I have std::thread which listens for netlink events from the Linux kernel, It has an infinite while loop and a blocking function which blocks until the next event. I want to stop the thread forcefully in the program workflow when I don't need that anymore.
Here is my current solution:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <signal.h>
void thread_func() {
while(true) {
std::cout << "Processing events.." << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(10)); // simulating a blocking function that blocks until next events
std::cout << "Events received.." << std::endl;
}
}
int main() {
std::thread eventListener(thread_func);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(3)); // doing some work in main thread
pthread_cancel(eventListener.native_handle()); // I don't want the eventListener anymore
eventListener.join();
std::cout << "eventListener killed" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
My program only compiles to the Linux platform.
It's the actual blocking function from libnl nl_recvmsgs_default(nl_sock* sock)
Questions:
Is it the correct way of doing it in C++? or I'm missing some minor details here?
Is there any other better way of achieving this?
if I change the above code to kill the thread by pthread_kill instead of pthread_cancel then I don't see the print "eventListener killed" in output, I don't know why?
Update:
Setting a flag is not working for me, as I don't even know how long the function will get blocked, if I don't receive any new events from the kernel then the function never gets resumed and in that case, I just need to wait after setting the flag to true (until the next iteration of while loop on new netlink event from the kernel).
Redesign so your thread doesn't use blocking operations.
Netlink is implemented as socket I/O, so you can nl_socket_set_nonblocking and then use "interruptible" I/O multiplexing like poll or select to wait for activity.
Add a humble pipe, so that your looping thread is input-multiplexing on both the netlink socket and the read end of the pipe. When it is time to end the loop, have some other thread close the write end — the read end will immediately present as readable (for EOF) and your looping thread will know its work is done.
You can prototype this approach with a simple multithreaded program that blocks on stdin, for example, rather than a netlink socket.
I just read the doc about std::thread.detach() in C++11.
Here is my test:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
static int counter = 0;
void func()
{
while (true) {
std::cout<<"running..."<<std::endl;
std::cout<<counter++<<std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
}
}
int main()
{
{
std::thread t(func);
t.detach();
} // t is released after this line
// t has died, so who is holding the resources of the detached thread???
std::cin.get();
return 0;
}
This code works as expected. So it seems that the thread can keep running even if its destructor has been invoked. Is this true?
If it's true, who on earth holds the resources of the thread after the object t is released? Is there some mechanism to hold the resources, for example, a hidden anonymous object?
In C++, std::thread does not manage the thread of execution itself. C++ does not have controls for managing the thread of execution at all.
std::thread manages the thread handle - the identifier of a thread (thread_t in Posix world, which was largely a model for std::thread). Such identifier is used to communicate (as in control) with the thread, but in C++, the only standard way of communication would be to join the thread (which is simply waiting for thread's completion) or detaching from it.
When std::thread destructor is called, the thread handle is also destructed, and no further controlling of the thread is possible. But the thread of execution itself remains and continues being managed by implementation (or, more precisely, operation system).
Please note, for non-detached threads std::threads destructors throws an exception if the thread has not been joined. This is simply a safeguard against developers accidentally loosing the thread handle when they didn't intend to.
You are correct that the thread keeps running if detached after the thread's destructor.
No one on earth hold the resources (unless you make arrangements for someone to). However when your application exits, the application shutdown process will end the thread.
One can still arrange to communicate with and "wait" for a detached thread. In essence, join() is a convenience API so that you don't have to do something like this:
#include <atomic>
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
static int counter = 0;
std::atomic<bool> time_to_quit{false};
std::atomic<bool> has_quit{false};
void func()
{
while (!time_to_quit) {
std::cout<<"running..."<<std::endl;
std::cout<<counter++<<std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
}
has_quit = true;
}
int main()
{
{
std::thread t(func);
t.detach();
} // t is released after this line
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(3s);
time_to_quit = true;
while (!has_quit)
;
std::cout << "orderly shutdown\n";
}
Threads of executions exist independently from the thread objects that you use to manage them in C++. When you detach a thread object, the thread of execution continues running, but the implementation (usually in combination with the Operating System) is responsible for it.
