According to several documentation examples the thread can't unlock a mutex unless it locked it explicitly. Here is an excerpt from man page for pthread_mutex_unlock at IBM.
The pthread_mutex_unlock() function unlocks the mutex specified. If
the calling thread does not currently hold the mutex (via a previous
call to pthread_mutex_lock(), pthread_mutex_trylock(), or
pthread_mutex_timedlock_np()) the unlock request fails with the EPERM
error.
Even the new C++ standard says something similar about the thread ownership, yet the following program was able to unlock a mutex locked on a different thread. On gcc & Linux systems the same behavior is seen both on pthread mutex as well as std::mutex (which I believe is implemented based on pthread_mutex anyway).
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <pthread.h>
std::mutex stmutex;
pthread_mutex_t pthrmutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
void thread1(int i)
{
stmutex.unlock();
std::cout << "Un Locked in thread 1" << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
}
void pthread1(int i)
{
pthread_mutex_unlock(&pthrmutex);
std::cout << "Un Locked Pthread mutex in thread 1" << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
}
void thread2(int i)
{
stmutex.lock();
std::cout << "Locked in thread 2" << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
}
void thread3(int i)
{
stmutex.unlock();
std::cout << "UNLocked in thread 3" << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
try {
stmutex.lock();
std::cout << "Locked in main thread : " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
std::thread t1(thread1,1);
t1.join();
stmutex.lock();
std::cout << "Locked in main thread after unlocking in thread1" << std::endl;
stmutex.unlock();
std::cout << "Un Locked in main thread " << std::endl;
pthread_mutex_lock(&pthrmutex);
std::cout << "Locked pthread mutex in main thread : " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
std::thread t2(pthread1,1);
t2.join();
pthread_mutex_lock(&pthrmutex);
std::cout << "Locked Pthread mutext in main thread after unlocking in thread1" << std::endl;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&pthrmutex);
std::cout << "Un Locked Pthread mutext in main thread " << std::endl;
std::thread t3(thread2,1);
t3.join();
std::thread t4(thread3,1);
t4.join();
} catch (std::exception& ex)
{
std::cerr << "Exception In main thread: " << ex.what() << std::endl;
}
}
Am I missing anything in my understanding of mutex "Ownership" ?
The request fails with the EPERM error only for mutexes created with PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK.
See pthread_mutex_lock section RATIONALE:
... while being able to extract the thread ID of the owner of a mutex might be desirable, it would require storing the current thread ID when each mutex is locked, and this could incur unacceptable levels of overhead.
I.e. initialize your mutex with PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP.
Example:
void locker(pthread_mutex_t* mutex) {
if(int e = pthread_mutex_lock(mutex))
fprintf(stderr, "pthread_mutex_lock: (%d)%s\n", e, strerror(e));
}
void unlocker(pthread_mutex_t* mutex) {
if(int e = pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex))
fprintf(stderr, "pthread_mutex_unlock: (%d)%s\n", e, strerror(e));
}
int main() {
pthread_mutex_t a = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
pthread_mutex_t b = PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP;
std::thread(locker, &a).join();
std::thread(locker, &b).join();
std::thread(unlocker, &a).join();
std::thread(unlocker, &b).join(); // pthread_mutex_unlock: (1)Operation not permitted
}
Related
I have some trouble understanding the unique_lock and condition_variable in the code below.
#define _GLIBCXX_USE_NANOSLEEP
#include <chrono>
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <condition_variable>
using namespace std;
mutex m;
int i=1;
condition_variable cv;
void funcA()
{
cout << "FuncA Before lock" << endl;
unique_lock<mutex> lk(m);
cout << "FuncA After lock" << endl;
while(i != 2) { cv.wait(lk); }
//std::chrono::milliseconds dura(500);//make sure thread is running
//std::this_thread::sleep_for(dura); //this_thread::sleep_for(dura);
cout << "FuncA After sleep" << endl;
lk.unlock();
cv.notify_all();
}
void funcB()
{
cout << "FuncB Before lock" << endl;
unique_lock<mutex> lk(m);
cout << "FuncB After lock" << endl;
while(i != 1) { cv.wait(lk); }
//std::chrono::milliseconds dura(500);//make sure thread is running
//std::this_thread::sleep_for(dura); //this_thread::sleep_for(dura);
cout << "FuncB After sleep" << endl;
++i;
lk.unlock();
cv.notify_all();
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
auto a = thread(funcA), b=thread(funcB);
a.join(), b.join();
return 0;
}
As per https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/unique_lock/unique_lock (when the constructor is called with a mutex) the constructor locks the associated mutex by calling m.lock()
Let us say, threadA/funcA gets scheduled first by the operating system. So, the following lines will get executed
cout << "FuncA Before lock" << endl;
unique_lock<mutex> lk(m);
cout << "FuncA After lock" << endl;
while(i != 2) { cv.wait(lk); }
Now, threadA has the mutex since the constructor for the unique_lock has called lock on it. However, since i!=2, the thread will stay in the while-loop waiting to be notified by the other thread.
