I want to create 2 Threads, which are in use of a global variable, my code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int var = 0; //
pthread_t threads[2];
void* function(){
if(var % 2==0){
var +=2;
}
printf("Addresse %d with var %d\n", &var, var);
}
int main() {
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++){
pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, &function, NULL);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
I created 2 threads with the for loop. I want to let both threads use the global variable. One shall increment 2, the other thread shall multiply 2. I used printf to see, that both use same addresse, but not have same output. How do I let each of the threads to different tasks?
How do I let each of the threads to different tasks?
One way to do this is to write a separate thread function for each thread. In that case, it would be easier to start each via its own pthread_create() call instead of using a loop.
If you must use the same thread function, but you want it to do different work in the two cases then the easiest thing to do is use the thread function's argument (which your code fails to declare). For example:
void *function(void *arg) {
if ((intptr_t) arg == 0) {
// do one thing ...
} else {
// do a different thing ...
}
return /* something */;
}
int main(void) {
// ...
for(intptr_t i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, &function, (void *) i);
}
// ...
}
Note also, however, that if your threads both access the same non-atomic global variable, and at least one of them modifies it, then you must synchronize their access so that they cannot access it at the same time. There are several ways to do that, but the most conventional is to provide a mutex that each thread locks before accessing the variable and unlocks after.
The simplest way to safely share a variable between multiple threads is to use a mutex (MUTual EXclusion). I modified your program to use one. Note that it locks around the area which the variable is checked and modified. While mutex'es are simple for this sort of application, other appications which might involve waiting for a var to have a particular value would require something like condition variables (pthread_cond_t). This is a rich field of options for different needs; but this should get you started:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int var = 0; //
pthread_mutex_t varlock = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
#define NTH 20
pthread_t threads[NTH];
void* function(){
int val;
pthread_mutex_lock(&varlock);
if(var % 2==0){
var +=2;
}
val = var;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&varlock);
printf("Addresse %d with var %d\n", &var, val);
}
int main() {
for(int i = 0; i < NTH; i++){
pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, &function, NULL);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
You should refer to What is a race condition?. This is a classic example of a multi-threaded race condition, where two threads are reading and writing to the same memory address.
Edit: You're also passing the same function as the starting point to both threads. They both check if the value is even, and if so, add two to the value.
If you want one thread to add and the other to multiply the value then you could use two functions (I'm also using the mutex variables that mevets recommended for synchronization). Your code is going to be non-deterministic either way
void* add(){
int val;
pthread_mutex_lock(&varlock);
if(var % 2==0){
var +=2;
}
val = var;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&varlock);
printf("Addresse %d with var %d\n", &var, val);
}
void* multiply(){
int val;
pthread_mutex_lock(&varlock);
if(var % 2==0){
var *=2;
}
val = var;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&varlock);
printf("Addresse %d with var %d\n", &var, val);
}
int main(){
pthread_create(&threads[0], NULL, &add, NULL);
pthread_create(&threads[1], NULL, &multiply, NULL);
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
You may get a different output every-time you run this code, because it is non-deterministic.
Related
I'm learning how to use global variables through multithreading, but I have a problem now: about pthread_mutex_lock() and pthread_mutex_unlock().
Correct is usage in function1 or function2? If neither, how to use it correctly?
I just modified one of the elements in the array at that time. For example, after thread1 changed AllSensorInfoArray[2][66].sensorType, the thread1 will change AllSensorInfoArray[2][67].sensorType,now thread2 can change AllSensorInfoArray[2][66].sensorType. In other words, multiple threads are not allowed to modify AllSensorInfoArray[2][66].sensorType at the same time.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
pthread_mutex_t AllSensorMutex;
void *function1(void *arg)
{
int t = 0, i = 0;
/*
some codes
*/
pthread_mutex_lock(&AllSensorMutex);
for (t = 0; t < 100; t++)
{
AllSensorInfoArray[i][t].sensorType = allData[2+t];
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&AllSensorMutex);
/*
some codes
*/
}
void *function2(void *arg)
{
/*
some codes
*/
int t = 0, i = 0;
for (t = 0; t < 100; t++)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&AllSensorMutex);
AllSensorInfoArray[i][t].sensorType = allData[2+t];
pthread_mutex_unlock(&AllSensorMutex);
}
/*
some codes
*/
}
int main(void)
{
while(pthread_mutex_init(&AllSensorMutex, NULL))
{
printf("(%s) write mutex init error!\n", __FUNCTION__);
sleep(1);
}
pthread_t thread1;
pthread_t thread2;
int ret = pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, function1, NULL);
if (ret != 0)
{
printf("(%s) failed to create a pthread, return error code : %d.\n", __FUNCTION__, ret);
exit(-1);
}
ret = pthread_create(&thread2, NULL, function2, NULL);
if (ret != 0)
{
printf("(%s) failed to create a pthread, return error code : %d.\n", __FUNCTION__, ret);
exit(-1);
}
while (1)
{
sleep(1);
}
}
Correct is usage in function1 or function2?
