If I use two different cairo_t (and related cairo_surface_t etc) objects in two different threads, can I be guaranteed that there will be no race conditions due to shared global state?
Can I also formally pass a cairo_t object from one thread to another without any unexpected behaviour (possibly arising from thread local storage)?
This bug-tracking discussion should answer your questions : https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=74355
1. Cairo should be re-entrant
Uli Schlachter 2014-02-03 18:25:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #0)
share a single cairo_surface_t between the threads, and have each thread
draw using its own cairo_t. This crashes, but maybe I'm hoping for too much
(although an image surface is essentially just a big array of bytes that
should be writable from multiple threads).
Sure, just an array. And this works as long as you expect anything
like useful results. Cairo is supposed to be thread-safe as long as
the threads don't share any state (well, this is an
oversimplification, but your first approach isn't supposed to work).
2. Thread local storage can crash Pixman
Søren Sandmann Pedersen 2014-02-17 16:49:02 UTC
It is possible that pixman's support for TLS on Windows is simply
buggy; it may be that not a lot of people have been using pixman in a
multithreaded way on Windows (or have worked around the problem in
some way). We will need some kind of way to reproduce the issue to
know.
In pixman 0.32.0 and later there is a test program called
'thread-test' that may reproduce this issue if you can get it running
on Windows.
As a policy, you should always consider third parties libraries not-tread safe, until proven otherwise.
Since your title asks for reentrancy: There aren't many callbacks in cairo, but as long as you don't cause any recursive callbacks, you should be fine.
Cairo definitely isn't signal-safe and I can't really imagine it being so.
And for your actual question about threads:
There isn't that much global state in cairo and most of that is protected via apropriate mutexes. There were/are some bugs with font locking. If you stumble upon thread safety problems and can write a not-too-huge, self-contained program that reproduces the problem, the problem should be quickly fixed. So any thread-safety issues are considered bugs.
And yes, this does not apply to sharing state between threads. Only implicitely used global state is protected. You cannot use any object that cairo hands to you in multiple threads at the same time. But you can freely move an object between threads.
Related
Hey
I'm using gRPC with the async API. That requires constructing reactors based on classes like ClientBidiReactor or ServerBidiReactor
If I understand correctly, the gRPC works like this: It takes threads from some thread pool, and using these threads it executes certain methods of the reactors that are being used.
The problem
Now, the problem is when the reactors become stateful. I know that the methods of a single reactor will most probably be executed sequentially, but they may be run from different threads, is this correct? If so, then is it possible that we may encounter a problem described for instance here?
Long story short, if we have an unsynchronized state in such circumstances, is it possible that one thread will update the state, then a next method from the reactor will be executed from a different thread and it will see the not-updated value because the state's new value has not been flushed to the main memory yet?
Honestly, I'm a little confused about this. In the grpc examples here and here this doesn't seem to be addressed (the mutex is for a different purpose there and the values are not atomic).
I used/linked examples for the bidi reactors but this refers to all types of reactors.
Conclusion / questions
There are basically a couple of questions from me at this point:
Are the concerns valid here and do I properly understand everything or did I miss something? Does the problem exist?
Do we need to manually synchronize reactors' state or is it handled by the library somehow(I mean is flushing to the main memory handled)?
Are the library authors aware of this? Did they keep this in mind while they were coding examples I linked?
Thank you in advance for any help, all the best!
You're right that the examples don't showcase this very well, there's some room for improvement. The operation-completion reaction methods (OnReadInitialMetadataDone, OnReadDone, OnWriteDone, ...) can be called concurrently from different threads owned by the gRPC library, so if your code accesses any shared state, you'll want to coordinate that yourself (via synchronization, lock-free types, etc). In practice, I'm not sure how often it happens, or which callbacks are more likely to overlap.
The original callback API spec says a bit more about this, under a "Thread safety" clause: L67: C++ callback-based asynchronous API. The same is reiterated a few places in the callback implementation code itself - client_callback.h#L234-236 for example.
I've tryed to profile one of my application using Qt.
The results I found seemed to show that Qt is a big Thread user. It seems to create and destroy threads a lot. Which is the peak of its memory consumption. Is it true ?
So I've tryed to do some research on "how to optimize a Qt application" but, well I hadn't found anything relevant for now.
