Referencing the code provided at http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/pthread_sigmask.3.html under the Program source section.
Changes to that code are: 1) SIGVTALRM is blocked instead of SIGQUIT & SIGUSR1, 2) a timer is set up with setitimer(2) after the comment section (/* Main thread carries on to create other threads and/or do other work */).
Signals other than SIGVTALRM appears to be handled properly (such as SIGINT, even SIGALRM) if we use pause(2) (as is the case in the sample code) or sigwait(3). SIGVTALRM is only handled correctly when the main thread busy-wait using while(1); (replacing pause(); in the sample code).
It looks like ITIMER_VIRTUAL is not decremented at all (note that this is just my suspicion). Why is this the case? Is there a way to fix this while still using timer?
If you send SIGVTALRM with kill, it should arrive just fine. The problem is not signal delivery but that you misunderstand what "virtual time" means. None passes while your thread is sleeping/blocked waiting for something, so the timer will never expire. Perhaps you wanted real rather than virtual time.
Related
There are linux kernel threads that do some work every now and then, then either go to sleep or block on a semaphore. They can be in this state for several seconds - quite a long time for a thread.
If threads need to be stopped for some reason, at least if unloading the driver they belong to, I am looking for a way to get them out of sleep or out of the semaphore without waiting the whole sleep time or triggering the semaphore as often as required.
I found and read a lot about this but there are multiple advises and I am still not sure how things work. So if you could shed some light on that.
msleep_interruptible
What is able to interrupt that?
down_interruptible
This semaphore function implies interrupt-ability. Same here, what can interrupt this semaphore?
kthread_stop
It's described as sets kthread_should_stop to true and wakes it... but this function blocks until the sleep time is over (even if using msleep_interruptible) or the semaphore is triggered.
What am I understanding wrong?
Use a signal to unblock - really?
My search found a signal can interrupt the thread. Other hits say a signal is not the best way to operate on threads.
If a signal is the best choice - which signal do I use to unblock the thread but not mess it up too much?
SIGINT is a termination signal - I don't intend to terminate something, just make it go on.
More information
The threads run a loop that checks a termination flag, does some work and then block in a sleep or a semaphore. They are used for
Situation 1.
A producer-consumer scenario that uses semaphores to synchronize producer and consumer. They work perfectly to make threads wait for work and start running on setting the semaphore.
Currently I'm setting a termination flag, then setting the semaphore up. This unblocks the thread which then checks the flag and terminates. This isn't my major problem. Hovever of course I'd like to know about a better way.
Code sample
while (keep_running) {
do_your_work();
down_interruptible(&mysemaphore); // Intention: break out of this
}
Situation 2.
A thread that periodically logs things. This thread sleeps some seconds between doing it's work. After setting the flag this thread terminates at it's next run but this can take several seconds. I want to break the sleep if necessary.
Code sample
while (keep_running) {
do_your_work();
msleep(15000); // Intention: break out of this - msleep_interruptible?
}
I'm curious if I am able to do the following with the unistd c function alarm(int signal)
Having my main.... and for each thread hat is created to initializate a SIGALRM with the function, which should close my thread in case of activating. Is this possible? or 1 SIGALRM / main is legal only?
Each thread in a process has an independent signal mask, which
indicates the set of signals that the thread is currently blocking. A
thread can manipulate its signal mask using pthread_sigmask(3). In a
traditional single-threaded application, sigprocmask(2) can be used to
manipulate the signal mask.
from man 7 signal.
The problem is that alarm works per process, not per thread, so if the sigmask of the threads is the same, you can't really know which one will receive the signal.
OK, so first, the alarm() is actually taking an unsigned int value which is the number of seconds before it expires. So your example int signal isn't the correct implementation of alarm(), just FYI.
As far as this goes:
for each thread that is created to initialization a SIGALRM
The SIGALRM that is generated is done so for the process not per thread, so you will have to catch the alarm and have some internal strategy to know which thread you raised it for and handle that accordingly. Once you have your handler, you can raise the alarm over and over again, however keep in mind:
Alarm requests are not stacked;
So you'll have to do this one at a time. It's still possible, but not totally stright forward as you were hoping.
