Can I get a threads suspend count under Windows CE, using C or Visual C++, without calling resume or suspend functions? The only way I can see of doing it is something like
int Count = SuspendThread(ThreadHandle);
ResumeThread(ThreadHandle);
This has a couple of problems, firstly, I'd rather not suspend the thread, and secondly the suspend might fail if the thread is running kernel code. I can work around this, but I feel there should be a more elegant solution. I could also reverse it using
int Count = ResumeThread(ThreadHandle);
SuspendThread(ThreadHandle);
But this has similar problems. Any good alternative method of getting the suspend count from the handle?
I have a combined solution. Use WaitForSingleObject() to determine if the thread is suspended or not.
If it's not suspended, the suspend count is obviously 0.
If it's suspended, it's safe to call SuspendThread() to get the suspend count. Since it's already suspended you will not stall anything.
You should not suspend any thread on any platform, ever.
You should instead add synchronization points in your threading code that explicitly waits for a flag to become signaled before it is allowed to continue. This way you know where it will be paused, or at least know that it will be paused at safe points.
The following operations on threads should be banned, outright, from any platform for any programmer:
Suspend
Resume (since you don't need it if you can't suspend the thread)
Kill/Abort
You should never, ever, forcibly impose your will from the outside on a thread. You have no guarantee what it is doing, what kind of resources it is currently locking.
Always write threading in a cooperative mode. Your thread should be aware of its surroundings, and yield to wishes of the outside world to either exit in an orderly fashion, or pause until it can safely continue.
Probably with WaitForSingleObject you can check if the thread is suspended but you can not retrieve the suspend counter.
Even the Thread in Active you will still receive a WAIT_TIMEOUT result, this because Threads only signal when they finish, not when they're running.
That said WaitForSingleObject(hThread,INFINITE) waits until the threads finishes.
Related
If I terminate a thread on Windows using the TerminateThread function, is that thread actually terminated once the function returns or is termination asychnronous?
Define "actually terminated". The documentation says the thread can not execute any more user-mode code, so effectively: yes, it is terminated, nothing of your code is going to be executed by that thread any more.
If you "WaitForSingleObject" on it right after terminating, I guess there could still be some slight delay because of cleanup that Windows is doing.
By the way: TerminateThread is the worst way of ending a thread. Try using some other means of synchronization, like a global variable that tells the thread to stop, or an event for example.
Terminating a thread is akin to killing a process, only on a per-thread level. It may in fact be implemented by raising an (uncatchable) signal in the targeted thread.
The result is essentially the same: Your program is not in any particular, predictable state. There's not much you can do with the dead thread. The control flow of your program becomes generally indeterminate, and thus it is extremely hard to reason about your program's behaviour in the presence of thread termination.
Basically, unless your thread is doing something extremely narrow, specific and restricted (e.g. increment an atomic counter once every second), there's no good model for the need to terminate a thread, and for the state of the program after the thread termination.
Don't do it. Design your threads so that you can communicate with them and so that their entry functions can return. Design your program so that you can always join all threads eventually and account for everything.
It is a synchronous call. That does not mean that it necessarily returns quickly - there may be some blocking involved if the OS has to resort to using its inter-core driver to stop the thread, (ie. it's actually running on a different core than the thread requesting the termination).
There are issues with calling TerminateThread from user code during an app run, (as distinct from the kernel using it during app/process termination), as clearly posted by others.
I try very hard to never terminate threads at all during an app run, with TerminateThread or by any other means. App-lifetime threads and thread pools often do not require any explicit termination before the OS destroys them on app close.
I have a program that should get the maximum out of my cpu.
It is multithreaded via pthreads that do their job well apart from the fact that they "only" get my cores to about 60% load which is not enough in my opinion.
I am searching for the reason and am asking myself (and hereby you) if the blocking functions mutex_lock/cond_wait are candidates?
What happens when a thread cannot run on in such a function?
Does pthread switch to another thread it handles or
does the thread yield its time to the system and if the latter is the case, can I change this behavior?
Regards,
Nobody
More Information
The setting is one mainthread that fills the taskpool and countless workers that fetch jobs from there and wait on a conditional that is signaled via broadcast when a serialized calculation is done. They go on with the values from this calculation until they are done, deliver their mail and fetch the next job...
On a typical modern pthreads implementation, each thread is managed by the kernel not unlike a separate process. Any blocking call like pthread_mutex_lock or pthread_cond_wait (but also, say, read) will yield its time to the system. The system will then find another eligible thread to schedule, whether in your process or another process, and run it.
