I can't get code working reliably in a simple VS2012 console application consisting of a producer and consumer that uses a C++11 condition variable. I am aiming at producing a small reliable program (to use as the basis for a more complex program) that uses the 3 argument wait_for method or perhaps the wait_until method from code I have gathered at these websites:
condition_variable:
wait_for,
wait_until
I'd like to use the 3 argument wait_for with a predicate like below except it will need to use a class member variable to be most useful to me later. I am receiving "Access violation writing location 0x__" or "An invalid parameter was passed to a service or function" as errors after only about a minute of running.
Would steady_clock and the 2 argument wait_until be sufficient to replace the 3 argument wait_for? I've also tried this without success.
Can someone show how to get the code below to run indefinitely with no bugs or weird behavior with either changes in wall-clock time from daylight savings time or Internet time synchronizations?
A link to reliable sample code could be just as helpful.
// ConditionVariable.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
//
#include "stdafx.h"
#include <condition_variable>
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <queue>
#include <chrono>
#include <atomic>
#define TEST1
std::atomic<int>
//int
qcount = 0; //= ATOMIC_VAR_INIT(0);
int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
std::queue<int> produced_nums;
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cond_var;
bool notified = false;
unsigned int count = 0;
std::thread producer([&]() {
int i = 0;
while (1) {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::microseconds(1500));
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m);
produced_nums.push(i);
notified = true;
qcount = produced_nums.size();
cond_var.notify_one();
i++;
}
cond_var.notify_one();
});
std::thread consumer([&]() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m);
while (1) {
#ifdef TEST1
// Version 1
if (cond_var.wait_for(
lock,
std::chrono::microseconds(1000),
[&]()->bool { return qcount != 0; }))
{
if ((count++ % 1000) == 0)
std::cout << "consuming " << produced_nums.front () << '\n';
produced_nums.pop();
qcount = produced_nums.size();
notified = false;
}
#else
// Version 2
std::chrono::steady_clock::time_point timeout1 =
std::chrono::steady_clock::now() +
//std::chrono::system_clock::now() +
std::chrono::milliseconds(1);
while (qcount == 0)//(!notified)
{
if (cond_var.wait_until(lock, timeout1) == std::cv_status::timeout)
break;
}
if (qcount > 0)
{
if ((count++ % 1000) == 0)
std::cout << "consuming " << produced_nums.front() << '\n';
produced_nums.pop();
qcount = produced_nums.size();
notified = false;
}
#endif
}
});
while (1);
return 0;
}
Visual Studio Desktop Express had 1 important update which it installed and Windows Update has no other important updates. I'm using Windows 7 32-bit.
Sadly, this is actually a bug in VS2012's implementation of condition_variable, and the fix will not be patched in. You'll have to upgrade to VS2013 when it's released.
See:
http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/762560
First of all, while using condition_variables I personally prefer some wrapper classes like AutoResetEvent from C#:
struct AutoResetEvent
{
typedef std::unique_lock<std::mutex> Lock;
AutoResetEvent(bool state = false) :
state(state)
{ }
void Set()
{
auto lock = AcquireLock();
state = true;
variable.notify_one();
}
void Reset()
{
auto lock = AcquireLock();
state = false;
}
void Wait(Lock& lock)
{
variable.wait(lock, [this] () { return this->state; });
state = false;
}
void Wait()
{
auto lock = AcquireLock();
Wait(lock);
}
Lock AcquireLock()
{
return Lock(mutex);
}
private:
bool state;
std::condition_variable variable;
std::mutex mutex;
};
This may not be the same behavior as C# type or may not be as efficient as it should be but it gets things done for me.
Second, when I need to implement a producing/consuming idiom I try to use a concurrent queue implementation (eg. tbb queue) or write a one for myself. But you should also consider making things right by using Active Object Pattern. But for simple solution we can use this:
template<typename T>
struct ProductionQueue
{
ProductionQueue()
{ }
void Enqueue(const T& value)
{
{
auto lock = event.AcquireLock();
q.push(value);
}
event.Set();
}
std::size_t GetCount()
{
auto lock = event.AcquireLock();
return q.size();
}
T Dequeue()
{
auto lock = event.AcquireLock();
event.Wait(lock);
T value = q.front();
q.pop();
return value;
}
private:
AutoResetEvent event;
std::queue<T> q;
};
This class has some exception safety issues and misses const-ness on the methods but like I said, for a simple solution this should fit.
