I have function foo:
void foo(){
//Command set A
std::this_thread::sleep_for(100s);
//Command set B
}
The first part which is Command set A has to block the execution. However, the sleep part and //Command set B does not have to block the execution and does not return any data.
So I implement it as follow:
void foo(){
//Command set A
std::thread t([](){
std::this_thread::sleep_for(100s);
//Command set B
}
t.detach()
}
Did I utilizedetach correctly here? Is it the right place to use detach? is there a better solution?
detach is rarely the correct solution. If does exactly what it says: It removes the connection between the std::thread object and the actual thread. The thread keeps running until it finishes on its own, but your program has lost any control over it, if you don’t explicitly implement communication with the thread (e.g. via a message queue).
Things become problematic if the threads is still active when your program ends. Your process is in the middle of releasing its resources and dying, but the thread is chucking merrily along, using some of these resources. Because all resources are released, even the most basic ones (think low-level C++ runtime) that’s a recipe for desaster. Chances are, your program will crash on exit.
Look into std::async for a straight forward replacement. It runs a task asynchronously and immediately returns a std::future. Even if the task doesn’t return any data then the future is the handle you can hold on to and on program exit check if the thread is still running – and wait for it to finish, if necessary.
Related
I am creating multiple threads in my program. On pressing Ctrl-C, a signal handler is called. Inside a signal handler, I have put exit(0) at last. The thing is that sometimes the program terminates safely but the other times, I get runtime error stating
abort() has been called
So what would be the possible solution to avoid the error?
The usual way is to set an atomic flag (like std::atomic<bool>) which is checked by all threads (including the main thread). If set, then the sub-threads exit, and the main thread starts to join the sub-threads. Then you can exit cleanly.
If you use std::thread for the threads, that's a possible reason for the crashes you have. You must join the thread before the std::thread object is destructed.
Others have mentioned having the signal-handler set a std::atomic<bool> and having all the other threads periodically check that value to know when to exit.
That approach works well as long as all of your other threads are periodically waking up anyway, at a reasonable frequency.
It's not entirely satisfactory if one or more of your threads is purely event-driven, however -- in an event-driven program, threads are only supposed to wake up when there is some work for them to do, which means that they might well be asleep for days or weeks at a time. If they are forced to wake up every (so many) milliseconds simply to poll an atomic-boolean-flag, that makes an otherwise extremely CPU-efficient program much less CPU-efficient, since now every thread is waking up at short regular intervals, 24/7/365. This can be particularly problematic if you are trying to conserve battery life, as it can prevent the CPU from going into power-saving mode.
An alternative approach that avoids polling would be this one:
On startup, have your main thread create an fd-pipe or socket-pair (by calling pipe() or socketpair())
Have your main thread (or possibly some other responsible thread) include the receiving-socket in its read-ready select() fd_set (or take a similar action for poll() or whatever wait-for-IO function that thread blocks in)
When the signal-handler is executed, have it write a byte (any byte, doesn't matter what) into the sending-socket.
That will cause the main thread's select() call to immediately return, with FD_ISSET(receivingSocket) indicating true because of the received byte
At that point, your main thread knows it is time for the process to exit, so it can start directing all of its child threads to start shutting down (via whatever mechanism is convenient; atomic booleans or pipes or something else)
After telling all the child threads to start shutting down, the main thread should then call join() on each child thread, so that it can be guaranteed that all of the child threads are actually gone before main() returns. (This is necessary because otherwise there is a risk of a race condition -- e.g. the post-main() cleanup code might occasionally free a resource while a still-executing child thread was still using it, leading to a crash)
The first thing you must accept is that threading is hard.
A "program using threading" is about as generic as a "program using memory", and your question is similar to "how do I not corrupt memory in a program using memory?"
The way you handle threading problem is to restrict how you use threads and the behavior of the threads.
If your threading system is a bunch of small operations composed into a data flow network, with an implicit guarantee that if an operation is too big it is broken down into smaller operations and/or does checkpoints with the system, then shutting down looks very different than if you have a thread that loads an external DLL that then runs it for somewhere from 1 second to 10 hours to infinite length.
Like most things in C++, solving your problem is going to be about ownership, control and (at a last resort) hacks.
Like data in C++, every thread should be owned. The owner of a thread should have significant control over that thread, and be able to tell it that the application is shutting down. The shut down mechanism should be robust and tested, and ideally connected to other mechanisms (like early-abort of speculative tasks).
The fact you are calling exit(0) is a bad sign. It implies your main thread of execution doesn't have a clean shutdown path. Start there; the interrupt handler should signal the main thread that shutdown should begin, and then your main thread should shut down gracefully. All stack frames should unwind, data should be cleaned up, etc.
