Segmentation fault multithreading C++ 11 - c++

Introduction
I have a vector entities containing 44 million names. I want to split it into 4 parts and process each part in parallel. Class Freebase contains the function loadData() which is used to split the vector and call function multiThread in order to do the processing.
loadEntities() reads a text file containing the names. I didn't put the implementation in the class because it's not important
loadData() splits the vector entities that was initialized in the constructor into 4 parts and adds every part the vector<thread> threads as follows:
threads.push_back(thread(&Freebase::multiThread, this, i, i + right, ref(data)));
multiThread is the function where I process the files
i and i+right are the indices used in the for loop of multithread to loop through entities
returnValues is a subfunction of multiThreadand is used to call an external function.
Problem
cout <<"Entity " << entities[i] << endl; is showing the following results:
Entity m.0rzf6wv (ok)
Entity m.0rzf70 (ok)
Entity m.068s4h9 m.0n_k8bz (WRONG)
Entity Entity m.068s5_1 (WRONG)
The last 2 outputs are wrong. The output should be:
Entity name not entity entity name nor entity name name
This is causing a segmentation fault when the input is being sent to function returnValues. How can I solve it?
Source Code
#ifndef FREEBASE_H
#define FREEBASE_H
class Freebase
{
public:
Freebase(const std::string &, const std::string &, const std::string &, const std::string &);
void loadData();
private:
std::string _serverURL;
std::string _entities;
std::string _xmlFile;
void multiThread(int,int, std::vector<std::pair<std::string, std::string>> &);
//private data members
std::vector<std::string> entities;
};
#endif
#include "Freebase.h"
#include "queries/SparqlQuery.h"
Freebase::Freebase(const string & url, const string & e, const string & xmlFile, const string & tfidfDatabase):_serverURL(url), _entities(e), _xmlFile(xmlFile), _tfidfDatabase(tfidfDatabase)
{
entities = loadEntities();
}
void Freebase::multiThread(int start, int end, vector<pair<string,string>> & data)
{
string basekb = "PREFIX basekb:<http://rdf.basekb.com/ns/> ";
for(int i = start; i < end; i++)
{
cout <<"Entity " << entities[i] << endl;
vector<pair<string, string>> description = returnValues(basekb + "select ?description where {"+ entities[i] +" basekb:common.topic.description ?description. FILTER (lang(?description) = 'en') }");
string desc = "";
for(auto &d: description)
{
desc += d.first + " ";
}
data.push_back(make_pair(entities[i], desc));
}
}
void Freebase::loadData()
{
vector<pair<string, string>> data;
vector<thread> threads;
int Size = entities.size();
//split database into 4 parts
int p = 4;
int right = round((double)Size / (double)p);
int left = Size % p;
float totalduration = 0;
vector<pair<int, int>> coordinates;
int counter = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < Size; i += right)
{
if(i < Size - right)
{
threads.push_back(thread(&Freebase::multiThread, this, i, i + right, ref(data)));
}
else
{
threads.push_back(thread(&Freebase::multiThread, this, i, Size, ref(data)));
}
}//end outer for
for(auto &t : threads)
{
t.join();
}
}
vector<pair<string, string>> Freebase::returnValues(const string & query)
{
vector<pair<string, string>> data;
SparqlQuery sparql(query, _serverURL);
string result = sparql.retrieveInformations();
istringstream str(result);
string line;
//skip first line
getline(str,line);
while(getline(str, line))
{
vector<string> values;
line.erase(remove( line.begin(), line.end(), '\"' ), line.end());
boost::split(values, line, boost::is_any_of("\t"));
if(values.size() == 2)
{
pair<string,string> fact = make_pair(values[0], values[1]);
data.push_back(fact);
}
else
{
data.push_back(make_pair(line, ""));
}
}
return data;
}//end function