So as a result your modified code looks like this:
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
ProductionQueue<int> produced_nums;
unsigned int count = 0;
std::thread producer([&]() {
int i = 0;
while (1) {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::microseconds(1500));
produced_nums.Enqueue(i);
qcount = produced_nums.GetCount();
i++;
}
});
std::thread consumer([&]() {
while (1) {
int item = produced_nums.Dequeue();
{
if ((count++ % 1000) == 0)
std::cout << "consuming " << item << '\n';
qcount = produced_nums.GetCount();
}
}
});
producer.join();
consumer.join();
return 0;
}
Related
How can I check bool variable in class considering thread safe?
For example in my code:
// test.h
class Test {
void threadFunc_run();
void change(bool _set) { m_flag = _set; }
...
bool m_flag;
};
// test.cpp
void Test::threadFunc_run()
{
// called "Playing"
while(m_flag == true) {
for(int i = 0; i < 99999999 && m_flag; i++) {
// do something .. 1
}
for(int i = 0; i < 111111111 && m_flag; i++) {
// do something .. 2
}
}
}
I wan to stop "Playing" as soon as change(..) function is executed in the external code.
It also wants to be valid in process of operating the for statement.
According to the search, there are variables for recognizing immediate changes, such as atomic or volatile.
If not immediately, is there a better way to use a normal bool?
Actually synchronizing threads safely requires more then a bool.
You will need a state, a mutex and a condition variable like this.
The approach also allows for quick reaction to stop from within the loop.
#include <chrono>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <iostream>
#include <future>
#include <mutex>
class Test
{
private:
// having just a bool to check the state of your thread is NOT enough.
// your thread will have some intermediate states as well
enum play_state_t
{
idle, // initial state, not started yet (not scheduled by OS threadscheduler yet)
playing, // running and doing work
stopping, // request for stop is issued
stopped // thread has stopped (could also be checked by std::future synchronization).
};
public:
void play()
{
// start the play loop, the lambda is not guaranteed to have started
// after the call returns (depends on threadscheduling of the underlying OS)
// I use std::async since that has far superior synchronization with the calling thead
// the returned future can be used to pass both values & exceptions back to it.
m_play_future = std::async(std::launch::async, [this]
{
// give a signal the asynchronous function has really started
set_state(play_state_t::playing);
std::cout << "play started\n";
// as long as state is playing keep doing the work
while (get_state() == play_state_t::playing)
{
// loop to show we can break fast out of it when stop is called
for (std::size_t i = 0; (i < 100l) && (get_state() == play_state_t::playing); ++i)
{
std::cout << ".";
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(200));
}
}
set_state(play_state_t::stopped);
std::cout << "play stopped.\n";
});
// avoid race conditions really wait for
// trhead handling async to have started playing
wait_for_state(play_state_t::playing);
}
void stop()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock{ m_mtx }; // only wait on condition variable in lock
if (m_state == play_state_t::playing)
{
std::cout << "\nrequest stop.\n";
m_state = play_state_t::stopping;
m_cv.wait(lock, [&] { return m_state == play_state_t::stopped; });
}
};
~Test()
{
stop();
}
private:
void set_state(const play_state_t state)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock{ m_mtx }; // only wait on condition variable in lock
m_state = state;
m_cv.notify_all(); // let other threads that are wating on condition variable wakeup to check new state
}
play_state_t get_state() const
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock{ m_mtx }; // only wait on condition variable in lock
return m_state;
}
void wait_for_state(const play_state_t state)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock{ m_mtx };
m_cv.wait(lock, [&] { return m_state == state; });
}
// for more info on condition variables
// see : https://www.modernescpp.com/index.php/c-core-guidelines-be-aware-of-the-traps-of-condition-variables
mutable std::mutex m_mtx;
std::condition_variable m_cv; // a condition variable is not really a variable more a signal to threads to wakeup
play_state_t m_state{ play_state_t::idle };
std::future<void> m_play_future;
};
int main()
{
Test test;
test.play();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(1));
test.stop();
return 0;
}
I was doing Unit Testing and finding code coverage using gtest and lcov.
