I'm working on a C/C++ networking project and am having difficulties synchronizing/signaling my threads. Here is what I am trying to accomplish:
Poll a bunch of sockets using the poll function
If any sockets are ready from the POLLIN event then send a signal to a reader thread and a writer thread to "wake up"
I have a class called MessageHandler that sets the signals mask and spawns the reader and writer threads. Inside them I then wait on the signal(s) that ought to wake them up.
The problem is that I am testing all this functionality by sending a signal to a thread yet it never wakes up.
Here is the problem code with further explanation. Note I just have highlighted how it works with the reader thread as the writer thread is essentially the same.
// Called once if allowedSignalsMask == 0 in constructor
// STATIC
void MessageHandler::setAllowedSignalsMask() {
allowedSignalsMask = (sigset_t*)std::malloc(sizeof(sigset_t));
sigemptyset(allowedSignalsMask);
sigaddset(allowedSignalsMask, SIGCONT);
}
// STATIC
sigset_t *MessageHandler::allowedSignalsMask = 0;
// STATIC
void* MessageHandler::run(void *arg) {
// Apply the signals mask to any new threads created after this point
pthread_sigmask(SIG_BLOCK, allowedSignalsMask, 0);
MessageHandler *mh = (MessageHandler*)arg;
pthread_create(&(mh->readerThread), 0, &runReaderThread, arg);
sleep(1); // Just sleep for testing purposes let reader thread execute first
pthread_kill(mh->readerThread, SIGCONT);
sleep(1); // Just sleep for testing to let reader thread print without the process terminating
return 0;
}
// STATIC
void* MessageHandler::runReaderThread(void *arg) {
int signo;
for (;;) {
sigwait(allowedSignalsMask, &signo);
fprintf(stdout, "Reader thread signaled\n");
}
return 0;
}
I took out all the error handling I had in the code to condense it but do know for a fact that the thread starts properly and gets to the sigwait call.
The error may be obvious (its not a syntax error - the above code is condensed from compilable code and I might of screwed it up while editing it) but I just can't seem to find/see it since I have spent far to much time on this problem and confused myself.
Let me explain what I think I am doing and if it makes sense.
Upon creating an object of type MessageHandler it will set allowedSignalsMask to the set of the one signal (for the time being) that I am interested in using to wake up my threads.
I add the signal to the blocked signals of the current thread with pthread_sigmask. All further threads created after this point ought to have the same signal mask now.
I then create the reader thread with pthread_create where arg is a pointer to an object of type MessageHandler.
I call sleep as a cheap way to ensure that my readerThread executes all the way to sigwait()
I send the signal SIGCONT to the readerThread as I am interested in sigwait to wake up/unblock once receiving it.
Again I call sleep as a cheap way to ensure that my readerThread can execute all the way after it woke up/unblocked from sigwait()
Other helpful notes that may be useful but I don't think affect the problem:
MessageHandler is constructed and then a different thread is created given the function pointer that points to run. This thread will be responsible for creating the reader and writer threads, polling the sockets with the poll function, and then possibly sending signals to both the reader and writer threads.
I know its a long post but do appreciate you reading it and any help you can offer. If I wasn't clear enough or you feel like I didn't provide enough information please let me know and I will correct the post.
Thanks again.
POSIX threads have condition variables for a reason; use them. You're not supposed to need signal hackery to accomplish basic synchronization tasks when programming with threads.
Here is a good pthread tutorial with information on using condition variables:
https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/pthreads/
Or, if you're more comfortable with semaphores, you could use POSIX semaphores (sem_init, sem_post, and sem_wait) instead. But once you figure out why the condition variable and mutex pairing makes sense, I think you'll find condition variables are a much more convenient primitive.
Also, note that your current approach incurs several syscalls (user-space/kernel-space transitions) per synchronization. With a good pthreads implementation, using condition variables should drop that to at most one syscall, and possibly none at all if your threads keep up with each other well enough that the waited-for event occurs while they're still spinning in user-space.
