why does std::condition_variable::wait need mutex?

Question

TL;DR

Why does std::condition_variable::wait needs a mutex as one of its variables?

---

Answer 1

You may look a the documentation and quote that:

 wait... Atomically releases lock

But that's not a real reason. That's just validate my question even more: why does it need it in the first place?

Answer 2

predicate is most likely query the state of a shared resource and it must be lock guarded.

OK. fair. Two questions here

1. Is it always true that predicate query the state of a shared resource? I assume yes. I t doesn't make sense to me to implement it otherwise
2. What if I do not pass any predicate (it is optional)?

Using predicate - lock makes sense

int i = 0;
void waits()
{
    std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(cv_m);
    cv.wait(lk, []{return i == 1;});
    std::cout << i;
}

Not Using predicate - why can't we lock after the wait?

int i = 0;
void waits()
{
    cv.wait(lk);
    std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(cv_m);
    std::cout << i;
}

Notes

I know that there are no harmful implications to this practice. I just don't know how to explain to my self why it was design this way?

Question

If predicate is optional and is not passed to wait, why do we need the lock?

Woodrowwoodruff

If you don't pass a predicate down to wait, you have to check a predicate yourself after the call to wait returns. You always need some predicate, no exceptions. Wakeup in and by itself is meaningless (look up "spurious wakeup"). – Wide

See also this (ot descrines POSIX condvars but C++ is modelled after POSIX). – Wide

Yes. I'll have to check the predicate myself however I can lock the mutex myself after the wait – Woodrowwoodruff

You always need to lock the mutex immediately after the wait. It isn't clear why you would want to separate these actions. – Wide

I just don't know how to explain to my self why it was design this way? Select your own design, and try to use it. E.g., try to implement FIFO queue with pop() operation waiting on empty queue. Most likely, you will unable to implement this using wait of your design. However: 1. C++11 approach to waits is not the only possible one. Some libraries provide another approaches. 2. Your example under "Not Using predicate" actually doesn't require mutex to be locked. But the example by itself is not very useful. – Nicety

The problem is that you treat condition variable as a win32 event. they are not the same. event freezes the thread until it's signaled. condition variable freezes the thread until some condition is met. this is why the first doesn't need a mutex, but the latter does. the latter expects some shared condition to be changed, hence the lock to protect both the modifier and the frozen thread. – Cleanly

What do you mean by "there are no harmful implications to this practice"? What practice? – Shackleton

Answer 1

When using a condition variable to wait for a condition, a thread performs the following sequence of steps:

1. It determines that the condition is not currently true.
2. It starts waiting for some other thread to make the condition true. This is the wait call.

For example, the condition might be that a queue has elements in it, and a thread might see that the queue is empty and wait for another thread to put things in the queue.

If another thread were to intercede between these two steps, it could make the condition true and notify on the condition variable before the first thread actually starts waiting. In this case, the waiting thread would not receive the notification, and it might never stop waiting.

The purpose of requiring the lock to be held is to prevent other threads from interceding like this. Additionally, the lock must be unlocked to allow other threads to do whatever we're waiting for, but it can't happen before the wait call because of the notify-before-wait problem, and it can't happen after the wait call because we can't do anything while we're waiting. It has to be part of the wait call, so wait has to know about the lock.

Now, you might look at the notify_* methods and notice that those methods don't require the lock to be held, so there's nothing actually stopping another thread from notifying between steps 1 and 2. However, a thread calling notify_* is supposed to hold the lock while performing whatever action it does to make the condition true, which is usually enough protection.

Gondolier

Where does the step of Atomically releases lock fit in with the two steps you mentioned? – Woodrowwoodruff

@idanshmu: That's part of step 2. – Gondolier

What if predicate is empty? In this case, the lock is redundant? – Woodrowwoodruff

@idanshmu: Like n.m. said, there's always a predicate, whether or not you pass one to wait. You're waiting for something. – Gondolier

But didn't we say the wait is done after the lock is released? – Woodrowwoodruff

@idanshmu: Nope. – Gondolier

Answer 2

TL;DR

If predicate is optional and is not passed to wait, why do we need the lock?

condition_variable is designed to wait for a certain condition to come true, not to wait just for a notification. So to "catch" the "moment" when the condition becomes true you need to check the condition and wait for the notification. And to avoid a race condition you need those two to be a single atomic operation.

