I am trying to model a system where there are multiple threads producing data, and a single thread consuming the data. The trick is that I don't want a dedicated thread to consume the data because all of the threads live in a pool. Instead, I want one of the producers to empty the queue when there is work, and yield if another producer is already clearing the queue.
The basic idea is that there is a queue of work, and a lock around the processing. Each producer pushes its payload onto the queue, and then attempts to enter the lock. The attempt is non-blocking and returns either true (the lock was acquired), or false (the lock is held by someone else).
If the lock is acquired, then that thread then processes all of the data in the queue until it is empty (including any new payloads introduced by other producers during processing). Once all of the work has been processed, the thread releases the lock and quits out.
The following is C++ code for the algorithm:
void Process(ITask *task) {
// queue is a thread safe implementation of a regular queue
queue.push(task);
// crit_sec is some handle to a critical section like object
// try_scoped_lock uses RAII to attempt to acquire the lock in the constructor
// if the lock was acquired, it will release the lock in the
// destructor
try_scoped_lock lock(crit_sec);
// See if this thread won the lottery. Prize is doing all of the dishes
if (!lock.Acquired())
return;
// This thread got the lock, so it needs to do the work
ITask *currTask;
while (queue.try_pop(currTask)) {
... execute task ...
}
}
In general this code works fine, and I have never actually witnessed the behavior I am about to describe below, but that implementation makes me feel uneasy. It stands to reason that a race condition is introduced between when the thread exits the while loop and when it releases the critical section.
The whole algorithm relies on the assumption that if the lock is being held, then a thread is servicing the queue.
I am essentially looking for enlightenment on 2 questions:
Am I correct that there is a race condition as described (bonus for other races)
Is there a standard pattern for implementing this mechanism that is performant and doesn't introduce race conditions?
Yes, there is a race condition.
Thread A adds a task, gets the lock, processes itself, then asks for a task from the queue. It is rejected.
Thread B at this point adds a task to the queue. It then attempts to get the lock, and fails, because thread A has the lock. Thread B exits.
Thread A then exits, with the queue non-empty, and nobody processing the task on it.
This will be difficult to find, because that window is relatively narrow. To make it more likely to find, after the while loop introduce a "sleep for 10 seconds". In the calling code, insert a task, wait 5 seconds, then insert a second task. After 10 more seconds, check that both insert tasks are finished, and there is still a task to be processed on the queue.
One way to fix this would be to change try_pop to try_pop_or_unlock, and pass in your lock to it. try_pop_or_unlock then atomically checks for an empty queue, and if so unlocks the lock and returns false.
Another approach is to improve the thread pool. Add a counting semaphore based "consume" task launcher to it.
semaphore_bool bTaskActive;
counting_semaphore counter;
when (counter || !bTaskActive)
if (bTaskActive)
return
bTaskActive = true
--counter
launch_task( process_one_off_queue, when_done( [&]{ bTaskActive=false ) );
When the counting semaphore is active, or when poked by the finished consume task, it launches a consume task if there is no consume task active.
But that is just off the top of my head.
Related
I'm writing a program where I start N (N is a command-line argument) worker threads, and at any time 0 to N-1 of them can be waiting on another to update a variable. What's the best way for the threads to wait for this event, and the best way for one of the threads to notify all the others at once of the event occurring? This event will be sent multiple times by each thread.
sync.Cond isn't appropriate because the threads don't need to lock a resource upon waking from sleep. sync.WaitGroup won't work because I don't know how many times to call wg.Done().
Solution #1: I could use a sync.Mutex and have the thread that will eventually notify the others acquire the lock and then unlock it to notify the others, but it seems really inefficient for the others to all fight over a lock when they all just need to pop out of sleep, read a variable to see if that particular worker is now the master, and then either go back to sleep or start working.
Solution #2: Create a wrapper for sync.WaitGroup that allows keeping track of the number of waiting threads so that I can call wg.Add(-numWaitingThreads) to wake them. This sounds like a headache to figure out how to code it without all sorts of race conditions.
Solution #3: Until someone comes up with a better idea, I'll be using a list of N channels and have the notifier non-blocking-send to all of the channels except its own. Is this really the best way?
