I using Indy with C++ Builder XE3. It's perfect system but i have some problems. IdTCPServer works really good but when i have some connections on him and i want to stop server then my application freezed. I try to tell how i do it step by step:
1) Starting application (and server listening)
2) wait for new connections (or simulate it, no difference)
3) when we have 10-15 connections - then try to stop server listening.
4) when code came to IdTCPServer1->Active = false - application will be frozen
i made little video. Maybe it explain situation much better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNgTxYbLx8g
And here my code:
OnConnect:
EnterCriticalSection(&CritLock);
++ActiveConnections;
SetActiveConnections(ActiveConnections);
LeaveCriticalSection(&CritLock);
OnDisconnect:
EnterCriticalSection(&CritLock);
--ActiveConnections;
SetActiveConnections(ActiveConnections);
LeaveCriticalSection(&CritLock);
StopServer Code:
void TForm1::StopServer()
{
TList *list = IdTCPServer1->Contexts->LockList();
try
{
for(int i = 0; i < list->Count; ++i)
{
TIdContext *AContext = reinterpret_cast<TIdContext*>(list->Items[i]);
try
{
if (AContext->Connection->Connected())
{
AContext->Connection->IOHandler->InputBuffer->Clear();
AContext->Connection->IOHandler->WriteBufferCancel();
AContext->Connection->IOHandler->WriteBufferClear();
AContext->Connection->IOHandler->WriteBufferClose();
AContext->Connection->IOHandler->CloseGracefully();
AContext->Connection->Disconnect();
}
}
catch (const Exception &e)
{
}
}
}
__finally
{
IdTCPServer1->Contexts->UnlockList();
}
IdTCPServer1->Contexts->Clear();
//IdTCPServer1->StopListening();
IdTCPServer1->Active = false;
}
Thanks for advise!
You need to get rid of all your StopServer() code except for the very last line. When TIdTCPServer is deactivated, it performs all necessary cleanups for you. DO NOT DO IT YOURSELF (especially since you are doing it wrong anyway).
void TForm1::StopServer()
{
IdTCPServer1->Active = false;
}
Now, with just that code, if your app is still freezing, then that means you are deadlocking the main thread. That happens if you call StopServer() in the context of the main thread and one of two things are happening in your server code:
one of your TIdTCPServer event handlers performs a synchronized operation to the main thread (either via TIdSync or TThread::Synchronize()).
one of your TIdTCPServer event handlers swallows Indy exceptions and does not allow TIdTCPServer to terminate one or more client threads correctly when needed.
Internally, the TIdTCPServer::Active property setter closes all active sockets and waits for their respective threads to fully terminate, blocking the calling thread until the property setter exits. If yoou are deactivating the server in the main thread and one of the server threads performs a sync that the main thread cannot process, or otherwise does not terminate correctly when it should be, that will block the server deactivation from exiting and thus deadlock the main thread.
So make sure that:
you are not performing sync operations to the main thread while the server is being deactivated by the main thread. If you must sync, then deactivate the server in a worker thread instead so the main thread is not blocked anymore.
your event handlers are not swallowing any Indy EIdException-derived exceptions in try/catch blocks. If you catch such an exception, re-throw it when you are finshed using it. Let TIdTCPServer handle any Indy exceptions so it can perform internal cleanups as needed.
Lastly, on a side note, you do not need to keep track of connections manually. TIdTCPServer already does that for you in the Contexts property. If you need to know how many clients are currently connected at any moment, simply Lock() the Contexts list, read its Count property (or do anything else you need to do with the clients), and then Unlock() the list.
Related
Introduction
I am new to multithreading. I have an created a GUI application in c++ on windows 10 using wxWidgets. A worker thread communicates in the background via sockets and appends events to some event handlers from the main thread (GUI); I have two available protocols for the communication, and I allow the user to choose among those at the beginning (before instantiating the thread). To append events, I have a few shared pointers on the event handlers; a bit like in this tutorial, where it keeps a pointer of the m_parent. To communicate with the working thread, I created a queue using a mutex and semaphore, also like in the tutorial. For now, everything works.
