In the call pthread_create(&id, NULL, &start_routine, arg), is the thread id guaranteed to be written to id before start_routine starts running? The manpages are clear that the start_routine may but will not necessarily begin executing before the call to pthread_create returns, but they are silent on when the thread id gets written back to the passed thread argument.
My specific case is that I have a wrapper around pthread_create:
int mk_thread(pthread_t *id) {
pthread_t tid;
pthread_create(&tid,NULL,ThreadStart,NULL);
if (id == NULL) {
pthread_detach(tid);
} else {
*id=lid;
}
}
which can obviously run the start routine before writing back. I changed it to
int mk_thread(pthread_t *id) {
pthread_t tid,tidPtr=id?id:&tid;
pthread_create(tidPtr,NULL,ThreadStart,NULL);
if (id == NULL) {
pthread_detach(tid);
}
}
This rewrite is much more stable in practice, but is it actually a fix or just a smaller window for the race condition?
The thread id is definitely written before pthread_create returns. If you think about it, it would be impossible for pthread_create to work any other way. It could not delegate writing the thread id to the new thread, because the pthread_t variable might be out of scope by the time the new thread runs.
The relevant text is:
Upon successful completion, pthread_create() shall store the ID of the created thread in the location referenced by thread.
(From http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/pthread_create.html) Note that it says "on successful completion" of the function, not "at an indeterminate time after successful completion".
The more interesting question, and I'm unclear on this one, is whether pthread_create must have finished writing the thread id to its destination before the new thread start function begins, i.e. whether the new thread can immediately see its own thread id, e.g. if it's to be stored in a global variable. I suspect the answer is no.
Edit: Upon rereading your question, it seems like you might really have been asking about this latter, more interesting question. In any case, there's no reason for the new thread's start function to use the thread-id written out by pthread_create. Your new thread can (and should) just use pthread_self to get its own thread id.
I believe that nothing in the spec requires pthread_create to assign its output parameter pthread_t *thread before code in start_routine begins to execute.
As a matter of practicality, the following program succeeds on many pthreads implementations (freebsd8 i386 and debian gnu/linux amd64) but fails on one of interest to me (debian/kfreebsd9 amd64):
#include <pthread.h>
#include <assert.h>
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdio.h>
pthread_t th;
void *asserter(void* unused) {
pthread_t self = pthread_self(), th_=th;
printf("th=%jd self=%jd\n", (intmax_t)th_, (intmax_t)self);
assert(pthread_equal(th_, self));
}
int main() {
int i;
for(i=0; i<1000; i++) {
pthread_create(&th, NULL, asserter, NULL);
pthread_join(th, NULL);
}
return 0;
}
that said, I am not sure I understand how this detail of behavior is relevant to the two code alternatives you offer in the original question. Though it occurs to me that if pthread_create writes other values to *thread during its execution, and you're using the value of *id in the other thread, it could be relevant. The standard does not specify that no other 'intermediate' values are written to *thread during successful execution of pthread_create.
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/
Value of Global variable var in main() function sometimes comes -1 and sometimes 1 .How to write a robust code without using sleep function so that thread get time to get started and running .
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
int var = -1; // GLobal Variable
void *myThreadFun(void *vargp)
{
var = 1;
return NULL;
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread_id;
printf("Before Thread\n");
pthread_create(&thread_id, NULL, myThreadFun, NULL);
printf("var=%d",var);
pthread_join(thread_id, NULL);
printf("After Thread\n");
exit(0);
}
Value of Global variable var in main() function sometimes comes -1 and
sometimes 1 .How to write a robust code without using sleep function
so that thread get time to get started and running .
It is a distressingly common misconception among those new to multithreaded programming that problems such as yours are a matter of timing. That is not the case, at least not from the perspective of the threading and memory models of most modern high-level programming languages. No amount of delay alone ensures that one thread will see the effects on memory produced by another, therefore robust code does not use timing functions such as sleep() for that purpose.
