Imagine you have a little calculation method, which is startet by a thread:
boost::mutex mMutex;
void MyClass::DoSomething {
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> tLock(mMutex);
if(tLock.owns_lock() {
// do some stuff...
}
}
And you want to start this in a thread, raised from different member functions. They can be called simultanous, but you can't know when:
void MyClass::Process {
boost::thread t1(&MyClass::DoSomething, this);
// go on ...
}
void MyClass::Foo {
boost::thread t2(&MyClass::DoSomething, this);
// and something more ...
}
How to prevent t2 from beeing executed at all, if t1 is running? My unique_lock seems to fail.
Based on Naszta's idea, here's a possible approach using atomic bools and atomic swaps:
std::atomic<bool> thread_in_use(False);
void DoSomething()
{
if (thread_in_use.exchange(true))
return;
// ...
thread_in_use = false;
}
Make a variable and before you start the t1 thread, increase that variable in atomic way. When it finished, decrease that variable to null in atomic way. In Foo you should just check if this variable is null, or not.
Check this example.
Related
I'm getting into C++11 threads and have run into a problem.
I want to declare a thread variable as global and start it later.
However all the examples I've seen seem to start the thread immediately for example
thread t(doSomething);
What I want is
thread t;
and start the thread later.
What I've tried is
if(!isThreadRunning)
{
thread t(readTable);
}
but now t is block scope. So I want to declare t and then start the thread later so that t is accessible to other functions.
Thanks for any help.
std::thread's default constructor instantiates a std::thread without starting or representing any actual thread.
std::thread t;
The assignment operator moves the state of a thread object, and sets the assigned-from thread object to its default-initialized state:
t = std::thread(/* new thread code goes here */);
This first constructs a temporary thread object representing a new thread, transfers the new thread representation into the existing thread object that has a default state, and sets the temporary thread object's state to the default state that does not represent any running thread. Then the temporary thread object is destroyed, doing nothing.
Here's an example:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
void thread_func(const int i) {
std::cout << "hello from thread: " << i << std::endl;
}
int main() {
std::thread t;
std::cout << "t exists" << std::endl;
t = std::thread{ thread_func, 7 };
t.join();
std::cout << "done!" << std::endl;
}
As antred says in his answer, you can use a condition variable to make the thread to wait in the beginning of its routine.
Scott Meyers in his book “Effective Modern C++” (in the “Item 39: Consider void futures for one-shot event communication”) proposes to use void-future instead of lower level entities (boolean flag, conditional variable and mutex). So the problem can be solved like this:
auto thread_starter = std::promise<void>;
auto thread = std::thread([starter_future = thread_starter.get_future()]() mutable {
starter_future.wait(); //wait before starting actual work
…; //do actual work
});
…; //you can do something, thread is like “paused” here
thread_starter.set_value(); //“start” the thread (break its initial waiting)
Scott Meyers also warns about exceptions in the second … (marked by the you can do something, thread is like “paused” here comment). If thread_starter.set_value() is never called for some reasons (for example, due to exception throws in the second …), the thread will wait forever, and any attempt to join it would result in deadlock.
As both ways (condvar-based and future-based) contain hidden unsafety, and the first way (condvar-based) needs some boilerplate code, I propose to write a wrapper class around std::thread. Its interface should be similar to the one of std::thread (except that its instances should be assignable from other instances of the same class, not from std::thread), but contain additional void start() method.
Future-based thread-wrapper
class initially_suspended_thread {
std::promise<bool> starter;
std::thread impl;
public:
template<class F, class ...Args>
explicit initially_suspended_thread(F &&f, Args &&...args):
starter(),
impl([
starter_future = starter.get_future(),
routine = std::bind(std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...)
]() mutable {if (starter_future.get()) routine();})
{}
void start() {starter.set_value(true);}
~initially_suspended_thread() {
try {starter.set_value(false);}
catch (const std::future_error &exc) {
if (exc.code() != std::future_errc::promise_already_satisfied) throw;
return; //already “started”, no need to do anything
}
impl.join(); //auto-join not-yet-“started” threads
}
…; //other methods, trivial
};
Condvar-based thread-wrapper
class initially_suspended_thread {
std::mutex state_mutex;
enum {INITIAL, STARTED, ABORTED} state;
std::condition_variable state_condvar;
std::thread impl;
public:
template<class F, class ...Args>
explicit initially_suspended_thread(F &&f, Args &&...args):
state_mutex(), state(INITIAL), state_condvar(),
impl([
&state_mutex = state_mutex, &state = state, &state_condvar = state_condvar,
routine = std::bind(std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...)
