I'm using pthreads on Linux, and one of my threads periodically calls the write function on a device file descriptor. If the write call takes a while to finish, will my thread be suspended so other threads can run? I didn't set any of the scheduling features of pthreads, so my question is about default thread behavior.
So long as nothing else is trying to write to the same resource, the other threads should run while the writing thread waits for its write to complete.
If a write() call blocks, only the calling thread is suspended. This is documented in the POSIX spec for write():
If there is enough space for all the
data requested to be written
immediately, the implementation should
do so. Otherwise, the calling thread
may block; that is, pause until enough
space is available for writing.
Note that it says calling thread, not calling process.
See if blocking behavior is explicitly defined here
http://www.akkadia.org/drepper/nptl-design.pdf
In principle, YES, other threads can run.
But be aware that some filesystems have locking mechnisms which permit only one concurrent IO operation on a single file. So if another thread does another IO on the same file (even if it's via a different file descriptor) it MAY block it for some of the duration of the write() system call.
There are also other in-kernel locks for other facililties. Most of them will not block other threads running unless they're doing closely related activities, however.
If your device file descriptor is a shared resource, you have to take care of locking. But once it's thread-safe, calls to such shared resource are serialized, thus if one thread writes, the rest are blocked. If locking is not implemented, the data may be garbled.
Related
I've this problem, I need to understand if a Linux thread is running or not due to crash and not for normal exit. The reason to do that is try to restart the thread without reset\restart all system.
The pthread_join() seems not a good option because I've several thread to monitoring and the function return on specific thread, It doesn't work in "parallel". At moment I've a keeep live signal from thread to main but I'm looking for some system call or thread attribute to understand the state
Any suggestion?
P
Thread "crashes"
How to detect if a linux thread is crashed
if (0) //...
That is, the only way that a pthreads thread can terminate abnormally while other threads in the process continue to run is via thread cancellation,* which is not well described as a "crash". In particular, if a signal is received whose effect is abnormal termination then the whole process terminates, not just the thread that handled the signal. Other kinds of errors do not cause threads to terminate.
On the other hand, if by "crash" you mean normal termination in response to the thread detecting an error condition, then you have no limitation on what the thread can do prior to terminating to communicate about its state. For example,
it could update a shared object that tracks information about your threads
it could write to a pipe designated for the purpose
it could raise a signal
If you like, you can use pthread_cleanup_push() to register thread cleanup handlers to help with that.
On the third hand, if you're asking about detecting live threads that are failing to make progress -- because they are deadlocked, for example -- then your best bet is probably to implement some form of heartbeat monitor. That would involve each thread you want to monitor periodically updating a shared object that tracks the time of each thread's last update. If a thread goes too long between beats then you can guess that it may be stalled. This requires you to instrument all the threads you want to monitor.
Thread cancellation
You should not use thread cancellation. But if you did, and if you include termination because of cancellation in your definition of "crash", then you still have all the options above available to you, but you must engage them by registering one or more cleanup handlers.
GNU-specific options
The main issues with using pthread_join() to check thread state are
it doesn't work for daemon threads, and
pthread_join() blocks until the specified thread terminates.
For daemon threads, you need one of the approaches already discussed, but for ordinary threads on GNU/Linux, Glibc provides non-standard pthread_tryjoin_np(), which performs a non-blocking attempt to join a thread, and also pthread_timedjoin_np(), which performs a join attempt with a timeout. If you are willing to rely on Glibc-specific functions then one of these might serve your purpose.
Linux-specific options
The Linux kernel makes per-process thread status information available via the /proc filesystem. See How to check the state of Linux threads?, for example. Do be aware, however, that the details vary a bit from one kernel version to another. And if you're planning to do this a lot, then also be aware that even though /proc is a virtual filesystem (so no physical disk is involved), you still access it via slow-ish I/O interfaces.
Any of the other alternatives is probably better than reading files in /proc. I mention it only for completeness.
Overall
I'm looking for some system call or thread attribute to understand the state
The pthreads API does not provide a "have you terminated?" function or any other such state-inquiry function, unless you count pthread_join(). If you want that then you need to roll your own, which you can do by means of some of the facilities already discussed.
*Do not use thread cancellation.
I have a multi-threaded system in which a main thread has to wait in blocking state for one of the following 4 events to happen:
inter-process semaphore (sem_wait())
pthread condition (pthread_cond_wait())
recv() from socket
timeout expiring
Ideally I'd like a mechanism to unblock the main thread when any of the above occurs, something like a ppoll() with suitable timeout parameter. Non-blocking and polling is out of the picture due to the impact on the CPU usage, while having separate threads blocking on different events is not ideal due to the increased latency (one thread unblocking from one of the events should eventually wake up the main one).
The code will be almost exclusively compiled under Linux with gcc toolchain, if that helps, but some portability would be good, if at all possible.
Thanks in advance for any suggestion
The mechanisms for waiting on multiple types of objects on Unix-like systems are not that great. In general, the idea is to, wherever possible, use file descriptors for IPC rather than multiple different IPC mechanisms.
From your comment, it sounds like you can edit or change the condition variable, but not the code that signals the semaphore. So what I'd recommend is something like the following.
Change the condition variable to either a pipe (for more portability) or an eventfd(2) object (Linux-specific). The notifying thread writes to the pipe whenever it wants to signal the main thread. This will allow you to select(2) or poll(2) or whatever in the main thread on both that pipe and the socket.
