Possible to force Delphi threadvar Memory to be Freed? - multithreading

I have been chasing down what appears to be a memory leak in a DLL built in Delphi 2007 for Win32. The memory for the threadvar variables is not freed if the threads still exist when the DLL is unloaded (there are no active calls into the DLL when it is unloaded).
The question: Is there some way to cause Delphi to free memory associated with threadvar variables? It is not as simple as just not using them. A number of the existing Delphi components use them, so even if the DLL does not explicitly declare them, it ends up using them.
A Few Details
I have tracked it down to a LocalAlloc call that occurs in response to the usage of a threadvar variable, which is Delphi's "wrapper" around thread-local storage in Win32. For the curious, the allocation call is in the Delphi source file sysinit.pas. The corresponding LocalFree call occurs only for threads that get DLL_THREAD_DETACH calls. If you have multiple threads in an application and unload a DLL, there is no DLL_THREAD_DETACH call for each thread. The DLL gets a DLL_PROCESS_DETACH and nothing else; I believe that is expected and valid. Thus, any thread-local storage allocations made on other threads are leaked.
I re-created it with a short C program that starts several "worker" threads. It loads the DLL (via LoadLibrary) on the main thread and then makes calls into an exported function on the worker threads. The function exported from the Delphi DLL assigns a value to a threadvar integer variable and returns. The C program then unloads the DLL (via FreeLibrary on the main thread) and repeats. After about 32,000 iterations, the process memory usage shown in Process Explorer grows to over 130MB. I also verified it more accurately with umdh. UMDH showed 24 bytes lost per instance. But the 130MB in Process Explorer seems to indicate about 4K per iteration; I'm guessing a 4K segment was leaked each time based on that, but I don't know for sure.
For clarification, here is the threadvar declaration and the entire exported function:
threadvar
threadint : integer;
function Startup( ulID: LongWord; hValue: Longint ): LongWord; stdcall;
begin
threadint := 123;
Result := 0;
end;
Thanks.

As you've already determined, thread-local storage will get released for each thread that gets detached from the DLL. That happens in System._StartLib when Reason is DLL_Thread_Detach. For that to happen, though, the thread needs to terminate. Thread-detach notifications occur when the thread terminates, not when the DLL is unloaded. (If it were the other way around, the OS would have to interrupt the thread someplace so it could insert a call to DllMain on the thread's behalf. That would be disastrous.)
The DLL is supposed to receive thread-detach notifications. In fact, that's the model suggested by Microsoft in its description of how to use thread-local storage with DLLs.
The only way to release thread-local storage is to call TlsFree from the context of the thread whose storage you want to free. From what I can tell, Delphi keeps all its threadvars in a single TLS index, given by the TlsIndex variable in SysInit.pas. You can use that value to call TlsFree whenever you want, but you'd better be sure there won't be any more code executed by the DLL in the current thread.
Since you also want to free the memory used for holding all the threadvars, you'll need to call TlsGetValue to get the address of the buffer Delphi allocates. Call LocalFree on that pointer.
This would be the (untested) Delphi code to free the thread-local storage.
var
TlsBuffer: Pointer;
begin
TlsBuffer := TlsGetValue(SysInit.TlsIndex);
LocalFree(HLocal(TlsBuffer));
TlsFree(SysInit.TlsIndex);
end;
If you need to do this from the host application instead of from within the DLL, then you'll need to export a function that returns the DLL's TlsIndex value. That way, the host program can free the storage itself after the DLL is gone (thus guaranteeing no further DLL code executes in a given thread).

Note that it is clearly specified in the Help that you have to take care of freeing yourself your threadvars.
You should do so as soon as you know you won't need them anymore.
From Help:
Dynamic variables that are ordinarily managed by the compiler (long strings, wide strings, dynamic arrays, variants, and interfaces) can be declared with threadvar, but the compiler does not automatically free the heap-allocated memory created by each thread of execution. If you use these data types in thread variables, it is your responsibility to dispose of their memory from within the thread, before the thread terminates. For example,
threadvar S: AnsiString;
S := 'ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ';
...
S := ''; // free the memory used by S
Note: Use of such constructs is discouraged.
You can free a variant by setting it to Unassigned and an interface or dynamic array by setting it to nil.

