C++11 has the std::condition_variable, its wait function is
template< class Predicate >
void wait( std::unique_lock<std::mutex>& lock, Predicate pred );
It requires a mutex.
As far as I understand - its notify_one can be called without synchronization (I know the idiomatic way is to use it with a mutex).
I have an object which is already internally synchronized - so I don't need a mutex to protect it. One thread should wait for some event associated with that object, and others would be notified.
How to do such notification without a mutex in C++11? I.e. it is easy to do with a condition_variable, but it needs a mutex. I thought about using a fake mutex type, but std::mutex is nailed in the wait interface.
An option is to poll a std::atomic_flag + sleep, but I don't like sleeping.
Use std::condition_variable_any you can use any class with it which implements the BasicLockable Concept.
Given a bad feeling about this I checked the implementation of std::condition_variable_any of libc++. It turns out that it uses a plain std::condition_variable together with a std::shared_ptr to a std::mutex, so there is definitely some overhead involved without digging any deeper. (There is some other post here on SO which covers this, though I first have to search that)
As a matter of that I would probably recommend to redesign your case so that synchronization is really only done by a mutex protecting a plain condition variable.
In some threading models (although I doubt in modern ones) the mutex is needed to protect the condition variable itself (not the object you're synchronizing) from concurrent access. If the condition variable wasn't protected by a mutex you could encounter problems on the condition itself.
See Why do pthreads’ condition variable functions require a mutex?
I have some object, which already internally synchronized - I don't need mutex to protect it. One thread should wait for some event associated with that object, and others would notify.
If you don't hold the mutex the waiting thread is going to miss notifications, regardless whether you use condition_variable or condition_variable_any with the internal mutex.
You need to associate at least one bit of extra information with the condition variable, and this bit should be protected by a mutex.
Related
I am trying to use read/write lock in C++ using shared_mutex
typedef boost::shared_mutex Lock;
typedef boost::unique_lock< Lock > WriteLock;
typedef boost::shared_lock< Lock > ReadLock;
class Test {
Lock lock;
WriteLock writeLock;
ReadLock readLock;
Test() : writeLock(lock), readLock(lock) {}
readFn1() {
readLock.lock();
/*
Some Code
*/
readLock.unlock();
}
readFn2() {
readLock.lock();
/*
Some Code
*/
readLock.unlock();
}
writeFn1() {
writeLock.lock();
/*
Some Code
*/
writeLock.unlock();
}
writeFn2() {
writeLock.lock();
/*
Some Code
*/
writeLock.unlock();
}
}
The code seems to be working fine but I have a few conceptual questions.
Q1. I have seen the recommendations to use unique_lock and shared_lock on http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/shared_mutex/lock, but I don't understand why because shared_mutex already supports lock and lock_shared methods?
Q2. Does this code have the potential to cause write starvation? If yes then how can I avoid the starvation?
Q3. Is there any other locking class I can try to implement read write lock?
Q1: use of a mutex wrapper
The recommendation to use a wrapper object instead of managing the mutex directly is to avoid unfortunate situation where your code is interrupted and the mutex is not released, leaving it locked forever.
This is the principle of RAII.
But this only works if your ReadLock or WriteLock are local to the function using it.
Example:
readFn1() {
boost::unique_lock< Lock > rl(lock);
/*
Some Code
==> imagine exception is thrown
*/
rl.unlock(); // this is never reached if exception thrown
} // fortunately local object are destroyed automatically in case
// an excpetion makes you leave the function prematurely
In your code this won't work if one of the function is interupted, becaus your ReadLock WriteLock object is a member of Test and not local to the function setting the lock.
Q2: Write starvation
It is not fully clear how you will invoke the readers and the writers, but yes, there is a risk:
as long as readers are active, the writer is blocked by the unique_lock waiting for the mutex to be aquirable in exclusive mode.
however as long as the wrtier is waiting, new readers can obtain access to the shared lock, causing the unique_lock to be further delayed.
If you want to avoid starvation, you have to ensure that waiting writers do get the opportunity to set their unique_lock. For example att in your readers some code to check if a writer is waiting before setting the lock.
