Related
It seems that I've finally got to implement some sort of threading into my Delphi 2009 program. If there were only one way to do it, I'd be off and running. But I see several possibilities.
Can anyone explain what's the difference between these and why I'd choose one over another.
The TThread class in Delphi
AsyncCalls by Andreas Hausladen
OmniThreadLibrary by Primoz Gabrijelcic (gabr)
... any others?
Edit:
I have just read an excellent article by Gabr in the March 2010 (No 10) issue of Blaise Pascal Magazine titled "Four Ways to Create a Thread". You do have to subscribe to gain content to the magazine, so by copyright, I can't reproduce anything substantial about it here.
In summary, Gabr describes the difference between using TThreads, direct Windows API calls, Andy's AsyncCalls, and his own OmniThreadLibrary. He does conclude at the end that:
"I'm not saying that you have to choose anything else than the classical Delphi way (TThread) but it is still good to be informed of options you have"
Mghie's answer is very thorough and suggests OmniThreadLibrary may be preferable. But I'm still interested in everyone's opinions about how I (or anyone) should choose their threading method for their application.
And you can add to the list:
. 4. Direct calls to the Windows API
. 5. Misha Charrett's CSI Distributed Application Framework as suggested by LachlanG in his answer.
Conclusion:
I'm probably going to go with OmniThreadLibrary. I like Gabr's work. I used his profiler GPProfile many years ago, and I'm currently using his GPStringHash which is actually part of OTL.
My only concern might be upgrading it to work with 64-bit or Unix/Mac processing once Embarcadero adds that functionality into Delphi.
If you are not experienced with multi-threading you should probably not start with TThread, as it is but a thin layer over native threading. I consider it also to be a little rough around the edges; it has not evolved a lot since the introduction with Delphi 2, mostly changes to allow for Linux compatibility in the Kylix time frame, and to correct the more obvious defects (like fixing the broken MREW class, and finally deprecating Suspend() and Resume() in the latest Delphi version).
Using a simple thread wrapper class basically also causes the developer to focus on a level that is much too low. To make proper use of multiple CPU cores a focus on tasks instead of threads is better, because the partitioning of work with threads does not adapt well to changing requirements and environments - depending on the hardware and the other software running in parallel the optimum number of threads may vary greatly, even at different times on the same system. A library that you pass only chunks of work to, and which schedules them automatically to make best use of the available resources helps a lot in this regard.
AsyncCalls is a good first step to introduce threads into an application. If you have several areas in your program where a number of time-consuming steps need to be performed that are independent of each other, then you can simply execute them asynchronously by passing each of them to AsyncCalls. Even when you have only one such time-consuming action you can execute it asynchronously and simply show a progress UI in the VCL thread, optionally allowing for cancelling the action.
AsyncCalls is IMO not so good for background workers that stay around during the whole program runtime, and it may be impossible to use when some of the objects in your program have thread affinity (like database connections or OLE objects that may have a requirement that all calls happen in the same thread).
What you also need to be aware of is that these asynchronous actions are not of the "fire-and-forget" kind. Every overloaded AsyncCall() function returns an IAsyncCall interface pointer that you may need to keep a reference to if you want to avoid blocking. If you don't keep a reference, then the moment the ref count reaches zero the interface will be freed, which will cause the thread releasing the interface to wait for the asynchronous call to complete. This is something that you might see while debugging, when exiting the method that created the IAsyncCall may take a mysterious amount of time.
OTL is in my opinion the most versatile of your three options, and I would use it without a second thought. It can do everything TThread and AsyncCalls can do, plus much more. It has a sound design, which is high-level enough both to make life for the user easy, and to let a port to a Unixy system (while keeping most of the interface intact) look at least possible, if not easy. In the last months it has also started to acquire some high-level constructs for parallel work, highly recommended.
OTL has a few dozen samples too, which is important to get started. AsyncCalls has nothing but a few lines in comments, but then it is easy enough to understand due to its limited functionality (it does only one thing, but it does it well). TThread has only one sample, which hasn't really changed in 14 years and is mostly an example of how not to do things.
Whichever of the options you choose, no library will eliminate the need to understand threading basics. Having read a good book on these is a prerequisite to any successful coding. Proper locking for example is a requirement with all of them.
There is another lesser known Delphi threading library, Misha Charrett's CSI Application Framework.
It's based around message passing rather than shared memory. The same message passing mechanism is used to communicate between threads running in the same process or in other processes so it's both a threading library and a distributed inter-process communication library.
There's a bit of a learning curve to get started but once you get going you don't have to worry about all the traditional threading issues such as deadlocks and synchronisation, the framework takes care of most of that for you.