My function is
void MyClass::MyFunction(const std::string& argument1, const std::string& argument2) {
std::thread([this, argument1, argument2]() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> live_lock_(live_mutex_);
int64_t time_stamp = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(std::chrono::system_clock::now().time_since_epoch()).count();
int64_t time_to_live = myList[argument1] - (time_stamp % myList[argument1]);
cond_var_.wait_for(time_to_live_lock_, std::chrono::milliseconds(time_to_live), [this, argument1] { return cond_var_status_[argument1]; });
if (message_master_.find(argument1) != message_master_.end()) {
//something
}
}).detach();
std::cout<< "end line is executed"<<std::endl; }
and my test function is
TEST(test, test1) {
Myclass testObj;
testObj.MyFunction("arg1", "arg2");
ASSERT_EQ("","");
};
When I run the test, all codes except those inside thread are executed.
So is there any solution to call those codes inside thread too?
How do you know none of those lines are being executed?
I would suggest making a test program, compiling with -g and -Wall, then using gdb to make sure a thread is actually being created. If it is, step through the code.
It could be that the compiler gets rid of code it thinks is doing nothing.
This is how I would test it (I modified the code a little, but in principle it is the same thing. All the globals shall be moved to MyClass most probably):
#include <atomic>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <map>
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
std::mutex time_to_live_mutex_;
std::map<std::string, int64_t> myList;
std::map<std::string, bool> cond_var_status_;
std::map<std::string, std::string> incoming_message_master_;
std::condition_variable cond_var_;
std::atomic_bool something_happened{false};
void foo(const std::string& argument1, const std::string& argument2) {
std::thread([argument1, argument2]() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> time_to_live_lock_(time_to_live_mutex_);
int64_t time_stamp = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(std::chrono::system_clock::now().time_since_epoch()).count();
int64_t time_to_live = myList[argument1] - (time_stamp % myList[argument1]);
cond_var_.wait_for(time_to_live_lock_, std::chrono::milliseconds(time_to_live), [argument1] { return cond_var_status_[argument1]; });
if (incoming_message_master_.find(argument1) != incoming_message_master_.end()) {
//something
something_happened = true;
}
}).detach();
}
TEST(TestFoo, testing_foo_thread) {
int64_t timeout = 10000;
myList["bar"] = timeout; // so that cond variable waits long time
cond_var_status_["bar"] = false; // so that cond variable returns false at first try
incoming_message_master_["bar"] = std::string("42"); // so that something can happen
foo("bar", "fiz");
ASSERT_FALSE(something_happened); // cond variable is still waiting at this point
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> time_to_live_lock_(time_to_live_mutex_);
cond_var_status_["bar"] = true; // so that cond variable returns eventually
}
while(!something_happened && timeout > 0) {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(10));
timeout -= 10;
}
ASSERT_TRUE(something_happened); // cond variable is not waiting, should have returned
}
I am trying to create a monitor class to get sum of data[]. In the class, I use a monitor a do the reading/writer working. However, the condition_variable, unique_lock and mutex confuse me. When the data size is not over 56, my code works correctly but with a bigger data size the code fails, and the condition_variable.wait(cond_lock) cannot work when debugging in lldb.
The error: type std::__1::system_error: unique_lock::unlock: not locked:
Operation not permitted
does not help me to understand the problem.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
const int datasize = 58;//*****datasize cannot be bigger than 56*****//
int *data = new int[datasize];
void data_init(){
for (int i = 0; i < datasize; ++i) {
data[i] = random() % datasize + 1;
}
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < datasize; ++i) {
sum += data[i];
}
std::cout << "true answer: " << sum << std::endl;
}
class monitor{
public:
std::mutex the_mutex;//the mutex to lock the function
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> cond_mutex;//trying to use this for condition_variable
std::condition_variable read_to_go, write_to_go;
int active_reader, active_writer, waiting_reader, waiting_writer;
bool write_flag;
void getTask(int Rank, int& task_one, int& task_two, int& second_rank);//**reader**//
void putResult(int Rank, int the_answer, int next_Rank);//**writer**//
