overhead of thread-synchronization via Events - c++

I am experimenting with multithreaded synchronization at the moment. For a backround I have a set of about 100000 objects - possibly more - I want to process in different ways multiple times per second.
Now the thing concerning me most is the performance of the synchronization.
This is what I think should work just fine (I omitted all security aspects as this is just a testprogram and in case of an error the program will just crash ..). I wrote two funktions, the first to be executed by the main thread of the program, the second to be run by all additional threads.
void SharedWorker::Start()
{
while (bRunning)
{
// Send the command to start task1
SetEvent(hTask1Event);
// Do task1 (on a subset of all objects) here
// Wait for all workers to finish task1
WaitForMultipleObjects(<NumberOfWorkers>, <ListOfTask1WorkerEvents>, TRUE, INFINITE);
// Reset the command for task1
ResetEvent(hTask1Event);
// Send the command to start task2
SetEvent(hTask2Event);
// Do task2 (on a subset of all objects) here
// Wait for all workers to finish task2
WaitForMultipleObjects(<NumberOfWorkers>, <ListOfTask2WorkerEvents>, TRUE, INFINITE);
// Reset the command for task2
ResetEvent(hTask2Event);
// Send the command to do cleanup
SetEvent(hCleanupEvent);
// Do some (on a subset of all objects) cleanup
// Wait for all workers to finish cleanup
WaitForMultipleObjects(<NumberOfWorkers>, <ListOfCleanupWorkerEvents>, TRUE, INFINITE);
// Reset the command for cleanup
ResetEvent(hCleanupEvent);
}
}
DWORD WINAPI WorkerThreads(LPVOID lpParameter)
{
while (bRunning)
{
WaitForSingleObject(hTask1Event, INFINITE);
// Unset finished cleanup
ResetEvent(hCleanedUp);
// Do task1 (on a subset of all objects) here
// Signal finished task1
SetEvent(hTask1);
WaitForSingleObject(hTask2Event, INFINITE);
// Reset task1 event
ResetEvent(hTask1);
// Do task2 (on a subset of all objects) here
// Signal finished task2
SetEvent(hTask2);
WaitForSingleObject(hCleanupEvent, INFINITE);
// Reset update event
ResetEvent(hTask2);
// Do cleanup (on a subset of all objects) here
// Signal finished cleanup
SetEvent(hCleanedUp);
}
return 0;
}
To point out my requirements, I'll just give you a little example:
Say we got the 100000 objects from above, split into 8 subsets of 12500 objects each, a modern multicore processor with 8 logical cores. The relevant part is the time. All tasks must be performed in about 8ms.
My questions are now, can I get a significant boost in time from split processing or is the synchronization via events too expensive? or is there maybe even another way of synchronizing threads with less effort or process time if all the tasks need to be done this way?

If your processing of a single object is fast, do not split it between threads. The thread synchronization on windows will eat well over 50 ms on every context switch. This time is not used by system, but just the time when something else is running on a system.
However, if every object processing will take around 8ms, there is a point of scheduling the work across pool of threads. However, object processing may vary a bit, and in large counts worker threads would complete the work in a different moment.
Better approach is to organize a synchronized object queue, to which you add objects to process, and from which you take them from processing. Furthermore, as processing of a single object considerably lower, than scheduling interval of a thread, it is good to take them into processing thread in batches (like 10-20). You can estimate the best number of worker threads in your pool and the best size of a batch with tests.
So the pseudocode can look like:
main_thread:
init queue
start workers
set counter to 100000
add 100000 objects to queue
while (counter) wait();
worker_thread:
while (!done)
get up to 10 objects from queue
process objects
counter -= processed count
if (counter == 0) notify done

Related

Zombie/trash thread on MacOS with Rosetta

I have a very weird issue with a zombie/garbage thread crashing the process although this thread should have been joined a while ago.
Application written in C++, built for x86_64, runs on MacOS using Rosetta. Googletest runs app multiple times: initializes the engine, performs tests and uninitializes it for every test - no new processes are started - all happens within googletest process. In about one goggletest start of about ten, one of the threads that my application has not created during current run crashes with invalid resource access which triggers SIGABRT and crashes the complete process.
Threads in the pool are created like this during thread pool construction, done once during application initialization:
// threadsNum is a constant, e.g. 8
for (size_t i = 0; i < threadsNum; ++i){
// this->workers has type std::vector< std::thread > workers;
workers.emplace_back(
[this, i]
{
workerThreadFunction(i);
}
);
}
workerThreadFunction() sets thread name and enters an infinete loop for doing it's job while checking if it should stop in every iteration:
for (;;) {
// Mutex lock to access this->stop
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(this->queue_mutex);
if (this->stop) {
break;
}
...
}
During thread pool destruction all threads are joined:
for(std::thread &worker: workers) {
worker.join();
}
To sum up:
Application starts 8 threads for a specfic task using a thread pool
Threads have their names for debugging purposes - e.g. "MyThread 1", "MyThread 2", etc.
I have verified that all threads are joined upon thread pool destruction (threadX.join() returns)
Application shutdown is clean after test iteration execution before the next test with the crash starts
In problematic runs with the crash there are more threads present than application has created - one of the threads is present two times (thread name duplicated). Crash dump also shows there are two threads with the same name and one of them has crashed.
That duplicated thread has corrupt stack and crashes due to invalid resource access (locking this->queue_mutex to be precise)
Additional main thread sleep for e.g. 100ms after engine uninitialization does not help - does not look like a timing issue
To me it looks like that thread has survived join() somehow and reappeared in the process. But I cannot imagine how could it be possible.
The question is, am I missing something here? Are there any tools to debug this issue besides what I have already done?

