Reusing thread in loop c++ - c++

I need to parallelize some tasks in a C++ program and am completely new to parallel programming. I've made some progress through internet searches so far, but am a bit stuck now. I'd like to reuse some threads in a loop, but clearly don't know how to do what I'm trying for.
I am acquiring data from two ADC cards on the computer (acquired in parallel), then I need to perform some operations on the collected data (processed in parallel) while collecting the next batch of data. Here is some pseudocode to illustrate
//Acquire some data, wait for all the data to be acquired before proceeding
std::thread acq1(AcquireData, boardHandle1, memoryAddress1a);
std::thread acq2(AcquireData, boardHandle2, memoryAddress2a);
acq1.join();
acq2.join();
while(user doesn't interrupt)
{
//Process first batch of data while acquiring new data
std::thread proc1(ProcessData,memoryAddress1a);
std::thread proc2(ProcessData,memoryAddress2a);
acq1(AcquireData, boardHandle1, memoryAddress1b);
acq2(AcquireData, boardHandle2, memoryAddress2b);
acq1.join();
acq2.join();
proc1.join();
proc2.join();
/*Proceed in this manner, alternating which memory address
is written to and being processed until the user interrupts the program.*/
}
That's the main gist of it. The next run of the loop would write to the "a" memory addresses while processing the "b" data and continue to alternate (I can get the code to do that, just took it out to prevent cluttering up the problem).
Anyway, the problem (as I'm sure some people can already tell) is that the second time I try to use acq1 and acq2, the compiler (VS2012) says "IntelliSense: call of an object of a class type without appropriate operator() or conversion functions to pointer-to-function type". Likewise, if I put std::thread in front of acq1 and acq2 again, it says " error C2374: 'acq1' : redefinition; multiple initialization".
So the question is, can I reassign threads to a new task when they have completed their previous task? I always wait for the previous use of the thread to end before calling it again, but I don't know how to reassign the thread, and since it's in a loop, I can't make a new thread each time (or if I could, that seems wasteful and unnecessary, but I could be mistaken).
Thanks in advance

The easiest way is to use a waitable queue of std::function objects. Like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <queue>
#include <functional>
#include <chrono>
class ThreadPool
{
public:
ThreadPool (int threads) : shutdown_ (false)
{
// Create the specified number of threads
threads_.reserve (threads);
for (int i = 0; i < threads; ++i)
threads_.emplace_back (std::bind (&ThreadPool::threadEntry, this, i));
}
~ThreadPool ()
{
{
// Unblock any threads and tell them to stop
std::unique_lock <std::mutex> l (lock_);
shutdown_ = true;
condVar_.notify_all();
}
// Wait for all threads to stop
std::cerr << "Joining threads" << std::endl;
for (auto& thread : threads_)
thread.join();
}
void doJob (std::function <void (void)> func)
{
// Place a job on the queu and unblock a thread
std::unique_lock <std::mutex> l (lock_);
jobs_.emplace (std::move (func));
condVar_.notify_one();
}
protected:
void threadEntry (int i)
{
std::function <void (void)> job;
while (1)
{
{
std::unique_lock <std::mutex> l (lock_);
while (! shutdown_ && jobs_.empty())
condVar_.wait (l);
if (jobs_.empty ())
{
// No jobs to do and we are shutting down
std::cerr << "Thread " << i << " terminates" << std::endl;
return;
}
std::cerr << "Thread " << i << " does a job" << std::endl;
job = std::move (jobs_.front ());
jobs_.pop();
}
// Do the job without holding any locks
job ();
}
}
std::mutex lock_;
std::condition_variable condVar_;
bool shutdown_;
std::queue <std::function <void (void)>> jobs_;
std::vector <std::thread> threads_;
};
void silly (int n)
{
// A silly job for demonstration purposes
std::cerr << "Sleeping for " << n << " seconds" << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for (std::chrono::seconds (n));
}
int main()
{
// Create two threads
ThreadPool p (2);
// Assign them 4 jobs
p.doJob (std::bind (silly, 1));
p.doJob (std::bind (silly, 2));
p.doJob (std::bind (silly, 3));
p.doJob (std::bind (silly, 4));
}

The std::thread class is designed to execute exactly one task (the one you give it in the constructor) and then end. If you want to do more work, you'll need a new thread. As of C++11, that's all we have. Thread pools didn't make it into the standard. (I'm uncertain what C++14 has to say about them.)
Fortunately, you can easily implement the required logic yourself. Here is the large-scale picture:
Start n worker threads that all do the following:
Repeat while there is more work to do:
Grab the next task t (possibly waiting until one becomes ready).
Process t.
Keep inserting new tasks in the processing queue.
Tell the worker threads that there is nothing more to do.
Wait for the worker threads to finish.
The most difficult part here (which is still fairly easy) is properly designing the work queue. Usually, a synchronized linked list (from the STL) will do for this. Synchronized means that any thread that wishes to manipulate the queue must only do so after it has acquired a std::mutex so to avoid race conditions. If a worker thread finds the list empty, it has to wait until there is some work again. You can use a std::condition_variable for this. Each time a new task is inserted into the queue, the inserting thread notifies a thread that waits on the condition variable and will therefore stop blocking and eventually start processing the new task.
The second not-so-trivial part is how to signal to the worker threads that there is no more work to do. Clearly, you can set some global flag but if a worker is blocked waiting at the queue, it won't realize any time soon. One solution could be to notify_all() threads and have them check the flag each time they are notified. Another option is to insert some distinct “toxic” item into the queue. If a worker encounters this item, it quits itself.
Representing a queue of tasks is straight-forward using your self-defined task objects or simply lambdas.
All of the above are C++11 features. If you are stuck with an earlier version, you'll need to resort to third-party libraries that provide multi-threading for your particular platform.
While none of this is rocket science, it is still easy to get wrong the first time. And unfortunately, concurrency-related bugs are among the most difficult to debug. Starting by spending a few hours reading through the relevant sections of a good book or working through a tutorial can quickly pay off.

