I am studying about threads and concurrent programming. Tried this basic example from what was provided in class:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define NUM_THREADS 8
void *printGoGators(void *noArg)
{
printf("Go Gators!\n");
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
pthread_t threads[NUM_THREADS];
int rc, t;
for (t = 0; t < NUM_THREADS; t++)
{
printf("Creating thread %d\n", t);
rc = pthread_create(&threads[t],
NULL,
printGoGators,
NULL);
if(rc)
{
printf("ERROR %d", rc);
exit(-1);
}
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
This code produces the following output. :
Creating thread 0
Creating thread 1
Go Gators!
Creating thread 2
Go Gators!
Creating thread 3
Go Gators!
Creating thread 4
Go Gators!
Creating thread 5
Go Gators!
Creating thread 6
Go Gators!
Creating thread 7
Go Gators!
Go Gators!
Why is Go Gators! not printed directly after its corresponding Creating thread # for all threads?
Please help!
If your code looked like this, then the output would be in the order you expect:
for (t = 0; t < NUM_THREADS; t++)
{
printf("Creating thread %d\n", t);
printGoGators(NULL);
}
So, you're making an assumption that threads will execute in the same order that they are created. However, that assumption is incorrect - threads may execute in any order.
After you create a thread it is up to the OS to decide what order threads are executed. You can control it using mutexes and conditions to lock a thread let another thread to run and then unlock it.
Unlike accepted answer, this example uses threads and not just print something in a loop.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define NUM_THREADS 8
pthread_mutex_t myMutex; // Declere global mutex
pthread_cond_t myCondition; // Declere global condition
void *printGoGators(void *arg) {
printf("Go Gators! %i\n", *(int*)arg);
delete (int*) arg;
pthread_cond_signal(&myCondition); // Signal that a condition is met
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
pthread_mutex_init(&myMutex, NULL); // Initialize mutex
pthread_cond_init (&myCondition, NULL); // Initialize condition
pthread_t threads[NUM_THREADS];
int rc, t;
for (t = 0; t < NUM_THREADS; t++) {
int* n = new int;
*n = t;
printf("Creating thread %d\n", t);
rc = pthread_create(&threads[t],
NULL,
printGoGators,
n);
if(rc) {
printf("ERROR %d", rc);
exit(-1);
}
pthread_cond_wait(&myCondition, &myMutex); // waite for condition
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
result:
Creating thread 0
Go Gators! 0
Creating thread 1
Go Gators! 1
Creating thread 2
Go Gators! 2
Creating thread 3
Go Gators! 3
Creating thread 4
Go Gators! 4
Creating thread 5
Go Gators! 5
Creating thread 6
Go Gators! 6
Creating thread 7
Go Gators! 7
Main thread creation loop: Create a thread and then wait for the condition.
New thread: Print a message then signal that condition is met.
This way you manage the order of execution.
Related
The question is brought up when I developing a registry system (c/c++, 2.6.32-642.6.2.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP) used to bookmark information for each database, which requires locking for both inter and intra process. Normally, lockf(), flock(), fcntl() are obvious candidates for the inter process locking, but then I find out that they do not work as expected for intra-process locking(multi threads in same process).
