I'm debugging this database project. It wraps access to SQLite for a higher level application. It's designed to run asynchronously, that is, it has methods like ExecuteRequestAsync() and IsRequestReady(). When ExecuteRequestAsync is called, it spawns a boost::thread to do the job and return the function immediately. When the higher level application decides that it no longer wants the result of a running request, it may call DumpRequest() to cancel it. Since it's difficult to gracefully cancel a database request, the implementation of DumpRequest just maintain a "cleanup monitor thread" that waits for "finished requests" and remove them. All boost::threads are managed through boost::shared_ptr, like:
boost::shared_ptr<boost::thread> my_thread = new boost::thread(boost::bind(&DBCon::RunRequest, &this_dbcon));
And when it's no longer needed (to be canceled):
vector<boost::shared_ptr<boost::thread> > threads_tobe_removed;
// some iteration
threads_tobe_removed[i].get()->join();
threads_tobe_removed.erase(threads_tobe_removed.begin()+i);
I created this unit test project to test the mechanism of executing and dumping the requests. It runs requests and randomly cancels running requests, and repeats for several thousand passes. The mechanism turned out to be okay. Everything worked as expected.
However, through observing the unit test project through sysinternal's Process Explorer, it's discovered that there's a handle leak problem. Every 500-ish passes, the handle count increases by 1, and never returns back. It's the "Event" type handle that is increasing. File and thread handles are not increasing (of course # of handles are increasing as threads are spawned, but there is a Sleep(10000) call every hundred passes to wait for them to be cleaned up so that the handle count can be observed).
I haven't been managing Event handles myself. They are created by boost::thread upon the creation of the thread. I only guarantee to gracefully close the threads, I have no idea what the Events are used for.
I'm wondering if anyone has experienced similar problems? What might be the cause of this leak? Is this number in Process Explorer reliable enough to call it a handle leak? Is there any way to trace and fix it?
I'm using statically linked boost 1.40 on Windows Vista, with Visual C++.
Is the access to threads_tobe_removed thread-safe? If not, there may be a race condition, when one thread adds a thread to the vector via a call to DumpRequest, while the cleanup monitor thread deletes a thread from the vector. Thus, boost::thread-objects may be destroyed without joining the thread first, which would leave the thread running without an associated object, which might explain the leak.
Related
I'm building plugins for a host application using C++11/14, for now targeting Windows and MacOS. The plugins start up async worker threads when the host app starts us up, and if they're still running when the host shuts the plugins down they get signaled to stop. Some of these worker threads are started with std::async so I can use an std::future to get the thread result back, while other less involved threads are just std::threads which I ultimately just join to see when they're done. It all works nicely this way.
Unless the host decides not to call our shutdown procedure when it shuts down itself... Yeah, I know, but it really is that bad sometimes -- it often enough just crashes during shutdown. And they even plan to make that into a 'feature' and call it "Fast Exit" to please their users; just pull the plug and we're done extra fast :(
For that case I have registered an std::atexit handler. It last-minute signals any still running threads to exit NOW (atomic bools and/or signals to wake them up), then it waits a second to give the threads some time to respond, and finally it detaches the regular std::thread threads and hopes for the best. This way at least the threads get a heads up to quickly write intermediate state to disk for a next round (if needed), and quit writing to probably already deceased data structures, thus avoiding crashes which would make any crash dump point the finger at my plugins.
However, atexit handlers run at OS DLL unload time, so I'm not even allowed to use thread synchronization (right?). And under the debugger I just saw all of the worker threads were presumably already killed by the OS, since the atexit handler's thread was the only thread left under the debugger. Needless to say, all remaining std::futures went into full blocking mode, hanging up the remaining corpse of the dead host app...
Is there a way to abandon an std::future? In MS Visual C++ I saw futures have an _Abandon method, but that's too platform specific (and undocumented) for my taste. Or is my only recourse to not use std::future, do all thread communication via my own data structures and synchronization, and work with simple std::threads which can just be detached?
So we have an assertion engine.
What it does is it creates a assert helper thread, suspends every other thread, then pops up some interactive UI in the helper thread to talk to the user about the assertion failure. (We suspend other threads because we want a snapshot of the program state at the point the assert failed, and we don't want the other threads to advance).
This works well, most of the time.
A small percentage of the time, one of the suspended threads has held a lock -- usually the debug heap critical section -- and the assert helper thread blocks on its next allocation (which is hard to avoid doing).