At the risk of way too much code, here is a possible (poor) solution to my own question. Using the fact that the thread-local storage memory is stored in a single block for the threadvar variables (as pointed out by Mr. Kennedy - thanks), this code stores the allocated pointers in a TList and then frees them at process detach. I wrote it mostly just to see if it would work. I probably would not use this in production code because it makes assumptions about the Delphi runtime that could change with different versions and quite possibly misses problems even with the version I am using (Delphi 7 and 2007).
This implementation does make umdh happy, it doesn't think there are any more memory leaks. However, if I run the test in a loop (load, call entrypoint on another thread, unload), the memory usage as seen in Process Explorer still grows alarmingly fast. In fact, I created a completely empty DLL with only an empty DllMain (that was not called since I did not assign Delphi's global DllMain pointer to it ... Delhi itself provides the real DllMain entrypoint). A simple loop of loading/unloading the DLL still leaked 4K per iteration. So there may still be something else a Delphi DLL is supposed to include (the main point of the original question). But I don't know what it is. A DLL written in C does not behave this way.
Our code (a server) can call DLLs written by customers to extend functionality. We typically unload the DLL after there are no more references to it. I think my solution to the problem is going to be to add an option to leave the DLL loaded "permanently" in memory. If customers use Delphi to write their DLL, they will need to turn that option on (or maybe we can detect that it is a Delphi DLL on load ... need to check that out). Nonetheless, it has been an interesting exercise.
library Sample;
uses
SysUtils,
Windows,
Classes,
HTTPApp,
SyncObjs;
{$E dll}
var
gListSync : TCriticalSection;
gTLSList : TList;
threadvar
threadint : integer;
// remove all entries from the TLS storage list
procedure RemoveAndFreeTLS();
var
i : integer;
begin
// Only call this at process detach. Those calls are serialized
// so don't get the critical section.
if assigned( gTLSList ) then
for i := 0 to gTLSList.Count - 1 do
// Is this actually safe in DllMain process detach? From reading the MSDN
// docs, it appears that the only safe statement in DllMain is "return;"
LocalFree( Cardinal( gTLSList.Items[i] ));
end;
// Remove this thread's entry
procedure RemoveThreadTLSEntry();
var
p : pointer;
begin
// Find the entry for this thread and remove it.
gListSync.enter;
try
if ( SysInit.TlsIndex <> -1 ) and ( assigned( gTLSList )) then
begin
p := TlsGetValue( SysInit.TlsIndex );
// if this thread didn't actually make a call into the DLL and use a threadvar
// then there would be no memory for it
if p <> nil then
gTLSList.Remove( p );
end;
finally
gListSync.leave;
end;
end;
// Add current thread's TLS pointer to the global storage list if it is not already
// stored in it.
procedure AddThreadTLSEntry();
var
p : pointer;
begin
gListSync.enter;
try
// Need to create the list if first call
if not assigned( gTLSList ) then
gTLSList := TList.Create;
if SysInit.TlsIndex <> -1 then
begin
p := TlsGetValue( SysInit.TlsIndex );
if p <> nil then
begin
// if it is not stored, add it
if gTLSList.IndexOf( p ) = -1 then
gTLSList.Add( p );
end;
end;
finally
gListSync.leave;
end;
end;
// Some entrypoint that uses threadvar (directly or indirectly)
function MyExportedFunc(): LongWord; stdcall;
begin
threadint := 123;
// Make sure this thread's TLS pointer is stored in our global list so
// we can free it at process detach. Do this AFTER using the threadvar.
// Delphi seems to allocate the memory on demand.
AddThreadTLSEntry;
Result := 0;
end;
procedure DllMain(reason: integer) ;
begin
case reason of
DLL_PROCESS_DETACH:
begin
// NOTE - if this is being called due to process termination, then it should
// just return and do nothing. Very dangerous (and against MSDN recommendations)
// otherwise. However, Delphi does not provide that information (the 3rd param of
// the real DlLMain entrypoint). In my test, though, I know this is only called
// as a result of the DLL being unloaded via FreeLibrary
RemoveAndFreeTLS();
gListSync.Free;
if assigned( gTLSList ) then
gTLSList.Free;
end;
DLL_THREAD_DETACH:
begin
// on a thread detach, Delphi will clean up its own TLS, so we just
// need to remove it from the list (otherwise we would get a double free
// on process detach)
RemoveThreadTLSEntry();
end;
end;
end;
exports
DllMain,
MyExportedFunc;
// Initialization
begin
IsMultiThread := TRUE;
// Make sure Delphi calls my DllMain
DllProc := #DllMain;
// sync object for managing TLS pointers. Is it safe to create a critical section?
// This init code is effectively DllMain's DLL_PROCESS_ATTACH
gListSync := TCriticalSection.Create;
end.

Related

How to prevent my threads from exiting before their work is done?

