Lets say i have a thread that is being created and detached on the stack like this:
void foo()
{
while(true){};
}
void runThread()
{
std::thread t(foo);
t.detach();
}
int main()
{
runThread();
}
The program means nothing of course, But what happens after we detach and exit runThred ? it was allocated on the stack so basically t will be destroyed after we exit runThred, but the thread itself will go on running regardless to the main thread because it is detached.
Is the best practice in such an example is to create it on the heap and save a pointer to it doing whatever (dcor) after that?
Or it means nothing if the t variable is destructed and we should just "ignore" it?
The std::thread object represents a handle to the thread through which it can be operated on. But once you call detach there is no connection between the object and the actual thread of execution.
So I have a multithreaded C++ console application in which I want to handle the console close event in order to perform cleanup.
I have something to this effect:
bool running = true;
ServerSocket* server;
std::mutex mutex;
BOOL WINAPI HandlerRoutine(DWORD)
{
running = false;
server->shutdown();
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(mutex);
return TRUE;
}
int main()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(mutex);
SetConsoleCtrlHandler(&HandlerRoutine, TRUE);
try {
ServerSocket server(27015);
::server = &server;
while (running)
{
TCPSocket* client = server.accept(true);
}
}
catch (const ServerSocket::ServerShutdownException&)
{
return 0;
}
}
If I return from HandlerRoutine my program gets terminated unceremoniously, so I have to wait for main() to end.
However, after main ends I get an exception telling me a mutex was destroyed while busy, thrown from dynamic atexit destructor for 'mutex'(). This leads me to believe that static and global variables are destroyed as soon as main returns, leaving my handler function hanging around with invalid globals.
Is this the standard specified behaviour, and if so, any idea about how I can achieve my desired effect?
In this scenario I would simply leak the mutex object. You don't want the destructor called prior to termination of the last thread, and there's no point in calling it during termination of the last thread.
std::mutex& mutex = *new mutex; // freed by OS at process exit
You can try boost::application.
Here the example wait_for_termination_request.cpp
Yes, your deduction is correct. Seems like the best option would be to unregister your handler and then wait for it to finish before returning from main(). But if that's not an option for whatever reason, something else you could do is to wrap all your globals in a struct:
struct Globals
{
bool running;
ServerSocket* server;
std::mutex mutex;
};
Have a single, global shared_ptr to an instance of that struct:
std::shared_ptr<Globals> globals = std::make_shared<Globals>();
Make a copy of the shared_ptr in your handler:
BOOL WINAPI HandlerRoutine(DWORD)
{
std::shared_ptr<Globals> myGlobals = globals;
...
}
And rely exclusively on myGlobals within the handler (there is no guarantee that the globals pointer itself will remain valid for the entire lifetime of the thread). That way everything is kept alive until everyone is done with it.
This assumes, of course, that globals is still valid when HandlerRoutine begins. If that's not the case (i.e. if the system can call the handler after main returns but before the process ends), then I'll delete this answer.
I'd be tempted to play ping pong with mutexes. Have not one, but two mutexes.
The first is held by mymain (a copy of your main basically). main does nothing but call mymain.
The second is held by HandlerRoutine, and aquired by main after returning from mymain.
If you shut down without the HandlerRoutine being called, you simply fall off the end of main.
If you shut down after the HandlerRoutine is called, your main blocks on it finishing.
Simply planning to leak the mutex is insufficient, as if HandlerRoutine is called during the period that main was already planing to shutdown, its server->shutdown could be accessing invalid memory.
Some work on the second mutax (that HandlerRoutine accesses) needs to be done to deal with race conditions (being called -- or reaching the lock -- after main has already exited, and the process is cleaning up global variables?). Storing the HandlerRoutine mutex in a pointer, and using lock-free techniques to access it extremely carefully, possibly involving spin locks.
To expand on the comments mentioning that the mutex is unnecessary, this is one alternative:
BOOL WINAPI HandlerRoutine(DWORD)
{
running = false;
server->shutdown();
Sleep(INFINITE);
return TRUE; // just to stop the compiler complaining
}
The program below will end up failing with a message regarding abort() being called.
I'm starting a thread that simple prints to cout. If I use std::this_thread::sleep_for(), I get the error. If I remove this, I get the error. If I call join() on the thread, everything works fine.
