I made a MFC application which probably has two threads, one for receiving data from a socket using UDP protocol and one is the main thread of MFC app. While any data is received some objects, created in the main thread by new operator, would be notified to fetch the data through apply the observer design pattern. The problem is that sometimes after I clicked the close system button, the GUI of the app disappeared, but its process can still be found in the Task Manager. If I stop the data source (UDP client) this problem would never happen. Other important and maybe helpful information is listed below:
The Observer design pattern was implemented with STL container list. I have used the critical section protection in the Attach, Detach and Notify functions.
I deleted the observer objects before closing the UDP socket.
The data transfer rate may be a little faster than process data, because after closing the data source the data process is still working.
I can't figure out what lead my app can not exit completely. Please give me some clues.
This is usually caused by a thread you created and not exit it programmatically when you exit the appliation. There must be a while clause in your thread. The way to find where it is still running is:
use debug mode to start you application and click the exit button the top right corner to exit it.
Check from task manager and see if it is still running
if it is, excute Debug->Break All,
Open threads windows, double click each thread, you will find where your code is still looping.
Typically a process won't terminate because there's still a foreground thread running somewhere. You must ensure that your socket library isn't running any thread when you want to close your application.
First thing, with MFC, please use the notification based methods to get notifications on message arrivals, connections etc. So you can get rid of threads if you have.
It's quite easy to attache to a debugger and Break see which threads are existing and waiting for what.
Alternatively you can use ProcessExplorer with proper symbol configuration to see the call stacks of the threads available for the particular process.
The application can two kind of issues to exit, one could be infinite loop and other might be waiting/deadlock (e.g. socket read command is a blocking call). You can easily deduce the problem by attaching to debugger.
Otherwise please provide further information about the threads, code snippet possible.
Related
Back to stackoverflow with another question after hours of trying on my own haha.
Thank you all for reading this and helping in advance.
Please note the console program has following functionalities:
connect to a frame grabber
apply some configs
store the incoming data (640 * 480 16-bit grayscale imgs) in a stream of buffers inside a while loop
Exits the while loop upon a key press.
disconnect from device
And I'm only adding the displaying the images functionality on the MFC GUI app. In short,
i) Converting a console app to an MFC app (dialog based)
ii) decided to use thread for displaying images, but DK how to properly exit from thread when there are certain tasks to be done (such as call disconnectFromDevice(); freeBuffers();, etc) before exiting the thread.
iii) have tried making the while loop condition false but didn't work
( I actually want this to be a callback function that's called repeatedly but IDK how to implement it inside a thread)
iv) forcing AfxEndThread didn't work and it's not even the way it should be done (I think).
So my question is,
1. Are you supposed to use a while loop to excuete a certain job that should repeatedly be done? If not, do you have to implement a callback inside a thread? Or use Windows message loop? Why and how? Please provide a hello-world-like sample code example
(for example, you are printing "hello world" repeatedly inside a thread with a condtion in an MFC GUI app. How do you update or check the condition to end the thread if you can't just AfxEndThread() inside the threadproc)
2. If it's ok with a while, how do you exit from the while loop, in other words how do you properly update the exit condition outside the thread the while loop's in?
Please refer to the source code in the provided link
ctrl+F OnBnClickedConnectButton, AcquireImages and OnBnClickedDisconnectButton
https://github.com/MetaCortex728/img_processing/blob/main/IR140Dlg.cpp
Worker threads do not have message-queues, the (typically one and only) UI one does. The message-queue for a thread is created by the first call of the GetMessage() function. Why use messages to control processing in a worker thread? You would have to establish a special protocol for this, defining custom messages and posting them to the queue.
Worker threads can be implemented as a loop. The loop can be terminated based on various conditions, like failures to retrieve any data or request from the user. You can simply exit the thread proc to terminate the thread's execution. If the thread doesn't respond it may have stuck (unless it performs a really lengthy operation) and the UI thread must provide some mechanism to kill it. That is first request termination and if it doesn't respond within some set time then kill it.
The condition mechanism to terminate should best be some synchronization object (I would recommend a manual-reset event), interlocked variable or a simple boolean which you should access and set using a critical section.
Some considerations:
You pass a parameter block to the thread. Make sure that it remains alive throughout the thread's lifetime. For example, it should NOT be a local variable in a function that exits before the thread's termination.
The loop must be "efficient", ie do not loop infinitely if data are not available. Consider using blocking functions with timeouts, if available.
