I am experienced at multithreaded programming in Java and C#, and am starting to learn how to do it in C on Linux. I "grew up" in the programming sense on Linux, so I understand it's memory philophy, process handling, etc. at a high level.
My question is not how to do threading. I would like to know how pthread actually does it. Does it fork a process and handle your interprocess communication for you somehow? Or does it just manage the address space? I want nitty-gritty details :) Googling has only produced "how to do it" questions, not "how it works".
The details are probably too complex to really get into (without posting a link to the glibc source code), but I can give you better things to look up:
Pthread uses sys_clone() to create new threads, which the kernel sees as a new task that happens to share many data structures with other threads.
To do synchronization, pthread relies heavily on futexes in the kernel.
On Linux, both fork() and ptrheads use the same syscall clone(), which creates a new process. The difference between them is simply the parameters they send to clone(), when creating a new thread, it simply makes both processes use the same memory mappings.
Remember, in Linux (and other modern Unixes), memory mappings, stacks, processor state, PIDs, and others are orthogonal features of a process; so you can create a new process with just a new stack and process state (sharing everything else), and call it a thread.
Here is the source of pthread.c. This may help you answer your question.
Related
I have a multi-threaded application in a POSIX/Linux environment - I have no control over the code that creates the pthreads. At some point the process - owner of the pthreads - receives a signal.
The handler of that signal should abort,cancel or stop all the pthreads and log how many pthreads where running.
My problem is that I could not find how to list all the pthreads running in process.
There doesn't seem to be any portable way to enumerate the threads in a process.
Linux has pthread_kill_other_threads_np, which looks like a leftover from the original purely-userland pthreads implementation that may or may not work as documented today. It doesn't tell you how many threads there were.
You can get a lot of information about your process by looking in /proc/self (or, for other processes, /proc/123). Although many unices have a file or directory with that name, the layout is completely different, so any code using /proc will be Linux-specific. The documentation of /proc is in Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt in the kernel source. In particular, /proc/self/task has a subdirectory for each thread. The name of the subdirectory is the LWP id; unfortunately, [1][2][3] there doesn't seem to be a way to associate LWP ids with pthread ids (but you can get your own thread id with gettid(2) if you work for it). Of course, reading /proc/self/task is not atomic; the number of threads is available atomically through /proc/self/status (but of course it might change before you act on it).
If you can't achieve what you want with the limited support you get from Linux pthreads, another tactic is to play dynamic linking tricks to provide your own version of pthread_create that logs to a data structure you can inspect afterwards.
You could wrap ps -eLF (or another command that more closely reads just the process you're interested in) and read the NLWP column to find out how many threads are running.
Given that the threads are in your process, they should be under your control. You can record all of them in a data structure and keep track.
However, doing this won't be race-condition free unless it's appropriately managed (or you only ever create and join threads from one thread).
Any threads created by libraries you use are their business and you should not be messing with them directory, or the library may break.
If you are planning to exit the process of course, you can just leave the threads running anyway, as calling exit() terminates them all.
Remember that a robust application should be crash-safe anyway, so you should not depend upon shutdown behaviour to avoid data loss etc.
Interesting that this seems to be a basic question, and yet I couldn't find any example of it for the C language (in SO, I found only for Python, C# and C++).
The point is: as a Qt programmer, when I need to make some data to be transmitted between different threads, I start a signal-slot connection between then and use the emit signal mechanism to do the work.
But now I'm working in a C application for Embedded Linux where I need to do a similar work, but I don't have Qt's mechanism available. The question is: how can I make two or more threads communicate with each other in C in a manner similar to that of Qt with signals and slots?
I know that one of the ways to share data is with global variables with changes protected by mutexes. But even then I would probably be unable to do the system in a asynchronous way: I would have to have a loop that would constantly check if the variable has changed or not. But what if I want to execute a specific method of a thread just after another one finished some work (so, in an asynchronous way)? Then it seems such way fails.
Note: although I'm using Embedded Linux and, therefore, mentioning some options that would take POSIX functions and other "Linux-related ways" would be helpful, it would still be better for the community if more time is given to solutions that are not based strictly to one specific platform (if that is possible).
Read a good tutorial on pthreads. You want to know more about condition variables to be used with mutexes.
Condition variables and mutexes should probably be enough for your needs.
You could also use most traditional inter-process communication mechanisms between threads, e.g. a pipe(7) (probably with poll(2)...). So read Advanced Linux Programming and study syscalls(2) and pthreads(7)
Avoid using signal(7)-s between threads and be aware of signal-safety(7). See however signalfd(2), eventfd(2), userfaultfd(2) (you might cleverly handle SIGSEGV with it) and take inspiration from the approach suggested by Calling Qt functions from Unix signal handler.
Observe a running multi-threaded Linux process with strace(1), ltrace(1), gdb(1). You'll understand that several pthreads(7) primitives are using futex(7).
Both GNU glibc and musl-libc are open source and implement the pthreads specification (and Glib, GTK, Qt or POCO are built above them). I invite you to study their source code.
One way is to use message passing between threads via asynchronous queues. This way you can avoid using shared data between threads and only the queues need to be thread-safe.
Asynchronous queues can be implemented using different synchronisation primitives:
Pipes or sockets.
Queues protected with a mutex and a condition variable.
Non-blocking or lock-free queues.
Thread which you want to notify of an event like "data available" can register a callback function which can be trigerred by the notifier thread. You can use a function pointer for this.
