I have a seperate thread for audio in my application because it sounded like a good idea at the time but now I am conserned at how other threads will comunicate with the audio thread.
audioThread() {
while(!isCloseRequested) {
If(audio.dogSoundRequested) {
audio.playDogSound();
}
}
}
otherThread() {
Audio.dogSoundRequested();
}
Would this be an efficient way to thread audio or do you see issues with this setup?
The issue at stake here seems to be
1: how to make audio.dogSoundRequested and isCloseRequested thread-safe.
2: audioThread is busy-waiting (e.g. spinning infinitely until audio.dogSoundRequested becomes true.
As others have suggested, you could use a mutex to protect both variables, but this is overkill - additionally, it's generally good form in audio code not to use blocking sychronisation in order to avoid issues with priority inversion.
Instead, assuming you're using C++11 or C++14, you could use an atomic variable, whcih are lightweight and don't (in most implementations) block:
#include <atomic>
...
std::atomic<bool> dogSoundRequested{false};
std::atomic<bool> isCloseRequested{false};
Reads and writes to the std::atomic have the same contract as for built-in types, but will generate code that ensures the read and write are atomic with respect to other threads, and that the results are synchronised with other CPUs.
In the case of audio.dogSoundRequested you want both of these effects, and in the case of isCloseRequested, that the result is immediately visible on other CPU.
To solve the busy-waiting issue, use a condition variable to awake audioThread when there's something to do:
#include <condition_variable>
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
audioThread()
{
while(!isCloseRequested)
{
m.lock();
cv.wait(m);
// wait() returns with the mutex still held.
m.unlock();
if(audio.dogSoundRequested)
{
audio.playDogSound();
}
}
}
void dogSoundRequested()
{
dogSoundRequested = true;
cv.notify_one();
}
In addition to the use of mutex, here is a simple setup for multiple threads
// g++ -o multi_threading -pthread -std=c++11 multi_threading.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <exception>
#include <mutex>
#include <climits> // min max of short int
void launch_consumer() {
std::cout << "launch_consumer" << std::endl;
} // launch_consumer
void launch_producer(std::string chosen_file) {
std::cout << "launch_producer " << chosen_file << std::endl;
} // launch_producer
// -----------
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
std::string chosen_file = "audio_file.wav";
std::thread t1(launch_producer, chosen_file);
std::this_thread::sleep_for (std::chrono::milliseconds( 100));
std::thread t2(launch_consumer);
// -------------------------
t1.join();
t2.join();
return 0;
}
Rather than complicate the code with mutexes and condition variables, consider making a thread-safe FIFO. In this case, one that could have multiple writers and one consumer. Other threads of the application are the writers to this FIFO, the audioThread() is the consumer.
// NOP = no operation
enum AudioTask {NOP, QUIT, PLAY_DOG, ...};
class Fifo
{
public:
bool can_push() const; // is it full?
void push(AudioTask t); // safely writes to the FIFO
AudioTask pop(); // safely reads from the FIFO, if empty NOP
};
Now the audioThread() is a bit cleaner, assuming fifo and audio are application class members:
void audioThread()
{
bool running = true;
while(running)
{
auto task = fifo.pop();
switch(task)
{
case NOP: std::this_thread::yield(); break;
case QUIT: running = false; break;
case PLAY_DOG: audio.playDogSound(); break;
}
}
}
Finally, the calling code only needs to push tasks into the FIFO:
void request_dog_sound()
{
fifo.push(PLAY_DOG);
}
void stop_audio_thread()
{
fifo.push(QUIT);
audio_thread.join();
}
This puts the details of the thread-safe synchronization inside the Fifo class, keeping the rest of the application cleaner.
If you want to be sure that no other thread touches the playDogSound() function, use a mutex lock to lock the resource.
std::mutex mtx;
audioThread() {
while(!isCloseRequested) {
if (audio.dogSoundRequested) {
mtx.lock();
audio.playDogSound();
mtx.unlock();
}
}
}
Related
I have the following mutex manager which I aims to lock/unlock mutex given a topic name. I want to be able to lock/unlock mutexes depending on a specific tag (in this example a string). What I am doing is simply mapping a string to a mutex. Then, the outside world would invoke MutexManager::lock on tag name, then the MutexManager would lock the correct mutex.
