Alternate to setpriority(PRIO_PROCESS, thread_id, priority) - linux

Given - Thread id of a thread.
Requirement - Set Linux priority of the thread id.
Constraint - Cant use setpriority()
I have tried to use below
pthread_setschedprio(pthread_t thread, int prio);
pthread_setschedparam(pthread_t thread, int policy,
const struct sched_param *param);
Both the above APIs use pthread_t as an argument. I am not able to construct (typecast) pthread_t from thread id. I understand converting this is not possible due to different types.
Is there a way to still accomplish this ?

Some aspects of the pthread_setschedprio interface are available for plain thread IDs with the sched_setparam function (declared in <thread.h>). The sched_setparam manual page says that the process is affected (which is the POSIX-mandated behavior), but on Linux, it's actually the thread of that ID.
Keep in mind that calling sched_setparam directly may break the behavior expected from PI mutexes and other synchronization primitives because the direct call does not perform the additional bookkeeping performed by the pthread_* functions.

Related

get pthread_t from thread id

I am unable to find a function to convert a thread id (pid_t) into a pthread_t which would allow me to call pthread_cancel() or pthread_kill().
Even if pthreads doesn't provide one is there a Linux specific function?
I don't think such a function exists but I would be happy to be corrected.
Background
I am well aware that it is usually preferable to have threads manage their own lifetimes via condition variables and the like.
This use is for testing purposes. I am trying to find a way to test how an application behaves when one of its threads 'dies'. So I'm really looking for a way to kill a thread. Using syscall(tgkill()) kills the process, so instead I provided a means for a tester to give the process the id of the thread to kill. I now need to turn that id into a pthread_t so that I can then:
use pthread_kill(tid,0) to check for its existence followed by
calling pthread_kill() or pthread_cancel() as appropriate.
This is probably taking testing to an unnecessary extreme. If I really want to do that some kind of mock pthreads implementation might be better.
Indeed if you really want robust isolation you are typically better off using processes rather than threads.
I don't think such a function exists but I would be happy to be corrected.
As a workaround I can create a table mapping &pthread_t to pid_t and ensure that I always invoke pthread_create() via a wrapper that adds an entry to this table. This works very well and allows me to convert an OS thread id to a pthread_t which I can then terminate using pthread_cancel(). Here is a snippet of the mechanism:
typedef void* (*threadFunc)(void*);
static void* start_thread(void* arg)
{
threadFunc threadRoutine = routine_to_start;
record_thread_start(pthread_self(),syscall(SYS_gettid));
routine_to_start = NULL; //let creating thread know its safe to continue
return threadRoutine(arg);
}
Sensible conversion requires there to be a 1:1 mapping between pthread_t and pid_t tid, which is the case with NPTL, but hasn't always been the case, and won't be the case on every pthread platform. That said...
Two options:
A) override the actual pthread_create, using LD_PRELOAD and dlsym, and keep track of each pthread_t and their corresponding pid_t there. To get the thread pid_t you can either take advantage of the pthread private headers to de-opaque the pthread_t and access the pid_t inside there, or if you want to stick to documented APIs pthread_sigqueue each pthread_t thread as it is created and have a sigaction signal handler call gettid and pass you back the thread pid_t, with appropriate synchronisation between your new pthread_create and the signal handler[1].
B) You can read the all of the thread pid_t from /proc/<process pid_t>/task/. Then use the SYS_rt_tgsigqueueinfo[2] syscall to implement a new function thread_sigqueue, a pid_t variant of pthread_sigqueue so that you can signal the pid_t thread, and from the sigaction signal handler call pthread_self passing out the value with suitable synchronization, etc.
Notes:
1 - I think it's worth writing 2 executeOnThread variants (one for pthread_t and one for pid_t style thread ids) that take a std::function<void()> (for C++), or a void(*)(void*) function pointer and void* parameter (for C), and SIGUSR1 that thread to execute the passed function in a sigaction that you also setup to perform relevant synchronization with the calling thread. It's handy to be able to use the thread-dependent APIs like pthread_self, gettid, backtrace, getrusage, etc. without devising a custom execution scheme each time.
2 - SYS_rt_tgsigqueueinfo is a low level syscall meant for implementing sigqueue/pthread_sigqueue, rather than application use, but is still a documented API, and we're using it to implement another variant of sigqueue, so fair game IMHO.

