I have a top level controller, which schedules n sub threads,
and waits for all of them to complete before scheduling them all over again. These threads go on forever, so the threads do not need to be joined.
So the pseudo-code is something like this (assuming n=2):
Top:
loop:
1. initiate T1 and T2
2. wait for completion of both T1 and T2
T1: (similarly for T2)
loop:
1. wait for lock-1
2. do something
3. send completion signal
I am thinking of the following code for this, where Top,T1,T2 are
separate threads:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define NUM_PROCS 2
pthread_mutex_t m_1, m_2; // for scheduling T1,T2
int count;
pthread_mutex_t m_count; // for completion-signal
pthread_cond_t c_count;
pthread_attr_t attr; // for threads
pthread_t thread[NUM_PROCS+1];
void *Top(void *t) {
count=0;
while(1) {
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m_1);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m_2);
// not sure if this the correct way to wait for T1&T2
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_count);
while(count < 2) {
pthread_cond_wait(&c_count, &m_count);
}
count=0;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m_count);
}
}
void *T1(void *t) { // similarly for T2
while(1) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_1); // use m_2 for T2
sleep(1);
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_count);
count++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m_count);
pthread_cond_signal(&c_count);
}
}
void *T2(void *t) {
while(1) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_2);
sleep(1);
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_count);
count++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m_count);
pthread_cond_signal(&c_count);
}
}
int main() {
int rc;
int t[NUM_PROCS+1] = {0,1,2}; // thread numbers
pthread_mutex_init(&m_1, NULL); // initializations
pthread_mutex_init(&m_2, NULL);
pthread_mutex_init(&m_count, NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&c_count, NULL);
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_1); // to allow Top to start first
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_2);
pthread_attr_init(&attr); // initiate the threads
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
rc = pthread_create(&thread[0], &attr, Top, (void *)&t[0]);
rc = pthread_create(&thread[1], &attr, T1, (void *)&t[1]);
rc = pthread_create(&thread[2], &attr, T2, (void *)&t[2]);
}
My questions on the above code:
Is the above code correct?
Usually, lock and unlock are both done by the same thread.
So my solution, of T1 locking m_1 and Top unlocking it,
seems a bit weird. Is there a better way of doing this?
Is semaphore a more efficient way to do this synchronization?
Will the code change (except main() of course) if I implement
this as separate processes with shared memory, instead of as
threads? And will that be less efficient than the threads version?
A thread that has not locked a pthread mutex may not unlock it. If you need to create a lock that one thread can acquire and another thread can release, you have to do so with your own code. A standard mutex is not such a lock.
Related
I'm reading the book, Modern Operation Systems by AS TANENBAUM and it gives an example explaining condition variable as below. It looks to me there is a deadlock and not sure what I miss.
Lets assume consumer thread starts first. Right after the_mutex is locked, consumer thread is blocked waiting for the condition variable, condc.
If producer is running at this time, the_mutex will still be locked, because consumer never releases it. So producer will also be blocked.
This looks to me a textbook deadlock issue. Did I miss something here? Thx
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#define MAX 10000000000 /* Numbers to produce */
pthread_mutex_t the_mutex;
pthread_cond_t condc, condp;
int buffer = 0;
void* consumer(void *ptr) {
int i;
for (i = 1; i <= MAX; i++) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&the_mutex); /* lock mutex */
/*thread is blocked waiting for condc */
while (buffer == 0) pthread_cond_wait(&condc, &the_mutex);
buffer = 0;
pthread_cond_signal(&condp);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&the_mutex);
}
pthread_exit(0);
}
void* producer(void *ptr) {
int i;
for (i = 1; i <= MAX; i++) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&the_mutex); /* Lock mutex */
while (buffer != 0) pthread_cond_wait(&condp, &the_mutex);
buffer = i;
pthread_cond_signal(&condc);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&the_mutex);
}
pthread_exit(0);
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
pthread_t pro, con;
//Simplified main function, ignores init and destroy for simplicity
// Create the threads
pthread_create(&con, NULL, consumer, NULL);
pthread_create(&pro, NULL, producer, NULL);
}
When you wait on a condition variable, the associated mutex is released for the duration of the wait (that's why you pass the mutex to pthread_cond_wait).
