Due to the flooding examples of implementing logger using Singleton pattern, I have just written a simple C++ logger in the same approach for my program. However, since the famous double-checked locking approach is known to be no more thread-safe, I wonder if I should:
1) Forget about the use of Singleton pattern in this case?
2) Continue to use double-checked locking even though it is unsafe?
3) Use the expensive pure sync lock method for every access to its public interfaces?
Any suggestions?
Use Meyers Singleton. If you are using using gcc at least initialization is thread-safe.
class Singleton{
Singleton(){
//This is threadsafe in gcc, no mutex required
}
static Singleton * instance(){
static Singleton myinstance;
return &myinstance;
}
};
gcc guards static locals construction unless you disable with -fno-threadsafe-statics, I recently wrote about that here
In applications with threads, I prefer to use singletons with an initialize() function and asserts to make sure that the initialize() is used before the first instance(). Call initialize() from the main thread. I don't think that lazy instantiation is really the key feature of a singleton, especially for a logger.
While Arkaitz's answer is more elegant, my answers avoids threading issues on all platforms with the cost of 1 extra function and some instantiating concerns during startup for singletons with dependencees (helped by asserts and ofcourse: use singletons judiciously).
One approach would be to make sure that your first access to the logger comes before your app starts a second thread. By accessing the singleton at a time when you KNOW that there isn't any contention, you make sure that subsequent accesses will always find a pre-existing object and you should completely avoid the problem.
You do not really need separate Initialize() function as this will just contaminate your singleton interface. Just get singleton instance
VERIFY(NULL != Logger::Instance());
before any other thread has chance to access it.
Related
To my understanding, if the Singleton::instance() is called in different thread, there might be some problem if both call refer to the first construction of the actual instance.
So if I move the first Singleton::instance() call to the very beginning of the program where no other threads are even created, will this be thread safe now?
Of course, all its member variable are protected by mutex guard when used.
This might open your eyes to a thread-safe Singleton and how easy it isn't.
http://silviuardelean.ro/2012/06/05/few-singleton-approaches/
As per before, it's not very robust if you're requiring it to be created before any threads are kicked off.
Worth noting though, if you compile with C++11, then doing as Brian said (static storage + static method) guarantees thread safety. With any previous versions you will need a mutex, and will run into the caveats mentioned in the link I shared.
So if I move the first Singleton::instance() call to the very beginning of the program where no other threads are even created, will this be thread safe now?
Yes, but this element is not within the Singleton's design and would likely be more robust if it were.
You can often allocate it at file scope or in function scope with static storage within a static method. Verify that your compiler generates exclusion around it or add your own mutex there.
Yes, performing the initial instantiation when you can guarantee there is just one thread extant clearly protects it from other threads causing race conditions.
It doesn't feel terribly robust, though. At the very least, plaster the area with warning comments.
Maybe then you don't need lazy initialization of singleton instance?
If you actually want it then you can protect singleton instance with mutex when you construct it.
Just remember not to put in the header.
If you put the implementation in the header, it may be generated in every compilation unit that uses it. Which means it won't be single.
Also don't compile it in static libraries. This can also lead to multiple instances if the code is linked and merges into several non-static libraries.
If there is no additional thread created yet and you make that move before those threads creation, I don't see a real scenario where you might have problems by using the singleton you already created in any new created multi-threaded environment.
The main thread-safe problem of singleton pattern into a multi-threaded environment is about how to prevent two or more "singleton" instances creation by different threads. I have described this scenario into "Multi-threaded environment" section here.
In my C++ project I have a singleton class. During project execution, sometimes the same singleton class is accessed from two different thread simultaneously. Resulting in two instances of the singleton class is produced, which is a problem.
How to handle such a cases?
Then it's not a singleton :-)
You'll probably need to show us some code but your basic problem will be with the synchronisation areas.
If done right, there is no way that two threads can create two objects of the class. In fact, the class itself should be the place where the singleton nature is being enforced so that erroneous clients cannot corrupt the intent.
The basic structure will be:
lock mutex
if instance doesn't exist:
instance = new object
unlock mutex
Without something like mutex protection (or critical code section or any other manner in which you can guarantee at the language/library level that two threads can't run the code simultaneously), there's a possibility that thread one may be swapped out between the check and the instantiation, leading to two possible instances of your "singleton".
