Value of Global variable var in main() function sometimes comes -1 and sometimes 1 .How to write a robust code without using sleep function so that thread get time to get started and running .
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
int var = -1; // GLobal Variable
void *myThreadFun(void *vargp)
{
var = 1;
return NULL;
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread_id;
printf("Before Thread\n");
pthread_create(&thread_id, NULL, myThreadFun, NULL);
printf("var=%d",var);
pthread_join(thread_id, NULL);
printf("After Thread\n");
exit(0);
}
Value of Global variable var in main() function sometimes comes -1 and
sometimes 1 .How to write a robust code without using sleep function
so that thread get time to get started and running .
It is a distressingly common misconception among those new to multithreaded programming that problems such as yours are a matter of timing. That is not the case, at least not from the perspective of the threading and memory models of most modern high-level programming languages. No amount of delay alone ensures that one thread will see the effects on memory produced by another, therefore robust code does not use timing functions such as sleep() for that purpose.
Rather, the issue is one of synchronization. This is the area that contains rules about what writes to memory by one thread must be visible to other threads. It also covers special kinds of objects and functions that serve to enable threads to affect the execution of other threads, generally by temporarily blocking them from proceeding. These two facets are closely linked.
The pthread_create() and pthread_join() functions have synchronization effects. Among other things, all writes to memory by a thread T1 before it calls pthread_create() to start a thread T2 are visible to T2 (modulo subsequent rewrites of the same memory). All writes to memory by T2 are visible to T1 after it successfully joins T2 via pthread_join(). Therefore, one solution to the question as posed is to wait until after joining the second thread before attempting to read var, as #Robert's answer suggests.
If that is undesirable, then you'll need to engage some other kind of synchronization mechanism to make the main thread wait for the second to update var. Such a wait on a synchronization object will also have the effect of making the second thread's write visible to the main thread.
The most general-purpose synchronization technique offered by pthreads is the condition variable which must be used in conjunction with a mutex. You will find many explanations here on SO and elsewhere about how properly to use a CV.
For your particular case, however, you might find a semaphore easier to set up and use. Semaphores are technically separate from the pthreads library proper, but they have suitable synchronization semantics, both for making threads wait and for making memory operations of one thread visible to another. That might look like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
int var = -1; // GLobal Variable
sem_t semaphore;
void *myThreadFun(void *vargp)
{
var = 1;
// increment the semaphore's value
sem_post(&semaphore);
return NULL;
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread_id;
// initialize the semaphore with value 0
sem_init(&semaphore, 0, 0);
printf("Before Thread\n");
pthread_create(&thread_id, NULL, myThreadFun, NULL);
// Wait until the semaphore's value can be decremented by one without
// it becoming negative (and then perform the decrement before proceeding).
sem_wait(&semaphore);
printf("var=%d",var);
pthread_join(thread_id, NULL);
printf("After Thread\n");
exit(0);
}
I think your code is robust, it's just where you print the result which is incorrect. You need to ensure your thread has finished his work before printing the result.
If you print the result before calling pthread_join, there are two possibilities:
myThreadFun has already changed var, in such case var will contain the value 1
myThreadFun hasn't been completely executed, in such case, var will have its initial value -1.
If you print the result after calling pthread_join, the function myThreadFun will be fully executed and it will print 1.
int main()
{
pthread_t thread_id;
printf("Before Thread\n");
pthread_create(&thread_id, NULL, myThreadFun, NULL);
pthread_join(thread_id, NULL);
printf("After Thread\n");
printf("var=%d",var); /* Here, the thread has completed */
exit(0);
}
Robert's solution is sensible, but I believe you don't actually want to wait for the thread to complete.
If you want the main thread to wait for the variable to be set by the thread without waiting for the thread to end, you will need some kind of synchronization. I'll use a semaphore, but there are a number of other solutions.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
static sem_t started_threads_sem;
static int var;
static void *myThreadFun(void *vargp) {
sleep(3); // This is the thread doing some initialization.
var = 1;
sem_post(&started_threads_sem);
sleep(3); // This is the thread doing stuff.
return NULL;
}
int main() {
printf("Before Thread\n");
sem_init(&started_threads_sem, 0, 0);
pthread_t thread_id;
pthread_create(&thread_id, NULL, myThreadFun, NULL);
// Wait for the thread to have started.
sem_wait(&started_threads_sem);
printf("var=%d\n", var);
pthread_join(thread_id, NULL);
printf("After Thread\n");
exit(0);
}
Before Thread
<3 s pause>
var=1
<3 s pause>
After Thread
Related
In my destructor I want to destroy a thread cleanly.