Now, I want to let the user change the protocol while the application runs. I have thus a menu with a related button. This button calls the following function (create_app()) that deletes the top window and the communication thread and recreates everything. That is where I have problems.
bool cApp::create_app() {
wxWindow* main_window = GetTopWindow();
// If there is already a window, delete everything before creation
if(main_window) {
//thread_communication->Wait(); // Should I wait for the thread to finish? I shouldn't
if (thread_communication->Delete() != wxTHREAD_NO_ERROR) { // Should I delete it since it should be destroyed when Entry is finished
std::cerr << "DELETE IMPOSSIBLE!" << std::endl;
return false;
}
if (main_window->Destroy() != wxTHREAD_NO_ERROR) { // Here I can't delete the window
std::cerr << "DELETE WINDOW IMPOSSIBLE!" << std::endl; // prints
return false;
}
SetTopWindow(NULL);
}
// Create everything
m_frame1 = new MainFrame(*this);
SetTopWindow(m_frame1);
m_frame1->Show();
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<wxEvtHandler>> evt_handlers;
m_frame1->get_handlers(evt_handlers);
// Construct the working thread with the evt handlers and the queue from the main window
thread_communication = std::unique_ptr<ThreadCom>(new ThreadCom(evt_handlers, m_frame1->get_queue());
wxThreadError err = thread_communication->Create();
...
err = thread_communication->Run();
...
return true;
}
bool cApp::OnInit() {
return create_app();
}
When the user click the related button, it calls this create_app function but before sends a task via the queue to the working thread with the highest priority (meaning it will be the next task achieved by it); afterwards, in the working thread, it exits after poping the task the while loop in Entry. Thus, the working thread should terminate there.
Problem
I have problem when deleting the thread and the application. I have memory leaks since, I guess, they share common material (pointers).
When I try to use Wait, I have first a assert !IsDetached. That is because I cannot wait for a detached thread. If I continue, the programm crashes (Access violation reading location) during the thread->Delete() call.
If I don't use Wait, the thread->Delete() call works fine. Afterwards, the program crashes at main_window->Destroy(); the return code is not ok thus it prints "DELETE WINDOW IMPOSSIBLE" with an Unhandled exception thrown: read access violation message.
So, how should I proceed? Should I implement destructors in the classes? How can I delete the thread and the app safely?
Thanks in advance for your help.
I have gSOAP server generated from a WSDL file + a Qt GUI. The generated code works perfectly fine, except one point that causes my process to stay alive after GUI exits. (I'm deploying on Windows, so I have no signaling)
I need my GUI to stay alive (naturally) so I moved server-proxy object to a QObject-based class that the latter is moved to another QThread, and the I fire it up by an external signal. The server now runs on event-loop of its parent QObject and works fine.
The only problem is that I have no clue how to terminate server on exit. I tried tweaking generated code for server (is that really a good idea by the way?)
int MySweetService::run(int port)
{ if (!soap_valid_socket(this->soap->master) && !soap_valid_socket(this->bind(NULL, port, 100)))
return this->soap->error;
for (;;) // =====> Maybe here I can put my while(module_is_running_atomic_bool) ?
{ if (!soap_valid_socket(this->accept()))
{ if (this->soap->errnum == 0) // timeout?
this->soap->error = SOAP_OK;
break;
}
if (this->serve())
break;
this->destroy();
}
return this->soap->error;
}
Calling soap_done(&soap) from another thread terminates blocking call to accept() and next your "serving" thread. It works for me on Windows but I doesn't on Linux - it looks like gsoap has some multitasking issue. You also need some boolean flag to let "serving" thread know that you shut it down and it's not just error in gsope.
I have a situation where a notify() 'can' be called before a wait().
I am trying to make a simulator to schedule its next event when I 'notify' him by sending him messages. So I have devised a wait->notify->scedule chain
void Broker::pause()
{
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(m_pause_mutex);
{
std::cout << "pausing the simulation" << std::endl;
m_cond_cnn.wait(lock);
std::cout << "Simulation UNpaused" << std::endl;
// the following line causes the current function to be called at
// a later time, and a notify() can happen before the current function
// is called again
Simulator::Schedule(MilliSeconds(xxx), &Broker::pause, this);
}
}
void Broker::messageReceiveCallback(std::string message) {
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(m_pause_mutex);
{
m_cond_cnn.notify_one();
}
}
the problem here is that: there can be situations that a notify() is called before its wait() is called.
