I am writing a base class to manage threads. The idea is to allow the thread function to be overridden in child class while the base class manages thread life cycle. I ran into a strange behavior which I don't understand - it seems that the virtual function mechanism does not work when the call is made from a thread. To illustrate my problem, I reduced my code to the following:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
using namespace std;
struct B
{
thread t;
void thread_func_non_virt()
{
thread_func();
}
virtual void thread_func()
{
cout << "B::thread_func\n";
}
B(): t(thread(&B::thread_func_non_virt, this)) { }
void join() { t.join(); }
};
struct C : B
{
virtual void thread_func() override
{
cout << "C::thread_func\n";
}
};
int main()
{
C c; // output is "B::thread_func" but "C::thread_func" is expected
c.join();
c.thread_func_non_virt(); // output "C::thread_func" as expected
}
I tried with both Visual studio 2017 and g++ 5.4 (Ubuntu 16) and found the behavior is consistent. Can someone point out where I got wrong?
== UPDATE ==
Based on Igor's answer, I moved the thread creation out of the constructor into a separate method and calling that method after the constructor and got the desired behavior.
Your program exhibits undefined behavior. There's a race on *this between thread_func and C's (implicitly defined) constructor.
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
using namespace std;
struct B
{
thread t;
void thread_func_non_virt()
{
thread_func();
}
virtual void thread_func()
{
cout << "B::thread_func\n";
}
B(B*ptr): t(thread(&B::thread_func_non_virt, ptr))
{
}
void join() { t.join(); }
};
struct C:public B
{
C():B(this){}
virtual void thread_func() override
{
cout << "C::thread_func\n";
}
};
int main()
{
C c; // "C::thread_func" is expected as expected
c.join();
c.thread_func_non_virt(); // output "C::thread_func" as expected
}
Related
I'm reading C++ concurrency in action.
It introduces how to implement interrupting thread using std::condition_variable_any.
I try to understand the code more than a week, but I couldn't.
Below is the code and explanation in the book.
#include <condition_variable>
#include <future>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
class thread_interrupted : public std::exception {};
class interrupt_flag {
std::atomic<bool> flag;
std::condition_variable* thread_cond;
std::condition_variable_any* thread_cond_any;
std::mutex set_clear_mutex;
public:
interrupt_flag() : thread_cond(0), thread_cond_any(0) {}
void set() {
flag.store(true, std::memory_order_relaxed);
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lk(set_clear_mutex);
if (thread_cond) {
thread_cond->notify_all();
} else if (thread_cond_any) {
thread_cond_any->notify_all();
}
}
bool is_set() const { return flag.load(std::memory_order_relaxed); }
template <typename Lockable>
void wait(std::condition_variable_any& cv, Lockable& lk);
};
thread_local static interrupt_flag this_thread_interrupt_flag;
void interruption_point() {
if (this_thread_interrupt_flag.is_set()) {
throw thread_interrupted();
}
}
template <typename Lockable>
void interrupt_flag::wait(std::condition_variable_any& cv, Lockable& lk) {
struct custom_lock {
interrupt_flag* self;
// (1) What is this lk for? Why is lk should be already locked when it is used in costume_lock constructor?
Lockable& lk;
custom_lock(interrupt_flag* self_, std::condition_variable_any& cond,
Lockable& lk_)
: self(self_), lk(lk_) {
self->set_clear_mutex.lock();
self->thread_cond_any = &cond;
}
void unlock() {
lk.unlock();
self->set_clear_mutex.unlock();
}
void lock() { std::lock(self->set_clear_mutex, lk); }
~custom_lock() {
self->thread_cond_any = 0;
self->set_clear_mutex.unlock();
}
};
custom_lock cl(this, cv, lk);
interruption_point();
cv.wait(cl);
interruption_point();
}
class interruptible_thread {
std::thread internal_thread;
interrupt_flag* flag;
public:
template <typename FunctionType>
interruptible_thread(FunctionType f) {
std::promise<interrupt_flag*> p;
internal_thread = std::thread([f, &p] {
p.set_value(&this_thread_interrupt_flag);
f();
});
flag = p.get_future().get();
}
void interrupt() {
if (flag) {
flag->set();
}
};
void join() { internal_thread.join(); };
void detach();
bool joinable() const;
};
template <typename Lockable>
void interruptible_wait(std::condition_variable_any& cv, Lockable& lk) {
this_thread_interrupt_flag.wait(cv, lk);
}
void foo() {
// (2) This is my implementation of how to use interruptible wait. Is it correct?
std::condition_variable_any cv;
std::mutex m;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
try {
interruptible_wait(cv, lk);
} catch (...) {
std::cout << "interrupted" << std::endl;
}
}
int main() {
std::cout << "Hello" << std::endl;
interruptible_thread th(foo);
th.interrupt();
th.join();
}
Your custom lock type acquires the lock on the internal
set_clear_mutex when it’s constructed 1, and then sets the
thread_cond_any pointer to refer to the std:: condition_variable_any
passed in to the constructor 2.
