this is my first pthread program, and I have no idea why the printf statement get printed twice in child thread:
int x = 1;
void *func(void *p)
{
x = x + 1;
printf("tid %ld: x is %d\n", pthread_self(), x);
return NULL;
}
int main(void)
{
pthread_t tid;
pthread_create(&tid, NULL, func, NULL);
printf("main thread: %ld\n", pthread_self());
func(NULL);
}
Observed output on my platform (Linux 3.2.0-32-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP x86_64 GNU/Linux):
1.
main thread: 140144423188224
tid 140144423188224: x is 2
2.
main thread: 140144423188224
tid 140144423188224: x is 3
3.
main thread: 139716926285568
tid 139716926285568: x is 2
tid 139716918028032: x is 3
tid 139716918028032: x is 3
4.
main thread: 139923881056000
tid 139923881056000: x is 3
tid 139923872798464tid 139923872798464: x is 2
for 3, two output lines from the child thread
for 4, the same as 3, and even the outputs are interleaved.
Threading generally occurs by time-division multiplexing. It is generally in-efficient for the processor to switch evenly between two threads, as this requires more effort and higher context switching. Typically what you'll find is a thread will execute several times before switching (as is the case with examples 3 and 4. The child thread executes more than once before it is finally terminated (because the main thread exited).
Example 2: I don't know why x is increased by the child thread while there is no output.
Consider this. Main thread executes. it calls the pthread and a new thread is created.The new child thread increments x. Before the child thread is able to complete the printf statement the main thread kicks in. All of a sudden it also increments x. The main thread is however also able to run the printf statement. Suddenly x is now equal to 3.
The main thread now terminates (also causing the child 3 to exit).
This is likely what happened in your case for example 2.
Examples 3 clearly shows that the variable x has been corrupted due to inefficient locking and stack data corruption!!
For more info on what a thread is.
Link 1 - Additional info about threading
Link 2 - Additional info about threading
Also what you'll find is that because you are using the global variable of x, access to this variable is shared amongst the threads. This is bad.. VERY VERY bad as threads accessing the same variable create race conditions and data corruption due to multiple read writes occurring on the same register for the variable x.
It is for this reason that mutexes are used which essentially create a lock whilst variables are being updated to prevent multiple threads attempting to modify the same variable at the same time.
Mutex locks will ensure that x is updated sequentially and not sporadically as in your case.
See this link for more about Pthreads in General and Mutex locking examples.
Pthreads and Mutex variables
Cheers,
Peter
Hmm. your example uses the same "resources" from different threads. One resource is the variable x, the other one is the stdout-file. So you should use mutexes as shown down here. Also a pthread_join at the end waits for the other thread to finish its job. (Usually a good idea would also be to check the return-codes of all these pthread... calls)
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int x = 1;
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
void *func(void *p)
{
pthread_mutex_lock (&mutex);
x = x + 1;
printf("tid %ld: x is %d\n", pthread_self(), x);
pthread_mutex_unlock (&mutex);
return NULL;
}
int main(void)
{
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex, 0);
pthread_t tid;
pthread_create(&tid, NULL, func, NULL);
pthread_mutex_lock (&mutex);
printf("main thread: %ld\n", pthread_self());
pthread_mutex_unlock (&mutex);
func(NULL);
pthread_join (tid, 0);
}
It looks like the real answer is Michael Burr's comment which references this glibc bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14697
In summary, glibc does not handle the stdio buffers correctly during program exit.
Related
I am new to pthreads, and I am trying to understand it. I saw some examples like the following.
I could see that the main() is blocked by the API pthread_exit(), and I have seen examples where the main function is blocked by the API pthread_join(). I am not able to understand when to use what?
I am referring to the following site - https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/pthreads/. I am not able to get the concept of when to use pthread_join() and when to use pthread_exit().
Can somebody please explain? Also, a good tutorial link for pthreads will be appreciated.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define NUM_THREADS 5
void *PrintHello(void *threadid)
{
long tid;
tid = (long)threadid;
printf("Hello World! It's me, thread #%ld!\n", tid);
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
pthread_t threads[NUM_THREADS];
int rc;
long t;
for(t=0; t<NUM_THREADS; t++){
printf("In main: creating thread %ld\n", t);
rc = pthread_create(&threads[t], NULL, PrintHello, (void *)t);
if (rc){
printf("ERROR; return code from pthread_create() is %d\n", rc);
exit(-1);
}
}
/* Last thing that main() should do */
pthread_exit(NULL);
Realized one more thing i.e.
pthread_cancel(thread);
pthread_join(thread, NULL);
Sometimes, you want to cancel the thread while it is executing.