I can see two ways around this. First, to do away with the in-process assertion handling (have it launch an out-of-process assertion dialog, and use IPC to communicate back and forth). It is possible this way we can manage that communication without heap allocations. Maybe.
That is a bunch of work, because it means we have to move the in-process stack-walking code out of process, etc.
The way we are trying right now is to add a watchdog thread. It notices if the assert helper thread has failed to make progress (maybe a failure for a timer message to be sent, maybe its instruction counter stops moving; irrelevant implementation detail).
When it detects this case, it tries to break the deadlock.
Our current method is to take threads at basically random, wake them up, then suspend them again, until we detect progress from the assert helper thread. This is ... haphazard, and slow.
To make picking the right thread faster, I'd like to determine if a given windows thread currently holds a critical section (and maybe other synchronization primitives). Then we can try those threads first.
So, is there a way to determine if a windows thread currently holds a CriticalSection while it is suspended?
I don't think there's a documented way to tell if a thread is in a critical section, and, if there was, I don't think it would be the right approach to your problem.
But to answer the question, you can peek inside the CRITICAL_SECTION data structure and see the handle of the thread that owns it. This doesn't directly answer the question, "Is this thread inside any critical section?" but it does let you answer, "Is this thread inside this critical section?" At least until some key implementation detail of CRITICAL_SECTION changes.
For your actual problem, I'd ask what benefit your assertion engine gives that isn't better handled by attaching a debugger when an assertion fails. A debugger is external, bypassing any deadlocks, and already knows how to walk the stacks, so you don't have to re-implement that.
I use Qt 4.8.6, MS Visual Studio 2008, Windows 7. I've created a GUI program. It contains main GUI thread and worker thread (I have not made QThread subclass, by the way), which makes synchronous calls to 3rd party DLL functions. These functions are rather slow. QTcpServer instance is also under worker thread. My worker class contains QTcpServer and DLL wrapper methods.
I know that quit() is preferred over terminate(), but I don't wanna wait for a minute (because of slow DLL functions) during program shutdown. When I try to terminate() worker thread, I notice warnings about stopping QTcpServer from another thread. What is a correct way of process shutdown?
QThread::quit tells the thread's event loop to exit. After calling it the thread will get finished as soon as the control returns to the event loop of the thread
You may also force a thread to terminate right now via QThread::terminate(), but this is a very bad practice, because it may terminate the thread at an undefined position in its code, which means you may end up with resources never getting freed up and other nasty stuff. So use this only if you really can't get around it.
So i think the right approach is to first tell the thread to quit normally and if something goes wrong and takes much time and you have no way to wait for it, then terminate it:
QThread * th = myWorkerObject->thread();
th->quit();
th->wait(5000); // Wait for some seconds to quit
if(th->isRunning()) // Something took time more than usual, I have to terminate it
th->terminate();
You should always try to avoid killing threads from the outside by force and instead ask them nicely to finish what they're doing. This usually means that the thread checks regularly if it should terminate itself and the outside world tells it to terminate when needed (by setting a flag, signaling an event or whatever is appropriate for the situation at hand).
When a thread is asked to terminate itself, it finishes up what it's doing and exists cleanly. The application waits for the thread to terminate and then exits.
You say that in your case the thread takes a long time to finish. You can take this into consideration and still terminate the thread "the nice way" (for example you can hide the application window and give the impression that the app has exited, even if the process takes a little more time until it finally terminates; or you can show some form of progress indication to the user telling him that the application is shutting down).
Unless there is an overriding reason to do so, you should not attempt to terminate threads with user code at process-termination.
If there is no such reason, just call your OS process termination syscall, eg. ExitProcess(0). The OS can, and will will stop all process threads in any state before releasing all process resources. User code cannot do that, and should not try to terminate threads, or signal them to self-terminate, unless absolutely necessary.
Attempting to 'clean up' with user code sounds 'nice', (aparrently), but is an expensive luxury that you will pay for with extra code, extra testing and extra maintenance.
That is, if your customers don't stop buying your app because they get pissed off with it taking so long to shut down.
The OS is very good at stopping threads and cleaning up. It's had endless thousands of hours of testing during development and decades of life in the wild where problems with process termination would have become aparrent and got fixed. You will not even get close to that with your flags, events etc. as you struggle to stop threads running on another core without the benefit of an interprocessor driver.
There are surely times when you will have to resort to user code to stop threads. If you need to stop them before process termination, or you need to close some DB connection, flush some file at shutdown, deal with interprocess comms or the like issues, then you will have to resort to some of the approaches already suggested in other answers.