Shouldn't the thread have terminated long before the 1000 ms delay was up? Why is this causing an error? I can't believe calling join() is a requirement for a thread.
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
class ThreadTest
{
public:
ThreadTest() : _t{ &ThreadTest::Run, this } {}
void Wait() { _t.join(); }
private:
void Run(){
std::cout << "In thread" << std::endl;
}
std::thread _t;
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
ThreadTest tt;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
// tt.Wait();
return 0;
}
According to cppreference on thread class destructor :
~thread(): Destroys the thread object. If *this still has an associated running thread (i.e. joinable() == true), std::terminate() is called.
And joinable() :
[...] A thread that has finished executing code, but has not yet been joined is still considered an active thread of execution and is therefore joinable.
So you have to call join() explicitely before your thread variable is automatically destroyed or use the detach() member function.
Check cppreference's std::thread page.
A thread that has finished executing code, but has not yet been joined is still considered an active thread of execution and is therefore joinable.
[the destructor] Destroys the thread object. If *this still has an associated running thread (i.e. joinable() == true), std::terminate() is called.
To get the behavior you want, you'd need to call _t.detach() before exiting from main:
[detach()] Separates the thread of execution from the thread object, allowing execution to continue independently. Any allocated resources will be freed once the thread exits.
After calling detach *this no longer owns any thread.
Say I have a worker thread tWorker, which is initialized when Boss is constructed and tells it to do work(), until bRetired is true. An std::mutex, mtx, locks some data (vFiles) so that tWorker owns it when he's working on it.
How do I make tWorker "commit suicide" once bRetired becomes true? How would the mutex be destroyed when the thread stops execution?
I've read that std::thread objects cannot be interrupted in any way. Does letting the thread do nothing (or calling std::this_thread::yield()) provide the same effect as killing the thread?
class Boss {
private:
std::thread tWorker;
std::mutex mtx;
bool bRetired;
std::vector< std::string > vFiles;
void work() {
while ( bRetired == false ) {
// Do your job!
mtx.lock();
// ... Do something about vFiles ...
mtx.unlock();
}
// tWorker has retired, commit suicide
// ** How? **
// Does this suffice if I want to "kill" the thread?
std::this_thread::yield();
}
public:
Boss() {
bRetired = false;
tWorker = std::thread( &Boss::work, this );
// Have worker do its job independently
// **Bonus Question** : Should this be tWorker.join() or tWorker.detach()?
tWorker.detach();
}
retire() {
bRetired = true;
}
}
Notes
The worker thread cannot be started again once it is retired.
The worker thread works on the background without interrupting the main thread's execution.
How do I make tWorker "commit suicide" once bRetired becomes true?
You let the control flow exit the thread function. That std::this_thread::yield() call in unnecessary.
How would the mutex be destroyed when the thread stops execution?
That mutex is a member of Boss class. It gets destroyed in the destructor of Boss when the object is getting destroyed.
I've read that std::thread objects cannot be interrupted in any way.
C++ API does not provide means to terminate an arbitrary thread. There has to be a way to tell a thread to terminate and then wait till it does, as you intend to do.
Does letting the thread do nothing (or calling std::this_thread::yield()) provide the same effect as killing the thread?
No.
There is a race condition on bRetired variable though. It either needs to be std::atomic<bool> or it should only be read and modified only when that mutex is locked.
The call to std::thread::yield() is unrequired and does not kill the calling thread:
Provides a hint to the implementation to reschedule the execution of threads, allowing other threads to run.
Just exit the function to exit the thread.
Note that the use of bRetired is incorrect as two threads can be accessing the same memory location and one of those threads is modifying it: this is undefined behaviour. Also, the change made in the function retire(), a different thread, will not be seen by the thread executing run(): use atomic<bool> for atomicity and visibility.
If join() was used within the constructor the constructor would not return until the thread exited, which would never happen as it would be impossible to call retire() because the object would not be available (as the constructor would not have returned). If it is required to synchronize with the exiting of the thread then do not detach() but join() in the retire() function:
void retire() {
bRetired = true;
tWorker.join();
}
Use RAII for acquiring mutexes (std::lock_guard for example) to ensure it always released. The mutex will be destroyed when it goes out of scope, in this case when its containing class is destructed.