You could do this using pthread_cancel(thread);.
However, remember that you need to enable pthread cancel support.
Also, a clean up code upon cancellation.
thread_cleanup_push(my_thread_cleanup_handler, resources);
pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_ENABLE, 0);
static void my_thread_cleanup_handler(void *arg)
{
// free
// close, fclose
}
As explained in the openpub documentations,
pthread_exit() will exit the thread that calls it.
In your case since the main calls it, main thread will terminate whereas your spawned threads will continue to execute. This is mostly used in cases where the
main thread is only required to spawn threads and leave the threads to do their job
pthread_join
will suspend execution of the thread that has called it unless the target thread terminates
This is useful in cases when you want to wait for thread/s to terminate before further
processing in main thread.
pthread_exit terminates the calling thread while pthread_join suspends execution of calling thread until target threads completes execution.
They are pretty much well explained in detail in the open group documentation:
pthread_exit
pthread_join
Both methods ensure that your process doesn't end before all of your threads have ended.
The join method has your thread of the main function explicitly wait for all threads that are to be "joined".
The pthread_exit method terminates your main function and thread in a controlled way. main has the particularity that ending main otherwise would be terminating your whole process including all other threads.
For this to work, you have to be sure that none of your threads is using local variables that are declared inside them main function. The advantage of that method is that your main doesn't have to know all threads that have been started in your process, e.g because other threads have themselves created new threads that main doesn't know anything about.
The pthread_exit() API
as has been already remarked, is used for the calling thread termination.
After a call to that function a complicating clean up mechanism is started.
When it completes the thread is terminated.
The pthread_exit() API is also called implicitly when a call to the return() routine occurs in a thread created by pthread_create().
Actually, a call to return() and a call to pthread_exit() have the same impact, being called from a thread created by pthread_create().
It is very important to distinguish the initial thread, implicitly created when the main() function starts, and threads created by pthread_create().
A call to the return() routine from the main() function implicitly invokes the exit() system call and the entire process terminates.
No thread clean up mechanism is started.
A call to the pthread_exit() from the main() function causes the clean up mechanism to start and when it finishes its work the initial thread terminates.
What happens to the entire process (and to other threads) when pthread_exit() is called from the main() function depends on the PTHREAD implementation.
For example, on IBM OS/400 implementation the entire process is terminated, including other threads, when pthread_exit() is called from the main() function.
Other systems may behave differently.
On most modern Linux machines a call to pthread_exit() from the initial thread does not terminate the entire process until all threads termination.
Be careful using pthread_exit() from main(), if you want to write a portable application.
The pthread_join() API
is a convenient way to wait for a thread termination.
You may write your own function that waits for a thread termination, perhaps more suitable to your application, instead of using pthread_join().
For example, it can be a function based on waiting on conditional variables.
I would recommend for reading a book of David R. Butenhof “Programming with POSIX Threads”.
It explains the discussed topics (and more complicated things) very well (although some implementation details, such as pthread_exit usage in the main function, not always reflected in the book).
You don't need any calls to pthread_exit(3) in your particular code.
In general, the main thread should not call pthread_exit, but should often call pthread_join(3) to wait for some other thread to finish.
In your PrintHello function, you don't need to call pthread_exit because it is implicit after returning from it.
So your code should rather be:
void *PrintHello(void *threadid) {
long tid = (long)threadid;
printf("Hello World! It's me, thread #%ld!\n", tid);
return threadid;
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[]) {
pthread_t threads[NUM_THREADS];
int rc;
intptr_t t;
// create all the threads
for(t=0; t<NUM_THREADS; t++){
printf("In main: creating thread %ld\n", (long) t);
rc = pthread_create(&threads[t], NULL, PrintHello, (void *)t);
if (rc) { fprintf(stderr, "failed to create thread #%ld - %s\n",
(long)t, strerror(rc));
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
};
}
pthread_yield(); // useful to give other threads more chance to run
// join all the threads
for(t=0; t<NUM_THREADS; t++){
printf("In main: joining thread #%ld\n", (long) t);
rc = pthread_join(&threads[t], NULL);
if (rc) { fprintf(stderr, "failed to join thread #%ld - %s\n",
(long)t, strerror(rc));
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
}
}
pthread_exit() will terminate the calling thread and exit from that(but resources used by calling thread is not released to operating system if it is not detached from main thread.)
pthrade_join() will wait or block the calling thread until target thread is not terminated.