And, as others will no doubt suggest, singletons may well be a bad idea. I'm not quite in the camp where every use is wrong, the usual problem is that people treat them as "god" objects. They can have their uses but there's often a better way, though I won't presume to tell you you need to change that, since I don't know your use case.
If you get two different instances in different threads you are doing something wrong. Threads, unlike processes, share their memory. So memory allocated in one thread (e.g. for an object instance) is also usable in the other.
If your singleton getting two copies its not guarded with mutex. lock a mutex when getting/accessing/setting the internal object.
I believe You are done something like this if(!_instance)_instance = new Singleton() there lies a critical section. which you need to safe guard with a mutex.
Do not use a singleton, It is a well known Anti-Pattern.
A good read:
Singletons: Solving problems you didn’t know you never had since 1995
If you still want to persist and go ahead with it for reasons known only to you, What you need is a thread safe singleton implementation, something like this:
YourClass* YourClass::getInstance()
{
MutexLocker locker(YourClass::m_mutex);
if(!m_instanceFlag)
{
m_instance = new YourClass();
m_instanceFlag = true;
}
return m_instance;
}
Where MutexLocker is a wrapper class for an normally used Mutex, which locks the mutex when creating its instance and unlocks the mutex the function ends.
I'm using boost singletons (from serialization).
For example, there are some classes which inherit boost::serialization::singleton. Each of them has such define near it's definition (in h-file):
#define appManager ApplicationManager::get_const_instance()
class ApplicationManager: public boost::serialization::singleton<ApplicationManager> { ... };
And I have to call some method from that class each update (nearly 17 ms), for example, 200 times. So the code is like:
for (int i=0; i < 200; ++i)
appManager.get_some_var();
I looked with gprof at function call stack and saw that boost::get_const_instance calls each time. Maybe, in release-mode compiler will optimize this?
My idea is to make some global variable like:
ApplicationManager &handle = ApplicationManager::get_const_instance();
And use handle, so it wouldn't call get_const_instnace each time. Is that right?
Instead of using the Singleton anti-pattern, just a global variable and be done with it. It's more honest.
The main benefit of Singleton is when you want lazy initialization, or more fine grained control over initialization order than a global variable would allow you. It doesn't look like either of these things are a concern for you, so just use a global.
Personally, I think designs with global variables or Singletons are almost certainly broken. But to each h(is/er) own.
If you are bent on using a Singleton, the performance concern you raise is interesting, but likely not an issue as the function call overhead is probably less than 100ns. As was pointed out, you should profile. If it really concerns you a whole lot, store a local reference to the Singleton before the loop:
ApplicationManager &myAppManager = appManager;
for (int i=0; i < 200; ++i)
myAppManager.get_some_var();
BTW, using that #define in that way is a serious mistake. Almost all cases where you use the preprocessor for anything other than conditional compilation based on compile-time flags is probably a poor use. Boost does make extensive use of the pre-processor, but mostly to get around C++ limitations. Do not emulate it.
Lastly, that function is probably doing something important. One of the jobs of a get_instance method for Singletons is to avoid having multiple threads initialize the same Singleton at the same time. With global variables this shouldn't be an issue because they should be initialized before you've started any threads.
Is it really a problem? I mean, does your application really suffers for this behaviour?
I would despise such a solution because, in all effects, you are countering one of the benefits of the Singleton pattern, namely to avoid global variables. If you want to use a global variable, then don't use Singleton at all, right?
Yes, that is certainly a possible solution. I'm not entirely sure what boost is doing with its singleton behind the scenes; you can look that up yourself in the code.
The singleton pattern is just like creating a global object and accessing the global object, in most respects. There are some differences:
1) The singleton object instance is not created until it is first accessed, whereas the global object is created at program startup.
2) Because the singleton object is not created until it is first accessed, it is actually created when the program is running. Thus the singleton instance has access to other fully constructed objects in the program when the constructor is actually running.
3) Because you access the singleton through the getInstance() method (boost's get_const_instance method) there is a little bit of overhead for executing that method call.
So if you're not concerned about when the singleton is actually created, and can live with it being created at program startup, you could just go with a global variable and access that. If you really need the singleton created after the program starts up, then you need the singleton. In that case, you can grab and hold onto a reference to the object returned by get_const_instance() and use that reference.
