I am trying to create a limited thread pool class using boost::asio. But I am stuck at one point can some one help me.
The only problem is the place where I should decrease counter?
code does not work as expected.
the problem is I don't know when my thread will finish execution and how I will come to know that it has return to pool
#include <boost/asio.hpp>
#include <iostream>
#include <boost/thread/thread.hpp>
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
#include <boost/thread/mutex.hpp>
#include <stack>
using namespace std;
using namespace boost;
class ThreadPool
{
static int count;
int NoOfThread;
thread_group grp;
mutex mutex_;
asio::io_service io_service;
int counter;
stack<thread*> thStk ;
public:
ThreadPool(int num)
{
NoOfThread = num;
counter = 0;
mutex::scoped_lock lock(mutex_);
if(count == 0)
count++;
else
return;
for(int i=0 ; i<num ; ++i)
{
thStk.push(grp.create_thread(boost::bind(&asio::io_service::run, &io_service)));
}
}
~ThreadPool()
{
io_service.stop();
grp.join_all();
}
thread* getThread()
{
if(counter > NoOfThread)
{
cout<<"run out of threads \n";
return NULL;
}
counter++;
thread* ptr = thStk.top();
thStk.pop();
return ptr;
}
};
int ThreadPool::count = 0;
struct callable
{
void operator()()
{
cout<<"some task for thread \n";
}
};
int main( int argc, char * argv[] )
{
callable x;
ThreadPool pool(10);
thread* p = pool.getThread();
cout<<p->get_id();
//how i can assign some function to thread pointer ?
//how i can return thread pointer after work done so i can add
//it back to stack?
return 0;
}
In short, you need to wrap the user's provided task with another function that will:
Invoke the user function or callable object.
Lock the mutex and decrement the counter.
I may not be understanding all the requirements for this thread pool. Thus, for clarity, here is an explicit list as to what I believe are the requirements:
The pool manages the lifetime of the threads. The user should not be able to delete threads that reside within the pool.
The user can assign a task to the pool in a non-intrusive way.
When a task is being assigned, if all threads in the pool are currently running other tasks, then the task is discarded.
Before I provide an implementation, there are a few key points I would like to stress:
Once a thread has been launched, it will run until completion, cancellation, or termination. The function the thread is executing cannot be reassigned. To allow for a single thread to execute multiple functions over the course of its life, the thread will want to launch with a function that will read from a queue, such as io_service::run(), and callable types are posted into the event queue, such as from io_service::post().
io_service::run() returns if there is no work pending in the io_service, the io_service is stopped, or an exception is thrown from a handler that the thread was running. To prevent io_serivce::run() from returning when there is no unfinished work, the io_service::work class can be used.
Defining the task's type requirements (i.e. the task's type must be callable by object() syntax) instead of requiring a type (i.e. task must inherit from process), provides more flexibility to the user. It allows the user to supply a task as a function pointer or a type providing a nullary operator().
Implementation using boost::asio:
#include <boost/asio.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
class thread_pool
{
private:
boost::asio::io_service io_service_;
boost::asio::io_service::work work_;
boost::thread_group threads_;
std::size_t available_;
boost::mutex mutex_;
public:
/// #brief Constructor.
thread_pool( std::size_t pool_size )
: work_( io_service_ ),
available_( pool_size )
{
for ( std::size_t i = 0; i < pool_size; ++i )
{
threads_.create_thread( boost::bind( &boost::asio::io_service::run,
&io_service_ ) );
}
}
/// #brief Destructor.
~thread_pool()
{
// Force all threads to return from io_service::run().
io_service_.stop();
// Suppress all exceptions.
try
{
threads_.join_all();
}
catch ( const std::exception& ) {}
}
/// #brief Adds a task to the thread pool if a thread is currently available.
template < typename Task >
void run_task( Task task )
{
boost::unique_lock< boost::mutex > lock( mutex_ );
// If no threads are available, then return.
if ( 0 == available_ ) return;
// Decrement count, indicating thread is no longer available.
--available_;
// Post a wrapped task into the queue.
io_service_.post( boost::bind( &thread_pool::wrap_task, this,
boost::function< void() >( task ) ) );
}
private:
/// #brief Wrap a task so that the available count can be increased once
/// the user provided task has completed.
void wrap_task( boost::function< void() > task )
{
// Run the user supplied task.
try
{
task();
}
// Suppress all exceptions.
catch ( const std::exception& ) {}
// Task has finished, so increment count of available threads.
boost::unique_lock< boost::mutex > lock( mutex_ );
++available_;
}
};
A few comments about the implementation:
Exception handling needs to occur around the user's task. If the user's function or callable object throws an exception that is not of type boost::thread_interrupted, then std::terminate() is called. This is the the result of Boost.Thread's exceptions in thread functions behavior. It is also worth reading Boost.Asio's effect of exceptions thrown from handlers.
