I'm trying to get my Main Program to start a thread that manages a section of my program... The thread that gets made creates a sub thread for each element of an array. The sub thread sets the array element to not available, delays by 10 seconds, and then sets the element to available. The main thread, however, continues normal execution until the array element is available.
However, it doesn't seem to apply a delay...
Please note the array is a global array.
What am I doing wrong?
The below code will outline what I want better then the explanation...
DWORD WINAPI SubThread(void* lpParam)
{
int i = (int)lpParam;
printf("Sub Thread Ran");
structureArray[i].available= false;
Sleep(10000);
structureArray[i].available = true;
return 0;
}
DWORD WINAPI MainThread(void * lpParam)
{
while(true)
{
for(int i = 0; i < structureArray.size(); i++)
{
if(structureArray[i].available)
{
CreateThread(NULL, 0, (LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE)SubThread, (LPVOID)i, 0, NULL);
}
}
}
}
Your global variable is not thread safe, it seems.
Try using a thread safe collection or lock the access yourself (solution is windows specific, inferred from your WINAPI specifier):
class CriticalSection
{
public:
CriticalSection()
{ ::InitializeCriticalSection(&m_cs); }
~CriticalSection()
{ ::DeleteCriticalSection(&m_cs); }
void Enter()
{ ::EnterCriticalSection(&m_cs); }
void Leave()
{ ::LeaveCriticalSection(&m_cs); }
private:
// private to prevent copying
CriticalSection(const CriticalSection&);
CriticalSection& operator=(const CriticalSection&);
CRITICAL_SECTION m_cs;
};
class Lock
{
public:
Lock(CriticalSection& a_section): m_section(a_section)
{ m_section.Enter(); }
~Lock()
{ m_section.Leave(); }
private:
Lock(const CSLock&);
Lock& operator=(const CSLock&);
CriticalSection& m_section;
};
CriticalSection g_dontUseGlobalCS;
DWORD WINAPI SubThread(void* lpParam)
{
int i = (int)lpParam;
printf("Sub Thread runs for...");
Sleep(10000);
{ // use scope to destroy lock...
Lock(g_dontUseGlobalCS);
structureArray[i].available= true;
} // exactly here
// note: a new thread could already be running here
// for debugging purposes add this:
printf("10 seconds.");
return 0;
}
DWORD WINAPI MainThread(void * lpParam)
{
while(true)
{
for(int i = 0; i < structureArray.size(); i++)
{
Lock(g_dontUseGlobalCS);
if(structureArray[i].available)
{
// set the thread availability here
structureArray[i].available = false;
CreateThread(NULL, 0, (LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE)SubThread, (LPVOID)i, 0, NULL);
}
}
}
}
I also moved the set of the availability flag to the creator thread. Usually you would use other mechanisms to realize what you are trying to do:
Look into windows synchronization functions or wiki
Related
Hello I want to sync two threads one incrementing a variable and other decrementing it.
The result that I want looks like:
Thread #0 j = 1
Thread #1 j = 0
Thread #0 j = 1
Thread #1 j = 0
And so on.. but my code sometimes works like that in some cases it print really weird values. I supose that I have some undefined behavior in somewhere but I can't figured out what is really happen.
My code consist in a HANDLE ghMutex that containg the handler of my mutex:
My main function:
int main(void)
{
HANDLE aThread[THREADCOUNT];
ghMutex = CreateMutex(NULL, FALSE, NULL);
aThread[0] = (HANDLE)_beginthreadex(NULL, 0, &inc, NULL, CREATE_SUSPENDED, 0);
aThread[1] = (HANDLE)_beginthreadex(NULL, 0, &dec, NULL, CREATE_SUSPENDED, 0);
ResumeThread(aThread[0]);
ResumeThread(aThread[1]);
WaitForMultipleObjects(THREADCOUNT, aThread, TRUE, INFINITE);
printf("j = %d\n", j);
for (int i = 0; i < THREADCOUNT; i++)
CloseHandle(aThread[i]);
CloseHandle(ghMutex);
return 0;
}
Inc function:
unsigned int __stdcall inc(LPVOID)
{
for (volatile int i = 0; i < MAX; ++i)
{
WaitForSingleObject(
ghMutex, // handle to mutex
INFINITE); // no time-out interval
j++;
printf("Thread %d j = %d\n", GetCurrentThreadId(), j);
ReleaseMutex(ghMutex);
}
_endthread();
return TRUE;
}
Dec function:
unsigned int __stdcall dec(void*)
{
for (volatile int i = 0; i < MAX; ++i)
{
WaitForSingleObject(
ghMutex, // handle to mutex
INFINITE); // no time-out interval
j--;
printf("Thread %d j = %d\n", GetCurrentThreadId(), j);
ReleaseMutex(ghMutex);
}
_endthread();
return TRUE;
}
I need a win api solution in std c++98.
