I have a base class that can start background thread, and stop it when needed. That thread calls two virtual methods Open() and Close(). So all inherited classes can re-implement this methods, but not starting/stoping thread routine (it more difficult than in example). I want to follow RAII principle and start/stop thid thread in constructor/destructor of base class.
The problem is, that calling virtual methods in constructor/destructor is a bad practice and didn't work in my case.
Here is a shot example of my problem:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <atomic>
class Base {
public:
Base() {
bg_thread_ = std::thread([this] {
Open();
while(!is_stop_) {
// do stuff
}
Close();
});
}
~Base() {
is_stop_ = true;
if(bg_thread_.joinable()) {
bg_thread_.join();
}
}
private:
virtual void Open() {
std::cout << "Base open" << std::endl;
}
virtual void Close() {
std::cout << "Base close" << std::endl;
}
std::thread bg_thread_;
std::atomic<bool> is_stop_{false};
};
class Inherited : public Base {
virtual void Open() override {
std::cout << "Inherited open" << std::endl;
}
virtual void Close() override {
std::cout << "Inherited close" << std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
Inherited inherited;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
return 0;
}
The output is:
Inherited open
Base close
And without sleep is:
Base open
Base close
My current approach is to call Start() method after constructor and Stop() before destructor, but I want solution with RAII.
void Start() {
bg_thread_ = std::thread([this] {
Open();
while(!is_stop_) {
// do stuff
}
Close();
});
}
void Stop() {
is_stop_ = true;
if(bg_thread_.joinable()) {
bg_thread_.join();
}
}
The problem is independent of threads. If you call virtual methods in the constructor of the Base, the Inherited object is not yet created so the Base implementations of the methods are called (or you get an error if they are pure virtual). If you call virtual methods in the destructor of Base the Inherited object is already destroyed so again the Base version of the virtual methods are called again.
Calling the methods from another thread does not change this behaviour. But the starting of the thread might take longer than the construction of the Inherited object so the object is fully constructed and the Inherited methods are called at the beginning of the worker thread.
One solution is to move the RAII to another object. So you don't call Start and Stop in Bases constructor and destructor. Then you can build a StartStopThing which takes a Base (by reference or by pointer) and calls Start and Stop in its constructor and destructor. Or you build a StartStopThing template class which takes Inherited as template argument, builds an Inherited object and calls the Start and Stop methods.
Related
Assuming we have the classical Base class and derived class like this
class B {
public:
virtual ~B() {
// calling it here is too late, see explanations
//common_pre_cleanup_function();
}
void common_pre_cleanup_function() { }
};
class D : public B {
public:
virtual ~D() {
// What if we forget to do this call in another derived class?
common_pre_cleanup_function();
}
};
How would you make sure a function like common_pre_cleanup_function() is called in all derived Ds destructors before the members of D are destroyed but without having to explicitly call this function in every destructor-implementation of a new D?
Background
In my current project we have a base class that implements certain parallelism and threading features and will eventually start a new thread that does the actual work.
In the destructor of this base class we wanted to make sure, that the thread is always stopped and joined so that it gets cleaned up properly.
However derived classes may create members that are used by this thread in the base class. So if we destroy objects of the derived class, these members are also destroyed. But at this time the thread that is managed by the base class can still be running and now wrongfully access destroyed members.
I'm aware that this isn't the smartest approach to solve the issue and probably splitting up the threading/parallelisation parts and the "actual work" parts into separate classes might be the much smarter idea. However I'm interested if there are any approaches that don't involve an entire rewrite of the existing code base.
This code here is closer to our situation
class BackgroundTask {
public:
virtual ~BackgroundTask() {
// if we forget to call stop() in the derived classes, we will
// at this point have already destroyed any derived members
// while the thread might still run and access them; so how/where
// can we put this call?
//stop();
}
void stop() {
cancelFlag_.set();
thread_.join();
}
// more functions helping with Background tasks
private:
Thread thread_;
Condition cancelFlag_;
};
class MyTask : public BackgroundTask {
public:
virtual ~MyTask() {
// with the current case, we have to remember to call
// this function in all destructors in classes derived
// from BackgroundTask; that's what I want to avoid
stop();
}
private:
std::unique_ptr<MyClass> member;
};
Quite simply you don't. The best thing to do in this situation is to redesign how everything works to prevent this from being a problem.
