I am playing around with some sockets, thread and mutexes. My question concerns threads and mutexes:
int ConnectionHandler::addNewSocket(){
this->connectionList_mutex.lock();
std::cout << "test1" << std::endl;
this->connectionList_mutex.unlock();
return 0;
}
int ConnectionHandler::main(){
while(true){
this->connectionList_mutex.lock();
std::cout << "test2" << std::endl;
this->connectionList_mutex.unlock();
}
}`
The main function is running in one thread, while the addNewSocket is called by another thread. The problem is, that when addNewSocket is called once (by the second thread), the next unlock by thread 1 (main) will fail with a strange "signal SIGABRT". I have worked two days on this now, but i did not manage to get it fixed, sadly. I hope you can help me.
Edit: ConnectionHandler is a class, that has connectionList_mutex as a member.
Edit: Sometimes i also get this error: "Assertion failed: (ec == 0), function unlock, file /SourceCache/libcxx/libcxx-65.1/src/mutex.cpp, line 44." but it occurs randomly.
Edit: This is the whole class (Reduced to a minimum, should be context independant to a certain degree, but crashes when i put it right after a client connected, and works if i put it right after the start:
class ConnectionHandler{
public:
ConnectionHandler();
int addNewSocket();
private:
int main();
static void start(void * pThis);
std::mutex connectionList_mutex;
};
ConnectionHandler::ConnectionHandler(){
std::thread t(&this->start, this);
t.detach();
}
void ConnectionHandler::start(void * pThis){
ConnectionHandler *handlerThis;
handlerThis = (ConnectionHandler *)pThis;
handlerThis->main();
}
int ConnectionHandler::addNewSocket(){
this->connectionList_mutex.lock();
std::cout << "test1" << std::endl;
this->connectionList_mutex.unlock();
return 0;
}
int ConnectionHandler::main(){
while(true){
this->connectionList_mutex.lock();
std::cout << "test2" << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(100));
this->connectionList_mutex.unlock();
}
}
My guess is that your ConnectionHandler object is being destroyed somewhere. Also, you have defined ConnectionHandler::start in a silly way.
First, ConnectionHandler::start should be defined this way:
void ConnectionHandler::start(ConnectionHandler * pThis){
pThis->main();
}
The C++11 ::std::thread class is perfectly capable of preserving the type of the function argument so there is no need to resort to void *.
Secondly, add in this code:
void ConnectionHandler::~ConnectionHandler(){
const void * const meptr = this;
this->connectionList_mutex.lock();
::std::cout << "ConnectionHandler being destroyed at " << meptr << ::std::endl;
this->connectionList_mutex.unlock();
}
And change the constructor to read:
ConnectionHandler::ConnectionHandler(){
const void * const meptr = this;
::std::cout << "ConnectionHandler being created at " << meptr << ::std::endl;
std::thread t(&this->start, this);
t.detach();
}
This will show you when the ConnectionHandler object is being destroyed. And my guess is that your code is destroying it while your detached thread is still running.
The meptr thing is because operator << has an overload for void * that prints out the pointer value. Printing out the pointer value for this will allow you to match up calls to the constructor and destructor if you're creating multiple ConnectionHandler objects.
Edit: Since it turned out I was correct, here is how I would recommend you write the play ConnectionHandler class:
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
#include <mutex>
class ConnectionHandler {
public:
ConnectionHandler();
~ConnectionHandler();
ConnectionHandler(const ConnectionHandler &) = delete;
const ConnectionHandler &operator =(const ConnectionHandler &) = delete;
int addNewSocket();
private:
int main();
static void start(ConnectionHandler * pThis);
::std::mutex connectionList_mutex;
volatile ::std::atomic_bool thread_shutdown;
::std::thread thread;
};
ConnectionHandler::ConnectionHandler()
: thread_shutdown(false), thread(&this->start, this)
{
}
ConnectionHandler::~ConnectionHandler()
{
thread_shutdown.store(true);
thread.join();
}
void ConnectionHandler::start(ConnectionHandler * pThis){
pThis->main();
}
int ConnectionHandler::addNewSocket(){
::std::lock_guard< ::std::mutex> lock(connectionList_mutex);
::std::cout << "test1" << ::std::endl;
return 0;
}
int ConnectionHandler::main(){
while(!thread_shutdown.load()){
::std::lock_guard< ::std::mutex> lock(connectionList_mutex);
::std::cout << "test2" << ::std::endl;
::std::this_thread::sleep_for(::std::chrono::milliseconds(100));
}
return 0;
}
Related
I am new to threading, and i am trying to write a function that keep outputing an variable while i should be able to change that variable at runtime, and the output should change to my input once I input a new value in. By the following program is not running as i expected, whats wrong here? is there anything i can reference to so i can build this funciton out?
