i have 2 Threads which work on the same list with the same insert-function. Each Thread should insert it`s values (200 each) whenever it has the CPU.
I am confused now, how I can implement the "loop" which counts the inserts per thread?. I am using mutexes before and after i call the insert-function in the thread-function. So if i use a while loop in there, thread A would insert it's 200, then B it's 200. But thats not what i want here. Any Ideas how i can make each thread insert it's number as soon as they have the cpu, and stop, when they inserted 200?
Once you create the threads, it is out of your control as far as cpu access is concerned. As far as counting the inserts for each thread, I would create a wrapper function for each thread that counts each separately.
void first_thread_wrapper()
{
// while first_thread count < 200
// lock
// insert
// increment first_thread count.
// unlock
}
void second_thread_wrapper()
{
// while second_thread count < 200
// lock
// insert
// increment second_thread count.
// unlock
}
Then you would give the first thread the first wrapper and the second thread the second wrapper. Obviously this is just pseudo code, but I think you can understand where I'm going.
Related
I'm new to atomic techniques and try to implement a safe thread version for the follow code:
// say m_cnt is unsigned
void Counter::dec_counter()
{
if(0==m_cnt)
return;
--m_cnt;
if(0 == m_cnt)
{
// Do seomthing
}
}
Every thread that calls dec_counter must decrement it by one and "Do something" should be done only one time - at when the counter is decremented to 0.
After fighting with it, I did the follow code that does it well (I think), but I wonder if this is the way to do it, or is there a better way. Thanks.
// m_cnt is std::atomic<unsigned>
void Counter::dec_counter()
{
// loop until decrement done
unsigned uiExpectedValue;
unsigned uiNewValue;
do
{
uiExpectedValue = m_cnt.load();
// if other thread already decremented it to 0, then do nothing.
if (0 == uiExpectedValue)
return;
uiNewValue = uiExpectedValue - 1;
// at the short time from doing
// uiExpectedValue = m_cnt.load();
// it is possible that another thread had decremented m_cnt, and it won't be equal here to uiExpectedValue,
// thus the loop, to be sure we do a decrement
} while (!m_cnt.compare_exchange_weak(uiExpectedValue, uiNewValue));
// if we are here, that means we did decrement . so if it was to 0, then do something
if (0 == uiNewValue)
{
// do something
}
}
The thing with atomic is that only that one statement is atomic.
If you write
std::atomic<int> i {20}
...
if (!--i)
...
Then just 1 thread will enter the if.
However, if you split up the change and the test, then other threads can get into the gap, and you may get strange results:
std::atomic<int> i {20}
...
--i;
// other thread(s) can modify i just here
if (!i)
...
Of course you can split the condition test for the decrement by using a local variable:
std::atomic<int> i {20}
...
int j=--i;
// other thread(s) can modify i just here
if (!j)
...
All the simple math operations are generally efficiently supported for small atomics in c++
For more complex types and expressions, you need to use the read/modify/write member methods.
These allow you to read the current value, calculate the new value, and then call compare_exchange_strong or compare_exchange_weak say "if the value has not changed, then store my new value, otherwise give me the new current value" a a single atomic operation. You can stick this in a loop and keep recalculating the new value until you are lucky enough that your thread is the only writer. If there are not too many threads trying too often to change the value this is reasonably efficient as well.
I'm writing software in Go that does a lot of parallel computing. I want to collect data from worker threads and I'm not really sure how to do it in a safe way. I know that I could use channels but in my scenario they make it more complicated since I have to somehow synchronize messages (wait until every thread sent something) in the main thread.
Scenario
The main thread creates n Worker instances and launches their work() method in a goroutine so that the workers each run in their own thread. Every 10 seconds the main thread should collect some simple values (e.g. iteration count) from the workers and print a consolidated statistic.
Question
Is it safe to read values from the workers? The main thread will only read values and each individual thread will write it's own values. It would be ok if the values are a few nanoseconds off while reading.
Any other ideas on how to implement this in an easy way?
In Go no value is safe for concurrent access from multiple goroutines without synchronization if at least one of the accesses is a write. Your case meets the conditions listed, so you must use some kind of synchronization, else the behavior would be undefined.