My goal is to wait for a thread to finish executing and THEN destroy the thread.
The only thing I found about querying the state of a pthread is pthread_attr_setdetachstate but this only tells you if your thread is:
PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED
PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE
Both of those have nothing to do with whether the thread is still running or not.
How do you query a pthread to see if it is still running?
It sounds like you have two questions here:
How can I wait until my thread completes?
Answer: This is directly supported by pthreads -- make your thread-to-be-stopped JOINABLE (when it is first started), and use pthread_join() to block your current thread until the thread-to-be-stopped is no longer running.
How can I tell if my thread is still running?
Answer: You can add a "thread_complete" flag to do the trick:
Scenario: Thread A wants to know if Thread B is still alive.
When Thread B is created, it is given a pointer to the "thread_complete" flag address. The "thread_complete" flag should be initialized to NOT_COMPLETED before the thread is created. Thread B's entry point function should immediately call pthread_cleanup_push() to push a "cleanup handler" which sets the "thread_complete" flag to COMPLETED.
See details about cleanup handlers here: pthread cleanup handlers
You'll want to include a corresponding pthread_cleanup_pop(1) call to ensure that the cleanup handler gets called no matter what (i.e. if the thread exits normally OR due to cancellation, etc.).
Then, Thread A can simply check the "thread_complete" flag to see if Thread B has exited yet.
NOTE: Your "thread_complete" flag should be declared "volatile" and should be an atomic type -- the GNU compilers provide the sig_atomic_t for this purpose. This allows the two threads consistent access the same data without the need for synchronization constructs (mutexes/semaphores).
pthread_kill(tid, 0);
No signal is sent, but error checking is still performed so you can use that to check
existence of tid.
CAUTION: This answer is incorrect. The standard specifically prohibits passing the ID of a thread whose lifetime has ended. That ID might now specify a different thread or, worse, it might refer to memory that has been freed, causing a crash.
I think all you really need is to call pthread_join(). That call won't return until the thread has exited.
If you only want to poll to see whether the thread is still running or not (and note that is usually not what you should be wanting to do!), you could have the thread set a volatile boolean to false just before it exits... then your main-thread could read the boolean and if it's still true, you know the thread is still running. (if it's false, on the other hand, you know the thread is at least almost gone; it may still be running cleanup code that occurs after it sets the boolean to false, though, so even in this case you should still call pthread_join before trying to free any resources the thread might have access to)
There is not fully portable solution, look if your platform supports pthread_tryjoin_np or pthread_timedjoin_np. So you just check if thread can be joined (of course created with PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE).
Let me note on the "winning" answer, which has a huge hidden flaw, and in some contexts it can lead to crashes. Unless you use pthread_join, it will coming up again and again. Assume you are having a process and a shared library. Call the library lib.so.
You dlopen it, you start a thread in it. Assume you don't want it join to it, so you set it detachable.
Process and shared lib's logic doing its work, etc...
You want to load out lib.so, because you don't need it any more.
You call a shutdown on the thread and you say, that you want to read a flag afterwards from your lib.so's thread, that it have finished.
You continue on another thread with dlclose, because you see, that you have saw, that the flag is now showing the thread as "finished"
dlclose will load out all stack and code related memory.
Whops, but dlclose does not stop threads. And you know, even when you are in the last line of the cleanup handler to set the "thread is finished" volatile atomic flag variable, you still have to return from a lot of methods on the stack, giving back values, etc. If a huge thread priority was given to #5+#6's thread, you will receive dlclose before you could REALLY stop on the thread. You will have some nice crashes sometimes.
Let me point out, that this is not a hipothetical problem, I had the same issue on our project.
