We have run into this multi-threading problem in our backend services:
In a multi-threading Windows service app, with 30+ threads, problem in SysUtils.EventCache arise. The problem is that NewWaitObj function sometimes return NIL instead of Event object. This function is used in TMonitor sync methods Wait. TMonitor.Wait stops working when it get NIL for event object. That affects many VCL and RTL thread sync source code and it cause different side problems in multi-threading apps, for example TThreadedQueue.PopItem doesnt wait for new item to arrive in Queue and returns immediately with timeout result.
Problem occurs in NewWaitObj function:
function NewWaitObj: Pointer;
var
EventItem: PEventItemHolder;
begin
EventItem := Pop(EventCache);
if EventItem <> nil then
begin
Result := EventItem.Event;
EventItem.Event := nil;
Push(EventItemHolders, EventItem);
end else
Result := NewSyncWaitObj;
ResetSyncWaitObj(Result);
end;
Looks like Pop function is not well protected in heavy multi-threaded app and at some number of concurrent threads it starts to return one and the same EventItem instance to two (or more) threads. Then race conditions are happening in NewWaitObj:
One thread takes EventItem.Event and return it as Result and zero it with NIL, the racing parallel thread is getting the same EventItem.Event but it is already cleared by first thread.
That cause one of racing threads to return valid Event handle and the other(s) racing threads return NIL.
TMonitor.Wait function doesnt work, because it get NIL as Event handle.
TThreadedQueue.PopItem doesnt wait, other sync methods also doesnt work correctly.
For some reason thread sync in Pop method doesnt work when app have many concurrent threads:
function Pop(var Stack: PEventItemHolder): PEventItemHolder;
begin
repeat
Result := Stack;
if Result = nil then
Exit;
until AtomicCmpExchange(Pointer(Stack), Result.Next, Result) = Result;
end;
In test app on 60 test threads problem arise in about 10-20 secs, with 30 threads its much harder to happens, usually 5-10 mins are needed. Once problem occurs - it never stop until restart of App. In test app after thread sync get broken - about one of each 5 operations with EventCache return NIL. Looks like something get broken in AtomicCmpExchange, I've checked the generated code - it's just one CMPXCHG instruction and few more to setup registers. I am not quite sure what cause the problem - can one thread get intervention from other thread for example while it setups registers to call CMPXCHG or after the call while it process the results?
Trying to understand what cause the problem, so I can find best workaround. For now I am planning to replace original NewWaitObj with my own, which will just call the original version till it return valid object. This problem occurs constantly in our dev, test and prod environments, for real middle-ware services on production servers it's needed few hours (sometimes couple of days) for problem to arise, after that only restart fix the problem.
Test app can be downloaded from issue in Embarcadero JIRA: https://quality.embarcadero.com/browse/RSP-31154
EDIT: TestApp: https://quality.embarcadero.com/secure/attachment/31605/EventCacheBug.zip
Example Delphi source code:
unit FormMainEventCacheBugU;
interface
uses
Winapi.Windows, Winapi.Messages, System.SysUtils, System.Variants, System.Classes, Vcl.Graphics,
Vcl.Controls, Vcl.Forms, Vcl.Dialogs, Math, Vcl.StdCtrls;
const
MaxProducers = 60;
type
TFormEventCacheBug = class(TForm)
BtnMaxProducers: TButton;
BtnRemoveProducer: TButton;
BtnAddProducer: TButton;
procedure BtnMaxProducersClick(Sender: TObject);
procedure BtnRemoveProducerClick(Sender: TObject);
procedure BtnAddProducerClick(Sender: TObject);
private
{ Private declarations }
public
{ Public declarations }
end;
TEventEater = class(TThread)
private
SleepTime: Integer;
SMsg, EMsg, NMsg: PChar;
procedure EatEvent;
protected
procedure Execute; override;
public
constructor Create;
end;
var
FormEventCacheBug: TFormEventCacheBug;
Producers: array[1..MaxProducers] of TThread;
ProdCount: Integer;
implementation
{$R *.dfm}
procedure AddProducer;
begin
if ProdCount < MaxProducers then
begin
Inc(ProdCount);
Producers[ProdCount] := TEventEater.Create;
Producers[ProdCount].FreeOnTerminate := True;
end;
end;
procedure RemoveProducer;
begin
if ProdCount > 0 then
begin
Producers[ProdCount].Terminate;
Dec(ProdCount);
end;
end;
{ TEventEater }
constructor TEventEater.Create;
begin
inherited Create(False);
SleepTime := RandomRange(1, 3);
end;
procedure TEventEater.EatEvent;
var
EventHandle: Pointer;
begin
//OutputDebugString(SMsg);
EventHandle := System.MonitorSupport.NewWaitObject;
try
if EventHandle = nil then
OutputDebugString('NIL');
Sleep(SleepTime);
finally
if EventHandle <> nil then
System.MonitorSupport.FreeWaitObject(EventHandle);
// OutputDebugString(EMsg);
end;
end;
procedure TEventEater.Execute;
begin
SMsg := PChar('S:' + GetCurrentThreadId.ToString);
EMsg := PChar('E:' + GetCurrentThreadId.ToString);
NMsg := PChar('NIL:' + GetCurrentThreadId.ToString);
while not Terminated do
begin
EatEvent;
Sleep(SleepTime);
end;
end;
procedure TFormEventCacheBug.BtnAddProducerClick(Sender: TObject);
begin
AddProducer;
end;
procedure TFormEventCacheBug.BtnRemoveProducerClick(Sender: TObject);
begin
RemoveProducer;
end;
procedure TFormEventCacheBug.BtnMaxProducersClick(Sender: TObject);
var
i: Integer;
begin
for i := ProdCount + 1 to MaxProducers do
AddProducer;
end;
end.
