Linux Threads suspend/resume - c

Question

I'm writing a code in which I have two threads running in parallel.
1st is the main thread which started the 2nd thread.
2nd thread is just a simple thread executing empty while loop.
Now I want to pause / suspend the execution of 2nd thread by 1st thread who created it.
And after some time I want to resume the execution of 2nd thread (by issuing some command or function) from where it was paused / suspended.

Answer 1

This question is not about how to use mutexes, but how to suspend a thread.
In Unix specification there is a thread function called pthread_suspend, and another called pthread_resume_np, but for some reason the people who make Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD and so on have not implemented these functions.
So to understand it, the functions simply are not there. There are workarounds but unfortunately it is just not the same as calling SuspendThread on windows. You have to do all kinds of non-portable stuff to make a thread stop and start using signals.
Stopping and resuming threads is vital for debuggers and garbage collectors. For example, I have seen a version of Wine which is not able to properly implement the "SuspendThread" function. Thus any windows program using it will not work properly.
I thought that it was possible to do it properly using signals based on the fact that JVM uses this technique of signals for the Garbage collector, but I have also just seen some articles online where people are noticing deadlocks and so on with the JVM, sometimes unreproducable.
So to come around to answer the question, you cannot properly suspend and resume threads with Unix unless you have a nice Unix that implements pthread_suspend_np. Otherwise you are stuck with signals.
The big problem with Signals is when you have about five different libraries all linked in to the same program and all trying to use the same signals at the same time. For this reason I believe that you cannot actually use something like ValGrind and for example, the Boehm GC in one program. At least without major coding at the very lowest levels of userspace.
Another answer to this question could be. Do what Linuz Torvalds does to NVidia, flip the finger at him and get him to implement the two most critical parts missing from Linux. First, pthread_suspend, and second, a dirty bit on memory pages so that proper garbage collectors can be implemented. Start a large petition online and keep flipping that finger. Maybe by the time Windows 20 comes out, they will realise that Suspending and resuming threads, and having dirty bits is actually one of the fundamental reasons Windows and Mac are better than Linux, or any Unix that does not implement pthread_suspend and also a dirty bit on virtual pages, like VirtualAlloc does in Windows.
I do not live in hope. Actually for me I spent a number of years planning my future around building stuff for Linux but have abandoned hope as a reliable thing all seems to hinge on the availability of a dirty bit for virtual memory, and for suspending threads cleanly.

Answer 2

As far as I know you can't really just pause some other thread using pthreads. You have to have something in your 2nd thread that checks for times it should be paused using something like a condition variable. This is the standard way to do this sort of thing.

Answer 3

I tried suspending and resuming thread using signals, here is my solution. Please compile and link with -pthread.
Signal SIGUSR1 suspends the thread by calling pause() and SIGUSR2 resumes the thread.
From the man page of pause:
pause() causes the calling process (or thread) to sleep until a
signal is delivered that either terminates the process or causes the
invocation of a
signal-catching function.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
// Since I have only 2 threads so using two variables,
// array of bools will be more useful for `n` number of threads.
static int is_th1_ready = 0;
static int is_th2_ready = 0;
static void cb_sig(int signal)
{
switch(signal) {
case SIGUSR1:
pause();
break;
case SIGUSR2:
break;
}
}
static void *thread_job(void *t_id)
{
int i = 0;
struct sigaction act;
pthread_detach(pthread_self());
sigemptyset(&act.sa_mask);
act.sa_flags = 0;
act.sa_handler = cb_sig;
if (sigaction(SIGUSR1, &act, NULL) == -1)
printf("unable to handle siguser1\n");
if (sigaction(SIGUSR2, &act, NULL) == -1)
printf("unable to handle siguser2\n");
if (t_id == (void *)1)
is_th1_ready = 1;
if (t_id == (void *)2)
is_th2_ready = 1;
while (1) {
printf("thread id: %p, counter: %d\n", t_id, i++);
sleep(1);
}
return NULL;
}
int main()
{
int terminate = 0;
int user_input;
pthread_t thread1, thread2;
pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, thread_job, (void *)1);
// Spawned thread2 just to make sure it isn't suspended/paused
// when thread1 received SIGUSR1/SIGUSR2 signal
pthread_create(&thread2, NULL, thread_job, (void *)2);
while (!is_th1_ready && !is_th2_ready);
while (!terminate) {
// to test, I am sensing signals depending on input from STDIN
printf("0: pause thread1, 1: resume thread1, -1: exit\n");
scanf("%d", &user_input);
switch(user_input) {
case -1:
printf("terminating\n");
terminate = 1;
break;
case 0:
printf("raising SIGUSR1 to thread1\n");
pthread_kill(thread1, SIGUSR1);
break;
case 1:
printf("raising SIGUSR2 to thread1\n");
pthread_kill(thread1, SIGUSR2);
break;
}
}
pthread_kill(thread1, SIGKILL);
pthread_kill(thread2, SIGKILL);
return 0;
}

