i have a variable accessed via mutex lock in multiple threads.
when i run coverity static analysis on it, it gives the following error:-
MISSING_LOCK (Accessing variable"g_atag"(g_atag) requires the osag_mutex.mutex lock.) [coverity]
Code snippet:
unsigned long g_atag = 0;
pthread_mutex_t g_atag_lock = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
void get_atag(unsigned long *atag)
{
int ret = -1;
ret = pthread_mutex_lock(&g_atag_lock);
if (0 != ret) {
return;
}
if (g_atag < 10000) {
g_atag++;
} else {
g_atag = 0;
}
*atag = g_atag;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&g_atag_lock);
}
Does any one sees any problem in this? i have added the locks then why is it saying the locks are missing?
Related
I am looking at using the Windows Threading API and the issue it seems to have is you cannot keep track of when all the threads are completed. You can keep track of when the work item has been completed, assuming you kept track of each one. From my research there is no direct way to query the thread pool to see if the work items submitted has all be completed.
#include <windows.h>
#include <tchar.h>
#include <stdio.h>
VOID CALLBACK MyWorkCallback(PTP_CALLBACK_INSTANCE Instance, PVOID Parameter, PTP_WORK Work) {
DWORD threadId = GetCurrentThreadId();
BOOL bRet = FALSE;
printf("%d thread\n", threadId);
return;
}
int main() {
TP_CALLBACK_ENVIRON CallBackEnviron;
PTP_POOL pool = NULL;
PTP_CLEANUP_GROUP cleanupgroup = NULL;
PTP_WORK_CALLBACK workcallback = MyWorkCallback;
PTP_TIMER timer = NULL;
PTP_WORK work = NULL;
InitializeThreadpoolEnvironment(&CallBackEnviron);
pool = CreateThreadpool(NULL);
SetThreadpoolThreadMaximum(pool, 1);
SetThreadpoolThreadMinimum(pool, 3);
SetThreadpoolCallbackPool(&CallBackEnviron, pool);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) {
work = CreateThreadpoolWork(workcallback, NULL, &CallBackEnviron);
SubmitThreadpoolWork(work);
WaitForThreadpoolWorkCallbacks(work, FALSE); // This waits for the work item to get completed.
}
return 1;
}
Here is a simple example. What happens is on the WaitForThreadpoolWorkCallbacks I am able to wait on that specific work item. Which is no problem if I am doing a few things. However, if I am traversing a directory and have thousands of files that I need to have work done on them, I don't want to keep track of each individual work item. Is it possible to query the Thread Pool queue to see if anything is left for processing? Or to find out if any of the threads are still working?
you need keep track of active tasks ( like pendcnt in comment) +1. but this must not be global variable, but member in some struct. and pass pointer to this struct to work item. increment this counter before call SubmitThreadpoolWork and decrement from callback, before exit. but you also need and event - set this event in signal state, when counter became 0. and wait on event from main thread. if your code inside dll, which can be unloaded - you need also reference dll, before SubmitThreadpoolWork and FreeLibraryWhenCallbackReturns from callback. also important that counter value - was 1 (not 0) ininitally - so this is count_of_active_cb + 1, and decrement it before begin wait (if not do this - counter can became 0 early - for instance first callback exit before you activate second)
class Task
{
HANDLE _hEvent = 0;
ULONG _dwThreadId = 0;
LONG _dwRefCount = 1;
public:
~Task()
{
if (_hEvent) CloseHandle(_hEvent);
}
ULONG Init()
{
if (HANDLE hEvent = CreateEvent(0, 0, 0, 0))
{
_hEvent = hEvent;
return NOERROR;
}
return GetLastError();
}
void AddTask()
{
InterlockedIncrementNoFence(&_dwRefCount);
}
void EndTask()
{
if (!InterlockedDecrement(&_dwRefCount))
{
if (_dwThreadId != GetCurrentThreadId())
{
if (!SetEvent(_hEvent)) __debugbreak();
}
}
}
void Wait()
{
_dwThreadId = GetCurrentThreadId();
EndTask();
if (_dwRefCount && WaitForSingleObject(_hEvent, INFINITE) != WAIT_OBJECT_0) __debugbreak();
}
};
VOID CALLBACK MyWorkCallback(PTP_CALLBACK_INSTANCE Instance, PVOID Parameter, PTP_WORK /*Work*/)
{
// need only if your code in dll which can be unloaded
FreeLibraryWhenCallbackReturns(Instance, (HMODULE)&__ImageBase);
WCHAR sz[32];
swprintf_s(sz, _countof(sz), L"[%x] thread", GetCurrentThreadId());
MessageBoxW(0, 0, sz, MB_ICONINFORMATION);
reinterpret_cast<Task*>(Parameter)->EndTask();
}
void CbDemo()
{
Task task;
if (task.Init() == NOERROR)
{
ULONG n = 2;
do
{
if (PTP_WORK pwk = CreateThreadpoolWork(MyWorkCallback, &task, 0))
{
HMODULE hmod;
// need only if your code in dll which can be unloaded
if (GetModuleHandleExW(GET_MODULE_HANDLE_EX_FLAG_FROM_ADDRESS, (PWSTR)&__ImageBase, &hmod))
{
task.AddTask();
SubmitThreadpoolWork(pwk);
}
CloseThreadpoolWork(pwk);
}
} while (--n);
MessageBoxW(0, 0, L"Main Thread", MB_ICONWARNING);
task.Wait();
__nop();
}
}
Some doubts when reading the operating system material of implementing locks
struct lock {
int locked;
struct queue q;
int sync; /* Normally 0. */
};
void lock_acquire(struct lock *l) {
intr_disable();
while (swap(&l->sync, 1) != 0) {
/* Do nothing */
}
if (!l->locked) {
l->locked = 1;
l->sync = 0;
} else {
queue_add(&l->q, thread_current());
thread_block(&l->sync);
}
intr_enable();
}
void lock_release(struct lock *l) {
intr_disable();
while (swap(&l->sync, 1) != 0) {
/* Do nothing */
}
if (queue_empty(&l->q) {
l->locked = 0;
} else {
thread_unblock(queue_remove(&l->q));
}
l->sync = 0;
intr_enable();
}
What is the purpose of sync?
