Details:
I am implementing Peterson's Algorithm(below) to avoid race condition. The way I want to do it, is to declare a global integer variable, and create threads one and two. Whenever the thread one had access to the global variable it should print a and add one to the global variable counter. When the thread two have access to this global variable it should print b and add one to the global variable counter. This should continue until the global variable reaches a certain number(let's say 10). After that I want the thread(which ever of the two threads that makes the last addition to the global variable) to reset the global variable to 1 and both threads should exit. The code that I have implemented so far kinda does the job,it avoids race condition, but I can't exit both threads when counter reaches limit.
Question:
How can I quit both threads when the counter reaches a specific limit.
Whats the proper form of quitting a thread, right now I am using exit(), which I don't think is very efficient.
Peterson's Algorithm
boolean flag [2];
int turn;
void P0()
{
while (true) {
flag [0] = true;
turn = 1;
while (flag [1] && turn == 1) /* do nothing */;
/* critical section */;
flag [0] = false;
/* remainder */;
}
}
void P1()
{
while (true) {
flag [1] = true;
turn = 0;
while (flag [0] && turn == 0) /* do nothing */;
/* critical section */;
flag [1] = false;
/* remainder */
}
}
void main()
{
flag [0] = false;
flag [1] = false;
parbegin (P0, P1);
}
My Code:
EDIT: I realized that I have to put the if-statement, that is checking for the counter limit value, should be in the critical section(before it changes the flag to false).
#include<stdlib.h>
#include<stdio.h>
#include<pthread.h>
int counter = 0;
int flag[2];
int turn;
void *func1(void *);
void *func2(void *);
int main(int argc,char *argv[]){
pthread_t thread1,thread2;
//int rt1,rt2;
flag[0] = 0;
flag[1] = 0;
//rt1 = pthread_create(&thread1,NULL,&func1,"a");
//rt2 = pthread_create(&thread2,NULL,&func2,"c");
pthread_create(&thread1,NULL,&func1,"a");
pthread_create(&thread2,NULL,&func2,"b");
pthread_join(thread1,NULL);
pthread_join(thread2,NULL);
return 0;
}// End of main function
void *func1(void *message){
while(1){
flag[0] = 1;
turn = 1;
while(flag[1] && turn == 1);
printf("%s %d\n",(char *)message,counter);
counter++;
flag[0] = 0;
if(counter == 10){
counter = 1;
printf("exited at func1, with counter %d\n",counter);
exit(0);
}
}
return 0;
}
void *func2(void *message){
while(1){
flag[1] = 1;
turn = 0;
while(flag[0] && turn == 0);
printf("%s %d\n",(char *)message,counter);
counter++;
flag[1] = 0;
if(counter == 10){
counter = 1;
printf("exited at func2, with counter %d\n",counter);
exit(0);
}
}
return 0;
}
Obviously, when one thread resets the global counter, the other thread may never see the global counter reaching e.g.10, so it will never quit. What if you simply don't reset the global counter, and let it thread quit whenever it finds the global counter e.g. 10? If you really want to reset the counter, you do that in the parent (main) thread (which is also where you define the global counter).
As for quitting a thread, you can either simply return from the primary thread function (this will end the thread by itself), call pthread_exit from within the thread, or you can use phtread_cancel from the main function.
Related
To simplify the problem as much as possible, I have two functions, a parent that calls the child. Everything executes okay till it gets to the return of the child function. After that I get a Bus Error.
int main () {
game();
// this doesn't get executed and program fails with bus error
printf("Execute 2");
return 1;
}
int game () {
game_t GameInfo = {.level = 1, .score = 0, .playerCh = 0, .playerX = 1, .playerY = 1};
gameLevel(&GameInfo);
mvprintw(1,1, "Executed");
// code works up to here and get's executed properly
return 1;
};
void gameLevel (game_t *GameInfo) {
// determine the size of the game field
int cellCols = COLS / 3;
int cellRows = (LINES / 3) - 2;
GameInfo -> playerX = 1;
GameInfo -> playerY = 1;
generateMaze(0);
int solved = 0;
int level = GameInfo -> level;
// default player position
getPlayerDefault(GameInfo);
pthread_t enemies_th;
pthread_create(&enemies_th, NULL, enemies, (void *)GameInfo);
// enemies(&level);
while (solved == 0 && GameInfo -> collision != 1) {
printGameInfo(GameInfo);
noecho();
char move = getch();
echo();
if (GameInfo -> collision != 1) {
if (checkMoveValidity(move, GameInfo) == 1) {
solved = movePlayer(move, GameInfo);
if (solved == 1) {
break;
}
}
} else {
break;
}
}
if (solved == 1) {
pthread_cancel(enemies_th);
GameInfo->level++;
gameLevel(GameInfo);
} else {
// game over
pthread_cancel(enemies_th);
return;
}
}
Now, the code is much more complicated than here, but I think that shouldn't have any influence on this (?) as it executes properly, until the return statement. There is also ncurses and multithreading, quite complex custom structures, but it all works, up until that point. Any ideas ?