If the user provides the task via boost::bind, then the nested boost::bind will fail to compile. One of the following options is required:
Not support task created by boost::bind.
Meta-programming to perform compile-time branching based on whether or not the user's type if the result of boost::bind so that boost::protect could be used, as boost::protect only functions properly on certain function objects.
Use another type to pass the task object indirectly. I opted to use boost::function for readability at the cost of losing the exact type. boost::tuple, while slightly less readable, could also be used to preserve the exact type, as seen in the Boost.Asio's serialization example.
Application code can now use the thread_pool type non-intrusively:
void work() {};
struct worker
{
void operator()() {};
};
void more_work( int ) {};
int main()
{
thread_pool pool( 2 );
pool.run_task( work ); // Function pointer.
pool.run_task( worker() ); // Callable object.
pool.run_task( boost::bind( more_work, 5 ) ); // Callable object.
}
The thread_pool could be created without Boost.Asio, and may be slightly easier for maintainers, as they no longer need to know about Boost.Asio behaviors, such as when does io_service::run() return, and what is the io_service::work object:
#include <queue>
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
class thread_pool
{
private:
std::queue< boost::function< void() > > tasks_;
boost::thread_group threads_;
std::size_t available_;
boost::mutex mutex_;
boost::condition_variable condition_;
bool running_;
public:
/// #brief Constructor.
thread_pool( std::size_t pool_size )
: available_( pool_size ),
running_( true )
{
for ( std::size_t i = 0; i < pool_size; ++i )
{
threads_.create_thread( boost::bind( &thread_pool::pool_main, this ) ) ;
}
}
/// #brief Destructor.
~thread_pool()
{
// Set running flag to false then notify all threads.
{
boost::unique_lock< boost::mutex > lock( mutex_ );
running_ = false;
condition_.notify_all();
}
try
{
threads_.join_all();
}
// Suppress all exceptions.
catch ( const std::exception& ) {}
}
/// #brief Add task to the thread pool if a thread is currently available.
template < typename Task >
void run_task( Task task )
{
boost::unique_lock< boost::mutex > lock( mutex_ );
// If no threads are available, then return.
if ( 0 == available_ ) return;
// Decrement count, indicating thread is no longer available.
--available_;
// Set task and signal condition variable so that a worker thread will
// wake up andl use the task.
tasks_.push( boost::function< void() >( task ) );
condition_.notify_one();
}
private:
/// #brief Entry point for pool threads.
void pool_main()
{
while( running_ )
{
// Wait on condition variable while the task is empty and the pool is
// still running.
boost::unique_lock< boost::mutex > lock( mutex_ );
while ( tasks_.empty() && running_ )
{
condition_.wait( lock );
}
// If pool is no longer running, break out.
if ( !running_ ) break;
// Copy task locally and remove from the queue. This is done within
// its own scope so that the task object is destructed immediately
// after running the task. This is useful in the event that the
// function contains shared_ptr arguments bound via bind.
{
boost::function< void() > task = tasks_.front();
tasks_.pop();
lock.unlock();
// Run the task.
try
{
task();
}
// Suppress all exceptions.
catch ( const std::exception& ) {}
}
// Task has finished, so increment count of available threads.