EDIT:
Arnon Zilca is correct in his comments. You are writing to a single vector from multiple threads (in Freebase::multiThread()), a recipe for disaster. You can use a mutex as described below to protect the push_back operation.
For more info on thread safety on containers see Is std::vector or boost::vector thread safe?.
So:
mtx.lock();
data.push_back(make_pair(entities[i], desc));
mtx.unlock();
Another option is using the same strategy as you do in returnValues, creating a local vector in multiThread and only pushing the contents to the data vector when thread is done processing.
So:
void Freebase::multiThread(int start, int end, vector<pair<string,string>> & data)
{
vector<pair<string,string>> threadResults;
string basekb = "PREFIX basekb:<http://rdf.basekb.com/ns/> ";
for(int i = start; i < end; i++)
{
cout <<"Entity " << entities[i] << endl;
vector<pair<string, string>> description = returnValues(basekb + "select ?description where {"+ entities[i] +" basekb:common.topic.description ?description. FILTER (lang(?description) = 'en') }");
string desc = "";
for(auto &d: description)
{
desc += d.first + " ";
}
threadResults.push_back(make_pair(entities[i], desc));
}
mtx.lock()
data.insert(data.end(), threadResults.begin(), threadResults.end());
mtx.unlock()
}
Note: I would suggest using a different mutex than the one you use for the cout. The overall result vector data is a different resource than cout. So threads who want to use cout, should not have to wait for another thread to finish with data.
/EDIT
You could use a mutex around
cout <<"Entity " << entities[i] << endl;
That would prevent multiple threads using cout at "the same time". That way you can be sure that an entire message is printed by a thread before another thread gets to print a message. Note that this will impact your performance since threads will have to wait for the mutex to become available before they are allowed to print.
Note: Protecting the cout will only cleanup your output on the stream, it will not influence the behavior of the rest of the code, see above for that.
See http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/mutex/mutex/lock/ for an example.
// mutex::lock/unlock
#include <iostream> // std::cout
#include <thread> // std::thread
#include <mutex> // std::mutex
std::mutex mtx; // mutex for critical section
void print_thread_id (int id) {
// critical section (exclusive access to std::cout signaled by locking mtx):
mtx.lock();
std::cout << "thread #" << id << '\n';
mtx.unlock();
}
int main ()
{
std::thread threads[10];
// spawn 10 threads:
for (int i=0; i<10; ++i)
threads[i] = std::thread(print_thread_id,i+1);
for (auto& th : threads) th.join();
return 0;
}

Related

Debugging the use of std::string in a thread pool C++

I'm in the process of trying to figure out multithreading - I'm pretty new to it. I'm using a thread_pool type that I found here. For sufficiently large N, the following code segfaults. Could you guys help me understand why and how to fix?
#include "thread_pool.hpp"
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
static std::mutex mtx;
void printString(const std::string &s) {
std::lock_guard lock(mtx);
std::hash<std::thread::id> tid{};
auto id = tid(std::this_thread::get_id()) % 16;
std::cout << "thread: " << id << " " << s << std::endl;
}
TEST(test, t) {
thread_pool pool(16);
int N = 1000000;
std::vector<std::string> v(N);
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++) {
v[i] = std::to_string(i);
}
for (auto &s: v) {
pool.push_task([&s]() {
printString(s);
});
}
}
Here's the thread sanitizer output (note the ===> comments where I direct you to appropriate line"):
SEGV on unknown address 0x000117fbdee8 (pc 0x000102fa35b6 bp 0x7e8000186b50 sp 0x7e8000186b30 T257195)
0x102fa35b6 std::basic_string::__get_short_size const string:1514
0x102fa3321 std::basic_string::size const string:970
0x102f939e6 std::operator<<<…> ostream:1056
0x102f9380b printString RoadRunnerMapTests.cpp:37 // ==> this line: void printString(const std::string &s) {
0x102fabbd5 $_0::operator() const RoadRunnerMapTests.cpp:49 // ===> this line: v[i] = std::to_string(i);
0x102fabb3d (test_cxx_api_RoadRunnerMapTests:x86_64+0x10001eb3d) type_traits:3694
0x102fabaad std::__invoke_void_return_wrapper::__call<…> __functional_base:348
0x102faba5d std::__function::__alloc_func::operator() functional:1558
0x102fa9669 std::__function::__func::operator() functional:1732
0x102f9d383 std::__function::__value_func::operator() const functional:1885
0x102f9c055 std::function::operator() const functional:2560
0x102f9bc29 thread_pool::worker thread_pool.hpp:389 // ==> [this](https://github.com/bshoshany/thread-pool/blob/master/thread_pool.hpp#L389) line
0x102fa00bc (test_cxx_api_RoadRunnerMapTests:x86_64+0x1000130bc) type_traits:3635
0x102f9ff1e std::__thread_execute<…> thread:286
0x102f9f005 std::__thread_proxy<…> thread:297
0x1033e9a2c __tsan_thread_start_func
0x7fff204828fb _pthread_start
0x7fff2047e442 thread_start
Destructors are called in the order opposite to variable declaration order. i.e. v will be destructed earlier than pool, therefore at the moment when some threads from pool will call to printString(), the argument string will not be a valid object, because v and its content are already destroyed. To resolve this, I'd recommend to declare v before pool.
Tasks passed to thread pool contain references to content of vector v, however this vector goes out of scope prior to pool leaving tasks with dangling references. In order to fix this you need to reorder scopes of variables:
int N = 1000000;
std::vector<std::string> v(N);
thread_pool pool(16);

