Code works for some time then just stops - c

I have made an application that monitors an interface and returns a packets per second reading, how ever when executed it runs fine for about 30 seconds till I open a YouTube page to get the counter running a little high. A couple of seconds later the application freezes and does nothing. This happens in irregular intervals so Im guessing its something with the counting, theres the code, its written in C.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pcap.h>
#include <sys/socket.h>
#include <netinet/in.h>
#include <arpa/inet.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <pthread.h>
void callThreads(u_char *useless, const struct pcap_pkthdr* pkthdr, const u_char* packet);
void *packetcalc(void *threadid);
static struct timespec time1, time2;
static int t = 0, i = 0;
static long rc;
static pthread_t threads[1];
int main(int argc, char *argv[]){
pcap_t* descr;
char errbuf[PCAP_ERRBUF_SIZE];
descr = pcap_open_live("eth0", BUFSIZ, 1, -1, errbuf);
if(descr == NULL){
printf("Error: pcap_open_live()\n");
return 1;
}
clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, &time1);
pcap_loop(descr, 0, callThreads, NULL);
return 0;
}
void callThreads(u_char *useless, const struct pcap_pkthdr* pkthdr, const u_char* packet){
if(i >= 2147483647){
//In case i gets full from counting too many packets
i = 0;
time1.tv_sec = 0;
}
++i;
rc = pthread_create(&threads[t], NULL, packetcalc, (void *) t);
}
void *packetcalc(void *threadid){
static int j;
static int temp = 0;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_PROCESS_CPUTIME_ID, &time1);
if(temp != time1.tv_sec){
j = (i / time1.tv_sec);
printf("Packets: %d/sec\t(%d)\t(%d)\n", j, i, (int)time1.tv_sec);
temp = time1.tv_sec;
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
Edit: Could it also be that I'm running this code in a VM that only has 1 CPU allocated to it due to the multithreading?

You are creating a thread per packet, which is a horrible idea. It should be enough to just print whatever counter you need right out of the callback function you give to pcap_loop(3).

There are several problems with your code. First, you create the threads using the default thread attributes, which means that they are created as joinable threads, i.e. you must call pthread_join() later or the thread control structures would remain lingering around. Hence there is a memory leak in your code. May be you should check the return value from pthread_create in order to detect when an error occurs, e.g. the system was not able to create new threads and your packet counting routine has stopped being invoked. You can also create new threads in detached state using the following code:
pthread_attr_t attr;
pthread_attribute_init(&attr);
pthread_attribute_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED);
pthread_create(&threadid, &attr, packetcalc, (void *) t);
pthread_attribute_destroy(&attr);
Detached threads do not need to be joined later. They release all resources upon thread exit.
Second, you threads use some global variables as if they are private when in reality they are shared. This includes the global time1, as well as the local j and temp, which are declared static and hence are shared among the threads.
Note that creating threads is an expensive operation. While your code waits for pthread_create to finish, new packets may arrive and fill up the circular buffer, used by libpcap, hence you might lose some packets. As a matter of fact, using one thread per packet is a very bad idea. Instead use only two threads - one that runs the pcap loop and one that periodically counts the number of packets and calculates and prints the packet rate.