When pthread_cond_wait returns, the mutex is always locked again.
Keeping this in mind, you can follow the logic of the example.
In Linux, I am emulating an embedded system that has one thread that gets messages delivered to the outside world. If some thread detects an insurmountable problem, my goal is to stop all the other threads in their tracks (leaving useful stack traces) and allow only the message delivery thread to continue. So in my emulation environment, I want to "pthread_kill(tid, SIGnal)" each "tid". (I have a list. I'm using SIGTSTP.) Unfortunately, only one thread is getting the signal. "sigprocmask()" is not able to unmask the signal. Here is my current (non-working) handler:
void
wait_until_death(int sig)
{
sigset_t mask;
sigemptyset(&mask);
sigaddset(&mask, sig);
sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &mask, NULL);
for (;;)
pause();
}
I get verification that all the pthread_kill()'s get invoked, but only one thread has the handler in the stack trace. Can this be done?
This minimal example seems to function in the manner you want - all the threads except the main thread end up waiting in wait_until_death():
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define NTHREADS 10
pthread_barrier_t barrier;
void
wait_until_death(int sig)
{
sigset_t mask;
sigemptyset(&mask);
sigaddset(&mask, sig);
sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, &mask, NULL);
for (;;)
pause();
}
void *thread_func(void *arg)
{
pthread_barrier_wait(&barrier);
for (;;)
pause();
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
const int thread_signal = SIGTSTP;
const struct sigaction sa = { .sa_handler = wait_until_death };
int i;
pthread_t thread[NTHREADS];
pthread_barrier_init(&barrier, NULL, NTHREADS + 1);
sigaction(thread_signal, &sa, NULL);
for (i = 0; i < NTHREADS; i++)
pthread_create(&thread[i], NULL, thread_func, NULL);
pthread_barrier_wait(&barrier);
for (i = 0; i < NTHREADS; i++)
pthread_kill(thread[i], thread_signal);
fprintf(stderr, "All threads signalled.\n");
for (;;)
pause();
return 0;
}
Note that unblocking the signal in the wait_until_death() isn't required: the signal mask is per-thread, and the thread that is executing the signal handler isn't going to be signalled again.
Presumably the problem is in how you are installing the signal handler, or setting up thread signal masks.
This is impossible. The problem is that some of the threads you stop may hold locks that the thread you want to continue running requires in order to continue making forward progress. Just abandon this idea entirely. Trust me, this will only cause you great pain.
If you literally must do it, have all the other threads call a conditional yielding point at known safe places where they hold no lock that can prevent any other thread from reaching its next conditional yielding point. But this is very difficult to get right and is very prone to deadlock and I strongly advise not trying it.
A Naive question ..
I read before saying - "A MUTEX has to be unlocked only by the thread that locked it."
But I have written a program where THREAD1 locks mutexVar and goes for a sleep. Then THREAD2 can directly unlock mutexVar do some operations and return.
==> I know everyone say why I am doing so ?? But my question is - Is this a right behaviour of MUTEX ??
==> Adding the sample code
void *functionC()
{
pthread_mutex_lock( &mutex1 );
counter++;
sleep(10);
printf("Thread01: Counter value: %d\n",counter);
pthread_mutex_unlock( &mutex1 );
}
void *functionD()
{
pthread_mutex_unlock( &mutex1 );
pthread_mutex_lock( &mutex1 );
counter=10;
printf("Counter value: %d\n",counter);
}
int main()
{
int rc1, rc2;
pthread_t thread1, thread2;
if(pthread_mutex_init(&mutex1, NULL))
printf("Error while using pthread_mutex_init\n");
if( (rc1=pthread_create( &thread1, NULL, &functionC, NULL)) )
{
printf("Thread creation failed: %d\n", rc1);
}
if( (rc2=pthread_create( &thread2, NULL, &functionD, NULL)) )
{
printf("Thread creation failed: %d\n", rc2);
}
Pthreads has 3 different kinds of mutexes: Fast mutex, recursive mutex, and error checking mutex. You used a fast mutex which, for performance reasons, will not check for this error. If you use the error checking mutex on Linux you will find you get the results you expect.