A mutex is not the right tool to synchronize two threads, it is there to protect a resource. You do have a resource j which is protected by your mutex, however the sequence of which thread gets the lock is undefined, so you can have the case where dec gets called several times before inc has the chance to run.
If you want to synchronize the order of the threads you will have to use another synchronization primitive, for example a semaphore. You could, for example, increment the semaphore in inc and decrement it in dec. This would be the classic producer - consumer relationship where the producer will be stalled when the semaphore reaches its maximum value and the consumer will wait for items to consume.
Sorry, no WinAPI C++98 solution from me because that would be silly, but I hope I pointed you to the right direction.
windows mutex object guarantees exclusive ownership, but does not care about the ownership order. so that the same thread can capture several times in a row while others will wait.
for your task you need signal to another thread, when your task is done, and then wait for signal from another thread. for this task can be used event pair for example. thread (i) signal event (1-i) and wait on event (i). for optimize instead 2 calls -
SetEvent(e[1-i]); WaitForSingleObject(e[i], INFINITE);
we can use single call SignalObjectAndWait
SignalObjectAndWait(e[1-i], e[i], INFINITE, FALSE)
of course start and end of loop require special care. for inc
HANDLE hObjectToSignal = _hEvent[1], hObjectToWaitOn = _hEvent[0];
for (;;)
{
_shared_value++;
if (!--n)
{
SetEvent(hObjectToSignal);
break;
}
SignalObjectAndWait(hObjectToSignal, hObjectToWaitOn, INFINITE, FALSE);
}
and for dec
HANDLE hObjectToSignal = _hEvent[0], hObjectToWaitOn = _hEvent[1];
WaitForSingleObject(hObjectToWaitOn, INFINITE);
for (;;)
{
--_shared_value;
if (!--n)
{
break;
}
SignalObjectAndWait(hObjectToSignal, hObjectToWaitOn, INFINITE, FALSE);
}
if write full test, with error checking
struct Task
{
HANDLE _hEvent[4];
ULONG _n;
LONG _iTasks;
LONG _shared_value;
Task()
{
RtlZeroMemory(this, sizeof(*this));
}
~Task()
{
ULONG n = RTL_NUMBER_OF(_hEvent);
do
{
if (HANDLE hEvent = _hEvent[--n]) CloseHandle(hEvent);
} while (n);
}
ULONG WaitTaskEnd()
{
return WaitForSingleObject(_hEvent[2], INFINITE);
}
ULONG WaitTaskReady()
{
return WaitForSingleObject(_hEvent[3], INFINITE);
}
void SetTaskReady()
{
SetEvent(_hEvent[3]);
}
void End()
{
if (!InterlockedDecrement(&_iTasks)) SetEvent(_hEvent[2]);
}
void Begin()
{
InterlockedIncrementNoFence(&_iTasks);
}
static ULONG WINAPI IncThread(PVOID p)
{
return reinterpret_cast<Task*>(p)->Inc(), 0;
}
void Inc()
{
if (WaitTaskReady() == WAIT_OBJECT_0)
{
if (ULONG n = _n)
{
HANDLE hObjectToSignal = _hEvent[1], hObjectToWaitOn = _hEvent[0];
for (;;)
{
if (_shared_value) __debugbreak();
if (n < 17) DbgPrint("Inc(%u)\n", n);
_shared_value++;
if (!--n)
{
SetEvent(hObjectToSignal);
break;
}
if (SignalObjectAndWait(hObjectToSignal, hObjectToWaitOn, INFINITE, FALSE) != WAIT_OBJECT_0)
{
break;
}
}
}
}
End();
}
static ULONG WINAPI DecThread(PVOID p)
{
return reinterpret_cast<Task*>(p)->Dec(), 0;
}
void Dec()
{
if (WaitTaskReady() == WAIT_OBJECT_0)
{
if (ULONG n = _n)
{
HANDLE hObjectToSignal = _hEvent[0], hObjectToWaitOn = _hEvent[1];
if (WaitForSingleObject(hObjectToWaitOn, INFINITE) == WAIT_OBJECT_0)
{
for (;;)
{
--_shared_value;
if (_shared_value) __debugbreak();
if (n < 17) DbgPrint("Dec(%u)\n", n);
if (!--n)
{
break;
}