Misha's been developing this for years and is still actively improving the framework and documentation all the time. He's always very responsive to support questions.
TThread is a simple class that encapsulates a Windows thread. You make a descendant class with an Execute method that contains the code this thread should execute, create the thread and set it to run and the code executes.
AsyncCalls and OmniThreadLibrary are both libraries that build a higher-level concept on top of threads. They're about tasks, discrete pieces of work that you need to have execute asynchronously. You start the library, it sets up a task pool, a group of special threads whose job is to wait around until you have work for them, and then you pass the library a function pointer (or method pointer or anonymous method) containing the code that needs to be executed, and it executes it in one of the task pool threads and handles a lot of the the low-level details for you.
I haven't used either library all that much, so I can't really give you a comparison between the two. Try them out and see what they can do, and which one feels better to you.
(sorry, I don't have enough points to comment so I'm putting this in as an answer rather than another vote for OTL)
I've used TThread, CSI and OmniThread (OTL). The two libraries both have non-trivial learning curves but are much more capable than TThread. My conclusion is that if you're going to do anything significant with threading you'll end up writing half of the library functionality anyway, so you might as well start with the working, debugged version someone else wrote. Both Misha and Gabr are better programmers than most of us, so odds are they've done a better job than we will.
I've looked at AsyncCalls but it didn't do enough of what I wanted. One thing it does have is a "Synchronize" function (missing from OTL) so if you're dependent on that you might go with AynscCalls purely for that. IMO using message passing is not hard enough to justify the nastiness of Synchronize, so buckle down and learn how to use messages.
Of the three I prefer OTL, largely because of the collection of examples but also because it's more self-contained. That's less of an issue if you're already using the JCL or you work in only one place, but I do a mix including contract work and selling clients on installing Misha's system is harder than the OTL, just because the OTL is ~20 files in one directory. That sounds silly, but it's important for many people.
With OTL the combination of searching the examples and source code for keywords, and asking questions in the forums works for me. I'm familiar with the traditional "offload CPU-intensive tasks" threading jobs, but right now I'm working on backgrounding a heap of database work which has much more "threads block waiting for DB" and less "CPU maxed out", and the OTL is working quite well for that. The main differences are that I can have 30+ threads running without the CPU maxing out, but stopping one is generally impossible.
I know this isn't the most advanced method :-) and maybe it has limitations too, but I just tried System.BeginThread and found it quite simple - probably because of the quality of the documentation I was referring to... http://www.delphibasics.co.uk/RTL.asp?Name=BeginThread (IMO Neil Moffatt could teach MSDN a thing or two)
That's the biggest factor I find in trying to learn new things, the quality of the documentation, not it's quantity. A couple of hours was all it took, then I was back to the real work rather than worrying about how to get the thread to do it's business.
EDIT actually Rob Kennedy does a great job explaining BeginThread here BeginThread Structure - Delphi
EDIT actually the way Rob Kennedy explains TThread in the same post, I think I'll change my code to use TThread tommorrow. Who knows what it will look like next week! (AsyncCalls maybe)
While reading up on SQLite, I stumbled upon this quote in the FAQ: "Threads are evil. Avoid them."
I have a lot of respect for SQLite, so I couldn't just disregard this. I got thinking what else I could, according to the "avoid them" policy, use instead in order to parallelize my tasks. As an example, the application I'm currently working on requires a user interface that is always responsive, and needs to poll several websites from time to time (a process which takes at least 30 seconds for each website).
So I opened up the PDF linked from that FAQ, and essentially it seems that the paper suggests several techniques to be applied together with threads, such as barriers or transactional memory - rather than any techniques to replace threads altogether.
Given that these techniques do not fully dispense with threads (unless I misunderstood what the paper is saying), I can see two options: either the SQLite FAQ does not literally mean what it says, or there exist practical approaches that actually avoid the use of threads altogether. Are there any?
Just a quick note on tasklets/cooperative scheduling as an alternative - this looks great in small examples, but I wonder whether a large-ish UI-heavy application can be practically parallelized in a solely cooperative way. If you have done this successfully or know of such examples this certainly qualifies as a valid answer!
Note: This answer no longer accurately reflects what I think about this subject. I don't like its overly dramatic, somewhat nasty tone. Also, I am not so certain that the quest for provably correct software has been so useless as I seemed to think back then. I am leaving this answer up because it is accepted, and up-voted, and to edit it into something I currently believe would pretty much vandalize it.
I finally got around to reading the paper. Where do I start?
