Menu
I have some multithreaded code (see question Windows API Thread Pool simple example ) for which I am using a counter to identify a thread.
I have been advised to use an InterlockedIncrement to increment this counter in the thread's callback function. However this didn't seem to properly lock the variable, as I encountered some concurrency issues. I replaced the InterlockedIncrement by using a critical section manually : EnterCriticalSection/counter++/LeaveCriticalSection and this now works perfectly.
Why is it so ? Aren't the two options supposed to be strictly equivalent ? Note that I am talking about launching just a couple (about 10) of threads.
793
The difference is that TryEnterCriticalSection returns immediately, regardless of whether it obtained ownership of the critical section, while EnterCriticalSection blocks until the thread can take ownership of the critical section.
The thread must call LeaveCriticalSection once for each time that it entered the critical section. Any thread of the process can use the DeleteCriticalSection function to release the system resources that were allocated when the critical section object was initialized.
The thread enters the critical section each time EnterCriticalSection and TryEnterCriticalSection succeed. A thread must call LeaveCriticalSection once for each time that it entered the critical section.
While a process is exiting, if a call to EnterCriticalSection would block, it will instead terminate the process immediately. This may cause global destructors to not be called. For an example that uses EnterCriticalSection, see Using Critical Section Objects.
Your code is not using InterlockedIncrement correctly.
InterlockedIncrement(&(thread.threadCount));
DWORD tid = (thread.threadCount-1)%thread.size();
This performs an atomic increment of thread.threadCount, but instead of saving the atomically-incremented value, you ignore it and go back to the thread.threadCount variable (which may have been incremented by another thread in the meantime).
In your case, what happens is that two threads did an InterlockedIncrement nearly simultaneously, incrementing it from 1 to 2, then 2 to 3. Both threads then read thread.threadCount and got 3 back (then subtracted 1 to get a final result of 2).
The correct code is
LONG tidUnique = InterlockedIncrement(&(thread.threadCount));
DWORD tid = (tidUnique-1)%thread.size();
The unique incremented value is returned by InterlockedIncrement. You need to use that value in your computations if you want to see the unique value.
113
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