c++ threading, duplicate/missing threads

I'm trying to write a program that concurrently add and removes items from a "storehouse". I have a "Monitor" class that handles the "storehouse" operations:
class Monitor
{
private:
mutex m;
condition_variable cv;
vector<Storage> S;
int counter = 0;
bool busy = false;;
public:
void add(Computer c, int index) {
unique_lock <mutex> lock(m);
if (busy)
cout << "Thread " << index << ": waiting for !busy " << endl;
cv.wait(lock, [&] { return !busy; });
busy = true;
cout << "Thread " << index << ": Request: add " << c.CPUFrequency << endl;
for (int i = 0; i < counter; i++) {
if (S[i].f == c.CPUFrequency) {
S[i].n++;
busy = false; cv.notify_one();
return;
}
}
Storage s;
s.f = c.CPUFrequency;
s.n = 1;
// put the new item in a sorted position
S.push_back(s);
counter++;
busy = false; cv.notify_one();
}
}
The threads are created like this:
void doThreadStuff(vector<Computer> P, vector <Storage> R, Monitor &S)
{
int Pcount = P.size();
vector<thread> myThreads;
myThreads.reserve(Pcount);
for (atomic<size_t> i = 0; i < Pcount; i++)
{
int index = i;
Computer c = P[index];
myThreads.emplace_back([&] { S.add(c, index); });
}
for (size_t i = 0; i < Pcount; i++)
{
myThreads[i].join();
}
// printing results
}
Running the program produced the following results:
I'm familiar with race conditions, but this doesn't look like one to me. My bet would be on something reference related, because in the results we can see that for every "missing thread" (threads 1, 3, 10, 25) I get "duplicate threads" (threads 2, 9, 24, 28).
I have tried to create local variables in functions and loops but it changed nothing.
I have heard about threads sharing memory regions, but my previous work should have produced similar results, so I don't think that's the case here, but feel free to prove me wrong.
I'm using Visual Studio 2017
Here you catch local variables by reference in a loop, they will be destroyed in every turn, causing undefined behavior:
for (atomic<size_t> i = 0; i < Pcount; i++)
{
int index = i;
Computer c = P[index];
myThreads.emplace_back([&] { S.add(c, index); });
}
You should catch index and c by value:
myThreads.emplace_back([&S, index, c] { S.add(c, index); });
Another approach would be to pass S, i and c as arguments instead of capturing them by defining the following non-capturing lambda, th_func:
auto th_func = [](Monitor &S, int index, Computer c){ S.add(c, index); };
This way you have to explicitly wrap the arguments that must be passed by reference to the thread's callable object with std::reference_wrapper by means of the function template std::ref(). In your case, only S:
for (atomic<size_t> i = 0; i < Pcount; i++) {
int index = i;
Computer c = P[index];
myThreads.emplace_back(th_func, std::ref(S), index, c);
}
Failing to wrap with std::reference_wrapper the arguments that must be passed by reference will result in a compile-time error. That is, the following won't compile:
myThreads.emplace_back(th_func, S, index, c); // <-- it should be std::ref(S)
See also this question.