Here is a skeleton of my thread class:
class MyThread {
public:
virutal ~MyThread();
// will start thread with svc() as thread entry point
void start() = 0;
// derive class will specialize what the thread should do
virtual void svc() = 0;
};
Somewhere in code I create an instance of MyThread and later I want to destroy it.
In this case MyThread~MyThread() is called. MyThread:svc() is still running and using the object's data members. So I need a way politely inform MyThread:svc() to stop spinning, before proceeding with the destructor.
What is the acceptable way to destroy the thread object?
Note: I'm looking for platform agnostic solution.
UPD: It's clear that the root of problem is that there's no relationship between C++ object representing thread and OS thread. So the question is: in context of object destuction, is there an acceptable way to make thread object behave like an ordinary C++ object or should it be treated as an unusual one (e.g. should we call join() before destoying it?
Considering your additional requirements posted as comment to Checkers' reply (which is the
most straightforward way to do that):
I agree that join in DTor is problematic for various reasons. But from that the lifetime of your thread object is unrelated to the lifetime of the OS thread object.
First, you need to separate the data the thread uses from the thread object itself. They are distinct entities with distinct lifetime requirements.
One approach is to make the data refcounted, and have any thread that wants to access it hold a strong reference to the data. This way, no thread will suddenly grab into the void, but the data will be destroyed as soon as noone touches it anymore.
Second, about the thread object being destroyed when the thread joins:
I am not sure if this is a good idea. The thread object is normally a way to query the state of a thread - but with a thread object that dies as soon as the thread finishes, noone can tell you wether the thread finished.
Generally, I'd completely decouple the lifetime of the thread object from the lifetime of the OS thread: Destroying your thread object should not affect the thread itself. I see two basic approaches to this:
Thread Handle Object - reference counted again, returned by thread creator, can be released as early as one likes without affecting the OS thread. It would expose methods such as Join, IsFinished, and can give access to the thread shared data.
(If the thread object holds relevant execution state, the threafFunc itself could hold a reference to it, thereby ensuring the instance won't be released before the thread ends)
Thin Wrapper - You simply create a temporary around an OS thread handle. You could not hold additional state for the thread easily, but it might be just enough to make it work: At any place, you can turn an OS thread handle into an thread object. The majority of communication - e.g. telling the thread to terminate - would be via the shared data.
For your code example, this means: separate the start() from the svc()
You'd roughly work with this API (XxxxPtr could be e.g. boost::shared_ptr):
class Thread
{
public:
bool IsFinished();
void Join();
bool TryJoin(long timeout);
WorkerPtr GetWorker();
static ThreadPtr Start(WorkerPtr worker); // creates the thread
};
class Worker
{
private:
virtual void Svc() = 0;
friend class Thread; // so thread can run Svc()
}
Worker could contain a ThreadPtr itself, giving you a guarantee that the thread object exists during execution of Svc(). If multiple threads are allowed to work on the same data, this would have to be a thread list. Otherwise, Thread::Start would have to reject Workers that are already associated with a thread.
Motivation: What to do with rogue threads that block?
Assuming a thread fails to terminate within time for one reason or another, even though you told it to. You simply have three choices:
Deadlock, your applicaiton hangs. That usually happens if you join in the destructor.
Violently terminate the thread. That's potentially a violent termination of the app.
Let the thread run to completion on it's own data - you can notify the user, who can safely save & exit. Or you simply let the rogue thread dance on it's own copy of the data (not reference by the main thread anymore) until it completes.
Usually any OS-specific threads API will allow you to "join" a thread. That is, to block indefinitely on a thread handle until the thread functions returns.
So,
Signal the thread function to return (e.g. by setting a flag in its loop to false).
Join the thread, to make sure the actual thread terminates before you try to delete the thread object.
Then you can proceed with destruction of the thread object (you may also join in the destructor, though some people object to blocking destructors.).
I've had a project before with a similar "thread worker" class and a corresponding "work item" class (a-la Java's Thread and Runnable, except thread does not terminate but waits for a new Runnable object to be executed).
In the end, there was no difference if you join in a separate "shutdown" function or in the destructor, except a separate function is a bit more clear.
If you join in a destructor and a thread blocks, you will wait indefinitely.
If you join in a separate function and a thread blocks, you will wait indefinitely.
If you detach the thread and let it finish on its own, it will usually block application from exiting, so you will wait indefinitely.