Q3 Other locking classes
Not quite sure what you're looking for, but I have the impression that condition_variable could be of interest for you. But the logic is a little bit different.
Maybe, you could also find a solution by thinking out of the box: perhaps there's a suitable lock-free data structure that could facilitate coexistance of readers and writers by changing slightly the approach ?
The types for the locks are ok but instead of having them as member functions create then inside the member functions locktype lock(mymutex). That way they are released on destruction even in the case of an exception.
Q1. I have seen the recommendations to use unique_lock and shared_lock on http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/shared_mutex/lock, but I don't understand why because shared_mutex already supports lock and lock_shared methods?
Possibly because unique_lock has been around since c++11 but shared_lock is coming onboard with c++17. Also, [possibly] unique_lock can be more efficient. Here's the original rationale for shared_lock [by the creator] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2406.html and I defer to that.
Q2. Does this code have the potential to cause write starvation? If yes then how can I avoid the starvation?
Yes, absolutely. If you do:
while (1)
writeFn1();
You can end up with a time line of:
T1: writeLock.lock()
T2: writeLock.unlock()
T3: writeLock.lock()
T4: writeLock.unlock()
T5: writeLock.lock()
T6: writeLock.unlock()
...
The difference T2-T1 is arbitrary, based on amount of work being done. But, T3-T2 is near zero. This is the window for another thread to acquire the lock. Because the window is so small, it probably won't get it.
To solve this, the simplest method is to insert a small sleep (e.g. nanosleep) between T2 and T3. You could do this by adding it to the bottom of writeFn1.
Other methods can involve creating a queue for the lock. If a thread can't get the lock, it adds itself to a queue and the first thread on the queue gets the lock when the lock is released. In the linux kernel, this is implemented for a "queued spinlock"
Q3. Is there any other locking class I can try to implement read write lock?
While not a class, you could use pthread_mutex_lock and pthread_mutex_unlock. These implement recursive locks. You could add your own code to implement the equivalent of boost::scoped_lock. Your class can control the semantics.
Or, boost has its own locks.
So my question is, is there a build-in function to make part of a thread not run concurrently in c++ with pthreads, or do I have to make something myself with a token or something like that.
What you want is Mutual Exclusion, or mutex. Standard C++, no pthreads needed. The header is called just <mutex>, and the type is just std::mutex.
One trick is how you lock it: std::lock_guard<mutex> lock(yourSshMutex) - this lock object keeps the mutex locked while it exists, lock_guard::~lock_guard unlocks it. This prevents you from forgetting to unlock a mutex when done.
I understand how to use condition variables (crummy name for this construct, IMO, as the cv object neither is a variable nor indicates a condition). So I have a pair of threads, canonically set up with Boost.Thread as:
bool awake = false;
boost::mutex sync;
boost::condition_variable cv;
void thread1()
{
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock1(sync);
while (!awake)
cv.wait(lock1);
lock1.unlock(); // this line actually not canonical, but why not?
// proceed...
}
void thread2()
{
//...
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock2;
awake = true;
lock2.unlock();
cv.notify_all();
}
My question is: does thread2 really need to be protecting the assignment to awake? It seems to me the notify_all() call should be sufficient. If the data being manipulated and checked against were more than a simple "ok to proceed" flag, I see the value in the mutex, but here it seems like overkill.
A secondary question is that asked in the code fragment: Why doesn't the Boost documentation show the lock in thread1 being unlocked before the "process data" step?
EDIT: Maybe my question is really: Is there a cleaner construct than a CV to implement this kind of wait?
does thread2 really need to be protecting the assignment to awake?
Yes. Modifying an object from one thread and accessing it from another without synchronisation gives undefined behaviour. Even if it's just a bool.
For example, on some multiprocessor systems the write might only affect local memory; without an explicit synchronisation operation, other threads might never see the change.
Why doesn't the Boost documentation show the lock in thread1 being unlocked before the "process data" step?
If you unlocked the mutex before clearing the flag, then you might miss another signal.
Is there a cleaner construct than a CV to implement this kind of wait?