Channels are used if goroutine(s) want to send values to another. Your case is not exactly this: you don't want your workers to send updates in every 10 seconds, you want your main goroutine to fetch status in every 10 seconds.
So in this example I would just protect the data with a sync.RWMutex: when the workers want to modify this data, they have to acquire a write lock. When the main goroutine wants to read this data, it has to acquire a read lock.
A simple implementation could look like this:
type Worker struct {
iterMu sync.RWMutex
iter int
}
func (w *Worker) Iter() int {
w.iterMu.RLock()
defer w.iterMu.RUnlock()
return w.iter
}
func (w *Worker) setIter(n int) {
w.iterMu.Lock()
w.iter = n
w.iterMu.Unlock()
}
func (w *Worker) incIter() {
w.iterMu.Lock()
w.iter++
w.iterMu.Unlock()
}
Using this example Worker, the main goroutine can fetch the iteration using Worker.Iter(), and the worker itself can change / update the iteration using Worker.setIter() or Worker.incIter() at any time, without any additional synchronization. The synchronization is ensured by the proper use of Worker.iterMu.
Alternatively for the iteration counter you could also use the sync/atomic package. If you choose this, you may only read / modify the iteration counter using functions of the atomic package like this:
type Worker struct {
iter int64
}
func (w *Worker) Iter() int64 {
return atomic.LoadInt64(&w.iter)
}
func (w *Worker) setIter(n int64) {
atomic.StoreInt64(&w.iter, n)
}
func (w *Worker) incIter() {
atomic.AddInt64(&w.iter, 1)
}
I've been banging my head against (my attempt) at a lock-free multiple producer multiple consumer ring buffer. The basis of the idea is to use the innate overflow of unsigned char and unsigned short types, fix the element buffer to either of those types, and then you have a free loop back to beginning of the ring buffer.
The problem is - my solution doesn't work for multiple producers (it does though work for N consumers, and also single producer single consumer).
#include <atomic>
template<typename Element, typename Index = unsigned char> struct RingBuffer
{
std::atomic<Index> readIndex;
std::atomic<Index> writeIndex;
std::atomic<Index> scratchIndex;
Element elements[1 << (sizeof(Index) * 8)];
RingBuffer() :
readIndex(0),
writeIndex(0),
scratchIndex(0)
{
;
}
bool push(const Element & element)
{
while(true)
{
const Index currentReadIndex = readIndex.load();
Index currentWriteIndex = writeIndex.load();
const Index nextWriteIndex = currentWriteIndex + 1;
if(nextWriteIndex == currentReadIndex)
{
return false;
}
if(scratchIndex.compare_exchange_strong(
currentWriteIndex, nextWriteIndex))
{
elements[currentWriteIndex] = element;
writeIndex = nextWriteIndex;
return true;
}
}
}
bool pop(Element & element)
{
Index currentReadIndex = readIndex.load();
while(true)
{
const Index currentWriteIndex = writeIndex.load();
const Index nextReadIndex = currentReadIndex + 1;
if(currentReadIndex == currentWriteIndex)
{
return false;
}
element = elements[currentReadIndex];
if(readIndex.compare_exchange_strong(
currentReadIndex, nextReadIndex))
{
return true;
}
}
}
};
The main idea for writing was to use a temporary index 'scratchIndex' that acts a pseudo-lock to allow only one producer at any one time to copy-construct into the elements buffer, before updating the writeIndex and allowing any other producer to make progress. Before I am called heathen for implying my approach is 'lock-free' I realise that this approach isn't exactly lock-free, but in practice (if it would work!) it is significantly faster than having a normal mutex!
I am aware of a (more complex) MPMC ringbuffer solution here http://www.1024cores.net/home/lock-free-algorithms/queues/bounded-mpmc-queue, but I am really experimenting with my idea to then compare against that approach and find out where each excels (or indeed whether my approach just flat out fails!).
