pthreads has undefined behavior if multiple threads try to join the same thread:
If multiple threads simultaneously try to join with the same thread,
the results are undefined.
Is the same true for boost::threads? The documentation does not appears to specify this.
If it is undefined, then what would be a clean way for multiple threads to wait on one thread completing?
If it is undefined, then what would be a clean way for multiple threads to wait on one thread completing?
The clean way would be for that one thread to inform the others that it is complete. A packaged_task contains a future which can be waited on, which can help us here.
Here's one way of doing that. I have used std::thread and std::packaged_task, but you could use the boost equivalents just as well.
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <future>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
void emit(const char* msg) {
static std::mutex m;
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(m);
std::cout << msg << std::endl;
std::cout.flush();
}
int main()
{
using namespace std;
auto one_task = std::packaged_task<void()>([]{
emit("waiting...");
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::microseconds(500));
emit("wait over!");
});
// note: convert future to a shared_future so we can pass it
// to two subordinate threads simultaneously
auto one_done = std::shared_future<void>(one_task.get_future());
auto one = std::thread(std::move(one_task));
std::vector<std::thread> many;
many.emplace_back([one_done] {
one_done.wait();
// do my thing here
emit("starting thread 1");
});
many.emplace_back([one_done] {
one_done.wait();
// do my thing here
emit("starting thread 2");
});
one.join();
for (auto& t : many) {
t.join();
}
cout << "Hello, World" << endl;
return 0;
}
expected output:
waiting...
wait over!
starting thread 2
starting thread 1
Hello, World
I ended up using a boost::condition_variable... roughly:
class thread_wrapper {
boost::mutex mutex;
boost::condition_variable thread_done_condition;
bool thread_done = false;
void the_func() {
// ...
// end of the thread
{
boost:unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
thread_done = true;
}
thread_done_condition.notify_all();
}
void wait_until_done() {
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
thread_done_condition.wait(lock, [this]{ return thread_done; });
}
}
Then multiple callers can safely call wait_until_done().
It strikes me now that something like the following would also have worked:
class thread_wrapper {
public:
thread_wrapper() : thread([this]() { this->the_func(); }) { }
void wait_until_done() {
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(join_mutex);
thread.join();
}
private:
void the_func() {
// ...
}
boost::mutex join_mutex;
boost::thread thread;
}
Related
#include <iostream>
#include<thread>
#include <initializer_list>
#include <vector>
#include <future>
#include <time.h>
using namespace std;
class Gadget{
public:
Gadget(){
flag_ = false;
cout<<"Creating new Gadgets"<<endl;
}
void wait(){
while(flag_==false){
cout<<"waiting here...."<<endl;
this_thread::sleep_for(chrono::milliseconds(1000));
}
}
void wake(){
flag_ = true;
}
private:
volatile bool flag_;
};
I am trying to make two threads and one thread will sleep for 1 sec after checking the flag value. As i have made flag volatile it should change at some point. But the program is waiting infinitely.
int main() {
Gadget g;
thread t(&Gadget::wait,g);
thread s(&Gadget::wake,g);
t.join();
s.join();
cout<<"Ending the program "<<endl;
return 0;
}
volatile isn't for variables that are changed by the program itself. It's for variables that changes outside the program's control - like if it's directly connected to hardware.
Your main problem is however that you pass g by value so the two threads are working on different copies of your original g.
So, change to
std::atomic<bool> flag_;
and
thread t(&Gadget::wait, &g);
thread s(&Gadget::wake, &g);
Also worth mentioning: The two methods will not necessarily run in the order you start them, so waiting here.... may or may not show up.
Edit:
As mentioned in the comments: When waiting for a condition you should usually use a std::condition_variable. I've made an example of how that could look. I've also moved the starting of the threads into Gadget which makes it more obvious which object the thread is working on.