Rather, the issue is one of synchronization. This is the area that contains rules about what writes to memory by one thread must be visible to other threads. It also covers special kinds of objects and functions that serve to enable threads to affect the execution of other threads, generally by temporarily blocking them from proceeding. These two facets are closely linked.
The pthread_create() and pthread_join() functions have synchronization effects. Among other things, all writes to memory by a thread T1 before it calls pthread_create() to start a thread T2 are visible to T2 (modulo subsequent rewrites of the same memory). All writes to memory by T2 are visible to T1 after it successfully joins T2 via pthread_join(). Therefore, one solution to the question as posed is to wait until after joining the second thread before attempting to read var, as #Robert's answer suggests.
If that is undesirable, then you'll need to engage some other kind of synchronization mechanism to make the main thread wait for the second to update var. Such a wait on a synchronization object will also have the effect of making the second thread's write visible to the main thread.
The most general-purpose synchronization technique offered by pthreads is the condition variable which must be used in conjunction with a mutex. You will find many explanations here on SO and elsewhere about how properly to use a CV.
For your particular case, however, you might find a semaphore easier to set up and use. Semaphores are technically separate from the pthreads library proper, but they have suitable synchronization semantics, both for making threads wait and for making memory operations of one thread visible to another. That might look like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
int var = -1; // GLobal Variable
sem_t semaphore;
void *myThreadFun(void *vargp)
{
var = 1;
// increment the semaphore's value
sem_post(&semaphore);
return NULL;
}
int main()
{
pthread_t thread_id;
// initialize the semaphore with value 0
sem_init(&semaphore, 0, 0);
printf("Before Thread\n");
pthread_create(&thread_id, NULL, myThreadFun, NULL);
// Wait until the semaphore's value can be decremented by one without
// it becoming negative (and then perform the decrement before proceeding).
sem_wait(&semaphore);
printf("var=%d",var);
pthread_join(thread_id, NULL);
printf("After Thread\n");
exit(0);
}
I think your code is robust, it's just where you print the result which is incorrect. You need to ensure your thread has finished his work before printing the result.
If you print the result before calling pthread_join, there are two possibilities:
myThreadFun has already changed var, in such case var will contain the value 1
myThreadFun hasn't been completely executed, in such case, var will have its initial value -1.
If you print the result after calling pthread_join, the function myThreadFun will be fully executed and it will print 1.
int main()
{
pthread_t thread_id;
printf("Before Thread\n");
pthread_create(&thread_id, NULL, myThreadFun, NULL);
pthread_join(thread_id, NULL);
printf("After Thread\n");
printf("var=%d",var); /* Here, the thread has completed */
exit(0);
}
Robert's solution is sensible, but I believe you don't actually want to wait for the thread to complete.
If you want the main thread to wait for the variable to be set by the thread without waiting for the thread to end, you will need some kind of synchronization. I'll use a semaphore, but there are a number of other solutions.
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
static sem_t started_threads_sem;
static int var;
static void *myThreadFun(void *vargp) {
sleep(3); // This is the thread doing some initialization.
var = 1;
sem_post(&started_threads_sem);
sleep(3); // This is the thread doing stuff.
return NULL;
}
int main() {
printf("Before Thread\n");
sem_init(&started_threads_sem, 0, 0);
pthread_t thread_id;
pthread_create(&thread_id, NULL, myThreadFun, NULL);
// Wait for the thread to have started.
sem_wait(&started_threads_sem);
printf("var=%d\n", var);
pthread_join(thread_id, NULL);
printf("After Thread\n");
exit(0);
}
Before Thread
<3 s pause>
var=1
<3 s pause>
After Thread
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
static void *tfunc(void *data)
{
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
pthread_t t;
pthread_create(&t, NULL, tfunc, NULL);
sleep(1);
pthread_detach(t);
return 0;
}
See the MWE.
It works fine, but I am unsure if this is actually defined behavior. The man page of pthread_detach says nothing about calling it on exited threads.
