Please bear with me on this as I'm new to this.
I have an array and two threads.
First thread appends new elements to the array when required
myArray ~= newArray;
Second thread removes elements from the array when required:
extractedArray = myArray[0..10];
myArray = myArray[10..myArray.length()];
Is this thread safe?
What happens when the two threads interact on the array at the exact same time?
No, it is not thread-safe. If you share data across threads, then you need to deal with making it thread-safe yourself via facilities such as synchronized statements, synchronized functions, core.atomic, and mutexes.
However, the other major thing that needs to be pointed out is that all data in D is thread-local by default. So, you can't access data across threads unless it's explicitly shared. So, you don't normally have to worry about thread safety at all. It's only when you explicitly share data that it's an issue.
this is not thread safe
this has the classic lost update race:
appending means examening the array to see if it can expand in-place, if not it needs to make a (O(n) time) copy while the copy is busy the other thread can slice of a piece and when the copy is done that piece will return
you should look into using a linked list implementation which are easier to make thread safe
Java's ConcurrentLinkedQueue uses the list described here for it's implementation and you can implement it with the core.atomic.cas() in the standard library
It is not thread-safe. The simplest way to fix this is to surround array operations with the synchronized block. More about it here: http://dlang.org/statement.html#SynchronizedStatement
Related
This is a continuation from here: Golang: Shared communication in async http server
Assuming I have a hashmap w/ locking:
//create async hashmap for inter request communication
type state struct {
*sync.Mutex // inherits locking methods
AsyncResponses map[string]string // map ids to values
}
var State = &state{&sync.Mutex{}, map[string]string{}}
Functions that write to this will place a lock. My question is, what is the best / fastest way to have another function check for a value without blocking writes to the hashmap? I'd like to know the instant a value is present on it.
MyVal = State.AsyncResponses[MyId]
Reading a shared map without blocking writers is the very definition of a data race. Actually, semantically it is a data race even when the writers will be blocked during the read! Because as soon as you finish reading the value and unblock the writers - the value may not exists in the map anymore.
Anyway, it's not very likely that proper syncing would be a bottleneck in many programs. A non-blocking lock af a {RW,}Mutex is probably in the order of < 20 nsecs even on middle powered CPUS. I suggest to postpone optimization not only after making the program correct, but also after measuring where the major part of time is being spent.
I have an stl::map<int, *msg> msg_container, where msg is a class (not relevant here).
There are multiple threads adding to the global msg_container, with locks in place for synchronised access.
In a seperate thread, it needs to assess a local copy of msg_container at a particular time and perform checks on it. Pseudo-code as below
map<int, *msg> msg_container;
map<int, *msg> msg_container_copy;
if (appropriate_time_is_reached)
{
msg_container_copy = msg_container;
//perform functions on msg_container_copy
}
As per my previous question, I know I will need to lock msg_container when reading, if there is a chance that other threads are adding to it.
Do I need to lock msg_container_copy when using it in this manner? It is local only to this thread, so there are no other threads that will be accessing it.
I do not see the necessity to lock the variable msg_container_copy if as you describe, "It is local only to this thread, so there are no other threads that will be accessing it."
By the way, I think the definition "stl::map<int, *msg> msg_container;" should be written as "stl::map<int, msg *> msg_container;" if msg is a class, so that msg * is a pointer type. It must be a typo.
You don't need a lock to access msg_container_copy because no other thread can access it.
You might need a lock when dereferencing the pointers it contains, because they are shared with other threads. It depends what you do with those pointers.
so far I thought that any operation done on "shared" object (common for multiple threads) must be protected with "synchronize", no matter what. Apparently, I was wrong - in the code I'm studying recently there are plenty of classes (thread-safe ones, as the Author claims) and only one of them uses Critical Section for almost every method.
How do I find what parts / methods of my code needs to be protected with CriticalSection (or any other method) and which not?
So far I haven't stumbled upon any interesting explanation / article / blog note, all google results are:
a) examples of synchronization between thread and the GUI. From simple progressbar to most complex, but still the lesson is obvious: each time you access / modify the property of GUI component, do that in "Synchronize". But nothing more.
b) articles explaining Critical Sections, Mutexes etc. Just a different approaches of protection/synchronization.
c) Examples of very very simple thread-safe classes (thread safe stack or list) - they all do the same - implement lock / unlock methods which do enter/leave critical section and return the actual stack/list pointer on locking.