Use a Monitor like a Semaphore?

When using monitors for most concurrency problems, you can just put the critical section inside a monitor method and then invoke the method. However, there are some multiplexing problems wherein up to n threads can run their critical sections simultaneously. So we can say that it's useful to know how to use a monitor like the following:
monitor.enter();
runCriticalSection();
monitor.exit();
What can we use inside the monitors so we can go about doing this?
Side question: Are there standard resources tackling this? Most of what I read involve only putting the critical section inside the monitor. For semaphores there is "The Little Book of Semaphores".
As far as I understand your question, any solution must satisfy this:
When fewer than n threads are in the critical section, a thread calling monitor.enter() should not blockā€”i.e. the only thing preventing it from progressing should be the whims of the scheduler.
At most n threads are in the critical section at any point in time; implying that
When thread n+1 calls monitor.enter(), it must block until a thread calls monitor.exit().
As far as I can tell, your requirements are equivalent to this:
The "monitor" is a semaphore with an initial value of n.
monitor.enter() is semaphore.prolaag() (aka P, decrement or wait)
monitor.exit() is semaphore.verhoog() (aka V, increment or signal)
So here it is, a semaphore implemented from a monitor:
monitor Semaphore(n):
int capacity = n
method enter:
while capacity == 0: wait()
capacity -= 1
method exit:
capacity += 1
signal()
Use it like this:
shared state:
monitor = Semaphore(n)
each thread:
monitor.enter()
runCriticalSection()
monitor.exit()
The other path
I guess that you might want some kind of syntactic wrapper, let's call it Multimonitor, so you can write something like this:
Multimonitor(n):
method critical_section_a:
<statements>
method critical_section_b:
<statements>
And your run-time environment would ensure that at most n threads are active inside any of the monitor methods (in your case you just wanted one method). I know of no such feature in any programming language or runtime environment.
Perhaps in python you can create a Multimonitor class containing all the book-keeping variables, then subclass from it and put decorators on all the methods; a metaclass-involving solution might be able to do the decorating for the user.
The third option
If you implement monitors using semaphores, you're often using a semaphore as a mutex around monitor entry and resume points. I think you could initialize such a semaphore with a value larger than one and thereby produce such a Multimonitor, complete with wait() and signal() on condition variables. But: it would do more than what you need in your stated question, and if you use semaphores, why not just use them in the basic and straightforward way?

