I'm doing a program that utilizes threads. I also have a SIGINT handler that closes everything correctly, for an orderly shutdown. However, since my threads are in a while(1) loop the pthread_join function in my handler gets stuck and i have to press ctrl+c a bunch of times, to close each thread singularly. How can i do this with just 1 click?
Here's my thread worker function:
void *worker(){
struct message msg;
while(1){
if(wr.fnode != NULL){
sem_wait(&tsem);
stats->nptri++;
msg.patient = *(wr.fnode);
wr_deletefnode();
sem_post(&tsem);
sleep((float)(msg.patient.ttime/1000));
msgsnd(mqid,&msg,sizeof(msg)-sizeof(long),0);
}
}
}
It's depend how you are sending signal (SIGINT or any) to a thread. for sending a signal to thread you should use pthread_kill() instead of kill() or raise() because signal handler(signal or sigaction) handles only processes ,not threads.
int pthread_kill(pthread_t thread, int sig);
If you ever try to kill running thread using kill command/function OS will throw warning like Warning: Program '/bin/bash' crashed.
observe running thread using ps -eL | grep pts/0 before and after sending signal.
I hope you got something.
Two things you need to solve:
How to break the endless while loop
How to return from blocking system call (like for example sem_wait())
Referring 1.:
Change
while (1)
to be
while (!exit_flag)
Define exit_flag globally
volatile sig_atomic_t exit_flag = 0;
and set it to 1 on reception of the SIGINT signal.
To catch a signal do not setup a signal handler, but create a separate thread using sigwait() to wait for and receive a SIGINT.
Make sure all other threads are created blocking SIGINT.
Referring 2.:
Keep track of all thread running by memorising their thread-ids.
After the signal-listener thread mentioned under 1. set the exit_flag, then loop over the list of running threads and one by one
enable them to receive SIGINT
signal them using pthread_kill(), in case they were stuck inside a system call, the call would return setting errno to EINTR.
join the thread calling pthread_join().
Related
I am writing a multithreaded program where I want to handle a possible Ctrl-C command from the user to terminate execution. As far as I know there is no guarantee that the main thread, which is able to cancel every working thread, will catch the signal. Is it, therefore, necessary to have a different signal handler to the code of the working thread so that anyone will catch the signal if it arrives, or is there another way to do that with having a signal handler only in the main thread's code?
You can block signals from the calling thread with pthread_sigmask().
And, as the blocked signals are inherited to newly created threads, you can block SIGINT in the main thread, then launch your other threads, and then unblock it in the main thread, if that is preferable.
I'm sending a signal from a module in the kernel space to a process. This process has one thread waiting for the signal.
I read the signal manual and it says:
The signal disposition is a per-process attribute: in a multithreaded application, including the disposition of a signal is the same for all threads.
Thus, and according to the manual pthread_sigmask:
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/pthread_sigmask.3.html
I'm trying to block the signal in the main function of the application by calling:
siginfo_t infoh1;
sigset_t waith1;
sigemptyset(&waith1);
sigaddset(&waith1, SIG_HILO1);
pthread_sigmask( SIG_BLOCK, &waith1, NULL );
Note that the thread is waiting for it in its execution function.
result = sigwaitinfo (&waith1, &infoh1);
The signal is sent, but the thread never receives it (it hangs waiting).
What am I doing wrong? I tested with different codes from different websites without success.
I use signals a lot in my *nix code and I don't think this is a good approach.
I recommend that all threads are set to ignore signals. The main process handles the signal while the thread sits on a mutex/condition. On signal the main process sets a global static flag with the signal type and then notifies the thread which duly checks the flag to see which signal was caught.
It's a safe and easy solution.
I'm trying to write a signal handler to catch any number of consecutive SIGINT signals and prevent the program from exiting. The program is a simple file server. The handler sets a global flag which causes the while loop accepting new connections to end, a call to pthread_exit() ensures that main lets current connections finish before exiting. It all goes like clockwork when I hit ctrl-C once but a second time exits the program immediately.
I tried first with signal():
signal(SIGINT, catch_sigint);
...
static void catch_sigint(int signo)
{
...
signal(SIGINT, catch_sigint);
}
I also tried it using sigaction:
struct sigaction sigint_handler;
sigint_handler.sa_handler = catch_sigint;
sigemptyset(&sigint_handler.sa_mask);
sigint_handler.sa_flags = 0;
sigaction(SIGINT, &sigint_handler, NULL);
Unsure how to "reinstall" this one I just duplicated this code in the handler similar to the handler using the signal() method.
Neither one of these works as I expected.