Yes I know about creating threads with the detached attribute, but I am specifically curious about this situation. pthread_join has a mention on this case and I assume pthread_detach works just as fine, but I haven't found any official statement.
This code is perfectly legal, and does not invoke undefined behavior:
#include <pthread.h>
#include <unistd.h>
static void *tfunc(void *data)
{
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
pthread_t t;
pthread_create(&t, NULL, tfunc, NULL);
sleep(1);
pthread_detach(t);
return 0;
}
It's not really clearly stated, but the POSIX documentation for pthread_detach() is worded in such a way that it must be defined and correct to call pthread_detach() on a terminated thread:
The pthread_detach() function shall indicate to the implementation
that storage for the thread thread can be reclaimed when that thread
terminates. If thread has not terminated, pthread_detach() shall not
cause it to terminate.
The behavior is undefined if the value specified by the thread
argument to pthread_detach() does not refer to a joinable thread.
First, note the statement "If thread has not terminated". That implies that it must be safe to call pthread_detach() when the thread has terminated.
Second, note "The behavior is undefined if ... does not refer to a joinable thread." In your posted code, the thread you created is clearly joinable - you didn't create it with a detached attribute, so you could call pthread_join() to retrieve its returned value. So it's not undefined behavior.
Remember, there's no guaranteed way to ensure from thread A that thread B is still running when either pthread_join() or pthread_detach() is called. So either call has to be safe to call (once!) from any thread on any other thread.
Also, from the Rationale section of the POSIX documentation:
RATIONALE
The pthread_join() or pthread_detach() functions should eventually
be called for every thread that is created so that storage associated
with the thread may be reclaimed.
It has been suggested that a "detach" function is not necessary; the
detachstate thread creation attribute is sufficient, since a thread
need never be dynamically detached. However, need arises in at least
two cases:
In a cancellation handler for a pthread_join() it is nearly essential to have a pthread_detach() function in order to detach the
thread on which pthread_join() was waiting. Without it, it would be
necessary to have the handler do another pthread_join() to attempt
to detach the thread, which would both delay the cancellation
processing for an unbounded period and introduce a new call to
pthread_join(), which might itself need a cancellation handler. A
dynamic detach is nearly essential in this case.
In order to detach the "initial thread" (as may be desirable in processes that set up server threads).
Again, while not clearly stated, note the implied equivalence between pthread_join() and pthread_detach().
In my destructor I want to destroy a thread cleanly.
My goal is to wait for a thread to finish executing and THEN destroy the thread.
The only thing I found about querying the state of a pthread is pthread_attr_setdetachstate but this only tells you if your thread is:
PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED
PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE
Both of those have nothing to do with whether the thread is still running or not.
How do you query a pthread to see if it is still running?
It sounds like you have two questions here:
How can I wait until my thread completes?
Answer: This is directly supported by pthreads -- make your thread-to-be-stopped JOINABLE (when it is first started), and use pthread_join() to block your current thread until the thread-to-be-stopped is no longer running.
How can I tell if my thread is still running?
Answer: You can add a "thread_complete" flag to do the trick:
Scenario: Thread A wants to know if Thread B is still alive.
When Thread B is created, it is given a pointer to the "thread_complete" flag address. The "thread_complete" flag should be initialized to NOT_COMPLETED before the thread is created. Thread B's entry point function should immediately call pthread_cleanup_push() to push a "cleanup handler" which sets the "thread_complete" flag to COMPLETED.
See details about cleanup handlers here: pthread cleanup handlers
You'll want to include a corresponding pthread_cleanup_pop(1) call to ensure that the cleanup handler gets called no matter what (i.e. if the thread exits normally OR due to cancellation, etc.).
Then, Thread A can simply check the "thread_complete" flag to see if Thread B has exited yet.