if (SignalObjectAndWait(hObjectToSignal, hObjectToWaitOn, INFINITE, FALSE) != WAIT_OBJECT_0)
{
break;
}
}
}
}
}
End();
}
ULONG Create()
{
ULONG n = RTL_NUMBER_OF(_hEvent);
do
{
if (HANDLE hEvent = CreateEventW(0, n > 2, 0, 0)) _hEvent[--n] = hEvent;
else return GetLastError();
} while (n);
return NOERROR;
}
ULONG Start()
{
static PTHREAD_START_ROUTINE aa[] = { IncThread, DecThread };
ULONG n = RTL_NUMBER_OF(aa);
do
{
Begin();
if (HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(0, 0, aa[--n], this, 0, 0))
{
CloseHandle(hThread);
}
else
{
n = GetLastError();
End();
return n;
}
} while (n);
return NOERROR;
}
ULONG Start(ULONG n)
{
_iTasks = 1;
ULONG dwError = Start();
_n = dwError ? 0 : n;
SetTaskReady();
End();
return dwError;
}
};
void TaskTest(ULONG n)
{
Task task;
if (task.Create() == NOERROR)
{
task.Start(n);
task.WaitTaskEnd();
}
}
note, that no any sense declare local variable (which will be accessed only from single thread and not accessed by any interrupts, etc) as volatile
also when we write code, like:
// thread #1
write_shared_data();
SetEvent(hEvent);
// thread #2
WaitForSingleObject(hEvent, INFINITE);
read_shared_data();
inside SetEvent(hEvent); was atomic write to event state with release semantic (really stronger of course) and inside wait for event function - atomic read it state with more than acquire semantic. as result all what thread #1 write to memory before SetEvent - will be visible to thread #2 after Wait for event (if wait finished as result of call Set from thread #1)
(Note before starting: Although my question is general, my code needs to compile with legacy Visual Studio 2008 MFC application and has to use MFC or win32 synchronization, please avoid answers using ie boost or c++ 11)
I am trying to implement a Thread Safe Pipe (A Queue with a single reader and a single writer), I did the following:
template<class T>
class CMultiThreadPipe {
private:
HANDLE hSemaphore, hTerminateEvent1, hTerminateEvent2;
CRITICAL_SECTION listMutex;
CList<T*, T*> list;
public:
CMultiThreadPipe() {
InitializeCriticalSection(&listMutex);
hSemaphore = CreateSemaphore(NULL, 0, LONG_MAX, NULL);
hTerminateEvent1 = ::CreateEvent(NULL, TRUE, FALSE, NULL);
hTerminateEvent2 = ::CreateEvent(NULL, TRUE, FALSE, NULL);
}
// pdata must be allocated with new. The dequeueing thread will delete it
void Enqueue(T* pdata) {
EnterCriticalSection(&listMutex);
list.AddHead(pdata);
LeaveCriticalSection(&listMutex);
ReleaseSemaphore(hSemaphore, 1, NULL);
}
// if Dequeue returns null it means the pipe was destroyed and no further queue method calls are legal
// Dequeue caller is responsible to delete the returned instance
T* Dequeue()
{
HANDLE handles[] = { hTerminateEvent1, hSemaphore };
DWORD waitRes = WaitForMultipleObjects(2, handles, FALSE, INFINITE);
if (waitRes==WAIT_OBJECT_0) {
SetEvent(hTerminateEvent2);
return NULL; // terminated
}
EnterCriticalSection(&listMutex);
T* elem = list.RemoveTail();
LeaveCriticalSection(&listMutex);
return elem; // handler must delete item
}
void Destroy() {
SetEvent(hTerminateEvent1);
WaitForSingleObject(hTerminateEvent2, INFINITE);
EnterCriticalSection(&listMutex);
POSITION pos = list.GetHeadPosition();
for (int i = 0; i < list.GetCount(); i++) delete list.GetNext(pos);
LeaveCriticalSection(&listMutex);
DeleteCriticalSection(&listMutex);
CloseHandle(hSemaphore);
}
~CMultiThreadPipe() {
Destroy();
}
};
The code is used like this:
class QueueData {
public:
QueueData(int i) : m_data(i) {};