The Lockable reference is stored for later; this must already be
locked. You can now check for an interruption without worrying about
races. If the interrupt flag is set at this point, it was set before
you acquired the lock on set_clear_mutex. When the condition variable
calls your unlock() function inside wait(), you unlock the Lockable
object and the internal set_clear_mutex 3.
This allows threads that are trying to interrupt you to acquire the
lock on set_clear_mutex and check the thread_cond_any pointer once
you’re inside the wait() call but not before. This is exactly what you
were after (but couldn’t manage) with std::condition_variable.
Once wait() has finished waiting (either because it was notified or
because of a spurious wake), it will call your lock() function, which
again acquires the lock on the internal set_clear_mutex and the lock
on the Lockable object 4. You can now check again for interruptions
that happened during the wait() call before clearing the
thread_cond_any pointer in your custom_lock destructor 5, where you
also unlock the set_clear_mutex.
First, I couldn't understand what is the purpose of Lockabel& lk in mark (1) and why it is already locked in constructor of custom_lock. (It could be locked in the very custom_lock constructor. )
Second there is no example in this book of how to use interruptible wait, so foo() {} in mark (2) is my guess implementation of how to use it. Is it correct way of using it ?
You need a mutex-like object (lk in your foo function) to call the interruptiple waiting just as you would need it for the plain std::condition_variable::wait function.
What's problematic (I also read the book and I have doubts about this example) is that the flag member points to a memory location inside the other thread which could finish right before calling flag->set(). In this specific example the thread only exists after we set the flag so that is okay, but otherwise this approach is limited in my opinion (correct me if I am wrong).
I have a reusable class that starts up an infinite thread. this thread can only be killed by calling a stop function that sets a kill switch variable. When looking around, there is quite a bit of argument over volatile vs atomic variables.
The following is my code:
program.cpp
int main()
{
ThreadClass threadClass;
threadClass.Start();
Sleep(1000);
threadClass.Stop();
Sleep(50);
threaClass.Stop();
}
ThreadClass.h
#pragma once
#include <atomic>
#include <thread>
class::ThreadClass
{
public:
ThreadClass(void);
~ThreadClass(void);
void Start();
void Stop();
private:
void myThread();
std::atomic<bool> runThread;
std::thread theThread;
};
ThreadClass.cpp
#include "ThreadClass.h"
ThreadClass::ThreadClass(void)
{
runThread = false;
}
ThreadClass::~ThreadClass(void)
{
}
void ThreadClass::Start()
{
runThread = true;
the_thread = std::thread(&mythread, this);
}
void ThreadClass::Stop()
{
if(runThread)
{
runThread = false;
if (the_thread.joinable())
{
the_thread.join();
}
}
}
void ThreadClass::mythread()
{
while(runThread)
{
//dostuff
Sleep(100); //or chrono
}
}
The code that i am representing here mirrors an issue that our legacy code had in place. We call the stop function 2 times, which will try to join the thread 2 times. This results in an invalid handle exception. I have coded the Stop() function in order to work around that issue, but my question is why would the the join fail the second time if the thread has completed and joined? Is there a better way programmatically to assume that the thread is valid before trying to join?
The following code is generating one warning when I use clang thread annotations. I am trying to wrap boost::shared_mutex and boost::shared_lock. How can I express that this lock is a shared lock using the thread annotations?
source code:
#include <mutex>
#include "boost/thread/shared_mutex.hpp"
class __attribute__((shared_capability("mutex"))) BoostSharedMutex {
public:
boost::shared_mutex &getNativeHandle() { return m_mutex; }
private:
mutable boost::shared_mutex m_mutex;
};
class __attribute__((scoped_lockable)) MutexSharedLock {
public:
explicit MutexSharedLock(BoostSharedMutex &mutex) __attribute__((acquire_shared_capability(mutex)))
: m_lock(mutex.getNativeHandle()) {}
~MutexSharedLock() __attribute__((release_shared_capability())) = default;
private:
boost::shared_lock<boost::shared_mutex> m_lock;
};
int main() {
BoostSharedMutex mutex;
MutexSharedLock lock(mutex);
}
clang output:
clang++-3.6 --std=c++11 -Wall -Wthread-safety /tmp/foo.cpp -lboost_system
/tmp/foo.cpp:25:5: warning: releasing mutex 'lock' using shared access, expected exclusive access [-Wthread-safety-analysis]
}
^
1 warning generated.
EDIT: this compiles but seems wrong. Is it a problem on my side?
