while(1) {
char message_buffer[SIZE];
ssize_t message_length = mq_receive(mq_identifier, message_buffer, _mqueue_max_msg_size NULL);
if(message_len == -1) { /* error handling... */}
pthread_t pt1;
int ret = pthread_create(&pt1, NULL, handle_message, message_buffer);
if(ret) { /* error handling ... */}
}
void * handle_message (void * message) {
puts((char *) message);
return NULL;
}
The above example is not an MRE but it is extremely simple:
I've got a main thread with a loop that constantly consumes messages from a message queue. Once a new message is received, it is stored in the local message_buffer buffer. Then, a new thread is spawned to "take care" of said new message, and thus the message buffer's address is passed into handle_message, which the new thread subsequently executes.
The problem
Often, 2 threads will print the same message, even though I can verify with a 100% certainty that the messages in the queue were not the same.
I am not completely certain, but I think I understand why this is happening:
say that I push 2 different messages to the mqueue and only then I begin consuming them.
In the first iteration of the while loop, the message will get consumed from the queue and saved to message_buffer. A new thread will get spawned and the address of message_length passed to it. But that thread may not be fast enough to print the buffer's contents to the stream before the next message gets consumed (on the next iteration of the loop), and the contents of message_buffer subsequently overridden. Thus the first and second thread now print the same value.
My question is: what is the most efficient way to solve this? I'm pretty new to parallel programming and threading/pthreads and I'm pretty overwhelmed by the different synchronization primitives.
Mutex trouble
static pthread_mutex_t m = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
while(1) {
char message_buffer[SIZE];
pthread_mutex_lock(&m);
ssize_t message_length = mq_receive(mq_identifier, message_buffer, _mqueue_max_msg_size NULL);
pthred_mutex_unlock(&m);
if(message_len == -1) { /* error handling... */}
pthread_t pt1;
int ret = pthread_create(&pt1, NULL, handle_message, message_buffer);
if(ret) { /* error handling ... */}
}
void * handle_message (void * message) {
char own_buffer[SIZE];
pthread_mutex_lock(&m);
strncpy(own_buffer, (char *) message, SIZE);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m);
puts(own_buffer);
return NULL;
}
I don't think my current mutex implementation is right as the threads are still receiving duplicate messages. The main thread can lock the mutex, consume a message into the buffer, unlock the mutex, spawn a thread, but that thread still may hang and the main one could just rewrite the buffer again (as the buffer mutex was never locked by the new thread), effectively making my current mutex implementation useless? How do I overcome this?
The problem is that you end the loop that contains message_buffer before guaranteeing that the thread has finished with that memory.
while (1) {
char message_buffer[SIZE];
ssize_t message_length = mq_receive(...);
if (message_len == -1) { /* error handling */ }
pthread_t pt1;
int ret = pthread_create(&pt1, NULL, handle_message, message_buffer);
if (ret) { /* error handling */ }
/****** Can't go beyond here until thread is done with message_buffer. ******/
}
void * handle_message (void * message) {
char own_buffer[SIZE];
strncpy(own_buffer, (char *) message, SIZE);
/******* Only now can the caller loop back. ******/
puts(own_buffer);
return NULL;
}
You could use a semaphore or similar.
static pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
static pthread_cond_t cond = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
static int copied = 0;
while (1) {
char message_buffer[SIZE];
ssize_t message_length = mq_receive(...);
if (message_len == -1) { /* error handling */ }
pthread_t pt1;
int ret = pthread_create(&pt1, NULL, handle_message, message_buffer);
if (ret) { /* error handling */ }
// Wait until threads is done with message_buffer.
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
while (!copied) pthread_cond_wait(&cond, &mutex);
copied = 0;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
void * handle_message (void * message) {
char own_buffer[SIZE];
strncpy(own_buffer, (char *) message, SIZE);
// Done with caller's buffer.
// Signal caller to continue.
