Problem
I wish to be able to pause the execution of a thread from a different thread. Note the thread paused should not have to cooperate. The pausing of the target thread does not have to occur as soon as the pauser thread wants to pause. Delaying the pausing is allowed.
I cannot seem to find any information on this, as all searches yielded me results that use condition variables...
Ideas
use the scheduler and kernel syscalls to stop the thread from being scheduled again
use debugger syscalls to stop the target thread
OS-agnostic is preferable, but not a requirement. This likely will be very OS-dependent, as messing with scheduling and threads is a pretty low-level operation.
On a Unix-like OS, there's pthread_kill() which delivers a signal to a specified thread. You can arrange for that signal to have a handler which waits until told in some manner to resume.
Here's a simple example, where the "pause" just sleeps for a fixed time before resuming. Try on godbolt.
#include <unistd.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
void safe_print(const char *s) {
int saved_errno = errno;
if (write(1, s, strlen(s)) < 0) {
exit(1);
}
errno = saved_errno;
}
void sleep_msec(int msec) {
struct timespec t = {
.tv_sec = msec / 1000,
.tv_nsec = (msec % 1000) * 1000 * 1000
};
nanosleep(&t, NULL);
}
void *work(void *unused) {
(void) unused;
for (;;) {
safe_print("I am running!\n");
sleep_msec(100);
}
return NULL;
}
void handler(int sig) {
(void) sig;
safe_print("I am stopped.\n");
sleep_msec(500);
}
int main(void) {
pthread_t thr;
pthread_create(&thr, NULL, work, NULL);
sigset_t empty;
sigemptyset(&empty);
struct sigaction sa = {
.sa_handler = handler,
.sa_flags = 0,
};
sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask);
sigaction(SIGUSR1, &sa, NULL);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
sleep_msec(1000);
pthread_kill(thr, SIGUSR1);
}
pthread_cancel(thr);
pthread_join(thr, NULL);
return 0;
}
I am new to C++ and multithreading applications. I want to process a long list of data (potentially several thousands of entries) by dividing its entries among a few threads. I have retrieved a ThreadPool class and a Queue class from the web (it is my first time tackling the subject). I construct the threads and populate the queue in the following way (definitions at the end of the post):
ThreadPool *pool = new ThreadPool(8);
std::vector<std::function<void(int)>> *caller =
new std::vector<std::function<void(int)>>;
for (size_t i = 0; i < Nentries; ++i)
{
caller->push_back(
[=](int j){func(entries[i], j);});
pool->PushTask((*caller)[i]);
}
delete pool;
The problem is that only a number of entries equaling the number of created threads are processed, as if the program does not wait for the queue to be empty. Indeed, if I put
while (pool->GetWorkQueueLength()) {}
just before the pool destructor, the whole list is correctly processed. However, I am afraid I am consuming too many resources by using a while loop. Moreover, I have not found anyone doing anything like it, so I think this is the wrong approach and the classes I use have some error. Can anyone find the error (if present) or suggest another solution?
Here are the classes I use. I suppose the problem is in the implementation of the destructor, but I am not sure.