I was going through this post on stack overflow in which the accepted answer says:
what happens to a detached thread when main() exits is:
It continues running (because the standard doesn't say it is stopped), and that's well-defined, as long as it touches neither (automatic|thread_local) variables of other threads nor static objects.
While in this post the accepted answer says that:
Process terminates when main() exits, and all threads are killed.
To see the behavior, I tested below code on g++ (Ubuntu 4.8.4-2ubuntu1~14.04.3) 4.8.4 which suggests that once the main thread exit other detach thread also exit.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <fstream>
using namespace std;
void foo()
{
std::cout<<"Inside foo\n";
int i=0;
ofstream myfile;
while(i<10)
{
std::cout<<"Inside while\n";
myfile.open ("/home/abc/example.txt",ios::app);
myfile << "Writing this to a file.\n";
myfile.close();
i++;
sleep(1);
}}
int main()
{
std::thread first (foo);
first.detach();
sleep(5);
return 0;
}
So why in many posts here on stack overflow suggests that detach thread continues running in background even if main thread exit? In what condition the detach thread continues to run in background when main exit and which one of the above statement is true?
Thanks in advance.
The standard defines the scope of thread as being the program:
1.10/1: A thread of execution (also known as a thread) is a single flow of control within a program (...) The execution of the entire program consists of an execution of all of its threads.
The standard says about detached threads:
30.3.3/1: A thread of execution is detached when no thread object represents that thread.
So there's nothing in the standard that suggests hat a thread could survive its program.
If you want to keep something running in background after the end of the program, you have to fork or create a separate process that will run in the background with its own resources and threads.
I'm trying to get a hold on pthreads. I see some people also have unexpected pthread behavior, but none of the questions seemed to be answered.
The following piece of code should create two threads, one which relies on the other. I read that each thread will create variables within their stack (can't be shared between threads) and using a global pointer is a way to have threads share a value. One thread should print it's current iteration, while another thread sleeps for 10 seconds. Ultimately one would expect 10 iterations. Using break points, it seems the script just dies at
while (*pointham != "cheese"){
It could also be I'm not properly utilizing code blocks debug functionality. Any pointers (har har har) would be helpful.
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
string hamburger = "null";
string * pointham = &hamburger;
void *wait(void *)
{
int i {0};
while (*pointham != "cheese"){
sleep (1);
i++;
cout << "Waiting on that cheese " << i;
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
void *cheese(void *)
{
cout << "Bout to sleep then get that cheese";
sleep (10);
*pointham = "cheese";
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main()
{
pthread_t threads[2];
pthread_create(&threads[0], NULL, cheese, NULL);
pthread_create(&threads[1], NULL, wait, NULL);
return 0;
}
The problem is that you start your threads, then exit the process (thereby killing your threads). You have to wait for your threads to exit, preferably with the pthread_join function.
If you don't want to have to join all your threads, you can call pthread_exit() in the main thread instead of returning from main().
But note the BUGS section from the manpage:
Currently, there are limitations in the kernel implementation logic for
wait(2)ing on a stopped thread group with a dead thread group leader.
This can manifest in problems such as a locked terminal if a stop sig‐
nal is sent to a foreground process whose thread group leader has
already called pthread_exit().
According to this tutorial:
If main() finishes before the threads it has created, and exits with pthread_exit(), the other threads will continue to execute. Otherwise, they will be automatically terminated when main() finishes.
So, you shouldn't end the main function with the statement return 0;. But you should use pthread_exit(NULL); instead.
If this doesn't work with you, you may need to learn about joining threads here.
recently I set out to port ucos-ii to Ubuntu PC.
