I'm working on a program which suffer from starvation when one thread is doing more work than another. Critical section is protected by a reentrant QMutex, which is not fair.
In Java, you can specify a fairness parameter for a lock. Does C++,(or boost libraries) have any fair reentrant lock available? Preferably up to C++11.
I did some research before, there is shared_lock in boost, but I do not need a read/write lock. Just a lock which will guarantee that each thread has equal chances to enter the critical section.
Thank you very much.
C++ thread primitives are really based on Posix threads, and Posix does not have any fair mutexes. However, your question indicates that there is a problem with your design. There are two issues here:
Re-entrant mutexes are sign of the problem. You need to be 100% in control of mutex ownership and lifecycle. If you need re-entrant mutex, it means, design is sloppy.
Thread starvation in your description is a result of improperly designed thread communication. If a thread needs a mutex held for the duration of the work, it means, you are effectively designing a single-threaded system, and need no threads whatsoever.
Related
I've used pthreads a fair bit for concurrent programs, mainly utilising spinlocks, mutexes, and condition variables.
I started looking into multithreading using std::thread and using std::mutex, and I noticed that there doesn't seem to be an equivalent to spinlock in pthreads.
Anyone know why this is?
there doesn't seem to be an equivalent to spinlock in pthreads.
Spinlocks are often considered a wrong tool in user-space because there is no way to disable thread preemption while the spinlock is held (unlike in kernel). So that a thread can acquire a spinlock and then get preempted, causing all other threads trying to acquire the spinlock to spin unnecessarily (and if those threads are of higher priority that may cause a deadlock (threads waiting for I/O may get a priority boost on wake up)). This reasoning also applies to all lockless data structures, unless the data structure is truly wait-free (there aren't many practically useful ones, apart from boost::spsc_queue).
In kernel, a thread that has locked a spinlock cannot be preempted or interrupted before it releases the spinlock. And that is why spinlocks are appropriate there (when RCU cannot be used).
On Linux, one can prevent preemption (not sure if completely, but there has been recent kernel changes towards such a desirable effect) by using isolated CPU cores and FIFO real-time threads pinned to those isolated cores. But that requires a deliberate kernel/machine configuration and an application designed to take advantage of that configuration. Nevertheless, people do use such a setup for business-critical applications along with lockless (but not wait-free) data structures in user-space.
On Linux, there is adaptive mutex PTHREAD_MUTEX_ADAPTIVE_NP, which spins for a limited number of iterations before blocking in the kernel (similar to InitializeCriticalSectionAndSpinCount). However, that mutex cannot be used through std::mutex interface because there is no option to customise non-portable pthread_mutexattr_t before initialising pthread_mutex_t.
One can neither enable process-sharing, robostness, error-checking or priority-inversion prevention through std::mutex interface. In practice, people write their own wrappers of pthread_mutex_t which allows to set desirable mutex attributes; along with a corresponding wrapper for condition variables. Standard locks like std::unique_lock and std::lock_guard can be reused.
IMO, there could be provisions to set desirable mutex and condition variable properties in std:: APIs, like providing a protected constructor for derived classes that would initialize that native_handle, but there aren't any. That native_handle looks like a good idea to do platform specific stuff, however, there must be a constructor for the derived class to be able to initialize it appropriately. After the mutex or condition variable is initialized that native_handle is pretty much useless. Unless the idea was only to be able to pass that native_handle to (C language) APIs that expect a pointer or reference to an initialized pthread_mutex_t.
There is another example of Boost/C++ standard not accepting semaphores on the basis that they are too much of a rope to hang oneself, and that mutex (a binary semaphore, essentially) and condition variable are more fundamental and more flexible synchronisation primitives, out of which a semaphore can be built.
From the point of view of the C++ standard those are probably right decisions because educating users to use spinlocks and semaphores correctly with all the nuances is a difficult task. Whereas advanced users can whip out a wrapper for pthread_spinlock_t with little effort.
You are right there's no spin lock implementation in the std namespace. A spin lock is a great concept but in user space is generally quite poor. OS doesn't know your process wants to spin and usually you can have worse results than using a mutex. To be noted that on several platforms there's the optimistic spinning implemented so a mutex can do a really good job. In addition adjusting the time to "pause" between each loop iteration can be not trivial and portable and a fine tuning is required. TL;DR don't use a spinlock in user space unless you are really really sure about what you are doing.
C++ Thread discussion
Article explaining how to write a spin lock with benchmark
Reply by Linus Torvalds about the above article explaining why it's a bad idea
Spin locks have two advantages:
They require much fewer storage as a std::mutex, because they do not need a queue of threads waiting for the lock. On my system, sizeof(pthread_spinlock_t) is 4, while sizeof(std::mutex) is 40.