SynchronizeQueue.hh
#ifndef SYNCQUEUE_H
#define SYNCQUEUE_H
#include <list>
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
template<typename T>
class SynchronizedQueue
{
public:
SynchronizedQueue();
void Put(T const & data);
T Get();
size_t Size();
private:
SynchronizedQueue(SynchronizedQueue const &)=delete;
SynchronizedQueue & operator=(SynchronizedQueue const &)=delete;
std::list<T> queue;
std::mutex mut;
std::condition_variable condvar;
};
template<typename T>
SynchronizedQueue<T>::SynchronizedQueue()
{}
template<typename T>
void SynchronizedQueue<T>::Put(T const & data)
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mut);
queue.push_back(data);
condvar.notify_one();
}
template<typename T>
T SynchronizedQueue<T>::Get()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mut);
while (queue.empty())
{
condvar.wait(lck);
}
T result = queue.front();
queue.pop_front();
return result;
}
template<typename T>
size_t SynchronizedQueue<T>::Size()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mut);
return queue.size();
}
#endif
ThreadPool.hh
#ifndef THREADPOOL_H
#define THREADPOOL_H
#include "SynchronizedQueue.hh"
#include <atomic>
#include <functional>
#include <mutex>
#include <thread>
#include <vector>
class ThreadPool
{
public:
ThreadPool(int nThreads = 0);
virtual ~ThreadPool();
void PushTask(std::function<void(int)> func);
size_t GetWorkQueueLength();
private:
void WorkerThread(int i);
std::atomic<bool> done;
unsigned int threadCount;
SynchronizedQueue<std::function<void(int)>> workQueue;
std::vector<std::thread> threads;
};
#endif
ThreadPool.cc
#include "ThreadPool.hh"
#include "SynchronizedQueue.hh"
void doNothing(int i)
{}
ThreadPool::ThreadPool(int nThreads)
: done(false)
{
if (nThreads <= 0)
{
threadCount = std::thread::hardware_concurrency();
}
else
{
threadCount = nThreads;
}
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < threadCount; ++i)
{
threads.push_back(std::thread(&ThreadPool::WorkerThread, this, i));
}
}
ThreadPool::~ThreadPool()
{
done = true;
for (unsigned int i = 0; i < threadCount; ++i)
{
PushTask(&doNothing);
}
for (auto& th : threads)
{
if (th.joinable())
{
th.join();
}
}
}
void ThreadPool::PushTask(std::function<void(int)> func)
{
workQueue.Put(func);
}
void ThreadPool::WorkerThread(int i)
{
while (!done)
{
workQueue.Get()(i);
}
}
size_t ThreadPool::GetWorkQueueLength()
{
return workQueue.Size();
}
You can push tasks saying "done" instead of setting "done" via atomic variable.
So that each thread will exit by itself when seeing "done" task, and no earlier. In destructor you only need to push these tasks and join threads. This is called "poison pill".
Alternatively, if you insist on your current design with done variable, you can wait on the same condition you already have:
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lck(mut);
while (!queue.empty())
{
condvar.wait(lck);
}
But then you'll need to change your notify_one to notify_all, and this may be sub-optimal.
I want to process a long list of data (potentially several thousands of entries) by dividing its entries among a few threads.
You can do that with parallel algorithms, like tbb::parallel_for:
#include <tbb/parallel_for.h>
#include <vector>
void func(int entry);
int main () {
std::vector<int> entries(1000000);
tbb::parallel_for(size_t{0}, entries.size(), [&](size_t i) { func(entries[i]); });
}
If you need sequential thread ids, you can do:
void func(int element, int thread_id);
template<class C>
inline auto make_range(C& c) -> decltype(tbb::blocked_range<decltype(c.begin())>(c.begin(), c.end())) {
return tbb::blocked_range<decltype(c.begin())>(c.begin(), c.end());
}
int main () {
std::vector<int> entries(1000000);
std::atomic<int> thread_counter{0};
tbb::parallel_for(make_range(entries), [&](auto sub_range) {
static thread_local int const thread_id = thread_counter.fetch_add(1, std::memory_order_relaxed);
for(auto& element : sub_range)
func(element, thread_id);
});
}
Alternatively, there is std::this_thread::get_id.
What would be your suggestion in order to create a single instance application, so that only one process is allowed to run at a time? File lock, mutex or what?
A good way is:
#include <sys/file.h>
#include <errno.h>
int pid_file = open("/var/run/whatever.pid", O_CREAT | O_RDWR, 0666);
int rc = flock(pid_file, LOCK_EX | LOCK_NB);
if(rc) {
if(EWOULDBLOCK == errno)
; // another instance is running
}
else {
// this is the first instance
}
Note that locking allows you to ignore stale pid files (i.e. you don't have to delete them). When the application terminates for any reason the OS releases the file lock for you.
Pid files are not terribly useful because they can be stale (the file exists but the process does not). Hence, the application executable itself can be locked instead of creating and locking a pid file.
A more advanced method is to create and bind a unix domain socket using a predefined socket name. Bind succeeds for the first instance of your application. Again, the OS unbinds the socket when the application terminates for any reason. When bind() fails another instance of the application can connect() and use this socket to pass its command line arguments to the first instance.
Here is a solution in C++. It uses the socket recommendation of Maxim. I like this solution better than the file based locking solution, because the file based one fails if the process crashes and does not delete the lock file. Another user will not be able to delete the file and lock it. The sockets are automatically deleted when the process exits.