lock.lock();
++available_;
} // while running_
}
};
Related
I am trying to write a ThreadPool class
class ThreadPool {
public:
ThreadPool(size_t numberOfThreads):isAlive(true) {
for(int i =0; i < numberOfThreads; i++) {
workerThreads.push_back(std::thread(&ThreadPool::doJob, this));
}
#ifdef DEBUG
std::cout<<"Construction Complete"<<std::endl;
#endif
}
~ThreadPool() {
#ifdef DEBUG
std::cout<<"Destruction Start"<<std::endl;
#endif
isAlive = false;
conditionVariable.notify_all();
waitForExecution();
#ifdef DEBUG
std::cout<<"Destruction Complete"<<std::endl;
#endif
}
void waitForExecution() {
for(std::thread& worker: workerThreads) {
worker.join();
}
}
void addWork(std::function<void()> job) {
#ifdef DEBUG
std::cout<<"Adding work"<<std::endl;
#endif
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(lockListMutex);
jobQueue.push_back(job);
conditionVariable.notify_one();
}
private:
// performs actual work
void doJob() {
// try {
while(isAlive) {
#ifdef DEBUG
std::cout<<"Do Job"<<std::endl;
#endif
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(lockListMutex);
if(!jobQueue.empty()) {
#ifdef DEBUG
std::cout<<"Next Job Found"<<std::endl;
#endif
std::function<void()> job = jobQueue.front();
jobQueue.pop_front();
job();
}
conditionVariable.wait(lock);
}
}
// a vector containing worker threads
std::vector<std::thread> workerThreads;
// a queue for jobs
std::list<std::function<void()>> jobQueue;
// a mutex for synchronized insertion and deletion from list
std::mutex lockListMutex;
std::atomic<bool> isAlive;
// condition variable to track whether or not there is a job in queue
std::condition_variable conditionVariable;
};
I am adding work to this thread pool from my main thread. My problem is calling waitForExecution() results in forever waiting main thread. I need to be able to terminate threads when all work is done and continue main thread execution from there. How should I proceed here?
The first step when writing a robust thread pool is to split the queue from the management of threads. A thread-safe queue is hard enough to write by its own, and managing threads similarly.
A thread safe queue looks like:
template<class T>
struct threadsafe_queue {
boost::optional<T> pop() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(m);
cv.wait(l, [&]{ aborted || !data.empty(); } );
if (aborted) return {};
return data.pop_front();
}
void push( T t )
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(m);
if (aborted) return;
data.push_front( std::move(t) );
cv.notify_one();
}
void abort()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(m);
aborted = true;
data = {};
cv.notify_all();
}
~threadsafe_queue() { abort(); }
private:
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
std::queue< T > data;
bool aborted = false;
};
where pop returns nullopt when the queue is aborted.
Now our thread pool is easy:
struct threadpool {
explicit threadpool(std::size_t n) { add_threads(n); }
threadpool() = default;
~threadpool(){ abort(); }
void add_thread() { add_threads(1); }
void add_threads(std::size_t n)
{
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < n; ++i)
threads.push_back( std::thread( [this]{ do_thread_work(); } ) );
}
template<class F>
auto add_task( F && f )
{
using R = std::result_of_t< F&() >;
auto pptr = std::make_shared<std::promise<R>>();
auto future = pptr.get_future();
tasks.push([pptr]{ (*pptr)(); });
return future;
}
void abort()
{
tasks.abort();
while (!threads.empty()) {
threads.back().join();
threads.pop_back();
}
}
private:
threadsafe_queue< std::function<void()> > tasks;
std::vector< std::thread > threads;
void do_thread_work() {
while (auto f = tasks.pop()) {
(*f)();
}
}
};
note that if you abort, outstanding future's are filled with a broken promise exception.
Worker threads stop running when the queue they are feeding from is aborted. The main thread on abort() will wait for the worker threads to finish (as is wise).
This does mean that worker thread tasks must also terminate, or the main thread will hang. There is no way to avoid this; often, your worker threads' tasks need to cooperate to get a message saying they should abort early.
Boost has a thread pool that integrates with its threading primitives and permits a less cooperative abort; in it, all mutex type operations implicitly check for an abort flag, and if they see it the operation throws.
How should I proceed here?
Well, you should learn to use your debugger, which should show you exactly where each of the threads you want to join is stopped.
I'm going to tell you what looks wrong, but strongly encourage you to do that first. It's invaluable.
OK, now: your condition variable loop is wrong.
The correct pattern is the one that behaves like the second form, with the predicate argument, here:
while (!pred()) {
wait(lock);
}
Specifically, if your predicate is true, you must not call wait. You may never be woken again, because the predicate never became false in the first place!
Try
// wait until we have something to do
while(jobQueue.empty() && isAlive) {
conditionVariable.wait(lock);
}
// unless we're exiting, we must have a job
if (isAlive) {
#ifdef DEBUG
std::cout<<"Next Job Found"<<std::endl;
#endif
std::function<void()> job = jobQueue.front();
jobQueue.pop_front();
job();
}
Imagine your thread is running a job when you call notify_all - it will call wait after the notification has already happened, and it isn't coming again. Since it doesn't check isAlive between finishing the job and calling wait, it's going to wait forever.
Even without the shutdown problem it would be wrong, because it should keep consuming jobs while there is work to do, instead of blocking every time it finishes one. Which reminds me of the last issue - you should probably unlock the mutex while executing the job (and re-lock it afterwards) - otherwise your pool is single-threaded.