explicit monitor(){
write_flag = true;
active_reader = active_writer = waiting_reader = waiting_writer = 0;
}
private:
inline void startRead();
inline void endRead();
inline void startWrite();
inline void endWrite();
};
monitor imonitor;
inline void monitor::startRead() {
the_mutex.lock();//lock the function code
cond_mutex.lock();//updated 1st
while((active_writer + active_reader) > 0){//if there are working reader and writer
waiting_reader++;//add one
read_to_go.wait(cond_mutex);//wait the thread
/*****when debugging with lldb, error appears here*****/
waiting_reader--;//one less reader waiting when notified
}
active_reader++;//one more working reader
the_mutex.unlock();
}
inline void monitor::endRead() {
the_mutex.lock();
active_reader--;//one less reader working
if(active_reader == 0 && waiting_writer > 0){//if there is not any reader working and there are some writer waiting
write_to_go.notify_one();//notify one writer
}//else get out directly
the_mutex.unlock();
}
inline void monitor::startWrite() {
the_mutex.lock();
cond_mutex.lock();//updated 1st
while((active_writer + active_reader) > 0){//if any reader or writer is working
waiting_writer++;//one more writer waiting
write_to_go.wait(cond_mutex);//block this thread
waiting_writer--;//when notfied, the number of waiting writer become less
}
active_writer++;//one more active writer
the_mutex.unlock();//updated 1st
}
inline void monitor::endWrite() {//write is over
the_mutex.lock();
active_writer--;//one less writer working
if(waiting_writer > 0){//if any writer waiting
write_to_go.notify_one();//notify one of them
}
else if(waiting_reader > 0){//if any reader waiting
read_to_go.notify_all();//notify all of them
}
the_mutex.unlock();
}
void monitor::getTask(int Rank, int &task_one, int &task_two, int &second_rank) {
startRead();
task_one = data[Rank];
while(Rank < (datasize - 1) && data[++Rank] == 0);
task_two = data[Rank];
second_rank = Rank;
//std::cout << "the second Rank is " << Rank << std::endl;
endRead();
}
void monitor::putResult(int Rank, int the_answer, int next_Rank) {
startWrite();
data[Rank] = the_answer;
data[next_Rank] = 0;
endWrite();
}
void reducer(int Rank){
//std::cout << "a reducer begins" << Rank << std::endl;
do {
int myTask1, myTask2, secondRank;
imonitor.getTask(Rank, myTask1, myTask2, secondRank);
if(myTask2 == 0) return;
//std::cout << "the second value Rank: " << secondRank << std::endl;
int answer = myTask1 + myTask2;
imonitor.putResult(Rank, answer, secondRank);
}while (true);
}
int main() {
std::cout << "Hello, World!" << std::endl;
data_init();
std::thread Reduce1(reducer, 0);
std::thread Reduce2(reducer, datasize/2);
/*std::thread Reduce3(reducer, 4);
std::thread Reduce4(reducer, 6);
std::thread Reduce5(reducer, 8);
std::thread Reduce6(reducer, 10);
std::thread Reduce7(reducer, 12);
std::thread Reduce8(reducer, 14);*/
Reduce1.join(); //std::cout << "A reducer in" <<std::endl;
Reduce2.join();
/*Reduce3.join();
Reduce4.join();
Reduce5.join();
Reduce6.join();
Reduce7.join();
Reduce8.join();*/
std::cout << data[0] << std::endl;
return 0;
}
My goal used to use 8 threads, but now the code can work with only one thread. Some cout for debugging are left in the code. Thank you for any help!
Updated 1st: I add cond_mutex.lock() in startWrite() and startRead() after the_mutex.lock(). The error in the last line of startWrite about cond_mutex.unlock() is fixed, which is replaced by the_mutex.unlock(). However, the problem is not fixed.
OK, guys. Thanking for your comments, I am inspired to work this problem out.
At the very beginning, I used std::unique_lock<std::mutex> cond_mutex; in the declaration of the monitor class, meaning the default initializer of unique_lock is called.
class monitor{ public: std::mutex the_mutex, assist_lock;/***NOTE HERE***/ std::unique_lock<std::mutex> cond_mutex;/***NOTE HERE***/ std::condition_variable read_to_go, write_to_go; int active_reader, active_writer, waiting_reader, waiting_writer; ...... };
Let us check the header __mutex_base, where the mutex and unique_lock are defined.(begin at line 104)
`template
class _LIBCPP_TEMPLATE_VIS unique_lock
{
public:
typedef _Mutex mutex_type;
private:
mutex_type* _m;
bool _owns;
public:
_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
unique_lock() _NOEXCEPT : _m(nullptr), _owns(false) {}/first and default/
_LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
explicit unique_lock(mutex_type& __m)
: _m(_VSTD::addressof(__m)), _owns(true) {_m->lock();}/second and own an object/
......
};`
Obviously, the first initializer is used instead of second one. __m_ is nullptr.
