Hello i'm trying to pause a thread, but for some reason it keeps crashing the game.
here is what i got
void Test(){
SuspendThread((PVOID)0x83593C24);//0x83593C24 The offset from the game
Scr_AddInt(1);
ResumeThread((PVOID)0x83593C24);
}
Basically i'm trying to pause than call Add Int than resume it
You need to use the thread handle that was returned when you created the thread. See documentation for CreateThread; SuspendThread; and ResumeThread.
In particular, from the documentation for CreateThread:
If the function succeeds, the return value is a handle to the new thread. If the function fails, the return value is NULL.
Example:
HANDLE thread_handle = CreateThread(/*args*/); // hold on to this value (and check for failure)
if (thread_handle == NULL)
{
// handle creation error
}
DWORD suspend_retval = SuspendThread(thread_handle);
if (suspend_retval == static_cast<DWORD>(-1))
{
// handle suspend error
}
Scr_AddInt(1); // original work
DWORD resume_retval = ResumeThread(thread_handle);
if (resume_retval == static_cast<DWORD>(-1))
{
// handle resume error
}
It may be worthwhile to create a wrapper class that encapsulates thread creation, suspension, resumption, and termination. This class can perform all error checking internally, and throw an exception when appropriate.
Related
I am writing a chat application in C++ and have working client and server classes. I am now trying to get my client to be able to read and write from/to the server in parallel. I know that I must create two threads, one for reading and one for writing. What I do not know is what I should use for a start routine for these threads. I have looked at all the man pages and cannot seem to fully understand. Can someone shed light on this subject and possibly help me out? Let me know if I missed any important details.
Your start routine should be a top-level function that you create which accepts a void pointer for an argument and returns a void pointer. For example:
void *trivial_start_routine(void *client_ptr)
{
client_class *my_client = (client_class*) client_ptr;
while(my_client->working()) {
try {
my_client->read_from_server();
} catch(exception all_exceptions) {
// Be sure to catch every exception.
// Pthreads cannot handle a C++ exception
// unwinding the stack.
}
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
According to the Linux man page for pthread_exit:
Performing a return from the start function of any thread other than
the main thread results in an implicit call to pthread_exit(),
the function's return value as the thread's exit status.
Then, to start the thread, you do something like this:
pthread_t start_reader_thread(client_class *my_client) {
pthread_t thread;
int status;
status = pthread_create(&thread, NULL, trivial_start_routine, my_client);
if(status != 0) {
// status is an error number. See the man page for pthread_create.
} else {
return thread;
}
}
let's pretend there are no libraries that provide semaphores for C++. I wrote this:
#include <vector>
#include <Windows.h>
class Semaphore {
HANDLE mutexS; // provides mutex in semaphore rutines
std::vector<HANDLE> queue; // provides FIFO queue for blocked threads
int value; // semaphore's value
public:
Semaphore(int init=1);
~Semaphore();
void wait();
void signal();
};
Semaphore::Semaphore(int init) {
value = init;
queue = std::vector<HANDLE>();
mutexS = CreateMutex(0,0,0);
}
Semaphore::~Semaphore() {
CloseHandle(mutexS);
}
void Semaphore::signal() {
WaitForSingleObject(mutexS, INFINITE);
if (++value <= 0) {
HANDLE someOldThread = queue.front();
ResumeThread(someOldThread);
queue.erase(queue.begin());
CloseHandle(someOldThread);
}
ReleaseMutex(mutexS);
}
I would like to know why this implementation of wait() doesn't work:
void Semaphore::wait() {
WaitForSingleObject(mutexS, INFINITE);
if (--value < 0) {
HANDLE thisThread = GetCurrentThread();
queue.push_back(thisThread);
ReleaseMutex(mutexS);
SuspendThread(thisThread );
}
else
ReleaseMutex(mutexS);
}
And this one works:
void Semaphore::wait() {
WaitForSingleObject(mutexS, INFINITE);
if (--value < 0) {
HANDLE thisThread = GetCurrentThread();
HANDLE alsoThisThread;
DuplicateHandle(GetCurrentProcess(), thisThread, GetCurrentProcess(), &alsoThisThread, 0, 0, DUPLICATE_SAME_ACCESS);
queue.push_back(alsoThisThread);
ReleaseMutex(mutexS);
SuspendThread(alsoThisThread);
}
else
ReleaseMutex(mutexS);
}
What exactly happens in each case? I've been banging my head over it for a lot of time now. The first implementation of wait, which doesn't work, makes my program block (well, it probably blocks some thread forever). The 2nd implementation works like a charm. What gives ? Why do I need to duplicate thread handles and block the duplicate ?
