To get the instance of the class with Singleton pattern, I want use the following function:
This is a sketch
interface
uses SyncObjs;
type
TMCriticalSection = class(TCriticalSection)
private
Dummy : array [0..95] of Byte;
end;
var
InstanceNumber : Integer;
AObject: TObject;
CriticalSection: TMCriticalSection;
function getInstance: TObject;
implementation
uses Windows;
function getInstance: TObject;
begin
//I Want somehow use InterlockedCompareExchange instead of CriticalSession, for example
if InterlockedCompareExchange(InstanceNumber, 1, 0) > 0 then
begin
Result := AObject;
end
else
begin
CriticalSection.Enter;
try
AObject := TObject.Create;
finally
CriticalSection.Leave;
end;
InterlockedIncrement(InstanceNumber);
Result := AObject
end;
end;
initialization
CriticalSection := TMCriticalSection.Create;
InstanceNumber := 0;
finalization;
CriticalSection.Free;
end.
Three Questions:
1- Is this design Thread Safe? Especially the with InterlockedExchange Part.
2- How to use the InterlockedCompareExchange? Is it possible to do what i'm trying?
3- Is this design better than involve all code within the critical section scope?
Remark:
My object is thread safe, only the construction i need to serialize!
This is not the intire code, only the important part, i mean, the getInstance function.
Edit
I NEED to use some kind of singleton object.
Is there any way to use InterlockedCompareExchange to compare if the value of InstanceNumber is zero?
And
1 - Create the object only when is 0, otherwise, return the instance.
2 - When the value is 0: Enter in the critical section. Create the object. Leave critical section.
3 - Would be better to do this way, instead of involve all code within the critical section scope?
There is a technique called "Lock-free initialization" that does what you want:
interface
function getInstance: TObject;
implementation
var
AObject: TObject;
function getInstance: TObject;
var
newObject: TObject;
begin
if (AObject = nil) then
begin
//The object doesn't exist yet. Create one.
newObject := TObject.Create;
//It's possible another thread also created one.
//Only one of us will be able to set the AObject singleton variable
if InterlockedCompareExchangePointer(AObject, newObject, nil) <> nil then
begin
//The other beat us. Destroy our newly created object and use theirs.
newObject.Free;
end;
end;
Result := AObject;
end;
The use of InterlockedCompareExchangePointer erects a full memory barrier around the operation. It is possible one might be able to get away with InterlockedCompareExchangeRelease to use release semantics (to ensure the construction of the object completes before performing the compare exchange). The problem with that is:
i'm not smart enough to know if Release semantics alone really will work (just cause a smarter person than me said they would, doesn't mean i know what he's talking about)
you're constructing an object, the memory barrier performance hit is the least of your worries (it's the thread safety)
Note: Any code released into public domain. No attribution required.
Your design does not work and this can be seen even without any understanding of what InterlockedCompareExchange does. In fact, irrespective of the meaning of InterlockedCompareExchange, your code is broken.
To see this, consider two threads arriving at the if statement in getInstance at the same time. Let's consider the three options for which branches they take:
They both choose the second branch. Then you create two instances and your code no longer implements a singleton.
They both choose the first branch. Then you never create an instance.
One choose the first and the other chooses the second. But since there is no lock in the first branch, the thread that takes that route can read AObject before the other thread has written it.
Personally I'd use double-checked locking if I had to implement your getInstance function.
Related
If multiple threads are executing class procedure TDjelatBL.Test, is there going to be an exception due to accessing variable iPublic?
The point of my question is if accessing same variable/object/constant from two or more threads simultaneously will raise an exception. I assume that nature of change of variable/object does not change memory allocation like changing size of an array.
Closest question (comparing to this one) I have found is Is a Delphi global procedure threadsafe and Are Delphi simple types thread safe? but raising of an exception is never mentioned.
unit MTTest;
interface
uses
System.SysUtils, System.Classes;
type
TDjelatBL = class
public
class procedure Test;
end;
var
iPublic: Integer;
StringList: TStringList;
implementation
class procedure TDjelatBL.Test;
var
i: Integer;
begin
StringList.Add('x');
for i := 1 to 1000000000 do
begin
iPublic := iPublic + StringList.Count;
end;
end;
initialization
StringList := TStringList.Create;
finalization
StringList.Free;
Simultaneous read/modify/write actions on an integer variable will not result in exceptions.
