What I learned is if a process got blocked, it will be swapped out to the disk and wait for wake-up event. But, if a process can have multiple threads, what if a thread is blocked? For example, one of the threads waits for a keyboard eveny, the thread will be blocked. Then will the process also be blocked, or is it possible that only the thread is blocked and process is running?
What I learned is if a process got blocked, it will be swapped out to the disk and wait for wake-up event.
You're probably reading some very old documentation. Likely by "process" it means something scheduled by the kernel.
But, if a process can have multiple threads, what if a thread is blocked? For example, one of the threads waits for a keyboard event, the thread will be blocked. Then will the process also be blocked, or is it possible that only the thread is blocked and process is running?
If you define a "process" as a container that consists of an address space, file descriptor set and so on and that can contain more than one thread, then there is no such thing as a process being blocked. What would block a process exactly?
Related
In a multi-threaded system, is it possible to have one thread of a process to wait on I/O and other thread of the same process to do some other work related to the process?
If it is possible, what can be said about the state of the process? Is it in running state or in blocked state?
What can be said?
The wait for next message thread of the process is waiting.
The process last message of the process is processing.
i.e. you describe the state of the process in terms of the state of it's threads.
For Kernel-Level-Threads when one thread blocks for some I/O another thread is free to run, but in User-Level-Threads what happens if one thread is blocked?
Will that process remain blocked i.e. no other thread will execute or another thread will be scheduled to run. What happens exactly?
User-level threads are pieces of user code that execute in sequential fashion - one thread runs for a while then transfers the control to another thread and so on. If one of those threads make a syscall that blocks then the process as a whole blocks. User-level threading looks like a single threaded process to the kernel. No concurrent scheduling on multiple CPUs is possible.
The main advantage of kernel-level threads is that they run independently from one another and can be scheduled on different CPUs. If one blocks, others continue to execute.
Suppose there is a process that is trying to enter the critical region but since it is occupied by some other process, the current process has to wait for it. So, at the time when the process is getting added to the waiting queue of the semaphore, suppose an interrupt comes (ex- battery finished), then what will happen to that process and the waiting queue?
I think that since the battery has finished so this interrupt will have the highest priority and so the context of the process which was placing the process on the waiting queue would be saved and interrupt service routine for this routing will be executed.
And then it will return to the process that was placing the process on the queue.
Please give some hints/suggestions for this question.
This is very hardware / OS dependant, however a few thoughts:
As has been mentioned in the comments, a ‘battery finished’ interrupt may be considered as a special case, simply because the machine may turn off without taking any action, in which case the processes + queue will disappear. In general however, assuming a non-fatal interrupt and an OS that suspends / resumes correctly, I think it’s unlikely there will be any noticeable impact to the execution of either process.
In a multi-core setup, the process may not be immediately suspended. The interrupt could be handled by a different core and neither of the processes you’ve mentioned would be any the wiser.
In a pre-emptive multitasking OS there's also no guarantee that the process adding to the queue would be resumed immediately after the interrupt, the scheduler could decide to activate the process currently in the critical section or another process entirely. What would happen when the process adding itself to the semaphore wait queue resumed would depend on how far through adding it was, how the queue has been implemented and what state the semaphore was in. It may be that it never gets on to the wait queue because it detects that the other process has already woken up and left the critical section, or it may be that it completes adding itself to the queue and suspends as if nothing had happened…
In a single core/processor machine with a cooperative multitasking OS, I think the scenario you’ve described in your question is quite likely, with the executing process being suspended to handle the interrupt and then resumed afterwards until it finished adding itself to the queue and yielded.
It depends on the implementation, but conceptually the same operating process should be performing both the addition of the process to the wait queue and the management of the interrupts, so your process being moved to wait would instead be treated as interrupted from the wait queue.
For Java, see the API for Thread.interrupt()
Interrupts this thread.
Unless the current thread is interrupting itself, which is always permitted, the checkAccess method of this thread is invoked, which may cause a SecurityException to be thrown.
If this thread is blocked in an invocation of the wait(), wait(long), or wait(long, int) methods of the Object class, or of the join(), join(long), join(long, int), sleep(long), or sleep(long, int), methods of this class, then its interrupt status will be cleared and it will receive an InterruptedException.
If this thread is blocked in an I/O operation upon an interruptible channel then the channel will be closed, the thread's interrupt status will be set, and the thread will receive a ClosedByInterruptException.
