I am creating a multiple threads program and several threads may need to call a global function
writeLog(const char* pMsg);
and the writeLog will be implemented something like tihs:
void writeLog(const char* pMsg)
{
CRITICAL_SECTION cs;
// initialize critical section
...
EnterCriticalSection(&cs);
// g_pLogFilePath is a global variable.
FILE *file;
if (0!=fopen_s(&file, g_pLogFilePath, "r+"))
return;
fprintf(file, pMsg);
fclose(file):
LeaveCriticalSection(&cs);
}
My questions are:
1) is it the best way to do concurrent logging? i.e., using critical section.
2) since I will write log in many places in the threads,
and since each log writing will involve open/close file,
does the io will impact the performance significantly?
Thanks!
The best way to do concurrent logging is to use one of the existing log library for C++.
They have many features you would probably like to use (different appenders, formatting, concurrency etc).
If you still want to have your own solution you could probably have something like this:
simple singleton that initialized once and keeps the state (file handler and mutex)
class Log
{
public:
// Singleton
static Log & getLog()
{
static Log theLog;
return theLog;
}
void log(const std::string & message)
{
// synchronous writing here
}
private:
// Hidden ctor
Log()
{
// open file ONCE here
}
// Synchronisation primitive - instance variable
// CRITICAL_SECTION or Boost mutex (preferable)
CRITICAL_SECTION cs_;
// File handler: FILE * or std::ofstream
FILE * handler_;
};
To answer your questions:
Yes, a critical section is indeed needed for concurrent logging.
Yes, logging may indeed affect performance.
As mentioned in the comments, the object used to "protect" the critical section must be accessible by all threads, such as a global variable or singleton.
Regarding the logging performance, IO can be costly. One common approach is to have a logging object that buffers the messages to be logged, and only writes when the buffer is full. This will help with the performance. Additionally, consider having several log levels: DEBUG, INFO, WARNING, ERROR.
A CS is a reasonable way to protect the logging, yes. To avoid inflicting the open/write/close upon every call from every thread, it's common to queue off the string, (if not already malloced/newed, you may need to copy it), to a separate log thread. Blocking disk delays are then buffered from the logging calls. Any lazy-writing etc. optimizations can be implemented in the log thread.
Alternatively, as suggested by the other posters, just use a logging framework that has all this stuff already implemented.
I was writing an answer, then a circuit breaker tripped. Since my answer is still in draft I may as well continue. Much the same as the answer that provides a singleton class, but I do it a little more C-like. This is all in a separate source file (Logging.cpp for example).
static CRITICAL_SECTION csLogMutex;
static FILE *fpFile = NULL;
static bool bInit = false;
bool InitLog( const char *filename )
{
if( bInit ) return false;
bInit = true;
fpFile = fopen( filename, "at" );
InitializeCriticalSection(&csLogMutex);
return fpFile != NULL;
}
void ShutdownLog()
{
if( !bInit ) return;
if( fpFile ) fclose(fpFile);
DeleteCriticalSection(&csLogMutex);
fpFile = NULL;
bInit = false;
}
Those are called in your application entry/exit... As for logging, I prefer to use variable argument lists so I can do printf-style logging.
void writeLog(const char* pMsg, ...)
{
if( fpFile == NULL ) return;
EnterCriticalSection(&csLogMutex);
// You can write a timestamp into the file here if you like.
va_list ap;
va_start(ap, pMsg);
vfprintf( fpFile, pMsg, ap );
fprintf( fpFile, "\n" ); // I hate supplying newlines to log functions!
va_end(ap);
LeaveCriticalSection(&csLogMutex);
}
If you plan to do logging within DLLs, you can't use this static approach. Instead you'll need to open the file with _fsopen and deny read/write sharing.
You may wish to periodically call fflush too, if you expect your application to crash. Or you'll have to call it every time if you want to externally monitor the log in realtime.
Yes, there's a performance impact from critical sections but it's nothing compared to the performance cost of writing to files. You can enter critical sections many thousands of times per second without a worry.
Related
I have a routine that is meant to load and parse data from a file. There is a possibility that the data from the same file might need to be retrieved from two places at once, i.e. during a background caching process and from a user request.
Specifically I am using C++11 thread and mutex libraries. We compile with Visual C++ 11 (aka 2012), so are limited by whatever it lacks.