Is this the way to do it, or should I instead be creating a map of std::unique_lock<std::mutex>
#include <iostream>
#include <unordered_map>
#include <mutex>
class MutexManager {
public:
std::unordered_map<std::string, std::mutex> mutexes;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock_mutex(const std::string& name) {
try {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mutexes.at(name));
return lock;
} catch (...) {
std::cout << "Failed to acquire lock";
}
}
void unlock_mutex(std::unique_lock<std::mutex> locked_mutex)
{
try {
locked_mutex.unlock();
} catch (...) {
std::cout << "Failed to release lock.";
}
}
void add_mutex(std::string topic) {
mutexes[topic]; // is that really the solution?
}
};
int main()
{
MutexManager mutexManager;
mutexManager.add_mutex("test");
auto& mutexx = mutexManager.mutexes.at("test");
return 0;
}
My concern with the above is if I got two threads where thread 1 runs lock followed by thread2 :
thread 1:
mutexManager.lock("test");
thread 2:
mutexManager.lock("test");
Will thread two be blocked untill thread 1 has released the lock ? In other words, does the locks above target the same mutex given we got the same topic?
I have two threads that work the producer and consumer sides of a std::queue. The queue isn't often full, so I'd like to avoid the consumer grabbing the mutex that is guarding mutating the queue.
Is it okay to call empty() outside the mutex then only grab the mutex if there is something in the queue?
For example:
struct MyData{
int a;
int b;
};
class SpeedyAccess{
public:
void AddDataFromThread1(MyData data){
const std::lock_guard<std::mutex> queueMutexLock(queueAccess);
workQueue.push(data);
}
void CheckFromThread2(){
if(!workQueue.empty()) // Un-protected access...is this dangerous?
{
queueAccess.lock();
MyData data = workQueue.front();
workQueue.pop();
queueAccess.unlock();
ExpensiveComputation(data);
}
}
private:
void ExpensiveComputation(MyData& data);
std::queue<MyData> workQueue;
std::mutex queueAccess;
}
Thread 2 does the check and isn't particularly time-critical, but will get called a lot (500/sec?). Thread 1 is very time critical, a lot of stuff needs to run there, but isn't called as frequently (max 20/sec).
If I add a mutex guard around empty(), if the queue is empty when thread 2 comes, it won't hold the mutex for long, so might not be a big hit. However, since it gets called so frequently, it might occasionally happen at the same time something is trying to get put on the back....will this cause a substantial amount of waiting in thread 1?
As written in the comments above, you should call empty() only under a lock.
But I believe there is a better way to do it.
You can use a std::condition_variable together with a std::mutex, to achieve synchronization of access to the queue, without locking the mutex more than you must.
However - when using std::condition_variable, you must be aware that it suffers from spurious wakeups. You can read about it here: Spurious wakeup - Wikipedia.
You can see some code examples here:
Condition variable examples.
The correct way to use a std::condition_variable is demonstrated below (with some comments).
This is just a minimal example to show the principle.
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <queue>
#include <iostream>
using MyData = int;
std::mutex mtx;
std::condition_variable cond_var;
std::queue<MyData> q;
void producer()
{
MyData produced_val = 0;
while (true)
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000)); // simulate some pause between productions
++produced_val;
std::cout << "produced: " << produced_val << std::endl;
{
// Access the Q under the lock:
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mtx);
q.push(produced_val);
cond_var.notify_all(); // It's not a must to nofity under the lock but it might be more efficient (see #DavidSchwartz's comment below).
}
}
}
void consumer()
{
while (true)
{
MyData consumed_val;
{
// Access the Q under the lock:
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mtx);
// NOTE: The following call will lock the mutex only when the the condition_varible will cause wakeup
// (due to `notify` or spurious wakeup).
// Then it will check if the Q is empty.
// If empty it will release the lock and continue to wait.
// If not empty, the lock will be kept until out of scope.
// See the documentation for std::condition_variable.
cond_var.wait(lck, []() { return !q.empty(); }); // will loop internally to handle spurious wakeups
consumed_val = q.front();
q.pop();
}
std::cout << "consumed: " << consumed_val << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(200)); // simulate some calculation
}
}
int main()
{
std::thread p(producer);
std::thread c(consumer);
while(true) {}
p.join(); c.join(); // will never happen in our case but to remind us what is needed.
return 0;
}
Some notes:
In your real code, none of the threads should run forever. You should have some mechanism to notify them to gracefully exit.
