C++11 'native_handle' is not a member of 'std::this_thread' - c++

In the following code snippet,
void foo() {
std::this_thread::native_handle().... //error here
}
int main() {
std::thread t1(foo);
t1.join();
return 0;
}
How do you get the native_handle from std::this_thread from within the function foo?

There is no way for a thread to autonomously gain access to its own std::thread. This is on purpose since std::thread is a move-only type.
I believe what you're requesting is a native_handle() member of std::thread::id, and that is an interesting suggestion. As far as I know it is not currently possible. It would be used like:
void foo()
{
auto native_me = std::this_thread::get_id().native_handle();
// ...
}
It wouldn't be guaranteed to work, or even exist. However I imagine most POSIX platforms could support it.
One way to try to change the C++ standard is to submit issues. Here are directions on how to do so.

C++11 does not provide a mechanism for getting the current threads native_handle. You must use platform specific calls, i.e. GetCurrentThread() on Windows:
void foo()
{
auto native_me = ::GetCurrentThread();
}

As Howard pointed, there is no support for this in ISO C++ yet.
But thread::id has an overloaded operator<< to print itself to an ostream.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
int main()
{
std::cout << "Current thread ID: " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
}
Without knowing the semantics of the actual value (which is highly platform-dependent), printing it or using it as a key in a map is the most you should be doing anyway.

Currently(C++17) you can't get native_handle from std::this_thread
The most possible interface might be std::this_thread::native_handle(). But not std::this_thread::get_id().native_handle(); by #Howard
Since Win/Linux/MacOS implement thread and thread::id differently: (below is informal pseudo code)
On Linux native_handle is stored at thread._M_id(of type id)._M_thread.
On Windows native_handle is stored at thread._Thr(of type _Thrd_t, not of type id)._Hnd.
On MacOS native_handle is stored at thread.__t_.
As you can see only in Linux source there is native_hanlde object implemented in thread::id structure. Thus on Win/MacOS you can't get the native_handle from an id object.
Finally, if your code runs only in Linux, there is a dirty trick to get native_handle from this_thread which I will never recommend:
auto thread_id = std::this_thread::get_id();
auto native_handle = *reinterpret_cast<std::thread::native_handle_type*>(&thread_id);

In fact, there is one funny way to circumvent the problem and access it via std::thread , which may work in some cases.
The original example was posted on this blog. I rewritten it.
You can save the code below to test.cpp and compile & run it
:
// g++ ./test.cpp -lpthread && ./a.out
//
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <sched.h>
#include <pthread.h>
int main(int argc, const char** argv) {
constexpr unsigned num_threads = 4;
// A mutex ensures orderly access to std::cout from multiple threads.
std::mutex iomutex;
std::vector<std::thread> threads(num_threads);
for (unsigned i = 0; i < num_threads; ++i) {
threads[i] = std::thread([&iomutex, i,&threads] {
// Create a cpu_set_t object representing a set of CPUs. Clear it and mark
// only CPU i as set.
cpu_set_t cpuset;
CPU_ZERO(&cpuset);
CPU_SET(i, &cpuset);
int rc = pthread_setaffinity_np(threads[i].native_handle(),
sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpuset);
if (rc != 0) {
std::cerr << "Error calling pthread_setaffinity_np: " << rc << "\n";
}
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(20));
while (1) {
{
// Use a lexical scope and lock_guard to safely lock the mutex only
// for the duration of std::cout usage.
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> iolock(iomutex);
std::cout << "Thread #" << i << ": on CPU " << sched_getcpu() << "\n";
}
// Simulate important work done by the tread by sleeping for a bit...
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(900));
}
});
}
for (auto& t : threads) {
t.join();
}
return 0;
}

Related

std::thread join() throws "std::system_error No such process" after joining with pthread

I am trying to simulate the boost::thread's timed_join functionality (I know it's deprecated) with calling pthread_timedjoin_np on the native_handle of an std::thread. The problem is that despite joinable() returns true, the join() function throws.
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>
int main()
{
auto t = std::thread([]{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds{100});
std::cout << "hello from thread\n";
});
struct timespec ts;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &ts);
ts.tv_sec += 1;
if (int s = pthread_timedjoin_np(t.native_handle(), nullptr, &ts); s != 0)
{
std::cout << "timed out: " << s << std::endl;
}
if(t.joinable())
{
std::cout << "thread is joinable\n";
t.join();
}
return 0;
}
Everything works if the spawned std::thread is still running when the pthread_timedjoin_np gets called and timed outs of course. Why is this strange behaviour? Isn't it possible to "manipulate" std::thread through its native handle?
If you go behind std::thread's back with native_handle, the standard library has no idea you've done this. Therefore, the result of thread::joinable is not reliable. Or more accurately, "implementation-defined". The implementation might check if the handle has been joined. Or it might not.
So if you intend to manipulate a thread outside of the standard library's control, you need to commit to it. The simplest way would be to have your pthread_timedjoin_np condition detach the thread object if it successfully joined.