Things I have tried;
Using compare_exchange_weak
Using more precise std::memory_order's that match the behaviour I want
Adding cacheline pads between the various indices I have
Making elements std::atomic instead of just Element array
I am sure that this boils down to a fundamental segfault in my head as to how to use atomic accesses to get round using mutex's, and I would be entirely grateful to whoever can point out which neurons are drastically misfiring in my head! :)
This is a form of the A-B-A problem. A successful producer looks something like this:
load currentReadIndex
load currentWriteIndex
cmpxchg store scratchIndex = nextWriteIndex
store element
store writeIndex = nextWriteIndex
If a producer stalls for some reason between steps 2 and 3 for long enough, it is possible for the other producers to produce an entire queue's worth of data and wrap back around to the exact same index so that the compare-exchange in step 3 succeeds (because scratchIndex happens to be equal to currentWriteIndex again).
By itself, that isn't a problem. The stalled producer is perfectly within its rights to increment scratchIndex to lock the queue—even if a magical ABA-detecting cmpxchg rejected the store, the producer would simply try again, reload exactly the same currentWriteIndex, and proceed normally.
The actual problem is the nextWriteIndex == currentReadIndex check between steps 2 and 3. The queue is logically empty if currentReadIndex == currentWriteIndex, so this check exists to make sure that no producer gets so far ahead that it overwrites elements that no consumer has popped yet. It appears to be safe to do this check once at the top, because all the consumers should be "trapped" between the observed currentReadIndex and the observed currentWriteIndex.
Except that another producer can come along and bump up the writeIndex, which frees the consumer from its trap. If a producer stalls between steps 2 and 3, when it wakes up the stored value of readIndex could be absolutely anything.
Here's an example, starting with an empty queue, that shows the problem happening:
Producer A runs steps 1 and 2. Both loaded indices are 0. The queue is empty.
Producer B interrupts and produces an element.
Consumer pops an element. Both indices are 1.
Producer B produces 255 more elements. The write index wraps around to 0, the read index is still 1.
Producer A awakens from its slumber. It had previously loaded both read and write indices as 0 (empty queue!), so it attempts step 3. Because the other producer coincidentally paused on index 0, the compare-exchange succeeds, and the store progresses. At completion the producer lets writeIndex = 1, and now both stored indices are 1, and the queue is logically empty. A full queue's worth of elements will now be completely ignored.
(I should mention that the only reason I can get away with talking about "stalling" and "waking up" is that all the atomics used are sequentially consistent, so I can pretend that we're in a single-threaded environment.)
Note that the way that you are using scratchIndex to guard concurrent writes is essentially a lock; whoever successfully completes the cmpxchg gets total write access to the queue until it releases the lock. The simplest way to fix this failure is to just replace scratchIndex with a spinlock—it won't suffer from A-B-A and it's what's actually happening.
bool push(const Element & element)
{
while(true)
{
const Index currentReadIndex = readIndex.load();
Index currentWriteIndex = writeIndex.load();
const Index nextWriteIndex = currentWriteIndex + 1;
if(nextWriteIndex == currentReadIndex)
{
return false;
}
if(scratchIndex.compare_exchange_strong(
currentWriteIndex, nextWriteIndex))
{
elements[currentWriteIndex] = element;
// Problem here!
writeIndex = nextWriteIndex;
return true;
}
}
}
I've marked the problematic spot. Multiple threads can get to the writeIndex = nextWriteIndex at the same time. The data will be written in any order, although each write will be atomic.
This is a problem because you're trying to update two values using the same atomic condition, which is generally not possible. Assuming the rest of your method is fine, one way around this would be to combine both scratchIndex and writeIndex into a single value of double-size. For example, treating two uint32_t values as a single uint64_t value and operating atomically on that.
I have a function that boils down to:
while(doWork)
{
config = generateConfigurationForTesting();
result = executeWork(config);
doWork = isDone(result);
}
How can I rewrite this for efficient asynchronous execution, assuming all functions are thread safe, independent of previous iterations, and probably require more iterations than the maximum number of allowable threads ?
The problem here is we don't know how many iterations are required in advance so we can't make a dispatch_group or use dispatch_apply.
