I never really worked with mutexes before, but i need to control access to protected resources. Looking through the new C++11 stuff, i cooked up this class:
class CMutex
{
public:
class Lockable
{
friend class CMutex;
std::atomic_flag flag;
public:
Lockable()
{
flag.clear();
}
};
private:
Lockable * resource;
CMutex(const CMutex &);
public:
CMutex(Lockable * l)
{
resource = l;
acquire(l);
}
CMutex(Lockable & l)
{
resource = &l;
acquire(l);
}
CMutex()
: resource(nullptr)
{
}
~CMutex()
{
if (resource)
release(resource);
}
void acquire(Lockable * l)
{
if (!resource)
resource = l;
if (!spinLock(2000, resource))
//explode here
return;
}
void acquire(Lockable & l)
{
acquire(&l);
}
private:
void release(Lockable * l)
{
if (l)
l->flag.clear();
}
static bool spinLock(int ms, Lockable * bVal)
{
using namespace Misc;
long start;
int ret;
loop:
start = QuickTime();
while (bVal->flag.test_and_set()) {
if ((QuickTime() - start) > ms)
goto time_out;
// yield thread
Delay(0);
}
// normal exitpoint
return true;
// deadlock occurs
time_out:
// handle error ...
}
}
Usage like so:
class MyClass : public CMutex::lockable
{
...
void doStuff()
{
// lock data
CMutex(this);
// do stuff
...
// mutex should automagically be RAII released here
}
...
};
First of all, I'm interested in whether this concept actually works how it should (given the implementation of std::atomic etc.)?
Secondly, I noticed that it correctly obtains the lock, however it releases it instantly. I guess i should give the lock a name?
CMutex lock(this);
However, isn't the compiler free to destruct the object before the scope is left as an optimization provided it can guarantee that i wont interact more with the object? This would defeat the purpose of this construct, if i can't guarantee that the destructor only will be called at scope exit.
Regards
No, the compiler is not free to destruct before the scope ends.
Per the C++ Standard section 12.4/10
— for constructed objects with automatic storage duration (3.7.3) when the block in which an object is created exit.
Here is a trick that may come handy for you and it works with all mainstream (VC++, clang, gcc) compilers:
#define APPEND_ID1(id1, id2) id1##id2
#define APPEND_ID2(id1, id2) APPEND_ID1(id1, id2)
#define APPEND_COUNTER(id) APPEND_ID2(id, __COUNTER__)
#define SCOPED_LOCK(lockable) CMutex APPEND_COUNTER(scoped_lock)(lockable)
class MyClass : public CMutex::lockable
{
...
void doStuff()
{
// lock data
SCOPED_LOCK(this);
// auto-generates a unique name, works even with multiple locks in the same scope..
SCOPED_LOCK(that);
// do stuff
...
// mutex should automagically be RAII released here
}
Related
Given the following C-API internally implemented in C++
struct OpaqueObject;
struct OpaqueObject *allocateObject();
int deallocateObject(struct OpaqueObject *obj);
int useObject(struct OpaqueObject *obj);
It is safe to allocate, use and deallocate several distinct struct OpaqueObject-Instances concurrently. Of course, the concurrent usage of one struct OpaqueObject-Instance is not allowed and would yield undefined behavior. As a safeguard, the struct OpaqueObject contains a mutex, prohibiting exactly this situation: The function useObject() returns with an error code, if several threads try to call it with the same struct OpaqueObject-Instance.
struct OpaqueObject {
std::mutex access;
// ...
};
int useObject(struct OpaqueObject *obj) {
if (!obj->access.try_lock()) {
// different thread currently uses this obj
return CONCURRENT_USE_ERROR;
} else {
// start using this obj
// ...
obj->access.unlock();
return OK;
}
}
But how can this safeguard mechanism extended to the function deallocateObject()? The first naive approach would be
int deallocateObject(struct OpaqueObject *obj) {
if (!obj->access.try_lock()) {
// different thread currently uses this obj
return CONCURRENT_USE_ERROR;
} else {
delete obj; // <--- (1)
return OK;
}
}
But it's undefined behavior to destroy a mutex when it's still locked. We can't simply unlock it right before line (1), since this would completely foil our efforts to prevent concurrent usage and deallocation.