Tried putting print statements after each segment of code, everything worked up until this.
pthread_cancel() doesn't terminate the requested thread immediately. The only way to know that a cancelled thread has terminated is to call pthread_join(). If the thread is left running, it will interfere with use of the GameInfo variable in the next level of the game if the current level is solved, or may use the GameInfo variable beyond its lifetime if the current level was not solved and the main thread returns back to the main() function.
To make sure the old enemies thread has terminated, add calls to pthread_join() to the gameLevel() function as shown below:
if (solved == 1) {
pthread_cancel(enemies_th);
pthread_join(enemies_th);
GameInfo->level++;
gameLevel(GameInfo);
} else {
// game over
pthread_cancel(enemies_th);
pthread_join(enemies_th);
return;
}
The use of tail recursion in gameLevel() seems unnecessary. I recommend returning the solved value and letting the game() function start the next level:
In game():
while (gameLevel(&GameInfo)) {
GameInfo.level++;
}
In gameLevel():
int gameLevel(game_t *GameInfo) {
/* ... */
pthread_cancel(enemies_th);
pthread_join(enemies_th);
return solved;
}
I wrote this program to solve the dining philosophers problem using Dijkstra's algorithm, notice that I'm using an array of booleans (data->locked) instead of an array of binary semaphores.
I'm not sure if this solution is valid (hence the SO question).
Will access to the data->locked array in both test and take_forks functions cause data races? if so is it even possible to solve this problem using Dijkstra's algorithm with only mutexes?
I'm only allowed to use mutexes, no semaphores, no condition variables (it's an assignment).
Example of usage:
./a.out 4 1000 1000
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#define NOT_HUNGRY 1
#define HUNGRY 2
#define EATING 3
#define RIGHT ((i + 1) % data->n)
#define LEFT ((i + data->n - 1) % data->n)
typedef struct s_data
{
int n;
int t_sleep;
int t_eat;
int *state;
bool *locked;
pthread_mutex_t *state_mutex;
} t_data;
typedef struct s_arg
{
t_data *data;
int i;
} t_arg;
int ft_min(int a, int b)
{
if (a < b)
return (a);
return (b);
}
int ft_max(int a, int b)
{
if (a > b)
return (a);
return (b);
}
// if the LEFT and RIGHT threads are not eating
// and thread number i is hungry, change its state to EATING
// and signal to the while loop in `take_forks` to stop blocking.
// if a thread has a state of HUNGRY then it's guaranteed
// to be out of the critical section of `take_forks`.
void test(int i, t_data *data)
{
if (
data->state[i] == HUNGRY
&& data->state[LEFT] != EATING
&& data->state[RIGHT] != EATING
)
{
data->state[i] = EATING;
data->locked[i] = false;
}
}
// set the state of the thread number i to HUNGRY
// and block until the LEFT and RIGHT threads are not EATING
// in which case they will call `test` from `put_forks`
// which will result in breaking the while loop
void take_forks(int i, t_data *data)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(data->state_mutex);
data->locked[i] = true;
data->state[i] = HUNGRY;
test(i, data);
pthread_mutex_unlock(data->state_mutex);
while (data->locked[i]);
}
// set the state of the thread number i to NOT_HUNGRY
// then signal to the LEFT and RIGHT threads
// so they can start eating when their neighbors are not eating
void put_forks(int i, t_data *data)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(data->state_mutex);
data->state[i] = NOT_HUNGRY;
test(LEFT, data);
test(RIGHT, data);
pthread_mutex_unlock(data->state_mutex);
}
void *philosopher(void *_arg)
{
t_arg *arg = _arg;
while (true)
{
printf("%d is thinking\n", arg->i);
take_forks(arg->i, arg->data);
printf("%d is eating\n", arg->i);
usleep(arg->data->t_eat * 1000);
put_forks(arg->i, arg->data);
printf("%d is sleeping\n", arg->i);
usleep(arg->data->t_sleep * 1000);
}
return (NULL);
}
void data_init(t_data *data, pthread_mutex_t *state_mutex, char **argv)
{
int i = 0;
data->n = atoi(argv[1]);
data->t_eat = atoi(argv[2]);
data->t_sleep = atoi(argv[3]);
pthread_mutex_init(state_mutex, NULL);