The author is singing an old song, which goes something like this: "If you can't prove the program is correct, we're all doomed!" It sounds best when screamed loudly accompanied by over modulated electric guitars and a rapid drum beat. Academics started singing that song when computer science was in the domain of mathematics, a world where if you don't have a proof, you don't have anything. Even after the first computer science department was cleaved from the mathematics department, they kept singing that song. They are singing that song today, and nobody is listening. Why? Because the rest of us are busy creating useful things, good things out of software that can't be proved correct.
The presence of threads makes it even more difficult to prove a program correct, but who cares? Even without threads, only the most trivial of programs can be proved correct. Why do I care if my non-trivial program, which could not be proved correct, is even more unprovable after I use threading? I don't.
If you weren't sure the author was living in an academic dreamworld, you can be sure of it after he maintains that the coordination language he suggests as an alternative to threads could best be expressed with a "visual syntax" (drawing graphs on the screen). I've never heard that suggestion before, except every year of my career. A language that can only be manipulated by GUI and does not play with any of the programmer's usual tools is not an improvement. The author goes on to cite UML as a shining example of a visual syntax which is "routinely combined with C++ and Java." Routinely in what world?
In the mean time, I and many other programmers go on using threads without all that much trouble. How to use threads well and safely is pretty much a solved problem, as long as you don't get all hung up on provability.
Look. Threading is a big kid's toy, and you do need to know some theory and usage patterns to use them well. Just as with databases, distributed processing, or any of the other beyond-grade-school devices that programmers successfully use every day. But just because you can't prove it correct doesn't mean it's wrong.
The statement in the SQLite FAQ, as I read it, is just a comment on how difficult threading can be to the uninitiated. It is the author's opinion, and it might be a valid one. But saying you should never use threads is throwing the baby out with the bath water, in my opinion. Threads are a tool. Like all tools, they can be used and they can be abused. I can read his paper and be convinced that threads are the devil, but I have used them successfully, without killing kittens.
Keep in mind that SQLite is written to be as lightweight and easy to understand (from a coding standpoint) as possible, so I would imagine that threading is kind of the antithesis to this lightweight approach.
Also, SQLite is not meant to be used in a highly-concurrent environment. If you have one of these, you might be better off working with a more enterprisey database like Postgres.
Evil, but a necessary evil. High level abstractions of threads (Tasks in .NET for example) are becoming more common but for the most part the industry is not trying to find a way to avoid threads, just making it easier to deal with the complexities that come with any kind of concurrent programming.
One trend I've noticed, at least in the Cocoa domain, is help from the framework. Apple has gone to great lengths to help developers with the relatively difficult concept of concurrent programming. Some things I've seen:
Different granularity of threading. Cocoa supports everything from posix threads (low level) to object oriented threading with NSLock and NSThread, to high level parellelism such as NSOperation. Depending on your task, using a high level tool like NSOperation is easier and gets the job done.
Threading behind the scenes via an API. Lots of the UI and animation stuff in cocoa is hidden behind an API. You are responsible for calling an API method and providing an asynchronous callback this executed when the secondary thread completes (for example the end of some animation).
openMP. There are tools like openMP that allow you to provide pragmas that describe to the compiler that some task may be safely parelellized. For example iterating a set of items in an independent way.
It seems like a big push in this industry is to make things simple for the Application developers and leave the gory thread details to the system developers and framework developers. There is a push in academia for formalizing parellel patterns. As mentioned you cant always avoid threading, but there are an increasing number of tools in your arsenal to make it as painless as possible.
If you really want to live without threads, you can, so long as you don't call any functions that can potentially block. This may not be possible.
One alternative is to implement the tasks you would have made into threads as finite state machines. Basically, the task does what it can do immediately, then goes to its next state, waiting for an event, such as input arriving on a file or a timer going off. X Windows, as well as most GUI toolkits, support this style. When something happens, they call a callback, which does what it needs to do and returns. For a FSM, the callback checks to see what state the task is in and what the event is to determine what to do immediately and what the next state will be.
Say you have an app that needs to accept socket connections, and for each connection, parse command lines, execute some code, and return the results. A task would then be what listens to a socket. When select() (or Gtk+, or whatever) tells you the socket has something to read, you read it into a buffer, then check to see if you have enough input buffered to do something. If so, you advance to a "start doing something" state, otherwise you stay in the "reading a line" state. (What you "do" could be multiple states.) When done, your task drops the line from the buffer and goes back to the "reading a line" state. No threads or preemption needed.
This lets you act multithreaded by way of being event-driven. If your state machines are complicated, however, your code can get hard to maintain pretty fast, and you'll need to work up some kind of FSM-management library to separate the grunt work of running the FSM from the code that actually does things.
P.S. Another way to get threads without really using threads is the GNU Pth library. It doesn't do preemption, but it is another option if you really don't want to deal with threads.
Another approach to this may be to use a different concurrency model rather than avoid multithreading altogether (you have to utilize all these CPU cores in parallel somehow).
Take a look at mechanisms used in Clojure (e.g. agents, software transactional memory).
Software Transactional Memory (STM) is a good alternative concurrency control. It scales well with multiple processors and do not have most of the problems of conventional concurrency control mechanisms. It is implemented as part of the Haskell language. It worths giving a try. Although, I do not know how this is applicable in the context of SQLite.
Alternatives to threads:
coroutines
goroutines
mapreduce
workerpool
apple's grand central dispatch+lambdas
openCL
erlang
(interesting to note that half of those technologies were invented or popularised by google.)
Another thing is many web frameworks transparently use multiple threads/processes for handling requests, and usually in such a way that mostly eliminates the problems associated with multithreading (for the user of the framework), or at least makes the threading rather invisible. The web being stateless, the only shared state is session state (which isn't really a problem since by definition, a single session isn't going to be doing concurrent things), and data in a database that already has its multithreading nonsense sorted out for you.
It's somewhat important to note though that these are all abstractions. The underlying implementations of these things still use threads. But this is still incredibly useful. In the same way you wouldn't use assembler to write a web application, you wouldn't use threads directly to write any important application. Designing an application to use threads is too complicated to leave for a human to deal with.
Threading is not the only model of concurrency. The actors model (Erlang, Scala) is an example of a somewhat different approach.
http://www.scala-lang.org/node/242
If your task is really, really easily isolatable, you can use processes instead of threads, like Chrome does for its tabs.
Otherwise, inside a single process, there is no way to achieve real parallelism without threads, because you need at least two coroutines if you want two things to happen at the same time (assuming you're having multiple processors/cores at hand, of course; otherwise real parallelism is simply not possible).
The complexity of threading a program is always relative to the degree of isolation of the tasks the threads will perform. There's no trouble in running several threads if you know for sure these will never use the same variables. Then again, multiple high-level constructs exist in modern languages to help synchronize access to shared resources.
It's really a matter of application. If your task is simple enough to fit in some kind of high-level Task object (depends on your development platform; your mileage may vary), then using a task queue is your best bet. My rule of the thumb is that if you can't find a cool name to your thread, then its task is not important enough to justify a thread (instead of task going on an operation queue).
Threads give you the opportunity to do some evil things, specifically sharing state among different execution paths. But they offer a lot of convenience; you don't have to do expensive communication across process boundaries. Plus, they come with less overhead. So I think they're perfectly fine, used correctly.
I think the key is to share as little data as possible among the threads; just stick to synchronization data. If you try to share more than that, you have to engage in complex code that is hard to get right the first time around.
One method of avoiding threads is multiplexing - in essence you make a lightweight mechanism similar to threads which you manage yourself.
Thing is this is not always viable. In your case the 30s polling time per website - can it be split into 60 0.5s pieces, in between which you can stuff calls to the UI? If not, sorry.
Threads aren't evil, they are just easy to shoot your foot with. If doing Query A takes 30s and then doing Query B takes another 30s, doing them simultaneously in threads will take 120s instead of 60 due to thread overhead, fighting for disk access and various bottlenecks.
But if Operation A consists of 5s of activity and 55 seconds of waiting, mixed randomly, and Operation B takes 60s of actual work, doing them in threads will take maybe 70s, compared to plain 120 when you execute them in sequence.
The rule of thumb is: threads should idle and wait most of the time. They are good for I/O, slow reads, low-priority work and so on. If you want performance, use multiplexing, which requires more work but is faster, more efficient and has way less caveats. (synchronizing threads and avoiding race conditions is a whole different chapter of thread headaches...)
Many projects I work on have poor threading implementations and I am the sucker who has to track these down. Is there an accepted best way to handle threading. My code is always waiting for an event that never fires.
I'm kinda thinking like a design pattern or something.
(Assuming .NET; similar things would apply for other platforms.)
Well, there are lots of things to consider. I'd advise:
Immutability is great for multi-threading. Functional programming works well concurrently partly due to the emphasis on immutability.
Use locks when you access mutable shared data, both for reads and writes.
Don't try to go lock-free unless you really have to. Locks are expensive, but rarely the bottleneck.
Monitor.Wait should almost always be part of a condition loop, waiting for a condition to become true and waiting again if it's not.
Try to avoid holding locks for longer than you need to.
If you ever need to acquire two locks at once, document the ordering thoroughly and make sure you always use the same order.
Document the thread-safety of your types. Most types don't need to be thread-safe, they just need to not be thread hostile (i.e. "you can use them from multiple threads, but it's your responsibility to take out locks if you want to share them)
Don't access the UI (except in documented thread-safe ways) from a non-UI thread. In Windows Forms, use Control.Invoke/BeginInvoke
That's off the top of my head - I probably think of more if this is useful to you, but I'll stop there in case it's not.
Learning to write multi-threaded programs correctly is extremely difficult and time consuming.
So the first step is: replace the implementation with one that doesn't use multiple threads at all.
Then carefully put threading back in if, and only if, you discover a genuine need for it, when you've figured out some very simple safe ways to do so. A non-threaded implementation that works reliably is far better than a broken threaded implementation.
When you're ready to start, favour designs that use thread-safe queues to transfer work items between threads and take care to ensure that those work items are accessed only by one thread at a time.
Try to avoid just spraying lock blocks around your code in the hope that it will become thread-safe. It doesn't work. Eventually, two code paths will acquire the same locks in a different order, and everything will grind to a halt (once every two weeks, on a customer's server). This is especially likely if you combine threads with firing events, and you hold the lock while you fire the event - the handler may take out another lock, and now you have a pair of locks held in a particular order. What if they're taken out in the opposite order in some other situation?
In short, this is such a big and difficult subject that I think it is potentially misleading to give a few pointers in a short answer and say "Off you go!" - I'm sure that's not the intention of the many learned people giving answers here, but that is the impression many get from summarised advice.
Instead, buy this book.
Here is a very nicely worded summary from this site:
Multithreading also comes with
disadvantages. The biggest is that it
can lead to vastly more complex
programs. Having multiple threads does
not in itself create complexity; it's
the interaction between the threads
that creates complexity. This applies
whether or not the interaction is
intentional, and can result long
development cycles, as well as an
ongoing susceptibility to intermittent
and non-reproducable bugs. For this
reason, it pays to keep such
interaction in a multi-threaded design
simple – or not use multithreading at
all – unless you have a peculiar
penchant for re-writing and debugging!
Perfect summary from Stroustrup:
The traditional way of dealing with concurrency by letting a bunch of
threads loose in a single address space and then using locks to try to
cope with the resulting data races and coordination problems is
probably the worst possible in terms of correctness and
comprehensibility.
(Like Jon Skeet, much of this assumes .NET)
At the risk of seeming argumentative, comments like these just bother me:
Learning to write multi-threaded
programs correctly is extremely
difficult and time consuming.
Threads should be avoided when
possible...
It is practically impossible to write software that does anything significant without leveraging threads in some capacity. If you are on Windows, open your Task Manager, enable the Thread Count column, and you can probably count on one hand the number of processes that are using a single thread. Yes, one should not simply use threads for the sake of using threads nor should it be done cavalierly, but frankly, I believe these cliches are used too often.
If I had to boil multithreaded programming down for the true novice, I would say this:
Before jumping into it, first understand that the the class boundary is not the same as a thread boundary. For example, if a callback method on your class is called by another thread (e.g., the AsyncCallback delegate to the TcpListener.BeginAcceptTcpClient() method), understand that the callback executes on that other thread. So even though the callback occurs on the same object, you still have to synchronize access to the members of the object within the callback method. Threads and classes are orthogonal; it is important to understand this point.
Identify what data needs to be shared between threads. Once you have defined the shared data, try to consolidate it into a single class if possible.
Limit the places where the shared data can be written and read. If you can get this down to one place for writing and one place for reading, you will be doing yourself a tremendous favor. This is not always possible, but it is a nice goal to shoot for.
Obviously make sure you synchronize access to the shared data using the Monitor class or the lock keyword.
If possible, use a single object to synchronize your shared data regardless of how many different shared fields there are. This will simplify things. However, it may also overly constrain things too, in which case, you may need a synchronization object for each shared field. And at this point, using immutable classes becomes very handy.
If you have one thread that needs to signal another thread(s), I would strongly recommend using the ManualResetEvent class to do this instead of using events/delegates.
To sum up, I would say that threading is not difficult, but it can be tedious. Still, a properly threaded application will be more responsive, and your users will be most appreciative.
EDIT:
There is nothing "extremely difficult" about ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(), asynchronous delegates, the various BeginXXX/EndXXX method pairs, etc. in C#. If anything, these techniques make it much easier to accomplish various tasks in a threaded fashion. If you have a GUI application that does any heavy database, socket, or I/O interaction, it is practically impossible to make the front-end responsive to the user without leveraging threads behind the scenes. The techniques I mentioned above make this possible and are a breeze to use. It is important to understand the pitfalls, to be sure. I simply believe we do programmers, especially younger ones, a disservice when we talk about how "extremely difficult" multithreaded programming is or how threads "should be avoided." Comments like these oversimplify the problem and exaggerate the myth when the truth is that threading has never been easier. There are legitimate reasons to use threads, and cliches like this just seem counterproductive to me.