There is a classic data race condition with your code. But there will be no exception. Use InterlockedIncrement to avoid the data race.
Using a global variable for the string list is a problem. Expect exceptions when two threads try to use that single variable simultaneously. That variable should be a local variable, and then that particular problem is resolved.
Is it ok to read data from TStringList without any form of synchronization? For example synchronization with main thread.
Example code
var MyStringList:TStringList; //declared globally
procedure TForm1.JvThread1Execute(Sender: TObject; Params: Pointer);
var x:integer;
begin
for x:=0 to MaxInt do MyStringList.Add(FloatToStr(Random));
end;
procedure TForm1.ButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
var x:integer;
SumOfRandomNumbers:double;
begin
for x:=0 to MyStringList.Count-1 do
SumOfRandomNumbers:=SumOfRandomNumbers+StrToFloat(MyStringList.Strings[x]);
end;
or Should I protect access to MyStringList with EnterCiticalSection
var MyStringList:TStringList; //declared globally
procedure TForm1.JvThread1Execute(Sender: TObject; Params: Pointer);
var x:integer;
begin
for x:=0 to MaxInt do
begin
EnterCriticalSection(MySemaphore);
MyStringList.Add(FloatToStr(Random));
LeaveCriticalSection(MySemaphore);
end;
end;
procedure TForm1.ButtonClick(Sender: TObject);
var x:integer;
SumOfRandomNumbers:double;
begin
for x:=0 to MyStringList.Count-1 do
begin
EnterCriticalSection(MySemaphore);
SumOfRandomNumbers:=SumOfRandomNumbers+StrToFloat(MyStringList.Strings[x]);
LeaveCriticalSection(MySemaphore);
end;
end;
First, no TStringList is not thread-safe.
Second, attempting to make it so would be a terrible idea for a low-level container that in the vast majority of cases would not be shared across multiple threads.
Third, the naive code you propose to make it thread-safe is woefully insufficient. It falls well short of making it truly thread-safe - which is part of the problem in trying to do so generically.
In the text of your question you ask:
Is it ok to read data from TStringList without any form of synchronisation?
Yes it is okay. In fact, that is preferred because it is more efficient.
However, if the data is shared across threads, you may run into problems. Which is why you should minimise the amount of data (not just string lists) shared across threads. And if you do need to share data, do so in a suitably controlled fashion.
Expanding on point 3
The reason your code is not thread-safe is that it falls short of protecting all your data from shared access. This is a common misunderstanding in multi-threaded development: "I just need to wrap certain operations with locks and all will be fine."
The point is, if your list is shared, you are:
Sharing the structures that represent the container.
AND you are sharing the data members (the actual strings) themselves.
When dealing with strings, this goes a step further, because the way Delphi manages strings means they could be shared (through internal reference counting) with other strings of the same value in an entirely different area of the application.
While it is possible your proposed locking strategy might be suitable for your current requirements, it is far from being generally thread-safe.
Conclusion
If you want to write thread-safe code the onus is on you to:
Understand the data access paths.
Minimise sharing between threads (by far the best bang for buck).
And to implement the best strategy to share the data safely (of which there are many options, and locking is not guaranteed to be best in any case).
Sidenote
I indicated earlier that your locking technique only "might be suitable for your current requirements" because I do not believe you have really given an indication as to you real requirements. If you have then you really do need to take note of the following:
In the code you have presented there would be absolutely no benefit in making your TStringList "thread-safe". You populate the list in a loop, and you read values in a second loop. You're doing absolutely nothing to use the data concurrently.
The closest your code should come to multi-threading is: It would be a good idea to process both loops off the main thread to avoid blocking the UI. In which case, the background thread should NOT share its TStringList instance. And can simply synchronise with the main thread to report the result (and possibly progress updates).
By not sharing data that doesn't need to be shared, you can bypass the need for locks entirely. They would be an unnecessary overhead. And you can be happy that TStringList doesn't have a built-in "thread-safety" mechanism.
No, it isn't. There is no mechanism inside of TStringList, that locks for example .Add() or .GetStrings().
Unfortunately there is nothing built in like TThreadList, that is a threadsafe wrapper for TList. But you could build that easily on your own.