But lets face it, in all likelihood you don't have the time and/or resources to achieve that. So your second best option (in my opinion) is to ensure that any call to the destroyed members of the derived class kills you application immediately with a very clear error message.
If a system must fail, fail early.
You might do something like:
template <typename TaskImpl>
class Task final : public TaskImpl
{
static_assert(std::is_base_of<BackgroundTask, TaskImpl>);
public:
virtual ~Task() { stop(); }
};
And then
class MyTaskImpl : public BackgroundTask
{
// ...
private:
std::unique_ptr<MyClass> member;
};
using MyTask = Task<MyTaskImpl>;
While I agree with comments that the design is flawed .....
Assuming that the objects are dynamically allocated, one solution is to make the destructors virtual and protected, and use a separate function to take care of calling the "pre-cleanup" before destroying the objects. For example;
class B
{
public:
void die()
{
common_pre_cleanup_function();
delete this;
};
protected:
virtual ~B() {};
private:
void common_pre_cleanup_function() { };
};
class D : public B
{
protected:
virtual ~D() {};
};
int main()
{
B *b = new D;
b->die();
}
This has a few limitations for the user of the class. In particular, behaviour is undefined if
the object is not created using a new expression;
any non-static member function of the object is called after calling die()
any non-static data member is accessed after calling die()
This also means that, if you maintain a set of objects (like a vector of pointers, B*) then it is necessary to remove the pointer from the list to ensure no usage of the object after it has died.
The protected destructors prevent a few things. Functions that are not members of friends of B or D cannot;
Create a B or a D of automatic storage duration
Use operator delete directly. For example, a statement delete b; in main() above will not compile. This also prevents destroying an object before calling the "pre-cleanup"
Edit: I realized this doesn't aswer your question but I'll leave it here for reference.
As mentioned earlier, each object should be responsible for managing its own resources so your design is a bit flawed to begin with.
Consider the following example. The TaskRunner is responsible for firing up a thread, and shutting it down when the constructor is called (textbook RAII). The Task class specifies what to do during the lifetime of the task, through pure virtual inheritance.
#include <atomic>
#include <future>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
struct Task {
virtual void run( ) = 0;
virtual ~Task( ) {
}
};
class TaskRunner final {
std::unique_ptr<Task> task;
std::future<void> fut;
std::atomic<bool> terminate;
public:
TaskRunner(std::unique_ptr<Task>&& task)
: task {std::move(task)}
, terminate {false} {
fut = std::async(std::launch::async, [this] {
while(!terminate) {
this->task->run( );
}
this->task.reset( );
});
}
TaskRunner(TaskRunner&&) = delete;
TaskRunner& operator=(TaskRunner&&) = delete;
TaskRunner(const TaskRunner&) = delete;
TaskRunner& operator=(const TaskRunner&) = delete;
~TaskRunner( ) {
terminate = true;
fut.wait( ); // Block until cleanup is completed
std::cout << "~TaskRunner()" << std::endl;
}
};
struct MyTask : public Task {
int i = 0;
void
run( ) {
// Do important stuf here, don't block.
std::cout << "MyTask::run() " << i++ << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds {100});
}
~MyTask( ) override {
// Clean up stuff here, run() is guaranteed to never be run again
std::cout << "~MyTask()" << std::endl;
}
};
int
main( ) {
TaskRunner t {std::make_unique<MyTask>( )};
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds {1});
}
Output
MyTask::run() 0
MyTask::run() 1
MyTask::run() 2
MyTask::run() 3
MyTask::run() 4
MyTask::run() 5
MyTask::run() 6
MyTask::run() 7
MyTask::run() 8
MyTask::run() 9
~MyTask()
~TaskRunner()
Suppose I have the following code
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
struct FooBase {
void start(){
run_condition_ = true;
t_ = std::thread([this](){
thread_handler();
});
}
virtual ~FooBase(){
run_condition_ = false;
if(t_.joinable())
t_.join();
}
protected:
virtual void thread_handler() = 0;
std::atomic_bool run_condition_{false};
private:
std::thread t_;
};
struct Foo : FooBase {
void thread_handler() override {
while(run_condition_){
std::cout << "Foo derived thread.." << std::endl;
}
}
};
int main(){
Foo f;
f.start();
getchar();
return 0;
}
Here I think because the destructor of the derived class Foo is called before FooBase the thread_handler vtable lookup happens in the base class IF the thread has not yet joined (still running) when the destructor of Foo is done. Since FooBase::thread_handler is pure virtual I am essentially guranteed a sigabort.