#include <chrono>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
class Gadget {
public:
Gadget() { std::cout << "Creating new Gadget\n"; }
// new interface for starting threads
std::thread start_wait() { return std::thread(&Gadget::wait, this); }
std::thread start_wake() { return std::thread(&Gadget::wake, this); }
private:
void wait() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> ul(mutex_);
std::cout << "wait: waiting here...\n";
// Read about "spurious wakeup" to understand the below:
while(not flag_) cond_.wait(ul);
// or:
// cond_.wait(ul, [this] { return flag_; });
std::cout << "wait: done\n";
}
void wake() {
// simulate some work being done for awhile
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
{ // lock context start
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lg(mutex_);
flag_ = true;
std::cout << "wake: notifying the waiting threads\n";
} // lock context end
// notify all waiting threads
cond_.notify_all();
}
std::condition_variable cond_;
std::mutex mutex_;
bool flag_ = false; // now guarded by a mutex instead
};
int main() {
Gadget g;
// start some waiting threads
std::vector<std::thread> threads(16);
for(auto& th : threads) th = g.start_wait();
// and one that wakes them up
auto th_wake = g.start_wake();
for(auto& th : threads) th.join();
th_wake.join();
std::cout << "Ending the program\n";
}
I want to keep my code clean and do the things right, to any std::thread I need to do join or detach, but how can I wait (at the main thread) for another thread without blocking the execution of the main thread?
void do_computation()
{
// Calculate 1000 digits of Pi.
}
int main()
{
std::thread td1(&do_computation);
while (running)
{
// Check if thread td1 finish and if yes print a message
// Here are some stuff of the main to do...
// Print to UI, update timer etc..
}
// If the thread has not finished yet here, just kill it.
}
The answer is semaphores. You can use a binary semaphore to synchronize your threads.
You may use System V semaphores or pthread mutexes, but they are somehow legacy in C++. Using Tsuneo Yoshioka's answer, we could implement a C++ way of semaphore, though.
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
class Semaphore {
public:
Semaphore (int count_ = 0)
: count(count_) {}
inline void notify()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mtx);
count++;
cv.notify_one();
}
inline void wait()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mtx);
while(count == 0){
cv.wait(lock);
}
count--;
}
private:
std::mutex mtx;
std::condition_variable cv;
int count;
};
Your implementation may make use of the Semaphore class, like so.
void do_computation()
{
//calculate 1000 digits of Pi.
semaphore.notify();
}
int main()
{
Semaphore semaphore(0);
std::thread td1(&do_computation);
semaphore.wait();
}
You can use std::promise and std::future. More info here and here.
#include <vector>
#include <thread>
#include <future>
#include <numeric>
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
void accumulate(std::vector<int>::iterator first,
std::vector<int>::iterator last,
std::promise<int> accumulate_promise)
{
int sum = std::accumulate(first, last, 0);
accumulate_promise.set_value(sum); // Notify future
}
void do_work(std::promise<void> barrier)
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
barrier.set_value();
}
int main()
{
// Demonstrate using promise<int> to transmit a result between threads.
std::vector<int> numbers = { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };
std::promise<int> accumulate_promise;
std::future<int> accumulate_future = accumulate_promise.get_future();
std::thread work_thread(accumulate, numbers.begin(), numbers.end(),
std::move(accumulate_promise));
accumulate_future.wait(); // wait for result
std::cout << "result=" << accumulate_future.get() << '\n';
work_thread.join(); // wait for thread completion
// Demonstrate using promise<void> to signal state between threads.
std::promise<void> barrier;
std::future<void> barrier_future = barrier.get_future();
std::thread new_work_thread(do_work, std::move(barrier));
barrier_future.wait();
new_work_thread.join();
}
This code demonstrates that the mutex is being shared between two threads, but one thread has it nearly all of the time.
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <iostream>
#include <unistd.h>
int main ()
{
std::mutex m;
std::thread t ([&] ()
{
while (true)
{
{
std::lock_guard <std::mutex> thread_lock (m);
sleep (1); // or whatever
}
std::cerr << "#";
std::cerr.flush ();
}
});
while (true)
{
std::lock_guard <std::mutex> main_lock (m);
std::cerr << ".";
std::cerr.flush ();
}
}
Compiled with g++ 7.3.0 on Ubuntu 18.04 4.15.0-23-generic.