Here is a simple example for a synchronized decorator of TStringList, in that I cover the case for Add():
TThreadStringList = class
private
FStringList: TStringList;
FCriticalSection: TRtlCriticalSection;
// ...
public
function Add(const S: string): Integer;
// ...
end;
// ...
TThreadStringList.Add(const S: string): Integer;
begin
EnterCriticalSection(FCriticalSection);
try
Result:= Add(S);
finally
LeaveCriticalSection(FCriticalSection);
end;
end;
It should be easy, to apply this to all other methods you need.
Bear in mind, that you have to initialize the critical section, before you can use it, and to delete it afterwards.
I have a thread class TValidateInvoiceThread:
type
TValidateInvoiceThread = class(TThread)
private
FData: TValidationData;
FInvoice: TInvoice; // Do NOT free
FPreProcessing: Boolean;
procedure ValidateInvoice;
protected
procedure Execute; override;
public
constructor Create(const objData: TValidationData; const bPreProcessing: Boolean);
destructor Destroy; override;
end;
constructor TValidateInvoiceThread.Create(const objData: TValidationData;
const bPreProcessing: Boolean);
var
objValidatorCache: TValidationCache;
begin
inherited Create(False);
FData := objData;
objValidatorCache := FData.Caches.Items['TInvAccountValidator'];
end;
destructor TValidateInvoiceThread.Destroy;
begin
FreeAndNil(FData);
inherited;
end;
procedure TValidateInvoiceThread.Execute;
begin
inherited;
ValidateInvoice;
end;
procedure TValidateInvoiceThread.ValidateInvoice;
var
objValidatorCache: TValidationCache;
begin
objValidatorCache := FData.Caches.Items['TInvAccountValidator'];
end;
I create this thread in another class
procedure TInvValidators.ValidateInvoiceUsingThread(
const nThreadIndex: Integer;
const objValidatorCaches: TObjectDictionary<String, TValidationCache>;
const nInvoiceIndex: Integer; const bUseThread, bPreProcessing: Boolean);
begin
objValidationData := TValidationData.Create(FConnection, FAllInvoices, FAllInvoices[nInvoiceIndex], bUseThread);
objValidationData.Caches := objValidatorCaches;
objThread := TValidateInvoiceThread.Create(objValidationData, bPreProcessing);
FThreadArray[nThreadIndex] := objThread;
FHandleArray[nThreadIndex]:= FThreadArray[nThreadIndex].Handle;
end;
Then I execute it
rWait:= WaitForMultipleObjects(FThreadsRunning, #FHandleArray, True, 100);
Note I have removed some code out of here to try to keep it a bit simpler to follow
The problem is that my Dictionary is becoming corrupt
If I put a breakpoint in the constructor all is fine
However, in the first line of the Execute method, the dictionary is now corrupt.
The dictionary itself is a global variable to the class
Do I need to do anything special to allow me to use Dictionaries inside a thread?
I have also had the same problem with a String List
Edit - additional information as requested
TInvValidators contains my dictionary
TInvValidators = class(TSTCListBase)
private
FThreadArray : Array[1..nMaxThreads] of TValidateInvoiceThread;
FHandleArray : Array[1..nMaxThreads] of THandle;
FThreadsRunning: Integer; // total number of supposedly running threads
FValidationList: TObjectDictionary<String, TObject>;
end;
procedure TInvValidators.Validate(
const Phase: TValidationPhase;
const objInvoices: TInvoices;
const ReValidate: TRevalidateInvoices;
const IDs: TList<Integer>;
const objConnection: TSTCConnection;
const ValidatorCount: Integer);
var
InvoiceIndex: Integer;
i : Integer;
rWait : Cardinal;
Flags: DWORD; // dummy variable used in a call to find out if a thread handle is valid
nThreadIndex: Integer;
procedure ValidateInvoiceRange(const nStartInvoiceID, nEndInvoiceID: Integer);
var
InvoiceIndex: Integer;
I: Integer;
begin
nThreadIndex := 1;
for InvoiceIndex := nStartInvoiceID - 1 to nEndInvoiceID - 1 do
begin
if InvoiceIndex >= objInvoices.Count then
Break;
objInvoice := objInvoices[InvoiceIndex];
ValidateInvoiceUsingThread(nThreadIndex, FValidatorCaches, InvoiceIndex, bUseThread, False);
Inc(nThreadIndex);
if nThreadIndex > nMaxThreads then
Break;
end;
FThreadsRunning := nMaxThreads;
repeat
rWait:= WaitForMultipleObjects(FThreadsRunning, #FHandleArray, True, 100);
case rWait of
// one of the threads satisfied the wait, remove its handle
WAIT_OBJECT_0..WAIT_OBJECT_0 + nMaxThreads - 1: RemoveHandle(rWait + 1);
// at least one handle has become invalid outside the wait call,
// or more than one thread finished during the previous wait,
// find and remove them
WAIT_FAILED:
begin
if GetLastError = ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE then
begin
for i := FThreadsRunning downto 1 do
if not GetHandleInformation(FHandleArray[i], Flags) then // is handle valid?
