Related
When I create a new thread in a program... in it's thread handle function, why do I pass variables that I want that thread to use through the thread function prototype as parameters (as a void pointer)? Since threads share the same memory segments (except for stack) as the main program, shouldn't I be able to just use the variables directly instead of passing parameters from main program to new thread?
Well, yes, you could use the variables directly. Maybe. Assuming that they aren't changed by some other thread before your thread starts running.
Also, a big part of passing parameters to functions (including thread functions) is to limit the amount of information the called function has to know about the outside world. If you pass the thread function everything it needs in order to do its work, then you can change the rest of the program with relative impunity and the thread will still continue to work. If, however, you force the thread to know that there is a global list of strings called MyStringList, then you can't change that global list without also affecting the thread.
Information hiding. Encapsulation. Separation of concerns. Etc.
You cannot pass parameters to a thread function in any kind of normal register/stack manner because thread functions are not called by the creating thread - they are given execution directly by the underlying OS and the API's that do this copy a fixed number of parameters, (usually only one void pointer), to the new and different stack of the new thread.
As Jim says, failure to understand this mechanism often results in disaster. There are numnerous questions on SO where the vars that devs. hope would be used by a new thread are RAII'd away before the new thread even starts.
I am working on an user space app for an embedded Linux project using the 2.6.24.3 kernel.
My app passes data between two file nodes by creating 2 pthreads that each sleep until a asynchronous IO operation completes at which point it wakes and runs a completion handler.
The completion handlers need to keep track of how many transfers are pending and maintain a handful of linked lists that one thread will add to and the other will remove.
// sleep here until events arrive or time out expires
for(;;) {
no_of_events = io_getevents(ctx, 1, num_events, events, &timeout);
// Process each aio event that has completed or thrown an error
for (i=0; i<no_of_events; i++) {
// Get pointer to completion handler
io_complete = (io_callback_t) events[i].data;
// Get pointer to data object
iocb = (struct iocb *) events[i].obj;
// Call completion handler and pass it the data object
io_complete(ctx, iocb, events[i].res, events[i].res2);
}
}
My question is this...
Is there a simple way I can prevent the currently active thread from yielding whilst it runs the completion handler rather than going down the mutex/spin lock route?
Or failing that can Linux be configured to prevent yielding a pthread when a mutex/spin lock is held?
You can use the sched_setscheduler() system call to temporarily set the thread's scheduling policy to SCHED_FIFO, then set it back again. From the sched_setscheduler() man page:
A SCHED_FIFO process runs until either
it is blocked by an I/O request, it is
preempted by a higher priority
process, or it calls sched_yield(2).
(In this context, "process" actually means "thread").
However, this is quite a suspicious requirement. What is the problem you are hoping to solve? If you are just trying to protect your linked list of completion handlers from concurrent access, then an ordinary mutex is the way to go. Have the completion thread lock the mutex, remove the list item, unlock the mutex, then call the completion handler.
I think you'll want to use mutexes/locks to prevent race conditions here. Mutexes are by no way voodoo magic and can even make your code simpler than using arbitrary system-specific features, which you'd need to potentially port across systems. Don't know if the latter is an issue for you, though.
I believe you are trying to outsmart the Linux scheduler here, for the wrong reasons.
The correct solution is to use a mutex to prevent completion handlers from running in parallel. Let the scheduler do its job.
I have this POSIX thread:
void subthread(void)
{
while(!quit_thread) {
// do something
...
// don't waste cpu cycles
if(!quit_thread) usleep(500);
}
// free resources
...
// tell main thread we're done
quit_thread = FALSE;
}
Now I want to terminate subthread() from my main thread. I've tried the following:
quit_thread = TRUE;
// wait until subthread() has cleaned its resources
while(quit_thread);
But it does not work! The while() clause does never exit although my subthread clearly sets quit_thread to FALSE after having freed its resources!
If I modify my shutdown code like this:
quit_thread = TRUE;
// wait until subthread() has cleaned its resources
while(quit_thread) usleep(10);
Then everything is working fine! Could someone explain to me why the first solution does not work and why the version with usleep(10) suddenly works? I know that this is not a pretty solution. I could use semaphores/signals for this but I'd like to learn something about multithreading, so I'd like to know why my first solution doesn't work.
Thanks!