Thanks for any ideas,
#MiroslavPenchev, thank you for the post!
Working in XE2 and had similar issue.
Delphi 10.4.1 got TMonitor ABA problem solved using the linked list head with a counter and 128-bit Compare Exchange.
Unfortunately this is not an easy option for XE2.
Again, thanks to your suggestion to override some of MonitorSupport methods calling original ones.
The following is the solution that I'm using. It is not 100% perfect as involves locking, but for less concurrent environment it at least makes system stable and free from 100% CPU issue.
var
MonitorSupportFix: TMonitorSupport;
OldMonitorSupport: PMonitorSupport;
NewWaitObjCS: TCriticalSection;
function NewWaitObjFix: Pointer;
begin
if Assigned(NewWaitObjCS) then
NewWaitObjCS.Enter;
try
Result := OldMonitorSupport.NewWaitObject;
finally
if Assigned(NewWaitObjCS) then
NewWaitObjCS.Leave;
end;
end;
procedure FreeWaitObjFix(WaitObject: Pointer);
begin
if Assigned(NewWaitObjCS) then
NewWaitObjCS.Enter;
try
OldMonitorSupport.FreeWaitObject(WaitObject);
finally
if Assigned(NewWaitObjCS) then
NewWaitObjCS.Leave;
end;
end;
procedure InitMonitorSupportFix;
begin
OldMonitorSupport := System.MonitorSupport;
MonitorSupportFix := OldMonitorSupport^;
MonitorSupportFix.NewWaitObject := NewWaitObjFix;
MonitorSupportFix.FreeWaitObject := FreeWaitObjFix;
System.MonitorSupport := #MonitorSupportFix;
end;
initialization
NewWaitObjCS := TCriticalSection.Create;
InitMonitorSupportFix;
finalization
FreeAndNil(NewWaitObjCS);
end.
Related
I have a Delphi DLL, which needs to be called from my main UI application or worker threads.
I do not want to call LoadLibrary/FreeLibrary each time I call the DLL. But, I also don't want to load it in my application initialization section. because I might not use the DLL at all during the lifetime of the application.
So what I need is the first caller (thread or main UI) to initialize and load the DLL.
the DLL will be unloaded in the finalization section. I realize I need some synchronization. so I have used a critical section BUT I can't seem to make it work.
Only one thread should attempt and load the DLL. if it fails other threads should not attempt to load the DLL again and again.
The synchronization is not working as expected!
Can someone suggest why?
MCVE:
program Project1;
{$APPTYPE CONSOLE}
uses
Windows,
SysUtils,
Classes;
const
MyDLL = 'MyDLL.dll';
type
TDLLProcessProc = function(A: Integer): Integer; stdcall;
var
DLLProc: TDLLProcessProc = nil;
DLLModule: HMODULE = 0;
DLLInitialized: Boolean = False;
DLLInitialized_OK: Boolean = False;
CS: TRTLCriticalSection;
procedure InitDLLByFirstCall;
begin
if DLLModule = 0 then
begin
if DLLInitialized then Exit;
EnterCriticalSection(CS);
try
if DLLInitialized then Exit;
DLLInitialized := True;
DLLModule := LoadLibrary(MyDLL);
if DLLModule = 0 then RaiseLastWin32Error;
DLLProc := GetProcAddress(DLLModule, 'Process');
if #DLLProc = nil then RaiseLastWin32Error;
DLLInitialized_OK := True;
finally
LeaveCriticalSection(CS);
end;
end;
end;
function DLLProcess(A: Integer): Integer;
begin
InitDLLByFirstCall;
if not DLLInitialized_OK then
raise Exception.Create('DLL was not initialized OK');
Result := DLLProc(A);
end;
type
TDLLThread = class(TThread)
private
FNum: Integer;
public
constructor Create(CreateSuspended: Boolean; ANum: Integer);
procedure Execute; override;
end;
constructor TDLLThread.Create(CreateSuspended: Boolean; ANum: Integer);
begin
FreeOnTerminate := True;
FNum := ANum;
inherited Create(CreateSuspended);
end;
procedure TDLLThread.Execute;
var
RetValue: Integer;
begin
try
RetValue := DLLProcess(FNum);
Sleep(0);
Writeln('TDLLThread Result=> ' + IntToStr(RetValue));
except
on E: Exception do
begin
Writeln('TDLLThread Error: ' + E.Message);
end;
end;
end;
var
I: Integer;
begin
InitializeCriticalSection(CS);
try
// First 10 thread always fail!
