I have an interesting (to me) problem... There are two threads, one for capturing data from std input and sending it through socket to server, and another one which receives data from blocking socket. So, when there's no reply from server, recv() call waits indefenitely, right? But instead of blocking only its calling thread, it blocks the overall process! Why this thing occurs?
boost::mutex nvtMutex;
boost::mutex strMutex;
boost::mutex quitMutex;
bool quit = false;
void *processServerOutput(void *arg)
{
NVT *nvt = (NVT*)arg;
while(1)
{
// Lock the quitMutex before trying to access to quit variable
quitMutex.lock();
if(quit)
{
quitMutex.unlock();
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
else
quitMutex.unlock();
// Receive output from server
nvtMutex.lock();
nvt->receive();
cout << Util::Instance()->iconv("koi8-r", "utf-8", nvt->getOutBuffer());
nvtMutex.unlock();
// Delay
sleep(1);
}
}
void *processUserInput(void *arg)
{
NVT *nvt = (NVT*)arg;
while(1)
{
// Get user's input
//cin.getline(str, 1023);
sleep(3);
strcpy(str, "hello");
// If we type 'quit', exit from thread
if(strcmp(str, "quit") == 0)
{
// Lock quit variable before trying to modify it
quitMutex.lock();
quit = true;
quitMutex.unlock();
// Exit from thread
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
// Send the input to server
nvtMutex.lock();
nvt->writeUserCommand(Util::Instance()->iconv("utf-8", "koi8-r", str));
nvt->send();
nvtMutex.unlock();
}
}
You are holding the nvtMutex inside the call to NVT::recv. Since both threads need to lock the mutex to make it through an iteration, until NVT::recv returns the other thread can't progress.
Without knowing the details of this NVT class, it's impossible to know if you can safely unlock the mutex before calling NVT::recv or if this class does not provide the proper thread safety you need.
If your code is implemented correctly, recv blocks only the thread that invokes it.
If this isn't the case for you, show the minimal code sample that demonstrates the problem.
Related
I'm learning multi-thread coding using c++. What I need to do is continuously read word from keyboard, and pass it to a data thread for data processing. I used global variable word[] to pass the data. When word[0] != 0 means a new input from keyboard. And the data thread will set word[0] to 0 once it read the data. It works! But I'm not sure if it safe or not, or there are better ways to do this. Here is my code:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <cstdio>
#include <cstring>
using namespace std;
static const int buff_len = 32;
static char* word = new char[buff_len];
static void data_thread () { // thread to handle data
while (1)
{
if (word[0]) { // have a new word
char* w = new char[buff_len];
strcpy(w, word);
cout << "Data processed!\n";
word[0] = 0; // Inform the producer that we consumed the word
}
}
};
static void read_keyboard () {
char * linebuf = new char[buff_len];
thread * worker = new thread( data_thread );
while (1) //enter "end" to terminate the loop
{
if (!std::fgets( linebuf, buff_len, stdin)) // EOF?
return;
linebuf[strcspn(linebuf, "\n")] = '\0'; //remove new line '\n' from the string
word = linebuf; // Pass the word to the worker thread
while (word[0]); // Wait for the worker thread to consume it
}
worker->join(); // Wait for the worker to terminate
}
int main ()
{
read_keyboard();
return 0;
}
The problem with this type of multi threading implementation is busy waiting. The input reader & the data consumer both are busy waiting and wasting the cpu cycles. To overcome this you need Semaphore.
Semaphore s_full(0);
Semaphore s_empty(1);
void data_processor ()
{
while (true) {
// Wait for data availability.
s_full.wait();
// Data is available to you, consume it.
process_data();
// Unblock the data producer.
s_empty.signal();
}
}
void input_reader()
{
while (true) {
// Wait for empty buffer.
s_empty.wait();
// Read data.
read_input_data();
// Unblock data com=nsumer.
s.full.signal();
}
}
In addition this solution will work only for a single data consumer thread. But for multiple data consumer threads you'll need thread safe buffer queue and proper implementation of producer - consumer problem.