Below is a small hack of your program as an example and proof. It locks the mutex in main() and the unlock in the created thread will fail.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
/*** NOTE THE ATTR INITIALIZER HERE! ***/
pthread_mutex_t mutex1 = PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP;
int counter = 0;
void *functionD(void* data)
{
int rc;
if ((rc = pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex1)) != 0)
{
errno = rc;
perror("other thread unlock result");
exit(1);
}
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex1);
counter=10;
printf("Thread02: Counter value: %d\n",counter);
return(data);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int rc1;
pthread_t thread1;
if ((rc1 = pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex1)) != 0)
{
errno = rc1;
perror("main lock result");
}
if( (rc1 = pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, &functionD, NULL)))
{
printf("Thread creation failed: %d\n", rc1);
}
pthread_join(thread1, NULL);
}
What you've done is simply not legal, and the behavior is undefined. Mutexes only exclude threads that play by the rules. If you tried to lock mutex1 from thread 2, the thread would be blocked, of course; that's the required thing to do. There's nothing in the spec that says what happens if you try to unlock a mutex you don't own!
A mutex is used to prevent multiple threads from executing code that is only safe for one thread at a time.
To do this a mutex has several features:
A mutex can handle the race conditions associated with multiple threads trying to "lock" the mutex at the same time and always results with one thread winning the race.
Any thread that loses the race gets put to sleep permanently until the mutex is unlocked. The mutex maintains a list of these threads.
A will hand the "lock" to one and only one of the waiting threads when the mutex is unlocked by the thread who was just using it. The mutex will wake that thread.
If that type of pattern is useful for some other purpose then go ahead and use it for a different reason.
Back to your question. Lets say you were protecting some code from multiple thread accesses with a mutex and lets say 5 threads were waiting while thread A was executing the code. If thread B (not one of the ones waiting since they are permanently slept at the moment) unlocks the mutex, another thread will commence executing the code at the same time as thread A. Probably not desired.
Maybe if we knew what you were thinking about using the mutex for we could give a better answer. Are you trying to unlock a mutex after a thread was canceled? Do you have code that can handle 2 threads at a time but not three and there is no mutex that lets 2 threads through at a time?
I tried to find a solution in order to keep the number of working threads constant under linux in C using pthreads, but I seem to be unable to fully understand what's wrong with the following code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#define MAX_JOBS 50
#define MAX_THREADS 5
pthread_mutex_t mutex1 = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
int jobs = MAX_JOBS;
int worker = 0;
int counter = 0;
void *functionC() {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex1);
worker++;
counter++;
printf("Counter value: %d\n",counter);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex1);
// Do something...
sleep(4);
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex1);
jobs--;
worker--;
printf(" >>> Job done: %d\n",jobs);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex1);
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int i=0, j=0;
pthread_t thread[MAX_JOBS];
// Create threads if the number of working threads doesn't exceed MAX_THREADS
while (1) {
if (worker > MAX_THREADS) {
printf(" +++ In queue: %d\n", worker);
sleep(1);
} else {
//printf(" +++ Creating new thread: %d\n", worker);
pthread_create(&thread[i], NULL, &functionC, NULL);
//printf("%d",worker);
i++;
}
if (i == MAX_JOBS) break;
}
// Wait all threads to finish
for (j=0;j<MAX_JOBS;j++) {
pthread_join(thread[j], NULL);
}
return(0);
}
A while (1) loop keeps creating threads if the number of working threads is under a certain threshold. A mutex is supposed to lock the critical sections every time the global counter of the working threads is incremented (thread creation) and decremented (job is done). I thought it could work fine and for the most part it does, but weird things happen...