deadlock in using data for mutex and waits

I need some help for a concurrent c++ programming.
I have a file of names, named "names.txt", in this format:
0 James
1 Sara
2 Isaac
And I have another file named "op.txt" that contains some operations on names file, in this format:
0 1 + // this means add Sara to James and store it in 0 position
1 2 $ // this means swap values in position 1 and position 2
and a file "output.txt" that has the output of operations, in this format:
0 JamesSara
1 Isaac
2 Sara
The problem says that create a thread for read names.txt and op.txt and store them. Next create some variable threads to do operations concurrently and at last do the output.txt in a thread.
Here is my code for this problem, and it works correctly when number of concurrent threads are
greater then 2. But the output for 1 and 2 thread are incorrect.
What I missed in this code?
#include <fstream>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
#include <sstream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <deque>
using namespace std;
std::mutex _opMutex;
std::condition_variable _initCondition;
std::condition_variable _operationCondition;
int _counter = 0;
int _initCounter = 0;
int _doOperationCounter = 0;
struct OperationStruct
{
int firstOperand;
int secondOperand;
char cOperator;
};
const int THREADS = 5;
std::deque<std::pair<int, string> > _nameVector;
std::deque<OperationStruct> _opStructVec;
void initNamesAndOperations()
{
ifstream infile;
std::pair<int, string> namePair;
infile.open("names.txt");
if (!infile)
{
cout << "Unable to open file";
exit(-1);
}
int id;
string value;
while (infile >> id >> value)
{
namePair.first = id;
namePair.second = value;
_nameVector.push_back(namePair);
}
infile.close();
infile.open("op.txt");
if (!infile)
{
cout << "Unable to open file";
exit(-1);
}
int firstOperand;
int secondOperand;
char cOperator;
while (infile >> firstOperand >> secondOperand >> cOperator)
{
OperationStruct opSt;
opSt.firstOperand = firstOperand;
opSt.secondOperand = secondOperand;
opSt.cOperator = cOperator;
_opStructVec.push_back(opSt);
++_initCounter;
}
infile.close();
return;
}
void doOperationMath(int firstIndex, string firstValue, string secondValue, char cOp)
{
//basic mathematics
switch (cOp)
{
case '+':
{
for (int i = 0; i < _nameVector.size(); ++i)
{
std::pair<int, string> acc = _nameVector[i];
if (acc.first == firstIndex)
{
acc.second = firstValue + secondValue;
_nameVector[i].second = acc.second;
}
}
}
break;
default:
break;
}
++_doOperationCounter;
}
void doOperationSwap(int firstIndex, int secondIndex, string firstValue, string secondValue)
{
//swap
for (int i = 0; i < _nameVector.size(); ++i)
{
if (_nameVector[i].first == firstIndex)
_nameVector[i].second = secondValue;
if (_nameVector[i].first == secondIndex)
_nameVector[i].second = firstValue;
}
++_doOperationCounter;
}
void doOperations()
{
while (_doOperationCounter < _initCounter)
{
std::unique_lock<mutex> locker(_opMutex);
_initCondition.wait(locker, [](){return !_opStructVec.empty(); });
OperationStruct opSt = _opStructVec.front();
_opStructVec.pop_front();
locker.unlock();
_operationCondition.notify_one();
int firstId = opSt.firstOperand;
int secondId = opSt.secondOperand;
char cOp = opSt.cOperator;
string firstValue = "";
string secondValue = "";
for (int j = 0; j < _nameVector.size(); ++j)
{
std::pair<int, string> acc = _nameVector[j];
if (firstId == acc.first)
firstValue = acc.second;
if (secondId == acc.first)
secondValue = acc.second;
}
if (cOp == '$')
{
doOperationSwap(firstId, secondId, firstValue, secondValue);
}
else
{
doOperationMath(firstId, firstValue, secondValue, cOp);
}
}
return;
}
void doOutputFile()
{
ofstream outfile;
outfile.open("sampleOutput.txt", std::ios::out | std::ios::app);
if (!outfile)
{
cout << "Unable to open the file";
exit(-1);
}
while (_counter < _initCounter)
{
std::unique_lock<mutex> locker(_opMutex);
_operationCondition.wait(locker, [](){return !_nameVector.empty(); });
auto accPair = _nameVector.front();
_nameVector.pop_front();
locker.unlock();
outfile << accPair.first << " " << accPair.second << endl;
++_counter;
}
return;
}
int main()
{
thread th1(initNamesAndOperations);
std::vector<thread> operationalThreads;
for (int i = 0; i < THREADS; ++i)
{
operationalThreads.push_back(thread(doOperations));
}
thread th3(doOutputFile);
th1.join();
for (auto& opthread : operationalThreads)
opthread.join();
th3.join();
return 0;
}
If a variable is modified from multiple threads, you might have to use some synchronisation to ensure that the proper value is read. The simplest way would probably be to use std::atomic for your variables to ensure that operations are properly sequenced.
Also, there is nothing in your code to ensure that your doOperations thread won't finish before you have read the whole file.
Obviously, you need to either read the whole data first or have a way to wait for some data to become available (or to reach the end of data). If reading the initial data is fast but processing is slow, then the easier solution is to read the data before starting processing threads.
What is probably happening is that if you create a lot of threads, by the time you create the last thread, the initNamesAndOperations would have read the whole file.
I highly recommend you to buy and read C++ Concurrency in Action by Anthony Williams. By reading such book, you will get a good understanding on modern C++ multithreading and it will help you a lot to write correct code.

