I'm trying to set core affinity (Thread #1 goes on first core, Thread #2 goes on second core, ...) while using std::thread in C++ 11.
I've already searched around various topics and on the internet and it seems C++ 11 API doesn't provide such low level feature.
On the other hand, pthreads come with pthread_setaffinity_np which would be useful if I could get the "pthread_t" value of my std::thread (I don't know if this is human reasonable or at least legitimate asking for it).
An example program of what I'd want to have in the end is this:
#include <thread>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define CORE_NO 8
using namespace std;
void run(int id) {
cout << "Hi! I'm thread " << id << endl;
// thread function goes here
}
int main() {
cpu_set_t cpu_set;
CPU_ZERO(&cpu_set);
for(int i=0; i<CORE_NO; i++)
CPU_SET(i, &cpu_set);
thread t1(run, 1);
// obtaining pthread_t from t1
/*
pthread_t this_tid = foo(t1);
pthread_setaffinity_np(this_tid, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpu_set);
*/
t1.join();
return 0;
}
I'd really prefer not to change the whole architecture of my project (which must provide such characteristic). I've now a massive use of std::thread but I can use pthread API in addition as well, as you have seen in the example.
Is there a way for me to solve this problem?
You can get the native handle for the thread with the native_handle function.
The example in the linked reference even uses this to call pthread functions.
I do not know if it is a suitable approach in your case, but what I usually do is to call the affinity primitives from within the thread. E.g., I place a snippet of code similar to this one somewhere at the beginning of the threaded function:
const int err = pthread_setaffinity_np(pthread_self(),...);
The call to pthread_self() will return the ID of the calling thread.
Related
I'm trying to get a hold on pthreads. I see some people also have unexpected pthread behavior, but none of the questions seemed to be answered.
The following piece of code should create two threads, one which relies on the other. I read that each thread will create variables within their stack (can't be shared between threads) and using a global pointer is a way to have threads share a value. One thread should print it's current iteration, while another thread sleeps for 10 seconds. Ultimately one would expect 10 iterations. Using break points, it seems the script just dies at
while (*pointham != "cheese"){
It could also be I'm not properly utilizing code blocks debug functionality. Any pointers (har har har) would be helpful.
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
string hamburger = "null";
string * pointham = &hamburger;
void *wait(void *)
{
int i {0};
while (*pointham != "cheese"){
sleep (1);
i++;
cout << "Waiting on that cheese " << i;
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
void *cheese(void *)
{
cout << "Bout to sleep then get that cheese";
sleep (10);
*pointham = "cheese";
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main()
{
pthread_t threads[2];
pthread_create(&threads[0], NULL, cheese, NULL);
pthread_create(&threads[1], NULL, wait, NULL);
return 0;
}
The problem is that you start your threads, then exit the process (thereby killing your threads). You have to wait for your threads to exit, preferably with the pthread_join function.
If you don't want to have to join all your threads, you can call pthread_exit() in the main thread instead of returning from main().
But note the BUGS section from the manpage:
Currently, there are limitations in the kernel implementation logic for
wait(2)ing on a stopped thread group with a dead thread group leader.
This can manifest in problems such as a locked terminal if a stop sig‐
nal is sent to a foreground process whose thread group leader has
already called pthread_exit().
According to this tutorial:
If main() finishes before the threads it has created, and exits with pthread_exit(), the other threads will continue to execute. Otherwise, they will be automatically terminated when main() finishes.
So, you shouldn't end the main function with the statement return 0;. But you should use pthread_exit(NULL); instead.
If this doesn't work with you, you may need to learn about joining threads here.
I am new to windows c++ programming. Please see the below code where I want to make the two threads synchronized. The first thread should print "Hello" then pass the control/event to the second thread. Not sure how to do it. As of now I am using Sleep(1000). But if I dont use Sleep it result into undefined behavior. Please help...
#include <windows.h>
#include <process.h>
#include <iostream>
void thread1(void*);
void thread2(void*);
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
_beginthread(&thread1,0,(void*)0);
_beginthread(&thread2,0,(void*)0);
Sleep(1000);
}
void thread1(void*)
{
std::cout<<"Hello "<<std::endl;
}
void thread2(void*)
{
std::cout<<"World"<<std::endl;
}
The problem is the question you are asking really doesn't make sense. Multiple threads are designed to run at the same time and you're trying to play a game of pass the buck from one thread to another to get sequential serialised behavoir. Its like taking a really complicated tool and ask how it solves what is normally a really easy question.
