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.
Related
I have a weird problem with pthread_cond_wait and pthread_cond_signal. I have arranged a series of threads. They are all in sleep state when started. A wake up function will signal these threads, do some work, and wait for the results.
In the setup below, td is thread data, containing the mutex and conditions, and th is an array containing the pointer to the threads:
for (size_t i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
pthread_cond_init(&td[i].cond, NULL);
pthread_mutex_init(&td[i].cond_mutex, NULL);
pthread_mutex_init(&td[i].work_mutex, NULL);
pthread_mutex_lock(&td[i].cond_mutex);
pthread_mutex_lock(&td[i].work_mutex);
pthread_create(&th[i], NULL, thread_worker, (void *)&td[i]);
}
Thread worker is like this:
void*
thread_worker(void* data)
{
THREAD_DATA *td = (THREAD_DATA *)data;
while (1) {
pthread_cond_wait(&td->cond, &td->cond_mutex); // marker
// do work ...
pthread_mutex_unlock(&td->work_mutex);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
This job function is supposed to wake up all the threads, do the job, and wait for them to finish:
void
job()
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
pthread_cond_signal(&td[i].cond);
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&td[i].work_mutex); // block until the work is done
}
}
In some rare situations (1 out of 1000 runs maybe), the above setup will encounter a freeze. When that happens, the 'marker' line in thread_worker will not be signaled by pthread_cond_signal, it just kept on waiting. It's very rare but it happens from time to time. I've produced numerous log messages, and I verified that pthread_cond_wait is always called before pthread_cond_signal. What am I doing wrong here?
There is nothing there that forces the pthread_cond_wait() to be called before the pthread_cond_signal(). Despite what you say about logging, it's entirely possible for the logged lines to be out-of-sequence with what really happened.
You aren't using mutexes and condition variables correctly: mutexes should only be unlocked by the same thread that locked them, and condition variables should be paired with a test over some shared state (called a predicate). The shared state is supposed to be protected by the mutex that is passed to pthread_cond_wait().
For example, your example can be reworked to correctly use mutexes and condition variables. First, add an int work_status to the THREAD_DATA structure, where 0 indicates that the thread is waiting for work, 1 indicates that work is available and 2 indicates that the work is complete.
You don't appear to need two mutexes in each THREAD_DATA, and you don't want to lock the mutex in the main thread when you're setting it up:
for (size_t i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
pthread_cond_init(&td[i].cond, NULL);
pthread_mutex_init(&td[i].cond_mutex, NULL);
td[i].work_status = 0;
pthread_create(&th[i], NULL, thread_worker, (void *)&td[i]);
}
Have the threads wait on work_status using the condition variable:
void*
thread_worker(void* data)
{
THREAD_DATA *td = (THREAD_DATA *)data;
while (1) {
/* Wait for work to be available */
pthread_mutex_lock(&td->cond_mutex);
while (td->work_status != 1)
pthread_cond_wait(&td->cond, &td->cond_mutex);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&td->cond_mutex);
// do work ...
/* Tell main thread that the work has finished */
pthread_mutex_lock(&td->cond_mutex);
td->work_status = 2;
pthread_cond_signal(&td->cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&td->cond_mutex);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
...and set and wait on work_status as appropriate in job():
void
job()
{
/* Tell threads that work is available */
for (size_t i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&td[i].cond_mutex);
td[i].work_status = 1;
pthread_cond_signal(&td[i].cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&td[i].cond_mutex);
}
/* Wait for threads to signal work complete */
for (size_t i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&td[i].cond_mutex);
while (td[i].work_status != 2)
pthread_cond_wait(&td[i].cond, &td[i].cond_mutex);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&td[i].cond_mutex);
}
}
Some check lists:
1) Do you lock the mutex td->cond_mutex before waiting on the cond variable? Otherwise, it's undefined.
2) Do you check predicate after pthread_cond_wait() returns? Typical usage is
while(!flag) pthread_cond_wait(&cv, &mutex); //waits on flag
which is not what you have. This is to protect against spurious wake-ups and also ensure the predicate hasn't changed in the meantime.
3) pthread_cond_signal() is guaranteed to wake up at least one thread. You may want to use pthread_cond_broadcast() if there are multiple threads waiting on the same condition variable.
4) If no thread is waiting on a conditional variable then pthread_cond_signal() or pthread_cond_broadcast() has no effect.
I have a question about C concurrency programming in Embedded System with about 64Mb Ram.