int a;
void* ptr;
void* Input(void* arg){
while(true){
std::cin >> a;
std::cout << std::endl;
}
return ptr;
}
void* Output(void *arg){
while(true){
std::cout << a << std::endl;
}
return ptr;
}
int main(){
pthread_t GetInput;
pthread_create(&GetInput,NULL,Input,NULL);
pthread_t GetOutput;
pthread_create(&GetOutput,NULL,Output,NULL);
}
Your main thread is not waiting for your child thread and exited when main() returned. To make your main thread to wait for children finish their jobs, you should call pthread_join() for them.
int main(){
pthread_t GetInput;
pthread_create(&GetInput,NULL,Input,NULL);
pthread_t GetOutput;
pthread_create(&GetOutput,NULL,Output,NULL);
pthread_join(GetInput, NULL);
pthread_join(GetOutput, NULL);
return 0;
}
Here's another alternative using std::async() for your code.
#include <chrono>
#include <future>
#include <iostream>
#include <mutex>
int a;
std::mutex mtx_;
void Input(void* arg) {
while (true) {
int tmp_a;
std::cin >> tmp_a;
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mtx_);
a = tmp_a;
}
std::cout << std::endl;
}
}
void Output(void* arg) {
while (true) {
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mtx_);
std::cout << a << std::endl;
}
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
}
}
int main() {
auto ft_in = std::async(std::launch::async, Input, &a);
auto ft_out = std::async(std::launch::async, Output, &a);
ft_in.wait();
ft_out.wait();
return 0;
}
Well,I don't know how to use pthread.
And it seems Mr.john-park or Ms.john-park already gave a answer.
But I think use thread is a better choice.
To use it,we should:
#include<thread>
After that,if u want to start a new thread,and "connect" it with a function(In fact,we usually do)
There is a class named thread.
First,we should
thread *thread name*(*function name*);
WARNING:function nameshould be without "(" and ")"
May because here should be a pointer.
Then,to the question.
Suppose we wrote:
thread GetInput(Input);
thread GetOutput(Output);
When u want to stop GetOutput some time and run GetInput,
just
GetInput.join()
Here's a not so good example:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
using namespace std;
void f1()
{
while (true)
{
cout << "THREAD 1!" << endl;
}
}
void f2()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
cout << "THREAD 2!" << endl;
thread t1(f1);
t1.join();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
cout << "THREAD 2!" << endl;
}
int main()
{
thread t2(f2);
return 0;
}
First,we started t2.
Then t2 started t1.
Now we can know why we use join().
If we don't join(),
It'll be hard for us to read the output because it'll close the cmd window quickly.
But we can know,
after t2 end,
return 0;
ran.
But if we used join()
Here's the output:
THREAD 2!
THREAD 2!
THREAD 2!
...(THREAD 2!*10)
THREAD 1!
THREAD 1!
...(Always THREAD 1!)
Consider this simple synchronization problem. I have two threads, A and B, that each execute 2 steps. I want step 1a to be performed before step 2b.
Thread A
Thread B
Step 1a
Step 1b
Step 2a
Step 2b
I have some options for how to implement this.
std::condition_variable + std::mutex + bool
This is the solution proposed by this stack overflow answer and this leetcode discussion page.
Thread B will wait on the condition variable, and Thread A will notify the condition variable. The mutex is required because it is the argument of the condition_variable's wait.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <condition_variable>
std::condition_variable step_1a;
std::mutex a_mutex_I_guess;
bool step_1a_done = false;
void Step_1a() {
std::cout << "step 1a" << "\n";
}
void Step_2a() {
std::cout << "step 2a" << "\n";
}
void Step_1b() {
std::cout << "step 1b" << "\n";
}
void Step_2b() {
std::cout << "step 2b" << "\n";
}
void A() {
//std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck{ a_mutex_I_guess }; unnecessary
Step_1a();
step_1a_done = true;
//lck.unlock(); unnecessary
step_1a.notify_one();
Step_2a();
}
void B() {
Step_1b();
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck{ a_mutex_I_guess };
step_1a.wait(lck, []() { return step_1a_done; });
Step_2b();
}
int main() {
std::thread thread_A{ A };
std::thread thread_B{ B };
thread_A.join();
thread_B.join();
}
To me, this seems like overkill. std::condition_variables are designed to handle multiple waiting threads. std::mutex is intended to protect shared data, not to be fodder for wait. On top of all of that, I needed bool step_1a_done to actually keep track of whether or not step_1a had completed.