When the <condition_variable>.wait(cond_mutex); call the lock(), we will find the error information: "unique_lock::lock: references null mutex"(in the header __mutex_base, line 207).
When <unique_lock>.unlock() called, because the lock() does not work the bool __owns_ is false(line 116&211), we will get error information: "unique_lock::unlock: not locked"(line 257).
To fix the problem, we cannot use an all-covered unique_lock cond_mutex, but to initialize cond_mutex each time we want to use startRead() and endStart() with an object the_mutex. In this way, the <unique_lock> cond_mutex(the_mutex) is initialized by the second initializer function, at the same time the_mutex is locked and <unique_lock> cond_mutex owns the_mutex. At the end of
startRead() and endStart(), cond_mutex.unlock() unlocks itself and the_mutex, then the cond_mutex dies and releases the_mutex.
class monitor{
public:
std::mutex the_mutex;
std::condition_variable read_to_go, write_to_go;
int active_reader, active_writer, waiting_reader, waiting_writer;
bool write_flag;
void getTask(int Rank, int& task_one, int& task_two, int& second_rank);//reader
void putResult(int Rank, int the_answer, int next_Rank);//writer
explicit monitor(){
write_flag = true;
active_reader = active_writer = waiting_reader = waiting_writer = 0;
}
private:
inline void startRead();
inline void endRead();
inline void startWrite();
inline void endWrite();
};
inline void monitor::startRead() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> cond_mutex(the_mutex);
while((active_writer + active_reader) > 0){
waiting_reader++;
read_to_go.wait(cond_mutex);
waiting_reader--;
}
active_reader++;
cond_mutex.unlock();
}
inline void monitor::startWrite() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> cond_mutex(the_mutex);
while((active_writer + active_reader) > 0){
waiting_writer++;
write_to_go.wait(cond_mutex);
waiting_writer--;
}
active_writer++;
cond_mutex.unlock();
}
The solution is here, just to replace my a part of original code with the code above. After all, thank everyone who gives comments.
You seem to be writing this:
class write_wins_mutex {
std::condition_variable cv_read;
std::condition_variable cv_write;
std::mutex m;
int readers=0;
int writers=0;
int waiting_writers=0;
int waiting_readers=0;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> internal_lock(){ return std::unique_lock<std::mutex>( m );
public:
void shared_lock() {
auto l = internal_lock();
++waiting_readers;
cv_read.wait(l, [&]{ return !readers && !writers && !waiting_writers; } );
--waiting_readers;
++readers;
}
void lock() {
auto l = internal_lock();
++waiting_writers;
cv_write.wait(l, [&]{ return !readers && !writers; } );
--waiting_writers;
++writers;
}
private:
void notify(){
if (waiting_writers) {
if(!readers) cv_write.notity_one();
}
else if (waiting_readers) cv_read.notify_all();
}
public:
void unlock_shared(){
auto l = internal_lock();
--readers;
notify();
}
void unlock(){
auto l = internal_lock();
--writers;
notify();
}
};
probably has typos; wrote this on phone without compiling it.
But this is a mutex compatible with shared_lock and unique_lock (no try lock (for) but that just means those methods don't work).
In this model, readers are shared, but if any writer shows up it gets priority (even to the level of being able to starve readers)
If you want something less biased, just use shared mutex directly.
I have simple code: first thread pushes std::strings to the std::list, and second thread pops std::strings from this std::list. All std::lists operations are protected with std::mutex m. This code permanently prints error to console: "Error: lst.begin() == lst.end()".
If I replace std::lock_guard with construction m.lock() and m.unlock() the code begins work correctly. What is wrong with std::lock_guard?
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <list>
#include <string>
std::mutex m;
std::list<std::string> lst;
void f2()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 5000; ++i)
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> { m };
lst.push_back(std::to_string(i));
}
m.lock();
lst.push_back("-1"); // last list's element
m.unlock();
}
void f1()
{
std::string str;
while (true)
{
m.lock();
if (!lst.empty())
{
if (lst.begin() == lst.end())
{
std::cerr << "Error: lst.begin() == lst.end()" << std::endl;
}
str = lst.front();
lst.pop_front();
m.unlock();
if (str == "-1")
{
break;
}
}
else
{
m.unlock();
std::this_thread::yield();
}
}
}
// tested in MSVS2017
int main()
{
std::thread tf2{ f2 };
f1();
tf2.join();
}
You did not obey CppCoreGuidelines CP.44: Remember to name your lock_guards and unique_locks :).