Resource management (eg connecting/disconnecting, allocating/releasing etc) should best be performed by the same thread.
An alternative implementation can be APCs. Then the thread's proc function is a while(!bTerminate) { SleepEx(INFINITE, TRUE); } loop, and other threads issue requests using a the QueueUserAPC() function.
The AfxEndThread(0) call in OnBnClickedDisconnectButton() is wrong, it terminates the current thread, which in this case is the main (UI) thread. Check the documentation.
A sidenote, my suggestion about the project type is not a dialog-based application but instead a normal MFC application without a document class (uncheck the Document/View architecture support option), as it offers features like menus, toolbars and the like, and most importantly the ON_UPDATE_COMMAND_UI handlers.
I'm working on a embedded solution where two apps are working: one is the user interface and the other runs in the background providing data for the UI.
Recently I came across with a memory leak or similar error that is making Linux kill the secondary process, leaving the UI in a stopped situation without telling anything for the user about what is going on. I reached the problem by reading Linux's message log file and the software's print on terminal "Kill -myapp".
My question is: how could I notice such an event (and other similar) coming from the secondary software so I could properly report it to the user and log it? I mean, it's easy to have a look time to time in the process 'tree' to see if the secondary app is running and, if it's not, report a "some event happened" in the UI and it's also plausible to have a error-handler system inside the secondary app that makes it write in a log file what just happened and make the UI read that file for new entries from time to time, but how could the UI app knows with better details what is going on in such more abrupt events? (in this case, "Linux killed process", but it could be a "segmentation pipe" or any other) (and if there is another, better solution that this "constant read a log file produced by the secondary app", I'ld also like to know)
Notes: the UI is written in C++/Qt and the secondary app is in C. Although a solution using the Qt library would be welcomed, I think it would be better for the entire programming community if a more generalized solution was given.
You can create a signal handler for POSIX signals such as SIGKILL in the backend process and notify the ui using for example another signal with sigqueue. Any IPC mechanism should work, as long as it's async safe. Read more about signals: tutorial and manual
It may still be a good idea to check from the ui side periodically because the handler might not succeed.
As for a better way to check if process is alive compared to reading the log file:
Check if process exists given its pid
Is there some portable way to check the number of parallel instances of my app?
I have a c++ app (win32) where I need to know how often it was started. The problem is
that several user can start it parallel (terminal server), so i cannot search the "running process" list because I'm not able to access the the list of other users.
I tried it with Semaphore (boost & win32 CreateSemaphore)
It worked, but now I have the problem if the app crashes (Assertion or just kill the process) the counter is not changed. (rebooting helps)
Also manually removing/resetting the semaphore counter in my code is not possible because I don't know if somebody else is running my application.
Edited to add:
Suppose you have a license that lets you run 20 full-functionality copies of your program. Then you could have 20 mutexes, named MyProgMutex1 through MyProgMutex20. At startup, your program can loop through the mutexes. If it finds a spare mutex that it can take, it stops looping and enters full-functionality mode. If it loops through all the mutexes without being able to take any of them, then it enters reduced-functionality mode.
Original answer:
I assume you want to make sure that only one copy of your process runs at once. (Or, for Terminal Server, one copy of your process per login session).
Your named semaphore solution is close. The right way to do this is a named mutex. Use CreateMutex to make the mutex, then call WaitForSingleObject with a timeout of zero. If WaitForSingleObject returns WAIT_TIMEOUT, another copy of the process is running. If it returns WAIT_OBJECT_0 or WAIT_ABANDONED, then you are the only copy of the process. You need to keep the mutex handle open while your program runs - either call CloseHandle when your process is about to exit, or just deliberately leak the handle and rely on Window's built-in cleanup to release the handle for you when your process exits. Windows will automatically increment the mutex's counter when your process exits.
The only thing I can think of that mitigates the problem of crashed processes is a kind of “dead man’s switch”: each process needs to update its status in regular intervals. If a process fails to do this, it’s automatically discarded from the list of active processes.
This technique requires that one of the processes acts as a server which keeps tab of whether other processes have updated recently. If the server dies, then another process can take over. This, in turn, requires that each process tests whether there still is a server alive.
Alternatively, each process can be its own server and keep track locally. This may be easier to implement than server-switching.
You can broadcast message and other instances of your application should send some response. You count responses - you get number of instances.
I am developing a simple WinAPI application and started from writing my own assertion system.