More details: I give each worker some unique credits and have a central variable for "which credit is the next to be written to the output file". When a worker finishes its work for whichever credit ID it was working on, it needs to do the following:
for centralNextCreditID != creditID {
wait_for_centralNextCreditID_to_change()
}
saveWorkToFile()
centralNextCreditID++
wake_other_threads_waiting_for_centralNextCreditID_to_change()
To me it does seem like this is an appropriate use case for sync.Cond. You can use a *RWMutex.RLocker() for Cond.L so all goroutines can acquire the read lock simultaneously once the Cond.Broadcast() is sent.
Additionally, it may be worth making sure you hold a write lock when changing this "who's master" variable to avoid race conditions, which would make sync.Cond an even better fit.
sync.WaitGroup won't work because I don't know how many times to call wg.Done().
wg can be used in this case. Make a wg with count 1 and pass this to the N goroutines. Make them wg.Wait(), except the one that updates the variable.
The goroutine updating the variable calls wg.Done() after successful update thus resulting in N goroutines to come out of wait and start executing further.
The title says that you want to wake 0-N sleeping goroutines, but the body of the question indicates that you only need to wake the goroutine for the next id (if there is a goroutine waiting).
Here's how to implement the problem described in the body of the question:
// waiter sequences work according to an incrementing id.
type waiter struct {
mu sync.Mutex
id int
waiting map[int]chan struct{}
}
func NewWaiter(firstID int) *waiter {
return &waiter{id: firstID, waiting: make(map[int]chan struct{})}
}
// wait waits for id's turn in the sequence.
func (w *waiter) wait(id int) {
w.mu.Lock()
if w.id == id {
// This id is next. Nothing to do.
w.mu.Unlock()
return
}
// Wait for our turn.
c := make(chan struct{})
w.waiting[id] = c
w.mu.Unlock()
<-c
}
// done signals that the work for the previous id is done.
func (w *waiter) done() {
w.mu.Lock()
w.id++
c, ok := w.waiting[w.id]
if ok {
delete(w.waiting, w.id)
}
w.mu.Unlock()
if ok {
// close cause c to receive a zero value
close(c)
}
}
Here's how to use it:
for _, creditID := range creditIDs {
doWorkFor(creditID)
waiter.wait(creditID)
saveWorkToFile()
waiter.done()
}
WaitGroup is the best option. The reason is that is keeps its signalled state and you are safe from deadlock if the main thread signals too early.
If you use Cond there is a risk that the main thread calls cond.Broadcast BEFORE the worker thread calls cond.Wait(). Since Cond doesn't remember that it was signalled, the worker thread will wait for the event to happen.
Here is an example: https://go.dev/play/p/YLfvEGO2A18
The main thread broadcasts too early, the worker threads run into a deadlock.
Same case with con.WaitGroup: https://go.dev/play/p/R6_-ULo2eJ2
The main thread releases the wait group too early, but there is no deadlock.
TL;DR
Why does std::condition_variable::wait needs a mutex as one of its variables?
Answer 1
You may look a the documentation and quote that:
wait... Atomically releases lock
But that's not a real reason. That's just validate my question even more: why does it need it in the first place?
Answer 2
predicate is most likely query the state of a shared resource and it must be lock guarded.
OK. fair.
Two questions here
Is it always true that predicate query the state of a shared resource? I assume yes. I t doesn't make sense to me to implement it otherwise
What if I do not pass any predicate (it is optional)?
Using predicate - lock makes sense
int i = 0;
void waits()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(cv_m);
cv.wait(lk, []{return i == 1;});
std::cout << i;
}
Not Using predicate - why can't we lock after the wait?
int i = 0;
void waits()
{
cv.wait(lk);
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(cv_m);
std::cout << i;
}
Notes
I know that there are no harmful implications to this practice. I just don't know how to explain to my self why it was design this way?
Question
If predicate is optional and is not passed to wait, why do we need the lock?
When using a condition variable to wait for a condition, a thread performs the following sequence of steps:
It determines that the condition is not currently true.
It starts waiting for some other thread to make the condition true. This is the wait call.
For example, the condition might be that a queue has elements in it, and a thread might see that the queue is empty and wait for another thread to put things in the queue.
If another thread were to intercede between these two steps, it could make the condition true and notify on the condition variable before the first thread actually starts waiting. In this case, the waiting thread would not receive the notification, and it might never stop waiting.