for I := 1 to 10 do
TDLLThread.Create(False, I);
Readln;
for I := 1 to 10 do
TDLLThread.Create(False, I);
Readln;
finally
DeleteCriticalSection(CS);
end;
end.
DLL:
library MyDLL;
uses
Windows;
{$R *.res}
function Process(A: Integer): Integer; stdcall;
begin
Result := A;
end;
exports
Process;
begin
IsMultiThread := True;
end.
You need to modify your code in a way that the condition variable that is checked at the start of InitDLLByFirstCall is set only after all initialization has been completed. The DLL handle is therefore a bad choice.
Second you need to use the same condition variable outside and inside of the critical section - if you use DLLInitialized for that, then there is not really a use for either DLLInitialized_OK nor DLLModule.
And to make things easier to reason about you should try to get away with the minimum number of variables. Something like the following should work:
var
DLLProc: TDLLProcessProc = nil;
DLLInitialized: Boolean = False;
CS: TRTLCriticalSection;
procedure InitDLLByFirstCall;
var
DLLModule: HMODULE;
begin
if DLLInitialized then
Exit;
EnterCriticalSection(CS);
try
if not DLLInitialized then
try
DLLModule := LoadLibrary(MyDLL);
Win32Check(DLLModule <> 0);
DLLProc := GetProcAddress(DLLModule, 'Process');
Win32Check(Assigned(DLLProc));
finally
DLLInitialized := True;
end;
finally
LeaveCriticalSection(CS);
end;
end;
function DLLProcess(A: Integer): Integer;
begin
InitDLLByFirstCall;
if #DLLProc = nil then
raise Exception.Create('DLL was not initialized OK');
Result := DLLProc(A);
end;
If you don't want to check for the function address inside of DLLProcess then you could also use an integer or enumeration for the DLLInitialized variable, with different values for not initialized, failed and success.
You've got your double checked locking implemented incorrectly. You assign to DLLModule before assigning to DLLProc. So DLLModule can be non-zero whilst DLLProc is still null.
The variable that you test outside the lock must be modified after all the initialization is complete.
The pattern is like this:
if not Initialised then begin
Lock.Enter;
if not Initialised then begin
// Do initialisation
Initialised := True; // after initialisation complete
end;
Lock.Leave;
end;
Remember that double checked locking, as implemented here, only works because of the strong x86 memory model. If you ever move this code onto hardware with a weak memory model, it won't work as implemented. You'd need to implement barriers. Possible to do, but not entirely trivial.
Double checked locking is pointless here though. Remove it and protect everything with a single critical section. You are spinning up a thread, a very expensive task. The potential contention on a critical section is negligible.
I have one multi-thread application that needs to post data via idhttp, to some http hosts... The number of the hosts varies and I put them inside one TXT file that is read into a TStringList. But it's something around 5k hosts daily. Ok, after 3 days running, more or less, and around 15k hosts checked, the threads start hanging at some point of the code, and the program becomes very slow, like it start checking 1 host per 10 minutes... Sometimes it goes far, and stay 1 week running very nicely, but after this same problem: looks like most of the threads start hanging... I don't know where exactly is the problem, because I run it with 100 threads, and like I said, after 15k or more hosts it start becoming slow...