The output is a mix of both # and . characters, showing that the mutex is being shared, but the pattern is surprising. Typically something like this:
.......#####..........................##################......................##
i.e. the thread_lock locks the mutex for a very long time. After several or even tens of seconds, the main_lock receives control (briefly) then the thread_lock gets it back and keeps it for ages. Calling std::this_thread::yield() doesn't change anything.
Why are the two mutexes not equally likely to gain the lock, and how can I make the mutex be shared in a balanced fashion?
std::mutex isn't designed to be fair. It doesn't guarantee that the order of locking is kept, you're either lucky to get the lock or not.
If you want more fairness, consider using a std::condition_variable like so :
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <iostream>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <unistd.h>
int main ()
{
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
std::thread t ([&] ()
{
while (true)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
std::cerr << "#";
std::cerr.flush ();
cv.notify_one();
cv.wait(lk);
}
});
while (true)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
std::cerr << ".";
std::cerr.flush ();
cv.notify_one();
cv.wait(lk);
}
}
Making std::mutex fair would have a cost. And in C++ you don't pay for what you don't ask for.
You could write a locking object where the party releasing the lock cannot be the next one to get it. More advanced, you could write one where this only occurs if someone else is waiting.
Here is a quick, untested stab at a fair mutex:
struct fair_mutex {
void lock() {
auto l = internal_lock();
lock(l);
}
void unlock() {
auto l = internal_lock();
in_use = false;
if (waiting != 0) {
loser=std::this_thread::get_id();
} else {
loser = {};
}
cv.notify_one();
}
bool try_lock() {
auto l = internal_lock();
if (in_use) return false;
lock(l);
return true;
}
private:
void lock(std::unique_lock<std::mutex>&l) {
++waiting;
cv.wait( l, [&]{ return !in_use && std::this_thread::get_id() != loser; } );
in_use = true;
--waiting;
}
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> internal_lock() const {
return std::unique_lock<std::mutex>(m);
}
mutable std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
std::thread::id loser;
bool in_use = false;
std::size_t waiting = 0;
};
it is "fair" in that if you have two threads contending over a resource, they will take turns. If someone is waiting on a lock, anyone giving up the lock won't grab it again.
This is, however, threading code. So I might read it over, but I wouldn't trust my first attempt to write anything.
You could extend this (at increasing cost) to be n-way fair (or even omega-fair) where if there are up to N elements waiting, they all get their turn before the releasing thread gets another chance.
My program has three threads, and I am trying to learn about synchronization and thread safety. Below I outline what the different threads do, but I would like to learn how to use events instead to trigger each process in the different threads instead of infinitely reading (which is giving me concurrency issues).
Googling throws up many options but I'm not sure what is best to implement in this case - could you point the direction to a standard method/event that I could learn to best implement this?
I am doing this on VS 2012, and ideally I would not use external libraries e.g. boost.
Thread 1: receives a message and pushes it into a global queue, queue<my_class> msg_in.
Thread 2: on infinite loop (i.e. while(1) ); waits till if (!msg_in.empty()), does some processing, and pushes it into a global map<map<queue<my_class>>> msg_out.
while (1)
{
if (!msg_in.empty())
{
//processes
msg_map[i][j].push(); //i and j are int (irrelevant here)
}
}
Thread 3:
while (1)
{
if (msg_map.find(i) != msg_map.end())
{
if (!msg_map[i].find(j)->second.empty())
{
//processes
}
}
}
Your problems is a producer consumer problem. You can use condition variables for your events. There is one example of it here: http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/condition_variable
I have adapted it to your example if your need it.