The purpose of requiring the lock to be held is to prevent other threads from interceding like this. Additionally, the lock must be unlocked to allow other threads to do whatever we're waiting for, but it can't happen before the wait call because of the notify-before-wait problem, and it can't happen after the wait call because we can't do anything while we're waiting. It has to be part of the wait call, so wait has to know about the lock.
Now, you might look at the notify_* methods and notice that those methods don't require the lock to be held, so there's nothing actually stopping another thread from notifying between steps 1 and 2. However, a thread calling notify_* is supposed to hold the lock while performing whatever action it does to make the condition true, which is usually enough protection.
TL;DR
If predicate is optional and is not passed to wait, why do we need the lock?
condition_variable is designed to wait for a certain condition to come true, not to wait just for a notification. So to "catch" the "moment" when the condition becomes true you need to check the condition and wait for the notification. And to avoid a race condition you need those two to be a single atomic operation.
Purpose Of condition_variable:
Enable a program to implement this: do some action when a condition C holds.
Intended Protocol:
Condition producer changes state of the world from !C to C.
Condition consumer waits for C to happen and takes the action while/after condition C holds.
Simplification:
For simplicity (to limit number of cases to think of) let's assume that C never switches back to !C. Let's also forget about spurious wakeups. Even with this assumptions we'll see that the lock is necessary.
Naive Approach:
Let's have two threads with an essential code summarized like this:
void producer() {
_condition = true;
_condition_variable.notify_all();
}
void consumer() {
if (!_condition) {
_condition_variable.wait();
}
action();
}
The Problem:
The problem here is a race condition. A problematic interleaving of the threads is following:
The consumer reads condition, checks it to be false and decides to wait.
A thread scheduler interrupts consumer and resumes producer.
The producer updates condition to become true and invokes notify_all().
The consumer is resumed.
The consumer actually does wait(), but is never notified and waken up (a liveness hazard).
So without locking the consumer may miss the event of the condition becoming true.
Solution:
Disclaimer: this code still does not handle spurious wakeups and possibility of condition becoming false again.
void producer() {
{ std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(_mutex);
_condition = true;
}
_condition_variable.notify_all();
}
void consumer() {
{ std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(_mutex);
if (!_condition) {
_condition_variable.wait(l);
}
}
action();
}
Here we check condition, release lock and start waiting as a single atomic operation, preventing the race condition mentioned before.
See Also
Why Lock condition await must hold the lock
You need a std::unique_lock when using std::condition_variable for the same reason you need a std::FILE* when using std::fwrite and for the same reason a BasicLockable is necessary when using std::unique_lock itself.
The feature std::fwrite gives you, entire the reason it exists, is to write to files. So you have to give it a file. The feature std::unique_lock provides you is RAII locking and unlocking of a mutex (or another BasicLockable, like std::shared_mutex, etc.) so you have to give it something to lock and unlock.
The feature std::condition_variable provides, the entire reason it exists, is the atomically waiting and unlocking a lock (and completing a wait and locking). So you have to give it something to lock.
Why would someone want that is a separate question that has been discussed already. For example:
When is a condition variable needed, isn't a mutex enough?
Conditional Variable vs Semaphore
Advantages of using condition variables over mutex
And so on.
As has been explained, the pred parameter is optional, but having some sort of a predicate and testing it isn't. Or, in other words, not having a predicate doesn't make any sense inn a manner similar to how having a condition variable without a lock doesn't making any sense.
The reason you have a lock is because you have shared state you need to protect from simultaneous access. Some function of that shared state is the predicate.
If you don't have a predicate and you don't have a lock you really don't need a condition variable just like if you don't have a file you really don't need fwrite.
A final point is that the second code snippet you wrote is very broken. Obviously it won't compile as you define the lock after you try to pass it as an argument to condition_variable::wait(). You probably meant something like:
std::mutex mtx_cv;
std::condition_variable cv;
...
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(mtx_cv);
cv.wait(lk);
lk.lock(); // throws std::system_error with an error code of std::errc::resource_deadlock_would_occur
}
The reason this is wrong is very simple. condition_variable::wait's effects are (from [thread.condition.condvar]):
Effects:
— Atomically calls lock.unlock() and blocks on *this.
— When unblocked, calls lock.lock() (possibly blocking on the lock), then returns.
