When I create a new thread in a program... in it's thread handle function, why do I pass variables that I want that thread to use through the thread function prototype as parameters (as a void pointer)? Since threads share the same memory segments (except for stack) as the main program, shouldn't I be able to just use the variables directly instead of passing parameters from main program to new thread?
Well, yes, you could use the variables directly. Maybe. Assuming that they aren't changed by some other thread before your thread starts running.
Also, a big part of passing parameters to functions (including thread functions) is to limit the amount of information the called function has to know about the outside world. If you pass the thread function everything it needs in order to do its work, then you can change the rest of the program with relative impunity and the thread will still continue to work. If, however, you force the thread to know that there is a global list of strings called MyStringList, then you can't change that global list without also affecting the thread.
Information hiding. Encapsulation. Separation of concerns. Etc.
You cannot pass parameters to a thread function in any kind of normal register/stack manner because thread functions are not called by the creating thread - they are given execution directly by the underlying OS and the API's that do this copy a fixed number of parameters, (usually only one void pointer), to the new and different stack of the new thread.
As Jim says, failure to understand this mechanism often results in disaster. There are numnerous questions on SO where the vars that devs. hope would be used by a new thread are RAII'd away before the new thread even starts.
Related
I have a unit with an initialization and finalization section. This unit contains a complex object which is instantiated in the initialization and destroyed in the finalization. However, this object also contains an ADO Connection. That makes it an issue when using this across threads, because ADO is COM, and needs to be initialized for every thread.
This is how I currently handle this global object instance:
uses
ActiveX;
...
initialization
CoInitialize(nil);
_MyObject:= TMyObject.Create;
finalization
_MyObject.Free;
CoUninitialize;
end.
This only works on the main thread. Any other thread wouldn't be able to access it, and will return an exception CoInitialize has not been called.
How do I get around this to make this unit thread-safe? I would need a way to hook every creation/destruction of any thread created, and each thread would need to refer to a different instance of this object. But how to go about doing so?
Well, as you already say yourself, each thread needs to call CoInitialize separately. And in addition, each thread needs to have its own ADOConnection too.
I think you need to leave the idea of using the single global object/connection from that unit. Just repeat that object creation and destruction in each thread. When the thread types are different, then you could design a base thread class on top of them. If the object is too big (has overhead with regard to the thread) or does not 'fit' completely in the thread, then split the object design.
For now, your question sounds like just wanting to keep convenience, but if it is really necessary to centralize the ADO connection involvement, then maybe you could implement multi-cast events for the connection events of both main thread and the other threads. Logging in should not be a problem for successive connections: just store the login values and feed them to the threads.
While another design might be a better solution, you can declare _MyObject as threadvar to have a separate instance for each thread. In addition you can move the CoInitialize/CoUnitialize into the constructor/destructor of TMyObject.
I cannot give advice on when to create and free these instances as I have no idea how your threads are created and freed.
I would like to confirm here if I understood correctly how TCriticalSection and Synchronize operate.
As far as I know right now Synchronize uses SendMessage (update: or at least used it in older VCL versions as mentioned in couple of comments below) which suspends currently executing thread (as well as any other thread) unlike PostMessage which doesn't and then executes required function (from main thread). In a way SendMessage "stops" multithreading when executing.
But I am not sure about TCriticalSection. Let's say for example I create something like this:
// Global variables somewhere in my code any thread can access
boost::scoped_ptr<TCriticalSection> ProtectMyVarAndCallFnction(new TCriticalSection);
int MyVariable1;
void CallMyFunctionThatAlsoModifiesMoreStuff() { /* do even more here */ };
// Thread code within one of the threads
try {
ProtectMyVarAndCallFnction->Acquire();
MyVariable1++;
CallMyFunctionThatAlsoModifiesMoreStuff();
}
__finally {
ProtectMyVarAndCallFnction->Release();
}
Now, my question is - how the critical section "knows" that I am protecting MyVariable1 in this case as well as whatever the called function may modify?
If I understood it correctly - it doesn't - and it is my responsibility to correctly call Acquire() in any thread wants to change MyVariable1 or call this function (or do any of the two). In other words I think of TCriticalSection as user-defined block which defines whatever logically I assigned to it. It may be a set of variables or any particular function as long as I call Acquire() within all of the threads that might write to this block or use this function. For example "DiskOp" may be my name of TCriticalSection that writes on disk, "Internet" may be the name of TCriticalSection that calls functions that retrieve some data from the Internet. Did I get it correctly?
Also, within this context, does TCriticalSection therefore always needs to be a global kind of variable?
SendMessage suspends currently executing thread (as well as any other thread).
No, that is incorrect. SendMessage does not suspend anything. SendMessage merely delivers a message synchronously. The function does not return until the message has been delivered. That is, the window proc of the target window has been executed. And because the window proc is always called on the thread that owns the window, this means that the calling thread may need to be blocked to wait until the window's owning thread is ready to execute the window proc. It most definitely doesn't suspend all threads in the process.
How does the critical section know that I am protecting MyVariable1?
It doesn't. It's entirely up to you to make sure that all uses of MyVariable1 that need protection, are given protection. A critical section is a form of mutex. A mutex ensures that only one thread of execution can hold the mutex any any instant in time.
As I call Acquire() within all of the threads that might write to this block or use this function.
That's not really it either. The "within all of the threads" is a mis-think. You need to be thinking about "at all sections of code that use the variable".
Does a critical section therefore always need to be a global kind of variable?
No, a critical section can be a global variable. But it need not be.
I'm working on a project where I need to make a program run on multiple threads. However, I'm running into a bit of an issue.
