For example, a process is listening on some port with block mode, so if the I/O is not ready, the process will be blocked.
while (true)
{
msg = recv(port, BLOCKING_FLAG); // blocks here
cout<<msg<<endl;
}
We also know that we can make a process sleep: sleep(1000).
My question is: if such a process is blocking, can I say that the process is suspended? Will the process be swapped out from CPU? Same questions on sleep.
"Sleeping" -- usually means that the thread is in an explicit sleep(...) call.
"Suspended" -- sometimes is used in a generic way, meaning that the thread is waiting for ...something. Other times, "Suspended" means that some other thread or process explicitly suspended it (e.g., for debugging purposes), and the process/thread will not be able to run again until it is explicitly resumed.
"Blocked" -- is the most generic of the three. Often it merely means that the process/thread is waiting for something. Sometimes it implies that what the thread/process is waiting for is an I/O operation.
Related
The kernel code can explicitly put the process to sleep if it's waiting for some task to occur. Now, if the task is put in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state, it can wake either by explicit wake up call or by receiving a signal.
Let's say another process issued a signal to a process which is in the wait queue and in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state, it will put the process into TASK_RUNNING and the signal will be handled when the process is scheduled next. Is this correct?
An explicit wake up call by other process can also be used to wake up the slept processes. I am wondering how could another process know when the condition became true for the slept process to wake up? Suppose a disk i/o is to be completed and so the process is put to sleep. How could another process know that the i/o is completed? Or is it done by kernel threads?
What am I missing?
It is up to the code that entered the interruptible state to detect the interruption and take appropriate action when it wakes. That might involve the code that is currently handling the user operation completing it with a -ERESTARTSYS error that will be intercepted and dealt with before the system call returns to user mode.
The code that has completed some I/O can just issue a "wake up" to the queue it is responsible for without caring whether there is any task on the queue to be woken up, or the exact condition the task is waiting for.
The task that is woken up needs to decide what to do, and that could include repeating the wait if the the condition it is waiting for had not been satisfied.
When a thread executing user code is waiting for input, how does the scheduler know to interrupt it or how does the thread know to call the scheduler, seeing as the average programmer of a simple single threaded application is unlikely to insert sched_yield() everywhere. Does the compiler insert sched_yield() on optimisation or does the thread just spin lock until the general timer interrupt set by the scheduler fires, or does the user have to explicitly state wait(), sleep() functions in order for the context to switch?
This question is especially relevant if the scheduler is not preemptive because then it has to call the scheduler when it is waiting for input for throughput to be effective, but I'm not sure how it does this.
Be careful not to confuse preemption with the ability of a process to sleep. Processes can sleep even with a non-preempting scheduler. This is what happens when a process is waiting for I/O. The process makes a system call such as read() and the device determines no data is available. It then internally puts the process to sleep by updating a data structure used by the scheduler. The scheduler then executes other processes until an interrupt or some other event occurs that wakes the original process. The awoken process then becomes eligible again for scheduling.
On the other hand preemption is the ability of an architecture's scheduler to stop execution of a process without its cooperation. The interruption can occur anywhere in the program's instruction stream. Control returns to the scheduler which can then execute other processes and return to the interrupted (preempted) process later. Most schedulers allocate time slices where a process is allowed to run for up to a predetermined amount of time, after which it is preempted if higher-priority processes need time slices.
Unless you're writing drivers or kernel code, you don't need to worry about the underlying mechanisms too much. When writing user-space applications the key concepts are (1) that some system calls may block which means your process is put to sleep until an event occurs, and (2) on preemptible systems (all mainstream modern operating systems) your program may be preempted at any time so that other processes can run.
* Note that in some platforms, such as Linux, a thread is really just another process which shares its virtual address space with another process. Processes and threads are therefore treated exactly the same by the scheduler.