— The function will unblock when signaled by a call to notify_one() or a call to notify_all(), or spuriously
After the return from wait() the lock is locked, and unique_lock::lock() throws an exception if it has already locked the mutex it wraps ([thread.lock.unique.locking]).
Again, why would someone want coupling waiting and locking the way std::condition_variable does is a separate question, but given that it does - you cannot, by definition, lock a std::condition_variable's std::unique_lock after std::condition_variable::wait has returned.
It's not stated in the documentation (and could be implemented differently) but conceptually you can imagine the condition variable has another mutex to both protect its own data but also coordinate the condition, waiting and notification with modification of the consumer code data (e.g. queue.size()) affecting the test.
So when you call wait(...) the following (logically) happens.
Precondition: The consumer code holds the lock (CCL) controlling the consumer condition data (CCD).
The condition is checked, if true, execution in the consumer code continues still holding the lock.
If false, it first acquires its own lock (CVL), adds the current thread to the waiting thread collection releases the consumer lock and puts itself to waiting and releases its own lock (CVL).
That final step is tricky because it needs to sleep the thread and release the CVL at the same time or in that order or in a way that threads notified just before going to wait are able to (somehow) not go to wait.
The step of acquiring the CVL before releasing the CCD is key. Any parallel thread trying to update the CCD and notify will be blocked either by the CCL or CVL. If the CCL was released before acquiring the CVL a parallel thread could acquire the CCL, change the data and then notify before the the to-be-waiting thread is added to the waiters.
A parallel thread acquires the CCL, modifies the data to make the condition true (or at least worth testing) and then notifies. Notification acquires the the CVL and identifies a blocked thread (or threads) if any to unwait. The unwaited threads then seek to acquire the CCL and may block there but won't leave wait and re-perform the test until they've acquired it.
Notification must acquire the CVL to make sure threads that have found the test false have been added to the waiters.
It's OK (possibly preferable for performance) to notify without holding the CCL because the hand-off between the CCL and CVL in the wait code is ensuring the ordering.
It may be preferrable because notifying when holding the CCL may mean all the unwaited threads just unwait to block (on the CCL) while the thread modifying the data is still holding the lock.
Notice that even if the CCD is atomic you must modify it holding the CCL or that Lock CVL, unlock CCL step won't ensure the total ordering required to make sure notifications aren't sent when threads are in the process of going to wait.
The standard only talks about atomicity of operations and another implementation may have a way of blocking notification before completing the 'add to waiters' step has completed following a failed test. The C++ Standard is careful to not dictate an implementation.
In all that, to answer some of the specific questions.
Must the state be shared? Sort of. There could be an external condition like a file being in a directory and the wait is timed to re-try after a time-period. You can decide for yourself whether you consider the file system or even just the wall-clock to be shared state.
Must there be any state? Not necessarily. A thread can wait on notification.
That could be tricky to coordinate because there has to be enough sequencing to stop the other thread notifying out of turn. The commonest solution is to have some boolean flag set by the notifying thread so the notified thread knows if it missed it. The normal use of void wait(std::unique_lock<std::mutex>& lk) is when the predicate is checked outside:
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> ulk(ccd_mutex)
while(!condition){
cv.wait(ulk);
}
Where the notifying thread uses:
{
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(ccd_mutex);
condition=true;
}
cv.notify();
The reason is that in some times the waiting-thread holds the m_mutex:
#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>
void CMyClass::MyFunc()
{
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> guard(m_mutex);
// do something (on the protected resource)
m_condiotion.wait(guard, [this]() {return !m_bSpuriousWake; });
// do something else (on the protected resource)
guard.unluck();
// do something else than else
}
and a thread should never go to sleep while holding a m_mutex. One doesn't want to lock everybody out, while sleeping. So, atomically: {guard is unlocked and the thread go to sleep}. Once it waked up by the other-thread (m_condiotion.notify_one(), let's say) guard is locked again, and then the thread continue.
Reference (video)
Because if not so, there's a race condition before the waiting thread noticing the change of the shared state and the wait() call.
Assume we got a shared state of type std::atomic state_, there's still a fair chance for the waiting thread to miss a notification:
T1(waiting) | T2(notification)
---------------------------------------------- * ---------------------------
1) for (int i = state_; i != 0; i = state_) { |
2) | state_ = 0;
3) | cv.notify();
4) cv.wait(); |
5) }
6) // go on with the satisfied condition... |
Note that the wait() call failed to notice the latest value of state_ and may keep waiting forever.
