I want to implement POSIX compliant microthreads in Linux environment. Basic idea is as follows:
Using technique described here, assign new stack space for each fiber.
Using setitimer, create timer that will send signals in constant time interval. Signal handler for this timer will act as a scheduler and switch between fibers.
The problem is, that doing longjmp in signal handler, won't terminate the handler, so kernel will wait for it's termination, instead for delivering new signals. This makes switching contexts impossible, because there are no signals to initiate the switches.
One solution would be to unblock SIGALRM, so many signals can execute the handler at the same time, but this will cause race conditions problems.
What is the best and simplest way to implement preemptive microthreads ? All examples I found on Google were not preemptive.
The solution is to use sigsetjmp / siglongjmp, intstead of setjmp/longjmp. sig* versions preserve signal masks :)
Related
Non-blocking sends/recvs return immediately in MPI and the operation is completed in the background. The only way I see that happening is that the current process/thread invokes/creates another process/thread and loads an image of the send/recv code into that and itself returns. Then this new process/thread completes this operation and sets a flag somewhere which the Wait/Test returns. Am I correct ?
There are two ways that progress can happen:
In a separate thread. This is usually an option in most MPI implementations (usually at configure/compile time). In this version, as you speculated, the MPI implementation has another thread that runs a separate progress engine. That thread manages all of the MPI messages and sending/receiving data. This way works well if you're not using all of the cores on your machine as it makes progress in the background without adding overhead to your other MPI calls.
Inside other MPI calls. This is the more common way of doing things and is the default for most implementations I believe. In this version, non-blocking calls are started when you initiate the call (MPI_I<something>) and are essentially added to an internal queue. Nothing (probably) happens on that call until you make another call to MPI later that actually does some blocking communication (or waits for the completion of previous non-blocking calls). When you enter that future MPI call, in addition to doing whatever you asked it to do, it will run the progress engine (the same thing that's running in a thread in version #1). Depending on what the MPI call that's supposed to be happening is doing, the progress engine may run for a while or may just run through once. For instance, if you called MPI_WAIT on an MPI_IRECV, you'll stay inside the progress engine until you receive the message that you're waiting for. If you are just doing an MPI_TEST, it might just cycle through the progress engine once and then jump back out.
More exotic methods. As Jeff mentions in his post, there are more exotic methods that depend on the hardware on which you're running. You may have a NIC that will do some magic for you in terms of moving your messages in the background or some other way to speed up your MPI calls. In general, these are very specific to the implementation and hardware on which you're running, so if you want to know more about them, you'll need to be more specific in your question.
All of this is specific to your implementation, but most of them work in some way similar to this.
Are you asking, if a separate thread for message processing is the only solution for non-blocking operations?
If so, the answer is no. I even think, many setups use a different strategy. Usually progress of the message processing is done during all MPI-Calls. I'd recommend you to have a look into this Blog entry by Jeff Squyres.
See the answer by Wesley Bland for a more complete answer.
I'm trying to get around the concept of cooperative multitasking system and exactly how it works in a single threaded application.
My understanding is that this is a "form of multitasking in which multiple tasks execute by voluntarily ceding control to other tasks at programmer-defined points within each task."
So if you have a list of tasks and one task is executing, how do you determine to pass execution to another task? And when you give execution back to a previous task, how do resume from where you were previously?
I find this a bit confusing because I don't understand how this can be achieve without a multithreaded application.
Any advice would be very helpeful :)
Thanks
In your specific scenario where a single process (or thread of execution) uses cooperative multitasking, you can use something like Windows' fibers or POSIX setcontext family of functions. I will use the term fiber here.
Basically when one fiber is finished executing a chunk of work and wants to voluntarily allow other fibers to run (hence the "cooperative" term), it either manually switches to the other fiber's context or more typically it performs some kind of yield() or scheduler() call that jumps into the scheduler's context, then the scheduler finds a new fiber to run and switches to that fiber's context.