However, multithreading is a really important topic to learn so I'll try to answer what you need to the best of my ability.
Firstly, I'd recommend using the new, standard C++11 functions and libraries. For windows, you can download Visual Studio 2012 Express Edition to play about with.
With this you can use std::thread, std::mutex and a lot [but not all] of the other C++11 goodies (like std::condition_variable).
To solve your problem you really need a condition variable. This lets you signal to another thread that something is ready for them:
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <atomic>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <thread>
static std::atomic<bool> ready;
static std::mutex lock;
static std::condition_variable cv;
// ThreadOne immediately prints Hello then 'notifies' the condition variable
void ThreadOne()
{
std::cout << "Hello ";
ready = true;
cv.notify_one();
}
// ThreadTwo waits for someone to 'notify' the condition variable then prints 'World'
// Note: The 'cv.wait' must be in a loop as spurious wake-ups for condition_variables are allowed
void ThreadTwo()
{
while(true)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> stackLock(lock);
cv.wait(stackLock);
if(ready) break;
}
std::cout << "World!" << std::endl;
}
// Main just kicks off two 'std::thread's. We must wait for both those threads
// to finish before we can return from main. 'join' does this - its the std
// equivalent of calling 'WaitForSingleObject' on the thread handle. its necessary
// to call join as the standard says so - but the underlying reason is that
// when main returns global destructors will start running. If your thread is also
// running at this critical time then it will possibly access global objects which
// are destructing or have destructed which is *bad*
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
std::thread t1([](){ThreadOne();});
std::thread t2([](){ThreadTwo();});
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
Here is the simplified version to handle your situation.
You are creating 2 threads to call 2 different function.
Ideally thread synchronization is used to serialize same code between threads but in your case it is not the need. You are trying to serialize 2 threads which are no way related to one another.
Any how you can wait for each thread to finish by not making async call.
#include <windows.h>
#include <process.h>
#include <iostream>
#include<mutex>
using namespace std;
void thread1(void*);
void thread2(void*);
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
HANDLE h1 = (HANDLE)_beginthread(&thread1,0,(void*)0);
WaitForSingleObject(h1,INFINITE);
HANDLE h2 = (HANDLE)_beginthread(&thread2,0,(void*)0);
WaitForSingleObject(h2,INFINITE);
}
void thread1(void*)
{
std::cout<<"Hello "<<std::endl;
}
void thread2(void*)
{
std::cout<<"World"<<std::endl;
}
You can group both beginthread in single function and call that function in while loop if you want to print multiple times.
void fun()
{
HANDLE h1 = (HANDLE)_beginthread(&thread1,0,(void*)0);
WaitForSingleObject(h1,INFINITE);
HANDLE h2 = (HANDLE)_beginthread(&thread2,0,(void*)0);
WaitForSingleObject(h2,INFINITE);
}
Given the following bit of code, I was wondering what the equivalent bit of code would be in linux assuming pthreads or even using the Boost.Thread API.
#include <windows.h>
int main()
{
SetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(),THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST);
return 0;
}
The equivalent to SetThreadPriority in linux would be pthread_setschedprio(pthread_t thread, int priority).
Check the man page.
EDIT: here's the sample code equivalent:
#include <pthread.h>
int main()
{
pthread_t thId = pthread_self();
pthread_attr_t thAttr;
int policy = 0;
int max_prio_for_policy = 0;
pthread_attr_init(&thAttr);
pthread_attr_getschedpolicy(&thAttr, &policy);
max_prio_for_policy = sched_get_priority_max(policy);
pthread_setschedprio(thId, max_prio_for_policy);
pthread_attr_destroy(&thAttr);
return 0;
}
This sample is for the default scheduling policy which is SCHED_OTHER.
EDIT: thread attribute must be initialized before usage.
You want:
#include <pthread.h>
int main()
{
int policy;
struct sched_param param;
pthread_getschedparam(pthread_self(), &policy, ¶m);
param.sched_priority = sched_get_priority_max(policy);
pthread_setschedparam(pthread_self(), policy, ¶m);
return 0;
}
The POSIX standard includes pthread_setschedparam(3), as mentioned by various other answers. Mostly this POSIX thread library function is mentioned when talking of real-time threads, but the POSIX standard does not limit its use solely to the domain of real-time threads. However, in Linux its use is only really meaningful if using real time scheduling classes SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR as only those scheduling classes allow more than one value for the priority parameter. See this stack overflow answer for an illustration.