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
copied = 1;
pthread_cond_signal(&cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
puts(own_buffer);
return NULL;
}
(The added chunks effectively perform semaphore operations. See the last snippet of this answer for a more generic implementation.)
But there's a simpler solution: Make the copy before creating the thread.
while (1) {
char message_buffer[SIZE];
ssize_t message_length = mq_receive(...);
if (message_len == -1) { /* error handling */ }
pthread_t pt1;
int ret = pthread_create(&pt1, NULL, handle_message, strdup(message_buffer));
if (ret) { /* error handling */ }
}
void * handle_message (void * message) {
char * own_buffer = message;
puts(own_buffer);
free(own_buffer);
return NULL;
}
Related
I have a program in c which is supposed to send and receive ipc messages through msgq.
The problem I have is that when I run msgrcv() it sets my global int msqid to 0. And of course I need it at other methods, like in a signal handler.
here is some code:
/* all the includes and some variables*/
#include "msg.h" // include the one I made
int msgQ; // global int
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
key = ftok("progfile", 65);
msgQ = msgget(key, 0666 | IPC_CREAT);
printf("msg queue id: %d \n", msgQ);
start_tik_tok(); // setting up the timer and the signal handler
/* irrelevant code */
void read_msgs(msgQ);
}
void read_msgs(int msgQid)
{
while (1)
{
printf("before the read local:%d goval:%d\n", msgQid, msgQ);
int ret = msgrcv(msgQid, &message, sizeof(message), 1, 0);
printf("after the read local:%d global :%d\n", msgQid, msgQ);
if (ret == -1)
/* error handling */
switch (message.action_type)
{
/* mesage handling */
}
}
void signal_handler(int signo)
{
/*I need the global int here to send some messages */
}
void start_tik_tok()
{
//timer interval for setitimer function
struct itimerval timer;
timer.it_interval.tv_sec = 1; //every 1 seconds
timer.it_interval.tv_usec = 0;
timer.it_value.tv_sec = 1; //start in 1 seconds
timer.it_value.tv_usec = 0;
//action for the signal
struct sigaction new_sa;
memset(&new_sa, 0, sizeof(new_sa));
new_sa.sa_handler = &signal_handler;
sigaction(SIGALRM, &new_sa, NULL);
setitimer(ITIMER_REAL, &timer, NULL);
}
the msg.h file:
#include <sys/msg.h>
struct msg_buff{
long mesg_type; //reciver
int sender; //sender
char action_type;
char time_tiks; //time in tiks
} message;
output:
msg queue id: 45416448
before the read local:45416448 global:45416448
after the read local:45416448 global:0
...
you can see that after I run msgrcv(), the value of msgQ turns to 0, even though I'm using a variable to pass the value to the method read_msgs().
The msgrcv function takes a pointer to a structure that starts with a "header" of type long, followed by the message data. The third argument to msgrcv, msgsz, is the size of the message data body, not including the long that's the header. So you should pass something like sizeof message - sizeof(long). By passing sizeof message, you're asking it to overflow the buffer sizeof(long) bytes, and this is clobbering some other global variable.
I found the solution, I'm not sure why is that but it solved it.
I just initialized the int from the beginning.
changed:
int msgQ; // global int
for:
int msgQ = 0; // global int
my code is only using in one producer-one consumer situation.
