I am trying to assign a routine to the posix thread. When it is completing the routine, the calling thread is not exiting. Every time, I am creating a new thread and assigning a same routine to the new thread in while loop. New thread is created only for 379 times, after that thread creation is failed with status 11 means PTHREAD_MAX_LIMIT has been reached. Although in the calling thread I am using the pthread_exit(NULL).
I think you need to create your threads in the "detached" mode, otherwise you need to "join" them with the main thread (the one that creates the threads).
See this tutorial for details.
Related
I have an embedded application, running as a single process on Linux.
I use sigaction() to catch problems, such as segmentation fault, etc.
The process has a few threads, all of which, like the app, should run forever.
My question is whether (and how) I should detect if one of the threads dies.
Would a seg fault in a thread be caught by the application’s sigaction() handler?
I was thinking of using pthread_cleanup_push/pop, but this page says “If any thread within a process calls exit, _Exit, or _exit, then the entire process terminates”, so I wonder if a thread dying would be caught at the process level …
It is not a must that you need to check whether the child thread is completed.
If you have a need of doing something after the child thread completes its processing you can call thread_join() from the main thread, so that it will wait till the child threads completes execution and you can do the rest after this. If you are using thread_exit in the main thread it will get terminated once it is done, leaving the spawned threads to continue execution. The process will get killed only after all the threads completes execution.
If you want to check the status of the spawned threads you can use a flag to detect whether it is running or not. Check this link for more details
How do you query a pthread to see if it is still running?
I was studying about multi-threading and came across join().
As I understand right, using join() on the thread makes process wait until 'joined' thread terminates. For example, calling t1.join() in main will make main wait until the job in thread t1 is finished and t1 terminates.
I'm just curious that how the function join() make this possible - how does it make current thread 'blocked' inside the function? Does join() force execution of joined thread first so any other thread should wait until that thread terminates? Or, is there some way to communicate between two threads(the thread who called join() and the thread who is joined)?
I will be waiting for the answer. Thanks a lot!
To be able to join you need to be able to wait on some event. Then join looks like this:
function join(t : Thread)
// do this atomically
if already done
return
wait on termination event of t
end
Waiting can be done in one of two ways:
Looping and periodically checking if the event has happened (busy wait)
Letting the system reclaim the resources of the thread and be woken up on a system event, in that case waking the thread is managed by the scheduler of the OS
It's rather language specific.
Once you create a thread, it starts running.
A join operation is when your main process stops and waits for the thread to exit and capture a return code. It will block until your thread completes - that's rather the point, as it allows for a synchronization to occur - everything in your program is at a 'known state'.
Related is the detach operation, which is effectively saying 'I don't care any more'.
I like C# CancellationTokenSource which allows me to terminate the Task as shown in this article.
What would be the similar algorithm of canceling boost::thread? I don't want to "kill" or "terminate" the thread. Instead i want to "request" the task to finish. Then i need to wait until the task is finished.
You can use the boost thread interruption
A running thread can be interrupted by invoking the interrupt() member
function of the corresponding boost::thread object. When the
interrupted thread next executes one of the specified interruption
points (or if it is currently blocked whilst executing one) with
interruption enabled, then a boost::thread_interrupted exception will
be thrown in the interrupted thread. If not caught, this will cause
the execution of the interrupted thread to terminate. As with any
other exception, the stack will be unwound, and destructors for
objects of automatic storage duration will be executed.
If an user provides information that is recorded in an excel file then I choose Excel COM to read the data.
However, as the user can repeat the process to N files and the process can take a while, I decided to move this routines to a separated thread.
Therefore, I need your advice to define how can I do this.
The worker thread cannot be destroyed until there is no more remaining files.
Inside the thread the data is loaded to a ClientDataSet and at the end is applied to database.
I need somehow notify the user when task is done, so he can decide if he will load another file and execute the thread again or finish the job.
How to properly destroy the thread and notify the user?
Should I create and destroy the thread to each file?