As a measure of their complexity, the mutex, condition_variable, and bool together require 153 (80 + 72 + 1) bytes of memory on my machine.
std::binary_semaphore
Alternatively, I can use a binary semaphore. Semantically, the binary semaphore isn't meant for one-time-use. However, it gets the job done with simpler tools than the previous option.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <semaphore>
std::binary_semaphore step_1a_sem{ 0 };
void Step_1a() {
std::cout << "step 1a" << "\n";
}
void Step_2a() {
std::cout << "step 2a" << "\n";
}
void Step_1b() {
std::cout << "step 1b" << "\n";
}
void Step_2b() {
std::cout << "step 2b" << "\n";
}
void A() {
//std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck{ a_mutex_I_guess }; unnecessary
Step_1a();
step_1a_sem.release();
Step_2a();
}
void B() {
Step_1b();
step_1a_sem.acquire();
Step_2b();
}
int main() {
std::thread thread_A{ A };
std::thread thread_B{ B };
thread_A.join();
thread_B.join();
}
step_1a_sem requires only 1 byte of memory.
Question
My assessment is that binary_semaphore is better. However, even better would be a "one_time_semaphore" that documents (or enforces) in my code that release should only be called once. Are there C++ concurrency primitives that are a better fit for this thread synchronization problem?
EDIT: std::promise<void>
#Daniel Langr has pointed out that std::promise<void> also works. While this seems like the exact use case of std::promise<void>, things appear significantly more complicated under the hood than with a binary_semaphore. The memory requirement is 24 bytes.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <future>
std::promise<void> step_1a_done;
void Step_1a() {
std::cout << "step 1a" << "\n";
}
void Step_2a() {
std::cout << "step 2a" << "\n";
}
void Step_1b() {
std::cout << "step 1b" << "\n";
}
void Step_2b() {
std::cout << "step 2b" << "\n";
}
void A() {
Step_1a();
step_1a_done.set_value();
Step_2a();
}
void B() {
Step_1b();
step_1a_done.get_future().wait();
Step_2b();
}
int main() {
std::thread thread_A{ A };
std::thread thread_B{ B };
thread_A.join();
thread_B.join();
}
This is my minimal, reproducible example
#include <memory>
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
class BaseClass {
public:
void do_func() {
while(true) {
std::cout << "doing stuff" << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
}
}
};
int main() {
auto obj = std::make_unique<BaseClass>();
std::thread t(&BaseClass::do_func, obj.get());
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
std::cout << "reset called!" << std::endl;
obj.reset();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
std::cout << "going out of scope" << std::endl;
t.join();
return 0;
}
I was expecting the object to be deleted after reset is called. Even the code cannot exit because the while loop is blocking, which is understandable. I need to delete the object after a particular event, and cannot wait till the unique_ptr goes out of scope. If I change the do_func to
void do_func() {
std::cout << "doing stuff" << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(20));
}
then it is the expected behaviour.
Edit:
Based on your comments I have updated my code to
#include <memory>
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
class BaseClass {
public:
BaseClass() : x(1) {
dummy = std::make_shared<SomeClass>();
}
void do_func() {
while(true) {
std::cout << "doing stuff " << dummy->do_stuff(x) << std::endl;
x++;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
}
}
private:
int x;
class SomeClass {
public:
int do_stuff(int x) {
return x * x;
}
};
std::shared_ptr<SomeClass> dummy;
};
int main() {
auto obj = std::make_unique<BaseClass>();
std::thread t(&BaseClass::do_func, obj.get());
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
std::cout << "reset called!" << std::endl;
obj.reset();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
std::cout << "going out of scope" << std::endl;
t.join();
return 0;
}
And now the function does print garbage values. Does that mean I need to explicitly delete dummy in the destructor?