Without a memory fence, there is no guarantee that values written in one thread will appear in another. Most of the pthread primitives introduce a barrier, as do several system calls such as usleep. Using a mutex around both the read and write introduces a barrier, and more generally prevents multi-byte values being visible in partially written state.
You also need to separate the idea of asking a thread to stop executing, and reporting that it has stopped, and appear to be using the same variable for both.
What's most likely to be happening is that your compiler is not aware that quit_thread can be changed by another thread (because C doesn't know about threads, at least at the time this question was asked). Because of that, it's optimising the while loop to an infinite loop.
In other words, it looks at this code:
quit_thread = TRUE;
while(quit_thread);
and thinks to itself, "Hah, nothing in that loop can ever change quit_thread to FALSE, so the coder obviously just meant to write while (TRUE);".
When you add the call to usleep, the compiler has another think about it and assumes that the function call may change the global, so it plays it safe and doesn't optimise it.
Normally you would mark the variable as volatile to stop the compiler from optimising it but, in this case, you should use the facilities provided by pthreads and join to the thread after setting the flag to true (and don't have the sub-thread reset it, do that in the main thread after the join if it's necessary). The reason for that is that a join is likely to be more efficient than a continuous loop waiting for a variable change since the thread doing the join will most likely not be executed until the join needs to be done.
In your spinning solution, the joining thread will most likely continue to run and suck up CPU grunt.
In other words, do something like:
Main thread Child thread
------------------- -------------------
fStop = false
start Child Initialise
Do some other stuff while not fStop:
fStop = true Do what you have to do
Finish up and exit
join to Child
Do yet more stuff
And, as an aside, you should technically protect shared variables with mutexes but this is one of the few cases where it's okay, one-way communication where half-changed values of a variable don't matter (false/not-false).
The reason you normally mutex-protect a variable is to stop one thread seeing it in a half-changed state. Let's say you have a two-byte integer for a count of some objects, and it's set to 0x00ff (255).
Let's further say that thread A tries to increment that count but it's not an atomic operation. It changes the top byte to 0x01 but, before it gets a chance to change the bottom byte to 0x00, thread B swoops in and reads it as 0x01ff.
Now that's not going to be very good if thread B want to do something with the last element counted by that value. It should be looking at 0x0100 but will instead try to look at 0x01ff, the effect of which will be wrong, if not catastrophic.
If the count variable were protected by a mutex, thread B wouldn't be looking at it until thread A had finished updating it, hence no problem would occur.
The reason that doesn't matter with one-way booleans is because any half state will also be considered as true or false so, if thread A was halfway between turning 0x0000 into 0x0001 (just the top byte), thread B would still see that as 0x0000 (false) and keep going (until thread A finishes its update next time around).
And if thread A was turning the boolean into 0xffff, the half state of 0xff00 would still be considered true by thread B so it would do its thing before thread A had finished updating the boolean.
Neither of those two possibilities is bad simply because, in both, thread A is in the process of changing the boolean and it will finish eventually. Whether thread B detects it a tiny bit earlier or a tiny bit later doesn't really matter.
The while(quite_thread); is using the value quit_thread was set to on the line before it. Calling a function (usleep) induces the compiler to reload the value on each test.
In any case, this is the wrong way to wait for a thread to complete. Use pthread_join instead.
You're "learning" multhithreading the wrong way. The right way is to learn to use mutexes and condition variables; any other solution will fail under some circumstances.
I'm attempting to learn Clojure from the API and documentation available on the site. I'm a bit unclear about mutable storage in Clojure and I want to make sure my understanding is correct. Please let me know if there are any ideas that I've gotten wrong.
Edit: I'm updating this as I receive comments on its correctness.
Disclaimer: All of this information is informal and potentially wrong. Do not use this post for gaining an understanding of how Clojure works.
Vars always contain a root binding and possibly a per-thread binding. They are comparable to regular variables in imperative languages and are not suited for sharing information between threads. (thanks Arthur Ulfeldt)
Refs are locations shared between threads that support atomic transactions that can change the state of any number of refs in a single transaction. Transactions are committed upon exiting sync expressions (dosync) and conflicts are resolved automatically with STM magic (rollbacks, queues, waits, etc.)
