How does a thread knows when to exit?
SITUATION:
-while the main program must wait for the threads to run to completion.
-This can be done by using a prototype function called pthread_join.
-after all, a call to this function waits for the termination of the thread whose id is given by thread itself.
After you have called pthread_join(ptherad_t &var)the main will wait untill all the threads for which you have called join have exited.
once all the threads are completed their tasks,
when it calls pthread_exit(NULL) main will exit.
inside the thread after its task is completed you need to call pthread_exit(NULL) which will stop the excution of the thread.But this is not mandatory and the thread can simply return which means that the thread has completed.
when it(thread) calls pthread_exit(NULL),the calling thread will exit.
Related
so i know we should never call dispatch_sync on main queue, as its a serial queue.
so the below code will crash in xcode:
DispatchQueue.main.sync {
print("hello world")
}
but i am not able to understand 100% why it is going to crash or deadlock ?
can someone explain with some drawing because i don't have 100% proof explanation that why it is going to crash or deadlock.
i know main queue is serial queue. so it executes tasks one by one. suppose we have task A running on main queue and if i add another taskB on main queue then task B only starts after taskA finishes.
and i also know that main queue should only perform UI specific tasks.
but its just i don't have 100% proof explanation of why above code will crash / deadlock.
can someone explain with some kind of simple drawing.
i know main queue is serial queue. so it executes tasks one by one. suppose we have task A running on main queue and if i add another taskB on main queue then task B only starts after taskA finishes.
Correct
and i also know that main queue should only perform UI specific tasks.
Not correct. The UI must only be updated on the main queue but you can do whatever you want on the main queue. You can handle data on the main queue if it fits that particular application. If you're handling a lot of data and don't want to freeze the UI, then you would want to get off the main queue.
but its just i don't have 100% proof explanation of why above code will crash / deadlock.
// doing work...
DispatchQueue.main.sync { // stop the main thread and wait for the following to finish
print("hello world") // this will never execute on the main thread because we just stopped it
}
// deadlock
Please explain to me why I am getting this crash?
Thread 1: EXC_BAD_INSTRUCTION (code=EXC_I386_INVOP, subcode=0x0)
in this
DispatchQueue.main.sync {
print("sync")
}
This is my code.
override func viewDidLoad() {
super.viewDidLoad()
print("Start")
DispatchQueue.main.async {
print("async")
}
DispatchQueue.main.sync {
print("sync")
}
print("Finish")
}
NEVER call the sync function on the main queue
If you call the sync function on the main queue it will block the queue as well as the queue will be waiting for the task to be completed but the task will never be finished since it will not be even able to start due to the queue is already blocked. It is called deadlock.
Two (or sometimes more) items — in most cases, threads — are said to be deadlocked if they all get stuck waiting for each other to complete or perform another action. The first can’t finish because it’s waiting for the second to finish. But the second can’t finish because it’s waiting for the first to finish.
You need to be careful though. Imagine if you call sync and target the current queue you’re already running on. This will result in a deadlock situation.
Use sync to keep track of your work with dispatch barriers, or when you need to wait for the operation to finish before you can use the data processed by the closure.
When to use sync?
When we need to wait until the task is finished. F.e. when we are making sure that some function/method is not double called. F.e. we have synchronization and trying to prevent it to be double called until it's completely finished.
When you need to wait for something done on a DIFFERENT queue and only then continue working on your current queue
Synchronous vs. Asynchronous
With GCD, you can dispatch a task either synchronously or asynchronously.
A synchronous function returns control to the caller after the task is completed.
An asynchronous function returns immediately, ordering the task to be done but not waiting for it. Thus, an asynchronous function does not block the current thread of execution from proceeding on to the next function.
#sankalap, Dispatch.main is a serial queue which has single thread to execute all the operations. If we call "sync" on this queue it will block all other operations currently running on the thread and try to execute the code block inside sync whatever you have written. This results in "deadlock".
As per Apple documentation on executing dispatch_sync on a queue you're currently on will crash your code:
Calling this function and targeting the current queue results in
deadlock.
Because the current queue is the main queue, when you continue to call sync on the main queue, the system will understand that current main queue must wait some code complete in current queue, but no code at current queue (main queue), so you wait forever:
Apple document: Calling this function and targeting the current queue results in deadlock.
When pthread_exit(PTHREAD_CANCELED) is called I have expected behavior (stack unwinding, destructors calls) but the call to pthread_cancel(pthread_self()) just terminated the thread.
Why pthread_exit(PTHREAD_CANCELED) and pthread_cancel(pthread_self()) differ significantly and the thread memory is not released in the later case?
The background is as follows:
The calls are made from a signal handler and reasoning behind this strange approach is to cancel a thread waiting for the external library semop() to complete (looping around on EINTR I suppose)
I have noticed that calling pthread_cancel from other thread does not work (as if semop was not a cancellation point) but signalling the thread and then calling pthread_exit works but calls the destructor within a signal handler.
pthread_cancel could postpone the action to the next cancellation point.
In terms of thread specific clean-up behaviour there should be no difference between cancelling a thread via pthread_cancel() and exiting a thread via pthread_exit().
POSIX says:
[...] When the cancellation is acted on, the cancellation clean-up handlers for thread shall be called. When the last cancellation clean-up handler returns, the thread-specific data destructor functions shall be called for thread. When the last destructor function returns, thread shall be terminated.
From Linux's man pthread_cancel:
When a cancellation requested is acted on, the following steps occur for thread (in this order):
Cancellation clean-up handlers are popped (in the reverse of the order in which they were pushed) and called. (See pthread_cleanup_push(3).)
Thread-specific data destructors are called, in an unspecified order. (See pthread_key_create(3).)
The thread is terminated. (See pthread_exit(3).)
