Is it possible for the thread that is running a section of code to change during that code block?
I am specifically thinking of code running inside ASP.net, where methods are executed against the Thread Pool.
If my code initiates an I/O operation (e.g. database) the execution is suspended pending the completion of an I/O completion port. In the meantime, that thread-pool thread can be re-used to handle another web request.
When my I/O completes, and my code is returned to a thread-pool thread - is it guaranteed to be the same thread?
E.g.
private void DoStuff()
{
DWORD threadID = GetCurrentThreadID();
//And what if this 3rd party code (e.g. ADO/ADO.net) uses completion ports?
//my thread-pool thread is given to someone else(?)
ExecuteSynchronousOperationThatWaitsOnIOCompletionPort();
//Synchronous operation has completed
threadID2 = GetCurrentThread();
}
Is it possible for
threadID2 <> threadID
?
i mentioned the .NET Thread Pool, but there is also the native thread pool. And i have written code for both.
Is it ever possible for my ThreadID to be ripped out from under me? Ever.
Why do i care?
The reason i care is because i'm trying to make an object thread-safe. That means that sometimes i have to know which so-called "thread" of execution called the method. Later, when they return, i know that "they" are still "them".
The only way i know to identify a "series of machine instructions that were written to be executed by one virtual processing unit" is through GetCurrentThreadID. But if GetCurrentThreadID changes; if my series of machine instructions can be moved to different "virtual processing units" (i.e. threads) during execution, then i cannot rely on GetCurrentThreadID.
The short answer is no. No synchronous function would do this.
With sufficient cleverness and evil you could create a function that did this. However, you would expect it to break things and that's why nobody actually does this.
As just the most obvious issue -- what happens if the calling thread holds a lock for the duration of the synchronous call?
Related
Looked at a few other questions but didn't quite find what I was looking for. Im using Scala but my questions is very high level and so is hopefully agnostic of any languages.
A regular scenario:
Thread A runs a function and there is some blocking work to be done (say a DB call).
The function has some non-blocking code (eg. Async block in Scala) to cause some sort of 'worker' Thread B (in a different pool) to pick up the I/O task.
The method in Thread A completes returning a Future which will eventually contain the result and Thread A is returned to its pool to quickly pick up another request to process.
Q1. Some thread somewhere usually has to wait?
My understanding of non-blocking architectures is that the common approach is to still have some Thread waiting/blocking on the I/O work somewhere - its just a case of having different pools which have access to different cores so that a small number of request processing threads can manage a large number of concurrent requests without ever waiting on a CPU core.
Is this a correct general understanding?
Q2. How the callback works ?
In the above scenario - Thread B that is doing the I/O work will run the callback function (provided by Thread A) if/when the I/O work has completed - which completes the Future with some Result.
Thread A is now off doing something else and has no association any more with the original request. How does the Result in the Future get sent back to the client socket? I understand that different languages have different implementations of such a mechanism but at a high level my current assumption is that (regardless of the language/framework) some framework/container objects must always be doing some sort of orchestration so that when a Future task is completed the Result gets sent back to the original socket handling the request.
I have spent hours trying to find articles which will explain this but every article seems to just deal with real low-level details. I know Im missing some details but i am having difficulty asking my question because Im not quite sure which parts Im missing :)
My understanding of non-blocking architectures is that the common approach is to still have some Thread waiting/blocking on the I/O work somewhere
If a thread is getting blocked somewhere, it is not really a non-blocking architecture. So no, that's not really a correct understanding of it. That doesn't mean that this is necessarily bad. Sometimes you just have to deal with blocking (using JDBC, for example). It would be better to push it off into a fixed thread pool designated for blocking, rather than allowing the entire application to suffer thread starvation.
Thread A is now off doing something else and has no association any more with the original request. How does the Result in the Future get sent back to the client socket?
Using Futures, it really depends on the ExecutionContext. When you create a Future, where the work is done depends on the ExecutionContext.
val f: Future[?] = ???
val g: Future[?] = ???
f and g are created immediately, and the work is submitted to a task queue in the ExecutionContext. We cannot guarantee which will actually execute or complete first in most cases. What you do with the values matters is well. Obviously if you use an Await to wait for the completion of the Futures, then we block the current thread. If we map them and do something with the values, then we again need another ExecutionContext to submit the task to. This gives us a chain of tasks that are asynchronously getting submitted and re-submitted to the executor for execution every time we manipulate the Future.
Eventually there needs to be some onComplete at the end of that chain to return the pass along that value to something, whether it's writing to stream, or something else. ie., it is probably out of the hands of the original thread.