My naive implementation went something like this:
map<wstring,weak_ptr<DataStruct>> data_cache;
mutex data_cache_mutex;
shared_ptr<DataStruct> ParseDataFile(wstring file_path) {
auto data_ptr = make_shared<DataStruct>();
/* Parses and processes the data, may take a while */
return data_ptr;
}
shared_ptr<DataStruct> CreateStructFromData(wstring file_path) {
lock_guard<mutex> lock(data_cache_mutex);
auto cache_iter = data_cache.find(file_path);
if (cache_iter != end(data_cache)) {
auto data_ptr = cache_iter->second.lock();
if (data_ptr)
return data_ptr;
// reference died, remove it
data_cache.erase(cache_iter);
}
auto data_ptr = ParseDataFile(file_path);
if (data_ptr)
data_cache.emplace(make_pair(file_path, data_ptr));
return data_ptr;
}
My goals were two-fold:
Allow multiple threads to load separate files concurrently
Ensure that a file is only processed once
The problem with my current approach is that it doesn't allow concurrent parsing of multiple files at all. If I understand what will happen correctly, they're each going to hit the lock and end up processing linearly, one thread at a time. It may change from run to run the order which the threads pass through the lock first, but the end result is the same.
One solution I've considered was to create a second map:
map<wstring,mutex> data_parsing_mutex;
shared_ptr<DataStruct> ParseDataFile(wstring file_path) {
lock_guard<mutex> lock(data_parsing_mutex[file_path]);
/* etc. */
data_parsing_mutex.erase(file_path);
}
But now I have to be concerned with how data_parsing_mutex is being updated. So I guess I need another mutex?
map<wstring,mutex> data_parsing_mutex;
mutex data_parsing_mutex_mutex;
shared_ptr<DataStruct> ParseDataFile(wstring file_path) {
unique_lock<mutex> super_lock(data_parsing_mutex_mutex);
lock_guard<mutex> lock(data_parsing_mutex[file_path]);
super_lock.unlock();
/* etc. */
super_lock.lock();
data_parsing_mutex.erase(file_path);
}
In fact, looking at this, it's not going to avoid necessarily double-processing a file if it hasn't been completed by the background process when the user requests it, unless I check the cache yet again.
But by now my spidey senses are saying There must be a better way. Is there? Would futures, promises, or atomics help me at all here?
From what you described, it sounds like you're trying to do a form of lazy initialization of the DataStruct using a thread pool, along with a reference counted cache. std::async should be able to provide a lot of the dispatch and synchronization necessary for something like this.
Using std::async, the code would look something like this...
map<wstring,weak_ptr<DataStruct>> cache;
map<wstring,shared_future<shared_ptr<DataStruct>>> pending;
mutex cache_mutex, pending_mutex;
shared_ptr<DataStruct> ParseDataFromFile(wstring file) {
auto data_ptr = make_shared<DataStruct>();
/* Parses and processes the data, may take a while */
return data_ptr;
}
shared_ptr<DataStruct> CreateStructFromData(wstring file) {
shared_future<weak_ptr<DataStruct>> pf;
shared_ptr<DataStruct> ce;
{
lock_guard(cache_mutex);
auto ci = cache.find(file);
if (!(ci == cache.end() || ci->second.expired()))
return ci->second.lock();
}
{
lock_guard(pending_mutex);
auto fi = pending.find(file);
if (fi == pending.end() || fi.second.get().expired()) {
pf = async(ParseDataFromFile, file).share();
pending.insert(fi, make_pair(file, pf));
} else {
pf = pi->second;
}
}
pf.wait();
ce = pf.get();
{
lock_guard(cache_mutex);
auto ci = cache.find(file);
if (ci == cache.end() || ci->second.expired())
cache.insert(ci, make_pair(file, ce));
}
{
lock_guard(pending_mutex);
auto pi = pending.find(file);
if (pi != pending.end())
pending.erase(pi);
}
return ce;
}
This can probably be optimized a bit, but the general idea should be the same.
On a typical computer there is little point in trying to load files concurrently, since disk access will be the bottleneck. Instead, it's better to have a single thread load files (or use asynchronous I/O) and dish out the parsing to a thread pool. Then store the results in a shared container.
Regarding preventing double work, you should consider if this is really necessary. If you are only doing this out of premature optimization, you'd probably make users happier by focussing on making the program responsive, rather than efficient. That is, make sure the user gets what they ask for quickly, even if it means doing double work.
OTOH, if there is a technical reason for not parsing a file twice, you can keep track of the status of each file (loading, parsing, parsed) in the shared container.