pthread concepts in linux

I have some questions about pthreads in linux:
Is it the case that pthread_t is it a datatype similar to int and char indicating we are defining a thread?
If so, how much size does it take? 2 bytes or 4 bytes?
Does the compiler allocate memory to pthread_t thread1 immediately after that statement or does it wait until it a pthread_create() call?
How does one set the thread attributes, and what is their typical use?
Can one only pass more than one argument in the pthread_create() call? If so, how?
I have lots of things on my mind like this. Please also feel free to suggest any good sites or documents to read.
Answering the questions one by one, though not necessarily in the same order:
Is pthread_t a data type similar to int or char, indicating we are defining a thread ? Does the compiler allocate memory to pthread_t thread1 immediately after that sentence or does it wait until it finds the pthread_create() call
pthread_t is a type similar to int and it's created when you define it, not when you call pthread_create. In the snippet:
pthread_t tid;
int x = pthread_create (&tid, blah, blah, blah);
it's the first line that creates the variable, although it doesn't hold anything useful until the return from pthread_create.
How much size does a pthread_t take, 2 bytes or 4 bytes?
You shouldn't care how much space it takes, any more than you should care how much space is taken by a FILE structure. You should just use the structure as intended. If you really want to know, then sizeof is your friend.
Any good information about how to set the thread attributes?
If you want to use anything other than default attributes, you have to create an attributes variable first and then pass that to the pthread_create call.
Can we only pass one argument in the pthread_create function to the function? Can't we send 2 or 3 arguments in the pthread_create() function to the called thread?
While you're only allowed to pass one extra parameter to the thread , there's nothing stopping you from making this one parameter a pointer to a structure holding a hundred different things.
If you're looking for information on how to use pthreads, there's plenty of stuff at the end of a Google search but I still prefer the dead-tree version myself:
how much size does it take
pthread_t uses sizeof pthread_t bytes.
and we can only pass one argument in the pthread_create to the function not more than one? cant we send 2 or 3 arguments in the pthread_create() function to the called thread?
All you need is one argument. All you get is one argument. It's a void * so you can pass a pointer to whatever you want. Such as a structure containing multiple values.
i have lots of things on my mind like this suggest any good sites or documents to read
Have a look at the pthread man pages, online or in your shell of choice (man pthread, man pthread_create, etc.). I started out reading some basic lecture slides (here's the sequel).
pthread_t could be any number of bytes. It could be a char, an int, a pointer, or a struct... But you neither need to know nor to care. If you need the size for allocation purposes, you use sizeof(pthread_t). The only type of variable you can assign it to is another pthread_t.
The compiler may or may not allocate the resources associated with the thread when you define a pthread_t. Again, you do not need to know nor to care, because you are required to call pthread_join (or pthread_detach) on any thread you create. As long as you follow the rules, the system will make sure it does not leak memory (or any other resource).
Attributes are admittedly a bit clumsy. They are held in an pthread_attr_t object, which again could be represented as an integer, pointer, or entire struct. You have to initialize it with pthread_attr_init and destroy it with pthread_attr_destroy. Between those two, you use various pthread_attr_... calls to set or clear attributes, and then you can pass it as part of one or more pthread_create calls to set the attributes of the new threads.
Different implementations can and will handle all of these things differently.
LLNL has a decent set of introductory information.
Look into pthread.h file to get more information. On my system, pthread_t is defined as an unsigned long int. But I guess this is platform dependent, since it is defined into bits/pthreadtype.h.

what is the "attribute" of a pthread mutex?