Then the same kind of logic that permits that clean and fast shutdown should also be applied to your threaded off code.
Anyone telling you it is as simple as a condition variable/atomic boolean and polling is selling you a bill of goods. That will only work in simple cases if you are lucky, and determining if it works reliably is going to be quite hard.
Additional to Some programmer dude answer and related to discussion in the comment section, you need to make the flag that controls termination of your threads as atomic type.
Consider following case :
bool done = false;
void pending_thread()
{
while(!done)
{
std::this_thread::sleep(std::milliseconds(1));
}
// do something that depends on working thread results
}
void worker_thread()
{
//do something for pending thread
done = true;
}
Here worker thread can be your main thread also and done is terminating flag of your thread, but pending thread need to do something with given data by working thread, before exiting.
this example has race condition and undefined behaviour along with it, and it's really hard to find what is the actual problem int the real world.
Now the corrected version using std::automic :
std::atomic<bool> done(false);
void pending_thread()
{
while(!done.load())
{
std::this_thread::sleep(std::milliseconds(1));
}
// do something that depends on working thread results
}
void worker_thread()
{
//do something for pending thread
done = true;
}
You can exit thread without being concern of race condition or UB.
I am recently working with threads in C++11. now I am thinking about how to force stop a thread. I couldn't find it on stackoverflow, and also tried these.
One variable each thread : not so reliable
return in the main thread : I have to force quit only one not all
and I have no more ideas. I have heard about WinAPI, but I want a portable solution. (that also means I wont use fork())
Can you please give me a solution of this? I really want to do it.
One of the biggest problems with force closing a thread in C++ is the RAII violation.
When a function (and subsequently, a thread), gracefully finishes, everything it held is gracefully cleaned up by the destructors of the objects the functions/threads created.
Memory gets freed,
OS resources (handles, file descriptors etc.) are closed and returned to the OS
Locks are getting unlocked so other threads can use the shared resources they protect.
other important tasks are preformed (such as updating counters, logging, etc.).
If you brutally kill a thread (aka by TerminateThread on Windows, for example), non of these actually happen, and the program is left in a very dangerous state.
A (not-so) common pattern that can be used is to register a "cancellation token" on which you can monitor and gracefully shut the thread if other thread asks so (a la TPL/PPL). something like
auto cancellationToken = std::make_shared<std::atomic_bool>();
cancellationToken->store(false);
class ThreadTerminator : public std::exception{/*...*/};
std::thread thread([cancellationToken]{
try{
//... do things
if (cancellationToken->load()){
//somone asked the thred to close
throw ThreadTerminator ();
}
//do other things...
if (cancellationToken->load()){
//somone asked the thred to close
throw ThreadTerminator ();
}
//...
}catch(ThreadTerminator){
return;
}
});
Usually, one doesn't even open a new thread for a small task, it's better to think of a multi threaded application as a collection of concurrent tasks and parallel algorithms. one opens a new thread for some long ongoing background task which is usually performed in some sort of a loop (such as, accepting incoming connections).
So, anyway, the cases for asking a small task to be cancelled are rare anyway.
tldr:
Is there a reliable way to force a thread to stop in C++?
No.
Here is my approach for most of my designs:
Think of 2 kinds of Threads:
1) primary - I call main.
2) subsequent - any thread launched by main or any subsequent thread
When I launch std::thread's in C++ (or posix threads in C++):
a) I provide all subsequent threads access to a boolean "done", initialized to false. This bool can be directly passed from main (or indirectly through other mechanisms).
b) All my threads have a regular 'heartbeat', typically with a posix semaphore or std::mutex, sometimes with just a timer, and sometimes simply during normal thread operation.
Note that a 'heartbeat' is not polling.
Also note that checking a boolean is really cheap.
Thus, whenever main wants to shut down, it merely sets done to true and 'join's with the subsequent threads.
On occasion main will also signal any semaphore (prior to join) that a subsequent thread might be waiting on.
And sometimes, a subsequent thread has to let its own subsequent thread know it is time to end.
Here is an example -
main launching a subsequent thread:
std::thread* thrd =
new std::thread(&MyClass_t::threadStart, this, id);
assert(nullptr != thrd);
Note that I pass the this pointer to this launch ... within this class instance is a boolean m_done.
Main Commanding shutdown:
In main thread, of course, all I do is
m_done = true;
In a subsequent thread (and in this design, all are using the same critical section):
void threadStart(uint id) {
std::cout << id << " " << std::flush; // thread announce
do {
doOnce(id); // the critical section is in this method
}while(!m_done); // exit when done
}
And finally, at an outer scope, main invokes the join.