This pattern seems a bit odd, and most likely error prone. The pthread library is rich in synchronization methods, the one most likely to serve your need being in the pthread_cond_* family. These methods handle condition variables, which implement the Wait and Signal approach.
Use SIGUSR1 instead of SIGCONT. SIGCONT doesn't work. Maybe a signal expert knows why.
By the way, we use this pattern because condition variables and mutexes are too slow for our particular application. We need to sleep and wake individual threads very rapidly.
R. points out there is extra overhead due to additional kernel space calls. Perhaps if you sleep > N threads, then a single condition variable would beat out multiple sigwaits and pthread_kills. In our application, we only want to wake one thread when work arrives. You have to have a condition variable and mutex for each thread to do this otherwise you get the stampede. In a test where we slept and woke N threads M times, signals beat mutexes and condition variables by a factor of 5 (it could have been a factor of 40 but I cant remember anymore....argh). We didn't test Futexes which can wake 1 thread at a time and specifically are coded to limit trips to kernel space. I suspect futexes would be faster than mutexes.
Related
I have a program structured like that: one thread that receives tasks and writes them to input queue, multiple which process them and write in output queue, one that responds with results from it. When queue is empty, thread sleeps for several milliesconds. Queue has mutex inside it, pushing does lock(), and popping does try_lock() and returns if there is nothing in queue.
This is processing thread for example:
//working - atomic bool
while (working) {
if (!inputQue_->pop(msg)) {
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(200));
continue;
} else {
string reply = messageHandler_->handle(msg);
if (!reply.empty()) {
outputQue_->push(reply);
}
}
}
And the thing that I dont like is that the time since receiving task until responding, as i have measured with high_resolution_clock, is almost 0, when there is no sleeping. When there is sleeping, it becomes bigger.
I dont want cpu resources to be wasted and want to do something like that: when recieving thread gets task, it notifies one of the processing threads, that does wait_for, and when processing task is done, it notifies responding thread same way. As a result I think i will get less time spent and cpu resources will not be wasted. And I have some questions:
Will this work the way that I see it supposed to, and the only difference will be waking up on notifying?
To do this, I have to create 2 condition variables: first same for receiving thread and all processing, second same for all processing and responding? And mutex in processing threads has to be common for all of them or uniuqe?
Can I place creation of unique_lock(mutex) and wait_for() in if branch just instead of sleep_for?
If some processing threads are busy, is it possible that notify_one() can try to wake up one of them, but not the free thread? I need to use notify_all()?
Is it possible that notify will not wake up any of threads? If yes, does it have high probability?
Will this work the way that I see it supposed to, and the only difference will be waking up on notifying?
Yes, assuming you do it correctly.
To do this, I have to create 2 condition variables: first same for receiving thread and all processing, second same for all processing and responding? And mutex in processing threads has to be common for all of them or uniuqe?
You can use a single mutex and a single condition variable, but that makes it a bit more complex. I'd suggest a single mutex, but one condition variable for each condition a thread might want to wait for.
Can I place creation of unique_lock(mutex) and wait_for() in if branch just instead of sleep_for?
Absolutely not. You need to hold the mutex while you check whether the queue is empty and continue to hold it until you call wait_for. Otherwise, you destroy the entire logic of the condition variable. The mutex associated with the condition variable must protect the condition that the thread is going to wait for, which in this case is the queue being non-empty.
If some processing threads are busy, is it possible that notify_one() can try to wake up one of them, but not the free thread? I need to use notify_all()?
I don't know what you mean by the "free thread". As a general rule, you can use notify_one if it's not possible for a thread to be blocked on the condition variable that can't handle the condition. You should use notify_all if either more than one thread might need to be awoken or there's a possibility that more than one thread will be blocked on the condition variable and the "wrong thread" could be woken, that is, there could be at least one thread that can't do whatever it is that needs to be done.
Is it possible that notify will not wake up any of threads? If yes, does it have high probability?