]() {
{
std::unique_lock state_mutex_lock(state_mutex);
state_condvar.wait(
state_mutex_lock,
[&state]() {return state != INITIAL;}
);
}
if (state == STARTED) routine();
})
{}
void start() {
{
std::lock_guard state_mutex_lock(state_mutex);
state = STARTED;
}
state_condvar.notify_one();
}
~initially_suspended_thread() {
{
std::lock_guard state_mutex_lock(state_mutex);
if (state == STARTED) return; //already “started”, no need to do anything
state = ABORTED;
}
impl.join(); //auto-join not-yet-“started” threads
}
…; //other methods, trivial
};
There is no "standard" of creating a thread "suspended" which I assume is what you wanted to do with the C++ thread library. Because it is not supported on every platform that has threads, it is not there in the C++ API.
You might want to create a class with all the data it is required but not actually run your thread function. This is not the same as creating the thread but may be what you want. If so, create that, then later bind the object and its operator() or start() function or whatever to the thread.
You might want the thread id for your thread. That means you do actually need to start the thread function. However it can start by waiting on a condition variable. You then signal or broadcast to that condition variable later when you want it to continue running. Of course you can have the function check a condition after it resumes in case you might have decided to close it and not run it after all (in which case it will just return instantly).
You might want a std::thread object with no function. You can do that and attach it to a function later to run that function in a new thread.
I would give the thread a condition variable and a boolean called startRunning (initially set to false). Effectively you would start the thread immediately upon creation, but the first thing it would do is suspend itself (using the condition_variable) and then only begin processing its actual task when the condition_variable is signaled from outside (and the startRunning flag set to true).
EDIT: PSEUDO CODE:
// in your worker thread
{
lock_guard l( theMutex );
while ( ! startRunning )
{
cond_var.wait( l );
}
}
// now start processing task
// in your main thread (after creating the worker thread)
{
lock_guard l( theMutex );
startRunning = true;
cond_var.signal_one();
}
EDIT #2: In the above code, the variables theMutex, startRunning and cond_var must be accessible by both threads. Whether you achieve that by making them globals or by encapsulating them in a struct / class instance is up to you.
first declared in class m_grabber runs nothing. We assign member class object with new one with lambda function in launch_grabber method and thread with lambda runs within source class context.
class source {
...
std::thread m_grabber;
bool m_active;
...
}
bool source::launch_grabber() {
// start grabber
m_grabber = std::thread{
[&] () {
m_active = true;
while (true)
{
if(!m_active)
break;
// TODO: something in new thread
}
}
};
m_grabber.detach();
return true;
}
You could use singleton pattern. Or I would rather say antipattern.
Inside a singleton you would have std::thread object encapsulated. Upon first access to singleton your thread will be created and started.
I'm getting into C++11 threads and have run into a problem.
I want to declare a thread variable as global and start it later.
However all the examples I've seen seem to start the thread immediately for example
thread t(doSomething);
What I want is
thread t;
and start the thread later.
What I've tried is
if(!isThreadRunning)
{
thread t(readTable);
}
but now t is block scope. So I want to declare t and then start the thread later so that t is accessible to other functions.
Thanks for any help.
std::thread's default constructor instantiates a std::thread without starting or representing any actual thread.
std::thread t;
The assignment operator moves the state of a thread object, and sets the assigned-from thread object to its default-initialized state:
t = std::thread(/* new thread code goes here */);
This first constructs a temporary thread object representing a new thread, transfers the new thread representation into the existing thread object that has a default state, and sets the temporary thread object's state to the default state that does not represent any running thread. Then the temporary thread object is destroyed, doing nothing.
Here's an example:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
void thread_func(const int i) {
std::cout << "hello from thread: " << i << std::endl;
}
int main() {
std::thread t;
std::cout << "t exists" << std::endl;
t = std::thread{ thread_func, 7 };
t.join();
std::cout << "done!" << std::endl;
}
As antred says in his answer, you can use a condition variable to make the thread to wait in the beginning of its routine.