Something that bit me in the past though you should be aware of. You're actually getting a reference to the object that is owned by the singleton. You don't own that object.
1) Do not write code that would cause the destructor to execute (say, using a shared pointer on the returned reference), or write any other code that could cause the object to end up in a bad state.
2) In a multi-threaded app, take care to correctly lock fields in the object if the object may be used by more than one thread.
3) In a multi-threaded app, make sure that all threads that hold onto references to the object terminate before the program is unloaded. I've seen a case where the singleton's code resides in one DLL library; a thread that holds the reference lives in another DLL library. When the program ends, the thread was still active. The DLL holding the singleton's code was unloaded first; the thread that was still alive tried to do something to the singleton's object and caused a crash.
Singletons have their advantages in situations where you want to control the level of access to something at process or application scope beyond what a global variable could achieve in a more elegant way.
However most singleton objects provided in a library will be designed to ensure some level of thread safety and most likely access to the instance is being locked via a mutex or other critical section of some kind which can affect performance.
In the case of a game or 3d application where performance is key you may want to consider making your own lightweight singleton if thread safety is not a concern and gain some performance.
I remember reading that static variables declared inside methods is not thread-safe. (See What about the Meyer's singleton? as mentioned by Todd Gardner)
Dog* MyClass::BadMethod()
{
static Dog dog("Lassie");
return &dog;
}
My library generates C++ code for end-users to compile as part of their application. The code it generates needs to initialize static variables in a thread-safe cross-platform manner. I'd like to use boost::call_once to mutex the variable initialization but then end-users are exposed to the Boost dependency.
Is there a way for me to do this without forcing extra dependencies on end-users?
You are correct that static initialization like that isn't thread safe (here is an article discussing what the compiler will turn it into)
At the moment, there's no standard, thread safe, portable way to initialize static singletons. Double checked locking can be used, but you need potentially non-portable threading libraries (see a discussion here).
Here's a few options if thread safety is a must:
Don't be Lazy (loaded): Initialize during static initialization. It could be a problem if another static calls this function in it's constructor, since the order of static initialization is undefined(see here).
Use boost (as you said) or Loki
Roll your
own singleton on your supported platforms
(should probably be avoided unless
you are a threading expert)
Lock a mutex everytime you need access. This could be very slow.
Example for 1:
// in a cpp:
namespace {
Dog dog("Lassie");
}
Dog* MyClass::BadMethod()
{
return &dog;
}
Example for 4:
Dog* MyClass::BadMethod()
{
static scoped_ptr<Dog> pdog;
{
Lock l(Mutex);
if(!pdog.get())
pdog.reset(new Dog("Lassie"));
}
return pdog.get();
}
Not sure whether this is what you mean or not, but you can remove the boost dependency on POSIX systems by calling pthread_once instead. I guess you'd have to do something different on Windows, but avoiding that is exactly why boost has a thread library in the first place, and why people pay the price of depending on it.
Doing anything "thread-safely" is inherently bound up with your threads implementation. You have to depend on something, even if it's only the platform-dependent memory model. It is simply not possible in pure C++03 to assume anything at all about threads, which are outside the scope of the language.
One way you could do it that does not require a mutex for thread safety is to make the singleton a file static, rather than function static:
static Dog dog("Lassie");
Dog* MyClass::BadMethod()
{
return &dog;
}
The Dog instance will be initialised before the main thread runs. File static variables have a famous issue with the initialisation order, but as long as the Dog does not rely on any other statics defined in another translation unit, this should not be of concern.
The only way I know of to guarantee you won't have threading issues with non-protected resources like your "static Dog" is to make it a requirement that they're all instantiated before any threads are created.
This could be as simple as just documenting that they have to call a MyInit() function in the main thread before doing anything else. Then you construct MyInit() to instantiate and destroy one object of each type that contains one of those statics.
The only other alternative is to put another restriction on how they can use your generated code (use Boost, Win32 threads, etc). Either of those solutions are acceptable in my opinion - it's okay to generate rules that they must follow.
If they don't follow the rules as set out by your documentation, then all bets are off. The rule that they must call an initialization function or be dependent on Boost is not unreasonable to me.
