C++11 non-blocking, long-running, producer consumer threads - multithreading

I am trying to teach myself C++11 threading, and I would like to start a background producer thread at the beginning of the application, and have it run until application exit. I would also like to have consumer thread (which also runs for the life of the application).
A real-world example would be a producer thread listening on a Com port for incoming GPS data. Once a full message had been accumulated, it could be parsed to see if it was a message of interest, then converted into a string (say), and 'delivered back' to be consumed (update current location, for example).
My issue is I haven't been able to figure out how to do this without blocking the rest of the application when I 'join()' on the consumer thread.
Here is my very simplified example that hopefully shows my issues:
#include <QCoreApplication>
#include <QDebug>
#include <thread>
#include <atomic>
#include <iostream>
#include <queue>
#include <mutex>
#include <chrono>
#include "threadsafequeuetwo.h"
ThreadSafeQueueTwo<int> goods;
std::mutex mainMutex;
std::atomic<bool> isApplicationRunning = false;
void theProducer ()
{
std::atomic<int> itr = 0;
while(isApplicationRunning)
{
// Simulate this taking some time...
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(60));
// Push the "produced" value onto the queue...
goods.push(++itr);
// Diagnostic printout only...
if ((itr % 10) == 0)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mainMutex);
std::cout << "PUSH " << itr << " on thread ID: "
<< std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
}
// Thread ending logic.
if (itr > 100) isApplicationRunning = false;
}
}
void theConsumer ()
{
while(isApplicationRunning || !goods.empty())
{
int val;
// Wait on new values, and 'pop' when available...
goods.waitAndPop(val);
// Here, we would 'do something' with the new values...
// Simulate this taking some time...
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(10));
// Diagnostic printout only...
if ((val % 10) == 0)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mainMutex);
std::cout << "POP " << val << " on thread ID: "
<< std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
}
}
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
std::cout << "MAIN running on thread ID: "
<< std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
// This varaiable gets set to true at startup, and,
// would only get set to false when the application
// wants to exit.
isApplicationRunning = true;
std::thread producerThread (theProducer);
std::thread consumerThread (theConsumer);
producerThread.detach();
consumerThread.join(); // BLOCKS!!! - how to get around this???
std::cout << "MAIN ending on thread ID: "
<< std::this_thread::get_id() << std::endl;
}
The ThreadSafeQueueTwo class is the thread safe queue implementation taken almost exactly as is from the "C++ Concurrency In Action" book. This seems to work just fine. Here it is if anybody is interested:
#ifndef THREADSAFEQUEUETWO_H
#define THREADSAFEQUEUETWO_H
#include <queue>
#include <memory>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
template<typename T>
class ThreadSafeQueueTwo
{
public:
ThreadSafeQueueTwo()
{}
ThreadSafeQueueTwo(ThreadSafeQueueTwo const& rhs)
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(myMutex);
myQueue = rhs.myQueue;
}
void push(T newValue)
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(myMutex);
myQueue.push(newValue);
myCondVar.notify_one();
}
void waitAndPop(T& value)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(myMutex);
myCondVar.wait(lock, [this]{return !myQueue.empty(); });
value = myQueue.front();
myQueue.pop();
}
std::shared_ptr<T> waitAndPop()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(myMutex);
myCondVar.wait(lock, [this]{return !myQueue.empty(); });
std::shared_ptr<T> sharedPtrToT (std::make_shared<T>(myQueue.front()));
myQueue.pop();
return sharedPtrToT;
}
bool tryPop(T& value)
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(myMutex);
if (myQueue.empty())
return false;
value = myQueue.front();
myQueue.pop();
return true;
}
std::shared_ptr<T> tryPop()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(myMutex);
if (myQueue.empty())
return std::shared_ptr<T>();
std::shared_ptr<T> sharedPtrToT (std::make_shared<T>(myQueue.front()));
myQueue.pop();
return sharedPtrToT;
}
bool empty()
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(myMutex);
return myQueue.empty();
}
private:
mutable std::mutex myMutex;
std::queue<T> myQueue;
std::condition_variable myCondVar;
};
#endif // THREADSAFEQUEUETWO_H
Here's the output:
I know there are obvious issues with my example, but my main question is how would I run something like this in the background, without blocking the main thread?
Perhaps an even better way of trying to solve this is, is there a way that every time the producer has 'produced' some new data, could I simply call a method in the main thread, passing in the new data? This would be similar to queued signal/slots it Qt, which I am big fan of.