Sure, it's quite possible. But that would mean no threads were blocked on the condition. In that case, no thread can block on the condition because threads must check the condition before they wait, and they do it while holding a mutex. To provide this atomic "unlock and wait" semantic is the entire purpose of a condition variable.
The mechanism you have is called polling. The thread repeatedly checks (polls) if there is data available. As you mentioned, it has the drawback of wasting time. (But it is simple). What you mentioned you would like to use is called a blocking mechanism. This deschedules the thread until the moment that work becomes available.
1) Yes (although I don't know exactly what you're imagining)
2) a) Yes, 2 condition variables is one way to do it. b) Common mutex is best
3) You would probably place those within pop, and calling pop would have the potential to block.
4) No. notify_one will only wake a thread that is currently waiting from having called wait. Also, if multiple are waiting, it is not necessarily guaranteed which will receive the notification. (OS/library dependent)
5) No. If 1+ threads are waiting, notify_one it is guaranteed to wake one. BUT if no threads are waiting, the notification is consumed (and has no effect). Note that under certain edge conditions, notify_one may actually wake more than one. Also, a thread may wake from wait without anyone having called notify_one ("Spurious wake up"). The fact that this can happen at all means that you always have to do additional checking for it.
This is called the producer/consumer problem btw.
In general, your considerations about condition variable are correct. My proposal is more connected to design and reusability of such functionality.
The main idea is to implement ThreadPool pattern, which has constructor with number of worker threads ,methods submitTask, shutdown, join.
Having such class, you will use 2 instances of pools: one multithreaded for processing, second (singlethreaded by your choice) for result sending.
The pool consists of Blocking Queue of Tasks and array of Worker threads, each performing the same "pop Task and run" loop.The Blocking Queue encapsulates mutex and cond_var. The Task is common functor.
This also brings your design to Task oriented approach, which has a lot of advantages in future of your application.
You are welcome to ask more questions about implementation details if you like this idea.
Best regards, Daniel
I am creating multiple threads in my program. On pressing Ctrl-C, a signal handler is called. Inside a signal handler, I have put exit(0) at last. The thing is that sometimes the program terminates safely but the other times, I get runtime error stating
abort() has been called
So what would be the possible solution to avoid the error?
The usual way is to set an atomic flag (like std::atomic<bool>) which is checked by all threads (including the main thread). If set, then the sub-threads exit, and the main thread starts to join the sub-threads. Then you can exit cleanly.
If you use std::thread for the threads, that's a possible reason for the crashes you have. You must join the thread before the std::thread object is destructed.
Others have mentioned having the signal-handler set a std::atomic<bool> and having all the other threads periodically check that value to know when to exit.
That approach works well as long as all of your other threads are periodically waking up anyway, at a reasonable frequency.
It's not entirely satisfactory if one or more of your threads is purely event-driven, however -- in an event-driven program, threads are only supposed to wake up when there is some work for them to do, which means that they might well be asleep for days or weeks at a time. If they are forced to wake up every (so many) milliseconds simply to poll an atomic-boolean-flag, that makes an otherwise extremely CPU-efficient program much less CPU-efficient, since now every thread is waking up at short regular intervals, 24/7/365. This can be particularly problematic if you are trying to conserve battery life, as it can prevent the CPU from going into power-saving mode.
An alternative approach that avoids polling would be this one:
On startup, have your main thread create an fd-pipe or socket-pair (by calling pipe() or socketpair())
Have your main thread (or possibly some other responsible thread) include the receiving-socket in its read-ready select() fd_set (or take a similar action for poll() or whatever wait-for-IO function that thread blocks in)
When the signal-handler is executed, have it write a byte (any byte, doesn't matter what) into the sending-socket.
That will cause the main thread's select() call to immediately return, with FD_ISSET(receivingSocket) indicating true because of the received byte
At that point, your main thread knows it is time for the process to exit, so it can start directing all of its child threads to start shutting down (via whatever mechanism is convenient; atomic booleans or pipes or something else)
After telling all the child threads to start shutting down, the main thread should then call join() on each child thread, so that it can be guaranteed that all of the child threads are actually gone before main() returns. (This is necessary because otherwise there is a risk of a race condition -- e.g. the post-main() cleanup code might occasionally free a resource while a still-executing child thread was still using it, leading to a crash)
The first thing you must accept is that threading is hard.