#include <mutex>
#include "boost/thread/shared_mutex.hpp"
class __attribute__((shared_capability("mutex"))) BoostSharedMutex {
public:
boost::shared_mutex &getNativeHandle() { return m_mutex; }
private:
mutable boost::shared_mutex m_mutex;
};
class __attribute__((scoped_lockable)) MutexSharedLock {
public:
explicit MutexSharedLock(BoostSharedMutex &mutex) __attribute__((acquire_capability(mutex))) // changed from acquired_shared_capability
: m_lock(mutex.getNativeHandle()) {}
~MutexSharedLock() __attribute__((release_capability())) = default; // changed from release_shared_capability
private:
boost::shared_lock<boost::shared_mutex> m_lock;
};
BoostSharedMutex mutex;
int locked_variable __attribute__((guarded_by(mutex)));
int main() {
MutexSharedLock lock(mutex);
std::cout << locked_variable << std::endl; // ok, guarded variable is only read
locked_variable = 42; // no warning while writing in the guarded variable while only holding a non-exclusive lock?
}
After trying several combinations, this seems to work:
#include <mutex>
#include "boost/thread/shared_mutex.hpp"
class __attribute__((capability("mutex"))) BoostSharedMutex {
public:
boost::shared_mutex &getNativeHandle() { return m_mutex; }
private:
mutable boost::shared_mutex m_mutex;
};
class __attribute__((scoped_lockable)) MutexSharedLock {
public:
explicit MutexSharedLock(BoostSharedMutex &mutex) __attribute__((acquire_shared_capability(mutex)))
: m_lock(mutex.getNativeHandle()) {}
~MutexSharedLock() __attribute__((release_capability())) = default;
private:
boost::shared_lock<boost::shared_mutex> m_lock;
};
class __attribute__((scoped_lockable)) MutexLock {
public:
explicit MutexLock(BoostSharedMutex &mutex) __attribute__((acquire_capability(mutex)))
: m_lock(mutex.getNativeHandle()) {}
~MutexLock() __attribute__((release_capability())) = default;
private:
std::unique_lock<boost::shared_mutex> m_lock;
};
BoostSharedMutex mutex;
int locked_variable __attribute__((guarded_by(mutex)));
int main() {
{
MutexSharedLock lock(mutex);
std::cout << locked_variable << std::endl;
// locked_variable = 42; -- triger a error as expected
}
{
MutexLock lock(mutex);
std::cout << locked_variable << std::endl;
locked_variable = 42;
}
}
I would be curious to hear why the MutexSharedLock should use acquire_shared_capability but release with release_capability ...
(I will let the question open in case anyone can confirm the code is correct now)
Just use unlock_function instead of release_shared_capability.
Same true also for try_acquire_capability/try_acquire_shared_capability - they just don't work, but previous exclusive_trylock_function/shared_trylock_function works well.
M.b. it is bug in clang.
In a single thread, I have this beautiful class that redirects all cout output to a QTextEdit
#include <iostream>
#include <streambuf>
#include <string>
#include <QScrollBar>
#include "QTextEdit"
#include "QDateTime"
class ThreadLogStream : public std::basic_streambuf<char>, QObject
{
Q_OBJECT
public:
ThreadLogStream(std::ostream &stream) : m_stream(stream)
{
m_old_buf = stream.rdbuf();
stream.rdbuf(this);
}
~ThreadLogStream()
{
// output anything that is left
if (!m_string.empty())
{
log_window->append(m_string.c_str());
}
m_stream.rdbuf(m_old_buf);
}
protected:
virtual int_type overflow(int_type v)
{
if (v == '\n')
{
log_window->append(m_string.c_str());
m_string.erase(m_string.begin(), m_string.end());
}
else
m_string += v;
return v;
}
virtual std::streamsize xsputn(const char *p, std::streamsize n)
{
m_string.append(p, p + n);
long pos = 0;
while (pos != static_cast<long>(std::string::npos))
{
pos = m_string.find('\n');
if (pos != static_cast<long>(std::string::npos))
{
std::string tmp(m_string.begin(), m_string.begin() + pos);
log_window->append(tmp.c_str());
m_string.erase(m_string.begin(), m_string.begin() + pos + 1);
}
}
return n;
}
private:
std::ostream &m_stream;
std::streambuf *m_old_buf;
std::string m_string;
QTextEdit* log_window;
};
However, this doesn't work if ANY thread (QThread) is initiated with a cout. This is because all pointers are messed up, and one has to use signals and slots for allowing transfer of data between the sub-thread and the main thread.
I would like to modify this class to emit a signal rather than write to a text file. This requires that this class becomes a Q_OBJECT and be inherited from one. I tried to inherit from QObject in addition to std::basic_streambuf<char> and added Q_OBJECT macro in the body but it didn't compile.
Could you please help me to achieve this? What should I do to get this class to emit signals that I can connect to and that are thread safe?