Is there an standard way to add a std::packaged_task to an existing thread? There's a nontrivial amount of overhead that must happen before the task is run, so I want to do that once, then keep the thread running and waiting for tasks to execute. I want to be able to use futures so I can optionally get the result of the task and catch exceptions.
My pre-C++11 implementation requires my tasks to inherit from an abstract base class with a Run() method (a bit of a pain, can't use lambdas), and having a std::deque collection of those that I add to in the main thread and dequeue from in the worker thread. I have to protect that collection from simultaneous access and provide a signal to the worker thread that there's something to do so it isn't spinning or sleeping. Enqueing something returns a "result" object with a synchronization object to wait for the task to complete, and a result value. It all works well but it's time for an upgrade if there's something better.
Here is a toy thread pool:
template<class T>
struct threaded_queue {
using lock = std::unique_lock<std::mutex>;
void push_back( T t ) {
{
lock l(m);
data.push_back(std::move(t));
}
cv.notify_one();
}
boost::optional<T> pop_front() {
lock l(m);
cv.wait(l, [this]{ return abort || !data.empty(); } );
if (abort) return {};
auto r = std::move(data.back());
data.pop_back();
return std::move(r);
}
void terminate() {
{
lock l(m);
abort = true;
data.clear();
}
cv.notify_all();
}
~threaded_queue()
{
terminate();
}
private:
std::mutex m;
std::deque<T> data;
std::condition_variable cv;
bool abort = false;
};
struct thread_pool {
thread_pool( std::size_t n = 1 ) { start_thread(n); }
thread_pool( thread_pool&& ) = delete;
thread_pool& operator=( thread_pool&& ) = delete;
~thread_pool() = default; // or `{ terminate(); }` if you want to abandon some tasks
template<class F, class R=std::result_of_t<F&()>>
std::future<R> queue_task( F task ) {
std::packaged_task<R()> p(std::move(task));
auto r = p.get_future();
tasks.push_back( std::move(p) );
return r;
}
template<class F, class R=std::result_of_t<F&()>>
std::future<R> run_task( F task ) {
if (threads_active() >= total_threads()) {
start_thread();
}
return queue_task( std::move(task) );
}
void terminate() {
tasks.terminate();
}
std::size_t threads_active() const {
return active;
}
std::size_t total_threads() const {
return threads.size();
}
void clear_threads() {
terminate();
threads.clear();
}
void start_thread( std::size_t n = 1 ) {
while(n-->0) {
threads.push_back(
std::async( std::launch::async,
[this]{
while(auto task = tasks.pop_front()) {
++active;
try{
(*task)();
} catch(...) {
--active;
throw;
}
--active;
}
}
)
);
}
}
private:
std::vector<std::future<void>> threads;
threaded_queue<std::packaged_task<void()>> tasks;
std::atomic<std::size_t> active;
};
copied from another answer of mine.
A thread_pool with 1 thread matches your description pretty much.
The above is only a toy, a real thread pool I'd replace the std::packaged_task<void()> with a move_only_function<void()>, which is all I use it for. (A packaged_task<void()> can hold a packaged_task<R()> amusingly, if inefficiencly).
You will have to reason about shutdown and make a plan. The above code locks up if you try to shut it down without first clearing the threads.
I'm struggling to implement a thread-safe reference-counted queue. The idea is that I have a number of tasks that each maintain a shared_ptr to a task manager that owns the queue. Here is a minimal implementation that should encounter that same issue:
#include <condition_variable>
#include <deque>
#include <functional>
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
namespace {
class TaskManager;
struct Task {
std::function<void()> f;
std::shared_ptr<TaskManager> manager;
};
class Queue {
public:
Queue()
: _queue()
, _mutex()
, _cv()
, _running(true)
, _thread([this]() { sweepQueue(); })
{
}
~Queue() { close(); }
void close() noexcept
{
try {
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(_mutex);
if (!_running) {
return;
}
_running = false;
}
_cv.notify_one();
_thread.join();
} catch (...) {
std::cerr << "An error occurred while closing the queue\n";
}
}
void push(Task&& task)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(_mutex);
_queue.emplace_back(std::move(task));
lock.unlock();
_cv.notify_one();
}
private:
void sweepQueue() noexcept
{
while (true) {
try {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(_mutex);
_cv.wait(lock, [this] { return !_running || !_queue.empty(); });
if (!_running && _queue.empty()) {
return;
}
if (!_queue.empty()) {
const auto task = _queue.front();
_queue.pop_front();
task.f();
}
} catch (...) {
std::cerr << "An error occurred while sweeping the queue\n";
}
}
}
std::deque<Task> _queue;
std::mutex _mutex;
std::condition_variable _cv;
bool _running;
std::thread _thread;
};
class TaskManager : public std::enable_shared_from_this<TaskManager> {
public:
void addTask(std::function<void()> f)
{
_queue.push({ f, shared_from_this() });
}
private:
Queue _queue;
};
} // anonymous namespace
int main(void)
{
const auto manager = std::make_shared<TaskManager>();
manager->addTask([]() { std::cout << "Hello world\n"; });
}
The problem I find is that on rare occasions, the queue will try to invoke its own destructor within the sweepQueue method. Upon further inspection, it seems that the reference count on the TaskManager hits zero once the last task is dequeued. How can I safely maintain the reference count without invoking the destructor?
