Queued thread notification - c++

That you can imagine my problem i describe the usage of my design:
In the class SerialInterface there is a thread that is checking every 10ms if a message is received. The class is implemented as an Observer pattern to notify other classes about the new received message/byte.
The Notify method of the Observer pattern is blocking until every subject has done its operation. Because i want to avoid any lags, I would like to notify the subjects asynchronously.
My first thought were events (condition variables in C++11).
The implementation would look like this:
class SerialInterface: public Observer {
private:
.....
void NotifyThread() {
while (mRunThreadNotify) {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mMutex);
mCv.wait(lock);
NotifyObservers();
}
}
std::mutex mMutex;
std::condition_variable mCv;
std::atomic_bool mRunThreadNotify;
std::thread mThreadNotify;
.....
};
Now i can notify asynchronously via mCv.notify_all();
The problem now is following:
What if the thread NotifyThread() is currently notifying the subjects, but theres a new notify event incoming at the same time. It would complete the current notification and the new state would be skipped.
So my second approach was to create a counter for notifications and let it act like a queue:
class SerialInterface: public Observer {
public:
....
private:
.....
void NotifyThread() {
while (mRunThreadNotify) {
if (mNotifications > 0) {
NotifyObservers();
mNotifications--;
} else {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(10));
}
}
}
std::atomic<size_t> mNotifications;
std::atomic_bool mRunThreadNotify;
std::thread mThreadNotify;
.....
};
Here i have to increase the variable mNotifications to notify the subjects. But for me this solution looks not perfect as i use std::this_thread::sleep_for for a fixed waiting time.
Are there any suggestions or another approaches for this problem?

It seems to me that you want to separate the real-time behavior (10mS serial poll) from the rest of the program so that the real-time thread will never be held off waiting for any other routines. Given that, my suggestion would be to split the pattern into two parts:
The real-time part, which does nothing but receive incoming serial data and append it to the end of a FIFO queue (in a thread-safe manner, of course).
The non-real-time part (running in a different thread), in which data is popped from the head of the FIFO queue and handed around to all of the software components that want to react to it. This part can be as fast or as slow as it likes, since it will not hold up the real-time thread.
The FIFO queue part is a standard producer-consumer problem; there are various ways to implement it, but the way I usually do it is with a dequeue, a lock, and a condition variable (pseudocode):
// Called by the real-time/serial thread when it received serial data
void AppendBytesToQueue(const TheBytesObject & bytes)
{
bool wasQueueEmptyBefore;
m_lock.lock();
wasQueueEmptyBefore = (m_fifo.size() == 0);
m_fifo.push_back(bytes);
m_lock.unlock();
if (wasQueueEmptyBefore) m_condition_variable.signal();
}
// Called by the non-real-time/handling thread after it was
// woken up by the condition variable's signal (outQueue should
// be a reference to an empty dequeue that gets filled by this
// method)
void GetNewBytesFromQueue(std::dequeue & outQueue)
{
m_lock.lock();
std::swap(m_fifo, outQueue); // fast O(1) operation so m_lock() will never be locked for long
m_lock.unlock();
}
... and then after calling GetNewBytesFromQueue(), the handling/non-real-time thread can iterate over the contents of its temporary dequeue and deal with each item in order, without any risk of affecting the serial thread's performance.

When a notification is received, you can check whether your requirements have been met at that time.
Meeting the requirement can be specified as a predicate in the second argument to the wait().
mCvNotifications.wait(lock, [](){return true_if_requirements_met;});
If the requirement has not been met, thread will stay in the wait stage despite the notification.

Related

Using a C++ std::vector as a queue in a thread

I would like to have items added to a queue in one thread via in an asynchronous web request handler:
void handleRequest(item) {
toProcess.push_back(item);
}
There is a background thread that constantly processes these queue items as follows:
while(true) {
for(auto item : toProcess) { doSomething(item); }
toProcess.clear();
}
Clearly this isn't thread safe ... you might add an item to toProcess right when the for loop finishes and thus have it cleared out without being processed. What would be the best model to program something like this?
I'm going to use std::atomic<T>::wait which is a C++20 feature, there is a way to do it with condition variables too however, and they exist since C++11.
Include <atomic> and <mutex>
You will need a member atomic_bool.
std::atomic_bool RequestPassed = false;
and a member mutex
std::mutex RequestHandleMutex;
Your handleRequest function would then become
void handleRequest(item) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lg(RequestHandleMutex)
toProcess.push_back(item);
RequestPassed.store(true);
RequestPassed.notify_all();
}
and your loop would be this
while(true) {
RequestPassed.wait(false);
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lg(RequestHandleMutex)
/* handle latest item passed */
RequestPassed.store(false);
}
This way, the while thread waits instead of constantly iterating (saving cpu power and battery). If you then use handleRequest, the atomic_bool gets notified to stop waiting, the request is handled (mutex is locked so no new requests can come while this happens), RequestPassed is reset to false, and the thread waits for the next request.