data->state_mutex = state_mutex;
data->state = malloc(data->n * sizeof(int));
data->locked = malloc(data->n * sizeof(bool));
while (i < data->n)
{
data->state[i] = NOT_HUNGRY;
data->locked[i] = true;
i++;
}
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
pthread_mutex_t state_mutex;
t_data data;
t_arg *args;
pthread_t *threads;
int i;
if (argc != 4)
{
fputs("Error\nInvalid argument count\n", stderr);
return (1);
}
data_init(&data, &state_mutex, argv);
args = malloc(data.n * sizeof(t_arg));
i = 0;
while (i < data.n)
{
args[i].data = &data;
args[i].i = i;
i++;
}
threads = malloc(data.n * sizeof(pthread_t));
i = 0;
while (i < data.n)
{
pthread_create(threads + i, NULL, philosopher, args + i);
i++;
}
i = 0;
while (i < data.n)
pthread_join(threads[i++], NULL);
}
Your spin loop while (data->locked[i]); is a data race; you don't hold the lock while reading it data->locked[i], and so another thread could take the lock and write to that same variable while you are reading it. In fact, you rely on that happening. But this is undefined behavior.
Immediate practical consequences are that the compiler can delete the test (since in the absence of a data race, data->locked[i] could not change between iterations), or delete the loop altogether (since it's now an infinite loop, and nontrivial infinite loops are UB). Of course other undesired outcomes are also possible.
So you have to hold the mutex while testing the flag. If it's false, you should then hold the mutex until you set it true and do your other work; otherwise there is a race where another thread could get it first. If it's true, then drop the mutex, wait a little while, take it again, and retry.
(How long is a "little while", and what work you choose to do in between, are probably things you should test. Depending on what kind of fairness algorithms your pthread implementation uses, you might run into situations where take_forks succeeds in retaking the lock even if put_forks is also waiting to lock it.)
Of course, in a "real" program, you wouldn't do it this way in the first place; you'd use a condition variable.
I'm writing a program that will simulate a randomized race between runners who are climbing up a mountain where dwarf orcs (dorcs) are coming down the mountain to attack the runners. It begins with two runners named harold and timmy at the bottom of the mountain. The runners make their way up the mountain in randomized moves where they may make progress forward up the mountain, or they may slide back down the mountain. Dorcs are randomly generated, and they inflict damage on a runner if they collide. The simulation ends when one of the runners reaches the top of the mountain, or when both runners are dead.
I'm struggling with a part where I have to implement the actual race loop. Once the race is initialized, the race loop will iterate until the race is over. This happens when either a winner has been declared, or when all runners are dead.
Every iteration of the race loop will do the following:
with 30% probability, dynamically allocate a new dorc as an EntityType structure, and initialize it as follows:
(a) a dorc’s avatar is always “d”
(b) each dorc begins the race at the top of the mountain, which is at row 2
(c) with equal probability, the dorc may be placed either in the same column as timmy, or in the same column as the harold, or in the column exactly half-way between the two
(d) add the new dorc to the race’s array of dorcs
(e) using the pthread_create() function, create a thread for the new dorc, and save the thread pointer in the dorc’s entity structure; the function that each dorc thread will execute is the void* goDorc(void*) function that you will implement in a later step; the parameter to the goDorc() function will be the EntityType pointer that corresponds to that dorc
I guess I'm confused with the logic of how to approach this. I decided to make a function called isOver() to indicate if the race is over, and then a separate function called addDorc() to initialize the Dorc elements and do all the requirements above.
