pthread_create(&thread, NULL, AcceptLoop, (void *)this);
I have declared like this and inside of the AcceptLoop function I have infinity while loop. I'd like to close this thread when the server is closed. I have read pthread_cancel and pthread_join but I am not sure which one is better and safer. I would like to hear some detailed instructions or tutorials. Thanks in advance.
You don't need to do anything, just returning from the thread function will end the thread cleanly. You can alternatively call pthread_exit() but I'd rather return.
pthread_cancel() is scary and complicated/hard to get right. Stay clear if possible.
pthread_join() is mostly needed if you want to know when thread finishes and are interested in the return value.
Ooops, I'm wrong. It's been some time. In order for what I said to be true, you must detach from your thread. Otherwise you'll need to call pthread_join:
Either pthread_join(3) or
pthread_detach() should be called for
each thread
that an application creates, so that system resources for the thread
can be
released. (But note that the resources of all threads are freed
when the
process terminates.)
http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online/pages/man3/pthread_detach.3.html
I believe you would like to exit the worker thread by signalling from the main thread.
Inside AcceptLoop instead of looping infinitiely you loop on a condition, you can set the condition through your main thread, You will have to use some synchronization for this variable. Once the variable is set from main thread the worker thread AcceptLoop would break out and you can then call pthread_exit.
if you would like your main thread to wait for child thread to exit you can use pthread_join to do so.
In general, A child thread can exit in three conditions:
calling pthread_exit.
calling pthread_cancel.
The thread function returns.
Related
So I am using a variable
std::vector<pthread_t> preallocatedThreadsPool;
to hold all the pthreads,
then I use a for loop
preallocatedThreadsPool.resize(preallocatThreadsNumber); // create a threadpoOl
for(pthread_t i : preallocatedThreadsPool) {
pthread_create(&i, NULL, threadFunctionUsedByThreadsPool, NULL);
}
to create the threads pool,
the question is how do I really destory it, for example, when i send signal to the program then i need to manual handle the program to stop all the preallocated pthreads?
I have tried to use another for loop and inside the for loop to call pthread_exit(i),
but the IDE, tell me the for loop will only execute once, which obviously not working
I have tried to use preallocatedThreadsPool.clear() , to clean the vector, however when i use
gdb tool to debug it, inside the info threads , the threads are still there?
is there a good way to destory all the preallocated pthreads in my case?
Threads have to exit themselves. You can't exit another thread.
You can use pthread_join to wait for a thread to exit, or pthread_detach to say that you're never going to call pthread_join. You have to call one of these, or it leaks the thread. pthread_join destroys the thread; pthread_detach doesn't destroy the thread (obviously) but it allows the thread to destroy itself when it exits.
Since this is a thread pool, you must have a queue of things you want the threads in the pool to do. You can add special "please exit" items to the end of the queue (or the beginning), and then wait for the threads to exit. Make it so the threads exit when they see a "please exit" item in the queue.
It's all about thread synchronization. The proper way is that you have to have a global flag (a condition variable or a Win32 Event for example) that threads must periodically check and if set, terminate. When a thread is exiting, you must also wait for it to do so, so each thread should signal another event when "I'm done".
After that, any "handle" allocated to pthread or to std::thread or to CreateThread can be destroyed. In std::thread, you can detach and forget about the handle.
Even if you can kill the thread immediately by a function such as TerminateThread (there should be something similar in pthreads), this is very bad, for you will have leaked memory, possibly.
I am creating a thread using _beginthreadex function. The function address I am passing in it has an infinite while loop (while(1)) . I have the threadid and threadhandle.
I can use TerminateThread(threadhandle,1); But it is dangerous.
The safe way is to kill thread using _endthreadex but it can only be used from inside the thread, and I wanted to kill the thread from outside.
So please suggest if there is a safe way to close,end or kill the thread safely from outside using threadid or threadhandle.
You should - literally - never use TerminateThread(). And I'm not even joking. If you are terminating a thread from the outside, all resources reserved in it will be leaked, all state variables accessed inside will have an undetermined state and so on.
The solution for your problem might be signaling your thread to finish itself. It can be done by a volatile variable changed by thread-safe means (see InterlockedIncrement() on that), a Windows event, or something like that. If your thread has a message loop you can even do it by sending a message to ask it to stop.