Both are equally correct, and will work. The first one is "better" for this particular case.
The first one, which takes the mutex for the duration of the loop is more efficient, because there is less overhead (of locking and unlocking the mutex).
It is best suited for things like copying data.
The second one, which takes the mutex for the duration of accessing each element, is better suited when the modification is more complicated and may take some time (relatively speaking), and you only need to access that one element. However, then you should only take the mutex for the modification itself, and not for the entire computation (or, say, sensor reading):
for (i = 0; i < sensor_count; i++) {
value = read_sensor(i);
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
sensor_reading[i] = value;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
instead of pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex); sensor_reading[i] = read_sensor(i); pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);, because this latter would just hold the mutex while reading the sensor, blocking other threads' access to the array for the duration of the read_sensor(i) call for no sensible reason.
Simple assignment or arithmetic on the array element is not 'slow', and therefore the first function is the recommended pattern here.
In general, the pattern
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
/* Do something */
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
only releases the mutex for a short duration, and depending on the pthreads implementation, it may not be long enough for any other thread to grab the mutex, even if they were already blocking/waiting on the mutex (in a pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex) call). It is not wrong or an error, though, it just works the same as
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
for (i = 0; i < N; i++) {
/* Do something */
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
and is less efficient than this latter form, because the former does (N-1) extra pthread_mutex_lock() and pthread_mutex_unlock() calls, with no guarantees of any benefits of doing so.
pthread_create in a for loop, this is my code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <string.h>
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
void* helloWorld(void *i) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
printf("This is a thread %d\n", *((int*) i));
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
return 0;
}
int main() {
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex, NULL);
pthread_t threads[4];
int i;
printf("Main Message\n");
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, helloWorld, &i);
}
for (i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);\
}
pthread_mutex_destroy(&mutex);
return 0;
}
The order doesn't really matter as long as all 4 threads are working.
I've tried to use mutex but it didn't solve the issue.
My current output is pretty random, it can be 0000 or 0112 or anything else.
The problem is two-fold:
First of all you don't have control over when the threads run or in which order.
You pass the same pointer to all threads.
You can solve the second issue by passing the value if i to the threads. This is one of the few cases where it's considered okay to pass values instead of pointers:
pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, helloWorld, (void*)(uintptr_t) i);
Then in the thread
printf("This is a thread %d\n", (int)(uintptr_t) i);
The first issue, about the order, you have to come up with some other way to synchronize the threads and how they notify each other. For example by using four condition signals, one for each thread, that you signal in the order you want the threads to execute.
I have two functions initialize() and deinitialize() and each function should run only once. The structure is something similar to:
int *x;
initialize()
{
x = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10);
}
deinitialize()
{
free(x);
}
How can I ensure that only the first thread calls initialize and only the last thread calls deinitialize.
Can this be achieve without the use of mutex?
UPDATE:
Sorry for the poor information. I am actually modifying a library that contains the functions initialize() and deinitialize(). I need to make these two functions thread-safe. The users might use multiple threads and might call these functions more than once. I cannot assume that the users will call exactly once to initialize and deinitialize functions. I can only assume is that if a thread calls initialize, it will call deinitialize at some point.
The users will be using pthread library to create their different threads.
I don't know what you want to achieve, the most easiest is:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int *x;
int running;
void initialization(void)
{
x = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10);
puts("First thread init x");
}
void deinitialization(void)
{
free(x);
puts("Last thread reset x");
}
void *handler(void *data)
{
printf("Thread started\n");
while (running) {
do_work();
}
printf("Thread exit\n");
}
int main(void)
{
pthread_t threads[3];
initialization();
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, &handler, NULL);
sleep(2);
running = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
deinitialization();
return 0;
}
Here you can be sure that your have called init() and deinit() only once.