Answer 4

There is no pthread_suspend(), pthread_resume() kind of APIs in POSIX.
Mostly condition variables can be used to control the execution of other threads.
The condition variable mechanism allows threads to suspend execution
and relinquish the processor until some condition is true. A condition
variable must always be associated with a mutex to avoid a race
condition created by one thread preparing to wait and another thread
which may signal the condition before the first thread actually waits
on it resulting in a deadlock.
For more info
Pthreads
Linux Tutorial Posix Threads

Answer 5

If you can use processes instead, you can send job control signals (SIGSTOP / SIGCONT) to the second process. If you still want to share the memory between those processes, you can use SysV shared memory (shmop, shmget, shmctl...).
Even though I haven't tried it myself, it might be possible to use the lower-level clone() syscall to spawn threads that don't share signals. With that, you might be able to send SIGSTOP and SIGCONT to the other thread.

Answer 6

For implementing the pause on a thread, you need to make it wait for some event to happen. Waiting on a spin-lock mutex is CPU cycle wasting. IMHO, this method should not be followed as the CPU cycles could have been used up by other processes/threads.
Wait on a non-blocking descriptor (pipe, socket or some other). Example code for using pipes for inter-thread communication can be seen here
Above solution is useful, if your second thread has more information from multiple sources than just the pause and resume signals. A top-level select/poll/epoll can be used on non-blocking descriptors. You can specify the wait time for select/poll/epoll system calls, and only that much micro-seconds worth of CPU cycles will be wasted.
I mention this solution with forward-thinking that your second thread will have more things or events to handle than just getting paused and resumed. Sorry if it is more detailed than what you asked.
Another simpler approach can be to have a shared boolean variable between these threads.
Main thread is the writer of the variable, 0 - signifies stop. 1 - signifies resume
Second thread only reads the value of the variable. To implement '0' state, use usleep for sime micro-seconds then again check the value. Assuming, few micro-seconds delay is acceptable in your design.
To implement '1' - check the value of the variable after doing certain number of operations.
Otherwise, you can also implement a signal for moving from '1' to '0' state.

Answer 7

You can use mutex to do that, pseudo code would be:
While (true) {
/* pause resume */
lock(my_lock); /* if this is locked by thread1, thread2 will wait until thread1 */
/* unlocks it */
unlock(my_lock); /* unlock so that next iteration thread2 could lock */
/* do actual work here */
}

Answer 8

You can suspend a thread simply by signal
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
static void thread_control_handler(int n, siginfo_t* siginfo, void* sigcontext) {
// wait time out
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
// suspend a thread for some time
void thread_suspend(int tid, int time) {
struct sigaction act;
struct sigaction oact;
memset(&act, 0, sizeof(act));
act.sa_sigaction = thread_control_handler;
act.sa_flags = SA_RESTART | SA_SIGINFO | SA_ONSTACK;
sigemptyset(&act.sa_mask);
pthread_mutex_init(&mutex, 0);
if (!sigaction(SIGURG, &act, &oact)) {
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
kill(tid, SIGURG);
sleep(time);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
}
}

Answer 9

Not sure if you will like my answer or not. But you can achieve it this way.
If it is a separate process instead of a thread, I have a solution (This might even work for thread, maybe someone can share your thoughts) using signals.
There is no system currently in place to pause or resume the execution of the processes. But surely you can build one.
Steps I would do if I want it in my project:
Register a signal handler for the second process.
Inside the signal handler, wait for a semaphore.
Whenever you want to pause the other process, just send in a signal
that you registered the other process with. The program will go into
sleep state.
When you want to resume the process, you can send a different signal
again. Inside that signal handler, you will check if the semaphore is
locked or not. If it is locked, you will release the semaphore. So
the process 2 will continue its execution.
If you can implement this, please do share your feedack, if it worked for you or not. Thanks.