They are much more performant than std::mutex, if the protected code region is small and the contention level is low to moderate.
On the downside, a poorly implemented spin lock can hog the CPU. For example, a tight loop with a compare-and-set assembler instructions will spam the cache system with loads and loads of unnecessary writes. But that's what we have libraries for, that they implement best practice and avoid common pitfalls. That most user implementations of spin locks are poor, is not a reason to not put spin locks into the library. Rather, it is a reason to put it there, to stop users from trying it themselves.
There is a second problem, that arises from the scheduler: If thread A acquires the lock and then gets preempted by the scheduler before it finishes executing the critical section, another thread B could spin "forever" (or at least for many milliseconds, before thread A gets scheduled again) on that lock.
Unfortunately, there is no way, how userland code can tell the kernel "please don't preempt me in this critical code section". But if we know, that under normal circumstances, the critical code section executes within 10 ns, we could at least tell thread B: "preempt yourself voluntarily, if you have been spinning for over 30 ns". This is not guaranteed to return control directly back to thread A. But it will stop the waste of CPU cycles, that otherwise would take place. And in most scenarios, where thread A and B run in the same process at the same priority, the scheduler will usually schedule thread A before thread B, if B called std::this_thread::yield().
So, I am thinking about a template spin lock class, that takes a single unsigned integer as a parameter, which is the number of memory reads in the critical section. This parameter is then used in the library to calculate the appropriate number of spins, before a yield() is performed. With a zero count, yield() would never be called.
A coworker had an issue recently that boiled down to what we believe was the following sequence of events in a C++ application with two threads:
Thread A holds a mutex.
While thread A is holding the mutex, thread B attempts to lock it. Since it is held, thread B is suspended.
Thread A finishes the work that it was holding the mutex for, thus releasing the mutex.
Very shortly thereafter, thread A needs to touch a resource that is protected by the mutex, so it locks it again.
It appears that thread A is given the mutex again; thread B is still waiting, even though it "asked" for the lock first.
Does this sequence of events fit with the semantics of, say, C++11's std::mutex and/or pthreads? I can honestly say I've never thought about this aspect of mutexes before.
Are there any fairness guarantees to prevent starvation of other threads for too long, or any way to get such guarantees?
Known problem. C++ mutexes are thin layer on top of OS-provided mutexes, and OS-provided mutexes are often not fair. They do not care for FIFO.
The other side of the same coin is that threads are usually not pre-empted until they run out of their time slice. As a result, thread A in this scenario was likely to continue to be executed, and got the mutex right away because of that.
The guarantee of a std::mutex is enable exclusive access to shared resources. Its sole purpose is to eliminate the race condition when multiple threads attempt to access shared resources.
The implementer of a mutex may choose to favor the current thread acquiring a mutex (over another thread) for performance reasons. Allowing the current thread to acquire the mutex and make forward progress without requiring a context switch is often a preferred implementation choice supported by profiling/measurements.
Alternatively, the mutex could be constructed to prefer another (blocked) thread for acquisition (perhaps chosen according FIFO). This likely requires a thread context switch (on the same or other processor core) increasing latency/overhead. NOTE: FIFO mutexes can behave in surprising ways. E.g. Thread priorities must be considered in FIFO support - so acquisition won't be strictly FIFO unless all competing threads are the same priority.
Adding a FIFO requirement to a mutex's definition constrains implementers to provide suboptimal performance in nominal workloads. (see above)
Protecting a queue of callable objects (std::function) with a mutex would enable sequenced execution. Multiple threads can acquire the mutex, enqueue a callable object, and release the mutex. The callable objects can be executed by a single thread (or a pool of threads if synchrony is not required).
•Thread A finishes the work that it was holding the mutex for, thus
releasing the mutex.
•Very shortly thereafter, thread A needs to touch a resource that is
protected by the mutex, so it locks it again
In real world, when the program is running. there is no guarantee provided by any threading library or the OS. Here "shortly thereafter" may mean a lot to the OS and the hardware. If you say, 2 minutes, then thread B would definitely get it. If you say 200 ms or low, there is no promise of A or B getting it.
Number of cores, load on different processors/cores/threading units, contention, thread switching, kernel/user switches, pre-emption, priorities, deadlock detection schemes et. al. will make a lot of difference. Just by looking at green signal from far you cannot guarantee that you will get it green.
If you want that thread B must get the resource, you may use IPC mechanism to instruct the thread B to gain the resource.
You are inadvertently suggesting that threads should synchronise access to the synchronisation primitive. Mutexes are, as the name suggests, about Mutual Exclusion. They are not designed for control flow. If you want to signal a thread to run from another thread you need to use a synchronisation primitive designed for control flow i.e. a signal.