Is it possible to return with an error in either useObject() or deallocateObject(), if these functions were used concurrently with the same struct OpaqueObject-Instance?
You could exchange the std::mutex with a std::atomic<int>:
struct OpaqueObject {
std::atomic<int> access = 0;
// ...
};
And then in your functions you could atomically exchange the values and see if it is in use:
int useObject(struct OpaqueObject *obj) {
if (obj->access.exchange(1)) {
// different thread currently uses this obj
return CONCURRENT_USE_ERROR;
} else {
// start using this obj
// ...
obj->access.exchange(0);
return OK;
}
}
If the object is in use variable access = 1 and std::atomic::exchange will return 1. Otherwise it returns 0 and sets access to 1.
Also deleting the object would work.
int deallocateObject(struct OpaqueObject *obj) {
if (obj->access.exchange(1)) { // (*)
// different thread currently uses this obj
return CONCURRENT_USE_ERROR;
} else {
delete obj; // (**)
return OK;
}
}
Important: Have you considered what happen's after you have deleted the object? How do you notify other threads about it's deletion?
I have two functions foo and bar that should be mutually exclusive since they operate on the same data. However foo duplicates a lot of code from bar, so I would like to refactor foo to make a call to bar.
This is a problem because then I can't use a single mutex for both functions, because then foo would deadlock when it calls bar. So rather than "mutually exclusive" I only want "mutually exclusive from different threads".
Is there a pattern for implementing this? I'm using C++ and I'm okay with C++14/boost if I need something like shared_mutex.
Define a private "unlocked" function and use that from both foo and bar:
void bar_unlocked()
{
// assert that mx_ is locked
// real work
}
void bar()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mx_);
bar_unlocked();
}
void foo()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mx_);
// stuff
bar_unlocked();
// more stuff
}
another way - this has the advantage that you can prove that the lock has been taken:
void bar_impl(std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock)
{
assert(lock.owns_lock());
// real work
}
void bar()
{
bar_impl(std::unique_lock<std::mutex>(mx_));
}
void foo()
{
// stuff
bar_impl(std::unique_lock<std::mutex>(mx_));
// more stuff
}
Rationale:
std::mutex is not (mandated by the standard to be) moveable, but a std::unique_lock<std::mutex> is. For this reason, we can move a lock into a callee and return it back to a caller (if necessary).
This allows us to prove ownership of the lock at every stage of a call chain.
In addition, once the optimiser gets involved, it's likely that all the lock-moving will be optimised away. This gives us the best of both worlds - provable ownership and maximal performance.
A more complete example:
#include <mutex>
#include <cassert>
#include <functional>
struct actor
{
//
// public interface
//
// perform a simple synchronous action
void simple_action()
{
impl_simple_action(take_lock());
}
/// perform an action either now or asynchronously in the future
/// hander() is called when the action is complete
/// handler is a latch - i.e. it will be called exactly once
/// #pre an existing handler must not be pending
void complex_action(std::function<void()> handler)
{
impl_complex_action(take_lock(), std::move(handler));
}
private:
//
// private external interface (for callbacks)
//
void my_callback()
{
auto lock = take_lock();
assert(!_condition_met);
_condition_met = true;
impl_condition_met(std::move(lock));
}
// private interface
using mutex_type = std::mutex;
using lock_type = std::unique_lock<mutex_type>;
void impl_simple_action(const lock_type& lock)
{
// assert preconditions
assert(lock.owns_lock());
// actions here
}
void impl_complex_action(lock_type my_lock, std::function<void()> handler)
{
_handler = std::move(handler);
if (_condition_met)
{
return impl_condition_met(std::move(my_lock));
}
else {
// initiate some action that will result in my_callback() being called
// some time later
}
}
void impl_condition_met(lock_type lock)
{
assert(lock.owns_lock());
assert(_condition_met);
if(_handler)
{
_condition_met = false;
auto copy = std::move(_handler);
// unlock here because the callback may call back into our public interface
lock.unlock();
copy();
}
}
auto take_lock() const -> lock_type
{
return lock_type(_mutex);
}
mutable mutex_type _mutex;
std::function<void()> _handler = {};
bool _condition_met = false;
};
void act(actor& a)
{
a.complex_action([&a]{
// other stuff...