Related

Multithreaded Producer/Consumer in C++

I am looking at multithreading and written a basic producer/consumer. I have two issues with the producer/consumer written below. 1) Even by setting the consumer sleep time lower than the producer sleep time, the producer still seems to execute quicker. 2) In the consumer I have duplicated the code in the case where the producer finishes adding to the queue, but there is still elements in the queue. Any advise for a better way of structuring the code?
#include <iostream>
#include <queue>
#include <mutex>
class App {
private:
std::queue<int> m_data;
bool m_bFinished;
std::mutex m_Mutex;
int m_ConsumerSleep;
int m_ProducerSleep;
int m_QueueSize;
public:
App(int &MaxQueue) :m_bFinished(false), m_ConsumerSleep(1), m_ProducerSleep(5), m_QueueSize(MaxQueue){}
void Producer() {
for (int i = 0; i < m_QueueSize; ++i) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(m_Mutex);
m_data.push(i);
std::cout << "Producer Thread, queue size: " << m_data.size() << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(m_ProducerSleep));
}
m_bFinished = true;
}
void Consumer() {
while (!m_bFinished) {
if (m_data.size() > 0) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(m_Mutex);
std::cout << "Consumer Thread, queue element: " << m_data.front() << " size: " << m_data.size() << std::endl;
m_data.pop();
}
else {
std::cout << "No elements, skipping" << std::endl;
}
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(m_ConsumerSleep));
}
while (m_data.size() > 0) {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(m_Mutex);
std::cout << "Emptying remaining elements " << m_data.front() << std::endl;
m_data.pop();
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(m_ConsumerSleep));
}
}
};
int main()
{
int QueueElements = 10;
App app(QueueElements);
std::thread consumer_thread(&App::Consumer, &app);
std::thread producer_thread(&App::Producer, &app);
producer_thread.join();
consumer_thread.join();
std::cout << "loop exited" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
You should use condition_variable. Don't use sleep for threads.
Main scheme:
Producer pushes value under lock and signals condition_variable.
Consumer waits under lock on condition variable and checks predicate to prevent spurious wakeups.
My version:
#include <iostream>
#include <queue>
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <atomic>
class App {
private:
std::queue<int> m_data;
std::atomic_bool m_bFinished;
std::mutex m_Mutex;
std::condition_variable m_cv;
int m_QueueSize;
public:
App(int MaxQueue)
: m_bFinished(false)
, m_QueueSize(MaxQueue)
{}
void Producer()
{
for (int i = 0; i < m_QueueSize; ++i)
{
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m_Mutex);
m_data.push(i);
}
m_cv.notify_one();
std::cout << "Producer Thread, queue size: " << m_data.size() << std::endl;
}
m_bFinished = true;
}
void Consumer()
{
do
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(m_Mutex);
while (m_data.empty())
{
m_cv.wait(lock, [&](){ return !m_data.empty(); }); // predicate an while loop - protection from spurious wakeups
}
while(!m_data.empty()) // consume all elements from queue
{
std::cout << "Consumer Thread, queue element: " << m_data.front() << " size: " << m_data.size() << std::endl;
m_data.pop();
}
} while(!m_bFinished);
}
};
int main()
{
int QueueElements = 10;
App app(QueueElements);
std::thread consumer_thread(&App::Consumer, &app);
std::thread producer_thread(&App::Producer, &app);
producer_thread.join();
consumer_thread.join();
std::cout << "loop exited" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
Also note, that it's better to use atomic for end flag, when you have deal with concurrent threads, because theoretically value of the m_bFinished will be stored in the cache-line and if there is no cache invalidation in the producer thread, the changed value can be unseen from the consumer thread. Atomics have memory fences, that guarantees, that value will be updated for other threads.
Also you can take a look on memory_order page.
First, you should use a condition variable instead of a delay on the consumer. This way, the consumer thread only wakes up when the queue is not empty and the producer notifies it.
That said, the reason why your producer calls are more frequent is the delay on the producer thread. It's executed while holding the mutex, so the consumer will never execute until the delay is over. You should release the mutex before calling sleep_for:
for (int i = 0; i < m_QueueSize; ++i) {
/* Introduce a scope to release the mutex before sleeping*/
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(m_Mutex);
m_data.push(i);
std::cout << "Producer Thread, queue size: " << m_data.size() << std::endl;
} // Mutex is released here
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(m_ProducerSleep));
}