I believe I've come up with a solution that at least works for Linux. Whenever I create a thread I have it save it's LWP (Light Weight Process ID) and assign it a unique name, eg.
int lwp = syscall(SYS_gettid);
prctl(PR_SET_NAME, (long)"unique name", 0, 0, 0);
Then, to check if the thread exists later I open /proc/pid/task/lwp/comm and read it. If the file exists and it's contents match the unique name I assigned, the thread exists. Note that this does NOT pass a possibly defunct/reused TID to any library function, so no crashes.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <sys/prctl.h>
#include <sys/file.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <syscall.h>
pthread_t subthread_tid;
int subthread_lwp;
#define UNIQUE_NAME "unique name"
bool thread_exists (pthread_t thread_id)
{
char path[100];
char thread_name[16];
FILE *fp;
bool thread_exists = false;
// If the /proc/<pid>/task/<lwp>/comm file exists and it's contents match the "unique name" the
// thread exists, and it's the original thread (TID has NOT been reused).
sprintf(path, "/proc/%d/task/%d/comm", getpid(), subthread_lwp);
fp = fopen(path, "r");
if( fp != NULL ) {
fgets(thread_name, 16, fp);
fclose(fp);
// Need to trim off the newline
thread_name[strlen(thread_name)-1] = '\0';
if( strcmp(UNIQUE_NAME, thread_name) == 0 ) {
thread_exists = true;
}
}
if( thread_exists ) {
printf("thread exists\n");
} else {
printf("thread does NOT exist\n");
}
return thread_exists;
}
void *subthread (void *unused)
{
subthread_lwp = syscall(SYS_gettid);
prctl(PR_SET_NAME, (long)UNIQUE_NAME, 0, 0, 0);
sleep(10000);
return NULL;
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[], char *envp[])
{
int error_number;
pthread_create(&subthread_tid, NULL, subthread, NULL);
printf("pthread_create()\n");
sleep(1);
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
pthread_cancel(subthread_tid);
printf("pthread_cancel()\n");
sleep(1);
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
error_number = pthread_join(subthread_tid, NULL);
if( error_number == 0 ) {
printf("pthread_join() successful\n");
} else {
printf("pthread_join() failed, %d\n", error_number);
}
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
exit(0);
}
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void* thread1 (void* arg);
void* thread2 (void* arg);
int main()
{
pthread_t thr_id;
pthread_create(&thr_id, NULL, thread1, NULL);
sleep(10);
}
void* thread1 (void* arg)
{
pthread_t thr_id = 0;
pthread_create(&thr_id, NULL, thread2, NULL);
sleep(5);
int ret = 0;
if( (ret = pthread_kill(thr_id, 0)) == 0)
{
printf("still running\n");
pthread_join(thr_id, NULL);
}
else
{
printf("RIP Thread = %d\n",ret);
}
}
void* thread2 (void* arg)
{
// sleep(5);
printf("I am done\n");
}
My command line tool keeps throwing the bus error: 10 message. Xcode debugger shows EXC_BAD_ACCESS message and highlights the function call that creates the thread. Manual debugging shows that the execution flow breaks at random positions inside the thread flow. I tried another compiler (gcc), but it ended up the same. Disabling pthread_mutex_lock() and pthread_mutex_unlock() doesn't help. I wrote this small example that reproduces the error.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
typedef struct thread_args {
pthread_mutex_t* mutex;
} thread_args;
void* test(void* t_args) {
printf("Thread initiated\n");
thread_args* args = (thread_args* )t_args;
printf("Args casted\n");
pthread_mutex_lock(args->mutex);
printf("Mutex locked\n");
pthread_mutex_unlock(args->mutex);
printf("Mutex unlocked\n");
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main() {
pthread_mutex_t mutex1;
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex1, NULL);
thread_args args;
args.mutex = &mutex1;
pthread_t* thread;
printf("Initiating a thread\n");
pthread_create(thread, NULL, test, &args);
return(0);
}
I think, in your case,
pthread_create(thread, NULL, test, &args);
at this call, thread is a pointer and not allocated memory. So, essentially pthread_create() tries to write into uninitialized memory, which creates undefined behavior.
Referring the man page of pthread_create()
Before returning, a successful call to pthread_create() stores the ID of the new thread in the buffer pointed to by thread;....
Instead, you can do
pthread_t thread;
...
pthread_create(&thread, NULL, test, &args);
You're using an uninitialized pointer to your pthread_t. The actual storage of the pthread_t needs to be somewhere!