See below blog links for additional information to solve this problem:
Thread safe buffer queue:
https://codeistry.wordpress.com/2018/03/08/buffer-queue-handling-in-multithreaded-environment/
Producer - consumer problem:
https://codeistry.wordpress.com/2018/03/09/unordered-producer-consumer/
There are a few problems with your approach:
This method is not scalable. What if you have more than 1 processing thread?
You would need a mutex to synchronise read-write access to the memory stored by word. At the scale of this example, not a big deal. In a "serious" application you might not have the luxury of waiting till you get the data thread stops processing. In that case, you might be tempted to remove the while(word[0]) but that is unsafe.
You fire off a "daemon" thread (not exactly but close enough) to handle your computations. Most of the time the thread is waiting for your input and cannot proceed without it. This is inefficient, and modern C++ gives you a way around it without explicitly handling raw threads using std::async paradigm.
#include <future>
#include <string>
#include <iostream>
static std::string worker(const std::string &input)
{
// assume this is a lengthy operation
return input.substr(1);
}
int main()
{
while (true)
{
std::string input;
std::getline (std::cin, input);
if (input.empty())
break;
std::future<std::string> fut= std::async(std::launch::async, &worker, input);
// Other tasks
// size_t n_stars = count_number_of_stars();
//
std::string result = fut.get(); // wait for the task to complete
printf("Output : %s\n", result.c_str());
}
return 0;
}
Something like this in my opinion is the better approach. std::async will launch a thread (if std::launch::async option is specified) and return a waitable future. The computation will continue in the background, and you can do other work in the main thread. When you need to get the result of your computation, you can get() the result of the future(btw the future can be void too).
Also there are a lot of C-isms in your C++ code. Unless there is a reason to do so, why would you not use std::string?
In modern CPP multithreading, u should be using condition_variable, mutex, and queue to handle this. the mutex prevents mutual reach to the queue and the condition variable makes the reader thread sleep until the writer writes what it write. the following is an example
static void data_thread (std::queue<char> & dataToProcess, std::mutex & mut, std::condition_variable & cv, std::atomic<bool>& finished) { // thread to handle data
std::string readData;
while (!finished)
{
{
std::unique_lock lock{mut};
cv.wait(lock, [&] { return !dataToProcess.empty() || finished; });
if (finished) {
while (!dataToProcess.empty()){
readData += dataToProcess.front();
dataToProcess.pop();
}
}
else{
readData += dataToProcess.front();
dataToProcess.pop();
}
}
std::cout << "\nData processed\n";
}
std::cout << readData;
};
static void read_keyboard () {
std::queue<char> data;
std::condition_variable cv;
std::mutex mut;
std::atomic<bool> finished = false;
std::thread worker = std::thread( data_thread, std::ref(data), std::ref(mut), std::ref(cv), std::ref(finished) );
char temp;
while (true) //enter "end" to terminate the loop
{
if (!std::cin.get(temp)) // EOF?
{
std::cin.clear();
finished = true;
cv.notify_all();
break;
}
{
std::lock_guard lock {mut};
data.push(temp);
}
cv.notify_all();
}
worker.join(); // Wait for the worker to terminate
}
int main ()
{
read_keyboard();
return 0;
}
What you are looking for is a message queue. This needs mutex and condition variable.
Here is one on github (not mine but it popped up when I searched) https://github.com/khuttun/PolyM
and another
https://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk/threading/implementing-a-thread-safe-queue-using-condition-variables.html
I will get told off for posting links, but I am not going to type the entire code here and github's not going anywhere soon
Threads are resource-heavy to create and use, so often a pool of threads will be reused for asynchronous tasks. A task is packaged up, and then "posted" to a broker that will enqueue the task on the next available thread.
This is the idea behind dispatch queues (i.e. Apple's Grand Central Dispatch), and thread handlers (Android's Looper mechanism).
Right now, I'm trying to roll my own. In fact, I'm plugging a gap in Android whereby there is an API for posting tasks in Java, but not in the native NDK. However, I'm keeping this question platform independent where I can.