If not, don't try to duplicate OS functionality in the name of 'niceness'. Just ask it to terminate your process. You can get your warm, fuzzy feeling when your app shuts down immedately while other developers are still struggling to implement 'Shutdown' progress bars or trying to explain to customers why they have 15 zombie apps still running.
The deal is:
I want to create a thread that works similarly to executing a new .exe in Windows, so if that program (new thread) crashes or goes into infinite loop: it will be killed gracefully (after the time limit exceeded or when it crashed) and all resources freed properly.
And when that thread has succeeded, i would like to be able to modify some global variable which could have some data in it, such as a list of files for example. That is why i cant just execute external executable from Windows, since i cant access the variables inside the function that got executed into the new thread.
Edit: Clarified the problem a lot more.
The thread will already run after calling CreateThread.
WaitForSingleObject is not necessary (unless you really want to wait for the thread to finish); but it will not "force-quit" the thread; in fact, force-quitting - even if it might be possible - is never such a good idea; you might e.g. leave resources opened or otherwise leave your application in a state which is no good.
A thread is not some sort of magical object that can be made to do things. It is a separate path of execution through your code. Your code cannot be made to jump arbitrarily around its codebase unless you specifically program it to do so. And even then, it can only be done within the rules of C++ (ie: calling functions).
You cannot kill a thread because killing a thread would utterly wreck some of the most fundamental assumptions a programmer makes. You would now have to take into account the possibility that the next line doesn't execute for reasons that you can neither predict nor prevent.
This isn't like exception handling, where C++ specifically requires destructors to be called, and you have the ability to catch exceptions and do special cleanup. You're talking about executing one piece of code, then suddenly ending the execution of that entire call-stack. That's not going to work.
The reason that web browsers moved from a "thread-per-tab" to "process-per-tab" model is exactly this: because processes can be terminated without leaving the other processes in an unknown state. What you need is to use processes instead of threads.
When the process finishes and sets it's data, you need to use some inter-process communication system to read that data (I like Boost.Interprocess myself). It won't look like a regular C++ global variable, but you shouldn't have a problem with reading it. This way, you can effectively kill the process if it's taking too long, and your program will remain in a reasonable state.
Well, that's what WaitForSingleObject does. It blocks until the object does something (in case of a thread it waits until the thread exits or the timeout elapses). What you need is
HANDLE thread = CreateThread(0, 0, do_stuff, NULL, 0, 0);
//rest of code that will run paralelly with your new thread.
WaitForSingleObject(thread, 4000); // wait 4 seconds or for the other thread to exit
If you want your worker thread to shut down after a period of time has elapsed, the best way to do that is to have the thread itself monitor the elapsed time in some way and then exit when the time is up.
Another way to do this is to monitor the elapsed time in the main thread or even a third, monitor type thread. When the time has elapsed, set an event. Your worker thread could wait for this event in it's main loop, and then exit when it has been raised. These kinds of events, which are used to signal the thread to kill itself, are sometimes called "death events." (Or at least, I call them that.)
Yet another way to do this is to queue a user job to the worker thread, which needs to be in an alterable wait state. The APC can then set some internal state variable which will trigger the death sequence in the thread when it resumes.
There is another method which I hesitate even mentioning, because it should only be used in extremely dire circumstances. You can kill the thread. This is a very dangerous method akin to turning off your sink by detonating an atomic bomb. You get the sink turned off, but there could be other unintended consequences as well. Please don't do this unless you know exactly what you're doing and why.
Remove the call to WaitForSingleObject. That causes your parent thread to wait.
Remove the WaitForSingleObject call?
I've got a C++ Win32 application that has a number of threads that might be busy doing IO (HTTP calls, etc) when the user wants to shutdown the application. Currently, I play nicely and wait for all the threads to end before returning from main. Sometimes, this takes longer than I would like and indeed, it seems kind of pointless to make the user wait when I could just exit. However, if I just go ahead and return from main, I'm likely to get crashes as destructors start getting called while there are still threads using the objects.
So, recognizing that in an ideal, platonic world of virtue, the best thing to do would be to wait for all the threads to exit and then shutdown cleanly, what is the next best real world solution? Simply making the threads exit faster may not be an option. The goal is to get the process dead as quickly as possible so that, for example, a new version can be installed over it. The only disk IO I'm doing is in a transactional db, so I'm not terribly concerned about pulling the plug on that.
Use overlapped IO so that you're always in control of the threads that are dealing with your I/O and can always stop them at any point; you either have them waiting on an IOCP and can post an application level shutdown code to it, OR you can wait on the event in your OVERLAPPED structure AND wait on your 'all threads please shutdown now' event as well.