UPDATE
Another variant little bit complicated, but here you also can be sure that init() called only once. Thread with id 0 can be start after 1 in this case we should wait while *x is NULL.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#define MAX_THREADS 3
int *x;
int running;
int init;
struct thread_info
{
pthread_t thread;
int id;
int first_id;
int last_id;
};
void initialization(void)
{
x = malloc(sizeof(int) * 10);
puts("First thread init x");
init = 1;
}
void deinitialization(void)
{
free(x);
puts("Last thread reset x");
}
void *handler(void *data)
{
struct thread_info *tinfo = data;
printf("Thread started\n");
if (tinfo->id == 0)
initialization();
while (!init);
/* EMPTY BODY */
while (running) {
do_work();
}
printf("Thread exit\n");
}
int main(void)
{
struct thread_info threads[MAX_THREADS] =
{
[0 ... 2].id = -1,
[0 ... 2].first_id = 0,
[0 ... 2].last_id = (MAX_THREADS - 1)
};
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
pthread_create(&threads[i].thread, NULL, &handler,
((threads[i].id = i), &(threads[i])));
sleep(2);
running = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
pthread_join(threads[i].thread, NULL);
deinitialization();
return 0;
}
deinit() is a little bit tricky because your last thread can be exiting and free(x) while another thread is still running and maybe use it. So I leave it after all threads is exiting.
This is the point about concurrent programming. You can never make any assumptions about the order in which the threads execute.
The exact timing of when tasks in a concurrent system are executed depend on the scheduling, and tasks need not always be executed concurrently. For example, given two tasks, T1 and T2:
T1 may be executed and finished before T2 or vice versa (serial and
sequential)
T1 and T2 may be executed alternately (serial and concurrent)
T1 and T2 may be executed simultaneously at the same instant of time
(parallel and concurrent)
I'm trying to make a simple program using pthreads, want to make 6 threads and pass index to all of them. here's the code:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define num_students 6
void thread_starter();
int main() {
pthread_t thread1[num_students];
int i = 0;
for(i = 0; i<num_students; i++) {
int q = i;
pthread_create(&thread1[i], NULL, (void *) &thread_starter, (void *)&q);
}
sleep(1);
}
void thread_starter(void* a) {
printf("Thread %i \n", *((int*)a));
}
And the output:
Thread 2
Thread 3
Thread 2
Thread 4
Thread 5
Thread 5
why do they have commmon names? what's wrong?
Thanks
You're passing a stack address from the main thread into all the child threads. There is no guarantee when these threads will be scheduled so you have no way of knowing whether the main thread will have updated its stack variable by the time each child gets around to reading it.
To avoid this, you need to allocate memory for the data being passed to each thread.
The easiest way to do this in your example is to use another automatic variable to store the data being passed to the new threads
void thread_starter(void* a);
int main() {
pthread_t thread1[num_students];
int thread_data[num_students];
int i = 0;
for(i = 0; i<num_students; i++) {
thread_data[i] = i;
pthread_create(&thread1[i], NULL, thread_starter, &thread_data[i]);
}
sleep(1);
}
Note also that you can avoid having to cast thread_starter if you give it the correct signature in your forward declaration.
For more complex programs you may need to dynamically allocate memory for each thread instead, passing ownership of that memory to the new threads.
int main() {
pthread_t thread1[num_students];
int i = 0;
for(i = 0; i<num_students; i++) {
int* data = malloc(sizeof(*data));
*data = i;
pthread_create(&thread1[i], NULL, thread_starter, data);
}
sleep(1);
}
void thread_starter(void* a) {
printf("Thread %i \n", *((int*)a));
free(a);
}
Finally, using sleep(1) isn't a very rigorous way of ensuring that all your threads will be run. It'd be better to use pthread_join instead
for(i = 0; i<num_students; i++) {
pthread_join(thread1[i], NULL);
}
sleep is not the correct tool to wait for spawned threads, use pthread_join for this.
Your main function terminating is equivalent to calling exit for the whole program and killing all the other threads.
Try This for Variation
void thread_starter(void* a) {
// Put a sleep(1) Here and see you will get even bizarre results
printf("Thread %i \n", *((int*)a));
}
Ok the problem here is of course
the race condition at this point here
int q = i;
pthread_create(&thread1[i], NULL, (void *) &thread_starter, (void *)&q);
lets say the first thread is created and the value at q is 0
now assume that before executing the statement Here
printf("Thread %i \n", *((int*)a));
if the main thread loops further and executes this statement here
int q = i;
again, then the q value changes (because its a reference) hence the problem
well one way to avoid this is to copy this reference variable in a local variable in thread routine also use mutex.
