Threads and parallel programming is really confusing the heck outta me. In this book, at page 9, the problem stated is that though a thread might be scheduled and put in the ready state, it does not necessarily mean that it has acquird a lock.
Briefly put, a thread (say t1) waiting on a lock is notified via a condition_variable and the thread is put in the ready state, but not executed. But just before it can run anything, another thread is scheduled (say t2) and executed. This means that the condition under which t1 assumes it is woken up no longer holds.
Does this imply that merely scheduling a thread or putting it the ready state does not mean that it acquired a lock? If this is the case, must I always put the precondition in a while loop? Is this another possible meaning of a spurious wakeup? Also, what other cases like this must I be aware of?
I was always under the assumption that if a thread is woken up from a wait (which is not a spurious wakeup), it immediately acquires the lock (wakeup = lock acquired, under this circumstance), as the kernel keeps track of this.
This question is in close relation to my other question posted here.
Thanks.
Where can I ask these noob questions, in sort of an interactive format with follow-up questions? These seem too dumb for stackoverflow.
must I always put the condition in a while loop?
It's good practice to do so. Even if you know that on some particular hardware platform and OS, it's impossible for the wait() to return unless the condition is true; it could behave differently after the OS has been updated, or it could behave differently if your code gets moved to a different platform, or it could behave differently after some change is made to your code.
If you ever work developing "enterprise" software, then changes like that can and will happen. Might as well start learning good habits that can help to avert future disasters.
I was always under the assumption that if a thread is woken up from a wait (which is not a spurious wakeup), it immediately acquires the lock
You can safely assume that wait() will not, under any circumstances, ever return until the mutex has been re-locked. The whole wait()/notify() paradigm depends on it behaving in that way.
Related
When a thread tries to acquire a recursive lock again that it already holds, rlock.acquire() allows the thread to continue and does not block the thread.
When, on the other hand, a thread tries to acquire a regular lock that it already holds then the thread is then just stuck in a deadlock.
The second case seems to me like just a source of trouble since it is a situation that cannot be easily recovered from (the thread is just stuck on the lock.acquire()) and that is kinda hard to diagnose (no exception is thrown or anything, the thread is just stuck).
I have seen it quite a few times so far that someone actually wanted to use an RLock but instead used a regular Lock and spent a while debugging that problem. While on the other hand I never encountered a situation where a Lock would have actually been better. It could arguably be used when there is a really critical part of the code that should not be accessed by the same thread twice at a time, but for that to happen the code inside that critical part would need to call itself, which would be something that should be quite obvious to the programmer.
So, is there any case where an Lock is better than an RLock? And if not, should language designers keep providing the regular Lock at all?
Assuming these are Python lock objects the documentation shows that they are quite different. The main differences between the two are:
A Lock can be released by any thread not just the thread that acquired it
An Rlock can only be released by the thread that acquired
An Rlock must be released once for each time it is acquired by the thread
So a Lock allows you to build threading schemes where the lock is acquired in one thread but released in another thread. One example might be a pipeline of threads processing a piece of work, the work distributer gets the lock but it's released by the last thread in the pipeline.
Given a situation where thread A had to dispatch work to thread B, is there any synchronisation mechanism that allows thread A to not return, but remain usable for other tasks, until thread B is done, of which then thread A can return?
This is not language specific, but simple c language would be a great choice in responding to this.
This could be absolutely counterintuitive; it actually sounds as such, but I have to ask before presuming...
Please Note This is a made up hypothetical situation that I'm interested in. I am not looking for a solution to an existing problem, so alternative concurrency solutions are completely pointless. I have no code for it, and if I were in it I can think of a few alternative code engineering solutions to avoid this setup. I just wish to know if a thread can be usable, in some way, while waiting for a signal from another thread, and what synchronisation mechanism to use for that.
UPDATE
As I mentioned above, I know how to synchronise threads etc. Im only interested in the situation that I have presented here. Mutexes, semaphores and locks all kinds of mechanisms will all synchronise access to resources, synchronise order of events, synchronise all kinds of concurrently issues, yes. But Im not interested in how to do it properly. I just have this made up situation that I wish to know if it can be addressed with a mechanism as described prior.
UPDATE 2
It seems I have opened up a portal for people that think they are experts in concurrency to teleport and lecture at chance how they think the rest of world does not know how threading works. I simply asked if there is a mechanism for this situation, not a work around solution, not 'the proper way to synchronise', not a better way to do it. I already know what I would do and never be in this made up situation. It's simply hypothetical.
After much research, thought, and overview, I have come to the conclusion that its like asking:
If a calculator has the ability for me simply enter a series of 5 digits and automatically get their sum on the screen.