In isOver(), I attempt to add a dorc object to the dorcs array by doing addDorc(race); with every iteration of the race loop/if the race hasn't ended or no one died. But I keep getting the error:
control.c:82:3: error: too few arguments to function ‘addDorc’
addDorc(race);
The problem is I don't think I can manually declare all the parameters in addDorc() because some elements like the "path" argument are based on probability. As mentioned above, with equal probability, the dorc may be placed either in the same column as timmy, or in the same column as the harold, or in the column exactly half-way between the two. The issue is I don't know how to factor this random value when calling addDorc() and would appreciate some help. I also don't know if I'm doing the "with 30% probability, dynamically allocate a new dorc as an EntityType structure" correctly and would be grateful for some input on that as well.
defs.h
typedef struct {
pthread_t thr;
char avatar[MAX_STR];
int currPos;
int path;
} EntityType;
typedef struct {
EntityType ent;
char name[MAX_STR];
int health;
int dead;
} RunnerType;
typedef struct {
int numRunners;
RunnerType *runners[MAX_RUNNERS];
int numDorcs;
EntityType *dorcs[MAX_DORCS];
char winner[MAX_STR];
int statusRow;
sem_t mutex;
} RaceInfoType;
void launch();
int addDorc(RaceInfoType*, char*, int, int);
int isOver(RaceInfoType*);
void initRunners(RaceInfoType*);
int addRunner(RaceInfoType*, char*, char*, int, int, int, int);
int randm(int);
void *goRunner(void*);
void *goDorc(void*);
RaceInfoType *race;
control.c
void launch(){
race = malloc(sizeof(RaceInfoType));
race->numRunners = 0;
initRunners(race);
if (sem_init(&race->mutex, 0, 1) < 0) {
printf("semaphore initialization error\n");
exit(1);
}
strcpy(race->winner, " ");
srand((unsigned)time(NULL));
int i;
for(i = 0; i < race->numRunners; ++i){
pthread_create(&(race->runners[i]->ent.thr), NULL, goRunner, " ");
}
race->numDorcs = 0;
}
int addDorc(RaceInfoType* race, char *avatar, int path, int currPos){
if(race->numDorcs == MAX_DORCS){
printf("Error: Maximum dorcs already reached. \n");
return 0;
}
race->dorcs[race->numDorcs] = malloc(sizeof(EntityType));
int timmysColumn = race->dorcs[race->numDorcs]->currPos;
int haroldsColumn = race->dorcs[race->numDorcs]->currPos;
int halfwayColumn = (timmysColumn+haroldsColumn)/2;
int r = rand()%100;
pthread_t dorc;
if(r <= 30){
strcpy(race->dorcs[race->numDorcs]->avatar, "d");
race->dorcs[race->numDorcs]->currPos = 2;
if(r <= 33){
race->dorcs[race->numDorcs]->path = timmysColumn;
}else if(r <= 66){
race->dorcs[race->numDorcs]->path = haroldsColumn;
}else{
race->dorcs[race->numDorcs]->path = halfwayColumn;
}
pthread_create(&dorc, NULL, goDorc, " ");
}
race->numRunners++;
}
int isOver(RaceInfoType* race){
int i;
for(i = 0; i < race->numRunners; ++i){
if((race->winner != " ") || (race->runners[race->numRunners]->dead = 1)){
return 1;
}
addDorc(race);
return 0;
}
}
void initRunners(RaceInfoType* r){
addRunner(r, "Timmy", "T", 10, 35, 50, 0);
addRunner(r, "Harold", "H", 14, 35, 50, 0);
}
int addRunner(RaceInfoType* race, char *name, char *avatar, int path, int currPos, int health, int dead){
if(race->numRunners == MAX_RUNNERS){
printf("Error: Maximum runners already reached. \n");
return 0;
}
race->runners[race->numRunners] = malloc(sizeof(RunnerType));
strcpy(race->runners[race->numRunners]->name, name);
strcpy(race->runners[race->numRunners]->ent.avatar, avatar);
race->runners[race->numRunners]->ent.path = path;
race->runners[race->numRunners]->ent.currPos = currPos;
race->runners[race->numRunners]->health = health;
race->runners[race->numRunners]->dead = dead;
race->numRunners++;
return 1;
}
Caveat: Because there's so much missing [unwritten] code, this isn't a complete solution.
But, I notice at least two bugs: the isOver bugs in my top comments. And, incrementing race->numRunners in addDorc.
isOver also has the return 0; misplaced [inside the loop]. That should go as the last statement in the function. If you had compiled with -Wall [which you should always do], that should have been flagged by the compiler (e.g. control reaches end of non-void function)
From that, only one "dorc" would get created (for the first eligible runner). That may be what you want, but [AFAICT] you want to try to create more dorcs (one more for each valid runner).
Also, the bug the compiler flagged is because you're calling addDorc(race); but addDorc takes more arguments.
It's very difficult to follow the code when you're doing (e.g.) race->dorcs[race->numDorcs]->whatever everywhere.
Better to do (e.g.):
EntityType *ent = &race->dorcs[race->numDorcs];
ent->whatever = ...;
Further, it's likely that your thread functions would like a pointer to their [respective] control structs (vs. just passing " ").