I need a C++ wrapper class which can read/write/seek data synchronously from a Windows 8/WP8 Storage file (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/apps/br227171):
class FileWrapper
{
public:
FileWrapper(StorageFile^ file); // IRandomAccessStream or IInputStream
// are fine as input arguments too
byte* readBytes(int bytesToRead, int &bytesGot);
bool writeBytes(byte* data, int size);
bool seek(int position);
}
The data should be read from the file on-the-fly. It should not be cached in memory and the storage file should not be copied into the app's directory where it would be accssible with standard fopen and ifstream functions.
I tried to figure out how to do this (including the Microsoft file access sample code: http://code.msdn.microsoft.com/windowsapps/File-access-sample-d723e597) but I am stuck with the asynchronous access of each operation. Has someone hints how to achieve this? Or is there even built in functionality?
Regards,
Typically you wrap the async operations with the create_task() method and you can wait for the task's execution to complete by calling task.get() to achieve synchronicity, but IIRC this doesn't work for file access because the operations might try to return on the same thread they were executed on and if you're blocking that thread - you end up with a deadlock. I don't have time to try this, but maybe if you start on another thread - you could wait on your thread for completion like this, though it might still deadlock:
auto createTaskTask = create_task([]()
{
return create_task(FileIO::ReadTextAsync(file));
}
auto readFileTask = createTaskTask.get();
try
{
String^ fileContent = readFileTask.get();
}
catch(Exception^ ex)
{
...
}
I'm writing a multi-threaded game engine, and I'm wondering about best practices around waiting for threads. It occurs to me that there could be much better options out there than what I've implemented, so I'm wondering what you guys think.
Option A) "wait()" method gets called at the top of every other method in the class. This is my current implementation, and I'm realizing it's not ideal.
class Texture {
public:
Texture(const char *filename, bool async = true);
~Texture();
void Render();
private:
SDL_Thread *thread;
const char *filename;
void wait();
static int load(void *data);
}
void Texture::wait() {
if (thread != NULL) {
SDL_WaitThread(thread, NULL);
thread = NULL;
}
}
int Texture::load(void *data) {
Texture *self = static_cast<Texture *>(data);
// Load the Image Data in the Thread Here...
return 0;
}
Texture::Texture(const char *filename, bool async) {
this->filename = filename;
if (async) {
thread = SDL_CreateThread(load, NULL, this);
} else {
thread = NULL;
load(this);
}
}
Texture::~Texture() {
// Unload the Thread and Texture Here
}
void Texture::Render() {
wait();
// Render the Texture Here
}
Option B) Convert the "wait()" method in to a function pointer. This would save my program from a jmp at the top of every other method, and simply check for "thread != NULL" at the top of every method. Still not ideal, but I feel like the less jumps, the better. (I've also considered just using the "inline" keyword on the function... but would this include the entire contents of the wait function when all I really need is the "if (thread != NULL)" check to determine whether the rest of the code should be executed or not?)
Option C) Convert all of the class' methods in to function pointers, and ditch the whole concept of calling "wait()" except while actually loading the texture. I see advantages and disadvantages to this approach... namely, this feels the most difficult to implement and keep track of. Admittedly, my knowledge of the inner workings on GCC's optimizations and assembly and especially memory->cpu->memory communication isn't the best, so using a bunch of function pointers might actually be slower than a properly defined class.
Anyone have any even better ideas?
Best practice is often not reinventing the wheel :D
You might want to take a look at std::thread library, if you have a compiler that supports C++11. Everything you need is already implemented and made as safe as possible (which is not really safe considering the topic).
In particular, your wait() function is implemented by std::condition_variable.
Boost thread library offers pretty much the same functionality.
I don't know about the library you're using sorry :D
Some C++ library I'm working on features a simple tracing mechanism which can be activated to generate log files showing which functions were called and what arguments were passed. It basically boils down to a TRACE macro being spilled all over the source of the library, and the macro expands to something like this:
typedef void(*TraceProc)( const char *msg );
/* Sets 'callback' to point to the trace procedure which actually prints the given
* message to some output channel, or to a null trace procedure which is a no-op when
* case the given source file/line position was disabled by the client.
*
* This function also registers the callback pointer in an internal data structure
* and resets it to zero in case the filtering configuration changed since the last
* invocation of updateTraceCallback.
