According to http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qpointer.html, QPointer is very useful. But I found it could be inefficient in the following context:
If I want to show label for three times or do something else, I have to use
if(label) label->show1();
if(label) label->show2();
if(label) label->show3();
instead of
if(label) { label->show1();label->show2();label->show3(); }
just because label might be destroyed in another thread after label->show1(); or label->show2();.
Is there a beautiful way other than three ifs to get the same functionality?
Another question is, when label is destroyed after if(label), is if(label) label->show1(); still wrong?
I don't have experience in multi-threaded programs. Any help is appreciated. ;)
I think the only safe way to do it is to make sure you only access your QWidgets from within the main/GUI thread (that is, the thread that is running Qt's event loop, inside QApplication::exec()).
If you have code that is running within a different thread, and that code wants the QLabels to be shown/hidden/whatever, then that code needs to create a QEvent object (or a subclass thereof) and call qApp->postEvent() to send that object to the main thread. Then when the Qt event loop picks up and handles that QEvent in the main thread, that is the point at which your code can safely do things to the QLabels.
Alternatively (and perhaps more simply), your thread's code could emit a cross-thread signal (as described here) and let Qt handle the event-posting internally. That might be better for your purpose.
Neither of your approaches is thread-safe. It's possible that your first thread will execute the if statement, then the other thread will delete your label, and then you will be inside of your if statement and crash.
Qt provides a number of thread synchronization constructs, you'll probably want to start with QMutex and learn more about thread-safety before you continue working on this program.
Using a mutex would make your function would look something like this:
mutex.lock();
label1->show();
label2->show();
label3->show();
mutex.unlock()
As long as your other thread is using locking that same mutex object then it will prevented from deleting your labels while you're showing them.
Related
I have a simple QT question, so i hope a code example is not really required.
So In my main app I have a
QMutex member to protect some data.
Then with two timers the handling function I lock that mutex. Then also after locking i call
in the handling function some file reading and also QApplication::processEvents. Afterward mutex gets unlocked obviously.
Then this all works fine as long as the QMutex is set as recursive. Or else it will dead lock when processEvents is called and the other timer function is executed.
I know people say that calling processEvents is a bad design but i use it to keep a progress bar alive in (other) lengthy calls.
So Iam really not so happy with the recursive mutex. Is there perhaps a way around this?
Thanks!
I have the same situation like this: stop thread started by qtconcurrent::run
I need to close child thread (started with QtConcurrent::run) on closeEvent in QMainWindow.
But my function in child thread use code from *.dll: I can`t use loop because all that I do - is calling the external dll like
QFuture<void> = QtConcurrent::run(obj->useDllfunc_with_longTermJob());
And when I close the app with x-button my gui is closed, but second thread with_longTermJob() still worked and when is finished I have an error.
I know some decisions for this:
using other functions like map() or something else with
QFuture.cancel/stop functionality, not QtConcurrent::run().But I need only one function call. run() is what I need.
or use QThread instead Concurrent.But it`s not good for me.
What method more simple and better and how can I implement this? Is there a method that I don`t listed?
Could you provide small code sample for decision. Thx!
QtConcurrent::run isn't a problem here. You must have means of stopping the dllFuncWithLongTermJob. If you don't have such means, then the API you're using is broken, and you're out of luck. There's nothing you can do that'd be generally safe. Forcibly terminating a thread can leave the heap in an inconsistent state, etc. - if you need to terminate a thread, you need to immediately abort the application.
Hopefully, you can call something like stopLongTermJob that sets some flag that interrupts the dllFuncWithLongTermJob.
Then:
auto obj = new Worker;
auto objFuture = QtConcurrent::run([=]{obj->dllFuncWithLongTermJob();});
To interrupt:
obj->stopLongTermJob(); // must be thread-safe, sets a flag
objFuture.waitForFinished();
I have a multithreaded program that needs to run many executables at once and wait for their results.
I use [nstask waitUntilExit] in an NSOperationQueue that runs it on non-main thread (running NSTask on the main thread is completely out of the question).
My program randomly crashes or runs into assertion failures, and the crash stacks always point to the runloop run by waitUntilExit, which executes various callbacks and handlers, including—IMHO incorrectly—KVO and bindings updating the UI, which causes them to run on non-main thread (It's probably the problem described by Mike Ash)
How can I safely use waitUntilExit?
Is it a problem of waitUntilExit being essentially unusable, or do I need to do something special (apart from explicitly scheduling my callbacks on the main thread) when using KVO and IB bindings to prevent them from being handled on a wrong thread running waitUntilExit?
As Mike Ash points out, you just can't call waitUntilExit on a random runloop. It's convenient, but it doesn't work. You have to include "doesn't work" in your computation of "is this actually convenient?"