Now, let us say the operating system switches the threads and funcB is called.
cout << "FuncB Before lock" << endl;
unique_lock<mutex> lk(m);
Now, this thread should get stuck here on the second line right? Because mutex m is already owned by threadA (since it has called m.lock() on it), and therefore the m.lock() call by unique_lock constructor should block since the mutex is not available.
So, there's a deadlock? The threadA is waiting in the infinite loop waiting for i to be incremented to 2, whereas threadB is waiting for the mutex owned by threadA.
However, nothing like that happens, and the code works fine.
In the following codes I suppose mLooperMutex can't be acquired by the children thread. But the program output is quite surprising. It looks that mLooperMutex captured in the std::thread is not the same one in main thread.
But if I changed the detach() call of std::thread to join(), this will lead to a deadlock since the mLooperMutex has been locked by the main thread.
Are there anything wrong with this program if I'd like to use the mLooperMutex among different threads?
a.out:
main: wait cond begin
child: acquiring lock begin
child: acquiring lock done
child: notify one begin
child: notify one done
main: wait cond done
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
std::condition_variable looperSet;
bool child_done = false;
std::mutex mLooperMutex;
cout << "main: acquiring lock begin" << endl;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mLooperMutex);
cout << "main: acquiring lock done" << endl;
std::thread{[&mutex=mLooperMutex, &looperSet, &child_done] () {
cout << "child: acquiring lock begin" << endl;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mutex);
cout << "child: acquiring lock done" << endl;
child_done = true;
lock.unlock();
cout << "child: notify one begin" << endl;
looperSet.notify_one();
cout << "child: notify one done" << endl;
}}.detach();
cout << "main: wait cond begin" << endl;
looperSet.wait(lock, [&child_done]{ return child_done; });
cout << "main: wait cond done" << endl;
return 0;
}
The reason why the mLooperMutex can be acquired in the child thread is because the lock is released by looperSet.wait:
// This unlocks "lock", and then locks it again afterwards.
looperSet.wait(lock, [&child_done]{ return child_done; });
The reason why this doesn't work with .join() is because .join() waits for the thread to finish before proceeding, and the thread can't finish until the lock is released, and looperSet.wait() which releases the lock won't run until .join() finishes.
Creating a thread and then immediately calling .join() is not very useful, you might as well run the code directly rather than using a thread.
I'm using boost 1.54.0 and Visual Studio 2010. For the code:
#include <iostream>
#include "boost/thread/thread.hpp"
#include "boost/thread/mutex.hpp"
boost::mutex mx1;
void func1()
{
{
boost::mutex::scoped_lock(mx1);
std::cout << "Thread " << boost::this_thread::get_id() << " starting work." << std::endl;
}
int x = 0;
for (int i=0; i<100; i++)
x++;
{
boost::mutex::scoped_lock(mx1);
std::cout << "Thread " << boost::this_thread::get_id() << " finished." << std::endl;
}
}
int main(void)
{
boost::thread thread1(&func1);
boost::thread thread2(&func1);
thread1.join();
thread2.join();
return 0;
}
About half the time I get the following (with varying thread ids and execution order, obviously):
Thread Thread 15b0 starting work.
1a18 starting work.
Thread 15b0 finished.
Thread 1a18 finished.
...instead of this (which is what I'd expect):
Thread 15b0 starting work.
Thread 1a18 starting work.
Thread 15b0 finished.
Thread 1a18 finished.
However, using
mx1.lock();
std::cout << "Thread " << boost::this_thread::get_id() << " starting work." << std::endl;
mx1.unlock();
...seems to work with no problems.
The output always seems to follow the same pattern. Am I using the mutex incorrectly, or is it something to do with std::cout?
Replace
boost::mutex::scoped_lock(mx1);
with
boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(mx1);
you fell a victim of the most frequently occurring typo with the scoped lock:-)
I have a program with multiple resources that needs to be lock by their own mutex.
In this program, it might happen that while mutex for resource A is locked, resource A is deleted in another thread.