*/
void updateTraceCallback( TraceProc *callback, const char *file, unsinged int lineno );
#define TRACE(msg) \
{ \
static TraceProc traceCallback = 0; \
if ( !traceCallback ) \
updateTraceCallback( &traceCallback, __FILE__, __LINE__ ); \
traceCallback( msg ); \
}
The idea is that people can just say TRACE("foo hit") in their code and that will either
call a debug printing function or it will be a no-op. They can use some other API (which is not shown here) to configure that only TRACE uses in locations (source file/line number) should be printed. This configuration can change at runtime.
The issue with this is that this idea should now be used in a multi-threaded code base. Hence, the code which TRACE expands to needs to work correctly in the face of multiple threads of execution running the code simultaneously. There are about 20.000 different trace points in the code base right now and they are hit very often, so they should be rather efficient
What is the most efficient way to make this approach thread safe? I need a solution for Windows (XP and newer) and Linux. I'm afraid of doing excessive locking just to check whether the filter configuration changed (99% of the time a trace point is hit, the configuration didn't change). I'm open to larger changes to the macro, too. So instead of discussing mutex vs. critical section performance, it would also be acceptable if the macro just sent an event to an event loop in a different thread (assuming that accessing the event loop is thread safe) and all the processing happens in the same thread, so it's synchronized using the event loop.
UPDATE: I can probably simplify this question to:
If I have one thread reading a pointer, and another thread which might write to the variable (but 99% of the time it doesn't), how can I avoid that the reading thread needs to lock all the time?
You could implement a configuration file version variable. When your program starts it is set to 0. The macro can hold a static int that is the last config version it saw. Then a simple atomic comparison between the last seen and the current config version will tell you if you need to do a full lock and re-call updateTraceCallback();.
That way, 99% of the time you'll only add an extra atomic op, or memory barrier or something simmilar, which is very cheap. 1% of the time, just do the full mutex thing, it shouldn't affect your performance in any noticeable way, if its only 1% of the time.
Edit:
Some .h file:
extern long trace_version;
Some .cpp file:
long trace_version = 0;
The macro:
#define TRACE(msg)
{
static long __lastSeenVersion = -1;
static TraceProc traceCallback = 0;
if ( !traceCallback || __lastSeenVersion != trace_version )
updateTraceCallback( &traceCallback, &__lastSeenVersion, __FILE__, __LINE__ );
traceCallback( msg );
}
The functions for incrementing a version and updates:
static long oldVersionRefcount = 0;
static long curVersionRefCount = 0;
void updateTraceCallback( TraceProc *callback, long &version, const char *file, unsinged int lineno ) {
if ( version != trace_version ) {
if ( InterlockedDecrement( oldVersionRefcount ) == 0 ) {
//....free resources.....
//...no mutex needed, since no one is using this,,,
}
//....aquire mutex and do stuff....
InterlockedIncrement( curVersionRefCount );
*version = trace_version;
//...release mutex...
}
}
void setNewTraceCallback( TraceProc *callback ) {
//...aquire mutex...
trace_version++; // No locks, mutexes or anything, this is atomic by itself.
while ( oldVersionRefcount != 0 ) { //..sleep? }
InterlockedExchange( &oldVersionRefcount, curVersionRefCount );
curVersionRefCount = 0;
//.... and so on...
//...release mutex...
Of course, this is very simplified, since if you need to upgrade the version and the oldVersionRefCount > 0, then you're in trouble; how to solve this is up to you, since it really depends on your problem. My guess is that in those situations, you could simply wait until the ref count is zero, since the amount of time that the ref count is incremented should be the time it takes to run the macro.
I still don't fully understand the question, so please correct me on anything I didn't get.
(I'm leaving out the backslashes.)
#define TRACE(msg)
{
static TraceProc traceCallback = NULL;
TraceProc localTraceCallback;
localTraceCallback = traceCallback;
if (!localTraceCallback)
{
updateTraceBallback(&localTraceCallback, __FILE__, __LINE__);
// If two threads are running this at the same time
// one of them will update traceCallback and get it overwritten
// by the other. This isn't a big deal.
traceCallback = localTraceCallback;
}
// Now there's no way localTraceCallback can be null.
// An issue here is if in the middle of this executing
// traceCallback gets null'ed. But you haven't specified any
// restrictions about this either, so I'm assuming it isn't a problem.
localTraceCallback(msg);
}
Your comment says "resets it to zero in case the filtering configuration changes at runtime" but am I correct in reading that as "resets it to zero when the filtering configuration changes"?
