I've been trying to use Pthreads in a program to count the 3's in a 3000000 element int array, and when it runs sequentially without using pthreads, it works perfectly.
Using pthreads leads to a segmentation fault and i can't figure out why. the execution stops when each thread reaches around 300000 iteration in case of 4 threads on a 8gb of RAM and 256K L2 cache.
Here is my code
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#define LENGTH 3000000
#define NUM_THREADS 4
int countarr[128];
int* array;
struct Op_data{
int start_index;
int count_index;
int CHUNK;
int ID;
};
void* count3s(void* data) // you need to parallelize this
{
struct Op_data *info;
info = (struct Op_data *) data;
int count_i = info -> count_index;
int i = info->start_index;
int CHUNK = info -> CHUNK;
printf("Thread data:\nCOUNT_INDEX:\t\t%d\nSTART_INDEX:\t\t%d\nCHUNK_SIZE:\t\t%d\n",count_i,i,CHUNK);
int c = 0;
struct timeval t1, t2;
gettimeofday(&t1, NULL);
for(i;i<i+CHUNK;i++)
{
if(array[i]==3)
{
c++;
}
}
countarr[count_i] = c;
gettimeofday(&t2, NULL);
double t = (t2.tv_sec - t1.tv_sec) + (t2.tv_usec - t1.tv_usec ) / 1000000.0;
printf("execution time = %f seconds\n",t);
}
int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
int i = 0;
int ok = 0;
int count=0;
array = malloc(LENGTH * sizeof(int));
// initialize the array randomly. Make sure the number of 3's doesn't exceed 500000
srand(12);
for(i= 0;i<LENGTH;i++)
{
array[i]=rand()%10;
if(array[i]==3)
{
ok++; // keep track of how many 3's are there, we will use this later to confirm the correctness of the code
if(ok>500000)
{
ok=500000;
array[i]=12;
}
}
}
pthread_t threads[NUM_THREADS];
struct Op_data* t_data[NUM_THREADS];
pthread_attr_t attr;
pthread_attr_init(&attr);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE);
int rc;
int CHUNK = LENGTH/NUM_THREADS;
for(int t=0;t<NUM_THREADS;t++)
{
t_data[t] = (struct Op_data*) malloc(sizeof(struct Op_data));
t_data[t] -> start_index = t*CHUNK;
t_data[t] -> count_index = t*(128/NUM_THREADS);
t_data[t] -> CHUNK = CHUNK;
t_data[t] -> ID = t;
rc = pthread_create(&threads[t], &attr, count3s, (void *)t_data[t]);
if (rc) {
printf("Error:unable to create thread,%d\n",rc);
exit(-1);
}
printf("Thread (%d) has been created.\n",t);
}
for( int g = 0; g < NUM_THREADS; g++ ) {
rc = pthread_join(threads[g], NULL);
if (rc) {
printf("Error:unable to join,%d\n",rc);
exit(-1);
}
}
pthread_attr_destroy(&attr);
for(int x=0;x<NUM_THREADS;x++)
{
count += countarr[x*(128/NUM_THREADS)];
}
if( ok == count ) // check if the result is correct
{
printf("Correct Result!\n");
printf("Number of 3`s: %d\n_________________________________\n",count);
}
else
{
printf("Wrong Result! Your count:%d\n",count);
printf("The correct number of 3`s is: %d\n",ok);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
return 0;
}
for(i;i<i+CHUNK;i++)
Since i will always be less than i + CHUNK (unless it overflows), this loop will overrun the bounds of the array.
Related
EDIT: I did use free(), ignore the title.
The gist is that every time malloc() is called, the address 0x8403620
is returned, which I found out using Gdb.
tellers[i] = create_teller(0, i, NULL);
I first use malloc() on line 72 to create 3 teller structures. The first addressed returned, visible through Gdb, is 0x84003620. The second is
0x84033a0, the third 0x84034e0. Everything seems fine.
clients[i] = create_client(0, i, -1, -1);
Then I use malloc() on line 77 with the create_client() function to
create 100 clients. The first address, assigned to client[0], is ...