Fortunately or unfortunately, it is a matter of perspective, it seems both main stream Linux POSIX thread library implementations (the obsolete LinuxThreads and the current NPTL implementation) are not fully POSIX compliant in that the "nice value" is not process specific but thread specific parameter, so it seems you could use setpriority(3) to change the niceness of a thread in Linux. This claim is based on the compatibility notes in pthreads(7) manual page (search for "nice value" in that page); I have not actually tested in practise (straightforward thing to do).
Should you decide to use the POSIX incompliant way of changing the thread niceness, note that there is the lurking possibility that somebody decides to fix the mentioned non-compliance, in which case there seems to be no way of changing the thread priority in Linux if using normal scheduling class (SCHED_OTHER).
Something like pthread_setschedparam() and combination of policy and priority.
I guess you would use policies SCHED_FIFO, SCHED_RR where you can specify priority of thread.
For those who may be searching for BSD based OS solutions such as MacOS or iOS, you may want to consider setting the thread's priority using mach instead of the POSIX equivalent if necessary.
#include <mach/mach_init.h>
#include <mach/thread_policy.h>
#include <mach/sched.h>
#include <pthread.h>
int set_realtime(int period, int computation, int constraint) {
struct thread_time_constraint_policy ttcpolicy;
int ret;
thread_port_t threadport = pthread_mach_thread_np(pthread_self());
ttcpolicy.period=period; // HZ/160
ttcpolicy.computation=computation; // HZ/3300;
ttcpolicy.constraint=constraint; // HZ/2200;
ttcpolicy.preemptible=1;
if ((ret=thread_policy_set(threadport,
THREAD_TIME_CONSTRAINT_POLICY, (thread_policy_t)&ttcpolicy,
THREAD_TIME_CONSTRAINT_POLICY_COUNT)) != KERN_SUCCESS) {
fprintf(stderr, "set_realtime() failed.\n");
return 0;
}
return 1;
}
Source: https://developer.apple.com/library/content/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/scheduler/scheduler.html
I am trying to create a thread in C++ (Win32) to run a simple method. I'm new to C++ threading, but very familiar with threading in C#. Here is some pseudo-code of what I am trying to do:
static void MyMethod(int data)
{
RunStuff(data);
}
void RunStuff(int data)
{
//long running operation here
}
I want to to call RunStuff from MyMethod without it blocking. What would be the simplest way of running RunStuff on a separate thread?
Edit: I should also mention that I want to keep dependencies to a minimum. (No MFC... etc)
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
static boost::thread runStuffThread;
static void MyMethod(int data)
{
runStuffThread = boost::thread(boost::bind(RunStuff, data));
}
// elsewhere...
runStuffThread.join(); //blocks
C++11 available with more recent compilers such as Visual Studio 2013 has threads as part of the language along with quite a few other nice bits and pieces such as lambdas.
The include file threads provides the thread class which is a set of templates. The thread functionality is in the std:: namespace. Some thread synchronization functions use std::this_thread as a namespace (see Why the std::this_thread namespace? for a bit of explanation).
The following console application example using Visual Studio 2013 demonstrates some of the thread functionality of C++11 including the use of a lambda (see What is a lambda expression in C++11?). Notice that the functions used for thread sleep, such as std::this_thread::sleep_for(), uses duration from std::chrono.
// threading.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
int funThread(const char *pName, const int nTimes, std::mutex *myMutex)
{
// loop the specified number of times each time waiting a second.
// we are using this mutex, which is shared by the threads to
// synchronize and allow only one thread at a time to to output.
for (int i = 0; i < nTimes; i++) {
myMutex->lock();
std::cout << "thread " << pName << " i = " << i << std::endl;
// delay this thread that is running for a second.
// the this_thread construct allows us access to several different
// functions such as sleep_for() and yield(). we do the sleep
// before doing the unlock() to demo how the lock/unlock works.
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
myMutex->unlock();
std::this_thread::yield();
}
return 0;
}
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
// create a mutex which we are going to use to synchronize output
// between the two threads.
std::mutex myMutex;
// create and start two threads each with a different name and a
// different number of iterations. we provide the mutex we are using
// to synchronize the two threads.
std::thread myThread1(funThread, "one", 5, &myMutex);
std::thread myThread2(funThread, "two", 15, &myMutex);
// wait for our two threads to finish.
myThread1.join();
myThread2.join();
auto fun = [](int x) {for (int i = 0; i < x; i++) { std::cout << "lambda thread " << i << std::endl; std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1)); } };
// create a thread from the lambda above requesting three iterations.
std::thread xThread(fun, 3);
xThread.join();
return 0;
}
CreateThread (Win32) and AfxBeginThread (MFC) are two ways to do it.