Sorry I was on a Hurry some more tips from my side
#define num_students 6
pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; // A Global Mutex
Will aquire a lock Here
pthread_mutex_lock( &mutex );
printf("\n Got Mutex %d\n", i);
int q = i;
pthread_create(&thread1[i], NULL, (void *) &thread_starter, (void *)&q);
and will release the lock Here in child Routine
int i = *((int*)a);
sleep(1);
pthread_mutex_unlock( &mutex );
printf("Thread %i \n", i);
P.S - Remove un necessary Prints and Sleeps where ever not applicable
The problem is in following:
I want to write a short program that creates 10 threads and each prints a tread "id" that is passed to thread function by pointer.
Full code of the program is below:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct params {
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
int id;
};
typedef struct params params_t;
void* hello(void* arg){
int id;
pthread_mutex_lock(&(*(params_t*)(arg)).mutex);
id = (*(params_t*)(arg)).id;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(*(params_t*)(arg)).mutex);
printf("Hello from %d\n", id);
}
int main() {
pthread_t threads[10];
params_t params;
pthread_mutex_init (¶ms.mutex , NULL);
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
params.id = i;
if(pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, hello, ¶ms));
}
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
}
return 0;
}
The supposed output is (not necessary in this order):
Hello from 0
....
Hello from 9
Actual result is:
Hello from 2
Hello from 3
Hello from 3
Hello from 4
Hello from 5
Hello from 6
Hello from 8
Hello from 9
Hello from 9
Hello from 9
I tried to place mutex in different places in hello() function, but it didn't help.
How should I implement thread sync?
EDIT: Supposed result is not necessary 0...9 it can be any combination of these numbers, but each one should appear only one time.
The problem lies in the below code:
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
params.id = i;
if(pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, hello, ¶ms));
}
Your params.id value keeps getting updated in the main thread, whereas you are passing the same pointer to all the threads.
Please create seperate memory for params by dynamically allocating it and pass it to different threads to solve the problem.
EDIT1:
Your usage of mutex to protect is also an incorrect idea. Though your mutex if used in main while setting the id also, may make the updation mutually exclusive, but you may not get your desired output. Instead of getting values from 0 .. 9 in different threads, you may get all 9s or still multiple threads may print same values.
So, using thread synchronization is not such a good idea for the output which you are expecting. If you still need to use one param variable between all threads and get output as 0 to 9 from each of the threads, better move the pthread_join into the first loop. This will ensure that each thread gets created, prints the value and then returns before the main spawns the next thread. In this case, you don't need the mutex also.
EDIT2:
As for the updated question, where it is asked that it is not necessary to print the numbers 0..9 in a sequence, the printing can be random, but only once, the problem still remains the same more or less.
Now, let's say, the value of params.id is first 0 and thread 0 got created, now, thread 0 must print it before it is updated in the main thread, else, when thread 0 accessess it, the value of params.id would have become 1 and you will never get your unique set of values. So, how to ensure that thread 0 prints it before it is updated in main, Two ways for it:
Ensure thread 0 completes execution and printing before main updates
the value
Use condition variables & signalling to ensure that main thread waits
for thread 0 to complete printing before it updates the value (Refer
to Arjun's answer below for more details)
In my honest opinion, you have selected the wrong problem for learning synchronization & shared memory. You can try this with some good problems like "Producer-Consumer", where you really need synchronization for things to work.
There are two problems:
A. You're using a lock but main is unaware of this lock.
B. A lock is not enough in this case. What you would want is for threads to cooperate by signalling each other (because you want main to not increment the variable until a thread says that it is done printing it). You can use a pthread_cond_t to achieve this (Look here to learn more about this). This boils down to the following code (basically, I added an appropriate usage of pthread_cond_t to your code, and a bunch of comments explaining what is going on):
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct params {
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
pthread_cond_t done;
int id;
};
typedef struct params params_t;
void* hello(void* arg){
int id;
/* Lock. */
pthread_mutex_lock(&(*(params_t*)(arg)).mutex);
/* Work. */
id = (*(params_t*)(arg)).id;
printf("Hello from %d\n", id);
/* Unlock and signal completion. */
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(*(params_t*)(arg)).mutex);
pthread_cond_signal (&(*(params_t*)(arg)).done);
/* After signalling `main`, the thread could actually
go on to do more work in parallel. */
}
int main() {
pthread_t threads[10];
params_t params;
pthread_mutex_init (¶ms.mutex , NULL);
pthread_cond_init (¶ms.done, NULL);
/* Obtain a lock on the parameter. */
pthread_mutex_lock (¶ms.mutex);
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
/* Change the parameter (I own it). */
params.id = i;
/* Spawn a thread. */
pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, hello, ¶ms);
/* Give up the lock, wait till thread is 'done',
then reacquire the lock. */
pthread_cond_wait (¶ms.done, ¶ms.mutex);
}
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
}
/* Destroy all synchronization primitives. */
pthread_mutex_destroy (¶ms.mutex);
pthread_cond_destroy (¶ms.done);
return 0;
}
I see that the example you are trying is a toy program to probably learn about the POSIX thread library. In the real world, as we all know this can be done much faster without even using threads. But you already know this.