You can use a fair mutex to solve your task, i.e. a mutex that will guarantee the FIFO order of your operations. Unfortunately, C++ standard library doesn't have a fair mutex.
Thankfully, there are open-source implementations, for example yamc (a header-only library).
The logic here is very simple - the thread is not preempted based on mutexes, because that would require a cost incurred for each mutex operation, which is definitely not what you want. The cost of grabbing a mutex is high enough without forcing the scheduler to look for other threads to run.
If you want to fix this you can always yield the current thread. You can use std::this_thread::yield() - http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/yield - and that might offer the chance to thread B to take over the mutex. But before you do that, allow me to tell you that this is a very fragile way of doing things, and offers no guarantee. You could, alternatively, investigate the issue deeper:
Why is it a problem that the B thread is not started when A releases the resource? Your code should not depend on such logic.
Consider using alternative thread synchronization objects like barriers (boost::barrier or http://linux.die.net/man/3/pthread_barrier_wait ) instead, if you really need this sort of logic.
Investigate if you really need to release the mutex from A at that point - I find the practice of locking and releasing fast a mutex for more than one time a code smell, it usually impacts terribly the performace. See if you can group extraction of data in immutable structures which you can play around with.
Ambitious, but try to work without mutexes - use instead lock-free structures and a more functional approach, including using a lot of immutable structures. I often found quite a performance gain from updating my code to not use mutexes (and still work correctly from the mt point of view)
How do you know this:
While thread A is holding the mutex, thread B attempts to lock it.
Since it is held, thread B is suspended.
How do you know thread B is suspended. How do you know that it is not just finished the line of code before trying to grab the lock, but not yet grabbed the lock:
Thread B:
x = 17; // is the thread here?
// or here? ('between' lines of code)
mtx.lock(); // or suspended in here?
// how can you tell?
You can't tell. At least not in theory.
Thus the order of acquiring the lock is, to the abstract machine (ie the language), not definable.
If I need to synchronize two threads that both call a function with send() on a specific socket, would it be more useful to warp a critical section on the send() function or look into using a mutex? (since a socket is a kernel object)
Assuming Windows platform (that's where we have a choice between critical sections and mutexes).
Mutex (of CreateMutex) is way slower: locking and unlocking is always a system call, even if there is no contention. The cost of send, though, is likely to be enough to make this difference unnoticeable.
As pointed by another answer, mutexes can be shared between processes (if named/reopened or inherited), and critical sections are process-local.
I am assuming that this is about Windows (can't recall seeing critical section elsewhere).
It doesn't matter really which synchronization object you use if all the locking is within one process. If you want to lock across process boundary, then you should use mutex because critical section only works within single process, but named mutex can be shared between many processes.
I think, mutex should work faster.
What are the factors to keep in mind while choosing between Critical Sections, Mutex and Spin Locks? All of them provide for synchronization but are there any specific guidelines on when to use what?
EDIT: I did mean the windows platform as it has a notion of Critical Sections as a synchronization construct.
In Windows parlance, a critical section is a hybrid between a spin lock and a non-busy wait. It spins for a short time, then--if it hasn't yet grabbed the resource--it sets up an event and waits on it. If contention for the resource is low, the spin lock behavior is usually enough.
Critical Sections are a good choice for a multithreaded program that doesn't need to worry about sharing resources with other processes.
A mutex is a good general-purpose lock. A named mutex can be used to control access among multiple processes. But it's usually a little more expensive to take a mutex than a critical section.
General points to consider:
The performance cost of using the mechanism.
The complexity introduced by using the mechanism.
In any given situation 1 or 2 may be more important.
E.g.
If you using multi-threading to write a high performance algorithm by making use of many cores and need to guard some data for safe access then 1 is probably very important.
If you have an application where a background thread is used to poll for some information on a timer and on the rare occasion it notices an update you need to guard some data for access then 2 is probably more important than 1.
1 will be down to the underlying implementation and probably scales with the scope of the protection e.g. a lock that is internal to a process is normally faster than a lock across all processes on a machine.
2 is easy to misjudge. First attempts to use locks to write thread safe code will normally miss some cases that lead to a deadlock. A simple deadlock would occur for example if thread A was waiting on a lock held by thread B but thread B was waiting on a lock held by thread A. Surprisingly easy to implement by accident.
On any given platform the naming and qualities of locking mechanisms may vary.
On windows critical sections are fast and process specific, mutexes are slower but cross process. Semaphores offer more complicated use cases. Some problems e.g. allocation from a pool may be solved very efficently using atomic functions rather than locks e.g. on windows InterlockedIncrement which is very fast indeed.