This
std::thread acq1(...)
is the call of an constructor. constructing a new object called acq1
This
acq1(...)
is the application of the () operator on the existing object aqc1. If there isn't such a operator defined for std::thread the compiler complains.
As far as I know you may not reused std::threads. You construct and start them. Join with them and throw them away,

Well, it depends if you consider moving a reassigning or not. You can move a thread but not make a copy of it.
Below code will create new pair of threads each iteration and move them in place of old threads. I imagine this should work, because new thread objects will be temporaries.
while(user doesn't interrupt)
{
//Process first batch of data while acquiring new data
std::thread proc1(ProcessData,memoryAddress1a);
std::thread proc2(ProcessData,memoryAddress2a);
acq1 = std::thread(AcquireData, boardHandle1, memoryAddress1b);
acq2 = std::thread(AcquireData, boardHandle2, memoryAddress2b);
acq1.join();
acq2.join();
proc1.join();
proc2.join();
/*Proceed in this manner, alternating which memory address
is written to and being processed until the user interrupts the program.*/
}
What's going on is, the object actually does not end it's lifetime at the end of the iteration, because it is declared in the outer scope in regard to the loop. But a new object gets created each time and move takes place. I don't see what can be spared (I might be stupid), so I imagine this it's exactly the same as declaring acqs inside the loop and simply reusing the symbol. All in all ... yea, it's about how you classify a create temporary and move.
Also, this clearly starts a new thread each loop (of course ending the previously assigned thread), it doesn't make a thread wait for new data and magically feed it to the processing pipe. You would need to implement it a differently like. E.g: Worker threads pool and communication over queues.
References: operator=, (ctor).
I think the errors you get are self-explanatory, so I'll skip explaining them.

I think you need a much more simpler answer for running a set of threads more than once, this is the best solution:
do{
std::vector<std::thread> thread_vector;
for (int i=0;i<nworkers;i++)
{
thread_vector.push_back(std::thread(yourFunction,Parameter1,Parameter2, ...));
}
for(std::thread& it: thread_vector)
{
it.join();
}
q++;
} while(q<NTIMES);

You also could make your own Thread class and call its run method like:
class MyThread
{
public:
void run(std::function<void()> func) {
thread_ = std::thread(func);
}
void join() {
if(thread_.joinable())
thread_.join();
}
private:
std::thread thread_;
};
// Application code...
MyThread myThread;
myThread.run(AcquireData);

Related

Benefits of using std::stop_source and std::stop_token instead of std::atomic<bool> for deferred cancellation?

When I run several std::threads in parallell and need to cancel other threads in a deferred manner if one thread fails I use a std::atomic<bool> flag:
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>
void threadFunction(unsigned int id, std::atomic<bool>& terminated) {
srand(id);
while (!terminated) {
int r = rand() % 100;
if (r == 0) {
std::cerr << "Thread " << id << ": an error occured.\n";
terminated = true; // without this line we have to wait for other thread to finish
return;
}
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(100));
}
}
int main()
{
std::atomic<bool> terminated = false;
std::thread t1(&threadFunction, 1, std::ref(terminated));
std::thread t2(&threadFunction, 2, std::ref(terminated));
t1.join();
t2.join();
std::cerr << "Both threads finished.\n";
int k;
std::cin >> k;
}
However now I am reading about std::stop_sourceand std::stop_token.
I find that I can achieve the same as above by passing both a std::stop_sourceby reference and std::stop_token by value to the thread function?
How would that be superior?
I understand that when using std::jthread the std::stop_token is very convenient if I want to stop threads from outside the threads.
I could then call std::jthread::request_stop() from the main program.
However in the case where I want to stop threads from a thread is it still better?
I managed to achieve the same thing as in my code using std::stop_source:
void threadFunction(std::stop_token stoken, unsigned int id, std::stop_source source) {
srand(id);
while (!stoken.stop_requested()) {
int r = rand() % 100;
if (r == 0) {
std::cerr << "Thread " << id << ": an error occured.\n";
source.request_stop(); // without this line we have to wait for other thread to finish
return;
}
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(100));
}
}
int main()
{
std::stop_source source;
std::stop_token stoken = source.get_token();
std::thread t1(&threadFunction, stoken, 1, source);
std::thread t2(&threadFunction, stoken, 2, source);
t1.join();
t2.join();
std::cerr << "Both threads finished.\n";
int k;
std::cin >> k;
}
Using std::jthread would have resulted in more compact code:
std::jthread t1(&threadFunction, 1, source);
std::jthread t2(&threadFunction, 2, source);
But that did not seem to work.
It didn't work because std::jthread has a special feature where, if the first parameter of a thread-function is a std::stop_token, it fills that token in by an internal stop_source object.
What you ought to do is only pass a stop_source (by value, not by reference), and extract the token from it within your thread function.
As for why this is better than a reference to an atomic, there are a myriad of reasons. The first being that stop_source is a lot safer than a bare reference to an object whose lifetime is not under the local control of the thread function. The second being that you don't have to do std::ref gymnastics to pass parameters. This can be a source of bugs since you might accidentally forget to do that in some place.
The standard stop_token mechanism has features beyond just requesting and responding to a stop. Since the response to a stop happens at an arbitrary time after issuing it, it may be necessary to execute some code when the stop is actually requested rather than when it is responded to. The stop_callback mechanism allows you to register a callback with a stop_token. This callback will be called in the thread of the stop_source::request_stop call (unless you register the callback after the stop was requested, in which case it's called right when you register it). This can be useful in limited cases, and it's not simple code to write yourself. Especially when all you have is an atomic<bool>.
And then there's simple readability. Passing a stop_source tells you exactly what is going on without having to even see the name of a parameter. Passing an atomic<bool> tells you very little from just the typename; you have to look at the parameter name or its usage in the function to know that it is for halting the thread.
Apart from being more expressive and communicating intentions better, stop_token and friends achieve something really important for jthread. To understand it you have to consider its destructor which looks something like this:
~jthread()
{
if(joinable())
{
// Not only user code, but the destructor as well
// will let your callback know it's time to go.
request_stop();
join();
}
}
by encapsulating a stop_source, jthread facilitates what is called cooperative cancellation. As you've also noted, you never have to pass the stop_token to a jthread, just provide a callback that accepts the token as its first parameter. What happens next is that the class can detect that your callback accepts a stop token and pass a token to its internal stop source when calling it.
What does this mean for cooperative cancellation? Safer termination of course! Since jthread will always attempt to join on destruction, it now has the means to prevent endless loops and deadlocks where two or more threads wait for each other to finish. By using stop_token your code can make sure that it can safely join when it's time to go.
However in the case where I want to stop threads from a thread is it still better?
Now regarding the feature you are requesting, that's what C# calls "linked cancellation". Yes, there are requests and discussions to add a parameter in the jthread constructor so that it can refer to an external stop source, but that's not yet available (and has many implications). Doing something similar purely with stop tokens would require a stop_callback to tie all cancellations together, but still it could be suboptimal (as shown in the link). The bottom line is that jthread needs stop_token, but in some cases you may not need jthread, especially if the following solution does not appeal to you:
stop_source ssource;
std::stop_callback cb {ssource.get_token(), [&] {
t1.request_stop();
t2.request_stop();
}};
ssource.request_stop(); // This stops boths threads.
The good news is that if you don't fall into the suboptimal pattern described in the link (i.e. you don't need an asynchronous termination), then this functionality is easy to abstract into a utility, something like:
auto linked_cancellations = [](auto&... jthreads) {
stop_source s;
return std::make_pair(s, std::stop_callback{
s.get_token(), [&]{ (jthreads.request_stop(), ...); }});
};
which you'd use as
auto [stop_source, cb] = linked_cancellations(t1, t2);
// or as many thread objects as you want to link ^^^
stop_source.request_stop(); // Stops all the threads that you linked.
Now if you want to control the linked threads from within the thread, I'd use the initial pattern (std::atomic<bool>), since having a callback with both a stop token and a stop source is somewhat confusing.