Anyway, I've refactored your code to incorporate these changes. I've only tried to fix the obvious/glaring bugs from simple code inspection, but I've not tried to recompile or address the correctness of your logic.
So, there's still more work to do, but the simplifications may help a bit.
void
launch(void)
{
race = malloc(sizeof(RaceInfoType));
race->numRunners = 0;
initRunners(race);
if (sem_init(&race->mutex,0,1) < 0) {
printf("semaphore initialization error\n");
exit(1);
}
strcpy(race->winner," ");
srand((unsigned)time(NULL));
int i;
for (i = 0; i < race->numRunners; ++i) {
RunnerType *run = &race->runners[i];
EntityType *ent = &run->ent;
pthread_create(&ent->thr,NULL,goRunner,ent);
}
race->numDorcs = 0;
}
int
addDorc(RaceInfoType* race,char *avatar,int path,int currPos)
{
if (race->numDorcs == MAX_DORCS) {
printf("Error: Maximum dorcs already reached. \n");
return 0;
}
EntityType *ent = malloc(sizeof(*ent));
race->dorcs[race->numDorcs] = ent;
int timmysColumn = ent->currPos;
int haroldsColumn = ent->currPos;
int halfwayColumn = (timmysColumn + haroldsColumn) / 2;
int r = rand()%100;
#if 0
pthread_t dorc;
#endif
if (r <= 30) {
strcpy(ent->avatar,"d");
ent->currPos = 2;
if (r <= 33) {
ent->path = timmysColumn;
} else if (r <= 66) {
ent->path = haroldsColumn;
} else {
ent->path = halfwayColumn;
}
pthread_create(&ent->thr,NULL,goDorc,ent);
}
#if 0
race->numRunners++;
#else
race->numDorcs += 1;
#endif
}
int
isOver(RaceInfoType* race)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < race->numRunners; ++i) {
#if 0
if ((race->winner != " ") ||
(race->runners[race->numRunners]->dead = 1))
return 1;
#else
RunnerType *run = &race->runners[i];
if ((race->winner != " ") || (run->dead == 1))
return 1;
#endif
addDorc(race);
#if 0
return 0;
#endif
}
#if 1
return 0;
#endif
}
void
initRunners(RaceInfoType* r)
{
addRunner(r,"Timmy","T",10,35,50,0);
addRunner(r,"Harold","H",14,35,50,0);
}
int
addRunner(RaceInfoType* race,char *name,char *avatar,int path,int currPos,
int health,int dead)
{
if (race->numRunners == MAX_RUNNERS) {
printf("Error: Maximum runners already reached. \n");
return 0;
}
RunnerType *run = malloc(sizeof(*run));
race->runners[race->numRunners] = run;
strcpy(run->name,name);
EntityType *ent = &run->ent;
strcpy(ent->avatar,avatar);
ent->path = path;
ent->currPos = currPos;
run->health = health;
run->dead = dead;
race->numRunners++;
return 1;
}
UPDATE:
I noticed in addDorc(), you put pthread_t dorc; in an if statement. I don't quite understand what my if statement is actually supposed to be checking though.
I forgot to mention/explain. I wrapped your/old code and my/new code with preprocessor conditionals (e.g.):
#if 0
// old code
#else
// new code
#endif
After the cpp stage, the compiler will only see the // new code stuff. Doing this was an instructional tool to show [where possible] what code you had vs what I replaced it with. This was done to show the changes vs. just rewriting completely.
If we never defined NEVERWAS with a #define NEVERWAS, then the above block would be equivalent to:
#ifdef NEVERWAS
// old code ...
#else
// new code
#endif
Would it still be under the if(r <= 30) part like I did in my original code?
Yes, hopefully now, it is more clear. #if is a cpp directive to include/exclude code (as if you had edited that way). But, a "real" if is an actual executable statement that is evaluated at runtime [as it was before], so no change needed.
My other concern is it doesn't look like dorc is used anywhere in the function because you write pthread_create(&ent->thr,NULL,goDorc,ent); which seems to use ent instead?
That is correct. It is not used/defined and the value goes to ent->thr. As you had it, the pthread_t value set by pthread_create would be lost [when dorc goes out of scope]. So, unless it's saved somewhere semi-permanent (e.g. in ent->thr), there would be no way to do a pthread_join call later.
In the code below I wrote a program to perform add/remove operations on an int array using multithreading. The condition is that multiple threads cannot make operations on the same cell, but parallel operations can be made on different cells.