In Boost and the standard C++ library, no; a condition variable is flexible enough to handle arbitrary shared state and not particularly over-complicated for this simple case, so there's no particular need for anything simpler.
More generally, you could use a semaphore or a pipe to send a simple signal between threads.
Formally, you definitely need the lock in both threads: if any thread
modifies an object, and more than one thread accesses it, then all
accesses must be synchronized.
In practice, you'll probably get away with it without the lock; it's
almost certain that notify_all will issue the necessary fence or
membar instructions to ensure that the memory is properly synchronized.
But why take the risk?
As to the absense of the unlock, that's the whole point of the scoped
locking pattern: the unlock is in the destructor of the object, so
that the mutex will be unlocked even if an exception passes through.
I don't well understand the difference betweeen these two lock classes.
In boost documentation it is said, boost::unique_lock doesn't realize lock automatically.
Does it mean that the main difference between unique_lock and lock_guard is that with unique_lock we must call explicitly the lock() function ?
First to answer your question. No you don't need to call lock on a unique_lock. See below:
The unique_lock is only a lock class with more features. In most cases the lock_guard will do what you want and will be sufficient.
The unique_lock has more features to offer to you. E.g a timed wait if you need a timeout or if you want to defer your lock to a later point than the construction of the object. So it highly depends on what you want to do.
BTW: The following code snippets do the same thing.
boost::mutex mutex;
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
boost::mutex mutex;
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
The first one can be used to synchronize access to data, but if you want to use condition variables you need to go for the second one.
The currently best voted answer is good, but it did not clarify my doubt till I dug a bit deeper so decided to share with people who might be in the same boat.
Firstly both lock_guard and unique_lock follows the RAII pattern, in the simplest use case the lock is acquired during construction and unlocked during destruction automatically. If that is your use case then you don't need the extra flexibility of unique_lock and lock_guard will be more efficient.
The key difference between both is a unique_lock instance doesn't need to always own the mutex it is associated with while in lock_guard it owns the mutex. This means unique_lock would need to have an extra flag indicating whether it owns the lock and another extra method 'owns_lock()' to check that. Knowing this we can explain all extra benefits this flags brings with the overhead of that extra data to be set and checked
Lock doesn't have to taken right at the construction, you can pass the flag std::defer_lock during its construction to keep the mutex unlocked during construction.
We can unlock it before the function ends and don't have to necessarily wait for destructor to release it, which can be handy.
You can pass the ownership of the lock from a function, it is movable and not copyable.
It can be used with conditional variables since that requires mutex to be locked, condition checked and unlocked while waiting for a condition.
Their implementation can be found under path .../boost/thread/locks.hpp - and they are sitting just one next to other :) To sum things short:
lock_guard is a short simple utility class that locks mutex in constructor and unlocks in destructor, not caring about details.
unique_lock is a bit more complex one, adding pretty lot of features - but it still locks automatically in constructor. It is called unique_lock because it introduces "lock ownership" concept ( see owns_lock() method ).
If you're used to pthreads(3):
boost::mutex = pthread_mutex_*
boost::unique_lock = pthread_rwlock_* used to obtain write/exclusive locks (i.e. pthread_rwlock_wrlock)
boost::shared_lock = pthread_rwlock_* used to obtain read/shared locks (i.e. pthread_rwlock_rdlock)
Yes a boost::unique_lock and a boost::mutex function in similar ways, but a boost::mutex is generally a lighter weight mutex to acquire and release. That said, a shared_lock with the lock already acquired is faster (and allows for concurrency), but it's comparatively expensive to obtain a unique_lock.
You have to look under the covers to see the implementation details, but that's the gist of the intended differences.
Speaking of performance: here's a moderately useful comparison of latencies:
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/%7Ercs/research/interactive_latency.html
It would be nice if I/someone could benchmark the relative cost of the different pthread_* primitives, but last I looked, pthread_mutex_* was ~25us, whereas pthread_rwlock_* was ~20-100us depending on whether or not the read lock had been already acquired (~10us) or not (~20us) or writer (~100us). You'll have to benchmark to confirm current numbers and I'm sure it's very OS specific.