How do I get the native handle of the current thread, with standard C++11? [duplicate]

In the following code snippet,
void foo() {
std::this_thread::native_handle().... //error here
}
int main() {
std::thread t1(foo);
t1.join();
return 0;
}
How do you get the native_handle from std::this_thread from within the function foo?
There is no way for a thread to autonomously gain access to its own std::thread. This is on purpose since std::thread is a move-only type.
I believe what you're requesting is a native_handle() member of std::thread::id, and that is an interesting suggestion. As far as I know it is not currently possible. It would be used like:
void foo()
{
auto native_me = std::this_thread::get_id().native_handle();
// ...
}
It wouldn't be guaranteed to work, or even exist. However I imagine most POSIX platforms could support it.
One way to try to change the C++ standard is to submit issues. Here are directions on how to do so.
C++11 does not provide a mechanism for getting the current threads native_handle. You must use platform specific calls, i.e. GetCurrentThread() on Windows:
void foo()
{
auto native_me = ::GetCurrentThread();
}
As Howard pointed, there is no support for this in ISO C++ yet.
But thread::id has an overloaded operator<< to print itself to an ostream.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
int main()
{
std::cout << "Current thread ID: " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
}
Without knowing the semantics of the actual value (which is highly platform-dependent), printing it or using it as a key in a map is the most you should be doing anyway.
Currently(C++17) you can't get native_handle from std::this_thread
The most possible interface might be std::this_thread::native_handle(). But not std::this_thread::get_id().native_handle(); by #Howard
Since Win/Linux/MacOS implement thread and thread::id differently: (below is informal pseudo code)
On Linux native_handle is stored at thread._M_id(of type id)._M_thread.
On Windows native_handle is stored at thread._Thr(of type _Thrd_t, not of type id)._Hnd.
On MacOS native_handle is stored at thread.__t_.
As you can see only in Linux source there is native_hanlde object implemented in thread::id structure. Thus on Win/MacOS you can't get the native_handle from an id object.
Finally, if your code runs only in Linux, there is a dirty trick to get native_handle from this_thread which I will never recommend:
auto thread_id = std::this_thread::get_id();
auto native_handle = *reinterpret_cast<std::thread::native_handle_type*>(&thread_id);
In fact, there is one funny way to circumvent the problem and access it via std::thread , which may work in some cases.
The original example was posted on this blog. I rewritten it.
You can save the code below to test.cpp and compile & run it
:
// g++ ./test.cpp -lpthread && ./a.out
//
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
#include <sched.h>
#include <pthread.h>
int main(int argc, const char** argv) {
constexpr unsigned num_threads = 4;
// A mutex ensures orderly access to std::cout from multiple threads.
std::mutex iomutex;
std::vector<std::thread> threads(num_threads);
for (unsigned i = 0; i < num_threads; ++i) {
threads[i] = std::thread([&iomutex, i,&threads] {
// Create a cpu_set_t object representing a set of CPUs. Clear it and mark
// only CPU i as set.
cpu_set_t cpuset;
CPU_ZERO(&cpuset);
CPU_SET(i, &cpuset);
int rc = pthread_setaffinity_np(threads[i].native_handle(),
sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpuset);
if (rc != 0) {
std::cerr << "Error calling pthread_setaffinity_np: " << rc << "\n";
}
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(20));
while (1) {
{
// Use a lexical scope and lock_guard to safely lock the mutex only
// for the duration of std::cout usage.
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> iolock(iomutex);
std::cout << "Thread #" << i << ": on CPU " << sched_getcpu() << "\n";
}
// Simulate important work done by the tread by sleeping for a bit...
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(900));
}
});
}
for (auto& t : threads) {
t.join();
}
return 0;
}

C++: Is a mutex with `std::lock_guard` enough to synchronize two `std::thread`s?