0x8403620. The same as tellers[0]. It gets worse. The next address
returned from malloc() is 0x8403620 again for when i = 1, and so
on for i = 3, 4, ..., 99.
It isn't inherently the create_client() or the create_teller() functions, but
instead the malloc() function itself.
This is simply a very odd situation.
Now, I'd like to ask: Am I using malloc() wrong? Or is my version of malloc() bugged and should I somehow reinstall whatever it is? It's most likely my code since it works for creating the tellers, just not for the clients.
Here is the full code:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <assert.h>
typedef struct teller teller_t;
typedef struct client client_t;
teller_t * create_teller (pthread_t thread_id, int id, client_t *assigned_client);
client_t * create_client (pthread_t thread_id, int id, int operation, int amount);
void * run_teller (void *arg);
void * run_client (void *arg);
/* types of operations */
#define DEPOSIT 0
#define WITHDRAW 1
#define NUM_TELLERS 3
#define NUM_CLIENTS 100
struct client {
pthread_t thread_id;
int id;
int operation;
int amount;
};
struct teller {
pthread_t thread_id;
int id;
bool available;
client_t *assigned_client;
};
client_t *clients[100];
teller_t *tellers[3];
/* only 2 tellers at a time can access */
sem_t safe;
/* only 1 teller at a time can access */
sem_t manager;
/* amount of tellers available, at most 3 */
sem_t line; /* rename to available? */
/* each teller waiting for a client to be assigned to them */
sem_t wait_for_client[3];
int
main (int argc, char **argv) {
(void) argc;
(void) argv;
srand(time(NULL));
/* This also tells us how many clients have been served */
int client_index = 0;
sem_init(&safe, 0, 2);
sem_init(&manager, 0, 1);
sem_init(&line, 0, 0);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
sem_init(&wait_for_client[i], 0, 0);
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_TELLERS; i++) {
tellers[i] = create_teller(0, i, NULL);
pthread_create(&tellers[i]->thread_id, NULL, run_teller, (void *) tellers[i]);
}
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_CLIENTS; i++) {
clients[i] = create_client(0, i, -1, -1);
pthread_create(&clients[i]->thread_id, NULL, run_client, (void *) clients[i]);
}
/* DEBUG
for (int i = 0; i < NUM_CLIENTS; i++) {
printf("client %d has id %d\n", i, clients[i]->id);
}
*/
// No threads should get past this point!!!
// ==------------------------------------==
// Should all of this below be handled by the clients instead of main?
while (1) {
if (client_index >= NUM_CLIENTS) {
// TODO:
// tell tellers that there are no more clients
// so they should close, then then close the bank.
break;
}
sem_wait(&line);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
if (tellers[i]->available) {
int client_id = clients[client_index]->id;
//printf("client_index = %d\n", client_index); // DEBUG
tellers[i]->assigned_client = clients[client_index++];
tellers[i]->available = false;
printf(
"Client %d goes to Teller %d\n",
client_id,
tellers[i]->id
);
sem_post(&wait_for_client[i]);
break;
}
}
//sem_post(&line); // Is this needed?
}
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
teller_t *
create_teller (pthread_t thread_id, int id, client_t *assigned_client) {
teller_t *t = (teller_t *) malloc(sizeof(teller_t));
if (t == NULL) {
printf("ERROR: Unable to allocate teller_t.\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
t->thread_id = thread_id;
t->id = id;
t->available = true;
t->assigned_client = assigned_client;
return t;
}
/* TODO: Malloc returns the same address everytime, fix this */
client_t *
create_client (pthread_t thread_id, int id, int operation, int amount) {
client_t *c = malloc(sizeof(client_t));
if (c == NULL) {
printf("ERROR: Unable to allocate client_t.\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
c->thread_id = thread_id;
c->id = id;
c->operation = operation;
c->amount = amount;
return c;
}
void *
run_teller (void *arg) {
teller_t *t = (teller_t *) arg;
printf("Teller %d is available\n", t->id);
while (1) {
/* tell the line that a teller is available */
sem_post(&line);
/* pass when the line assignes a client to this teller */
sem_wait(&wait_for_client[t->id]);
assert(t->assigned_client != NULL);
if (t->assigned_client->operation == WITHDRAW) {
}
else {
}
}
free(arg);
pthread_cancel(t->thread_id);
return NULL;
}
void *
run_client (void *arg) {
client_t *c = (client_t *) arg;
c->operation = rand() & 1;
printf(
"Client %d waits in line to make a %s\n",
c->id,
((c->operation == DEPOSIT) ? "Deposit" : "Withdraw")
);
free(arg);
pthread_cancel(c->thread_id);
return NULL;
}
Then I use malloc() on line 77 with the create_client() function to create 100 clients.