I thought in order to implement such conditions I'd need to use multiple mutexes and condition variables, to be exact, as many as there're cells in the array. The initial value of all cells of my array is 10 and threads increment/decrement this value by 3.
The code below seems to work (the cell values of the array after all threads finished working is as expected) but I don't understand a few things:
I first spawn adder threads which sleep for a second. In addition each thread has printf statement which is triggered if a thread waits. Remove threads don't sleep so I expect remove threads to invoke their printf statements because they must wait a second at least before adder threads finish their work. But remover threads never call printf.
My second concern: as I mentioned I first spawn adder threads so I expect the cells value go from 10 to 13. Then if remover thread acquires lock the value can go from 13 to 10 OR if adder thread acquires the lock then the cell value will go from 13 to 16. But I don't see the behavior in printf statements inside threads. For example one of the printf sequences I had: add thread id and cell id 1: cell value 10->13, then remove thread id and cell id 1: cell value 10->7 then add thread id and cell id 1: cell value 10->13. This doesn't make sense. I made sure that the threads all point to the same array.
Bottom line I'd like to know whether my solution is correct and if yes why is the behavior I described occurring. If my solution is incorrect I'd appreciate example of correct solution or at least general direction.
This is the code (all the logic is in AdderThread, RemoveThread):
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#define ARR_LEN 5
#define THREADS_NUM 5
#define INIT_VAL 10
#define ADD_VAL 3
#define REMOVE_VAL 3
#define ADDER_LOOPS 2
typedef struct helper_t {
int threadId;
int * arr;
int * stateArr; //0 if free, 1 if busy
} helper_t;
enum STATE {FREE, BUSY};
enum ERRORS {MUTEX, COND, CREATE, JOIN, LOCK, UNLOCK, WAIT, BROADCAST};
pthread_mutex_t mutexArr[THREADS_NUM];
pthread_cond_t condArr[THREADS_NUM];
void errorHandler(int errorId) {
switch (errorId) {
case MUTEX:
printf("mutex error\n");
break;
case COND:
printf("cond error\n");
break;
case CREATE:
printf("create error\n");
break;
case JOIN:
printf("join error\n");
break;
case LOCK:
printf("lock error\n");
break;
case UNLOCK:
printf("unlock error\n");
break;
case WAIT:
printf("wait error\n");
break;
case BROADCAST:
printf("broadcast error\n");
break;
default:
printf("default switch\n");
break;
}
}
void mallocError() {
printf("malloc error\nExiting app\n");
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
void initMutexesAndConds(pthread_mutex_t * mutexArr, pthread_cond_t * condArr) {
int i;
for(i = 0; i < THREADS_NUM; i++) {
pthread_mutex_init(&mutexArr[i], NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&condArr[i], NULL);
}
}
helper_t * initStructs(int * arr, int * stateArr) {
int i;
helper_t * helpers = (helper_t *) malloc(sizeof(helper_t) * THREADS_NUM);
if(!helpers) {
mallocError();
} else {
for(i = 0; i < THREADS_NUM; i++) {
helpers[i].threadId = i;
helpers[i].arr = arr;
helpers[i].stateArr = stateArr;
}
}
return helpers;
}
void printArr(int * arr, int len) {
int i;
for(i = 0; i < len; i++) {
printf("%d, ", arr[i]);
}
printf("\n");
}
void * AdderThread(void * arg) {
int i;
helper_t * h = (helper_t *) arg;
int id = h->threadId;
for(i = 0; i < ADDER_LOOPS; i++) {
pthread_mutex_t * mutex = &mutexArr[id];
pthread_cond_t * cond = &condArr[id];
if(pthread_mutex_lock(mutex)) {
errorHandler(LOCK);
}
while(h->stateArr[id] == BUSY) {
printf("adder id %d waiting...\n", id);
if(pthread_cond_wait(cond, mutex)) {
errorHandler(WAIT);
}
}
h->stateArr[id] = BUSY;
sleep(1);
h->arr[id] = h->arr[id] + ADD_VAL;
printf("add thread id and cell id %d: cell value %d->%d\n", id, h->arr[id]-ADD_VAL, h->arr[id]);
h->stateArr[id] = FREE;
if(pthread_cond_broadcast(cond)) {
errorHandler(BROADCAST);
}
if(pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex)) {
errorHandler(UNLOCK);
}