If this thread is blocked in a Selector then the thread's interrupt status will be set and it will return immediately from the selection operation, possibly with a non-zero value, just as if the selector's wakeup method were invoked.
If none of the previous conditions hold then this thread's interrupt status will be set.
Interrupting a thread that is not alive need not have any effect.
I have multi thread program. I have a design of my application as follows:
Suppose one is main thread, and other are slave threads. Main thread keep track of all slave thread ID's. During one of the scenario of application (one of the scenario is graceful shutdown of application), i want to delete slave threads from main thread.
Here slave threads may be executing i.e., either in sleep mode or doing some action which i cannot stop the action. So i want to delete the threads from main thread with thread IDs i stored internally.
Additional info:
While deleting i should not wait for thread current action to complete as it may take long time as i am reading from data base and taking some action in thread, in case of gracefull shut down i should not wait for action to complete as it may take time.
If i force delete a thread how can there will be a resource leaks?
Is above design is ok or there is any flow or any ways we can improve the design.
Thanks!
It's not okay. It's a bad practice to forcefully kill a thread from another thread because you'll very likely to have resource leaks. The best way is to use an event or signal to signal the client process to stop and wait until they exit gracefully.
The overall flow of the program would look like this:
Parent thread creates an event (say hEventParent). it then creates child threads and passes hEventParent as a parameter. The Parent thread keeps the hThread of the child thread(s).
Child threads do work but periodically waits for hEventParent.
When the program needs to exit, the parent thread sets hEventParent. It then waits for hThread (WaitForMultipleObjects also accepts hThread)
Child thread is notified then execute clean up routine and exits.
When all the threads exit, the parent can then exit.
The most common approach consists in the main thread sending a termination signal to all the threads, then waiting for the threads to end.
Typically the worker threads will have a loop, inside of which the work is done. You can add a boolean variable that indicates if the thread needs to end. For example:
terminate = false;
while (!terminate) {
// work here
}
If you want your worker threads to go to sleep when they have no work, then it gets a bit more complicated. In this case you could make the threads wait on semaphores. Each semaphore will be signaled when there is work to do, and that will awaken the thread. You will also signal the semaphore when the request to terminate is issued. Example worker thread:
terminate = false;
while (!terminate) {
// work here
wait(semaphore); // go to sleep
}
When the main thread wants to exit it will set terminate to true for all the threads and then signal the thread semaphores to awaken the threads and give them a chance to see the termination request. After that it will join all the threads, and only after all the threads are finished it will exit.
Note that the terminate boolean may need to be declared as volatile if you are using C/C++, to indicate to the compiler that it may be changed from another thread.
I have couple of questions on threads. Could you please clarify.
Suppose process with one or multiple threads. If the process is prempted/suspended, does the threads also get preempted or does the threads continue to run?
When the suspended process rescheduled, does the process threads also gets scheduled? If the process has process has multiple threads, which threads will be rescheduled and on what basis?
if the thread in the process is running and recieves a signal(say Cntrl-C) and the default action of the signal is to terminate a process, does the running thread terminates or the parent process will also terminate? What happens to the threads if the running process terminates because of some signal?
If the thread does fork fallowed exec, does the exece'd program overlays the address space of parent process or the running thread? If it overlays the parent process what happens to threads, their data, locks they are holding and how they get scheduled once the exec'd process terminates.
Suppose process has multiple threads, how does the threads get scheduled. If one of the thread blocks on some I/O, how other threads gets scheduled. Does the threads scheduled with the parent process is running?
While the thread is running what the current kernel variable points(parent process task_stuct or threads stack_struct?
If the process with the thread is running, when the thread starts does the parent
process gets preempted and how each threads gets scheduled?
If the process running on CPU creates multiple threads, does the threads created by the parent process schedule on another CPU on multiprocessor system?
Thanks,
Ganesh
First, I should clear up some terminology that you appear to be confused about. In POSIX, a "process" is a single address space plus at least one thread of control, identified by a process ID (PID). A thread is an individually-scheduled execution context within a process.
All processes start life with just one thread, and all processes have at least one thread. Now, onto the questions:
Suppose process with one or multiple threads. If the process is prempted/suspended, does the threads also get preempted or does the threads continue to run?
Threads are scheduled independently. If a thread blocks on a function like connect(), then other threads within the process can still be scheduled.
It is also possible to request that every thread in a process be suspended, for example by sending SIGSTOP to the process.
When the suspended process rescheduled, does the process threads also gets scheduled? If the process has process has multiple threads, which threads will be rescheduled and on what basis?