Pipes are the ideal choice for my scenario. I can easily poll the file descriptor of the read-end of a pipe(2) on my worker thread, and enqueue tasks from any other thread by writing to the write-end. Here's what that looks like:
int taskRead, taskWrite;
void setup() {
// Create the pipe
int taskPipe[2];
::pipe(taskPipe);
taskRead = taskPipe[0];
taskWrite = taskPipe[1];
// Set up a routine that is called when task_r reports new data
function_that_polls_file_descriptor(taskRead, []() {
// Read the callback data
std::function<void(void)>* taskPtr;
::read(taskRead, &taskPtr, sizeof(taskPtr));
// Run the task - this is unsafe! See below.
(*taskPtr)();
// Clean up
delete taskPtr;
});
}
void post(const std::function<void(void)>& task) {
// Copy the function onto the heap
auto* taskPtr = new std::function<void(void)>(task);
// Write the pointer to the pipe - this may block if the FIFO is full!
::write(taskWrite, &taskPtr, sizeof(taskPtr));
}
This code puts a std::function on the heap, and passes the pointer to the pipe. The function_that_polls_file_descriptor then calls the provided expression to read the pipe and execute the function. Note that there are no safety checks in this example.
This works great 99% of the time, but there is one major drawback. Pipes have a limited size, and if the pipe is filled, then calls to post() will hang. This in itself is not unsafe, until a call to post() is made within a task.
auto evil = []() {
// Post a new task back onto the queue
post({});
// Not enough new tasks, let's make more!
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
post({});
}
// Now for each time this task is posted, 4 more tasks will be added to the queue.
});
post(evil);
post(evil);
...
If this happens, then the worker thread will be blocked, waiting to write to the pipe. But the pipe's FIFO is full, and the worker thread is not reading anything from it, so the entire system is in deadlock.
What can be done to ensure that calls to post() eminating from the worker thread always succeed, allowing the worker to continue processing the queue in the event it is full?
Thanks to all the comments and other answers in this post, I now have a working solution to this problem.
The trick I've employed is to prioritise worker threads by checking which thread is calling post(). Here is the rough algorithm:
pipe ← NON-BLOCKING-PIPE()
overflow ← Ø
POST(task)
success ← WRITE(task, pipe)
IF NOT success THEN
IF THREAD-IS-WORKER() THEN
overflow ← overflow ∪ {task}
ELSE
WAIT(pipe)
POST(task)
Then on the worker thread:
LOOP FOREVER
task ← READ(pipe)
RUN(task)
FOR EACH overtask ∈ overflow
RUN(overtask)
overflow ← Ø
The wait is performed with pselect(2), adapted from the answer by #Sigismondo.
Here's the algorithm implemented in my original code example that will work for a single worker thread (although I haven't tested it after copy-paste). It can be extended to work for a thread pool by having a separate overflow queue for each thread.
int taskRead, taskWrite;
// These variables are only allowed to be modified by the worker thread
std::__thread_id workerId;
std::queue<std::function<void(void)>> overflow;
bool overflowInUse;
void setup() {
int taskPipe[2];
::pipe(taskPipe);
taskRead = taskPipe[0];
taskWrite = taskPipe[1];
// Make the pipe non-blocking to check pipe overflows manually
::fcntl(taskWrite, F_SETFL, ::fcntl(taskWrite, F_GETFL, 0) | O_NONBLOCK);
// Save the ID of this worker thread to compare later
workerId = std::this_thread::get_id();
overflowInUse = false;
function_that_polls_file_descriptor(taskRead, []() {
// Read the callback data
std::function<void(void)>* taskPtr;
::read(taskRead, &taskPtr, sizeof(taskPtr));
// Run the task
(*taskPtr)();
delete taskPtr;
// Run any tasks that were posted to the overflow
while (!overflow.empty()) {
taskPtr = overflow.front();
overflow.pop();
(*taskPtr)();
delete taskPtr;
}
// Release the overflow mechanism if applicable
overflowInUse = false;
});
}
bool write(std::function<void(void)>* taskPtr, bool blocking = true) {
ssize_t rc = ::write(taskWrite, &taskPtr, sizeof(taskPtr));
// Failure handling
if (rc < 0) {
// If blocking is allowed, wait for pipe to become available
int err = errno;
if ((errno == EAGAIN || errno == EWOULDBLOCK) && blocking) {
fd_set fds;
FD_ZERO(&fds);
FD_SET(taskWrite, &fds);
::pselect(1, nullptr, &fds, nullptr, nullptr, nullptr);
// Try again
return write(tdata);
}
// Otherwise return false
return false;
}
return true;
}
void post(const std::function<void(void)>& task) {
auto* taskPtr = new std::function<void(void)>(task);
if (std::this_thread::get_id() == workerId) {
// The worker thread gets 1st-class treatment.