MSDN helps a lot here ;)
GetCurrentThread returns a pseudo-handle which is a constant for "the current thread":
A pseudo handle is a special constant that is interpreted as the current thread handle.
So when you push it in the queue, you are always pushing a constant that says "the current thread", which is obviously not what you want.
To get a real handle, you have to use DuplicateHandle
If hSourceHandle is a pseudo handle returned by GetCurrentProcess or GetCurrentThread, DuplicateHandle converts it to a real handle to a process or thread, respectively.
A final note: I suppose you are implementing this as a "test" right? Because there are several potential problems.. A very good learning exercise would be to dig them out. But you should not use this in production code.
Out of curiosity: if you want to experiment a little more, the "canonical" way of implementing semaphore with mutexes is to use two mutexes: see here
MSDN documentation for GetCurrentThread has the answer (accents are mine):
The return value is a pseudo handle for the current thread.
A pseudo handle is a special constant that is interpreted as the current thread handle. The calling thread can use this handle to specify itself whenever a thread handle is required.
...
The function cannot be used by one thread to create a handle that can be used by other threads to refer to the first thread. The handle is always interpreted as referring to the thread that is using it. A thread can create a "real" handle to itself that can be used by other threads, or inherited by other processes, by specifying the pseudo handle as the source handle in a call to the DuplicateHandle function.
best way to ask a question is to first show an example:
this is how i create a timer in c++:
if (FALSE == CreateTimerQueueTimer(&m_hSampleStarvationTimer,
m_hSampleStarvationTimerQueue,
(WAITORTIMERCALLBACK)TsSampleStarvationTimeBomb_Static,
(LPVOID)this,
dwDueTime,
0,
WT_EXECUTEONLYONCE))
once the following callback is triggered(TsSampleStarvationTimeBomb_Static), i try to kill both the queue handle and timer's handle inside that particular thread.
void CALLBACK CCaptureChannel::TsSampleStarvationTimeBomb_Static(LPVOID lpArg, BOOLEAN TimerOrWaitFired)
{
HRESULT hr;
BOOL bHandleDeletion = FALSE;
CCaptureChannel* pCaptureChannel = (CCaptureChannel*)lpArg;
ATLASSERT(pCaptureChannel);
bHandleDeletion = DeleteTimerQueueTimer(pCaptureChannel->m_hSampleStarvationTimerQueue, pCaptureChannel->m_hSampleStarvationTimer, NULL);
bHandleDeletion = DeleteTimerQueue(pCaptureChannel->m_hSampleStarvationTimerQueue);
my question is: is it valid? i read over MSDN that the following deletion functions may return i/o errors which shouldn't concern me too much. their termination will be executed once the callback thread turns signled, automatically.
am i right?
Thanks!
DeleteTimerQueueEx will cancel and delete all timers associated with the queue as soon as all timer callbacks complete, so a single call to DeleteTimerQueueEx will suffice. You don't need the call to DeleteTimerQueueTimer. If you call it from within the callback as you currently have in your code, you must pass NULL as the CompletionEvent parameter to avoid deadlocking.
These days I'm trying to learn more things about threads in windows. I thought about making this practical application:
Let's say there are several threads started when a button "Start" is pressed. Assume these threads are intensive (they keep running / have always something to work on).
This app would also have a "Stop" button. When this button is pressed all the threads should close in a nice way: free resources and abandon work and return the state they were before the "Start" button was pressed.
Another request of the app is that the functions runned by the threads shouldn't contain any instruction checking if the "Stop" button was pressed. The function running in the thread shouldn't care about the stop button.
Language: C++
OS: Windows
Problems:
WrapperFunc(function, param)
{
// what to write here ?
// if i write this:
function(param);
// i cannot stop the function from executing
}
How should I construct the wrapper function so that I can stop the thread properly?
