What is the point of lua_lock and lua_unlock?
The following implies it's important:
LUA_API void lua_gettable (lua_State *L, int idx) {
StkId t;
lua_lock(L);
t = index2adr(L, idx);
api_checkvalidindex(L, t);
luaV_gettable(L, t, L->top - 1, L->top - 1);
lua_unlock(L);
}
LUA_API void lua_getfield (lua_State *L, int idx, const char *k) {
StkId t;
TValue key;
lua_lock(L);
t = index2adr(L, idx);
api_checkvalidindex(L, t);
setsvalue(L, &key, luaS_new(L, k));
luaV_gettable(L, t, &key, L->top);
api_incr_top(L);
lua_unlock(L);
}
The following implies it does nothing:
#define lua_lock(L) ((void) 0)
#define lua_unlock(L) ((void) 0)
Please enlighten.
If you port Lua to another platform, you are "allowed" to overwrite lua_lock with your own definition; and this definition should essentially be a mutex, to disallow cross-thread operations on the same Lua objects. Essentially, when implemented, it should act similarly to Python's Global Interpreter Lock (GIL).
It's defined to a no-op in vanilla Lua, because vanilla Lua is 100% ANSI-C and runs in a single thread: there's no need for any locking mechanism to be implemented. However, the developers chose to put the lock statements in there for people who port Lua and implement threading in the interpreter.
Sources:
Proposal: fast lua_lock
Why write lua_unlock before lua_lock?
Mailing list
Related
From here, we know if malloc_logger global function is defined, it will be called whenever there is a malloc or free operation. I want to use it to record memory allocations in my app like this:
typedef void(malloc_logger_t)(uint32_t type,
uintptr_t arg1,
uintptr_t arg2,
uintptr_t arg3,
uintptr_t result,
uint32_t num_hot_frames_to_skip);
extern malloc_logger_t *malloc_logger;
void my_malloc_stack_logger(uint32_t type, uintptr_t arg1, uintptr_t arg2, uintptr_t arg3, uintptr_t result, uint32_t num_hot_frames_to_skip);
malloc_logger = my_malloc_stack_logger;
void my_malloc_stack_logger(uint32_t type, uintptr_t arg1, uintptr_t arg2, uintptr_t arg3, uintptr_t result, uint32_t num_hot_frames_to_skip)
{
// do my work
}
In my_malloc_stack_logger, I can directly get the allocated size and address. But how about object types? I want to record the class name if it is an NSObject instance. Is it possible to get this information?
After playing around with the hook, it looks like what you want to achieve is not quite possible.
First problem here is that if you try to read a class name from within this function (by calling any of object_getClassName, class_getName
or NSStringFromClass), this action on its own tends to trigger new allocations. That apparently happens because some Cocoa classes load lazily. I noticed however that when requesting all classes with objc_getClassList it makes a lot of preliminary allocations that helps to avoid them later on. So my idea is to cache all class names before subscribing to the allocations hook and refer to the cached values when needed. For the storage I used Apple's CFMutableDictionary:
CFMutableDictionaryRef objc_class_records;
void refresh_objc_class_list(void) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&objc_class_records_mutex);
if (objc_class_records) {
CFRelease(objc_class_records);
}
objc_class_records = CFDictionaryCreateMutable(kCFAllocatorDefault, 0, NULL, &kCFTypeDictionaryValueCallBacks);
// The buffer needs to accomodate at least 26665 instances
static const unsigned buffer_length = 100000;
Class registered_classes[buffer_length];
objc_getClassList(registered_classes, buffer_length);
for (unsigned i = 0; i < buffer_length; ++i) {
if (!registered_classes[i]) {
break;
}
const Class class = registered_classes[i];
const CFStringRef class_name = CFStringCreateWithCString(kCFAllocatorDefault, class_getName(class), kCFStringEncodingUTF8);
CFDictionarySetValue(objc_class_records, class, class_name);
CFRelease(class_name);
}
}
Be advised that you don't want to have it called when the malloc logger is enabled (especially from within the hook itself).
