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)
Related
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.
Here is a problem, say I need to execute a function x times which does some taks, but only four threads can be executing it at any given time. So thread A,B,C,D can start task 0,1,2,3 respectively. However, task four can't start until one of the threads completed, so say if thread A completes, then the next task can be executed by one of the free threads. This should repeat x times, where x is the number of times the function needs to be called.
So I've used semaphores and join the pthread after it completes to ensure it completes. However, sometimes the main function finishes executing before some of the threads complete, and valgrind is complaining that my pthread_create is leaking memory. I think the way I'm doing is incorrect or is a naive approach, so any guidance or example code to fix this will be most appreciated! Here is my code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
sem_t s;
typedef struct Data Data;
struct Data {
pthread_t* a;
int index;
int j;
};
void* someFunction(void* arg){
/* Only at most num_threads should be here at once; */
sem_wait(&s);
Data* d = arg;
printf("Successfully completed task %d with thread %d\n", d->index, d->j);
sleep(2);
pthread_t* z = d->a;
free(d);
pthread_join(*z, NULL);
sem_post(&s);
return 0;
}
int main(void){
int num_task = 15; // i need to call someFunction() 9000 times
int num_threads = 4;
int j = 0;
sem_init(&s, 0, num_threads);
pthread_t thread_ids[num_threads];
for (int i = 0; i < num_task; i ++){
/*NEED TO COMPLETE num_tasks using four threads;
4 threads can run someFunction() at the same time; so one all four are currently executing someFunction(), other threads can't enter until one has completed. */
if (j == num_threads){
j = 0; // j goes 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 ...
}
Data* a = malloc(sizeof(Data));
a->a = thread_ids + j;
a->index = i;
a->j = j;
sem_wait(&s);
pthread_create(thread_ids + j, NULL, someFunction, a);
sem_post(&s);
j ++;
}
return 0;
}
Thank you so much
Having threads wait for each other usually gets messy quickly, and you're likely to end up in situations where a thread tries to join itself, or is never joined.
The most reliable way to have at most four threads running is to only create four threads.
Instead of creating threads as needed, you let each thread (potentially) perform more than one task.
You can separate the "task" concept from the "thread" concept:
Make a queue of tasks for the threads to perform.
Create four threads.
Each thread takes a task from the queue and performs it, repeating until the queue is empty.
Wait for the threads to finish in main.
The only thing that needs synchronising is the removal of a task from the queue, which is very simple.
(If the tasks are not independent, you need more complex plumbing.)
Pseudocode (I have invented some names as I'm not overly familiar with pthreads):
typedef struct Task
{
/* whatever */
};
/* Very simplistic queue structure. */
typedef struct Queue
{
mutex lock;
int head;
Task tasks[num_tasks];
};
/* Return front of queue; NULL if empty. */
Task* dequeue(Queue* q)
{
Task* t = NULL;
lock_mutex(q->lock);
if (q->head < num_tasks)
{
t = &q->tasks[q->head];
q->head++;
}
unlock_mutex(q->lock);
return t;
}
/* The thread function is completely unaware of any multithreading
and can be used in a single-threaded program while debugging. */
void* process(void* arg)
{
Queue* queue = (Queue*) arg;
for (;;)
{
Task* t = dequeue(queue);
if (!t)
{
/* Done. */
return NULL;
}
/* Perform task t */
}
}
/* main is very simple - set up tasks, launch threads, wait for threads.
No signalling, no memory allocation. */
int main(void)
{
pthread threads[num_threads];
Queue q;
q.head = 0;
/* Fill in q.tasks... */
/* Initialise q.lock... */
for (int ti = 0; ti < num_threads; ti++)
{
pthread_create(threads + ti, NULL, process, &q);
}
for (int ti = 0; ti < num_threads; ti++)
{
/* join the thread */
}
return 0;
}
Your code starts four threads at a time and waits until they are finished. However, your main loop only creates the threads, it does not for them to exit.
After you created a thread your OS will schedul it whenever it wants.
That means you have to join the last four threads you created after your for loop. So they have a chance to finish their work and free their memory.
Regards
I have two methods, fun1 and fun2, which are called by two different set of threads. I want to interleave their execution in a random order, the same way the order is random inside each of the two set of threads. How can I achieve this?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <stdint.h>
void * function1(){
printf("function 1\n");
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
void * function2(){
printf("function 2\n");
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main(int argc, char ** argv){
int i;
int error;
int status;
int number_threads1 = 4;
int number_threads2 = 3;
pthread_t thread1[number_threads1];
pthread_t thread2[number_threads2];
for (i = 0; i < number_threads1; i++){
error = pthread_create(&thread1[i], NULL, function1, NULL);
if(error){return (-1);}
}
for(i = 0; i < number_threads1; i++) {
error = pthread_join(thread1[i], (void **)&status);
if(error){return (-1);}
}
for (i = 0; i < number_threads2; i++){
error = pthread_create(&thread2[i], NULL, function2, NULL);
if(error){return (-1);}
}
for(i = 0; i < number_threads2; i++) {
error = pthread_join(thread2[i], (void **)&status);
if(error){return (-1);}
}
}
Output:
function 1
function 1
function 1
function 1
function 2
function 2
function 2
Desired output:
Random order of both function 1 and function 2
By this I want to interleave their execution in a random order if you mean fun1 and fun2 to be executed in no fixed order then remove the loop with pthread_join() calls after the creating first group of threads (which waits for the first group to finish execution) and put it after creating all threads.