The simplest way to synchronize these two threads would be to use std::atomic_bool
#include <atomic>
class BaseClass {
public:
std::atomic_bool shouldContinueWork = true;
void do_func() {
while(shouldContinueWork) {
std::cout << "doing stuff" << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
}
}
};
int main() {
auto obj = std::make_unique<BaseClass>();
std::thread t(&BaseClass::do_func, obj.get());
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
obj->shouldContinueWork = false; //the thread will not do anything more after this, but the sleep will need to end on it's own
std::cout << "stopping work!" << std::endl;
// do not remove the object before join is called - you don't know if it will be still accessed from the other thread or not
// obj.reset();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
std::cout << "going out of scope" << std::endl;
t.join();
// here it is safe to remove the `obj`, main thread is surely the only thread that accesses it
// (but it goes out of scope anyway)
return 0;
}
This solution doesn't take into account stopping the work midway (i.e. whole loop iteration must always be performed) and is generally prone to having a few more or less iterations of work - it should be precise enough when you have sleep of 1s, but with smaller sleep it won't guarantee any exact number of iterations, take that into account. std::condition_variable can be used for more precise control of thread synchronization.
Thanks for all your quick responses! Let me know if this is a good solution
#include <memory>
#include <chrono>
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <functional>
class BaseClass {
public:
BaseClass() : x(1) {
dummy = std::make_shared<SomeClass>();
}
virtual ~BaseClass() {
dummy.reset();
}
void do_func() {
while(dummy) {
std::cout << "doing stuff " << dummy->do_stuff(x) << std::endl;
x++;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
}
}
private:
int x;
class SomeClass {
public:
int do_stuff(int x) {
return x * x;
}
};
std::shared_ptr<SomeClass> dummy;
};
class DerivedClass : public BaseClass {
};
int main() {
auto obj = std::make_unique<DerivedClass>();
std::thread t(&BaseClass::do_func, obj.get());
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
std::cout << "reset called!" << std::endl;
obj.reset();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
std::cout << "going out of scope" << std::endl;
t.join();
return 0;
}
The behaviour is now as expected.
I am trying to control the output prints in my simulation. It prints a lot of output stream information. This is a sample code of how I try to control the output stream. Sometimes I want to print information for each thread and sometimes I do not want a single print from threads to reduce the system calls in the simulation. I pass command line argument to control the stream. Argument v means no prints. The problem is it requires a lot of if statements in whole simulator. Is there any easy way to deal with this issue?
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
void work_to_do_1(char ch)
{
//work for thread 1
if(ch != 'v')
std::cout << "-:Thread 1:-" << std::endl;
}
void work_to_do_2(char ch)
{
if (ch != 'v')
std::cout << "-:Thread 2:-" << std::endl;
}
void work_to_do_3(char ch)
{
if (ch != 'v')
std::cout << "-:Thread 3:-" << std::endl;
}
int main(int argc, char *arg[])
{
std::cout << "You have entered " << argc
<< " arguments:" << "\n";
for (int i = 0; i < argc; ++i)
{
std::cout << arg[i] << "\n";
}
char t = *arg[1];
std::cout << "manager is running" << std::endl;
std::thread t1(work_to_do_1, t);
std::thread t2(work_to_do_2, t);
std::thread t3(work_to_do_3, t);
t1.join();
t2.join();
t3.join();
system("pause");
return 0;
}
Make your own nul stream:
struct cnul_t : std::basic_ostream<char> {} cnul;
template<class T> std::ostream& operator<<(cnul_t& os, T const&) { return os; }
And redirect your output to it to ignore it:
#include <ostream>
#include <iostream>
struct cnul_t : std::basic_ostream<char> {} cnul;
template<class T> std::ostream& operator<<(cnul_t& os, T const&) { return os; }
void maybe_log(bool b)
{
std::ostream& out = b == true ? std::cout : cnul;
out << "Hello, World!\n";
}
int main()
{
maybe_log(true); // outputs Hello, World!
maybe_log(false); // no output
}
Demo: http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/362ecb660283cbff
OK, well, if you have read and understood the comments you will see that the real problem is not what you think it is. The real problem is that your logging code is not threadsafe.
This answer explains the problem very well. Although ostreams are threadsafe in themselves (since C++11), something like std::cout << "-:Thread 1:-" << std::endl; is actually two calls to std::cout.operator<< and another thread might sneak in between them thus garbling your output. This, I imagine, you could do without.
So, stealing code unashamedly from this post I humbly submit the following solution (which also has a global flag, gLogging, to turn logging on or off). This will write lines to std::cout atomically whenever you log std::endl. I wrote this as an exercise to develop my own personal skills and I thought you might like to have it.
See the linked post for an explanation of how std::endl is detected, but the underlying principle is a separate log buffer for each thread which is flushed to std::cout when it has a complete line of output to get rid of. The code includes a manager class (Logger) to take care of the details of creating, destroying and accessing these buffers. You just need to put two lines of initialisation code at the start of each thread as shown and then log to logstream rather than std::cout.