No, it does not have such a mode ready. But I can still get the sum with a few extra clicks using the plus and eventually the equal button.
If i really wanted a thread that can continue while listening for a condition of some sort, I could easily implement a personal class or object around the OS/kernel/SDK thread or whatever and make use of that.
• So at a low level, my answer is no, there is no such mechanism •
If a thread is waiting, then it's waiting. If it can continue executing then it is not really 'waiting', in the concurrency meaning of waiting. Otherwise there would be some other term for this state (Alert Waiting, anyone?). This is not to say it is not possible, just not with one simple low level predefined mechanism similar to a mutex or semaphore etc. One could wrap the required functionality in some class or object etc.
Having said that, there are Interrupts and Interrupt handlers, which come close to addressing this situation. However, an interrupt has to be defined, with its handler. The interrupts may actually be running on another thread (not to say a thread per interrupt). So a number of objects are involved here.
You have a misunderstanding about how mutexes are typically used.
If you want to do some work, you acquire the mutex to figure out what work you need to do. You do this because "what work you need to do" is shared between the thread that decide what work needed to be done and the thread that's going to do the work. But then you release the mutex that protects "what work you need to do" while you do the work.
Then, when you finish the work, you acquire the mutex that protects your report that the work is done. This is needed because the status of the work is shared with other threads. You set that status to "done" and then you release the mutex.
Notice that no thread holds the mutex for very long, just for the microscopic fraction of a second it needs to check on or modify shared state. So to see if work is done, you can acquire the mutex that protects the reporting of the status of that work, check the status, and then release the mutex. The thread doing the work will not hold that mutex for longer than the tiny fraction of a second it needs to change that status.
If you're holding mutexes so long that you worry at all about waiting for them to be released, you're either doing something wrong or using mutexes in a very atypical way.
So use a mutex to protect the status of the work. If you need to wait for work to be done, also use a condition variable. Only hold that mutex while changing, or checking, the status of the work.
But, If a thread attempts to acquire an already acquired mutex, that thread will be forced to wait until the thread that originally acquired the mutex releases it. So, while that thread is waiting, can it actually be usable. This is where my question is.
If you consider any case where one thread might slow another thread down to be "waiting", then you can never avoid waiting. All that has to happen is one thread accesses memory and that might slow another thread down. So what do you do, never access memory?
When we talk about one thread "waiting" for another, what we mean is waiting for the thread to do actual work. We don't worry about the microscopic overhead of inter-thread synchronization both because there's nothing we can do about it and because it's negligible.
If you literally want to find some way that one thread can never, ever slow another thread down, you'll have to re-design pretty much everything we use threads for.
Update:
For example, consider some code that has a mutex and a boolean. The boolean indicates whether or not the work is done. The "assign work" flow looks like this:
Create a work object with a mutex and a boolean. Set the boolean to false.
Dispatch a thread to work on that object.
The "do work" flow looks like this:
Do work. (The mutex is not held here.)
Acquire mutex.
Set boolean to true.
Release mutex.
The "is work done" flow looks like this:
Acquire mutex.
Copy boolean.
Release mutex.
Look at copied value.
This allows one thread to do work and another thread to check if the work is done any time it wants to while doing other things. The only case where one thread waits for the other is the one-in-a-million case where a thread that needs to check if the work is done happens to check right at the instant that the work has just finished. Even in that case, it will typically block for less than a microsecond as the thread that holds the mutex only needs to set one boolean and release the mutex. And if even that bothers you, most mutexes have a non-blocking "try to lock" function (which you would use in the "check if work is done" flow so that the checking thread never blocks).
And this is the normal way mutexes are used. Actual contention is the exception, not the rule.
I'm having a problem deciding on what to do in this situation, I want to have a detached thread, but still be able to join it in case I want to abort it early, presumably before starting a new instance of it, to make sure I don't have the thread still accessing things when it shouldn't.
This means I shouldn't detach the thread right after calling it, so then I have a few options:
Self-detach the thread when it's reaching the end of its execution, but then wouldn't this cause problems if I try to join it from the main thread? This would be my prefered solution if the problem of trying to join it after it's self-detached could be solved. I could dereference the thread handle that the main thread has access to from the self-detaching thread before self-detaching it, however in case the main thread tries to join right before the handle is dereferenced and the thread self-detached this could cause problems, so I'd have to protect the dereferencing in the thread and however (I don't know how, I might need to create a variable to indicate this) I would check if I should join in the main thread with a mutex, which complicates things. Somehow I have a feeling that this isn't the right way to do it.