Ex: Thread 2 registers a callback function for one or more events. Thread 1 on occurrence of the condition or event calls the registered function.
producer and consumer threads should capture each other's tid. producer on producing can send:
pthread_kill(consumerID, SIGUSR1);
consumer is setup with the signal handler for SIGUSR1, and can retrieve the produced result from the common std::queue saved by pthread_setspecific().
producer and consumer can continue their tasks without being locked by semaphore or cond var/mutex.
i am porting program from GNU/Linux to VxWorks, i am having a problem regarding to fork() and i can't find alternatives ; VxWork's API provide two useful calls taskSpawn( ) and rtpSpawn( ) to spwan RTP/Task but these API do NOT duplicate the calling process (fork does). does anyone have idea about porting/workaround fork() to Vxworks?
VxWorks API Reference
If I remember my vxWork correctly - you can't. fork() requires virtual memory management, something I believe VxWorks 5.5 does not provide, at least not the full semantics needed to implement fork. (it was added in vxwork 6 though if I am not mistaken).
I don't know anything about VxWorks memory model but it may be impossible to port fork. The reason for this is that when a process is forked, the memory of the original process is copied into the new process. Importantly, the two processes must use the same internal virtual addresses otherwise things like pointers are going to break.
Obviously, the two processes must have different physical addresses which means in order to fork, one requires a platform that has a memory management unit (MMU) and the kernel must support a memory model that allows programs to share the same virtual addresses. This is why there is no fork equivalent for creating a new thread.
In addition to this, copying a large process can be very expensive. So Linux uses what is called copy-on-write. This means all fork does is mark all memory pages read-only. When a write is attempted, an interrupt is generated and only then is the memory page copied.
It is unlikely that a Real Time Operating System RTOS will support copy-on-write because it means that memory write times are not bounded and violates the realtime guarantees of the OS.
It is therefore much easier not to support fork at all just implement APIs for spawning brand new processes without the duplication.
Is there something equivalent to SIGSTOP and SICONT for threads? Am using pthreads.
Thanks
An edit:
I am implementing a crude form of file access syncronization among threads. So if a file is already opened by a thread, and another thread wants to open it again, I need to halt or pause the second thread at that point of its execution. When the first thread has completed its work it will check what other threads wanted to use a file it released and "wake" them up. The second thread then resumes execution from exactly that point. I use my own book keeping datastructures.
I'm going to tell you how to do things instead of answering the question. (Look up the "X Y problem".)
You are trying to prevent two threads from accessing the same file at the same time. In other words, access is MUTually EXclusive. A "mutex" is designed to do this. In general, it is easier to find help if you search for what you are trying to do (prevent two threads from accessing the same resource simultaneously) rather than searching for how you want to do it (make one thread wait for the other).
Edit: It sounds like you actually want many readers but one writer. This is probably the second most common synchronization problem (after the "producer-consumer" problem). Use a pthread_rwlock: readers call pthread_rdlock and writers call pthread_wrlock.
If you're doing something this sophisticated, you really should start reading the relevant literature. If you think you can do multithreaded programming some serious reading, you are much smarter than me and you don't need my help. I recommend "The Little Book of Semaphores" which is a free download (source). It's not about pthreads, but it's good stuff. The readers-writers problem you are asking about is found under ยง4.2 in the chapter "Classical Synchronization Problems" (heck, this problem is even mentioned in the blurb).
Multithreaded programing is HARD with capital letters and a bold font.
Well, there is pthread_kill.
But you almost certainly do not want to do this. What if the other thread holds (e.g.) a mutex for the heap, and you try to call new while it is stopped?
Since you do not know what the runtime is doing with mutexes, there is no way to avoid this kind of problem in general unless you completely avoid the standard library.
[edit]
Actually, come to think of it, I am not sure what happens if you target a specific thread with SIGSTOP, since that signal usually affects the whole process.
So to update my answer, I do not believe there is any standard mechanism for suspending a thread asynchronously... And for the reason mentioned above, I do not think you want one.
Depending on your application, Pthreads supports what can be considered more refined mechanisms, such as http://www.unix.com/man-page/all/3t/pthread_suspend/ and Mutex mechnisms
I have a multi-threaded application in a POSIX/Linux environment - I have no control over the code that creates the pthreads. At some point the process - owner of the pthreads - receives a signal.
The handler of that signal should abort,cancel or stop all the pthreads and log how many pthreads where running.
My problem is that I could not find how to list all the pthreads running in process.
There doesn't seem to be any portable way to enumerate the threads in a process.
Linux has pthread_kill_other_threads_np, which looks like a leftover from the original purely-userland pthreads implementation that may or may not work as documented today. It doesn't tell you how many threads there were.
You can get a lot of information about your process by looking in /proc/self (or, for other processes, /proc/123). Although many unices have a file or directory with that name, the layout is completely different, so any code using /proc will be Linux-specific. The documentation of /proc is in Documentation/filesystems/proc.txt in the kernel source. In particular, /proc/self/task has a subdirectory for each thread. The name of the subdirectory is the LWP id; unfortunately, [1][2][3] there doesn't seem to be a way to associate LWP ids with pthread ids (but you can get your own thread id with gettid(2) if you work for it). Of course, reading /proc/self/task is not atomic; the number of threads is available atomically through /proc/self/status (but of course it might change before you act on it).
If you can't achieve what you want with the limited support you get from Linux pthreads, another tactic is to play dynamic linking tricks to provide your own version of pthread_create that logs to a data structure you can inspect afterwards.
You could wrap ps -eLF (or another command that more closely reads just the process you're interested in) and read the NLWP column to find out how many threads are running.
Given that the threads are in your process, they should be under your control. You can record all of them in a data structure and keep track.
However, doing this won't be race-condition free unless it's appropriately managed (or you only ever create and join threads from one thread).
Any threads created by libraries you use are their business and you should not be messing with them directory, or the library may break.
If you are planning to exit the process of course, you can just leave the threads running anyway, as calling exit() terminates them all.
Remember that a robust application should be crash-safe anyway, so you should not depend upon shutdown behaviour to avoid data loss etc.