Update: The example does not clarify the need for the std::shared_ptr<TaskManager> within Task. Here is an example use case that should illustrate the need for this seemingly unnecessary ownership cycle.
std::unique_ptr<Task> task;
{
const auto manager = std::make_shared<TaskManager>();
task = std::make_unique<Task>(someFunc, manager);
}
// Guarantees manager is not destroyed while task is still in scope.
The ownership hierarchy here is TaskManager owns Queue and Queue owns Tasks. Tasks maintaining a shared pointer to TaskManager create an ownership cycle which does not seem to serve a useful purpose here.
This is the ownership what is root of the problem here. A Queue is owned by TaskManager, so that Queue can have a plain pointer to TaskManager and pass that pointer to Task in sweepQueue. You do not need std::shared_pointer<TaskManager> in Task at all here.
I'd refactor the queue from the thread first.
But to fix your problem:
struct am_I_alive {
explicit operator bool() const { return m_ptr.lock(); }
private:
std::weak_ptr<void> m_ptr;
};
struct lifetime_tracker {
am_I_alive track_lifetime() {
if (!m_ptr) m_ptr = std::make_shared<bool>(true);
return {m_ptr};
}
lifetime_tracker() = default;
lifetime_tracker(lifetime_tracker const&) {} // do nothing, don't copy
lifetime_tracker& operator=(lifetime_tracker const&){ return *this; }
private:
std::shared_ptr<void> m_ptr;
};
this is a little utility to detect if we have been deleted. It is useful in any code that calls an arbitrary callback whose side effect could include delete(this).
Privately inherit your Queue from it.
Then split popping the task from running it.
std::optional<Task> get_task() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(_mutex);
_cv.wait(lock, [this] { return !_running || !_queue.empty(); });
if (!_running && _queue.empty()) {
return {}; // end
}
auto task = _queue.front();
_queue.pop_front();
return task;
}
void sweepQueue() noexcept
{
while (true) {
try {
auto task = get_task();
if (!task) return;
// we are alive here
auto alive = track_lifetime();
try {
(*task).f();
} catch(...) {
std::cerr << "An error occurred while running a task\n";
}
task={};
// we could be deleted here
if (!alive)
return; // this was deleted, get out of here
}
} catch (...) {
std::cerr << "An error occurred while sweeping the queue\n";
}
}
}
and now you are safe.
After that you need to deal with the thread problem.
The thread problem is that you need your code to destroy the thread from within the thread it is running. At the same time, you also need to guarantee that the thread has terminated before main ends.
These are not compatible.
To fix that, you need to create a thread owning pool that doesn't have your "keep alive" semantics, and get your thread from there.
These threads don't delete themselves; instead, they return themselves to that pool for reuse by another client.
At shutdown, those threads are blocked on to ensure you don't have code running elsewhere that hasn't halted before the end of main.
To write such a pool without your inverted dependency mess, split the queue part of your code off. This queue owns no thread.
template<class T>
struct threadsafe_queue {
void push(T);
std::optional<T> pop(); // returns empty if thread is aborted
void abort();
~threadsafe_queue();
private:
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable v;
std::deque<T> data;
bool aborted = false;
};
then a simple thread pool:
struct thread_pool {
template<class F>
std::future<std::result_of_t<F&()>> enqueue( F&& f );
template<class F>
std::future<std::result_of_t<F&()>> thread_off_now( F&& f ); // starts a thread if there aren't any free
void abort();
void start_thread( std::size_t n = 1 );
std::size_t count_threads() const;
~thread_pool();
private:
threadsafe_queue< std::function<void()> > tasks;
std::vector< std::thread > threads;
static void thread_loop( thread_pool* pool );
};
make a thread pool singleton. Get your threads for your queue from thread_off_now method, guaranteeing you a thread that (when you are done with it) can be recycled, and whose lifetime is handled by someone else.