Here's the almost entire source code (sorry to posting entire, but I think it's better more than less)
type
MyThread = class(TThread)
strict private
URL, FormPostData1, FormPostData2: String;
iData1, iData2: integer;
procedure TerminateProc(Sender: TObject);
procedure AddPosted;
procedure AddStatus;
function PickAData: bool;
function CheckHost: bool;
function DoPostData(const FormPostData1: string; const FormPostData2: string): bool;
protected
constructor Create(const HostLine: string);
procedure Execute; override;
end;
var
Form1: TForm1;
HostsFile, Data1, Data2: TStringList;
iHost, iThreads, iPanels: integer;
MyCritical: TCriticalSection;
implementation
function MyThread.CheckHost: bool;
var
http: TIdHTTP;
code: string;
begin
Result:= false;
http:= TIdHTTP.Create(Nil);
http.IOHandler:= TIdSSLIOHandlerSocketOpenSSL.Create(http);
http.Request.UserAgent:= 'Mozilla/5.0 (compatible, MSIE 11, Windows NT 6.3; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko';
http.HandleRedirects:= True;
try
try
code:= http.Get(URL);
if(POS('T2ServersForm', code) <> 0) then
Result:= true;
except
Result:= false;
end;
finally
http.Free;
end;
end;
function MyThread.PickAData: bool;
begin
Result:= false;
if (iData2 = Data2.Count) then
begin
inc(iData1);
iData2:= 0;
end;
if iData1 < Data1.Count then
begin
if iData2 < Data2.Count then
begin
FormPostData2:= Data2.Strings[iData2];
inc(iData2);
end;
FormPostData1:= Data1.Strings[iData1];
Result:= true;
end;
end;
function MyThread.DoPostData(const FormPostData1: string; const FormPostData2: string): bool;
var
http: TIdHTTP;
params: TStringList;
response: string;
begin
Result:= false;
http:= TIdHTTP.Create(Nil);
http.Request.UserAgent := 'Mozilla/5.0 (compatible, MSIE 11, Windows NT 6.3; Trident/7.0; rv:11.0) like Gecko';
http.Request.ContentType := 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded';
params:= TStringList.Create;
try
params.Add('LoginType=Explicit');
params.Add('Medium='+FormPostData1);
params.Add('High='+FormPostData2);
try
response:= http.Post(Copy(URL, 1, POS('?', URL) - 1), params);
if http.ResponseCode = 200 then
Result:= true;
except
if (http.ResponseCode = 302) then
begin
if(POS('Invalid', http.Response.RawHeaders.Values['Location']) = 0) then
Result:= true;
end
else
Result:= true;
end;
finally
http.Free;
params.Free;
end;
end;
procedure MyThread.AddPosted;
begin
Form1.Memo1.Lines.Add('POSTED: ' + URL + ':' + FormPostData1 + ':' + FormPostData2)
end;
procedure MyThread.AddStatus;
begin
inc(iPanels);
Form1.StatusBar1.Panels[1].Text:= 'Hosts Panels: ' + IntToStr(iPanels);
end;
procedure MainControl;
var
HostLine: string;
begin
try
MyCritical.Acquire;
dec(iThreads);
while(iHost <= HostsFile.Count - 1) and (iThreads < 100) do
begin
HostLine:= HostsFile.Strings[iHost];
inc(iThreads);
inc(iHost);
MyThread.Create(HostLine);
end;
Form1.StatusBar1.Panels[0].Text:= 'Hosts Checked: ' + IntToStr(iHost);
if(iHost = HostsFile.Count - 1) then
begin
Form1.Memo1.Lines.Add(#13#10'--------------------------------------------');
Form1.Memo1.Lines.Add('Finished!!');
end;
finally
MyCritical.Release;
end;
end;
{$R *.dfm}
constructor MyThread.Create(const HostLine: string);
begin
inherited Create(false);
OnTerminate:= TerminateProc;
URL:= 'http://' + HostLine + '/ServLan/Controller.php?action=WAIT_FOR';
iData2:= 0;
iData1:= 0;
end;
procedure MyThread.Execute;
begin
if(CheckHost = true) then
begin
Synchronize(AddStatus);
while not Terminated and PickAData do
begin
try
if(DoPostData(FormPostData1, FormPostData2) = true) then
begin
iData1:= Data1.Count;
Synchronize(AddPosted);
end;
except
Terminate;
end;
end;
Terminate;
end;
end;
procedure MyThread.TerminateProc(Sender: TObject);
begin
MainControl;
end;
procedure TForm1.FormCreate(Sender: TObject);
begin
if (FileExists('data2.txt') = false) OR (FileExists('data1.txt') = false) then
begin
Button1.Enabled:= false;
Memo1.Lines.Add('data2.txt / data1.txt not found!!');
end;
end;
procedure TForm1.Button1Click(Sender: TObject);
var
openDialog : TOpenDialog;
begin
try
HostsFile:= TStringList.Create;
openDialog := TOpenDialog.Create(Nil);
openDialog.InitialDir := GetCurrentDir;
openDialog.Options := [ofFileMustExist];
openDialog.Filter := 'Text File|*.txt';
if openDialog.Execute then
begin
HostsFile.LoadFromFile(openDialog.FileName);
Button2.Enabled:= true;
Button1.Enabled:= false;
end;
finally
openDialog.Free;
end;
end;
procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
Button2.Enabled:= false;
Data1:= TStringList.Create;
Data1.LoadFromFile('data1.txt');
Data2:= TStringList.Create;
Data2.LoadFromFile('data2.txt');
MyCritical:= TCriticalSection.Create;
iHost:= 0;
iThreads:= 0;
MainControl;
end;
You are constantly creating threads without freeing them. This means that your system will grow out of resources (windows handles, or memory) after a while.
Set FreeOnTerminate := true in the thread constructor to free the thread when terminated.
If you declared ReportMemoryLeaksOnShutdown := true when you started the program in debug mode, this leak would have been reported.