here is my test code:
static void *afunc(void * arg) {
Queue* q = arg;
for(int i= 0; i< 100000; i++) {
*queue_pull(q) = i; //get one element space
queue_push(q); //increase the write pointer
}
return NULL;
}
static void *bfunc(void * arg) {
Queue* q = arg;
for(;;) {
int *i = queue_fetch(q); //get the first element in queue
printf("%d\n", *i);
queue_pop(q); //increase the read pointer
}
}
int main() {
Queue queue;
pthread_t a, b;
queue_init(&queue);
pthread_create(&a, NULL, afunc, &queue);
pthread_create(&b, NULL, bfunc, &queue);
sleep(100000);
return 0;
}
and here is the implementation of the circular queue
#define MAX_QUEUE_SIZE 3
typedef struct Queue{
int data[MAX_QUEUE_SIZE] ;
int read,write;
pthread_mutex_t mutex, mutex2;
pthread_cond_t not_empty, not_full;
}Queue;
int queue_init(Queue *queue) {
memset(queue, 0, sizeof(Queue));
pthread_mutex_init(&queue->mutex, NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&queue->not_empty, NULL);
pthread_mutex_init(&queue->mutex2, NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&queue->not_full, NULL);
return 0;
}
int* queue_fetch(Queue *queue) {
int* ret;
if (queue->read == queue->write) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&queue->mutex);
pthread_cond_wait(&queue->not_empty, &queue->mutex);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&queue->mutex);
}
ret = &(queue->data[queue->read]);
return ret;
}
void queue_pop(Queue *queue) {
nx_atomic_set(queue->read, (queue->read+1)%MAX_QUEUE_SIZE);
pthread_cond_signal(&queue->not_full);
}
int* queue_pull(Queue *queue) {
int* ret;
if ((queue->write+1)%MAX_QUEUE_SIZE == queue->read) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&queue->mutex2);
pthread_cond_wait(&queue->not_full, &queue->mutex2);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&queue->mutex2);
}
ret = &(queue->data[queue->write]);
return ret;
}
void queue_push(Queue *queue) {
nx_atomic_set(queue->write, (queue->write+1)%MAX_QUEUE_SIZE);
pthread_cond_signal(&queue->not_empty);
}
after a few moments, it seems the two child threads will turn into deadlock..
EDIT: i use two semaphore, but it also has some problem.. it's pretty
weird, if if just execute ./main, it seems fine, but if i redirect into a file, like ./main > a.txt, then wc -l a.txt, the result is not equal the enqueue number..
int queue_init(Queue *queue) {
memset(queue, 0, sizeof(Queue));
pthread_mutex_init(&queue->mutex, NULL);
sem_unlink("/not_empty");
queue->not_empty = sem_open("/not_empty", O_CREAT, 644, 0);
sem_unlink("/not_full");
queue->not_full = sem_open("/not_full", O_CREAT, 644, MAX_QUEUE_SIZE);
return 0;
}
int* queue_fetch(Queue *queue) {
sem_wait(queue->not_empty);
return &(queue->data[queue->read]);
}
void queue_pop(Queue *queue) {
nx_atomic_set(queue->read, (queue->read+1)%MAX_QUEUE_SIZE);
sem_post(queue->not_full);
}
int* queue_pull(Queue *queue) {
sem_wait(queue->not_full);
return &(queue->data[queue->write]);
}
void queue_push(Queue *queue) {
nx_atomic_set(queue->write, (queue->write+1)%MAX_QUEUE_SIZE);
sem_post(queue->not_empty);
}
You are manipulating the state of the queue outside the mutex, this is inherently racey.
I would suggest using a single mutex, but take it whenever you change or test the read & write indicies. This also means that you don't need the atomic sets.
Quite possibly one of your threads is waiting for a condition to be signalled after the signalling has occurred, causing both threads to wait for each other indefinitely.
Pthreads condition variables don't remain signalled -- the signalling is a momentary action. The condition variable isn't used determine whether to wait -- it's just used to wake up a thread that's already waiting; you need a different means for determining whether or not to wait, such as checking a flag or some sort of test condition.
Normally, you signal as follows:
Lock the mutex
Do your updates, generally leaving your test condition 'true' (eg. setting your flag)
Call pthread_cond_signal() or pthread_cond_broadcast()
Unlock the mutex
...and wait as follows:
Lock the mutex
Loop until your test expression is 'true' (eg. until your flag is set), calling pthread_cond_wait() only if the test is false (inside the loop).
After the loop, when your test has succeeded, do your work.