int m_data;
};
UINT DequeueThreadProc(LPVOID dummy);
CMultiThreadedPipe<QueueData>* pPipe = NULL;
void main() {
pPipe = new CMultiThreadedPipe<QueueData>();
start new thread running DequeueThreadProc
int counter=0;
for (int counter=0; counter<10; counter++)
{
pPipe->Enqueue(new QueueData(counter));
Sleep(300);
}
delete pPipe;
}
UINT DequeueThreadProc(LPVOID ignore)
{
QueueData* queueData;
while ((queueData = pPipe->Dequeue()) != NULL) {
delete queueData;
Sleep(1000);
};
return 0;
}
The issue I have is with termination, in the above implementation, when the pipe is destroyed (always by the enqueing thread) it is waiting for the dequeing thread to know that it terminated before deleting the queue. It has to do that to prevent a situation where the dequeing thread tries to dequeue after the pipe is destroyed.
If the dequeing thread does not keep calling dequeue the first thread will hang in the destructor, also if the dequeing thread waits a long time between calls to dequeue the destructor of the first thread will get stuck there accordingly.
I read various posts about it none mentions safe destruction. Any help appreciated !
for safe destruction object, which accessed from multiple threads you need use reference counting on it. before pass object pointer to new thread - you increment reference on object. when thread no more using object, or if create thread fail, you decrement reference count. when last reference on object released - you can safe call destructor for object. and you not need here wait for any threads.
also for implement such queue - in windows exist special object - named I/O Completion Ports in user space (in kernel space in know as KQUEUE). with this object - implementation will be more efficient and simply - you not need manage self list (CList in your code), synchronize access to it - all this will be done in kernel space for you (PostQueuedCompletionStatus -> KeInsertQueue, GetQueuedCompletionStatus -> KeRemoveQueue). you need create only iocp, (kqueue) object.
class CMultiThreadPipe {
public:
class __declspec(novtable) QueueData {
public:
virtual void ProcessItem() = 0;
virtual ~QueueData()
{
DbgPrint("%x: %s<%p>\n", GetCurrentThreadId(), __FUNCTION__, this);
}
QueueData()
{
DbgPrint("%x: %s<%p>\n", GetCurrentThreadId(), __FUNCTION__, this);
}
};
private:
HANDLE _hIOCP;
LONG _dwRef;
ULONG _nThreads;
void DequeueThreadProc()
{
ULONG NumberOfBytesTransferred;
QueueData* pData;
OVERLAPPED* pOverlapped;
while (GetQueuedCompletionStatus(_hIOCP,
&NumberOfBytesTransferred,
(ULONG_PTR*)&pData,
&pOverlapped, INFINITE))
{
if (pData)
{
pData->ProcessItem();
}
else
{
break;
}
}
Release();
}
__declspec(noreturn) static DWORD CALLBACK _DequeueThreadProc(PVOID pThis)
{
reinterpret_cast<CMultiThreadPipe*>(pThis)->DequeueThreadProc();
FreeLibraryAndExitThread((HMODULE)&__ImageBase, 0);
}
~CMultiThreadPipe()
{
if (_hIOCP)
{
CloseHandle(_hIOCP);
}
}
public:
CMultiThreadPipe() : _dwRef(1), _hIOCP(0)
{
}
void AddRef()
{
InterlockedIncrement(&_dwRef);
}
void Release()
{
if (!InterlockedDecrement(&_dwRef))
{
delete this;
}
}
ULONG Create(DWORD NumberOfDequeueThreads)
{
if (_hIOCP = CreateIoCompletionPort(INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE, NULL, 0, NumberOfDequeueThreads))
{
ULONG n = 0;
do
{
HMODULE hModule;
if (GetModuleHandleExW(GET_MODULE_HANDLE_EX_FLAG_FROM_ADDRESS, (PCWSTR)_DequeueThreadProc, &hModule))
{
AddRef();
if (HANDLE hThread = CreateThread(0, 0, _DequeueThreadProc, this, 0, 0))