Related

Binary semaphore to maintain concurrency

I was trying to implement a multi-threaded program using binary semaphore. Here is the code:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
int g = 0;
sem_t *semaphore;
void *myThreadFun(void *vargp)
{
int myid = (int)vargp;
static int s = 0;
sem_wait(semaphore);
++s; ++g;
printf("Thread ID: %d, Static: %d, Global: %d\n", myid, s, g);
fflush(stdout);
sem_post(semaphore);
pthread_exit(0);
}
int main()
{
int i;
pthread_t tid;
if ((semaphore = sem_open("/semaphore", O_CREAT, 0644, 3))==SEM_FAILED) {
printf("semaphore initialization failed\n");
}
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
pthread_create(&tid, NULL, myThreadFun, (void *)i);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
return 0;
}
Now, when I opened the sempahore, I made the count 3. I was expecting that this wouldnt work, and I would get race condition, because each thread is now capable of decrementing the count.
Is there something wrong with the implementation? Also, if I make the count 0 during sem_open, wouldnt that initiate a deadlock condition, because all the threads should be blocked on sem_wait.
Now, when I opened the sempahore, I made the count 3. I was expecting that this wouldnt work, and I would get race condition, because each thread is now capable of decrementing the count.
And how do you judge that there isn't any race? Observing output consistent with what you could rely upon in the absence of a data race in no way proves that there isn't a data race. It merely fails provide any evidence of one.
However, you seem to be suggesting that there would be a data race inherent in more than one thread concurrently performing a sem_wait() on a semaphore whose value is initially greater than 1 (otherwise which counter are you talking about?). But that's utter nonsense. You're talking about a semaphore. It's a synchronization object. Such objects and the functions that manipulate them are the basis for thread synchronization. They themselves are either completely thread safe or terminally buggy.
Now, you are correct that you open the semaphore with an initial count sufficient to avoid any of your threads blocking in sem_wait(), and that therefore they can all run concurrently in the whole body of myThreadFun(). You have not established, however, that they in fact do run concurrently. There are several reasons why they might not do. If they do run concurrently, then the incrementing of shared variables s and g is indeed of concern, but again, even if you see no signs of a data race, that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Everything else aside, the fact that your threads all call sem_wait(), sem_post(), and printf() induces some synchronization in the form of memory barriers, which would reduce the likelihood of observing anomalous effects on s and g. sem_wait() and sem_post() must contain memory barriers in order to function correctly, regardless of the semaphore's current count. printf() calls are required to use locking to protect the state of the stream from corruption in multi-threaded programs, and it is reasonable to suppose that this will require a memory barrier.
Is there something wrong with the implementation?
Yes. It is not properly synchronized. Initialize the semaphore with count 1 so that the modifications of s and g occur only while exactly one thread has the semaphore locked.
Also, if I make the count 0 during sem_open, wouldnt that initiate a deadlock condition, because all the threads should be blocked on sem_wait.
If the semaphore has count 0 before any of the additional threads are started, then yes. It is therefore inappropriate to open the semaphore with count 0, unless you also subsequently post to it before starting the threads. But you are using a named semaphore. These persist until removed, and you never remove it. The count you specify to sem_open() has no effect unless a new semaphore needs to be created; when an existing semaphore is opened, its count is unchanged.
Also, do have the main thread join all the others before it terminates. It's not inherently wrong not to do so, but in most cases it's required for the semantics you want.
I'll get to the code in a bit that proves you had a race condition. I'll add a couple of different ways to trigger it so you can see how this works. I'm doing this on Linux and passing -std=gnu99 as a param to gcc ie
