->j << std::endl;
}
Prints
i = 400
j = 110
¹ (or using the legacy name boost::asio::io_service)
² lifetime mutations are not considered member operations in this respect (you have to manually synchronize construction/destruction of shared objects even for thread-safe objects)
Suggest that I have the following code:
#include <boost/asio/io_service.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
const int THREAD_POOL_SIZE = 2;
std::condition_variable g_cv;
std::mutex g_cv_mutex;
bool g_answer_ready;
void foo()
{
std::cout << "foo \n";
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(g_cv_mutex);
g_answer_ready = true;
g_cv.notify_all();
}
int main()
{
boost::asio::io_service io_service;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
std::auto_ptr<boost::asio::io_service::work> work(new boost::asio::io_service::work(io_service));
boost::thread_group threads;
for (int i = 0; i < THREAD_POOL_SIZE; ++i)
{
threads.create_thread(boost::bind(&boost::asio::io_service::run, &io_service));
}
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(g_cv_mutex);
io_service.post(foo);
g_answer_ready = false;
g_cv.wait_for(lock, std::chrono::milliseconds(2000));
if (!g_answer_ready)
{
std::cout << "timed_out \n";
}
io_service.stop();
threads.join_all();
}
}
The output will be different between program's launches. For example,
foo
timed_out
foo
foo
However, if I move boost::asio::io_service object construction inside the loop, it works as expected:
foo
foo
foo
foo
foo
foo
foo
foo
foo
foo
Why? What am I doing wrong? How can I fix it?
boost 1.54, MSVC-11.0
If I understand you correctly, you need to fix last lines on your loop (see comments for descriptions):
// io_service.stop();
// threads.join_all();
work.reset(); // <- signal to process all pending jobs and quit from io_service::run function
threads.join_all(); // <- wait for all threads
io_service.reset(); // <- now `io_service` can accept new tasks
So, there were two issues in the original code:
io_service.stop() will cancel posted but not yet processed jobs (usually this is not what a programmer wants),
io_service.reset() is required to change the state of io_service from "stopped" to "ready to accept new jobs".
I am using VS2012 and I want to set thread priority from within a running thread. The goal is to initialize all threads with the highest priority state. To do this I want to get a HANDLE to the thread.
I am having some trouble accessing the pointer that corresponds to the thread object.
Is this possible?
From the calling main thread, the pointer is valid and from the C++11 thread it is set to CCCCCCCC. Predictably dereferencing some nonsense memory location causes a crash.
The code below is a simplified version showing the problem.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <Windows.h>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
using namespace std;
class threadContainer
{
thread* mT;
condition_variable* con;
void lockMe()
{
mutex m;
unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m);
con->wait(lock);//waits for host thread
cout << mT << endl;//CCCCCCCC
auto h = mT->native_handle();//causes a crash
con->wait(lock);//locks forever
}
public:
void run()
{
con = new condition_variable();
mT = new thread(&threadContainer::lockMe,*this);
cout << mT << endl; //00326420
con->notify_one();// Without this line everything locks as expected
mT->join();
}
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
threadContainer mContainer;
mContainer.run();
return 0;
}
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
#include <thread>
class threadContainer {
std::thread* mT;
std::mutex m;
void lockMe() {
// wait for mT to be assigned:
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m);
}
std::cout << "lockMe():" << mT << "\n";
auto h = mT->native_handle();//causes a crash
std::cout << "Done lockMe!\n";
}
public:
void run() {
// release lock only after mT assigned:
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m);
mT = new std::thread( [&](){ this->lockMe(); } );
}
std::cout << "run():" << mT << "\n"; //00326420
mT->join();
}
};
int main() {
threadContainer mContainer;
mContainer.run();
return 0;
}
Try that.
0xcccccccc means "variable not initialized". You have a threading race bug in your code. The thread starts running before the "mT" variable is assigned. You will need additional synchronization to block the thread until the assignment is completed so you can safely use mT. This will then also ensure that the new thread can see the updated value of mT, a memory barrier is required on a multi-core machine.
This is an example code with condition_variable and mutex.
class threadContainer
{
std::thread* mT;
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
bool flag;
void lockMe() {
// 1. you must acquire lock of mutex.
unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
// 2. and wait on `cv` for `flag==true`
cv.wait(lk, [&]{ return flag; });
cout << mT << endl;
auto h = mT->native_handle();
}
public:
void run()
{
flag = false;
mT = new std::thread( [&](){ this->lockMe(); } );
{
// 3. set `flag` and signal `cv`
lock_guard<decltype(m)> lk(m);
cout << mT << endl;
flag = true;
cv.notify_one();
}
mT->join();
}
};
If what you really want to do is "initialize all threads with the highest priority state", how about this simplified code?
Anyway, changing thread priority is platform dependent and out of C++ Standard library.
class threadContainer
{
std::thread thd;
void work() {
// (1) change thread priority itself
::SetThreadPriority(::GetCurrentThread(), THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST);
// do something...
}
public:
void run()
{
thd = std::thread( [&](){ this->work(); } );
// (2) or change thread priority from outside
::SetThreadPriority(thd.native_handle(), THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST);
thd.join();
}
};