How to determine if condition_variable::wait_for timed out

I have a class which allows to wait on a condition_variable taking care of the spurious wake ups. Following is the code:
Code:
// CondVarWrapper.hpp
#pragma once
#include <mutex>
#include <chrono>
#include <condition_variable>
class CondVarWrapper {
public:
void Signal() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> unique_lock(mutex);
cond_var_signalled = true;
unique_lock.unlock();
cond_var.notify_one();
}
// TODO: WaitFor needs to return false if timed out waiting
bool WaitFor(const std::chrono::seconds timeout) {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> unique_lock(mutex);
bool timed_out = false;
// How to determine if wait_for timed out ?
cond_var.wait_for(unique_lock, timeout, [this] {
return cond_var_signalled;
});
cond_var_signalled = false;
return timed_out;
}
void Wait() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> unique_lock(mutex);
cond_var.wait(unique_lock, [this] {
return cond_var_signalled;
});
cond_var_signalled = false;
}
private:
bool cond_var_signalled = false;
std::mutex mutex;
std::condition_variable cond_var;
};
// main.cpp
#include "CondVarWrapper.hpp"
#include <iostream>
#include <string>
#include <thread>
int main() {
CondVarWrapper cond_var_wrapper;
std::thread my_thread = std::thread([&cond_var_wrapper]{
std::cout << "Thread started" << std::endl;
if (cond_var_wrapper.WaitFor(std::chrono::seconds(1))) {
std::cout << "Wait ended before timeout" << std::endl;
} else {
std::cout << "Timed out waiting" << std::endl;
}
});
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(6));
// Uncomment following line to see the timeout working
cond_var_wrapper.Signal();
my_thread.join();
}
Question:
In the method WaitFor, I need to determine if cond_var timed out waiting? How do I do that? WaitFor should return false when it timed out waiting else it should return true. Is that possible?
I see cv_status explained on cppreference but struggling to find a good expample of how to use it.

How would I stop a std::thread in a controlled manner

I have a program where I start multiple, long running threads (such as a REST-API). On primed signals (e.g SIGHUP) I would like to be able to shut down all threads cleanly (by waiting for them to exit). Below follows some code from a thispointer article that illustrated a good idea on how to do this
#include <thread>
#include <iostream>
#include <assert.h>
#include <chrono>
#include <future>
void threadFunction(std::future<void> futureObj)
{
std::cout << "Thread Start" << std::endl;
while (futureObj.wait_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1)) ==
std::future_status::timeout)
{
std::cout << "Doing Some Work" << std::endl;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(1000));
}
std::cout << "Thread End" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
// Create a std::promise object
std::promise<void> exitSignal;
//Fetch std::future object associated with promise
std::future<void> futureObj = exitSignal.get_future();
// Starting Thread & move the future object in lambda function by reference
std::thread th(&threadFunction, std::move(futureObj));
//Wait for 10 sec
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::seconds(10));
std::cout << "Asking Thread to Stop" << std::endl;
//Set the value in promise
exitSignal.set_value();
//Wait for thread to join
th.join();
std::cout << "Exiting Main Function" << std::endl;
return 0;
}
However, as one might have noticed this concept has a critical drawback: the exitSignal will have to be emitted before th.join() is called.
In a situation where one wants to listen to a signal, e.g using signal(SIGHUP, callback) this is of course impractical.
My question is: are there better concepts for shutting down multiple threads? How would I go about them? I think using a promise is not a bad idea, I just haven't found a way with it to solve my problem.
You can use std::notify_all_at_thread_exit() on a std::condition_variable.
Here is an example:
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
#include <condition_variable>
#include <cassert>
#include <string>
std::mutex m;
std::condition_variable cv;
bool ready = false;
std::string result; // some arbitrary type
void thread_func()
{
thread_local std::string thread_local_data = "42";
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
// assign a value to result using thread_local data
result = thread_local_data;
ready = true;
std::notify_all_at_thread_exit(cv, std::move(lk));
} // 1. destroy thread_locals;
// 2. unlock mutex;
// 3. notify cv.
int main()
{
std::thread t(thread_func);
t.detach();
// do other work
// ...
// wait for the detached thread
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(m);
cv.wait(lk, [] { return ready; });
// result is ready and thread_local destructors have finished, no UB
assert(result == "42");
}
Source: cppreference.com