Leave the thread hanging until eventually I join it, which could take a long time to happen, depending on how I organise things it could be not before I get rid of what it made (e.g. joining the thread right before freeing an image that was loaded/processed by the thread when I don't need it anymore)
Have the main thread poll periodically to know when the thread has done its job, then join it (or detach it actually) and indicate not to try joining it again?
Or should I just call pthread_exit() from the thread, but then what if I try to join it?
If I sound a bit confused it's because I am. I'm writing in C99 using TinyCThread, a simple wrapper to pthread and Win32 API threading. I'm not even sure how to dereference my thread handles, on Windows the thread handle is HANDLE, and setting a handle to NULL seems to do it, I'm not sure that's the right way to do it with the pthread_t type.
Epilogue: Based on John Bollinger's answer I chose to go with detaching the thread, putting most of that thread's code in a mutex, this way if any other thread wants to block until the thread is practically done it can use that mutex.
The price of using an abstraction layer such as TinyCThreads is that you can rely only on the defined characteristics of the abstraction. Both Windows and POSIX provide features and details that are not necessarily reflected by TinyCThreads. On the other hand, this may force you to rely on a firmer foundation than you might otherwise hack together with the help of implementation-specific features.
Anyway, you say,
I want to have a detached thread, but still be able to join it in case I want to abort it early,
but that's inconsistent. Once you detach a thread, you cannot join it. I suspect you meant something more like, "I want a thread that I can join as long as it is running, but that I don't have to join when it terminates." That's at least consistent, but it focuses on mechanism.
What I think you actually want would be described better as a thread that you can cancel synchronously as long as it is running, but that you otherwise don't need to join when it terminates. I note, however, that the whole idea presupposes a way to make the thread terminate early, and it does not appear that TinyCThread provides any built-in facility for that. It will also require a mechanism to determine whether a given thread is still alive, and TinyCThread does not provide that, either.
First, then, you need some additional per-thread shared state that tracks thread status (running / abort requested / terminated). Because the state is shared, you'll need a mutex to protect it, and that will probably need to be per-thread, too. Furthermore, in order to enable one thread (e.g. the main one) to wait for that state to change when it cancels a thread, it will need a per-thread condition variable.
With that in place, the new thread can self-detach, but it must periodically check whether an abort has been requested. When the thread ends its work, whether because it discovers an abort has been requested or because it reaches the normal end of its work, it performs any needed cleanup, sets the status to "terminated", broadcasts to the CV, and exits.
Any thread that wants to cancel another locks the associated mutex, and checks whether the thread is already terminated. If not, it sets the thread status to "abort requested", and waits on the condition variable until the status becomes "terminated". If desired, you could use a timed wait to allow the cancellation request to time out. After successfully canceling the thread, it may be possible to clean up the mutex, cv, and shared variable.
I note that all of that hinges on my interpretation of your request, and in particular, on the prospect that what you're after is aborting / canceling threads. None of the alternatives you floated seem to address that; for the most part they abandon the unwanted thread, which does not serve your expressed interest in preventing it from making unwanted changes to shared state.
It's not clear to me what you want, but you can use a condition variable to implement basically arbitrary joining semantics for threads. The POSIX Rationale contains an example of this, showing how to implement pthread_join with a timeout (search for timed_thread).
I've been reading up on multithreading and shared resources access and one of the many (for me) new concepts is the mutex lock. What I can't seem to find out is what is actually happening to the thread that finds a "critical section" is locked. It says in many places that the thread gets "blocked", but what does that mean? Is it suspended, and will it resume when the lock is lifted? Or will it try again in the next iteration of the "run loop"?
The reason I ask, is because I want to have system supplied events (mouse, keyboard, etc.), which (apparantly) are delivered on the main thread, to be handled in a very specific part in the run loop of my secondary thread. So whatever event is delivered, I queue in my own datastructure. Obviously, the datastructure needs a mutex lock because it's being modified by both threads. The missing puzzle-piece is: what happens when an event gets delivered in a function on the main thread, I want to queue it, but the queue is locked? Will the main thread be suspended, or will it just jump over the locked section and go out of scope (losing the event)?
Blocked means execution gets stuck there; generally, the thread is put to sleep by the system and yields the processor to another thread. When a thread is blocked trying to acquire a mutex, execution resumes when the mutex is released, though the thread might block again if another thread grabs the mutex before it can.
There is generally a try-lock operation that grab the mutex if possible, and if not, will return an error. But you are eventually going to have to move the current event into that queue. Also, if you delay moving the events to the thread where they are handled, the application will become unresponsive regardless.