MainControl is called from the main thread only and data used there are not accessed from other threads, so there is no need for a critical section.
Using a thread pool will also help to make the application more responsive.
IMO, your thread is getting trapped inside your MyThread.Execute while loop. There is no guarantee that once inside that loop it will exit (because the DoPostData() method depends on some external response). This way, I bet that, one by one, each thread is getting stuck in there until few (or none) remain working.
You should add some log capabilities to your MyThread.Execute() just to be sure that it is not dying somewhere... You can also add a fail safe exit condition there (e.g. if (TriesCount > one zillion times) then exit).
Also, I consider a better design to keep your threads running all the time and just provide new work to them, instead of creating/destroying the threads, i.e. create your 100 threads in the beginning and only destroy them at the end of your program execution. But it requires significant changes to your code.
First, I would trap & log exceptions.
Second, this appears to infinitely build Form1.Memo1. What happens when you run the system out of memory this way? Or exceed it's capacity. (It's been long enough since I've dealt with Delphi, I don't recall if there's a limit in this regard or not. There certainly is if this is 32 bit code.)
Just at a first glance, I'd recommend adding the http := TIdHTTP(Nil) to the TThread.Create event and the http.Free to the Destroy event for TThread. Not sure if that will solve the issue. Windows does have a OS limit on threads per process (can't remember well but the number 63 comes to mind. You may want to create a thread pool to cache your thread requests. It might perform more reliabily with a "thundering herd" of requests. I'm suspecting at that number of requests some of the threads may be terminating abnormally which could slow things down, leak memory, etc. Enabling FullDebugMode and LogMemoryLeakDetailsToFile to check for leaks might reveal something. Checking the task manager to watch the memory used by the running process is another luke warm indicator of a problem; memory usage grows and never releases.
Best of luck.
RP
In my Application when I write text files (logs, traces, etc), I use TFileStream class.
There are cases that I write the data in multithreaded environment, those are the steps:
1- Write Cache Data
2- For each 1000 lines I save to File.
3- Clear Data.
This process is repeated during all processing.
Problem Description:
With 16 threads, the system throws the following exception:
Access Violation - file already in use by another application.
I guess this is happening because that the handle used by one thread is not closed yet, when another thread needs to open.
I changed the architecture to the following: (bellow is the NEW implementation)
In the previous way, the TFileStream was created with FileName and Mode parameters, and destroyed closing the handle (I wasn't using TMyFileStream)
TMyFileStream = class(TFileStream)
public
destructor Destroy; override;
end;
TLog = class(TStringList)
private
FFileHandle: Integer;
FirstTime: Boolean;
FName: String;
protected
procedure Flush;
constructor Create;
destructor Destroy;
end;
destructor TMyFileStream.Destroy;
begin
//Do Not Close the Handle, yet!
FHandle := -1;
inherited Destroy;
end;
procedure TLog.Flush;
var
StrBuf: PChar; LogFile: string;
F: TFileStream;
InternalHandle: Cardinal;
begin
if (Text <> '') then
begin
LogFile:= GetDir() + FName + '.txt';
ForceDirectories(ExtractFilePath(LogFile));
if FFileHandle < 0 then
begin
if FirstTime then
FirstTime := False;
if FileExists(LogFile) then
if not SysUtils.DeleteFile(LogFile) then
RaiseLastOSError;
InternalHandle := CreateFile(PChar(LogFile), GENERIC_READ or GENERIC_WRITE, FILE_SHARE_READ, nil, CREATE_NEW, 0,0);
if InternalHandle = INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE then
RaiseLastOSError
else if GetLastError = ERROR_ALREADY_EXISTS then
begin
InternalHandle := CreateFile(PChar(LogFile), GENERIC_READ or GENERIC_WRITE, FILE_SHARE_READ, nil, OPEN_EXISTING, 0,0);
if InternalHandle = INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE then
RaiseLastOSError
else
FFileHandle := InternalHandle;
end
else
FFileHandle := InternalHandle;
end;
F := TMyFileStream.Create(FFileHandle);
try
StrBuf := PChar(Text);
F.Position := F.Size;
F.Write(StrBuf^, StrLen(StrBuf));
finally
F.Free();
end;
Clear;
end;
end;
destructor TLog.Destroy;
begin
FUserList:= nil;
Flush;
if FFileHandle >= 0 then
CloseHandle(FFileHandle);
inherited;
end;
constructor TLog.Create;
begin
inherited;
FirstTime := True;
FFileHandle := -1;
end;
There is another better way?
Is this implementation correct?
May I improve this?
My guess about the Handle was right?
All theads use the same Log object.
There is no reentrance, i checked! there is something wrong with the TFileStream.
The Access to the Add is synchronized, I mean, I used critical session, and when it reaches 1000 lines, Flush procedure is called.
P.S: I do not want third-party component, i want to create my own.