Additional info:
The program is a simple file server. It receives a request from the client which is simply a string consisting of the requested file name. It utilizes pthreads so that transfers can occur simultaneously. Upon receiving SIGINT I wish for the server to exit the while loop and wait for all current transfers to complete then close. As is, no matter how I code the signal handler a second SIGINT terminates the program immediately.
int serverStop = 0;
...
int main()
{
/* set up the server -- socket(), bind() etc. */
struct sigaction sigint_hadler;
sigint_handler.sa_handler = catch_sigint;
sigint_handler.sa_flags = 0;
sigemptyset(&sigint_handler.sa_mask);
sigaction(SIGINT, &sigint_handler, NULL);
/* signal(SIGINT, catch_sigint); */
while(serverStop == 0)
{
/* accept new connections and pthread_create() for each */
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
...
static void catch_sigint(int signo)
{
serverStop = 1;
/* signal(SIGINT, catch_sigint) */
}
I don't think any other code could be pertinent but feel free to ask for elaboration
On Linux, you should not have to reinstall the signal handler, using either signal (which implements BSD semantics by default) or sigaction.
when I hit ctrl-C once but a second time exits the program immediately.
That's not because your handler got reset, but likely because your signal handler is doing something it shouldn't.
Here is how I would debug this issue: run the program under GDB and
(gdb) catch syscall exit
(gdb) catch syscall exit_group
(gdb) run
Now wait a bit for the program to start working, and hit Control-C. That will give you (gdb) prompt. Now continue the program as if it has received SIGINT: signal SIGINT (this will invoke your handler). Repeat the 'Control-C/signal SIGINT' sequence again. If you get stopped in either exit or exit_group system call, see where that is coming from (using GDB where command).
Update:
Given the new code you posted, it's not clear exactly where you call pthread_exit to "ensures that main lets current connections finish before exiting". As written, your main thread will exit the loop on first Control-C, and proceed to call exit which would not wait for other threads to finish.
Either you didn't show your actual code, or the "second Control-C" is a red herring and your first Control-C takes you out already (without finishing work in other threads).
NOTE: this is largely guesswork.
I'm pretty sure that calling pthread_exit in the main thread is a bad idea. If the main thread has quit, then the OS may try to send subsequent signals to some other thread.
I recommend that instead of using pthread_exit in the main thread, you just pthread_join() all the other threads, then exit normally.
But it's also important to ensure that the other threads do not get the signals. Normally this is done with sigprocmask (or maybe more correctly pthread_sigmask, which is the same under Linux) to mask the signal out in the worker threads. This ensures that the signal is never delivered to them.
Note that to avoid race conditions, you should use pthread_sigmask in the main thread just before creating a child thread, then set the signal mask back again in the main thread afterwards. This ensures that there is no window, however small, during which a child thread can possibly get unwanted signals.
I'm not sure to understand. A signal handler should usually not re-install any signal handler (including itself), because the signal handler stays in function till another is installed. See also SA_NODEFER flag to sigaction to be able to catch the signal during its handling.
A signal handler should be short. See my answer to this question. It usually mostly sets a volatile sig_atomic_t variable.
What is not working? Don't do complex or long-lasting processing inside signal handlers.
Please show your code...
I am writing a multithreaded program where I want to handle a possible Ctrl-C command from the user to terminate execution. As far as I know there is no guarantee that the main thread, which is able to cancel every working thread, will catch the signal. Is it, therefore, necessary to have a different signal handler to the code of the working thread so that anyone will catch the signal if it arrives, or is there another way to do that with having a signal handler only in the main thread's code?
You can block signals from the calling thread with pthread_sigmask().
And, as the blocked signals are inherited to newly created threads, you can block SIGINT in the main thread, then launch your other threads, and then unblock it in the main thread, if that is preferable.
I have a simple server that looks something like this:
void *run_thread(void *arg) {
// Communicate via a blocking socket
}
int main() {
// Initialization happens here...
// Main event loop
while (1) {
new_client = accept(socket, ...);
pthread_create(&thread, NULL, &run_thread, *thread_data*);
pthread_detach(thread);
}
// Do cleanup stuff:
close(socket);
// Wait for existing threads to finish
exit(0);
)
Thus when a SIGINT or SIGTERM is received I need to break out of the main event loop to get to the clean up code. Moreover most likely the master thread is waiting on the accept() call so it's not able to check some other variable to see if it should break;.
Most of the advice I found was along the lines of this: http://devcry.blogspot.com/2009/05/pthreads-and-unix-signals.html (creating a special signal handling thread to catch all the signals and do processing on those). However, it's the processing portion that I can't really wrap my head around: how can I possibly tell the main thread to return from the accept() call and check on an external variable to see if it should break;?
Usually I am waiting on select(listeninig-socket-here) not on accept(). accept() is usually a method where a program doesn't spend lots of time waiting. And when I wait in select() and the signal SIGTERM is sent to that thread (in your case it is the main thread) I exit from that select and select returns interrupted system call .
I second skwllsp in his opinion that you should be using select call instead of accept. But, my additional suggestion is that you follow the advice of the blog whose link you have posted and create a seperate signal handling thread and ignore signals in all other threads. Then when the signal is received in the signal handling thread, use pthread_cancel to cancel the other threads. When you use pthread_cancel, if the thread which is being cancelled is in cancellation point (select happens to be one), it will come out and enter into your handler and you can cleanup and exit the thread.
You can find more info on this here, here and here