In simple word it will wait for to exit the target thread.
In your code, if you put sleep(or delay) in PrintHello function before pthread_exit(), then main thread may be exit and terminate full process, Although your PrintHello function is not completed it will terminate. If you use pthrade_join() function in main before calling pthread_exit() from main it will block main thread and wait to complete your calling thread (PrintHello).
Hmm.
POSIX pthread_exit description from http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604599/functions/pthread_exit.html:
After a thread has terminated, the result of access to local (auto) variables of the thread is
undefined. Thus, references to local variables of the exiting thread should not be used for
the pthread_exit() value_ptr parameter value.
Which seems contrary to the idea that local main() thread variables will remain accessible.
Using pthread_exit in the main thread(in place of pthread_join), will leave the main thread in defunct(zombie) state. Since not using pthread_join, other joinable threads which are terminated will also remain in the zombie state and cause resource leakage.
Failure to join with a thread that is joinable (i.e., one that is
not detached), produces a "zombie thread". Avoid doing this, since
each zombie thread consumes some system resources, and when enough
zombie threads have accumulated, it will no longer be possible to
create new threads (or processes).
Another point is keeping the main thread in the defunct state, while other threads are running may cause implementation dependent issues in various conditions like if resources are allocated in main thread or variables which are local to the main thread are used in other threads.
Also, all the shared resources are released only when the process exits, it's not saving any resources. So, I think using pthread_exit in place of pthread_join should be avoided.
When pthread_exit() is called, the calling threads stack is no longer addressable as "active" memory for any other thread. The .data, .text and .bss parts of "static" memory allocations are still available to all other threads. Thus, if you need to pass some memory value into pthread_exit() for some other pthread_join() caller to see, it needs to be "available" for the thread calling pthread_join() to use. It should be allocated with malloc()/new, allocated on the pthread_join threads stack, 1) a stack value which the pthread_join caller passed to pthread_create or otherwise made available to the thread calling pthread_exit(), or 2) a static .bss allocated value.
It's vital to understand how memory is managed between a threads stack, and values store in .data/.bss memory sections which are used to store process wide values.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<pthread.h>
#include<semaphore.h>
sem_t st;
void *fun_t(void *arg);
void *fun_t(void *arg)
{
printf("Linux\n");
sem_post(&st);
//pthread_exit("Bye");
while(1);
pthread_exit("Bye");
}
int main()
{
pthread_t pt;
void *res_t;
if(pthread_create(&pt,NULL,fun_t,NULL) == -1)
perror("pthread_create");
if(sem_init(&st,0,0) != 0)
perror("sem_init");
if(sem_wait(&st) != 0)
perror("sem_wait");
printf("Sanoundry\n");
//Try commenting out join here.
if(pthread_join(pt,&res_t) == -1)
perror("pthread_join");
if(sem_destroy(&st) != 0)
perror("sem_destroy");
return 0;
}
Copy and paste this code on a gdb. Onlinegdb would work and see for yourself.
Make sure you understand once you have created a thread, the process run along with main together at the same time.
Without the join, main thread continue to run and return 0
With the join, main thread would be stuck in the while loop because it waits for the thread to be done executing.
With the join and delete the commented out pthread_exit, the thread will terminate before running the while loop and main would continue
Practical usage of pthread_exit can be used as an if conditions or case statements to ensure 1 version of some code runs before exiting.
void *fun_t(void *arg)
{
printf("Linux\n");
sem_post(&st);
if(2-1 == 1)
pthread_exit("Bye");
else
{
printf("We have a problem. Computer is bugged");
pthread_exit("Bye"); //This is redundant since the thread will exit at the end
//of scope. But there are instances where you have a bunch
//of else if here.