Try :
int main() {
pthread_mutex_t mutex1;
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex1, NULL);
thread_args args;
args.mutex = &mutex1;
pthread_t thread;
printf("Initiating a thread\n");
pthread_create(&thread, NULL, test, &args);
return(0);
}
As other answers pointed out, you need to initialize your pointer thread which you can simply do with:
pthread_t thread;
pthread_create(&thread, NULL, test, &args);
Well, then I'll have to allocate memory dynamically, because different
threads are spawned inside many different functions, hence I can't use
local variables, because I'm not going to join the threads. Then, how
can I free the allocated memory without waiting for the thread to
finish, i.e. without calling join?
No. You don't need to dynamically allocate just because you are going to spawn multiple threads. The thread identifier is no longer needed once a thread has been created So whether it's a local variable or malloced is not important. It's only needed when you need to join or change some characteristics of the thread -- for which you need the ID. Otherwise, you can even reuse the same thread for creating multiple threads. For example,
pthread_t thread;
for( i = 0; i<8; i++)
pthread_create(&thread, NULL, thread_func, NULL);
is perfectly fine. A thread can always get its own ID by calling pthread_self() if needed. But you can't pass a local variable mutex1 to thread functions as once main thread exits, the mutex1 no longer exits as thread created continues to use it. So you either need malloc mutex1 or make it a global variable.
Another thing to do is that if you decide to let the main thread exit then you should call pthread_exit(). Otherwise, when the main thread exits (either by calling exit or simply return) then the whole process will die, meaning, all the threads will die too.
Writing my basic programs on multi threading and I m coming across several difficulties.
In the program below if I give sleep at position 1 then value of shared data being printed is always 10 while keeping sleep at position 2 the value of shared data is always 0.
Why this kind of output is coming ?
How to decide at which place we should give sleep.
Does this mean that if we are placing a sleep inside the mutex then the other thread is not being executed at all thus the shared data being 0.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include<unistd.h>
pthread_mutex_t lock;
int shared_data = 0;
void * function(void *arg)
{
int i ;
for(i =0; i < 10; i++)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&lock);
shared_data++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&lock);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread;
void * exit_status;
int i;
pthread_mutex_init(&lock, NULL);
i = pthread_create(&thread, NULL, function, NULL);
for(i =0; i < 10; i++)
{
sleep(1); //POSITION 1
pthread_mutex_lock(&lock);
//sleep(1); //POSITION 2
printf("Shared data value is %d\n", shared_data);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&lock);
}
pthread_join(thread, &exit_status);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&lock);
}
When you sleep before you lock the mutex, then you're giving the other thread plenty of time to change the value of the shared variable. That's why you're seeing a value of "10" with the 'sleep' in position #1.
When you grab the mutex first, you're able to lock it fast enough that you can print out the value before the other thread has a chance to modify it. The other thread sits and blocks on the pthread_mutex_lock() call until your main thread has finished sleeping and unlocked it. At that point, the second thread finally gets to run and alter the value. That's why you're seeing a value of "0" with the 'sleep' at position #2.
This is a classic case of a race condition. On a different machine, the same code might not display "0" with the sleep call at position #2. It's entirely possible that the second thread has the opportunity to alter the value of the variable once or twice before your main thread locks the mutex. A mutex can ensure that two threads don't access the same variable at the same time, but it doesn't have any control over the order in which the two threads access it.
I had a full explanation here but ended up deleting it. This is a basic synchronization problem and you should be able to trace and identify it before tackling anything more complicated.
But I'll give you a hint: It's only the sleep() in position 1 that matters; the other one inside the lock is irrelevant as long as it doesn't change the code outside the lock.
In my destructor I want to destroy a thread cleanly.
My goal is to wait for a thread to finish executing and THEN destroy the thread.
The only thing I found about querying the state of a pthread is pthread_attr_setdetachstate but this only tells you if your thread is:
PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED
PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE
Both of those have nothing to do with whether the thread is still running or not.
How do you query a pthread to see if it is still running?
It sounds like you have two questions here:
How can I wait until my thread completes?
Answer: This is directly supported by pthreads -- make your thread-to-be-stopped JOINABLE (when it is first started), and use pthread_join() to block your current thread until the thread-to-be-stopped is no longer running.
How can I tell if my thread is still running?
Answer: You can add a "thread_complete" flag to do the trick:
Scenario: Thread A wants to know if Thread B is still alive.