I tested it using the following program:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <fcntl.h> /* For O_RDWR */
#include <unistd.h> /* For open(), creat() */
#include <errno.h>
int counter = 0;
void* counterThread(void* ptr)
{
int lockfd = 0;
int tmpCounter = 0;
lockfd = open("/tmp/lockfile.txt", O_CREAT|O_WRONLY, 0666);
if(lockfd == -1)
{
printf("lockfile could not be created, errno:%d\n", errno);
return NULL;
}
if(lockf(lockfd, F_LOCK, 0) == -1)
{
printf("lockfile could not be locked, errno:%d\n", errno);
return NULL;
}
counter++;
tmpCounter = counter;
if(lockf(lockfd, F_ULOCK, 0) == -1)
{
printf("lockfile could not be unlocked, errno:%d\n", errno);
return NULL;
}
close(lockfd);
printf("counter is %d, lockfile is %d\n", tmpCounter, lockfd);
}
int main()
{
int threadNum = 30000;
pthread_t threads[30000];
int i = 0;
int rv = 0;
for(; i < threadNum; i++)
{
rv = pthread_create( &threads[i], NULL, &counterThread, NULL);
if(rv != 0)
{
printf("failed to create pthread %d\n", i);
return -1;
}
}
for(i = 0; i < threadNum; i++)
pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
return 0;
}
The output would be:
counter is 1, lockfile is 4
counter is 2, lockfile is 3
counter is 3, lockfile is 5
counter is 4, lockfile is 6
counter is 7, lockfile is 4
...
counter is 29994, lockfile is 3
counter is 29995, lockfile is 3
counter is 29996, lockfile is 3
counter is 29997, lockfile is 3
counter is 29998, lockfile is 3
The output sequence is random and sometimes missing some numbers inside, meaning there is definitely a race condition happening. I think the reason is probably that fd opened for the same file in the same process is somehow optimized to be reused. Because all these locking mechanism is implemented in granularity of fd, the locking does not work in this case.
Given the background, I would like to ask the following question:
Is there any means I could force open to return different fd for different threads to same process to make the locking works?
Is there any good practice or convenient API in Linux to do both inter and intra process locking? What I could think of is the following means to implement it(not verified yet), but I would like to know some easier ways:
(1) Implement mutex and semaphore to serialize the access to all these lockfile APIs for the critical resources
(2) shm_open a shared memory, mmap it in different processes and add semaphore/mutex inside to lock the critical resources
Thanks in advance:)
Hello I'm trying to synchronize detached threads using conditional variable, but I found a bug that sometimes causes memory leak (depends on scheduler mood). I think the code is self explanatory. I would appreciate any advice.
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstring>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <pthread.h>
using namespace std;
struct TThrArg
{
pthread_t m_ID;
bool m_IsRunning;
};
TThrArg g_Threads[64];
int g_Counter;
pthread_mutex_t g_Mtx;
pthread_cond_t g_Cond;
void * thrFunc ( void * arg )
{
TThrArg * data = (TThrArg *) arg;
// do some stuff
// -----------------------------------
// for ( int i = 0; i < 5000; ++i )
// for ( int j = 0; j < 5000; ++j )
// int x = 0;
// printf("Thread: %lu running...\n", data->m_ID);
// -----------------------------------
pthread_mutex_lock(&g_Mtx);
memset(data, 0, sizeof(TThrArg));
--g_Counter;
pthread_cond_signal(&g_Cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&g_Mtx);
sleep(1); // --> this spot causes that main may end before return NULL so resources will not be freed
return NULL;
}
void createThread ( void )
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&g_Mtx);
for ( int i = 0; i < 64; ++i )
{
if ( g_Threads[i].m_IsRunning == 0 )
{
g_Threads[i].m_IsRunning = 1;
++g_Counter;
pthread_attr_t attr;
pthread_attr_init(&attr);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
pthread_create(&g_Threads[i].m_ID, &attr, thrFunc, &g_Threads[i]);
pthread_attr_destroy(&attr);
break;
}
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&g_Mtx);
}
int main ( int argc, char * argv[] )
{
pthread_mutex_init(&g_Mtx, NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&g_Cond, NULL);
g_Counter = 0;
for ( int i = 0; i < 64; ++i )
createThread();
pthread_mutex_lock(&g_Mtx);
while ( g_Counter != 0 )
{
pthread_cond_wait(&g_Cond, &g_Mtx);
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&g_Mtx);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&g_Mtx);
pthread_cond_destroy(&g_Cond);
return 0;
}
The leak you see is because the terminating thread decrements the mutex-protected thread counter, and pauses for a second before the thread actually terminates.