Not exactly, you create one object, then you spawn a thread that manages that object, run_client() and then repeat. But run_client() basically does nothing except free() your client object! So malloc is totally right returning the same address again, as it is now free memory.
It just happens that your client threads are faster than your main one. Your problem here is that you are freeing the objects from secondary threads while leaving the dangling pointers in the global pointer array. If you use that array for debugging purposes, then nothing is actually wrong here, but if you want to use the client objects somewhen in the future, then you should not free your clients in the first place.
I am attempting to create threads and pass each thread the value from a for loop. Here is the code segment
pthread_t *threadIDs;
int i = 0;
if(impl == 1)
{
threadIDs = (pthread_t *)malloc(sizeof(pthread_t)*reduces);
for(;i < reduces; i++)
{
pthread_create(&threadIDs[i], NULL, reduce,&i);
}
}
It is not passing the correct values of the loop, which makes sense since I am creating a race condition. What is the simplest way to pass the correct value of i from my loop?
Another question, will each thread finish executing before the next one is created and called?
You've already dynamically created an array of thread IDs. Do the same for the values you want to pass in.
pthread_t *threadIDs;
int *values;
int i = 0;
if(impl == 1)
{
threadIDs = malloc(sizeof(pthread_t)*reduces);
values = malloc(sizeof(int)*reduces);
for(;i < reduces; i++)
{
values[i] = i;
pthread_create(&threadIDs[i], NULL, reduce, &values[i]);
}
}
Each thread will be working with a different array member, so there's no race condition.
You can define a structure and assign i to the variable of the object.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
typedef struct Param_ {
int index;
}Param;
static void* thread(void* p) {
Param* param = p;
printf("index: %d\n", param->index);
}
int main() {
int i = 0;
int reduces = 10;
pthread_t *threadIDs;
threadIDs = (pthread_t *)malloc(sizeof(pthread_t)*reduces);
for(; i < reduces; i++)
{
Param* p;
p = (Param*)malloc(sizeof(*p));
p->index = i;
pthread_create(&threadIDs[i], NULL, thread, p);
}
return 0;
}
What is the simplest way to pass the correct value of i from my loop?
What is to be considered "simple" depends on the use case, so here another approach to solve the issues you present:
#include <pthread.h>
pthread_mutex_t m_init;
pthread_cond_t c_init;
int init_done = 1;
void* thread_function(void * pv)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_init);
size_t i = *((size_t*) pv);
init_done = 1;
pthread_cond_signal(&c_init);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m_init);
...
}
#define THREADS_MAX (42)
int main(void)
{
pthread_t thread[THREADS_MAX];
pthread_mutex_init(&m_init, NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&c_init, NULL);
for(size_t i = 0; i < THREADS_MAX; ++i)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&m_init);
init_done = 0;
pthread_create(&thread[i], NULL, thread_function, &i);
while (!init_done)
{
pthread_cond_wait(&c_init);
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m_init);
}
...
}
(error checking omitted for the sake of legibility)
I'm new with threads and I’m trying to create a program where four threads do some parallel computations using values from a global array. But, The problem that the threads are not loading the data in order.
