Say I have a function whose prototype looks like this, belonging to class container_class:
std::vector<int> container_class::func(int param);
The function may or may not cause an infinite loop on certain inputs; it is impossible to tell which inputs will cause a success and which will cause an infinite loop. The function is in a library of which I do not have the source of and cannot modify (this is a bug and will be fixed in the next release in a few months, but for now I need a way to work around it), so solutions which modify the function or class will not work.
I've tried isolating the function using std::async and std::future, and using a while loop to constantly check the state of the thread:
container_class c();
long start = get_current_time(); //get the current time in ms
auto future = std::async(&container_class::func, &c, 2);
while(future.wait_for(0ms) != std::future_status::ready) {
if(get_current_time() - start > 1000) {
//forcibly terminate future
}
sleep(2);
}
This code has many problems. One is that I can't forcibly terminate the std::future object (and the thread that it represents).
At the far extreme, if I can't find any other solution, I can isolate the function in its own executable, run it, and then check its state and terminate it appropriately. However, I would rather not do this.
How can I accomplish this? Is there a better way than what I'm doing right now?
You are out of luck, sorry.
First off, C++ doesn't even guarantee you there will be a thread for future execution. Although it would be extremely hard (probably impossible) to implement all std::async guarantees in a single thread, there is no direct prohibition of that, and also, there is certainly no guarantee that there will be a thread per async call. Because of that, there is no way to cancel the async execution.
Second, there is no such way even in the lowest level of thread implementation. While pthread_cancel exists, it won't protect you from infinite loops not visiting cancellation points, for example.
You can not arbitrarily kill a thread in Posix, and C++ thread model is based on it. A process really can't be a scheduler of it's own threads, and while sometimes it is a pain, it is what it is.
Related
I am sorry if this was asked before, but I didn't find anything related to this. And this is for my understanding. It's not an home work.
I want to execute a function only for some amount of time. How do I do that? For example,
main()
{
....
....
func();
.....
.....
}
function func()
{
......
......
}
Here, my main function calls another function. I want that function to execute only for a minute. In that function, I will be getting some data from the user. So, if user doesn't enter the data, I don't want to be stuck in that function forever. So, Irrespective of whether function is completed by that time or it is not completed, I want to come back to the main function and execute the next operation.
Is there any way to do it ? I am on windows 7 and I am using VS-2013.
Under windows, the options are limited.
The simplest option would be for func() to explicitly and periodically check how long it has been executing (e.g. store its start time, periodically check the amount of time elapses since that start time) and return if it has gone longer than you wish.
It is possible (C++11 or later) to execute the function within another thread, and for main() to signal that thread when the required time period has elapsed. That is best done cooperatively. For example, main() sets a flag, the thread function checks that flag and exits when required to. Such a flag is usually best protected by a critical section or mutex.
An extremely unsafe way under windows is for main() to forceably terminate the thread. That is unsafe, as it can leave the program (and, in worst cases, the operating system itself) in an unreliable state (e.g. if the terminated thread is in the process of allocating memory, if it is executing certain kernel functions, manipulating global state of a shared DLL).
If you want better/safer options, you will need a real-time operating system with strict memory and timing partitioning. To date, I have yet to encounter any substantiated documentation about any variant of Windows and unix (not even real time variants) with those characteristics. There are a couple of unix-like systems (e.g. LynxOS) with variants that have such properties.
I think a part of your requirement can be met using multithreading and a loop with a stopwatch.
Create a new thread.
Start a stopwatch.
Start a loop with one minute as the condition for the loop.
During each iteration check if the user has entered the input and process.
when one minute is over, the loop quits.
I 'am not sure about the feasibility about this idea, just shared my idea. I don't know much about c++, but in Node.js your requirement can be achieved using 'events'. May be such things exists in C++ too.
How can I stop/cancel an asynchronous task created with std::async and policy std::launch::async? In other words, I have started a task running on another thread, using future object. Is there a way to cancel or stop the running task?
In short no.
Longer explanation: There is no safe way to cancel any threads in standard C++. This would require thread cancellation. This feature has been discussed many times during the C++11 standardisation and the general consensus is that there is no safe way to do so. To my knowledge there were three main considered ways to do thread cancellation in C++.