Perhaps the take away is - when designing a threaded system, you should also design the system shut down, not just add it on.
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)
How can I wait for a detached thread to finish in C++?
I don't care about an exit status, I just want to know whether or not the thread has finished.
I'm trying to provide a synchronous wrapper around an asynchronous thirdarty tool. The problem is a weird race condition crash involving a callback. The progression is:
I call the thirdparty, and register a callback
when the thirdparty finishes, it notifies me using the callback -- in a detached thread I have no real control over.
I want the thread from (1) to wait until (2) is called.
I want to wrap this in a mechanism that provides a blocking call. So far, I have:
class Wait {
public:
void callback() {
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_mutex);
m_done = true;
pthread_cond_broadcast(&m_cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m_mutex);
}
void wait() {
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_mutex);
while (!m_done) {
pthread_cond_wait(&m_cond, &m_mutex);
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m_mutex);
}
private:
pthread_mutex_t m_mutex;
pthread_cond_t m_cond;
bool m_done;
};
// elsewhere...
Wait waiter;
thirdparty_utility(&waiter);
waiter.wait();
As far as I can tell, this should work, and it usually does, but sometimes it crashes. As far as I can determine from the corefile, my guess as to the problem is this:
When the callback broadcasts the end of m_done, the wait thread wakes up
The wait thread is now done here, and Wait is destroyed. All of Wait's members are destroyed, including the mutex and cond.
The callback thread tries to continue from the broadcast point, but is now using memory that's been released, which results in memory corruption.
When the callback thread tries to return (above the level of my poor callback method), the program crashes (usually with a SIGSEGV, but I've seen SIGILL a couple of times).
I've tried a lot of different mechanisms to try to fix this, but none of them solve the problem. I still see occasional crashes.
EDIT: More details:
This is part of a massively multithreaded application, so creating a static Wait isn't practical.
I ran a test, creating Wait on the heap, and deliberately leaking the memory (i.e. the Wait objects are never deallocated), and that resulted in no crashes. So I'm sure it's a problem of Wait being deallocated too soon.
I've also tried a test with a sleep(5) after the unlock in wait, and that also produced no crashes. I hate to rely on a kludge like that though.
EDIT: ThirdParty details:
I didn't think this was relevant at first, but the more I think about it, the more I think it's the real problem:
The thirdparty stuff I mentioned, and why I have no control over the thread: this is using CORBA.
So, it's possible that CORBA is holding onto a reference to my object longer than intended.
Yes, I believe that what you're describing is happening (race condition on deallocate). One quick way to fix this is to create a static instance of Wait, one that won't get destroyed. This will work as long as you don't need to have more than one waiter at the same time.
You will also permanently use that memory, it will not deallocate. But it doesn't look like that's too bad.
The main issue is that it's hard to coordinate lifetimes of your thread communication constructs between threads: you will always need at least one leftover communication construct to communicate when it is safe to destroy (at least in languages without garbage collection, like C++).
EDIT:
See comments for some ideas about refcounting with a global mutex.
To the best of my knowledge there's no portable way to directly ask a thread if its done running (i.e. no pthread_ function). What you are doing is the right way to do it, at least as far as having a condition that you signal. If you are seeing crashes that you are sure are due to the Wait object is being deallocated when the thread that creates it quits (and not some other subtle locking issue -- all too common), the issue is that you need to make sure the Wait isn't being deallocated, by managing from a thread other than the one that does the notification. Put it in global memory or dynamically allocate it and share it with that thread. Most simply don't have the thread being waited on own the memory for the Wait, have the thread doing the waiting own it.
Are you initializing and destroying the mutex and condition var properly?
Wait::Wait()
{
pthread_mutex_init(&m_mutex, NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&m_cond, NULL);
m_done = false;
}
Wait::~Wait()
{
assert(m_done);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&m_mutex);
pthread_cond_destroy(&m_cond);
}
Make sure that you aren't prematurely destroying the Wait object -- if it gets destroyed in one thread while the other thread still needs it, you'll get a race condition that will likely result in a segfault. I'd recommend making it a global static variable that gets constructed on program initialization (before main()) and gets destroyed on program exit.
If your assumption is correct then third party module appears to be buggy and you need to come up with some kind of hack to make your application work.
Static Wait is not feasible. How about Wait pool (it even may grow on demand)? Is you application using thread pool to run?
Although there will still be a chance that same Wait will be reused while third party module is still using it. But you can minimize such chance by properly queing vacant Waits in your pool.
Disclaimer: I am in no way an expert in thread safety, so consider this post as a suggestion from a layman.
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.