// It won't be blocked if the pipe is full, instead
// using an overflow queue until the overflow has been cleared.
if (!overflowInUse) {
bool success = write(taskPtr, false);
if (!success) {
overflow.push(taskPtr);
overflowInUse = true;
}
} else {
overflow.push(taskPtr);
}
} else {
write(taskPtr);
}
}
Make the pipe write file descriptor non-blocking, so that write fails with EAGAIN when the pipe is full.
One improvement is to increase the pipe buffer size.
Another is to use a UNIX socket/socketpair and increase the socket buffer size.
Yet another solution is to use a UNIX datagram socket which many worker threads can read from, but only one gets the next datagram. In other words, you can use a datagram socket as a thread dispatcher.
You can use the old good select to determine whether the file descriptors are ready to be used for writing:
The file descriptors in writefds will be watched to see if
space is available for write (though a large write may still block).
Since you are writing a pointer, your write() cannot be classified as large at all.
Clearly you must be ready to handle the fact that a post may fail, and then be ready to retry it later... otherwise you will be facing indefinitely growing pipes, until you system will break again.
More or less (not tested):
bool post(const std::function<void(void)>& task) {
bool post_res = false;
// Copy the function onto the heap
auto* taskPtr = new std::function<void(void)>(task);
fd_set wfds;
struct timeval tv;
int retval;
FD_ZERO(&wfds);
FD_SET(taskWrite, &wfds);
// Don't wait at all
tv.tv_sec = 0;
tv.tv_usec = 0;
retval = select(1, NULL, &wfds, NULL, &tv);
// select() returns 0 when no FD's are ready
if (retval == -1) {
// handle error condition
} else if (retval > 0) {
// Write the pointer to the pipe. This write will succeed
::write(taskWrite, &taskPtr, sizeof(taskPtr));
post_res = true;
}
return post_res;
}
If you only look at Android/Linux using a pipe is not start of the art but using a event file descriptor together with epoll is the way to go.
I need a code construction for my project which waits for some time, but when there is an interrupt (e.g. incoming udp packets) it leaves this loop, does something, and after this restart the waiting.
How can I implement this? My first idea is using while(wait(2000)), but wait is a void construct...
Thank you!
I would put the loop inside a function
void awesomeFunction() {
bool loop = true;
while (loop) {
wait(2000);
...
...
if (conditionMet)
loop = false;
}
}
Then i would put this function inside another loop
while (programRunning) {
awesomeFunction();
/* Loop ended, do stuff... */
}
There are a few things I am not clear about from the question. Is this a multi-threaded application, where one thread handles (say) the UDP packets, and the other waits for the event, or is this single-threaded? You also didn't mention what operating system this is, which is relevant. So I am going to assume Linux, or something that supports the poll API, or something similar (like select).
Let's assume a single threaded application that waits for UDP packets. The main idea is that once you have the socket's file descriptor, you have an infinite loop on a call to poll. For instance:
#include <poll.h>
// ...
void handle_packets() {
// m_fd was created with `socket` and `bind` or `connect`.
struct pollfd pfd = {.fd = m_fd, .events = POLLIN};
int timeout;
timeout = -1; // Wait indefinitely
// timeout = 2000; // Wait for 2 seconds
while (true) {
pfd.revents = 0;
poll(&pfd, 1, timeout);
if ((pfd.revents & POLLIN) != 0) {
handle_single_packet(); // Method to actually read and handle the packet
}
if ((pfd.revents & (POLLERR | POLLHUP)) != 0) {
break; // return on error or hangup
}
}
}
A simple example of select can be found here.