The function pthread_mutex_init allows you to specify a pointer to an attribute. But I have yet to find a good explanation of what pthread attributes are. I have always just supplied NULL. Is there a use to this argument?
The documentation, for those of you who forget it:
PTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT(3) BSD Library
Functions Manual
PTHREAD_MUTEX_INIT(3)
NAME
pthread_mutex_init -- create a mutex
SYNOPSIS
#include <pthread.h>
int
pthread_mutex_init(pthread_mutex_t *restrict mutex,
const pthread_mutexattr_t *restrict attr);
DESCRIPTION
The pthread_mutex_init() function creates a new mutex, with attributes
specified
with attr. If attr is NULL, the default attributes are used.
The best place to find that information is from the POSIX standards pages.
A NULL mutex attribute gives you an implementation defined default attribute. If you want to know what you can do with attributes, check out the following reference and follow the pthread_mutexattr_* links in the SEE ALSO section. Usually, the default is a sensible set of attributes but it may vary between platforms, so I prefer to explicitly create mutexes with known attributes (better for portability).
This is for issue 7 of the standard, 1003.1-2008. The starting point for that is here. Clicking on Headers in the bottom left will allow you to navigate to the specific functionality (including pthreads.h).
The attributes allow you to set or get:
the type (deadlocking, deadlock-detecting, recursive, etc).
the robustness (what happens when you acquire a mutex and the original owner died while possessing it).
the process-shared attribute (for sharing a mutex across process boundaries).
the protocol (how a thread behaves in terms of priority when a higher-priority thread wants the mutex).
the priority ceiling (the priority at which the critical section will run, a way of preventing priority inversion).
And, for completeness, there's the init and destroy calls as well, not directly related to a specific attribute but used to create them.
All mutex attributes are set in a mutex attribute object by a function of the form:
int pthread_mutexattr_setname(pthread_attr_t *attr, Type t);
All mutex attributes are retrieved from a mutex attribute object by a function of the form:
int pthread_mutexattr_getname(const pthread_attr_t *attr, Type *t);
where name and Type are defined as in the table below:
Type and Name Description and Value(s)
int protocol Define the scheduling classes for mutex locks
PTHREAD_PRIO_NONE,PTHREAD_PRIO_PROTECT,
PTHREAD_PRIO_INHERIT
int pshared Defines whether a mutex is shared with other processes.
PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED, PTHREAD_PROCESS_PRIVATE
int prioceiling Used for mutex attribute priority ceiling values.
See POSIX.1 section 13
int type Application defined mutex locking
PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL,PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE,
PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK,PTHREAD_MUTEX_DEFAULT
If you scroll down the function listing for <pthread.h>, you will find a bunch of pthread_mutexattr_... functions, including an init, destroy and functions to set various attributes of a mutex. When you pass NULL, the mutex is created with suitable defaults for all these attributes, but if you need to modify specific attributes, you can construct a pthread_mutexattr_t structure and pass it in.
Applying NULL to this argument implies using the default argument.
So for some reasons you could want to change these default settings (using pthread_mutexattr_init).
The documentation explains all you need about these mutex settings.

Can I prevent a Linux user space pthread yielding in critical code?

I am working on an user space app for an embedded Linux project using the 2.6.24.3 kernel.
My app passes data between two file nodes by creating 2 pthreads that each sleep until a asynchronous IO operation completes at which point it wakes and runs a completion handler.
The completion handlers need to keep track of how many transfers are pending and maintain a handful of linked lists that one thread will add to and the other will remove.
// sleep here until events arrive or time out expires
for(;;) {
no_of_events = io_getevents(ctx, 1, num_events, events, &timeout);
// Process each aio event that has completed or thrown an error
for (i=0; i<no_of_events; i++) {
// Get pointer to completion handler
io_complete = (io_callback_t) events[i].data;
// Get pointer to data object
iocb = (struct iocb *) events[i].obj;
// Call completion handler and pass it the data object
io_complete(ctx, iocb, events[i].res, events[i].res2);
}
}
My question is this...
Is there a simple way I can prevent the currently active thread from yielding whilst it runs the completion handler rather than going down the mutex/spin lock route?
Or failing that can Linux be configured to prevent yielding a pthread when a mutex/spin lock is held?
You can use the sched_setscheduler() system call to temporarily set the thread's scheduling policy to SCHED_FIFO, then set it back again. From the sched_setscheduler() man page:
A SCHED_FIFO process runs until either
it is blocked by an I/O request, it is
preempted by a higher priority
process, or it calls sched_yield(2).
(In this context, "process" actually means "thread").
However, this is quite a suspicious requirement. What is the problem you are hoping to solve? If you are just trying to protect your linked list of completion handlers from concurrent access, then an ordinary mutex is the way to go. Have the completion thread lock the mutex, remove the list item, unlock the mutex, then call the completion handler.
I think you'll want to use mutexes/locks to prevent race conditions here. Mutexes are by no way voodoo magic and can even make your code simpler than using arbitrary system-specific features, which you'd need to potentially port across systems. Don't know if the latter is an issue for you, though.
I believe you are trying to outsmart the Linux scheduler here, for the wrong reasons.
The correct solution is to use a mutex to prevent completion handlers from running in parallel. Let the scheduler do its job.

Resources