{
CloseHandle(hThread);
n++;
}
else
{
Release();
FreeLibrary(hModule);
}
}
} while (--NumberOfDequeueThreads);
_nThreads = n;
return n ? NOERROR : ERROR_GEN_FAILURE;
}
return GetLastError();
}
ULONG Enqueue(QueueData* pData)
{
return PostQueuedCompletionStatus(_hIOCP, 0, (ULONG_PTR)pData, 0) ? NOERROR : GetLastError();
}
void Destroy()
{
if (ULONG n = _nThreads)
{
do
{
PostQueuedCompletionStatus(_hIOCP, 0, 0, 0);
} while (--n);
}
}
};
and usage:
class QueueData : public CMultiThreadPipe::QueueData
{
int m_data;
virtual void ProcessItem()
{
DbgPrint("%x: %s<%p>(%u)\n", GetCurrentThreadId(), __FUNCTION__, this, m_data);
delete this;
}
public:
QueueData(int i) : m_data(i) {};
};
void testQueue()
{
if (CMultiThreadPipe* pPipe = new CMultiThreadPipe)
{
if (pPipe->Create(8) == NOERROR)
{
int n = 64;
do
{
if (QueueData* pData = new QueueData(n))
{
if (pPipe->Enqueue(pData))
{
delete pData;
}
}
} while (--n);
pPipe->Destroy();
}
pPipe->Release();
}
}
note with such CMultiThreadPipe implementations - you not need wait when working threads exit. even if your code inside dll and you unload dll - you not need wait. every thread have own reference for object and module. and release it on exit
I modified the "Using Condition Variables" example in MSDN. I created several threads, which have their own producer/consumer separately.
But the program will often hang when attached to debugger. It always hangs at SleepConditionVariableCS. When I break all and continue in debugger, the program will continue to run. I found that WakeAllConditionVariable didn't wake up some thread calls SleepConditionVariableCS, for the Ptr in PExecutingTask->BufferNotFull or PExecutingTask->BufferNotEmpty was already 0x00000000(I thought that means the condition variable is wakened).
When not attached to debugger, the program will not hang.
Has anyone encountered this problem before? How to solve it?
Here is the code:
#include <windows.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define BUFFER_SIZE 100
DWORD WINAPI ProducerThreadProc (PVOID p);
DWORD WINAPI ConsumerThreadProc (PVOID p);
class ExecutingTask
{
public:
void Initialize()
{
InitializeConditionVariable (&BufferNotEmpty);
InitializeConditionVariable (&BufferNotFull);
InitializeCriticalSection (&BufferLock);
QueueSize = 0;
StopRequested = FALSE;
hProducer = CreateThread(NULL, 0, ProducerThreadProc, (PVOID)this, 0, NULL);
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++)
{
PhConsumers[i] = CreateThread (NULL, 0, ConsumerThreadProc, (PVOID)this, 0, NULL);
}
}
void Stop()
{
EnterCriticalSection (&BufferLock);
StopRequested = TRUE;
LeaveCriticalSection (&BufferLock);
WakeAllConditionVariable (&BufferNotFull);
WakeAllConditionVariable (&BufferNotEmpty);
WaitForSingleObject(hProducer, INFINITE);
WaitForMultipleObjects(20, (HANDLE *)&PhConsumers, true, INFINITE);
CloseHandle(hProducer);
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < 20; i++)
{
CloseHandle(PhConsumers[i]);
}
}
public:
ULONG QueueSize;
CONDITION_VARIABLE BufferNotEmpty;
CONDITION_VARIABLE BufferNotFull;
CRITICAL_SECTION BufferLock;
BOOL StopRequested;
HANDLE PhConsumers[20];
HANDLE hProducer;
};
DWORD WINAPI ProducerThreadProc (PVOID p)
{
ExecutingTask* PExecutingTask = (ExecutingTask*)p;
while (true)
{
EnterCriticalSection (&PExecutingTask->BufferLock);
while (PExecutingTask->QueueSize >= BUFFER_SIZE && PExecutingTask->StopRequested == FALSE)
{
// Buffer is full - sleep so consumers can get items.
