As described in this question, use of boost's interprocess_mutex and interproces condition_variable may result in a deadlock if the process holding the mutex crashes.
This is because boost's mutex is not a kernel object and therefore is not automatically released when the process holding it exits.
Is there a way in boost to use interprocess conditional variables with the mutex returned by a call to CreateMutex?
Just use CreateSemaphore() directly to implement condvars across multiple processes. You don't need to use Boost condvars. Windows provides a very rich set of well defined, fairly correct, named machine-wide synchronisation objects. Use those instead.
Related
I am moving my code from ACE library support to boost library support. I need to replace ACE_Semaphore. It seems C++11 doesn't support semaphore methods. I have seen named_semaphore in boost. Another choice I saw was to go for POCO semaphore where in I have to include POCO libraries. Kindly give me suggestions as to which is the best way to move forward.
Edit: This is for intra process thread synchronization.
The short answer is: yes.
If for intra-process synchronization, you can simply emulate one with a mutex+condition variable:
C++0x has no semaphores? How to synchronize threads?
Note though, usually a mutex + condition variable will do, as the concrete condition doesn't usually take the form of a counter. (E.g. Synchronizing three threads with Condition Variable)
For interprocess synchronization you use the named semaphore. An example: How to limit the number of running instances in C++ Note that there are implementation differences¹.
¹ e.g. named_semaphore in boost allocates its own shared resource, while in ACE it's assumed the user allocates it from existing shared space. In boost, you obviously also can, as long as your platform supports native synchronization primitives in shared memory
I was wondering if calling Write() on an os.File is thread safe. I'm having a hard time finding any mention of thread safety in the docs.
The convention (at least for the standard library) is the following: No function/method is safe for concurrent use unless explicitly stated (or obvious from the context).
It is not safe to write concurrently to an os.File via Write() without external synchronization.
After browsing the source code a little bit I found the following method which is eventually called by file.Write(). Since there are race condition checks in place, I'm assuming that the call is in fact not thread-safe within Go (Source).
However, it seemed unlikely that those system calls wouldn't be thread-safe on an OS level. After some browsing I came upon this interesting answer that fueled my suspicions even more. For windows the source indicates a call to WriteFile which also appears to be thread safe.
I'm new to the language so bear with me.
I am curious how GO handles data storage available to threads, in the sense that non-local variables can also be non-volatile, like in Java for instance.
GO has the concept of channel, which, by it's nature -- inter thread communication, means it bypasses processor cache, and reads/writes to heap directly.
Also, have not found any reference to volatile in the go lang documentation.
TL;DR: Go does not have a keyword to make a variable safe for multiple goroutines to write/read it. Use the sync/atomic package for that. Or better yet Do not communicate by sharing memory; instead, share memory by communicating.
Two answers for the two meanings of volatile
.NET/Java concurrency
Some excerpts from the Go Memory Model.
If the effects of a goroutine must be observed by another goroutine,
use a synchronization mechanism such as a lock or channel
communication to establish a relative ordering.
One of the examples from the Incorrect Synchronization section is an example of busy waiting on value.
Worse, there is no guarantee that the write to done will ever be
observed by main, since there are no synchronization events between
the two threads. The loop in main is not guaranteed to finish.
Indeed, this code(play.golang.org/p/K8ndH7DUzq) never exits.
C/C++ non-standard memory
Go's memory model does not provide a way to address non-standard memory. If you have raw access to a device's I/O bus you'll need to use assembly or C to safely write values to the memory locations. I have only ever needed to do this in a device driver which generally precludes use of Go.
The simple answer is that volatile is not supported by the current Go specification, period.
If you do have one of the use cases where volatile is necessary, such as low-level atomic memory access that is unsupported by existing packages in the standard library, or unbuffered access to hardware mapped memory, you'll need to link in a C or assembly file.
Note that if you do use C or assembly as understood by the GC compiler suite, you don't even need cgo for that, since the [568]c C/asm compilers are also able to handle it.
You can find examples of that in Go's source code. For example:
http://golang.org/src/pkg/runtime/sema.goc
http://golang.org/src/pkg/runtime/atomic_arm.c
Grep for many other instances.
For how memory access in Go does work, check out The Go Memory Model.
No, go does not support the volatile or register statement.
See this post for more information.
This is also noted in the Go for C++ Programmers guide.
The Go Memory Model documentation explains why the concept of 'volatile' has no application in Go.
Loosely: Among other things, goroutines are free to keep goroutine-local changes cached in registers so those changes are not observable by other goroutines. To "flush" those changes to memory, a synchronization must be performed. Either by using locks or by communicating (channel send or receive).
AFAIK, the mutex API was introduced to the kernel after LDD3 (Linux device drivers 3rd edition) was written so it's not described in the book.
The book describes how to use the kernel's semaphore API for mutex functionality.
It suggest to use down_interruptable() instead of down():
You do not, as a general rule,
want to use noninterruptible operations unless there truly is no alternative. Non-interruptible operations are a good way to create unkillable processes (the dreaded
“D state” seen in ps), and annoy your users [Linux Device Drivers 3rd ed]
Now. here's my question:
The mutex API has two "similar" functions:
mutex_lock_killable() an mutex_lock_interruptable(). Which one should I choose?
Use mutex_lock_interruptible() function to allow your driver to be interrupted by any signal.
This implies that your system call should be written so that it can be restarted.
(Also see ERESTARTSYS.)
Use mutex_lock_killable() to allow your driver to be interrupted only by signals that actually kill the process, i.e., when the process has no opportunity to look at the results of your system call, or even to try it again.
Use mutex_lock() when you can guarantee that the mutex will not be held for a long time.
Two Windows processes have memory mapped the same shared file. If the file consists of counters, is it appropriate to use the Interlocked* functions (like InterlockedIncrement) to update those counters? Will those synchronize access across processes? Or do I need to use something heavier, like a mutex? Or perhaps the shared-memory mechanism itself ensures consistent views.
The interlocked functions are intended for exactly that type of use.
From http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684122.aspx:
The threads of different processes can use these functions if the variable is in shared memory.
Of course, if you need to have more than one item updated atomically, you'll need to go with a mutex or some other synchronization object that works across processes. There's nothing built-in to the shared memory mechanism to provide synchronization to access to the shared memory - you'll need to use the interlocked functions or a synchronization object.
From MSDN:
...
The Interlocked API
The interlocked functions provide a
simple mechanism for synchronizing
access to a variable that is shared by
multiple threads. They also perform
operations on variables in an atomic
manner. The threads of different
processes can use these functions if
the variable is in shared memory.
So, yes, it is safe with your shared memory approach.