AFAIK, the only time this has been done safely and without mutexes or prior initialisation of global instances is in Matthew Wilson's Imperfect C++, which discusses how to do this using a "spin mutex". I'm not near to my copy of it, so can't tell you any more precisely at this time.
IIRC, there are some examples of the use of this inside the STLSoft libraries, though I can't remember which components at this time.
I've been reading about thread-safe singleton patterns here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singleton_pattern#C.2B.2B_.28using_pthreads.29
And it says at the bottom that the only safe way is to use pthread_once - which isn't available on Windows.
Is that the only way of guaranteeing thread safe initialisation?
I've read this thread on SO:
Thread safe lazy construction of a singleton in C++
And seems to hint at an atomic OS level swap and compare function, which I assume on Windows is:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms683568.aspx
Can this do what I want?
Edit: I would like lazy initialisation and for there to only ever be one instance of the class.
Someone on another site mentioned using a global inside a namespace (and he described a singleton as an anti-pattern) - how can it be an "anti-pattern"?
Accepted Answer:
I've accepted Josh's answer as I'm using Visual Studio 2008 - NB: For future readers, if you aren't using this compiler (or 2005) - Don't use the accepted answer!!
Edit:
The code works fine except the return statement - I get an error:
error C2440: 'return' : cannot convert from 'volatile Singleton *' to 'Singleton *'.
Should I modify the return value to be volatile Singleton *?
Edit: Apparently const_cast<> will remove the volatile qualifier. Thanks again to Josh.
A simple way to guarantee cross-platform thread safe initialization of a singleton is to perform it explicitly (via a call to a static member function on the singleton) in the main thread of your application before your application starts any other threads (or at least any other threads that will access the singleton).
Ensuring thread safe access to the singleton is then achieved in the usual way with mutexes/critical sections.
Lazy initialization can also be achieved using a similar mechanism. The usual problem encountered with this is that the mutex required to provide thread-safety is often initialized in the singleton itself which just pushes the thread-safety issue to initialization of the mutex/critical section. One way to overcome this issue is to create and initialize a mutex/critical section in the main thread of your application then pass it to the singleton via a call to a static member function. The heavyweight initialization of the singleton can then occur in a thread-safe manner using this pre-initialized mutex/critical section. For example:
// A critical section guard - create on the stack to provide
// automatic locking/unlocking even in the face of uncaught exceptions
class Guard {
private:
LPCRITICAL_SECTION CriticalSection;
public:
Guard(LPCRITICAL_SECTION CS) : CriticalSection(CS) {
EnterCriticalSection(CriticalSection);
}
~Guard() {
LeaveCriticalSection(CriticalSection);
}
};
// A thread-safe singleton
class Singleton {
private:
static Singleton* Instance;
static CRITICAL_SECTION InitLock;
CRITICIAL_SECTION InstanceLock;
Singleton() {
// Time consuming initialization here ...
InitializeCriticalSection(&InstanceLock);
}
~Singleton() {
DeleteCriticalSection(&InstanceLock);
}
public:
// Not thread-safe - to be called from the main application thread
static void Create() {
InitializeCriticalSection(&InitLock);
Instance = NULL;
}
// Not thread-safe - to be called from the main application thread
static void Destroy() {
delete Instance;
DeleteCriticalSection(&InitLock);
}
// Thread-safe lazy initializer
static Singleton* GetInstance() {
Guard(&InitLock);
if (Instance == NULL) {
Instance = new Singleton;
}
return Instance;
}
// Thread-safe operation
void doThreadSafeOperation() {
Guard(&InstanceLock);
// Perform thread-safe operation
}
};
However, there are good reasons to avoid the use of singletons altogether (and why they are sometimes referred to as an anti-pattern):
They are essentially glorified global variables
They can lead to high coupling between disparate parts of an application
They can make unit testing more complicated or impossible (due to the difficultly in swapping real singletons with fake implementations)
An alternative is to make use of a 'logical singleton' whereby you create and initialise a single instance of a class in the main thread and pass it to the objects which require it. This approach can become unwieldy where there are many objects which you want to create as singletons. In this case the disparate objects can be bundled into a single 'Context' object which is then passed around where necessary.
If you are are using Visual C++ 2005/2008 you can use the double checked locking pattern, since "volatile variables behave as fences". This is the most efficient way to implement a lazy-initialized singleton.