Q1: No, at least not at the user code level. Hopefully your async I/O ultimately comes down to an async kernel API (e.g. select()). Which in turn will be using DMA to do the I/O and trigger an interrupt when it's done. So it's async at least down to the hardware level.
Q2: Thread B completes the Future. If you're using something like onComplete, then thread B will trigger that (probably by creating a new task and handing that task off to a thread pool to pick it up later) as part of the completing call. If a different thread has called Await to block on the Future, it will trigger that thread to resume. If nothing has accessed the Future yet, nothing in particular happens - the value sits there in the Future until something uses it. (See PromiseCompletingRunnable for the gritty details - it's surprisingly readable).
I know Synchronize must be used in the Execute procedure, but should it be used in Create and Destroy methods too, or is it safe to do whatever I want?
I know Synchronize must be used in the Execute procedure.
That is somewhat vague. You need to use Synchronize when you have code that must execute on the main thread. So the answer to whether or not you will need to use Synchronize depends crucially on what the code under consideration actually does. The question that you must ask yourself, and which is one that only you can answer, is do you have code that must run on the main thread?
As a general rule it would be considered prudent for you not to need to call Synchronize outside the Execute method. If you can find a way to avoid doing so then that would be wise. Remember that the ideal scenario with threads is that they never need to block with Synchronize if at all possible.
You might also wish to consider which thread executes the constructor and destructor.
The constructor Create runs in the thread that calls it. It does not run in the newly created thread. Therefore it is unlikely that you would need to use Synchronize there.
The destructor Destroy runs in the thread that calls it. Typically this is the thread that calls Free on the thread object. And usually that would be called from the same thread that originally created the thread. The common exception to that is a FreeOnTerminate thread which calls Free from the thread.
There is a need to use Synchronize() when the code is executing outside of the context of the main (GUI) thread of the application. Therefore the answer to your question depends on whether the constructor and destructor are called from that thread or not.
If you are unsure you can check that by comparing the result of the Windows API function GetCurrentThreadId() with the variable MainThreadID - if they equal the code executes in the context of the main thread.
Threads that have FreeOnTerminate set will have their destructor called from another thread context, so you would need to use Synchronize() or Queue(). Or you use the termination event the VCL already provides, I believe it is executed in the main thread, but check the documentation for details.
First of all, you don't want to call Synchronize() unnecessarily, because that simply defeats the purpose of using a thread. So the decision should be based on whether: (a) it's possible to encounter race conditions with shared data. (b) you'll be using VCL code which usually has to run on the main thread.
It's unlikely you would need to synchronise in the constructor because TThread instances are usually created from the main thread already. (The exception being if you're creating some TThread's from another child thread.)
NOTE: It won't cause any harm though because Synchronize() already checks if you're on the main thread and will call the synchronised method immediately if you are.
class procedure TThread.Synchronize(ASyncRec: PSynchronizeRecord; QueueEvent: Boolean = False);
var
SyncProc: TSyncProc;
SyncProcPtr: PSyncProc;
begin
if GetCurrentThreadID = MainThreadID then
ASyncRec.FMethod
As for the destructor there are 3 usage patterns:
The TThread instances destroys itself.
Another thread (possibly the main thread) can WaitFor the instance to finish, then destroy it.
You can intercept the OnTerminate event. This is fired when the instance is finished, and you could then destroy it.
NOTE: The OnTerminate event will already be synchronised.
procedure TThread.DoTerminate;
begin
if Assigned(FOnTerminate) then Synchronize(CallOnTerminate);
end;
Given the above, the only time you might need to synchronise is if the thread self-destructs.
However, I'd advise that you rather avoid putting code into your destructor that might need to be synchronised. If you need some results of a calculation from your thread instance, OnTerminate is the more appropriate place to get this.
To add to what has been said in other answers...
You never need to use Synchronize at all. Synchronize may be useful, however, in the following circumstance:
In the context of your thread you need to execute code that touches objects that have affinity to the main thread.
You require your thread to block until that code has been executed.
Even in that case, there are other ways to achive the same goal, but Synchronize provides a convenient way to satisfy those two needs. If you need only one of those two items, there are better strategies available.
On topic #1, the obvious objects are user interface objects. These are objects that have thread affinity to the main thread simply by virtue of the fact that the main thread is continually reading and writing the properties of those objects (not the least because it needs to paint them to the screen, etc) and it does so at its own convenience. This means that your thread cannot safely access those components with a guarantee that the main thread will not also be accessing or modifying them at the same time. In order to prevent corruption, the thread has to pass the work to the main thread (since the main thread can only do one thing at a time and can't, obviously, interfere with itself). Synchronize simply places the work onto the main thread's queue and waits until the main thread gets around to completing it before returning.