I know how to wait in Linux kernel queues using wait_event and how to wake them up.
Now I need to figure out how to wait in multiple queues at once. I need to multiplex multiple event sources, basically in a way similar to poll or select, but since the sources of events don't have the form of a pollable file descriptor, I wasn't able to find inspiration in the implementation of these syscalls.
My initial idea was to take the code from the wait_event macro, use DEFINE_WAIT multiple times as well as prepare_to_wait.
However, given how prepare_to_wait is implemented, I'm afraid the internal linked list of the queue would become corrupted if the same "waiter" is added multiple times (which could maybe happen if one queue causes wakeup, but the wait condition isn't met and waiting is being restarted).
One of possible scenarios for wait in several waitqueues:
int ret = 0; // Result of waiting; in form 0/-err.
// Define wait objects, one object per waitqueue.
DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait1, default_wake_function);
DEFINE_WAIT_FUNC(wait2, default_wake_function);
// Add ourselves to all waitqueues.
add_wait_queue(wq1, &wait1);
add_wait_queue(wq2, &wait2);
// Waiting cycle
while(1) {
// Change task state for waiting.
// NOTE: this should come **before** condition checking for avoid races.
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
// Check condition(s) which we are waiting
if(cond) break;
// Need to wait
schedule();
// Check if waiting has been interrupted by signal
if (signal_pending(current)) {
ret = -ERESTARTSYS;
break;
}
}
// Remove ourselves from all waitqueues.
remove_wait_queue(wq1, &wait1);
remove_wait_queue(wq2, &wait2);
// Restore task state
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
// 'ret' contains result of waiting.
Note, that this scenario is slightly different from one of wait_event:
wait_event uses autoremove_wake_function for wait object (created with DEFINE_WAIT). This function, called from wake_up(), removes wait object from the queue. So it is needed to re-add wait object into the queue each iteration.
But in case of multiple waitqueues it is impossible to know, which waitqueue has fired. So following this strategy would require to re-add every wait object every iteration, which is inefficient.
Instead, our scenario uses default_wake_function for wait object, so the object is not removed from the waitqueue on wake_up() call, and it is sufficient to add wait object to the queue only once, before the loop.
Is there ever any reason to add blocks to a serial dispatch queue asynchronously as opposed to synchronously?
As I understand it a serial dispatch queue only starts executing the next task in the queue once the preceding task has completed executing. If this is the case, I can't see what you would you gain by submitting some blocks asynchronously - the act of submission may not block the thread (since it returns straight-away), but the task won't be executed until the last task finishes, so it seems to me that you don't really gain anything.
This question has been prompted by the following code - taken from a book chapter on design patterns. To prevent the underlying data array from being modified simultaneously by two separate threads, all modification tasks are added to a serial dispatch queue. But note that returnToPool adds tasks to this queue asynchronously, whereas getFromPool adds its tasks synchronously.
class Pool<T> {
private var data = [T]();
// Create a serial dispath queue
private let arrayQ = dispatch_queue_create("arrayQ", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL);
private let semaphore:dispatch_semaphore_t;
init(items:[T]) {
data.reserveCapacity(data.count);
for item in items {
data.append(item);
}
semaphore = dispatch_semaphore_create(items.count);
}
func getFromPool() -> T? {
var result:T?;
if (dispatch_semaphore_wait(semaphore, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER) == 0) {
dispatch_sync(arrayQ, {() in
result = self.data.removeAtIndex(0);
})
}
return result;
}
func returnToPool(item:T) {
dispatch_async(arrayQ, {() in
self.data.append(item);
dispatch_semaphore_signal(self.semaphore);
});
}
}
Because there's no need to make the caller of returnToPool() block. It could perhaps continue on doing other useful work.
The thread which called returnToPool() is presumably not just working with this pool. It presumably has other stuff it could be doing. That stuff could be done simultaneously with the work in the asynchronously-submitted task.
Typical modern computers have multiple CPU cores, so a design like this improves the chances that CPU cores are utilized efficiently and useful work is completed sooner. The question isn't whether tasks submitted to the serial queue operate simultaneously — they can't because of the nature of serial queues — it's whether other work can be done simultaneously.
Yes, there are reasons why you'd add tasks to serial queue asynchronously. It's actually extremely common.