( without using TerminateThread or some other functions )
What if the programmer allocates some memory dynamically? How can I free it before closing
the thread?( note that when I press "Stop button" the thread is still processing data)
I though about overloading the new operator or just imposing the usage of a predefined
function to be used when allocating memory dynamically. This, however, means
that the programmer who uses this api is constrained and it's not what I want.
Thank you
Edit: Skeleton to describe the functionality I'd like to achieve.
struct wrapper_data
{
void* (*function)(LPVOID);
LPVOID *params;
};
/*
this function should make sure that the threads stop properly
( free memory allocated dynamically etc )
*/
void* WrapperFunc(LPVOID *arg)
{
wrapper_data *data = (wrapper_data*) arg;
// what to write here ?
// if i write this:
data->function(data->params);
// i cannot stop the function from executing
delete data;
}
// will have exactly the same arguments as CreateThread
MyCreateThread(..., function, params, ...)
{
// this should create a thread that runs the wrapper function
wrapper_data *data = new wrapper_data;
data->function = function;
data->params = params;
CreateThread(..., WrapperFunc, (LPVOID) wrapper_data, ...);
}
thread_function(LPVOID *data)
{
while(1)
{
//do stuff
}
}
// as you can see I want it to be completely invisible
// to the programmer who uses this
MyCreateThread(..., thread_function, (LPVOID) params,...);
One solution is to have some kind of signal that tells the threads to stop working. Often this can be a global boolean variable that is normally false but when set to true it tells the threads to stop. As for the cleaning up, do it when the threads main loop is done before returning from the thread.
I.e. something like this:
volatile bool gStopThreads = false; // Defaults to false, threads should not stop
void thread_function()
{
while (!gStopThreads)
{
// Do some stuff
}
// All processing done, clean up after my self here
}
As for the cleaning up bit, if you keep the data inside a struct or a class, you can forcibly kill them from outside the threads and just either delete the instances if you allocated them dynamically or let the system handle it if created e.g. on the stack or as global objects. Of course, all data your thread allocates (including files, sockets etc.) must be placed in this structure or class.
A way of keeping the stopping functionality in the wrapper, is to have the actual main loop in the wrapper, together with the check for the stop-signal. Then in the main loop just call a doStuff-like function that does the actual processing. However, if it contains operations that might take time, you end up with the first problem again.
See my answer to this similar question:
How do I guarantee fast shutdown of my win32 app?
Basically, you can use QueueUserAPC to queue a proc which throws an exception. The exception should bubble all the way up to a 'catch' in your thread proc.
As long as any libraries you're using are reasonably exception-aware and use RAII, this works remarkably well. I haven't successfully got this working with boost::threads however, as it's doesn't put suspended threads into an alertable wait state, so QueueUserAPC can't wake them.
If you don't want the "programmer" of the function that the thread will execute deal with the "stop" event, make the thread execute a function of "you" that deals with the "stop" event and when that event isn't signaled executes the "programmer" function...
In other words the "while(!event)" will be in a function that calls the "job" function.
Code Sample.
typedef void (*JobFunction)(LPVOID params); // The prototype of the function to execute inside the thread
struct structFunctionParams
{
int iCounter;
structFunctionParams()
{
iCounter = 0;
}
};
struct structJobParams
{
bool bStop;
JobFunction pFunction;
LPVOID pFunctionParams;
structJobParams()
{
bStop = false;
pFunction = NULL;
pFunctionParams = NULL;
}
};
DWORD WINAPI ThreadProcessJob(IN LPVOID pParams)
{
structJobParams* pJobParams = (structJobParams*)pParams;
while(!pJobParams->bStop)
{
// Execute the "programmer" function
pJobParams->pFunction(pJobParams->pFunctionParams);
}
return 0;
}
void ThreadFunction(LPVOID pParams)
{
// Do Something....