// note: calling another public interface function of a
// during a handler initiated by a
// the unlock() in impl_condition_met() makes this safe.
a.simple_action();
});
}
Problem
How do you initialize an object inside a RAII scope, and use it outside of that scope?
Background
I have a global lock which can be called with lock() and unlock().
I have a type, LockedObject, which can only be initialized when the global lock is locked.
I have a function, use_locked(LockedObject &locked_object), which needs to be called with the global lock unlocked.
The usage scenario is
lock();
LockedObject locked_object;
unlock();
use_locked(locked_object);
RAII
For various reasons, I moved to a RAII encapsulation of the global lock. I would like to use this everywhere, primarily as creating LockedObject can fail with exceptions.
The problem is that
{
GlobalLock global_lock;
LockedObject locked_object;
}
use_locked(locked_object);
fails, as locked_object is created in the inner scope.
Examples
Set-up (mostly not important):
#include <assert.h>
#include <iostream>
bool locked = false;
void lock() {
assert(!locked);
locked = true;
}
void unlock() {
assert(locked);
locked = false;
}
class LockedObject {
public:
LockedObject(int i) {
assert(locked);
std::cout << "Initialized: " << i << std::endl;
}
};
void use_locked(LockedObject locked_object) {
assert(!locked);
}
class GlobalLock {
public:
GlobalLock() {
lock();
}
~GlobalLock() {
unlock();
}
};
Original, non RAII method:
void manual() {
lock();
LockedObject locked_object(123);
unlock();
use_locked(locked_object);
}
Broken RAII methods:
/*
void raii_broken_scoping() {
{
GlobalLock global_lock;
// Initialized in the wrong scope
LockedObject locked_object(123);
}
use_locked(locked_object);
}
*/
/*
void raii_broken_initialization() {
// No empty initialization
// Alternatively, empty initialization requires lock
LockedObject locked_object;
{
GlobalLock global_lock;
locked_object = LockedObject(123);
}
use_locked(locked_object);
}
*/
And a main function:
int main(int, char **) {
manual();
// raii_broken_scoping();
// raii_broken_initialization;
}
For what it's worth, in Python I would do:
with GlobalLock():
locked_object = LockedObject(123)
I want the equivalent of that. I mention my current solution in an answer, but it feels clumsy.
The specific (but simplified) code to be executed follows. With my current lambda-based call:
boost::python::api::object wrapped_object = [&c_object] () {
GIL lock_gil;
return boost::python::api::object(boost::ref(c_object));
} ();
auto thread = std::thread(use_wrapped_object, c_object);
with
class GIL {
public:
GIL();
~GIL();
private:
GIL(const GIL&);
PyGILState_STATE gilstate;
};
GIL::GIL() {
gilstate = PyGILState_Ensure();
}
GIL::~GIL() {
PyGILState_Release(gilstate);
}
boost::python::api::objects must be created with the GIL and the thread must be created without the GIL. The PyGILState struct and function calls are all given to me by CPython's C API, so I can only wrap them.
Allocate your object on the heap and use some pointers:
std::unique_ptr<LockedObject> locked_object;
{
GlobalLock global_lock;
locked_object.reset(new LockedObject());
}
use_locked(locked_object);
Here is a complete list of options from my perspective. optional would be what I would do:
The proposed post-C++1y optional would solve your problem, as it lets you construct data after declaration, as would heap based unique_ptr solutions. Roll your own, or steal ot from boost
A 'run at end of scope' RAII function storer (with 'commit') can also make this code less crazy, as can letting your locks be manually disengaged within their scope.
template<class F>
struct run_at_end_of_scope {
F f;
bool Skip;
void commit(){ if (!Skip) f(); Skip = true; }
void skip() { Skip = true; }
~run_at_end_of_scope(){commit();}
};
template<class F>
run_at_end_of_scope<F> at_end(F&&f){ return {std::forward<F>(f), false}; }
then:
auto later = at_end([&]{ /*code*/ });
and you can later.commit(); or later.skip(); to run the code earlier or skip running it.