NOTE: Your "thread_complete" flag should be declared "volatile" and should be an atomic type -- the GNU compilers provide the sig_atomic_t for this purpose. This allows the two threads consistent access the same data without the need for synchronization constructs (mutexes/semaphores).
pthread_kill(tid, 0);
No signal is sent, but error checking is still performed so you can use that to check
existence of tid.
CAUTION: This answer is incorrect. The standard specifically prohibits passing the ID of a thread whose lifetime has ended. That ID might now specify a different thread or, worse, it might refer to memory that has been freed, causing a crash.
I think all you really need is to call pthread_join(). That call won't return until the thread has exited.
If you only want to poll to see whether the thread is still running or not (and note that is usually not what you should be wanting to do!), you could have the thread set a volatile boolean to false just before it exits... then your main-thread could read the boolean and if it's still true, you know the thread is still running. (if it's false, on the other hand, you know the thread is at least almost gone; it may still be running cleanup code that occurs after it sets the boolean to false, though, so even in this case you should still call pthread_join before trying to free any resources the thread might have access to)
There is not fully portable solution, look if your platform supports pthread_tryjoin_np or pthread_timedjoin_np. So you just check if thread can be joined (of course created with PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE).
Let me note on the "winning" answer, which has a huge hidden flaw, and in some contexts it can lead to crashes. Unless you use pthread_join, it will coming up again and again. Assume you are having a process and a shared library. Call the library lib.so.
You dlopen it, you start a thread in it. Assume you don't want it join to it, so you set it detachable.
Process and shared lib's logic doing its work, etc...
You want to load out lib.so, because you don't need it any more.
You call a shutdown on the thread and you say, that you want to read a flag afterwards from your lib.so's thread, that it have finished.
You continue on another thread with dlclose, because you see, that you have saw, that the flag is now showing the thread as "finished"
dlclose will load out all stack and code related memory.
Whops, but dlclose does not stop threads. And you know, even when you are in the last line of the cleanup handler to set the "thread is finished" volatile atomic flag variable, you still have to return from a lot of methods on the stack, giving back values, etc. If a huge thread priority was given to #5+#6's thread, you will receive dlclose before you could REALLY stop on the thread. You will have some nice crashes sometimes.
Let me point out, that this is not a hipothetical problem, I had the same issue on our project.
I believe I've come up with a solution that at least works for Linux. Whenever I create a thread I have it save it's LWP (Light Weight Process ID) and assign it a unique name, eg.
int lwp = syscall(SYS_gettid);
prctl(PR_SET_NAME, (long)"unique name", 0, 0, 0);
Then, to check if the thread exists later I open /proc/pid/task/lwp/comm and read it. If the file exists and it's contents match the unique name I assigned, the thread exists. Note that this does NOT pass a possibly defunct/reused TID to any library function, so no crashes.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <sys/prctl.h>
#include <sys/file.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <syscall.h>
pthread_t subthread_tid;
int subthread_lwp;
#define UNIQUE_NAME "unique name"
bool thread_exists (pthread_t thread_id)
{
char path[100];
char thread_name[16];
FILE *fp;
bool thread_exists = false;
// If the /proc/<pid>/task/<lwp>/comm file exists and it's contents match the "unique name" the
// thread exists, and it's the original thread (TID has NOT been reused).