I have 10 threads working together. After starting the threads, 15 seconds later all threads exit before the job done, and only one thread remains.
My code:
procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject);
begin
AA;
BB;
CC;
DD;
EE;
FF;
GG;
HH;
II;
JJ;
end;
procedure TForm1.AA; //same procedure for BB,CC,DD,EE.FF,JJ,HH,II,JJ
begin
lHTTP := TIdHTTP.Create(nil);
TTask.Create(Procedure
try
//HTTP Opertations
finally
end;
end).Start;
end;
Note, i can't Free the HTTP component because if i did i get an AV and I don't know how to debug it, where to correctly free it in the code? However without freeing it the code works well but the threads exit. It might be the problem as Mr Dodge said.
Based on how I see you're creating the TIdHTTP component, it's simply wrong. You shouldn't create an object outside of the thread, then use it from inside the thread. That's not thread-safe. You should create it in the same thread as where it's being used. This is why you're unable to free it as well, so you actually have two problems to fix here at the same time.
I also realized that your lHTTP variable is not in the scope of your code, so I'm going to assume that you have it declared in some global (or otherwise shared) location. Each thread needs its own variable for its own instance.
So your code should look a little more like this:
procedure TForm1.AA; //same procedure for BB,CC,DD,EE.FF,JJ,HH,II,JJ
begin
TTask.Create(Procedure
var
lHTTP: TIdHTTP;
begin
lHTTP := TIdHTTP.Create(nil);
try
//HTTP Opertations
finally
lHTTP.Free;
end;
end).Start;
end;
Other components (such as TADOConnection) would even completely fail and crash for attempting such a thing (since such components utilize COM). Luckily, TIdHTTP does not use COM, but the design is still flawed for the same reason.
Now, when you say that you debugged it, I'm guessing you mean you debugged the code in the actual thread, but the breakpoint jumped to another place in your code before it reached the end of this? That is to be expected when using the debugger in threads. You can't just step into a thread and expect each sequential breakpoint to be in the same thread - I mean, if you have more than one breakpoint in different threads, your debugger is very likely to jump from one to another - because, again, they are multiple threads. I suggest creating some sort of work log, and each thread reports its status and position.
It is literally just like an alternate universe. Multiple different similar threads doing slightly different things than each other. The Delphi Debugger is simply the Time Lord who can see into all the alternate universes.

Threads and Critical Section correct approach

Right now have a multi-thread scheme like this:
//global variables
var
Form1: TForm1;
ControlFile: TextFile;
MaxThreads, iThreads: integer;
MyCritical: TCriticalSection;
The ControlFile is accessed by the threads, that do a ReadLn, and perform actions with the line obtained:
procedure TForm1.Button2Click(Sender: TObject);
var
HostLine: AnsiString;
FileHandle: integer;
begin
MyCritical:= TCriticalSection.Create;
MaxThreads:= 100;
iThreads:= 0;
while not(eof(ControlFile)) and (iThreads < MaxThreads) do
begin
inc(iThreads);
ReadLn(ControlFile, HostLine);
MyThread.Create(HostLine);
end;
end;
this block is the first doubt. I'm creating 100 threads, each one created received the current line of the textfile. But the problem is that on threads.onterminate, I execute this:
procedure MyThread.MainControl(Sender: TObject);
var
HostLine: string;
begin
try
MyCritical.Acquire;
dec(iThreads);
while not(eof(ControlFile)) and (iThreads < MaxThreads) do
begin
inc(iThreads);
ReadLn(ControlFile, HostLine);
MyThread.Create(HostLine);
end;
finally
MyCritical.Release;
end;
end;
The idea is to keep creating new threads, until the textfile finishes. But if one thread terminate, and execute this procedure, before the first while finished, what happens? The main thread, from button2click will be accessing the file, and the thread's procedure too. This looks strange to me. And the Critical Section, should be global or thread local? And this procedure, MainControl, that opens new threads until the end of the file, should be global or thread local?
First of all, I am not sure it's such a stellar idea to have different threads read from the same text file. It's not that it can't work, but I think it would be much cleaner to simply read the whole thing into a TStringList variable up front, which can then be shared among threads, if needed.
If you do go with what you already have, your critical section must be acquired in the main loop also - the threads that you spawn will start executing immediately by default, so it looks like there could be a race between your main thread and the threads that run MainControl, though you don't show exactly how that call is going to be made.
The critical section needs to be a global variable, as you have it, or a field/property of a global class in order to be shared among threads.
My final point is that it's probably not the greatest idea to create 100 threads either. Unless your threads are mostly waiting on I/O or events, you should generally not have more threads than you have CPU cores. It's better to use a pool of worker threads and a queue of work items that can then be doled out to the running threads. There's supposedly built-in support for some of this in more recent Delphi RTLs. I personally use my own tried and true custom thread pool implementation, so I can't give you any specific help with that part.
The call to OnTerminate is already synchronised.
procedure TThread.DoTerminate;
begin
if Assigned(FOnTerminate) then Synchronize(CallOnTerminate);
end;
So the critical section is not actually needed at all because all the code you've shown runs in the context of the main thread.