My question is based on below sample of C++ code
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <iostream>
class ClassUtility
{
public:
ClassUtility() {}
~ClassUtility() {}
void do_something() {
std::cout << "do something called" << std::endl;
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(1s);
}
};
int main (int argc, const char* argv[]) {
ClassUtility g_common_object;
std::mutex g_mutex;
std::thread worker_thread_1([&](){
std::cout << "worker_thread_1 started" << std::endl;
for (;;) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(g_mutex);
std::cout << "worker_thread_1 looping" << std::endl;
g_common_object.do_something();
}
});
std::thread worker_thread_2([&](){
std::cout << "worker_thread_2 started" << std::endl;
for (;;) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(g_mutex);
std::cout << "worker_thread_2 looping" << std::endl;
g_common_object.do_something();
}
});
worker_thread_1.join();
worker_thread_2.join();
return 0;
}
This is more of a question to get my understanding clear rather & get a sample usage of std::condition_variable iff required.
I have 2 C++ std::threads which start up in main method. Its a console app on osx. So compiling it using clang. Both the threads use a common object of
ClassUtility to call a method do some heavy task. For this sample code to explain the situation, both the threads run an infinite loop & close down only when
the app closes i.e. when I press ctrl+c on the console.
Seek to know:
Is it correct if I jus use a std::lock_guard on std::mutex to synchronize or protect the calls made to the common_obejct of ClassUtility. Somehow, I seem
to be getting into trouble with this "just a mutex approach". None of the threads start if I lock gaurd the loops using mutex. Moreover, I get segfaults sometimes. Is this because they are lambdas ?
assigned to each thread ?
Is it better to use a std::condition_variable between the 2 threads or lambdas to signal & synchronize them ? If yes, then how would the std::condition_variable be used
here between the lambdas ?
Note: As the question is only to seek information, hence the code provided here might not compile. It is just to provide a real scenario
Your code is safe
Remember, the lock_guard just calls .lock() and injects call to .unlock() to the end of the block. So
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(g_mutex);
std::cout << "worker_thread_1 looping" << std::endl;
g_common_object.do_something();
}
is basically equivalent to:
{
g_mutex.lock();
std::cout << "worker_thread_1 looping" << std::endl;
g_common_object.do_something();
g_mutex.unlock();
}
except:
the unlock is called even if the block is left via exception and
it ensures you won't forget to call it.
Your code is not parallel
You are mutually excluding all of the loop body in each thread. There is nothing left that both threads could be actually doing in parallel. The main point of using threads is when each can work on separate set of objects (and only read common objects), so they don't have to be locked.
In the example code, you really should be locking only the work on common object; std::cout is thread-safe on it's own. So:
{
std::cout << "worker_thread_1 looping" << std::endl;
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(g_mutex);
g_common_object.do_something();
// unlocks here, because lock_guard injects unlock at the end of innermost scope.
}
}
I suppose the actual code you are trying to write does have something to actually do in parallel; just a thing to keep in mind.
Condition variables are not needed
Condition variables are for when you need one thread to wait until another thread does some specific thing. Here you are just making sure the two threads are not modifying the object at the same time and for that mutex is sufficient and appropriate.
Your code never terminates other than that I can't fault it.
As others point out it offers almost not opportunity for parallelism because of the long sleep that takes place with the mutex locked to sleeping thread.
Here's a simple version that terminates by putting arbitrary finite limits on the loops.
Is it maybe that you haven't understood what join() does?
It the current thread (executing join()) until the joined thread ends. But if it doesn't end neither does the current thread.
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <iostream>
class ClassUtility
{
public:
ClassUtility() {}
~ClassUtility() {}
void do_something() {
std::cout << "do something called" << std::endl;
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(1s);
}
};
int main (int argc, const char* argv[]) {
ClassUtility g_common_object;
std::mutex g_mutex;
std::thread worker_thread_1([&](){
std::cout << "worker_thread_1 started" << std::endl;
for (int i=0;i<10;++i) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(g_mutex);
std::cout << "worker_thread_1 looping " << i << std::endl;
g_common_object.do_something();
}
});
std::thread worker_thread_2([&](){
std::cout << "worker_thread_2 started" << std::endl;
for (int i=0;i<10;++i) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(g_mutex);
std::cout << "worker_thread_2 looping " << i << std::endl;
g_common_object.do_something();
}
});
worker_thread_1.join();
worker_thread_2.join();
return 0;
}

How can you get the Linux thread Id of a std::thread()

I was playing with std::thread and I was wondering how is it possible to get the thread id of a new std::thread(), I am not talking about std::thread::id but rather the OS Id given to the thread ( you can view it using pstree).
This is only for my knowledge, and it's targeted only to Linux platforms (no need to be portable).
I can get the Linux Thread Id within the thread like this :
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/syscall.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
void SayHello()
{
std::cout << "Hello ! my id is " << (long int)syscall(SYS_gettid) << std::endl;
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
std::thread t1(&SayHello);
t1.join();
return 0;
}
But how can I retrieve the same id within the main loop ? I did not find a way using std::thread::native_handle. I believed it was possible to get it trough pid_t gettid(void); since the c++11 implementation relies on pthreads, but i must be wrong.
Any advices ?
Thank you.
Assuming you're using GCC standard library, std::thread::native_handle() returns the pthread_t thread ID returned by pthread_self(), not the OS thread ID returned by gettid(). std::thread::id() is a wrapper around that same pthread_t, and GCC's std::thread doesn't provide any way to get the OS thread ID, but you could create your own mapping:
std::mutex m;
std::map<std::thread::id, pid_t> threads;
void add_tid_mapping()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(m);
threads[std::this_thread::get_id()] = syscall(SYS_gettid);
}
void wrap(void (*f)())
{
add_tid_mapping();
f();
}
Then create your thread with:
std::thread t1(&wrap, &SayHello);
then get the ID with something like:
pid_t tid = 0;
while (tid == 0)
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> l(m);
if (threads.count(t1.get_id()))
tid = threads[t1.get_id()];
}
Some pthread implementations, e.g. Android 21+, provide
pid_t pthread_gettid_np(pthread_t);
The implementation may use the internal structure of struct pthread_t to retrieve the native thread id, same as the one returned by gettid() or syscall(SYS_gettid) when called in the context of that thread.
How about this:
pid_t gettid (void)
{
return syscall(__NR_gettid);
}
http://yusufonlinux.blogspot.com/2010/11/get-thread-id-from-linux.html
Looks like __NR_gettid is defined in unistd.h

Simple example of threading in C++

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 &copy);
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.