Using a single Condition Variable to pause multiple threads
I have a program that starts N number of threads (async/future). I want the main thread to set up some data, then all threads should go while the main thread waits for all of the other threads to finish, and then this needs to loop.
What I have atm is something like this
int main()
//Start N new threads (std::future/std::async)
while(condition)
//Set Up Data Here
//Send Data to threads
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
bRun = true;
run.notify_all();
//Wait for threads
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
run.wait(lock, return bDone; );
//Reset bools
bRun = false;
bDone = false;
//Get results from futures once complete
int thread()
while(otherCondition)
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
run.wait(lock, return bRun; );
bDone = true;
//Do thread stuff here
lock.unlock();
run.notify_all();
But I can't see any signs of either the main or the other threads waiting for each other! Any idea what I am doing wrong or how I can do this?
c++ multithreading asynchronous condition-variable
add a comment |
I have a program that starts N number of threads (async/future). I want the main thread to set up some data, then all threads should go while the main thread waits for all of the other threads to finish, and then this needs to loop.
What I have atm is something like this
int main()
//Start N new threads (std::future/std::async)
while(condition)
//Set Up Data Here
//Send Data to threads
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
bRun = true;
run.notify_all();
//Wait for threads
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
run.wait(lock, return bDone; );
//Reset bools
bRun = false;
bDone = false;
//Get results from futures once complete
int thread()
while(otherCondition)
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
run.wait(lock, return bRun; );
bDone = true;
//Do thread stuff here
lock.unlock();
run.notify_all();
But I can't see any signs of either the main or the other threads waiting for each other! Any idea what I am doing wrong or how I can do this?
c++ multithreading asynchronous condition-variable
add a comment |
I have a program that starts N number of threads (async/future). I want the main thread to set up some data, then all threads should go while the main thread waits for all of the other threads to finish, and then this needs to loop.
What I have atm is something like this
int main()
//Start N new threads (std::future/std::async)
while(condition)
//Set Up Data Here
//Send Data to threads
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
bRun = true;
run.notify_all();
//Wait for threads
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
run.wait(lock, return bDone; );
//Reset bools
bRun = false;
bDone = false;
//Get results from futures once complete
int thread()
while(otherCondition)
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
run.wait(lock, return bRun; );
bDone = true;
//Do thread stuff here
lock.unlock();
run.notify_all();
But I can't see any signs of either the main or the other threads waiting for each other! Any idea what I am doing wrong or how I can do this?
c++ multithreading asynchronous condition-variable
I have a program that starts N number of threads (async/future). I want the main thread to set up some data, then all threads should go while the main thread waits for all of the other threads to finish, and then this needs to loop.
What I have atm is something like this
int main()
//Start N new threads (std::future/std::async)
while(condition)
//Set Up Data Here
//Send Data to threads
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
bRun = true;
run.notify_all();
//Wait for threads
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
run.wait(lock, return bDone; );
//Reset bools
bRun = false;
bDone = false;
//Get results from futures once complete
int thread()
while(otherCondition)
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
run.wait(lock, return bRun; );
bDone = true;
//Do thread stuff here
lock.unlock();
run.notify_all();
But I can't see any signs of either the main or the other threads waiting for each other! Any idea what I am doing wrong or how I can do this?
c++ multithreading asynchronous condition-variable
c++ multithreading asynchronous condition-variable
asked Nov 13 '18 at 0:01
Vexed ProgrammerVexed Programmer
133
133
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
There are a couple of problems. First, you're setting bDone
as soon as the first worker wakes up. Thus the main thread wakes immediately and begins readying the next data set. You want to have the main thread wait until all workers have finished processing their data. Second, when a worker finishes processing, it loops around and immediately checks bRun
. But it can't tell if bRun == true
means that the next data set is ready or if the last data set is ready. You want to wait for the next data set.
Something like this should work:
std::mutex mrun;
std::condition_variable dataReady;
std::condition_variable workComplete;
int nCurrentIteration = 0;
int nWorkerCount = 0;
int main()
//Start N new threads (std::future/std::async)
while(condition)
//Set Up Data Here
//Send Data to threads
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
nWorkerCount = N;
++nCurrentIteration;
dataReady.notify_all();
//Wait for threads
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
workComplete.wait(lock, return nWorkerCount == 0; );
//Get results from futures once complete
int thread()
int nNextIteration == 1;
while(otherCondition)
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
dataReady.wait(lock, [&nNextIteration] return nCurrentIteration==nNextIteration; );
lock.unlock();
++nNextIteration;
//Do thread stuff here
lock.lock();
if (--nWorkerCount == 0)
lock.unlock();
workComplete.notify_one();
Be aware that this solution isn't quite complete. If a worker encounters an exception, then the main thread will hang (because the dead worker will never reduce nWorkerCount
). You'll likely need a strategy to deal with that scenario.
Incidentally, this pattern is called a barrier
.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
StackExchange.snippets.init();
);
);
, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53271862%2fusing-a-single-condition-variable-to-pause-multiple-threads%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There are a couple of problems. First, you're setting bDone
as soon as the first worker wakes up. Thus the main thread wakes immediately and begins readying the next data set. You want to have the main thread wait until all workers have finished processing their data. Second, when a worker finishes processing, it loops around and immediately checks bRun
. But it can't tell if bRun == true
means that the next data set is ready or if the last data set is ready. You want to wait for the next data set.