Scott Meyers in his book “Effective Modern C++” (in the “Item 39: Consider void futures for one-shot event communication”) proposes to use void-future instead of lower level entities (boolean flag, conditional variable and mutex). So the problem can be solved like this:
auto thread_starter = std::promise<void>;
auto thread = std::thread([starter_future = thread_starter.get_future()]() mutable {
starter_future.wait(); //wait before starting actual work
…; //do actual work
});
…; //you can do something, thread is like “paused” here
thread_starter.set_value(); //“start” the thread (break its initial waiting)
Scott Meyers also warns about exceptions in the second … (marked by the you can do something, thread is like “paused” here comment). If thread_starter.set_value() is never called for some reasons (for example, due to exception throws in the second …), the thread will wait forever, and any attempt to join it would result in deadlock.
As both ways (condvar-based and future-based) contain hidden unsafety, and the first way (condvar-based) needs some boilerplate code, I propose to write a wrapper class around std::thread. Its interface should be similar to the one of std::thread (except that its instances should be assignable from other instances of the same class, not from std::thread), but contain additional void start() method.
Future-based thread-wrapper
class initially_suspended_thread {
std::promise<bool> starter;
std::thread impl;
public:
template<class F, class ...Args>
explicit initially_suspended_thread(F &&f, Args &&...args):
starter(),
impl([
starter_future = starter.get_future(),
routine = std::bind(std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...)
]() mutable {if (starter_future.get()) routine();})
{}
void start() {starter.set_value(true);}
~initially_suspended_thread() {
try {starter.set_value(false);}
catch (const std::future_error &exc) {
if (exc.code() != std::future_errc::promise_already_satisfied) throw;
return; //already “started”, no need to do anything
}
impl.join(); //auto-join not-yet-“started” threads
}
…; //other methods, trivial
};
Condvar-based thread-wrapper
class initially_suspended_thread {
std::mutex state_mutex;
enum {INITIAL, STARTED, ABORTED} state;
std::condition_variable state_condvar;
std::thread impl;
public:
template<class F, class ...Args>
explicit initially_suspended_thread(F &&f, Args &&...args):
state_mutex(), state(INITIAL), state_condvar(),
impl([
&state_mutex = state_mutex, &state = state, &state_condvar = state_condvar,
routine = std::bind(std::forward<F>(f), std::forward<Args>(args)...)
]() {
{
std::unique_lock state_mutex_lock(state_mutex);
state_condvar.wait(
state_mutex_lock,
[&state]() {return state != INITIAL;}
);
}
if (state == STARTED) routine();
})
{}
void start() {
{
std::lock_guard state_mutex_lock(state_mutex);
state = STARTED;
}
state_condvar.notify_one();
}
~initially_suspended_thread() {
{
std::lock_guard state_mutex_lock(state_mutex);
if (state == STARTED) return; //already “started”, no need to do anything
state = ABORTED;
}
impl.join(); //auto-join not-yet-“started” threads
}
…; //other methods, trivial
};
There is no "standard" of creating a thread "suspended" which I assume is what you wanted to do with the C++ thread library. Because it is not supported on every platform that has threads, it is not there in the C++ API.
You might want to create a class with all the data it is required but not actually run your thread function. This is not the same as creating the thread but may be what you want. If so, create that, then later bind the object and its operator() or start() function or whatever to the thread.
You might want the thread id for your thread. That means you do actually need to start the thread function. However it can start by waiting on a condition variable. You then signal or broadcast to that condition variable later when you want it to continue running. Of course you can have the function check a condition after it resumes in case you might have decided to close it and not run it after all (in which case it will just return instantly).
You might want a std::thread object with no function. You can do that and attach it to a function later to run that function in a new thread.
I would give the thread a condition variable and a boolean called startRunning (initially set to false). Effectively you would start the thread immediately upon creation, but the first thing it would do is suspend itself (using the condition_variable) and then only begin processing its actual task when the condition_variable is signaled from outside (and the startRunning flag set to true).
EDIT: PSEUDO CODE:
// in your worker thread
{
lock_guard l( theMutex );
while ( ! startRunning )
{
cond_var.wait( l );
}
}
// now start processing task
// in your main thread (after creating the worker thread)
{
lock_guard l( theMutex );
startRunning = true;
cond_var.signal_one();
}
EDIT #2: In the above code, the variables theMutex, startRunning and cond_var must be accessible by both threads. Whether you achieve that by making them globals or by encapsulating them in a struct / class instance is up to you.
first declared in class m_grabber runs nothing. We assign member class object with new one with lambda function in launch_grabber method and thread with lambda runs within source class context.
class source {
...
std::thread m_grabber;
bool m_active;
...