Is there a solution for such situation?
thank you
Condition variables can hardly be used alone, if only because, as you noticed, they only wake the currently waiting threads. There's also the matter of spurious wake-ups (ie. the condition variable can sometimes wake up a thread without any corresponding notify having been called). To work properly, condition variables usually need another variable to maintain a more reliable state.
To solve both those problems, in your case you just need to add a boolean flag:
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(m_pause_mutex);
while (!someFlag)
m_cond_cnn.wait(lock);
someFlag = false;
//...
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(m_pause_mutex);
someFlag = true;
m_cond_cnn.notify_one();
I think that syam's answer is fine in general but in your specific case where you seem to be using ns-3, I would suggest instead that you restructure your code to use the right primitives in ns-3:
I suspect that you use one of the ns-3 realtime simulator implementations. Good.
Schedule a keeplive event for the 0.1s to make sure that the simulator keeps running (it will top running when there are no events left).
Optionally, use a boolean in this keepalive event to check if you should reschedule the keepalive event or call Simulator::Stop.
Create a thread to run the simulator mainloop with Simulator::Run(). The simulator will sleep until the next scheduled event is supposed to expire or until a new event is externally scheduled
Use Simulator::ScheduleWithContext to schedule an event externally from another thread.
Keep in mind that the ns-3 API is not thread safe in general. The only ns-3 API that is thread-safe is ns3::Simulator::ScheduleWithContext. I can't stress out how important it is to not use any other API available in the ns-3:: namespace from a thread that is not the main thread.
I'm doing some experiments on C++ multithreading and I have no idea how to solve one problem. Let's say we have thread pool, that process user requests using existing thread and creates new thread, when no free thread available. I've created command_queue thread-safe class, which have push and pop methods. pop waits while queue is empty and returns only when command is available or timeout occurred. Now it's time to implement thread pool. The idea is to make free threads sleep for some amount of time and kill the thread if there is nothing to do after that period of time. Here is implementation
command_queue::handler_t handler;
while (handler = tasks.pop(timeout))
{
handler();
}
here we exit the thread procedure if timeout occurred. That is fine, but there is problem with new thread creation. Let's say we already have 2 thread processing user requests, they are working at the moment, but we need to do some other operation asynchronously.
We call
thread_pool::start(some_operation);
which should start new thread, because there is no free threads available. When thread is available it calls timed_wait on condition variable, so the idea is to check whether there are threads that are waiting.
if (thread_are_free_threads) // ???
condition.notify_one();
else
create_thread(thread_proc);
but how to check it? Documentation says, that if there are no waiting threads notify_one does nothing. If I could check whether or not it did nothing that would be a solution
if (!condition.notify_one()) // nobody was notified
create_thread(thread_proc);
As far as I see there is no way to check that.
Thanks for your answers.
You need to create another variable (perhaps a semaphore) which knows how many threads are running, then you can check that and create a new thread, if needed, before calling notify.
The other, better option is to just not have your threads exit when they time out. They should stay alive waiting to be notified. Instead of exiting when the notify times out, check a variable to see if the program is still running or if it is "shutting down", If it's still running, then start waiting again.
A more typical thread pool would look like this:
Pool::Pool()
{
runningThreads = 0;
actualThreads = 0;
finished = false;
jobQue.Init();
mutex.Init();
conditionVariable.Init();
for(int loop=0; loop < threadCount; ++loop) { startThread(threadroutine); }
}
Pool::threadroutine()
{
{
// Extra code to count threads sp we can add more if required.
RAIILocker doLock(mutex);
++ actualThreads;
++ runningThreads;
}
while(!finished)
{
Job job;
{
RAIILocker doLock(mutex);
while(jobQue.empty())
{
// This is the key.
// Here the thread is suspended (using zero resources)
// until some other thread calls the notify_one on the
// conditionVariable. At this point exactly one thread is release
// and it will start executing as soon as it re-acquires the lock
// on the mutex.
//
-- runningThreads;
conditionVariable.wait(mutex);
++ runningThreads;
}
job = jobQue.getJobAndRemoveFromQue();
}
job.execute();
}
{
// Extra code to count threads sp we can add more if required.