I think unique_lock may be also used when you need to emphasize the difference between unique and shared locks.
I'm using the C++ boost::thread library, which in my case means I'm using pthreads. Officially, a mutex must be unlocked from the same thread which locks it, and I want the effect of being able to lock in one thread and then unlock in another. There are many ways to accomplish this. One possibility would be to write a new mutex class which allows this behavior.
For example:
class inter_thread_mutex{
bool locked;
boost::mutex mx;
boost::condition_variable cv;
public:
void lock(){
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lck(mx);
while(locked) cv.wait(lck);
locked=true;
}
void unlock(){
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lck(mx);
if(!locked) error();
locked=false;
}
cv.notify_one();
}
// bool try_lock(); void error(); etc.
}
I should point out that the above code doesn't guarantee FIFO access, since if one thread calls lock() while another calls unlock(), this first thread may acquire the lock ahead of other threads which are waiting. (Come to think of it, the boost::thread documentation doesn't appear to make any explicit scheduling guarantees for either mutexes or condition variables). But let's just ignore that (and any other bugs) for now.
My question is, if I decide to go this route, would I be able to use such a mutex as a model for the boost Lockable concept. For example, would anything go wrong if I use a boost::unique_lock< inter_thread_mutex > for RAII-style access, and then pass this lock to boost::condition_variable_any.wait(), etc.
On one hand I don't see why not. On the other hand, "I don't see why not" is usually a very bad way of determining whether something will work.
The reason I ask is that if it turns out that I have to write wrapper classes for RAII locks and condition variables and whatever else, then I'd rather just find some other way to achieve the same effect.
EDIT:
The kind of behavior I want is basically as follows. I have an object, and it needs to be locked whenever it is modified. I want to lock the object from one thread, and do some work on it. Then I want to keep the object locked while I tell another worker thread to complete the work. So the first thread can go on and do something else while the worker thread finishes up. When the worker thread gets done, it unlocks the mutex.
And I want the transition to be seemless so nobody else can get the mutex lock in between when thread 1 starts the work and thread 2 completes it.
Something like inter_thread_mutex seems like it would work, and it would also allow the program to interact with it as if it were an ordinary mutex. So it seems like a clean solution. If there's a better solution, I'd be happy to hear that also.
EDIT AGAIN:
The reason I need locks to begin with is that there are multiple master threads, and the locks are there to prevent them from accessing shared objects concurrently in invalid ways.
So the code already uses loop-level lock-free sequencing of operations at the master thread level. Also, in the original implementation, there were no worker threads, and the mutexes were ordinary kosher mutexes.
The inter_thread_thingy came up as an optimization, primarily to improve response time. In many cases, it was sufficient to guarantee that the "first part" of operation A, occurs before the "first part" of operation B. As a dumb example, say I punch object 1 and give it a black eye. Then I tell object 1 to change it's internal structure to reflect all the tissue damage. I don't want to wait around for the tissue damage before I move on to punch object 2. However, I do want the tissue damage to occur as part of the same operation; for example, in the interim, I don't want any other thread to reconfigure the object in such a way that would make tissue damage an invalid operation. (yes, this example is imperfect in many ways, and no I'm not working on a game)
So we made the change to a model where ownership of an object can be passed to a worker thread to complete an operation, and it actually works quite nicely; each master thread is able to get a lot more operations done because it doesn't need to wait for them all to complete. And, since the event sequencing at the master thread level is still loop-based, it is easy to write high-level master-thread operations, as they can be based on the assumption that an operation is complete (more precisely, the critical "first part" upon which the sequencing logic depends is complete) when the corresponding function call returns.
Finally, I thought it would be nice to use inter_thread mutex/semaphore thingies using RAII with boost locks to encapsulate the necessary synchronization that is required to make the whole thing work.
man pthread_unlock (this is on OS X, similar wording on Linux) has the answer:
NAME
pthread_mutex_unlock -- unlock a mutex
SYNOPSIS
#include <pthread.h>
int
pthread_mutex_unlock(pthread_mutex_t *mutex);
DESCRIPTION
If the current thread holds the lock on mutex, then the
pthread_mutex_unlock() function unlocks mutex.