Usage:
int main()
{
SingletonProcess singleton(5555); // pick a port number to use that is specific to this app
if (!singleton())
{
cerr << "process running already. See " << singleton.GetLockFileName() << endl;
return 1;
}
... rest of the app
}
Code:
#include <netinet/in.h>
class SingletonProcess
{
public:
SingletonProcess(uint16_t port0)
: socket_fd(-1)
, rc(1)
, port(port0)
{
}
~SingletonProcess()
{
if (socket_fd != -1)
{
close(socket_fd);
}
}
bool operator()()
{
if (socket_fd == -1 || rc)
{
socket_fd = -1;
rc = 1;
if ((socket_fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)) < 0)
{
throw std::runtime_error(std::string("Could not create socket: ") + strerror(errno));
}
else
{
struct sockaddr_in name;
name.sin_family = AF_INET;
name.sin_port = htons (port);
name.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl (INADDR_ANY);
rc = bind (socket_fd, (struct sockaddr *) &name, sizeof (name));
}
}
return (socket_fd != -1 && rc == 0);
}
std::string GetLockFileName()
{
return "port " + std::to_string(port);
}
private:
int socket_fd = -1;
int rc;
uint16_t port;
};
For windows, a named kernel object (e.g. CreateEvent, CreateMutex). For unix, a pid-file - create a file and write your process ID to it.
You can create an "anonymous namespace" AF_UNIX socket. This is completely Linux-specific, but has the advantage that no filesystem actually has to exist.
Read the man page for unix(7) for more info.
Avoid file-based locking
It is always good to avoid a file based locking mechanism to implement the singleton instance of an application. The user can always rename the lock file to a different name and run the application again as follows:
mv lockfile.pid lockfile1.pid
Where lockfile.pid is the lock file based on which is checked for existence before running the application.
So, it is always preferable to use a locking scheme on object directly visible to only the kernel. So, anything which has to do with a file system is not reliable.
So the best option would be to bind to a inet socket. Note that unix domain sockets reside in the filesystem and are not reliable.
Alternatively, you can also do it using DBUS.
It's seems to not be mentioned - it is possible to create a mutex in shared memory but it needs to be marked as shared by attributes (not tested):
pthread_mutexattr_t attr;
pthread_mutexattr_init(&attr);
pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED);
pthread_mutex_t *mutex = shmat(SHARED_MEMORY_ID, NULL, 0);
pthread_mutex_init(mutex, &attr);
There is also shared memory semaphores (but I failed to find out how to lock one):
int sem_id = semget(SHARED_MEMORY_KEY, 1, 0);
No one has mentioned it, but sem_open() creates a real named semaphore under modern POSIX-compliant OSes. If you give a semaphore an initial value of 1, it becomes a mutex (as long as it is strictly released only if a lock was successfully obtained).
With several sem_open()-based objects, you can create all of the common equivalent Windows named objects - named mutexes, named semaphores, and named events. Named events with "manual" set to true is a bit more difficult to emulate (it requires four semaphore objects to properly emulate CreateEvent(), SetEvent(), and ResetEvent()). Anyway, I digress.
Alternatively, there is named shared memory. You can initialize a pthread mutex with the "shared process" attribute in named shared memory and then all processes can safely access that mutex object after opening a handle to the shared memory with shm_open()/mmap(). sem_open() is easier if it is available for your platform (if it isn't, it should be for sanity's sake).
Regardless of the method you use, to test for a single instance of your application, use the trylock() variant of the wait function (e.g. sem_trywait()). If the process is the only one running, it will successfully lock the mutex. If it isn't, it will fail immediately.
Don't forget to unlock and close the mutex on application exit.
It will depend on which problem you want to avoid by forcing your application to have only one instance and the scope on which you consider instances.
For a daemon — the usual way is to have a /var/run/app.pid file.
For user application, I've had more problems with applications which prevented me to run them twice than with being able to run twice an application which shouldn't have been run so. So the answer on "why and on which scope" is very important and will probably bring answer specific on the why and the intended scope.