Making threads redo a print function in order

This is a home assignment.
Have to print a string(given as input) in small chunks(Size given as input) by multiple threads one at a time in order 1,2,3,1,2,3,1,2(number of threads is given as input).
A thread does this printing function on creation and I want it to redo it after all the other threads. I face two problems:
1. Threads don't print in fixed order(mine gave 1,3,2,4 see output)
2. Threads need to re print till the entire string is exhausted.
This is what I tried...
#include<iostream>
#include<mutex>
#include<thread>
#include<string>
#include<vector>
#include<condition_variable>
#include<chrono>
using namespace std;
class circularPrint{
public:
int pos;
string message;
int nCharsPerPrint;
mutex mu;
condition_variable cv;
circularPrint(){
pos=0;
}
void shared_print(int threadID){
unique_lock<mutex> locker(mu);
if(pos+nCharsPerPrint<message.size())
cout<<"Thread"<<threadID<<" : "<<message.substr(pos,nCharsPerPrint)<<endl;
else if(pos<message.size())
cout<<"Thread"<<threadID<<" : "<<message.substr(pos)<<endl;
pos+=nCharsPerPrint;
}
};
void f(circularPrint &obj,int threadID){
obj.shared_print(threadID);
}
int main(){
circularPrint obj;
cout<<"\nMessage : ";
cin>>obj.message;
cout<<"\nChars : ";
cin>>obj.nCharsPerPrint;
int nthreads;
cout<<"\nThreads : ";
cin>>nthreads;
vector<thread> threads;
for(int count=1;count<=nthreads;++count)
{
threads.push_back(thread(f,ref(obj),count));
}
for(int count=0;count<nthreads;++count)
{
if(threads[count].joinable())
threads[count].join();
}
return 0;
}
Why would you want to multithread a method that can only be executed once at a time?
Anyway, something like this below? Be aware that the take and print use different locks and that there is a chance the output does not show in the expected order (hence, the why question above).
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
#include <string>
#include <vector>
#include <algorithm>
using namespace std;
class circularPrint
{
public:
int pos;
string message;
int nCharsPerPrint;
mutex takeLock;
mutex printLock;
circularPrint() {
pos = 0;
}
string take(int count) {
lock_guard<mutex> locker(takeLock);
count = std::min(count, (int)message.size() - pos);
string substring = message.substr(pos, count);
pos += count;
return substring;
}
void print(int threadID, string& message) {
lock_guard<mutex> locker(printLock);
cout << "Thread" << threadID << " : " << message << endl;
}
void loop(int threadID) {
string message;
while((message = take(nCharsPerPrint)).size() > 0) {
print(threadID, message);
}
}
};
void f(circularPrint &obj, int threadID)
{
obj.loop(threadID);
}
int main()
{
circularPrint obj;
//cout << "\nMessage : ";
//cin >> obj.message;
//cout << "\nChars : ";
//cin >> obj.nCharsPerPrint;
int nthreads;
//cout << "\nThreads : ";
//cin >> nthreads;
nthreads = 4;
obj.message = "123456789012345";
obj.nCharsPerPrint = 2;
vector<thread> threads;
for (int count = 1; count <= nthreads; ++count)
threads.push_back(thread(f, ref(obj), count));
for (int count = 0; count < nthreads; ++count) {
if (threads[count].joinable())
threads[count].join();
}
return 0;
}
Currently each thread exits after printing one message - but you need more messages than threads, so each thread will need to do more than one message.