Referring the strategy to introduce a cancellation point by signalling a thread, I have my doubts this were the cleanest way.
As many system calls return on receiving a signal while setting errno to EINTR, it would be easy to catch this case and simply let the thread end itself cleanly under this condition via pthread_exit().
Some pseudo code:
while (some condition)
{
if (-1 == semop(...))
{ /* getting here on error or signal reception */
if (EINTR == errno)
{ /* getting here on signal reception */
pthread_exit(...);
}
}
}
Turned out that there is no difference.
However some interesting side effects took place.
Operations on std::iostream especially cerr/cout include cancellation points. When the underlying operation is canceled the stream is marked as not good. So you will get no output from any other thread if only one has discovered cancellation on an attempt to print.
So play with pthread_setcancelstate() and pthread_testcancel() or just call cerr.clear() when needed.
Applies to C++ streams only, stderr,stdin seems not be affected.
First of all, there are two things associated to thread which will tell what to do when you call pthread_cancel().
1. pthread_setcancelstate
2. pthread_setcanceltype
first function will tell whether that particular thread can be cancelled or not, and the second function tells when and how that thread should be cancelled, for example, should that thread be terminated as soon as you send cancellation request or it need to wait till that thread reaches some milestone before getting terminated.
when you call pthread_cancel(), thread wont be terminated directly, above two actions will be performed, i.e., checking whether that thread can be cancelled or not, and if yes, when to cancel.
if you disable cancel state, then pthread_cancel() can't terminate that thread, but the cancellation request will stay in a queue waiting for that thread to become cancellable, i.e., at some point of time if you are enabling cancel state, then your cancel request will start working on terminating that thread
whereas if you use pthread_exit(), then the thread will be terminated irrespective to the cancel state and cancel type of that particular thread.
*this is one of the differences between pthread_exit() and pthread_cancel(), there can be few more.
I'm in trouble understanding the real difference between IDSYNC and IDNOTIFY, what means synchronous / asynchronous
in respect to the lines of code I write ?
procedure TForm1.IdTCPServerExecute(AContext: TIdContext);
begin
....
DoSomeThing (TIDNotify) ....
DoSomethingOther(TIDsync) ......
end;
Why can't I be sure that both lines of code are executed within the TCPServer Execute function?
Is there only the risk that a few lines of code are not executed within my TIDSynfunction or how can a Deadloack be explained ?
TIdSync and TIdNotify accomplish the same goal - to execute a piece of code in the context of the main thread - but they do it in different ways.
TIdSync is synchronous. The TIdSync.Synchronize() method blocks the calling thread until after the main thread has called the TIdSync.DoSynchronize() method and it has exited. A deadlock can occur if TIdSync.Synchronize() is called within a server event handler while the main thread is shutting down that server. This is because the main thread is blocked waiting for the server to terminate its threads. But the thread is blocked waiting for the main thread to process the sync request.
TIdNotify is asynchronous. The TIdNotify.Notify() method adds the TIdNotify.DoNotify() method into a background queue and exits immediately, so the calling thread is not blocked. The main thread calls the TIdNotify.DoNotify() method at its leisure. There is no deadlock in this situation.
I'm implementing a thread with a queue of tasks. As soon as as the first task is added to the queue the thread starts running it.
Should I use pthread condition variable to wake up the thread or there is more appropriate mechanism?
If I call pthread_cond_signal() when the other thread is not blocked by pthread_cond_wait() but rather doing something, what happens? Will the signal be lost?
Semaphores are good if-and-only-if your queue already is thread safe. Also,
some semaphore implementations may be limited by top counter value.
Even it is unlikely you would overrun maximal value.
Simplest and correct way to do this is following:
pthread_mutex_t queue_lock;
pthread_cond_t not_empty;
queue_t queue;
push()
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&queue_lock);
queue.insert(new_job);
pthread_cond_signal(¬_empty)
pthread_mutex_unlock(&queue_lock);
}
pop()
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&queue_lock);
if(queue.empty())
pthread_cond_wait(&queue_lock,¬_empty);
job=quque.pop();
pthread_mutex_unlock(&queue_lock);
}
From the pthread_cond_signal Manual:
The pthread_cond_broadcast() and pthread_cond_signal() functions shall have no effect if there are no threads currently blocked on cond.
I suggest you use Semaphores. Basically, each time a task is inserted in the queue, you "up" the semaphore. The worker thread blocks on the semaphore by "down"'ing it. Since it will be "up"'ed one time for each task, the worker thread will go on as long as there are tasks in the queue. When the queue is empty the semaphore is at 0, and the worker thread blocks until a new task arrives. Semaphores also easily handle the case when more than 1 task arrived while the worker was busy. Notice that you still have to lock access to the queue to keep inserts/removes atomic.
The signal will be lost, but you want the signal to be lost in that case. If there is no thread to wakeup, the signal serves no purpose. (If nobody is waiting for something, nobody needs to be notified when it happens, right?)
With condition variables, lost signals cannot cause a thread to "sleep through a fire". Unless you actually code a thread to go to sleep when there's already a fire, there is no need to "save a signal". When the fire starts, your broadcast will wake up any sleeping threads. And you would have to be pretty daft to code a thread to go to sleep when there's already a fire.
As already suggested, semaphores should be the best choice. If you need a fixed-size queue just use 2 semaphores (as in classical producer-consumer).
In artyom code, it would be better to replace "if" with "while" in pop() function, to handle spurious wakeup.
No effects.
If you check how pthread_condt_signal is implemented, the condt uses several counters to check whether there are any waiting threads to wake up. e.g., glibc-nptl
/* Are there any waiters to be woken? */
if (cond->__data.__total_seq > cond->__data.__wakeup_seq){
...
}