Making your RAII locking classes have move constructors would let you do construction in another scope, and return via move (possibly elided).
LockedObject make_LockedObject(){
GlobalLock lock;
return {};
}
My current solution is to use an anonymous function:
void raii_return() {
LockedObject locked_object = [&] () {
GlobalLock global_lock;
return LockedObject(123);
} ();
use_locked(locked_object);
}
The advantage of this approach is that it avoids pointers and thanks to copy elision it should be quite fast.
One downside is that LockedObjects don't necessarily support copying (use_locked would in that case take a reference).
I am trying to design a multithreaded event system in C++. In it, the objects may be located in different threads and every object should be able to queue events for other threads. Each thread has its own event queue and event dispatcher, as well as an event loop. It should be possible to change the thread affinity of the objects.
Let's say we have two threads: A and B, and an object myobj, which belongs to B. Obviously, A needs a pointer to myobj in order to be able to send events to it. A doesn't have any pointer to B, but it needs some way to get a reference to it in order to be able to lock the event queue and add the event to it.
I could store a pointer to B in myobj, but then I obviously need to protect myobj. If I place a mutex in myobj, myobj could be destructed while the mutex is being locked, thus causing a segmentation fault.
I could also use a global table where I associate each object with its corresponding thread. However, this would consume a lot of memory and cause any thread that wants to send an event to block until A has finish
ed.
What is the most efficient safe strategy to implement this? Is there perhaps some kind of design pattern for this?
Thanks in advance.
I've implemented a thread wrapper base class ThreadEventComponent for sending and processing events between instances of itself. Each ThreadEventComponent has it's own event queue that is automatically locked internally whenever used. The events themselves are negotiated by a static map of type map<EventKey, vector<ThreadEventComponent*>> that is also automatically locked whenever used. As you can see, multiple ThreadEventComponent derived instances can subscribe to the same event. Each event sent with SendEvent(Event*) is copied per instance to insure that multiple threads aren't fighting over the same data held within the event.
Admittedly, this is not the most efficient strategy, opposed to sharing memory. There are optimizations to be made regarding the addEvent(Event&)method. With drawbacks aside, it does work well for configuring a thread to do some operation outside of the main thread.
Both MainLoop() and ProcessEvent(Event*) are virtual functions to be implemented by the derived class. ProcessEvent(Event*) is called whenever an event is available in the queue. After that, MainLoop() is called regardless of the event queue state. MainLoop() is where you should tell your thread to sleep and where any other operations such as file reading/writing or network reading/writing should go.
The following code is something I've been working on for my own person use to get my head wrapped around threading in C++. This code has never been reviewed, so I'd love to hear any suggestions you have. I am aware of two elements that are less than desirable in this code sample. 1) I'm using new at run-time, the drawback being that finding memory takes time, but this can be mitigated by creating a memory buffer to construct new events over in the ThreadEventComponent base class. 2)Event casting to TEvent<T> can cause run-time errors if not implemented correctly in ProcessEvent. I'm not sure what the best solution for this is.
Note: I have EventKey implemented as a string, but you can change it to whatever type you wish as long as it has a default value along with the equality and assignment operators available.