A Mutex in Windows is actually an interprocess concurrency mechanism, making it incredibly slow when used for intraprocess threading. A Critical Section is the Windows analogue to the mutex you normally think of.
Spin Locks are best used when the resource being contested is usually not held for a significant number of cycles, meaning the thread that has the lock is probably going to give it up soon.
EDIT : My answer is only relevant provided you mean 'On Windows', so hopefully that's what you meant.
For example the c++0x interfaces
I am having a hard time figuring out when to use which of these things (cv, mutex and lock).
Can anyone please explain or point to a resource?
Thanks in advance.
On the page you refer to, "mutex" is the actual low-level synchronizing primitive. You can take a mutex and then release it, and only one thread can take it at any single time (hence it is a synchronizing primitive). A recursive mutex is one which can be taken by the same thread multiple times, and then it needs to be released as many times by the same thread before others can take it.
A "lock" here is just a C++ wrapper class that takes a mutex in its constructor and releases it at the destructor. It is useful for establishing synchronizing for C++ scopes.
A condition variable is a more advanced / high-level form of synchronizing primitive which combines a lock with a "signaling" mechanism. It is used when threads need to wait for a resource to become available. A thread can "wait" on a CV and then the resource producer can "signal" the variable, in which case the threads who wait for the CV get notified and can continue execution. A mutex is combined with CV to avoid the race condition where a thread starts to wait on a CV at the same time another thread wants to signal it; then it is not controllable whether the signal is delivered or gets lost.
I'm not too familiar w/ C++0x so take this answer w/ a grain of salt.
re: Mutex vs. locks: From the documentation you posted, it looks like a mutex is an object representing an OS mutex, whereas a lock is an object that holds a mutex to facilitate the RAII pattern.
Condition variables are a handy mechanism to associate a blocking/signaling mechanism (signal+wait) with a mutual exclusion mechanism, yet keep them decoupled in the OS so that you as system programmer can choose the association between condvar and mutex. (useful for dealing with multiple sets of concurrently-accessed objects) Rob Krten has some good explanations on condvars in one of the online chapters of his book on QNX.
As far as general references: This book (not out yet) looks interesting.
This question has been answered. I just add this that may help to decide WHEN to use these synchronization primitives.
Simply, the mutex is used to guarantee mutual access to a shared resource in the critical section of multiple threads. The luck is a general term but a binary mutex can be used as a lock. In modern C++ we use lock_guard and similar objects to utilize RAII to simplify and make safe the mutex usage. The conditional variable is another primitive that often combined with a mutex to make something know as a monitor.
I am having a hard time figuring out when to use which of these things
(cv, mutex and lock). Can anyone please explain or point to a
resource?
Use a mutex to guarantee mutual exclusive access to something. It's the default solution for a broad range of concurrency problems. Use lock_guard if you have a scope in C++ that you want to guard it with a mutex. The mutex is handled by the lock_guard. You just create a lock_guard in the scope and initialize it with a mutex and then C++ does the rest for you. The mutex is released when the scope is removed from the stack, for any reason including throwing an exception or returning from a function. It's the idea behind RAII and the lock_guard is another resource handler.
There are some concurrency issues that are not easily solvable by only using a mutex or a simple solution can lead to complexity or inefficiency. For example, the produced-consumer problem is one of them. If we want to implement a consumer thread reading items from a buffer shared with a producer, we should protect the buffer with a mutex but, without using a conditional variable we should lock the mutex, check the buffer and read an item if it's not empty, unlock it and wait for some time period, lock it again and go on. It's a waste of time if the buffer is often empty (busy waiting) and also there will be lots of locking and unlocking and sleeps.
The solution we need for the producer-consumer problem must be simpler and more efficient. A monitor (a mutex + a conditional variable) helps us here. We still need a mutex to guarantee mutual exclusive access but a conditional variable lets us sleep and wait for a certain condition. The condition here is the producer adding an item to the buffer. The producer thread notifies the consumer thread that there is and item in the buffer and the consumer wakes up and gets the item. Simply, the producer locks the mutex, puts something in the buffer, notifies the consumer. The consumer locks the mutex, sleeps while waiting for a condition, wake s up when there is something in the buffer and gets the item from the buffer. It's a simpler and more efficient solution.
The next time you face a concurrency problem think this way: If you need mutual exclusive access to something, use a mutex. Use lock_guard if you want to be safer and simpler. If the problem has a clue of waiting for a condition that must happen in another thread, you MIGHT need a conditional variable.
As a general rule of thumb, first, analyze your problem and try to find a famous concurrency problem similar to yours (for example, see classic problems of synchronization section in this page). Read about the solutions proposed for the well-known solution to peak the best one. You may need some customization.