Agents are locations that enable information to be asynchronously shared between threads with minimal overhead by dispatching independent action functions to change the agent's state. Agents are returned immediately and are therefore non-blocking, although an agent's value isn't set until a dispatched function has completed.
Atoms are locations that can be synchronously shared between threads. They support safe manipulation between different threads.
Here's my friendly summary based on when to use these structures:
Vars are like regular old variables in imperative languages. (avoid when possible)
Atoms are like Vars but with thread-sharing safety that allows for immediate reading and safe setting. (thanks Martin)
An Agent is like an Atom but rather than blocking it spawns a new thread to calculate its value, only blocks if in the middle of changing a value, and can let other threads know that it's finished assigning.
Refs are shared locations that lock themselves in transactions. Instead of making the programmer decide what happens during race conditions for every piece of locked code, we just start up a transaction and let Clojure handle all the lock conditions between the refs in that transaction.
Also, a related concept is the function future. To me, it seems like a future object can be described as a synchronous Agent where the value can't be accessed at all until the calculation is completed. It can also be described as a non-blocking Atom. Are these accurate conceptions of future?
It sounds like you are really getting Clojure! good job :)
Vars have a "root binding" visible in all threads and each individual thread can change the value it sees with out affecting the other threads. If my understanding is correct a var cannot exist in just one thread with out a root binding that is visible to all and it cant be "rebound" until it has been defined with (def ... ) the first time.
Refs are committed at the end of the (dosync ... ) transaction that encloses the changes but only when the transaction was able to finish in a consistent state.
I think your conclusion about Atoms is wrong:
Atoms are like Vars but with thread-sharing safety that blocks until the value has changed
Atoms are changed with swap! or low-level with compare-and-set!. This never blocks anything. swap! works like a transaction with just one ref:
the old value is taken from the atom and stored thread-local
the function is applied to the old value to generate a new value
if this succeeds compare-and-set is called with old and new value; only if the value of the atom has not been changed by any other thread (still equals old value), the new value is written, otherwise the operation restarts at (1) until is succeeds eventually.
I've found two issues with your question.
You say:
If an agent is accessed while an action is occurring then the value isn't returned until the action has finished
http://clojure.org/agents says:
the state of an Agent is always immediately available for reading by any thread
I.e. you never have to wait to get the value of an agent (I assume the value changed by an action is proxied and changed atomically).
The code for the deref-method of an Agent looks like this (SVN revision 1382):
public Object deref() throws Exception{
if(errors != null)
{
throw new Exception("Agent has errors", (Exception) RT.first(errors));
}
return state;
}
No blocking is involved.
Also, I don't understand what you mean (in your Ref section) by
Transactions are committed on calls to deref
Transactions are committed when all actions of the dosync block have been completed, no exceptions have been thrown and nothing has caused the transaction to be retried. I think deref has nothing to do with it, but maybe I misunderstand your point.
Martin is right when he say that Atoms operation restarts at 1. until is succeeds eventually.
It is also called spin waiting.
While it is note really blocking on a lock the thread that did the operation is blocked until the operation succeeds so it is a blocking operation and not an asynchronously operation.
Also about Futures, Clojure 1.1 has added abstractions for promises and futures.
A promise is a synchronization construct that can be used to deliver a value from one thread to another. Until the value has been delivered, any attempt to dereference the promise will block.
(def a-promise (promise))
(deliver a-promise :fred)
Futures represent asynchronous computations. They are a way to get code to run in another thread, and obtain the result.
(def f (future (some-sexp)))
(deref f) ; blocks the thread that derefs f until value is available
Vars don't always have a root binding. It's legal to create a var without a binding using
(def x)
or
(declare x)
Attempting to evaluate x before it has a value will result in
Var user/x is unbound.
[Thrown class java.lang.IllegalStateException]
I understand about race conditions and how with multiple threads accessing the same variable, updates made by one can be ignored and overwritten by others, but what if each thread is writing the same value (not different values) to the same variable; can even this cause problems? Could this code:
GlobalVar.property = 11;
(assuming that property will never be assigned anything other than 11), cause problems if multiple threads execute it at the same time?
The problem comes when you read that state back, and do something about it. Writing is a red herring - it is true that as long as this is a single word most environments guarantee the write will be atomic, but that doesn't mean that a larger piece of code that includes this fragment is thread-safe. Firstly, presumably your global variable contained a different value to begin with - otherwise if you know it's always the same, why is it a variable? Second, presumably you eventually read this value back again?