Something like this should work:
std::mutex mrun;
std::condition_variable dataReady;
std::condition_variable workComplete;
int nCurrentIteration = 0;
int nWorkerCount = 0;
int main()
//Start N new threads (std::future/std::async)
while(condition)
//Set Up Data Here
//Send Data to threads
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
nWorkerCount = N;
++nCurrentIteration;
dataReady.notify_all();
//Wait for threads
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
workComplete.wait(lock, return nWorkerCount == 0; );
//Get results from futures once complete
int thread()
int nNextIteration == 1;
while(otherCondition)
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
dataReady.wait(lock, [&nNextIteration] return nCurrentIteration==nNextIteration; );
lock.unlock();
++nNextIteration;
//Do thread stuff here
lock.lock();
if (--nWorkerCount == 0)
lock.unlock();
workComplete.notify_one();
Be aware that this solution isn't quite complete. If a worker encounters an exception, then the main thread will hang (because the dead worker will never reduce nWorkerCount
). You'll likely need a strategy to deal with that scenario.
Incidentally, this pattern is called a barrier
.
add a comment |
There are a couple of problems. First, you're setting bDone
as soon as the first worker wakes up. Thus the main thread wakes immediately and begins readying the next data set. You want to have the main thread wait until all workers have finished processing their data. Second, when a worker finishes processing, it loops around and immediately checks bRun
. But it can't tell if bRun == true
means that the next data set is ready or if the last data set is ready. You want to wait for the next data set.
Something like this should work:
std::mutex mrun;
std::condition_variable dataReady;
std::condition_variable workComplete;
int nCurrentIteration = 0;
int nWorkerCount = 0;
int main()
//Start N new threads (std::future/std::async)
while(condition)
//Set Up Data Here
//Send Data to threads
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
nWorkerCount = N;
++nCurrentIteration;
dataReady.notify_all();
//Wait for threads
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
workComplete.wait(lock, return nWorkerCount == 0; );
//Get results from futures once complete
int thread()
int nNextIteration == 1;
while(otherCondition)
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
dataReady.wait(lock, [&nNextIteration] return nCurrentIteration==nNextIteration; );
lock.unlock();
++nNextIteration;
//Do thread stuff here
lock.lock();
if (--nWorkerCount == 0)
lock.unlock();
workComplete.notify_one();
Be aware that this solution isn't quite complete. If a worker encounters an exception, then the main thread will hang (because the dead worker will never reduce nWorkerCount
). You'll likely need a strategy to deal with that scenario.
Incidentally, this pattern is called a barrier
.
add a comment |
There are a couple of problems. First, you're setting bDone
as soon as the first worker wakes up. Thus the main thread wakes immediately and begins readying the next data set. You want to have the main thread wait until all workers have finished processing their data. Second, when a worker finishes processing, it loops around and immediately checks bRun
. But it can't tell if bRun == true
means that the next data set is ready or if the last data set is ready. You want to wait for the next data set.
Something like this should work:
std::mutex mrun;
std::condition_variable dataReady;
std::condition_variable workComplete;
int nCurrentIteration = 0;
int nWorkerCount = 0;
int main()
//Start N new threads (std::future/std::async)
while(condition)
//Set Up Data Here
//Send Data to threads
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
nWorkerCount = N;
++nCurrentIteration;
dataReady.notify_all();
//Wait for threads
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
workComplete.wait(lock, return nWorkerCount == 0; );
//Get results from futures once complete
int thread()
int nNextIteration == 1;
while(otherCondition)
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
dataReady.wait(lock, [&nNextIteration] return nCurrentIteration==nNextIteration; );
lock.unlock();
++nNextIteration;
//Do thread stuff here
lock.lock();
if (--nWorkerCount == 0)
lock.unlock();
workComplete.notify_one();
Be aware that this solution isn't quite complete. If a worker encounters an exception, then the main thread will hang (because the dead worker will never reduce nWorkerCount
). You'll likely need a strategy to deal with that scenario.
Incidentally, this pattern is called a barrier
.
There are a couple of problems. First, you're setting bDone
as soon as the first worker wakes up. Thus the main thread wakes immediately and begins readying the next data set. You want to have the main thread wait until all workers have finished processing their data. Second, when a worker finishes processing, it loops around and immediately checks bRun
. But it can't tell if bRun == true
means that the next data set is ready or if the last data set is ready. You want to wait for the next data set.
Something like this should work:
std::mutex mrun;
std::condition_variable dataReady;
std::condition_variable workComplete;
int nCurrentIteration = 0;
int nWorkerCount = 0;
int main()
//Start N new threads (std::future/std::async)
while(condition)
//Set Up Data Here
//Send Data to threads
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
nWorkerCount = N;
++nCurrentIteration;
dataReady.notify_all();
//Wait for threads
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
workComplete.wait(lock, return nWorkerCount == 0; );
//Get results from futures once complete
int thread()
int nNextIteration == 1;
while(otherCondition)
std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lock(mrun);
dataReady.wait(lock, [&nNextIteration] return nCurrentIteration==nNextIteration; );
lock.unlock();
++nNextIteration;
//Do thread stuff here
lock.lock();
if (--nWorkerCount == 0)
lock.unlock();
workComplete.notify_one();
Be aware that this solution isn't quite complete. If a worker encounters an exception, then the main thread will hang (because the dead worker will never reduce nWorkerCount
). You'll likely need a strategy to deal with that scenario.
Incidentally, this pattern is called a barrier
.
edited Nov 13 '18 at 5:27
answered Nov 13 '18 at 5:09
Peter RudermanPeter Ruderman
10.2k2352
10.2k2352
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53271862%2fusing-a-single-condition-variable-to-pause-multiple-threads%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown