This question has been asked before and if I am not wrong, the only way to read the result of a future is either to call get() and block until it is ready or using wait_for() with zero duration as mentioned in the answer - Get the status of a std::future
But, if I just want a worker thread to return me a result that I want it to compute and not wait or block myself for it to complete, can I not just pass it a callback that the worker thread can call when it has computed the result for me? Something like below -
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <functional>
void foo(std::function<void(int)> callback)
{
int result = 5;
callback(result);
}
int main()
{
int result = 0;
std::thread worker(foo, [](int result)
{
std::cout << "Result from worker is " << result << std::endl;
});
worker.join();
}
Here, the worker thread would just execute the callback when it has computed the result for me. I don't have to wait for it to finish or block or check in a loop to know when it's ready.
Please advice is this is a good approach to be used as currently there is no way to do this without blocking or checking for it in a loop?
You can certainly create your own thread with a callback, but as soon as you move away from a toy example you will notice that you have potentially created a synchronization problem. This is because your callback is being invoked from a separate thread. So you may want to have the worker thread instead post a message to a queue which you will read later, unless there is no shared state or a mutex is already in place.
In your specific example, let's add one line of code:
int main()
{
std::thread worker(foo, [](int result)
{
std::cout << "Result from worker is " << result << std::endl;
});
std::cout << "I am the main thread" << std::endl; // added
worker.join();
}
You might think that there are only two possible outputs:
I am the main thread
Result from worker is 5
and
Result from worker is 5
I am the main thread
But in fact there are other possible outputs, such as:
Result from worker is I am the main thread
5
So you have created a bug. You either need synchronization on your shared state (which includes I/O), or you need to orchestrate everything from the main thread (which is what blocking or checking for a future result gives you).
Related
Note: I'll give examples in C++ but I believe my question is language-agnostic. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Just so you really understand me - what I'm trying to learn here is what the tool does and nothing else. Not what it's usually used for, not what the conventions says, just what the blunt tool does. In this case - what the condition variable does.
So far it seems to me like it's a simple mechanism that allows threads to wait (block) until some other thread signals them (unblocks them). Nothing more, no dealing with critical section access or data access (of course they can be used for that but it's only a matter of programmer's choice). Also the signaling is usually only done when something important happens (e.g. data was loaded) but theoretically it could be called at any time. Correct so far?
Now, every example that I have seen uses a condition variable object (e.g. std::condition_variable) but also some additional variable to mark if something happened (e.g. bool dataWasLoaded). Take a look at this example from https://thispointer.com//c11-multithreading-part-7-condition-variables-explained/:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <functional>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
using namespace std::placeholders;
class Application
{
std::mutex m_mutex;
std::condition_variable m_condVar;
bool m_bDataLoaded;
public:
Application()
{
m_bDataLoaded = false;
}
void loadData()
{
// Make This Thread sleep for 1 Second
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
std::cout << "Loading Data from XML" << std::endl;
// Lock The Data structure
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(m_mutex);
// Set the flag to true, means data is loaded
m_bDataLoaded = true;
// Notify the condition variable
m_condVar.notify_one();
}
bool isDataLoaded()
{
return m_bDataLoaded;
}
void mainTask()
{
std::cout << "Do Some Handshaking" << std::endl;
// Acquire the lock
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> mlock(m_mutex);
// Start waiting for the Condition Variable to get signaled
// Wait() will internally release the lock and make the thread to block
// As soon as condition variable get signaled, resume the thread and
// again acquire the lock. Then check if condition is met or not
// If condition is met then continue else again go in wait.
m_condVar.wait(mlock, std::bind(&Application::isDataLoaded, this));
std::cout << "Do Processing On loaded Data" << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Application app;
std::thread thread_1(&Application::mainTask, &app);
std::thread thread_2(&Application::loadData, &app);
thread_2.join();
thread_1.join();
return 0;
}
Now, other than the std::condition_variable m_condVar it also uses an additional variable bool m_bDataLoaded. But it seems to me that the thread performing mainTask is already notified that the data was loaded by means of std::condition_variable m_condVar. Why also check bool m_bDataLoaded for the same information? Compare (the same code without bool m_bDataLoaded):
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <functional>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
using namespace std::placeholders;
class Application
{
std::mutex m_mutex;
std::condition_variable m_condVar;
public:
Application()
{
}
void loadData()
{
// Make This Thread sleep for 1 Second
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
std::cout << "Loading Data from XML" << std::endl;
// Lock The Data structure
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(m_mutex);
// Notify the condition variable
m_condVar.notify_one();
}
void mainTask()
{
std::cout << "Do Some Handshaking" << std::endl;
// Acquire the lock
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> mlock(m_mutex);
// Start waiting for the Condition Variable to get signaled
// Wait() will internally release the lock and make the thread to block
// As soon as condition variable get signaled, resume the thread and
// again acquire the lock. Then check if condition is met or not
// If condition is met then continue else again go in wait.
m_condVar.wait(mlock);
std::cout << "Do Processing On loaded Data" << std::endl;
}
};
int main()
{
Application app;
std::thread thread_1(&Application::mainTask, &app);
std::thread thread_2(&Application::loadData, &app);
thread_2.join();
thread_1.join();
return 0;
}
Now I know about spurious wakeups and they alone necessitate the usage of an additional variable. My question is - are they they only reason for it? If they didn't occur could one just use condition variables without any additional variables (and btw wouldn't that make the name "condition variable" a misnomer then)?
Another thing is - isn't the usage of additional variables the only reason why condition variables also require a mutex? If not, what are the other reasons?
If additional variables are necessary (for spurious wakeups or other reasons) why doesn't the API require them (in the 2nd code I didn't have to use them for the code to compile)? (I don't know if it's the same in other languages, so this question might be C++-specific.)
It's not all about spurious wakeups.
When you call m_condvar.wait, how do you know the condition you're waiting for has not already happened?
Maybe 'loadData' has already been called in another thread. When it called notify_one(), nothing happened because there were no threads waiting.
Now if you call condvar.wait, you will wait forever because nothing will signal you.
The original version does not have this problem, because:
If m_bDataLoaded is false, then it knows that the data is not loaded, and that after m_bDataLoaded is set true, the caller will signal the condition;
The lock is held, and we know that m_bDataLoaded cannot be modified in another thread until it's released;
condvar.wait will put the current thread in the waiting queue before releasing the lock, so we know that m_bDataLoaded will be set true after we start waiting, and so notify_one will also be called after we start waiting.
To answer your other questions:
Yes, coordination with additional variables is the reason why condition variables are tied to mutexes.
The API doesn't require, say, a boolean variable, because that's not always the kind of condition you're waiting for.
This kind of thing is common, for example:
Task *getTask() {
//anyone who uses m_taskQueue or m_shutDown must lock this mutex
unique_lock<mutex> lock(m_mutex);
while (m_taskQueue.isEmpty()) {
if (m_shutdown) {
return null;
}
// this is signalled after a task is enqueued
// or m_shutdown is asserted
m_condvar.wait(lock);
}
return taskQueue.pop_front();
}
Here we require the same critical guarantee that the thread starts waiting before the lock is released, but the condition we're waiting for is more complex, involving a variable and separate data structure, and there are multiple ways to exit the wait.
Yes, the condition variable is just useful to wait for an event. In my point of view you should not try to use it for controlling concurrent access of critical data structures.
I just can speak about C++. As you see in the example here https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/condition_variable/wait, they used this expression cv.wait(lk, []{return i == 1;});. And []{...} is the expression of a nameless function. So you can also write your own function and give the name of the function:
bool condFn()
{
std::cout << "condFn" << std::endl; // debug output ;)
return i == 1;
}
void waits()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(cv_m);
std::cerr << "Waiting... \n";
cv.wait(lk, condFn);
std::cerr << "...finished waiting. i == 1\n";
}
And inside this function you can evaluate, whatever you want. The thread is always sleeping until it gets notified, then it processes always the function that evaluates the condition for continue working. In case of true, the thread continues, in case of false the programm goes sleeping again.
I'm using lambda's capture in order to pass parameters to boost::asio::io_context::post callback.
Is it thread safe?
Code
#include <iostream>
#include "boost/asio.hpp"
#include <thread>
int main() {
boost::asio::io_service io_service;
boost::asio::io_service::work work(io_service);
std::thread t([&](){
io_service.run();
});
auto var = 1;
io_service.post([&io_service, var]() {
std::cout << "v: " << var << std::endl;
io_service.stop();
});
t.join();
return 0;
}
As you can see, I pass var in the lambda's capture.
the main thread sets var's value, and thread t reads it.
I didn't use any of memory ordering, for example, std::memory_order_release after setting var to 1, and std::memory_order_acquire before reading var value. Even more, I don't think I can - because the variable var is passed by value to the lambda.
Is it safe to do that?
If not, how should it be done?
It is thread-safe.
Closure object is created by main thread (with copying var value) after var was created and initialized.
Next, closure object is passed as argument to post method which queues this function object and returns immediately without calling functor. Functor is called between post and t.join calls - post guarantees it.
So your code must be thread-safe.
You would need some synchronization method (for example, use of mutex+lock_guard)
if var was passed by reference [1] and some writing operations on var [2]
were performed between post and t.join calls:
auto var = 1;
io_service.post([&io_service, &var]() { // [1] takes by reference
std::cout << "v: " << var << std::endl; // lock mutex for printing
io_service.stop();
});
var = 10; // [2] , lock mutex for writing
// synchronization must be added because between post and t.join calls,
// reading and writing operations are executed
t.join();
in this case you would have to protect var.
I'll preface this by saying that I'm delving into multithreading for the first time. Despite a lot of reading on concurrency and synchronization, I'm not readily seeing a solution for the requirements I've been given.
Using C++11 and Boost, I'm trying to figure out how to send data from a worker thread to a main thread. The worker thread is spawned at the start of the application and continuously monitors a lock free queue. Objects populate this queue at various intervals. This part is working.
Once the data is available, it needs to be processed by the main thread since another signal will be sent to the rest of the application which cannot be on a worker thread. This is what I'm having trouble with.
If I have to block the main thread through a mutex or a condition variable until the worker thread is done, how will that improve responsiveness? I might as well just stay with a single thread so I have access to the data. I must be missing something here.
I have posted a couple questions, thinking that Boost::Asio was the way to go. There is an example of how signals and data can be sent between threads, but as the responses indicate, things get quickly overly-complicated and it's not working perfectly:
How to connect signal to boost::asio::io_service when posting work on different thread?
Boost::Asio with Main/Workers threads - Can I start event loop before posting work?
After speaking with some colleagues, it was suggested that two queues be used -- one input, one output. This would be in shared space and the output queue would be populated by the worker thread. The worker thread is always going but there would need to be a Timer, probably at the application level, that would force the main thread to examine the output queue to see if there were any pending tasks.
Any ideas on where I should direct my attention? Are there any techniques or strategies that might work for what I'm trying to do? I'll be looking at Timers next.
Thanks.
Edit: This is production code for a plugin system that post-processes simulation results. We are using C++11 first wherever possible, followed by Boost. We are using Boost's lockfree::queue. The application is doing what we want on a single thread but now we are trying to optimize where we see that there are performance issues (in this case, a calculation happening through another library). The main thread has a lot of responsibilities, including database access, which is why I want to limit what the worker thread actually does.
Update: I have already been successful in using std::thread to launch a worker thread that examines a Boost lock::free queue and processes tasks placed it in. It's step 5 in #Pressacco's response that I'm having trouble with. Any examples returning a value to the main thread when a worker thread is finished and informing the main thread, rather than simply waiting for the worker to finish?
If your objective is develop the solution from scratch (using native threads, queues, etc.):
create a thread save queue queue (Mutex/CriticalSection around add/remove)
create a counting semaphore that is associated with the queue
have one or more worker threads wait on the counting semaphore (i.e. the thread will block)
the semaphore is more efficient than having the thread constantly poll the queue
as messages/jobs are added to the queue, increment the semaphore
a thread will wake up
the thread should remove one message
if a result needs to be returned...
setup another: Queue+Semaphore+WorkerThreads
ADDITIONAL NOTES
If you decide to implement a thread safe queue from scratch, take a look at:
Synchronization between threads using Critical Section
With that said, I would take another look at BOOST. I haven't used the library, but from what I hear it will most likely contain some relevant data structures (e.g. a thread safe queue).
My favorite quote from the MSDN:
"When you use multithreading of any sort, you potentially expose
yourself to very serious and complex bugs"
SIDEBAR
Since you are looking at concurrent programming for the first time, you may wish to consider:
Is your objective to build production worthy code , or is this simply a learning exercise?
production? consider us existing proven libraries
learning? consider writing the code from scratch
Consider using a thread pool with an asynchronous callback instead of native threads.
more threads != better
Are threads really needed?
Follow the KISS principle.
The feedback above led me in the right direction for what I needed. The solution was definitely simpler than having to use signals/slots or Boost::Asio as I had previously attempted. I have two lock-free queues, one for input (on a worker thread) and one for output (on the main thread, populated by the worker thread). I use a timer to schedule when the output queue is processed. The code is below; perhaps it is of use to somebody:
//Task.h
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
class Task
{
public:
Task(bool shutdown = false) : _shutdown(shutdown) {};
virtual ~Task() {};
bool IsShutdownRequest() { return _shutdown; }
virtual int Execute() = 0;
private:
bool _shutdown;
};
class ShutdownTask : public Task
{
public:
ShutdownTask() : Task(true) {}
virtual int Execute() { return -1; }
};
class TimeSeriesTask : public Task
{
public:
TimeSeriesTask(int value) : _value(value) {};
virtual int Execute()
{
std::cout << "Calculating on thread " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
return _value * 2;
}
private:
int _value;
};
// Main.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application.
#include "stdafx.h"
#include "afxwin.h"
#include <boost/lockfree/spsc_queue.hpp>
#include "Task.h"
static UINT_PTR ProcessDataCheckTimerID = 0;
static const int ProcessDataCheckPeriodInMilliseconds = 100;
class Manager
{
public:
Manager()
{
//Worker Thread with application lifetime that processes a lock free queue
_workerThread = std::thread(&Manager::ProcessInputData, this);
};
virtual ~Manager()
{
_workerThread.join();
};
void QueueData(int x)
{
if (x > 0)
{
_inputQueue.push(std::make_shared<TimeSeriesTask>(x));
}
else
{
_inputQueue.push(std::make_shared<ShutdownTask>());
}
}
void ProcessOutputData()
{
//process output data on the Main Thread
_outputQueue.consume_one([&](int value)
{
if (value < 0)
{
PostQuitMessage(WM_QUIT);
}
else
{
int result = value - 1;
std::cout << "Final result is " << result << " on thread " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
}
});
}
private:
void ProcessInputData()
{
bool shutdown = false;
//Worker Thread processes input data indefinitely
do
{
_inputQueue.consume_one([&](std::shared_ptr<Task> task)
{
std::cout << "Getting element from input queue on thread " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
if (task->IsShutdownRequest()) { shutdown = true; }
int result = task->Execute();
_outputQueue.push(result);
});
} while (shutdown == false);
}
std::thread _workerThread;
boost::lockfree::spsc_queue<std::shared_ptr<Task>, boost::lockfree::capacity<1024>> _inputQueue;
boost::lockfree::spsc_queue<int, boost::lockfree::capacity<1024>> _outputQueue;
};
std::shared_ptr<Manager> g_pMgr;
//timer to force Main Thread to process Manager's output queue
void CALLBACK TimerCallback(HWND hWnd, UINT nMsg, UINT nIDEvent, DWORD dwTime)
{
if (nIDEvent == ProcessDataCheckTimerID)
{
KillTimer(NULL, ProcessDataCheckPeriodInMilliseconds);
ProcessDataCheckTimerID = 0;
//call function to process data
g_pMgr->ProcessOutputData();
//reset timer
