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).
Related
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.
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.
What are the ways to detect deadlocks in a live multi-threaded application?
If we found there is a deadlock, are there any ways to resolve it, without taking down/restarting the application?
There are two popular ways to detect deadlocks.
One is to have threads set checkpoints. For example, if you have a thread that has a work loop, you set a timer at the beginning of doing work that's set for longer than you think the work could possibly take. If the timer fires, you assume the thread is deadlocked. When the work is done, you cancel the timer.
Another (sometimes used in combination) is to have things that a thread might block on track what other resources a thread might hold. This can directly detect an attempt to acquire one lock while holding another one when other threads have acquired those locks in the opposite order.
This can even detect deadlock risk without the deadlock actually occurring. If one thread acquires lock A then B and another acquires lock B then A, there is no deadlock unless they overlap. But this method can detect it.
Advanced deadlock detection is typically only used during debugging. Other than coding the application to check each blocking lock for a possible deadlock and knowing what to do if it happens, the only thing you can do after a deadlock is tear the application down. You can't release locks blindly because the resources they protect may be in an inconsistent state.
Sometimes you deliberately write code that you know can deadlock and specifically code it to avoid the problem. For example, if you know lots of threads take lock A and then try to acquire lock B, and some other thread needs to do the reverse, you can code it do a non-blocking attempt to lock B and release lock A if it fails.
Typically, it's more useful to spend your effort making deadlocks impossible rather than making the code detect and work around deadlocks.
Python has a feature called the faulthandler that's very useful for dealing with deadlocks:
import faulthandler
faulthandler.register(signal.SIGUSR1)
If you're using C++ or any compiler that uses glibc, you can use the backtrace() functions in execinfo.h to print a stacktrace and exit gracefully when you get a signal. You can take a deadlocked program, send it a signal and get a list of all the threads.
In Java, use jstack <pid> on the stuck process.
I know Synchronize must be used in the Execute procedure, but should it be used in Create and Destroy methods too, or is it safe to do whatever I want?
I know Synchronize must be used in the Execute procedure.
That is somewhat vague. You need to use Synchronize when you have code that must execute on the main thread. So the answer to whether or not you will need to use Synchronize depends crucially on what the code under consideration actually does. The question that you must ask yourself, and which is one that only you can answer, is do you have code that must run on the main thread?
As a general rule it would be considered prudent for you not to need to call Synchronize outside the Execute method. If you can find a way to avoid doing so then that would be wise. Remember that the ideal scenario with threads is that they never need to block with Synchronize if at all possible.
You might also wish to consider which thread executes the constructor and destructor.
The constructor Create runs in the thread that calls it. It does not run in the newly created thread. Therefore it is unlikely that you would need to use Synchronize there.
The destructor Destroy runs in the thread that calls it. Typically this is the thread that calls Free on the thread object. And usually that would be called from the same thread that originally created the thread. The common exception to that is a FreeOnTerminate thread which calls Free from the thread.
There is a need to use Synchronize() when the code is executing outside of the context of the main (GUI) thread of the application. Therefore the answer to your question depends on whether the constructor and destructor are called from that thread or not.
If you are unsure you can check that by comparing the result of the Windows API function GetCurrentThreadId() with the variable MainThreadID - if they equal the code executes in the context of the main thread.
Threads that have FreeOnTerminate set will have their destructor called from another thread context, so you would need to use Synchronize() or Queue(). Or you use the termination event the VCL already provides, I believe it is executed in the main thread, but check the documentation for details.
First of all, you don't want to call Synchronize() unnecessarily, because that simply defeats the purpose of using a thread. So the decision should be based on whether: (a) it's possible to encounter race conditions with shared data. (b) you'll be using VCL code which usually has to run on the main thread.
It's unlikely you would need to synchronise in the constructor because TThread instances are usually created from the main thread already. (The exception being if you're creating some TThread's from another child thread.)
NOTE: It won't cause any harm though because Synchronize() already checks if you're on the main thread and will call the synchronised method immediately if you are.
class procedure TThread.Synchronize(ASyncRec: PSynchronizeRecord; QueueEvent: Boolean = False);
var
SyncProc: TSyncProc;
SyncProcPtr: PSyncProc;
begin
if GetCurrentThreadID = MainThreadID then
ASyncRec.FMethod
As for the destructor there are 3 usage patterns:
The TThread instances destroys itself.
Another thread (possibly the main thread) can WaitFor the instance to finish, then destroy it.