You may be interested in something like CSP, or one of the other theoretical algebras for dealing with concurrency. There are CSP libraries for most languages, but if the language wasn't designed for it, it requires a bit of discipline to use correctly. But ultimately, every kind of concurrency/threading boils down to some fairly simple basics: Avoid shared mutable data, and understand exactly when and why each thread may have to block while waiting for another thread. (In CSP, shared data simply doesn't exist. Each thread (or process in CSP terminology) is only allowed to communicate with others through blocking message-passing channels. Since there is no shared data, race conditions go away. Since message passing is blocking, it becomes easy to reason about synchronization, and literally prove that no deadlocks can occur.)
Another good practice, which is easier to retrofit into existing code is to assign a priority or level to every lock in your system, and make sure that the following rules are followed consistently:
While holding a lock at level N, you
may only acquire new locks of lower levels
Multiple locks at the same level must
be acquired at the same time, as a
single operation, which always tries
to acquire all the requested locks in
the same global order (Note that any
consistent order will do, but any
thread that tries to acquire one or
more locks at level N, must do
acquire them in the same order as any
other thread would do anywhere else
in the code.)
Following these rules mean that it is simply impossible for a deadlock to occur. Then you just have to worry about mutable shared data.
BIG emphasis on the first point that Jon posted. The more immutable state that you have (ie: globals that are const, etc...), the easier your life is going to be (ie: the fewer locks you'll have to deal with, the less reasoning you'll have to do about interleaving order, etc...)
Also, often times if you have small objects to which you need multiple threads to have access, you're sometimes better off copying it between threads rather than having a shared, mutable global that you have to hold a lock to read/mutate. It's a tradeoff between your sanity and memory efficiency.
Looking for a design pattern when dealing with threads is the really best approach to start with. It's too bad that many people don't try it, instead attempting to implement less or more complex multithreaded constructs on their own.
I would probably agree with all opinions posted so far. In addition, I'd recommend to use some existing more coarse-grained frameworks, providing building blocks rather than simple facilities like locks, or wait/notify operations. For Java, it would be simply the built-in java.util.concurrent package, which gives you ready-to-use classes you can easily combine to achieve a multithreaded app. The big advantage of this is that you avoid writing low-level operations, which results in hard-to-read and error-prone code, in favor of a much clearer solution.
From my experience, it seems that most concurrency problems can be solved in Java by using this package. But, of course, you always should be careful with multithreading, it's challenging anyway.
Adding to the points that other folks have already made here:
Some developers seem to think that "almost enough" locking is good enough. It's been my experience that the opposite can be true -- "almost enough" locking can be worse than enough locking.
Imagine thread A locking resource R, using it, and then unlocking it. A then uses resource R' without a lock.
Meanwhile, thread B tries to access R while A has it locked. Thread B is blocked until thread A unlocks R. Then the CPU context switches to thread B, which accesses R, and then updates R' during its time slice. That update renders R' inconsistent with R, causing a failure when A tries to access it.
Test on as many different hardware and OS architectures as possible. Different CPU types, different numbers of cores and chips, Windows/Linux/Unix, etc.
The first developer who worked with multi-threaded programs was a guy named Murphy.
Well, everyone thus far has been Windows / .NET centric, so I'll chime in with some Linux / C.
Avoid futexes at all costs(PDF), unless you really, really need to recover some of the time spent with mutex locks. I am currently pulling my hair out with Linux futexes.
I don't yet have the nerve to go with practical lock free solutions, but I'm rapidly approaching that point out of pure frustration. If I could find a good, well documented and portable implementation of the above that I could really study and grasp, I'd probably ditch threads completely.
I have come across so much code lately that uses threads which really should not, its obvious that someone just wanted to profess their undying love of POSIX threads when a single (yes, just one) fork would have done the job.
I wish that I could give you some code that 'just works', 'all the time'. I could, but it would be so silly to serve as a demonstration (servers and such that start threads for each connection). In more complex event driven applications, I have yet (after some years) to write anything that doesn't suffer from mysterious concurrency issues that are nearly impossible to reproduce. So I'm the first to admit, in that kind of application, threads are just a little too much rope for me. They are so tempting and I always end up hanging myself.