RemoveHandle(i);
end
else
// the wait failed because of something other than an invalid handle
RaiseLastOSError;
end;
// all remaining threads continue running, process messages and loop.
// don't process messages if the wait returned WAIT_FAILED since we didn't wait at all
// likewise WAIT_OBJECT_... may return soon
WAIT_TIMEOUT: Application.ProcessMessages;
end;
until FThreadsRunning = 0; // no more valid thread handles, we're done
end;
begin
try
FValidatorCaches := TObjectDictionary<String, TValidationCache>.Create([doOwnsValues]);
for nValidatorIndex := 0 to Count - 1 do
begin
objValidator := Items[nValidatorIndex];
objCache := TValidationCache.Create(objInvoices);
FValidatorCaches.Add(objValidator.ClassName, objCache);
objValidator.PrepareCache(objCache, FConnection, objInvoices[0].UtilityType);
end;
nStart := 1;
nEnd := nMaxThreads;
while nStart <= objInvoices.Count do
begin
ValidateInvoiceRange(nStart, nEnd);
Inc(nStart, nMaxThreads);
Inc(nEnd, nMaxThreads);
end;
finally
FreeAndNil(FMeterDetailCache);
end;
end;
If I remove the repeat until and leave just WaitForMultipleObjects I still get lots of errors
You can see here that I am processing the invoices in chunks of no more than nMaxThreads (10)
When I reinstated the repeat until loop it worked on my VM but then access violated on my host machine (which has more memory available)
Paul
Before I offer guidance on how to resolve your problem, I'm going to give you a very important tip.
First ensure your code works single-threaded, before trying to get a multi-threaded implementation working. The point is that multi-threaded code adds a whole new layer of complexity. Until your code works correctly in a single thread, it has no chance of doing so in multiple threads. And the extra layer of complexity makes it extremely difficult to fix.
You might believe you've got a working single-threaded solution, but I'm seeing errors in your code that imply you still have a lot of resource management bugs. Here's one example with relevant lines only, and comments to explain the mistakes:
begin
try //try/finally is used for resource protection, in order to protect a
//resource correctly, it should be allocated **before** the try.
FValidatorCaches := TObjectDictionary<String, TValidationCache>.Create([doOwnsValues]);
finally
//However, in the finally you're destroying something completely
//different. In fact, there are no other references to FMeterDetailCache
//anywhere else in the code you've shown. This strongly implies an
//error in your resource protection.
FreeAndNil(FMeterDetailCache);
end;
end;
Reasons for not being able to use the dictionary
You say that: "in the first line of the Execute method, the dictionary is now corrupt".
For a start, I'm fairly certain that your dictionary isn't really "corrupt". The word "corrupt" implies that it's there, but its internal data is invalid resulting in inconsistent behaviour. It's far more likely that by the time the Execute method wants to use the dictionary, it has already been destroyed. So your thread is basically pointing to an area of memory that used to have a dictionary, but it's no longer there at all. (I.e. not "corrupt")
SIDE NOTE It is possible for your dictionary to truly become corrupt because you have multiple threads sharing the same dictionary. If different threads cause any internal changes to the dictionary at the same time, it could very easily become corrupt. But, assuming your threads are all treating the dictionary as read-only, you would need a memory overwrite to corrupt it.
So let's focus on what might cause your dictionary to be destroyed before the thread gets to use it. NOTE I can't see anything in the code provided, but there are 2 likely possibilities:
Your main thread destroys the dictionary before the child thread gets to use it.
One of your child threads destroys the dictionary as soon as it is destroyed resulting in all other threads being unable to use it.