How do I guard against this? I hack my way through by not having thread_handler as pure virtual
virtual void thread_handler(){}
But I am lost as to how I can guard against this in the baseclass itself, I can implement a join_thread interface in the base class and call this from every derived class, but this seems cumbersome.
There's two issues here, neither of which match precisely what you described.
Your thread only gets stopped in ~FooBase(). This means that if Foo::thread_handler ever reads or writes to any of its members, they will get destroyed out from under it before the thread is stopped.
It you get to the destructor fast enough, it's possible that start() won't have actually invoked thread_handler() on the new thread by the time Foo gets destroyed - which will lead to the pure virtual call.
Either way, you need to ensure that by the time Foo is destroyed, anything related to thread_handler is done. This implies that every derived class from FooBase has to have, in its destructor:
run_condition_ = false;
if (t_.joinable()) {
t_join();
}
Setting aside that this directly doesn't work because t_ is private (you could wrap that into a protected stop()), it's an awkward design if all of your derived classes need to do something special just to work. You could instead put FooBase into its own class that just takes an arbitrary callable as an argument:
class joining_thread {
public:
joining_thread() = default;
~joining_thread() { stop(); }
bool running() const { return run_condition_.load(); }
template <typename... Args>
void start(Args&&... args) {
run_condition_ = true;
t_ = std::thread(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
void stop() {
run_condition_ = false;
if (t_.joinable()) t_.join();
}
private:
std::thread t_;
std::atomic_bool run_condition_{false};
};
And then your Foo can just have that as a member:
class Foo {
public:
void start() {
t_.start([this]{
while (t_.running()) { ... }
});
}
private:
// just make me the last member, so it's destroyed first
joining_thread t_;
};
That's still a little awkward with the whole running() thing, but hopefully the idea makes sense.
What you describe is not possible. You call "start" after you have constructed the object. The object is at that stage valid. You have avoided the common problem of calling a virtual function in the constructor, which would have caused issues. There is something called a memory barrier that is implied by any thread calls, so you can count on the fact the new thread will start with a view of memory that existed at the point it was created. Any thing that existed AND was not changed, is fine.
Your problem (as described in another answer) is that you can exit and destroy the object (and it's vtable), before the thread is complete.
The simplest fix for this is use a packaged task. Calling "get" on the future ensures the task is finished before you continue. Consider the code below
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
#include <future>
int main()
{
std::atomic<bool> stop{ false };
std::future<void> sync;
std::packaged_task<void()> task([&stop]()
{
while (!stop)
{
std::cout << "Running\n";
}
});
std::thread thread([&task]() {task();});
getchar();
stop = true;
task.get_future().get();
thread.join();
return 0;
}
I'm looking to run a thread in a base class that constantly calls pure virtual method in that class that's overridden by a derived class.
For starting the thread, I've no issue as I can call an HasInitalized() function after it's been constructed. Therefore the thread is started after the class is fully constructed.
However, as the class' lifetime is managed by a shared_ptr, I cannot call a similar method for stopping the thread. If I stop the thread in the destructor, it will cause a seg-fault as the derived class is destroyed before the base and therefore will try to call a function that's not there.
I'm aware I can call a stop function from the derived class but would rather not have to on every instance of the derived class.
Is there a way around this.