The most common example would be when you're doing something in the background and want to update the UI. You'll often dispatch that UI update asynchronously back to the main queue (which is a serial queue). That way the background thread doesn't have to wait for the main thread to perform its UI update, but rather it can carry on processing in the background.
Another common example is as you've demonstrated, when using a GCD queue to synchronize interaction with some object. If you're dealing with immutable objects, you can dispatch these updates asynchronously to this synchronization queue (i.e. why have the current thread wait, but rather instead let it carry on). You'll do reads synchronously (because you're obviously going to wait until you get the synchronized value back), but writes can be done asynchronously.
(You actually see this latter example frequently implemented with the "reader-writer" pattern and a custom concurrent queue, where reads are performed synchronously on concurrent queue with dispatch_sync, but writes are performed asynchronously with barrier with dispatch_barrier_async. But the idea is equally applicable to serial queues, too.)
The choice of synchronous v asynchronous dispatch has nothing to do with whether the destination queue is serial or concurrent. It's simply a question of whether you have to block the current queue until that other one finishes its task or not.
Regarding your code sample code, that is correct. The getFromPool should dispatch synchronously (because you have to wait for the synchronization queue to actually return the value), but returnToPool can safely dispatch asynchronously. Obviously, I'm wary of seeing code waiting for semaphores if that might be called from the main thread (so make sure you don't call getFromPool from the main thread!), but with that one caveat, this code should achieve the desired purpose, offering reasonably efficient synchronization of this pool object, but with a getFromPool that will block if the pool is empty until something is added to the pool.
I'm sure mutex isn't enough that's the reason the concept of condition variables exist; but it beats me and I'm not able to convince myself with a concrete scenario when a condition variable is essential.
Differences between Conditional variables, Mutexes and Locks question's accepted answer says that a condition variable is a
lock with a "signaling" mechanism. It is used when threads need to
wait for a resource to become available. A thread can "wait" on a CV
and then the resource producer can "signal" the variable, in which
case the threads who wait for the CV get notified and can continue
execution
Where I get confused is that, a thread can wait on a mutex too, and when it gets signalled, is simply means the variable is now available, why would I need a condition variable?
P.S.: Also, a mutex is required to guard the condition variable anyway, when makes my vision more askew towards not seeing condition variable's purpose.
Even though you can use them in the way you describe, mutexes weren't designed for use as a notification/synchronization mechanism. They are meant to provide mutually exclusive access to a shared resource. Using mutexes to signal a condition is awkward and I suppose would look something like this (where Thread1 is signaled by Thread2):
Thread1:
while(1) {
lock(mutex); // Blocks waiting for notification from Thread2
... // do work after notification is received
unlock(mutex); // Tells Thread2 we are done
}
Thread2:
while(1) {
... // do the work that precedes notification
unlock(mutex); // unblocks Thread1
lock(mutex); // lock the mutex so Thread1 will block again
}
There are several problems with this:
Thread2 cannot continue to "do the work that precedes notification" until Thread1 has finished with "work after notification". With this design, Thread2 is not even necessary, that is, why not move "work that precedes" and "work after notification" into the same thread since only one can run at a given time!
If Thread2 is not able to preempt Thread1, Thread1 will immediately re-lock the mutex when it repeats the while(1) loop and Thread1 will go about doing the "work after notification" even though there was no notification. This means you must somehow guarantee that Thread2 will lock the mutex before Thread1 does. How do you do that? Maybe force a schedule event by sleeping or by some other OS-specific means but even this is not guaranteed to work depending on timing, your OS, and the scheduling algorithm.
These two problems aren't minor, in fact, they are both major design flaws and latent bugs. The origin of both of these problems is the requirement that a mutex is locked and unlocked within the same thread. So how do you avoid the above problems? Use condition variables!
BTW, if your synchronization needs are really simple, you could use a plain old semaphore which avoids the additional complexity of condition variables.
Mutex is for exclusive access of shared resources, while conditional variable is about waiting for a condition to be true. They are tw different types of kernel resource. Some people might think they can implement conditional variable by themselves with mutex, a common pattern is "flag + mutex":
lock(mutex)
while (!flag) {
sleep(100);
}
unlock(mutex)
do_something_on_flag_set();
but it doesn't work, because you never release the mutex during the wait, no one else can set the flag in a thread-safe way. This is why we need kernel support for conditional variables, so when you're waiting on a condition variable, the associated mutex is not hold by your thread until it's signaled.