I'd like to follow up with Jon Skeet's advice with a couple more tips:
If you are writing a "server", and are likely to have a high amount of insert parallelism, don't use Microsoft's SQL Compact. Its lock manager is stupid. If you do use SQL Compact, DON'T use serializable transactions (which happens to be the default for the TransactionScope class). Things will fall apart on you rapidly. SQL Compact doesn't support temporary tables, and when you try to simulate them inside of serialized transactions it does rediculsouly stupid things like take x-locks on the index pages of the _sysobjects table. Also it get's really eager about lock promotion, even if you don't use temp tables. If you need serial access to multiple tables , your best bet is to use repeatable read transactions(to give atomicity and integrity) and then implement you own hierarchal lock manager based on domain-objects (accounts, customers, transactions, etc), rather than using the database's page-row-table based scheme.
When you do this, however, you need to be careful (like John Skeet said) to create a well defined lock hierarchy.
If you do create your own lock manager, use <ThreadStatic> fields to store information about the locks you take, and then add asserts every where inside the lock manager that enforce your lock hierarchy rules. This will help to root out potential issues up front.
In any code that runs in a UI thread, add asserts on !InvokeRequired (for winforms), or Dispatcher.CheckAccess() (for WPF). You should similarly add the inverse assert to code that runs in background threads. That way, people looking at a method will know, just by looking at it, what it's threading requirements are. The asserts will also help to catch bugs.
Assert like crazy, even in retail builds. (that means throwing, but you can make your throws look like asserts). A crash dump with an exception that says "you violated threading rules by doing this", along with stack traces, is much easier to debug then a report from a customer on the other side of the world that says "every now and then the app just freezes on me, or it spits out gobbly gook".
It's the mutable state, stupid
That is a direct quote from Java Concurrency in Practice by Brian Goetz. Even though the book is Java-centric, the "Summary of Part I" gives some other helpful hints that will apply in many threaded programming contexts. Here are a few more from that same summary:
Immutable objects are automatically thread-safe.
Guard each mutable variable with a lock.
A program that accesses a mutable variable from multiple threads without
synchronization is a broken program.
I would recommend getting a copy of the book for an in-depth treatment of this difficult topic.
(source: umd.edu)
Instead of locking on containers, you should use ReaderWriterLockSlim. This gives you database like locking - an infinite number of readers, one writer, and the possibility of upgrading.
As for design patterns, pub/sub is pretty well established, and very easy to write in .NET (using the readerwriterlockslim). In our code, we have a MessageDispatcher object that everyone gets. You subscribe to it, or you send a message out in a completely asynchronous manner. All you have to lock on is the registered functions and any resources that they work on. It makes multithreading much easier.
Is there any documentation on cross thread communication in Delphi? How can I send message to the thread that doesn't have a window?
You can only send (Windows) messages to threads that implement a standard message loop, which will automatically be created once a window handle is realized.
It is however not necessary to use messages to communicate with a thread. Just let it wait on an event object (TEvent in VCL), and signal this event when you want the thread to perform a function.
But if you are new to multi-threading - don't go into all these details on your own, unless you want to for the learning effect. Just use the OmniThreadLibrary and be done with it. There's much good to be learned by digging into its internals, once you know how to use it.
Edit:
See also the answers to this question which is very similar.
Edit 2:
Regarding the comment asking "What does [OmniThreadLibrary] make easier, and at what cost?" I can only advise you to check it out for yourself - that is if you are using at least Delphi 2007. There are several samples to illustrate the concepts, but for a quick "real-life" example you could have a look at this blog post - you don't even need to install the library for that.
I do also agree that using a library for multi-threading does require a certain act of faith. OTOH making do with what the VCL provides is hardly an alternative. The sample code does still use the ill-conceived Synchronize() call. There is no support for things like thread-safe producer-consumer-queues, which are much more suited to multi-threaded programming. And if you do agree that you need a more solid fundament for your multi-threaded programs than the VCL provides - why reinvent that particular wheel?
As for the cost of using the library: You will have to time yourself whether it is fast enough for you. It does abstract the communication between threads in a good way IMHO, but every abstraction costs performance, obviously.
If you decide that it is not for you after all - write the code yourself. I did the same for Delphi 4, and I have been using that code for nearly 10 years now. And judging by the amount of bugs I found and corner cases I experienced in that time, I would definitely advise anybody new to multi-threading to not write their own library code for it. And if you really really want to, please take the rules in this posting to heart.
The question Delphi Multi-Threading Message Loop also contains a few examples of communication between threads
If you have a reference to the thread object, you can just call it direct, and have the procedure store information or update accordingly. Obviously you have to be careful to do things in a thread safe manner.