SleepConditionVariableCS (&PExecutingTask->BufferNotFull, &PExecutingTask->BufferLock, INFINITE);
}
if (PExecutingTask->StopRequested == TRUE)
{
LeaveCriticalSection (&PExecutingTask->BufferLock);
break;
}
// Produce an item.
PExecutingTask->QueueSize++;
LeaveCriticalSection (&PExecutingTask->BufferLock);
WakeConditionVariable (&PExecutingTask->BufferNotEmpty);
}
return 0;
}
DWORD WINAPI ConsumerThreadProc (PVOID p)
{
ExecutingTask* PExecutingTask = (ExecutingTask*)p;
while (true)
{
EnterCriticalSection (&PExecutingTask->BufferLock);
while (PExecutingTask->QueueSize == 0 && PExecutingTask->StopRequested == FALSE)
{
// Buffer is empty - sleep so producers can create items.
SleepConditionVariableCS (&PExecutingTask->BufferNotEmpty, &PExecutingTask->BufferLock, INFINITE);
}
if (PExecutingTask->StopRequested == TRUE)
{
LeaveCriticalSection (&PExecutingTask->BufferLock);
break;
}
// Consume an item.
PExecutingTask->QueueSize--;
LeaveCriticalSection (&PExecutingTask->BufferLock);
WakeConditionVariable (&PExecutingTask->BufferNotFull);
}
return 0;
}
DWORD WINAPI ThreadProc (PVOID p)
{
ExecutingTask task;
task.Initialize();
Sleep(1000);
task.Stop();
printf ("%u exit\n", &task);
return 0;
};
int main ( void )
{
HANDLE hTaskThreads[50];
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
hTaskThreads[i] = CreateThread (NULL, 0, ThreadProc, NULL, 0, NULL);
}
WaitForMultipleObjects(50, hTaskThreads, true, INFINITE);
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
CloseHandle(hTaskThreads[i]);
}
}
I have a class defined like this: This is not all complete and probably won't compile.
class Server
{
public:
Server();
~Server();
class Worker
{
public:
Worker(Server& server) : _server(server) { }
~Worker() { }
void Run() { }
void Stop() { }
private:
Server& _server;
}
void Run()
{
while(true) {
// do work
}
}
void Stop()
{
// How do I stop the thread?
}
private:
std::vector<Worker> _workers;
};
My question is, how do I initialize the workers array passing in the outer class named Server.
What I want is a vector of worker threads. Each worker thread has it's own state but can access some other shared data (not shown). Also, how do I create the threads. Should they be created when the class object is first created or externally from a thread_group.
Also, how do I go about shutting down the threads cleanly and safely?
EDIT:
It seems that I can initialize Worker like this:
Server::Server(int thread_count)
: _workers(thread_count), Worker(*this)), _thread_count(thread_count) { }
And I'm currently doing this in Server::Run to create the threads.
boost::thread_group _threads; // a Server member variable
Server::Run(){
for (int i = 0; i < _thread_count; i++)
_threads.create_thread(boost::bind(&Server::Worker::Run, _workers(i)));
// main thread.
while(1) {
// Do stuff
}
_threads.join_all();
}
Does anyone see any problems with this?
And how about safe shutdown?
EDIT:
One problem I have found with it is that the Worker objects don't seem to get constructed!
oops. Yes they do I need a copy constructor on the Worker class.
But oddly, creating the threads results in the copy constructor for Worker being called multiple times.