Any case of std::promise that can't be replaced by a single thread running sequential produce-then-consume?

Update 9th June 2020:
Consolidating all the comments and answers here, and putting some more thought to this, I have created a flowchart below (click to zoom) to help decide when to use std::promise/future, and what are the trade-offs.
Original post is as follows:
I have been thinking about the real benefit of the std::promise/future mechanism. Examples almost everywhere tout this pattern - a single producer, single producer scenario where the producer notifies the consumer one-time that the resource in question is ready for consumption:
#include <iostream>
#include <future>
#include <thread>
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
struct StewableFood {
int tenderness;
};
void slow_cook_for_12_hours(std::promise<StewableFood>& promise_of_stew) {
std::cout << "\nChef: Starting to cook ...";
// Cook till 100% tender
StewableFood food{ 0 };
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(10ms);
food.tenderness = (i + 1) * 10;
std::cout << "\nChef: Stewing ... " << food.tenderness << "%";
}
// Notify person waiting on the promise of stew that the promise has been fulfilled.
promise_of_stew.set_value(food);
std::cout << "\nChef: Stew is ready!";
}
void wait_to_eat_stew(std::future<StewableFood>& potenial_fulfilment_of_stew) {
std::cout << "\nJoe: Waiting for stew ...";
auto food = potenial_fulfilment_of_stew.get();
std::cout << "\nJoe: I have been notified that stew is ready. Tenderness " << food.tenderness << "%! Eat!";
}
int main()
{
std::promise<StewableFood> promise_of_stew;
auto potenial_fulfilment_of_stew = promise_of_stew.get_future();
std::thread async_cook(slow_cook_for_12_hours, std::ref(promise_of_stew));
std::thread async_eat(wait_to_eat_stew, std::ref(potenial_fulfilment_of_stew));
async_cook.join();
async_eat.join();
return 0;
}
To me, all this asynchronicity serves no purpose, because ultimately, the consumer's blocking wait on future::get makes this kind of usage equivalent to a single-threaded one with sequential produce-then-consume. I initially thought my example above is contrived. But if we look at the one-time use only constraint of a std::promise/future pair (i.e. you cannot re-write to the original promise nor re-read from the original future), it then follows that the above example becomes the only viable use case, since:
The set-once constraint means there can be only one producer, and
The get-once constraint means there can be only one consumer, and
Inferred from the above 2 set/get-once constraints, there shall be no looping that causes re-use on the same promise/future.
If the usage pattern in the above example is indeed the only viable use case, it then follows that there is no advantage in using std::promise, compared to doing just:
void cook_stew_then_eat() {
auto stew = slow_cook_for_12_hours();
// wait 12 hours
eat_stew(stew);
}
int main() {
std::thread t(cook_stew_then_eat);
t.join();
return 0;
}
Now, this conclusion seems suspicious. I am quite sure there is a good use case for std::promise which cannot be replaced by a single threaded sequential-produce-then-consume version which doesn't involve std::promise.
Question: What is that use case(s)?
Note: It is tempting to speculate that perhaps std::promise/future somehow allows us to asynchronously do something else without waiting on the fulfilment - might that be the advantage? Definitely not, because we can achieve the identical effect by putting that "something else" (e.g. some important work) in another thread. To illustrate:
// cook and eat threads use std::promise/future
std::thread cook(...);
std::thread eat(...);
// Let's do important work on another thread
std::thread important_work(...);
cook.join();
eat.join();
important_work.join();
is identical to this solution that doesn't use std::promise/future:
// sequentially cook then eat, NO NEED to use std::promise/future
std::thread cook_then_eat(...);
// Let's do important work on another thread
std::thread important_work(...);
cook_then_eat.join();
important_work.join();
No, you are actually correct, future/promise pattern can always be replaced with manual thread management (via thread joins, condition variables and mutexes) if you are careful about synchronization and object lifetimes.
The primary benefit of future/promise pattern is abstraction. It hides lifetime management and synchronization of the shared state from you, freeing you from the burden of doing it yourself.
Once the producer has a promise it doesn't need to know anything else about the consuming side, and likewise for the consumer and future. This makes it possible to write more concise, less error prone, and less coupled code.
Also keep in mind that as of C++20 std::future still lacks continuations, which makes it a lot less powerful than it could be.
What is that use case(s)?
Any work that doesn't depend on the result of the promise can be done on other threads before waiting on the promise.
Let's extend your example to a stew competition
extern void slow_cook_for_12_hours(std::promise<StewableFood>& promise_of_stew);
extern Grade rate_stew(const StewableFood &);
std::map<Chef, Grade> judge_stew_competition(std::map<Chef, std::future<StewableFood>>& entries)
{
std::map<Chef, Grade> results;
for (auto & [chef, fut] : entries) { results[chef] = rate_stew(fut.get()); }
return results;
}
int main()
{
std::map<Chef, std::promise<StewableFood>> promises_of_stew = { ... };
std::map<Chef, std::future<StewableFood>> fulfilment_of_stews;
std::vector<std::thread> async_cook;
for (auto & [chef, promise] : promises_of_stew)
{
fulfilment_of_stews[chef] = promise.get_future();
async_cook.emplace(slow_cook_for_12_hours, std::ref(promise));
}
std::thread async_judge(judge_stew_competition, std::ref(fulfilment_of_stews));
for (auto & thread : async_cook) { thread.join(); }
async_judge.join();
return 0;
}
Examples almost everywhere tout this pattern - a single producer, single producer scenario where the producer notifies the consumer one-time that the resource in question is ready for consumption.
May be that is not a good example.
Another example is a task that requires resources/datasets from different providers and there are only blocking calls available to fetch resources (or non-blocking calls cannot easily be integrated into one event loop in your application). In this case your consumer thread launches all resources requests as std::async and waits till they all complete in parallel, rather than sequentially. In this case it takes max(times) rather than sum(times) to fetch all the datasets, where times is an array of each provider response time.