For instance, if I comment (as it is in this snippet) the printf //printf(" +++ Creating new thread: %d\n", worker); the while (1) seems to generate a random number (18-25 in my experience) threads (functionC prints out "Counter value: from 1 to 18-25"...) at a time instead of respecting the IF condition inside the loop. If I include the printf the loop seems to behave "almost" in the right way... This seems to hint that there's a missing "mutex" condition that I should add to the loop in main() to effectively lock the thread when MAX_THREADS is reached but after changing a LOT of times this code for the past few days I'm a bit lost, now. What am I missing?
Please, let me know what I should change in order to keep the number of threads constant it doesn't seem that I'm too far from the solution... Hopefully... :-)
Thanks in advance!
Your problem is that worker is not incremented until the new thread actually starts and gets to run - in the meantime, the main thread loops around, checks workers, finds that it hasn't changed, and starts another thread. It can repeat this many times, creating far too many threads.
So, you need to increment worker in the main thread, when you've decided to create a new thread.
You have another problem - you should be using condition variables to let the main thread sleep until it should start another thread, not using a busy-wait loop with a sleep(1); in it. The complete fixed code would look like:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define MAX_JOBS 50
#define MAX_THREADS 5
pthread_mutex_t mutex1 = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
pthread_cond_t cond1 = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
int jobs = MAX_JOBS;
int workers = 0;
int counter = 0;
void *functionC() {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex1);
counter++;
printf("Counter value: %d\n",counter);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex1);
// Do something...
sleep(4);
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex1);
jobs--;
printf(" >>> Job done: %d\n",jobs);
/* Worker is about to exit, so decrement count and wakeup main thread */
workers--;
pthread_cond_signal(&cond1);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex1);
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int i=0, j=0;
pthread_t thread[MAX_JOBS];
// Create threads if the number of working threads doesn't exceed MAX_THREADS
while (i < MAX_JOBS) {
/* Block on condition variable until there are insufficient workers running */
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex1);
while (workers >= MAX_THREADS)
pthread_cond_wait(&cond1, &mutex1);
/* Another worker will be running shortly */
workers++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex1);
pthread_create(&thread[i], NULL, &functionC, NULL);
i++;
}
// Wait all threads to finish
for (j=0;j<MAX_JOBS;j++) {
pthread_join(thread[j], NULL);
}
return(0);
}
Note that even though this works, it isn't ideal - it's best to create the number of threads you want up-front, and have them loop around, waiting for work. This is because creating and destroying threads has significant overhead, and because it often simplifies resource management. A version of your code rewritten to work like this would look like:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define MAX_JOBS 50
#define MAX_THREADS 5
pthread_mutex_t mutex1 = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
int jobs = MAX_JOBS;
int counter = 0;
void *functionC()
{
int running_job;
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex1);
counter++;
printf("Counter value: %d\n",counter);
while (jobs > 0) {
running_job = jobs--;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex1);
printf(" >>> Job starting: %d\n", running_job);
// Do something...
sleep(4);
printf(" >>> Job done: %d\n", running_job);
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex1);
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex1);
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
int i;
pthread_t thread[MAX_THREADS];
for (i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS; i++)
pthread_create(&thread[i], NULL, &functionC, NULL);
// Wait all threads to finish
for (i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS; i++)
pthread_join(thread[i], NULL);
return 0;
}
Using pthreads in linux 2.6.30 I am trying to send a single signal which will cause multiple threads to begin execution. The broadcast seems to only be received by one thread. I have tried both pthread_cond_signal and pthread cond_broadcast and both seem to have the same behavior. For the mutex in pthread_cond_wait, I have tried both common mutexes and separate (local) mutexes with no apparent difference.