What do we mean by context here? Basically the stack and registers. There is nothing magic about the stack, it's just a block of memory the stack pointer happens to point to. There is also nothing magic about the program counter, it just points to the next instruction to execute. Switching contexts simply saves the current registers somewhere, changes the stack pointer to a different chunk of memory, updates the program counter to a different stream of instructions, copies that context's saved registers into the CPU, then does a jump. Bam, you're now executing different instructions with a different stack. Often the context switch code is written in assembly that is invoked in a way that doesn't modify the current stack or it backs out the changes, in either case it leaves no traces on the stack or in registers so when code resumes execution it has no idea anything happened. (Again, the theme: we assume that method calls fiddle with registers, push arguments to the stack, move the stack pointer, etc but that is just the C calling convention. Nothing requires you to maintain a stack at all or to have any particular method call leave any traces of itself on the stack).
Since each stack is separate, you don't have some continuous chain of seemingly random method calls eventually overflowing the stack (which might be the result if you naively tried to implement this scheme using standard C methods that continuously called each other). You could implement this manually with a state machine where each fiber kept a state machine of where it was in its work, periodically returning to the calling dispatcher's method, but why bother when actual fiber/co-routine support is widely available?
Also remember that cooperative multitasking is orthogonal to processes, protected memory, address spaces, etc. Witness Mac OS 9 or Windows 3.x. They supported the idea of separate processes. But when you yielded, the context was changed to the OS context, allowing the OS scheduler to run, which then potentially selected another process to switch to. In theory you could have a full protected virtual memory OS that still used cooperative multitasking. In those systems, if a errant process never yielded, the OS scheduler never ran, so all other processes in the system were frozen. **
The next natural question is what makes something pre-emptive... The answer is that the OS schedules an interrupt timer with the CPU to stop the currently executing task and switch back to the OS scheduler's context regardless of whether the current task cares to release the CPU or not, thus "pre-empting" it.
If the OS uses CPU privilege levels, the (kernel configured) timer is not cancelable by lower level (user mode) code, though in theory if the OS didn't use such protections an errant task could mask off or cancel the interrupt timer and hijack the CPU. There are some other scenarios like IO calls where the scheduler can be invoked outside the timer, and the scheduler may decide no other process has higher priority and return control to the same process without a switch... And in reality most OSes don't do a real context switch here because that's expensive, the scheduler code runs inside the context of whatever process was executing, so it has to be very careful not to step on the stack, to save register states, etc.
** You might ask why not just fire a timer if yield isn't called within a certain period of time. The answer lies in multi-threaded synchronization. In a cooperative system, you don't have to bother taking locks, worry about re-entrance, etc because you only yield when things are in a known good state. If this mythical timer fires, you have now potentially corrupted the state of the program that was interrupted. If programs have to be written to handle this, congrats... You now have a half-assed pre-emptive multitasking system. Might as well just do it right! And if you are changing things anyway, may as well add threads, protected memory, etc. That's pretty much the history of the major OSes right there.
The basic idea behind cooperative multitasking is trust - that each subtask will relinquish control, of its own accord, in a timely fashion, to avoid starving other tasks of processor time. This is why tasks in a cooperative multitasking system need to be tested extremely thoroughly, and in some cases certified for use.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I imagine cooperative tasks could be implemented as state machines, where passing control to the task would cause it to run for the absolute minimal amount of time it needs to make any kind of progress. For example, a file reader might read the next few bytes of a file, a parser might parse the next line of a document, or a sensor controller might take a single reading, before returning control back to a cooperative scheduler, which would check for task completion.
Each task would have to keep its internal state on the heap (at object level), rather than on the stack frame (at function level) like a conventional blocking function or thread.
And unlike conventional multitasking, which relies on a hardware timer to trigger a context switch, cooperative multitasking relies on the code to be written in such a way that each step of each long-running task is guaranteed to finish in an acceptably small amount of time.