Purpose Of condition_variable:

Enable a program to implement this: do some action when a condition C holds.

Intended Protocol:

• Condition producer changes state of the world from !C to C.
• Condition consumer waits for C to happen and takes the action while/after condition C holds.

Simplification:

For simplicity (to limit number of cases to think of) let's assume that C never switches back to !C. Let's also forget about spurious wakeups. Even with this assumptions we'll see that the lock is necessary.

Naive Approach:

Let's have two threads with an essential code summarized like this:

void producer() {
  _condition = true;
  _condition_variable.notify_all();
}

void consumer() {
  if (!_condition) {
    _condition_variable.wait();
  }
  action();
}

The Problem:

The problem here is a race condition. A problematic interleaving of the threads is following:

• The consumer reads condition, checks it to be false and decides to wait.
• A thread scheduler interrupts consumer and resumes producer.
• The producer updates condition to become true and invokes notify_all().
• The consumer is resumed.
• The consumer actually does wait(), but is never notified and waken up (a liveness hazard).

So without locking the consumer may miss the event of the condition becoming true.

Solution:

Disclaimer: this code still does not handle spurious wakeups and possibility of condition becoming false again.

void producer() {
  { std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(_mutex);
    _condition = true;
  }
  _condition_variable.notify_all();
}

void consumer() {
  { std::unique_lock<std::mutex> l(_mutex);
    if (!_condition) {
      _condition_variable.wait(l);
    }
  }
  action();
}

Here we check condition, release lock and start waiting as a single atomic operation, preventing the race condition mentioned before.

See Also

Why Lock condition await must hold the lock

Camfort

Answer 3

You need a std::unique_lock when using std::condition_variable for the same reason you need a std::FILE* when using std::fwrite and for the same reason a BasicLockable is necessary when using std::unique_lock itself.

The feature std::fwrite gives you, entire the reason it exists, is to write to files. So you have to give it a file. The feature std::unique_lock provides you is RAII locking and unlocking of a mutex (or another BasicLockable, like std::shared_mutex, etc.) so you have to give it something to lock and unlock.

The feature std::condition_variable provides, the entire reason it exists, is the atomically waiting and unlocking a lock (and completing a wait and locking). So you have to give it something to lock.

---

Why would someone want that is a separate question that has been discussed already. For example:

• When is a condition variable needed, isn't a mutex enough?
• Conditional Variable vs Semaphore
• Advantages of using condition variables over mutex

And so on.

---

As has been explained, the pred parameter is optional, but having some sort of a predicate and testing it isn't. Or, in other words, not having a predicate doesn't make any sense inn a manner similar to how having a condition variable without a lock doesn't making any sense.

The reason you have a lock is because you have shared state you need to protect from simultaneous access. Some function of that shared state is the predicate.

If you don't have a predicate and you don't have a lock you really don't need a condition variable just like if you don't have a file you really don't need fwrite.

---

A final point is that the second code snippet you wrote is very broken. Obviously it won't compile as you define the lock after you try to pass it as an argument to condition_variable::wait(). You probably meant something like:

std::mutex mtx_cv;
std::condition_variable cv;

...

{
    std::unique_lock<std::mutex> lk(mtx_cv);
    cv.wait(lk);
    lk.lock();    // throws std::system_error with an error code of std::errc::resource_deadlock_would_occur
}

The reason this is wrong is very simple. condition_variable::wait's effects are (from [thread.condition.condvar]):

Effects:
— Atomically calls lock.unlock() and blocks on *this.
— When unblocked, calls lock.lock() (possibly blocking on the lock), then returns.
— The function will unblock when signaled by a call to notify_one() or a call to notify_all(), or spuriously

After the return from wait() the lock is locked, and unique_lock::lock() throws an exception if it has already locked the mutex it wraps ([thread.lock.unique.locking]).

Again, why would someone want coupling waiting and locking the way std::condition_variable does is a separate question, but given that it does - you cannot, by definition, lock a std::condition_variable's std::unique_lock after std::condition_variable::wait has returned.