So there is no straightforward way to make a thread behave like a regular C++ object and ignore its OS thread semantics, unless you can guarantee that your thread code can terminate almost immediately when notified to do so.
You could havee somthing like this in your svc method
while (alive){ //loops}
//free resources after while.
In your destructor, you could set the alive member to false. Or, you could have a pleaseDie() method, that sets the alive member to false, and can be called from the outside requesting the Thread instance to stop processing.
void
Thread::pleaseDie()
{
this->alive = false;
}
You first need a way to communicate with the thread to tell it to shut down. The best mechanism to do this depends on what svc() is doing. If, for example, it is looping on a message queue, you could insert a "please stop" message in that queue. Otherwise, you could simply add a member bool variable (and synchronize access to it) that is periodically checked by the svc(), and set by the thread wanting to destroy the object. Your could add a pure virtual stop() function to your base class, giving the implementor a clear signal that it has to implement svc() to make its class "runnable", and to implement stop() to make it "stoppable".
After asking the thread to stop, you must wait for it to exit before destroying the object. Again, there are several ways to do this. One is to make the stop() function blocking. It could wait, for example, for a "ok, I'm really stopped now" condition variable to be set by the thread running svc(). Alternatively, the caller could "wait" on the thread running svc(). The way to "wait" is platform dependent.
Most thread systems allow you to send a signal to a thead.
Example: pthreads
pthread_kill(pthread_t thread, int sig);
This will send a signall to a thread.
You can use this to kill the thread. Though this can leave a few of the resources hanging in an undefined state.
A solution to the resource problem is to install a signall handler.
So that when the signal handler is called it throws an exception. This will cause the thread stack to unwind to the entry point where you can then get the thread to check a variable about weather it is sill alive.
NOTE: You should never allow an exception to propogate out of a thread (this is so undefined my eyes bleed thinking about it). Basically catch the exception at the thread entry point then check some state variable to see if the thread should really exit.
Meanwhile the thread that sends the signal should wait for the thread to die by doing a join.
The only issues are that when you throw out of signal handler function you need to be careful. You should not use a signal that is asynchronus (ie one that could have been generated by a signal in another thread). A good one to use is SIGSEGV. If this happens normally then you have accessed invalid memory any you thread should think about exiting anyway!
You may also need to specify an extra flag on some systems to cope.
See This article
A working example using pthreads:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <iostream>
extern "C" void* startThread(void*);
extern "C" void shouldIexit(int sig);
class Thread
{
public:
Thread();
virtual ~Thread();
private:
friend void* startThread(void*);
void start();
virtual void run() = 0;
bool running;
pthread_t thread;
};
// I have seen a lot of implementations use a static class method to do this.
// DON'T. It is not portable. This is because the C++ ABI is not defined.
//
// It currently works on several compilers but will break if these compilers
// change the ABI they use. To gurantee this to work you should use a
// function that is declared as extern "C" this guarantees that the ABI is
// correct for the callback. (Note this is true for all C callback functions)
void* startThread(void* data)
{
Thread* thread = reinterpret_cast<Thread*>(data);
thread->start();
}
void shouldIexit(int sig)
{
// You should not use std::cout in signal handler.
// This is for Demo purposes only.
std::cout << "Signal" << std::endl;
signal(sig,shouldIexit);
// The default handler would kill the thread.
// But by returning you can continue your code where you left off.
// Or by throwing you can cause the stack to unwind (if the exception is caught).
// If you do not catch the exception it is implementation defined weather the
// stack is unwound.
throw int(3); // use int for simplicity in demo
}
Thread::Thread()
:running(true)
{
// Note starting the thread in the constructor means that the thread may
// start before the derived classes constructor finishes. This may potentially
// be a problem. It is started here to make the code succinct and the derived
// class used has no constructor so it does not matter.
if (pthread_create(&thread,NULL,startThread,this) != 0)
{
throw int(5); // use int for simplicity in demo.
}
}
Thread::~Thread()
{
void* ignore;
running = false;
pthread_kill(thread,SIGSEGV); // Tell thread it may want to exit.
pthread_join(thread,&ignore); // Wait for it to finish.
// Do NOT leave before thread has exited.
std::cout << "Thread Object Destroyed" << std::endl;
}
void Thread::start()
{
while(running)
{
try
{
this->run();
}
catch(...)