gcc -Wall -pedantic -lpthread -std=gnu99 semaphore.c -o semtex
Note. In your original example (assuming Linux) one fatal mistake you had was not removing the semaphore. If you run the following command you might see some of these sitting around on your machine
ls -la /dev/shm/sem.*
You need to make sure that there are no old semaphore sitting on the filesystem before running your program or you end up picking up the last settings from the old semaphore. You need to use sem_unlink to clean up.
To run it please use the following.
rm /dev/shm/sem.semtex;./semtex
I'm deliberately making sure that the semaphore is not there before running because if you have a DEADLOCK it can be left around and that causes all sorts of problems when testing.
Now, when I opened the sempahore, I made the count 3. I was expecting
that this wouldn't work, and I would get race condition, because each
thread is now capable of decrementing the count.
You had a race condition but sometimes C is so damned fast things can appear to work because your program can get everything it needs done in the time the OS has allocated to the thread ie the OS didn't preempt it at an important point.
This is one of those cases, the race condition is there you just need to squint a little bit to see it. In the following code you can tweak some parameters to see the a deadlock, correct usage and Undefined Behavior.
#define INITIAL_SEMAPHORE_VALUE CORRECT
The value INITIAL_SEMAPHORE_VALUE can take three values...
#define DEADLOCK 0
#define CORRECT 1
#define INCORRECT 2
I hope they're self explanatory. You can also use two methods to cause the race condition to blow up the program.
#define METHOD sleep
Set the METHOD to spin and you can play with the SPIN_COUNT and find out how many times the loop can run before you actually see a problem, this is C, it can get a lot done before it gets preempted. The code has most of the rest of the information you need in it.
#include <assert.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#define DEADLOCK 0 // DEADLOCK
#define CORRECT 1 // CORRECT
#define INCORRECT 2 // INCORRECT
/*
* Change the following values to observe what happen.
*/
#define INITIAL_SEMAPHORE_VALUE CORRECT
//The next value provides to two different ways to trigger the problem, one
//using a tight loop and the other using a system call.
#define METHOD sleep
#if (METHOD == spin)
/* You need to increase the SPIN_COUNT to a value that's big enough that the
* kernel preempts the thread to see it fail. The value set here worked for me
* in a VM but might not work for you, tweak it. */
#define SPIN_COUNT 1000000
#else
/* The reason we can use such a small time for USLEEP is because we're making
* the kernel preempt the thread by using a system call.*/
#define USLEEP_TIME 1
#endif
#define TOT_THREADS 10
static int g = 0;
static int ret = 1729;
sem_t *semaphore;
void *myThreadFun(void *vargp) {
int myid = (int)vargp;
int w = 0;
static int s = 0;
if((w = sem_wait(semaphore)) != 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error: %s\n", strerror(errno));
abort();
};
/* This is the interesting part... Between updating `s` and `g` we add
* a delay using one of two methods. */
s++;
#if ( METHOD == spin )
int spin = 0;
while(spin < SPIN_COUNT) {
spin++;
}
#else
usleep(USLEEP_TIME);
#endif
g++;
if(s != g) {
fprintf(stderr, "Fatal Error: s != g in thread: %d, s: %d, g: %d\n", myid, s, g);
abort();
}
printf("Thread ID: %d, Static: %d, Global: %d\n", myid, s, g);
// It's a false sense of security if you think the assert will fail on a race
// condition when you get the params to sem_open wrong It might not be
// detected.
assert(s == g);
if((w = sem_post(semaphore)) != 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error: %s\n", strerror(errno));
abort();
};
return &ret;
}
int main(void){
int i;
void *status;
const char *semaphore_name = "semtex";
pthread_t tids[TOT_THREADS];
if((semaphore = sem_open(semaphore_name, O_CREAT, 0644, INITIAL_SEMAPHORE_VALUE)) == SEM_FAILED) {
fprintf(stderr, "Fatal Error: %s\n", strerror(errno));
abort();
}
for (i = 0; i < TOT_THREADS; i++) {
pthread_create(&tids[i], NULL, myThreadFun, (void *) (intptr_t) i);
}
for (i = 0; i < TOT_THREADS; i++) {
pthread_join(tids[i], &status);
assert(*(int*)status == 1729);
}
/*The following line was missing from your original code*/
sem_unlink(semaphore_name);
pthread_exit(0);
}