The proper way is to create an event "kill me", by using CreateEvent, then flag this event when you wish to kill the thread. Instead of having your thread wait while(1), have it wait while(WaitForSingleObject(hevent_killme, 0)). And then you can simply let the thread callback finish and return, no need to call _endthreadex or such.
Example of callback function:
static DWORD WINAPI thread_callback (LPVOID param)
{
...
while(WaitForSingleObject(hevent_killme, 0) != WAIT_OBJECT_0)
{
// do stuff
}
return 0;
}
Caller:
HANDLE hevent_killme = CreateEvent(...);
...
void killthread (void)
{
SetEvent(hevent_killme);
WaitForSingleObject(hthread_the_thread, INFINITE);
CloseHandle(hevent_killme);
CloseHandle(hthread_the_thread);
}
Never use TerminateThread.
Instead of while(1), you can use while(continue_running), where continue_running is True when the thread loop should run. When you want to stop the thread, make the controlling thread set continue_running to False. Of course make sure that you properly guard continue_running with mutexes as it is a variable whose value can be modified from two threads.
I've got a setup something a bit like this:
void* work(void*) { while (true) {/*do work*/} return 0;}
class WorkDoer
{
private:
pthread_t id;
public:
WorkDoer() { pthread_create(&id, NULL, work, (void*)this); }
void Shutdown() { pthread_join(id, NULL); /*other cleanup*/ }
}
There's some cases where Shutdown() is called from the main thread, and some other cases where I want to call shutdown from within the thread itself (returning from that thread right after).
The documentation for pthread_join() says that it will return a EDEADLK if the calling thread is the same as the one passed.
My question is: Is that an okay thing to do, and if so is it safe? (thus ignoring the join fail, because I'll be nicely ending the thread in a moment anyways?) Or, is it something that should be avoided?
You can certainly call pthread_join() from the running thread itself, and as you have found out the call itself will handle it properly giving you an error code. However, there are a few problems:
It doesn't make any sense because the join won't join anything. It will merely tell you that you are doing something wrong.
The thread itself won't exit upon calling pthread_join() on itself.
Even if the thread exists, its state won't be cleaned up properly. Some other thread (i.e. your application's main thread) should call pthread_join() unless the thread was created as “detached”.
So in other words this approach is as acceptable as a bug in your program.
As a solution I would recommend to revisit the design and make sure that Shutdown() is called from the right place and at the right time. After all, the name “shutdown” doesn't make a lot of sense here because it doesn't shutdown a thing. What it does is merely waiting for a thread to finish and cleans up its state after that happens.
When you want to end the worker thread, either return from the thread routine or call pthread_exit(). Then make sure that whoever started a thread cleans things up by calling pthread_join().
If you want to force the thread to stop, consider using pthread_kill() to signal a thread or, alternatively, implement some sort of message passing that you can use to "tell" thread to stop doing whatever it is doing.
The pthread_join() function may fail if:
EDEADLK
A deadlock was detected or the value of thread specifies the
calling thread.
I would say use at your own risk.
Why not just let the thread call pthread_detach(pthread_self()); and then exit. No need to call pthread_join() then anymore and risking to have it fail.
I have some code, roughly:
pthread_create(thread_timeout, NULL, handleTimeOut, NULL);
void handleTimeOut()
{
/*...*/
pthread_cancel(thread_timeout);
/*...*/
}
But as I noticed by pthread's manual the cancellation must be used by another threads. I have tried to use pthread_exit() function instead, but this thread hangs on again...
How must the tread termination be handled correctly? Will it be terminated successfully if the function handleTimeOut() just ends without special pthread functions?
Killing a thread without its cooperation is a recipe for problems. The right solution will be one that allows an external thread to request the thread to clean up and terminate, and has the thread periodically example this state and when it's been requested, it follows through with the request. Such a request can be done through anything that all threads can share.
If a thread wants to finish, it can either call pthread_exit() or it can return from the initial thread function. These are equivalent.
I don't see any reason why a thread couldn't call pthread_cancel() on itself, but this would be highly unusual.