Now I'm looking for explanation which parts of code should be protected.
could be in form of code ;) but please don't provide me with one more "using Synchronize to update progressbar" ... ;)
thank you!
You are asking for specific answers to a very general question.
Basically, apart of UI operations, you should protect every shared memory/resource access to avoid two potentially competing threads to:
read inconsistent memory
write memory at the same time
try to use the same resource at the same time from more than one thread... until the resource is thread-safe.
Generally, I consider any other operation thread safe, including operations that access not shared memory or not shared objects.
For example, consider this object:
type
TThrdExample = class
private
FValue: Integer;
public
procedure Inc;
procedure Dec;
function Value: Integer;
procedure ThreadInc;
procedure ThreadDec;
function ThreadValue: Integer;
end;
ThreadVar
ThreadValue: Integer;
Inc, Dec and Value are methods which operate over FValue field. The methods are not thread safe until you protect them with some synchronization mechanism. It can be a MultipleReaderExclusiveWriterSinchronizer for Value function and CriticalSection for Inc and Dec methods.
ThreadInc and ThreadDec methods operate over ThreadValue variable, which is defined as ThreadVar, so I consider it ThreadSafe because the memory they access is not shared between threads... each call from different thread will access different memory address.
If you know that, by design, a class should be used only in one thread or inside other synchronization mechanisms, you're free to consider that thread safe by design.
If you want more specific answers, I suggest you try with a more specific question.
Best regards.
EDIT: Maybe someone say the integer fields is a bad example because you can consider integer operations atomic on Intel/Windows thus is not needed to protect it... but I hope you get the idea.
You misunderstood TThread.Synchronize method.
TThread.Synchronize and TThread.Queue methods executes protected code in the context of main (GUI) thread. That is why you should use Syncronize or Queue to update GUI controls (like progressbar) - normally only main thread should access GUI controls.
Critical Sections are different - the protected code is executed in the context of the thread that acquired critical section, and no other thread is permitted to acquire the critical section until the former thread releases it.
You use critical section in case there's a need for a certain set of objects to be updated atomically. This means, they must at all times be either already updated completely or not yet updated at all. They must never be accessible in a transitional state.
For example, with a simple integer reading/writing this is not the case. The operation of reading integer as well as the operation of writing it are atomic already: you cannot read integer in the middle of processor writing it, half-updated. It's either old value or new value, always.
But if you want to increment the integer atomically, you have not one, but three operations you have to do at once: read the old value into processor's cache, increment it, and write it back to memory. Each operation is atomic, but the three of them together are not.
One thread might read the old value (say, 200), increment it by 5 in cache, and at the same time another thread might read the value too (still 200). Then the first thread writes back 205, while the second thread increments its cached value of 200 to 203 and writes back 203, overwriting 205. The result of two increments (+5 and +3) should be 208, but it's 203 due to non-atomicity of operations.
So, you use critical sections when:
A variable, set of variables, or any resource is used from several threads and needs to be updated atomically.
It's not atomic by itself (for example, calling a function which is guarded by critical section inside of the function body, is an atomic operation already)
Have a read of this documentation
http://www.eonclash.com/Tutorials/Multithreading/MartinHarvey1.1/ToC.html
If you use messaging to communicate between threads then you can basically ignore synchronisation primitives completely because each thread only accesses its internal structures and the messages themselves. In essence this is far easier and more scalable architecture than using synchronisation primitives.
Slightly modified version of canonical broken double-checked locking from Wikipedia:
class Foo {
private Helper helper = null;
public Helper getHelper() {
if (helper == null) {
synchronized(this) {
if (helper == null) {
// Create new Helper instance and store reference on
// stack so other threads can't see it.
Helper myHelper = new Helper();
// Atomically publish this instance.
atomicSet(helper, myHelper);
}
}
}
return helper;
}
}
Does simply making the publishing of the newly created Helper instance atomic make this double checked locking idiom safe, assuming that the underlying atomic ops library works properly? I realize that in Java, one could just use volatile, but even though the example is in pseudo-Java, this is supposed to be a language-agnostic question.