Either way, your MyMethod signature would need to change a bit.
Edit: as noted in the comments and by other respondents, CreateThread can be bad.
_beginthread and _beginthreadex are the C runtime library functions, and according to the docs are equivalent to System::Threading::Thread::Start
Consider using the Win32 thread pool instead of spinning up new threads for work items. Spinning up new threads is wasteful - each thread gets 1 MB of reserved address space for its stack by default, runs the system's thread startup code, causes notifications to be delivered to nearly every DLL in your process, and creates another kernel object. Thread pools enable you to reuse threads for background tasks quickly and efficiently, and will grow or shrink based on how many tasks you submit. In general, consider spinning up dedicated threads for never-ending background tasks and use the threadpool for everything else.
Before Vista, you can use QueueUserWorkItem. On Vista, the new thread pool API's are more reliable and offer a few more advanced options. Each will cause your background code to start running on some thread pool thread.
// Vista
VOID CALLBACK MyWorkerFunction(PTP_CALLBACK_INSTANCE instance, PVOID context);
// Returns true on success.
TrySubmitThreadpoolCallback(MyWorkerFunction, context, NULL);
// Pre-Vista
DWORD WINAPI MyWorkerFunction(PVOID context);
// Returns true on success
QueueUserWorkItem(MyWorkerFunction, context, WT_EXECUTEDEFAULT);
Simple threading in C++ is a contradiction in terms!
Check out boost threads for the closest thing to a simple approach available today.
For a minimal answer (which will not actually provide you with all the things you need for synchronization, but answers your question literally) see:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/kdzttdcb(VS.80).aspx
Also static means something different in C++.
Is this safe:
unsigned __stdcall myThread(void *ArgList) {
//Do stuff here
}
_beginthread(myThread, 0, &data);
Do I need to do anything to release the memory (like CloseHandle) after this call?
Another alternative is pthreads - they work on both windows and linux!
CreateThread (Win32) and AfxBeginThread (MFC) are two ways to do it.
Be careful to use _beginthread if you need to use the C run-time library (CRT) though.
For win32 only and without additional libraries you can use
CreateThread function
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms682453(VS.85).aspx
If you really don't want to use third party libs (I would recommend boost::thread as explained in the other anwsers), you need to use the Win32API:
static void MyMethod(int data)
{
int data = 3;
HANDLE hThread = ::CreateThread(NULL,
0,
&RunStuff,
reinterpret_cast<LPVOID>(data),
0,
NULL);
// you can do whatever you want here
::WaitForSingleObject(hThread, INFINITE);
::CloseHandle(hThread);
}
static DWORD WINAPI RunStuff(LPVOID param)
{
int data = reinterpret_cast<int>(param);
//long running operation here
return 0;
}
There exists many open-source cross-platform C++ threading libraries you could use:
Among them are:
Qt
Intel
TBB Boost thread
The way you describe it, I think either Intel TBB or Boost thread will be fine.
Intel TBB example:
class RunStuff
{
public:
// TBB mandates that you supply () operator
void operator ()()
{
// long running operation here
}
};
// Here's sample code to instantiate it
#include <tbb/tbb_thread.h>
tbb::tbb_thread my_thread(RunStuff);
Boost thread example:
http://www.ddj.com/cpp/211600441
Qt example:
http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/threads-waitconditions-waitconditions-cpp.html
(I dont think this suits your needs, but just included here for completeness; you have to inherit QThread, implement void run(), and call QThread::start()):
If you only program on Windows and dont care about crossplatform, perhaps you could use Windows thread directly:
http://www.codersource.net/win32_multithreading.html
This question's answers are a community effort. Edit existing answers to improve this post. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
Can someone post a simple example of starting two (Object Oriented) threads in C++.
I'm looking for actual C++ thread objects that I can extend run methods on (or something similar) as opposed to calling a C-style thread library.
I left out any OS specific requests in the hopes that whoever replied would reply with cross platform libraries to use. I'm just making that explicit now.
Create a function that you want the thread to execute, for example:
void task1(std::string msg)
{
std::cout << "task1 says: " << msg;
}
Now create the thread object that will ultimately invoke the function above like so:
std::thread t1(task1, "Hello");
(You need to #include <thread> to access the std::thread class.)
The constructor's first argument is the function the thread will execute, followed by the function's parameters. The thread is automatically started upon construction.