The problem is that you are modifying the params.id "unprotected" in main. This modification in main also needs to be mutex protected. You could protect this access by localizing this by creating getId() and setId() functions that would lock the mutex and protect access to the id, as follows. This will most likely still give the problem reported, since depending on when the thread calls getData() it will have one value or another. So to solve this, you could add an incrementId() function and call it from the hello() function.
struct params {
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
int id;
};
typedef struct params params_t;
int getId(params_t *p)
{
int id;
pthread_mutex_lock(&(p->mutex));
id = p->id;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(p->mutex));
return id;
}
void setId(params_t *p, int val)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&(p->mutex));
p->id = val;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(p->mutex));
}
void incrementId(params_t *p)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&(p->mutex));
p->id++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(p->mutex));
}
void* hello(void* arg){
params_t *p = (params_t*)(arg);
incrementId(p);
int id = getId(p);
// This could possibly be quite messy since it
// could print the data for multiple threads at once
printf("Hello from %d\n", id);
}
int main() {
pthread_t threads[10];
params_t params;
params.id = 0;
pthread_mutex_init (¶ms.mutex , NULL);
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
if(pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, hello, ¶ms));
}
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
}
return 0;
}
A better way to get a unique thread id would be to define the hello method as follows:
void* hello(void* arg){
pthread_t threadId = pthread_self();
printf("Hello from %d\n", threadId);
}
And to avoid the problem with all threads trying to print at once, you could do the following:
void* hello(void* arg){
params_t *p = (params_t*)(arg);
pthread_mutex_lock(&(p->mutex));
p->id++;
int id = p->id;
printf("Hello from %d\n", id);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(p->mutex));
}
Easiest way to get the desired output would be to modify your main function as follows:
int main() {
pthread_t threads[10];
params_t params;
pthread_mutex_init (¶ms.mutex , NULL);
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
params.id = i;
if(pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, hello, ¶ms));
pthread_join(threads[i], NULL); //wait for thread to finish
}
/*for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
}*/
return 0;
}
Output would be:
Hello from 0
...
Hello from 9
EDIT: Here's the synchronization for the corrected question:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
struct params {
pthread_mutex_t* mutex;
int id;
};
typedef struct params params_t;
void* hello(void* arg){
int id = 0;
params_t* params = (params_t*)arg;
if(params != 0)
{
id = params->id;
delete params;
params = 0;
}
printf("Hello from %d\n", id);
}
int main() {
pthread_t threads[10];
params_t* params = 0;
pthread_mutex_t main_mutex;
pthread_mutex_init (&main_mutex , NULL);
int i;
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
params = new params_t(); //create copy of the id to pass to each thread -> each thread will have it's own copy of the id
params->id = i;
params->mutex = &main_mutex;
if(pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, hello, params));
}
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
}
return 0;
}
Each thread must have it's own copy of the id so that the other threads do not modify the id before it is printed.
I'm just putting this one here to provide another solution to this problem - this one does not involve mutexes - no synchronization - no conditionals, etc.
The main dfference is that we are using pthread_detach to automatically release the thread's resources upon completion.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define NUMTHREADS 10
typedef struct params {
int id;
} params_t;
void* hello(void *arg)
{
params_t *p = (params_t*)arg;
int status;
status = pthread_detach(pthread_self());
if (status !=0 )
{
printf("detaching thread\n");
abort();
}
printf("Hello from %d\n", p->id);
free(p);
return NULL;
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread;
params_t *par;
int i, status;
for (i=0; i<NUMTHREADS; i++)
{
par = (params_t*)malloc(sizeof(params_t));
if (par == NULL)
{
printf("allocating params_t");
abort();
}
par->id = i;
status = pthread_create(&thread, NULL, hello, par);
if (status != 0)
exit(1);
}
/* DO some more work ...*/
sleep(3);
exit(0);
}