Especially, I want to reduce the default memory used by a Thread, so I have defined:
pthread_attr_t attr_test;
size_t stacksize = 0x186A0; // 100Kbyte
pthread_attr_init(&attr_test);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr_test, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
pthread_attr_setstacksize(&attr_test, stacksize);
So, When the Thread starts, it uses only 100Kbyte of virtual Memory.
BUT when the Thread ends and calls pthread_exit, the virtual Memory used by the process, increases rapidly!....
Why? What can I do?
Thanks!
UPDATE:
Thread ->
void *thread_test(void *arg1) {
int *param;
param = (int*)arg1;
printf("Thread %d start\n", *param);
pthread_cond_wait(&condition[*param], &mutex[*param]);
printf("Thread %d stop\n",*param);
pthread_exit(0);
}
Main ->
int main(void) {
pthread_t IDthread[MAX_THREADS];
int param[MAX_THREADS];
int pointer;
int i, keyb;
void *stkaddr;
size_t stacksize;
puts("!!! THREAD TEST !!!");
printf("Process ID %d\n\n", getpid());
for(i=0; i<MAX_THREADS; i++)
{
pthread_cond_init(&condition[i], NULL);
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex[i], NULL);
IDthread[i] = 0;
param[i] = i;
}
stacksize = 0x186A0; // 100Kbyte
pthread_attr_init(&attr_test);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr_test, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
/* setting the size of the stack also */
pthread_attr_setstacksize(&attr_test, stacksize);
pointer = 0;
do {
keyb = getchar();
if (keyb == '1')
{
if (pointer < MAX_THREADS)
{
pthread_create(&IDthread[pointer], &attr_test, thread_test, ¶m[pointer]);
sleep(1);
pointer++;
}
else
puts("MAX Threads Number");
}
if (keyb == '2')
{
if (pointer != 0)
{
pointer--;
pthread_cond_signal(&condition[pointer]);
sleep(1);
}
else
puts("0 Thread is running");
}
} while (keyb != '0');
printf("FINE\n");
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
There is a known issue with the joinable or detached threads, quoting from the manual:
Only when a
terminated joinable thread has been joined are the last of its
resources released back to the system. When a detached thread
terminates, its resources are automatically released back to the
system
you can make the thread detachable with:
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(3)
There are some problems with your test.
At first, pthread_attr_setstacksize has the following documentation:
The stack size attribute determines the minimum size (in bytes) that will be allocated for threads created using the thread attributes object attr.
So each thread could use more than what you have set. But more than that, threads may allocate memory from the OS to use as stack. And this also applies to the main thread.
Therefore I don't think there is a way to achieve what you want by looking at the result of top command, since this information is only visible from within the thread itself.
Also note that the virtual memory used by the process is not related to the amount of RAM used by the process.
Here is something you can try to check the total stack of a thread.
Can somebody please explain to me why this simple code leaks memory?
I believe that since pthreads are created with detached state their resources should be released inmediatly after it's termination, but it's not the case.
My environment is Qt5.2.
#include <QCoreApplication>
#include <windows.h>
void *threadFunc( void *arg )
{
printf("#");
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread;
pthread_attr_t attr;
while(1)
{
printf("\nStarting threads...\n");
for(int idx=0;idx<100;idx++)
{
pthread_attr_init(&attr);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
pthread_create( &thread, &attr, &threadFunc, NULL);
pthread_attr_destroy ( &attr );
}
printf("\nSleeping 10 seconds...\n");
Sleep(10000);
}
}
UPDATE:
I discovered that if I add a slight delay of 5 milliseconds inside the for loop the leak is WAY slower:
for(int idx=0;idx<100;idx++)
{
pthread_attr_init(&attr);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
pthread_create( &thread, &attr, &threadFunc, NULL);
pthread_attr_destroy ( &attr );
Sleep(5); /// <--- 5 MILLISECONDS DELAY ///
}
This is freaking me out, could somebody please tell me what is happening? How this slight delay may produce such a significant change? (or alter the behavior in any way)
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.
UPDATE2:
This leak was observed on Windows platforms (W7 and XP), no leak was observed on Linux platforms (thank you #MichaelGoren)
I checked the program with slight modifications on windows using cygwin, and memory consumption was steady. So it must be a qt issue; the pthread library on cygwin works fine without leaking.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void *threadFunc( void *arg )
{
printf("#");
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread;
pthread_attr_t attr;
int idx;
while(1)
{
printf("\nStarting threads...\n");
for(idx=0;idx<100;idx++)
{
pthread_attr_init(&attr);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
pthread_create( &thread, &attr, &threadFunc, NULL);
pthread_attr_destroy ( &attr );
}
printf("\nSleeping 10 seconds...\n");
//Sleep(10000);
sleep(10);
}
}
Compiler optimizations or the OS it self can decide to do loop unrolling. That is your for loop has a constant bound (100 here). Since there is no explicit synchronization to prevent it, a newly created, detached thread can die and have its thread ID reassigned to another new thread before its creator returns from pthread_create() due to this unrolling. The next iteration is already started before the thread was actually destroyed.
