Say I have a thread running a member method like runController in the example below:
class SomeClass {
public:
SomeClass() {
// Start controller thread
mControllerThread = std::thread(&SomeClass::runController, this)
}
~SomeClass() {
// Stop controller thread
mIsControllerThreadInterrupted = true;
// wait for thread to die.
std::unique_lock<std:::mutex> lk(mControllerThreadAlive);
}
// Both controller and external client threads might call this
void modifyObject() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mObjectMutex);
mObject.doSomeModification();
}
//...
private:
std::mutex mObjectMutex;
Object mObject;
std::thread mControllerThread;
std::atomic<bool> mIsControllerInterrupted;
std::mutex mControllerThreadAlive;
void runController() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> aliveLock(mControllerThreadAlive);
while(!mIsControllerInterruped) {
// Say I need to synchronize on mObject for all of these calls
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mObjectMutex);
someMethodA();
modifyObject(); // but calling modifyObject will then lock mutex twice
someMethodC();
}
}
//...
};
And some (or all) of the subroutines in runController need to modify data that is shared between threads and guarded by a mutex. Some (or all) of them, might also be called by other threads that need to modify this shared data.
With all the glory of C++11 at my disposal, how can I ensure that no thread ever locks a mutex twice?
Right now, I'm passing unique_lock references into the methods as parameters as below. But this seems clunky, difficult to maintain, potentially disastrous, etc...
void modifyObject(std::unique_lock<std::mutex>& objectLock) {
// We don't even know if this lock manages the right mutex...
// so let's waste some time checking that.
if(objectLock.mutex() != &mObjectMutex)
throw std::logic_error();
// Lock mutex if not locked by this thread
bool wasObjectLockOwned = objectLock.owns_lock();
if(!wasObjectLockOwned)
objectLock.lock();
mObject.doSomeModification();
// restore previous lock state
if(!wasObjectLockOwned)
objectLock.unlock();
}
Thanks!
There are several ways to avoid this kind of programming error. I recommend doing it on a class design level:
separate between public and private member functions,
only public member functions lock the mutex,
and public member functions are never called by other member functions.
If a function is needed both internally and externally, create two variants of the function, and delegate from one to the other:
public:
// intended to be used from the outside
int foobar(int x, int y)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mControllerThreadAlive);
return _foobar(x, y);
}
private:
// intended to be used from other (public or private) member functions
int _foobar(int x, int y)
{
// ... code that requires locking
}
Related
In my multithreaded server I have somefunction(), which needs to protect two independent of each other global data using EnterCriticalSection.
somefunction()
{
EnterCriticalSection(&g_List);
...
EnterCriticalSection(&g_Variable);
...
LeaveCriticalSection(&g_Variable);
...
LeaveCriticalSection(&g_List);
}
Following the advice of better programmers i'm going to use a RAII wrapper. For example:
class Locker
{
public:
Locker(CSType& cs): m_cs(cs)
{
EnterCriticalSection(&m_cs);
}
~Locker()
{
LeaveCriticalSection(&m_cs);
}
private:
CSType& m_cs;
}
My question: Is it ok to transform somefunction() to this?
(putting 2 Locker in one function):
somefunction()
{
// g_List,g_Variable previously initialized via InitializeCriticalSection
Locker lock(g_List);
Locker lock(g_Variable);
...
...
}
?
Your current solution has potential dead lock case. If you have two (or more) CSTypes which will be locked in different order this way, you will end up in dead lock. Best way would be to lock them both atomically. You can see an example of this in boost thread library. shared_lock and unique_lock can be used in deferred mode so that first you prepare all raii objects for all mutex objects, and then lock them all atomically in one call to lock function.
As long as you keep lock order the same in your threads its OK. Do you really need to lock them both at the same time? Also with scoped lock you can add scopes to control when to unlock, something like this:
{
// use inner scopes to control lock duration
{
Locker lockList (g_list);
// do something
} // unlocked at the end
Locker lockVariable (g_variable);
// do something
}
I'm trying to use a recursive QMutex, i read the QMutex Class Reference but i not understand how to do it, can someone give me an example?
I need some way to lock QMutex that can be unlocked after or before the lock method is called.
If recursive mutex is not the way is there any other way?
To create a recursive QMutex you simply pass QMutex::Recursive at construction time, for instance:
QMutex mutex(QMutex::Recursive);
int number = 6;
void method1()
{
mutex.lock();
number *= 5;
mutex.unlock();
}
void method2()
{
mutex.lock();
number *= 3;
mutex.unlock();
}
Recursive means that you can lock several times the mutex from the same thread, you don't have to unlock it. If I understood well your question that's what you want.
Be careful, if you lock recursively you must call unlock the same amount of times. A better way to lock/unlock a mutex is using a QMutexLocker
#include <QMutexLocker>
QMutex mutex(QMutex::Recursive);
int number = 6;
void method1()
{
QMutexLocker locker(&mutex); // Here mutex is locked
number *= 5;
// Here locker goes out of scope.