This gets to point #2. Do you need to (or, equally, can you afford to) wait around until the main thread finishes the work? There are three cases and two options.
Yes, you can or must wait. (Synchronize is a good fit)
No, you cannot wait. (Synchronize is not a good fit)
Don't care. (Synchronize is easy, so it's a sensible option)
If you are simply updating a status display that will soon be overwritten anyway and your thread has more pressing issues, then it's probably sensible to just post a message to the main thread and carry on doing things, for example. If your thread is just waiting around doing nothing, mostly, and it's not worth the time to code anything more sophisticated, then Synchronize is just fine, and it can be replaced with something better if needs dictate so in the future.
As others have said, it really depends on what you are doing. The more important question, I think, at least conceptually, is to sort out when you need to worry about concurrency and when you don't. Any time you have more than one thread that requires access to a single resource you need to use some sort of mechanism to coordinate that access to avoid the threads crashing into each other. Synchronize is one of those methods, but it not the least nor the last of them.
I recently tried to work out how the solution to a ThreadPool class works in .NET 4.0. I tried to read through a reflected code but it seems a bit too extensive for me.
Could someone explain in simple terms how this class works i.e.
How it stores each methods that are coming in
Is it thread safe, supposedly multiple threads try to enqueue their methods in the thread pool?
When it reaches the limit of available threads, how does it return to execute the remaining batch waiting in the queue when one of the threads becomes free? Is there some callback mechanism for it?
Of course, in the absence of the actual implementation (or in the absence of Eric Lippert :) ) what I'm saying is only common sense:
The thread pool holds an internal (circular?) queue where the tasks are kept (hence QueueUserWorkItem).
Putting tasks in the queue is thread-safe (this is for sure, as I've used myself in this scenario several times).
I think that each thread loops indefinitely and keeps taking tasks from the queue (in a thread-safe manner of course) automatically when it's done with the current task. If the queue is empty it will just block.
In a queue of delegates
TBH, I don't know for sure but, if it's not, it's dangerous, nearly useless and probably the worst code ever emitted by M$, (even including Windows ME). Just assume it's thread safe.
The work threads are while loops, waiting on the work request queue for a delegate, invoking one when it becomes available, then looping back round again when the the delegate returns to wait on the queue again for another delegate. There is no need for any callback.
I don't know exectly but to my mind it stores it in a collection of
Task
MSDN says yes
GetMaxThreads() returns the amount of onetime-executed threads if
you reach this border all others are queued. As I understand you
need mechanism for knowing when thread is executed. There is
RegisterWaitForSingleObject(WaitHandle, WaitOrTimerCallback, Object, Int32, Boolean)
Does an asynchronous call always create a new thread? What is the difference between the two?
Does an asynchronous call always create or use a new thread?
Wikipedia says:
In computer programming, asynchronous events are those occurring independently of the main program flow. Asynchronous actions are actions executed in a non-blocking scheme, allowing the main program flow to continue processing.
I know async calls can be done on single threads? How is this possible?
Whenever the operation that needs to happen asynchronously does not require the CPU to do work, that operation can be done without spawning another thread. For example, if the async operation is I/O, the CPU does not have to wait for the I/O to complete. It just needs to start the operation, and can then move on to other work while the I/O hardware (disk controller, network interface, etc.) does the I/O work. The hardware lets the CPU know when it's finished by interrupting the CPU, and the OS then delivers the event to your application.
Frequently higher-level abstractions and APIs don't expose the underlying asynchronous API's available from the OS and the underlying hardware. In those cases it's usually easier to create threads to do asynchronous operations, even if the spawned thread is just waiting on an I/O operation.
If the asynchronous operation requires the CPU to do work, then generally that operation has to happen in another thread in order for it to be truly asynchronous. Even then, it will really only be asynchronous if there is more than one execution unit.
This question is darn near too general to answer.
In the general case, an asynchronous call does not necessarily create a new thread. That's one way to implement it, with a pre-existing thread pool or external process being other ways. It depends heavily on language, object model (if any), and run time environment.
Asynchronous just means the calling thread doesn't sit and wait for the response, nor does the asynchronous activity happen in the calling thread.
Beyond that, you're going to need to get more specific.
No, asynchronous calls do not always involve threads.
They typically do start some sort of operation which continues in parallel with the caller. But that operation might be handled by another process, by the OS, by other hardware (like a disk controller), by some other computer on the network, or by a human being. Threads aren't the only way to get things done in parallel.
