Issue #1234, #2058 - Rewrite log facility, improving thread implementation

src/plugin/ActiveQueue.h

+/*
+ * This file is part of Adblock Plus <https://adblockplus.org/>,
+ * Copyright (C) 2006-2015 Eyeo GmbH
+ *
+ * Adblock Plus is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
+ * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
+ * published by the Free Software Foundation.
+ *
+ * Adblock Plus is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+ * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+ * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+ * GNU General Public License for more details.
+ *
+ * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+ * along with Adblock Plus.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
+ */
+
+#include <thread>
+#include <mutex>
+#include <condition_variable>
+#include <deque>
+#include "Placeholder.h"
+
+/**
+ * A synchronized FIFO queue with thread notice on receipt.

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:06]

So, why is it called MessageQueue? It seems better to name is
'SynchronizedDeque'. Pay attention that I have used `Deque` because soon or late
it will be deque, it uses deque internally and I've proposed `push_front` in the
comments.
As well as I don't like the exposing of methods which deal only with
synchronization primitives.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:40]

Because that's what it is, a message queue.
All message queues are synchronized. That's an entailment of what that phrase
ordinarily means. 
It is contrary to every good practice of abstraction to name a class after its
underlying data structure. The whole point of abstraction to hide the
implementation details. It doesn't matter that it's implemented with
'std::deque'. Previous to using that implementation, I had it using a linked
list. Both underlying containers work.

Naming it as a double-ended queue is in fact _contrary_ to the intent of the
abstraction. Insofar as a user of this queue knows, all it has is an input.
What's put in "magically" disappears somewhere in the mist. There is, on
purpose, no corresponding member function to 'Insert'.
Well, I'll certainly believe that you don't understand why it's that way. If you
don't expose anything that's under synchronization control of this class, you
need a second semaphore in the consumer class. That's just wasteful. You only
need one semaphore. This message queue class "lends" its semaphore to the queue
consumer in a structured way. It works great.

+ *
+ * \tparam T
+ *   Class of the elements of the queue.
+ *   It must have a move constructor.
+ * \tparam F
+ *   Functor type of object to receive notice on Insert().
+ */
+template<class T>
+class MessageQueue
+{
+  std::deque<T> queue;
+  typedef std::lock_guard<std::mutex> SentryType;
+  typedef std::unique_lock<std::mutex> UniqueLockType;
+  std::mutex mutex;
+  std::condition_variable cv;
+public:
+  MessageQueue() {} // = default

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:06]

Why do we need `= default`? I would remove it.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:40]

It's for when we have C++11 available. The string "// = default" provides an
easy way to mark what needs to be upgraded in the future.

[Oleksandr, 2016/01/28 10:15:32]

We have quite few // = default comments in the code already. I don't think
there's much sense to reverse those now.

+
+  /*
+   * This class does not have any responsibility with regard to the elements of its queue.
+   * An instance may be destroyed with elements still in the queue.
+   */
+  ~MessageQueue() {} // = default;
+
+  /**
+   * Insert an element, copy constructor version.
+   */
+  void Insert(const T& t)

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:07]

Do you mind to rename it to `push_back` or `PushBack`?

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:39]

I completely object. It's contrary to the abstraction being presented in the
class. This is a queue, insofar as its users see, with one end, whose other one
fades into the distance. There's no front or back, there's only one visible end.

[Oleksandr, 2016/01/28 10:15:33]

I wouldn't mind Insert as well. I think we should try to abstract out the
implementation. 

+  {
+    {

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:06]

This additional scope is not needed here nor in the `Insert(T&&)` method.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:40]

Yep. I think this is a left-over artifact from development.

+      SentryType sentry(mutex);
+      queue.push_back(t);
+      cv.notify_one();
+    }
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * Insert an element, move constructor version.
+   */
+  void Insert(T&& t)
+  {
+    {
+      SentryType sentry(mutex);
+      queue.push_back(std::move(t));
+      cv.notify_one();
+    }
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * Wake up anything waiting on the condition variable.
+   *
+   * \tparam Function 
+   *   Functor type for argument
+   * \param f 
+   *   Functor to execute _inside_ the protection of the queue's mutex
+   */
+  template<typename Function>
+  void Rouse(Function& f)

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:06]

The reason we need such method is to set a value of `ActiveQueue:::running`. We
can achieve it with having `push_front` method here which looks more appropriate
as a member of `MessageQueue` class.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:40]

You get a race condition if you do it that way. The real reason you need 'Rouse'
is to ensure that the queue drains fully on destruction.