}
}
I would want to demonstrate how sometimes you would need to have a segment of code running first using semaphore in this example.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<pthread.h>
#include<semaphore.h>
sem_t st;
void* fun_t (void* arg)
{
printf("I'm thread\n");
sem_post(&st);
}
int main()
{
pthread_t pt;
pthread_create(&pt,NULL,fun_t,NULL);
sem_init(&st,0,0);
sem_wait(&st);
printf("before_thread\n");
pthread_join(pt,NULL);
printf("After_thread\n");
}
Noticed how fun_t is being ran after "before thread" The expected output if it is linear from top to bottom would be before thread, I'm thread, after thread. But under this circumstance, we block the main from running any further until the semaphore is released by func_t. The result can be verified with https://www.onlinegdb.com/
int g_ant = 0;
void *writeloop(void *arg)
{
while(g_ant < 10)
{
g_ant++;
usleep(rand()%10);
printf("%d\n", g_ant);
}
exit(0);
}
int main(void)
{
pthread_t time;
pthread_create(&time, NULL, writeloop, NULL);
writeloop(NULL);
pthread_join(time, NUL);
return 0;
}
Hi! I have four questions which I believe goes under the category race condition...? :-)
I'm trying to figure out why the printf of g_ant, on my computer, starts on 2 and continues to 10 in 90% of the cases, with an occasional 1, 3->10 output. My guess is because of the usleep which may hinder thread1 long enough to let thread2 increment and printf before thread1 reaches printf.
Wouldn't this also mess up numbers from 2->10?
I'm also struggeling to understand pthread_join's function in this program. My understanding is that it's used to wait for a thread to complete. Is it waiting for the writeloop function started by pthread_create?
Is writeloop(null) considered second thread?
g_ant++;
isn't atomic operation, which can cause undefined behaviour. You should use
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
and
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
the reason why it 90% times starts at 2 is because thread time enters the function, increments g_ant and sleeps itself. OS tends to take it away from CPU and put there another thread that is not asleep, in your case that is your main thread which again increments it by 1 runs usleep. Now g_ant has value 2, thread time resumes and prints 2 and increments it to 3. Main thread gets resumed and prints the 3 and again increments it, this keeps switching that's why you see numbers from 2 -> 10 most of the time.
Hopefully it is clear enough and should answer 2. question as well.
pthread_join makes sure that other threads finish their job before your main thread quits the program.
nope it is not considered a second thread, it runs the function on the main thread.
hope it helps.
The main thread is considered another thread. The following might help you understand what's going on before you add mutexes (assuming
you have to do that next). Usually, you don't exit() the whole process
from a thread - it would never be joined in the main thread.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int g_ant = 0;
void *writeloop(void *arg)
{
while(g_ant < 10)
{
g_ant++;
usleep( rand() % 10 );
printf("thread: %u global: %d\n", (unsigned int)pthread_self(), g_ant);
}
return NULL;
}
int main(void)
{
pthread_t t;
pthread_create(&t, NULL, writeloop, NULL);
writeloop(NULL);
pthread_join(t, NULL);
printf("Joined\n");
return 0;
}
I am new to pthreads, and I am trying to understand it. I saw some examples like the following.
I could see that the main() is blocked by the API pthread_exit(), and I have seen examples where the main function is blocked by the API pthread_join(). I am not able to understand when to use what?
I am referring to the following site - https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/pthreads/. I am not able to get the concept of when to use pthread_join() and when to use pthread_exit().
Can somebody please explain? Also, a good tutorial link for pthreads will be appreciated.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#define NUM_THREADS 5
void *PrintHello(void *threadid)
{
long tid;
tid = (long)threadid;
printf("Hello World! It's me, thread #%ld!\n", tid);
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
pthread_t threads[NUM_THREADS];
int rc;
long t;
for(t=0; t<NUM_THREADS; t++){
printf("In main: creating thread %ld\n", t);
rc = pthread_create(&threads[t], NULL, PrintHello, (void *)t);
if (rc){
printf("ERROR; return code from pthread_create() is %d\n", rc);
exit(-1);
}
}
/* Last thing that main() should do */
pthread_exit(NULL);
Realized one more thing i.e.
pthread_cancel(thread);
pthread_join(thread, NULL);
Sometimes, you want to cancel the thread while it is executing.
You could do this using pthread_cancel(thread);.
However, remember that you need to enable pthread cancel support.
Also, a clean up code upon cancellation.
thread_cleanup_push(my_thread_cleanup_handler, resources);
pthread_setcancelstate(PTHREAD_CANCEL_ENABLE, 0);
static void my_thread_cleanup_handler(void *arg)
{
// free
// close, fclose
}
As explained in the openpub documentations,
pthread_exit() will exit the thread that calls it.