Event.h
#include <string>
using namespace std;
typedef string EventKey;
class Event
{
public:
Event()
: mKey()
{
}
Event(EventKey key)
: mKey(key)
{
}
Event(const Event& e)
: mKey(e.mKey)
{
}
virtual ~Event()
{
}
EventKey GetKey()
{
return mKey;
}
protected:
EventKey mKey;
};
template<class T>
class TEvent : public Event
{
public:
TEvent()
: Event()
{
}
TEvent(EventKey type, T& object)
: Event(type), mObject(object)
{
}
TEvent(const TEvent<T>& e)
: Event(e.mKey), mObject(e.mObject)
{
}
virtual ~TEvent()
{
}
T& GetObject()
{
return mObject;
}
private:
T mObject;
};
ThreadEventComponent.h
#include "Event.h"
#include <thread>
#include <atomic>
#include <algorithm>
#include <vector>
#include <queue>
#include <map>
#include <mutex>
#include <assert.h>
class ThreadEventComponent
{
public:
ThreadEventComponent();
~ThreadEventComponent();
void Start(bool detached = false);
void Stop();
void ForceStop();
void WaitToFinish();
virtual void Init() = 0;
virtual void MainLoop() = 0;
virtual void ProcessEvent(Event* incoming) = 0;
template<class T>
void SendEvent(TEvent<T>& e)
{
sEventListLocker.lock();
EventKey key = e.GetKey();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < sEventList[key].size(); i++)
{
assert(sEventList[key][i] != nullptr);
sEventList[key][i]->addEvent<T>(e);
}
sEventListLocker.unlock();
}
void SendEvent(Event& e);
void Subscribe(EventKey key);
void Unsubscribe(EventKey key);
protected:
template<class T>
void addEvent(TEvent<T>& e)
{
mQueueLocker.lock();
// The event gets copied per thread
mEventQueue.push(new TEvent<T>(e));
mQueueLocker.unlock();
}
void addEvent(Event& e);
thread mThread;
atomic<bool> mShouldExit;
private:
void threadLoop();
queue<Event*> mEventQueue;
mutex mQueueLocker;
typedef map<EventKey, vector<ThreadEventComponent*>> EventMap;
static EventMap sEventList;
static mutex sEventListLocker;
};
ThreadEventComponent.cpp
#include "ThreadEventComponent.h"
ThreadEventComponent::EventMap ThreadEventComponent::sEventList = ThreadEventComponent::EventMap();
std::mutex ThreadEventComponent::sEventListLocker;
ThreadEventComponent::ThreadEventComponent()
{
mShouldExit = false;
}
ThreadEventComponent::~ThreadEventComponent()
{
}
void ThreadEventComponent::Start(bool detached)
{
mShouldExit = false;
mThread = thread(&ThreadEventComponent::threadLoop, this);
if (detached)
mThread.detach();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::Stop()
{
mShouldExit = true;
}
void ThreadEventComponent::ForceStop()
{
mQueueLocker.lock();
while (!mEventQueue.empty())
{
delete mEventQueue.front();
mEventQueue.pop();
}
mQueueLocker.unlock();
mShouldExit = true;
}
void ThreadEventComponent::WaitToFinish()
{
if(mThread.joinable())
mThread.join();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::SendEvent(Event& e)
{
sEventListLocker.lock();
EventKey key = e.GetKey();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < sEventList[key].size(); i++)
{
assert(sEventList[key][i] != nullptr);
sEventList[key][i]->addEvent(e);
}
sEventListLocker.unlock();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::Subscribe(EventKey key)
{
sEventListLocker.lock();
if (find(sEventList[key].begin(), sEventList[key].end(), this) == sEventList[key].end())
{
sEventList[key].push_back(this);
}
sEventListLocker.unlock();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::Unsubscribe(EventKey key)
{
sEventListLocker.lock();
// Finds event listener of correct type
EventMap::iterator mapIt = sEventList.find(key);
assert(mapIt != sEventList.end());
// Finds the pointer to itself
std::vector<ThreadEventComponent*>::iterator elIt =
std::find(mapIt->second.begin(), mapIt->second.end(), this);
assert(elIt != mapIt->second.end());
// Removes it from the event list
mapIt->second.erase(elIt);
sEventListLocker.unlock();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::addEvent(Event& e)
{
mQueueLocker.lock();
// The event gets copied per thread
mEventQueue.push(new Event(e));
mQueueLocker.unlock();
}
void ThreadEventComponent::threadLoop()
{
Init();
bool shouldExit = false;
while (!shouldExit)
{
if (mQueueLocker.try_lock())
{
if (mEventQueue.empty())
{
mQueueLocker.unlock();
if(mShouldExit)
