How immediately pause a thread?-CodePudding

Assum have two thread that one of them has more priority and they are running on same core (single core), I only want work just one thread at same time.(maybe you say that is not threading paradigm , but actually I just made my problem minimal here)

T1 ~~~e1~e2~e3~e4~...~~~~~~~eK~~~~~~~~...~~~ eN~~~~~ ///(e1...eN)packed as a task.
                |            |
T2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~pause~~~~~~continue~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ///(pause & continue)is just title time for T1 that T2 is operating (T2 has more priority).

**~** is time , and **e** is expressions that is evaluate there. and whole of e1,e2,... is one function that is api caller function(task) , So I want just pause T1 there(~pause~) and run my T2 until it's finished ,and when finished continue T1.

Note: I could not changed **e** job (function).

What I know?

creating conditional_variable(CV) and when finished T2 notify CV to wake up , but it is not my achievement because I want make T1 exactly pause in the e4(pause time) immediately and continue T2 until it's finished(or my continue time).

my knowledge is same as: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/thread/condition_variable#Example Do we have any thread::method that pause immediately(force context switch)?(I dont mean yield!)

CodePudding user response：

C has no way of facilitating such a thing. You don't have that level of control over threads.

On the OS level, that's what thread priorities are for. A higher-priority thread being ready should always be scheduled before a lower-priority thread. So you can use OS APIs to change the thread priorities for your threads, and should get approximately the right result - note, though, that this is approximate, because you have no guarantee the OS will immediately trigger a task switch on T2 getting ready.

Overall, the whole thing sounds like an XY problem, and you would be better served by looking at the underlying problem and thinking of better ways of solving it.

CodePudding user response：

I think you may be overthinking the problem you're trying to solve.

If you have (literally any) modern multitasking operating system (such as Linux, Windows, etc), and you make T2 a higher thread priority than T1, that operating system will preferentially run T2 ahead of T1. The only circumstance under which it will run T1 at all is if there is some reason for the OS to suspend T2, e.g. it's either got blocked on I/O, or it's waiting for a semaphore, etc. (if we're assuming a single core machine).

More or less the whole idea of a modern OS is to prevent the running of one thread or process influencing the running of another thread or process, unless they're written to cooperate somehow using synchronisation objects such as semaphores, condition variables, IPC, etc. So, you cannot achieve what you're wanting to do unless you can change e to use such mechanisms to allow T1 and T2 to cooperate. T2 will not be able to do it all by itself.

About the only thing that T2 can do is to use timers; i.e. it yields for a period of time, after which the OS will reschedule (resume) T2. But you can't get that aligned with the execution of e() in T1.