How to use libevent and pthread together in C

The main function is based on libevent, but there is a long run task in the function. So start N treads to run the tasks. Is is this idea OK? And how to use libevent and pthread together in C?
Bumping an old question, may have already been solved. But posting the answer just in case someone else needs it.
Yes, it is okay to do threading in this case. I recently used libevent in pthreads, and it seems to be working just fine. Here's the code :
#include <stdint.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <event.h>
void * thread_func (void *);
int main(void)
{
int32_t tid = 0, ret = -1;
struct event_base *evbase;
struct event *timer;
int32_t *t_ret = &ret;
struct timeval tv;
// 1. initialize libevent for pthreads
evthread_use_pthreads();
ret = pthread_create(&tid, NULL, thread_func, NULL);
// check ret for error
// 2. allocate event base
evbase = event_base_new();
// 3. allocate event object
timer = event_new(evbase, -1, EV_PERSIST, callback_func, NULL);
// 4. add event
tv.tv_sec = 0;
tv.tv_usec = 1000;
evtimer_add(timer, &tv);
// 5. start the event loop
event_base_dispatch(evbase); // event loop
// join pthread...
// 6. free resources
event_free(timer);
event_base_free(evbase);
return 0;
}
void * thread_func(void *arg)
{
struct event *ev;
struct event_base *base;
base = event_base_new();
ev = event_new(base, -1, EV_PERSIST, thread_callback, NULL);
event_add(ev, NULL); // wait forever
event_base_dispatch(base); // start event loop
event_free(ev);
event_base_free(base);
pthread_exit(0);
}
As you can see, in my case, the event for the main thread is timer. The base logic followed is as below :
call evthread_use_pthreads() to initialize libevent for pthreads on Linux (my case). For windows evthread_use_window_threads(). Check out the documentation given in event.h itself.
Allocate an event_base structure on global heap as instructed in documentation. Make sure to check return value for errors.
Same as above, but allocate event structure itself. In my case, I am not waiting on any file descriptor, so -1 is passed as argument. Also, I want my event to persist, hence EV_PERSIST . The code for callback functions is omitted.
Schedule the event for execution
Start the event loop
free the resources when done.
Libevent version used in my case is libevent2 5.1.9 , and you will also need libevent_pthreads.so library for linking.
cheers.
That would work.
In the I/O callback function delegates time consuming job to another thread of a thread pool. The exact mechanics depend on the interface of the worker thread or the thread pool.
To communicate the result back from the worker thread to the I/O thread use a pipe. The worker thread writes the pointer to the result object to the pipe and the I/O thread
wakes up and read the pointer from the pipe.
There is a multithreaded libevent example in this blog post:
http://www.roncemer.com/multi-threaded-libevent-server-example
His solution is, to quote:
The solution is to create one libevent event queue (AKA event_base) per active connection, each with its own event pump thread. This project does exactly that, giving you everything you need to write high-performance, multi-threaded, libevent-based socket servers.
NOTE This is for libev not libevent but the idea may apply.
Here I present an example for the community. Please comment and let me know if there are any noticable bugs. This example could include a signal handler for thread termination and graceful exit in the future.
//This program is demo for using pthreads with libev.
//Try using Timeout values as large as 1.0 and as small as 0.000001
//and notice the difference in the output
//(c) 2009 debuguo
//(c) 2013 enthusiasticgeek for stack overflow
//Free to distribute and improve the code. Leave credits intact
//compile using: gcc -g test.c -o test -lpthread -lev
#include <ev.h>
#include <stdio.h> // for puts
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
pthread_mutex_t lock;
double timeout = 0.00001;
ev_timer timeout_watcher;
int timeout_count = 0;
ev_async async_watcher;
int async_count = 0;
struct ev_loop* loop2;
void* loop2thread(void* args)
{
// now wait for events to arrive on the inner loop
ev_loop(loop2, 0);
return NULL;
}
static void async_cb (EV_P_ ev_async *w, int revents)
{
//puts ("async ready");
pthread_mutex_lock(&lock); //Don't forget locking
++async_count;
printf("async = %d, timeout = %d \n", async_count, timeout_count);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&lock); //Don't forget unlocking
}
static void timeout_cb (EV_P_ ev_timer *w, int revents) // Timer callback function
{
//puts ("timeout");
if(ev_async_pending(&async_watcher)==false){ //the event has not yet been processed (or even noted) by the event loop? (i.e. Is it serviced? If yes then proceed to)
ev_async_send(loop2, &async_watcher); //Sends/signals/activates the given ev_async watcher, that is, feeds an EV_ASYNC event on the watcher into the event loop.
}
pthread_mutex_lock(&lock); //Don't forget locking
++timeout_count;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&lock); //Don't forget unlocking
w->repeat = timeout;
ev_timer_again(loop, &timeout_watcher); //Start the timer again.
}
int main (int argc, char** argv)
{
if (argc < 2) {
puts("Timeout value missing.\n./demo <timeout>");
return -1;
}
timeout = atof(argv[1]);
struct ev_loop *loop = EV_DEFAULT; //or ev_default_loop (0);
//Initialize pthread
pthread_mutex_init(&lock, NULL);
pthread_t thread;
// This loop sits in the pthread
loop2 = ev_loop_new(0);
//This block is specifically used pre-empting thread (i.e. temporary interruption and suspension of a task, without asking for its cooperation, with the intention to resume that task later.)
//This takes into account thread safety
ev_async_init(&async_watcher, async_cb);
ev_async_start(loop2, &async_watcher);
pthread_create(&thread, NULL, loop2thread, NULL);
ev_timer_init (&timeout_watcher, timeout_cb, timeout, 0.); // Non repeating timer. The timer starts repeating in the timeout callback function
ev_timer_start (loop, &timeout_watcher);
// now wait for events to arrive on the main loop
ev_loop(loop, 0);
//Wait on threads for execution
pthread_join(thread, NULL);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&lock);
return 0;
}

How can I wait for any/all pthreads to complete?