Check if a thread is finished to send another param to it

I wanna to check if a thread job has been finished to call it again and send another parameter to that. The code is sth like this:
void SendMassage(double Speed)
{
Sleep(200);
cout << "Speed:" << Speed << endl;
}
int main() {
int Speed_1 = 0;
thread f(SendMassage, Speed_1);
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
Sleep(20);
if (?)
{
another call of thread // If last thread done then call it again, otherwise not.
}
Speed_1++;
}
}
How should I do it?
Use, e.g., an atomic flag to indicate that the thread has finished:
std::atomic<bool> finished_flag{false};
void SendMassage(double Speed) {
Sleep(200);
cout << "Speed:" << Speed << endl;
finished_flag = true;
}
int main() {
int Speed_1 = 0;
thread f(SendMassage, Speed_1);
while (Speed_1 < 50) {
Sleep(20);
if (finished_flag) {
f.join();
finished_flag = false;
f = std::thread(SendMassage, Speed_1);
}
Speed_1++;
}
f.join();
}
Working example: https://wandbox.org/permlink/BrEMHFvlInshBy5V
Note that I assumed that, according to your code, you don't want to block when checking whether the thread f has finished. Otherwise, simply call f.join().
If you want to wait untill a thread has finished it's job without using Sleep, you neeed to call it's join method, like so
thread t(SendMassage, Speed_1);
t.join();
//Code here will start executing after returning from join
You can read more about it here http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/thread/join
About sending another parameter, I think the best way would be splitting it into another function that you would call after this thread has been joined, if you need some information about something that's known only inside the function, you could create a class that would store that information in it's fields, and use it in the function you're threading.
The possibly most simple way of doing so is just joining the thread. Nothing clever, but...
OK, but why would you then want to have another thread at all if your main thread passes all its time sleeping anyway, so you quite sure are looking for something cleverer.
I personally like the principle of queues; you could use e. g. a std::deque for:
Your producer thread places in some values, your consumer thread just takes them out. Of course, you need to protect your queue via a std::mutex (or by other appropriate means) against race conditions...
The consumer would be running in an endless loop, processing the queue, if entries are available, or sleep if this is not the case. Have a look at this response for how to do the waiting...
There is the danger, though, that your queue runs full, so you might define some threshold when you stop or at least slow down producing new values, if you discover your producer being too fast. The queue has another advantage, though: If your producer is too fast, you might have more than one consumer, all serving the same queue (depending on your needs, putting together the results might need some extra efforts to keep ordering of correct).
Admitted, that's quite some work to do, it might be worth the effort, it might be overkill. If simpler approaches fit your needs already, Daniel's answer is fine, too...

What is std::promise?