The global variables (mtx,q etc.) are better to be members of some context class, or passed to the producer() and consumer() as parameters.
This example assumes for simplicity that the producer's production rate is always low relatively to the consumer's rate. In your real code you can make it more general, by making the consumer extract all elements in the Q each time the condition_variable is signaled.
You can "play" with the sleep_for times for the producer and consumer to test varios timing cases.
I have a function that must not be called from more than one thread at the same time. Can you suggest some elegant assert for this?
You can use a thin RAII wrapper around std::atomic<>:
namespace {
std::atomic<int> access_counter;
struct access_checker {
access_checker() { check = ++access_counter; }
access_checker( const access_checker & ) = delete;
~access_checker() { --access_counter; }
int check;
};
}
void foobar()
{
access_checker checker;
// assert than checker.check == 1 and react accordingly
...
}
it is simplified version for single use to show the idea and can be improved to use for multiple functions if necessary
Sounds like you need a mutex. Assuming you are using std::thread you can look at the coding example in the following link for specifically using std::mutex: http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/mutex/mutex/
// mutex example
#include <iostream> // std::cout
#include <thread> // std::thread
#include <mutex> // std::mutex
std::mutex mtx; // mutex for critical section
void print_block (int n, char c) {
// critical section (exclusive access to std::cout signaled by locking mtx):
mtx.lock();
for (int i=0; i<n; ++i) { std::cout << c; }
std::cout << '\n';
mtx.unlock();
}
int main ()
{
std::thread th1 (print_block,50,'*');
std::thread th2 (print_block,50,'$');
th1.join();
th2.join();
return 0;
}
In the above code print_block locks mtx, does what it needs to do, and then unlocks mtx. If print_block is called from two different threads, one thread will lock mtx first and the other thread will block on mtx.lock() and be force to wait until the other thread calls mtx.unlock(). This means only one thread can execute the code between mtx.lock() and mtx.unlock() (exclusive) at the same time.
This assumes by "at the same time" you mean at the same literal time. If you only want one thread to be able to call a function I would recommend looking into std::this_thread::get_id which will get you the id of the current thread. An assert could be as simple as storing the owning thread in owning_thread_id and then calling assert(owning_thread_id == std::this_thread::get_id()).
Using MS Visual C++2012
A class has a member of type std::atomic_flag
class A {
public:
...
std::atomic_flag lockFlag;
A () { std::atomic_flag_clear (&lockFlag); }
};
There is an object of type A
A object;
who can be accessed by two (Boost) threads
void thr1(A* objPtr) { ... }
void thr2(A* objPtr) { ... }
The idea is wait the thread if the object is being accessed by the other thread.
The question is: do it is possible construct such mechanism with an atomic_flag object? Not to say that for the moment, I want some lightweight that a boost::mutex.
By the way the process involved in one of the threads is very long query to a dBase who get many rows, and I only need suspend it in a certain zone of code where the collision occurs (when processing each row) and I can't wait the entire thread to finish join().
I've tryed in each thread some as:
thr1 (A* objPtr) {
...
while (std::atomic_flag_test_and_set_explicit (&objPtr->lockFlag, std::memory_order_acquire)) {
boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::millisec(100));
}
... /* Zone to portect */
std::atomic_flag_clear_explicit (&objPtr->lockFlag, std::memory_order_release);
... /* the process continues */
}
But with no success, because the second thread hangs. In fact, I don't completely understand the mechanism involved in the atomic_flag_test_and_set_explicit function. Neither if such function returns inmediately or can delay until the flag can be locked.
Also it is a mistery to me how to get a lock mechanism with such a function who always set the value, and return the previous value. with no option to only read the actual setting.
Any suggestion are welcome.
By the way the process involved in one of the threads is very long query to a dBase who get many rows, and I only need suspend it in a certain zone of code where the collision occurs (when processing each row) and I can't wait the entire thread to finish join().
Such a zone is known as the critical section. The simplest way to work with a critical section is to lock by mutual exclusion.
The mutex solution suggested is indeed the way to go, unless you can prove that this is a hotspot and the lock contention is a performance problem. Lock-free programming using just atomic and intrinsics is enormously complex and cannot be recommended at this level.