I just want my main thread to wait for any and all my (p)threads to complete before exiting.
The threads come and go a lot for different reasons, and I really don't want to keep track of all of them - I just want to know when they're all gone.
wait() does this for child processes, returning ECHILD when there are no children left, however wait does not (appear to work with) (p)threads.
I really don't want to go through the trouble of keeping a list of every single outstanding thread (as they come and go), then having to call pthread_join on each.
As there a quick-and-dirty way to do this?
Do you want your main thread to do anything in particular after all the threads have completed?
If not, you can have your main thread simply call pthread_exit() instead of returning (or calling exit()).
If main() returns it implicitly calls (or behaves as if it called) exit(), which will terminate the process. However, if main() calls pthread_exit() instead of returning, that implicit call to exit() doesn't occur and the process won't immediately end - it'll end when all threads have terminated.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/pthread_exit.html
Can't get too much quick-n-dirtier.
Here's a small example program that will let you see the difference. Pass -DUSE_PTHREAD_EXIT to the compiler to see the process wait for all threads to finish. Compile without that macro defined to see the process stop threads in their tracks.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <time.h>
static
void sleep(int ms)
{
struct timespec waittime;
waittime.tv_sec = (ms / 1000);
ms = ms % 1000;
waittime.tv_nsec = ms * 1000 * 1000;
nanosleep( &waittime, NULL);
}
void* threadfunc( void* c)
{
int id = (int) c;
int i = 0;
for (i = 0 ; i < 12; ++i) {
printf( "thread %d, iteration %d\n", id, i);
sleep(10);
}
return 0;
}
int main()
{
int i = 4;
for (; i; --i) {
pthread_t* tcb = malloc( sizeof(*tcb));
pthread_create( tcb, NULL, threadfunc, (void*) i);
}
sleep(40);
#ifdef USE_PTHREAD_EXIT
pthread_exit(0);
#endif
return 0;
}
The proper way is to keep track of all of your pthread_id's, but you asked for a quick and dirty way so here it is. Basically:
just keep a total count of running threads,
increment it in the main loop before calling pthread_create,
decrement the thread count as each thread finishes.
Then sleep at the end of the main process until the count returns to 0.
.
volatile int running_threads = 0;
pthread_mutex_t running_mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
void * threadStart()
{
// do the thread work
pthread_mutex_lock(&running_mutex);
running_threads--;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&running_mutex);
}
int main()
{
for (i = 0; i < num_threads;i++)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&running_mutex);
running_threads++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&running_mutex);
// launch thread
}
while (running_threads > 0)
{
sleep(1);
}
}
If you don't want to keep track of your threads then you can detach the threads so you don't have to care about them, but in order to tell when they are finished you will have to go a bit further.
One trick would be to keep a list (linked list, array, whatever) of the threads' statuses. When a thread starts it sets its status in the array to something like THREAD_STATUS_RUNNING and just before it ends it updates its status to something like THREAD_STATUS_STOPPED. Then when you want to check if all threads have stopped you can just iterate over this array and check all the statuses.
Don't forget though that if you do something like this, you will need to control access to the array so that only one thread can access (read and write) it at a time, so you'll need to use a mutex on it.
you could keep a list all your thread ids and then do pthread_join on each one,
of course you will need a mutex to control access to the thread id list. you will
also need some kind of list that can be modified while being iterated on, maybe a std::set<pthread_t>?
int main() {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
void *data;
for(threadId in threadIdList) {
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
pthread_join(threadId, &data);
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
}
printf("All threads completed.\n");
}
// called by any thread to create another
void CreateThread()
{
pthread_t id;
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
pthread_create(&id, NULL, ThreadInit, &id); // pass the id so the thread can use it with to remove itself
threadIdList.add(id);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
// called by each thread before it dies
void RemoveThread(pthread_t& id)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
threadIdList.remove(id);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
Thanks all for the great answers! There has been a lot of talk about using memory barriers etc - so I figured I'd post an answer that properly showed them used for this.
#define NUM_THREADS 5
unsigned int thread_count;
void *threadfunc(void *arg) {
printf("Thread %p running\n",arg);
sleep(3);
printf("Thread %p exiting\n",arg);
__sync_fetch_and_sub(&thread_count,1);
return 0L;
}
int main() {
int i;
pthread_t thread[NUM_THREADS];
thread_count=NUM_THREADS;
for (i=0;i<NUM_THREADS;i++) {
pthread_create(&thread[i],0L,threadfunc,&thread[i]);
}
do {
__sync_synchronize();
} while (thread_count);
printf("All threads done\n");
}
Note that the __sync macros are "non-standard" GCC internal macros. LLVM supports these too - but if your using another compiler, you may have to do something different.
Another big thing to note is: Why would you burn an entire core, or waste "half" of a CPU spinning in a tight poll-loop just waiting for others to finish - when you could easily put it to work? The following mod uses the initial thread to run one of the workers, then wait for the others to complete:
thread_count=NUM_THREADS;
for (i=1;i<NUM_THREADS;i++) {
pthread_create(&thread[i],0L,threadfunc,&thread[i]);
}
threadfunc(&thread[0]);
do {
__sync_synchronize();
} while (thread_count);
printf("All threads done\n");
}
Note that we start creating the threads starting at "1" instead of "0", then directly run "thread 0" inline, waiting for all threads to complete after it's done. We pass &thread[0] to it for consistency (even though it's meaningless here), though in reality you'd probably pass your own variables/context.