But really, you should instead be thinking with ownership in mind. The idea that tasks and task queues mutually own each other is a mess.
If someone disposes of a task queue, it is probably a good idea to abandon the tasks instead of persisting it magically and silently.
Which is what my simple thread pool does.
For example I've an EventGenerator class that call IEventHandler::onEvent for all registered event handlers:
class IEventHandler {
public: virtual void onEvent(...) = 0;
};
class EventGenerator {
private:
std::vector<IEventHandler*> _handlers;
std::mutex _mutex; // [1]
public:
void AddHandler(IEventHandler* handler) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lck(_mutex); // [2]
_handlers.push_back(handler);
}
void RemoveHanler(IEventHandler* handler) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lck(_mutex); // [3]
// remove from "_handlers"
}
private:
void threadMainTask() {
while(true) {
// Do some work ...
// Post event to all registered handlers
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lck(_mutex); // [4]
for(auto& h : _handlers) { h->onEvent(...); )
}
// Do some work ...
}
}
The code should be thread safe in the following manner:
one thread is executing the EventGenerator::threadMainTask
many threads might access EventGenerator::AddHandler and EventGenerator::RemoveHandler APIs.
To support this, I have the following synchonization (see comment in the code):
[1] is the mutex that protects the vector _handlers from multiple thread access.
[2] and [3] are protect adding or removing handlers simultaneously.
[4] is preventing from changing the vector while the main thread is posting events.
This code works until... If for some reason, during the execution of IEventHandler::onEvent(...) the code is trying to call EventManager::RemoveHandler or EventManager::AddHandler. The result is runtime exception.
What is the best approach to handle registration of the event handlers and executing the event handler callback in the thread safe manner?
>> UPDATE <<
So based on the inputs, I've updated to the following design:
class IEventHandler {
public: virtual void onEvent(...) = 0;
};
class EventDelegate {
private:
IEventHandler* _handler;
std::atomic<bool> _cancelled;
public:
EventDelegate(IEventHandler* h) : _handler(h), _cancelled(false) {};
void Cancel() { _cancelled = true; }
void Invoke(...) { if (!_cancelled) _handler->onEvent(...); }
}
class EventGenerator {
private:
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<EventDelegate>> _handlers;
std::mutex _mutex;
public:
void AddHandler(std::shared_ptr<EventDelegate> handler) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lck(_mutex);
_handlers.push_back(handler);
}
void RemoveHanler(std::shared_ptr<EventDelegate> handler) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lck(_mutex);
// remove from "_handlers"
}
private:
void threadMainTask() {
while(true) {
// Do some work ...
std::vector<std::shared_ptr<EventDelegate>> handlers_copy;
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lck(_mutex);
handlers_copy = _handlers;
}
for(auto& h : handlers_copy) { h->Invoke(...); )
// Do some work ...
}
}
As you can see, there is additional class EventDelegate that have two purposes:
hold the event callback
enable to cancel the callback
In the threadMainTask, I'm using a local copy of the std::vector<std::shared_ptr<EventDelegate>> and I'm releasing the lock before invoking the callbacks. This approach solves an issue when during the IEventHandler::onEvent(...) the EventGenerator::{AddHandler,RemoveHanler} is called.
Any thoughts about the new design?
Copy-on-Write vector implemented on atomic swap of shared_ptr's (in assumptions callback registration is occurring far less frequently than events the callbacks are notified about):
using callback_t = std::shared_ptr<std::function<void(event_t const&)> >;
using callbacks_t = std::shared_ptr<std::vector<callback_t> >;
callbacks_t callbacks_;
mutex_t mutex_; // a mutex of your choice
void register(callback_t cb)
{
// the mutex is to serialize concurrent callbacks registrations
// this is not always necessary, as depending on the application
// architecture, single writer may be enforced by design
scoped_lock lock(mutex_);
auto callbacks = atomic_load(&callbacks_);
auto new_callbacks = std::make_shared< std::vector<callback_t> >();
new_callbacks->reserve(callbacks->size() + 1);
*new_callbacks = callbacks;
new_callbacks->push_back(std::move(cb));
atomic_store(&callbacks_, new_callbacks);
}
void invoke(event_t const& evt)
{
auto callbacks = atomic_load(&callbacks_);
// many people wrap each callback invocation into a try-catch
// and de-register on exception
for(auto& cb: *callbacks) (*cb)(evt);
}
Specifically on the subject of asynchronous behavior when callback is executed while being de-registered, well here the best approach to take is remember of the Separation of Concerns principle.
