C++ Templated Producer-Consumer BlockingQueue, unbounded buffer: How do I end elegantly? - c++

Question

I wrote a BlockingQueue in order to communicate two threads. You could say it follows the Producer-Consumer pattern, with an unbounded buffer. Therefore, I implemented it using a Critical Section and a Semaphore, like this:
#pragma once
#include "Semaphore.h"
#include "Guard.h"
#include <queue>
namespace DRA{
namespace CommonCpp{
template<class Element>
class BlockingQueue{
CCriticalSection m_csQueue;
CSemaphore m_semElementCount;
std::queue<Element> m_Queue;
//Forbid copy and assignment
BlockingQueue( const BlockingQueue& );
BlockingQueue& operator=( const BlockingQueue& );
public:
BlockingQueue( unsigned int maxSize );
~BlockingQueue();
Element Pop();
void Push( Element newElement );
};
}
}
//Template definitions
template<class Element>
DRA::CommonCpp::BlockingQueue<Element>::BlockingQueue( unsigned int maxSize ):
m_csQueue( "BlockingQueue::m_csQueue" ),
m_semElementCount( 0, maxSize ){
}
template<class Element>
DRA::CommonCpp::BlockingQueue<Element>::~BlockingQueue(){
//TODO What can I do here?
}
template<class Element>
void DRA::CommonCpp::BlockingQueue<Element>::Push( Element newElement ){
{//RAII block
CGuard g( m_csQueue );
m_Queue.push( newElement );
}
m_semElementCount.Signal();
}
template<class Element>
Element DRA::CommonCpp::BlockingQueue<Element>::Pop(){
m_semElementCount.Wait();
Element popped;
{//RAII block
CGuard g( m_csQueue );
popped = m_Queue.front();
m_Queue.pop();
}
return popped;
}
CGuard is a RAII wrapper for a CCriticalSection, it enters it on construction and leaves it on destruction. CSemaphore is a wrapper for a Windows semaphore.
So far, so good, the threads are communicating perfectly. However, when the producer thread stops producing and ends, and the consumer thread has consumed everything, the consumer thread stays forever hung on a Pop() call.
How can I tell the consumer to end elegantly? I thought of sending a special empty Element, but it seems too sloppy.

Answer 1

You better use events instead of Semaphore. While adding, take lock on CS, and check element count (store into bIsEmpty local variable). Add into queue, then check if number of elements WAS empty, SetEvent!
On pop method, lock first, then check if it is empty, then WaitForSingleObject - as soon as WFSO returns you get that there is at least one item in queue.
Check this article

Answer 2

Does your Semaphore implementation have a timed wait function available? On Windows, that would be WaitForSingleObject() specifying a timeout. If so, Pop() could be implemented like this:
// Pseudo code
bool Pop(Element& r, timeout)
{
if(sem.wait(timeout))
{
r = m_Queue.front();
m_Queue.pop();
}
return false;
}
This way, the Pop() is still blocking, though it can be easily interrupted. Even with very short timeouts this won't consume significant amounts of CPU (more than absolutely necessary, yes -- and potentially introduce additional context switching -- so note those caveats).

Answer 3

You need a way of telling the consumer to stop. This could be a special element in the queue, say a simple wrapper structure around the Element, or a flag - a member variable of the queue class (in which case you want to make sure the flag is dealt with atomically - lookup windows "interlocked" functions). Then you need to check that condition in the consumer every time it wakes up. Finally, in the destructor, set that stop condition and signal the semaphore.
One issue remains - what to return from the consumer's pop(). I'd go for a boolean return value and an argument of type Element& to copy result into on success.
Edit:
Something like this:
bool Queue::Pop( Element& result ) {
sema.Wait();
if ( stop_condition ) return false;
critical_section.Enter();
result = m_queue.front();
m_queue.pop;
critical_section.Leave();
return true;
}

Answer 4

Change pop to return a boost optional (or do it like the standard library does with top/pop to separate the tasks) and then signal m_semElementCount one last time on destruction.