sprintf(path, "/proc/%d/task/%d/comm", getpid(), subthread_lwp);
fp = fopen(path, "r");
if( fp != NULL ) {
fgets(thread_name, 16, fp);
fclose(fp);
// Need to trim off the newline
thread_name[strlen(thread_name)-1] = '\0';
if( strcmp(UNIQUE_NAME, thread_name) == 0 ) {
thread_exists = true;
}
}
if( thread_exists ) {
printf("thread exists\n");
} else {
printf("thread does NOT exist\n");
}
return thread_exists;
}
void *subthread (void *unused)
{
subthread_lwp = syscall(SYS_gettid);
prctl(PR_SET_NAME, (long)UNIQUE_NAME, 0, 0, 0);
sleep(10000);
return NULL;
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[], char *envp[])
{
int error_number;
pthread_create(&subthread_tid, NULL, subthread, NULL);
printf("pthread_create()\n");
sleep(1);
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
pthread_cancel(subthread_tid);
printf("pthread_cancel()\n");
sleep(1);
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
error_number = pthread_join(subthread_tid, NULL);
if( error_number == 0 ) {
printf("pthread_join() successful\n");
} else {
printf("pthread_join() failed, %d\n", error_number);
}
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
exit(0);
}
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void* thread1 (void* arg);
void* thread2 (void* arg);
int main()
{
pthread_t thr_id;
pthread_create(&thr_id, NULL, thread1, NULL);
sleep(10);
}
void* thread1 (void* arg)
{
pthread_t thr_id = 0;
pthread_create(&thr_id, NULL, thread2, NULL);
sleep(5);
int ret = 0;
if( (ret = pthread_kill(thr_id, 0)) == 0)
{
printf("still running\n");
pthread_join(thr_id, NULL);
}
else
{
printf("RIP Thread = %d\n",ret);
}
}
void* thread2 (void* arg)
{
// sleep(5);
printf("I am done\n");
}
In my destructor I want to destroy a thread cleanly.
My goal is to wait for a thread to finish executing and THEN destroy the thread.
The only thing I found about querying the state of a pthread is pthread_attr_setdetachstate but this only tells you if your thread is:
PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED
PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE
Both of those have nothing to do with whether the thread is still running or not.
How do you query a pthread to see if it is still running?
It sounds like you have two questions here:
How can I wait until my thread completes?
Answer: This is directly supported by pthreads -- make your thread-to-be-stopped JOINABLE (when it is first started), and use pthread_join() to block your current thread until the thread-to-be-stopped is no longer running.
How can I tell if my thread is still running?
Answer: You can add a "thread_complete" flag to do the trick:
Scenario: Thread A wants to know if Thread B is still alive.
When Thread B is created, it is given a pointer to the "thread_complete" flag address. The "thread_complete" flag should be initialized to NOT_COMPLETED before the thread is created. Thread B's entry point function should immediately call pthread_cleanup_push() to push a "cleanup handler" which sets the "thread_complete" flag to COMPLETED.
See details about cleanup handlers here: pthread cleanup handlers
You'll want to include a corresponding pthread_cleanup_pop(1) call to ensure that the cleanup handler gets called no matter what (i.e. if the thread exits normally OR due to cancellation, etc.).
Then, Thread A can simply check the "thread_complete" flag to see if Thread B has exited yet.
NOTE: Your "thread_complete" flag should be declared "volatile" and should be an atomic type -- the GNU compilers provide the sig_atomic_t for this purpose. This allows the two threads consistent access the same data without the need for synchronization constructs (mutexes/semaphores).
pthread_kill(tid, 0);
No signal is sent, but error checking is still performed so you can use that to check
existence of tid.
CAUTION: This answer is incorrect. The standard specifically prohibits passing the ID of a thread whose lifetime has ended. That ID might now specify a different thread or, worse, it might refer to memory that has been freed, causing a crash.
I think all you really need is to call pthread_join(). That call won't return until the thread has exited.
If you only want to poll to see whether the thread is still running or not (and note that is usually not what you should be wanting to do!), you could have the thread set a volatile boolean to false just before it exits... then your main-thread could read the boolean and if it's still true, you know the thread is still running. (if it's false, on the other hand, you know the thread is at least almost gone; it may still be running cleanup code that occurs after it sets the boolean to false, though, so even in this case you should still call pthread_join before trying to free any resources the thread might have access to)
There is not fully portable solution, look if your platform supports pthread_tryjoin_np or pthread_timedjoin_np. So you just check if thread can be joined (of course created with PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE).
Let me note on the "winning" answer, which has a huge hidden flaw, and in some contexts it can lead to crashes. Unless you use pthread_join, it will coming up again and again. Assume you are having a process and a shared library. Call the library lib.so.