#include <iostream>
#include <sstream>
#include <mutex>
#include <map>
#include <thread>
bool gLogging = true;
constexpr int bufsize = 512; // needs to be big enough for longest logging line expected
// A streambuf that writes atomically to std::cout when (indirectly) it sees std::endl
class LogBuf : public std::stringbuf
{
public:
LogBuf () { setbuf (m_buf = new char [bufsize], bufsize); str (""); }
~LogBuf () { delete [] m_buf; }
protected:
// This gets called when the ostream we are serving sees endl
int sync() override
{
if (gLogging)
{
std::cout << str();
std::cout.flush();
}
str("");
return 0;
}
private:
char *m_buf;
};
// An ostream that uses LogBuf
class LogStream : public std::ostream
{
public:
LogStream () : std::ostream (m_LogBuf = new LogBuf ()) { }
~LogStream () { delete m_LogBuf; }
private:
LogBuf *m_LogBuf;
};
// A class to manage LogStream objects (one per thread)
class Logger
{
public:
void AddThread (void)
{
mutex.lock ();
m_logstreams [std::this_thread::get_id ()] = new LogStream ();
mutex.unlock ();
}
void RemoveThread ()
{
mutex.lock ();
std::thread::id thread_id = std::this_thread::get_id ();
LogStream *logstream = m_logstreams [thread_id];
m_logstreams.erase (m_logstreams.find (thread_id));
mutex.unlock ();
delete logstream;
}
LogStream& GetLogStream ()
{
mutex.lock ();
LogStream *logstream = m_logstreams [std::this_thread::get_id ()];
mutex.unlock ();
return *logstream;
}
private:
static std::mutex mutex;
std::map<const std::thread::id, LogStream *> m_logstreams;
};
std::mutex Logger::mutex;
Logger logger;
// A simple class to make sure we remember to call RemoveThread
class LogStreamHelper
{
public:
LogStreamHelper () { logger.AddThread (); }
~LogStreamHelper () { logger.RemoveThread (); }
inline LogStream &GetLogStream () { return logger.GetLogStream (); }
};
// Test program
void work_to_do_1()
{
LogStreamHelper logstream_helper;
LogStream& logstream = logstream_helper.GetLogStream ();
logstream << "-:Thread 1:-" << std::endl;
}
void work_to_do_2()
{
LogStreamHelper logstream_helper;
LogStream& logstream = logstream_helper.GetLogStream ();
logstream << "-:Thread 2:-" << std::endl;
}
int main ()
{
LogStreamHelper logstream_helper;
LogStream& logstream = logstream_helper.GetLogStream ();
logstream << "Main thread" << std::endl;
std::thread t1 (work_to_do_1);
std::thread t2 (work_to_do_2);
t1.join ();
t2.join ();
return 0;
}
Output:
Main thread
-:Thread 1:-
-:Thread 2:-
Run it at Wandbox.
I'm trying to implement a threaded object like this:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <iostream>
class Thread
{
private:
int id;
static void * run(void * arg)
{
int tid = (int)arg;
std::cout << "Thread " << tid << " executed." <<std::endl;
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
public:
Thread(int _id);
void start();
int get_id();
};
Here's the implementation of the public methods & constructor:
#include "std_thread.h"
Thread::Thread(int _id)
{
id = _id;
}
void Thread::start()
{
std::cout << "Thread created." <<std::endl;
pthread_t thread;
int rc = pthread_create(&thread, NULL, run, (void*)id);
if(rc)
std::cout << "Return code from thread is " << rc;
}
int Thread::get_id()
{
return id;
}
And here's main:
#include "std_thread.h"
int main()
{
Thread *thd = new Thread(0);
thd->start();
return 0;
}
When I create the thread object and call its start method, which is in turn supposed to print "Thread created." and run the thread body - it doesn't; actually, it does print Thread created to console, but doesn't seem to create a thread, or the thread just doesn't do anything. Everything compiles fine by the way, and there no run time errors.
Any ideas?
Your main returns before the thread gets a chance to run.
The program doesn't wait until all threads are done before exiting - once main is over, it's over, and the process is just shut down.
Have your pthread_t thread; as a member instead of a local variable, and add a method to wait for the thread to finish.
This is the simplest example I can come up with:
void Thread::wait()
{
pthread_join(thread, NULL);
}
int main()
{
Thread thd(0); // There's no point in using dynamic allocation here.
thd.start();
thd.wait();
return 0;
}