In the first case, this would happen as follows:
Main Thread: ......C......D........
Child Thread ---------S......
. = code being executed
C = child thread created
- = child thread exists, but isn't doing anything yet
S = OS has started the child thread
D = main thread destroys dictionary
The point of the above is that it's easy to forget that the main thread can reach a point where it decides to destroy the dictionary even before the child thread starts running.
As for the second possibility, this depends on what is happening inside the destructor of TValidationData. Since you haven't shown that code, only you know the answer to that.
Debugging to pinpoint the problem
Assuming the dictionary is being destroyed too soon, a little debugging can quickly pinpoint where/why the dictionary is being destroyed. From your question, it seems you've already done some debugging, so I'm assuming you'll have no trouble following these steps:
Put a breakpoint on the first line of the dictionary's destructor.
Run your code.
If you reach Execute before reaching the dictionary's destructor, then the thread should still be able to use the dictionary.
If you reach the dictionary's destructor before reaching Execute, then you simply need to examine the sequence of calls leading to the object's destruction.
Debugging in case of a memory overwrite
Keeping an open mind about the possibility of a memory overwrite... This is a little trickier to debug. But provided you can consistently reproduce the problem it should be possible to debug.
Put a breakpoint in the thread's destructor.
Run the app
When you reach the above breakpoint, find the address of the of the dictionary by pressing Ctrl + F7 and evaluating #FData.Caches.
Now add a Data Breakpoint (use the drop-down from the Breakpoints window) for the address and the size of the dictionary.
Continue running, the app will pause when the the data changes.
Again, examine the call-stack to determine the cause.
Wrapping up
You have a number of questions and statements that imply misunderstandings about sharing data (dictionary/string list) between threads. I'll try cover those here.
There is nothing special required to use a Dictionary/StringList in a thread. It's basically the same as passing it to any other object. Just make sure the Dictionary/StringList isn't destroyed prematurely.
That said, whenever you share data, you need to be aware of the possibility of "race conditions". I.e. one thread attempts to access the shared data at the same time another thread is busy modifying it. If no threads are modifying the data, then there's no need for concern. But as soon as any thread is able to modify the data, the access needs to be made "thread-safe". (There are a number of ways to do this, please search for existing questions on SO.)
You mention: "The dictionary itself is a global variable to the class". Your terminology is not correct. A global variable is something declared at the unit level and is accessible anywhere. It's enough to simply say the dictionary is a member of or field of the class. When dealing with "globals", there are significantly different things to worry about; so best to avoid any confusion.
You may want to rethink how you initialise your threads. There are a few reasons you some entries of FHandleArray won't be initialised. Are you ok with this?
You mention AV on a machine that has more memory available. NOTE: Amount of memory is not relevant. And if you run in 32-bit mode you wouldn't have access to more than 4 GB in any case.
Finally, to make a special mention:
Using multiple threads to perform dictionary lookups is extremely inefficient. A dictionary lookup is an O(1) operation. The overhead of threading will almost certainly slow you down unless you intend doing a significant amount of processing in addition to the dictionary lookup.
PS - (not so big) mistake
I noticed the following in your code, and it's a mistake.
procedure TValidateInvoiceThread.Execute;
begin
inherited;
ValidateInvoice;
end;
The TThread.Execute method is abstract, meaning there's no implementation. Attempting to call an abstract method will trigger an EAbstractError. Luckily as LU RD points out, the compiler is able to protect you by not compiling the line in. Even so, it would be more accurate to not call inherited here.
NOTE: In general, overridden methods don't always need to call inherited. You should be explicitly aware of what inherited is doing for you and decide whether to call it on a case-by-case basis. Don't go into auto-pilot mode of calling inherited just because you're overriding a virtual method.
I've built a simple logging class and want to confirm that it is thread safe. Basically the Log, RegisterLogger and UnRegisterLogger will be called from different threads. Log will be called alot (from many different threads) and RegisterLogger and UnRegisterLogger infrequently.
Basically my question can be boiled down to is: "Are reads on TList<x> thread safe?", that is to say can I have multiple threads accessing a TList at the same time.