In
for (int i = 0; i < 5000; ++i)
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> { m };
lst.push_back(std::to_string(i));
}
you are only creating a temporary std::lock_guard object which is created and destroyed immediately. You need to name the object like in
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lg{ m };
lst.push_back(std::to_string(i));
}
so that the lock guard lives until the end of the block.
And as you already recognized (CppCoreGuidelines):
Use RAII lock guards (lock_guard, unique_lock, shared_lock), never call mutex.lock and mutex.unlock directly (RAII)
If you are using Microsoft Visual Studio, I recommend using the code analysis and activating at least the Microsoft Native Recommended Rules. If you do this you will get a compiler analysis warning.
warning C26441: Guard objects must be named (cp.44).
I need to run some number of threads to process an array of objects.
So I've written this piece of code :
unsigned int object_counter = 0;
while(object_counter != (obj_max - left))
{
thread genThread[thread_num];//create thread objects
///launch threads
int thread_index = 0;
for (; thread_index<thread_num; thread_index++)
{
genThread[thread_index] = thread(object[object_counter].gen_maps());//launch a thread
object_counter++;
if(object_counter == (obj_max - left)
{
break;
}
}
///finish threads
for (; thread_index>0; thread_index--)
{
genThread[thread_index].join();
}
}
Basically, there is an array of objects (number of objects = obj_max - left).
Each object has a function (void type function) called gen_maps() that generates a terrain.
What I want to do is running all gen_maps() functions from all objects using multithreading.
A maximum number of threads is stored in thread_num variable.
But when I'm trying to compile this code I'm getting an error:
error: invalid use of void expression
genThread[thread_index] = thread(object[object_counter].gen_maps(), thread_index);//launch a thread
^
How can I fix this issue?
A more extendable way to manage an arbitrarily large number of jobs with a smaller number of threads is to use a thread pool.
Here's a naive implementation (for better efficiency there would be 2 condition variables to manage control and state reporting) which allows the initiator to add an arbitrary number of jobs or threads and wait for all jobs to be complete.
#include <thread>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <mutex>
#include <vector>
#include <functional>
#include <deque>
#include <cassert>
#include <ciso646>
#include <iostream>
struct work_pool
{
std::mutex control_mutex;
std::condition_variable control_cv;
std::deque<std::function<void()>> jobs;
bool terminating = false;
std::size_t running = 0;
std::vector<std::thread> threads;
work_pool(std::size_t n = std::thread::hardware_concurrency())
{
add_threads(n);
}
work_pool(const work_pool&) = delete;
work_pool& operator=(const work_pool&) = delete;
~work_pool()
{
wait();
shutdown();
}
void add_threads(std::size_t n)
{
while (n--)
{
threads.emplace_back([this]{
run_jobs();
});
}
}
void run_jobs()
{
while (1)
{
auto lock = std::unique_lock(control_mutex);
control_cv.wait(lock, [this] {
return terminating or not jobs.empty();
});
if (terminating) return;
++running;
auto job = std::move(jobs.front());
jobs.pop_front();
lock.unlock();
job();
lock.lock();
--running;
lock.unlock();
control_cv.notify_one();
}
}
void shutdown()
{
auto lock = std::unique_lock(control_mutex);
terminating = true;
lock.unlock();
control_cv.notify_all();
for (auto&& t : threads) {
if (t.joinable()) {
t.join();
}
}
threads.clear();
}
void wait()
{
auto lock = std::unique_lock(control_mutex);
control_cv.wait(lock, [this] {
return jobs.empty() and not running;
});
}
template<class F>
void add_work(F&& f)
{
auto lock = std::unique_lock(control_mutex);
assert(not terminating);
jobs.emplace_back(std::forward<F>(f));
lock.unlock();
control_cv.notify_all();
}
};
// dummy function for exposition
void generate_map() {}
int main()
{
work_pool pool;
for(int i = 0 ; i < 100000 ; ++i)
pool.add_work(generate_map);
pool.wait();
// maps are now all generated
std::cout << "done" << std::endl;
}
With object[object_counter].gen_maps() you call the function gen_maps and use the returned value as the thread function. Apparently gen_maps is declared to return void which leads to the error you get.
You need to pass a pointer to the function, and then pass the object it should be called on as an argument to the thread:
thread(&SomeClass::gen_maps, object[object_counter])