C timers and threads again

Can someone help me to complete my code with a function that can check the result of a timer "check_timer" and another one that reset this timer if it had expired "reset_timer"?
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#define GLOBAL_TIMER 8 * 60 * 60
typedef struct protocol_type {
int protocol_number;
char *protocol_name;
pthread_t thread_timer_id;
} protocol_type_t;
pthread_mutex_t mut = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
pthread_cond_t cond = PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER;
/* call back function - inform the user the time has expired */
void timeout_call_back(pthread_t thread_id)
{
printf("Welcome thread %ld, your time is up ===\n", pthread_self());
// doing some other stuff
}
/* Go to sleep for a period of seconds */
static void* start_timer(void *args)
{
/* function pointer */
void (*finish_function)(pthread_t);
int seconds = *((int*) args);
finish_function = timeout_call_back;
struct timeval now;
struct timespec timeout;
pthread_mutex_lock(&mut);
printf("thread ID : %ld, are waiting for %d seconds to to expire\n", pthread_self(), seconds);
gettimeofday(&now, NULL);
timeout.tv_sec = now.tv_sec + seconds;
timeout.tv_nsec = now.tv_usec * 1000;
pthread_cond_timedwait(&cond, &mut, &timeout);
(*finish_function)(pthread_self());
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mut);
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
// This function is in MT environnement and is running inside a daemon
int received_buffer_parser(char *received_buffer) {
pthread_mutex_t mut_main = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
protocol_type_t *my_protocol;
// Identify protocol type
my_protocol = protocol_identifier(received_buffer);
// Check if i received it in the last 8 hours in safe
pthread_mutex_lock(&mut_main);
if (check_timer(my_protocol->thread_id) has expired) { // I want to write this function
// I want to reset thread timer
launch_new_timer(my_protocol->thread_id)
}
else {
// doing some stuff
// dump data to the disk
}
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mut_main);
return 0;
}
int launch_new_timer(pthread_t thread_id)
{
int rc;
int seconds = GLOBAL_TIMER;
rc = pthread_create(&thread_id, NULL, start_timer, (void *) &seconds);
if(rc)
printf("Failed to create thread1\n");
pthread_join(thread_id, NULL);
return 0;
}
Clarification
I clarify here the real context of my code:
I receive from the network some types of different protocols packets(ICMP, SSH, RIP, OSPF, BGP...), and i want to:
identify every type of packets, let say with : identify_protocol(char *received_buffer), I got this function, it's ok.
Check if i receive this type of protocols in the last 8 hours (THE TIMER OF EACH PROTOCOL TYPE EXPIRE AFTER 8 HOURS), two choices:
a. if so, I dump the result data into a specific file on the disk.
b. no, I didn't receive this type in the last 8 HOURS i create a new thread (in my code i simplify, with thread1, thread2 and thread3, this threads are 3 threads used to be a timers for three protocols types) - i start a new timer with : start_timer(void *args) function do this job.
My main question is how to be able to check the result of my timers in a safe manner and then decide i reset the timer or not.
I design the finish_function at the beginning to help me to check when the timer has expired.
Feel free to give me a better design for best performances for my program.
My system is Linux.
To check for timers that merely expire, you don't need to use threads and synchronization at all. Simply keep global variables indicating the start time of the timer. So
when the timer starts, set a global variable (one per protocol) to gettimeofday()
when you want to check whether the timer has expired for a protocol, see whether gettimeofday()-starttime(protocol) is <8h
If you want to be notified on timer expiry, I recommend to use alarm(2). It only has second resolution, but that should be good enough for 8h timeouts. Whenever a timer is set, cancelled, or reset, compute the minimum timeout of any of the timers, then call alarm with that timeout. In the signal handler, perform the processing that you want to do on reception of timeout. Alternatively, do nothing in the signal handler, and just trust that any pending system call will be interrupted, and check all timers for expiry on EINTR.
Edit: alarm works like this
#include <unistd.h>
#include <signal.h>
void timeout(int ignored)
{
printf("timed out\n");
}
void main()
{
signal(SIGALRM, timeout);
alarm(10);
pause();
}