worker_thread(void *p)
{
// setup stuff here
printf("Thread %d ready for action \n", p->thread_no);
pthread_cond_wait(p->cond_var, p->mutex);
printf("Thread %d off to work \n", p->thread_no);
// work stuff
}
dispatch_thread(void *p)
{
// setup stuff
printf("Wakeup, everyone ");
pthread_cond_broadcast(p->cond_var);
printf("everyone should be working \n");
// more stuff
}
main()
{
pthread_cond_init(cond_var);
for (i=0; i!=num_cores; i++) {
pthread_create(worker_thread...);
}
pthread_create(dispatch_thread...);
}
Output:
Thread 0 ready for action
Thread 1 ready for action
Thread 2 ready for action
Thread 3 ready for action
Wakeup, everyone
everyone should be working
Thread 0 off to work
What's a good way to send signals to all the threads?
First off, you should have the mutex locked at the point where you call pthread_cond_wait(). It's generally a good idea to hold the mutex when you call pthread_cond_broadcast(), as well.
Second off, you should loop calling pthread_cond_wait() while the wait condition is true. Spurious wakeups can happen, and you must be able to handle them.
Finally, your actual problem: you are signaling all threads, but some of them aren't waiting yet when the signal is sent. Your main thread and dispatch thread are racing your worker threads: if the main thread can launch the dispatch thread, and the dispatch thread can grab the mutex and broadcast on it before the worker threads can, then those worker threads will never wake up.
You need a synchronization point prior to signaling where you wait to signal till all threads are known to be waiting for the signal. That, or you can keep signaling till you know all threads have been woken up.
In this case, you could use the mutex to protect a count of sleeping threads. Each thread grabs the mutex and increments the count. If the count matches the count of worker threads, then it's the last thread to increment the count and so signals on another condition variable sharing the same mutex to the sleeping dispatch thread that all threads are ready. The thread then waits on the original condition, which causes it release the mutex.
If the dispatch thread wasn't sleeping yet when the last worker thread signals on that condition, it will find that the count already matches the desired count and not bother waiting, but immediately broadcast on the shared condition to wake workers, who are now guaranteed to all be sleeping.
Anyway, here's some working source code that fleshes out your sample code and includes my solution:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <err.h>
static const int num_cores = 8;
struct sync {
pthread_mutex_t *mutex;
pthread_cond_t *cond_var;
int thread_no;
};
static int sleeping_count = 0;
static pthread_cond_t all_sleeping_cond = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
void *
worker_thread(void *p_)
{
struct sync *p = p_;
// setup stuff here
pthread_mutex_lock(p->mutex);
printf("Thread %d ready for action \n", p->thread_no);
sleeping_count += 1;
if (sleeping_count >= num_cores) {
/* Last worker to go to sleep. */
pthread_cond_signal(&all_sleeping_cond);
}
int err = pthread_cond_wait(p->cond_var, p->mutex);
if (err) warnc(err, "pthread_cond_wait");
printf("Thread %d off to work \n", p->thread_no);
pthread_mutex_unlock(p->mutex);
// work stuff
return NULL;
}
void *
dispatch_thread(void *p_)
{
struct sync *p = p_;
// setup stuff
pthread_mutex_lock(p->mutex);
while (sleeping_count < num_cores) {
pthread_cond_wait(&all_sleeping_cond, p->mutex);
}
printf("Wakeup, everyone ");
int err = pthread_cond_broadcast(p->cond_var);
if (err) warnc(err, "pthread_cond_broadcast");
printf("everyone should be working \n");
pthread_mutex_unlock(p->mutex);
// more stuff
return NULL;
}
int
main(void)
{
pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
pthread_cond_t cond_var = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
pthread_t worker[num_cores];
struct sync info[num_cores];
for (int i = 0; i < num_cores; i++) {
struct sync *p = &info[i];
p->mutex = &mutex;
p->cond_var = &cond_var;
p->thread_no = i;
pthread_create(&worker[i], NULL, worker_thread, p);
}
pthread_t dispatcher;
struct sync p = {&mutex, &cond_var, num_cores};
pthread_create(&dispatcher, NULL, dispatch_thread, &p);
pthread_exit(NULL);
/* not reached */
return 0;
}