I'm fairly familiar with C++11's std::thread, std::async and std::future components (e.g. see this answer), which are straight-forward.
However, I cannot quite grasp what std::promise is, what it does and in which situations it is best used. The standard document itself doesn't contain a whole lot of information beyond its class synopsis, and neither does std::thread.
Could someone please give a brief, succinct example of a situation where an std::promise is needed and where it is the most idiomatic solution?
I understand the situation a bit better now (in no small amount due to the answers here!), so I thought I add a little write-up of my own.
There are two distinct, though related, concepts in C++11: Asynchronous computation (a function that is called somewhere else), and concurrent execution (a thread, something that does work concurrently). The two are somewhat orthogonal concepts. Asynchronous computation is just a different flavour of func­tion call, while a thread is an execution context. Threads are useful in their own right, but for the pur­pose of this discussion, I will treat them as an implementation detail.
There is a hierarchy of abstraction for asynchronous computation. For example's sake, suppose we have a function that takes some arguments:
int foo(double, char, bool);
First off, we have the template std::future<T>, which represents a future value of type T. The val­ue can be retrieved via the member function get(), which effectively synchronizes the program by wait­ing for the result. Alternatively, a future supports wait_for(), which can be used to probe whether or not the result is already available. Futures should be thought of as the asynchronous drop-in re­place­ment for ordinary return types. For our example function, we expect a std::future<int>.
Now, on to the hierarchy, from highest to lowest level:
std::async: The most convenient and straight-forward way to perform an asynchronous com­pu­ta­tion is via the async function template, which returns the matching future immediately:
auto fut = std::async(foo, 1.5, 'x', false); // is a std::future<int>
We have very little control over the details. In particular, we don't even know if the function is exe­cu­ted concurrently, serially upon get(), or by some other black magic. However, the result is easily ob­tained when needed:
auto res = fut.get(); // is an int
We can now consider how to implement something like async, but in a fashion that we control. For example, we may insist that the function be executed in a separate thread. We already know that we can provide a separate thread by means of the std::thread class.
The next lower level of abstraction does exactly that: std::packaged_task. This is a template that wraps a function and provides a future for the functions return value, but the object itself is call­able, and calling it is at the user's discretion. We can set it up like this:
std::packaged_task<int(double, char, bool)> tsk(foo);
auto fut = tsk.get_future(); // is a std::future<int>
The future becomes ready once we call the task and the call completes. This is the ideal job for a se­pa­rate thread. We just have to make sure to move the task into the thread:
std::thread thr(std::move(tsk), 1.5, 'x', false);
The thread starts running immediately. We can either detach it, or have join it at the end of the scope, or whenever (e.g. using Anthony Williams's scoped_thread wrapper, which really should be in the standard library). The details of using std::thread don't concern us here, though; just be sure to join or detach thr eventually. What matters is that whenever the function call finishes, our result is ready:
auto res = fut.get(); // as before
Now we're down to the lowest level: How would we implement the packaged task? This is where the std::promise comes in. The promise is the building block for communicating with a future. The principal steps are these:
The calling thread makes a promise.
The calling thread obtains a future from the promise.
The promise, along with function arguments, are moved into a separate thread.
The new thread executes the function and fulfills the promise.
The original thread retrieves the result.
As an example, here's our very own "packaged task":
template <typename> class my_task;
template <typename R, typename ...Args>
class my_task<R(Args...)>
{
std::function<R(Args...)> fn;
std::promise<R> pr; // the promise of the result
public:
template <typename ...Ts>
explicit my_task(Ts &&... ts) : fn(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...) { }
template <typename ...Ts>
void operator()(Ts &&... ts)
{
pr.set_value(fn(std::forward<Ts>(ts)...)); // fulfill the promise
}
std::future<R> get_future() { return pr.get_future(); }
// disable copy, default move
};
Usage of this template is essentially the same as that of std::packaged_task. Note that moving the entire task subsumes moving the promise. In more ad-hoc situations, one could also move a promise object explicitly into the new thread and make it a function argument of the thread function, but a task wrapper like the one above seems like a more flexible and less intrusive solution.
Making exceptions
Promises are intimately related to exceptions. The interface of a promise alone is not enough to convey its state completely, so exceptions are thrown whenever an operation on a promise does not make sense. All exceptions are of type std::future_error, which derives from std::logic_error. First off, a description of some constraints:
A default-constructed promise is inactive. Inactive promises can die without consequence.
A promise becomes active when a future is obtained via get_future(). However, only one future may be obtained!
A promise must either be satisfied via set_value() or have an exception set via set_exception() before its lifetime ends if its future is to be consumed. A satisfied promise can die without consequence, and get() becomes available on the future. A promise with an exception will raise the stored exception upon call of get() on the future. If the promise dies with neither value nor exception, calling get() on the future will raise a "broken promise" exception.
Here is a little test series to demonstrate these various exceptional behaviours. First, the harness:
#include <iostream>
#include <future>
#include <exception>
#include <stdexcept>
int test();
int main()
{
try
{
return test();
}
catch (std::future_error const & e)
{
std::cout << "Future error: " << e.what() << " / " << e.code() << std::endl;
}
catch (std::exception const & e)
{
std::cout << "Standard exception: " << e.what() << std::endl;
}
catch (...)
{
std::cout << "Unknown exception." << std::endl;
}
}
Now on to the tests.
Case 1: Inactive promise
int test()
{
std::promise<int> pr;
return 0;
}
// fine, no problems
Case 2: Active promise, unused
int test()
{
std::promise<int> pr;
auto fut = pr.get_future();
return 0;
}
// fine, no problems; fut.get() would block indefinitely
Case 3: Too many futures
int test()
{
std::promise<int> pr;
auto fut1 = pr.get_future();
auto fut2 = pr.get_future(); // Error: "Future already retrieved"
return 0;
}
Case 4: Satisfied promise
int test()
{
std::promise<int> pr;
auto fut = pr.get_future();
{
std::promise<int> pr2(std::move(pr));
pr2.set_value(10);
}
return fut.get();
}
// Fine, returns "10".
Case 5: Too much satisfaction
int test()
{
std::promise<int> pr;
auto fut = pr.get_future();
{
std::promise<int> pr2(std::move(pr));
pr2.set_value(10);
pr2.set_value(10); // Error: "Promise already satisfied"
}
return fut.get();
}
The same exception is thrown if there is more than one of either of set_value or set_exception.
Case 6: Exception
int test()
{
std::promise<int> pr;
auto fut = pr.get_future();
{
std::promise<int> pr2(std::move(pr));
pr2.set_exception(std::make_exception_ptr(std::runtime_error("Booboo")));
}
return fut.get();
}
// throws the runtime_error exception
Case 7: Broken promise
int test()