How about putting an infinite loop around your current locked section, and breaking out when there are no characters left to print?
(You may then find that the first thread does all the work; you can hack that by putting a zero-length sleep outside the locked section, or by making all the threads wait for some single signal to start, or just live with it.)
EDIT: Hadn't properly realised that you wanted to assign work to specific threads (which is normally a really bad idea). But if each thread knows its ID, and how many there are, it can figure out which characters it is supposed to print. Then all it has to do is wait till all the preceding characters have been printed (which it can tell using pos), do its work, then repeat until it has no work left to do and exit.
The only tricky bit is waiting for the preceding work to finish. You can do that with a busy wait (bad), a busy wait with a sleep in it (also bad), or a condition variable (better).
You need inter thread synchronization, each thread doing a loop "print, send a message to next one, wait for a message (from the last thread)".
You can use semaphores, events, messages or something similar.
Something as:
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <thread>
#include <unistd.h>
using namespace std;
// Parameters passed to a thread.
struct ThreadParameters {
string message; // to print.
volatile bool *exit; // set when the thread should exit.
condition_variable* input; // condition to wait before printing.
condition_variable* output; // condition to set after printing.
};
class CircularPrint {
public:
CircularPrint(int nb_threads) {
nb_threads_ = nb_threads;
condition_variables_ = new condition_variable[nb_threads];
thread_parameters_ = new ThreadParameters[nb_threads];
threads_ = new thread*[nb_threads];
exit_ = false;
for (int i = 0; i < nb_threads; ++i) {
thread_parameters_[i].message = to_string(i + 1);
thread_parameters_[i].exit = &exit_;
// Wait 'your' condition
thread_parameters_[i].input = &condition_variables_[i];
// Then set next one (of first one if you are the last).
thread_parameters_[i].output =
&condition_variables_[(i + 1) % nb_threads];
threads_[i] = new thread(Thread, &thread_parameters_[i]);
}
// Start the dance, free the first thread.
condition_variables_[0].notify_all();
}
~CircularPrint() {
// Ask threads to exit.
exit_ = true;
// Wait for all threads to end.
for (int i = 0; i < nb_threads_; ++i) {
threads_[i]->join();
delete threads_[i];
}
delete[] condition_variables_;
delete[] thread_parameters_;
delete[] threads_;
}
static void Thread(ThreadParameters* params) {
for (;;) {
if (*params->exit) {
return;
}
{
// Wait the mutex. We don't really care, by condition variables
// need a mutex.
// Though the mutex will be useful for the real assignement.
unique_lock<mutex> lock(mutex_);
// Wait for the input condition variable (frees the mutex before waiting).
params->input->wait(lock);
}
cout << params->message << endl;
// Free next thread.
params->output->notify_all();
}
}
private:
int nb_threads_;
condition_variable* condition_variables_;
ThreadParameters* thread_parameters_;
thread** threads_;
bool exit_;
static mutex mutex_;
};
mutex CircularPrint::mutex_;
int main() {
CircularPrint printer(10);
sleep(3);
return 0;
}
using vector<shared_ptr<...>> would be more elegant than just arrays, though this works:
g++ -std=c++11 -o test test.cc -pthread -Wl,--no-as-needed
./test