As we know, it's not possible to simulate the "process" in the ucos-ii by simply adding a flag in "while" loop in the pthread's call-back function to perform pause and resume(like the solution below). Because the "process" in ucos-ii can be paused or resumed at any time!
How to sleep or pause a PThread in c on Linux
I have found one solution on the web-site below, but it can't be built because it's out of date. It uses the process in Linux to simulate the task(acts like the process in our Linux) in ucos-ii.
http://www2.hs-esslingen.de/~zimmerma/software/index_uk.html
If pthread can act like the process which can be paused and resumed at any time, please tell me some related functions, I can figure it out myself. If it can't, I think I should focus on the older solution. Thanks a lot.
The Modula-3 garbage collector needs to suspend pthreads at an arbitrary time, not just when they are waiting on a condition variable or mutex. It does it by registering a (Unix) signal handler that suspends the thread and then using pthread_kill to send a signal to the target thread. I think it works (it has been reliable for others but I'm debugging an issue with it right now...) It's a bit kludgy, though....
Google for ThreadPThread.m3 and look at the routines "StopWorld" and "StartWorld". Handler itself is in ThreadPThreadC.c.
If stopping at specific points with a condition variable is insufficient, then you can't do this with pthreads. The pthread interface does not include suspend/resume functionality.
See, for example, answer E.4 here:
The POSIX standard provides no mechanism by which a thread A can suspend the execution of another thread B, without cooperation from B. The only way to implement a suspend/restart mechanism is to have B check periodically some global variable for a suspend request and then suspend itself on a condition variable, which another thread can signal later to restart B.
That FAQ answer goes on to describe a couple of non-standard ways of doing it, one in Solaris and one in LinuxThreads (which is now obsolete; do not confuse it with current threading on Linux); neither of those apply to your situation.
On Linux you can probably setup custom signal handler (eg. using signal()) that will contain wait for another signal (eg. using sigsuspend()). You then send the signals using pthread_kill() or tgkill(). It is important to use so-called "realtime signals" for this, because normal signals like SIGUSR1 and SIGUSR2 don't get queued, which means that they can get lost under high load conditions. You send a signal several times, but it gets received only once, because before while signal handler is running, new signals of the same kind are ignored. So if you have concurent threads doing PAUSE/RESUME , you can loose RESUME event and cause deadlock. On the other hand, the pending realtime signals (like SIGRTMIN+1 and SIGRTMIN+2) are not deduplicated, so there can be several same rt signals in queue at the same time.
DISCLAIMER: I had not tried this yet. But in theory it should work.
Also see man 7 signal-safety. There is a list of calls that you can safely call in signal handlers. Fortunately sigsuspend() seems to be one of them.
UPDATE: I have working code right here:
//Filename: pthread_pause.c
//Author: Tomas 'Harvie' Mudrunka 2021
//Build: CFLAGS=-lpthread make pthread_pause; ./pthread_pause
//Test: valgrind --tool=helgrind ./pthread_pause
//I've wrote this code as excercise to solve following stack overflow question:
// https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9397068/how-to-pause-a-pthread-any-time-i-want/68119116#68119116
#define _GNU_SOURCE //pthread_yield() needs this
#include <signal.h>
#include <pthread.h>
//#include <pthread_extra.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <sys/resource.h>
#include <time.h>
#define PTHREAD_XSIG_STOP (SIGRTMIN+0)
#define PTHREAD_XSIG_CONT (SIGRTMIN+1)
#define PTHREAD_XSIGRTMIN (SIGRTMIN+2) //First unused RT signal
pthread_t main_thread;
sem_t pthread_pause_sem;
pthread_once_t pthread_pause_once_ctrl = PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT;
void pthread_pause_once(void) {
sem_init(&pthread_pause_sem, 0, 1);
}
#define pthread_pause_init() (pthread_once(&pthread_pause_once_ctrl, &pthread_pause_once))
#define NSEC_PER_SEC (1000*1000*1000)
// timespec_normalise() from https://github.com/solemnwarning/timespec/
struct timespec timespec_normalise(struct timespec ts)
{
while(ts.tv_nsec >= NSEC_PER_SEC) {
++(ts.tv_sec); ts.tv_nsec -= NSEC_PER_SEC;
}
while(ts.tv_nsec <= -NSEC_PER_SEC) {
--(ts.tv_sec); ts.tv_nsec += NSEC_PER_SEC;
}
if(ts.tv_nsec < 0) { // Negative nanoseconds isn't valid according to POSIX.