#define QUARTER 64
#define RANGE_STEP 256
struct thread_data
{
unsigned start;
unsigned stop;
__m256* re_fc;
__m256* im_fc;
};
#define NUM_THREADS 4
struct thread_data thread_data_array[NUM_THREADS];
void *routine(void *thread_info)
{
int n,t;
unsigned t_start,t_stop;
__m256 *Re_fac , *Im_fac;
struct thread_data *mydata;
mydata = (struct thread_data*) thread_info;
t_start = mydata->start;
t_stop = mydata->stop;
Re_fac = mydata->re_fc;
Im_fac = mydata->im_fc;
t = t_start;
for (n = t_start; n < t_stop; n += 8)
{
// computations
RE_m256_fac = Re_fac[t];
IM_m256_fac = Im_fac[t];
// computations
t++;
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main()
{
unsigned t,i=0;
for(t=0;t<RANGE_STEP;t+=QUARTER)
{
thread_data_array[i].start = t;
thread_data_array[i].stop = t+QUARTER;
thread_data_array[i].re_fc = RE_factors;
thread_data_array[i].im_fc = IM_factors;
pthread_create(&threads[i],NULL,routine,(void *)&thread_data_array[i]);
i++;
}
for(i=0; i<NUM_THREADS; i++)
{
int rc = pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
if (rc)
{
fprintf(stderr, "failed to join thread #%u - %s\n",i, strerror(rc));
}
}
}
The problem that I am talking about is occurring in the routine of the thread inside the for() loop exactly with these two load instructions RE_m256_fac = Re_fac[t];and IM_m256_fac = Im_fac[t]; the loaded data is not correct ... I think the index t is a local variable so no synchros is needed , or I am wrong?
After some digging it turned to be that since I am reading from a global shared array I have to use the mutex mechanism to prevent the mutual exclusion as so:
void *routine(void *thread_info)
{
int n,t;
unsigned t_start,t_stop;
__m256 *Re_fac , *Im_fac;
struct thread_data *mydata;
mydata = (struct thread_data*) thread_info;
t_start = mydata->start;
t_stop = mydata->stop;
Re_fac = mydata->re_fc;
Im_fac = mydata->im_fc;
t = t_start;
for (n = t_start; n < t_stop; n += 8)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
// computations
RE_m256_fac = Re_fac[t];
IM_m256_fac = Im_fac[t];
// computations
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
t++;
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
and since then, I can see that the threads are loading the values correctly from the shared array.
I have realized that my code was too lengthy and rather hard to read.
Can you check over the way I pass in the arguments and constructing the arguments in the main body?
Essentially, provided that I have correct implementation of "produce" and "consume" functions, I want to pass in a shared circular queue and semaphores and mutexes to each produce/consume threads.
typedef struct circularQueue
{
int *items;
int *head;
int *tail;
int numProduced;
int numConsumed;
} circularQueue;
typedef struct threadArg
{
int id;
circularQueue *queue;
pthread_mutex_t *mutex;
sem_t *spaces;
sem_t *itemAvail;
int numItems;
int bufferSize;
int numProducer;
int numConsumer;
} threadArg;
pthread_t *producerThd;
pthread_t *consumerThd;
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
pthread_attr_t attr;
// In fo to pass to thread arg
circularQueue *myQueue;
pthread_mutex_t useSharedMem;
sem_t spaces;
sem_t itemAvail;
int numItems;
int bufferSize;
int numProducer;
int numConsumer;
int i, j, k, l;
if(argc != 5)
{
printf("Enter in 4 arguments - N B P C\n");
return -1;
}
numItems = atoi(argv[1]);
bufferSize = atoi(argv[2]);
numProducer = atoi(argv[3]);
numConsumer = atoi(argv[4]);
if(numItems == 0 || bufferSize == 0 || numProducer == 0 || numConsumer == 0)
{
printf("Parameters should not be 0\n");
return -1;
}
// Initialize list of threads
producerThd = malloc(sizeof(pthread_t) * numProducer);