The tasks will execute an explicit wait or pause or yield operation which makes the call to the dispatcher. There may be different operations for waiting on IO to complete or explicitly yielding in a heavy computation. In an application task's main loop, it could have a *wait_for_event* call instead of busy polling. This would suspend the task until it has input to process.
There may also be a time-out mechanism for catching runaway tasks, but it is not the primary means of switching (or else it wouldn't be cooperative).
One way to think of cooperative multitasking is to split a task into steps (or states). Each task keeps track of the next step it needs to execute. When it's the task's turn, it executes only that one step and returns. That way, in the main loop of your program you are simply calling each task in order, and because each task only takes up a small amount of time to complete a single step, we end up with a system which allows all of the tasks to share cpu time (ie. cooperate).
I'm new to Qt so please excuse the simplicity of the question but I'm a bit confused on the Qt threading. Let's say I have 3 threads: the main default GUI thread, and 2 threads of my own creation (called WorkerThread). Each of my WorkerThreads inherits from QThread and are permanent threads that every so often wake up and send data out a socket and post status on a GUI element. How is the best way to 1) allow the GUI thread to set data in the WorkerThread object that the WorkerThread thread can use? 2) allow the WorkerThread to send status to the GUI thread to be displayed for the user? 3) Allow both WorkerThreads to use the same socket?
It seems from the documentation that when I create a WorkerThread object it is owned by the creating thread (except for the run method that is a new thread). So how does one set data for the new thread to execute on? Must all the data the new thread uses be global? For instance, I would like the GUI to allow the user to select a packet type for each of the WorkerThreads to send when they wake up. I had assumed that I would put in some slots in the WorkerThread that the GUI thread would signal. When the WorkerThread object received a signal to SetPacketType it would set a member variable that the run method references on each iteration. But after reading the documentation I'm not sure that is the way to do it. If the WorkerThread object is owned by the creating thread (GUI thread in this case) then sending signals to it doesn't cross thread boundaries does it?
Also, what is the proper technique for sharing the socket connection across threads?
Thanks in advance.
With Qt, the easiest way to send information between threads is to use signals and slots. Qt automatically uses queued signals for connections between threads (see Qt::ConnectionType), which ensures that a signal can be emitted from one thread, but the slot will be executed in the thread of the receiver object.
If the data being sent between threads (work to be done or status information) is something that Qt can automatically queue (e.g., QStrings, built-in types like int and double, and others), then passing the info as the arguments to the signal/slot is the best way to send the info. If large or complex data is being shared, then you either need to use qRegisterMetaType to allow Qt to copy the data, or pass a pointer to a thread-safe object. Unlike what Pie_Jesu said, the threads do share an address space so you can share pointers; just make sure that one thread's interaction with the shared object won't interfere with another thread's interactions.
QTcpSocket is not thread-safe (it's only reentrant according to Qt's documentation), so if you share the socket you will have to be responsible for ensuring that threads don't use the socket in conflicting ways.
I'm working with threads in C++/Qt, each one to establish and mantain a QTcpSocket connection.
The problem is that when a disconnection from network comes, those threads must reconnect in a certain order. That's already working, but I have another problem: I need to know into each thread if only current thread has been disconnected, or all of them have been disconnected.
The first idea I had was to pass every thread a reference to a class where I would be able to store each thread status and check everyone else's.
But then I had an easier idea, and I would like to know if it would work or if it impossible: use Qt's slots and signals.
So, every thread I have comes from the same class, but passing different data to the Ctor. So the idea would be to create a slot and a signal inside that class, connect them and emit the signal passing an ID. Then, every thread's slot would be launched... or I may be completely wrong and the only slot launched would be the one from the very same thread which emited the signal.
Is this possible or not?
First of all, signal-slot connections are done between signals and slots in QObjects, not between threads. Well, a QThread is a QObject, but you really should not derive from a QThread. Do not derive from QThread and you'll be fine.