If you are looking at a multi-threaded application, trying to communicate between the two threads, then there are several options. Two of which are:
Use the same mechanism above. The file descriptor is the result of a call to pipe. The thread sleeping gets the read end of the pipe. The thread waking get the write end, and writes a character when it's time to wake up.
Use C++'s std::condition_variable. It is documented here, with a complete example. This solution depends on your context, e.g., whether you have a variable that you can wait on, or what has to be done.
Other interrupts can also be caught in this way. Signals, for instance, have a signalfd. Timer events have timerfd. This depends a lot on what you need, and in what environment you are running. For instance, timerfd is Linux-specific.
I keep running into this problem of trying to run a thread with the following properties:
runs in an infinite loop, checking some external resource, e.g. data from the network or a device,
gets updates from its resource promptly,
exits promptly when asked to,
uses the CPU efficiently.
First approach
One solution I have seen for this is something like the following:
void class::run()
{
while(!exit_flag)
{
if (resource_ready)
use_resource();
}
}
This satisfies points 1, 2 and 3, but being a busy waiting loop, uses 100% CPU.
Second approach
A potential fix for this is to put a sleep statement in:
void class::run()
{
while(!exit_flag)
{
if (resource_ready)
use_resource();
else
sleep(a_short_while);
}
}
We now don't hammer the CPU, so we address 1 and 4, but we could wait up to a_short_while unnecessarily when the resource is ready or we are asked to quit.
Third approach
A third option is to do a blocking read on the resource:
void class::run()
{
while(!exit_flag)
{
obtain_resource();
use_resource();
}
}
This will satisfy 1, 2, and 4 elegantly, but now we can't ask the thread to quit if the resource does not become available.
Question
The best approach seems to be the second one, with a short sleep, so long as the tradeoff between CPU usage and responsiveness can be achieved.
However, this still seems suboptimal, and inelegant to me. This seems like it would be a common problem to solve. Is there a more elegant way to solve it? Is there an approach which can address all four of those requirements?
This depends on the specifics of the resources the thread is accessing, but basically to do it efficiently with minimal latency, the resources need to provide an API for either doing an interruptible blocking wait.
On POSIX systems, you can use the select(2) or poll(2) system calls to do that, if the resources you're using are files or file descriptors (including sockets). To allow the wait to be preempted, you also create a dummy pipe which you can write to.
For example, here's how you might wait for a file descriptor or socket to become ready or for the code to be interrupted:
// Dummy pipe used for sending interrupt message
int interrupt_pipe[2];
int should_exit = 0;
void class::run()
{
// Set up the interrupt pipe
if (pipe(interrupt_pipe) != 0)
; // Handle error
int fd = ...; // File descriptor or socket etc.
while (!should_exit)
{
// Set up a file descriptor set with fd and the read end of the dummy
// pipe in it
fd_set fds;
FD_CLR(&fds);
FD_SET(fd, &fds);
FD_SET(interrupt_pipe[1], &fds);
int maxfd = max(fd, interrupt_pipe[1]);
// Wait until one of the file descriptors is ready to be read
int num_ready = select(maxfd + 1, &fds, NULL, NULL, NULL);
if (num_ready == -1)
; // Handle error
if (FD_ISSET(fd, &fds))
{
// fd can now be read/recv'ed from without blocking
read(fd, ...);
}
}
}
void class::interrupt()
{
should_exit = 1;
// Send a dummy message to the pipe to wake up the select() call
char msg = 0;
write(interrupt_pipe[0], &msg, 1);
}
class::~class()
{
// Clean up pipe etc.
close(interrupt_pipe[0]);
close(interrupt_pipe[1]);
}
If you're on Windows, the select() function still works for sockets, but only for sockets, so you should install use WaitForMultipleObjects to wait on a resource handle and an event handle. For example:
// Event used for sending interrupt message
HANDLE interrupt_event;
int should_exit = 0;
void class::run()
{
// Set up the interrupt event as an auto-reset event
interrupt_event = CreateEvent(NULL, FALSE, FALSE, NULL);
if (interrupt_event == NULL)
; // Handle error
HANDLE resource = ...; // File or resource handle etc.
while (!should_exit)
{
// Wait until one of the handles becomes signaled
HANDLE handles[2] = {resource, interrupt_event};
int which_ready = WaitForMultipleObjects(2, handles, FALSE, INFINITE);
if (which_ready == WAIT_FAILED)
; // Handle error
else if (which_ready == WAIT_OBJECT_0))
{
// resource can now be read from without blocking
ReadFile(resource, ...);
}
}
}
void class::interrupt()
{
// Signal the event to wake up the waiting thread
should_exit = 1;
SetEvent(interrupt_event);
}
class::~class()
{
// Clean up event etc.