You dlopen it, you start a thread in it. Assume you don't want it join to it, so you set it detachable.
Process and shared lib's logic doing its work, etc...
You want to load out lib.so, because you don't need it any more.
You call a shutdown on the thread and you say, that you want to read a flag afterwards from your lib.so's thread, that it have finished.
You continue on another thread with dlclose, because you see, that you have saw, that the flag is now showing the thread as "finished"
dlclose will load out all stack and code related memory.
Whops, but dlclose does not stop threads. And you know, even when you are in the last line of the cleanup handler to set the "thread is finished" volatile atomic flag variable, you still have to return from a lot of methods on the stack, giving back values, etc. If a huge thread priority was given to #5+#6's thread, you will receive dlclose before you could REALLY stop on the thread. You will have some nice crashes sometimes.
Let me point out, that this is not a hipothetical problem, I had the same issue on our project.
I believe I've come up with a solution that at least works for Linux. Whenever I create a thread I have it save it's LWP (Light Weight Process ID) and assign it a unique name, eg.
int lwp = syscall(SYS_gettid);
prctl(PR_SET_NAME, (long)"unique name", 0, 0, 0);
Then, to check if the thread exists later I open /proc/pid/task/lwp/comm and read it. If the file exists and it's contents match the unique name I assigned, the thread exists. Note that this does NOT pass a possibly defunct/reused TID to any library function, so no crashes.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdarg.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <sys/prctl.h>
#include <sys/file.h>
#include <stdbool.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <syscall.h>
pthread_t subthread_tid;
int subthread_lwp;
#define UNIQUE_NAME "unique name"
bool thread_exists (pthread_t thread_id)
{
char path[100];
char thread_name[16];
FILE *fp;
bool thread_exists = false;
// If the /proc/<pid>/task/<lwp>/comm file exists and it's contents match the "unique name" the
// thread exists, and it's the original thread (TID has NOT been reused).
sprintf(path, "/proc/%d/task/%d/comm", getpid(), subthread_lwp);
fp = fopen(path, "r");
if( fp != NULL ) {
fgets(thread_name, 16, fp);
fclose(fp);
// Need to trim off the newline
thread_name[strlen(thread_name)-1] = '\0';
if( strcmp(UNIQUE_NAME, thread_name) == 0 ) {
thread_exists = true;
}
}
if( thread_exists ) {
printf("thread exists\n");
} else {
printf("thread does NOT exist\n");
}
return thread_exists;
}
void *subthread (void *unused)
{
subthread_lwp = syscall(SYS_gettid);
prctl(PR_SET_NAME, (long)UNIQUE_NAME, 0, 0, 0);
sleep(10000);
return NULL;
}
int main (int argc, char *argv[], char *envp[])
{
int error_number;
pthread_create(&subthread_tid, NULL, subthread, NULL);
printf("pthread_create()\n");
sleep(1);
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
pthread_cancel(subthread_tid);
printf("pthread_cancel()\n");
sleep(1);
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
error_number = pthread_join(subthread_tid, NULL);
if( error_number == 0 ) {
printf("pthread_join() successful\n");
} else {
printf("pthread_join() failed, %d\n", error_number);
}
thread_exists(subthread_tid);
exit(0);
}
#include <string.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <signal.h>
#include <unistd.h>
void* thread1 (void* arg);
void* thread2 (void* arg);
int main()
{
pthread_t thr_id;
pthread_create(&thr_id, NULL, thread1, NULL);
sleep(10);
}
void* thread1 (void* arg)
{
pthread_t thr_id = 0;
pthread_create(&thr_id, NULL, thread2, NULL);
sleep(5);
int ret = 0;
if( (ret = pthread_kill(thr_id, 0)) == 0)
{
printf("still running\n");
pthread_join(thr_id, NULL);
}
else
{
printf("RIP Thread = %d\n",ret);
}
}
void* thread2 (void* arg)
{
// sleep(5);
printf("I am done\n");
}