Now you need to obtain a Class instance from the Objective-C objects. Depending on the type of allocation, the pointer argument goes to fifth or third parameter:
void my_malloc_logger(uint32_t type, uintptr_t param0, uintptr_t param1, uintptr_t param2,
uintptr_t param3, uint32_t frames_to_skip) {
void *ptr = NULL;
unsigned size = 0;
switch (type) {
case MALLOC_OP_MALLOC:
case MALLOC_OP_CALLOC:
ptr = (void *)param3;
size = (unsigned)param1;
break;
case MALLOC_OP_REALLOC:
ptr = (void *)param3;
size = (unsigned)param2;
break;
case MALLOC_OP_FREE:
ptr = (void *)param1;
break;
}
id objc_ptr = (id)ptr;
Class objc_class = object_getClass(objc_ptr);
if (!objc_class) {
return;
}
const CFStringRef class_name;
const bool found = CFDictionaryGetValueIfPresent(objc_class_records, objc_class, (const void **)&class_name);
if (found) {
const static unsigned name_max_length = 256;
char c_class_name[name_max_length];
if (CFStringGetCString(class_name, c_class_name, name_max_length, kCFStringEncodingUTF8)) {
const char *alloc_name = alloc_type_name(type);
nomalloc_printf_sync("%7s: Pointer: %p; Size: %u; Obj-C class: \"%s\"\n", alloc_name, objc_ptr, size, c_class_name);
}
}
}
And now why it won't work as expected:
object_getClass is not able to tell whether a pointer is an object of Cococa classes at the time of allocation (it will find the class, however, when the object is already allocated, e.g. before deallocation). Thus, the following code:
[NSObject new];
Will produce output similar to this:
CALLOC: Pointer: 0x600000600080; Size: 16
FREE: Pointer: 0x600000600080; Size: 0; Obj-C class: "NSObject"
Most of the standard Cocoa classes are in fact so-called Class Clusters and under the hood the actual allocation happens for an instance of a private class (which is not always recognisable by its public interface), thus this information is incomplete and sometimes misleading.
There are also many other factors which need to be taken into account (which i didn't cover here because it's beyond the question asked): the way you output data to standard output should not cause allocation by itself; the logging needs synchronisation since allocation happens a lot from any number of threads; if you want to enable/disable recording the Objective-C classes (or update the cache occasionally) access to the storage also needs to be synchronised.
Having that said if you are satisfied with what can be done with it, feel free to refer to the repository I made where this approach is already implemented in a form of a static library.
I'm using C++Builder 10.4.2 and having a problem with qsort. I rarely use qsort so I might be making a clumsy mistake. Array 'buffer' is a 2D 'char' array with more than 26,000 rows of single words.
This is the call:
qsort((void *)buffer,wordcount,sizeof(buffer[1]),sort_function);
This is the compare function:
int TForm::sort_function(const void *a, const void *b)
{
return( strcmp((char *)a,(char *)b) );
}
This is the error message. Notice that it's complaining about sort_function for 4th argument:
search.h(46): candidate function not viable: no known conversion from 'int (__closure *)(const void *, const void *)' to 'int (*)(const void *, const void *) __attribute__((cdecl))'
What is 'int (__closure *)'? Is there a way to fix my compare function?
__closure is a Borland compiler extension for obtaining a pointer to a non-static class method, without regard to the type of class being used. This is most commonly used in VCL/FMX components, which allow you to assign event handlers from any class you want, which is not something that standard C++ typically allows you to do.
qsort() expects a C-style function pointer in the 4th parameter. You can't get such a pointer to a non-static class method.
To solve this, you need to use either:
a standalone function
a static class method
a non-capturing C++ lambda (C++11 or higher only)
Since your sort_function() does not need access to your TForm object, declaring sort_function() as static would be the simplest fix:
// .h
class TForm
{
...
private:
static int sort_function(const void *a, const void *b);
void doSomething();
...
};
// .cpp
int TForm::sort_function(const void *a, const void *b)
{
return strcmp((const char *)a, (const char *)b);
}
void TForm::doSomething()
{
...
qsort(buffer, wordcount, sizeof(buffer[1]), sort_function);
...
}
However, it really should be a standalone function instead since it really has no relation to your TForm class at all:
// .cpp
static int sort_function(const void *a, const void *b)
{
return strcmp((const char *)a, (const char *)b);
}
void TForm::doSomething()
{
...
qsort(buffer, wordcount, sizeof(buffer[1]), sort_function);
...