You can intercept the OnTerminate event. This is fired when the instance is finished, and you could then destroy it.
NOTE: The OnTerminate event will already be synchronised.
procedure TThread.DoTerminate;
begin
if Assigned(FOnTerminate) then Synchronize(CallOnTerminate);
end;
Given the above, the only time you might need to synchronise is if the thread self-destructs.
However, I'd advise that you rather avoid putting code into your destructor that might need to be synchronised. If you need some results of a calculation from your thread instance, OnTerminate is the more appropriate place to get this.
To add to what has been said in other answers...
You never need to use Synchronize at all. Synchronize may be useful, however, in the following circumstance:
In the context of your thread you need to execute code that touches objects that have affinity to the main thread.
You require your thread to block until that code has been executed.
Even in that case, there are other ways to achive the same goal, but Synchronize provides a convenient way to satisfy those two needs. If you need only one of those two items, there are better strategies available.
On topic #1, the obvious objects are user interface objects. These are objects that have thread affinity to the main thread simply by virtue of the fact that the main thread is continually reading and writing the properties of those objects (not the least because it needs to paint them to the screen, etc) and it does so at its own convenience. This means that your thread cannot safely access those components with a guarantee that the main thread will not also be accessing or modifying them at the same time. In order to prevent corruption, the thread has to pass the work to the main thread (since the main thread can only do one thing at a time and can't, obviously, interfere with itself). Synchronize simply places the work onto the main thread's queue and waits until the main thread gets around to completing it before returning.
This gets to point #2. Do you need to (or, equally, can you afford to) wait around until the main thread finishes the work? There are three cases and two options.
Yes, you can or must wait. (Synchronize is a good fit)
No, you cannot wait. (Synchronize is not a good fit)
Don't care. (Synchronize is easy, so it's a sensible option)
If you are simply updating a status display that will soon be overwritten anyway and your thread has more pressing issues, then it's probably sensible to just post a message to the main thread and carry on doing things, for example. If your thread is just waiting around doing nothing, mostly, and it's not worth the time to code anything more sophisticated, then Synchronize is just fine, and it can be replaced with something better if needs dictate so in the future.
As others have said, it really depends on what you are doing. The more important question, I think, at least conceptually, is to sort out when you need to worry about concurrency and when you don't. Any time you have more than one thread that requires access to a single resource you need to use some sort of mechanism to coordinate that access to avoid the threads crashing into each other. Synchronize is one of those methods, but it not the least nor the last of them.
How do I determine if a detached pthread is still alive ?
I have a communication channel with the thread (a uni-directional queue pointing outwards from the thread) but what happens if the thread dies without a gasp?
Should I resign myself to using process signals or can I probe for thread liveliness somehow?
For a joinable (i.e NOT detached) pthread you could use pthread_kill like this:
int ret = pthread_kill(YOUR_PTHREAD_ID, 0);
If you get a ESRCH value, it might be the case that your thread is dead.
However this doesn't apply to a detached pthreads because after it has ended its thread ID can be reused for another thread.
From the comments:
The answer is wrong because if the thread is detached and is not
alive, the pthread_t is invalid. You can't pass it to pthread_kill. It
could, for example, be a pointer to a structure that was freed,
causing your program to crash. POSIX says, "A conforming
implementation is free to reuse a thread ID after its lifetime has
ended. If an application attempts to use a thread ID whose lifetime
has ended, the behavior is undefined." – Thanks #DavidSchwartz
This question assumes a design with an unavoidable race condition.
Presumably, you plan to do something like this:
Check to see if thread is alive
Wait for message from thread
The problem is that this sequence is not atomic and cannot be fixed. Specifically, what if the thread you are checking dies between step (1) and step (2)?
Race conditions are evil; rare race conditions doubly so. Papering over something 90% reliable with something 99.999% reliable is one of the worst decisions you can make.
The right answer to your question is "don't do that". Instead, fix your application so that threads do not die randomly.
If that is impossible, and some thread is prone to crashing, and you need to recover from that... Then your design is fundamentally flawed and you should not be using a thread. Put that unreliable thing in a different process and use a pipe to communicate with it instead. Process death closes file descriptors, and reading a pipe whose other end has been closed has well-defined, easily detected, race-free behavior.
It is probably undefined behaviour when you send a signal to an already dead thread. Your application might crash.
see http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=4509 and http://udrepper.livejournal.com/16844.html