ProcessDataCheckTimerID = SetTimer(NULL, ProcessDataCheckTimerID, ProcessDataCheckPeriodInMilliseconds, (TIMERPROC)&TimerCallback);
}
}
int main()
{
std::cout << "Main thread is " << std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
g_pMgr = std::make_shared<Manager>();
ProcessDataCheckTimerID = SetTimer(NULL, ProcessDataCheckTimerID, ProcessDataCheckPeriodInMilliseconds, (TIMERPROC)&TimerCallback);
//queue up some dummy data
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++)
{
g_pMgr->QueueData(i);
}
//queue a shutdown request
g_pMgr->QueueData(-1);
//fake the application's message loop
MSG msg;
bool shutdown = false;
while (shutdown == false)
{
if (GetMessage(&msg, NULL, 0, 0))
{
TranslateMessage(&msg);
DispatchMessage(&msg);
}
else
{
shutdown = true;
}
}
return 0;
}
I've been trying to switch my code from using one io_service per network connection to using shared ones, and I'm seeing some very odd behaviour on server sockets (client ones seem to work OK).
In order to try to work out what's going on I've re-started building up a simple example that will allow me to check my assumptions about everything that ought to happen. The first problem I've hit is that io_service::run doesn't exit when there are no handlers left, and as far as I can tell the handlers aren't removed from the work queue.
I have one thread that does an async_accept followed by an async_read. There is a separate client thread (which has its own io_service). The client thread's io_service is never run, and the server's one is run in yet another thread.
I'm using a condition variable to wait in the server thread for the read to complete (which will never happen as the client never writes). This times out just fine and then I call socket.cancel(). I would expect this to remove the read handler and run to exit as the work queue is now empty.
I do see the read handler get called (with a cancel error), but run never exits. When I tie the socket lifetime to the handler lifetime (by lambda capturing a shared_ptr to the socket) the memory isn't freed either.
The server is set up like this:
std::mutex mutex;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mutex);
std::condition_variable signal;
boost::asio::io_service server_service;
boost::asio::ip::tcp::acceptor listener(server_service);
std::mutex read_mutex;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> read_lock(read_mutex);
std::condition_variable read_done;
std::thread server([&]() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mutex);
listener.open(boost::asio::ip::tcp::v4());
listener.set_option(boost::asio::socket_base::enable_connection_aborted(true));
listener.bind(boost::asio::ip::tcp::endpoint(boost::asio::ip::tcp::v4(), 4567));
listener.listen();
std::shared_ptr<connection> server_cnx(new connection(server_service));
listener.async_accept(server_cnx->socket,
[&, server_cnx](const boost::system::error_code& error) {
log_thread() << "Server got a connection " << error << std::endl;
boost::asio::async_read_until(server_cnx->socket, server_cnx->buffer, '\n',
[&, server_cnx](const boost::system::error_code& error, std::size_t bytes) {
log_thread() << "Got " << bytes << ", " << error << std::endl;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(read_mutex);
lock.unlock();
read_done.notify_one();
});
});
lock.unlock();
signal.notify_one();
if ( read_done.wait_for(read_lock, std::chrono::seconds(1)) == std::cv_status::timeout ) {
log_thread() << "Server read timed out -- cancelling socket jobs" << std::endl;
server_cnx->socket.cancel();
server_cnx->socket.close();
} else {
log_thread() << "Server data read" << std::endl;
}
log_thread() << "Exiting server thread" << std::endl;
});
signal.wait(lock);
log_thread() << "Server set up" << std::endl;
The io_service thread is set up like this:
std::thread server_io([&]() {
log_thread() << "About to service server IO requests" << std::endl;
try {
server_service.run();
} catch ( ... ) {
log_thread() << "Exception caught" << std::endl;
}
log_thread() << "**** Service jobs all run" << std::endl;
signal.notify_one();
});
The output is as follows:
10.0002 139992957945728 Server set up
10.0005 139992957945728 Client set up
10.0006 139992848398080 About to service server IO requests
10.0006 139992848398080 Server got a connection system:0
11.0003 139992934819584 Server read timed out -- cancelling socket jobs
11.0004 139992934819584 Exiting server thread
11.0004 139992848398080 Got 0, system:125
20.0006 139992957945728 IO thread timed out servicing requests -- stopping it
^^^ This should not happen because the server service should have run out of work
20.0006 139992957945728 Waiting for things to close....