In your case since the main calls it, main thread will terminate whereas your spawned threads will continue to execute. This is mostly used in cases where the
main thread is only required to spawn threads and leave the threads to do their job
pthread_join
will suspend execution of the thread that has called it unless the target thread terminates
This is useful in cases when you want to wait for thread/s to terminate before further
processing in main thread.
pthread_exit terminates the calling thread while pthread_join suspends execution of calling thread until target threads completes execution.
They are pretty much well explained in detail in the open group documentation:
pthread_exit
pthread_join
Both methods ensure that your process doesn't end before all of your threads have ended.
The join method has your thread of the main function explicitly wait for all threads that are to be "joined".
The pthread_exit method terminates your main function and thread in a controlled way. main has the particularity that ending main otherwise would be terminating your whole process including all other threads.
For this to work, you have to be sure that none of your threads is using local variables that are declared inside them main function. The advantage of that method is that your main doesn't have to know all threads that have been started in your process, e.g because other threads have themselves created new threads that main doesn't know anything about.
The pthread_exit() API
as has been already remarked, is used for the calling thread termination.
After a call to that function a complicating clean up mechanism is started.
When it completes the thread is terminated.
The pthread_exit() API is also called implicitly when a call to the return() routine occurs in a thread created by pthread_create().
Actually, a call to return() and a call to pthread_exit() have the same impact, being called from a thread created by pthread_create().
It is very important to distinguish the initial thread, implicitly created when the main() function starts, and threads created by pthread_create().
A call to the return() routine from the main() function implicitly invokes the exit() system call and the entire process terminates.
No thread clean up mechanism is started.
A call to the pthread_exit() from the main() function causes the clean up mechanism to start and when it finishes its work the initial thread terminates.
What happens to the entire process (and to other threads) when pthread_exit() is called from the main() function depends on the PTHREAD implementation.
For example, on IBM OS/400 implementation the entire process is terminated, including other threads, when pthread_exit() is called from the main() function.
Other systems may behave differently.
On most modern Linux machines a call to pthread_exit() from the initial thread does not terminate the entire process until all threads termination.
Be careful using pthread_exit() from main(), if you want to write a portable application.
The pthread_join() API
is a convenient way to wait for a thread termination.
You may write your own function that waits for a thread termination, perhaps more suitable to your application, instead of using pthread_join().
For example, it can be a function based on waiting on conditional variables.
I would recommend for reading a book of David R. Butenhof “Programming with POSIX Threads”.
It explains the discussed topics (and more complicated things) very well (although some implementation details, such as pthread_exit usage in the main function, not always reflected in the book).
You don't need any calls to pthread_exit(3) in your particular code.
In general, the main thread should not call pthread_exit, but should often call pthread_join(3) to wait for some other thread to finish.
In your PrintHello function, you don't need to call pthread_exit because it is implicit after returning from it.
So your code should rather be:
void *PrintHello(void *threadid) {
long tid = (long)threadid;
printf("Hello World! It's me, thread #%ld!\n", tid);
return threadid;
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[]) {
pthread_t threads[NUM_THREADS];
int rc;
intptr_t t;
// create all the threads
for(t=0; t<NUM_THREADS; t++){
printf("In main: creating thread %ld\n", (long) t);
rc = pthread_create(&threads[t], NULL, PrintHello, (void *)t);
if (rc) { fprintf(stderr, "failed to create thread #%ld - %s\n",
(long)t, strerror(rc));
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
};
}
pthread_yield(); // useful to give other threads more chance to run
// join all the threads
for(t=0; t<NUM_THREADS; t++){
printf("In main: joining thread #%ld\n", (long) t);
rc = pthread_join(&threads[t], NULL);
if (rc) { fprintf(stderr, "failed to join thread #%ld - %s\n",
(long)t, strerror(rc));
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
}
}
pthread_exit() will terminate the calling thread and exit from that(but resources used by calling thread is not released to operating system if it is not detached from main thread.)
pthrade_join() will wait or block the calling thread until target thread is not terminated.
In simple word it will wait for to exit the target thread.
In your code, if you put sleep(or delay) in PrintHello function before pthread_exit(), then main thread may be exit and terminate full process, Although your PrintHello function is not completed it will terminate. If you use pthrade_join() function in main before calling pthread_exit() from main it will block main thread and wait to complete your calling thread (PrintHello).
Hmm.