Because you're stuck with the semaphore, I think the best option would be to create another thread, whose sole purpose is to wait for the semaphore using sem_wait(), and then write to another pipe or eventfd(2) object when it is notified by whatever process is doing sem_post(). In the main thread, just add this other file descriptor to your select(2) set.
So you'll have three descriptors: one for the socket, one taking the place of the condition variable, and one which is written to when the semaphore is incremented. You can then wait on all three using your favorite I/O multiplexing method, and include directly whatever timeout you'd like.
I am using Linux aio (io_submit() / io_getevents()) for file I/O. Since some operations do not have aio equilvalents (open(), fsync(), fallocate()), I use a worker thread that may block without impacting the main thread. My question is, should I add close() to this list?
All files are opened with O_DIRECT on XFS, but I am interested in both the general answer to the question, and on the specific answer with regard to my choice of filesystem and open mode.
Note that using a worker thread for close() is not trivial since close() is often called in cleanup paths, which aren't good places to launch a worker thread request and wait for it. So I'm hoping that close() is non-blocking in this scenario.
For this question, "blocking" means waiting on an I/O operation, or on some lock that may only be released when an I/O operation completes, but excluding page fault servicing.
close() may block on some filesystems. When possible, code should be written as portably as is practical. As such, you should definitely add close() to the list of calls that are called only from your blocking worker thread.
However, you mention that you often have to call close() in cleanup paths. If these are cleanup paths that execute at the termination of your application, it may not make as much of a difference even if close() does block if you call it directly.
Alternatively, what you could do would be to have a queue that is fed to a pool of workers. In glibc AIO, this is what is done for many calls. When you initialize AIO with aio_init(), glibc sets up a queue and a pool of worker threads. Every time an AIO call is made, glibc simply adds the relevant task and data to the queue. In the background, the worker threads wait on the queue and execute blocking calls and code and then perform any relevant actions.
If you really do have the need for a non-blocking close() (and other) calls, it may be to your advantage to simply setup a task queue and a thread pool and simply submit specific calls to the queue and have the thread pool execute calls as they come in.
I was going through concurrency section from REMZI and while going through mutex section, and I got confused about this:
To avoid busy waiting, mutex implementations employ park() / unpark() mechanism (on Sun OS) which puts a waiting thread in a queue with its thread ID. Later on during pthread_mutex_unlock() it removes one thread from the queue so that it can be picked by the scheduler. Similarly, an implementation of Futex (mutex implementation on Linux) uses the same mechanism.
It is still unclear to me where the queue lies. Is it in the address space of the running process or somewhere inside the kernel?
Another doubt I had is regarding condition variables. Do pthread_cond_wait() and pthread_cond_signal() use normal signals and wait methods, or do they use some variant of it?
Doubt 1: But, it is still unclear to me where actually does the queue lies. Is it in the address space of the running process or somewhere inside kernel.
Every mutex has an associated data structure maintained in the kernel address space, in Linux it is futex. That data structure has an associated wait queue where threads from different processes can queue up and wait to be woken up, see futex_wait kernel function.
Doubt 2: Another doubt I had is regarding condition variables, does pthread_cond_wait() and pthread_cond_signal() use normal signal and wait methods OR they use some variant of it.
Modern Linux does not use signals for condition variable signaling. See NPTL: The New Implementation of Threads for Linux for more details:
The addition of the Fast Userspace Locking (futex) into the kernel enabled a complete reimplementation of mutexes and other synchronization mechanisms without resorting to interthread signaling. The futex, in turn, was made possible by the introduction of preemptive scheduling to the kernel.
I was wondering when .Net would most probably switch from a thread to another?
I understand we can't predict when this will happen exactly, but is there any intelligence in this? For example, when a thread is executed will it try to wait for a method to returns or a loop to finish before switching?
I'm not an expert on .NET, but in general scheduling is handled by the kernel.
Either your thread's timeslice has expired (threads/processes only get a certain amount of CPU time)
Your thread has blocked for IO.
Some other obscure reason, like waiting for an IPC message, a network packet or something.
Threads can be preempted at any point along their execution path, be it in a loop or returning from a function. This in general isn't handled by the underlying VM (.NET or JVM) but is controlled by the OS.
Of course there is 'intelligence', of a sort:). The set of running threads can only change upon an interrupt, either:
An actual hardware interrupt from a peripheral device, eg. disk, NIC, KB, mouse, timer.
A software interrupt, (ie. a system call), that can change the state of thread/s. This encompasses sleep calls and calls to wait/signal on inter-thread synchro objects, as well as I/O calls that request data that is not immediately available.
If there is no interrupt, the OS cannot change the set of running threads because it is not entered. The OS does not know or care about loops, function/methods calls, (except those that make system calls as above), gotos or any other user-level flow-control mechanisms.
I read your question now, it may not be rellevant anymore, but after reading the above answers, i want to just to make sure:
Threads are managed (or as i know) by the process they belong to. There is nothing to do with the Operation System(and that's is the main reason why working with multithreads is more faster than working with multiprocess, because there are data sharing between threads and the switching between them is occuring faster than the context switch wich occure between process by the Short-Term-Scheduler).
(NOTE: There are two types of threads: USER_MODE' threads and KERNEL_MODE' threadss, and each os can have both of them or just on of them. Anyway a thread that working in a user application environment is considered as a USER_MODE' thread and managed by the process it's belong to.)
Am I Write?
Thanks!!!