22.0008 139992957945728 Wait over, exiting
(Columns are time + 10s, thread ID, log message)
At the 11 second mark you can see that the async_read_until is called. This is the last handler in the server's io_service and yet run doesn't exit.
Even after the time out waiting for run to exit fires and the waiting thread does io_service::stop(), still run doesn't exit (there's another 2 second wait there).
The full code is on github
The program is invoking undefined behavior when the server thread attempts to unlock the read_lock that it does not own.
int main()
{
...
std::mutex read_mutex;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> read_lock(read_mutex); // Acquired by main.
std::condition_variable read_done;
std::thread server([&]() { // Capture lock reference.
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mutex);
...
// The next line invokes undefined behavior as this thread does did
// not acquire read_lock.mutex().
if (read_done.wait_for(read_lock, ...)
// ^^^^^^^^^ caller does not own.
{
...
}
});
signal.wait(lock);
...
}
In particular, when invoking condition_variable::wait_for(lock), the standard requires that lock.owns_lock() is true and lock.mutex() is locked by the calling thread.
Mixing synchronous and asynchronous flows often add complexity. In this particular case, where the synchronous calls are intertwined throughout each layer using lower-level constructs for event/signal notification without a persisted state, I think that it adds unnecessary complexity and overcomplicates the flow. Furthermore, the broad scope of variables can add complexity. If read_lock had never been captured by the lambdas, then a compiler error would have occurred.
Consider the separation in space when trying to observe two events:
// I will eventually be interested when the server starts
// accepting connections, so start setting up now.
std::mutex server_mutex;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> server_lock(server_mutex);
std::condition_variable server_started;
std::thread server([&]()
{
// I will eventually be interested when the server reads
// data, so start setting up now.
std::mutex read_mutex;
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> read_lock(read_mutex);
std::condition_variable read_done;
listener.async_accept(...,
[&](...)
{
// Got connection.
async_read_until(...,
[&](...)
{
// Someone may be interested that data has been read,
// so use the correct mutex and condition_variable
// pair.
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> read_lock(read_mutex);
read_lock.unlock();
read_done.notify_one();
});
}); // async_accept
// Someone may be interested that I am accepting connections,
// so use the correct mutex and condition_variable pair.
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> server_lock(server_mutex);
server_lock.unlock();
server_done.notify_one();
// I am now interested in if data has been read.
read_done.wait_for(read_lock);
}); // server thread
// I am now interested in if the server has started.
server_started.wait(server_lock);
The caller has to prepare to handle an event, start an operation, then wait for the event, and the operation must know the event the caller is interested in. To worsen the situation, one must now consider lock ordering to prevent deadlocks. Note how in the above example, the server thread acquires the read_mutex and then the server_mutex. Another thread cannot acquire the mutexes in a difference order without introducing the chance of a deadlock. In terms of complexity, this approach scales poorly with the number of events.
It may be worth considering re-examining the program's flow and control structure. If it can be written to be primarily asynchronous, then callback chains, continuations, or a signal-and-slot system (Boost.Signals) may uncomplicate the solution. If one prefers to have asynchronous code read as if it was synchronous, then Boost.Asio's support for coroutines can provide a clean solution. Finally, if one needs to synchronously wait on an asynchronous operation's result or timeout, then consider using Boost.Asio's support for std::future or using them directly.