The callback should not be able to die until it has been executed. This is achieved via another classic trick called "extra level of indirection". Namely, instead of registering user provided callback one would wrap it to something like the below and callback de-registration apart from updating the vector will call the below defined discharge() method on the callback wrapper and will even notify the caller of de-registration method of whether the callback execution finished successfully.
template <class CB> struct cb_wrapper
{
mutable std::atomic<bool> done_;
CB cb_;
cb_wrapper(CB&& cb): cb(std::move(cb_)) {}
bool discharge()
{
bool not_done = false;
return done_.compare_exchange_strong(not_done, true);
}
void operator()(event_t const&)
{
if (discharge())
{
cb();
}
}
};
I can't see a right thing here. From your update I can see a problem: you are not synchronizing the invoke method with callback removal. There's an atomic but it's not enough. Example: just after this line of code:
if (!_cancelled)
Another thread calls the remove method. What can happen is that the onEvent() is called anyway, even if the removed method has removed the callback from the list and returned the result, there's nothing to keep synchronized this execution flow. Same problem for the answer of #bobah.
High level
I want to call some functions with no return value in a async mode without waiting for them to finish. If I use std::async the future object doesn't destruct until the task is over, this make the call not sync in my case.
Example
void sendMail(const std::string& address, const std::string& message)
{
//sending the e-mail which takes some time...
}
myResonseType processRequest(args...)
{
//Do some processing and valuate the address and the message...
//Sending the e-mail async
auto f = std::async(std::launch::async, sendMail, address, message);
//returning the response ASAP to the client
return myResponseType;
} //<-- I'm stuck here until the async call finish to allow f to be destructed.
// gaining no benefit from the async call.
My questions are
Is there a way to overcome this limitation?
if (1) is no, should I implement once a thread that will take those "zombie" futures and wait on them?
Is (1) and (2) are no, is there any other option then just build my own thread pool?
note:
I rather not using the option of thread+detach (suggested by #galop1n) since creating a new thread have an overhead I wish to avoid. While using std::async (at least on MSVC) is using an inner thread pool.
Thanks.
You can move the future into a global object, so when the local future's destructor runs it doesn't have to wait for the asynchronous thread to complete.
std::vector<std::future<void>> pending_futures;
myResonseType processRequest(args...)
{
//Do some processing and valuate the address and the message...
//Sending the e-mail async
auto f = std::async(std::launch::async, sendMail, address, message);
// transfer the future's shared state to a longer-lived future
pending_futures.push_back(std::move(f));
//returning the response ASAP to the client
return myResponseType;
}
N.B. This is not safe if the asynchronous thread refers to any local variables in the processRequest function.
While using std::async (at least on MSVC) is using an inner thread pool.
That's actually non-conforming, the standard explicitly says tasks run with std::launch::async must run as if in a new thread, so any thread-local variables must not persist from one task to another. It doesn't usually matter though.
why do you not just start a thread and detach if you do not care on joining ?
std::thread{ sendMail, address, message}.detach();
std::async is bound to the lifetime of the std::future it returns and their is no alternative to that.
Putting the std::future in a waiting queue read by an other thread will require the same safety mechanism as a pool receiving new task, like mutex around the container.
Your best option, then, is a thread pool to consume tasks directly pushed in a thread safe queue. And it will not depends on a specific implementation.