If your program is only taking 60% of the CPU, it is more likely blocked on I/O than on pthread operations, unless you have done something way too granular with your pthread operations.
If a thread is waiting on a mutex/condition, it doesn't use resources (well, uses just a tiny amount). Whenever the thread enters waiting state, control switches to other threads. When the mutex is released (or condition variable signalled), the thread wakes up and may acquire the mutex (if no other thread grabs it first), and continue to run. If however some other thread acquires the mutex (this can happen if several threads are waiting for it), the thread returns to sleeping state.
so I have some main function. 24 time a second it opens a boost thread A with a function. that function takes in a buffer with data. It starts up a boost timer. It opens another thread B with a function sending buffer into it. I need thread A to kill thread B if it is executing way 2 long. Of course if thread B has executed in time I do not need to kill it it should kill itself. What boost function can help me to kill created thread (not join - stop/kill or something like that)?
BTW I cannot affect speed of Function I am exequting in thread B thats why I need to be capable of killing it when needed.
There's no clean way to kill a thread, so if you need to do something like this, your clean choices are to either use a function that includes some cancellation capability, or use a separate process for it, since you can kill a process cleanly.
Other than that, my immediate reaction is that instead of "opening" (do you mean creating?) thread A 24 times a second, you'd be better off with thread A reading a buffer, sending it on to thread B, then sleeping until it's ready to read another buffer. Creating and killing threads isn't terribly expensive, but doing it at a rate of 24 (or, apparently, 48) a second strikes me as a bit excessive.
The term you are looking for is "cancellation", as in pthread_cancel(3). Cancellation is troublesome, because the cancelled thread might not execute C++ destructors or release locks on the way out ... but then again it might; the uncertainty is actually worse than a definitive no.
Because of this, boost threads do not support cancellation (see for instance this older question) but they do support interruption, which you might be able to bend to fit. Interruption works by way of a regular C++ exception so it has predictable semantics.
please don't kill threads at random unless you completely control their execution (and then just make proper signals for threads to exit gracefully). you never know if other thread is in some critical section of a library you never heard of and then your program will end up stalling on that CS as it was never exited or something like that.
The Windows and Solaris thread APIs both allow a thread to be created in a "suspended" state. The thread only actually starts when it is later "resumed". I'm used to POSIX threads which don't have this concept, and I'm struggling to understand the motivation for it. Can anyone suggest why it would be useful to create a "suspended" thread?
Here's a simple illustrative example. WinAPI allows me to do this:
t = CreateThread(NULL,0,func,NULL,CREATE_SUSPENDED,NULL);
// A. Thread not running, so do... something here?
ResumeThread(t);
// B. Thread running, so do something else.
The (simpler) POSIX equivalent appears to be:
// A. Thread not running, so do... something here?
pthread_create(&t,NULL,func,NULL);
// B. Thread running, so do something else.
Does anyone have any real-world examples where they've been able to do something at point A (between CreateThread & ResumeThread) which would have been difficult on POSIX?
To preallocate resources and later start the thread almost immediately.
You have a mechanism that reuses a thread (resumes it), but you don't have actually a thread to reuse and you must create one.
It can be useful to create a thread in a suspended state in many instances (I find) - you may wish to get the handle to the thread and set some of it's properties before allowing it to start using the resources you're setting up for it.
Starting is suspended is much safer than starting it and then suspending it - you have no idea how far it's got or what it's doing.
Another example might be for when you want to use a thread pool - you create the necessary threads up front, suspended, and then when a request comes in, pick one of the threads, set the thread information for the task, and then set it as schedulable.
I dare say there are ways around not having CREATE_SUSPENDED, but it certainly has its uses.
There are some example of uses in 'Windows via C/C++' (Richter/Nasarre) if you want lots of detail!
There is an implicit race condition in CreateThread: you cannot obtain the thread ID until after the thread started running. It is entirely unpredictable when the call returns, for all you know the thread might have already completed. If the thread causes any interaction in the rest of that process that requires the TID then you've got a problem.
It is not an unsolvable problem if the API doesn't support starting the thread suspended, simply have the thread block on a mutex right away and release that mutex after the CreateThread call returns.