How to stop a long-running function prematurely?

I am working on a plotting algorithm. To do this I get the data from a DAQ board in my main GUI thread and then I send the data over to a worker thread to be processed, the worker thread emits a signal with the new QImage which I display as a plot in my GUI. The problem is the function, let's call it generateImage(), to calculate and generate the QImage takes a long time (~50-70 milliseconds, depending on data length) and in between this time another set of data might arrive which will require the worker thread to recalculate the plot from the beginning. I want the generateImage() to abandon the calculation and restart from the beginning if the new data arrives while it is still calculating. My approach is to set a member boolean variable, let's call it b_abort_, and check if it is set to true inside generateImage() and return if it's true, outside generateImage() it always remains true and I only set it to false before generateImage() is called.
All this happens in a worker thread, I subclass QObject and use moveToThread() to move it to a worker thread.
The function which starts calculation:
void WorkerThread::startCalc()
{
b_abort_ = false;
generateImage();
// if b_abort_ is set to true, generateImage() will return prematurely
if(b_abort_)
emit calcFinished();
else
b_abort_ = true;
}
Function which does all calculations and generates image:
void WorkerThread::generateImage()
{
/* Calculation of some parts */
for(int ii = 0; ii < Rawdata.length(); ++ii) // Starting main time consuming loop
{
if(b_abort_)
return;
/* Perform calculation for one data point from Rawdata */
}
// data calculation complete, now it's time to generate QImage
// before that I check if b_abort_ is set to true
if(b_abort_)
return;
for(int ii = 0; ii < CalculatedData.length(); ++ii) // plotting calculated data on QImage
{
if(b_abort_)
return;
/* plot one data point from CalculatedData vector */
}
// generation of QImage finished, time to send the signal
emit renderedPlot(image); // image is a QImage object
}
In my worker thread, I have a slot to receive data from the main GUI Thread, it is configured with Qt::QueuedConnection (the default) as the connection type:
void WorkerThread::receiveData(QVector<double> data)
{
if(!b_abort_) // check if calculation is still running
{
QEventLoop loop;
connect(this, &WorkerThread::calcFinished, &loop, &QEventLoop::quit);
b_abort_ = true; // set it to true and wait for calculation to stop
loop.exec();
// start new calculation
RawData = data;
startClac();
}
else
{
RawData = data;
startClac();
}
}
When I use this approach in my main GUI Thread, the generateImage() function blocks all event loops, and my GUI freezes, which makes me think that inside a single thread (main GUI thread or a worker thread) only one function can run at a time and so any change in b_abort_ is not applied until the thread's event loop returns to process other functions. When using WorkerThread it is difficult to verify if this is working, some times it works fine while other times it generates bad allocation error which seems like it is not working (although it might be because of a different reason entirely, I am not sure). I would like to ask your opinion, is this the right approach to stop a long-running calculation prematurely? Are there any other methods that I can use which will be more robust than my current approach?
How to stop a long-running function in another thread prematurely?
You're correct that the only sane way to do this is to have the long-running thread check, at regular intervals, whether it should stop early.
Note that the flag you're checking must be atomic, or protected by a mutex, or otherwise somehow synchronized. Otherwise it's entirely legitimate for the worker thread to check the variable and never see the value change (no, you can't use volatile for this).
... which makes me think that inside a single thread (main GUI thread or a worker thread) only one function can run at a time ...
Yes, that's exactly what a thread is! It is a single, linear thread of execution. It can't do two things at once. Doing two things at once is the whole reason for having more than one thread.
The approach should be to have a worker thread waiting for work to do, and a main thread that only ever sends it asynchronous messages (start generating an image with this data, or interrupt processing and start again with this data instead, or whatever).
If the main thread calls a function that should happen in the worker thread instead, well, you've deliberately started executing it in the main thread, and the main thread won't do anything until it returns. Just like every other function.
As an aside, your design has a problem: it's possible to never finish generating a single image if it keeps being interrupted by new data.
The usual solution is double-buffering: you let the worker thread finish generating the current image while the main thread accumulates data for the next one. When the worker has finished one image, it can be passed back to the main thread for display. Then the worker can start processing the next, so it takes the buffer of "dirty" updates that the main thread has prepared for it. Subsequent updates are again added to the (now empty) buffer for the next image.