Here's a simple example showing how you could do this (live on http://liveworkspace.org/code/6af945eda5132a5221db823fa6bde49a):
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
struct A
{
std::mutex mux;
int x;
A() : x(0) {}
};
void threadf(A* data)
{
for(int i=0; i<10; ++i)
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(data->mux);
data->x++;
}
}
int main(int argc, const char *argv[])
{
A instance;
auto t1 = std::thread(threadf, &instance);
auto t2 = std::thread(threadf, &instance);
t1.join();
t2.join();
std::cout << instance.x << std::endl;
return 0;
}
It looks like you're trying to write a spinlock. Yes, you can do that with std::atomic_flag, but you are better off using std::mutex instead. Don't use atomics unless you really know what you're doing.
To actually answer the question asked: Yes, you can use std::atomic_flag to create a thread locking object called a spinlock.
#include <atomic>
class atomic_lock
{
public:
atomic_lock()
: lock_( ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT )
{}
void lock()
{
while ( lock_.test_and_set() ) { } // Spin until the lock is acquired.
}
void unlock()
{
lock_.clear();
}
private:
std::atomic_flag lock_;
};
I have a set of data structures I need to protect with a readers/writer lock. I am aware of boost::shared_lock, but I would like to have a custom implementation using std::mutex, std::condition_variable and/or std::atomic so that I can better understand how it works (and tweak it later).
Each data structure (moveable, but not copyable) will inherit from a class called Commons which encapsulates the locking. I'd like the public interface to look something like this:
class Commons {
public:
void read_lock();
bool try_read_lock();
void read_unlock();
void write_lock();
bool try_write_lock();
void write_unlock();
};
...so that it can be publicly inherited by some:
class DataStructure : public Commons {};
I'm writing scientific code and can generally avoid data races; this lock is mostly a safeguard against the mistakes I'll probably make later. Thus my priority is low read overhead so I don't hamper a correctly-running program too much. Each thread will probably run on its own CPU core.
Could you please show me (pseudocode is ok) a readers/writer lock? What I have now is supposed to be the variant that prevents writer starvation. My main problem so far has been the gap in read_lock between checking if a read is safe to actually incrementing a reader count, after which write_lock knows to wait.
void Commons::write_lock() {
write_mutex.lock();
reading_mode.store(false);
while(readers.load() > 0) {}
}
void Commons::try_read_lock() {
if(reading_mode.load()) {
//if another thread calls write_lock here, bad things can happen
++readers;
return true;
} else return false;
}
I'm kind of new to multithreading, and I'd really like to understand it. Thanks in advance for your help!
Here's pseudo-code for a ver simply reader/writer lock using a mutex and a condition variable. The mutex API should be self-explanatory. Condition variables are assumed to have a member wait(Mutex&) which (atomically!) drops the mutex and waits for the condition to be signaled. The condition is signaled with either signal() which wakes up one waiter, or signal_all() which wakes up all waiters.
read_lock() {
mutex.lock();
while (writer)
unlocked.wait(mutex);
readers++;
mutex.unlock();
}
read_unlock() {
mutex.lock();
readers--;
if (readers == 0)
unlocked.signal_all();
mutex.unlock();
}
write_lock() {
mutex.lock();
while (writer || (readers > 0))
unlocked.wait(mutex);
writer = true;
mutex.unlock();
}
write_unlock() {
mutex.lock();
writer = false;
unlocked.signal_all();
mutex.unlock();
}
That implementation has quite a few drawbacks, though.
Wakes up all waiters whenever the lock becomes available
If most of the waiters are waiting for a write lock, this is wastefull - most waiters will fail to acquire the lock, after all, and resume waiting. Simply using signal() doesn't work, because you do want to wake up everyone waiting for a read lock unlocking. So to fix that, you need separate condition variables for readability and writability.
No fairness. Readers starve writers
You can fix that by tracking the number of pending read and write locks, and either stop acquiring read locks once there a pending write locks (though you'll then starve readers!), or randomly waking up either all readers or one writer (assuming you use separate condition variable, see section above).
Locks aren't dealt out in the order they are requested
To guarantee this, you'll need a real wait queue. You could e.g. create one condition variable for each waiter, and signal all readers or a single writer, both at the head of the queue, after releasing the lock.
Even pure read workloads cause contention due to the mutex
This one is hard to fix. One way is to use atomic instructions to acquire read or write locks (usually compare-and-exchange). If the acquisition fails because the lock is taken, you'll have to fall back to the mutex. Doing that correctly is quite hard, though. Plus, there'll still be contention - atomic instructions are far from free, especially on machines with lots of cores.
