C++0x has no semaphores? How to synchronize threads?

Question

Is it true that C++0x will come without semaphores? There are already some questions on Stack Overflow regarding the use of semaphores. I use them (posix semaphores) all the

Answer 1

in acordance with posix semaphores, I would add

class semaphore
{
    ...
    bool trywait()
    {
        boost::mutex::scoped_lock lock(mutex_);
        if(count_)
        {
            --count_;
            return true;
        }
        else
        {
            return false;
        }
    }
};

And I much prefer using a synchronisation mechanism at a convenient level of abstraction, rather than always copy pasting a stitched-together version using more basic operators.

Answer 2

In case someone is interested in the atomic version, here is the implementation. The performance is expected better than the mutex & condition variable version.

class semaphore_atomic
{
public:
    void notify() {
        count_.fetch_add(1, std::memory_order_release);
    }

    void wait() {
        while (true) {
            int count = count_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
            if (count > 0) {
                if (count_.compare_exchange_weak(count, count-1, std::memory_order_acq_rel, std::memory_order_relaxed)) {
                    break;
                }
            }
        }
    }

    bool try_wait() {
        int count = count_.load(std::memory_order_relaxed);
        if (count > 0) {
            if (count_.compare_exchange_strong(count, count-1, std::memory_order_acq_rel, std::memory_order_relaxed)) {
                return true;
            }
        }
        return false;
    }
private:
    std::atomic_int count_{0};
};

Answer 3

You can easily build one from a mutex and a condition variable:

#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>

class semaphore
{
private:
    std::mutex mutex_;
    std::condition_variable condition_;
    unsigned long count_ = 0; // Initialized as locked.

public:
    void notify() {
        std::lock_guard<decltype(mutex_)> lock(mutex_);
        ++count_;
        condition_.notify_one();
    }

    void wait() {
        std::unique_lock<decltype(mutex_)> lock(mutex_);
        while(!count_) // Handle spurious wake-ups.
            condition_.wait(lock);
        --count_;
    }

    bool try_wait() {
        std::lock_guard<decltype(mutex_)> lock(mutex_);
        if(count_) {
            --count_;
            return true;
        }
        return false;
    }
};

Answer 4

You can also check out cpp11-on-multicore - it has a portable and optimal semaphore implementation.

The repository also contains other threading goodies that complement c++11 threading.

Answer 5

I found the shared_ptr and weak_ptr, a long with a list, did the job I needed. My issue was, I had several clients wanting to interact with a host's internal data. Typically, the host updates the data on it's own, however, if a client requests it, the host needs to stop updating until no clients are accessing the host data. At the same time, a client could ask for exclusive access, so that no other clients, nor the host, could modify that host data.

How I did this was, I created a struct:

struct UpdateLock
{
    typedef std::shared_ptr< UpdateLock > ptr;
};

Each client would have a member of such:

UpdateLock::ptr m_myLock;

Then the host would have a weak_ptr member for exclusivity, and a list of weak_ptrs for non-exclusive locks:

std::weak_ptr< UpdateLock > m_exclusiveLock;
std::list< std::weak_ptr< UpdateLock > > m_locks;

There is a function to enable locking, and another function to check if the host is locked:

UpdateLock::ptr LockUpdate( bool exclusive );       
bool IsUpdateLocked( bool exclusive ) const;

I test for locks in LockUpdate, IsUpdateLocked, and periodically in the host's Update routine. Testing for a lock is as simple as checking if the weak_ptr's expired, and removing any expired from the m_locks list (I only do this during the host update), I can check if the list is empty; at the same time, I get automatic unlocking when a client resets the shared_ptr they are hanging onto, which also happens when a client gets destroyed automatically.

The over all effect is, since clients rarely need exclusivity (typically reserved for additions and deletions only), most of the time a request to LockUpdate( false ), that is to say non-exclusive, succeeds so long as (! m_exclusiveLock). And a LockUpdate( true ), a request for exclusivity, succeeds only when both (! m_exclusiveLock) and (m_locks.empty()).

A queue could be added to mitigate between exclusive and non-exclusive locks, however, I have had no collisions thus far, so I intend to wait until that happens to add the solution (mostly so I have a real-world test condition).

So far this is working well for my needs; I can imagine the need to expand this, and some issues that might arise over expanded use, however, this was quick to implement, and required very little custom code.

Answer 6

I decided to write the most robust/generic C++11 semaphore I could, in the style of the standard as much as I could (note using semaphore = ..., you normally would just use the name semaphore similar to normally using string not basic_string):

template <typename Mutex, typename CondVar>
class basic_semaphore {
public:
    using native_handle_type = typename CondVar::native_handle_type;

    explicit basic_semaphore(size_t count = 0);
    basic_semaphore(const basic_semaphore&) = delete;
    basic_semaphore(basic_semaphore&&) = delete;
    basic_semaphore& operator=(const basic_semaphore&) = delete;
    basic_semaphore& operator=(basic_semaphore&&) = delete;

    void notify();
    void wait();
    bool try_wait();
    template<class Rep, class Period>
    bool wait_for(const std::chrono::duration<Rep, Period>& d);
    template<class Clock, class Duration>
    bool wait_until(const std::chrono::time_point<Clock, Duration>& t);

    native_handle_type native_handle();

private:
    Mutex   mMutex;
    CondVar mCv;
    size_t  mCount;
};

using semaphore = basic_semaphore<std::mutex, std::condition_variable>;

template <typename Mutex, typename CondVar>
basic_semaphore<Mutex, CondVar>::basic_semaphore(size_t count)
    : mCount{count}
{}

template <typename Mutex, typename CondVar>
void basic_semaphore<Mutex, CondVar>::notify() {
    std::lock_guard<Mutex> lock{mMutex};
    ++mCount;
    mCv.notify_one();
}

template <typename Mutex, typename CondVar>
void basic_semaphore<Mutex, CondVar>::wait() {
    std::unique_lock<Mutex> lock{mMutex};
    mCv.wait(lock, [&]{ return mCount > 0; });
    --mCount;
}

template <typename Mutex, typename CondVar>
bool basic_semaphore<Mutex, CondVar>::try_wait() {
    std::lock_guard<Mutex> lock{mMutex};

    if (mCount > 0) {
        --mCount;
        return true;
    }

    return false;
}

template <typename Mutex, typename CondVar>
template<class Rep, class Period>
bool basic_semaphore<Mutex, CondVar>::wait_for(const std::chrono::duration<Rep, Period>& d) {
    std::unique_lock<Mutex> lock{mMutex};
    auto finished = mCv.wait_for(lock, d, [&]{ return mCount > 0; });

    if (finished)
        --mCount;

    return finished;
}

template <typename Mutex, typename CondVar>
template<class Clock, class Duration>
bool basic_semaphore<Mutex, CondVar>::wait_until(const std::chrono::time_point<Clock, Duration>& t) {
    std::unique_lock<Mutex> lock{mMutex};
    auto finished = mCv.wait_until(lock, t, [&]{ return mCount > 0; });

    if (finished)
        --mCount;

    return finished;
}

template <typename Mutex, typename CondVar>
typename basic_semaphore<Mutex, CondVar>::native_handle_type basic_semaphore<Mutex, CondVar>::native_handle() {
    return mCv.native_handle();
}