IExecutionCounterLogger is an interface with a Log method (with the same signature as TExecutionCounterServer.Log)
Type
TExecutionCounterServer = class
private
Loggers : TList<IExecutionCounterLogger>;
Synchronizer : TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer;
public
procedure RegisterLogger(Logger : IExecutionCounterLogger);
procedure UnRegisterLogger(Logger : IExecutionCounterLogger);
procedure Log(const ClassName, MethodName : string; ExecutionTime_ms : integer);
constructor Create;
destructor Destroy; override;
end;
constructor TExecutionCounterServer.Create;
begin
Loggers := TList<IExecutionCounterLogger>.Create;
Synchronizer := TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer.Create;
end;
destructor TExecutionCounterServer.Destroy;
begin
Loggers.Free;
Synchronizer.Free;
inherited;
end;
procedure TExecutionCounterServer.Log(const ClassName, MethodName: string; ExecutionTime_ms: integer);
var
Logger: IExecutionCounterLogger;
begin
Synchronizer.BeginRead;
try
for Logger in Loggers do
Logger.Log(ClassName, MethodName, ExecutionTime_ms);
finally
Synchronizer.EndRead;
end;
end;
procedure TExecutionCounterServer.RegisterLogger(Logger: IExecutionCounterLogger);
begin
Synchronizer.BeginWrite;
try
Loggers.Add(Logger);
finally
Synchronizer.EndWrite;
end;
end;
procedure TExecutionCounterServer.UnRegisterLogger(Logger: IExecutionCounterLogger);
var
i : integer;
begin
Synchronizer.BeginWrite;
try
i := Loggers.IndexOf(Logger);
if i = -1 then
raise Exception.Create('Logger not present');
Loggers.Delete(i);
finally
Synchronizer.EndWrite;
end;
end;
As a bit more background, this is a follow on from this question. Basically I've added some instrumentation to every method of a (DCOM) DataSnap server, also I've hooked into every TDataSnapProvider OnGetData and OnUpdateData event.
Are reads on TList<T> thread safe? That is to say can I have multiple threads accessing a TList<T> at the same time?
That is thread safe and needs no synchronisation. Multiple threads can safely read concurrently. That is equivalent to (and in fact implemented as) reading from an array. It is only if one of your threads modifies the list that synchronisation is needed.
Your code is a little more complex than this scenario. You do appear to need to cater for threads modifying the list. But you've done so with TMultiReadExclusiveWriteSynchronizer which is a perfectly good solution. It allows multiple reads threads to operate concurrently, but any write threads are serialized with respect to all other threads.
Emphasizing the first part of your question, you state that calls to RegisterLogger and UnregisterLogger are infrequently. While the Log call is only reading the list, these other two are changing the list. In this case you have to make sure that none of these is executed while a Log call is executing or may occur.
Imagine a Delete in UnregisterLogger is executed during the for loop in Log. The results are unpredictable at least.
It will be not sufficient to use the Synchronizer only in those two writing calls.
So the answer to your question
Are reads on TList thread safe?
can only be: it depends!
If you can make sure that no RegisterLogger and UnregisterLogger happen (i.e. only read calls can happen), you can safely omit the Synchronizer. Otherwise - better not.
The app is written in Delphi XE.
I have two classes, a TBoss and TWorker, which are both based of of TThread.
The TBoss is a single instance thread, which starts up and then will create about 20 TWorker threads.
When the boss creates a instance of TWorker it assigns it a method to call synchronize on, when the Worker has finished with what it's doing it calls this method which allows the Boss to access a record on the Worker.
However I feel this is a problem, calling synchronize appears to be locking up the whole application - blocking the main (ui) thread. Really it should just be synchronizing that worker to the boss thread....
Previously I used messages/packed records to send content between threads which worked well. However doing it this way is much cleaner and nicer.... just very blocking.
Is there a way to call Syncronize in the worker to only wait for the Boss thread?
My code:
type
TWorker = class(TThread)
private
fResult : TResultRecord;
procedure SetOnSendResult(const Value: TNotifyEvent);
....
....
public
property OnSendResult: TNotifyEvent write SetOnSendResult;
property Result : TResultRecord read fResult;
....
end;
...