pthread_exit and/or pthread_join causing Abort and SegFaults

The following code is a simple thread game, that switches between threads causing the timer to decrease.
It works fine for 3 threads, causes and Abort(core dumped) for 4 threads, and causes a seg fault for 5 or more threads.
Anyone have any idea why this might be happening?
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <errno.h>
#include <assert.h>
int volatile num_of_threads;
int volatile time_per_round;
int volatile time_left;
int volatile turn_id;
int volatile thread_running;
int volatile can_check;
void * player (void * id_in){
int id= (int)id_in;
while(1){
if(can_check){
if (time_left<=0){
break;
}
can_check=0;
if(thread_running){
if(turn_id==id-1){
turn_id=random()%num_of_threads;
time_left--;
}
}
can_check=1;
}
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
int main(int argc, char *args[]){
int i;
int buffer;
pthread_t * threads =(pthread_t *)malloc(num_of_threads*sizeof(pthread_t));
thread_running=0;
num_of_threads=atoi(args[1]);
can_check=0;
time_per_round = atoi(args[2]);
time_left=time_per_round;
srandom(time(NULL));
//Create Threads
for (i=0;i<num_of_threads;i++){
do{
buffer=pthread_create(&threads[i],NULL,player,(void *)(i+1));
}while(buffer == EAGAIN);
}
can_check=1;
time_left=time_per_round;
turn_id=random()%num_of_threads;
thread_running=1;
for (i=0;i<num_of_threads;i++){
assert(!pthread_join(threads[i], NULL));
}
return 0;
}
See below on why you should not depend on volatile in pthreads. However, your specific problem is probably because you malloc your pthread array, based on the num_of_threads variable before you've actually set num_of_thread from argv[]:
pthread_t *threads = (pthread_t *)malloc (num_of_threads * sizeof (pthread_t));
thread_running = 0;
num_of_threads = atoi (args[1]);
So there's a very good chance you're writing beyond the end of the threads array. The num_of_threads variable will probably be zero on start-up which means you're not allocating what you think you are. Move the allocation to after the extraction of the arguments and that should fix it.
And now, for your viewing pleasure :-), my original rant on the unsafe use of volatile, which I still stand by.
Do not rely on volatile to protect your shared variables. The correct way to do this is with the pthread_mutex_blab_blah_blah calls.
Of particular note, examine this code segment:
if (can_check) {
if (time_left <= 0) {
break;
}
// URK!!
can_check=0;
URK!! is the point where your current thread may be switched out and another run, leading to the possibility that two threads can be running a critical section of code.
My advice is to forget the can_check altogether and just protect all the shared variables with a mutex, something like (from memory):
void *player (void * id_in) {
int id = (int)id_in;
while (1) {
pthread_mutex_lock (&mutex);
if (time_left <= 0) {
pthread_mutex_unlock (&mutex);
break;
}
if (thread_running) {
if (turn_id == id-1) {
turn_id = random() % num_of_threads;
time_left--;
}
}
pthread_mutex_unlock (&mutex);
}
pthread_exit(NULL);
}
Then put at file-level:
pthread_mutexattr_t mutexattr; // prob. not needed at file level.
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
and, in main, before starting any other threads:
pthread_mutexattr_init (&mutexattr);
// Change attributes if needed.
pthread_mutex_init (&mutex, &mutex_attr);
// Then run all you other stuff here, make sure you've joined with all threads.
pthread_mutex_destroy (&mutex);
Oh yeah, although I haven't done it, you should also check the return codes for all those mutex calls. I'm not going to add that since it'll clog up the answer with unnecessary detail, but it's good practice.

Resources