For very rough example of what I'm talking about:
you have a "manager" which keeps track of requests
thread 1 tells the manager it needs to handle something in 10s
the manager "records" this and calls set alarm(10)
thread 2 tells the manager it needs to be woken up in 3 seconds
the manager calls alarm(0) to kill the alarm, calls alarm(3) then notes that once that goes off it needs to call alarm(7) to finish thread 1's sleep time
in your alarm handler you just call the manager and let it know an alarm went off and it will wake the appropriate thread (2) then reset the alarm for the next one.
i am making a small project which will be incorporated into larger project. basically what it does is keeps track of threads that are created by way of adding them to a main struct which keeps track of what the thread does (its main function) and its pthread_t id. the other struct keeps track of the data to be passed to the function and the element number of where the pthread_t id is stored inside threads[]. its a bit micky mouse and it jumps around a bit but it all works besides when it is time to kill the thread. i get no segfaults and no errors and the program finishes fine, but the thread does not get killed when pthread_kill() is called (the function returns 0 meaning no error and it worked) although the thread continues to run until the main application returns.
pthread_kill() will not kill a thread. The only difference with kill() is that the signal is handled by the designated thread and not handled while that thread has the signal masked (see pthread_sigmask()). A signal like SIGTERM will by default still terminate the entire process.
If you are considering to call pthread_exit() from a signal handler, you should probably use pthread_cancel() instead.
Cancellation is safe if all code that may be cancelled cooperates (or the code that calls it disables cancellation for the time). Most libraries do not care about this, though.
A safer method is to ask the thread to exit without any force, such as by sending a special message to it (if the thread normally processes messages).
Alternatively, don't bother to kill any threads and just call _exit(), _Exit() or quick_exit().
From http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/pthread_kill.html
As in kill(), if sig is zero, error checking is performed but no signal is actually sent.
so the following
pthread_kill(threads[i].tID, 0);
Wont actually kill the thread. You need to use an actual signal to kill a thread. A list of signals can be found here:
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xsh/signal.h.html
I have a main thread, which stays in the main function, i.e. I do not create it specifically as in pthread_create, because it's not necessary. This thread opens a file, then creates other threads, waits for them to finish their work (i.e., does the join), cleans up everything (pointers, semaphores, conditional variables and so on...).
Now, I have to apply this code to block SIGINT:
sigset_t set;
int sig;
sigemptyset(&set);
sigaddset(&set, SIGINT);
pthread_sigmask(SIG_BLOCK, &set, NULL);
while (1) {
sigwait(&set, &sig);
switch (sig) {
case SIGINT:
/* handle interrupts */
break;
default:
/* unexpected signal */
pthread_exit((void *)-1);
}
}
and it says You must use the main() function to launch the N+1 threads and wait for their completion. If a SIGINT signal arrives at the program it should be handled by the main thread in order to shutdown the program and its threads a clean way
My doubt is how should I put this code? Is it wrong to put it on a background thread created in main() ? Because I already have a cicle, with an exit flag, that creates and join all the other threads, so I don't understand if this code goes exactly to the main function where all is done/called to initiate the program. If I put it on a thread, with this code and the handler to clean, is this considerated as busy waiting?
"It says"? What says? The homework assignment?
The first thing you should understand about programming with threads and signals is that you have very little control over which thread a signal is delivered to. If your main thread wants to be the one to get the signal, it should block the signal before creating any new threads and possible unblock it after it finishes creating them, to ensure that the signal is not delivered to them.
However, if you're following best practices for signal handlers, it probably doesn't matter which thread handles the signal. All the signal handler should do is set a global flag or write a byte to a pipe (whichever works best to get the main thread to notice that the signal happened. (Note that you cannot use condition variables or any locking primitives from signal handlers!) As in the code fragment in your question, blocking the signal and using sigwait is also possible (be aware, again, that it needs to be blocked in all threads), but most programs can't afford to stop and wait just for signals; they need to wait for condition variables and/or input from files as well. One way to solve this issue is to make a dedicated thread to call sigwait, but that's rather wasteful. A better solution, if you're already using select, would be to switch to pselect that can wait for signals as well as file descriptor events (at the same time).