JavaScript is single-threaded and asynchronous. When you use XmlHttpRequest, for example, you provide it with a callback function that will be executed asynchronously when the response returns.
John Resig has a good explanation of the related issue of how timers work in JavaScript.
Multi threading refers to more than one operation happening in the same process. While async programming spreads across processes. For example if my operations calls a web service, The thread need not wait till the web service returns. Here we use async programming which allows the thread not wait for a process in another machine to complete. And when it starts getting response from the webservice it can interrupt the main thread to say that web service has completed processing the request. Now the main thread can process the result.
Windows always had asynchronous processing since the non preemptive times (versions 2.13, 3.0, 3.1, etc) using the message loop, way before supporting real threads. So to answer your question, no, it is not necessary to create a thread to perform asynchronous processing.
Asynchronous calls don't even need to occur on the same system/device as the one invoking the call. So if the question is, does an asynchronous call require a thread in the current process, the answer is no. However, there must be a thread of execution somewhere processing the asynchronous request.
Thread of execution is a vague term. In a cooperative tasking systems such as the early Macintosh and Windows OS'es, the thread of execution could simply be the same process that made the request running another stack, instruction pointer, etc... However, when people generally talk about asynchronous calls, they typically mean calls that are handled by another thread if it is intra-process (i.e. within the same process) or by another process if it is inter-process.
Note that inter-process (or interprocess) communication (IPC) is commonly generalized to include intra-process communication, since the techniques for locking, and synchronizing data are usually the same regardless of what process the separate threads of execution run in.
Some systems allow you to take advantage of the concurrency in the kernel for some facilities using callbacks. For a rather obscure instance, asynchronous IO callbacks were used to implement non-blocking internet severs back in the no-preemptive multitasking days of Mac System 6-8.
This way you have concurrent execution streams "in" you program without threads as such.
Asynchronous just means that you don't block your program waiting for something (function call, device, etc.) to finish. It can be implemented in a separate thread, but it is also common to use a dedicated thread for synchronous tasks and communicate via some kind of event system and thus achieve asynchronous-like behavior.
There are examples of single-threaded asynchronous programs. Something like:
...do something
...send some async request
while (not done)
...do something else
...do async check for results
The nature of asynchronous calls is such that, if you want the application to continue running while the call is in progress, you will either need to spawn a new thread, or at least utilise another thread you that you have created solely for the purposes of handling asynchronous callbacks.
Sometimes, depending on the situation, you may want to invoke an asynchronous method but make it appear to the user to be be synchronous (i.e. block until the asynchronous method has signalled that it is complete). This can be achieved through Win32 APIs such as WaitForSingleObject.
I have to use an API to make a call to a third party, and ideally use the response it returns. The API has a built-in 30 second timeout, and does not allow you to set that programatically. I need it to time out in 12 seconds. Here's the call I'm making:
string response = theAPI.FunctionA(a, b, c, d);
I've been thinking I might need to use async calls to accomplish this and abort the thread at 12 seconds. Another stackoverflow question appears to come close to what I'm considering: Implement C# Generic Timeout
...I'm just wondering if this is the best way. Specifically, I keep seeing articles that warn you to call EndInvoke no matter what, and I'm wondering if Abort as in the referenced example will still close the thread appropriately? I see there were some comments with much concern about using Abort.
Aborting threads is generally a bad idea. Why not just let the call complete (or time out after 30 seconds) but ignore the result (and move on) if it takes more than 12 seconds?
Thread.Abort will close the thread, of course, as it will call Win32 TerminateThread.
Outcome of this action will depend on how your API likes to be closed by TerminateThread.
If your method is called somthing like NuclearPlant.MoveRod() or Defibrillator.Shock(), I'd rather wait these 30 seconds.
This method gives no chance to the victim to do some cleanup:
TerminateThread is used to cause a thread to exit. When this occurs, the target thread has no chance to execute any user-mode code. DLLs attached to the thread are not notified that the thread is terminating. The system frees the thread's initial stack.
As stated in MSDN:
TerminateThread is a dangerous function that should only be used in the most extreme cases. You should call TerminateThread only if you know exactly what the target thread is doing, and you control all of the code that the target thread could possibly be running at the time of the termination. For example, TerminateThread can result in the following problems:
If the target thread owns a critical section, the critical section will not be released.
If the target thread is allocating memory from the heap, the heap lock will not be released.
If the target thread is executing certain kernel32 calls when it is terminated, the kernel32 state for the thread's process could be inconsistent.
If the target thread is manipulating the global state of a shared DLL, the state of the DLL could be destroyed, affecting other users of the DLL.