}
Using C++ 17, I'm looking for a way to store a lambda that captures the this pointer, without using std::function<>. The reason to not using std::function<> is that I need the guaranty that no dynamic memory allocations are used. The purpose of this, is to be able to define some asynchronous program flow. Example:
class foo {
public:
void start() {
timer(1ms, [this](){
set_pin(1,2);
timer(1ms, [this](){
set_pin(2,1);
}
}
}
private:
template < class Timeout, class Callback >
void timer( Timeout to, Callback&& cb ) {
cb_ = cb;
// setup timer and call cb_ one timeout reached
...
}
??? cb_;
};
Edit: Maybe it's not really clear: std::function<void()> would do the job, but I need / like to have the guaranty, that no dynamic allocations happens as the project is in the embedded field. In practice std::function<void()> seems to not require dynamic memory allocation, if the lambda just captures this. I guess this is due to some small object optimizations, but I would like to not rely on that.
You can write your own function_lite to store the lambda, then you can use static_assert to check the size and alignment requirements are satisfied:
#include <cstddef>
#include <new>
#include <type_traits>
class function_lite {
static constexpr unsigned buffer_size = 16;
using trampoline_type = void (function_lite::*)() const;
trampoline_type trampoline;
trampoline_type cleanup;
alignas(std::max_align_t) char buffer[buffer_size];
template <typename T>
void trampoline_func() const {
auto const obj =
std::launder(static_cast<const T*>(static_cast<const void*>(buffer)));
(*obj)();
}
template <typename T>
void cleanup_func() const {
auto const obj =
std::launder(static_cast<const T*>(static_cast<const void*>(buffer)));
obj->~T();
}
public:
template <typename T>
function_lite(T t)
: trampoline(&function_lite::trampoline_func<T>),
cleanup(&function_lite::cleanup_func<T>) {
static_assert(sizeof(T) <= buffer_size);
static_assert(alignof(T) <= alignof(std::max_align_t));
new (static_cast<void*>(buffer)) T(t);
}
~function_lite() { (this->*cleanup)(); }
function_lite(function_lite const&) = delete;
function_lite& operator=(function_lite const&) = delete;
void operator()() const { (this->*trampoline)(); }
};
int main() {
int x = 0;
function_lite f([x] {});
}
Note: this is not copyable; to add copy or move semantics you will need to add new members like trampoline and cleanup which can properly copy the stored object.
There is no drop in replacement in the language or the standard library.
Every lambda is a unique type in the typesystem. Technically you may have a lambda as a member, but then its type is fixed. You may not assign other lambdas to it.
If you really want to have an owning function wrapper like std::function, you need to write your own. Actually you want a std::function with a big enough small-buffer-optimization buffer.
Another approach would be to omit the this capture and pass it to the function when doing the call. So you have a captureless lambda, which is convertible to a function pointer which you can easily store. I would take this route and adapter complexer ways if really nessessary.
it would look like this (i trimmed down the code a bit):
class foo
{
public:
void start()
{
timer(1, [](foo* instance)
{
instance->set_pin(1,2);
});
}
private:
template < class Timeout, class Callback >
void timer( Timeout to, Callback&& cb )
{
cb_ = cb;
cb_(this); // call the callback like this
}
void set_pin(int, int)
{
std::cout << "pin set\n";
}
void(*cb_)(foo*);
};
I'm trying Lua and want to know how lua_State working
code and result:
state.c
#include <stdio.h>
#include "lua/src/lua.h"
#include "lua/src/lauxlib.h"
static void stackDump(lua_State *L){
int i;
int top = lua_gettop(L);
for(i = 1; i<= top; i++) {
int t = lua_type(L, i);
switch(t){
case LUA_TSTRING:
printf("'%s'", lua_tostring(L, i));
break;
case LUA_TBOOLEAN:
printf(lua_toboolean(L, i) ?"true":"false");
break;
case LUA_TNUMBER:
printf("%g", lua_tonumber(L, i));
break;
default:
printf("%s", lua_typename(L, t));
break;
}
printf(" ");
}
printf("\n");
}
static int divide(struct lua_State *L){
double a = lua_tonumber(L, 1);
double b = lua_tonumber(L, 2);
printf("%p\n", L);
stackDump(L);
int quot = (int)a / (int)b;
int rem = (int)a % (int)b;
lua_pushnumber(L, quot);
lua_pushnumber(L, rem);
stackDump(L);
printf("---end div---\n");
return 2;
}
int main(void){
struct lua_State *L = lua_open();
lua_pushboolean(L, 1);
lua_pushnumber(L, 10);
lua_pushnil(L);
lua_pushstring(L, "hello");
printf("%p\n", L);
stackDump(L);
lua_register(L, "div", divide);
luaL_dofile(L, "div.lua");
stackDump(L);
lua_close(L);
return 0;
}
div.lua
local c = div(20, 10)
0x100c009e0
true 10 nil 'hello'
---start div---
0x100c009e0
20 10
20 10 2 0
---end div---
true 10 nil 'hello'
I see lua_State in divide is the same with the main one, but they have different data in stack, How this be done ?