This only makes sense in the context that an explicit request was made to stop the entire process. If you send the process SIGCONT to restart the process, then any of the threads which are not blocked can run. If more threads are runnable than there are processors available to run them, then it is unspecified which one(s) run first.
If the thread in the process is running and recieves a signal(say Cntrl-C) and the default action of the signal is to terminate a process, does the running thread terminates or the parent process will also terminate? What happens to the threads if the running process terminates because of some signal?
If a thread recieves a signal like SIGINT or SIGSEGV whose action is to terminate the process, then the entire process is terminated. This means that every thread in the process is unceremoniously killed.
If the thread does fork followed by exec, does the exece'd program overlays the address space of parent process or the running thread? If it overlays the parent process what happens to threads, their data, locks they are holding and how they get scheduled once the exec'd process terminates.
The fork() call creates a new process by duplicating the address space of the original process, and duplicating just the single thread that called fork() within that new address space.
If that thread in the new process calls execve(), it will replace the new, duplicated address space with the exec'd program. The original process, and all its threads, continue running normally.
Suppose process has multiple threads, how does the threads get scheduled. If one of the thread blocks on some I/O, how other threads gets scheduled. Does the threads scheduled with the parent process is running?
The threads are scheduled independently. Any of the threads that are not blocked can run.
While the thread is running what the current kernel variable points(parent process task_stuct or threads stack_struct?
Each thread has its own task_struct within the kernel. What userspace calls a "thread" is called a "process" in kernel space. Thus current always points at the task_struct corresponding to the currently executing thread (in the userspace sense of the word).
If the process with [a second] thread is running, when the thread starts does the parent process gets preempted and how each threads gets scheduled?
Presumably you mean "the process's main thread" rather than "parent process" here. As before, the threads are scheduled independently. It's unspecified whether one runs before the other - and if you have multiple CPUs, both might run simultaneously.
If the process running on CPU creates multiple threads, does the threads created by the parent process schedule on another CPU on multiprocessor system?
That's really up to the kernel, but the threads are certainly allowed to execute on other CPUs.
Depends. If a thread is preempted because the OS scheduler decides to give CPU time to some other thread, then other threads in the process will continue running. If the process is suspended (i.e. it gets the SIGSTP signal) then AFAIK all the threads will be suspended.
When a suspended process is woken up, all the threads are marked as waiting or blocked (if they are waiting e.g. on a mutex). Then the scheduler at some points run them. There is no guarantee about any specific order the threads are run after waking up the process.
The process will terminate, and with it the threads as well.
When you fork you get a new address space, so there is no "overlay". Note that fork() and the exec() family affect the entire process, not only the thread from which they where called. When you call fork() in a multi-threaded process, the child gets a copy of that process, but with only the calling thread. Then if you call exec() in one or both of the processes (presumably only in the child process, but that's up to you), then the process which calls exec() (and with it, all its threads) is replaced by the exec()'ed program.
The thread scheduling order is decided by the OS scheduler, there is no guarantee given about any particular order.
From the kernel perspective a process is an address space with one or more threads (and some other gunk). There is no concept of threads that somehow exist without a process.
There is no such thing as a process without a single thread. A "plain process" is just a process with a single thread.
Probably yes. This is determined by the OS scheduler. Note that there are API's and tools (numactl) that one can use to force some thread(s) to run on a specific CPU core.
Assuming your questions are about POSIX threads, then
1a. A process that's preempted by the O/S will have all its threads preempted.
1b. The O/S will suspend all the threads of a process that is sent a SIGSTOP.
The O/S will resume all thread of a suspended process that is sent a SIGCONT.
By default, a SIGINT will terminate all the threads in a process.
If a thread calls fork(), then all its threads are duplicated. If it then call one of the exec() functions, then all the duplicated threads disappear.
POSIX allows for user-selection of the thread scheduling algorithm.
I don't understand the question.
I don't understand the question.
How threads are mapped to CPU-s is implementation-dependent. Many implementations will try to distribute threads amongst the available CPU-s to improve performance.
The Linux kernel doesn't distinguish between threads and processes. As far as kernel is concerned, a thread is simply another process which happens to share address space with other processes. (You would call the set of "processes" (i.e. threads) which share a single address space a "process".)
So POSIX threads are scheduled exactly as full-blown processes would be. There is no difference in scheduling whether you have one process with five threads, or five separate processes.
There are kernel calls that provide fine grained control over what is shared between processes. The POSIX threads API wraps over them.