And odd use of conditional variable with local mutex

Poring through legacy code of old and large project, I had found that there was used some odd method of creating thread-safe queue, something like this:
template < typename _Msg>
class WaitQue: public QWaitCondition
{
public:
typedef _Msg DataType;
void wakeOne(const DataType& msg)
{
QMutexLocker lock_(&mx);
que.push(msg);
QWaitCondition::wakeOne();
}
void wait(DataType& msg)
{
/// wait if empty.
{
QMutex wx; // WHAT?
QMutexLocker cvlock_(&wx);
if (que.empty())
QWaitCondition::wait(&wx);
}
{
QMutexLocker _wlock(&mx);
msg = que.front();
que.pop();
}
}
unsigned long size() {
QMutexLocker lock_(&mx);
return que.size();
}
private:
std::queue<DataType> que;
QMutex mx;
};
wakeOne is used from threads as kind of "posting" function" and wait is called from other threads and waits indefinitely until a message appears in queue. In some cases roles between threads reverse at different stages and using separate queues.
Is this even legal way to use a QMutex by creating local one? I kind of understand why someone could do that to dodge deadlock while reading size of que but how it even works? Is there a simpler and more idiomatic way to achieve this behavior?
Its legal to have a local condition variable. But it normally makes no sense.
As you've worked out in this case is wrong. You should be using the member:
void wait(DataType& msg)
{
QMutexLocker cvlock_(&mx);
while (que.empty())
QWaitCondition::wait(&mx);
msg = que.front();
que.pop();
}
Notice also that you must have while instead of if around the call to QWaitCondition::wait. This is for complex reasons about (possible) spurious wake up - the Qt docs aren't clear here. But more importantly the fact that the wake and the subsequent reacquire of the mutex is not an atomic operation means you must recheck the variable queue for emptiness. It could be this last case where you previously were getting deadlocks/UB.
Consider the scenario of an empty queue and a caller (thread 1) to wait into QWaitCondition::wait. This thread blocks. Then thread 2 comes along and adds an item to the queue and calls wakeOne. Thread 1 gets woken up and tries to reacquire the mutex. However, thread 3 comes along in your implementation of wait, takes the mutex before thread 1, sees the queue isn't empty, processes the single item and moves on, releasing the mutex. Then thread 1 which has been woken up finally acquires the mutex, returns from QWaitCondition::wait and tries to process... an empty queue. Yikes.

Is this implementation of inter-process Producer Consumer correct and safe against process crash?