shouldExit = true;
}
else
{
Event* e = mEventQueue.front();
mEventQueue.pop();
mQueueLocker.unlock();
ProcessEvent(e);
delete e;
}
}
MainLoop();
}
}
Example Class - A.h
#include "ThreadEventComponent.h"
class A : public ThreadEventComponent
{
public:
A() : ThreadEventComponent()
{
}
void Init()
{
Subscribe("a stop");
Subscribe("a");
}
void MainLoop()
{
this_thread::sleep_for(50ms);
}
void ProcessEvent(Event* incoming)
{
if (incoming->GetKey() == "a")
{
auto e = static_cast<TEvent<vector<int>>*>(incoming);
mData = e->GetObject();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < mData.size(); i++)
{
mData[i] = sqrt(mData[i]);
}
SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("a done", mData));
}
else if(incoming->GetKey() == "a stop")
{
StopWhenDone();
}
}
private:
vector<int> mData;
};
Example Class - B.h
#include "ThreadEventComponent.h"
int compare(const void * a, const void * b)
{
return (*(int*)a - *(int*)b);
}
class B : public ThreadEventComponent
{
public:
B() : ThreadEventComponent()
{
}
void Init()
{
Subscribe("b stop");
Subscribe("b");
}
void MainLoop()
{
this_thread::sleep_for(50ms);
}
void ProcessEvent(Event* incoming)
{
if (incoming->GetKey() == "b")
{
auto e = static_cast<TEvent<vector<int>>*>(incoming);
mData = e->GetObject();
qsort(&mData[0], mData.size(), sizeof(int), compare);
SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("b done", mData));
}
else if (incoming->GetKey() == "b stop")
{
StopWhenDone();
}
}
private:
vector<int> mData;
};
Test Example - main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <random>
#include "A.h"
#include "B.h"
class Master : public ThreadEventComponent
{
public:
Master() : ThreadEventComponent()
{
}
void Init()
{
Subscribe("a done");
Subscribe("b done");
}
void MainLoop()
{
this_thread::sleep_for(50ms);
}
void ProcessEvent(Event* incoming)
{
if (incoming->GetKey() == "a done")
{
TEvent<vector<int>>* e = static_cast<TEvent<vector<int>>*>(incoming);
cout << "A finished" << endl;
mDataSetA = e->GetObject();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < mDataSetA.size(); i++)
{
cout << mDataSetA[i] << " ";
}
cout << endl << endl;
}
else if (incoming->GetKey() == "b done")
{
TEvent<vector<int>>* e = static_cast<TEvent<vector<int>>*>(incoming);
cout << "B finished" << endl;
mDataSetB = e->GetObject();
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < mDataSetB.size(); i++)
{
cout << mDataSetB[i] << " ";
}
cout << endl << endl;
}
}
private:
vector<int> mDataSetA;
vector<int> mDataSetB;
};
int main()
{
srand(time(0));
A a;
B b;
a.Start();
b.Start();
vector<int> data;
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
data.push_back(rand() % 100);
}
Master master;
master.Start();
master.SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("a", data));
master.SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("b", data));
master.SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("a", data));
master.SendEvent(TEvent<vector<int>>("b", data));
master.SendEvent(Event("a stop"));
master.SendEvent(Event("b stop"));
a.WaitToFinish();
b.WaitToFinish();
// cin.get();
master.StopWhenDone();
master.WaitToFinish();
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
I have not used it myself, but Boost.Signals2 claims to be thread-safe.
The primary motivation for Boost.Signals2 is to provide a version of the original Boost.Signals library which can be used safely in a multi-threaded environment.
Of course, using this would make your project depend on boost, which might not be in your interest.
[edit] It seems slots are executed in the emitting thread (no queue), so this might not be what you had in mind after all.
I'd consider making the thread part of classes to encapsulate them. That way you can easily design your interfaces around the thread loops (provided as member functions of these classes) and have defined entry points to send data to the thread loop (e.g. using a std::queue protected with a mutex).
I don't know if this is a designated, well known design pattern, but that's what I'm using for my all day productive code at work, and I (and my colleagues) feel and experience pretty good with it.