Without knowing exactly how updateTraceCallback implements its data structure, or what other data it's referring to in order to decide when to reset the callbacks (or indeed to set them in the first place), it's impossible to judge what would be safe. A similar problem applies to knowing what traceCallback does - if it accesses a shared output destination, for example.
Given these limitations the only safe recommendation that doesn't require reworking other code is to stick a mutex around the whole lot (or preferably a critical section on Windows).
I'm afraid of doing excessive locking just to check whether the filter configuration changed (99% of the time a trace point is hit, the configuration didn't change). I'm open to larger changes to the macro, too. So instead of discussing mutex vs. critical section performance, it would also be acceptable if the macro just sent an event to an event loop in a different thread (assuming that accessing the event loop is thread safe)
How do you think thread safe messaging between threads is implemented without locks?
Anyway, here's a design that might work:
The data structure that holds the filter must be changed so that it is allocated dynamically from the heap because we are going to be creating multiple instances of filters. Also, it's going to need a reference count added to it. You need a typedef something like:
typedef struct Filter
{
unsigned int refCount;
// all the other filter data
} Filter;
There's a singleton 'current filter' declared somewhere.
static Filter* currentFilter;
and initialised with some default settings.
In your TRACE macro:
#define TRACE(char* msg)
{
static Filter* filter = NULL;
static TraceProc traceCallback = NULL;
if (filterOutOfDate(filter))
{
getNewCallback(__FILE__, __LINE__, &traceCallback, &filter);
}
traceCallback(msg);
}
filterOutOfDate() merely compares the filter with currentFilter to see if it is the same. It should be enough to just compare addresses. It does no locking.
getNewCallback() applies the current filter to get the new trace function and updates the filter passed in with the address of the current filter. It's implementation must be protected with a mutex lock. Also, it decremetns the refCount of the original filter and increments the refCount of the new filter. This is so we know when we can free the old filter.
void getNewCallback(const char* file, int line, TraceProc* newCallback, Filter** filter)
{
// MUTEX lock
newCallback = // whatever you need to do
currentFilter->refCount++;
if (*filter != NULL)
{
*filter->refCount--;
if (*filter->refCount == 0)
{
// free filter and associated resources
}
}
*filter = currentFilter;
// MUTEX unlock
}
When you want to change the filter, you do something like
changeFilter()
{
Filter* newFilter = // build a new filter
newFilter->refCount = 0;
// MUTEX lock (same mutex as above)
currentFilter = newFilter;
// MUTEX unlock
}
If I have one thread reading a pointer, and another thread which might write to the variable (but 99% of the time it doesn't), how can I avoid that the reading thread needs to lock all the time?
From your code, it is OK to use the mutex inside the updateTraceCallback() since it is going to be called very rarely (once per location). After taking the mutex, check whether the traceCallback is already initialized: if yes, then other thread just did it for you and there is nothing to be done.
If updateTraceCallback() would turn out to be a serious performance problem due to the collisions on the global mutex, then you can simply make an array of mutexes instead and use hashed value of the traceCallback pointer as an index into the mutex array. That would spread locking over many mutexes and minimize number of collisions.
#define TRACE(msg) \
{ \
static TraceProc traceCallback = \
updateTraceBallback( &traceCallback, __FILE__, __LINE__ ); \
traceCallback( msg ); \
}
I have a huge global array of structures. Some regions of the array are tied to individual threads and those threads can modify their regions of the array without having to use critical sections. But there is one special region of the array which all threads may have access to. The code that accesses these parts of the array needs to carefully use critical sections (each array element has its own critical section) to prevent any possibility of two threads writing to the structure simultaneously.
Now I have a mysterious bug I am trying to chase, it is occurring unpredictably and very infrequently. It seems that one of the structures is being filled with some incorrect number. One obvious explanation is that another thread has accidentally been allowed to set this number when it should be excluded from doing so.
Unfortunately it seems close to impossible to track this bug. The array element in which the bad data appears is different each time. What I would love to be able to do is set some kind of trap for the bug as follows: I would enter a critical section for array element N, then I know that no other thread should be able to touch the data, then (until I exit the critical section) set some kind of flag to a debugging tool saying "if any other thread attempts to change the data here please break and show me the offending patch of source code"... but I suspect no such tool exists... or does it? Or is there some completely different debugging methodology that I should be employing.