It is not clear to me whether your question is about theory or practice. In practice in every modern operating system, i/o operations are privileged. Meaning that in order for a user process or thread to access files, devices and so on it must issue a system call.
Then the kernel has the opportunity to do whatever it considers appropriate. For example it can check whether the I/o operation will block and, therefore switch the running (i.e. “call” the scheduler) process after issuing the operation.
Note that this mechanism can work even when there is no timer interruption handled by the kernel. Anyway in general it will depend upon your system. For example in an embedded system where no OS exits (or a minimal one) it could be the entire responsibility of the user’s code to invoke the scheduler before issueing a blocking operation.
Kernel can be preemptive, not scheduler.
First sched_yield() and wait() are types of voluntary preemption, when process itself gives out CPU even if kernel is non-preemptive.
If kernel has ability to switch to another process when time quantum has expired or higher priority process become runnable then we are talking about involuntary preemption, i.e preemptive kernel, and it can happen on different places explained below.
Difference is that insched_yield() process stays in runnable TASK_RUNNING state but just goes to the end of the run queue for it's static priority. Process must wait to get the CPU again.
On the other hand, wait() puts process to a sleep TASK_(UN)INTERRUPTABLE state, on a wait queue, calls schedule() and waits for an event to occur. When event occur, process are moved to run queue again. But that doesn't mean that they will get CPU immediately.
Here is explained when schedule() can be called after process is woken up:
Wakeups don't really cause entry into schedule(). They add a
task to the run-queue and that's it.
If the new task added to the run-queue preempts the current
task, then the wakeup sets TIF_NEED_RESCHED and schedule() gets
called on the nearest possible occasion:
If the kernel is preemptible (CONFIG_PREEMPT=y):
in syscall or exception context, at the next outmost
preempt_enable(). (this might be as soon as the wake_up()'s
spin_unlock()!)
in IRQ context, return from interrupt-handler to
preemptible context
If the kernel is not preemptible (CONFIG_PREEMPT is not set)
then at the next:
cond_resched() call
explicit schedule() call
return from syscall or exception to user-space
return from interrupt-handler to user-space
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.
If I had threads as below
void thread(){
while() {
lock.acquire();
if(condition not true)
{
Cond.wait()
}
// blah blah
Cond.Signal();
lock.release();
}
}
Well I guess my main question is that whether the signalling thread continues running for a while after cond.signal() or immediately gives up the CPU?. I would like it in some cases not to release the lock before the woken up thread finishes execution and in some other cases it may be beneficial to release the lock immediately after signalling, without waiting for the other woken thread to finish.
I understand that if there are any threads waiting on the condition then they get woken up on Cond.signal(). But what do you mean by woekn up - put on the ready queue or does the scheduler make sure that it runs immediately?.
and what about the signalling thread.. does it go to sleep on the same condtion upon signalling? .. so then some other thread has to wake it up to make it release the lock?.
This is in large part dependent on your environment (OS, library, language...) and how the synchronisation primitives are implemented. Since you haven't specified any I'll just give a general answer.
When putting a thread to sleep, most environment will choose to remove it from the scheduler's ready queue and the thread will give up its remaining CPU time. When woken up, the thread is simply placed back into the ready queue and will resume execution the next time the scheduler selects it from the queue.
It's also possible that the thread will do some active waiting (spinning) instead of being removed from the scheduler's ready queue. In this case, the thread will resume execution right away. Note that since a thread can still be run out of CPU of time while spinning, it might have to wait to be rescheduled before waking up. This is a useful strategy if your critical sections are very small and you don't want to pay for the scheduling overheads.
A hybrid approach would be to do a small amount of active waiting before removing the thread from the scheduler's ready queue.
As for the signaling thread, unless specified explicitly by your environment (I can't of any reasons but you never know), I wouldn't expect a call to signal() to block in a way that you have to wake it up. Signal() might have to synchronize itself with other threads calling signal() but those are implementation details and you shouldn't have to do anything about it.