Using a single Condition Variable to pause multiple threads












2














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?










share|improve this question



























    2














    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?










    share|improve this question

























      2












      2








      2







      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?










      share|improve this question













      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






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked Nov 13 '18 at 0:01









      Vexed Programmer

      133




      133
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          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.






          share|improve this answer























            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            0














            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.






            share|improve this answer




























              0














              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.






              share|improve this answer


























                0












                0








                0






                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.






                share|improve this answer














                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.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited Nov 13 '18 at 5:27

























                answered Nov 13 '18 at 5:09









                Peter Ruderman

                10.1k2352




                10.1k2352






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Bressuire

                    Vorschmack

                    Quarantine