By the way if you simply want the threads to finish the execution on their own and there's no need for main thread to check status , then there's no need for pthread_join() calls at all. You can altogethter remove the two loops involving pthread_join calls and simply call pthread_exit(NULL); instead, after creating all the threads which will allow all threads to continue while only main thread will exit.
I am learning multithreading performance in C. When I tried to write a sample code, I bumped into a problem:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct{
int a;
char b;
} args;
void* some_func (void* arg)
{
args *argsa = malloc(sizeof(args));
//copy the content of arg to argsa,
//so changes to arg in main would not affect argsa
*argsa = *(args*) arg;
int i = 10;
for (; i > 0; i--)
{
usleep (1); //to give other threads chances to cut in
printf ("This is from the thread %d\n", argsa->a);
}
free (argsa);
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread[3];
args ss;
int index = 0;
ss.b = 's';
for (; index <3 ; index++)
{
ss.a = index;
if (pthread_create (thread+index, NULL, some_func, (void*)&ss ))
{
usleep(10);
printf ("something is wrong creating the thread");
}
}
pthread_join ( thread[0], NULL);
pthread_join ( thread[1], NULL);
pthread_join ( thread[2], NULL);
return 0;
}
I know char b in the struct is useless, but I just want to practice passing a structure.
I expect the code to print out "This is from the thread x", where x is 0, 1 or 2, alternatively. However, the code currently only gives me "This is from the thread 2" 30 times. I believe there is something wrong with
*argsa = *(args*) arg;
But I can't find a way to solve this and get the desired output.
Any help would be appreciated!
Because you are passing the same pointer to all the threads. By the time thread 0 has started, you have already incremented the value of ss.a to 1 (and then 2).
This is a bit more correct:
void* some_func (void* arg)
{
args *argsa = (args*)arg;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
usleep (1); //to give other threads chances to cut in
printf ("This is from the thread %d\n", argsa->a);
}
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread[3];
args ss[3];
int index;
for (index = 0; index < 3; index++)
{
ss[index].a = index;
if (pthread_create(&thread[index], NULL, some_func, &ss[index] ))
{
printf ("something is wrong creating the thread");
}
}
pthread_join ( thread[0], NULL);
pthread_join ( thread[1], NULL);
pthread_join ( thread[2], NULL);
return 0;
}
The pattern to use to solve this kind of problem is as follows:
Create a structure that will hold the parameters you want to pass to the thread.
Allocate such a structure with malloc.
Fill in the structure.
Pass the pointer to the structure to the thread.
When the thread is finished with the structure, the thread frees it.
This assumes you don't need to get any information back from the thread. If you do, you can change it so that the code that joins the thread frees the structure. That allows the structure to hold a reply as well -- you join the thread, read the response information, and then free the structure.
No special locking or synchronization is required because while the newly-created thread exists, it is the only thread that touches the structure.
Sorry guys, but I was trying to solve the same issue and I don't think a proper answer was given yet, in order to solve the problem. I tried this on my own and I came up with the following code. Now, I compiled and run it and it pretty worked as I expected, still I not that confident that the "lock in main and unlock in child process" is the most elegant solution, so I'd like to know what you think about it. Thank you very much in advance for any clarification.
Here is the code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef struct{
int a;
char b;
} args;
pthread_mutex_t lock;
void* some_func (void *arg) {
args argsa = *(args*)arg;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&lock);
printf ("This is from the thread %d\n", argsa.a);
}
int main() {
pthread_t thread[10];
args ss;
int i, index=0;
ss.b = 's';
if (pthread_mutex_init(&lock, NULL) != 0) {
printf("\n mutex init failed\n");
return 1;
}
for (index = 0; index < 10 ; index++)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&lock);
ss.a = index;
printf("index=%d, ", ss.a);
if (pthread_create (thread+index, NULL, some_func, (void*)&ss ))
{
usleep(10);
printf ("something is wrong creating the thread");
}
}
for(i=0;i<10;i++)
pthread_join ( thread[0], NULL);
return 0;
}
Output:
#./program
index=0, This is from the thread 0
index=1, This is from the thread 1
index=2, This is from the thread 2
index=3, This is from the thread 3
index=4, This is from the thread 4
index=5, This is from the thread 5
index=6, This is from the thread 6
index=7, This is from the thread 7
index=8, This is from the thread 8
index=9, This is from the thread 9
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);
}