Multithreading Implementation in C++

I am a beginner using multithreading in C++, so I'd appreciate it if you can give me some recommendations.
I have a function which receives the previous frame and current frame from a video stream (let's call this function, readFrames()). The task of that function is to compute Motion Estimation.
The idea when calling readFrames() would be:
Store the previous and current frame in a buffer.
I want to compute the value of Motion between each pair of frames from the buffer but without blocking the function readFrames(), because more frames can be received while computing that value. I suppose I have to write a function computeMotionValue() and every time I want to execute it, create a new thread and launch it. This function should return some float motionValue.
Every time the motionValue returned by any thread is over a threshold, I want to +1 a common int variable, let's call it nValidMotion.
My problem is that I don't know how to "synchronize" the threads when accessing motionValue and nValidMotion.
Can you please explain to me in some pseudocode how can I do that?
and every time I want to execute it, create a new thread and launch it
That's usually a bad idea. Threads are usually fairly heavy-weight, and spawning one is usually slower than just passing a message to an existing thread pool.
Anyway, if you fall behind, you'll end up with more threads than processor cores and then you'll fall even further behind due to context-switching overhead and memory pressure. Eventually creating a new thread will fail.
My problem is that I don't know how to "synchronize" the threads when accessing motionValue and nValidMotion.
Synchronization of access to a shared resource is usually handled with std::mutex (mutex means "mutual exclusion", because only one thread can hold the lock at once).
If you need to wait for another thread to do something, use std::condition_variable to wait/signal. You're waiting-for/signalling a change in state of some shared resource, so you need a mutex for that as well.
The usual recommendation for this kind of processing is to have at most one thread per available core, all serving a thread pool. A thread pool has a work queue (protected by a mutex, and with the empty->non-empty transition signalled by a condvar).
For combining the results, you could have a global counter protected by a mutex (but this is relatively heavy-weight for a single integer), or you could just have each task added to added to the thread pool return a bool via the promise/future mechanism, or you could just make your counter atomic.
Here is a sample pseudo code you may use:
// Following thread awaits notification from worker threads, detecting motion
nValidMotion_woker_Thread()
{
while(true) { message_recieve(msg_q); ++nValidMotion; }
}
// Worker thread, computing motion on 2 frames; if motion detected, notify uysing message Q to nValidMotion_woker_Thread
WorkerThread(frame1 ,frame2)
{
x = computeMotionValue(frame1 ,frame2);
if x > THRESHOLD
msg_q.send();
}
// main thread
main_thread()
{
// 1. create new message Q for inter-thread communication
msg_q = new msg_q();
// start listening thread
Thread a = new nValidMotion_woker_Thread();
a.start();
while(true)
{
// collect 2 frames
frame1 = readFrames();
frame2 = readFrames();
// start workre thread
Thread b = new WorkerThread(frame1 ,frame2);
b.start();
}
}

PPL - How to configure the number of native threads?

I am trying to manage the count of native threads in PPL by using its Scheduler class, here is my code:
for (int i = 0; i < 2000; i ++)
{
// configure concurrency count 16 to 32.
concurrency::SchedulerPolicy policy = concurrency::SchedulerPolicy(2, concurrency::MinConcurrency, 16,
concurrency::MaxConcurrency, 32);
concurrency::Scheduler *pScheduler = concurrency::Scheduler::Create(policy);
HANDLE hShutdownEvent = CreateEvent(NULL, FALSE, FALSE, NULL);
pScheduler->RegisterShutdownEvent(hShutdownEvent);
pScheduler->Attach();
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//for (int i = 0; i < 2000; i ++)
{
concurrency::create_task([]{
concurrency::wait(1000);
OutputDebugString(L"Task Completed\n");
});
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
concurrency::CurrentScheduler::Detach();
pScheduler->Release();
WaitForSingleObject(hShutdownEvent, INFINITE);
CloseHandle(hShutdownEvent);
}
The usage of SchedulerPolicy is from MSDN, but it didn't work at all. The expected result of my code above is, PPL will launch 16 to 32 threads to execute the 2000 tasks, but the fact is:
By observing the speed of console output, only one task was processed within a second. I also tried to comment the outter for loop and uncomment the inner for loop, however, this will cause 300 threads being created, still incorrect. If I wait a longer time, the threads created will be even more.
Any ideas on what is the correct way to configure concurrency in PPL?
It has been proved that I should not do concurrency::wait within the task body, PPL works in work stealing mode, when the current task was suspended by wait, it will start to schedule the rest of tasks in queue to maximize the use of computing resources.
When I use concurrency::create_task in real project, since there are a couple of real calculations within the task body, PPL won't create hundreds of threads any more.
Also, SchedulePolicy can be used to configure the number of virtual processors that PPL may use to process the tasks, which is not always same as the number of native threads PPL will create.
Saying my CPU has 8 virtual processors, by default PPL will just create 8 threads in pool, but when some of those threads were suspended by wait or lock, and also there are more tasks pending in the queue, PPL will immediately create more threads to execute them (if the virtual processors were not fully loaded).