The main execution thread will immediately see that the thread counter reached 0, and terminate before the actual detached threads have exited. Each running thread, even a detached thread, consumes and allocates a little bit of internal memory, which does not get released until the thread actually terminates. This is the leak you see, from execution threads that did not terminate before the main execution thread stopped.
This is not the kind of a leak that you need to worry about. It is rather annoying, and makes debugging difficult, true.
In the past, I took one approach in a framework class library that I wrote some time ago. I did not use detached threads at all, but all threads were joinable threads. The framework started one singleton background thread whose only job was to join() the terminated threads. Then, each thread started by the framework will queue up its own thread id for the singleton background thread, just before each thread terminates.
The net effect was equivalent to detached threads. I could start each thread and not worry about joining to it. It's going to be the background thread's job. The framework would signal the background thread to terminate itself, and join it, before exiting. So, if all goes well, there will not be any reported memory leaks that can be accounted to thread support.
I want to know if its possible to interrupt main thread and ask it to execute some callback. The main thread should continue with what it was doing after completing the callback.
For instance, we have 2 threads t1 and m1 (main thread). t1 will interrupt m1 (main thread) and ask it to call a function with some parameters. The m1 (main thread) will stop doing what it was doing before and will start executing the function. The after finishing the function, it will get back to what it was doing earlier.
I want to replicate what hardware interrupt does. I have one thread that reads data from a file. Then it should ask main thread to call a function. Main thread will be doing something. It should stop doing it and start executing the function. After completing it, main thread should continue with what it was doing
A clean way I think would be to have a queue of operations that t1 adds to, that t2 checks at points in its processing loop where it is safe to start doing something else.
On POSIX systems, you can use signals. For example, the following starts a second thread and, while the main thread is doing other work, this second thread sends it a SIGUSR1 signal. The main thread handles it and resumes operation.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
void* other_thread(void* main_thread) {
printf("other_thread: %x\n", pthread_self());
usleep(250*1000);
printf("sending SIGUSR1 to main thread...\n");
pthread_kill((pthread_t) main_thread, SIGUSR1);
return NULL;
}
void my_handler(int signal) {
printf("my_handler: %x\n", pthread_self());
sleep(2);
printf("back to main\n");
}
int main(int argc, char**argv) {
signal(SIGUSR1, my_handler);
pthread_t thread1;
pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, other_thread, pthread_self());
printf("main: %x\n", pthread_self());
int x = 0;
while (1) {
// sleep(1), or do some work, or:
x++;
if (x % 10000000 == 0) printf("boo\n");
}
}
I have created 10 threads and want to execute in a round robin fashion for 3 times. Initially all
threads are waiting. Main threads sends signal to thread 0, on receiving signal thread 0 woke up and
then perform some task and then send signal to thread 1 and this repeats like thread1-> thread2->thread3
....->thread9. then thread 9-> thread 0.
I am trying to implement this
thread i, does some task, then send signal to thread (i+1) and then thread i goes for sleep. thread (i+1) will wake up after t sec (means thread i+1 wakeup time - thread i sleep time = t sec ), thread (i+1) will do some task, send signal to thread (i+2) and go for sleep and this will repeat for few(3) times.
Although I am able to send signal from thread 0-> thread 1 -> .... thread 9 (loop executed only once ), I am not able to send signal thread 9 -> thread 0 and that's why I am not able to repeat this loop for 3 times.
where I am making mistakes ?
Any help will be highly appreciated .
I am using g++ 4.6.3 under linux kernel 2.6.32.
Here is my expected output
Create 5 threads
Thread created=0
Thread created=1
Thread created=2
Thread created=3
Thread created=4
Thread 4 blocked
Thread 3 blocked
Thread 2 blocked
Thread 1 blocked
Thread 0 blocked
Wake up all waiting threads...