How can I use a Dictionary/StringList inside Execute of a Thread - delphi

I have a thread class TValidateInvoiceThread:
type
TValidateInvoiceThread = class(TThread)
private
FData: TValidationData;
FInvoice: TInvoice; // Do NOT free
FPreProcessing: Boolean;
procedure ValidateInvoice;
protected
procedure Execute; override;
public
constructor Create(const objData: TValidationData; const bPreProcessing: Boolean);
destructor Destroy; override;
end;
constructor TValidateInvoiceThread.Create(const objData: TValidationData;
const bPreProcessing: Boolean);
var
objValidatorCache: TValidationCache;
begin
inherited Create(False);
FData := objData;
objValidatorCache := FData.Caches.Items['TInvAccountValidator'];
end;
destructor TValidateInvoiceThread.Destroy;
begin
FreeAndNil(FData);
inherited;
end;
procedure TValidateInvoiceThread.Execute;
begin
inherited;
ValidateInvoice;
end;
procedure TValidateInvoiceThread.ValidateInvoice;
var
objValidatorCache: TValidationCache;
begin
objValidatorCache := FData.Caches.Items['TInvAccountValidator'];
end;
I create this thread in another class
procedure TInvValidators.ValidateInvoiceUsingThread(
const nThreadIndex: Integer;
const objValidatorCaches: TObjectDictionary<String, TValidationCache>;
const nInvoiceIndex: Integer; const bUseThread, bPreProcessing: Boolean);
begin
objValidationData := TValidationData.Create(FConnection, FAllInvoices, FAllInvoices[nInvoiceIndex], bUseThread);
objValidationData.Caches := objValidatorCaches;
objThread := TValidateInvoiceThread.Create(objValidationData, bPreProcessing);
FThreadArray[nThreadIndex] := objThread;
FHandleArray[nThreadIndex]:= FThreadArray[nThreadIndex].Handle;
end;
Then I execute it
rWait:= WaitForMultipleObjects(FThreadsRunning, #FHandleArray, True, 100);
Note I have removed some code out of here to try to keep it a bit simpler to follow
The problem is that my Dictionary is becoming corrupt
If I put a breakpoint in the constructor all is fine
However, in the first line of the Execute method, the dictionary is now corrupt.
The dictionary itself is a global variable to the class
Do I need to do anything special to allow me to use Dictionaries inside a thread?
I have also had the same problem with a String List
Edit - additional information as requested
TInvValidators contains my dictionary
TInvValidators = class(TSTCListBase)
private
FThreadArray : Array[1..nMaxThreads] of TValidateInvoiceThread;
FHandleArray : Array[1..nMaxThreads] of THandle;
FThreadsRunning: Integer; // total number of supposedly running threads
FValidationList: TObjectDictionary<String, TObject>;
end;
procedure TInvValidators.Validate(
const Phase: TValidationPhase;
const objInvoices: TInvoices;
const ReValidate: TRevalidateInvoices;
const IDs: TList<Integer>;
const objConnection: TSTCConnection;
const ValidatorCount: Integer);
var
InvoiceIndex: Integer;
i : Integer;
rWait : Cardinal;
Flags: DWORD; // dummy variable used in a call to find out if a thread handle is valid
nThreadIndex: Integer;
procedure ValidateInvoiceRange(const nStartInvoiceID, nEndInvoiceID: Integer);
var
InvoiceIndex: Integer;
I: Integer;
begin
nThreadIndex := 1;
for InvoiceIndex := nStartInvoiceID - 1 to nEndInvoiceID - 1 do
begin
if InvoiceIndex >= objInvoices.Count then
Break;
objInvoice := objInvoices[InvoiceIndex];
ValidateInvoiceUsingThread(nThreadIndex, FValidatorCaches, InvoiceIndex, bUseThread, False);
Inc(nThreadIndex);
if nThreadIndex > nMaxThreads then
Break;
end;
FThreadsRunning := nMaxThreads;
repeat
rWait:= WaitForMultipleObjects(FThreadsRunning, #FHandleArray, True, 100);
case rWait of
// one of the threads satisfied the wait, remove its handle
WAIT_OBJECT_0..WAIT_OBJECT_0 + nMaxThreads - 1: RemoveHandle(rWait + 1);
// at least one handle has become invalid outside the wait call,
// or more than one thread finished during the previous wait,
// find and remove them
WAIT_FAILED:
begin
if GetLastError = ERROR_INVALID_HANDLE then
begin
for i := FThreadsRunning downto 1 do
if not GetHandleInformation(FHandleArray[i], Flags) then // is handle valid?
RemoveHandle(i);
end
else
// the wait failed because of something other than an invalid handle
RaiseLastOSError;
end;
// all remaining threads continue running, process messages and loop.