So I was wondering if there is any "general way" of programming with Qt that could be optimized. Shall I use the threads in a specific manner ? Can I do anything except respecting C++ standards, -pedantic options in compiler, and so one ?
Generally speaking, if you create and destroy threads a lot, then that's probably not a very good design. Assuming your threads do the same (or similar) things, then having a fixed "pool" of threads that run for as long as it takes and then get put back in the pool when your current code destroys the thread.
Or, let the thread run forever, and feed it data through some suitable IPC.
I would also say that unless you are doing something very special, if something takes less than about a quarter of a second to do, then you shouldn't create a thread to do that. That's not a fixed rule.
Threads as such don't use that much memory, but the stack of each thread may use quite a bit of memory.
If you're creating and destroying QThreads a lot, consider using a QThreadPool or QtConcurrent. These will hold threads in reserve and serve them on demand.
If you're not creating and destroying threads a lot, then your problem is elsewhere.
I have employed MFC Synchronization objects in my projects without any issues. But recently I came across an article, which explains MFC synchronization is completely wrong. I'm not sure which version of MFC he's talking about but I seriously believe that MFC has matured in the recent versions. I'm using MFC library which comes along with Visual Studio 2008 Installation. Is it safe to use MFC libraries of this version especially for synchronization?
On mutex timeouts, there is a school of design for concurrent software that says you should not use timeouts for normal operation. Your design would then involve mutexes or other locks that do not time out ever, and timeout is effectively a mechanism for dealing with deadlocks: you try to design your system not to exhibit deadlocks, but in case they do happen, you would rather have it fail more or less gracefully, than stay dealocked forever.
If you use your locks in this way, it may well not matter much why trying to acquire a mutex failed.
On the other hand it does seem maybe not fundamentally broken, but at least somewhat deficient that this information is lost for no good reason and there are better frameworks out there that provide OO wrappers for mutexes, so regardless of this avoiding MFC in this case seems like a good idea.
The author's assertions are not appropriate for every condition, but for specific set of conditions. Lock returns BOOL, and you mostly would not care if it failed because of some reason. Most of the time you would call to get the lock or wait. In other cases, FALSE would mean failure. And if you need to check timeout, you can use native API (which is rare).
Recursive CSingleLock is absurd. You don't use same object to relock. You can safely use multipe CSinlgeLock objects to gain recursive access.
CEvent, CMutex and other named-object classes can be used accross process. I have used it!
I don't use Semaphores. May be some other can comment.
I have a project and I want to convert it to multi-threaded application. What are the things that can be done to make it a multi threaded application
List out things to be done to convert into multithreaded application
e.g mutex lock on shared variables.
I was not able to find a question which list all those under single hood.
project is in C
Single threaded application need not be concerned about being thread safe.
This issue arises when you have multiple threads which are trying to access a commonly shared resource. At that time, you must be concerned.
So, no need to worry.
EDIT (after question been edited ) :
You need to go through the following links.
Single threaded to multithreaded application
Single threaded to multithreaded application - What we need to consider ?
Advice - Single threaded to multithreaded application
Also a good advice for converting single to multithreaded application.Check out.
Single threaded -> Multithreaded application :: Good advice.
The big issue is that, in general, when designing your application it is very difficult to choose single thread and then later on add multi-threading. The choice is fundamental to the design idioms you are going to strive towards. Here's a brief but poor guide of some of the things you should be paying attention towards and how to modify your code (note, none of these are set in stone, there's always a way around):
Remove all mutable global variables. I'd say this goes for single threaded applications too but that's just me.
Add "const" to as many variables as you can as a first pass to decide where there are state changes and take notes from the compilation errors. This is not to say "turn all your variables to const." It is just s simple hack to figure out where your problem areas are going to be.
For those items which are mutable and which will be shared (that is, you can't leave them as const without compilation warnings) put locks around them. Each lock should be logged.
Next, introduce your threads. You're probably about to suffer a lot of deadlocks, livelocks, race conditions, and what not as your single threaded application made assumptions about the way and order your application would run.
Start by paring away unneeded locks. That is, look to the mutable state which isn't shared amongst your threads. Those locks are superfluous and need to go.