// Use an asynchronous operation so that it can be cancelled on timeout.
std::future<std::size_t> on_read = boost::asio::async_read_until(
socket, buffer, '\n',boost::asio::use_future);
// If timeout occurs, then cancel the operation.
if (on_read.wait_for(std::chrono::seconds(1)) == std::future_status::timeout)
{
socket.cancel();
}
// Otherwise, the operation completed (with success or error).
else
{
// If the operation failed, then on_read.get() will throw a
// boost::system::system_error.
auto bytes_transferred = on_read.get();
}
While I would strongly advocate re-examining the overall control structure and reducing variable scope, the following sample is roughly equivalent to the above example, but may be slightly easier to maintain with its use of std::future:
// I will eventually be interested when the server starts
// accepting connections, so start setting up now.
std::promise<void> server_started_promise;
auto server_started = server_started_promise.get_future();
std::thread server([&]()
{
// I will eventually be interested when the server reads
// data, so start setting up now.
std::promise<void> read_done_promise;
auto read_done = read_done_promise.get_future();
listener.async_accept(...,
[&](...)
{
// Got connection.
async_read_until(...,
[&](...)
{
// Someone may be interested that data has been read.
read_done_promise.set_value();
});
}); // async_accept
// Someone may be interested that I am accepting connections.
server_started_promise.set_value();
// I am now interested in if data has been read.
read_done.wait_for(...);
}); // server thread
// I am now interested in if the server has started.
server_started.wait();
Here is a complete example based on the original code that demonstrates using std::future to control flow and timeout asynchronous operations in a synchronous manner:
#include <future>
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <boost/asio.hpp>
#include <boost/asio/use_future.hpp>
#include <boost/optional.hpp>
#include <boost/utility/in_place_factory.hpp>
int main()
{
using boost::asio::ip::tcp;
// Setup server thread.
boost::asio::io_service server_io_service;
std::promise<tcp::endpoint> server_promise;
auto server_future = server_promise.get_future();
// Start server thread.
std::thread server_thread(
[&server_io_service, &server_promise]
{
tcp::acceptor acceptor(server_io_service);
acceptor.open(tcp::v4());
acceptor.set_option(
boost::asio::socket_base::enable_connection_aborted(true));
acceptor.bind(tcp::endpoint(tcp::v4(), 0));
acceptor.listen();
// Handlers will not chain work, so control the io_service with a work
// object.
boost::optional<boost::asio::io_service::work> work(
boost::in_place(std::ref(server_io_service)));
// Accept a connection.
tcp::socket server_socket(server_io_service);
auto on_accept = acceptor.async_accept(server_socket,
boost::asio::use_future);
// Server has started, so notify caller.
server_promise.set_value(acceptor.local_endpoint());
// Wait for connection or error.
boost::system::system_error error =
make_error_code(boost::system::errc::success);
try
{
on_accept.get();
}
catch (const boost::system::system_error& e)
{
error = e;
}
std::cout << "Server got a connection " << error.code() << std::endl;
// Read from connection.
boost::asio::streambuf buffer;
auto on_read = boost::asio::async_read_until(
server_socket, buffer, '\n', boost::asio::use_future);
// The async_read operation is work, so destroy the work object allowing
// run() to exit.
work = boost::none;
// Timeout the async read operation.
if (on_read.wait_for(std::chrono::seconds(1)) ==
std::future_status::timeout)
{
std::cout << "Server read timed out -- cancelling socket jobs"
<< std::endl;
server_socket.close();
}
else
{
error = make_error_code(boost::system::errc::success);
std::size_t bytes_transferred = 0;
try
{
bytes_transferred = on_read.get();
}
catch (const boost::system::system_error& e)
{
error = e;
}
std::cout << "Got " << bytes_transferred << ", "
<< error.code() << std::endl;
}
std::cout << "Exiting server thread" << std::endl;
});
// Wait for server to start accepting connections.
auto server_endpoint = server_future.get();
std::cout << "Server set up" << std::endl;
// Client thread.
std::promise<void> promise;
auto future = promise.get_future();
std::thread client_thread(
[&server_endpoint, &promise]
{
boost::asio::io_service io_service;
tcp::socket client_socket(io_service);
boost::system::error_code error;
client_socket.connect(server_endpoint, error);
std::cout << "Connected " << error << std::endl;
promise.set_value();
// Keep client socket alive, allowing server to timeout.
