I have a "Device" class representing the connection of a peripheral hardware device. Scores of member functions ("device functions") are called on each Device object by clients.
class Device {
public:
std::timed_mutex mutex_;
void DeviceFunction1();
void DeviceFunction2();
void DeviceFunction3();
void DeviceFunction4();
// void DeviceFunctionXXX(); lots and lots of device functions
// other stuff
// ...
};
The Device class has a member std::timed_mutex mutex_ which must be locked by each of the device functions prior to communicating with the device, to prevent communication with the device simultaneously from concurrent threads.
An obvious but repetitive and cumbersome approach is to copy/paste the mutex_.try_lock() code at the top of the execution of each device function.
void Device::DeviceFunction1() {
mutex_.try_lock(); // this is repeated in ALL functions
// communicate with device
// other stuff
// ...
}
However, I'm wondering if there is a C++ construct or design pattern or paradigm which can be used to "group" these functions in such a way that the mutex_.try_lock() call is "implicit" for all functions in the group.
In other words: in a similar fashion that a derived class can implicitly call common code in a base class constructor, I'd like to do something similar with functions calls (instead of class inheritance).
Any recommendations?
First of all, if the mutex must be locked before you do anything else, then you should call mutex_.lock(), or at least not ignore the fact that try_lock may actually fail to lock the mutex. Also, manually placing calls to lock and unlock a mutex is extremely error-prone and can be much harder to get right than you might think. Don't do it. Use, e.g., an std::lock_guard instead.
The fact that you're using an std::timed_mutex suggests that what's actually going on in your real code may be a bit more involved (what for would you be using an std::timed_mutex otherwise). Assuming that what you're really doing is something more complex than just calling try_lock and ignoring its return value, consider encapsulating your complex locking procedure, whatever it may be, in a custom lock guard type, e.g.:
class the_locking_dance
{
auto do_the_locking_dance(std::timed_mutex& mutex)
{
while (!mutex.try_lock_for(100ms))
/* do whatever it is that you wanna do */;
return std::lock_guard { mutex, std::adopt_lock_t };
}
std::lock_guard<std::timed_mutex> guard;
public:
the_locking_dance(std::timed_mutex& mutex)
: guard(do_the_locking_dance(mutex))
{
}
};
and then create a local variable
the_locking_dance guard(mutex_);
to acquire and hold on to your lock. This will also automatically release the lock upon exit from a block.
Apart from all that, note that what you're doing here is, most likely, not a good idea in general. The real question is: why are there so many different methods that all need to be protected by the same mutex to begin with? Do you really have to support an arbitrary number of threads you know nothing about, which arbitrarily may do arbitrary things with the same device object at arbitrary times in arbitrary order? If not, then why are you building your Device abstraction to support this use case? Is there really no better interface that you could design for your application scenario, knowing about what it actually is the threads are supposed to be doing. Do you really have to do such fine-grained locking? Consider how inefficient it is with your current abstraction to, e.g., call multiple device functions in a row as that requires constantly locking and unlocking and locking and unlocking this mutex again and again all over the place…
All that being said, there may be a way to improve the locking frequency while, at the same time, addressing your original question:
I'm wondering if there is a C++ construct or design pattern or paradigm which can be used to "group" these functions in such a way that the
mutex_.try_lock()call is "implicit" for all functions in the group.
You could group these functions by exposing them not as methods of a Device object directly, but as methods of yet another lock guard type, for example
class Device
{
…
void DeviceFunction1();
void DeviceFunction2();
void DeviceFunction3();
void DeviceFunction4();
public:
class DeviceFunctionSet1
{
Device& device;
the_locking_dance guard;
public:
DeviceFunctionSet1(Device& device)
: device(device), guard(device.mutex_)
{
}
void DeviceFunction1() { device.DeviceFunction1(); }
void DeviceFunction2() { device.DeviceFunction2(); }
};
class DeviceFunctionSet2
{
Device& device;
the_locking_dance guard;
public:
DeviceFunctionSet2(Device& device)
: device(device), guard(device.mutex_)
{
}
void DeviceFunction3() { device.DeviceFunction4(); }
void DeviceFunction4() { device.DeviceFunction3(); }
};
};
Now, to get access to the methods of your device within a given block scope, you first acquire the respective DeviceFunctionSet and then you can call the methods:
{
DeviceFunctionSet1 dev(my_device);
dev.DeviceFunction1();
dev.DeviceFunction2();
}
The nice thing about this is that the locking happens once for an entire group of functions (which will, hopefully, somewhat logically belong together as a group of functions used to achieve a particular task with your Device) automatically and you can also never forget to unlock the mutex…
Even with this, however, the most important thing is to not just build a generic "thread-safe Device". These things are usually neither efficient nor really useful. Build an abstraction that reflects the way multiple threads are supposed to cooperate using a Device in your particular application. Everything else is second to that. But without knowing anything about what your application actually is, there's not really anything more that could be said to that…