Can't exit exec loop in Qt

Well, I have created a program which picks up the input signal from serial input. I can successfully receive the data transmitted from the device through UART. I want to terminate the thread after achieving certain conditions( such as receiving more than 5 bytes, etc.) I think the problem is how to terminate the thread in Qt correctly, but I couldn't find the way. The program seems falls into deadlock after calling the exec() in the sub function. Can anyone help with that problem? Thank you very much!
Here's my header file:
#ifndef SERIALTHREAD
#define SERIALTHREAD
#include <QtSerialPort/QSerialPort>
#include <QDebug>
#include <QString>
#include <QThread>
#include <QtCore>
#include <iostream>
#include <fstream>
class SerialControlThread : public QThread
{
Q_OBJECT
public:
explicit SerialControlThread(QString ComPort,QObject *parent = 0);
~SerialControlThread(); // Destructor
bool openSerialPort();
void closeSerialPort();
void run();
bool TelltoExit();
void StarttoRun();
private:
int DataCount;
QString ComPortNumber;
QSerialPort *serial;
int* VoltageStorage; // Total 3 channels, each channel takes 10 data
unsigned int Channel_A[10]; // Channel_A is for Phase Tx s
int DataCountIndexA; // This is how many data has been sent to the buffer;
int SentDataCount;
unsigned char StoreDataBuffer[2];
unsigned char TotalDataCounter;
std::ofstream write;
signals:
void BufferisFull(int*);
void TimeToQuit();
public slots:
private slots:
void readData();
void handleError(QSerialPort::SerialPortError error);
};
#endif // SERIALTHREAD
This is the.cpp
#include "serialcontrol.h"
#include <iostream>
SerialControlThread::SerialControlThread(QString ComPort,QObject *parent) :
QThread(parent),ComPortNumber(ComPort)
{
DataCountIndexA=0;
DataCount=0;
serial = new QSerialPort(this);
connect(this,SIGNAL(TimeToQuit()),this,SLOT(quit()));\
connect(serial, SIGNAL(readyRead()), this, SLOT(readData()));
connect(serial, SIGNAL(error(QSerialPort::SerialPortError)), this,
SLOT(handleError(QSerialPort::SerialPortError)));
for (int i=0;i<10;i++)
Channel_A[i]=0;
}
SerialControlThread::~SerialControlThread()
{
this->closeSerialPort();
delete serial;
}
bool SerialControlThread::openSerialPort()
{
// std::cout << "Hey I am in serial function" << std::endl;
serial->setPortName(ComPortNumber) ;
serial->setBaudRate(QSerialPort::Baud9600); //This can be set through menu in the future
serial->setDataBits(QSerialPort::Data8); // A packets contains 8 bits ( 3 for signature bits)
serial->setParity(QSerialPort::NoParity);
serial->setStopBits(QSerialPort::OneStop);
serial->setFlowControl(QSerialPort::NoFlowControl);
if (!(serial->open(QIODevice::ReadWrite))) {
return false; // return false when the device can't be opened
}else
{
return true;} // return true when the device is avalaible
}
void SerialControlThread::closeSerialPort()
{
if (serial->isOpen())
serial->close();
}
void SerialControlThread::handleError(QSerialPort::SerialPortError error)
{
}
void SerialControlThread::readData()
{
QByteArray data=serial->read(100);
const char *TempChar=data.data();
std::cout << TempChar << std::endl;
DataCount++;
if(DataCount>=4)
{
std::cout << "I am bigger than 4" << std::endl;
this->quit();
}
}
}
void SerialControlThread::run()
{
}
bool SerialControlThread::TelltoExit()
{
}
void SerialControlThread::StarttoRun()
{
// Sending the msp430 S to activate the following sequence
const char *temp="S";
serial->write(temp);
serial->waitForBytesWritten(30000);
this->exec();
}
This is the main.cpp
#include <QCoreApplication>
#include <QtSerialPort/QSerialPortInfo>
#include <QList>
#include <iostream>
#include <QString>
#include <QDebug>
#include <QSerialPort>
#include "serialcontrol.h"
using namespace std;
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
QCoreApplication a(argc, argv);
int AvailablePorts=QSerialPortInfo::availablePorts().count();
QList<QSerialPortInfo> SerialObject=QSerialPortInfo::availablePorts();
cout << "There are total: " << SerialObject.count() << " available ports " << endl << endl;
QString description;
for (int i=0;i<AvailablePorts;i++)
{
cout << "The " << i+1 << " com port is :";
qDebug() << SerialObject[i].portName();
qDebug() << "Description : " << SerialObject[i].description();
qDebug() << "Manufacturer: " << SerialObject[i].manufacturer();
cout << endl;
}
SerialControlThread *RunThread=new SerialControlThread(SerialObject[0].portName(),&a);
cout << RunThread->openSerialPort() << endl;
RunThread->StarttoRun();
cout << "I am out of here" << endl;
delete RunThread;
return a.exec();
}
I wish to close the thread( back to the main function) when the buffer has received more than 4 data, but it doesn't.
It is my output
There are total: 1 available ports
The 1 com port is :"COM8"
Description : "MSP430 Application UART"
Manufacturer: "Texas Instruments"
1
0
1
2
3
I am bigger than 4
4
I am bigger than 4
5
I am bigger than 4
6
I am bigger than 4
7
I am bigger than 4
8
I am bigger than 4
9
I am bigger than 4
Apparently, the program gets stuck in a loop. I have tried some solutions, but none of these worked.