{}
}
std::cout << "Thread exiting" << std::endl;
}
class MyTestThread:public Thread
{
public:
virtual void run()
{
// Unless the signal causes an exception
// this loop will never exit.
while(true)
{
sleep(5);
}
}
};
struct Info
{
Info() {std::cout << "Info" << std::endl;}
~Info() {std::cout << "Done: The thread Should have exited before this" << std::endl;}
};
int main()
{
signal(SIGSEGV,shouldIexit);
Info info;
MyTestThread test;
sleep(4);
std::cout << "Exiting About to Exit" << std::endl;
}
> ./a.exe
Info
Exiting About to Exit
Signal
Thread exiting
Thread Object Destroyed
Done: The thread Should have exited before this
>
You should add dedicated thread management class (i.e. MyThreadMngr), that handles this and other tasks, like book keeping, owning the thread handles etc. The Thread itself should somehow signal to the thread manager that its going to terminate and MyThreadMngr should i.e. have a loop like Tom proposed.
There will probably be more actions that suite into such a thread manager class.
I reckon the easiest way to do this is to wrap the thread execution code in a loop
while(isRunning())
{
... thread implementation ...
}
You can also stop your thread by doing specific calls, for instance when you're using a WIN32 thread you can call TerminateThread on the thread handle in the destructor.
i give a simple and clean design, no signal, no sync, no kill needed.
per your MyThread, i suggest renaming and adding as below:
class MyThread {
public:
virutal ~MyThread();
// will be called when starting a thread,
// could do some initial operations
virtual bool OnStart() = 0;
// will be called when stopping a thread, say calling join().
virtual bool OnStop() = 0;
// derive class will specialize what the thread should do,
// say the thread loop such as
// while (bRunning) {
// do the job.
// }
virtual int OnRun() = 0;
};
the thread interface user will control the lifetime of MyThread.
and actually the real thread object is as below:
class IThread
{
public:
virtual API ~IThread() {}
/* The real destructor. */
virtual void Destroy(void) = 0;
/* Starts this thread, it will call MyThread::OnStart()
* and then call MyThread::OnRun() just after created
* the thread. */
virtual bool Start(void) = 0;
/* Stops a thread. will call MyThread::OnStop(). */
virtual void Stop(void) = 0;
/* If Wait() called, thread won't call MyThread::OnStop().
* If could, it returns the value of MyThread::OnRun()
* returned */
virtual int Wait(void) = 0;
/* your staff */
virtual MyThread * Command(void) = 0;
};
/* The interface to create a thread */
extern IThread * ThrdCreate(MyThread *p);
See the complete interfaces
http://effoaddon.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/devel/effo/codebase/addons/thrd/include/thrd_i.h
Coding Examples
Case 1. Controlled thread loop
class ThreadLoop : public MyThread
{
private:
bool m_bRunning;
public:
virtual bool OnStart() { m_bRunning = true; }
virtual bool OnStop() { m_bRunning = false; }
virtual int OnRun()
{
while (m_bRunning) {
do your job;
}
}
};
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
ThreadLoop oLoop;
IThread *pThread = ThrdCreate(&oLoop);
// Start the thread, it will call Loop::OnStart()
//and then call Loop::OnRun() internally.
pThread->Start();
do your things here. when it is time to stop the thread, call stop().
// Stop the thread, it will call Loop::OnStop(),
// so Loop::OnRun() will go to the end
pThread->Stop();
// done, destroy the thread
pThread->Destroy();
}
Case 2. Don't know when the thread will stop
class ThreadLoop : public MyThread
{
public:
virtual bool OnStart() { }
virtual bool OnStop() { }
virtual int OnRun()
{
do your job until finish.
}
};
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
ThreadLoop oLoop;
IThread *pThread = ThrdCreate(&oLoop);
// Start the thread, it will call Loop::OnStart()
//and then call Loop::OnRun() internally.
pThread->Start();
do your things here. Since you don't know when the job will
finish in the thread loop. call wait().
// Wait the thread, it doesn't call Loop::OnStop()
pThread->Wait();
// done, destroy the thread
pThread->Destroy();
}
A complete IThread implementation:
see
http://effoaddon.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/devel/effo/codebase/addons/thrd/src/thrd/thrd.cpp