When Thread B is created, it is given a pointer to the "thread_complete" flag address. The "thread_complete" flag should be initialized to NOT_COMPLETED before the thread is created. Thread B's entry point function should immediately call pthread_cleanup_push() to push a "cleanup handler" which sets the "thread_complete" flag to COMPLETED.
See details about cleanup handlers here: pthread cleanup handlers
You'll want to include a corresponding pthread_cleanup_pop(1) call to ensure that the cleanup handler gets called no matter what (i.e. if the thread exits normally OR due to cancellation, etc.).
Then, Thread A can simply check the "thread_complete" flag to see if Thread B has exited yet.
NOTE: Your "thread_complete" flag should be declared "volatile" and should be an atomic type -- the GNU compilers provide the sig_atomic_t for this purpose. This allows the two threads consistent access the same data without the need for synchronization constructs (mutexes/semaphores).
pthread_kill(tid, 0);
No signal is sent, but error checking is still performed so you can use that to check
existence of tid.
CAUTION: This answer is incorrect. The standard specifically prohibits passing the ID of a thread whose lifetime has ended. That ID might now specify a different thread or, worse, it might refer to memory that has been freed, causing a crash.
I think all you really need is to call pthread_join(). That call won't return until the thread has exited.
If you only want to poll to see whether the thread is still running or not (and note that is usually not what you should be wanting to do!), you could have the thread set a volatile boolean to false just before it exits... then your main-thread could read the boolean and if it's still true, you know the thread is still running. (if it's false, on the other hand, you know the thread is at least almost gone; it may still be running cleanup code that occurs after it sets the boolean to false, though, so even in this case you should still call pthread_join before trying to free any resources the thread might have access to)
There is not fully portable solution, look if your platform supports pthread_tryjoin_np or pthread_timedjoin_np. So you just check if thread can be joined (of course created with PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE).
Let me note on the "winning" answer, which has a huge hidden flaw, and in some contexts it can lead to crashes. Unless you use pthread_join, it will coming up again and again. Assume you are having a process and a shared library. Call the library lib.so.
You dlopen it, you start a thread in it. Assume you don't want it join to it, so you set it detachable.
Process and shared lib's logic doing its work, etc...
You want to load out lib.so, because you don't need it any more.
You call a shutdown on the thread and you say, that you want to read a flag afterwards from your lib.so's thread, that it have finished.
You continue on another thread with dlclose, because you see, that you have saw, that the flag is now showing the thread as "finished"
dlclose will load out all stack and code related memory.
Whops, but dlclose does not stop threads. And you know, even when you are in the last line of the cleanup handler to set the "thread is finished" volatile atomic flag variable, you still have to return from a lot of methods on the stack, giving back values, etc. If a huge thread priority was given to #5+#6's thread, you will receive dlclose before you could REALLY stop on the thread. You will have some nice crashes sometimes.
Let me point out, that this is not a hipothetical problem, I had the same issue on our project.
I believe I've come up with a solution that at least works for Linux. Whenever I create a thread I have it save it's LWP (Light Weight Process ID) and assign it a unique name, eg.
int lwp = syscall(SYS_gettid);
prctl(PR_SET_NAME, (long)"unique name", 0, 0, 0);
Then, to check if the thread exists later I open /proc/pid/task/lwp/comm and read it. If the file exists and it's contents match the unique name I assigned, the thread exists. Note that this does NOT pass a possibly defunct/reused TID to any library function, so no crashes.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <sys/prctl.h>
#include <sys/file.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <syscall.h>
pthread_t subthread_tid;
int subthread_lwp;
#define UNIQUE_NAME "unique name"
bool thread_exists (pthread_t thread_id)
{
char path[100];
char thread_name[16];
FILE *fp;
bool thread_exists = false;
// If the /proc/<pid>/task/<lwp>/comm file exists and it's contents match the "unique name" the
// thread exists, and it's the original thread (TID has NOT been reused).