If later on you want to wait for the thread to be done executing the function, call:
t1.join();
(Joining means that the thread who invoked the new thread will wait for the new thread to finish execution, before it will continue its own execution.)
The Code
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
using namespace std;
// The function we want to execute on the new thread.
void task1(string msg)
{
cout << "task1 says: " << msg;
}
int main()
{
// Constructs the new thread and runs it. Does not block execution.
thread t1(task1, "Hello");
// Do other things...
// Makes the main thread wait for the new thread to finish execution, therefore blocks its own execution.
t1.join();
}
More information about std::thread here
On GCC, compile with -std=c++0x -pthread.
This should work for any operating-system, granted your compiler supports this (C++11) feature.
Well, technically any such object will wind up being built over a C-style thread library because C++ only just specified a stock std::thread model in C++0x, which was just nailed down and hasn't yet been implemented.
The problem is somewhat systemic. Technically the existing C++ memory model isn't strict enough to allow for well-defined semantics for all of the 'happens before' cases. Hans Boehm wrote an paper on the topic a while back and was instrumental in hammering out the C++0x standard on the topic.
Threads Cannot be Implemented as a Library
That said, there are several cross-platform thread C++ libraries that work just fine in practice. The Intel thread building blocks contains a tbb::thread object that closely approximates the C++0x standard and Boost has a boost::thread library that does the same.
oneAPI Threading Building Blocks
Chapter 19. Thread (Boost documentation)
Using boost::thread, you'd get something like:
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
void task1() {
// do stuff
}
void task2() {
// do stuff
}
int main (int argc, char ** argv) {
using namespace boost;
thread thread_1 = thread(task1);
thread thread_2 = thread(task2);
// do other stuff
thread_2.join();
thread_1.join();
return 0;
}
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <vector>
using namespace std;
void doSomething(int id) {
cout << id << "\n";
}
/**
* Spawns n threads
*/
void spawnThreads(int n)
{
std::vector<thread> threads(n);
// spawn n threads:
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
threads[i] = thread(doSomething, i + 1);
}
for (auto& th : threads) {
th.join();
}
}
int main()
{
spawnThreads(10);
}
There is also a POSIX library for POSIX operating systems.
Check for compatibility:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <iostream>
void *task(void *argument){
char* msg;
msg = (char*)argument;
std::cout << msg << std::endl;
}
int main(){
pthread_t thread1, thread2;
int i1, i2;
i1 = pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, task, (void*) "thread 1");
i2 = pthread_create(&thread2, NULL, task, (void*) "thread 2");
pthread_join(thread1, NULL);
pthread_join(thread2, NULL);
return 0;
}
Compile with -lpthread.
POSIX Threads
When searching for an example of a C++ class that calls one of its own instance methods in a new thread, this question comes up, but we were not able to use any of these answers that way. Here's an example that does that:
Class.h
class DataManager
{
public:
bool hasData;
void getData();
bool dataAvailable();
};
Class.cpp
#include "DataManager.h"
void DataManager::getData()
{
// perform background data munging
hasData = true;
// be sure to notify on the main thread
}
bool DataManager::dataAvailable()
{
if (hasData)
{
return true;
}
else
{
std::thread t(&DataManager::getData, this);
t.detach(); // as opposed to .join, which runs on the current thread
}
}
Note that this example doesn't get into mutex or locking.
Unless one wants a separate function in the global namespace, we can use lambda functions for creating threads.
One of the major advantage of creating a thread using lambda is that we don't need to pass local parameters as an argument list. We can use the capture list for the same and the closure property of lambda will take care of the lifecycle.
Here is sample code:
int main() {
int localVariable = 100;
thread th { [=]() {
cout << "The value of local variable => " << localVariable << endl;
}};
th.join();
return 0;
}
By far, I've found C++ lambdas to be the best way of creating threads especially for simpler thread functions.
It largely depends on the library you decide to use. For instance, if you use the wxWidgets library, the creation of a thread would look like this:
class RThread : public wxThread {
public:
RThread()
: wxThread(wxTHREAD_JOINABLE){
}
private:
RThread(const RThread ©);
public:
void *Entry(void){
//Do...
return 0;
}
};
wxThread *CreateThread() {
//Create thread
wxThread *_hThread = new RThread();
//Start thread
_hThread->Create();
_hThread->Run();
return _hThread;
}
If your main thread calls the CreateThread method, you'll create a new thread that will start executing the code in your "Entry" method. You'll have to keep a reference to the thread in most cases to join or stop it.
More information is in the wxThread documentation.