My gut feeling is that the solutions are all broken. For a lock working correctly the lock_acquire needs to have acquire semantics and the lock_release needs to have release semantics. This way the loads/stores inside the critical section can't move outside of the critical section + you have a happens before edge between a lock release and a subsequent lock acquire on the same lock.
If you take a look at the spinning version:
struct lock {
int locked;
};
void lock_acquire(struct lock *l) {
while (swap(&l->locked, 1)) {
/* Do nothing */
}
}
void lock_release(struct lock *l) {
l->locked = 0;
}
The assignment of locked=0 is just an ordinary store. This means that it can be reordered with other loads and stores before it + it doesn't provide a happens before edge.
It seems to me that 'sync' is a way for the thread to let the OS know that the lock is in use since bot "lock" and "unlock" waits for 'sync" value to be changed before proceeding.
(It's a bit peculiar that interrupts are disabled before checking the 'sync' value)
I'm coding in C on Ubuntu.
I need to write a thread called for example "timeredThread" that do some operations in a critical section after N microseconds like the following:
void * timeredThread(void)
{
sleep(TIMEOUT);
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
//operations
pthead_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
Also, I need another thread, called for example "timerManager", that can reset the previous timer. My first idea was to create a "timerManager" that kills "timeredThread" and create another one, but this does not work because if I kill "timeredThread" with pthread_cancel() when it's waiting for the mutex I create a deadlock. Deadlock is created because the mutex is in the lock state.
What can I do about it?
Thanks to all in advance.
pthread_mutex_t watchdog_mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
pthread_cond_t watchdog_cond = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
int reset_watchdog = 0;
void reset_watchdog(void) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&watchdog_mutex);
reset_watchdog = 1;
pthread_cond_signal(&watchdog_cond);
pthead_mutex_unlock(&watchdog_mutex);
}
void watchdog(void) {
struct timespec sleep_until = { 0 };
sleep_until.tv_sec = time(NULL) + TIMEOUT;
pthread_mutex_lock(&watchdog_mutex);
// Loop until a time out.
while (!pthread_cond_timedwait(&watchdog_cond, &watchdog_mutex, &sleep_until)) {
if (reset_watchdog) {
sleep_until.tv_sec = time() + TIMEOUT;
reset_watchdog = 0;
}
}
pthead_mutex_unlock(&watchdog_mutex);
// ...
}
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.
I am trying to create user level thread. Here is a sample of my code. Can any body help me what is the problem in this program.
#include<stdio.h>
#include<ucontext.h>
int thread_counter = 0;
int thread1, thread2;
int who_am_i;
struct TCB {
ucontext_t context;
void (* fun_ptr)();
};
struct TCB tcb[3];
char stack[2][8192];
//----------------------
int thread_create(void (*fun)()) {
static volatile int s;
thread_counter++;
s = 0;
getcontext(&tcb[thread_counter].context);
if(!s) {
tcb[thread_counter].context.uc_stack.ss_sp = stack[thread_counter];
tcb[thread_counter].context.uc_stack.ss_size = sizeof(stack[thread_counter]);
tcb[thread_counter].context.uc_link = &tcb[0].context;
tcb[thread_counter].fun_ptr = fun;
s = 1;
}
else {
tcb[who_am_i].fun_ptr();
}
return thread_counter;
}
void thread_yield(int next_thread) {
static volatile int switched;
switched = 0;
getcontext(&tcb[who_am_i].context);
if(!switched) {
switched = 1;
who_am_i = next_thread;
setcontext(&tcb[next_thread].context);
}
}
//----------------------
void f1() {
printf("start f1\n");
thread_yield(thread2);
printf("finish f1:\n");
}
void f2() {
printf("start f2\n");
thread_yield(thread1);
printf("finish f2\n");
}
//----------------------
int main() {
thread1 = thread_create(f1);
thread2 = thread_create(f2);
who_am_i = 0;
thread_yield(thread1);
return 0;
}
Thread is not switching properly. When I run it, it gives following output:
start f1
start f2
finish f2
Thank you
You have an undefined behavior situation.
In thread_create you increase thread_counter the first thing you do. So when you create the second thread thread_counter will be 2. Then you access stack[2] which will give you undefined behavior.
You also hardcode the uc_link member of the context to &tcb[0].context, which is never initialized due to your "premature" increment of thread_counter.
But the main problem is that you don't actually create a new context, you just get the context for the current thread. You should use makecontext for each thread instead.