The issue is that presumably, you are writing to this bit of shared state for a reason - to signal that something has occurred? This is where it falls down: when you have no locking constructs, there is no implied order of memory accesses at all. It's hard to point to what's wrong here because your example doesn't actually contain the use of the variable, so here's a trivialish example in neutral C-like syntax:
int x = 0, y = 0;
//thread A does:
x = 1;
y = 2;
if (y == 2)
print(x);
//thread B does, at the same time:
if (y == 2)
print(x);
Thread A will always print 1, but it's completely valid for thread B to print 0. The order of operations in thread A is only required to be observable from code executing in thread A - thread B is allowed to see any combination of the state. The writes to x and y may not actually happen in order.
This can happen even on single-processor systems, where most people do not expect this kind of reordering - your compiler may reorder it for you. On SMP even if the compiler doesn't reorder things, the memory writes may be reordered between the caches of the separate processors.
If that doesn't seem to answer it for you, include more detail of your example in the question. Without the use of the variable it's impossible to definitively say whether such a usage is safe or not.
It depends on the work actually done by that statement. There can still be some cases where Something Bad happens - for example, if a C++ class has overloaded the = operator, and does anything nontrivial within that statement.
I have accidentally written code that did something like this with POD types (builtin primitive types), and it worked fine -- however, it's definitely not good practice, and I'm not confident that it's dependable.
Why not just lock the memory around this variable when you use it? In fact, if you somehow "know" this is the only write statement that can occur at some point in your code, why not just use the value 11 directly, instead of writing it to a shared variable?
(edit: I guess it's better to use a constant name instead of the magic number 11 directly in the code, btw.)
If you're using this to figure out when at least one thread has reached this statement, you could use a semaphore that starts at 1, and is decremented by the first thread that hits it.
I would expect the result to be undetermined. As in it would vary from compiler to complier, langauge to language and OS to OS etc. So no, it is not safe
WHy would you want to do this though - adding in a line to obtain a mutex lock is only one or two lines of code (in most languages), and would remove any possibility of problem. If this is going to be two expensive then you need to find an alternate way of solving the problem
In General, this is not considered a safe thing to do unless your system provides for atomic operation (operations that are guaranteed to be executed in a single cycle).
The reason is that while the "C" statement looks simple, often there are a number of underlying assembly operations taking place.
Depending on your OS, there are a few things you could do:
Take a mutual exclusion semaphore (mutex) to protect access
in some OS, you can temporarily disable preemption, which guarantees your thread will not swap out.
Some OS provide a writer or reader semaphore which is more performant than a plain old mutex.
Here's my take on the question.
You have two or more threads running that write to a variable...like a status flag or something, where you only want to know if one or more of them was true. Then in another part of the code (after the threads complete) you want to check and see if at least on thread set that status... for example
bool flag = false
threadContainer tc
threadInputs inputs
check(input)
{
...do stuff to input
if(success)
flag = true
}
start multiple threads
foreach(i in inputs)
t = startthread(check, i)
tc.add(t) // Keep track of all the threads started
foreach(t in tc)
t.join( ) // Wait until each thread is done
if(flag)
print "One of the threads were successful"
else
print "None of the threads were successful"
I believe the above code would be OK, assuming you're fine with not knowing which thread set the status to true, and you can wait for all the multi-threaded stuff to finish before reading that flag. I could be wrong though.
If the operation is atomic, you should be able to get by just fine. But I wouldn't do that in practice. It is better just to acquire a lock on the object and write the value.
Assuming that property will never be assigned anything other than 11, then I don't see a reason for assigment in the first place. Just make it a constant then.
Assigment only makes sense when you intend to change the value unless the act of assigment itself has other side effects - like volatile writes have memory visibility side-effects in Java. And if you change state shared between multiple threads, then you need to synchronize or otherwise "handle" the problem of concurrency.
When you assign a value, without proper synchronization, to some state shared between multiple threads, then there's no guarantees for when the other threads will see that change. And no visibility guarantees means that it it possible that the other threads will never see the assignt.
Compilers, JITs, CPU caches. They're all trying to make your code run as fast as possible, and if you don't make any explicit requirements for memory visibility, then they will take advantage of that. If not on your machine, then somebody elses.