Here is a solution based on sem_open
/*
*compile with :
*gcc single.c -o single -pthread
*/
/*
* run multiple instance on 'single', and check the behavior
*/
#include <stdio.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#define SEM_NAME "/mysem_911"
int main()
{
sem_t *sem;
int rc;
sem = sem_open(SEM_NAME, O_CREAT, S_IRWXU, 1);
if(sem==SEM_FAILED){
printf("sem_open: failed errno:%d\n", errno);
}
rc=sem_trywait(sem);
if(rc == 0){
printf("Obtained lock !!!\n");
sleep(10);
//sem_post(sem);
sem_unlink(SEM_NAME);
}else{
printf("Lock not obtained\n");
}
}
One of the comments on a different answer says "I found sem_open() rather lacking". I am not sure about the specifics of what's lacking
Based on the hints in maxim's answer here is my POSIX solution of a dual-role daemon (i.e. a single application that can act as daemon and as a client communicating with that daemon). This scheme has the advantage of providing an elegant solution of the problem when the instance started first should be the daemon and all following executions should just load off the work at that daemon. It is a complete example but lacks a lot of stuff a real daemon should do (e.g. using syslog for logging and fork to put itself into background correctly, dropping privileges etc.), but it is already quite long and is fully working as is. I have only tested this on Linux so far but IIRC it should be all POSIX-compatible.
In the example the clients can send integers passed to them as first command line argument and parsed by atoi via the socket to the daemon which prints it to stdout. With this kind of sockets it is also possible to transfer arrays, structs and even file descriptors (see man 7 unix).
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stddef.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <sys/un.h>
#define SOCKET_NAME "/tmp/exampled"
static int socket_fd = -1;
static bool isdaemon = false;
static bool run = true;
/* returns
* -1 on errors
* 0 on successful server bindings
* 1 on successful client connects
*/
int singleton_connect(const char *name) {
int len, tmpd;
struct sockaddr_un addr = {0};
if ((tmpd = socket(AF_UNIX, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)) < 0) {
printf("Could not create socket: '%s'.\n", strerror(errno));
return -1;
}
/* fill in socket address structure */
addr.sun_family = AF_UNIX;
strcpy(addr.sun_path, name);
len = offsetof(struct sockaddr_un, sun_path) + strlen(name);
int ret;
unsigned int retries = 1;
do {
/* bind the name to the descriptor */
ret = bind(tmpd, (struct sockaddr *)&addr, len);
/* if this succeeds there was no daemon before */
if (ret == 0) {
socket_fd = tmpd;
isdaemon = true;
return 0;
} else {
if (errno == EADDRINUSE) {
ret = connect(tmpd, (struct sockaddr *) &addr, sizeof(struct sockaddr_un));
if (ret != 0) {
if (errno == ECONNREFUSED) {
printf("Could not connect to socket - assuming daemon died.\n");
unlink(name);
continue;
}
printf("Could not connect to socket: '%s'.\n", strerror(errno));
continue;
}
printf("Daemon is already running.\n");
socket_fd = tmpd;
return 1;
}
printf("Could not bind to socket: '%s'.\n", strerror(errno));
continue;
}
} while (retries-- > 0);
printf("Could neither connect to an existing daemon nor become one.\n");
close(tmpd);
return -1;
}
static void cleanup(void) {
if (socket_fd >= 0) {
if (isdaemon) {
if (unlink(SOCKET_NAME) < 0)
printf("Could not remove FIFO.\n");
} else
close(socket_fd);
}
}
static void handler(int sig) {
run = false;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
switch (singleton_connect(SOCKET_NAME)) {
case 0: { /* Daemon */
struct sigaction sa;
sa.sa_handler = &handler;
sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask);
if (sigaction(SIGINT, &sa, NULL) != 0 || sigaction(SIGQUIT, &sa, NULL) != 0 || sigaction(SIGTERM, &sa, NULL) != 0) {
printf("Could not set up signal handlers!\n");
cleanup();
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
struct msghdr msg = {0};
struct iovec iovec;
int client_arg;
iovec.iov_base = &client_arg;
iovec.iov_len = sizeof(client_arg);
msg.msg_iov = &iovec;
msg.msg_iovlen = 1;
while (run) {
int ret = recvmsg(socket_fd, &msg, MSG_DONTWAIT);
if (ret != sizeof(client_arg)) {
if (errno != EAGAIN && errno != EWOULDBLOCK) {
printf("Error while accessing socket: %s\n", strerror(errno));
exit(1);
}
printf("No further client_args in socket.\n");
} else {
printf("received client_arg=%d\n", client_arg);
}
/* do daemon stuff */
sleep(1);
}
printf("Dropped out of daemon loop. Shutting down.\n");
cleanup();
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
case 1: { /* Client */
if (argc < 2) {
printf("Usage: %s <int>\n", argv[0]);
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
struct iovec iovec;
struct msghdr msg = {0};
int client_arg = atoi(argv[1]);
iovec.iov_base = &client_arg;
iovec.iov_len = sizeof(client_arg);
msg.msg_iov = &iovec;
msg.msg_iovlen = 1;
int ret = sendmsg(socket_fd, &msg, 0);
if (ret != sizeof(client_arg)) {
if (ret < 0)
printf("Could not send device address to daemon: '%s'!\n", strerror(errno));
else
printf("Could not send device address to daemon completely!\n");
cleanup();
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
printf("Sent client_arg (%d) to daemon.\n", client_arg);
break;
}
default:
cleanup();
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
cleanup();
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
All credits go to Mark Lakata. I merely did some very minor touch up only.