POSIX pthread_exit description from http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009604599/functions/pthread_exit.html:
After a thread has terminated, the result of access to local (auto) variables of the thread is
undefined. Thus, references to local variables of the exiting thread should not be used for
the pthread_exit() value_ptr parameter value.
Which seems contrary to the idea that local main() thread variables will remain accessible.
Using pthread_exit in the main thread(in place of pthread_join), will leave the main thread in defunct(zombie) state. Since not using pthread_join, other joinable threads which are terminated will also remain in the zombie state and cause resource leakage.
Failure to join with a thread that is joinable (i.e., one that is
not detached), produces a "zombie thread". Avoid doing this, since
each zombie thread consumes some system resources, and when enough
zombie threads have accumulated, it will no longer be possible to
create new threads (or processes).
Another point is keeping the main thread in the defunct state, while other threads are running may cause implementation dependent issues in various conditions like if resources are allocated in main thread or variables which are local to the main thread are used in other threads.
Also, all the shared resources are released only when the process exits, it's not saving any resources. So, I think using pthread_exit in place of pthread_join should be avoided.
When pthread_exit() is called, the calling threads stack is no longer addressable as "active" memory for any other thread. The .data, .text and .bss parts of "static" memory allocations are still available to all other threads. Thus, if you need to pass some memory value into pthread_exit() for some other pthread_join() caller to see, it needs to be "available" for the thread calling pthread_join() to use. It should be allocated with malloc()/new, allocated on the pthread_join threads stack, 1) a stack value which the pthread_join caller passed to pthread_create or otherwise made available to the thread calling pthread_exit(), or 2) a static .bss allocated value.
It's vital to understand how memory is managed between a threads stack, and values store in .data/.bss memory sections which are used to store process wide values.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<pthread.h>
#include<semaphore.h>
sem_t st;
void *fun_t(void *arg);
void *fun_t(void *arg)
{
printf("Linux\n");
sem_post(&st);
//pthread_exit("Bye");
while(1);
pthread_exit("Bye");
}
int main()
{
pthread_t pt;
void *res_t;
if(pthread_create(&pt,NULL,fun_t,NULL) == -1)
perror("pthread_create");
if(sem_init(&st,0,0) != 0)
perror("sem_init");
if(sem_wait(&st) != 0)
perror("sem_wait");
printf("Sanoundry\n");
//Try commenting out join here.
if(pthread_join(pt,&res_t) == -1)
perror("pthread_join");
if(sem_destroy(&st) != 0)
perror("sem_destroy");
return 0;
}
Copy and paste this code on a gdb. Onlinegdb would work and see for yourself.
Make sure you understand once you have created a thread, the process run along with main together at the same time.
Without the join, main thread continue to run and return 0
With the join, main thread would be stuck in the while loop because it waits for the thread to be done executing.
With the join and delete the commented out pthread_exit, the thread will terminate before running the while loop and main would continue
Practical usage of pthread_exit can be used as an if conditions or case statements to ensure 1 version of some code runs before exiting.
void *fun_t(void *arg)
{
printf("Linux\n");
sem_post(&st);
if(2-1 == 1)
pthread_exit("Bye");
else
{
printf("We have a problem. Computer is bugged");
pthread_exit("Bye"); //This is redundant since the thread will exit at the end
//of scope. But there are instances where you have a bunch
//of else if here.
}
}
I would want to demonstrate how sometimes you would need to have a segment of code running first using semaphore in this example.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<pthread.h>
#include<semaphore.h>
sem_t st;
void* fun_t (void* arg)
{
printf("I'm thread\n");
sem_post(&st);
}
int main()
{
pthread_t pt;
pthread_create(&pt,NULL,fun_t,NULL);
sem_init(&st,0,0);
sem_wait(&st);
printf("before_thread\n");
pthread_join(pt,NULL);
printf("After_thread\n");
}
Noticed how fun_t is being ran after "before thread" The expected output if it is linear from top to bottom would be before thread, I'm thread, after thread. But under this circumstance, we block the main from running any further until the semaphore is released by func_t. The result can be verified with https://www.onlinegdb.com/
This question already has answers here:
Wrong thread IDs in a multithreaded C program?
(2 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I compiled this code and the 99th threads that it's been created keeps creating more than one thread of number 99. Instead if i insert values from 1-10 or something small then the results are quite normal.