A "program using threading" is about as generic as a "program using memory", and your question is similar to "how do I not corrupt memory in a program using memory?"
The way you handle threading problem is to restrict how you use threads and the behavior of the threads.
If your threading system is a bunch of small operations composed into a data flow network, with an implicit guarantee that if an operation is too big it is broken down into smaller operations and/or does checkpoints with the system, then shutting down looks very different than if you have a thread that loads an external DLL that then runs it for somewhere from 1 second to 10 hours to infinite length.
Like most things in C++, solving your problem is going to be about ownership, control and (at a last resort) hacks.
Like data in C++, every thread should be owned. The owner of a thread should have significant control over that thread, and be able to tell it that the application is shutting down. The shut down mechanism should be robust and tested, and ideally connected to other mechanisms (like early-abort of speculative tasks).
The fact you are calling exit(0) is a bad sign. It implies your main thread of execution doesn't have a clean shutdown path. Start there; the interrupt handler should signal the main thread that shutdown should begin, and then your main thread should shut down gracefully. All stack frames should unwind, data should be cleaned up, etc.
Then the same kind of logic that permits that clean and fast shutdown should also be applied to your threaded off code.
Anyone telling you it is as simple as a condition variable/atomic boolean and polling is selling you a bill of goods. That will only work in simple cases if you are lucky, and determining if it works reliably is going to be quite hard.
Additional to Some programmer dude answer and related to discussion in the comment section, you need to make the flag that controls termination of your threads as atomic type.
Consider following case :
bool done = false;
void pending_thread()
{
while(!done)
{
std::this_thread::sleep(std::milliseconds(1));
}
// do something that depends on working thread results
}
void worker_thread()
{
//do something for pending thread
done = true;
}
Here worker thread can be your main thread also and done is terminating flag of your thread, but pending thread need to do something with given data by working thread, before exiting.
this example has race condition and undefined behaviour along with it, and it's really hard to find what is the actual problem int the real world.
Now the corrected version using std::automic :
std::atomic<bool> done(false);
void pending_thread()
{
while(!done.load())
{
std::this_thread::sleep(std::milliseconds(1));
}
// do something that depends on working thread results
}
void worker_thread()
{
//do something for pending thread
done = true;
}
You can exit thread without being concern of race condition or UB.
I am recently working with threads in C++11. now I am thinking about how to force stop a thread. I couldn't find it on stackoverflow, and also tried these.
One variable each thread : not so reliable
return in the main thread : I have to force quit only one not all
and I have no more ideas. I have heard about WinAPI, but I want a portable solution. (that also means I wont use fork())
Can you please give me a solution of this? I really want to do it.
One of the biggest problems with force closing a thread in C++ is the RAII violation.
When a function (and subsequently, a thread), gracefully finishes, everything it held is gracefully cleaned up by the destructors of the objects the functions/threads created.
Memory gets freed,
OS resources (handles, file descriptors etc.) are closed and returned to the OS
Locks are getting unlocked so other threads can use the shared resources they protect.
other important tasks are preformed (such as updating counters, logging, etc.).
If you brutally kill a thread (aka by TerminateThread on Windows, for example), non of these actually happen, and the program is left in a very dangerous state.
A (not-so) common pattern that can be used is to register a "cancellation token" on which you can monitor and gracefully shut the thread if other thread asks so (a la TPL/PPL). something like
auto cancellationToken = std::make_shared<std::atomic_bool>();
cancellationToken->store(false);
class ThreadTerminator : public std::exception{/*...*/};
std::thread thread([cancellationToken]{
try{
//... do things
if (cancellationToken->load()){
//somone asked the thred to close
throw ThreadTerminator ();
}
//do other things...
if (cancellationToken->load()){
//somone asked the thred to close
throw ThreadTerminator ();
}
//...