// don't process messages if the wait returned WAIT_FAILED since we didn't wait at all
// likewise WAIT_OBJECT_... may return soon
WAIT_TIMEOUT: Application.ProcessMessages;
end;
until FThreadsRunning = 0; // no more valid thread handles, we're done
end;
begin
try
FValidatorCaches := TObjectDictionary<String, TValidationCache>.Create([doOwnsValues]);
for nValidatorIndex := 0 to Count - 1 do
begin
objValidator := Items[nValidatorIndex];
objCache := TValidationCache.Create(objInvoices);
FValidatorCaches.Add(objValidator.ClassName, objCache);
objValidator.PrepareCache(objCache, FConnection, objInvoices[0].UtilityType);
end;
nStart := 1;
nEnd := nMaxThreads;
while nStart <= objInvoices.Count do
begin
ValidateInvoiceRange(nStart, nEnd);
Inc(nStart, nMaxThreads);
Inc(nEnd, nMaxThreads);
end;
finally
FreeAndNil(FMeterDetailCache);
end;
end;
If I remove the repeat until and leave just WaitForMultipleObjects I still get lots of errors
You can see here that I am processing the invoices in chunks of no more than nMaxThreads (10)
When I reinstated the repeat until loop it worked on my VM but then access violated on my host machine (which has more memory available)
Paul
Before I offer guidance on how to resolve your problem, I'm going to give you a very important tip.
First ensure your code works single-threaded, before trying to get a multi-threaded implementation working. The point is that multi-threaded code adds a whole new layer of complexity. Until your code works correctly in a single thread, it has no chance of doing so in multiple threads. And the extra layer of complexity makes it extremely difficult to fix.
You might believe you've got a working single-threaded solution, but I'm seeing errors in your code that imply you still have a lot of resource management bugs. Here's one example with relevant lines only, and comments to explain the mistakes:
begin
try //try/finally is used for resource protection, in order to protect a
//resource correctly, it should be allocated **before** the try.
FValidatorCaches := TObjectDictionary<String, TValidationCache>.Create([doOwnsValues]);
finally
//However, in the finally you're destroying something completely
//different. In fact, there are no other references to FMeterDetailCache
//anywhere else in the code you've shown. This strongly implies an
//error in your resource protection.
FreeAndNil(FMeterDetailCache);
end;
end;
Reasons for not being able to use the dictionary
You say that: "in the first line of the Execute method, the dictionary is now corrupt".
For a start, I'm fairly certain that your dictionary isn't really "corrupt". The word "corrupt" implies that it's there, but its internal data is invalid resulting in inconsistent behaviour. It's far more likely that by the time the Execute method wants to use the dictionary, it has already been destroyed. So your thread is basically pointing to an area of memory that used to have a dictionary, but it's no longer there at all. (I.e. not "corrupt")
SIDE NOTE It is possible for your dictionary to truly become corrupt because you have multiple threads sharing the same dictionary. If different threads cause any internal changes to the dictionary at the same time, it could very easily become corrupt. But, assuming your threads are all treating the dictionary as read-only, you would need a memory overwrite to corrupt it.
So let's focus on what might cause your dictionary to be destroyed before the thread gets to use it. NOTE I can't see anything in the code provided, but there are 2 likely possibilities:
Your main thread destroys the dictionary before the child thread gets to use it.
One of your child threads destroys the dictionary as soon as it is destroyed resulting in all other threads being unable to use it.
In the first case, this would happen as follows:
Main Thread: ......C......D........
Child Thread ---------S......
. = code being executed
C = child thread created
- = child thread exists, but isn't doing anything yet
S = OS has started the child thread
D = main thread destroys dictionary
The point of the above is that it's easy to forget that the main thread can reach a point where it decides to destroy the dictionary even before the child thread starts running.