main.cpp
#include "singleton.hpp"
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main()
{
SingletonProcess singleton(5555); // pick a port number to use that is specific to this app
if (!singleton())
{
cerr << "process running already. See " << singleton.GetLockFileName() << endl;
return 1;
}
// ... rest of the app
}
singleton.hpp
#include <netinet/in.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <cerrno>
#include <string>
#include <cstring>
#include <stdexcept>
using namespace std;
class SingletonProcess
{
public:
SingletonProcess(uint16_t port0)
: socket_fd(-1)
, rc(1)
, port(port0)
{
}
~SingletonProcess()
{
if (socket_fd != -1)
{
close(socket_fd);
}
}
bool operator()()
{
if (socket_fd == -1 || rc)
{
socket_fd = -1;
rc = 1;
if ((socket_fd = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0)) < 0)
{
throw std::runtime_error(std::string("Could not create socket: ") + strerror(errno));
}
else
{
struct sockaddr_in name;
name.sin_family = AF_INET;
name.sin_port = htons (port);
name.sin_addr.s_addr = htonl (INADDR_ANY);
rc = bind (socket_fd, (struct sockaddr *) &name, sizeof (name));
}
}
return (socket_fd != -1 && rc == 0);
}
std::string GetLockFileName()
{
return "port " + std::to_string(port);
}
private:
int socket_fd = -1;
int rc;
uint16_t port;
};
#include <windows.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
// ensure only one running instance
HANDLE hMutexH`enter code here`andle = CreateMutex(NULL, TRUE, L"my.mutex.name");
if (GetLastError() == ERROR_ALREADY_EXISTS)
{
return 0;
}
// rest of the program
ReleaseMutex(hMutexHandle);
CloseHandle(hMutexHandle);
return 0;
}
FROM: HERE
On Windows you could also create a shared data segment and use an interlocked function to test for the first occurence, e.g.
#include <Windows.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <conio.h>
#pragma data_seg("Shared")
volatile LONG lock = 0;
#pragma data_seg()
#pragma comment(linker, "/SECTION:Shared,RWS")
void main()
{
if (InterlockedExchange(&lock, 1) == 0)
printf("first\n");
else
printf("other\n");
getch();
}
I have just written one, and tested.