}catch(ThreadTerminator){
return;
}
});
Usually, one doesn't even open a new thread for a small task, it's better to think of a multi threaded application as a collection of concurrent tasks and parallel algorithms. one opens a new thread for some long ongoing background task which is usually performed in some sort of a loop (such as, accepting incoming connections).
So, anyway, the cases for asking a small task to be cancelled are rare anyway.
tldr:
Is there a reliable way to force a thread to stop in C++?
No.
Here is my approach for most of my designs:
Think of 2 kinds of Threads:
1) primary - I call main.
2) subsequent - any thread launched by main or any subsequent thread
When I launch std::thread's in C++ (or posix threads in C++):
a) I provide all subsequent threads access to a boolean "done", initialized to false. This bool can be directly passed from main (or indirectly through other mechanisms).
b) All my threads have a regular 'heartbeat', typically with a posix semaphore or std::mutex, sometimes with just a timer, and sometimes simply during normal thread operation.
Note that a 'heartbeat' is not polling.
Also note that checking a boolean is really cheap.
Thus, whenever main wants to shut down, it merely sets done to true and 'join's with the subsequent threads.
On occasion main will also signal any semaphore (prior to join) that a subsequent thread might be waiting on.
And sometimes, a subsequent thread has to let its own subsequent thread know it is time to end.
Here is an example -
main launching a subsequent thread:
std::thread* thrd =
new std::thread(&MyClass_t::threadStart, this, id);
assert(nullptr != thrd);
Note that I pass the this pointer to this launch ... within this class instance is a boolean m_done.
Main Commanding shutdown:
In main thread, of course, all I do is
m_done = true;
In a subsequent thread (and in this design, all are using the same critical section):
void threadStart(uint id) {
std::cout << id << " " << std::flush; // thread announce
do {
doOnce(id); // the critical section is in this method
}while(!m_done); // exit when done
}
And finally, at an outer scope, main invokes the join.
Perhaps the take away is - when designing a threaded system, you should also design the system shut down, not just add it on.
I am running multiple threads in my C++11 code and the thread body is defined using lambda function as following.
// make connection to each device in a separate child thread
std::vector<std::thread> workers;
for(int ii = 0; ii < numDev; ii++)
{
workers.push_back(std::thread([=]() { // pass by value
// thread body
}));
}
// detach from all threads
std::for_each(workers.begin(), workers.end(), [](std::thread &t) {
t.detach();
});
// killing one of the threads here?
I detached from all children threads but keep a reference of each in workers vector. How can I kill one of the threads later on in my code?
Post in here suggests using std::terminate() but I guess it has no use in my case.
First, don't use raw std::threads. They are rarely a good idea. It is like manually calling new and delete, or messing with raw buffers and length counters in io code -- bugs waiting to happen.
Second, instead of killing the thread, provide the thread task with a function or atomic variable that says when the worker should kill itself.
The worker periodically checks its "should I die" state, and if so, it cleans itself up and dies.
Then simply signal the worker to die, and wait for it to do so.
This does require work in your worker thread, and if it does some task that cannot be interrupted that lasts a long time it doesn't work. Don't do tasks that cannot be interrupted and last a long time.
If you must do such a task, do it in a different process, and marshall the results back and forth. But modern OSs tend to have async APIs you can use instead of synchronous APIs for IO tasks, which lend themselves to being aborted if you are careful.
Terminating a thread while it is in an arbitrary state places your program into an unknown and undefined state of execution. It could be holding a mutex and never let it go in a standard library call, for example. But really, it can do anything at all.
Generally detaching threads is also a bad idea, because unless you magically know they are finished (difficult because you detached them), what happens after main ends is implementation defined.
Keep track of your threads, like you keep track of your memory allocations, but moreso. Use messages to tell threads to kill themselves. Join threads to clean up their resources, possibly using condition variables in a wrapper to make sure you don't join prior to the thread basically being done. Consider using std::async instead of raw threads, and wrap std::async itself up in a further abstraction.