You can, however, use terminationHandler in 10.7+. It does not pump the runloop, so shouldn't create this problem. You can recreate waitUntilExit with something along these lines (untested; probably doesn't compile):
dispatch_group group = dispatch_group_create();
dispatch_group_enter(group);
task.terminationHandler = ^{ dispatch_group_leave(group); };
[task launch];
dispatch_group_wait(group, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
// If not using ARC:
dispatch_release(group);
Hard to say without general context of what are you doing...
In general you can't update interface from the non main threads. So if you observe some KVO notifications of NSTasks in non main thread and update UI then you are wrong.
In that case you can fix situation by simple
-[NSObject performSelectorOnMainThread:];
or similar when you want to update UI.
But as for me more grace solution:
write separated NSOperationQueue with maxConcurentOperationsCount = 1 (so FIFO queue) and write subclass of NSOperation which will execute NSTask and update UI through delegate methods. In that way you will control amount of executing tasks in application. (or you may stop all of them or else)
But high level solution for your problem I think will be writing privileged helper tool. Using this approach you will get 2 main benefits: your NSTask's will be executes in separated process and you will have root privilegies for executing your tasks.
I hope my answer covers your problem.
When I create a new thread in a program... in it's thread handle function, why do I pass variables that I want that thread to use through the thread function prototype as parameters (as a void pointer)? Since threads share the same memory segments (except for stack) as the main program, shouldn't I be able to just use the variables directly instead of passing parameters from main program to new thread?
Well, yes, you could use the variables directly. Maybe. Assuming that they aren't changed by some other thread before your thread starts running.
Also, a big part of passing parameters to functions (including thread functions) is to limit the amount of information the called function has to know about the outside world. If you pass the thread function everything it needs in order to do its work, then you can change the rest of the program with relative impunity and the thread will still continue to work. If, however, you force the thread to know that there is a global list of strings called MyStringList, then you can't change that global list without also affecting the thread.
Information hiding. Encapsulation. Separation of concerns. Etc.
You cannot pass parameters to a thread function in any kind of normal register/stack manner because thread functions are not called by the creating thread - they are given execution directly by the underlying OS and the API's that do this copy a fixed number of parameters, (usually only one void pointer), to the new and different stack of the new thread.
As Jim says, failure to understand this mechanism often results in disaster. There are numnerous questions on SO where the vars that devs. hope would be used by a new thread are RAII'd away before the new thread even starts.
I'm working on a project where I need to make a program run on multiple threads. However, I'm running into a bit of an issue.
In my program, I have an accessory function called 'func_call'.
If I use this in my code:
func_call((void*) &my_pixels);
The program runs fine.
However, if I try to create a thread, and then run the function on that, the program runs into a segmentation fault.
pthread_t thread;
pthread_create (&thread, NULL, (void*)&func_call, (void*) &my_pixels);
I've included pthread.h in my program. Any ideas what might be wrong?
You are not handling data in a thread safe manner:
the thread copies data from the thread argument, which is a pointer to the main thread's my_pixels variable; the main thread may exit, making my_pixles invalid.
the thread uses scene, main thread calls free_scene() on it, which I imagine makes it invalid
the thread calls printf(), the main thread closes stdout (kind of unusual itself)
the thread updates the picture array, the main thread accesses picture to output data from it
It looks like you should just wait for the thread to finish its work after creating it - call pthread_join() to do that.
For a single thread, that would seem to be pointless (you've just turned a multi-threaded program into a single threaded program). But on the basis of code that's commented out, it looks like you're planning to start up several threads that work on chunks of the data. So, when you get to the point of trying that again, make sure you join all the threads you start. As long as the threads don't modify the same data, it'll work. Note that you'll need to use separate my_pixels instances for each thread (make an array of them, just like you did with pthreads), or some threads will likely get parameters that are intended for a different thread.
Without knowing what func_call does, it is difficult to give you an answer. Nevertheless, here are few possibilities
Does func_call use some sort of a global state - check if that is initialized properly from within the thread. The order of execution of threads is not always the same for every execution
Not knowing your operating system (AIX /Linux/Solaris etc) it is difficult to answer this, but please check your compilation options
Please provide the signal trapped and atleast a few lines of the stack-trace - for all the threads. One thing you can check for yourself is to print the threads' stack-track (using threads/thread or pthread and thread current <x> based on the debugger) and and if there is a common data that is being accessed. It is most likely that the segfault occurred when two threads were trying to read off the other's (uncommitted) change
Hope that helps.
Edit:
After checking your code, I think the problem is the global picture array. You seem to be modifying that in the thread function without any guards. You loop using px and py and all the threads will have the same px and py and will try to write into the picture array at the same time. Please try to modify your code to prevent multiple threads from stepping on each other's data modifications.
Is func_call a function, or a function pointer? If it's a function pointer, there is your problem: you took the address of a function pointer and then cast it.
People are guessing because you've provided only a fraction of the program, which mentions names like func_call with no declaration in scope.
Your compiler must be giving you diagnostics about this program, because you're passing a (void *) expression to a function pointer parameter.
Define your thread function in a way that is compatible with pthread_create, and then just call it without any casts.