{
std::promise<int> pr;
auto fut = pr.get_future();
{
std::promise<int> pr2(std::move(pr));
} // Error: "broken promise"
return fut.get();
}
In the words of [futures.state] a std::future is an asynchronous return object ("an object that reads results from a shared state") and a std::promise is an asynchronous provider ("an object that provides a result to a shared state") i.e. a promise is the thing that you set a result on, so that you can get it from the associated future.
The asynchronous provider is what initially creates the shared state that a future refers to. std::promise is one type of asynchronous provider, std::packaged_task is another, and the internal detail of std::async is another. Each of those can create a shared state and give you a std::future that shares that state, and can make the state ready.
std::async is a higher-level convenience utility that gives you an asynchronous result object and internally takes care of creating the asynchronous provider and making the shared state ready when the task completes. You could emulate it with a std::packaged_task (or std::bind and a std::promise) and a std::thread but it's safer and easier to use std::async.
std::promise is a bit lower-level, for when you want to pass an asynchronous result to the future, but the code that makes the result ready cannot be wrapped up in a single function suitable for passing to std::async. For example, you might have an array of several promises and associated futures and have a single thread which does several calculations and sets a result on each promise. async would only allow you to return a single result, to return several you would need to call async several times, which might waste resources.
Bartosz Milewski provides a good writeup.
C++ splits the implementation of futures into a set
of small blocks
std::promise is one of these parts.
A promise is a vehicle for passing the return value (or an
exception) from the thread executing a function to the thread
that cashes in on the function future.
...
A future is the synchronization object constructed around the
receiving end of the promise channel.
So, if you want to use a future, you end up with a promise that you use to get the result of the asynchronous processing.
An example from the page is:
promise<int> intPromise;
future<int> intFuture = intPromise.get_future();
std::thread t(asyncFun, std::move(intPromise));
// do some other stuff
int result = intFuture.get(); // may throw MyException
In a rough approximation you can consider std::promise as the other end of a std::future (this is false, but for illustration you can think as if it was). The consumer end of the communication channel would use a std::future to consume the datum from the shared state, while the producer thread would use a std::promise to write to the shared state.
std::promise is the channel or pathway for information to be returned from the async function. std::future is the synchronization mechanism thats makes the caller wait until the return value carried in the std::promise is ready(meaning its value is set inside the function).
There are really 3 core entities in asynchronous processing. C++11 currently focuses on 2 of them.
The core things you need to run some logic asynchronously are:
The task (logic packaged as some functor object) that will RUN 'somewhere'.
The actual processing node - a thread, a process, etc. that RUNS such functors when they are provided to it. Look at the "Command" design pattern for a good idea of how a basic worker thread pool does this.
The result handle: Somebody needs that result, and needs an object that will GET it for them. For OOP and other reasons, any waiting or synchronization should be done in this handle's APIs.
C++11 calls the things I speak of in (1) std::promise, and those in (3) std::future.
std::thread is the only thing provided publicly for (2). This is unfortunate because real programs need to manage thread & memory resources, and most will want tasks to run on thread pools instead of creating & destroying a thread for every little task (which almost always causes unnecessary performance hits by itself and can easily create resource starvation that is even worse).
According to Herb Sutter and others in the C++11 brain trust, there are tentative plans to add a std::executor that- much like in Java- will be the basis for thread pools and logically similar setups for (2). Maybe we'll see it in C++2014, but my bet is more like C++17 (and God help us if they botch the standard for these).
A std::promise is created as an end point for a promise/future pair and the std::future (created from the std::promise using the get_future() method) is the other end point. This is a simple, one shot method of providing a way for two threads to synchronize as one thread provides data to another thread through a message.
You can think of it as one thread creates a promise to provide data and the other thread collects the promise in the future. This mechanism can only be used once.
The promise/future mechanism is only one direction, from the thread which uses the set_value() method of a std::promise to the thread which uses the get() of a std::future to receive the data. An exception is generated if the get() method of a future is called more than once.
If the thread with the std::promise has not used set_value() to fulfill its promise then when the second thread calls get() of the std::future to collect the promise, the second thread will go into a wait state until the promise is fulfilled by the first thread with the std::promise when it uses the set_value() method to send the data.
With the proposed coroutines of Technical Specification N4663 Programming Languages — C++ Extensions for Coroutines and the Visual Studio 2017 C++ compiler support of co_await, it is also possible to use std::future and std::async to write coroutine functionality. See the discussion and example in https://stackoverflow.com/a/50753040/1466970 which has as one section that discusses the use of std::future with co_await.
The following example code, a simple Visual Studio 2013 Windows console application, shows using a few of the C++11 concurrency classes/templates and other functionality. It illustrates a use for promise/future which works well, autonomous threads which will do some task and stop, and a use where more synchronous behavior is required and due to the need for multiple notifications the promise/future pair does not work.
One note about this example is the delays added in various places. These delays were added only to make sure that the various messages printed to the console using std::cout would be clear and that text from the several threads would not be intermingled.
The first part of the main() is creating three additional threads and using std::promise and std::future to send data between the threads. An interesting point is where the main thread starts up a thread, T2, which will wait for data from the main thread, do something, and then send data to the third thread, T3, which will then do something and send data back to the main thread.
The second part of the main() creates two threads and a set of queues to allow multiple messages from the main thread to each of the two created threads. We can not use std::promise and std::future for this because the promise/future duo are one shot and can not be use repeatedly.
The source for the class Sync_queue is from Stroustrup's The C++ Programming Language: 4th Edition.
// cpp_threads.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <thread> // std::thread is defined here
#include <future> // std::future and std::promise defined here
#include <list> // std::list which we use to build a message queue on.
static std::atomic<int> kount(1); // this variable is used to provide an identifier for each thread started.
//------------------------------------------------