When using pthread, I can pass data at thread creation time.
What is the proper way of passing new data to an already running thread?
I'm considering making a global variable and make my thread read from that.
Thanks
That will certainly work. Basically, threads are just lightweight processes that share the same memory space. Global variables, being in that memory space, are available to every thread.
The trick is not with the readers so much as the writers. If you have a simple chunk of global memory, like an int, then assigning to that int will probably be safe. Bt consider something a little more complicated, like a struct. Just to be definite, let's say we have
struct S { int a; float b; } s1, s2;
Now s1,s2 are variables of type struct S. We can initialize them
s1 = { 42, 3.14f };
and we can assign them
s2 = s1;
But when we assign them the processor isn't guaranteed to complete the assignment to the whole struct in one step -- we say it's not atomic. So let's now imagine two threads:
thread 1:
while (true){
printf("{%d,%f}\n", s2.a, s2.b );
sleep(1);
}
thread 2:
while(true){
sleep(1);
s2 = s1;
s1.a += 1;
s1.b += 3.14f ;
}
We can see that we'd expect s2 to have the values {42, 3.14}, {43, 6.28}, {44, 9.42} ....
But what we see printed might be anything like
{42,3.14}
{43,3.14}
{43,6.28}
or
{43,3.14}
{44,6.28}
and so on. The problem is that thread 1 may get control and "look at" s2 at any time during that assignment.
The moral is that while global memory is a perfectly workable way to do it, you need to take into account the possibility that your threads will cross over one another. There are several solutions to this, with the basic one being to use semaphores. A semaphore has two operations, confusingly named from Dutch as P and V.
P simply waits until a variable is 0 and the goes on, adding 1 to the variable; V subtracts 1 from the variable. The only thing special is that they do this atomically -- they can't be interrupted.
Now, do you code as
thread 1:
while (true){
P();
printf("{%d,%f}\n", s2.a, s2.b );
V();
sleep(1);
}
thread 2:
while(true){
sleep(1);
P();
s2 = s1;
V();
s1.a += 1;
s1.b += 3.14f ;
}
and you're guaranteed that you'll never have thread 2 half-completing an assignment while thread 1 is trying to print.
(Pthreads has semaphores, by the way.)
I have been using the message-passing, producer-consumer queue-based, comms mechanism, as suggested by asveikau, for decades without any problems specifically related to multiThreading. There are some advantages:
1) The 'threadCommsClass' instances passed on the queue can often contain everything required for the thread to do its work - member/s for input data, member/s for output data, methods for the thread to call to do the work, somewhere to put any error/exception messages and a 'returnToSender(this)' event to call so returning everything to the requester by some thread-safe means that the worker thread does not need to know about. The worker thread then runs asynchronously on one set of fully encapsulated data that requires no locking. 'returnToSender(this)' might queue the object onto a another P-C queue, it might PostMessage it to a GUI thread, it might release the object back to a pool or just dispose() it. Whatever it does, the worker thread does not need to know about it.
2) There is no need for the requesting thread to know anything about which thread did the work - all the requestor needs is a queue to push on. In an extreme case, the worker thread on the other end of the queue might serialize the data and communicate it to another machine over a network, only calling returnToSender(this) when a network reply is received - the requestor does not need to know this detail - only that the work has been done.
3) It is usually possible to arrange for the 'threadCommsClass' instances and the queues to outlive both the requester thread and the worker thread. This greatly eases those problems when the requester or worker are terminated and dispose()'d before the other - since they share no data directly, there can be no AV/whatever. This also blows away all those 'I can't stop my work thread because it's stuck on a blocking API' issues - why bother stopping it if it can be just orphaned and left to die with no possibility of writing to something that is freed?
4) A threadpool reduces to a one-line for loop that creates several work threads and passes them the same input queue.