This is my first attempt, but it looks a bit ugly to me because of arbitrarily chosen values and sleeping;
int thread_count = 0;
bool doWork = true;
int max_threads = 20; // arbitrarily chosen number
dispatch_queue_t queue =
dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0);
while(doWork)
{
if(thread_count < max_threads)
{
dispatch_async(queue, ^{ Config myconfig = generateConfigurationForTesting();
Result myresult = executeWork();
dispatch_async(queue, checkResult(myresult)); });
thread_count++;
}
else
usleep(100); // don't consume too much CPU
}
void checkResult(Result value)
{
if(value == good) doWork = false;
thread_count--;
}
Based on your description, it looks like generateConfigurationForTesting is some kind of randomization technique or otherwise a generator which can make a near-infinite number of configuration (hence your comment that you don't know ahead of time how many iterations you will need). With that as an assumption, you are basically stuck with the model that you've created, since your executor needs to be limited by some reasonable assumptions about the queue and you don't want to over-generate, as that would just extend the length of the run after you have succeeded in finding value ==good measurements.
I would suggest you consider using a queue (or OSAtomicIncrement* and OSAtomicDecrement*) to protect access to thread_count and doWork. As it stands, the thread_count increment and decrement will happen in two different queues (main_queue for the main thread and the default queue for the background task) and thus could simultaneously increment and decrement the thread count. This could lead to an undercount (which would cause more threads to be created than you expect) or an overcount (which would cause you to never complete your task).
Another option to making this look a little nicer would be to have checkResult add new elements into the queue if value!=good. This way, you load up the initial elements of the queue using dispatch_apply( 20, queue, ^{ ... }) and you don't need the thread_count at all. The first 20 will be added using dispatch_apply (or an amount that dispatch_apply feels is appropriate for your configuration) and then each time checkResult is called you can either set doWork=false or add another operation to queue.
dispatch_apply() works for this, just pass ncpu as the number of iterations (apply never uses more than ncpu worker threads) and keep each instance of your worker block running for as long as there is more work to do (i.e. loop back to generateConfigurationForTesting() unless !doWork).
Given: I fill up an array of handles with auto reset events and pass it off to WaitForMultipleObjects with bWaitAll = FALSE.
From MSDN:
“When bWaitAll is FALSE, this function checks the handles in the array in order starting with index 0, until one of the objects is signaled. If multiple objects become signaled, the function returns the index of the first handle in the array whose object was signaled.”
So, now if multiple objects signal I’ll get the index of the first one. Do I have to loop though my array to see if any others have signaled?
Right now I have a loop that’s along the lines of:
For ( ; ; )
{
WaitForMultipleObjects(…)
If (not failed)
Process object that called.
Remove the handle that signaled from the array.
Compact the arrary.
}
So, now if multiple objects signal I’ll get the index of the first one. Do I have to loop
though my array to see if any others have signaled?
Why not just go back round into the Wait()? if multiple objects signalled, they will still be signalled when you come back round. Of course, if you have a very rapidly firing first object in the wait object array, it will starve the others; what you do is order your objects in the wait object array by frequency of firing, with the least frequent being first.
BTW, where you're using an endless for(), you could use a goto. If you really are not leaving a loop, an unconditional goto most properly expresses your intent.
Yes. One alternative would be that you could do WaitForSingleObject(handle, 0) on each handle which will return immediately and indicate if they are signaled or not.
EDIT: Here's sample pseudocode for what I mean:
ret = WaitForMultipleObjects()
if (ret >= WAIT_OBJECT_0 && ret < WAIT_OBJECT_0 + (count))
{
firstSignaled = ret - WAIT_OBJECT_0;
// handles[firstSignaled] guaranteed signalled!!
for (i = firstSignaled + 1; i < count; i++)
{
if (WaitForSingleObject(handles[i], 0) == WAIT_OBJECT_0)
{
// handles[i] Signaled!
}
}
}
One other option you might have is to use RegisterWaitForSingleObject. The idea is that you flag the signaled state of event in a secondary array from the callback function and then signal a master event which is used to wake up your primary thread (which calls WaitForSingleObject on the master event).
Obviously you'd have to take care to ensure that the secondary array was protected from access by the main thread but it would work.
Only the auto-reset event that ended the wait (whose index is returned) will be reset. If the wait times out no events will be reset.
cf
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20150409-00/?p=44273