((structFunctionParams*)pParams)->iCounter ++;
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
structFunctionParams stFunctionParams;
structJobParams stJobParams;
stJobParams.pFunction = &ThreadFunction;
stJobParams.pFunctionParams = &stFunctionParams;
DWORD dwIdThread = 0;
HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(
NULL,
0,
ThreadProcessJob,
(LPVOID) &stJobParams, 0, &dwIdThread);
if(hThread)
{
// Give it 5 seconds to work
Sleep(5000);
stJobParams.bStop = true; // Signal to Stop
WaitForSingleObject(hThread, INFINITE); // Wait to finish
CloseHandle(hThread);
}
}
I have a program that uses fork() to create a child process. I have seen various examples that use wait() to wait for the child process to end before closing, but I am wondering what I can do to simply check if the file process is still running.
I basically have an infinite loop and I want to do something like:
if(child process has ended) break;
How could I go about doing this?
Use waitpid() with the WNOHANG option.
int status;
pid_t result = waitpid(ChildPID, &status, WNOHANG);
if (result == 0) {
// Child still alive
} else if (result == -1) {
// Error
} else {
// Child exited
}
You don't need to wait for a child until you get the SIGCHLD signal. If you've gotten that signal, you can call wait and see if it's the child process you're looking for. If you haven't gotten the signal, the child is still running.
Obviously, if you need to do nothing unitl the child finishes, just call wait.
EDIT: If you just want to know if the child process stopped running, then the other answers are probably better. Mine is more to do with synchronizing when a process could do several computations, without necessarily terminating.
If you have some object representing the child computation, add a method such as bool isFinished() which would return true if the child has finished. Have a private bool member in the object that represents whether the operation has finished. Finally, have another method private setFinished(bool) on the same object that your child process calls when it finishes its computation.
Now the most important thing is mutex locks. Make sure you have a per-object mutex that you lock every time you try to access any members, including inside the bool isFinished() and setFinished(bool) methods.
EDIT2: (some OO clarifications)
Since I was asked to explain how this could be done with OO, I'll give a few suggestions, although it heavily depends on the overall problem, so take this with a mound of salt. Having most of the program written in C style, with one object floating around is inconsistent.
As a simple example you could have a class called ChildComputation
class ChildComputation {
public:
//constructor
ChildComputation(/*some params to differentiate each child's computation*/) :
// populate internal members here {
}
~ChildComputation();
public:
bool isFinished() {
m_isFinished; // no need to lock mutex here, since we are not modifying data
}
void doComputation() {
// put code here for your child to execute
this->setFinished(true);
}
private:
void setFinished(bool finished) {
m_mutex.lock();
m_isFinished = finished;
m_mutex.unlock();
}
private:
// class members
mutex m_mutexLock; // replace mutex with whatever mutex you are working with
bool m_isFinished;
// other stuff needed for computation
}
Now in your main program, where you fork:
ChildComputation* myChild = new ChildComputation(/*params*/);
ChildPID= fork();
if (ChildPID == 0) {
// will do the computation and automatically set its finish flag.
myChild->doComputation();
}
else {
while (1) { // your infinite loop in the parent
// ...
// check if child completed its computation
if (myChild->isFinished()) {
break;
}
}
// at the end, make sure the child is no runnning, and dispose of the object
// when you don't need it.
wait(ChildPID);
delete myChild;
}
Hope that makes sense.
To reiterate, what I have written above is an ugly amalgamation of C and C++ (not in terms of syntax, but style/design), and is just there to give you a glimpse of synchronization with OO, in your context.
I'm posting the same answer here i posted at as this question How to check if a process is running in C++? as this is basically a duplicate. Only difference is the use case of the function.
Use kill(pid, sig) but check for the errno status. If you're running as a different user and you have no access to the process it will fail with EPERM but the process is still alive. You should be checking for ESRCH which means No such process.
If you're running a child process kill will succeed until waitpid is called that forces the clean up of any defunct processes as well.
Here's a function that returns true whether the process is still running and handles cleans up defunct processes as well.
bool IsProcessAlive(int ProcessId)
{
// Wait for child process, this should clean up defunct processes
waitpid(ProcessId, nullptr, WNOHANG);
// kill failed let's see why..
if (kill(ProcessId, 0) == -1)
{
// First of all kill may fail with EPERM if we run as a different user and we have no access, so let's make sure the errno is ESRCH (Process not found!)
if (errno != ESRCH)
{
return true;
}
return false;
}
// If kill didn't fail the process is still running
return true;
}