I have a TCP Server application that serves each client in a new thread using POSIX Threads and C++.
The server calls "listen" on its socket and when a client connects, it makes a new object of class Client. The new object runs in its own thread and processes the client's requests.
When a client disconnects, i want some way to tell my main() thread that this thread is done, and main() can delete this object and log something like "Client disconnected".
My question is, how do i tell to the main thread, that a thread is done ?
The most straightforward way that I can see, is to join the threads. See here. The idea is that on a join call, a command thread will then wait until worker threads exit, and then resume.
Alternatively, you could roll something up with some shared variables and mutexes.
If the child thread is really exiting when it is done (rather than waiting for more work), the parent thread can call pthread_join on it which will block until the child thread exits.
Obviously, if the parent thread is doing other things, it can't constantly be blocking on pthread_join, so you need a way to send a message to the main thread to tell it to call pthread_join. There are a number of IPC mechanisms that you could use for this, but in your particular case (a TCP server), I suspect the main thread is probably a select loop, right? If that's the case, I would recommend using pipe to create a logical pipe, and have the read descriptor for the pipe be one of the descriptors that the main thread selects from.
When a child thread is done, it would then write some sort of message to the pipe saying "I'm Done!" and then the server would know to call pthread_join on that thread and then do whatever else it needs to do when a connection finishes.
Note that you don't have to call pthread_join on a finished child thread, unless you need its return value. However, it is generally a good idea to do so if the child thread has any access to shared resources, since when pthread_join returns without error, it assures you that the child thread is really gone and not in some intermediate state between having sent the "I'm Done!" message and actually having exited.
pthreads return 0 if everything went okay or they return errno if something didn't work.
int ret, joined;
ret = pthread_create(&thread, NULL, connect, (void*) args);
joined = pthread_join(&thread, NULL);
If joined is zero, the thread is done. Clean up that thread's object.
While it is possible to implement IPC mechanisms to notify a main thread when other threads are about to terminate, if you want to do something when a thread terminates you should try to let the terminating thread do it itself.
You might look into using pthread_cleanup_push() to establish a routine to be called when the thread is cancelled or exits. Another option might be to use pthread_key_create() to create a thread-specific data key and associated destructor function.
If you don't want to call pthread_join() from the main thread due to blocking, you should detach the client threads by either setting it as option when creating the thread or calling pthread_detach().
You could use a queue of "thread objects to be deleted", protect access to the queue with a mutex, and then signal a pthread condition variable to indicate that something was available on the queue.
But do you really want to do that? A better model is for each thread to just clean up after itself, and not worry about synchronizing with the main thread in the first place.
Calling pthread_join will block execution of the main thread. Given the description of the problem I don't think it will provide the desired solution.
My preferred solution, in most cases, would be to have the thread perform its own cleanup. If that isn't possible you'll either have to use some kind of polling scheme with shared variables (just remember to make them thread safe, hint:volatile), or perhaps some sort of OS dependant callback mechanism. Remember, you want to be blocked on the call to listen, so really consider having the thread clean itself up.
As others have mentioned, it's easy to handle termination of a given thread with pthread_join. But a weak spot of pthreads is funneling information from several sources into a synchronous stream. (Alternately, you could say its strong spot is performance.)
By far the easiest solution for you would be to handle cleanup in the worker thread. Log the disconnection (add a mutex to the log), delete resources as appropriate, and exit the worker thread without signaling the parent.
Adding mutexes to allow manipulation of shared resources is a tough problem, so be flexible and creative. Always err on caution when synchronizing, and profile before optimizing.
I had exactly the same problem as you described. After ~300 opened client connections my Linux application was not able to create new thread because pthread_join was never called. For me, usage of pthread_tryjoin_np helped.
Briefly:
have a map that holds all opened thread descriptors
from the main thread before new client thread is opened I iterate through map and call pthread_tryjoin_np for each thread recorded in map. If thread is done the result of call is zero meaning that I can clean up resources from that thread. At the same time pthread_tryjoin_np takes care about releasing thread resources. If pthread_tryjoin_np call returns number different from 0 this means that thread is still running and I simply do nothing.
Potential problem with this is that I do not see pthread_tryjoin_np as part official POSIX standard so this solution might not be portable.