Thread 0 unblocked
Thread 1 unblocked
Thread 2 unblocked
Thread 3 unblocked
Thread 4 unblocked
Thread 4 blocked // repeataion of same sequence
Thread 3 blocked
Thread 2 blocked
Thread 1 blocked
Thread 0 blocked
Thread 0 unblocked
Thread 1 unblocked
Thread 2 unblocked
Thread 3 unblocked
Thread 4 unblocked
Wait for threads and cleanup
Main completed
Here is my actual output
Create 5 threads
Thread created=0
Thread created=1
Thread created=2
Thread created=3
Thread created=4
Thread 4 blocked
Thread 3 blocked
Thread 2 blocked
Thread 1 blocked
Thread 0 blocked
Wake up all waiting threads...
Thread 0 unblocked
Thread 1 unblocked
Thread 2 unblocked
Thread 3 unblocked
Thread 4 unblocked
Wait for threads and cleanup
Main completed
Here is my code
#include <pthread.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
/* For safe condition variable usage, must use a boolean predicate and */
/* a mutex with the condition. */
int conditionMet = 0;
pthread_cond_t cond[5];
pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
#define NTHREADS 5
void *threadfunc(void *parm)
{
int i;
long my_id = (long)parm;
int rc;
// Initially all threads will wait
rc = pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
printf("Thread %d blocked\n",my_id);
rc = pthread_cond_wait(&cond[my_id], &mutex);
printf("Thread %d unblocked\n", my_id);
rc = pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
int count=0;
while(count++<3) // This line makes no sense, no repeatation as expected.
{
rc = pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
while (!conditionMet) {
printf("Thread %d blocked\n",my_id);
rc = pthread_cond_wait(&cond[my_id], &mutex);
printf("Thread %d unblocked\n", my_id);
}
rc = pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
// sending signal to next thread i+1
rc = pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
rc = pthread_cond_signal(&cond[(my_id+1)%NTHREADS]);
rc = pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int rc=0;
int i;
pthread_t threadid[NTHREADS];
for(rc=0;rc<NTHREADS;rc++)
cond[rc]= PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
printf("Enter Testcase - %s\n", argv[0]);
printf("Create %d threads\n", NTHREADS);
for(i=0; i<NTHREADS; ++i) {
rc = pthread_create(&threadid[i], NULL, threadfunc, (void *)i);
printf("Thread created=%d\n", i);
}
sleep(5); /* Sleep is not a very robust way to serialize threads */
rc = pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
/* The condition has occured. Set the flag and wake up any waiting threads */
conditionMet = 1;
printf("Wake up all waiting threads...\n");
rc = pthread_cond_signal(&cond[0]);
rc = pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
printf("Wait for threads and cleanup\n");
for (i=0; i<NTHREADS; ++i) {
rc = pthread_join(threadid[i], NULL);
}
pthread_cond_destroy(&cond[0]);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&mutex);
printf("Main completed\n");
return 0;
}
After referring to pthread_wait I myself solved my problem.
All the threads runs in a round robin sequence for once, then the program terminate/complete execution as NO threads are WAITING for next turn, all finished .
So to run the same sequence multiple (3) times, wait variable needs to modified correctly so that each thread will wait for next turn until 3 execution.
Here is modified program :
void *threadfunc(void *parm)
{
int i;
long my_id = (long)parm;
int rc;
/*
DELETE THIS PORTION, OTHERWISE NO OUTPUT, AGAIN HANGED BEFORE SINGLE SEQUENCE.