Unlock the mutex
For example, signalling might go something like this:
pthread_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* 1: lock mutex */
do_something_important(); /* 2: do your work... */
ready_flag = 1; /* ...and set the flag */
pthread_cond_signal(&cond); /* 3: signal the condition (before unlocking) */
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* 4: unlock mutex */
and waiting might be something like this:
pthread_mutex_lock(&mtx); /* 1: lock mutex */
while (ready_flag == 0) /* 2: Loop until flag is set... */
pthread_cond_wait(&cond, &mtx); /* ...waiting when it isn't */
do_something_else(); /* 3: Do your work... */
ready_flag = 0; /* ...and clear the flag if it's all done */
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mtx); /* 4: unlock mutex */
The waiter won't miss the condition this way, because the mutex ensures that the waiter's test-and-wait and the signaller's set-and-signal cannot occur simultaneously.
This section of your queue_fetch() function:
if (queue->read == queue->write) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&queue->mutex);
pthread_cond_wait(&queue->not_empty, &queue->mutex);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&queue->mutex);
}
ret = &(queue->data[queue->read]);
..might be rewritten as follows:
pthread_mutex_lock(&queue->mutex);
while (queue->read == queue->write)
pthread_cond_wait(&queue->not_empty, &queue->mutex);
ret = &(queue->data[queue->read]);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&queue->mutex);
...where:
The lock/unlock of the mutex are moved around the if, so the mutex is held while the test expression is evaluated, and still held until the condition wait starts
The if is changed to a while in case the condition wait is prematurely interrupted
Access to queue->read and queue->write is done with the mutex held
Similar changes would be made to queue_pull().
As for the signalling code, the following section of queue_pop():
nx_atomic_set(queue->read, (queue->read+1)%MAX_QUEUE_SIZE);
pthread_cond_signal(&queue->not_full);
..might be changed to:
pthread_mutex_lock(&queue->mutex);
queue->read = (queue->read + 1) % MAX_QUEUE_SIZE;
pthread_cond_signal(&queue->not_full);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&queue->mutex);
..where:
The mutex is held while signalling the condition (this ensures the condition can't be signalled between the waiter deciding whether to wait and actually starting to wait, since the waiter would hold the mutex during that interval)
The mutex is held while changing queue->read as well rather than using nx_atomic_set() since the mutex is needed when signalling the condition anyway
Similar changes would be made to queue_push().
Additionally, you should just use a single mutex (so that the same mutex is always held when accessing read and write), and once the while loops are added to the condition waits there's little compelling reason to use more than one condition variable. If switching to a single condition variable, just signal the condition again after completing a wait:
pthread_mutex_lock(&queue->mutex);
while (queue->read == queue->write) {
pthread_cond_wait(&queue->cond, &queue->mutex);
pthread_cond_signal(&queue->cond); /* <-- signal next waiter, if any */
}
ret = &(queue->data[queue->read]);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&queue->mutex);
I'm having a bit of trouble getting a basic two-thread arrangement working.
I am reading a chunk of bytes into memory from stdin in one "producer" thread, and processing those bytes in a second "consumer" thread, once those bytes are available. Once the bytes are consumed, the consumer thread goes back to being dormant and the producer thread gets running again.
I am using pthread_cond_wait() and pthread_cond_signal() to have the two threads communicate to each other that data are produced or consumed.