Calling pthread_mutex_unlock() with a mutex that the
calling thread does not hold will result in
undefined behavior.
...
My counter-question would be - what kind of synchronization problem are you trying to solve with this? Most probably there is an easier solution.
Neither pthreads nor boost::thread (built on top of it) guarantee any order in which a contended mutex is acquired by competing threads.
Sorry, but I don't understand. what will be the state of your mutex in line [1] in the following code if another thread can unlock it?
inter_thread_mutex m;
{
m.lock();
// [1]
m.unlock();
}
This has no sens.
There's a few ways to approach this. Both of the ones I'm going to suggest are going to involve adding an additional piece of information to the object, rather adding a mechanism to unlock a thread from a thread other than the one that owns it.
1) you can add some information to indicate the object's state:
enum modification_state { consistent, // ready to be examined or to start being modified
phase1_complete, // ready for the second thread to finish the work
};
// first worker thread
lock();
do_init_work(object);
object.mod_state = phase1_complete;
unlock();
signal();
do_other_stuff();
// second worker thread
lock()
while( object.mod_state != phase1_complete )
wait()
do_final_work(obj)
object.mod_state = consistent;
unlock()
signal()
// some other thread that needs to read the data
lock()
while( object.mod_state != consistent )
wait();
read_data(obj)
unlock()
Works just fine with condition variables, because obviously you're not writing your own lock.
2) If you have a specific thread in mind, you can give the object an owner.
// first worker
lock();
while( obj.owner != this_thread() ) wait();
do_initial_work(obj);
obj.owner = second_thread_id;
unlock()
signal()
...
This is pretty much the same solution as my first solution, but more flexible in the adding/removing of phases, and less flexible in the adding/removing of threads.
To be honest, I'm not sure how inter thread mutex would help you here. You'd still need a semaphore or condition variable to signal the passing of the work to the second thread.
Small modification to what you already have: how about storing the id of the thread which you want to take the lock, in your inter_thread_whatever? Then unlock it, and send a message to that thread, saying "I want you execute whatever routine it is that tries to take this lock".
Then the condition in lock becomes while(locked || (desired_locker != thisthread && desired_locker != 0)). Technically you've "released the lock" in the first thread, and "taken it again" in the second thread, but there's no way that any other thread can grab it in between, so it's as if you've transferred it directly from one to the other.
There's a potential problem, that if a thread exits or is killed, while it's the desired locker of your lock, then that thread deadlocks. But you were already talking about the first thread waiting for a message from the second thread to say that it has successfully acquired the lock, so presumably you already have a plan in mind for what happens if that message is never received. To that plan, add "reset the desired_locker field on the inter_thread_whatever".
This is all very hairy, though, I'm not convinced that what I've proposed is correct. Is there a way that the "master" thread (the one that's directing all these helpers) can just make sure that it doesn't order any more operations to be performed on whatever is protected by this lock, until the first op is completed (or fails and some RAII thing notifies you)? You don't need locks as such, if you can deal with it at the level of the message loop.
I don't think it is a good idea to say that your inter_thread_mutex (binary_semaphore) can be seen as a model of Lockable. The main issue is that the main feature of your inter_thread_mutex defeats the Locakble concept. If inter_thread_mutex was a model of lockable you will expect in In [1] that the inter_thread_mutex m is locked.
// thread T1
inter_thread_mutex m;
{
unique_lock<inter_thread_mutex> lk(m);
// [1]
}
But as an other thread T2 can do m.unlock() while T1 is in [1], the guaranty is broken.
Binary semaphores can be used as Lockables as far as each thread tries to lock before unlocking. But the main goal of your class is exactly the contrary.
This is one of the reason semaphores in Boost.Interprocess don't use lock/unlock to name the functions, but wait/notify. Curiously these are the same names used by conditions :)
A mutex is a mechanism for describing mutually exclusive blocks of code. It does not make sense for these blocks of code to cross thread boundaries. Trying to use such a concept in such an counter intuitive way can only lead to problems down the line.
It sounds very much like you're looking for a different multi-threading concept, but without more detail it's hard to know what.