#include "MainThread.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <atomic>
#include <condition_variable>
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
bool ready = false;
bool processed = false;
void worker_thread(unsigned int threadNum)
{
// Wait until main() sends data
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
cv.wait(lk, []{return ready;});
}
std::cout << "Worker thread "<<threadNum <<" is processing data"<<std::endl;
// Send data back to main()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lk(m);
processed = true;
std::cout << "Worker thread "<< threadNum <<" signals data processing completed\n";
}
cv.notify_one();
}
int initializeData()
{
// send data to the worker thread
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lk(m);
ready = true;
std::cout << "Data initialized"<<std::endl;
}
cv.notify_one();
return 0;
}
int consumerThread(unsigned int nbThreads)
{
std::atomic<unsigned int> nbConsumedthreads=0;
while (nbConsumedthreads<nbThreads)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
cv.wait(lk, []{return processed;});
std::cout<<"Data processed counter="<<nbConsumedthreads << " "<< std::endl;
++nbConsumedthreads;
cv.notify_one();
}
return 0;
}
int main()
{
const unsigned int nbThreads=3;
std::thread worker1(worker_thread,1);
std::thread worker2(worker_thread,2);
std::thread worker3(worker_thread,3);
std::thread init(initializeData);
std::thread consume(consumerThread, nbThreads);
worker1.join();
worker2.join();
worker3.join();
init.join();
consume.join();
return 0;
}
Hope that helps, tell me if you need more info.
I am using VS2012 and I want to set thread priority from within a running thread. The goal is to initialize all threads with the highest priority state. To do this I want to get a HANDLE to the thread.
I am having some trouble accessing the pointer that corresponds to the thread object.
Is this possible?
From the calling main thread, the pointer is valid and from the C++11 thread it is set to CCCCCCCC. Predictably dereferencing some nonsense memory location causes a crash.
The code below is a simplified version showing the problem.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <Windows.h>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
using namespace std;
class threadContainer
{
thread* mT;
condition_variable* con;
void lockMe()
{
mutex m;
unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m);
con->wait(lock);//waits for host thread
cout << mT << endl;//CCCCCCCC
auto h = mT->native_handle();//causes a crash
con->wait(lock);//locks forever
}
public:
void run()
{
con = new condition_variable();
mT = new thread(&threadContainer::lockMe,*this);
cout << mT << endl; //00326420
con->notify_one();// Without this line everything locks as expected
mT->join();
}
};
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
threadContainer mContainer;
mContainer.run();
return 0;
}
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
#include <thread>
class threadContainer {
std::thread* mT;
std::mutex m;
void lockMe() {
// wait for mT to be assigned:
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m);
}
std::cout << "lockMe():" << mT << "\n";
auto h = mT->native_handle();//causes a crash
std::cout << "Done lockMe!\n";
}
public:
void run() {
// release lock only after mT assigned:
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m);
mT = new std::thread( [&](){ this->lockMe(); } );
}
std::cout << "run():" << mT << "\n"; //00326420
mT->join();
}
};
int main() {
threadContainer mContainer;
mContainer.run();
return 0;
}
Try that.
0xcccccccc means "variable not initialized". You have a threading race bug in your code. The thread starts running before the "mT" variable is assigned. You will need additional synchronization to block the thread until the assignment is completed so you can safely use mT. This will then also ensure that the new thread can see the updated value of mT, a memory barrier is required on a multi-core machine.
This is an example code with condition_variable and mutex.
class threadContainer
{
std::thread* mT;
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
bool flag;
void lockMe() {
// 1. you must acquire lock of mutex.
unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
// 2. and wait on `cv` for `flag==true`
cv.wait(lk, [&]{ return flag; });
cout << mT << endl;
auto h = mT->native_handle();
}
public:
void run()
{
flag = false;
mT = new std::thread( [&](){ this->lockMe(); } );
{
// 3. set `flag` and signal `cv`
lock_guard<decltype(m)> lk(m);
cout << mT << endl;
flag = true;
cv.notify_one();
}
mT->join();
}
};
If what you really want to do is "initialize all threads with the highest priority state", how about this simplified code?
Anyway, changing thread priority is platform dependent and out of C++ Standard library.
class threadContainer
{
std::thread thd;
void work() {
// (1) change thread priority itself
::SetThreadPriority(::GetCurrentThread(), THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST);
// do something...
}
public:
void run()
{
thd = std::thread( [&](){ this->work(); } );
// (2) or change thread priority from outside
::SetThreadPriority(thd.native_handle(), THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST);
thd.join();
}
};