// create a simple queue to let us send notifications to some of our threads.
// a future and promise are one shot type of notifications.
// we use Sync_queue<> to have a queue between a producer thread and a consumer thread.
// this code taken from chapter 42 section 42.3.4
// The C++ Programming Language, 4th Edition by Bjarne Stroustrup
// copyright 2014 by Pearson Education, Inc.
template<typename Ttype>
class Sync_queue {
public:
void put(const Ttype &val);
void get(Ttype &val);
private:
std::mutex mtx; // mutex used to synchronize queue access
std::condition_variable cond; // used for notifications when things are added to queue
std::list <Ttype> q; // list that is used as a message queue
};
template<typename Ttype>
void Sync_queue<Ttype>::put(const Ttype &val) {
std::lock_guard <std::mutex> lck(mtx);
q.push_back(val);
cond.notify_one();
}
template<typename Ttype>
void Sync_queue<Ttype>::get(Ttype &val) {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mtx);
cond.wait(lck, [this]{return !q.empty(); });
val = q.front();
q.pop_front();
}
//------------------------------------------------
// thread function that starts up and gets its identifier and then
// waits for a promise to be filled by some other thread.
void func(std::promise<int> &jj) {
int myId = std::atomic_fetch_add(&kount, 1); // get my identifier
std::future<int> intFuture(jj.get_future());
auto ll = intFuture.get(); // wait for the promise attached to the future
std::cout << " func " << myId << " future " << ll << std::endl;
}
// function takes a promise from one thread and creates a value to provide as a promise to another thread.
void func2(std::promise<int> &jj, std::promise<int>&pp) {
int myId = std::atomic_fetch_add(&kount, 1); // get my identifier
std::future<int> intFuture(jj.get_future());
auto ll = intFuture.get(); // wait for the promise attached to the future
auto promiseValue = ll * 100; // create the value to provide as promised to the next thread in the chain
pp.set_value(promiseValue);
std::cout << " func2 " << myId << " promised " << promiseValue << " ll was " << ll << std::endl;
}
// thread function that starts up and waits for a series of notifications for work to do.
void func3(Sync_queue<int> &q, int iBegin, int iEnd, int *pInts) {
int myId = std::atomic_fetch_add(&kount, 1);
int ll;
q.get(ll); // wait on a notification and when we get it, processes it.
while (ll > 0) {
std::cout << " func3 " << myId << " start loop base " << ll << " " << iBegin << " to " << iEnd << std::endl;
for (int i = iBegin; i < iEnd; i++) {
pInts[i] = ll + i;
}
q.get(ll); // we finished this job so now wait for the next one.
}
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
std::chrono::milliseconds myDur(1000);
// create our various promise and future objects which we are going to use to synchronise our threads
// create our three threads which are going to do some simple things.
std::cout << "MAIN #1 - create our threads." << std::endl;
// thread T1 is going to wait on a promised int
std::promise<int> intPromiseT1;
std::thread t1(func, std::ref(intPromiseT1));
// thread T2 is going to wait on a promised int and then provide a promised int to thread T3
std::promise<int> intPromiseT2;
std::promise<int> intPromiseT3;
std::thread t2(func2, std::ref(intPromiseT2), std::ref(intPromiseT3));
// thread T3 is going to wait on a promised int and then provide a promised int to thread Main
std::promise<int> intPromiseMain;
std::thread t3(func2, std::ref(intPromiseT3), std::ref(intPromiseMain));
std::this_thread::sleep_for(myDur);
std::cout << "MAIN #2 - provide the value for promise #1" << std::endl;
intPromiseT1.set_value(22);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(myDur);
std::cout << "MAIN #2.2 - provide the value for promise #2" << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(myDur);
intPromiseT2.set_value(1001);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(myDur);
std::cout << "MAIN #2.4 - set_value 1001 completed." << std::endl;
std::future<int> intFutureMain(intPromiseMain.get_future());
auto t3Promised = intFutureMain.get();
std::cout << "MAIN #2.3 - intFutureMain.get() from T3. " << t3Promised << std::endl;
t1.join();
t2.join();
t3.join();
int iArray[100];
Sync_queue<int> q1; // notification queue for messages to thread t11
Sync_queue<int> q2; // notification queue for messages to thread t12
std::thread t11(func3, std::ref(q1), 0, 5, iArray); // start thread t11 with its queue and section of the array
std::this_thread::sleep_for(myDur);
std::thread t12(func3, std::ref(q2), 10, 15, iArray); // start thread t12 with its queue and section of the array
std::this_thread::sleep_for(myDur);
// send a series of jobs to our threads by sending notification to each thread's queue.
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
std::cout << "MAIN #11 Loop to do array " << i << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(myDur); // sleep a moment for I/O to complete
q1.put(i + 100);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(myDur); // sleep a moment for I/O to complete
q2.put(i + 1000);
std::this_thread::sleep_for(myDur); // sleep a moment for I/O to complete
}
// close down the job threads so that we can quit.
q1.put(-1); // indicate we are done with agreed upon out of range data value
q2.put(-1); // indicate we are done with agreed upon out of range data value
t11.join();
t12.join();
return 0;
}
This simple application creates the following output.
MAIN #1 - create our threads.
MAIN #2 - provide the value for promise #1
func 1 future 22
MAIN #2.2 - provide the value for promise #2
func2 2 promised 100100 ll was 1001
func2 3 promised 10010000 ll was 100100
MAIN #2.4 - set_value 1001 completed.
MAIN #2.3 - intFutureMain.get() from T3. 10010000
MAIN #11 Loop to do array 0
func3 4 start loop base 100 0 to 5
func3 5 start loop base 1000 10 to 15
MAIN #11 Loop to do array 1
func3 4 start loop base 101 0 to 5
func3 5 start loop base 1001 10 to 15
MAIN #11 Loop to do array 2
func3 4 start loop base 102 0 to 5
func3 5 start loop base 1002 10 to 15
MAIN #11 Loop to do array 3
func3 4 start loop base 103 0 to 5
func3 5 start loop base 1003 10 to 15
MAIN #11 Loop to do array 4
func3 4 start loop base 104 0 to 5
func3 5 start loop base 1004 10 to 15
The promise is the other end of the wire.
Imagine you need to retrieve the value of a future being computed by an async. However, you don't want it to be computed in the same thread, and you don't even spawn a thread "now" - maybe your software was designed to pick a thread from a pool, so you don't know who will perform che computation in the end.
Now, what do you pass to this (yet unknown) thread/class/entity? You don't pass the future, since this is the result. You want to pass something that is connected to the future and that represents the other end of the wire, so you will just query the future with no knowledge about who will actually compute/write something.
This is the promise. It is a handle connected to your future. If the future is a speaker, and with get() you start listening until some sound comes out, the promise is a microphone; but not just any microphone, it is the microphone connected with a single wire to the speaker you hold. You might know who's at the other end but you don't need to know it - you just give it and wait until the other party says something.
http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/future/promise/
One sentence explanation:
furture::get() waits promse::set_value() forever.
void print_int(std::future<int>& fut) {
int x = fut.get(); // future would wait prom.set_value forever
std::cout << "value: " << x << '\n';
}
int main()
{
std::promise<int> prom; // create promise
std::future<int> fut = prom.get_future(); // engagement with future
std::thread th1(print_int, std::ref(fut)); // send future to new thread
prom.set_value(10); // fulfill promise
// (synchronizes with getting the future)
th1.join();
return 0;
}