I'll try to give you a point:
class A {
public:
A() {}
bool start();
bool stop();
bool terminate() const;
void terminate(bool value);
int data() const;
void data(int value);
private:
std::thread thread_;
void threadLoop();
bool terminate_;
mutable std::mutex internalDataGuard_;
int data_;
};
bool A::start() {
thread_ = std::thread(std::bind(this,threadLoop));
return true;
}
bool A::stop() {
terminate(true);
thread_.join();
return true;
}
bool A::terminate() const {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(internalDataGuard_);
return terminate_;
}
void A::terminate(bool value) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(internalDataGuard_);
terminate_ = value;
}
int A::data() const {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(internalDataGuard_);
return data_;
}
void A::data(int value) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(internalDataGuard_);
data_ = value;
// Notify thread loop about data changes
}
void A::threadLoop() {
while(!terminate())
{
// Wait (blocking) for data changes
}
}
To setup signalling of data changes there are several choices and (OS) constraints:
The simplest thing you could use to wake up the thread loop to process changed/new data is a semaphore. In c++11 the nearest approx for a semaphore is a condition variable. Advanced versions of the pthreads API also provide condition variable support. Anyway since only one thread should be waiting there, and no kind of event broadcasing is necessary, it should be easy to implement with simple locking mechanisms.
If you have the choice to use an advanced OS, you might prefer implementing event signalling using s.th. like poll(), which provides lock-free implementation at the user space.
Some frameworks like boost, Qt, Platinum C++, and others also support event handling by signal/slot abstractions, you might have a look at their documentation and implementation to get a grip what's necessary/state of the art.
Obviously, A needs a pointer to myobj in order to be able to send
events to it.
I question the above assumption -- To me, allowing thread A to have a pointer to an object that is controlled/owned/accessed by thread B is kind of asking for trouble... in particular, some code running in thread A might be tempted later on to use that pointer to directly call methods on myobj, causing race conditions and discord; or B might delete myobj, at which point A is holding a dangling-pointer and is thereby in a precarious state.
If I was designing the system, I would try to do it in such a way that cross-thread messaging was done without requiring pointers-to-objects-in-other-threads, for the reasons you mention -- they are unsafe, in particular such a pointer might become a dangling-pointer at any time.
So then the question becomes, how do I send a message to an object in another thread, if I don't have a pointer to that object?
One way would be to give each object a unique ID by which it can be specified. This ID could be an integer (either hard-coded or dynamically assigned using an atomic counter or similar), or perhaps a short string if you wanted it to be more easily human-readable.
Then instead of the code in thread A sending the message directly to myobj, it would send a message to thread B, and the message would include a field indicating the ID of the object that is intended to receive the message.
When thread B's event loop receives the message, it would use the included ID value to look up the appropriate object (using an efficient key-value lookup mechanism such as std::unordered_map) and call the appropriate method on that object. If the object had already been destroyed, then the key-value lookup would fail (because you'd have a mechanism to make sure that the object removed itself from its thread's object-map as part of its destructor), and thus trying to send a message to a destroyed-object would fail cleanly (as opposed to invoking undefined behavior).
Note that this approach does mean that thread A's code has to know which thread myobj is owned by, in order to know which thread to send the message to. Typically thread A would need to know that anyway, but if you're going for a design that abstracts away even the knowledge about which thread a given object is running in, you could include an owner-thread-ID as part of the object-ID, so that your postMessage() method could examine the destination-object-ID to figure out which thread to send the message to.
I understand the concept of thread safety. I am looking for advice to simplify thread safety when trying to protect a single variable.