Next, study your code. At this point, determining where your threaded issues are is more art than science. Although, there are decent principals about how to go about this, that's about all I can say.
If that sounds like too much effort, it's time to look towards the Actor model for concurrency. This would be akin to creating several different applications which call one another through a message passing scheme. I find that Actors are not only intuitive but also massively friendly to determining where and how you might encounter threading issues. When setting up Actors, it's almost impossible not to think about all the "what ifs."
Personally, when dealing with a single threaded to multi threaded conversion, I do as little as possible to meet project goals. It's just safer.
This depends very heavily on exactly how you intend to use threads. What does your program do? Where do you want to use threads? What will those threads be doing?
You will need to figure out what resources these threads will be sharing, and apply appropriate locking. Since you're starting with a single-threaded application, it's a good idea to minimize the shared resources to make porting easier. For example, if you have a single GUI thread right now, and need to do some complex computations in multiple threads, spawn those threads, but don't have them directly touch any data for the GUI - instead, send a asynchronous message to the GUI thread (how you do this depends on the OS and GUI library) and have it handle any changes to GUI-thread data in a serialized fashion on the GUI thread itself.
As general advice, don't simply add threads willy-nilly. You should know exactly which variables and data structures are shared between threads, where they are accessed, and why. And you should be keeping said sharing to the minimum.
Without a much more detailed description of your application, it's nearly impossible to give you a complete answer.
It will be a good idea to give some insight in your understanding of threading aswell.
However, the most important is that each time a global variable is accessed or a pointer is used, there's a good chance you'll need to do that inside of a mutex.
This wikipedia page should be a good start : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_safety
This is my follow up to the previous post on memory management issues. The following are the issues I know.
1)data races (atomicity violations and data corruption)
2)ordering problems
3)misusing of locks leading to dead locks
4)heisenbugs
Any other issues with multi threading ? How to solve them ?
Eric's list of four issues is pretty much spot on. But debugging these issues is tough.
For deadlock, I've always favored "leveled locks". Essentially you give each type of lock a level number. And then require that a thread aquire locks that are monotonic.
To do leveled locks, you can declare a structure like this:
typedef struct {
os_mutex actual_lock;
int level;
my_lock *prev_lock_in_thread;
} my_lock_struct;
static __tls my_lock_struct *last_lock_in_thread;
void my_lock_aquire(int level, *my_lock_struct lock) {
if (last_lock_in_thread != NULL) assert(last_lock_in_thread->level < level)
os_lock_acquire(lock->actual_lock)
lock->level = level
lock->prev_lock_in_thread = last_lock_in_thread
last_lock_in_thread = lock
}
What's cool about leveled locks is the possibility of deadlock causes an assertion. And with some extra magic with FUNC and LINE you know exactly what badness your thread did.
For data races and lack of synchronization, the current situation is pretty poor. There are static tools that try to identify issues. But false positives are high.
The company I work for ( http://www.corensic.com ) has a new product called Jinx that actively looks for cases where race conditions can be exposed. This is done by using virtualization technology to control the interleaving of threads on the various CPUs and zooming in on communication between CPUs.
Check it out. You probably have a few more days to download the Beta for free.
Jinx is particularly good at finding bugs in lock free data structures. It also does very well at finding other race conditions. What's cool is that there are no false positives. If your code testing gets close to a race condition, Jinx helps the code go down the bad path. But if the bad path doesn't exist, you won't be given false warnings.
Unfortunately there's no good pill that helps automatically solve most/all threading issues. Even unit tests that work so well on single-threaded pieces of code may never detect an extremely subtle race condition.
One thing that will help is keeping the thread-interaction data encapsulated in objects. The smaller the interface/scope of the object, the easier it will be to detect errors in review (and possibly testing, but race conditions can be a pain to detect in test cases). By keeping a simple interface that can be used, clients that use the interface will also be correct just by default. By building up a bigger system from lots of smaller pieces (only a handful of which actually do thread-interaction), you can go a long way towards averting threading errors in the first place.
The four most common problems with theading are
1-Deadlock
2-Livelock
3-Race Conditions
4-Starvation
How to solve [issues with multi threading]?