RAIILocker doLock(mutex);
-- actualThreads;
-- runningThreads;
}
}
Pool::AddJob(Job job)
{
RAIILocker doLock(mutex);
// This is where you would check to see if you need more threads.
if (runningThreads == actualThreads) // Plus some other conditions.
{
// increment both counts. When it waits we decrease the running count.
startThread(threadroutine);
}
jobQue.push_back(job);
conditionVariable.notify_one(); // This releases one worker thread
// from the call to wait() above.
// Note: The worker thread will not start
// until this thread releases the mutex.
}
I think you need to rethink your design. In a simple model of a dealer thread handing out work the player threads, the dealer places the job onto the message queue and lets one of the players pick up the job when it gets a chance.
In your case the dealer is actively managing the thread pool in that it retains a knowledge on which player threads are idle and which are busy. Since the dealer knows which player is idle, the dealer can actively pass the idle the job and signal the player using a simple semaphore (or cond var) - there being one semaphore per player. In such a case, it might make sense for the dealer to destroy idle threads actively by giving the thread a kill myself job to do.
Now I found one solution, but it's not as that perfect.
I have volatile member variable named free - that stores number of free threads in the pool.
void thread_pool::thread_function()
{
free++;
command_queue::handler_t handler;
while (handler = tasks.pop(timeout))
{
free--;
handler();
free++;
}
free--;
}
when I assign task to the thread I do something like this
if (free == 0)
threads.create_thread(boost::bind(&thread_pool::thread_function, this));
there is still issue with synchronization, because if the context will be switched after free-- in thread_function we might create a new thread, which we actually don't need, but as the tasks queue is thread safe there is no problem with that, it's just an unwanted overhead. Can you suggest solution to that and what do you think about it? Maybe it's better to leave it as it is then having one more synchronization here?
Another idea. You can query the length of the Message Queue. If it gets too long, create a new worker.
Greetings, everyone!
I have a class (say, "Switcher" ) that executes some very-very long operation and notifies its listener, that operation is complete. The operation is long, and I isolate actual switching into separate thread:
class Switcher
{
public:
// this is what other users call:
void StartSwitching()
{
// another switch is initiated, I must terminate previous switching operation:
if ( m_Thread != NULL )
{
if ( WaitForThread(m_Thread, 3000) != OK )
{
TerminateThread(m_Thread);
}
}
// start new switching thread:
m_Thread = StartNewThread( ThreadProc );
}
// this is a thread procedure:
static void ThreadProc()
{
DoActualSwitching();
NotifyListener();
}
private:
Thread m_Thread;
};
The logic is rather simple - if user initiates new switching before the previous one is complete, I terminate previous switching (don't care of what happens inside "DoActualSwitching()") and start the new one. The problem is that sometimes, when terminating thread, I loose the "NotifyListener()" call.
I would like to introduce some improvements to ensure, that NotifyListener() is called every time, even if thread is terminated. Is there any pattern to do this? I can only think of another thread, that infinitely waits for the switcher and if the switcher is done (correctly or by termination), it can emit notification. But introducing another thread seems an overplay for me. Can you think of any other solution (p.s. the platform is win32)?
Thank you!
First, you should never call TerminateThread. You cannot know which operation is terminated when calling TerminateThread and so that could lead to memory leaks/resource leaks/state corruption.
To get your thread to be interruptable/cancelable, you supply a 'cancel' state, which is checked by the thread itself. Then your notify end will always work.
TerminateThread() here whacks the thread, and if it was inside DoActualSwitching(), that's where it'll die, and NotifyListener() will not be called on that thread. This is what TerminateThread() does, and there is no way to make it behave differently.
What you are looking for is a bit more graceful way to terminate the thread. Without more info about your application it's difficult to suggest an optimal approach, but if you can edit DoActualSwitching(), then I'd add
if (WAIT_OBJECT_0 == WaitForSingleObject(m_ExitThreadEvent, 0))
break;
into the loop there, and call SetEvent(m_ExitThreadEvent) instead of TerminateThread(). Of course you'll need to create the event and add the handle to the class. If your model suggest that there is only one switching thread at a time, I'd use autoreset event here, otherwise some more code is needed.
Good luck!