See also:
Double checked locking Article
It entirely depends on the exact memory model of your platform/language.
My rule of thumb: just don't do it. Lock-free (or reduced lock, in this case) programming is hard and shouldn't be attempted unless you're a threading ninja. You should only even contemplate it when you've got profiling proof that you really need it, and in that case you get the absolute best and most recent book on threading for that particular platform and see if it can help you.
I don't think you can answer the question in a language-agnostic fashion without getting away from code completely. It all depends on how synchronized and atomicSet work in your pseudocode.
The answer is language dependent - it comes down to the guarantees provided by atomicSet().
If the construction of myHelper can be spread out after the atomicSet() then it doesn't matter how the variable is assigned to the shared state.
i.e.
// Create new Helper instance and store reference on
// stack so other threads can't see it.
Helper myHelper = new Helper(); // ALLOCATE MEMORY HERE BUT DON'T INITIALISE
// Atomically publish this instance.
atomicSet(helper, myHelper); // ATOMICALLY POINT UNINITIALISED MEMORY from helper
// other thread gets run at this time and tries to use helper object
// AT THE PROGRAMS LEISURE INITIALISE Helper object.
If this is allowed by the language then the double checking will not work.
Using volatile would not prevent a multiple instantiations - however using the synchronize will prevent multiple instances being created. However with your code it is possible that helper is returned before it has been setup (thread 'A' instantiates it, but before it is setup thread 'B' comes along, helper is non-null and so returns it straight away. To fix that problem, remove the first if (helper == null).
Most likely it is broken, because the problem of a partially constructed object is not addressed.
To all the people worried about a partially constructed object:
As far as I understand, the problem of partially constructed objects is only a problem within constructors. In other words, within a constructor, if an object references itself (including it's subclass) or it's members, then there are possible issues with partial construction. Otherwise, when a constructor returns, the class is fully constructed.
I think you are confusing partial construction with the different problem of how the compiler optimizes the writes. The compiler can choose to A) allocate the memory for the new Helper object, B) write the address to myHelper (the local stack variable), and then C) invoke any constructor initialization. Anytime after point B and before point C, accessing myHelper would be a problem.
It is this compiler optimization of the writes, not partial construction that the cited papers are concerned with. In the original single-check lock solution, optimized writes can allow multiple threads to see the member variable between points B and C. This implementation avoids the write optimization issue by using a local stack variable.
The main scope of the cited papers is to describe the various problems with the double-check lock solution. However, unless the atomicSet method is also synchronizing against the Foo class, this solution is not a double-check lock solution. It is using multiple locks.
I would say this all comes down to the implementation of the atomic assignment function. The function needs to be truly atomic, it needs to guarantee that processor local memory caches are synchronized, and it needs to do all this at a lower cost than simply always synchronizing the getHelper method.
Based on the cited paper, in Java, it is unlikely to meet all these requirements. Also, something that should be very clear from the paper is that Java's memory model changes frequently. It adapts as better understanding of caching, garbage collection, etc. evolve, as well as adapting to changes in the underlying real processor architecture that the VM runs on.
As a rule of thumb, if you optimize your Java code in a way that depends on the underlying implementation, as opposed to the API, you run the risk of having broken code in the next release of the JVM. (Although, sometimes you will have no choice.)
dsimcha:
If your atomicSet method is real, then I would try sending your question to Doug Lea (along with your atomicSet implementation). I have a feeling he's the kind of guy that would answer. I'm guessing that for Java he will tell you that it's cheaper to always synchronize and to look to optimize somewhere else.
I understand about race conditions and how with multiple threads accessing the same variable, updates made by one can be ignored and overwritten by others, but what if each thread is writing the same value (not different values) to the same variable; can even this cause problems? Could this code:
GlobalVar.property = 11;
(assuming that property will never be assigned anything other than 11), cause problems if multiple threads execute it at the same time?
The problem comes when you read that state back, and do something about it. Writing is a red herring - it is true that as long as this is a single word most environments guarantee the write will be atomic, but that doesn't mean that a larger piece of code that includes this fragment is thread-safe. Firstly, presumably your global variable contained a different value to begin with - otherwise if you know it's always the same, why is it a variable? Second, presumably you eventually read this value back again?