I was thinking about this too and the most important information which I think was missing everywhere is that mutex can be owned (or changed) by only one thread at a time. So if you have one producer and more consumers, the producer would have to wait on mutex to produce. With cond. variable it can produce at any time.
You need condition variables, to be used with a mutex (each cond.var. belongs to a mutex) to signal changing states (conditions) from one thread to another one. The idea is that a thread can wait till some condition becomes true. Such conditions are program specific (i.e. "queue is empty", "matrix is big", "some resource is almost exhausted", "some computation step has finished" etc). A mutex might have several related condition variables. And you need condition variables because such conditions may not always be expressed as simply as "a mutex is locked" (so you need to broadcast changes in conditions to other threads).
Read some good posix thread tutorials, e.g. this tutorial or that or that one. Better yet, read a good pthread book. See this question.
Also read Advanced Unix Programming and Advanced Linux Programming
P.S. Parallelism and threads are difficult concepts to grasp. Take time to read and experiment and read again.
The conditional var and the mutex pair can be replaced by a binary semaphore and mutex pair. The sequence of operations of a consumer thread when using the conditional var + mutex is:
Lock the mutex
Wait on the conditional var
Process
Unlock the mutex
The producer thread sequence of operations is
Lock the mutex
Signal the conditional var
Unlock the mutex
The corresponding consumer thread sequence when using the sema+mutex pair is
Wait on the binary sema
Lock the mutex
Check for the expected condition
If the condition is true, process.
Unlock the mutex
If the condition check in the step 3 was false, go back to the step 1.
The sequence for the producer thread is:
Lock the mutex
Post the binary sema
Unlock the mutex
As you can see the unconditional processing in the step 3 when using the conditional var is replaced by the conditional processing in the step 3 and step 4 when using the binary sema.
The reason is that when using sema+mutex, in a race condition, another consumer thread may sneak in between the step 1 and 2 and process/nullify the condition. This won't happen when using conditional var. When using the conditional var, the condition is guarantied to be true after the step 2.
The binary semaphore can be replaced with the regular counting semaphore. This may result in the step 6 to step 1 loop a few more times.
Slowjelj is right, but to shed some light on the problem, look at the python code below. We have a buffer, a producer, and a consumer. And think if you could rewrite it just with mutexes.
import threading, time, random
cv = threading.Condition()
buffer = []
MAX = 3
def put(value):
cv.acquire()
while len(buffer) == MAX:
cv.wait()
buffer.append(value)
print("added value ", value, "length =", len(buffer))
cv.notify()
cv.release()
def get():
cv.acquire()
while len(buffer) == 0:
cv.wait()
value = buffer.pop()
print("removed value ", value, "length =", len(buffer))
cv.notify()
cv.release()
def producer():
while True:
put(0) # it doesn't mater what is the value in our example
time.sleep(random.random()/10)
def consumer():
while True:
get()
time.sleep(random.random()/10)
if __name__ == '__main__':
cs = threading.Thread(target=consumer)
pd = threading.Thread(target=producer)
cs.start()
pd.start()
cs.join()
pd.join()
I think it is implementation defined.
The mutex is enough or not depends on whether you regard the mutex as a mechanism for critical sections or something more.
As mentioned in http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/mutex/unlock,
The mutex must be locked by the current thread of execution, otherwise, the behavior is undefined.
which means a thread could only unlock a mutex which was locked/owned by itself in C++.
But in other programming languages, you might be able to share a mutex between processes.
So distinguishing the two concepts may be just performance considerations, a complex ownership identification or inter-process sharing are not worthy for simple applications.
For example, you may fix #slowjelj's case with an additional mutex (it might be an incorrect fix):
Thread1:
lock(mutex0);
while(1) {
lock(mutex0); // Blocks waiting for notification from Thread2
... // do work after notification is received
unlock(mutex1); // Tells Thread2 we are done
}
Thread2:
while(1) {
lock(mutex1); // lock the mutex so Thread1 will block again
... // do the work that precedes notification
unlock(mutex0); // unblocks Thread1
}
But your program will complain that you have triggered an assertion left by the compiler (e.g. "unlock of unowned mutex" in Visual Studio 2015).