Rather than asking us for the answers (which would be hard to give anyway without seeing the full program you're trying to make this work with), you'd be much better off trying to really understand the intricacies of signals with threads.
Without keeping a list of current threads, I'm trying to see that a realtime signal gets delivered to all threads in my process. My idea is to go about it like this:
Initially the signal handler is installed and the signal is unblocked in all threads.
When one thread wants to send the 'broadcast' signal, it acquires a mutex and sets a global flag that the broadcast is taking place.
The sender blocks the signal (using pthread_sigmask) for itself, and enters a loop repeatedly calling raise(sig) until sigpending indicates that the signal is pending (there were no threads remaining with the signal blocked).
As threads receive the signal, they act on it but wait in the signal handler for the broadcast flag to be cleared, so that the signal will remain masked.
The sender finishes the loop by unblocking the signal (in order to get its own delivery).
When the sender handles its own signal, it clears the global flag so that all the other threads can continue with their business.
The problem I'm running into is that pthread_sigmask is not being respected. Everything works right if I run the test program under strace (presumably due to different scheduling timing), but as soon as I run it alone, the sender receives its own signal (despite having blocked it..?) and none of the other threads ever get scheduled.
Any ideas what might be wrong? I've tried using sigqueue instead of raise, probing the signal mask, adding sleep all over the place to make sure the threads are patiently waiting for their signals, etc. and now I'm at a loss.
Edit: Thanks to psmears' answer, I think I understand the problem. Here's a potential solution. Feedback would be great:
At any given time, I can know the number of threads running, and I can prevent all thread creation and exiting during the broadcast signal if I need to.
The thread that wants to do the broadcast signal acquires a lock (so no other thread can do it at the same time), then blocks the signal for itself, and sends num_threads signals to the process, then unblocks the signal for itself.
The signal handler atomically increments a counter, and each instance of the signal handler waits until that counter is equal to num_threads to return.
The thread that did the broadcast also waits for the counter to reach num_threads, then it releases the lock.
One possible concern is that the signals will not get queued if the kernel is out of memory (Linux seems to have that issue). Do you know if sigqueue reliably informs the caller when it's unable to queue the signal (in which case I would loop until it succeeds), or could signals possibly be silently lost?
Edit 2: It seems to be working now. According to the documentation for sigqueue, it returns EAGAIN if it fails to queue the signal. But for robustness, I decided to just keep calling sigqueue until num_threads-1 signal handlers are running, interleaving calls to sched_yield after I've sent num_threads-1 signals.
There was a race condition at thread creation time, counting new threads, but I solved it with a strange (ab)use of read-write locks. Thread creation is "reading" and the broadcast signal is "writing", so unless there's a thread trying to broadcast, it doesn't create any contention at thread-creation.
raise() sends the signal to the current thread (only), so other threads won't receive it. I suspect that the fact that strace makes things work is a bug in strace (due to the way it works it ends up intercepting all signals sent to the process and re-raising them, so it may be re-raising them in the wrong way...).
You can probably get round that using kill(getpid(), <signal>) to send the signal to the current process as a whole.
However, another potential issue you might see is that sigpending() can indicate that the signal is pending on the process before all threads have received it - all that means is that there is at least one such signal pending for the process, and no CPU has yet become available to run a thread to deliver it...
Can you describe more details of what you're aiming to achieve? And how portable you want it to be? There's almost certainly a better way of doing it (signals are almost always a major headache, especially when mixed with threads...)
In multithreaded program raise(sig) is equivalent to pthread_kill(pthread_self(), sig).
Try kill(getpid(), sig)
Given that you can apparently lock thread creation and destruction, could you not just have the "broadcasting" thread post the required updates to thread-local-state in a per-thread queue, which each thread checks whenever it goes to use the thread-local-state? If there's outstanding update(s), it first applies them.
You are trying to synchronize a set of threads.
From a design pattern point of view the pthread native solution for your problem would be a pthread barrier.