Processes should only terminate themselves, when all their threads are
terminated!
It's a question in our mock exam, and we aren't sure whether the statement is true or false.
Thanks a lot
First, I need to point out that this exam question contains an incorrect presumption. A running process always has at least one thread. The initial thread, the thread that first calls main or equivalent, isn't special; it's just like every other thread created by pthread_create or equivalent. Once all of the threads within a process have exited, the process can't do anything anymore — there's no way for it to execute even a single additional CPU instruction. In practice, the operating system will terminate the process at that point.
Second, as was pointed out in the comments on the question, the use of "should" makes your exam question ambiguous. It could be read as either "Processes only terminate when all of their threads are terminated" — as a description of how the system works. Or it could be read as "You, the programmer, should write code that ensures that your processes only terminate when all of their threads are terminated" — as a prescription for writing correct code.
If you are specifically talking about POSIX threads ("pthreads"), the answer to the descriptive question is that it depends on how each thread terminates. If all threads terminate by calling pthread_exit or by being cancelled, the process will survive until the last thread terminates, no matter which order they exit in. On the other hand, if any thread calls exit or _exit, or receives a fatal signal, that will immediately terminate the entire process, no matter how many threads are still active. (I am not 100% sure about this, but I think it doesn't matter whether any threads have been detached.)
There's an additional complication, which is that returning from a function passed to pthread_create is equivalent to calling pthread_exit for that thread, but returning from main is equivalent to calling exit. That makes the initial thread a little bit special: unless you specifically end main by calling pthread_exit, the entire process will be terminated when the initial thread exits. But technically this is not a property of the thread itself, but of the code running in that thread.
I do not know the answer to the descriptive question for threads libraries other than POSIX; in particular I don't know the answer for either Windows native threads, or for the threads library added to ISO C in its 2011 revision.
The answer to the prescriptive question is yes with exceptions. You, a programmer, should write programs that, under normal conditions, take care to end their process only when all of their threads have finished their work. (With POSIX threads, this translates to making sure that main does not return until all the other threads have been joined.) However, sometimes you have a few threads that run an infinite loop, without holding any locks or anything, and there's no good way to tell them to exit when everything else is done; as long as exiting the process out from under them won't damage any persistent state, go ahead and exit the process out from under them. (This is the intended use case for detached threads.) Also, it's OK, and often the best choice, to terminate the entire process abruptly if you encounter some kind of unrecoverable error. Those are the only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head.
Related
According to POSIX, a Thread ID can be reused if the original bearer thread finished. Therefore, would one need to use a mutex or semaphore when calling pthread_join()? Because, it could happen that the target thread, which one wants to join, already terminated and another thread with the same thread ID was created, before calling pthread_join() in the original thread. This would make the original thread believe that the target thread has not finished, although this is not the case.
I think you'll find this works much the same way as processes in UNIX. A joinable thread is not considered truly finished until something has actually joined it.
This is similar to the UNIX processes in that, even though they've technically exited, enough status information (including the PID, which cannot be re-used yet) hangs around until another process does a wait on it. Only after that point does the PID become available for re-use. This kind of process is called a zombie, since it's dead but not dead.
This is supported by the pthread_join documentation which states:
Failure to join with a thread that is joinable (i.e., one that is not detached), produces a "zombie thread". Avoid doing this, since each zombie thread consumes some system resources, and when enough zombie threads have accumulated, it will no longer be possible to create new threads (or processes).
and pthread_create, which states:
Only when a terminated joinable thread has been joined are the last of its resources released back to the system.
I'm studying threads in C and I have this theoretical question in mind that is driving me crazy. Assume the following code:
1) void main() {
2) createThread(...); // create a new thread that does "something"
3) }
After line 2 is executed, two paths of execution are created. However I believe that immediately after line 2 is executed then it doesn't even matter what the new thread does, which was created at line 2, because the original thread that executed line 2 will end the entire program at its next instruction. Am I wrong? is there any chance the original thread gets suspended somehow and the new thread get its chance to do something (assume the code as is, no sync between threads or join operations are performed)
It can work out either way. If you have more than one core, the new thread might get its own core. Even if you don't, the scheduler might give the new thread priority over the existing one. The original thread might exhaust its timeslice right after it creates a new thread.
So that code creates a race condition -- one thread is trying to do work, another thread is trying to terminate the process. Which one wins will depend on the threading implementation, the hardware, and perhaps even some random chance.
If main() finishes before the spawned threads, all those threads will be terminated as there is no main() to support them.
Calling pthread_exit() at the end of main() will block it and keep it alive to support the threads it created until they complete execution.
You can learn more about this here: https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/pthreads/
Assuming you are using POSIX pthreads (not clear from your example) then you are right. If you don't want that then indeed pthread_exit from main will mean the program will continue to run until all the threads finish. The "main thread" is special in this regard, as its exit normally causes all threads to terminate.
More typically, you'll do something useful in the main thread after a new thread has been forked. Otherwise, what's the point? So you'll do your own processing, wait on some events, etc. If you want main (or any other thread) to wait for a thread to complete before proceeding, you can call pthread_join() with the handle of the thread of interest.