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(2));
std::cout << "Exiting client thread" << std::endl;
});
// Wait for client to connect.
future.get();
std::cout << "Client set up" << std::endl;
// Reset generic promise and future.
promise = std::promise<void>();
future = promise.get_future();
// Run server's io_service.
std::thread server_io_thread(
[&server_io_service, &promise]
{
std::cout << "About to service server IO requests" << std::endl;
try
{
server_io_service.run();
}
catch (const std::exception& e)
{
std::cout << "Exception caught: " << e.what() << std::endl;
}
std::cout << "Service jobs all run" << std::endl;
promise.set_value();
});
if (future.wait_for(std::chrono::seconds(3)) ==
std::future_status::timeout)
{
std::cout << "IO thread timed out servicing requests -- stopping it"
<< std::endl;
server_io_service.stop();
}
// Join all threads.
server_io_thread.join();
server_thread.join();
client_thread.join();
}
So of course this multi-threading is a tricky business. Turns out that in this case the read lock is acquired in the wrong place so the handler is being blocked by the thread waiting for it to complete.
I guess the lesson here is to never handle thread locks without some sort of time out.
I am not sure if my question is correct, but I have the following example, where the main thread creates two additional threads.
Since I am not using join command at the end of the main, it will continue execution and in the same time, the two created threads will work in parallel. But since the main is terminated before they finish their execution, I am getting the following output:
terminate called without an active exception
Aborted (core dumped)
Here's the code:
#include <iostream> // std::cout
#include <thread> // std::thread
#include <chrono>
void foo()
{
std::chrono::milliseconds dura( 2000 );
std::this_thread::sleep_for( dura );
std::cout << "Waited for 2Sec\n";
}
void bar(int x)
{
std::chrono::milliseconds dura( 4000 );
std::this_thread::sleep_for( dura );
std::cout << "Waited for 4Sec\n";
}
int main()
{
std::thread first (foo);
std::thread second (bar,0);
return 0;
}
So my question is how to keep these two threads working even if the main thread terminated?
I am asking this because in my main program, I have an event handler ,and for each event I create a corresponding thread. But the main problem when the handler creates a new thread, the handler will continue execution. Until it is destroyed which will cause also the newly created thread to be destroyed. So my question is how to keep the thread alive in this case?
Also if I use a join it will convert back to serialization.
void ho_commit_indication_handler(message &msg, const boost::system::error_code &ec)
{
.....
}
void event_handler(message &msg, const boost::system::error_code &ec)
{
if (ec)
{
log_(0, __FUNCTION__, " error: ", ec.message());
return;
}
switch (msg.mid())
{
case n2n_ho_commit:
{
boost::thread thrd(&ho_commit_indication_handler, boost::ref(msg), boost::ref(ec));
}
break
}
};
Thanks a lot.
Keeping the threads alive is a bad idea, because it causes a call to std::terminate. You should definitively join the threads:
int main()
{
std::thread first (foo);
std::thread second (bar, 0);
first.join();
second.join();
}
An alternative is to detach the threads. However you still need to assert that the main thread lives longer (by e.g. using a mutex / condition_variable).
This excerpt from the C++11 standard is relevant here:
15.5.1 The std::terminate() function [except.terminate]
1 In some situations exception handling must be abandoned for less subtle error
handling techniques. [ Note: These situations are:
[...]
-- when the destructor or the copy assignment operator is invoked on an
object of type std::thread that refers to a joinable thread
Hence, you have to call either join or detach on threads before scope exit.
Concerning your edit: You have to store the threads in a list (or similar) and wait for every one of them before main is done. A better idea would be to use a thread pool (because this limits the total number of threads created).