Here is the code for the two threads:
void * produce_bytes(void *t_data)
{
pthread_data_t *d = (pthread_data_t *)t_data;
do {
pthread_mutex_lock(&d->input_lock);
d->n_bytes = fread(d->in_buf, sizeof(unsigned char), BUF_LENGTH_VALUE, stdin);
if (d->n_bytes > 0) {
fprintf(stdout, "PRODUCER ...signaling consumer...\n");
pthread_cond_signal(&d->input_cond);
fprintf(stdout, "PRODUCER ...consumer signaled...\n");
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&d->input_lock);
} while (d->n_bytes > 0);
return NULL;
}
void * consume_bytes(void *t_data)
{
pthread_data_t *d = (pthread_data_t *)t_data;
pthread_mutex_lock(&d->input_lock);
while (d->n_bytes == 0)
pthread_cond_wait(&d->input_cond, &d->input_lock);
fprintf(stdout, "CONSUMER ...consuming chunk...\n");
d->n_bytes = 0;
fprintf(stdout, "CONSUMER ...chunk consumed...\n");
pthread_mutex_unlock(&d->input_lock);
}
The pthread_data_t is a struct I use to keep track of state:
typedef struct {
pthread_mutex_t input_lock;
pthread_cond_t input_cond;
unsigned char in_buf[BUF_LENGTH_VALUE];
size_t n_bytes;
} pthread_data_t;
I configure variables in my main() function; here is the relevant excerpt:
pthread_t producer_thread = NULL;
pthread_t consumer_thread = NULL;
pthread_data_t *thread_data = NULL;
thread_data = malloc(sizeof(pthread_data_t));
thread_data->n_bytes = 0;
pthread_mutex_init(&(thread_data->input_lock), NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&(thread_data->input_cond), NULL);
pthread_create(&producer_thread, NULL, produce_bytes, (void *) thread_data);
pthread_create(&consumer_thread, NULL, consume_bytes, (void *) thread_data);
pthread_join(producer_thread, NULL);
pthread_join(consumer_thread, NULL);
When I run this, produce_bytes() signals consume_bytes() successfully on the first iteration, but on the second and subsequent iterations, a signal is sent to consume_bytes() and it never gets heard, so the consumer function never gets run again:
PRODUCER ...signaling consumer...
PRODUCER ...consumer signaled...
CONSUMER ...consuming chunk...
CONSUMER ...chunk consumed...
PRODUCER ...signaling consumer...
PRODUCER ...consumer signaled...
PRODUCER ...signaling consumer...
PRODUCER ...consumer signaled...
PRODUCER ...signaling consumer...
PRODUCER ...consumer signaled...
...
I am using the tutorial here as the basis for what I'm trying to do. What I am doing wrong?
There are a few issues with that code:
produce_bytes locks the mutex for the duration of the blocking call to fread. A general rule of thumb for responsive applications is to lock the mutex for as short periods as possible. You may like to read the input into a temporary buffer first, then lock the mutex and copy the data to the buffer shared between threads. Same applies to consume_bytes which holds the mutex while calling fprintf which can block.
produce_bytes in while(d->n_bytes > 0) does not hold the mutex, which is a race condition because consume_bytes assigns a new value to d->n_bytes. Assuming you would like to exit that loop when fread returns 0 (EOF), you need to copy the return value of fread into a local variable not shared between threads and use that as the condition in while(read_bytes > 0)
consume_bytes does not have any loop around it so that it returns after the first condition variable notification. You probably would like to wrap it into a while loop and exit only when EOF (0 bytes) have been read.
Here is a working example which addresses Maxim's point 2 and 3, but not 1 because that is necessary for responsiveness but not strictly for correctness.
Note that I have not implemented a means for the producer to signal EOF to the consumer, so the consumer will never exit.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define BUF_LENGTH_VALUE 100
typedef struct {
pthread_mutex_t input_lock;
pthread_cond_t input_cond;
unsigned char in_buf[BUF_LENGTH_VALUE];
size_t n_bytes;
} pthread_data_t;
void * produce_bytes(void *t_data)
{
pthread_data_t *d = (pthread_data_t *)t_data;
size_t local_byte_count = 0;
do {
pthread_mutex_lock(&d->input_lock);
local_byte_count = fread(d->in_buf, sizeof(unsigned char),
BUF_LENGTH_VALUE, stdin);
d->n_bytes += local_byte_count;
if (d->n_bytes > 0) {
fprintf(stdout, "PRODUCER ...signaling consumer...\n");
pthread_cond_signal(&d->input_cond);
fprintf(stdout, "PRODUCER ...consumer signaled...\n");
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&d->input_lock);
// This is added to slow down the producer so that we can observe
// multiple consumptions.