Well, for a start, there's no point in TMyFileStream. What you are looking for is THandleStream. That class allows you to supply a file handle whose lifetime you control. And if you use THandleStream you'll be able to avoid the rather nasty hacks of your variant. That said, why are you even bothering with a stream? Replace the code that creates and uses the stream with a call to SetFilePointer to seek to the end of the file, and a call to WriteFile to write content.
However, even using that, your proposed solution requires further synchronization. A single windows file handle cannot be used concurrently from multiple threads without synchronisation. You hint in a comment (should be in the question) that you are serializing file writes. If so then you are just fine.
The threaded solution provided by Marko Paunovic quite nice, however while reviewing the code I noticed a small mistake, perhaps just an oversight in the example but I thought I'd mention it just the same in case someone actually tries to use it as-is.
There is a missing call to Flush in TLogger.Destroy, as a result any unflushed (buffered) data is disgarded when the TLogger object is destroyed.
destructor TLogger.Destroy;
begin
if FStrings.Count > 0 then
Flush;
FStrings.Free;
DeleteCriticalSection(FLock);
inherited;
end;
How about:
In each thread, add log lines to a TStringList instance until lines.count=1000. Then push the TStringList onto a blocking producer-consumer queue, immediately create a new TStringList and carry on logging to the new list.
Use one Logging thread that dequeues the TStringList instances, writes them to the file and then frees them.
This isolates the log writes from disk/network delays, removes any reliance on dodgy file-locking and will actually work reliably.
I figured MY MISTAKE.
In first place, I want to apologize for posting this stupid question without a proper way to reproduce the exception. In other words, without a SSCCE.
The problem was a control flag that my TLog class used internally.
This flag was created, when we started to evolve our product a parallel architecture.
As we needed to keep the previous form working (at least until everything was in the new architecture).
We created some flags to identify if the object was either the new or old version.
One of that flags was named CheckMaxSize.
If CheckMaxSize was enabled, at a certain moment, every data inside the instance of this object in each thread, would be thrown to the main instance, which was in the "main" thread (not the GUI one, because it was a background work). Furthermore, when CheckMaxSize is enabled, TLog should never ever call "flush".
Finally, as you can see, in TLog.Destroy there is no check to CheckMaxSize. Therefore, the problem would happen because the name of the file created by this class was always the same, since it was processing the same task, and when One object created the file and another one tried to create another file with the same name, inside the same folder, the OS (Windows) rose an Exception.
Solution:
Rewrite the destructor to:
destructor TLog.Destroy;
begin
if CheckMaxSize then
Flush;
if FFileHandle >= 0 then
CloseHandle(FFileHandle);
inherited;
end;
If you have multithreaded code that needs to write to single file, it's best to have as much control as you can in your hands. And that means, avoid classes which you are not 100% sure how they work.
I suggest that you use multiple threads > single logger architecture, where each thread will have reference to logger object, and add strings to it. Once 1000 lines are reached, logger would flush the collected data in file.
There is no need to use TFileStream to write data to file, you can
go with CreateFile()/SetFilePointer()/WriteFile(), as David already suggested
TStringList is not thread-safe, so you have to use locks on it
main.dpr:
{$APPTYPE CONSOLE}
uses
uLogger,
uWorker;
const
WORKER_COUNT = 16;
var
worker: array[0..WORKER_COUNT - 1] of TWorker;
logger: TLogger;
C1 : Integer;
begin
Write('Creating logger...');
logger := TLogger.Create('test.txt');
try
WriteLn(' OK');
Write('Creating threads...');
for C1 := Low(worker) to High(worker) do
begin
worker[C1] := TWorker.Create(logger);
worker[C1].Start;
end;
WriteLn(' OK');
Write('Press ENTER to terminate...');
ReadLn;
Write('Destroying threads...');
for C1 := Low(worker) to High(worker) do
begin
worker[C1].Terminate;
worker[C1].WaitFor;
worker[C1].Free;
end;
WriteLn(' OK');
finally
Write('Destroying logger...');
logger.Free;
WriteLn(' OK');
end;
end.
uWorker.pas:
unit uWorker;
interface
uses
System.Classes, uLogger;
type
TWorker = class(TThread)
private
FLogger: TLogger;
protected
procedure Execute; override;
public
constructor Create(const ALogger: TLogger);
destructor Destroy; override;
end;
implementation
function RandomStr: String;
var
C1: Integer;
begin
result := '';
for C1 := 10 to 20 + Random(50) do
result := result + Chr(Random(91) + 32);
end;
constructor TWorker.Create(const ALogger: TLogger);
begin
inherited Create(TRUE);
FLogger := ALogger;
end;
destructor TWorker.Destroy;
begin
inherited;
end;
procedure TWorker.Execute;
begin
while not Terminated do
FLogger.Add(RandomStr);
end;
end.