The following code try to reproduce the logic of what I try to accomplish :
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <iostream>
#include <map>
int g_i = 0;
struct Resource
{
std::mutex* m_mutex;
};
std::map<unsigned int, Resource> myResources;
std::mutex g_i_mutex; // protects g_i
void shutdown()
{
std::cout << "shutdown -> myMap.size = : " << myResources.size() << std::endl;
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(*myResources[1].m_mutex);
++g_i;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
delete myResources[1].m_mutex;
myResources[1].m_mutex = NULL;
myResources.erase(1);
std::cout << "shutdown -> myMap.size = : " << myResources.size() << std::endl;
std::cout << "shutdown : " << g_i << '\n';
}
void onRecognize()
{
std::cout << "onRecognize -> myMap.size = : " << myResources.size() << std::endl;
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(*myResources[1].m_mutex);
std::cout << "onRecognize -> myMap.size = : " << myResources.size() << std::endl;
++g_i;
std::cout << "onRecognize : " << g_i << '\n';
}
int main()
{
std::cout << __func__ << ": " << g_i << '\n';
Resource myStruct;
myStruct.m_mutex = new std::mutex();
myResources[1] = myStruct;
std::thread t1(shutdown);
std::thread t2(onRecognize);
t1.join();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(500));
t2.join();
std::cout << __func__ << ": " << g_i << '\n';
}
I tried this snippet of code and it works. But I am wondering what happen with lock_guard in onRecognize function, because the mutex is being deleted while he is locked. So, my question might be :
Does deleting a mutex while he is locked somewhere else is dangerous?
Thx
Don't destroy a mutex while it is locked.
The behavior is undefined if the mutex is owned by any thread or if any thread terminates while holding any ownership of the mutex.
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/mutex/~mutex
You have a fundamental concurrency error that renders your code unreliable. The pointer m_mutex is modified in one thread and used in another, and no synchronization of any kind protects it.
This is catastrophic even if you can't imagine a way it can fail. But it happens to be very easy to imagine ways it can fail. Consider:
onRecognize evaluates *myResources[1].m_mutex but hasn't constructed the lock guard yet.
shutdown acquires the lock, destroys the mutex, and returns.
onRecognize tries to construct the lock guard on a lock that no longer exists.
Boom.
So you have bigger problems than anything specific to the semantics of mutexes.
GCC(10.2) & Clang(10) don't have issues with deleting a locked mutex, MSVC 19.28 will terminate.
{
std::mutex m;
m.lock();
}//std::terminate() - MSVC
The code is acquiring the same mutex from two different threads at the same time.
I understand that a deadlock should occur. Why it is not happening?
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <queue>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
template <typename T>
class SafeQueue
{
public:
T pop()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> mlock(mutex_);
std::cout << "lock pop()" << std::endl;
while (queue_.empty())
{
cond_.wait(mlock);
std::cout << "lock pop awake. Items: " << queue_.size() << std::endl;
}
auto item = queue_.front();
queue_.pop();
std::cout << "returning from pop" << std::endl;
return item;
}
void push(const T& item)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> mlock(mutex_);
std::cout << "lock push()" << std::endl;
queue_.push(item);
mlock.unlock();
cond_.notify_one();
}
private:
std::queue<T> queue_;
mutable std::mutex mutex_;
std::condition_variable cond_;
};
SafeQueue<int> queue;
void pop()
{
std::cout << "popping..." << std::endl;
std::cout << "popped: " << queue.pop() << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
std::thread consumerThread(pop);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(3));
std::cout << "main thread will push" << std::endl;
queue.push(2);
std::cout << "pushed" << std::endl;
consumerThread.join();
std::cout << "end" << std::endl << std::endl;
}
My output is:
popping...
lock pop()
main thread will push
lock push()
pushed
lock pop awake. Items: 1
returning from pop
popped: 2
end
This statement:
cond_.wait(mlock);
actually unlocks the mutex during the wait, and reacquires the lock once signaled. That's why you don't have any deadlock.
What is happening is that std::condition_variable::wait is releasing the mutex. The thread then waits until the notify_one call, that will release the condition and re-acquire the mutex.
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/condition_variable/wait
"There must be at least one thread that is waiting for a condition to become true. The waiting thread must first acquire a unique_lock. This lock is passed to the wait() method, that releases the mutex and suspends the thread until the condition variable is signaled. When that happens the thread is awaken and the lock is re-acquired."
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/598695/Cplusplus-threads-locks-and-condition-variables
A deadlock requires TWO mutexes to be acquired in different orders in different threads. I only see a single mutex in your code.