A queue is actually one case where you can get away with not using a mutex. For example, Mac OS X (and possibly also iOS) provides the OSAtomicEnqueue() and OSAtomicDequeue() functions (see man atomic or <libkern/OSAtomic.h>) that exploit processor-specific atomic operations to avoid using a lock.
But, why not just process the events on the main thread as part of the main run loop?
The simplest way to think of it is that the blocked thread is put in a wait ("sleeping") state until the mutex is released by the thread holding it. At that point the operating system will "wake up" one of the threads waiting on the mutex and let it acquire it and continue. It's as if the OS simply puts the blocked thread on a shelf until it has the thing it needs to continue. Until the OS takes the thread off the shelf, it's not doing anything. The exact implementation -- which thread gets to go next, whether they all get woken up or they're queued -- will depend on your OS and what language/framework you are using.
Too late to answer but I may facilitate the understanding. I am talking more from implementation perspective rather than theoretical texts.
The word "blocking" is kind of technical homonym. People may use it for sleeping or mere waiting. The term has to be understood in context of usage.
Blocking means Waiting - Assume on an SMP system a thread B wants to acquire a spinlock held by some other thread A. One of the mechanisms is to disable preemption and keep spinning on the processor unless B gets it. Another mechanism probably, an efficient one, is to allow other threads to use processor, in case B does not gets it in easy attempts. Therefore we schedule out thread B (as preemption is enabled) and give processor to some other thread C. In this case thread B just waits in the scheduler's queue and comes back with its turn. Understand that B is not sleeping just waiting rather passively instead of busy-wait and burning processor cycles. On BSD and Solaris systems there are data-structures like turnstiles to implement this situation.
Blocking means Sleeping - If the thread B had instead made system call like read() waiting data from network socket, it cannot proceed until it gets it. Therefore, some texts casually use term blocking as "... blocked for I/O" or "... in blocking system call". Actually, thread B is rather sleeping. There are specific data-structures known as sleep queues - much like luxury waiting rooms on air-ports :-). The thread will be woken up when OS detects availability of data, much like an attendant of the waiting room.
Blocking means just that. It is blocked. It will not proceed until able. You don't say which language you're using, but most languages/libraries have lock objects where you can "attempt" to take the lock and then carry on and do something different depending on whether you succeeded or not.
But in, for example, Java synchronized blocks, your thread will stall until it is able to acquire the monitor (mutex, lock). The java.util.concurrent.locks.Lock interface describes lock objects which have more flexibility in terms of lock acquisition.
I came across this interesting paragraph in the Boost thread documentation today:
void wait(boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>& lock)
...
Effects: Atomically call lock.unlock()
and blocks the current thread. The
thread will unblock when notified by a
call to this->notify_one() or
this->notify_all(), or spuriously.
When the thread is unblocked (for
whatever reason), the lock is
reacquired by invoking lock.lock()
before the call to wait returns. The
lock is also reacquired by invoking
lock.lock() if the function exits with
an exception.
So what I am interested in is the meaning of the word "spuriously". Why would the thread be unblocked for spurious reasons? What can be done to resolve this?
This article by Anthony Williams is particularly detailed.
Spurious wakes cannot be predicted:
they are essentially random from the
user's point of view. However, they
commonly occur when the thread library
cannot reliably ensure that a waiting
thread will not miss a notification.
Since a missed notification would
render the condition variable useless,
the thread library wakes the thread
from its wait rather than take the
risk.
He also points out that you shouldn't use the timed_wait overloads that take a duration, and you should generally use the versions that take a predicate
That's the beginner's bug, and one
that's easily overcome with a simple
rule: always check your predicate in a
loop when waiting with a condition
variable. The more insidious bug comes
from timed_wait().
This article by Vladimir Prus is also interesting.
But why do we need the while loop,
can't we write:
if (!something_happened)
c.wait(m);
We can't. And the killer reason is that 'wait' can
return without any 'notify' call.
That's called spurious wakeup and is
explicitly allowed by POSIX.
Essentially, return from 'wait' only
indicates that the shared data might
have changed, so that data must be
evaluated again.
Okay, so why this is not fixed yet?
The first reason is that nobody wants
to fix it. Wrapping call to 'wait' in
a loop is very desired for several
other reasons. But those reasons
require explanation, while spurious
wakeup is a hammer that can be applied
to any first year student without
fail.
This blog post gives a reason for Linux, in terms of the futex system call returning when a signal is delivered to a process. Unfortunately it doesn't explain anything else (and indeed is asking for more information).
The Wikipedia entry on spurious wakeups (which appear to be a posix-wide concept, btw, not limited to boost) may interest you too.