Conclusion
Implementing synchronization primitives correctly is hard. Implementing efficient and fair synchronization primitives is even harder. And it hardly ever pays off. pthreads on linux, e.g. contains a reader/writer lock which uses a combination of futexes and atomic instructions, and which thus probably outperforms anything you can come up with in a few days of work.
Check this class:
//
// Multi-reader Single-writer concurrency base class for Win32
//
// (c) 1999-2003 by Glenn Slayden (glenn#glennslayden.com)
//
//
#include "windows.h"
class MultiReaderSingleWriter
{
private:
CRITICAL_SECTION m_csWrite;
CRITICAL_SECTION m_csReaderCount;
long m_cReaders;
HANDLE m_hevReadersCleared;
public:
MultiReaderSingleWriter()
{
m_cReaders = 0;
InitializeCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
InitializeCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
m_hevReadersCleared = CreateEvent(NULL,TRUE,TRUE,NULL);
}
~MultiReaderSingleWriter()
{
WaitForSingleObject(m_hevReadersCleared,INFINITE);
CloseHandle(m_hevReadersCleared);
DeleteCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
DeleteCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
}
void EnterReader(void)
{
EnterCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
EnterCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
if (++m_cReaders == 1)
ResetEvent(m_hevReadersCleared);
LeaveCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
LeaveCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
}
void LeaveReader(void)
{
EnterCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
if (--m_cReaders == 0)
SetEvent(m_hevReadersCleared);
LeaveCriticalSection(&m_csReaderCount);
}
void EnterWriter(void)
{
EnterCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
WaitForSingleObject(m_hevReadersCleared,INFINITE);
}
void LeaveWriter(void)
{
LeaveCriticalSection(&m_csWrite);
}
};
I didn't have a chance to try it, but the code looks OK.
You can implement a Readers-Writers lock following the exact Wikipedia algorithm from here (I wrote it):
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
int g_sharedData = 0;
int g_readersWaiting = 0;
std::mutex mu;
bool g_writerWaiting = false;
std::condition_variable cond;
void reader(int i)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lg{mu};
while(g_writerWaiting)
cond.wait(lg);
++g_readersWaiting;
// reading
std::cout << "\n reader #" << i << " is reading data = " << g_sharedData << '\n';
// end reading
--g_readersWaiting;
while(g_readersWaiting > 0)
cond.wait(lg);
cond.notify_one();
}
void writer(int i)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lg{mu};
while(g_writerWaiting)
cond.wait(lg);
// writing
std::cout << "\n writer #" << i << " is writing\n";
g_sharedData += i * 10;
// end writing
g_writerWaiting = true;
while(g_readersWaiting > 0)
cond.wait(lg);
g_writerWaiting = false;
cond.notify_all();
}//lg.unlock()
int main()
{
std::thread reader1{reader, 1};
std::thread reader2{reader, 2};
std::thread reader3{reader, 3};
std::thread reader4{reader, 4};
std::thread writer1{writer, 1};
std::thread writer2{writer, 2};
std::thread writer3{writer, 3};
std::thread writer4{reader, 4};
reader1.join();
reader2.join();
reader3.join();
reader4.join();
writer1.join();
writer2.join();
writer3.join();
writer4.join();
return(0);
}
I believe this is what you are looking for:
class Commons {
std::mutex write_m_;
std::atomic<unsigned int> readers_;
public:
Commons() : readers_(0) {
}
void read_lock() {
write_m_.lock();
++readers_;
write_m_.unlock();
}
bool try_read_lock() {
if (write_m_.try_lock()) {
++readers_;
write_m_.unlock();
return true;
}
return false;
}
// Note: unlock without holding a lock is Undefined Behavior!
void read_unlock() {
--readers_;
}
// Note: This implementation uses a busy wait to make other functions more efficient.
// Consider using try_write_lock instead! and note that the number of readers can be accessed using readers()
void write_lock() {
while (readers_) {}
if (!write_m_.try_lock())
write_lock();
}
bool try_write_lock() {
if (!readers_)
return write_m_.try_lock();
return false;
}
// Note: unlock without holding a lock is Undefined Behavior!
void write_unlock() {
write_m_.unlock();
}
int readers() {
return readers_;
}
};
For the record since C++17 we have std::shared_mutex, see: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/shared_mutex