consumerThd = malloc(sizeof(pthread_t) * numConsumer);
// Initialize semaphores
sem_init(&spaces, 0, bufferSize);
sem_init(&itemAvail, 0, 0);
// Initialize mutex
pthread_mutex_init(&useSharedMem, NULL);
// Initialzie thread attributes
pthread_attr_init(&attr);
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE);
// Initialize queue
myQueue = (circularQueue*)malloc(sizeof(circularQueue));
myQueue->items = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int)*bufferSize);
myQueue->head = myQueue->items;
myQueue->tail = myQueue->items;
myQueue->numProduced = 0;
myQueue->numConsumed = 0;
// thread arguments
for(i = 0; i < numProducer; i++)
{
// Initialize thraed args
threadArg *args = (threadArg*)malloc(sizeof(threadArg));
args->queue = (circularQueue*)malloc(sizeof(circularQueue));
args->mutex = &useSharedMem;
args->spaces = &spaces;
args->itemAvail = &itemAvail;
args->numItems = numItems;
args->bufferSize = bufferSize;
args->numProducer = numProducer;
args->numConsumer = numConsumer;
args->id = i;
pthread_t thisThread = *(producerThd + i);
pthread_create(&thisThread, &attr, produce, args);
}
for(j = 0; j < numConsumer; j++)
{
// Initialize thraed args
threadArg *args = (threadArg*)malloc(sizeof(threadArg));
args->queue = (circularQueue*)malloc(sizeof(circularQueue));
args->mutex = &useSharedMem;
args->spaces = &spaces;
args->itemAvail = &itemAvail;
args->numItems = numItems;
args->bufferSize = bufferSize;
args->numProducer = numProducer;
args->numConsumer = numConsumer;
args->id = j;
pthread_t thisThread = *(consumerThd + i);
pthread_create(&thisThread, &attr, consume, args);
}
for(k = 0; k < numProducer; k++)
{
pthread_join(*(producerThd+k), NULL);
}
printf("Finished waiting for producers\n");
for(l = 0; l < numConsumer; l++)
{
pthread_join(*(consumerThd+l), NULL);
}
printf("Finished waiting for consumers\n");
free(producerThd);
free(consumerThd);
free(myQueue->items);
free(myQueue);
sem_destroy(&spaces);
sem_destroy(&itemAvail);
fflush(stdout);
return 0;
}
Thank you
There are multiple sources of undefined behavior in your code, you are either compiling without enabling compilation warnings, or what I consider worst you ignore them.
You have the wrong printf() specifier in
printf("cid %d found this item %d as valid item %d\n", myArgs->id, thisItem, validItem);
because validItem is a double, so the last specifier should be %f.
Your thread functions never return a value, but you declare them to return void * which is the signature required for such functions.
You are freeing and dereferencing myQueue in the main() function but you have not initialized it because that code is commented.
Your code is also too hard to read because you have no consistent style and you mix declarations with statements, which make everything very confusing, e.g. determining the scope of a variable is very difficult.
Fixing the code will not only help others read it, but will also help you fix it and find issues quickly.
The message queue simply stops working when dealing with many many threads. It only seems to work okay with 10 threads, for exmaple. GDB tells me
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
__GI_____strtol_l_internal (nptr=0x0, endptr=endptr#entry=0x0, base=base#entry=10, group=group#entry=0, loc=0x7ffff78b0060 <_nl_global_locale>)
at ../stdlib/strtol_l.c:298
298 ../stdlib/strtol_l.c: No such file or directory.
But I have no idea what this means. The same code on Windows works fine but on linux it doesn't, which confuses me more.
You can see below how this queue works. It is a singly linked list with locking while receiving messages. Please help me find where I messed up.