How about wrapping your data with a transparent mutexed class? Then you could apply additional lock state checking.
class critical_section;
template < class T >
class element_wrapper
{
public:
element_wrapper(const T& v) : val(v) {}
element_wrapper() {}
const element_wrapper& operator = (const T& v) {
#ifdef _DEBUG_CONCURRENCY
if(!cs->is_locked())
_CrtDebugBreak();
#endif
val = v;
return *this;
}
operator T() { return val; }
critical_section* cs;
private:
T val;
};
As for critical section implementation:
class critical_section
{
public:
critical_section() : locked(FALSE) {
::InitializeCriticalSection(&cs);
}
~critical_section() {
_ASSERT(!locked);
::DeleteCriticalSection(&cs);
}
void lock() {
::EnterCriticalSection(&cs);
locked = TRUE;
}
void unlock() {
locked = FALSE;
::LeaveCriticalSection(&cs);
}
BOOL is_locked() {
return locked;
}
private:
CRITICAL_SECTION cs;
BOOL locked;
};
Actually, instead of custom critical_section::locked flag, one could use ::TryEnterCriticalSection (followed by ::LeaveCriticalSection if it succeeds) to determine if a critical section is owned. Though, the implementation above is almost as good.
So the appropriate usage would be:
typedef std::vector< element_wrapper<int> > cont_t;
void change(cont_t::reference x) { x.lock(); x = 1; x.unlock(); }
int main()
{
cont_t container(10, 0);
std::for_each(container.begin(), container.end(), &change);
}
I know two ways to handle such errors:
1) Read the code again and again, looking for possible errors. I can think about two errors that can cause this: unsynchronized access or writing by incorrect memory address. Maybe you have more ideas.
2) Logging, logging an logging. Add lot of optional traces (OutputDebugString or log file), in every critical place, which contain enough information - indexes, variable values etc. It is a good idea to add this tracing with some #ifdef. Reproduce the bug and try to understand from the log, what happens.
Your best (fastest) bet is still to revise the mutex code. As you said, it is the obvious explanation - why not trying to really find the explanation (by logic) instead of additional hints (by coding) that may come out inconclusive? If the code review doesn't turn out something useful you may still take the mutex code and use it for a test run. The first try should not be to reproduce the bug in your system but to ensure correct implementation of the mutex - implement threads (start from 2 upwards) that all try to access the same data structure again and again with a random small delay in each of them to have them jitter around on the time line. If this test results in a buggy mutex which you simply can't identify in the code then you have fallen victim to some architecture dependant effect (maybe intstruction reordering, multi-core cache incoherency, etc.) and need to find another mutex implementation. If OTOH you find an obvious bug in the mutex, try to exploit it in your real system (instrument your code so that the error should appear much more often) so that you can ensure that it really is the cause of your original problem.
I was thinking about this while pedaling to work. One possible way of handling this is to make portions of the memory in question be read-only when it is not actively being accessed and protected via critical section ownership. This is assuming that the problem is caused by a thread writing to the memory when it does not own the appropriate critical section.
There are quite a few limitations to this that prevent it from working. Most importantly is the fact that I think you can only set privileges on a page by page basis (4K I believe). So that would likely require some very specific changes to your allocation scheme so that you could narrow down the appropriate section to protect. The second problem is that it would not catch the rogue thread writing to the memory if another thread actively owned the critical section. But it would catch it and cause an immediate access violation if the critical section was not owned.
The idea would be to do to change your EnterCriticalSection calls to:
EnterCriticalSection()
VirtualProtect( … PAGE_READWRITE … );
And change the LeaveCriticalSection calls to:
VirtualProtect( … PAGE_READONLY … );
LeaveCriticalSection()
The following chunk of code shows a call to VirtualProtect
int main( int argc, char* argv[] 1
{
unsigned char *mem;
int i;
DWORD dwOld;
// this assume 4K page size
mem = malloc( 4096 * 10 );
for ( i = 0; i < 10; i++ )
mem[i * 4096] = i;
// set the second page to be readonly. The allocation from malloc is
// not necessarily on a page boundary, but this will definitely be in
// the second page.
printf( "VirtualProtect res = %d\n",
VirtualProtect( mem + 4096,
1, // ends up setting entire page
PAGE_READONLY, &dwOld ));
// can still read it
for ( i = 1; i < 10; i++ )
printf( "%d ", mem[i*4096] );
printf( "\n" );
// Can write to all but the second page
for ( i = 0; i < 10; i++ )
if ( i != 1 ) // avoid second page which we made readonly
mem[i] = 1;
// this causes an access violation
mem[4096] = 1;
}