Using boost::lock_guard for simple shared data locking

I am a newcomer to the Boost library, and am trying to implement a simple producer and consumer threads that operate on a shared queue. My example implementation looks like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <deque>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
boost::mutex mutex;
std::deque<std::string> queue;
void producer()
{
while (true) {
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
std::cout << "producer() pushing string onto queue" << std::endl;
queue.push_back(std::string("test"));
}
}
void consumer()
{
while (true) {
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
if (!queue.empty()) {
std::cout << "consumer() popped string " << queue.front() << " from queue" << std::endl;
queue.pop_front();
}
}
}
int main()
{
boost::thread producer_thread(producer);
boost::thread consumer_thread(consumer);
sleep(5);
producer_thread.detach();
consumer_thread.detach();
return 0;
}
This code runs as I expect, but when main exits, I get
/usr/include/boost/thread/pthread/mutex.hpp:45:
boost::mutex::~mutex(): Assertion `!pthread_mutex_destroy(&m)' failed.
consumer() popped string test from queue
Aborted
(I'm not sure if the output from consumer is relevant in that position, but I've left it in.)
Am I doing something wrong in my usage of Boost?
A bit off-topic but relevant imo (...waits for flames in comments).
The consumer model here is very greedy, looping and checking for data on the queue continually. It will be more efficient (waste less CPU cycles) if you have your consumer threads awakened determistically when data is available, using inter-thread signalling rather than this lock-and-peek loop. Think about it this way: while the queue is empty, this is essentially a tight loop only broken by the need to acquire the lock. Not ideal?
void consumer()
{
while (true) {
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
if (!queue.empty()) {
std::cout << "consumer() popped string " << queue.front() << " from queue" << std::endl;
queue.pop_front();
}
}
}
I understand that you are learning but I would not advise use of this in 'real' code. For learning the library though, it's fine. To your credit, this is a more complex example than necessary to understand how to use the lock_guard, so you are aiming high!
Eventually you will most likely build (or better if available, reuse) code for a queue that signals workers when they are required to do work, and you will then use the lock_guard inside your worker threads to mediate accesses to shared data.
You give your threads (producer & consumer) the mutex object and then detach them. They are supposed to run forever. Then you exit from your program and the mutex object is no longer valid. Nevertheless your threads still try to use it, they don't know that it is no longer valid. If you had used the NDEBUG define you would have got a coredump.
Are you trying to write a daemon application and this is the reason for detaching threads?
When main exits, all the global objects are destroyed. Your threads, however, do continue to run. You therefore end up with problems because the threads are accessing a deleted object.
Bottom line is that you must terminate the threads before exiting. The only what to do this though is to get the main program to wait (by using a boost::thread::join) until the threads have finished running. You may want to provide some way of signaling the threads to finish running to save from waiting too long.
The other issue is that your consumer thread continues to run even when there is not data. You might want to wait on a boost::condition_variable until signaled that there is new data.