Abort the thread. This would be rather like an emergency stop. Unfortunately it would result in no stack unwinding or destructors called. The thread could have been in any state so possibly holding mutexes, having heap allocated data which would be leaked, etc. This was clearly never going to be considered for long since it would make the entire program undefined. If you want to do this yourself however just use native_handle to do it. It will however be non-portable.
Compulsory cancellation/interruption points. When a thread cancel is requested it internally sets some variable so that next time any of a predefined set of interruption points is called (such as sleep, wait, etc) it will throw some exception. This would cause the stack to unwind and cleanup can be done. Unfortunately this type of system makes it very difficult make any code exception safe since most multithreaded code can then suddenly throw. This is the model that boost.thread uses. It uses disable_interruption to work around some of the problems but it is still exceedingly difficult to get right for anything but the simplest of cases. Boost.thread uses this model but it has always been considered risky and understandably it was not accepted into the standard along with the rest.
Voluntary cancellation/interruption points. ultimately this boils down to checking some condition yourself when you want to and if appropriate exiting the thread yourself in a controlled fashion. I vaguely recall some talk about adding some library features to help with this but it was never agreed upon.
I would just use a variation of 3. If you are using lambdas for instance it would be quite easy to reference an atomic "cancel" variable which you can check from time to time.
In C++11 (I think) there is no standard way to cancel a thread. If you get std::thread::native_handle(), you can do something with it but that's not portable.
maybe you can do like this way by checking some condition:
class Timer{
public:
Timer():timer_destory(false){}
~Timer(){
timer_destory=true;
for(auto result:async_result){
result.get();
}
}
int register_event(){
async_result.push_back(
std::async(std::launch::async,[](std::atomic<bool>& timer_destory){
while(!timer_destory){
//do something
}
},std::ref(timer_destory))
);
}
private:
std::vector<std::future<int>> async_result;
std::atomic<bool> timer_destory;
}
I am new to multi-threading. I am using c++ on unix.
In the code below, runSearch() takes a long time and I want to be able to kill the search as soon as "cancel == true". The function cancelSearch is called by another thread.
What is the best way to solve this problem?
Thanks you..
------------------This is the existing code-------------------------
struct SearchTask : public Runnable
{
bool cancel = false;
void cancelSearch()
{
cancel = true;
}
void run()
{
cancel = false;
runSearch();
if (cancel == true)
{
return;
}
//...more steps.
}
}
EDIT: To make it more clear, say runSearch() takes 10 mins to run. After 1 min, cancel==true, then I want to exit out of run() immediately rather than waiting another 9 more mins for runSearch() to complete.
You'll need to keep checking the flag throughout the search operation. Something like this:
void run()
{
cancel = false;
while (!cancel)
{
runSearch();
//do your thread stuff...
}
}
You have mentioned that you cannot modify runSearch(). With pthreads there's a pthread_setcancelstate() function, however I don't believe this is safe, especially with C++ code that expects RAII semantics.
Safe thread cancellation must be cooperative. The code that gets canceled must be aware of the cancellation and be able to clean up after itself. If the code is not designed to do this and is simply terminated then your program will probably exhibit undefined behavior.
For this reason C++'s std::thread does not offer any method of thread cancellation and instead the code must be written with explicit cancellation checks as other answers have shown.
Create a generic method that accepts a action / delegate. Have each step be something REALLY small and specific. Send the generic method a delegate / action of what you consider a "step". In the generic method detect if cancel is true and return if true. Because steps are small if it is cancelled it shouldn't take long for the thread to die.
That is the best advice I can give without any code of what the steps do.
Also note :
void run()
{
cancel = false;
runSearch();
while (!cancel)
{
//do your thread stuff...
}
}
Won't work because if what you are doing is not a iteration it will run the entire thread before checking for !cancel. Like I said if you can add more details on what the steps do it would easier to give you advice. When working with threads that you want to halt or kill, your best bet is to split your code into very small steps.
Basically you have to poll the cancel flag everywhere. There are other tricks you could use, but they are more platform-specific, like thread cancellation, or are not general enough like interrupts.