I have a macro defined like ASSERT(X) which would make pretty the same thing as assert(X) does, but with more information, more options and etc.
At some moment (when that assertion system was already running and working) I realized there is a problem.
Suppose I wrote a code that does some action using a timer and (just a simple example) this action is done while handling WM_TIMER message. And now, the situation changes the way that this code starts throwing an assert. This assert message would be shown every TIMER_RESOLUTION milliseconds and would simply flood the screen.
Options for solving this situation could be:
1) Totally pause application running (probably also, suspend all threads) when the assertion messagebox is shown and continue running after it is closed
2) Make a static counter for the shown asserts and don't show asserts when one of them is already showing (but this doesn't pause application)
3) Group similiar asserts and show only one for each assert type (but this also doesn't pause application)
4) Modify the application code (for example, Get / Translate / Dispatch message loop) so that it suspends itself when there are any asserts. This is good, but not universal and looks like a hack.
To my mind, option number 1 is the best. But I don't know any way how this can be achieved. What I'm seeking for is a way to pause the runtime (something similiar to Pause button in the debugger). Does somebody know how to achieve this?
Also, if somebody knows an efficient way to handle this problem - I would appreciate your help. Thank you.
It is important to understand how Windows UI programs work, to answer this question.
At the core of the Windows UI programming model is of course "the message" queue". Messages arrive in message queues and are retrieved using message pumps. A message pump is not special. It's merely a loop that retrieves one message at a time, blocking the thread if none are available.
Now why are you getting all these dialogs? Dialog boxes, including MessageBox also have a message pump. As such, they will retrieve messages from the message queue (It doesn't matter much who is pumping messages, in the Windows model). This allows paints, mouse movement and keyboard input to work. It will also trigger additional timers and therefore dialog boxes.
So, the canonical Windows approach is to handle each message whenever it arrives. They are a fact of life and you deal with them.
In your situation, I would consider a slight variation. You really want to save the state of your stack at the point where the assert happened. That's a particularity of asserts that deserves to be respected. Therefore, spin off a thread for your dialog, and create it without a parent HWND. This gives the dialog an isolated message queue, independent of the original window. Since there's also a new thread for it, you can suspend the original thread, the one where WM_TIMER arrives.
Don't show a prompt - either log to a file/debug output, or just forcibly break the debugger (usually platform specific, eg. Microsoft's __debugbreak()). You have to do something more passive than show a dialog if there are threads involved which could fire lots of failures.
Create a worker thread for your debugging code. When an assert happens, send a message to the worker thread. The worker thread would call SuspendThread on each thread in the process (except itself) to stop it, and then display a message box.
To get the threads in a process - create a dll and monitor the DllMain for Thread Attach (and Detach) - each call will be done in the context of a thread being created (or destroyed) so you can get the current thread id and create a handle to use with SuspendThread.
Or, the toolhelp debug api will help you find out the threads to pause.
The reason I prefer this approach is, I don't like asserts that cause side effects. Too often Ive had asserts fire from asynchronous socket processing - or window message - processing code - then the assert Message box is created on that thread which either causes the state of the thread to be corrupted by a totally unexpected re-entrancy point - MessageBox also discards any messages sent to the thread, so it messes up any worker threads using thread message queues to queue jobs.
My own ASSERT implementation calls DebugBreak() or as alternative INT 3 (__asm int 3 in MS VC++). An ASSERT should break on the debugger.
Use the MessageBox function. This will block until the user clicks "ok". After this is done, you could choose to discard extra assertion failure messages or still display them as your choice.
I have an NSDocument-based Cocoa app and I have a couple of secondary threads that I need to terminate gracefully (wait for them to run through the current loop) when the users closes the document window or when the application quits. I'm using canCloseDocumentWithDelegate to send a flag to the threads when the document is closing and then when they're done, one of them calls [NSDocument close]. This seems to work peachy keen when the user closes the document window, but when you quit the app, it goes all kinds of wrong (crashes before it calls anything). What is the correct procedure for something like this?
The best possible way is for the threads to own the objects necessary for the thread to finish doing whatever it is doing to the point of being able to abort processing and terminate as quickly as possible.
Under non-GC, this means a -retain that the thread -releases when done. For GC, it is just a hard reference to the object(s) desired.
If there is some kind of lengthy processing that must go on and must complete before the document is closed, then drop a sheet with a progress bar and leave the document modal until done (both Aperture and iPhoto do exactly this).