Below a thread pool implementation taking any callable and arguments, the threads do poling on the queue, a better implementation should use condition variables (coliru) :
#include <iostream>
#include <queue>
#include <memory>
#include <thread>
#include <mutex>
#include <functional>
#include <string>
struct ThreadPool {
struct Task {
virtual void Run() const = 0;
virtual ~Task() {};
};
template < typename task_, typename... args_ >
struct RealTask : public Task {
RealTask( task_&& task, args_&&... args ) : fun_( std::bind( std::forward<task_>(task), std::forward<args_>(args)... ) ) {}
void Run() const override {
fun_();
}
private:
decltype( std::bind(std::declval<task_>(), std::declval<args_>()... ) ) fun_;
};
template < typename task_, typename... args_ >
void AddTask( task_&& task, args_&&... args ) {
auto lock = std::unique_lock<std::mutex>{mtx_};
using FinalTask = RealTask<task_, args_... >;
q_.push( std::unique_ptr<Task>( new FinalTask( std::forward<task_>(task), std::forward<args_>(args)... ) ) );
}
ThreadPool() {
for( auto & t : pool_ )
t = std::thread( [=] {
while ( true ) {
std::unique_ptr<Task> task;
{
auto lock = std::unique_lock<std::mutex>{mtx_};
if ( q_.empty() && stop_ )
break;
if ( q_.empty() )
continue;
task = std::move(q_.front());
q_.pop();
}
if (task)
task->Run();
}
} );
}
~ThreadPool() {
{
auto lock = std::unique_lock<std::mutex>{mtx_};
stop_ = true;
}
for( auto & t : pool_ )
t.join();
}
private:
std::queue<std::unique_ptr<Task>> q_;
std::thread pool_[8];
std::mutex mtx_;
volatile bool stop_ {};
};
void foo( int a, int b ) {
std::cout << a << "." << b;
}
void bar( std::string const & s) {
std::cout << s;
}
int main() {
ThreadPool pool;
for( int i{}; i!=42; ++i ) {
pool.AddTask( foo, 3, 14 );
pool.AddTask( bar, " - " );
}
}
Rather than moving the future into a global object (and manually manage deletion of unused futures), you can actually move it into the local scope of the asynchronously called function.
"Let the async function take its own future", so to speak.
I have come up with this template wrapper which works for me (tested on Windows):
#include <future>
template<class Function, class... Args>
void async_wrapper(Function&& f, Args&&... args, std::future<void>& future,
std::future<void>&& is_valid, std::promise<void>&& is_moved) {
is_valid.wait(); // Wait until the return value of std::async is written to "future"
auto our_future = std::move(future); // Move "future" to a local variable
is_moved.set_value(); // Only now we can leave void_async in the main thread
// This is also used by std::async so that member function pointers work transparently
auto functor = std::bind(f, std::forward<Args>(args)...);
functor();
}
template<class Function, class... Args> // This is what you call instead of std::async
void void_async(Function&& f, Args&&... args) {
std::future<void> future; // This is for std::async return value
// This is for our synchronization of moving "future" between threads
std::promise<void> valid;
std::promise<void> is_moved;
auto valid_future = valid.get_future();
auto moved_future = is_moved.get_future();
// Here we pass "future" as a reference, so that async_wrapper
// can later work with std::async's return value
future = std::async(
async_wrapper<Function, Args...>,
std::forward<Function>(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...,
std::ref(future), std::move(valid_future), std::move(is_moved)
);
valid.set_value(); // Unblock async_wrapper waiting for "future" to become valid
moved_future.wait(); // Wait for "future" to actually be moved
}
I am a little surprised it works because I thought that the moved future's destructor would block until we leave async_wrapper. It should wait for async_wrapper to return but it is waiting inside that very function. Logically, it should be a deadlock but it isn't.
I also tried to add a line at the end of async_wrapper to manually empty the future object:
our_future = std::future<void>();
This does not block either.
You need to make your future a pointer. Below is exactly what you are looking for:
std::make_unique<std::future<void>*>(new auto(std::async(std::launch::async, sendMail, address, message))).reset();
Live example
i have no idea what i'm doing, but this seem to work:
// :( http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2012/n3451.pdf
template<typename T>
void noget(T&& in)
{
static std::mutex vmut;
static std::vector<T> vec;
static std::thread getter;
static std::mutex single_getter;
if (single_getter.try_lock())
{
getter = std::thread([&]()->void
{
size_t size;
for(;;)
{
do
{
vmut.lock();
size=vec.size();
if(size>0)
{
T target=std::move(vec[size-1]);
vec.pop_back();
vmut.unlock();
// cerr << "getting!" << endl;
target.get();
}
else
{
vmut.unlock();
}
}while(size>0);
// ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(100));
}
});
getter.detach();
}
vmut.lock();
vec.push_back(std::move(in));
vmut.unlock();
}
it creates a dedicated getter thread for each type of future you throw at it (eg. if you give a future and future, you'll have 2 threads. if you give it 100x future, you'll still only have 2 threads), and when there's a future you don't want to deal with, just do notget(fut); - you can also noget(std::async([]()->void{...})); works just fine, no block, it seems. warning, do not try to get the value from a future after using noget() on it. that's probably UB and asking for trouble.