Example:
#include "boost/thread.hpp"
class BaseClass
{
public:
BaseClass()
{
}
// Start the thread
void Start()
{
_thread = boost::thread(&BaseClass::ThreadLoop, this);
}
virtual ~BaseClass()
{
_thread.interrupt();
_thread.join();
}
private:
// Will loop until thread is interupted
void ThreadLoop()
{
try
{
while(true)
{
DoSomethingInDerivedClass();
boost::this_thread::interruption_point();
}
}
catch(...)
{
}
}
boost::thread _thread;
protected:
virtual void DoSomethingInDerivedClass() = 0;
};
class DerivedClass : public BaseClass
{
DerivedClass()
{
}
~DerivedClass()
{
// This gets called before base class destructor.
}
protected:
void DoSomethingInDerivedClass();
};
I don't think you will be able to avoid repeating the call to join the thread in the destructor of each derived class. If a thread depends on a non-static object o, then it's a good idea to have a clear ownership relation to guarantee the validity of the object:
The thread should own o and the destruction of o will be handled by the destructor of the thread object, after the joining.
o should own the thread and should join the thread in it's own destructor.
You've chosen the 2nd approach, except the thread depends on the derived object, but the derived object doesn't own the thread directly but through the sub-object (the base-object). Since the thread depends on the derived object, it must be joined in the derived object's destructor.
You should separate the two behaviours: a class to run and join the thread, the base class for the functional hierarchy.
class Runner {
public:
explicit Runner(std::shared_ptr<BaseClass> ptr) : m_ptr(ptr) {
m_thread = boost::thread(&Runner::ThreadLoop, this);
}
~Runner() {
m_thread.interrupt();
m_thread.join();
}
private:
void ThreadLoop() {
try {
while(true) {
m_ptr->DoSomethingInDerivedClass();
boost::this_thread::interruption_point();
}
} catch(...) {
}
}
std::shared_ptr<BaseClass> m_ptr;
std::thread m_thread;
};
My recommendation would be to use a weak_ptr to know when the object's lifetime is over:
The factory instantiates the (derived) object and stores it in a shared_ptr
The factory instantiates the watchdog class and passes it a weak_ptr to the new object
The watchdog thread can now check if the weak pointer is expired each time it needs to access it. When it is expired, the thread will terminate itself.
Here is an example (instead of a factory, I just used main):
#include <thread>
class BaseClass
{
public:
virtual ~BaseClass() = default;
virtual void DoSomethingInDerivedClass() = 0;
};
class DerivedClass : public BaseClass
{
public:
void DoSomethingInDerivedClass() override {}
};
// Will loop until weak_base expires
void ThreadLoop(std::weak_ptr<BaseClass> weak_base)
{
try
{
while (true)
{
std::shared_ptr<BaseClass> base = weak_base.lock();
if (base) {
base->DoSomethingInDerivedClass();
}
else {
break; // Base is gone. Terminate thread.
}
}
}
catch (...)
{
}
}
int main()
{
std::shared_ptr<DerivedClass> obj = std::make_shared<DerivedClass>();
std::thread([&] { ThreadLoop(obj); }).detach();
return 0;
}
Note that there is no need to explicitly stop the thread, since it will stop itself as soon as it detects that the object's lifetime is over. On the other hand, note that the thread may slightly outlive the lifetime of the being-watchted object, which could be considered bad design (it could e.g. defer program termination). I guess one could work around that by joining with the thread in the base class destructor, after signalling that it should terminate (if not already terminated).
I ran into a weird C++ code behaviour, not sure whether it's a compiler bug or simply undefined/unspecified behaviour of my code. Here is the code:
#include <unistd.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
struct Parent {
std::thread t;
static void entry(Parent* p) {
p->init();
p->fini();
}
virtual ~Parent() { t.join(); }
void start() { t = std::thread{entry, this}; }
virtual void init() { std::cout << "Parent::init()" << std::endl; }
virtual void fini() { std::cout << "Parent::fini()" << std::endl; }
};
struct Child : public Parent {
virtual void init() override { std::cout << "Child::init()" << std::endl; }
virtual void fini() override { std::cout << "Child::fini()" << std::endl; }
};
int main() {
Child c;
c.start();
sleep(1); // <========== here is it
return 0;
}
The output of the code would be the following, which isn't surprising:
Child::init()
Child::fini()
However, if the function call "sleep(1)" is commented out, the output would be:
Parent::init()
Parent::~fini()
Tested on Ubuntu 15.04, both gcc-4.9.2 and clang-3.6.0 show the same behaviour. Compiler options:
g++/clang++ test.cpp -std=c++11 -pthread
It looks like a race condition (the vtable not fully constructed before the thread starts). Is this code ill-formed ? a compiler bug ? or it's supposed to be like this ?