--(ts.tv_sec); ts.tv_nsec = (NSEC_PER_SEC + ts.tv_nsec);
}
return ts;
}
void pthread_nanosleep(struct timespec t) {
//Sleep calls on Linux get interrupted by signals, causing premature wake
//Pthread (un)pause is built using signals
//Therefore we need self-restarting sleep implementation
//IO timeouts are restarted by SA_RESTART, but sleeps do need explicit restart
//We also need to sleep using absolute time, because relative time is paused
//You should use this in any thread that gets (un)paused
struct timespec wake;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &wake);
t = timespec_normalise(t);
wake.tv_sec += t.tv_sec;
wake.tv_nsec += t.tv_nsec;
wake = timespec_normalise(wake);
while(clock_nanosleep(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, TIMER_ABSTIME, &wake, NULL)) if(errno!=EINTR) break;
return;
}
void pthread_nsleep(time_t s, long ns) {
struct timespec t;
t.tv_sec = s;
t.tv_nsec = ns;
pthread_nanosleep(t);
}
void pthread_sleep(time_t s) {
pthread_nsleep(s, 0);
}
void pthread_pause_yield() {
//Call this to give other threads chance to run
//Wait until last (un)pause action gets finished
sem_wait(&pthread_pause_sem);
sem_post(&pthread_pause_sem);
//usleep(0);
//nanosleep(&((const struct timespec){.tv_sec=0,.tv_nsec=1}), NULL);
//pthread_nsleep(0,1); //pthread_yield() is not enough, so we use sleep
pthread_yield();
}
void pthread_pause_handler(int signal) {
//Do nothing when there are more signals pending (to cleanup the queue)
//This is no longer needed, since we use semaphore to limit pending signals
/*
sigset_t pending;
sigpending(&pending);
if(sigismember(&pending, PTHREAD_XSIG_STOP)) return;
if(sigismember(&pending, PTHREAD_XSIG_CONT)) return;
*/
//Post semaphore to confirm that signal is handled
sem_post(&pthread_pause_sem);
//Suspend if needed
if(signal == PTHREAD_XSIG_STOP) {
sigset_t sigset;
sigfillset(&sigset);
sigdelset(&sigset, PTHREAD_XSIG_STOP);
sigdelset(&sigset, PTHREAD_XSIG_CONT);
sigsuspend(&sigset); //Wait for next signal
} else return;
}
void pthread_pause_enable() {
//Having signal queue too deep might not be necessary
//It can be limited using RLIMIT_SIGPENDING
//You can get runtime SigQ stats using following command:
//grep -i sig /proc/$(pgrep binary)/status
//This is no longer needed, since we use semaphores
//struct rlimit sigq = {.rlim_cur = 32, .rlim_max=32};
//setrlimit(RLIMIT_SIGPENDING, &sigq);
pthread_pause_init();
//Prepare sigset
sigset_t sigset;
sigemptyset(&sigset);
sigaddset(&sigset, PTHREAD_XSIG_STOP);
sigaddset(&sigset, PTHREAD_XSIG_CONT);
//Register signal handlers
//signal(PTHREAD_XSIG_STOP, pthread_pause_handler);
//signal(PTHREAD_XSIG_CONT, pthread_pause_handler);
//We now use sigaction() instead of signal(), because it supports SA_RESTART
const struct sigaction pause_sa = {
.sa_handler = pthread_pause_handler,
.sa_mask = sigset,
.sa_flags = SA_RESTART,
.sa_restorer = NULL
};
sigaction(PTHREAD_XSIG_STOP, &pause_sa, NULL);
sigaction(PTHREAD_XSIG_CONT, &pause_sa, NULL);
//UnBlock signals
pthread_sigmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &sigset, NULL);
}
void pthread_pause_disable() {
//This is important for when you want to do some signal unsafe stuff
//Eg.: locking mutex, calling printf() which has internal mutex, etc...