uLogger.pas:
unit uLogger;
interface
uses
Winapi.Windows, System.Classes;
type
TLogger = class
private
FStrings : TStringList;
FFileName : String;
FFlushThreshhold: Integer;
FLock : TRTLCriticalSection;
procedure LockList;
procedure UnlockList;
procedure Flush;
public
constructor Create(const AFile: String; const AFlushThreshhold: Integer = 1000);
destructor Destroy; override;
procedure Add(const AString: String);
property FlushThreshhold: Integer read FFlushThreshhold write FFlushThreshhold;
end;
implementation
uses
System.SysUtils;
constructor TLogger.Create(const AFile: String; const AFlushThreshhold: Integer = 1000);
begin
FFileName := AFile;
FFlushThreshhold := AFlushThreshhold;
FStrings := TStringList.Create;
InitializeCriticalSection(FLock);
end;
destructor TLogger.Destroy;
begin
FStrings.Free;
DeleteCriticalSection(FLock);
inherited;
end;
procedure TLogger.LockList;
begin
EnterCriticalSection(FLock);
end;
procedure TLogger.UnlockList;
begin
LeaveCriticalSection(FLock);
end;
procedure TLogger.Add(const AString: String);
begin
LockList;
try
FStrings.Add(AString);
if FStrings.Count >= FFlushThreshhold then
Flush;
finally
UnlockList;
end;
end;
procedure TLogger.Flush;
var
strbuf : PChar;
hFile : THandle;
bWritten: DWORD;
begin
hFile := CreateFile(PChar(FFileName), GENERIC_WRITE, FILE_SHARE_READ, nil, OPEN_ALWAYS, FILE_ATTRIBUTE_NORMAL, 0);
try
strbuf := PChar(FStrings.Text);
SetFilePointer(hFile, 0, nil, FILE_END);
WriteFile(hFile, strbuf^, StrLen(strbuf), bWritten, nil);
FStrings.Clear;
finally
CloseHandle(hFile);
end;
end;
end.
My PC is connected to two electronic devices that send data using a TCP connection. I would like to develop a Delphi program able to log all this data. In the following code I create two TCPClients using two threads. I am able to log data from one device using one thread, but when two threads are runnning the application freezes. I donĀ“t have experience programming in Delphi, sorry if there are too many mistakes... I am using Delphi 7. What can I do to avoid freezing the app?
Thanks in advance
//************************************************************************//
type TThreadConn1 = class(TThread)
private
protected
procedure Execute; override;
end;
type TThreadConn2 = class(TThread)
private
protected
procedure Execute; override;
end;
var
Form1: TForm1;
TCP1: TThreadConn1;
TCP2: TThreadConn2;
flag1: bool;
flag2: bool;
implementation
{$R *.dfm}
//******************************Connection 1******************************//
procedure TThreadConn1.Execute; //Connect+loop read buffer+disconnect
begin
Form1.IdTCPClient1.Connect;
While flag1 = false do
Form1.IdTCPClient1.CurrentReadBuffer;
Form1.IdTCPClient1.Disconnect;
end;
procedure TForm1.ButtonConnection1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
flag1:=false;
TCP1 := TThreadConn1.Create(false); //Launch thread
end;
procedure TForm1.ButtonDisconnection1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
flag1:=true;
if (TCP1.Terminated = false) then
TCP1.Terminate; //Is it ok to finish this way a thread?
end;
//******************************Connection2******************************//
procedure TThreadConn2.Execute; //Connect+loop read buffer+disconnect
begin
Form1.IdTCPClient2.Connect;
While flag2 = false do
Form1.IdTCPClient1.CurrentReadBuffer;
Form1.IdTCPClient2.Disconnect;
end; { of procedure }
procedure TForm1.ButtonConnection2Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
flag2:=false;
TCP2 := TThreadConn2.Create(false);
end;
procedure TForm1.ButtonDisconnection2Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
flag2:=true;
if (TCP2.Terminated = false) then
TCP2.Terminate;
end;
end.
You don't need to create two separate threads that do the same thing. Create one class and then instantiate multiple copies of it. Try this instead:
type
TThreadConn = class(TThread)
private
FClient: TIdTCPClient;
protected
procedure Execute; override;
public
constructor Create(AClient: TIdTCPClient);
end;
var
TCP1: TThreadConn = nil;
TCP2: TThreadConn = nil;
constructor TThreadConn.Create(AClient: TIdTCPClient);
begin
inherited Create(False);
FClient := AClient;
end;
procedure TThreadConn.Execute;
begin
FClient.Connect;
try
while Terminated = false do
FClient.CurrentReadBuffer;
finally
FClient.Disconnect;
end;
end;
procedure TForm1.ButtonConnection1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
TCP1 := TThreadConn.Create(TIdTCPClient1);
end;
procedure TForm1.ButtonDisconnection1Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
if (TCP1 <> nil) then
begin
TCP1.Terminate;
TCP1.WaitFor;
FreeAndNil(TCP1);
end;
end;
procedure TForm1.ButtonConnection2Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
TCP2 := TThreadConn.Create(IdTCPClient2);
end;
procedure TForm1.ButtonDisconnection2Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
if (TCP2 <> nil) then
begin
TCP2.Terminate;
TCP2.WaitFor;
FreeAndNil(TCP2);
end;
end;
Apart from the overall design, (which you will probably fix in time, maybe with some more help), in TThreadConn2.Execute, you call Form1.IdTCPClient1.CurrentReadBuffer.