I am developing a message queue between two processes on Windows.
I would like to support multiple producers and one consumer.
The queue must not be corrupted by the crash of one of the processes, that is, the other processes are not effected by the crash, and when the crashed process is restarted it can continue communication (with the new, updated state).
Assume that the event objects in these snippets are wrappers for named Windows Auto Reset Events and mutex objects are wrappers for named Windows mutex (I used the C++ non-interprocess mutex type as a placeholder).
This is the producer side:
void producer()
{
for (;;)
{
// Multiple producers modify _writeOffset so must be given exclusive access
unique_lock<mutex> excludeProducers(_producerMutex);
// A snapshot of the readOffset is sufficient because we use _notFullEvent.
long readOffset = InterlockedCompareExchange(&_readOffset, 0, 0);
// while is required because _notFullEvent.Wait might return because it was abandoned
while (IsFull(readOffset, _writeOffset))
{
_notFullEvent.Wait(INFINITE);
readOffset = InterlockedCompareExchange(&_readOffset, 0, 0);
}
// use a mutex to protect the resource from the consumer
{
unique_lock<mutex> lockResource(_resourceMutex);
produce(_writeOffset);
}
// update the state
InterlockedExchange(&_writeOffset, IncrementOffset(_writeOffset));
_notEmptyEvent.Set();
}
}
Similarly, this is the consumer side:
void consumer()
{
for (;;)
{
long writeOffset = InterlockedCompareExchange(&_writeOffset, 0, 0);
while (IsEmpty(_readOffset, writeOffset))
{
_notEmptyEvent.Wait(INFINITE);
writeOffset = InterlockedCompareExchange(&_writeOffset, 0, 0);
}
{
unique_lock<mutex> lockResource(_resourceMutex);
consume(_readOffset);
}
InterlockedExchange(&_readOffset, IncrementOffset(_readOffset));
_notFullEvent.Set();
}
}
Are there any race conditions in this implementation?
Is it indeed protected against crashes as required?
P.S. The queue meets the requirements if the state of the queue is protected. If the crash occurred within the process(i) or consume(i) the contents of those slots might be corrupted and other means will be used to detect and maybe even correct corruption of those. Those means are out of the scope of this question.
There is indeed a race condition in this implementation.
Thank you #VTT for pointing it out.
#VTT wrote that if the producer dies right before _notEmptyEvent.Set(); then consumer may get stuck forever.
Well, maybe not forever, because when the producer is resumed it will add an item and wake up the consumer again. But the state has indeed been corrupted. If, for instance this happens QUEUE_SIZE times, the producer will see that the queue is full (IsFull() will return true) and it will wait. This is a deadlock.
I am considering the following solution to this, adding the commented code on the producer side. A similar addition should be made on the consumer side:
void producer()
{
for (;;)
{
// Multiple producers modify _writeOffset so must be given exclusive access
unique_lock<mutex> excludeProducers(_producerMutex);
// A snapshot of the readOffset is sufficient because we use _notFullEvent.
long readOffset = InterlockedCompareExchange(&_readOffset, 0, 0);
// ====================== Added begin
if (!IsEmpty(readOffset, _writeOffset))
{
_notEmptyEvent.Set();
}
// ======================= end Added
// while is required because _notFullEvent.Wait might return because it was abandoned
while (IsFull(readOffset, _writeOffset))
This will cause the producer to wake up the consumer whenever it gets the chance to run, if indeed the queue is now not empty.
This is looking more like a solution based on condition variables, which would have been my preferred pattern, were it not for the unfortunate fact that on Windows, condition variables are not named and therefore cannot be shared between processes.
If this solution is voted correct, I will edit the original post with the complete code.
So there are a few problems with the code posted in the question:
As already noted, there's a marginal race condition; if the queue were to become full, and all the active producers crashed before setting _notFullEvent, your code would deadlock. Your answer correctly resolves that problem by setting the event at the start of the loop rather than the end.
You're over-locking; there's typically little point in having multiple producers if only one of them is going to be producing at a time. This prohibits writing directly into shared memory, you'll need a local cache. (It isn't impossible to have multiple producers writing directly into different slots in the shared memory, but it would make robustness much more difficult to achieve.)
Similarly, you typically need to be able to produce and consume simultaneously, and your code doesn't allow this.
Here's how I'd do it, using a single mutex (shared by both consumer and producer threads) and two auto-reset event objects.
void consumer(void)
{
claim_mutex();
for (;;)
{
if (!IsFull(*read_offset, *write_offset))
{
// Queue is not full, make sure at least one producer is awake
SetEvent(notFullEvent);
}
while (IsEmpty(*read_offset, *write_offset))
{
// Queue is empty, wait for producer to add a message
release_mutex();
WaitForSingleObject(notEmptyEvent, INFINITE);
claim_mutex();
}
release_mutex();
consume(*read_offset);
claim_mutex();
*read_offset = IncrementOffset(*read_offset);
}
}
void producer(void)
{
claim_mutex();
for (;;)
{
if (!IsEmpty(*read_offset, *write_offset))
{
// Queue is not empty, make sure consumer is awake
SetEvent(notEmptyEvent);
}
if (!IsFull(*read_offset, *write_offset))
{
// Queue is not full, make sure at least one other producer is awake
SetEvent(notFullEvent);
}
release_mutex();
produce_in_local_cache();
claim_mutex();
while (IsFull(*read_offset, *write_offset))
{
// Queue is full, wait for consumer to remove a message
release_mutex();
WaitForSingleObject(notFullEvent, INFINITE);
claim_mutex();
}
copy_from_local_cache_to_shared_memory(*write_offset);
*write_offset = IncrementOffset(*write_offset);
}
}