}
bool source::launch_grabber() {
// start grabber
m_grabber = std::thread{
[&] () {
m_active = true;
while (true)
{
if(!m_active)
break;
// TODO: something in new thread
}
}
};
m_grabber.detach();
return true;
}
You could use singleton pattern. Or I would rather say antipattern.
Inside a singleton you would have std::thread object encapsulated. Upon first access to singleton your thread will be created and started.
After using threads for a while, I got into a situation where I needed a thread to run forever until a a function (or any sort of event) was called. To do this I created a bool value to control a while loop inside the function that was executed by the thread, but I quickly noticed that external variables are not updated after a thread starts running, causing the thread to never stop when it was asked to.
Heres some simple code to represent the issue:
#include <cstdio>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
class A {
public:
A();
void startThread();
void endThread();
private:
void threadCall();
bool active;
};
int main() {
A threadThing;
threadThing.startThread();
printf("[M] Thread Created\n");
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
threadThing.endThread();
printf("[M] Thread Killed\n");
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(5));
return 0;
}
A::A() {
active = false;
}
void A::startThread() {
active = true;
std::thread AThread(&A::threadCall, *this);
AThread.detach();
}
void A::endThread() {
active = false;
}
void A::threadCall() {
printf("[T] Thread Started\n");
while (active) {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(2));
}
printf("[T] Thread Ended\n");
}
The expected result of this would be that the main function starts the thread, the thread says it started, then 4 seconds later the thread is killed and the thread says it ended, when in reality the thread never says it ends. Is there a way to let the thread access the 'active' variable, or is my approach to this problem incorrect altogether? (Side note, I did try to figure this out on my own but only got stuff like local thread storage which seems like its only for storage inside of threads, not access to the outside but I could be wrong)
The problem is with the constructor of std::thread, it copies/moves by default.
std::thread AThread(&A::threadCall, *this);
this copies the object into the new thread, so checking the active variable in the new object has no effect.
you can remove the *
std::thread AThread(&A::threadCall, this);
you pass the object pointer into the new thread, it will call like the method like this(*this).threadCall().
Edit: as the comments say, this is not guarantee to be thread safe, you need to use std::atomic<bool> to be safe.
What you need to do is pass an A class pointer as an argument to your function that is your thread.
void A::startThread()
{
active = true;
std::thread AThread(threadCall, this);
AThread.detach();
}
void A::threadCall(A *aClass)
{
printf("[T] Thread Started\n");
while (aClass->active)
{
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(2));
}
printf("[T] Thread Ended\n");
}
class Class {
public:
Class ();
private:
std::thread* updationThread;
};
Constructor:
Class::Class() {
updationThread = new std::thread(&someFunc);
}
At some point in my application, I have to pause that thread and call a function and after execution of that function I have to resume the thread. Let's say it happens here:
void Class::aFunction() {
functionToBeCalled(); //Before this, the thread should be paused
//Now, the thread should be resumed.
}
I have tried to use another thread with function functionToBeCalled() and use thread::join but was unable to do that for some reason.
How can I pause a thread or how can I use thread::join to pause a thread until the other finishes?
I don't think you can easily (in a standard way) "pause" some thread, and then resumes it. I imagine you can send SIGSTOP and SIGCONT if you are using some Unix-flavored OS, but otherwise, you should properly mark the atomic parts inside someFunc() with mutexes and locks, an wraps functionToBeCalled() with a lock on the corresponding mutex:
std::mutex m; // Global mutex, you should find a better place to put it
// (possibly in your object)
and inside the function:
void someFunc() {
// I am just making up stuff here
while(...) {
func1();
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(m); // lock the mutex
...; // Stuff that must not run with functionToBeCalled()
} // Mutex unlocked here, by end of scope
}
}
and when calling functionToBeCalled():
void Class::aFunction() {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(m); // lock the mutex
functionToBeCalled();
} // Mutex unlocked here, by end of scope
You can use a condition variable. An example similar to your situation is given there:
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/condition_variable
I'm looking for a way to wait for multiple condition variables.
ie. something like:
boost::condition_variable cond1;
boost::condition_variable cond2;
void wait_for_data_to_process()
{
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(mut);
wait_any(lock, cond1, cond2); //boost only provides cond1.wait(lock);
process_data();
}
Is something like this possible with condition variables. And if not are there alternative solutions?
Thanks
I don't believe you can do anything like this with boost::thread. Perhaps because POSIX condition variables don't allow this type of construct. Of course, Windows has WaitForMultipleObjects as aJ posted, which could be a solution if you're willing to restrict your code to Windows synchronization primitives.