// When locker is destroyed automatically unlocks mutex
}
void method2()
{
QMutexLocker locker(&mutex);
number *= 3;
}
A recursive mutex can be locked multiple times from a single thread without needing to be unlocked, as long as the same number of unlock calls are made from the same thread. This mechanism comes in handy when a shared resource is used by more then one function, and one of those functions call another function in which the resource is used.
Consider the following class:
class Foo {
public:
Foo();
void bar(); // Does something to the resource
void thud(); // Calls bar() then does something else to the resource
private:
Resource mRes;
QMutex mLock;
}
An initial implementation may look something like the following:
Foo::Foo() {}
void Foo::bar() {
QMutexLocker locker(&mLock);
mRes.doSomething();
}
void Foo::thud() {
QMutexLocker locker(&mLock);
bar();
mRes.doSomethingElse();
}
The above code will DEADLOCK on calls to thud. mLock will be acquired in the first line of thud() and once again by the first line of bar() which will block waiting for thud() to release the lock.
A simple solution would be to make the lock recursive in the ctor.
Foo::Foo() : mLock(QMutex::Recursive) {}
This an OK fix, and will be suitable for many situations, however one should be aware that there may be a performance penalty to using this solution since each recursive mutex call may require a system call to identify the current thread id.
In addition to the thread id check, all calls to thud() still execute QMutex::lock() twice!
Designs which require a recursive may be able to be refactored to eliminate the need for the recursive mutex. In general, the need for a recursive mutex is a "code smell" and indicates a need to adhere to the principle of separation of concerns.
For the class Foo, one could imagine creating a private function call which performs the shared computation and keeping the resource locking at the public interface level.
class Foo {
public:
Foo();
void bar(); // Does something to the resource
void thud(); // Does something then does something else to the resource
private:
void doSomething();
private:
Resource mRes;
QMutex mLock;
}
Foo::Foo() {}
// public
void Foo::bar() {
QMutexLocker locker(&mLock);
doSomething();
}
void Foo::thud() {
QMutexLocker locker(&mLock);
doSomething();
mRes.doSomethingElse();
}
// private
void Foo::doSomething() {
mRes.doSomething(); // Notice - no mutex in private function
}
Recursive mode just means that if a thread owns a mutex, and the same thread tries to lock the mutex again, that will succeed. The requirement is that calls to lock/unlock are balanced.
In non recursive mode, this will result in a deadlock.
I'm new to the boost threads library.
I have a situation where I acquire a scoped_lock in one function and need to wait on it in a callee.
The code is on the lines of:
class HavingMutex
{
public:
...
private:
static boost::mutex m;
static boost::condition_variable *c;
static void a();
static void b();
static void d();
}
void HavingMutex::a()
{
boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(m);
...
b() //Need to pass lock here. Dunno how !
}
void HavingMutex::b(lock)
{
if (some condition)
d(lock) // Need to pass lock here. How ?
}
void HavingMutex::d(//Need to get lock here)
{
c->wait(lock); //Need to pass lock here (doesn't allow direct passing of mutex m)
}
Basically, in function d(), I need to access the scoped lock I acquired in a() so that I can wait on it. (Some other thread will notify).
Any help appreiciated. Thanks !
Have you tried simple reference? According to boost 1.41 documentation at http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_41_0/doc/html/thread/synchronization.html it should be all that is required.
...
void HavingMutex::a()
{
boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(m);
...
b(lock);
}
void HavingMutex::b(boost::mutex::scoped_lock &lock)
{
if (some condition) // consider while (!some_condition) here
d(lock);
}
void HavingMutex::d(boost::mutex::scoped_lock &lock)
{
c->wait(lock);
}
void HavingMutex::notify()
{
// set_condition;
c->notify_one();
}
Also in boost example they have while cycle around wait. Wait could be interrupted in some cases by system itself, not really you got the lock.
I suggest you reconsider having all methods static with static members also. Instead create them as normal members, and create one global object.
I want to have a thread wait for the destruction of a specific object by another thread. I thought about implementing it somehow like this:
class Foo {
private:
pthread_mutex_t* mutex;
pthread_cond_t* condition;
public:
Foo(pthread_mutex_t* _mutex, pthread_cond_t* _condition) : mutex(_mutex), condition(_condition) {}
void waitForDestruction(void) {
pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);
pthread_cond_wait(condition,mutex);
pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);
}
~Foo(void) {
pthread_mutex_lock(mutex);
pthread_cond_signal(condition);
pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex);
}
};
I know, however, that i must handle spurious wakeups in the waitForDestruction method, but i can't call anything on 'this', because it could already be destructed.
Another possibility that crossed my mind was to not use a condition variable, but lock the mutex in the constructor, unlock it in the destructor and lock/unlock it in the waitForDestruction method - this should work with a non-recursive mutex, and iirc i can unlock a mutex from a thread which didn't lock it, right? Will the second option suffer from any spurious wakeups?