I know the best way to understand this is to read source code of Lua , maybe you can tell me where to find the right place.
Think of lua_State as containing the Lua stack, as well as indices delimiting the current visible part of the stack. When you invoke a Lua function, it may look like you have a new stack, but really only the indices have changed. That's the simplified version.
lua_State is defined in lstate.h. I've pulled out the relevant parts for you. stack is the beginning of the big Lua stack containing everything. base is the beginning of the stack for the current function. This is what your function sees as "the stack" when it is executing.
struct lua_State {
/* ... */
StkId top; /* first free slot in the stack */
StkId base; /* base of current function */
/* ... */
StkId stack_last; /* last free slot in the stack */
StkId stack; /* stack base */
/* ... */
};
Programming in Lua, 2nd Edition discusses Lua states in chapter 30: Threads and States. You'll find some good information there. For example, lua_State not only represents a Lua state, but also a thread within that state. Furthermore, all threads have their own stack.
It gets different data the same way anything gets different data: code changes the data inside of the object.
struct Object
{
int val;
};
void more_stuff(Object *the_data)
{
//the_data->val has 5 in it now.
}
void do_stuff(Object *the_data)
{
int old_val = the_data->val;
the_data->val = 5;
more_stuff(the_data);
the_data->val = old_val;
}
int main()
{
Object my_data;
my_data.val = 1;
//my_data.val has 1.
do_stuff(&my_data);
//my_data.val still has 1.
}
When Lua calls a registered C function, it gives it a new stack frame.
I am not able to execute pthreads program in c. Please tell me what is wrong with the following program. I am neither getting any error nor expected output.
void *worker(void * arg)
{
int i;
int *id=(int *)arg;
printf("Thread %d starts\n", *id );
}
void main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int thrd_no,i,*thrd_id,rank=0;
void *exit_status;
pthread_t *threads;
thrd_no=atoi(argv[1]-1);
thrd_id= malloc(sizeof(int)*(thrd_no));
threads=malloc(sizeof(pthread_t)*(thrd_no));
for(i=0;i<thrd_no;i++)
{
rank=i+1;
thrd_id[i]=pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, worker, &rank);
}
for(i=0;i<thrd_no;i++)
{
pthread_join(threads[i], &exit_status);
}
}
thrd_no = atoi(argv[1] - 1); likely doesn't do what you intended; the way argv is normally passed into a new process and parsed into a C array, argv[1] - 1 is probably pointing at \0 (specifically, the \0 at the end of argv[0]). (More generally, indexing backwards off the start of a string is rarely correct.) The result is that atoi() will return 0 and no threads will be created. What did you actually intend to do there?
You are passing the same address &rank to each thread, so id and *id is the same for all your worker-s.
You should better allocate on the heap the address you pass to each worker routine.
You might also include <stdint.h and use intptr_t, e.g.
void worker (void* p)
{
intptr_t rk = (intptr_t) p;
/// etc
}
and call
intptr_t rank = i + 1;
thrd_id[i]=pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, worker, (void*)rank);
You should learn to use a debugger and compile with all warnings and debug information, i.e. gcc -Wall -g (and improve your code till it gets no warnings, then use gdb)
code segment rank=i+1;
thrd_id[i]=pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, worker, &rank);
will produce race condition.