As for the second possibility, this depends on what is happening inside the destructor of TValidationData. Since you haven't shown that code, only you know the answer to that.
Debugging to pinpoint the problem
Assuming the dictionary is being destroyed too soon, a little debugging can quickly pinpoint where/why the dictionary is being destroyed. From your question, it seems you've already done some debugging, so I'm assuming you'll have no trouble following these steps:
Put a breakpoint on the first line of the dictionary's destructor.
Run your code.
If you reach Execute before reaching the dictionary's destructor, then the thread should still be able to use the dictionary.
If you reach the dictionary's destructor before reaching Execute, then you simply need to examine the sequence of calls leading to the object's destruction.
Debugging in case of a memory overwrite
Keeping an open mind about the possibility of a memory overwrite... This is a little trickier to debug. But provided you can consistently reproduce the problem it should be possible to debug.
Put a breakpoint in the thread's destructor.
Run the app
When you reach the above breakpoint, find the address of the of the dictionary by pressing Ctrl + F7 and evaluating #FData.Caches.
Now add a Data Breakpoint (use the drop-down from the Breakpoints window) for the address and the size of the dictionary.
Continue running, the app will pause when the the data changes.
Again, examine the call-stack to determine the cause.
Wrapping up
You have a number of questions and statements that imply misunderstandings about sharing data (dictionary/string list) between threads. I'll try cover those here.
There is nothing special required to use a Dictionary/StringList in a thread. It's basically the same as passing it to any other object. Just make sure the Dictionary/StringList isn't destroyed prematurely.
That said, whenever you share data, you need to be aware of the possibility of "race conditions". I.e. one thread attempts to access the shared data at the same time another thread is busy modifying it. If no threads are modifying the data, then there's no need for concern. But as soon as any thread is able to modify the data, the access needs to be made "thread-safe". (There are a number of ways to do this, please search for existing questions on SO.)
You mention: "The dictionary itself is a global variable to the class". Your terminology is not correct. A global variable is something declared at the unit level and is accessible anywhere. It's enough to simply say the dictionary is a member of or field of the class. When dealing with "globals", there are significantly different things to worry about; so best to avoid any confusion.
You may want to rethink how you initialise your threads. There are a few reasons you some entries of FHandleArray won't be initialised. Are you ok with this?
You mention AV on a machine that has more memory available. NOTE: Amount of memory is not relevant. And if you run in 32-bit mode you wouldn't have access to more than 4 GB in any case.
Finally, to make a special mention:
Using multiple threads to perform dictionary lookups is extremely inefficient. A dictionary lookup is an O(1) operation. The overhead of threading will almost certainly slow you down unless you intend doing a significant amount of processing in addition to the dictionary lookup.
PS - (not so big) mistake
I noticed the following in your code, and it's a mistake.
procedure TValidateInvoiceThread.Execute;
begin
inherited;
ValidateInvoice;
end;
The TThread.Execute method is abstract, meaning there's no implementation. Attempting to call an abstract method will trigger an EAbstractError. Luckily as LU RD points out, the compiler is able to protect you by not compiling the line in. Even so, it would be more accurate to not call inherited here.
NOTE: In general, overridden methods don't always need to call inherited. You should be explicitly aware of what inherited is doing for you and decide whether to call it on a case-by-case basis. Don't go into auto-pilot mode of calling inherited just because you're overriding a virtual method.