What you do is:
Get one or more QThreads started (not merely constructed). Those QThreads are just the base Qt classes, don't derive from them. A started raw QThread is blocked, waiting for an event to be posted to its event queue. The default implementation of QThread::run() calls QEventLoop::exec() (or an equivalent). Thus those threads, after starting, don't consume any CPU cycles.
Instantiate a bunch of QObjects. Do all the signal/slot connections as necessary.
Move those objects to one or more QThreads by calling moveToThread(QThread*) on them.
As you see, setting up signal slot connections is done in the usual manner and does not require any special attention. Qt does everything for you, including changing connection types from Qt::DirectConnection to Qt::QueuedConnection when you move the QObjects between threads.
Note that you must not call any methods on those QObjects directly, because you'll be doing so likely from a different thread, so all sorts of bad things will happen as the access is not serialized. You must do any of the below, and only that, in order from fastest to slowest. Note that while #3 is always faster than #4, you need to benchmark between #2 and #3 as it varies.
Post a custom event to the QObject, and handle it in the derived QObject's customEvent(QEvent*) method.
Use the signal-slot connections, and emit signals that got connected to the QObjects' slots.
Use QMetaMethod::invoke on a previously looked up method. The is faster than #4 since the method lookup is done only once in advance.
Use QMetaObject::invokeMethod.
Posting QEvents to QObjects is faster than using signal-slot invocations, because there are no copy constructors called and there's no marshalling done except directly by you upon construction of a QEvent.
Only if profiling/benchmarking shows that event posting is too slow you'd want to look at using QSharedMemory. Having an excessive number of QThreads is counterproductive, you should have probably not more than the number of CPU cores on the system. Using synchronization primitives such as mutexes or semaphores naively requires you to commit way too many threads. You definitely do not want to have one thread per connection! Qt already has an event queue mutex for each QObject, by using the event queue you already use that.
Signal and slot connections are done in run time, i.e. you are connecting specific instances of a class. You cannot emit a signal and "broadcast" it to every instance of your class. Signals between different threads is possible, but maintaining them could be a bit of a hassle (It's all explained pretty well in the documentation).
If I were you, I'd probably look into QSemaphore or QSharedMemory.
The POSIX standard defines several routines for thread synchronization, based on concepts like mutexes and conditional variables.
my question is now: are these (like e.g. pthreads_cond_init(), pthreads_mutex_init(), pthreads_mutex_lock()... and so on) system calls or just library calls? i know they are included via "pthread.h", but do they finally result in a system call and therefore are implemented in the kernel of the operating system?
On Linux a pthread mutex makes a "futex" system call, but only if the lock is contended. That means that taking a lock no other thread wants is almost free.
In a similar way, sending a condition signal is only expensive when there is someone waiting for it.
So I believe that your answer is that pthread functions are library calls that sometimes result in a system call.
Whenever possible, the library avoids trapping into the kernel for performance reasons. If you already have some code that uses these calls you may want to take a look at the output from running your program with strace to better understand how often it is actually making system calls.
I never looked into all those library call , but as far as I understand they all involve kernel operations as they are supposed to provide synchronisations between process and/or threads at global level - I mean at the OS level.
The kernel need to maintain for a mutex, for instance, a thread list: threads that are currently sleeping, waiting that a locked mutex get released. When the thread that currently lock/owns that mutex invokes the kernel with pthread_mutex_release(), the kernel system call will browse that aforementioned list to get the higher priority thread that is waiting for the mutex release, flag the new mutex owner into the mutex kernel structure, and then will give away the cpu (aka "ontect switch") to the newly owner thread, thus this process will return from the posix library call pthread_mutex_lock().
I only see a cooperation with the kernel when it involves IPC between processes (I am not talking between threads at a single process level). Therefore I expect those library call to invoke the kernel, so.
When you compile a program on Linux that uses pthreads, you have to add -lphtread to the compiler options. by doing this, you tell the linker to link libpthreads. So, on linux, they are calls to a library.