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
void * RemoveThread(void * arg) {
helper_t * h = (helper_t *) arg;
int id = h->threadId;
pthread_mutex_t * mutex = &mutexArr[id];
pthread_cond_t * cond = &condArr[id];
if(pthread_mutex_lock(mutex)) {
errorHandler(LOCK);
}
while(h->stateArr[id] == BUSY) {
printf("remover id %d waiting...\n", id);
if(pthread_cond_wait(cond, mutex)) {
errorHandler(WAIT);
}
}
h->stateArr[id] = BUSY;
h->arr[id] = h->arr[id] - REMOVE_VAL;
printf("remove thread id and cell id %d: cell value %d->%d\n", id, h->arr[id], h->arr[id]-ADD_VAL);
h->stateArr[id] = FREE;
if(pthread_cond_broadcast(cond)) {
errorHandler(BROADCAST);
}
if(pthread_mutex_unlock(mutex)) {
errorHandler(UNLOCK);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main() {
int i;
helper_t * adderHelpers;
helper_t * removeHelpers;
pthread_t adders[THREADS_NUM];
pthread_t removers[THREADS_NUM];
int * arr = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int) * ARR_LEN);
int * stateArr = (int *) malloc(sizeof(int) * ARR_LEN);
if(!arr || !stateArr) {
mallocError();
}
for(i = 0; i < ARR_LEN; i++) {
arr[i] = INIT_VAL;
stateArr[i] = FREE;
}
initMutexesAndConds(mutexArr, condArr);
adderHelpers = initStructs(arr, stateArr);
removeHelpers = initStructs(arr, stateArr);
for(i = 0; i < THREADS_NUM; i++) {
pthread_create(&adders[i], NULL, AdderThread, &adderHelpers[i]);
pthread_create(&removers[i], NULL, RemoveThread, &removeHelpers[i]);
}
for(i = 0; i < THREADS_NUM; i++) {
pthread_join(adders[i], NULL);
pthread_join(removers[i], NULL);
}
printf("the results are:\n");
printArr(arr, THREADS_NUM);
printf("DONE.\n");
return 0;
}
1) This code sequence in Addr:
h->stateArr[id] = BUSY;
sleep(1);
h->arr[id] = h->arr[id] + ADD_VAL;
printf("add thread id and cell id %d: cell value %d->%d\n", id, h->arr[id]-ADD_VAL, h->arr[id]);
h->stateArr[id] = FREE;
Is execute with the mutex locked; thus Remove would never get a chance to see the state as anything but FREE.
2) There is no guarantee that mutex ownership alternates (afaik), but at the very least, to properly co-ordinate threads you should never rely upon such an implementation detail. It is the difference between working and “happens to work”, which usually leads to “used to work”....
If you put the sleep() between the mutex unlock and mutex lock, you might have a better case, but as it is, it just unlocks it then locks it again, so the system is well within its rights to just let it continue executing.
[ I ran out of space in comments ... ]:
Yes, the condition variables are doing nothing for you here. The idea of a condition variable is to be able to be notified when a significant event, such as a state change, has occurred on some shared objection.
For example, a reservoir might have a single condition variable for the water level. Multiplexed onto that might be many conditions: level < 1m; level > 5m; level > 10m. To keep the systems independent (thus working), the bit that updates the level might just:
pthread_mutex_lock(&levellock);
level = x;
pthread_cond_broadcast(&newlevel);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&levellock);
The actors implementing the conditions would do something like:
pthread_mutex_lock(&levellock);
while (1) {
if (level is my conditions) {
pthread_mutex_unlock(&levellock);
alert the media
pthread_mutex_lock(&levellock);
}
pthread_cond_wait(&newlevel, &levellock);
}
Thus I can add many “condition monitors” without breaking the level setting code, or the overall system. Many is finite, but by releasing the mutex while I alert the media, I avoid having my water monitoring system rely on the alarm handling.
If you are familiar with “publish/subscribe”, you might find this familiar. This is fundamentally the same model, just the PS hides a pile of details.
I'm just entered multithreaded programming and as part of an exercise trying to implement a simple thread pool using pthreads.
I have tried to use conditional variable to signal working threads that there are jobs waiting within the queue. But for a reason I can't figure out the mechanism is not working.