In summary, avoid blocking calls that you can't cancel.
If you can't and you're stuck in a blocking socket call doing IO then you could always just close the socket from the thread that has decided that it's time to shut down and have the thread that's doing IO always check the 'shutdown now' event before retrying...
I use an exception-based technique that's worked pretty well for me in a number of Win32 applications.
To terminate a thread, I use QueueUserAPC() to queue a call to a function which throws an exception. However, the exception that's thrown isn't derived from the type "Exception", so will only be caught by my thread's wrapper procedure.
The advantages of this are as follows:
No special code needed in your thread to make it 'stoppable' - as soon as it enters an alertable wait state, it will run the APC function.
All destructors get invoked as the exception runs up the stack, so your thread exits cleanly.
The things you need to watch for:
Anything doing catch (...) will eat your exception. User code should always use catch(const Exception &e) or similar!
Make sure your I/O and delays are done in an "alertable" way. For example, this means calling sleepex(N, true) instead of sleep(N).
CPU-bound threads need to call sleepex(0,true) occasionally to check for termination.
You can also 'protect' areas of your code to prevent task termination during critical sections.
Best way: Do your work while the app is running, and do nothing (or as close to) at shutdown (works for startup too). If you stick to that pattern, then you can tear down the threads immediately (rather than "being nice" about it) when the shutdown request comes without worrying about work that still needs to be done.
In your specific situation, you'd probably need to wait for IO to finish (writes, at least) if you're doing local work there. HTTP requests and such you can probably just abandon/close outright (again, unless you're writing something). But if it is the case that you're writing during this shutdown and waiting on that, then you may want to notify the user of that, rather than letting your process look hung while you're wrapping things up.
I'd recommend having your GUI and work be done on different threads. When a user requests a shutdown, dismiss the GUI immediately giving the appearance that the application has closed. Allow the worker threads to close gracefully in the background.
If you want to pull the plug messily, exit(0) will do the trick.
I once had a similar problem, albeit in Visual Basic 6: threads from an app would connect to different servers, download some data, perform some operations looping upon that data, and store on a centralized server the result.
Then, new requirement was that threads should be stoppable from main form. I accomplished this in an easy though dirty fashion, by having the threads stop after N loops (equivalent roughly to half a second) to try to open a mutex with a specific name. Upon success, they immediately stopped whatever they were doing and quit, continued otherwise.
This mutex was created only by the main form, once it was created all the threads would soon close themselves. The disadvantage was that user needed to manually specify it wanted to run the threads again - another button to "Enable threads to run" accomplished this by releasing the mutex :D
This trick is guaranteed to work for mutex operations are atomic. Problem is you're never sure a thread really closed - a failure in the logic of handling the "openMutex succeeded" case could mean it never ends. You also don't know when/if all the threads have closed (assuming your code is right, this would take roughly the same time it takes for the loops to stop and "listen").
With VB's "apartment" model of multi-threading it's somewhat difficult to send info from the threads to the main app back and forth, it's much easier to "fire and forget" or to send it only from the main app to the thread. Thus, the need of these kind of long-cuts. Using C++ you're free to use your multi-threading model, so these constraints might not apply to you.
Whatever you do, do NOT use TerminateThread, especially on anything that could be in OS HTTP calls. You could potentially break IE until reboot.
Change all of your IO to an asynchronous or non-blocking model so that they can watch for termination events.
If you need to shutdown suddenly: Just call ExitProcess - which is what is going to be called just as soon as you return from WinMain anyway. Windows itself creates many worker threads that have no way to be cleaned up - they are terminated by process shutdown.
If you have any threads that are performing writes of some kind - obviously those need a chance to close their resources. But anything else - ignore the bounds checker warnings and just pull the rug from under their feet.
You can call TerminateProcess - this will stop the process immediately, without notifying anyone and without waiting for anything.
*NULL = 0 is the fastest way. if you don't want to crash, call exit() or its win32 equivalent.
Instruct the user to unplug the computer. Short of that, you have to abandon your asynchronous activities to the wind. Or is that HWIND? I can never remember in C++. Of course, you could take the middle road and quickly note in a text file or reg key what action was abandoned so that the next time the program runs it can take up that action again automatically or ask the user if they want to do so. Depending on what data you lose when you abandon the asynch action, you may not be able to do that. If you're interacting with the user, you may want to consider a dialog or some UI interaction that explains why its taking so long.
Personally, I prefer the instruction to the user to just unplug the computer. :)