sleep(1);
} while (local_byte_count > 0);
return NULL;
}
void * consume_bytes(void *t_data)
{
pthread_data_t *d = (pthread_data_t *)t_data;
while (1) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&d->input_lock);
while (d->n_bytes == 0) {
fprintf(stdout, "CONSUMER entering wait \n");
pthread_cond_wait(&d->input_cond, &d->input_lock);
}
fprintf(stdout, "CONSUMER ...consuming chunk...\n");
d->n_bytes = 0;
fprintf(stdout, "CONSUMER ...chunk consumed...\n");
pthread_mutex_unlock(&d->input_lock);
fflush(stdout);
}
}
int main(){
pthread_t producer_thread = NULL;
pthread_t consumer_thread = NULL;
pthread_data_t *thread_data = NULL;
thread_data = malloc(sizeof(pthread_data_t));
thread_data->n_bytes = 0;
pthread_mutex_init(&(thread_data->input_lock), NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&(thread_data->input_cond), NULL);
pthread_create(&producer_thread, NULL, produce_bytes, (void *) thread_data);
pthread_create(&consumer_thread, NULL, consume_bytes, (void *) thread_data);
pthread_join(producer_thread, NULL);
pthread_join(consumer_thread, NULL);
}
I'm having trouble debugging the following program I wrote. The idea is to have two seperate threads; one thread executes a 5 second countdown while the other waits for key input from the user. Whichever thread completes first should cancel the sibling thread and exit the program. However, the following code just hangs.
Any help would be appreciated, but I would be most grateful for an explanation as to the problem.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h> // For sleep()
#define NUM_THREADS 2
// The stuct to be passed as an argument to the countdown routine
typedef struct countdown_struct {
pthread_t *thread;
signed int num_secs;
} CountdownStruct;
// Struct for passing to the input wait routine
typedef struct wait_struct {
pthread_t *thread;
int *key;
} WaitStruct;
// Countdown routine; simply acts as a timer counting down
void * countdown(void *args)
{
CountdownStruct *cd_str = (CountdownStruct *)args;
signed int secs = cd_str->num_secs;
printf("Will use default setting in %d seconds...", secs);
while (secs >= 0)
{
sleep(1);
secs -= 1;
printf("Will use default setting in %d seconds...", secs);
}
// Cancel the other struct
pthread_cancel(*(cd_str->thread));
return NULL;
}
// Waits for the user to pass input through the tty
void * wait_for_input(void *args)
{
WaitStruct *wait_str = (WaitStruct *) args;
int c = 0;
do {
c = getchar();
} while (!(c == '1' || c == '2'));
*(wait_str->key) = c;
// Cancel the other thread
pthread_cancel(*(wait_str->thread));
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
pthread_t wait_thread;
pthread_t countdown_thread;
pthread_attr_t attr;
int key=0;
long numMillis=5000;
int rc=0;
int status=0;
// Create the structs to be passe as paramaters to both routines
CountdownStruct *cd_str = (CountdownStruct *) malloc(sizeof(CountdownStruct));
if (cd_str == NULL)
{
printf("Couldn't create the countdown struct. Aborting...");
return -1;
}
cd_str->thread = &wait_thread;
cd_str->num_secs = 5;
WaitStruct *wait_str = (WaitStruct *) malloc(sizeof(WaitStruct));
if (wait_str == NULL)
{
printf("Couldn't create the iput wait struct. Aborting...");
return -1;
}
wait_str->thread = &countdown_thread;
wait_str->key = &key;
// Create the joinable attribute
pthread_attr_init(&attr);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE);
// Create both threads
rc = pthread_create(&countdown_thread, &attr, countdown, (void *) cd_str);
if (rc) { printf("Error with the thread creation!"); exit(-1); }
rc = pthread_create(&wait_thread, &attr, wait_for_input, (void *) wait_str);
if (rc) { printf("Error with the thread creation!"); exit(-1); }
// Destroy the pthread_attribute
pthread_attr_destroy(&attr);
// now join on the threads and wait for main
pthread_join(wait_thread, NULL);
pthread_join(countdown_thread, NULL);
// Call pthread_exit
pthread_exit(NULL);
// Free the function structs
free(cd_str);
free(wait_str);
}
Getchar is not required to be a cancellation point. Select and pselect are. Even if you want to continue to use a countdown thread you could still provide a cancellation point in the opposing thread by use of select.