The issue is that presumably, you are writing to this bit of shared state for a reason - to signal that something has occurred? This is where it falls down: when you have no locking constructs, there is no implied order of memory accesses at all. It's hard to point to what's wrong here because your example doesn't actually contain the use of the variable, so here's a trivialish example in neutral C-like syntax:
int x = 0, y = 0;
//thread A does:
x = 1;
y = 2;
if (y == 2)
print(x);
//thread B does, at the same time:
if (y == 2)
print(x);
Thread A will always print 1, but it's completely valid for thread B to print 0. The order of operations in thread A is only required to be observable from code executing in thread A - thread B is allowed to see any combination of the state. The writes to x and y may not actually happen in order.
This can happen even on single-processor systems, where most people do not expect this kind of reordering - your compiler may reorder it for you. On SMP even if the compiler doesn't reorder things, the memory writes may be reordered between the caches of the separate processors.
If that doesn't seem to answer it for you, include more detail of your example in the question. Without the use of the variable it's impossible to definitively say whether such a usage is safe or not.
It depends on the work actually done by that statement. There can still be some cases where Something Bad happens - for example, if a C++ class has overloaded the = operator, and does anything nontrivial within that statement.
I have accidentally written code that did something like this with POD types (builtin primitive types), and it worked fine -- however, it's definitely not good practice, and I'm not confident that it's dependable.
Why not just lock the memory around this variable when you use it? In fact, if you somehow "know" this is the only write statement that can occur at some point in your code, why not just use the value 11 directly, instead of writing it to a shared variable?
(edit: I guess it's better to use a constant name instead of the magic number 11 directly in the code, btw.)
If you're using this to figure out when at least one thread has reached this statement, you could use a semaphore that starts at 1, and is decremented by the first thread that hits it.
I would expect the result to be undetermined. As in it would vary from compiler to complier, langauge to language and OS to OS etc. So no, it is not safe
WHy would you want to do this though - adding in a line to obtain a mutex lock is only one or two lines of code (in most languages), and would remove any possibility of problem. If this is going to be two expensive then you need to find an alternate way of solving the problem
In General, this is not considered a safe thing to do unless your system provides for atomic operation (operations that are guaranteed to be executed in a single cycle).
The reason is that while the "C" statement looks simple, often there are a number of underlying assembly operations taking place.
Depending on your OS, there are a few things you could do:
Take a mutual exclusion semaphore (mutex) to protect access
in some OS, you can temporarily disable preemption, which guarantees your thread will not swap out.
Some OS provide a writer or reader semaphore which is more performant than a plain old mutex.
Here's my take on the question.
You have two or more threads running that write to a variable...like a status flag or something, where you only want to know if one or more of them was true. Then in another part of the code (after the threads complete) you want to check and see if at least on thread set that status... for example
bool flag = false
threadContainer tc
threadInputs inputs
check(input)
{
...do stuff to input
if(success)
flag = true
}
start multiple threads
foreach(i in inputs)
t = startthread(check, i)
tc.add(t) // Keep track of all the threads started
foreach(t in tc)
t.join( ) // Wait until each thread is done
if(flag)
print "One of the threads were successful"
else
print "None of the threads were successful"
I believe the above code would be OK, assuming you're fine with not knowing which thread set the status to true, and you can wait for all the multi-threaded stuff to finish before reading that flag. I could be wrong though.
If the operation is atomic, you should be able to get by just fine. But I wouldn't do that in practice. It is better just to acquire a lock on the object and write the value.
Assuming that property will never be assigned anything other than 11, then I don't see a reason for assigment in the first place. Just make it a constant then.
Assigment only makes sense when you intend to change the value unless the act of assigment itself has other side effects - like volatile writes have memory visibility side-effects in Java. And if you change state shared between multiple threads, then you need to synchronize or otherwise "handle" the problem of concurrency.
When you assign a value, without proper synchronization, to some state shared between multiple threads, then there's no guarantees for when the other threads will see that change. And no visibility guarantees means that it it possible that the other threads will never see the assignt.
Compilers, JITs, CPU caches. They're all trying to make your code run as fast as possible, and if you don't make any explicit requirements for memory visibility, then they will take advantage of that. If not on your machine, then somebody elses.