CloseHandle(interrupt_event);
}
You get a efficient solution if your obtain_ressource() function supports a timeout value:
while(!exit_flag)
{
obtain_resource_with_timeout(a_short_while);
if (resource_ready)
use_resource();
}
This effectively combines the sleep() with the obtain_ressurce() call.
Check out the manpage for nanosleep:
If the nanosleep() function returns because it has been interrupted by a signal, the function returns a value of -1 and sets errno to indicate the interruption.
In other words, you can interrupt sleeping threads by sending a signal (the sleep manpage says something similar). This means you can use your 2nd approach, and use an interrupt to immediately wake the thread if it's sleeping.
Use the Gang of Four Observer Pattern:
http://home.comcast.net/~codewrangler/tech_info/patterns_code.html#Observer
Callback, don't block.
Self-Pipe trick can be used here.
http://cr.yp.to/docs/selfpipe.html
Assuming that you are reading the data from file descriptor.
Create a pipe and select() for readability on the pipe input as well as on the resource you are interested.
Then when data comes on resource, the thread wakes up and does the processing. Else it sleeps.
To terminate the thread send it a signal and in signal handler, write something on the pipe (I would say something which will never come from the resource you are interested in, something like NULL for illustrating the point). The select call returns and thread on reading the input knows that it got the poison pill and it is time to exit and calls pthread_exit().
EDIT: Better way will be just to see that the data came on the pipe and hence just exit rather than checking the value which came on that pipe.
The Win32 API uses more or less this approach:
someThreadLoop( ... )
{
MSG msg;
int retVal;
while( (retVal = ::GetMessage( &msg, TaskContext::winHandle_, 0, 0 )) > 0 )
{
::TranslateMessage( &msg );
::DispatchMessage( &msg );
}
}
GetMessage itself blocks until any type of message is received therefore not using any processing (refer). If a WM_QUIT is received, it returns false, exiting the thread function gracefully. This is a variant of the producer/consumer mentioned elsewhere.
You can use any variant of a producer/consumer, and the pattern is often similar. One could argue that one would want to split the responsibility concerning quitting and obtaining of a resource, but OTOH quitting could depend on obtaining a resource too (or could be regarded as one of the resources - but a special one). I would at least abstract the producer consumer pattern and have various implementations thereof.
Therefore:
AbstractConsumer:
void AbstractConsumer::threadHandler()
{
do
{
try
{
process( dequeNextCommand() );
}
catch( const base_except& ex )
{
log( ex );
if( ex.isCritical() ){ throw; }
//else we don't want loop to exit...
}
catch( const std::exception& ex )
{
log( ex );
throw;
}
}
while( !terminated() );
}
virtual void /*AbstractConsumer::*/process( std::unique_ptr<Command>&& command ) = 0;
//Note:
// Either may or may not block until resource arrives, but typically blocks on
// a queue that is signalled as soon as a resource is available.
virtual std::unique_ptr<Command> /*AbstractConsumer::*/dequeNextCommand() = 0;
virtual bool /*AbstractConsumer::*/terminated() const = 0;
I usually encapsulate command to execute a function in the context of the consumer, but the pattern in the consumer is always the same.
Any (welln at least, most) approaches mentioned above will do the following: thread is created, then it's blocked wwiting for resource, then it's deleted.
If you're worried about efficiency, this is not a best approach when waiting for IO. On Windows at least, you'll allocate around 1mb of memory in user mode, some in kernel for just one additional thread. What if you have many such resources? Having many waiting threads will also increase context switches and slow down your program. What if resource takes longer to be available and many requests are made? You may end up with tons of waiting threads.