#define PID_FILE "/tmp/pidfile"
static void create_pidfile(void) {
int fd = open(PID_FILE, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_EXCL, 0);
close(fd);
}
int main(void) {
int fd = open(PID_FILE, O_RDONLY);
if (fd > 0) {
close(fd);
return 0;
}
// make sure only one instance is running
create_pidfile();
}
Just run this code on a seperate thread:
void lock() {
while(1) {
ofstream closer("myapplock.locker", ios::trunc);
closer << "locked";
closer.close();
}
}
Run this as your main code:
int main() {
ifstream reader("myapplock.locker");
string s;
reader >> s;
if (s != "locked") {
//your code
}
return 0;
}
I have a simple threaded program which use a conditional variable and a rwlock. I've been staring at it for hours trying different approaches. The problem is that a thread or more stops at the rwlock after a while although it is not locked for writing. Maybe I miss something about how those locks work or how they are implemented.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <math.h>
#include <unistd.h>
//global variables
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
pthread_cond_t cond;
pthread_rwlock_t rwlock;
int counter;
int listLength = 1;
void* worker(void* arg){
do {
usleep(200);
printf("Before rwlock\n");
pthread_rwlock_rdlock(&rwlock);
printf("Before mutex\n");
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
printf("Afer mutex\n");
counter++;
//signal the main
if (counter == 5 ||
(listLength < 5 && counter == listLength)){
printf("Signal main\n");
pthread_cond_signal(&cond);
counter = 0;
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
pthread_rwlock_unlock(&rwlock);
} while(listLength != 0);
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
if (argc != 2){
perror("Invalid number of args");
exit(1);
}
//get arguments
int workers = atoi(argv[1]);
//initialize sync vars
pthread_rwlockattr_t attr;
pthread_rwlockattr_setkind_np(&attr,
PTHREAD_RWLOCK_PREFER_WRITER_NONRECURSIVE_NP);
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex, NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&cond, NULL);
pthread_rwlock_init(&rwlock, &attr);
counter = 0;
//create threads
pthread_t threadArray[workers];
int threadOrder[workers];
for (int i = 0; i < workers; i++){
threadOrder[i] = i;
if (pthread_create(&threadArray[i], NULL,
worker, &threadOrder[i]) != 0){
perror("Cannot create thread");
exit(1);
}
}
while(listLength != 0) {
//wait for signal and lock the list
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
while (pthread_cond_wait(&cond, &mutex) != 0);
pthread_rwlock_wrlock(&rwlock);
printf("In write lock\n");
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
pthread_rwlock_unlock(&rwlock);
printf("release wrlock\n");
}
//join the threads
for (int i = 0; i < workers; i++){
if (pthread_join(threadArray[i], NULL) !=0){
perror("Cannot join thread");
exit(1);
}
}
//release resources
pthread_mutex_destroy(&mutex);
pthread_cond_destroy(&cond);
pthread_rwlock_destroy(&rwlock);
return 0;
}
Looks like this code has several inconsistencies in it.
You're using mutex together with rwlock which means that all the threads of this kind are always locked. If you remove the rwlock code - it won't change the behaviour.
I cannot see the pthread_rwlock_init() call, and suppose you've called it in another place. Anyway pay attention you do call it and you don't call it twice or more times with the same rowlock object.
The same applies to pthread_rwlockattr_destroy()
I cannot see the reason why pthread_rwlock_rdlock() would block without write lock. Be sure you don't do it. Or else you could do a mutual lock of your mutex
This Code is pretty fine to demonstrate Critical Section problem, but i've TWO QUERIES about the code,
How to show WHICH THREAD is being rejected to Enter in Critical Section ?
thread 'A', 'B', 'C' are created in listed order. HOW can i start them at single time ?
Here is the code:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void *doSomething1();
void *doSomething2();
void *doSomething3();
sem_t sem;
int main() {
// initialize semaphore to 2
sem_init(&sem, 1, 2);
pthread_t thread1, thread2, thread3;
pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, &doSomething1, NULL);
pthread_create(&thread2, NULL, &doSomething2, NULL);
pthread_create(&thread3, NULL, &doSomething3, NULL);
pthread_join(thread1, NULL);
pthread_join(thread2, NULL);
pthread_join(thread3, NULL);
return 0;
}
void doSomething(char c) {
int i, time;
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
if (sem_wait(&sem) == 0) {
// generate random amount of time (< 7 seconds)
time = (int) ((double) rand() / RAND_MAX * 7 );
printf("#thread %c GOT-ACCESS to CRITICAL SESSION for %d sec\n", c, time);
sleep(time);
printf("\t->thread %c RELEASED CRITICAL SESSION\n",c);
sem_post(&sem);
}
else
printf("thread %c FAILED TO ENTER CRITICAL SECTION",c);
}
}
void *doSomething1() {
// thread A
doSomething('A'); return 0;
}
void *doSomething2() {
// thread B
doSomething('B'); return 0;
}
void *doSomething3() {
// thread C
doSomething('C'); return 0;
}
In order for a thread to be "rejected" from entering you would have to replace sem_wait(), which is a blocking call with sem_trywait()or sem_timedwait()although then they might not ever enter the critical section (without some more modifications to the code). But since you only want to see when a thread is denied entering the section this should be sufficient. (for more information on these methods visit the man page http://linux.die.net/man/3/sem_wait ).
As for the second the question the answer is that you actually cannot start all threads at once, they have to start in some sort of order. However you can (if you want) start multiple threads and use a semaphore to block them until all threads are ready and then release them all at once, which is as close as you can get to starting them at once.