It is always a difficult matter. But how about these lines of code:
struct FooSync {
typedef boost::shared_ptr<FooSync> Ptr;
FooSync() : owner(boost::this_thread::get_id()) {
}
void Wait() {
assert(boost::this_thread::get_id() != owner);
mutex.lock();
mutex.unlock();
}
boost::mutex mutex;
boost::thread::id owner;
};
struct Foo {
Foo() { }
~Foo() {
for (size_t i = 0; i < waiters.size(); ++i) {
waiters[i]->mutex.unlock();
}
}
FooSync::Ptr GetSync() {
waiters.push_back(FooSync::Ptr(new FooSync));
waiters.back()->mutex.lock();
return waiters.back();
}
std::vector<FooSync::Ptr> waiters;
};
The solution above would allow any number of destruction-wait object on a single Foo object. As long as it will correctly manage memory occupied by these objects. It seems that nothing prevents Foo instances to be created on the stack.
Though the only drawback I see is that it requires that destruction-wait objects always created in a thread that "owns" Foo object instance otherwise the recursive lock will probably happen. There is more, if GetSync gets called from multiple threads race condition may occur after push_back.
EDIT:
Ok, i have reconsidered the problem and came up with new solution. Take a look:
typedef boost::shared_ptr<boost::shared_mutex> MutexPtr;
struct FooSync {
typedef boost::shared_ptr<FooSync> Ptr;
FooSync(MutexPtr const& ptr) : mutex(ptr) {
}
void Wait() {
mutex->lock_shared();
mutex->unlock_shared();
}
MutexPtr mutex;
};
struct Foo {
Foo() : mutex(new boost::shared_mutex) {
mutex->lock();
}
~Foo() {
mutex->unlock();
}
FooSync::Ptr GetSync() {
return FooSync::Ptr(new FooSync(mutex));
}
MutexPtr mutex;
};
Now it seems reasonably cleaner and much less points of code are subjects to race conditions. There is only one synchronization primitive shared between object itself and all the sync-objects. Some efforts must be taken to overcome the case when Wait called in the thread where the object itself is (like in my first example). If the target platform does not support shared_mutex it is ok to go along with good-ol mutex. shared_mutex seems to reduce the burden of locks when there are many of FooSyncs waiting.
A similar problem is this one: Are threads waiting on a lock FIFO? However, in this problem, once the lock is acquired only one thread executes the protected code, and in the end all threads will have executed the code.
What I would like to do is to execute the protected code once, but for all threads queuing for the method call at that moment, return true.
Basically, the protected code is a global checkpoint, which is relevant for all threads waiting at that moment. I.e., doing N consecutive checkpoints would not achieve more than only 1.
Note that while the checkpointing is done, there will be other calls to the method, which themselves need a new checkpoint call.
I believe what I want to do is "batch-wise" synchronized calls to the global function.
How can I achieve this in C++, perhaps with Boost?
You seem to be looking for try_lock().
Given some Boost.Thread Lockable, a call to Lockable::try_lock() will return true if it can acquire the lock at that moment, otherwise false if it cannot acquire the lock.
When your thread reaches a checkpoint, have it try to acquire this lock. If it fails, another thread is already in the function. If it succeeds, check some bool to see if the checkpoint has already been run. If it has been run, release the lock and continue. If it hasn't been run, keep the lock and run the checkpoint function and set the checkpoint bool to true.
What you seem to want looks like a barrier which is provided by boost. However, if that doesn't help you, you can make something with condition variables, also in boost
Here is pseudo-code for how I would do it. I am assuming the existing of a mutex class with lock() and unlock() operations.
// This forward declaration helps with declaration
// of the "friend" status for the nested class.
class DoItOnce;
class DoItOnce
{
private:
bool m_amFirst;
mutex m_mutex;
friend class ::DoItOnce::Op;
public:
DoItOnce()
{
m_amFirst = true;
init(m_mutex);
}
~DoItOnce() { destroy(m_mutex); }
void reset()
{
m_mutex.lock();
m_amFirst = true;
m_mutex.lock();
}
//--------
// Nested class
//--------
class Op {
public:
Op(DoItOnce & sync)
: m_sync(sync)
{
m_sync.m_mutex.lock();
m_amFirst = m_sync.m_amFirst;
m_sync.m_amFirst = false;
}
~Op() { m_sync.m_mutex.unlock(); }
bool amFirst() { return m_amFirst; }
private:
DoItOnce & m_sync;
bool m_amFirst;
}; // end of nested class
}; // end of outer class
Here is an example to illustrate its intended use. You will implement the doWork() operation and have all your threads invoke it.
class WorkToBeDoneOnce
{
private:
DoItOnce m_sync;
public:
bool doWork()
{
DoItOnce::Op scopedLock(m_sync);
if (!scopedLock.amFirst()) {
// The work has already been done.
return true;
}
... // Do the work
return true;
}
void resetAmFirstFlag()
{
m_sync.reset();
}
}
If you are confused by my use of the DoItOnce::Op nested class, then you can find an explanation of this coding idiom in my Generic Synchronisation Policies paper, which is available here in various formats (HTML, PDF and slides).