A good way to "debug" MT applications is through logging. A good logging library with extensive filtering options makes it easier. Of course, logging itself influences the timing, so you still can have "heisenbugs", but it's much less likely than when you're actuall breaking into the debugger.
Prepare and plan for that. Include a good logging facility into your application from the start.
Make your threads as simple as possible.
Try not to use global variables. Global constants (actual constants that never change) is fine. When you do need to use global or shared variables you need to protect them with some type of mutex/lock (semaphore, monitor, ...).
Make sure that you actually understand what how your mutexes work. There are a few different implementations which can work differently.
Try to organize your code so that the critical sections (places where you hold some type of lock(s) ) are as quick as possible. Be aware that some functions may block (sleep or wait on something and keep the OS from allowing that thread to continue running for some time). Do not use these while holding any locks (unless absolutely necessary or during debugging as it can sometimes show other bugs).
Try to understand what more threads actually does for you. Blindly throwing more threads at a problem is very often going to make things worse. Different threads compete for the CPU and for locks.
Deadlock avoidance requires planning. Try to avoid having to acquire more than one lock at a time. If this is unavoidable decide on an ordering you will use to acquire and release the locks for all threads. Make sure you know what deadlock really means.
Debugging multi-threaded or distributed applications is difficult. If you can do most of the debugging in a single threaded environment (maybe even just forcing other threads to sleep) then you can try to eliminate non-threading centric bugs before jumping into multi-threaded debugging.
Always think about what the other threads might be up to. Comment this in your code. If you are doing something a certain way because you know that at that time no other thread should be accessing a certain resource write a big comment saying so.
You may want to wrap calls to mutex locks/unlocks in other functions like:
int my_lock_get(lock_type lock, const char * file, unsigned line, const char * msg) {
thread_id_type me = this_thread();
logf("%u\t%s (%u)\t%s:%u\t%s\t%s\n", time_now(), thread_name(me), me, "get", msg);
lock_get(lock);
logf("%u\t%s (%u)\t%s:%u\t%s\t%s\n", time_now(), thread_name(me), me, "in", msg);
}
And a similar version for unlock. Note, the functions and types used in this are all made up and not overly based on any one API.
Using something like this you can come back if there is an error and use a perl script or something like it to run queries on your logs to examine where things went wrong (matching up locks and unlocks, for instance).
Note that your print or logging functionality may need to have locks around it as well. Many libraries already have this built in, but not all do. These locks need to not use the printing version of the lock_[get|release] functions or you'll have infinite recursion.
Beware of global variables even if
they are const, in particular in
C++. Only POD that are statically
initialized "à la" C are good here.
As soon as a run-time constructor
comes into play, be extremely
careful. AFAIR initialization order
of variables with static linkage that are in
different compilation units are
called in an undefined order. Maybe
C++ classes that initialize all
their members properly and have an
empty function body, could be ok
nowadays, but I once had a bad
experience with that, too.
This is one of the reason why on the
POSIX side pthread_mutex_t is much
easier to program than sem_t: it
has a static initializer
PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER.
Keep critical sections as short as
possible, for two reasons: it might
be more efficient at the end, but
more importantly it is easier to
maintain and to debug.
A critical section should never be
longer that a screen, including the
locking and unlocking that is needed
to protect it, and including the
comments and assertions that help
the reader to understand what is
happening.
Start implementing critical sections
very rigidly maybe with one global
lock for them all, and relax the
constraints afterwards.
Logging might is difficult if many
threads start to write at the same
time. If every thread does a
reasonable amount of work try to
have them each write a file of their
own, such that they don't interlock
each other.
But beware, logging changes behavior
of code. This can be bad when bugs
disappear, or beneficial when bugs
appear that you otherwise wouldn't
have noticed.
To make a post-mortem analysis of
such a mess you have to have
accurate timestamps on each line
such that all the files can be
merged and give you a coherent view
of the execution.
-> Add priority inversion to that list.
As another poster eluded to, log files are wonderful things. For deadlocks, using a LogLock instead of a Lock can help pinpoint when you entities stop working. That is, once you know you've got a deadlock, the log will tell you when and where locks were instantiated and released. This can be enormously helpful in tracking these things down.
I've found that race conditions when using an Actor model following the same message->confirm->confirm received style seem to disappear. That said, YMMV.