Safely building a custom thread as base for descendants

I'm writing a custom thread which includes some added functionality. The part I'm confused about is how to handle the Execute procedure, while still expecting it to be descended into more inherited implementations.
My custom thread is overriding the Execute procedure and adding some of my own stuff, such as events OnStart, OnStop and OnException, as well as looping capabilities. I'm not sure how to design this in a way that expects it to be further used in a further inherited thread.
How do I make it possible to further inherit this custom thread while maintaining the Execute functionality?
Here's the execute procedure as I have overridden it...
procedure TJDThread.Execute;
begin
Startup;
try
while not Terminated do begin
if assigned(FOnExecute) then
FOnExecute(Self);
if not FRepeatExec then
Terminate
else
if FExecDelay > 0 then
Sleep(FExecDelay);
end;
finally
Cleanup;
end;
end;
I'm intending for FOnExecute to be actually an event of the thread, which is more-so a replacement of inheriting the Execute procedure - similar to how a service works. I don't think this is the right way to go... How do I make sure this is coded in a safe manner? I'm open to suggestions to another approach than an event - so long as it's aimed at the goal of making a custom TThread which can be inherited and further executed.
This custom thread I'm making includes some additional capabilities which don't come with the original TThread and yet will be extremely useful for many future projects. The additional capabilities are specifically OnStart and OnStop events (similar to how a service works), CoInitialize built in (and only used if told to, default = false), Repeated execution (default = false), and delay between executions (default = 0).
I agree with Rob. Don't use an event, use a virtual method. But even if you were to use the event and employ its "assignedness" to signal whether there is work to be done, you would need to protect the FOnExecute member as it can be set from different threads.
In one of our thread classes we use commands to do something similar:
procedure TCommandThread.SetCommand(const Value: ICommand);
begin
Lock;
try
Assert(not IsAvailable, 'Command should only be set AFTER the thread has been claimed for processing');
FCommand := Value;
if Assigned(FCommand) then
MyEvent.SetEvent;
finally
Unlock;
end;
end;
As SetCommand (the Command's setter) can be called from any ol' thread, setting the FCommand member is protected by the thread's critical section which is locked and unlocked through the Lock and Unlock methods.
Signalling MyEvent is done because our thread class uses a TEvent member to wait for work.
procedure TCommandThread.Execute;
begin
LogDebug1.SendFmtMsg('%s.Execute : Started', [ClassName]);
// keep running until we're terminated
while not Terminated do
try
// wait until we're terminated or cleared for take-off by the threadpool
if WaitForNewCommand then
if Assigned(FCommand)
and not Terminated then
// process the command if we're told to do so
CommandExecute;
except
LogGeneral.SendFmtError('%s.Execute : Exception occurred :', [ClassName]);
LogGeneral.SendException;
end;
LogDebug1.SendFmtMsg('%s.Execute : Finished', [ClassName]);
end;
WaitForNewCommand returns when the MyEvent is signalled. This is done when a command is assigned, but also when a (running) command is cancelled, when the thread is terminated etc. Note that Terminated is checked again just before CommandExecute is called. This is done because when WaitForNewCommand returns, we could be in a situation where both a command was assigned and terminate has been called. After all, signalling the event can be done twice from different threads and we don't know when or in what order anything happened.
CommandExecute is a virtual method that different thread classes can override. In the default implementation it provides for all the status processing around command execution so the commands themselves can concentrate on their own stuff.
procedure TCommandThread.CommandExecute;
var
ExceptionMessage: string;
begin
Assert(Assigned(FCommand), 'A nil command was passed to a command handler thread.');
Assert(Status = chsIdle, 'Attempted to execute non-idle command handler thread');
// check if the thread is ready for processing
if IsAvailable then // if the thread is available, there is nothing to do...
Exit;
try
FStatus := chsInitializing;
InitializeCommand;
FStatus := chsProcessing;
try
ExceptionMessage := '';
CallCommandExecute;
except
on E: Exception do begin
ExceptionMessage := E.Message;
LogGeneral.SendFmtError('%s.CommandExecute: Exception occurred during commandhandler thread execution:', [ClassName]);
LogGeneral.SendException;
end;
end;
finally
FStatus := chsFinalizing;
FinalizeCommand;
FStatus := chsIdle;
FCommand := nil;
// Notify threadpool we're done, so it can terminate this thread if necessary :
DoThreadFinished;
// Counterpart to ClaimThreadForProcessing which is checked in IsAvailable.
ReleaseThreadForProcessing;
end;
end;
CallCommandExecute is where, through several levels of indirection the FCommand's Execute method is called and where the real work of the command is done. That is why that call is directly protected with a try-except block. Other than that each Command in and of itself is responsible for thread safety with regard to the resources it uses.
ClaimThreadForProcessing and ReleaseThreadForProcessing are used to claim and release a thread. For speed's sake they don't use the thread's lock, but use the interlocked mechanism to change the value of the class' FIsAvailable member which is declared as a pointer and used as a boolean:
TCommandThread = class(TThread)
// ...
FIsAvailable: Pointer;
function TCommandThread.ClaimThreadForProcessing: Boolean;
begin
Result := Boolean(CompatibleInterlockedCompareExchange(FIsAvailable, Pointer(False), Pointer(True)));
// (See InterlockedExchange help.)
end;
function TCommandThread.ReleaseThreadForProcessing: Boolean;
begin
FIsAvailable := Pointer(True);
Result := IsAvailable;
end;
If any of the "finally" processing in the CommandExecute method needs to be done regardless of exceptions raised by other calls in that process, you will have to use nested try-finally's to ensure that is the case. The above method was simplified from our real code and the actual finally block is a set of nested try finally's to ensure that DoThreadFinished etc. get called regardless of exceptions in FinalizeCommand (and other calls in between).
Don't worry about how to make it safe to override Execute. Consumers who override your thread's Execute method won't work correctly (because they'll put their own operations around your bookkeeping code instead of within it). Provide a new virtual method for descendants to call instead. You could call it Run, for example, using Indy's TIdThread as a guide. It does much of the same things you're planning on.
Don't call Sleep(FExecDelay) - it's a kernel call that the descendant may not wish to make, so:
if (FExecDelay<>0) then Sleep(FExecDelay);
This gives a user the choice of avoiding the kernel call entirely.
I have issues with TThread.Synchronize - I would not want to force any user to have to call it.
TBH, I'm more used to putting code into an object class that is not descended from TThread, ie. a 'Ttask' that has a 'work' method that is called from the TThread. Having a separate class for the work is hugely more flexible and safer than adding data members and methods to a TThread descendant - it's easily queued in, queued out, PostMessaged etc. That, and not having access to the TThread instance stops developers using TThread.Synchronize, TThread.WaitFor and TThread.OnTerminate, so increasing the reliability and performance of the app.