In my program, I have an accessory function called 'func_call'.
If I use this in my code:
func_call((void*) &my_pixels);
The program runs fine.
However, if I try to create a thread, and then run the function on that, the program runs into a segmentation fault.
pthread_t thread;
pthread_create (&thread, NULL, (void*)&func_call, (void*) &my_pixels);
I've included pthread.h in my program. Any ideas what might be wrong?
You are not handling data in a thread safe manner:
the thread copies data from the thread argument, which is a pointer to the main thread's my_pixels variable; the main thread may exit, making my_pixles invalid.
the thread uses scene, main thread calls free_scene() on it, which I imagine makes it invalid
the thread calls printf(), the main thread closes stdout (kind of unusual itself)
the thread updates the picture array, the main thread accesses picture to output data from it
It looks like you should just wait for the thread to finish its work after creating it - call pthread_join() to do that.
For a single thread, that would seem to be pointless (you've just turned a multi-threaded program into a single threaded program). But on the basis of code that's commented out, it looks like you're planning to start up several threads that work on chunks of the data. So, when you get to the point of trying that again, make sure you join all the threads you start. As long as the threads don't modify the same data, it'll work. Note that you'll need to use separate my_pixels instances for each thread (make an array of them, just like you did with pthreads), or some threads will likely get parameters that are intended for a different thread.
Without knowing what func_call does, it is difficult to give you an answer. Nevertheless, here are few possibilities
Does func_call use some sort of a global state - check if that is initialized properly from within the thread. The order of execution of threads is not always the same for every execution
Not knowing your operating system (AIX /Linux/Solaris etc) it is difficult to answer this, but please check your compilation options
Please provide the signal trapped and atleast a few lines of the stack-trace - for all the threads. One thing you can check for yourself is to print the threads' stack-track (using threads/thread or pthread and thread current <x> based on the debugger) and and if there is a common data that is being accessed. It is most likely that the segfault occurred when two threads were trying to read off the other's (uncommitted) change
Hope that helps.
Edit:
After checking your code, I think the problem is the global picture array. You seem to be modifying that in the thread function without any guards. You loop using px and py and all the threads will have the same px and py and will try to write into the picture array at the same time. Please try to modify your code to prevent multiple threads from stepping on each other's data modifications.
Is func_call a function, or a function pointer? If it's a function pointer, there is your problem: you took the address of a function pointer and then cast it.
People are guessing because you've provided only a fraction of the program, which mentions names like func_call with no declaration in scope.
Your compiler must be giving you diagnostics about this program, because you're passing a (void *) expression to a function pointer parameter.
Define your thread function in a way that is compatible with pthread_create, and then just call it without any casts.
According to http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qpointer.html, QPointer is very useful. But I found it could be inefficient in the following context:
If I want to show label for three times or do something else, I have to use
if(label) label->show1();
if(label) label->show2();
if(label) label->show3();
instead of
if(label) { label->show1();label->show2();label->show3(); }
just because label might be destroyed in another thread after label->show1(); or label->show2();.
Is there a beautiful way other than three ifs to get the same functionality?
Another question is, when label is destroyed after if(label), is if(label) label->show1(); still wrong?
I don't have experience in multi-threaded programs. Any help is appreciated. ;)
I think the only safe way to do it is to make sure you only access your QWidgets from within the main/GUI thread (that is, the thread that is running Qt's event loop, inside QApplication::exec()).
If you have code that is running within a different thread, and that code wants the QLabels to be shown/hidden/whatever, then that code needs to create a QEvent object (or a subclass thereof) and call qApp->postEvent() to send that object to the main thread. Then when the Qt event loop picks up and handles that QEvent in the main thread, that is the point at which your code can safely do things to the QLabels.
Alternatively (and perhaps more simply), your thread's code could emit a cross-thread signal (as described here) and let Qt handle the event-posting internally. That might be better for your purpose.
Neither of your approaches is thread-safe. It's possible that your first thread will execute the if statement, then the other thread will delete your label, and then you will be inside of your if statement and crash.
Qt provides a number of thread synchronization constructs, you'll probably want to start with QMutex and learn more about thread-safety before you continue working on this program.
Using a mutex would make your function would look something like this:
mutex.lock();
label1->show();
label2->show();
label3->show();
mutex.unlock()
As long as your other thread is using locking that same mutex object then it will prevented from deleting your labels while you're showing them.
They seem to perform a reasonably similar task: launching a new thread that performs that selector quickly and easily. But are there any differences? Maybe with regards to memory management?
Both are identical.
In iOS and Mac OS X v10.5 and later, all objects have the ability to spawn a new thread and use it to execute one of their methods. The performSelectorInBackground:withObject: method creates a new detached thread and uses the specified method as the entry point for the new thread. For example, if you have some object (represented by the variable myObj) and that object has a method called doSomething that you want to run in a background thread, you could could use the following code to do that:
[myObj performSelectorInBackground:#selector(doSomething) withObject:nil];
The effect of calling this method is the same as if you called the detachNewThreadSelector:toTarget:withObject: method of NSThread with the current object, selector, and parameter object as parameters. The new thread is spawned immediately using the default configuration and begins running. Inside the selector, you must configure the thread just as you would any thread. For example, you would need to set up an autorelease pool (if you were not using garbage collection) and configure the thread’s run loop if you planned to use it. For information on how to configure new threads
I presume they are the same, as - (void)performSelectorInBackground:(SEL)aSelector withObject:(id)arg; is defined in NSThread.h in the NSObject (NSThreadPerformAdditions) category. That is nothing conclusive, but that is evidence in that direction.