I have done it with pure WINAPI, look:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <conio.h>
#include <windows.h>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
class Server
{
public:
class Worker
{
int m_id;
DWORD m_threadId;
HANDLE m_threadHandle;
bool m_active;
friend Server;
public:
Worker (int id)
{
m_id = id;
m_threadId = 0;
m_threadHandle = 0;
m_active = true;
}
static DWORD WINAPI Run (LPVOID lpParam)
{
Worker* p = (Worker*) lpParam; // it's needed because of the static modifier
while (p->m_active)
{
printf ("I'm a thread #%i\n", p->m_id);
Sleep (1000);
}
return 0;
}
void Stop ()
{
m_active = false;
}
};
Server ()
{
m_workers = new vector <Worker*> ();
m_count = 0;
}
~Server ()
{
delete m_workers;
}
void Run ()
{
puts ("Server is run");
}
void Stop ()
{
while (m_count > 0)
RemoveWorker ();
puts ("Server has been stopped");
}
void AddWorker ()
{
HANDLE h;
DWORD threadId;
Worker* n = new Worker (m_count ++);
m_workers->push_back (n);
h = CreateThread (NULL, 0, Worker::Run, (VOID*) n, CREATE_SUSPENDED, &threadId);
n->m_threadHandle = h;
n->m_threadId = threadId;
ResumeThread (h);
}
void RemoveWorker ()
{
HANDLE h;
DWORD threadId;
if (m_count <= 0)
return;
Worker* n = m_workers->at (m_count - 1);
m_workers->pop_back ();
n->Stop ();
TerminateThread (n->m_threadHandle, 0);
m_count --;
delete n;
}
private:
int m_count;
vector <Worker*>* m_workers;
};
int main (void)
{
Server a;
int com = 1;
a.Run ();
while (com)
{
if (kbhit ())
{
switch (getch ())
{
case 27: // escape key code
com = 0;
break;
case 'a': // add worker
a.AddWorker ();
break;
case 'r': // remove worker
a.RemoveWorker ();
break;
}
}
}
a.Stop ();
return 0;
}
There are no synchronization code here, because I haven't enougth time to do it... But I wish it will help you =)
Have you looked at boost asio at all? It looks like it could be a good fit for what you are trying to do. Additionally you can call boost asio's io_service's run (similar to your Run method) from many threads i.e. you can process your IO in many threads. Also of interest could be http://think-async.com/Asio/Recipes for an asio based thread-pool.
Have a look at the asio examples. Perhaps they offer an alternative way of handling what you are trying to do. Esp. have a look at how a clean shutdown is accomplished.
I wrote some test code like this which compiled and worked fine...
void threadtest()
{
HANDLE hThrd;
DWORD threadId;
int i;
for (i = 0;i < 5;i++)
{
hThrd = CreateThread(
NULL,
0,
ThreadFunc,
(LPVOID)i,
0,
&threadId );
}
// more stuff
}
DWORD WINAPI ThreadFunc(LPVOID n)
{
// stuff
return 0;
}
Then I wanted to modify the code to put the ThreadFunc inside a class and then declare an array of those classes. I thought the code should look like this:
class thread_type
{
public:
DWORD WINAPI ThreadFunc(LPVOID n)
{
// stuff
return 0;
}
};
void threadtest()
{
HANDLE hThrd;
DWORD threadId;
int i;
thread_type *slave;
slave = new thread_type[5];
for (i = 0;i < 5;i++)
{
hThrd = CreateThread(
NULL,
0,
slave[i].ThreadFunc,
(LPVOID)i,
0,
&threadId );
}
// more stuff
}
Unfortunately the compiler complains about the line slave[i].ThreadFunc, I think I may need some special casting but all the permutations I try involving "::" and "&" seem to fail (I'm quite new to C++). The real code has some additional complications which I haven't included for clarity, but I think they are irrelevant.
First problem with the code, that the test class is not descendant of the thread_type. Somehow you need to specify the base class.
Second is, if you are passing function pointer, that shouldn't be thiscall type. The solution is typically this:
struct thread
{
virtual void
run() = 0;
static thread_func(void* param)
{
thread* pThread = (thread*)param;
thread->run();
}
}
struct worker : public thread
{
void
run()
{
(.. code for the thread...)
}
}
void threadtest()
{
HANDLE hThrd;
DWORD threadId;
int i;
thread *slave;
slave = new thread_type[5];
slave[0] = new worker;
slave[1] = new worker;
slave[2] = new worker;
slave[3] = new worker;
slave[4] = new worker;
for (i = 0;i < 5;i++)
{
hThrd = CreateThread(
NULL,
0,
&thread::thread_func,
(LPVOID)slave[i],
0,
&threadId );
}
// more stuff
}
Note that this could is just a reflection, I couldn't compile now, because I don't have here anything to do so, but the logic should be like this.
The following explains the difference between a pointer to a function and a pointer to a member function C++ FAQ Lite. See section 33.2 which explains why what you are doing is a bad idea.