//After unlocking mutex, you can enable pause again.
pthread_pause_init();
//Make sure all signals are dispatched before we block them
sem_wait(&pthread_pause_sem);
//Block signals
sigset_t sigset;
sigemptyset(&sigset);
sigaddset(&sigset, PTHREAD_XSIG_STOP);
sigaddset(&sigset, PTHREAD_XSIG_CONT);
pthread_sigmask(SIG_BLOCK, &sigset, NULL);
sem_post(&pthread_pause_sem);
}
int pthread_pause(pthread_t thread) {
sem_wait(&pthread_pause_sem);
//If signal queue is full, we keep retrying
while(pthread_kill(thread, PTHREAD_XSIG_STOP) == EAGAIN) usleep(1000);
pthread_pause_yield();
return 0;
}
int pthread_unpause(pthread_t thread) {
sem_wait(&pthread_pause_sem);
//If signal queue is full, we keep retrying
while(pthread_kill(thread, PTHREAD_XSIG_CONT) == EAGAIN) usleep(1000);
pthread_pause_yield();
return 0;
}
void *thread_test() {
//Whole process dies if you kill thread immediately before it is pausable
//pthread_pause_enable();
while(1) {
//Printf() is not async signal safe (because it holds internal mutex),
//you should call it only with pause disabled!
//Will throw helgrind warnings anyway, not sure why...
//See: man 7 signal-safety
pthread_pause_disable();
printf("Running!\n");
pthread_pause_enable();
//Pausing main thread should not cause deadlock
//We pause main thread here just to test it is OK
pthread_pause(main_thread);
//pthread_nsleep(0, 1000*1000);
pthread_unpause(main_thread);
//Wait for a while
//pthread_nsleep(0, 1000*1000*100);
pthread_unpause(main_thread);
}
}
int main() {
pthread_t t;
main_thread = pthread_self();
pthread_pause_enable(); //Will get inherited by all threads from now on
//you need to call pthread_pause_enable (or disable) before creating threads,
//otherwise first (un)pause signal will kill whole process
pthread_create(&t, NULL, thread_test, NULL);
while(1) {
pthread_pause(t);
printf("PAUSED\n");
pthread_sleep(3);
printf("UNPAUSED\n");
pthread_unpause(t);
pthread_sleep(1);
/*
pthread_pause_disable();
printf("RUNNING!\n");
pthread_pause_enable();
*/
pthread_pause(t);
pthread_unpause(t);
}
pthread_join(t, NULL);
printf("DIEDED!\n");
}
I am also working on library called "pthread_extra", which will have stuff like this and much more. Will publish soon.
UPDATE2: This is still causing deadlocks when calling pause/unpause rapidly (removed sleep() calls). Printf() implementation in glibc has mutex, so if you suspend thread which is in middle of printf() and then want to printf() from your thread which plans to unpause that thread later, it will never happen, because printf() is locked. Unfortunately i've removed the printf() and only run empty while loop in the thread, but i still get deadlocks under high pause/unpause rates. and i don't know why. Maybe (even realtime) Linux signals are not 100% safe. There is realtime signal queue, maybe it just overflows or something...