Condition variables and lockfree container

Conditional variables use a mutex and the .wait() function unlocks the
mutex so another thread can access the shared data. When the condition
variable is notified it tries to lock the mutex again to use the shared
data.
This pattern is used in the following concurrent_queue example from Anthony Williams:
template<typename Data>
class concurrent_queue
{
private:
boost::condition_variable the_condition_variable;
public:
void wait_for_data()
{
boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(the_mutex);
while(the_queue.empty())
{
the_condition_variable.wait(lock);
}
}
void push(Data const& data)
{
boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(the_mutex);
bool const was_empty=the_queue.empty();
the_queue.push(data);
if(was_empty)
{
the_condition_variable.notify_one();
}
}
};
Since the code uses std::queue it's clear that the mutex has to be
locked when accessing the queue.
But let's say instead of std::queue one uses Microsofts
Concurrency::concurrent_queue from PPL. Member functions like empty,
push and try_pop are thread safe. Do I still need to lock a mutex in
this case or can the condition variable be used like this, without
creating any possible race conditions.
My code (that seems to work, but what does that mean in multithreading?) looks like this. I have one producer that pushes items into Microsofts concurrent_queue and one background thread that waits for new items in this queue.
The consumer/background thread:
while(runFlag) //atomic
{
while(the_queue.empty() && runFlag) //wait only when thread should still run
{
boost::mutex mtx; //local mutex thats locked afterwards. awkward.
boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(mtx);
condition.wait(lock);
}
Data d;
while(!the_queue.empty() && the_queue.try_pop(d))
{
//process data
}
}
The producer/main thread:
const bool was_empty = the_queue.empty();
Data d;
the_queue.push(d);
if(was_empty) cond_var.notify_one();
The shutdown procedure:
bool expected_run_state = true;
if(runLoop.compare_exchange_strong(expected_run_state, false))
{
//atomically set our loop flag to false and
//notify all clients of the queue to wake up and exit
cond_var.notify_all();
}
As said above this code seems to work but that doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. Especially the local mutex that is only used because the condition variable interface forces me to use a mutex, seems like a very bad idea. I wanted to use condition variables since the time between data items added to the queue hard to predict and I would have to create to sleep and wake up periodically like this:
if(the_queue.empty()) Sleep(short_amount_of_time);
Are there any other, maybe OS (in my case: Windows) specific tools, that make a background thread sleep until some condition is met without regularly waking up and checking the condition?
The code is not correct in different scenarios, for example. If the queue has a single element when const bool was_empty = the_queue.empty(); is evaluated, but a thread consumes the element and a different thread tries to consume and waits on the condition, the writer will not notify that thread after inserting the element in the queue.
The key issue is that the fact that all of the operations in an interface are thread safe does not necessarily mean that your use of the interface is safe. If you depend on multiple operations being performed atomically, you need to provide synchronization mechanisms externally.
Are there any other, maybe OS (in my case: Windows) specific tools,
that make a background thread sleep until some condition is met
without regularly waking up and checking the condition?
This is exactly what Events are for
But if you are targeting only Windows platform (Vista+) you should check out
Slim Reader/Writer (SRW) Locks

C++ multithreading, simple consumer / producer threads, LIFO, notification, counter