5) Locking is restricted to the queues. The more mutexes, condVars, critical-sections and other synchro locks there are in an app, the more difficult it is to control it all and the greater the chance of of an intermittent deadlock that is a nightmare to debug. With queued messages, (ideally), only the queue class has locks. The queue class must work 100% with mutiple producers/consumers, but that's one class, not an app full of uncooordinated locking, (yech!).
6) A threadCommsClass can be raised anytime, anywhere, in any thread and pushed onto a queue. It's not even necessary for the requester code to do it directly, eg. a call to a logger class method, 'myLogger.logString("Operation completed successfully");' could copy the string into a comms object, queue it up to the thread that performs the log write and return 'immediately'. It is then up to the logger class thread to handle the log data when it dequeues it - it may write it to a log file, it may find after a minute that the log file is unreachable because of a network problem. It may decide that the log file is too big, archive it and start another one. It may write the string to disk and then PostMessage the threadCommsClass instance on to a GUI thread for display in a terminal window, whatever. It doesn't matter to the log requesting thread, which just carries on, as do any other threads that have called for logging, without significant impact on performance.
7) If you do need to kill of a thread waiting on a queue, rather than waiing for the OS to kill it on app close, just queue it a message telling it to teminate.
There are surely disadvantages:
1) Shoving data directly into thread members, signaling it to run and waiting for it to finish is easier to understand and will be faster, assuming that the thread does not have to be created each time.
2) Truly asynchronous operation, where the thread is queued some work and, sometime later, returns it by calling some event handler that has to communicate the results back, is more difficult to handle for developers used to single-threaded code and often requires state-machine type design where context data must be sent in the threadCommsClass so that the correct actions can be taken when the results come back. If there is the occasional case where the requestor just has to wait, it can send an event in the threadCommsClass that gets signaled by the returnToSender method, but this is obviously more complex than simply waiting on some thread handle for completion.
Whatever design is used, forget the simple global variables as other posters have said. There is a case for some global types in thread comms - one I use very often is a thread-safe pool of threadCommsClass instances, (this is just a queue that gets pre-filled with objects). Any thread that wishes to communicate has to get a threadCommsClass instance from the pool, load it up and queue it off. When the comms is done, the last thread to use it releases it back to the pool. This approach prevents runaway new(), and allows me to easily monitor the pool level during testing without any complex memory-managers, (I usually dump the pool level to a status bar every second with a timer). Leaking objects, (level goes down), and double-released objects, (level goes up), are easily detected and so get fixed.
MultiThreading can be safe and deliver scaleable, high-performance apps that are almost a pleasure to maintain/enhance, (almost:), but you have to lay off the simple globals - treat them like Tequila - quick and easy high for now but you just know they'll blow your head off tomorrow.
Good luck!
Martin
Global variables are bad to begin with, and even worse with multi-threaded programming. Instead, the creator of the thread should allocate some sort of context object that's passed to pthread_create, which contains whatever buffers, locks, condition variables, queues, etc. are needed for passing information to and from the thread.
You will need to build this yourself. The most typical approach requires some cooperation from the other thread as it would be a bit of a weird interface to "interrupt" a running thread with some data and code to execute on it... That would also have some of the same trickiness as something like POSIX signals or IRQs, both of which it's easy to shoot yourself in the foot while processing, if you haven't carefully thought it through... (Simple example: You can't call malloc inside a signal handler because you might be interrupted in the middle of malloc, so you might crash while accessing malloc's internal data structures which are only partially updated.)
The typical approach is to have your thread creation routine basically be an event loop. You can build a queue structure and pass that as the argument to the thread creation routine. Then other threads can enqueue things and the thread's event loop will dequeue it and process the data. Note this is cleaner than a global variable (or global queue) because it can scale to have multiple of these queues.
You will need some synchronization on that queue data structure. Entire books could be written about how to implement your queue structure's synchronization, but the most simple thing would have a lock and a semaphore. When modifying the queue, threads take a lock. When waiting for something to be dequeued, consumer threads would wait on a semaphore which is incremented by enqueuers. It's also a good idea to implement some mechanism to shut down the consumer thread.