And cancel needs to be an atomic variable (like in std::atomic, or just protected it with a mutex) otherwise the compiler might just cache the value in a register and not see the update coming from another thread.
Reading the responses is right - just because you've called a blocking function in a thread doesn't mean it magically turns into a non-blocking call. The thread may not interrupt the rest of the program, but it still has to wait for the runSearch call to complete.
OK, so there are ways round this, but they're not necessarily safe to use.
You can kill a thread explicitly. On Windows you can use TerminateThread() that will kill the thread execution. Sound good right? Well, except that it is very dangerous to use - unless you know exactly what all the resources and calls are going on in the killed thread, you may find yourself with an app that refuses to work correctly next time round. If runSearch opens a DB connection for example, the TerminateThread call will not close it. Same applies to memory, loaded dlls, and all they use. Its designed for killing totally unresponsive threads so you can close a program and restart it.
Given the above, and the very strong recommendation you not use it, the next step is to call the runSearch in a external manner - if you run your blocking call in a separate process, then the process can be killed with a lot more certainty that you won't bugger everything else up. The process dies, clears up its memory, its heap, any loaded dlls, everything. So inside your thread, call CreateProcess and wait on the handle. You'll need some form on IPC (probably best not to use shared memory as it can be a nuisance to reset that when you kill the process) to transfer the results back to your main app. If you need to kill this process, call ExitProcess on it's handle (or exit in Linux)
Note that these exit calls require to be called inside the process, so you'll need to run a thread inside the process for your blocking call. You can terminate a process externally, but again, its dangerous - not nearly as dangerous as killing a thread, but you can still trip up occasionally. (use TerminateProcess or kill for this)
I am looking for the best way to solve the following (c++) problem. I have a function given by some framework, which returns an object. Sometimes it takes just miliseconds, but on some occasions it takes minutes. So i want to stop the execution if it takes longer than let's say 2 seconds.
I was thinking about doing it with boost threads. Important sidenote, if the function returns faster than the 2 seconds the program should not wait.
So i was thinking about 2 threads:
1.thread: execute function a
2.thread: run timer
if(thread 2 exited bevore thread 1) kill thread 1
else do nothing
I am struggeling a bit the practical implementation. Especially,
how do i return an object from a child boost thread to the main thread?
how do i kill a thread in boost?
is my idea even a good one, is there a better way to solve the problem in c++ (with or without boost)?
As for waiting, just use thread::timed_join() inside your main thread, this will return false, if the thread didn't complete within the given time.
Killing the thread is not feasible if your third-party library is not aware of boost:threads. Also, you almost certainly don't want to 'kill' the thread without giving the function the possibility to clean up.
I'd suggest that you wait for, say, 2 seconds and then continue with some kind of error message, letting the framework function finish its work and just ignoring the result if it came too late.
As for returning a value, I'd suggest something like
struct myfunction {
MyObj returnValue;
void operator() () {
// ...
returnValue = theComputedReturnValue;
}
};
// ...
myfunction f;
boost::thread t = boost::thread(boost::ref(f));
t.join(); // or t.timed_join()...
use(f.returnValue);
// ...
I have done something similar by the past and that works (even though not ideal).
To get the return value just "share" a variable (that could be just a pointer (initially nil) to the returned value, or a full object with a state etc ...) and make your thread read/udate it. Don't forget to mutex it needed. That should be quite straight forward.
Expanding what James has said above, "kill a thread" is such a harsh term! :) But interruption is not so easy either, typically with boost threads, there needs to be an interruption point, where the running thread can be interrupted. There is a set of these interruptible functions (unfortunately they are boost specific), such as wait/sleep etc. One option you have is in the first thread, liberally scatter interruption_points(). Such that when you call interrupt() once thread 2 dies, at the next interruption_point() thread 1 will throw an exception.
Threads are in the same process space, thus you can have shared state between multiple threads as long as there is synchronized access to that shared state.
EDIT: just noticed that the OP has already looked into this... will leave the answer up anyway I guess...
Is the following safe?