Hints:
If you want to use threads to communicate with several different clients, don't plonk TidTCPClients onto forms. This is inflexible because every time you want to add a new client, you have to plonk another instance onto the form and rebuild. It also makes for a lot of extra work to get your app to shut down cleanly which, I assure you, you will not want.
Dynamically create a TidTCPClient instance in either the TThread descendant ctor or at the top of the 'Execute' method.
Try and declare one class that can be instantiated for each client connection, so you don't have to copy/paste code, edit it and and get it wrong
Oh - for now, don't try and terminate the threads at all. In fact, forever, don't try and terminate the threads at all. In the execute, loop around connect() until successful, then read stuff in a loop, write to log, (in a thread-safe manner). Do that forever. If you wnat to stop the logging, set a 'don't log' boolean so that the thread still runs but simply doesn't bother calling the logger. Again - don't go near trying to terminate the threads.
If I get a chance over the weekend, I'll do a simple example - one form, four TEdits for two pair hostname/port and two TMemos to send data to and display data from the server.
I am having problems using SOAP in XE/XE2 from a thread. (I didn't test it with older Delphis.) A simple code that works in the main thread crashes while destroying the THTTPReqResp instance with Invalid pointer operation.
This is the complete program. The form contains only one button which triggers btnTestClick event:
unit Unit79;
interface
uses
SysUtils, Forms, Classes, Controls, StdCtrls, ComObj,
ActiveX, InvokeRegistry, SOAPHTTPTrans, Rio, SOAPHTTPClient;
type
TForm79 = class(TForm)
btnTest: TButton;
procedure btnTestClick(Sender: TObject);
private
{ Private declarations }
public
{ Public declarations }
end;
var
Form79: TForm79;
implementation
{$R *.dfm}
procedure TForm79.btnTestClick(Sender: TObject);
begin
TThread.CreateAnonymousThread(
procedure
var
FHTTPReqResp: THTTPReqResp;
FHTTPRIO: THTTPRIO;
begin
if CoInitializeEx(NIL, COINIT_MULTITHREADED or COINIT_SPEED_OVER_MEMORY) = S_OK then try
FHTTPReqResp := THTTPReqResp.Create(nil);
with FHTTPReqResp do begin
Name := 'HTTPReqResp1';
UseUTF8InHeader := True;
InvokeOptions := [soIgnoreInvalidCerts, soAutoCheckAccessPointViaUDDI];
WebNodeOptions := [];
end;
FHTTPRIO := THTTPRIO.Create(nil);
with FHTTPRIO do begin
Name := 'HTTPRIO1';
HTTPWebNode := FHTTPReqResp;
end;
//
FreeAndNil(FHTTPRIO);
FreeAndNil(FHTTPReqResp); //<-- crashes here
finally CoUninitialize; end;
end
).Start;
end;
end.
The exception is raised in TObject.FreeInstance on the _FreeMem call.
procedure TObject.FreeInstance;
begin
CleanupInstance;
_FreeMem(Self);
end;
The call stack leading to this problem is
:75bab9bc KERNELBASE.RaiseException + 0x58 System.TObject.FreeInstance
System.ErrorAt(2,$4052E1) System.Error(reInvalidPtr)
System.TObject.FreeInstance System._ClassDestroy(???)
Soap.SOAPHTTPTrans.THTTPReqResp.Destroy System.TObject.Free
frmMain.TMainForm.btnTestClick$4934$ActRec.$0$Body
System.Classes.TAnonymousThread.Execute
System.Classes.ThreadProc($F83530) System.ThreadWrapper($F51050)
:76a4339a kernel32.BaseThreadInitThunk + 0x12 :77b59ef2
ntdll.RtlInitializeExceptionChain + 0x63 :77b59ec5
ntdll.RtlInitializeExceptionChain + 0x36
I have absolutely no idea what's going on, why _ClassDestroy is called at all and why the code crashes :( Can somebody please a) explain what I'm doing wrong and b) fix my code?
"Invalid pointer operation" means you're freeing something that doesn't represent valid memory. That can sometimes indicate stack or heap corruption, but it more likely indicates that you're freeing something that has already been freed.
It's no surprise that _ClassDestroy is called. FHTTPReqResp is non-null, so when FreeAndNil calls Free on it, Free calls Destroy.
It would appear that your THTTPRIO object acquires ownership of the THTTPReqResp you give it. If that's the case, then the solution is simple: don't free it yourself.