Synchronizing/sending data between threads

The app is written in Delphi XE.
I have two classes, a TBoss and TWorker, which are both based of of TThread.
The TBoss is a single instance thread, which starts up and then will create about 20 TWorker threads.
When the boss creates a instance of TWorker it assigns it a method to call synchronize on, when the Worker has finished with what it's doing it calls this method which allows the Boss to access a record on the Worker.
However I feel this is a problem, calling synchronize appears to be locking up the whole application - blocking the main (ui) thread. Really it should just be synchronizing that worker to the boss thread....
Previously I used messages/packed records to send content between threads which worked well. However doing it this way is much cleaner and nicer.... just very blocking.
Is there a way to call Syncronize in the worker to only wait for the Boss thread?
My code:
type
TWorker = class(TThread)
private
fResult : TResultRecord;
procedure SetOnSendResult(const Value: TNotifyEvent);
....
....
public
property OnSendResult: TNotifyEvent write SetOnSendResult;
property Result : TResultRecord read fResult;
....
end;
...
...
procedure TWorker.SendBossResults;
begin
if (Terminated = False) then
begin
Synchronize(SendResult);
end;
end;
procedure TWorker.SendResult;
begin
if (Terminated = false) and Assigned(FOnSendResult) then
begin
FOnSendResult(Self);
end;
end;
Then in my Boss thread I will do something like this
var
Worker : TWorker;
begin
Worker := TWorker.Create;
Worker.OnTerminate := OnWorkerThreadTerminate;
Worker.OnSendResult := ProcessWorkerResults;
So my boss then has a method called ProcessWorkerResults - this is what gets run on the Synchronize(SendResult); of the worker.
procedure TBoss.ProcessWorkerResults(Sender: TObject);
begin
if terminated = false then
begin
If TWorker(Sender).Result.HasRecord then
begin
fResults.Add(TWorker(Sender).Result.Items);
end;
end;
end;
Synchronize is specifically designed to execute code in the main thread; that's why it seems to lock everything up.
You can use several ways to communicate from the worker threads to the boss thread:
Add a callback to each worker thread,
and assign it from the boss thread
when it's created. It can pass back
whatever as parameters, along with a
thread ID or some other identifier.
Post a message from the worker thread
to the boss thread using
PostThreadMessage. The
disadvantage here is that the boss
thread has to have a window handle
(see Classes.AllocateHWnd in the
Delphi help and David Heffernan's comment below).
Use a good quality third-party
threading library. See
OmniThreadLibrary - it's free,
OS, and extremely well written.
My choice would be the third. Primoz has done all the hard work for you. :)
After your comment, here's something along the lines of my first suggestion. Note that this is untested, since writing the code for a TBoss and TWorker thread + a test app is a little long for the time I have right this minute... It should be enough to give you the gist, I hope.
type
TWorker = class(TThread)
private
fResult : TResultRecord;
fListIndex: Integer;
procedure SetOnSendResult(const Value: TNotifyEvent);
....
....
public
property OnSendResult: TNotifyEvent write SetOnSendResult;
property Result : TResultRecord read fResult;
property ListIndex: Integer read FListIndex write FListIndex;
....
end;
type
TBoss=class(TThread)
private
FWorkerList: TThreadList; // Create in TBoss.Create, free in TBoss.Free
...
end;
procedure TWorker.SendBossResults;
begin
if not Terminated then
SendResult;
end;
procedure TBoss.ProcessWorkerResults(Sender: TObject);
var
i: Integer;
begin
if not terminated then
begin
If TWorker(Sender).Result.HasRecord then
begin
FWorkerList.LockList;
try
i := TWorker(Sender).ListIndex;
// Update the appropriate record in the WorkerList
TResultRecord(FWorkerList[i]).Whatever...
finally
FWorkerList.UnlockList;
end;
end;
end;
end;
You could use a thread safe queue. In DelphiXE there is the TThreadedQueue. If you don't have DXE, try OmniThreadLibray - this library is very good for all threading issues.
As I mentioned new options in Delphi 2009 and higher, here is a link to an example for Producer / Consumer communication between threads, based on the new objct locks, in my blog:
Thread Synchronization with Guarded Blocks in Delphi
In a note regarding the deprecated methods TThread.Suspend and
TThread.Resume, The Embarcadero DocWiki for Delphi
recommends that “thread
synchronization techniques should be
based on SyncObjs.TEvent and
SyncObjs.TMutex.“ There is, however,
another synchronization class
available since Delphi 2009: TMonitor.
It uses the object lock which has been
introduced in this version ...
public properties of the TWorker class MUST have get and set methods, so you can use a Tcriticalsection to give the values of the properties. Otherwise, you´d be having thread-safe issues. Your example seems ok, but in the real world, with thousands of threads accessing to the same value would result in an read error. Use critical sections.. and you wouldn´t have to use any Synchronize. This way you avoid going to the message queues of windows and improve performance. Besides, if you use this code in a windows service app, (where windows messages aren´t allowed), this example wouldn´t work. The synchronize method doesn´t work unless there´s access to the windows message queue.
Solved!! (answer taken from the question)
The fixes made for this problem where two fold.
First remove the syncronization call in the TWorker SendBossResult method.
Second add a fProcessWorkerResult CritialSection to TBoss class. Create and Free this in create/destroy of the TBoss. In the ProcessWorkerResults method call fProcessWorkerResult.Enter and fProcessWorkerResult.leave around the code which needs to be safe from multiple worker results streaming in.
The above was the conclusion after Kens code and follow up comment. Many thanks kind sir, hats off to you!.

Resources