Alternatively, you could use a central control object through which the threads communicate when they aren't busy. I have an app where threads have particular purposes, and are allocated a thread-ID. Any thread can "post" a message with a message-ID and a string for parameters to another thread-ID and then get on with its work. The other thread the picks it up at its leisure, and acts accordingly.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
We have a codebase that is several years old, and all the original developers are long gone. It uses many, many threads, but with no apparent design or common architectural principles. Every developer had his own style of multithreaded programming, so some threads communicate with one another using queues, some lock data with mutexes, some lock with semaphores, some use operating-system IPC mechanisms for intra-process communications. There is no design documentation, and comments are sparse. It's a mess, and it seems that whenever we try to refactor the code or add new functionality, we introduce deadlocks or other problems.
So, does anyone know of any tools or techniques that would help to analyze and document all the interactions between threads? FWIW, the codebase is C++ on Linux, but I'd be interested to hear about tools for other environments.
Update
I appreciate the responses received so far, but I was hoping for something more sophisticated or systematic than advice that is essentially "add log messages, figure out what's going on, and fix it." There are lots of tools out there for analyzing and documenting control-flow in single-threaded programs; is there nothing available for multi-threaded programs?
See also Debugging multithreaded applications
Invest in a copy of Intel's VTune and its thread profiling tools. It will give you both a system and a source level view of the thread behaviour. It's certainly not going to autodocument the thing for you, but should be a real help in at least visualising what is happening in different circumstances.
I think there is a trial version that you can download, so may be worth giving that a go. I've only used the Windows version, but looking at the VTune webpage it also has a Linux version.
As a starting point, I'd be tempted to add tracing log messages at strategic points within your application. This will allow you to analyse how your threads are interacting with no danger that the act of observing the threads will change their behaviour (as could be the case with step-by-step debugging).
My experience is with the .NET platform and my favoured logging tool would be log4net since it's free, has extensive configuration options and, if you're sensible in how you implement your logging, it won't noticeably hinder your application's performance. Alternatively, there is .NET's built in Debug (or Trace) class in the System.Diagnostics namespace.
I'd focus on the shared memory locks first (the mutexes and semaphores) as they are most likely to cause issues. Look at which state is being protected by locks and then determine which state is under the protection of several locks. This will give you a sense of potential conflicts. Look at situations where code that holds a lock calls out to methods (don't forget virtual methods). Try to eliminate these calls where possible (by reducing the time the lock is held).
Given the list of mutexes that are held and a rough idea of the state that they protect, assign a locking order (i.e., mutex A should always be taken before mutex B). Try to enforce this in the code.
See if you can combine several locks into one if concurrency won't be adversely affected. For example, if mutex A and B seem like they might have deadlocks and an ordering scheme is not easily done, combine them to one lock initially.
It's not going to be easy but I'm for simplifying the code at the expense of concurrency to get a handle of the problem.
This a really hard problem for automated tools. You might want to look into model checking your code. Don't expect magical results: model checkers are very limited in the amount of code and the number of threads they can effectively check.
A tool that might work for you is CHESS (although it is unfortunately Windows-only). BLAST is another fairly powerful tool, but is very difficult to use and may not handle C++. Wikipedia also lists StEAM, which I haven't heard of before, but sounds like it might work for you:
StEAM is a model checker for C++. It detects deadlocks, segmentation faults, out of range variables and non-terminating loops.
Alternatively, it would probably help a lot to try to converge the code towards a small number of well-defined (and, preferably, high-level) synchronization schemes. Mixing locks, semaphores, and monitors in the same code base is asking for trouble.
One thing to keep in mind with using log4net or similar tool is that they change the timing of the application and can often hide the underlying race conditions. We had some poorly written code to debug and introduced logging and this actually removed race conditions and deadlocks (or greatly reduced their frequency).
In Java, you have choices like FindBugs (for static bytecode analysis) to find certain kinds of inconsistent synchronization, or the many dynamic thread analyzers from companies like Coverity, JProbe, OptimizeIt, etc.
Can't UML help you here ?
If you reverse-engineer your codebase into UML, then you should be able to draw class diagrams that shows the relationships between your classes. Starting from the classes whose methods are the thread entry points, you could see which thread uses which class. Based on my experience with Rational Rose, this could be achieved using drag-and-drop ; if no relationship between the added class and the previous ones, then the added class is not directly used by the thread that started with the method you began the diagram with. This should gives you hints towards the role of each threads.
This will also show the "data objects" that are shared and the objects that are thread-specific.
If you draw a big class diagram and remove all the "data objects", then you should be able to layout that diagram as clouds, each clouds being a thread - or a group of threads, unless the coupling and cohesion of the code base is awful.
This will only gives you one portion of the puzzle, but it could be helpful ; I just hope your codebase is not too muddy or too "procedural", in which case ...