UPDATE3: i think i've managed to fix the deadlock, but had to completely rewrite most of the code. Now i have one (sig_atomic_t) variable per each thread which holds state whether that thread should be running or not. Works kinda like condition variable. pthread_(un)pause() transparently remembers this for each thread. I don't have two signals. now i only have one signal. handler of that signal looks at that variable and only blocks on sigsuspend() when that variable says the thread should NOT run. otherwise it returns from signal handler. in order to suspend/resume the thread i now set the sig_atomic_t variable to desired state and call that signal (which is common for both suspend and resume). It is important to use realtime signals to be sure handler will actualy run after you've modified the state variable. Code is bit complex because of the thread status database. I will share the code in separate solution as soon as i manage to simplify it enough. But i want to preserve the two signal version in here, because it kinda works, i like the simplicity and maybe people will give us more insight on how to optimize it.
UPDATE4: I've fixed the deadlock in original code (no need for helper variable holding the status) by using single handler for two signals and optimizing signal queue a bit. There is still some problem with printf() shown by helgrind, but it is not caused by my signals, it happens even when i do not call pause/unpause at all. Overall this was only tested on LINUX, not sure how portable the code is, because there seem to be some undocumented behaviour of signal handlers which was originaly causing the deadlock.
Please note that pause/unpause cannot be nested. if you pause 3 times, and unpause 1 time, the thread WILL RUN. If you need such behaviour, you should create some kind of wrapper which will count the nesting levels and signal the thread accordingly.
UPDATE5: I've improved robustness of the code by following changes: I ensure proper serialization of pause/unpause calls by use of semaphores. This hopefuly fixes last remaining deadlocks. Now you can be sure that when pause call returns, the target thread is actualy already paused. This also solves issues with signal queue overflowing. Also i've added SA_RESTART flag, which prevents internal signals from causing interuption of IO waits. Sleeps/delays still have to be restarted manualy, but i provide convenient wrapper called pthread_nanosleep() which does just that.
UPDATE6: i realized that simply restarting nanosleep() is not enough, because that way timeout does not run when thread is paused. Therefore i've modified pthread_nanosleep() to convert timeout interval to absolute time point in the future and sleep until that. Also i've hidden semaphore initialization, so user does not need to do that.
Here is example of thread function within a class with pause/resume functionality...
class SomeClass
{
public:
// ... construction/destruction
void Resume();
void Pause();
void Stop();
private:
static void* ThreadFunc(void* pParam);
pthread_t thread;
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
pthread_cond_t cond_var;
int command;
};
SomeClass::SomeClass()
{
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex, NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&cond_var, NULL);
// create thread in suspended state..
command = 0;
pthread_create(&thread, NULL, ThreadFunc, this);
}
SomeClass::~SomeClass()
{
// we should stop the thread and exit ThreadFunc before calling of blocking pthread_join function
// also it prevents the mutex staying locked..
Stop();
pthread_join(thread, NULL);
pthread_cond_destroy(&cond_var);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&mutex);
}
void* SomeClass::ThreadFunc(void* pParam)
{
SomeClass* pThis = (SomeClass*)pParam;
timespec time_ns = {0, 50*1000*1000}; // 50 milliseconds
while(1)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&pThis->mutex);
if (pThis->command == 2) // command to stop thread..
{
// be sure to unlock mutex before exit..
pthread_mutex_unlock(&pThis->mutex);
return NULL;
}
else if (pThis->command == 0) // command to pause thread..
{
pthread_cond_wait(&pThis->cond_var, &pThis->mutex);
// dont forget to unlock the mutex..
pthread_mutex_unlock(&pThis->mutex);
continue;
}
if (pThis->command == 1) // command to run..
{
// normal runing process..
fprintf(stderr, "*");
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&pThis->mutex);
// it's important to give main thread few time after unlock 'this'
pthread_yield();
// ... or...
//nanosleep(&time_ns, NULL);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
void SomeClass::Stop()
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
command = 2;
pthread_cond_signal(&cond_var);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
void SomeClass::Pause()
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
command = 0;
// in pause command we dont need to signal cond_var because we not in wait state now..
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
void SomeClass::Resume()
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
command = 1;
pthread_cond_signal(&cond_var);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}