C++ Syncing threads in most elegant way

I am try to solve the following problem, I know there are multiple solutions but I'm looking for the most elegant way (less code) to solve it.
I've 4 threads, 3 of them try to write a unique value (0,1,or 2) to a volatile integer variable in an infinite loop, the forth thread try to read the value of this variable and print the value to the stdout also in an infinite loop.
I'd like to sync between the thread so the thread that writes 0 will be run and then the "print" thread and then the thread that writes 1 and then again the print thread, an so on...
So that finally what I expect to see at the output of the "print" thread is a sequence of zeros and then sequence of 1 and then 2 and then 0 and so on...
What is the most elegant and easy way to sync between these threads.
This is the program code:
volatile int value;
int thid[4];
int main() {
HANDLE handle[4];
for (int ii=0;ii<4;ii++) {
thid[ii]=ii;
handle[ii] = (HANDLE) CreateThread( NULL, 0, (LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE) ThreadProc, &thid[ii], 0, NULL);
}
return 0;
}
void WINAPI ThreadProc( LPVOID param ) {
int h=*((int*)param);
switch (h) {
case 3:
while(true) {
cout << value << endl;
}
break;
default:
while(true) {
// setting a unique value to the volatile variable
value=h;
}
break;
}
}
your problem can be solved with the producer consumer pattern.
I got inspired from Wikipedia so here is the link if you want some more details.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producer%E2%80%93consumer_problem
I used a random number generator to generate the volatile variable but you can change that part.
Here is the code: it can be improved in terms of style (using C++11 for random numbers) but it produces what you expect.
#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
#include <vector>
#include <stack>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <atomic>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <chrono>
#include <stdlib.h> /* srand, rand */
using namespace std;
//random number generation
std::mutex mutRand;//mutex for random number generation (given that the random generator is not thread safe).
int GenerateNumber()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lk(mutRand);
return rand() % 3;
}
// print function for "thread safe" printing using a stringstream
void print(ostream& s) { cout << s.rdbuf(); cout.flush(); s.clear(); }
// Constants
//
const int num_producers = 3; //the three producers of random numbers
const int num_consumers = 1; //the only consumer
const int producer_delay_to_produce = 10; // in miliseconds
const int consumer_delay_to_consume = 30; // in miliseconds
const int consumer_max_wait_time = 200; // in miliseconds - max time that a consumer can wait for a product to be produced.
const int max_production = 1; // When producers has produced this quantity they will stop to produce
const int max_products = 1; // Maximum number of products that can be stored
//
// Variables
//
atomic<int> num_producers_working(0); // When there's no producer working the consumers will stop, and the program will stop.
stack<int> products; // The products stack, here we will store our products
mutex xmutex; // Our mutex, without this mutex our program will cry
condition_variable is_not_full; // to indicate that our stack is not full between the thread operations
condition_variable is_not_empty; // to indicate that our stack is not empty between the thread operations
//
// Functions
//
// Produce function, producer_id will produce a product
void produce(int producer_id)
{
while (true)
{
unique_lock<mutex> lock(xmutex);
int product;
is_not_full.wait(lock, [] { return products.size() != max_products; });
product = GenerateNumber();
products.push(product);
print(stringstream() << "Producer " << producer_id << " produced " << product << "\n");
is_not_empty.notify_all();
}
}
// Consume function, consumer_id will consume a product
void consume(int consumer_id)
{
while (true)
{
unique_lock<mutex> lock(xmutex);
int product;
if(is_not_empty.wait_for(lock, chrono::milliseconds(consumer_max_wait_time),
[] { return products.size() > 0; }))
{
product = products.top();
products.pop();
print(stringstream() << "Consumer " << consumer_id << " consumed " << product << "\n");
is_not_full.notify_all();
}
}
}
// Producer function, this is the body of a producer thread
void producer(int id)
{
++num_producers_working;
for(int i = 0; i < max_production; ++i)
{
produce(id);
this_thread::sleep_for(chrono::milliseconds(producer_delay_to_produce));
}
print(stringstream() << "Producer " << id << " has exited\n");
--num_producers_working;
}
// Consumer function, this is the body of a consumer thread
void consumer(int id)
{
// Wait until there is any producer working
while(num_producers_working == 0) this_thread::yield();
while(num_producers_working != 0 || products.size() > 0)
{
consume(id);
this_thread::sleep_for(chrono::milliseconds(consumer_delay_to_consume));
}
print(stringstream() << "Consumer " << id << " has exited\n");
}
//
// Main
//
int main()
{
vector<thread> producers_and_consumers;
// Create producers
for(int i = 0; i < num_producers; ++i)
producers_and_consumers.push_back(thread(producer, i));
// Create consumers
for(int i = 0; i < num_consumers; ++i)
producers_and_consumers.push_back(thread(consumer, i));
// Wait for consumers and producers to finish
for(auto& t : producers_and_consumers)
t.join();
return 0;
}
Hope that helps, tell me if you need more info or if you disagree with something :-)
And Good Bastille Day to all French people!
If you want to synchronise the threads, then using a sync object to hold each of the threads in a "ping-pong" or "tick-tock" pattern.
In C++ 11 you can use condition variables, the example here shows something similar to what you are asking for.