Now, the solution to it (again, on Windows, but I'm sure there should be something similar on other OSes) is using threadpool (the one provided by Windows). On Windows this will not only create limited amount of threads, it'll be able to detect when thread is waiting for IO and will stwal thread from there and reuse it for other operations while waitting.
See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686766(v=vs.85).aspx
Also, for more fine-grained control bit still having ability give up thread when waiting for IO, see IO completion ports (I think they'll anyway use threadpool inside): http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa365198(v=vs.85).aspx
I have a thread to monitor serial port using select system call, the run function of the thread is as follows:
void <ProtocolClass>::run()
{
int fd = mPort->GetFileDescriptor();
fd_set readfs;
int maxfd=fd+1;
int res;
struct timeval Timeout;
Timeout.tv_usec=0;
Timeout.tv_sec=3;
//BYTE ack_message_frame[ACKNOWLEDGE_FRAME_SIZE];
while(true)
{
usleep(10);
FD_ZERO(&readfs);
FD_SET(fd,&readfs);
res=select(maxfd,&readfs,NULL,NULL,NULL);
if(res<0)
perror("\nselect failed");
else if( res==0)
puts("TIMEOUT");
else if(FD_ISSET(fd,&readfs))
{//IF INPUT RECEIVED
qDebug("************RECEIVED DATA****************");
FlushBuf();
qDebug("\nReading data into a read buffer");
int bytes_read=mPort->ReadPort(mBuf,1000);
mFrameReceived=false;
for(int i=0;i<bytes_read;i++)
{
qDebug("%x",mBuf[i]);
}
//if complete frame has been received, write the acknowledge message frame to the port.
if(bytes_read>0)
{
qDebug("\nAbout to Process Received bytes");
ProcessReceivedBytes(mBuf,bytes_read);
qDebug("\n Processed Received bytes");
if(mFrameReceived)
{
int no_bytes=mPort->WritePort(mAcknowledgeMessage,ACKNOWLEDGE_FRAME_SIZE);
}//if frame received
}//if bytes read > 0
} //if input received
}//end while
}
The problem is when I exit from this thread, using
delete <protocolclass>::instance();
the program crashes with a glibc error of malloc memory corruption. On checking the core with gdb it was found the when exiting the thread it was processing the data and thus the error. The destructor of the protocol class looks as follows:
<ProtocolClass>::~<ProtocolClass>()
{
delete [] mpTrackInfo; //delete data
wait();
mPort->ClosePort();
s_instance = NULL; //static instance of singleton
delete mPort;
}
Is this due to select? Do the semantics for destroying objects change when select is involved? Can someone suggest a clean way to destroy threads involving select call.
Thanks
I'm not sure what threading library you use, but you should probably signal the thread in one way or another that it should exit, rather than killing it.
The most simple way would be to keep a boolean that is set true when the thread should exit, and use a timeout on the select() call to check it periodically.
ProtocolClass::StopThread ()
{
kill_me = true;
// Wait for thread to die
Join();
}
ProtocolClass::run ()
{
struct timeval tv;
...
while (!kill_me) {
...
tv.tv_sec = 1;
tv.tv_usec = 0;
res = select (maxfd, &readfds, NULL, NULL, &tv);
if (res < 0) {
// Handle error
}
else if (res != 0) {
...
}
}
You could also set up a pipe and include it in readfds, and then just write something to it from another thread. That would avoid waking up every second and bring down the thread without delay.
Also, you should of course never use a boolean variable like that without some kind of lock, ...
Are the threads still looking at mpTrackInfo after you delete it?
Not seeing the code it is hard.
But Iwould think that the first thing the destructor should do is wait for any threads to die (preferably with some form of join() to make sure they are all accounted for). Once they are dead you can start cleaning up the data.
your thread is more than just memory with some members, so just deleting and counting on the destructor is not enough. Since I don't know qt threads I think this link can put you on your way:
trolltech message
Two possible problems:
What is mpTrackInfo? You delete it before you wait for the thread to exit. Does the thread use this data somewhere, maybe even after it's been deleted?
How does the thread know it's supposed to exit? The loop in run() seems to run forever, which should cause wait() in the destructor to wait forever.