StartToRun calls QThread::exec in the wrong thread: you call it in the main thread, but it's supposed to be called in the thread itself - from within run().
Alas, SerialControlThread doesn't have to be a thread. Making it a thread forces it to be used in a dedicated thread - that should be a choice left to its user. Perhaps the thread would be shared among other serial controllers, or perhaps it'll do just fine in the main thread. Thus, it should be an object that handles serial data, that has a thread-safe interface so that you can move it to another thread if you wish - but would still work fine in the main thread, and thus has to handle data asynchronously without blocking.
Considering whether one needs to control the worker thread's run status so tightly: an idle thread consumes no resources - its event loop is blocked waiting on new events, its stack eventually gets paged out if there's memory pressure. If one intends to "wake" the thread for each operation, there's no need to be explicit about it: the event loop in the thread behaves that way be default and by design: it wakes when there are new events, such as incoming data, otherwise it sleeps. One shouldn't be stopping the thread then.
The example below shows a very minimal implementation. On the whole it's not very useful other than to demonstrate brevity as a contrast to the length of code in the question - in spite of identical limited functionality. Presumably you have a more complex communications protocol that you wish to handle. You may wish to consider the use of QDataStream read transactions to make the reader code more expressive, and using a state machine to represent the protocol.
// https://github.com/KubaO/stackoverflown/tree/master/questions/serial-galore-42241570
#include <QtWidgets>
#include <QtSerialPort>
// See https://stackoverflow.com/q/40382820/1329652
template <typename Fun> void safe(QObject * obj, Fun && fun) {
Q_ASSERT(obj->thread() || qApp && qApp->thread() == QThread::currentThread());
if (Q_LIKELY(obj->thread() == QThread::currentThread() || !obj->thread()))
return fun();
struct Event : public QEvent {
using F = typename std::decay<Fun>::type;
F fun;
Event(F && fun) : QEvent(QEvent::None), fun(std::move(fun)) {}
Event(const F & fun) : QEvent(QEvent::None), fun(fun) {}
~Event() { fun(); }
};
QCoreApplication::postEvent(
obj->thread() ? obj : qApp, new Event(std::forward<Fun>(fun)));
}
class SerialController : public QObject {
Q_OBJECT
QSerialPort m_port{this};
QByteArray m_rxData;
void onError(QSerialPort::SerialPortError error) {
Q_UNUSED(error);
}
void onData(const QByteArray & data) {
m_rxData.append(data);
qDebug() << "Got" << m_rxData.toHex() << "(" << m_rxData.size() << ") - done.";
emit hasReply(m_rxData);
}
void onData() {
if (m_port.bytesAvailable() >= 4)
onData(m_port.readAll());
}
public:
explicit SerialController(const QString & port, QObject * parent = nullptr) :
QObject{parent}
{
m_port.setPortName(port);
connect(&m_port, static_cast<void(QSerialPort::*)(QSerialPort::SerialPortError)>(&QSerialPort::error),
this, &SerialController::onError);
}
~SerialController() { qDebug() << __FUNCTION__; }
bool open() {
m_port.setBaudRate(QSerialPort::Baud9600);
m_port.setDataBits(QSerialPort::Data8);
m_port.setParity(QSerialPort::NoParity);
m_port.setStopBits(QSerialPort::OneStop);
m_port.setFlowControl(QSerialPort::NoFlowControl);
return m_port.open(QIODevice::ReadWrite);
}
/// This method is thread-safe.
void start() {
safe(this, [=]{
m_port.write("S");
qDebug() << "Sent data";
});
}
Q_SIGNAL void hasReply(const QByteArray &);
void injectData(const QByteArray & data) {
onData(data);
}
};
QDebug operator<<(QDebug dbg, const QSerialPortInfo & info) {
dbg << info.portName();
if (!info.description().isEmpty())
dbg << " Description: " << info.description();
if (!info.manufacturer().isEmpty())
dbg << " Manufacturer: " << info.manufacturer();
return dbg;
}
// A thread that starts on construction, and is always safe to destruct.
class RunningThread : public QThread {
Q_OBJECT
using QThread::run; // final
public:
RunningThread(QObject * parent = nullptr) : QThread(parent) { start(); }
~RunningThread() { qDebug() << __FUNCTION__; quit(); wait(); }
};
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
QCoreApplication app(argc, argv);
auto const ports = QSerialPortInfo::availablePorts();
if (ports.isEmpty())
qFatal("No serial ports");
int n{};
qDebug() << "Available ports:";
for (auto & port : ports)
qDebug() << "port[" << n++ << "]: " << port;
SerialController ctl{ports.at(5).portName()};
if (!ctl.open())
qFatal("Open Failed");
// Optional: the controller will work fine in the main thread.
if (true) ctl.moveToThread(new RunningThread{&ctl}); // Owns its thread
// Let's pretend we got a reply;
QTimer::singleShot(1000, &ctl, [&ctl]{
ctl.injectData("ABCD");
});
QObject::connect(&ctl, &SerialController::hasReply, ctl.thread(), &QThread::quit);
QObject::connect(&ctl, &SerialController::hasReply, [&]{
qDebug() << "The controller is done, quitting.";
app.quit();
});
ctl.start();
return app.exec();
}
#include "main.moc"