I had reasonable behavior with the following modified wait_for_input()
// Waits for the user to pass input through the tty
void * wait_for_input(void *args)
{
WaitStruct *wait_str = (WaitStruct *) args;
int c = 0;
fd_set readFds;
int numFds=0;
FD_ZERO(&readFds);
do {
struct timeval timeout={.tv_sec=8,.tv_usec=0};
/* select here is primarily to serve as a cancellation
* point. Though there is a possible race condition
* still between getchar() getting called right as the
* the timeout thread calls cancel.().
* Using the timeout option on select would at least
* cover that, but not done here while testing.
*******************************************************/
FD_ZERO(&readFds);
FD_SET(STDOUT_FILENO,&readFds);
numFds=select(STDOUT_FILENO+1,&readFds,NULL,NULL,&timeout);
if(numFds==0 )
{
/* must be timeout if no FD's selected */
break;
}
if(FD_ISSET(STDOUT_FILENO,&readFds))
{
printf("Only get here if key pressed\n");
c = getchar();
}
} while (!(c == '1' || c == '2'));
*(wait_str->key) = c;
// Cancel the other thread
pthread_cancel(*(wait_str->thread));
return NULL;
}
I have a server application that creates new thread for every incoming request.
However, every once in a while, it will create a thread with thread ID = 0 (used pthread_equal to check this). I have a structure that contains the thread ID that I pass to the function specified in pthread_create, and am checking this there.
Why would a thread get created with ID = 0?
Is there anything I can do if this happens? I cannot use this thread and want to exit it immediately.
=====================================================================
typedef struct
{
pthread_t tid;
other_struct_t Other;
} data_ptr_t;
void * worker(void * arg)
{
data_ptr_t local_data;
data_ptr_t * incoming_data = (data_ptr_t *) arg;
if (NULL == incoming_data || NULL == incoming_data->Other)
{
printf("invalid input\n");
}
else if (pthread_equal(incoming_data->tid, 0))
{
printf("invalid thread id\n");
}
else
{
// add to global thread pool
// do other stuff here
// remove from global thread pool
}
}
int main()
{
// server socket stuff
while (1)
{
// if incoming connection is valid
data_ptr_t data;
int error = pthread_create(&(data.tid), NULL, (void * (*) (void *)) worker, (void *) &data);
if (0 != errror)
{
printf("could not create thread (%d)\n", error);
}
else
{
pthread_detach(data.tid);
printf("thread dispatched\n");
}
}
}
Note: If the number of threads I'm creating is under 50 or so, it works fine. Upwards of 70, most threads go through just fine, the rest end up printing the "invalid thread id".
Note: This is on Linux.
You can't do this:
while (1)
{
// if incoming connection is valid
data_ptr_t data;
int error = pthread_create(&(data.tid),
NULL, (void * (*) (void *)) worker, (void *) &data);
your data_ptr_t is a local variable on the stack. On the next iteration of the while loop, that variable is destroyed/gone/not-valid.
The while loop might start another iteration long before the new worker thread starts running and makes use of the data you pass to it. Instead, dynamically allocate the data you pass to the worker thread so you can be sure it's still valid.