Bellow are the relevant code snippets:
typedef struct thread_pool_task
{
void (*computeFunc)(void *);
void *param;
} ThreadPoolTask;
typedef enum thread_pool_state
{
RUNNING = 0,
SOFT_SHUTDOWN = 1,
HARD_SHUTDOWN = 2
} ThreadPoolState;
typedef struct thread_pool
{
ThreadPoolState poolState;
unsigned int poolSize;
unsigned int queueSize;
OSQueue* poolQueue;
pthread_t* threads;
pthread_mutex_t q_mtx;
pthread_cond_t q_cnd;
} ThreadPool;
static void* threadPoolThread(void* threadPool){
ThreadPool* pool = (ThreadPool*)(threadPool);
for(;;)
{
/* Lock must be taken to wait on conditional variable */
pthread_mutex_lock(&(pool->q_mtx));
/* Wait on condition variable, check for spurious wakeups.
When returning from pthread_cond_wait(), we own the lock. */
while( (pool->queueSize == 0) && (pool->poolState == RUNNING) )
{
pthread_cond_wait(&(pool->q_cnd), &(pool->q_mtx));
}
printf("Queue size: %d\n", pool->queueSize);
/* --- */
if (pool->poolState != RUNNING){
break;
}
/* Grab our task */
ThreadPoolTask* task = osDequeue(pool->poolQueue);
pool->queueSize--;
/* Unlock */
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(pool->q_mtx));
/* Get to work */
(*(task->computeFunc))(task->param);
free(task);
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&(pool->q_mtx));
pthread_exit(NULL);
return(NULL);
}
ThreadPool* tpCreate(int numOfThreads)
{
ThreadPool* threadPool = malloc(sizeof(ThreadPool));
if(threadPool == NULL) return NULL;
/* Initialize */
threadPool->poolState = RUNNING;
threadPool->poolSize = numOfThreads;
threadPool->queueSize = 0;
/* Allocate OSQueue and threads */
threadPool->poolQueue = osCreateQueue();
if (threadPool->poolQueue == NULL)
{
}
threadPool->threads = malloc(sizeof(pthread_t) * numOfThreads);
if (threadPool->threads == NULL)
{
}
/* Initialize mutex and conditional variable */
pthread_mutex_init(&(threadPool->q_mtx), NULL);
pthread_cond_init(&(threadPool->q_cnd), NULL);
/* Start worker threads */
for(int i = 0; i < threadPool->poolSize; i++)
{
pthread_create(&(threadPool->threads[i]), NULL, threadPoolThread, threadPool);
}
return threadPool;
}
int tpInsertTask(ThreadPool* threadPool, void (*computeFunc) (void *), void* param)
{
if(threadPool == NULL || computeFunc == NULL) {
return -1;
}
/* Check state and create ThreadPoolTask */
if (threadPool->poolState != RUNNING) return -1;
ThreadPoolTask* newTask = malloc(sizeof(ThreadPoolTask));
if (newTask == NULL) return -1;
newTask->computeFunc = computeFunc;
newTask->param = param;
/* Add task to queue */
pthread_mutex_lock(&(threadPool->q_mtx));
osEnqueue(threadPool->poolQueue, newTask);
threadPool->queueSize++;
pthread_cond_signal(&(threadPool->q_cnd));
pthread_mutex_unlock(&threadPool->q_mtx);
return 0;
}
The problem is that when I create a pool with 1 thread and add a lot of jobs to it, it does not executes all the jobs.
[EDIT:]
I have tried running the following code to test basic functionality:
void hello (void* a)
{
int i = *((int*)a);
printf("hello: %d\n", i);
}
void test_thread_pool_sanity()
{
int i;
ThreadPool* tp = tpCreate(1);
for(i=0; i<10; ++i)
{
tpInsertTask(tp,hello,(void*)(&i));
}
}
I expected to have input in like the following:
hello: 0
hello: 1
hello: 2
hello: 3
hello: 4
hello: 5
hello: 6
hello: 7
hello: 8
hello: 9
Instead, sometime i get the following output:
Queue size: 9 //printf added for debugging within threadPoolThread
hello: 9
Queue size: 9 //printf added for debugging within threadPoolThread
hello: 0
And sometimes I don't get any output at all.
What is the thing I'm missing?
When you call tpInsertTask(tp,hello,(void*)(&i)); you are passing the address of i which is on the stack. There are multiple problems with this:
Every thread is getting the same address. I am guessing the hello function takes that address and prints out *param which all point to the same location on the stack.
Since i is on the stack once test_thread_pool_sanity returns the last value is lost and will be overwritten by other code so the value is undefined.
Depending on then the worker thread works through the tasks versus when your main test thread schedules the tasks you will get different results.
You need the parameter passed to be saved as part of the task in order to guarantee it is unique per task.
EDIT: You should also check the return code of pthread_create to see if it is failing.