C++11 joining the first thread that finished

Is there a way to start two (or more) C++11 threads and join() the first one that is finished?
An example scenario:
#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
using namespace std;
void prepare_item1() {std::cout << "Preparing 1" << std::endl;}
void consume_item1() {std::cout << "Consuming 1" << std::endl;}
void prepare_item2() {std::cout << "Preparing 2" << std::endl;}
void consume_item2() {std::cout << "Consuming 2" << std::endl;}
int main()
{
std::thread t1(prepare_item1);
std::thread t2(prepare_item2);
t1.join();
consume_item1();
t2.join();
consume_item2();
return 0;
}
I would have liked to do something like that instead:
int main()
{
std::thread t1(prepare_item1);
std::thread t2(prepare_item2);
finished_id=join_any(t1,t2)
if (finished_id==1)
{
consume_item1();
...
}
else if (finished_id==2)
{
consume_item2();
...
}
return 0;
}
Also, I would like the solution to be blocking, similar to the t.join() function.
Note: The real reason I need this is that I have two different blocking functions from which I receive commands, and whenever any of them is ready I would like to process the first command that arrives and continue to the next one when it is done. (sequential processing of commands from two parallel sources)
Thanks!
Here is a thread-safe multi-producer multi-consumer queue:
template<class T>
struct safe_queue {
std::deque<T> data;
std::atomic<bool> abort_flag = false;
std::mutex guard;
std::condition_variable signal;
template<class...Args>
void send( Args&&...args ) {
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(guard);
data.emplace_back(std::forward<Args>(args)...);
}
signal.notify_one();
}
void abort() {
abort_flag = true; // 1a
{ std::unique_lock<std::mutex>{guard}; }
signal.notify_all(); // 1b
}
std::experimental::optional<T> get() {
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(guard);
signal.wait( l, [this]()->bool{ // 2b
return !data.empty() || abort_flag.load(); // 2c
});
if (abort_flag.load()) return {};
T retval = std::move(data.front());
data.pop_front();
return retval;
}
};
have the threads shove data into the queue, and the main thread do a .get() on it.
If abort() is called, all waiting threads are woken up with an "empty" value from .get().
It uses std::experimental::optional, but you can replace that with something else (throw on abort? Whatever).
Code modified slightly from this other answer. Note that I think the other answer has some errors in it, which I corrected above, and attempts to solve a different problem.
The message you send could be the id of the thread that is ready to be waited upon, for example, or the work it has completed, or whatever.

Resources