sprintf(path, "/proc/%d/task/%d/comm", getpid(), subthread_lwp);
fp = fopen(path, "r");
if( fp != NULL ) {
fgets(thread_name, 16, fp);
fclose(fp);
// Need to trim off the newline
thread_name[strlen(thread_name)-1] = '\0';
if( strcmp(UNIQUE_NAME, thread_name) == 0 ) {
thread_exists = true;
}
}
if( thread_exists ) {
printf("thread exists\n");
} else {
printf("thread does NOT exist\n");
}
return thread_exists;
}
void *subthread (void *unused)
{
subthread_lwp = syscall(SYS_gettid);
prctl(PR_SET_NAME, (long)UNIQUE_NAME, 0, 0, 0);
sleep(10000);
return NULL;
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[], char *envp[])
{
int error_number;
pthread_create(&subthread_tid, NULL, subthread, NULL);
printf("pthread_create()\n");
sleep(1);
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
pthread_cancel(subthread_tid);
printf("pthread_cancel()\n");
sleep(1);
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
error_number = pthread_join(subthread_tid, NULL);
if( error_number == 0 ) {
printf("pthread_join() successful\n");
} else {
printf("pthread_join() failed, %d\n", error_number);
}
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
exit(0);
}
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void* thread1 (void* arg);
void* thread2 (void* arg);
int main()
{
pthread_t thr_id;
pthread_create(&thr_id, NULL, thread1, NULL);
sleep(10);
}
void* thread1 (void* arg)
{
pthread_t thr_id = 0;
pthread_create(&thr_id, NULL, thread2, NULL);
sleep(5);
int ret = 0;
if( (ret = pthread_kill(thr_id, 0)) == 0)
{
printf("still running\n");
pthread_join(thr_id, NULL);
}
else
{
printf("RIP Thread = %d\n",ret);
}
}
void* thread2 (void* arg)
{
// sleep(5);
printf("I am done\n");
}
I'm working on an application for Linux in C which uses multiple threads. The threads which are spawned by the main function do most of the work, and therefore usually finish last. I'm seeing some strange behavior, and I believe it's due to the main thread terminating before the spawned threads have a chance to finish their jobs. Here's some sample code to illustrate what I'm talking about:
#define _POSIX_C_SOURCE 200112L
#define _ISOC99_SOURCE
#define __EXTENSIONS__
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
void
my_cleanup(void *arg)
{
printf("cleanup: %s\n", (char *)arg);
}
void *
thread_stuff(void *arg)
{
printf("thread started\n");
pthread_cleanup_push(cleanup, "running");
if (arg)
pthread_exit((void *)2);
pthread_cleanup_pop(0);
pthread_exit((void *)2);
}
int
main()
{
int err;
pthread_t tid1, tid2;
err = pthread_create(&tid1, NULL, thread_stuff, (void *)1);
err = pthread_create(&tid2, NULL, thread_stuff, (void *)1);
sleep(10); /* change the value here if you want */
return SUCCESS;
}
When this code is run, the message from the cleanup function is printed twice, as it should be, but other times when it is run, I see the message printed only once sometimes, and other times I see it printed three times or not at all. You add in the sleep function in the main function to play with how long it takes the main function to terminate.
What can I do to make the program run as it should? I suspect it has something to do with joining to the children, but I don't entirely understand the concept of a join or how to apply it to this situation.
Thanks in advance!
Yes, you should "join" the threads. "Joining" a thread simply means waiting until the thread has terminated. In other words, you would do
pthread_join(tid1, NULL);
pthread_join(tid2, NULL);
to wait until both threads have terminated.
Edit: What to do if you have a child thread which, in turn, creates a "grandchild" thread? As a rule, whoever created the thread should wait for it to terminate ("join" it). So in this scenario, the child thread would call phtread_join on the grandchild thread, and the main thread would call join on the child thread.
I think you want to run pthread_join on each of the threads when your main thread completes -- this makes the main thread stop until the given thread finishes running. Other threads can still complete first though, so running pthread_join on every thread will prevent the main thread from terminiating until all of the others have terminated.
There is a definite problem if main() finishes before the threads it spawned if you don't call pthread_exit() explicitly. All of the threads it created will terminate because main() is done and no longer exists to support the threads.
By having main() explicitly call pthread_exit() as the last thing it does, main() will block and be kept alive to support the threads it created until they are done.
int main()
{
int err;
pthread_t tid1, tid2;
err = pthread_create(&tid1, NULL, thread_stuff, (void *)1);
err = pthread_create(&tid2, NULL, thread_stuff, (void *)1);
sleep(10); /* change the value here if you want */
/* Add the pthread_exit */
pthread_exit(NULL);
return SUCCESS;
}
Refer for more info here