From MSDN Magazine:
Singleton* GetSingleton()
{
volatile static Singleton* pSingleton = 0;
if (pSingleton == NULL)
{
EnterCriticalSection(&cs);
if (pSingleton == NULL)
{
try
{
pSingleton = new Singleton();
}
catch (...)
{
// Something went wrong.
}
}
LeaveCriticalSection(&cs);
}
return const_cast<Singleton*>(pSingleton);
}
Whenever you need access to the singleton, just call GetSingleton(). The first time it is called, the static pointer will be initialized. After it's initialized, the NULL check will prevent locking for just reading the pointer.
DO NOT use this on just any compiler, as it's not portable. The standard makes no guarantees on how this will work. Visual C++ 2005 explicitly adds to the semantics of volatile to make this possible.
You'll have to declare and initialize the CRITICAL SECTION elsewhere in code. But that initialization is cheap, so lazy initialization is usually not important.
While I like the accepted solution, I just found another promising lead and thought I should share it here: One-Time Initialization (Windows)
You can use an OS primitive such as mutex or critical section to ensure thread safe initialization however this will incur an overhead each time your singleton pointer is accessed (due to acquiring a lock). It's also non portable.
There is one clarifying point you need to consider for this question. Do you require ...
That one and only one instance of a class is ever actually created
Many instances of a class can be created but there should only be one true definitive instance of the class
There are many samples on the web to implement these patterns in C++. Here's a Code Project Sample
The following explains how to do it in C#, but the exact same concept applies to any programming language that would support the singleton pattern
http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/singleton.html
What you need to decide is wheter you want lazy initialization or not. Lazy initialization means that the object contained inside the singleton is created on the first call to it
ex :
MySingleton::getInstance()->doWork();
if that call isnt made until later on, there is a danger of a race condition between the threads as explained in the article. However, if you put
MySingleton::getInstance()->initSingleton();
at the very beginning of your code where you assume it would be thread safe, then you are no longer lazy initializing, you will require "some" more processing power when your application starts. However it will solve a lot of headaches about race conditions if you do so.
If you are looking for a more portable, and easier solution, you could turn to boost.
boost::call_once can be used for thread safe initialization.
Its pretty simple to use, and will be part of the next C++0x standard.
The question does not require the singleton is lazy-constructed or not.
Since many answers assume that, I assume that for the first phrase discuss:
Given the fact that the language itself is not thread-awareness, and plus the optimization technique, writing a portable reliable c++ singleton is very hard (if not impossible), see "C++ and the Perils of Double-Checked Locking" by Scott Meyers and Andrei Alexandrescu.
I've seen many of the answer resort to sync object on windows platform by using CriticalSection, but CriticalSection is only thread-safe when all the threads is running on one single processor, today it's probably not true.
MSDN cite: "The threads of a single process can use a critical section object for mutual-exclusion synchronization. ".
And http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms682530(v=vs.85).aspx
clearify it further:
A critical section object provides synchronization similar to that provided by a mutex object, except that a critical section can be used only by the threads of a single process.
Now, if "lazy-constructed" is not a requirement, the following solution is both cross-module safe and thread-safe, and even portable:
struct X { };
X * get_X_Instance()
{
static X x;
return &x;
}
extern int X_singleton_helper = (get_X_instance(), 1);
It's cross-module-safe because we use locally-scoped static object instead of file/namespace scoped global object.
It's thread-safe because: X_singleton_helper must be assigned to the correct value before entering main or DllMain It's not lazy-constructed also because of this fact), in this expression the comma is an operator, not punctuation.
Explicitly use "extern" here to prevent compiler optimize it out(Concerns about Scott Meyers article, the big enemy is optimizer.), and also make static-analyze tool such as pc-lint keep silent. "Before main/DllMain" is Scott meyer called "single-threaded startup part" in "Effective C++ 3rd" item 4.
However, I'm not very sure about whether compiler is allowed to optimize the call the get_X_instance() out according to the language standard, please comment.
There are many ways to do thread safe Singleton* initialization on windows. In fact some of them are even cross-platform. In the SO thread that you linked to, they were looking for a Singleton that is lazily constructed in C, which is a bit more specific, and can be a bit trickier to do right, given the intricacies of the memory model you are working under.
which you should never use