For those who need the full "working" answer, here it's. I just copied it because #GraemeRock asked for it.
#ifndef ThreadLogStream_H
#define ThreadLogStream_H
#include <iostream>
#include <streambuf>
#include <string>
#include <QScrollBar>
#include "QTextEdit"
#include "QDateTime"
class ThreadLogStream : public QObject, public std::basic_streambuf<char>
{
Q_OBJECT
public:
ThreadLogStream(std::ostream &stream) : m_stream(stream)
{
m_old_buf = stream.rdbuf();
stream.rdbuf(this);
}
~ThreadLogStream()
{
// output anything that is left
if (!m_string.empty())
{
emit sendLogString(QString::fromStdString(m_string));
}
m_stream.rdbuf(m_old_buf);
}
protected:
virtual int_type overflow(int_type v)
{
if (v == '\n')
{
emit sendLogString(QString::fromStdString(m_string));
m_string.erase(m_string.begin(), m_string.end());
}
else
m_string += v;
return v;
}
virtual std::streamsize xsputn(const char *p, std::streamsize n)
{
m_string.append(p, p + n);
long pos = 0;
while (pos != static_cast<long>(std::string::npos))
{
pos = static_cast<long>(m_string.find('\n'));
if (pos != static_cast<long>(std::string::npos))
{
std::string tmp(m_string.begin(), m_string.begin() + pos);
emit sendLogString(QString::fromStdString(tmp));
m_string.erase(m_string.begin(), m_string.begin() + pos + 1);
}
}
return n;
}
private:
std::ostream &m_stream;
std::streambuf *m_old_buf;
std::string m_string;
signals:
void sendLogString(const QString& str);
};
#endif // ThreadLogStream_H
The derivation needs to happen QObject-first:
class LogStream : public QObject, std::basic_streambuf<char> {
Q_OBJECT
...
};
...
If the goal was to minimally modify your code, there's a simpler way. You don't need to inherit QObject to emit signals iff you know exactly what slots the signals are going to. All you need to do is to invoke the slot in a thread safe way:
QMetaObject::invokeMethod(log_window, "append", Qt::QueuedConnection,
Q_ARG(QString, tmp.c_str()));
To speed things up, you can cache the method so that it doesn't have to be looked up every time:
class LogStream ... {
QPointer<QTextEdit> m_logWindow;
QMetaMethod m_append;
LogStream::LogStream(...) :
m_logWindow(...),
m_append(m_logWindow->metaObject()->method(
m_logWindow->metaObject()->indexOfSlot("append(QString)") )) {
...
}
};
You can then invoke it more efficiently:
m_append.invoke(m_logWindow, Qt::QueuedConnection, Q_ARG(QString, tmp.c_str()));
Finally, whenever you're holding pointers to objects whose lifetimes are not under your control, it's helpful to use QPointer since it never dangles. A QPointer resets itself to 0 when the pointed-to object gets destructed. It will at least prevent you from dereferencing a dangling pointer, since it never dangles.
I use the thread local storage with boost.
I have a global variable :
boost::thread_specific_ptr<MyDataClass> p_timeline_ctx;
and I have the following class, which encapsulates a boost::thread object and contains an additionnal data object :
class MyThread {
private :
boost::thread t;
MyDataClass d;
public :
MyThread():c() {}
void start(void) {
ptr.reset(this->d);
this->t = boost::thread(&MyThread::worker, this);
}
void worker(void) {
// do something
}
};
I do not get any error when compiling. But on runtime, when the worker function exits and the thread ends, I get a "glibc ... free ... invalid pointer" error.
I guess this comes from the fact that, according to the boost doc, the thread_specific_ptr tries to delete the object it points to when threads end. But I do not see how to solve the problem.
The thread specific pointer takes ownership. You could reset it:
p_timeline_ctx.reset(0);
or intialize it with a deep copy in the first place:
ptr.reset(new MyDataStruct(d));
However, you'd be far better off just passing the reference as an argument to the thread pointer.
In fact, the worker is already an instance member function, so, why do you need a thread-specific copy of this:
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#include <iostream>
struct MyDataClass { };
class MyThread {
private :
boost::thread t;
MyDataClass d;
public :
MyThread(): d() {}
void start(void) {
t = boost::thread(&MyThread::worker, this);
}
void worker() {
// just use this->d here
}
};
int main()
{
}
Or using a static thread function:
#include <boost/bind.hpp>
#include <boost/thread.hpp>
#include <iostream>
struct MyDataClass { };
class MyThread {
private :
boost::thread t;
MyDataClass d;
public :
MyThread(): d() {}
void start(void) {
t = boost::thread(&MyThread::worker, boost::ref(d));
}
static void worker(MyDataClass&) {
// do something
}
};
int main()
{
}