All of this may be off the point, however since you are not explicitly using POSIX threads in your example, so I don't know if that's pseudo-code for the purpose of example or literal code. In Windows, CreateThread has different semantics from POSIX pthreads. However, you didn't use that capitalization for the call in your example so I don't know if that's what you intended either. Personally I use the pthreads_win32 library even on Windows.
Hi all~ I have a problem boring me so much.
Sometimes when I exit my program, there are some thread still running, in Linux system, it will cause crash after I quit the main loop. Is there any method that can kill all threads when I quit main loop?
It would help a lot if you specified your programming language and threading library of choice.
The usual way to control this type of situation (that is for a parent thread to wait until children complete before terminating) is to call a function supplied by the library, usually named join or wait.
pthread supplies you with pthread_join, for example.
If you're spawning processes via fork, you should use wait or waitpid in the parent to halt until the child completes - try man waitpid or take a look at this.
This way you can inform your children that you are about to exit via the usual means, wait until they wrap up and terminate, then cleanly exit the main loop.
Does this help? This is the least brutal way of synchronizing termination, if you want to actively kill the children threads there are alternatives, of course (like pthread_kill for pthreads, for example).
If you are using java try using the jconsole (Java Monitoring & Management Console) shipped with jdk6u23 in my case. You can get the thread name that is not killed. You can use join for that thread to complete.
But there can be program issue like, in my case i had a timer thread hanging [Timer-0] java.util.Timer to make an a timer.cancel() which closed that timer.
How can I terminate a thread in a proper way?
When the thread finishes, it is still in memory. I'm using Delphi 2010 (Update 5).
The way I usually describe the issues of thread termination is to stress co-operation. You should not terminate a thread. Instead you should notify the thread that you want it to terminate. You then politely wait until it has terminated.
The reasons for this are manifest. Only the thread knows how to terminate itself. Only the thread knows what locks it holds, what resources it needs to free etc.
The same arguments apply if you wish to pause or suspend a thread's execution. You should ask to it do so and then let the thread find a convenient moment when it is safe to do so.
With a Delphi TThread the standard way to request termination is to call Thread.Terminate. This does nothing more than to set a flag in the thread object. That is the request. The response is initiated by the thread code inside TThread.Execute. That should regularly check the value of its Terminated property. When that is found to be true, it should exit from the function. Naturally any tidy up (release locks, return resources etc.) should be performed before calling exit.
How exactly do you terminate a thread? If you just set Terminate, this is just a flag checked inside of the thread. If you need to terminate thread of execution (and not signal a TThread object that it needs to finish), you can use TerminateThread WinAPI function. But you should notice that this leads to resource leaks (as written in the comments in documentation for TerminateThread).
that depends on what you want to accomplish with that thread. you should provide more details about what you want to do, before we can help you.
here you have a very good tutorial on how to work with threads in Delphi:
http://www.eonclash.com/Tutorials/Multithreading/MartinHarvey1.1/Ch1.html
http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/en/Writing_multi-threaded_applications_Index
I have a threading problem with Delphi. I guess this is common in other languages too. I have a long process which I do in a thread, that fills a list in main window. But if some parameters change in the mean time, then I should stop current executing thread and start from the beginning. Delphi suggests terminating a thread by setting Terminated:=true and checking for this variable's value in the thread. However my problem is this, the long executing part is buried in a library call and in this call I cannot check for the Terminated variable. Therefore I had to wait for this library call to finish, which affects the whole program.
What is the preferred way to do in this case? Can I kill the thread immediately?
The preferred way is to modify the code so that it doesn't block without checking for cancellation.
Since you can't modify the code, you can't do that; you either have to live with the background operation (but you can disassociate it from any UI, so that its completion will be ignored); or alternatively, you can try terminating it (TerminateThread API will rudely terminate any thread given its handle). Termination isn't clean, though, like Rob says, any locks held by the thread will be abandoned, and any cross-thread state protected by such locks may be in a corrupted state.
Can you consider calling the function in a separate executable? Perhaps using RPC (pipes, TCP, rather than shared memory owing to same lock problem), so that you can terminate a process rather than terminating a thread? Process isolation will give you a good deal more protection. So long as you aren't relying on cross-process named things like mutexes, it should be far safer than killing a thread.
The threads need to co-operate to achieve a graceful shutdown. I am not sure if Delphi offers a mechanism to abort another thread, but such mechanisms are available in .NET and Java, but should be considered an option of last resort, and the state of the application is indeterminate after they have been used.
If you can kill a thread at an arbitrary point, then you may kill it while it is holding a lock in the memory allocator (for example). This will leave your program open to hanging when your main thread next needs to access that lock.
If you can't modify the code to check for termination, then just set its priority really low, and ignore it when it returns.
I wrote this in reply to a similar question:
I use an exception-based technique
that's worked pretty well for me in a
number of Win32 applications.
To terminate a thread, I use
QueueUserAPC to queue a call to a
function which throws an exception.
However, the exception that's thrown
isn't derived from the type
"Exception", so will only be caught by
my thread's wrapper procedure.
I've used this with C++Builder apps very successfully. I'm not aware of all the subtleties of Delphi vs C++ exception handling, but I'd expect it could easily be modified to work.