IT WILL NOT ENTER INSIDE LOOP while(count++<3)
// Initially all threads will wait
rc = pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
printf("Thread %d blocked\n",my_id);
rc = pthread_cond_wait(&cond[my_id], &mutex);
printf("Thread %d unblocked\n", my_id);
rc = pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
*/
int count=0;
while(count++<3)
{
rc = pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
while ( conditionMet != my_id)
{
printf("Thread %d blocked\n",my_id);
rc = pthread_cond_wait(&cond[my_id], &mutex);
printf("Thread %d unblocked\n", my_id);
}
rc = pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
rc = pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
conditionMet = (my_id+1)%NTHREADS ; // This is important to wait for next time
rc = pthread_cond_signal(&cond[(my_id+1)%NTHREADS]);
rc = pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
return NULL;
}
#include<pthread.h>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<time.h>
#define NUM_THREADS 8
char *messages[NUM_THREADS];
struct thread_data
{
int thread_id;
int sum;
char *message;
};
struct thread_data thread_data_array[NUM_THREADS];
void *PrintHello(void *threadarg)
{
int taskid, sum;
char *hello_msg;
struct thread_data *my_data;
sleep(1);
my_data = (struct thread_data *) threadarg;
taskid = my_data->thread_id;
sum = my_data->sum;
hello_msg = my_data->message;
printf("Thread %d: %s Sum=%d\n", taskid, hello_msg, sum);
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
pthread_t threads[NUM_THREADS];
//int *taskids[NUM_THREADS];
int rc, t, sum;
sum=0;
messages[0] = "English: Hello World!";
messages[1] = "French: Bonjour, le monde!";
messages[2] = "Spanish: Hola al mundo";
messages[3] = "Klingon: Nuq neH!";
messages[4] = "German: Guten Tag, Welt!";
messages[5] = "Russian: Zdravstvytye, mir!";
messages[6] = "Japan: Sekai e konnichiwa!";
messages[7] = "Latin: Orbis, te saluto!";
for(t=0;t<NUM_THREADS;t++) {
sum = sum + t;
thread_data_array[t].thread_id = t;
thread_data_array[t].sum = sum;
thread_data_array[t].message = messages[t];
printf("Creating thread %d\n", t);
rc = pthread_create(&threads[t], NULL, PrintHello, (void *)&thread_data_array[t]);
if (rc) {
printf("ERROR; return code from pthread_create() is %d\n", rc);
exit(-1);
}
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
The above piece of code gives me a segmentation fault in linux using gcc
As a beginner I have a few questions in mind regarding threads
If 3 threads are created simultaneously and if they have to exit then the thread that is created first is exitted at the end?
Can the o/p differ every time of a thread creation and termination program and if so why??(I have noticed they do so");
If 3 threads are created simultaneously and if they have to exit then the thread that is created first is exited at the end?
Answer: there is no guarantee that the first thread should exit first. Once they are created, they are treated as separate entities by the OS and it's up to the OS to decide which will exit first.
Can the o/p differ every time of a thread creation and termination program and if so why? (I have noticed they do so);
Answer: yes they do differ, the reason being the same as explained above.
How and when each thread is scheduled is completely upto the OS.
There is no way to understand this without digging deep into the OS code.
In most implementations of pthreads (I have not used all, but all I have used).
When the main thread exits all the other threads stop executing and the application quits.
Thus before exiting the main thread should wait for (or kill) all child threads before exiting.
For this we have pthread_join().
for(t=0;t<NUM_THREADS;t++)
{
void* result;
pthread_join(threads[t],&result);
}
// Now all the children are dead.
Note the underlying io system is not thread safe.
So if multiple threads write to IO then you may potentially get some interleaving.
Your code is working perfectely(I am also using gcc)..
output:
Creating thread 0
Creating thread 1
Creating thread 2
Creating thread 3
Creating thread 4
Creating thread 5
Creating thread 6
Creating thread 7
Thread 1: French: Bonjour, le monde! Sum=1
Thread 0: English: Hello World! Sum=0
Thread 2: Spanish: Hola al mundo Sum=3
Thread 4: German: Guten Tag, Welt! Sum=10
Thread 3: Klingon: Nuq neH! Sum=6
Thread 5: Russian: Zdravstvytye, mir! Sum=15
Thread 6: Japan: Sekai e konnichiwa! Sum=21
Thread 7: Latin: Orbis, te saluto! Sum=28