I am new to threading and I want to delegate a time consuming process to a separate thread in my C++ program.
Using the boost libraries I have written code something like this:
thrd = new boost::thread(boost::bind(&myclass::mymethod, this, &finished_flag);
Where finished_flag is a boolean member of my class. When the thread is finished it sets the value and the main loop of my program checks for a change in that value.
I assume that this is okay because I only ever start one thread, and that thread is the only thing that changes the value (except for when it is initialised before I start the thread)
So is this okay, or am I missing something, and need to use locks and mutexes, etc
You never mentioned the type of finished_flag...
If it's a straight bool, then it might work, but it's certainly bad practice, for several reasons. First, some compilers will cache the reads of the finished_flag variable, since the compiler doesn't always pick up the fact that it's being written to by another thread. You can get around this by declaring the bool volatile, but that's taking us in the wrong direction. Even if reads and writes are happening as you'd expect, there's nothing to stop the OS scheduler from interleaving the two threads half way through a read / write. That might not be such a problem here where you have one read and one write op in separate threads, but it's a good idea to start as you mean to carry on.
If, on the other hand it's a thread-safe type, like a CEvent in MFC (or equivilent in boost) then you should be fine. This is the best approach: use thread-safe synchronization objects for inter-thread communication, even for simple flags.
Instead of using a member variable to signal that the thread is done, why not use a condition? You are already are using the boost libraries, and condition is part of the thread library.
Check it out. It allows the worker thread to 'signal' that is has finished, and the main thread can check during execution if the condition has been signaled and then do whatever it needs to do with the completed work. There are examples in the link.
As a general case I would neve make the assumption that a resource will only be modified by the thread. You might know what it is for, however someone else might not - causing no ends of grief as the main thread thinks that the work is done and tries to access data that is not correct! It might even delete it while the worker thread is still using it, and causing the app to crash. Using a condition will help this.
Looking at the thread documentation, you could also call thread.timed_join in the main thread. timed_join will wait for a specified amount for the thread to 'join' (join means that the thread has finsihed)
I don't mean to be presumptive, but it seems like the purpose of your finished_flag variable is to pause the main thread (at some point) until the thread thrd has completed.
The easiest way to do this is to use boost::thread::join
// launch the thread...
thrd = new boost::thread(boost::bind(&myclass::mymethod, this, &finished_flag);
// ... do other things maybe ...
// wait for the thread to complete
thrd.join();
If you really want to get into the details of communication between threads via shared memory, even declaring a variable volatile won't be enough, even if the compiler does use appropriate access semantics to ensure that it won't get a stale version of data after checking the flag. The CPU can issue reads and writes out of order as long (x86 usually doesn't, but PPC definitely does) and there is nothing in C++9x that allows the compiler to generate code to order memory accesses appropriately.
Herb Sutter's Effective Concurrency series has an extremely in depth look at how the C++ world intersects the multicore/multiprocessor world.
Having the thread set a flag (or signal an event) before it exits is a race condition. The thread has not necessarily returned to the OS yet, and may still be executing.
For example, consider a program that loads a dynamic library (pseudocode):
lib = loadLibrary("someLibrary");
fun = getFunction("someFunction");
fun();
unloadLibrary(lib);
And let's suppose that this library uses your thread:
void someFunction() {
volatile bool finished_flag = false;
thrd = new boost::thread(boost::bind(&myclass::mymethod, this, &finished_flag);
while(!finished_flag) { // ignore the polling loop, it's besides the point
sleep();
}
delete thrd;
}
void myclass::mymethod() {
// do stuff
finished_flag = true;
}
When myclass::mymethod() sets finished_flag to true, myclass::mymethod() hasn't returned yet. At the very least, it still has to execute a "return" instruction of some sort (if not much more: destructors, exception handler management, etc.). If the thread executing myclass::mymethod() gets pre-empted before that point, someFunction() will return to the calling program, and the calling program will unload the library. When the thread executing myclass::mymethod() gets scheduled to run again, the address containing the "return" instruction is no longer valid, and the program crashes.
The solution would be for someFunction() to call thrd->join() before returning. This would ensure that the thread has returned to the OS and is no longer executing.