typedef struct Message {
unsigned type;
unsigned code;
void *data;
} Message;
typedef struct MessageQueueElement {
Message message;
struct MessageQueueElement *next;
} MessageQueueElement;
typedef struct MessageQueue {
MessageQueueElement *first;
MessageQueueElement *last;
} MessageQueue;
MessageQueue mq;
pthread_mutex_t emptyLock, sendLock;
pthread_cond_t emptyCond;
void init() {
mq.first = malloc(sizeof(MessageQueueElement));
mq.last = mq.first;
pthread_mutex_init(&emptyLock, NULL);
pthread_mutex_init(&sendLock, NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&emptyCond, NULL);
}
void clean() {
free(mq.first);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&emptyLock);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&sendLock);
pthread_cond_destroy(&emptyCond);
}
void sendMessage(MessageQueue *this, Message *message) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&sendLock);
if (this->first == this->last) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&emptyLock);
this->last->message = *message;
this->last = this->last->next = malloc(sizeof(MessageQueueElement));
pthread_cond_signal(&emptyCond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&emptyLock);
} else {
this->last->message = *message;
this->last = this->last->next = malloc(sizeof(MessageQueueElement));
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&sendLock);
}
int waitMessage(MessageQueue *this, int (*readMessage)(unsigned, unsigned, void *)) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&emptyLock);
if (this->first == this->last) {
pthread_cond_wait(&emptyCond, &emptyLock);
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&emptyLock);
int n = readMessage(this->first->message.type, this->first->message.code, this->first->message.data);
MessageQueueElement *temp = this->first;
this->first = this->first->next;
free(temp);
return n;
}
some test code:
#define EXIT_MESSAGE 0
#define THREAD_MESSAGE 1
#define JUST_A_MESSAGE 2
#define EXIT 0
#define CONTINUE 1
int readMessage(unsigned type, unsigned code, void *data) {
if (type == THREAD_MESSAGE) {
printf("message from thread %d: %s\n", code, (char *)data);
free(data);
} else if (type == JUST_A_MESSAGE) {
puts((char *)data);
free(data);
} else if (type == EXIT_MESSAGE) {
puts("ending the program");
return EXIT;
}
return CONTINUE;
}
int nThreads;
int counter = 0;
void *worker(void *p) {
double pi = 0.0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000; i += 1) {
pi += (4.0 / (8.0 * i + 1.0) - 2.0 / (8.0 * i + 4.0) - 1.0 / (8.0 * i + 5.0) - 1.0 / (8.0 * i + 6.0)) / pow(16.0, i);
}
char *s = malloc(100);
sprintf(s, "pi equals %.8f", pi);
sendMessage(&mq, &(Message){.type = THREAD_MESSAGE, .code = (int)(intptr_t)p, .data = s});
counter += 1;
char *s2 = malloc(100);
sprintf(s2, "received %d message%s", counter, counter == 1 ? "" : "s");
sendMessage(&mq, &(Message){.type = JUST_A_MESSAGE, .data = s2});
if (counter == nThreads) {
sendMessage(&mq, &(Message){.type = EXIT_MESSAGE});
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
clock_t timer = clock();
init();
nThreads = atoi(argv[1]);
pthread_t threads[nThreads];
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; i += 1) {
pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, worker, (void *)(intptr_t)i);
}
while (waitMessage(&mq, readMessage));
for (int i = 0; i < nThreads; i += 1) {
pthread_join(threads[i], NULL);
}
clean();
timer = clock() - timer;
printf("%.2f\n", (double)timer / CLOCKS_PER_SEC);
return 0;
}
--- EDIT ---
Okay I managed to fix the problem by changing the program a bit using semaphores. The waitMessage function doesn't have to be locked since it is accessed by only one thread and the values that it modifies does not clash with sendMessage.
MessageQueue mq;
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
sem_t sem;
void init() {
mq.first = malloc(sizeof(MessageQueueElement));
mq.last = mq.first;
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex, NULL);
sem_init(&sem, 0, 0);
}
void clean() {
free(mq.first);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&mutex);
sem_destroy(&sem);
}
void sendMessage(MessageQueue *this, Message *message) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
this->last->message = *message;
this->last = this->last->next = malloc(sizeof(MessageQueueElement));
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
sem_post(&sem);
}
int waitMessage(MessageQueue *this, int (*readMessage)(unsigned, unsigned, void *)) {
sem_wait(&sem);
int n = readMessage(this->first->message.type, this->first->message.code, this->first->message.data);
MessageQueueElement *temp = this->first;
this->first = this->first->next;
free(temp);
return n;
}
Your waitMessage function is modifying this->first outside of any locking. This is a bad thing.
It's often not worth recreating things that are already provided for you by an OS. You're effectively trying to set up a pipe of Message structures. You could simply use an anonymous pipe instead (see here for Linux, or here for Windows) and write/read Message structures to/from it. There's also POSIX message queues which are probably a bit more efficient.
In your case with multiple worker threads you'd have to have a supplementary mutex semaphore to control which worker is trying to read from the pipe or message queue.