Here is the code.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
pthread_mutex_t m=PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
pthread_attr_t attr;
void* test(void *a)
{
int i=*((int *)a);
printf("The thread %d has started.\n",i);
pthread_mutex_lock(&m);
usleep(10000);
printf("The thread %d has finished.\n",i);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&m);
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main()
{
int i=0,j=0;
pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr,PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE);
pthread_t thread[100];
for (i=0;i<100;i++)
{
j=i;
pthread_create(&thread[i],&attr,test,&j);
}
for (i=0;i<100;i++)
pthread_join(thread[i],NULL);
return 0;
}
i get:
..../*Normal Results*/
The thread 99 has finished.
The thread 99 has finished.
The thread 99 has finished.
The thread 99 has finished.
The thread 99 has finished.
The thread 99 has finished.
Why is this happening?
You need to keep all theadIds
int indexes[PTHREAD_COUNT];
for (i=0;i<100;i++) {
indexes[i] = i;
pthread_create(&thread[i], &attr, test, &indexes[i]);
}
Each thread is passed the same pointer to the same stack location (j) in your main thread. Without further synchronisation, its undefined when each thread will be scheduled and will run and access j before printing its value.
There are lots of ways you could print out a unique number from each thread, including
malloc a struct which includes (or is) this number in the main thread. Pass it to the child threads which are then responsible for freeing it
(Suggested by Brian Roche below) Declare an array of 100 ints, with values 0, 1, 2, etc. Pass the address of a different array item to each thread.
have each thread lock a mutex then copy/increment a global counter. The mutex could be passed into the thread or another global
pass a semaphore into each thread, signalling it once the number has been accessed. Wait on this semaphore in the main thread
Note that options 3 & 4 involve serialising startup of the threads. There's little point in running multiple threads if you do much of this!
i is the same address as j in your main code, and you sleep of 30 ms in the threads. So all threads have time to run until the first mutex call, then they all stop for (a little over) 30ms, and then print they have finished. Of course, i in the main loop is now 99, because you are finished with the pthread_join loop.
You need to have an array of "j" values [assuming you want all threads to run independently]. Or do something else. It all depends on what you are actually wanting to do.
you are passing the same memory location (&j) as the pointer to data a.
when threads start, they print out the value just assigned to j, which looks OK
But then only one get the lock and went to sleep, all others thus blocked. when the nightmare is over, memory location "a", of course, has a int value 99.
Writing my basic programs on multi threading and I m coming across several difficulties.
In the program below if I give sleep at position 1 then value of shared data being printed is always 10 while keeping sleep at position 2 the value of shared data is always 0.
Why this kind of output is coming ?
How to decide at which place we should give sleep.
Does this mean that if we are placing a sleep inside the mutex then the other thread is not being executed at all thus the shared data being 0.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include<unistd.h>
pthread_mutex_t lock;
int shared_data = 0;
void * function(void *arg)
{
int i ;
for(i =0; i < 10; i++)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&lock);
shared_data++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&lock);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread;
void * exit_status;
int i;
pthread_mutex_init(&lock, NULL);
i = pthread_create(&thread, NULL, function, NULL);
for(i =0; i < 10; i++)
{
sleep(1); //POSITION 1
pthread_mutex_lock(&lock);
//sleep(1); //POSITION 2
printf("Shared data value is %d\n", shared_data);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&lock);
}
pthread_join(thread, &exit_status);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&lock);
}
When you sleep before you lock the mutex, then you're giving the other thread plenty of time to change the value of the shared variable. That's why you're seeing a value of "10" with the 'sleep' in position #1.
When you grab the mutex first, you're able to lock it fast enough that you can print out the value before the other thread has a chance to modify it. The other thread sits and blocks on the pthread_mutex_lock() call until your main thread has finished sleeping and unlocked it. At that point, the second thread finally gets to run and alter the value. That's why you're seeing a value of "0" with the 'sleep' at position #2.
This is a classic case of a race condition. On a different machine, the same code might not display "0" with the sleep call at position #2. It's entirely possible that the second thread has the opportunity to alter the value of the variable once or twice before your main thread locks the mutex. A mutex can ensure that two threads don't access the same variable at the same time, but it doesn't have any control over the order in which the two threads access it.
I had a full explanation here but ended up deleting it. This is a basic synchronization problem and you should be able to trace and identify it before tackling anything more complicated.
But I'll give you a hint: It's only the sleep() in position 1 that matters; the other one inside the lock is irrelevant as long as it doesn't change the code outside the lock.