You can, but that is not a very efficient design. Put the files into a thread-safe queue, then start the thread if it is not already running, and then have the thread loop through the queue util it is empty. At that time, the thread can then be destroyed, or just put to sleep in case more files will be queued later on.
This design also allows you to process multiple files in parallel if you implement a thread pool. When you put a file into the queue, start a new thread if there is not already an idle thread waiting to be used. When a thread starts, pull the next available file from the queue. When that thread finishes, it can pull the next file from the queue, and if there is no file then go back into the pool for later reuse.
If so, How to properly destroy the thread and notify the user?
When you are ready to destroy a thread, call its Terminate() method (its Execute() needs to should check its Terminated property periodically and exit when set to true), then call its WaitFor() method (or equivalent, like MsgWaitForMultipleOjects(), which allows you to keep the message queue responsive while waiting for the thread to terminate), then free it from memory. The thread triggers its OnTerminate event after Execute() exits, however it is not safe to destroy the thread in the OnTerminate event handler. If you want to destroy the thread when the OnTerminate event is triggered (especially if you are not expecting the thread to terminate, such as if it threw an uncaught exception), you can post yourself an asynchronous notification, such as with PostMessage(), PostThreadMessage(), TThread.Queue(), etc, and then destroy the thread when that notification is processed at a later time.
How to set a thread to notify the user when the work is finished? By assigning the event OnTerminate?
Yes. Unless the thread is going to process multiple files before terminating, in which case the thread could manually send a notification in between each file.
It's better to create the thread to each file or create 1 thread and somehow control it's execution to every time for different files?
Creating and destroying a thread is not trivial for the OS, in terms of resources and processing, so you should re-use threads as much as possible. Make them sleep when they have nothing to do, unless they are going to be sleeping for a long time in which case you should destroy them to release their resources.
I have multi thread program. I have a design of my application as follows:
Suppose one is main thread, and other are slave threads. Main thread keep track of all slave thread ID's. During one of the scenario of application (one of the scenario is graceful shutdown of application), i want to delete slave threads from main thread.
Here slave threads may be executing i.e., either in sleep mode or doing some action which i cannot stop the action. So i want to delete the threads from main thread with thread IDs i stored internally.
Additional info:
While deleting i should not wait for thread current action to complete as it may take long time as i am reading from data base and taking some action in thread, in case of gracefull shut down i should not wait for action to complete as it may take time.
If i force delete a thread how can there will be a resource leaks?
Is above design is ok or there is any flow or any ways we can improve the design.
Thanks!
It's not okay. It's a bad practice to forcefully kill a thread from another thread because you'll very likely to have resource leaks. The best way is to use an event or signal to signal the client process to stop and wait until they exit gracefully.
The overall flow of the program would look like this:
Parent thread creates an event (say hEventParent). it then creates child threads and passes hEventParent as a parameter. The Parent thread keeps the hThread of the child thread(s).
Child threads do work but periodically waits for hEventParent.
When the program needs to exit, the parent thread sets hEventParent. It then waits for hThread (WaitForMultipleObjects also accepts hThread)
Child thread is notified then execute clean up routine and exits.
When all the threads exit, the parent can then exit.
The most common approach consists in the main thread sending a termination signal to all the threads, then waiting for the threads to end.
Typically the worker threads will have a loop, inside of which the work is done. You can add a boolean variable that indicates if the thread needs to end. For example:
terminate = false;
while (!terminate) {
// work here
}
If you want your worker threads to go to sleep when they have no work, then it gets a bit more complicated. In this case you could make the threads wait on semaphores. Each semaphore will be signaled when there is work to do, and that will awaken the thread. You will also signal the semaphore when the request to terminate is issued. Example worker thread:
terminate = false;
while (!terminate) {
// work here
wait(semaphore); // go to sleep
}
When the main thread wants to exit it will set terminate to true for all the threads and then signal the thread semaphores to awaken the threads and give them a chance to see the termination request. After that it will join all the threads, and only after all the threads are finished it will exit.
Note that the terminate boolean may need to be declared as volatile if you are using C/C++, to indicate to the compiler that it may be changed from another thread.