Creating threads with pthread_create() doesn't work on my linux - g++

Question

I have this piece of c/c++ code:
void * myThreadFun(void *vargp)
{
int start = atoi((char*)vargp) % nFracK;
printf("Thread start = %d, dQ = %d\n", start, dQ);
pthread_mutex_lock(&nItermutex);
nIter++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&nItermutex);
}
void Opt() {
pthread_t thread[200];
char start[100];
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
sprintf(start, "%d", i);
int ret = pthread_create (&thread[i], NULL, myThreadFun, (void*) start);
printf("ret = %d on thread %d\n", ret, i);
}
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
pthread_join(thread[i], NULL);
}
But it should create 10 threads. I don't understand why, instead, it creates n < 10 threads.
The ret value is always 0 (for 10 times).

Answer 1

But it should create 10 threads. I don't understand why, instead, it creates n < 10 threads. The ret value is always 0 (for 10 times).
Your program contains at least one data race, therefore its behavior is undefined.
The provided source is also is incomplete, so it's impossible to be sure that I can test the same thing you are testing. Nevertheless, I performed the minimum augmentation needed for g++ to compile it without warnings, and tested that:
#include <cstdlib>
#include <cstdio>
#include <pthread.h>
pthread_mutex_t nItermutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
const int nFracK = 100;
const int dQ = 4;
int nIter = 0;
void * myThreadFun(void *vargp)
{
int start = atoi((char*)vargp) % nFracK;
printf("Thread start = %d, dQ = %d\n", start, dQ);
pthread_mutex_lock(&nItermutex);
nIter++;
pthread_mutex_unlock(&nItermutex);
return NULL;
}
void Opt() {
pthread_t thread[200];
char start[100];
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
sprintf(start, "%d", i);
int ret = pthread_create (&thread[i], NULL, myThreadFun, (void*) start);
printf("ret = %d on thread %d\n", ret, i);
}
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
pthread_join(thread[i], NULL);
}
int main(void) {
Opt();
return 0;
}
The fact that its behavior is undefined notwithstanding, when I run this program on my Linux machine, it invariably prints exactly ten "Thread start" lines, albeit not all with distinct numbers. The most plausible conclusion is that the program indeed does start ten (additional) threads, which is consistent with the fact that the output also seems to indicate that each call to pthread_create() indicates success by returning 0. I therefore reject your assertion that fewer than ten threads are actually started.
Presumably, the followup question would be why the program does not print the expected output, and here we return to the data race and accompanying undefined behavior. The main thread writes a text representation of iteration variable i into local array data of function Opt, and passes a pointer to that same array to each call to pthread_create(). When it then cycles back to do it again, there is a race between the newly created thread trying to read back the data and the main thread overwriting the array's contents with new data. I suppose that your idea was to avoid passing &i, but this is neither better nor fundamentally different.
You have several options for avoiding a data race in such a situation, prominent among them being:
initialize each thread indirectly from a different object, for example:
int start[10];
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
start[i] = i;
int ret = pthread_create(&thread[i], NULL, myThreadFun, &start[i]);
}
Note there that each thread is passed a pointer to a different array element, which the main thread does not subsequently modify.
initialize each thread directly from the value passed to it. This is not always a viable alternative, but it is possible in this case:
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
start[i] = i;
int ret = pthread_create(&thread[i], NULL, myThreadFun,
reinterpret_cast<void *>(static_cast<std::intptr_t>(i)));
}
accompanied by corresponding code in the thread function:
int start = reinterpret_cast<std::intptr_t>(vargp) % nFracK;
This is a fairly common idiom, though more often used when writing in pthreads's native language, C, where it's less verbose.
Use a mutex, semaphore, or other synchronization object to prevent the main thread from modifying the array before the child has read it. (Left as an exercise.)
Any of those options can be used to write a program that produces the expected output, with each thread responsible for printing one line. Supposing, of course, that the expectations of the output do not include that the relative order of the threads' outputs will be the same as the relative order in which they were started. If you want that, then only the option of synchronizing the parent and child threads will achieve it.