Another option would to use fewer condition variables: just have 1 condition variable that you fire when anything "interesting" happens. Then, any time you want to wait, you run a loop that checks to see if your particular situation of interest has come up, and if not, go back to waiting on the condition variable. You should be waiting on those condition variables in such a loop anyways, as condition variable waits are subject to spurious wakeups (from boost::thread docs, emphasis mine):
void wait(boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>& lock)
...
Effects:
Atomically call lock.unlock() and blocks the current thread. The thread will unblock when notified by a call to this->notify_one() or this->notify_all(), or spuriously. ...
As Managu already answered, you can use the same condition variable and check for multiple "events" (bool variables) in your while loop. However, concurrent access to these bool variables must be protected using the same mutex that the condvar uses.
Since I already went through the trouble of typing this code example for a related question, I'll repost it here:
boost::condition_variable condvar;
boost::mutex mutex;
bool finished1 = false;
bool finished2 = false;
void longComputation1()
{
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
finished1 = false;
}
// Perform long computation
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
finished1 = true;
}
condvar.notify_one();
}
void longComputation2()
{
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
finished2 = false;
}
// Perform long computation
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
finished2 = true;
}
condvar.notify_one();
}
void somefunction()
{
// Wait for long computations to finish without "spinning"
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(mutex);
while(!finished1 && !finished2)
{
condvar.wait(lock);
}
// Computations are finished
}
alternative solutions?
I am not sure of Boost library but you can use WaitForMultipleObjects Function to wait for multiple kernel objects. Just check if this helps.
As Managu points out using multiple conditions might not be a good solution in the first place. What you want to do should be possible to be implemented using Semaphores.
Using the same condition variable for multiple events technically works, but it doesn't allow encapsulation. So I had an attempt at making a class that supports it. Not tested yet! Also it doesn't support notify_one() as I haven't worked out how to implement that.
#pragma once
#include <condition_variable>
#include <unordered_set>
// This is like a `condition_variable` but you can wait on multiple `multi_condition_variable`s.
// Internally it works by creating a new `condition_variable` for each `wait_any()` and registering
// it with the target `multi_condition_variable`s. When `notify_all()` is called, the main `condition_variable`
// is notified, as well as all the temporary `condition_variable`s created by `wait_any()`.
//
// There are two caveats:
//
// 1. You can't call the destructor if any threads are `wait()`ing. This is difficult to get around but
// it is the same as `std::wait_condition` anyway.
//
// 2. There is no `notify_one()`. You can *almost* implement this, but the only way I could think to do
// it was to add an `atomic_int` that indicates the number of waits(). Unfortunately there is no way
// to atomically increment it, and then wait.
class multi_condition_variable
{
public:
multi_condition_variable()
{
}
// Note that it is only safe to invoke the destructor if no thread is waiting on this condition variable.
~multi_condition_variable()
{
}
// Notify all threads calling wait(), and all wait_any()'s that contain this instance.
void notify_all()
{
_condition.notify_all();
for (auto o : _others)
o->notify_all();
}
// Wait for notify_all to be called, or a spurious wake-up.
void wait(std::unique_lock<std::mutex>& loc)
{
_condition.wait(loc);
}
// Wait for any of the notify_all()'s in `cvs` to be called, or a spurious wakeup.
static void wait_any(std::unique_lock<std::mutex>& loc, std::vector<std::reference_wrapper<multi_condition_variable>> cvs)
{
std::condition_variable c;
for (multi_condition_variable& cv : cvs)
cv.addOther(&c);
c.wait(loc);
for (multi_condition_variable& cv : cvs)
cv.removeOther(&c);
}
private:
void addOther(std::condition_variable* cv)
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(_othersMutex);
_others.insert(cv);
}
void removeOther(std::condition_variable* cv)
{
// Note that *this may have been destroyed at this point.
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(_othersMutex);
_others.erase(cv);
}
// The condition variable.
std::condition_variable _condition;
// When notified, also notify these.
std::unordered_set<std::condition_variable*> _others;
// Mutex to protect access to _others.
std::mutex _othersMutex;
};
// Example use:
//
// multi_condition_variable cond1;
// multi_condition_variable cond2;
//
// void wait_for_data_to_process()
// {
// unique_lock<boost::mutex> lock(mut);
//
// multi_condition_variable::wait_any(lock, {cond1, cond2});
//
// process_data();
// }