#KerrekSB commented:
” The thread uses the child object, but the child object is destroyed before the thread is joined (because the joining only happens after the destruction of the child has begun).
The Child object is destroyed at the end of main. The Child destructor is executed, and effectively calls the Parent destructor, where Parent bases (no such) and data members (the thread object) are destroyed. As destructors are invoked up the chain of base classes the dynamic type of the object changes, in reverse order of how it changes during construction, so at this point the type of the object is Parent.
The virtual calls in the thread function can happen before, overlapping with or after the call of the Child destructor, and in the case of overlapping there's one thread accessing storage (in practice, the vtable pointer) that is being changed by another thread. So this is Undefined Behavior.
This is common design issue; what you tried to do is a classical anti-pattern.
Parent cannot be at the same time a thread manager, starting a thread and waiting for thread termination:
virtual ~Parent() { t.join(); }
void start() { t = std::thread{entry, this}; }
and also a thread object:
virtual void init() { std::cout << "Parent::init()" << std::endl; }
virtual void fini() { std::cout << "Parent::fini()" << std::endl; }
These are two distinct concepts, with strictly incompatible specifications.
(And thread objects are not useful in general.)
I am trying to build a service object which can run (i.e. execute it's run() function) in a separate thread. This is the service object
#include <boost/noncopyable.hpp>
#include <atomic>
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
class service : public boost::noncopyable {
public:
service() : stop_(false), started_(false) { }
virtual ~service() {
stop();
if (thread_.joinable()) {
thread_.join();
}
}
virtual void stop() { stop_ = true; }
virtual void start() {
if (started_.load() == false) {
started_ = true;
thread_ = std::thread([&] () {
run();
});
}
}
protected:
virtual void run() = 0;
std::atomic<bool> stop_;
std::atomic<bool> started_;
std::thread thread_;
};
I am the creating a test class which inherits from this abstract class and is called in the main() function
class test : public service {
public:
test() : service() {
std::cout<< "CTOR" << std::endl;
start();
}
~test() {
std::cout<< "DTOR" << std::endl;
}
protected:
void run() override {
std::cout << "HELLO WORLD" <<std::endl;
}
};
int main() {
test test1;
return 0;
}
Now when I execute this, why do I get an error saying pure virtual function called? The run() function is clearly overridden in the test class. Whats worse is that it runs correctly sometimes?
$ ./a.out
CTOR
DTOR
pure virtual method called
terminate called without an active exception
$ ./a.out
CTOR
DTOR
pure virtual method called
terminate called without an active exception
$ ./a.out
CTOR
DTOR
pure virtual method called
terminate called without an active exception
$ ./a.out
CTOR
DTOR
HELLO WORLD
$ ./a.out
CTOR
DTOR
pure virtual method called
terminate called without an active exception
What could be going wrong here?
Follow along, step by step:
1) You construct the object.
2) You execute the following piece of code:
if (started_.load() == false) {
started_ = true;
thread_ = std::thread([&] () {
run();
});
}
The parent thread immediately returns to main() where it immediately exits and destroys your object.
Here's your bug:
You are not guaranteed that the thread started in start() is going to reach the call to run(), above, before the parent thread terminates the process. Both the child thread, and the parent thread runs concurrently.
So, every once in a while, the parent thread will destroy the object before the child thread gets in gear, and calls run().
At this point, the object whose run() method gets invoked, is already destroyed.
Undefined behavior.
The assertion you're hitting, every once in a while, is one possible result of this undefined behavior.