This also explains why your added slight delay has less issues; one iteration takes longer and hence the thread functions can actually finish in more cases and hence the threads are actually terminated most of the time.
A possible fix would be to disable compiler optimizations, or add synchronization; that is, you check whether the thread still exist, at the end of the code, if it does you'll have to wait for the function to finish.
A more tricky way would be to use mutexes; you let the thread claim a resource at creation and by definition of PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED this resource is automatically released when the thread is exited, hence you can use try_lock to test whether the thread is actually finished. Note that I haven't tested this approach so I'm not actually sure whether PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED actually is working according to its definition...
Concept:
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
void *threadFunc( void *arg )
{
printf("#");
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
for(int idx=0;idx<100;idx++)
{
pthread_attr_init(&attr);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
pthread_create( &thread, &attr, &threadFunc, NULL);
pthread_attr_destroy ( &attr );
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex); //will block untill "destroy" has released the mutex
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
The delay can induce a large change in behavior because it gives the thread time to exit! Of course how your pthread library is implemented is also a factor here. I suspect it is using a 'free list' optimization.
If you create 1000 threads all at once, then the library allocates memory for them all before any significant number of those threads can exit.
If as in your second code sample you let the previous thread run and probably exit before you start a new thread, then your thread library can reuse that thread's allocated memory or data structures which it now knows are no longer needed and it is now probably holding in a free list just in case someone creates a thread again and it can efficiently recycle the memory.
It has nothing to do with compiler optimisations. Code is fine. Problem could be
a) Windows itself.
b) Qt implementation of pthread_create() with detached attributes
Checking for (a): Try to create many fast detached threads using Windows _beginthreadex directly and see if you get the same picture. Note: CloseHandle(thread_handle) as soon as _beginthreaex returns to make it detached.
Checking for (b): Trace which function Qt uses to create threads. If it is _beginthread then there is your answer. If it is _beginthreadex, then Qt is doing the right thing and you need to check if Qt closes the thread handle handle immediately. If it does not then that is the cause.
cheers
UPDATE 2
Qt5.2.0 does not provide pthreads API and is unlikely responsible for the observed leak.
I wrapped native windows api to see how the code runs without pthread library. You can include this fragment right after includes:
#include <process.h>
#define PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE 0
#define PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED 1
typedef struct { int detachstate; } pthread_attr_t;
typedef HANDLE pthread_t;
_declspec(noreturn) void pthread_exit(void *retval)
{
static_assert(sizeof(unsigned) == sizeof(void*), "Modify code");
_endthreadex((unsigned)retval);
}
int pthread_attr_setdetachstate(pthread_attr_t *attr, int detachstate)
{
attr->detachstate = detachstate;
return 0;
}
int pthread_attr_init(pthread_attr_t *attr)
{
attr->detachstate = PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE;
return 0;
}
int pthread_attr_destroy(pthread_attr_t *attr)
{
(void)attr;
return 0;
}
typedef struct {
void *(*start_routine)(void *arg);
void *arg;
} winapi_caller_args;
unsigned __stdcall winapi_caller(void *arglist)
{
winapi_caller_args *list = (winapi_caller_args *)arglist;
void *(*start_routine)(void *arg) = list->start_routine;
void *arg = list->arg;
free(list);
static_assert(sizeof(unsigned) == sizeof(void*), "Modify code");
return (unsigned)start_routine(arg);
}
int pthread_create( pthread_t *thread, pthread_attr_t *attr,
void *(*start_routine)(void *), void *arg)
{
winapi_caller_args *list;
list = (winapi_caller_args *)malloc(sizeof *list);
if (list == NULL)
return EAGAIN;
list->start_routine = start_routine;
list->arg = arg;
*thread = (HANDLE)_beginthreadex(NULL, 0, winapi_caller, list, 0, NULL);
if (*thread == 0) {
free(list);
return errno;
}
if (attr->detachstate == PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED)
CloseHandle(*thread);
return 0;
}
With Sleep() line commented out it works OK without leaks. Run time = 1hr approx.