I am new to multi-thread programming, I want to implement the following functionality.
There are 2 threads, producer and consumer.
Consumer only processes the latest value, i.e., last in first out (LIFO).
Producer sometimes generates new value at a faster rate than consumer can
process. For example, producer may generate 2 new value in 1
milli-second, but it approximately takes consumer 5 milli-seconds to process.
If consumer receives a new value in the middle of processing an old
value, there is no need to interrupt. In other words, consumer will finish current
execution first, then start an execution on the latest value.
Here is my design process, please correct me if I am wrong.
There is no need for a queue, since only the latest value is
processed by consumer.
Is notification sent from producer being queued automatically???
I will use a counter instead.
ConsumerThread() check the counter at the end, to make sure producer
doesn't generate new value.
But what happen if producer generates a new value just before consumer
goes to sleep(), but after check the counter???
Here is some pseudo code.
boost::mutex mutex;
double x;
void ProducerThread()
{
{
boost::scoped_lock lock(mutex);
x = rand();
counter++;
}
notify(); // wake up consumer thread
}
void ConsumerThread()
{
counter = 0; // reset counter, only process the latest value
... do something which takes 5 milli-seconds ...
if (counter > 0)
{
... execute this function again, not too sure how to implement this ...
}
else
{
... what happen if producer generates a new value here??? ...
sleep();
}
}
Thanks.
If I understood your question correctly, for your particular application, the consumer only needs to process the latest available value provided by the producer. In other words, it's acceptable for values to get dropped because the consumer cannot keep up with the producer.
If that's the case, then I agree that you can get away without a queue and use a counter. However, the shared counter and value variables will be need to be accessed atomically.
You can use boost::condition_variable to signal notifications to the consumer that a new value is ready. Here is a complete example; I'll let the comments do the explaining.
#include <boost/thread/thread.hpp>
#include <boost/thread/mutex.hpp>
#include <boost/thread/condition_variable.hpp>
#include <boost/thread/locks.hpp>
#include <boost/date_time/posix_time/posix_time_types.hpp>
boost::mutex mutex;
boost::condition_variable condvar;
typedef boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LockType;
// Variables that are shared between producer and consumer.
double value = 0;
int count = 0;
void producer()
{
while (true)
{
{
// value and counter must both be updated atomically
// using a mutex lock
LockType lock(mutex);
value = std::rand();
++count;
// Notify the consumer that a new value is ready.
condvar.notify_one();
}
// Simulate exaggerated 2ms delay
boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(200));
}
}
void consumer()
{
// Local copies of 'count' and 'value' variables. We want to do the
// work using local copies so that they don't get clobbered by
// the producer when it updates.
int currentCount = 0;
double currentValue = 0;
while (true)
{
{
// Acquire the mutex before accessing 'count' and 'value' variables.
LockType lock(mutex); // mutex is locked while in this scope
while (count == currentCount)
{
// Wait for producer to signal that there is a new value.
// While we are waiting, Boost releases the mutex so that
// other threads may acquire it.
condvar.wait(lock);
}
// `lock` is automatically re-acquired when we come out of
// condvar.wait(lock). So it's safe to access the 'value'
// variable at this point.
currentValue = value; // Grab a copy of the latest value
// while we hold the lock.
}
// Now that we are out of the mutex lock scope, we work with our
// local copy of `value`. The producer can keep on clobbering the
// 'value' variable all it wants, but it won't affect us here
// because we are now using `currentValue`.
std::cout << "value = " << currentValue << "\n";
// Simulate exaggerated 5ms delay
boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(500));
}
}
int main()
{
boost::thread c(&consumer);
boost::thread p(&producer);
c.join();
p.join();
}
ADDENDUM
I was thinking about this question recently, and realized that this solution, while it may work, is not optimal. Your producer is using all that CPU just to throw away half of the computed values.
I suggest that you reconsider your design and go with a bounded blocking queue between the producer and consumer. Such a queue should have the following characteristics:
Thread-safe
The queue has a fixed size (bounded)
If the consumer wants to pop the next item, but the queue is empty, the operation will be blocked until notified by the producer that an item is available.
The producer can check if there's room to push another item and block until the space becomes available.
With this type of queue, you can effectively throttle down the producer so that it doesn't outpace the consumer. It also ensures that the producer doesn't waste CPU resources computing values that will be thrown away.
Libraries such as TBB and PPL provide implementations of concurrent queues. If you want to attempt to roll your own using std::queue (or boost::circular_buffer) and boost::condition_variable, check out this blogger's example.
The short answer is that you're almost certainly wrong.
With a producer/consumer, you pretty much need a queue between the two threads. There are basically two alternatives: either your code won't will simply lose tasks (which usually equals not working at all) or else your producer thread will need to block for the consumer thread to be idle before it can produce an item -- which effectively translates to single threading.
For the moment, I'm going to assume that the value you get back from rand is supposed to represent the task to be executed (i.e., is the value produced by the producer and consumed by the consumer). In that case, I'd write the code something like this:
void producer() {
for (int i=0; i<100; i++)
queue.insert(random()); // queue.insert blocks if queue is full
queue.insert(-1.0); // Tell consumer to exit
}
void consumer() {
double value;
while ((value = queue.get()) != -1) // queue.get blocks if queue is empty
process(value);
}
This, relegates nearly all the interlocking to the queue. The rest of the code for both threads pretty much ignores threading issues entirely.
Implementing a pipeline is actually quite tricky if you are doing it ground-up. For example, you'd have to use condition variable to avoid the kind of race condition you described in your question, avoid busy waiting when implementing the mechanism for "waking up" the consumer etc... Even using a "queue" of just 1 element won't save you from some of these complexities.
It's usually much better to use specialized libraries that were developed and extensively tested specifically for this purpose. If you can live with Visual C++ specific solution, take a look at Parallel Patterns Library, and the concept of Pipelines.