However, there's another use for CREATE_SUSPENDED in the Windows API that is very difficult to deal with if API support is lacking. The CreateProcess() call also accepts this flag, it suspends the startup thread of the process. The mechanism is identical, the process gets loaded and you'll get a PID but no code runs until you release the startup thread. That's very useful, I've used this feature to setup a process guard that detects process failure and creates a minidump. The CREATE_SUSPEND flag allowed me to detect and deal with initialization failures, normally very hard to troubleshoot.
You might want to start a thread with some other (usually lower) priority or with a specific affinity mask. If you spawn it as usual it can run with undesired priority/affinity for some time. So you start it suspended, change the parameters you want, then resume the thread.
The threads we use are able to exchange messages, and we have arbitrarily configurable priority-inherited message queues (described in the config file) that connect those threads. Until every queue has been constructed and connected to every thread, we cannot allow the threads to execute, since they will start sending messages off to nowhere and expect responses. Until every thread was constructed, we cannot construct the queues since they need to attach to something. So, no thread can be allowed to do work until the very last one was configured. We use boost.threads, and the first thing they do is wait on a boost::barrier.
I stumbled with a similar problem once upon I time. The reasons for suspended initial state are treated in other answer.
My solution with pthread was to use a mutex and cond_wait, but I don't know if it is a good solution and if can cover all the possible needs. I don't know, moreover, if the thread can be considered suspended (at the time, I considered "blocked" in the manual as a synonim, but likely it is not so)
In C++, Windows platform, I want to execute a set of function calls as atomic so that execution doesn't switches to other threads in my process. How do I go about doing that? Any ideas, hints?
EDIT: I have a piece of code like:
someObject->Restart();
WaitForSingleObject(handle, INFINITE);
Now the Restart() function does its work asynchronously, so it returns quickly and when that someObject is restarted it sends me an event from another thread where I signal the event handle on which I'm waiting and thus continue processing. But now the problem is that before the code reaches WaitForSingleObject() part, I receive the restart completion event and I signal the event and after that WaitForSingleObject() never returns since it is not signaled again. That's why I want to execute both Restart() and WaitForSingleObject() as atomic.
This is generally not possible. You can't force the OS to not switch to other threads.
What you can do is one of the following:
Use locks, mutexes, criticals sections or semaphores to synchronize a handful of threads that touch the same data.
Use basic operations that are atomic such as compare-and-exchange or atomic-add in the form of win32 api calls such as InterlockedIncrement() and InterlockedCompareExchange()
You don't want all threads to wait, you just want to wait for the new thread to be done, without the risk of missing the signal. This can be done using a semaphore.
Create a semaphore known by both this code and the code eventually executed by Restart, using CreateSemaphore(NULL,0,1,NULL).
In the code you've shown, you'll still use WaitforSingleObject to wait for your semaphore. When the thread executing the Release code is done with it's work, have it call ReleaseSemaphore.
If ReleaseSemaphore is called first, WaitforSingleObject will let you pass immediately. If WaitforSingleObject is called first, it will wait for ReleaseSemaphore.
MSDN should also help you.
A general solution to lost event race is a counting semaphore.
Are you using PulseEvent() to signal your handle? If so, that's the problem.
According to MSDN,
If no threads are waiting, or if no
thread can be released immediately,
PulseEvent simply sets the event
object's state to nonsignaled and
returns.
So if the handle is signaled before you wait on it, the handle is placed immediately in the nonsignaled state by PulseEvent(). That would appear to be why your are "missing" the event. To correct this, replace PulseEvent() with SetEvent().
With this scenario, though, you may need to reset the event after the wait is complete. This of course depends on if this code is executed more than once during the lifetime of your application. Assuming your waiting thread is the only thread that is waiting on the handle, use CreateEvent() to create an auto reset event. This will automatically reset the handle after your waiting thread is released, making it automatically available for the next time through.
Well, you could suspend (using SuspendThread) all other threads in the process, but I suppose you should rethink design of your program.
This is very easy to fix. Just make sure that the event is the auto-reset event (see the parameters of the CreateEvent) and only call SetEvent to the event handle, never call ResetEvent or PulseEvent or some other things. So the WaitForSingleObject will always return properly. If the event has been already set, the WaitForSingleObject will return immediately and reset the event.
Although I worry about your design in general (ie you are making concurrent tasks sequential, thus losing all the benefits of the hard work to make it concurrent), I think I see the simple solution.
Change your event handle to be MANUAL RESET instead of AUTORESET. (see CreateEvent).
Then you won't miss the signal.
After WaitForSingleObject(...), call ResetEvent().
EDIT:
forget what I just said. That won't work. see comments below.