If the code with Sleep line commented out is calling Pthreads-win32 2.9.1 library (prebuilt for MSVC) then the program stops spawning new threads and stops responding after 5..10 minutes.
Test environment: XP Home, MSVC 2010 Expresss, Qt5.2.0 qmake etc.
You forgot to join your thread (even if they are finished already).
Correct code should be:
pthread_t arr[100];
for(int idx=0;idx<100;idx++)
{
pthread_attr_init(&attr);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
pthread_create( &arr[idx], &attr, &threadFunc, NULL);
pthread_attr_destroy ( &attr );
}
Sleep(2000);
for(int idx=0;idx<100;idx++)
{
pthread_join(arr[idx]);
}
Note from man page:
Failure to join with a thread that is joinable (i.e., one that is not detached), produces a "zombie thread". Avoid doing this, since each zombie thread consumes some system resources, and when enough zombie threads have
accumulated, it will no longer be possible to create new threads (or processes).
I want to synchroznie threads in C++ using pthreads in smart way.
I have one global variable:
int Resources = 0;
I have two thread functions:
void *incResources(void *arg)
{
while(1)
{
pthread_mutex_lock (&resourcesMutex);
Resources += 2;
pthread_mutex_unlock (&resourcesMutex);
}
pthread_exit((void*) 0);
}
void *consumeResources(void *arg)
{
while(1)
{
pthread_mutex_lock (&resourcesMutex);
Resources--;
pthread_mutex_unlock (&resourcesMutex);
}
pthread_exit((void*) 0);
}
And in main function I intialize two consuming threads and one incrementing thread:
pthread_mutex_init(&resourcesMutex, NULL);
pthread_create(&callThd[0], &attr, incResources, (void *)i);
pthread_create(&callThd[1], &attr, consumeResources, (void *)i);
pthread_create(&callThd[2], &attr, consumeResources, (void *)i);
I feel this so unefficient and it can be done better. Can you provide me some ideas? I've tried to use wait but i dont get it :/
Thanks!
I you look for good and C++ ways, I strongly suggest to read C++ Concurrency in Action: by Anthony Williams and leave pthread behind to use futures and similar high-level thing where you can. And if you must go with manual thread fiddling you can find good examples for that too.
Your problem statement is too vague for sensible advice -- the basic idea of good threading is to NOT have shared state at all, and for handshake situation like yours is likely, use some synchronized queue made for that very purpose.
A smarter way to do this would use std::mutex and std::thread (or the Boost equivalents) so you don't need to unlock mutexes manually.
A condition variable will allow the consumers to block (without wasting CPU cycles) until there is work available for them:
struct Resource
{
int value;
std::mutex mx;
std::condition_variable cv;
};
void incResources(Resource& res)
{
while(1)
{
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(res.mx);
res.value += 2;
}
res.cv.notify_all();
}
}
void consumeResources(Resource& res)
{
while(1)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(res.mx);
while (res.value == 0)
res.cv.wait(l);
res.value--;
}
}
and in the main thread:
Resources res;
res.value = 0;
std::thread t1(incResources, std::ref(res));
std::thread t2(consumeResources, std::ref(res));
std::thread t3(consumeResources, std::ref(res));
// ...
t1.join();
t2.join();
t3.join();
I think if you're using C++ there's no reason why to prefer native use of pthreads over the C++11 std::thread and STL synchronization classes.
If you can't use C++11 standards you should wrap the pthreads native interface to reasonable C++ class representations (see e.g. boost::thread or STTCL Posix Thread implementation).
It looks like you are attempting to implement a producer and consumer, with the += thread creating work (numbers to be reduced) and the consumer taking them away.
Rather than having the consumer in a trivial spin loop like that, take a look at condition variables.
std::queue<Job*> queue;
pthread_mutex mutex;
pthread_cond cond;
void AddJob(Job* job) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
queue.push_back(job);
pthread_cond_signal(&cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
void* QueueWorker(void* /*threadInfo*/) {
Job* job = NULL;
for (;;) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
while ( queue.empty() ) {
// unlock the mutex until the cond is signal()d or broadcast() to.
// if this call succeeds, we will have the mutex locked again on the other side.
pthread_cond_wait(&cond, &mutex);
}
// take the first task and then release the lock.
job = queue.pop();
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
if ( job != NULL )
job->Execute();
}
return NULL;
}
This scales to multiple consumers.