Say I have a variable:
double aPass;
and I want to protect this variable, so i create a mutex:
pthread_mutex_t aPass_lock;
Now there are two good ways i can think of doing this but they both have annoying disadvantages. The first is to make a thread safe class to hold the variable:
class aPass {
public:
aPass() {
pthread_mutex_init(&aPass_lock, NULL);
aPass_ = 0;
}
void get(double & setMe) {
pthread_mutex_lock(aPass_lock);
setMe = aPass_
pthread_mutex_unlock(aPass_lock);
}
void set(const double setThis) {
pthread_mutex_lock(aPass_lock);
aPass_ = setThis;
pthread_mutex_unlock(aPass_lock);
}
private:
double aPass_;
pthread_mutex_t aPass_lock;
};
Now this will keep aPass totally safe, nothing can be mistaken and ever touch it, YAY! however look at all that mess and imagine the confusion when accessing it. gross.
The other way is to have them both accessible and to make sure you lock the mutex before you use aPass.
pthread_mutex_lock(aPass_lock);
do something with aPass
pthread_mutex_unlock(aPass_lock);
But what if someone new comes on the project, what if you forget one time to lock it. I don't like debugging thread problems they are hard.
Is there a good way to (using pthreads because i have to use QNX which has little boost support) To lock single variables without needing a big class and that is safer then just creating a mutex lock to go with it?
std::atomic<double> aPass;
provided you have C++11.
To elabourate on my solution, it would be something like this.
template <typename ThreadSafeDataType>
class ThreadSafeData{
//....
private:
ThreadSafeDataType data;
mutex mut;
};
class apass:public ThreadSafeData<int>
Additionally, to make it unique, it might be best to make all operators and members static. For this to work you need to use CRTP
i.e
template <typename ThreadSafeDataType,class DerivedDataClass>
class ThreadSafeData{
//....
};
class apass:public ThreadSafeData<int,apass>
You can easily make your own class that locks the mutex on construction, and unlocks it on destruction. This way, no matter what happens the mutex will be freed on return, even if an exception is thrown, or any path is taken.
class MutexGuard
{
MutexType & m_Mutex;
public:
inline MutexGuard(MutexType & mutex)
: m_Mutex(mutex)
{
m_Mutex.lock();
};
inline ~MutexGuard()
{
m_Mutex.unlock();
};
}
class TestClass
{
MutexType m_Mutex;
double m_SharedVar;
public:
TestClass()
: m_SharedVar(4.0)
{ }
static void Function1()
{
MutexGuard scopedLock(m_Mutex); //lock the mutex
m_SharedVar+= 2345;
//mutex automatically unlocked
}
static void Function2()
{
MutexGuard scopedLock(m_Mutex); //lock the mutex
m_SharedVar*= 234;
throw std::runtime_error("Mutex automatically unlocked");
}
}
The variable m_SharedVar is ensured mutual exclusion between Function1() and Function2() , and will always be unlocked on return.
boost has build in types to accomplish this: boost::scoped_locked, boost::lock_guard.
You can create a class which act as a generic wrapper around your variable synchronising the access to it.
Add operator overloading for the assignment and you are done.
Consider use RAII idiom, below code is just the idea, it's not tested:
template<typename T, typename U>
struct APassHelper : boost::noncoypable
{
APassHelper(T&v) : v_(v) {
pthread_mutex_lock(mutex_);
}
~APassHelper() {
pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex_);
}
UpdateAPass(T t){
v_ = t;
}
private:
T& v_;
U& mutex_;
};
double aPass;
int baPass_lock;
APassHelper<aPass,aPass_lock) temp;
temp.UpdateAPass(10);
You can modify your aPass class by using operators instead of get/set:
class aPass {
public:
aPass() {
pthread_mutex_init(&aPass_lock, NULL);
aPass_ = 0;
}
operator double () const {
double setMe;
pthread_mutex_lock(aPass_lock);
setMe = aPass_;
pthread_mutex_unlock(aPass_lock);
return setMe;
}
aPass& operator = (double setThis) {
pthread_mutex_lock(aPass_lock);
aPass_ = setThis;
pthread_mutex_unlock(aPass_lock);
return *this;
}
private:
double aPass_;
pthread_mutex_t aPass_lock;
};
Usage:
aPass a;
a = 0.5;
double b = a;
This could of course be templated to support other types. Note however that a mutex is overkill in this case. Generally, memory barriers are enough when protecting loads and stores of small data-types. If possible you should use C++11 std::atomic<double>.