How can I use Boost condition variables in producer-consumer scenario?

EDIT: below
I have one thread responsible for streaming data from a device in buffers. In addition, I have N threads doing some processing on that data. In my setup, I would like the streamer thread to fetch data from the device, and wait until the N threads are done with the processing before fetching new data or a timeout is reached. The N threads should wait until new data has been fetched before continuing to process. I believe that this framework should work if I don't want the N threads to repeat processing on a buffer and if I want all buffers to be processed without skipping any.
After careful reading, I found that condition variables is what I needed. I have followed tutorials and other stack overflow questions, and this is what I have:
global variables:
boost::condition_variable cond;
boost::mutex mut;
member variables:
std::vector<double> buffer
std::vector<bool> data_ready // Size equal to number of threads
data receiver loop (1 thread runs this):
while (!gotExitSignal())
{
{
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> ll(mut);
while(any(data_ready))
cond.wait(ll);
}
receive_data(buffer);
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> ll(mut);
set_true(data_ready);
}
cond.notify_all();
}
data processing loop (N threads run this)
while (!gotExitSignal())
{
{
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> ll(mut);
while(!data_ready[thread_id])
cond.wait(ll);
}
process_data(buffer);
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> ll(mut);
data_ready[thread_id] = false;
}
cond.notify_all();
}
These two loops are in their own member functions of the same class. The variable buffer is a member variable, so it can be shared across threads.
The receiver thread will be launched first. The data_ready variable is a vector of bools of size N. data_ready[i] is true if data is ready to be processed and false if the thread has already processed data. The function any(data_ready) outputs true if any of the elements of data_ready is true, and false otherwise. The set_true(data_ready) function sets all of the elements of data_ready to true. The receiver thread will check if any processing thread still is processing. If not, it will fetch data, set the data_ready flags, notify the threads, and continue with the loop which will stop at the beginning until processing is done. The processing threads will check their respective data_ready flag to be true. Once it is true, the processing thread will do some computations, set its respective data_ready flag to 0, and continue with the loop.
If I only have one processing thread, the program runs fine. Once I add more threads, I'm getting into issues where the output of the processing is garbage. In addition, the order of the processing threads matters for some reason; in other words, the LAST thread I launch will output correct data whereas the previous threads will output garbage, no matter what the input parameters are for the processing (assuming valid parameters). I don't know if the problem is due to my threading code or if there is something wrong with my device or data processing setup. I try using couts at the processing and receiving steps, and with N processing threads, I see the output as it should:
receive data
process 1
process 2
...
process N
receive data
process 1
process 2
...
Is the usage of the condition variables correct? What could be the problem?
EDIT: I followed fork's suggestions and changed the code to:
data receiver loop (1 thread runs this):
while (!gotExitSignal())
{
if(!any(data_ready))
{
receive_data(buffer);
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> ll(mut);
set_true(data_ready);
cond.notify_all();
}
}
data processing loop (N threads run this)
while (!gotExitSignal())
{
// boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> ll(mut);
boost::mutex::scoped_lock ll(mut);
cond.wait(ll);
process_data(buffer);
data_ready[thread_id] = false;
}
It works somewhat better. Am I using the correct locks?
I did not read your whole story but if i look at the code quickly i see that you use conditions wrong.
A condition is like a state, once you set a thread in a waiting condition it gives away the cpu. So your thread will effectively stop running untill some other process/thread notifies it.
In your code you have a while loop and each time you check for data you wait. That is wrong, it should be an if instead of a while. But then again it should not be there. The checking for data should be done somewhere else. And your worker thread should put itself in waiting condition after it has done its work.
Your worker threads are the consumers. And the producers are the ones that deliver the data.
I think a better construction would be to make a thread check if there is data and notify the worker(s).
PSEUDO CODE:
//producer
while (true) {
1. lock mutex
2. is data available
3. unlock mutex
if (dataAvailableVariable) {
4. notify a worker
5. set waiting condition
}
}
//consumer
while (true) {
1. lock mutex
2. do some work
3. unlock mutex
4. notify producer that work is done
5. set wait condition
}
You should also take care of the fact that some thread needs to be alive in order to avoid a deadlock, means all threads in waiting condition.
I hope that helps you a little.