As an aside, while it can be useful to familiarize yourself with the pthreads implementation, you should probably look at one of the threading wrappers available. C++11 introduced std::thread and std::mutex, many people swear by boost, but personally I've found the OpenSceneGraph team's "OpenThreads" library one of the easiest and most elegant to work with.
Edit: here's a complete working implementation albeit with a somewhat artificial mechanism for ending the run.
#include <queue>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
static int jobNo = 0;
class Job {
public:
Job() : m_i(++jobNo) { printf("Created job %d.\n", m_i); }
int m_i;
void Execute() { printf("Job %d executing.\n", m_i); usleep(500 * 1000); }
};
std::queue<Job*> queue;
pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
pthread_cond_t cond = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
void AddJob(Job* job) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
queue.push(job);
pthread_cond_signal(&cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
void* QueueWorker(void* /*threadInfo*/) {
Job* job = NULL;
for (;;) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
while ( queue.empty() ) {
// unlock the mutex until the cond is signal()d or broadcast() to.
// if this call succeeds, we will have the mutex locked again on the other side.
pthread_cond_wait(&cond, &mutex);
}
// take the first task and then release the lock.
job = queue.front();
queue.pop();
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
if ( job == NULL ) {
// in this demonstration, NULL ends the run, so forward to any other threads.
AddJob(NULL);
break;
}
job->Execute();
delete job;
}
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) {
pthread_t worker1, worker2;
pthread_create(&worker1, NULL, &QueueWorker, NULL);
pthread_create(&worker2, NULL, &QueueWorker, NULL);
srand(time(NULL));
// queue 5 jobs with delays.
for ( size_t i = 0; i < 5; ++i ) {
long delay = (rand() % 800) * 1000;
printf("Producer sleeping %fs\n", (float)delay / (1000*1000));
usleep(delay);
Job* job = new Job();
AddJob(job);
}
// 5 more without delays.
for ( size_t i = 0; i < 5; ++i ) {
AddJob(new Job);
}
// null to end the run.
AddJob(NULL);
printf("Done with jobs.\n");
pthread_join(worker1, NULL);
pthread_join(worker2, NULL);
return 0;
}
I'm developing an application For OpenSUSE 12.1.
This application has a main thread and other two threads running instances of the same functions. I'm trying to use pthread_barrier to synchronize all threads but I'm having some problems:
When I put the derived threads to sleep, they will never wake up for some reason.
(in the case when I remove the sleep from the other threads, throwing CPU usage to the sky) In some point all the threads reach pthread_barrier_wait() but none of them continues execution after that.
Here's some pseudo code trying to illustrate what I'm doing.
pthread_barrier_t barrier;
int main(void)
{
pthread_barrier_init(&barrier, NULL , 3);
pthread_create(&thread_id1, NULL,&thread_func, (void*) ¶ms1);
pthread_create(&thread_id2v, NULL,&thread_func, (void*) ¶ms2);
while(1)
{
doSomeWork();
nanosleep(&t1, &t2);
pthread_barrier_wait(&barrier);
doSomeMoreWork();
}
}
void *thread_func(void *params)
{
init_thread(params);
while(1)
{
nanosleep(&t1, &t2);
doAnotherWork();
pthread_barrier_wait(&barrier);
}
}
I don't think it has to do with the barrier as you've presented it in the pseudocode. I'm making an assumption that your glibc is approximately the same as my machine. I compiled roughly your pseudo-code and it's running like I expect: the threads do some work, the main thread does some work, they all reach the barrier and then loop.
Can you comment more about any other synchronization methods or what the work functions are?
This is the the example program I'm using:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
struct timespec req = {1,0}; //{.tv_sec = 1, .tv_nsec = 0};
struct timespec rem = {0,0}; //{.tv_sec = 0, .tv_nsec = 0};
pthread_barrier_t barrier;
void *thread_func(void *params) {
long int name;
name = (long int)params;
while(1) {
printf("This is thread %ld\n", name);
nanosleep(&req, &rem);
pthread_barrier_wait(&barrier);
printf("More work from %ld\n", name);
}
}
int main(void)
{
pthread_t th1, th2;
pthread_barrier_init(&barrier, NULL , 3);
pthread_create(&th1, NULL, &thread_func, (void*)1);
pthread_create(&th2, NULL, &thread_func, (void*)2);
while(1) {
nanosleep(&req, &rem);
printf("This is the parent\n\n");
pthread_barrier_wait(&barrier);
}
return 0;
}
I would suggest to use condition variables in order to synchronize threads.
Here some website about how to do it i hope it helps.
http://www.yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxTutorialPosixThreads.html