Shackleton

Answer 4

It's not stated in the documentation (and could be implemented differently) but conceptually you can imagine the condition variable has another mutex to both protect its own data but also coordinate the condition, waiting and notification with modification of the consumer code data (e.g. queue.size()) affecting the test.

So when you call wait(...) the following (logically) happens.

1. Precondition: The consumer code holds the lock (CCL) controlling the consumer condition data (CCD).
2. The condition is checked, if true, execution in the consumer code continues still holding the lock.
3. If false, it first acquires its own lock (CVL), adds the current thread to the waiting thread collection releases the consumer lock and puts itself to waiting and releases its own lock (CVL).

That final step is tricky because it needs to sleep the thread and release the CVL at the same time or in that order or in a way that threads notified just before going to wait are able to (somehow) not go to wait.

The step of acquiring the CVL before releasing the CCD is key. Any parallel thread trying to update the CCD and notify will be blocked either by the CCL or CVL. If the CCL was released before acquiring the CVL a parallel thread could acquire the CCL, change the data and then notify before the the to-be-waiting thread is added to the waiters.

A parallel thread acquires the CCL, modifies the data to make the condition true (or at least worth testing) and then notifies. Notification acquires the the CVL and identifies a blocked thread (or threads) if any to unwait. The unwaited threads then seek to acquire the CCL and may block there but won't leave wait and re-perform the test until they've acquired it.

Notification must acquire the CVL to make sure threads that have found the test false have been added to the waiters.

It's OK (possibly preferable for performance) to notify without holding the CCL because the hand-off between the CCL and CVL in the wait code is ensuring the ordering. It may be preferrable because notifying when holding the CCL may mean all the unwaited threads just unwait to block (on the CCL) while the thread modifying the data is still holding the lock.

Notice that even if the CCD is atomic you must modify it holding the CCL or that Lock CVL, unlock CCL step won't ensure the total ordering required to make sure notifications aren't sent when threads are in the process of going to wait.

The standard only talks about atomicity of operations and another implementation may have a way of blocking notification before completing the 'add to waiters' step has completed following a failed test. The C++ Standard is careful to not dictate an implementation.

In all that, to answer some of the specific questions.

Must the state be shared? Sort of. There could be an external condition like a file being in a directory and the wait is timed to re-try after a time-period. You can decide for yourself whether you consider the file system or even just the wall-clock to be shared state.

Must there be any state? Not necessarily. A thread can wait on notification. That could be tricky to coordinate because there has to be enough sequencing to stop the other thread notifying out of turn. The commonest solution is to have some boolean flag set by the notifying thread so the notified thread knows if it missed it. The normal use of void wait(std::unique_lock<std::mutex>& lk) is when the predicate is checked outside:

std::unique_lock<std::mutex> ulk(ccd_mutex)
while(!condition){
    cv.wait(ulk);
}

Where the notifying thread uses:

{
    std::lock_guard<std::mutex> guard(ccd_mutex);
    condition=true;
}
cv.notify();

Amblyoscope

Answer 5

The reason is that in some times the waiting-thread holds the m_mutex:

#include <mutex>
#include <condition_variable>

void CMyClass::MyFunc()
{
    std::unique_lock<std::mutex> guard(m_mutex); 

    // do something (on the protected resource)

    m_condiotion.wait(guard, [this]() {return !m_bSpuriousWake; });

    // do something else (on the protected resource)

    guard.unluck();

    // do something else than else
}

and a thread should never go to sleep while holding a m_mutex. One doesn't want to lock everybody out, while sleeping. So, atomically: {guard is unlocked and the thread go to sleep}. Once it waked up by the other-thread (m_condiotion.notify_one(), let's say) guard is locked again, and then the thread continue.

---

Reference (video)

Blouse

Answer 6

Because if not so, there's a race condition before the waiting thread noticing the change of the shared state and the wait() call. Assume we got a shared state of type std::atomic state_, there's still a fair chance for the waiting thread to miss a notification:

        T1(waiting)                            |       T2(notification)
---------------------------------------------- * ---------------------------
1) for (int i = state_; i != 0; i = state_) {  |
2)                                             |     state_ = 0;
3)                                             |     cv.notify();
4)    cv.wait();                               |     
5) }
6) // go on with the satisfied condition...    |    

Note that the wait() call failed to notice the latest value of state_ and may keep waiting forever.

Disown