...
procedure TWorker.SendBossResults;
begin
if (Terminated = False) then
begin
Synchronize(SendResult);
end;
end;
procedure TWorker.SendResult;
begin
if (Terminated = false) and Assigned(FOnSendResult) then
begin
FOnSendResult(Self);
end;
end;
Then in my Boss thread I will do something like this
var
Worker : TWorker;
begin
Worker := TWorker.Create;
Worker.OnTerminate := OnWorkerThreadTerminate;
Worker.OnSendResult := ProcessWorkerResults;
So my boss then has a method called ProcessWorkerResults - this is what gets run on the Synchronize(SendResult); of the worker.
procedure TBoss.ProcessWorkerResults(Sender: TObject);
begin
if terminated = false then
begin
If TWorker(Sender).Result.HasRecord then
begin
fResults.Add(TWorker(Sender).Result.Items);
end;
end;
end;
Synchronize is specifically designed to execute code in the main thread; that's why it seems to lock everything up.
You can use several ways to communicate from the worker threads to the boss thread:
Add a callback to each worker thread,
and assign it from the boss thread
when it's created. It can pass back
whatever as parameters, along with a
thread ID or some other identifier.
Post a message from the worker thread
to the boss thread using
PostThreadMessage. The
disadvantage here is that the boss
thread has to have a window handle
(see Classes.AllocateHWnd in the
Delphi help and David Heffernan's comment below).
Use a good quality third-party
threading library. See
OmniThreadLibrary - it's free,
OS, and extremely well written.
My choice would be the third. Primoz has done all the hard work for you. :)
After your comment, here's something along the lines of my first suggestion. Note that this is untested, since writing the code for a TBoss and TWorker thread + a test app is a little long for the time I have right this minute... It should be enough to give you the gist, I hope.
type
TWorker = class(TThread)
private
fResult : TResultRecord;
fListIndex: Integer;
procedure SetOnSendResult(const Value: TNotifyEvent);
....
....
public
property OnSendResult: TNotifyEvent write SetOnSendResult;
property Result : TResultRecord read fResult;
property ListIndex: Integer read FListIndex write FListIndex;
....
end;
type
TBoss=class(TThread)
private
FWorkerList: TThreadList; // Create in TBoss.Create, free in TBoss.Free
...
end;
procedure TWorker.SendBossResults;
begin
if not Terminated then
SendResult;
end;
procedure TBoss.ProcessWorkerResults(Sender: TObject);
var
i: Integer;
begin
if not terminated then
begin
If TWorker(Sender).Result.HasRecord then
begin
FWorkerList.LockList;
try
i := TWorker(Sender).ListIndex;
// Update the appropriate record in the WorkerList
TResultRecord(FWorkerList[i]).Whatever...
finally
FWorkerList.UnlockList;
end;
end;
end;
end;
You could use a thread safe queue. In DelphiXE there is the TThreadedQueue. If you don't have DXE, try OmniThreadLibray - this library is very good for all threading issues.
As I mentioned new options in Delphi 2009 and higher, here is a link to an example for Producer / Consumer communication between threads, based on the new objct locks, in my blog:
Thread Synchronization with Guarded Blocks in Delphi
In a note regarding the deprecated methods TThread.Suspend and
TThread.Resume, The Embarcadero DocWiki for Delphi
recommends that “thread
synchronization techniques should be
based on SyncObjs.TEvent and
SyncObjs.TMutex.“ There is, however,
another synchronization class
available since Delphi 2009: TMonitor.
It uses the object lock which has been
introduced in this version ...
public properties of the TWorker class MUST have get and set methods, so you can use a Tcriticalsection to give the values of the properties. Otherwise, you´d be having thread-safe issues. Your example seems ok, but in the real world, with thousands of threads accessing to the same value would result in an read error. Use critical sections.. and you wouldn´t have to use any Synchronize. This way you avoid going to the message queues of windows and improve performance. Besides, if you use this code in a windows service app, (where windows messages aren´t allowed), this example wouldn´t work. The synchronize method doesn´t work unless there´s access to the windows message queue.
Solved!! (answer taken from the question)
The fixes made for this problem where two fold.
First remove the syncronization call in the TWorker SendBossResult method.
Second add a fProcessWorkerResult CritialSection to TBoss class. Create and Free this in create/destroy of the TBoss. In the ProcessWorkerResults method call fProcessWorkerResult.Enter and fProcessWorkerResult.leave around the code which needs to be safe from multiple worker results streaming in.
The above was the conclusion after Kens code and follow up comment. Many thanks kind sir, hats off to you!.