+  {
+    SentryType sentry(mutex);
+    f();
+    cv.notify_one();
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * Remove and Test.
+   * Test that the queue is not empty.
+   * If so, remove the next element from the consumer end of the queue and pass it to the argument function
+   * 
+   * \param f
+   *   If return value is true, a functor to which to pass the element at the consumer end of the queue.
+   *   This functor is executed _outside_ the protection of the queue's mutex.
+   * \return
+   *   True if and only if an element was removed from the front of the queue.
+   */
+  template<typename Function>
+  bool Remove(Function& f)

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:06]

Why not to call it `pop_front` or `try_pop_front(... timeout)` and make this
method waiting for the element in the queue?

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:39]

As I've said before, this is not any kind of general-purpose double-ended queue.
Naming the front and back is contrary to the design intention of this class.

+  {
+    /*
+     * We need to remove an element atomically from the queue,
+     *   so we need to construct that element _inside_ the protection of the mutex,
+     * On the other hand, we need to execute the function _outside_ the protection of the queue,
+     *   because otherwise performance may suffer.
+     * Hence we use 'Placeholder' so that we can declare a variable to hold the removed element
+     *   without requiring it to have a default constructor or assignment operators.
+     */
+    Placeholder<T> x;

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:06]

I see only one reason to use a class `Placeholder` which is an optimization of
storing the object on the stack. If it's really needed we can add it later, for
now I would proceed with `std::unique_ptr` here.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:40]

You see only one reason, yet there are other reasons.
Nope. The reason the placeholder here is to enable the queue to be instantiated
with classes that have no copy constructors. This is not a theoretic
possibility. 'std::unique_ptr' is not copyable, nor is any class containing a
member of that type.

+    {
+      SentryType sentry(mutex);
+      if (queue.empty())
+        return false;
+      x.Construct(std::move(queue.front()));    // only require move-constructibility
+      queue.pop_front();
+    }
+    f(std::move(x.Object()));
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * If a condition is satisfied, wait indefinitely. If not, don't wait.
+   *
+   * \return False, immediately without waiting, if the argument evaluates false.
+   * \return True, only after waiting, if the argument evaluates true.
+   */
+  template<typename Predicate>
+  bool WaitIf(Predicate& p)

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:06]

It's still `MessageQueue` class, how is this method related with a queue nature
of it? It seems better to have a method which waits until any element is added
into the queue.
Actually such waiting can be done in `Remove` method.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:39]

You get a race condition if you do it that way. Trust me. Fixed that already.

[Oleksandr, 2016/01/28 10:15:32]

I agree with Sergei, this method is very awkward.

[Eric, 2016/02/04 21:01:42]

What's awkward about it? Testing a predicate under lock before waiting is a
standard way of avoiding race conditions in situations like these. It might seem
to read better if you tested outside the lock (in the caller), but that's
defective code. 

+  {
+    UniqueLockType ul(mutex);
+    if (!p())
+    {
+      return false;
+    }
+    cv.wait(ul);
+    return true;
+  }
+
+  /*
+   * A defect in the compiler for VS2012 requires these definitions.
+   */
+#if defined(_MSC_VER) && _MSC_VER <= 1700
+#define WAIT_FOR_RETURN_TYPE std::cv_status::cv_status
+#else
+#define WAIT_FOR_RETURN_TYPE std::cv_status
+#endif
+
+  /**
+   * Wait for a limited duration.
+   *
+   * Return type was going to be "decltype(cv.wait_for)" for clarity.
+   * A defect in the toolset for VS 2012 causes that declaration not to compile.
+   */
+  template <class R, class P>
+  WAIT_FOR_RETURN_TYPE WaitFor(const std::chrono::duration<R,P>& relativeDuration)

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:06]

Why do we need this method? It seems to be not used and it's definitely has no
relation to the queue nature.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:39]

It's used in the unit tests. Since you didn't comment on them, I'm guessing you
didn't read them. The message queue class is tested independently and separately
from the active queue.

+  {
+    return cv.wait_for(UniqueLockType(mutex), relativeDuration);
+  }
+};
+
+/**
+ * An active queue with a single, internal consumer.
+ *
+ * This class presents the front of a message queue for arbitrary producers.
+ * The back of the message queue is managed by an internal consumer,
+ *   which calls the processor for each element passed through the queue.
+ *
+ * The internal thread has the same lifetime as the object.
+ * There's no external interface to pause or kill the thread.
+ * Destroy the object to terminate the thread.
+ * The consumer drains the queue before terminating the thread.
+ *
+ * \tparam T Class of elements in the queue
+ * \tparam F Type of functor to process each element consumed from the queue
+ */
+template<class T, class F>
+class ActiveQueue

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:07]

I would like to get rid of template parameters T and F and make it working only
with `std::function<void()>` as T. Having that the code will be more reliable
and easier to understand. If it is a reason of any sensitive performance issue
we can add them afterwards.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:40]

And I would like to keep them. You're suggesting needlessly narrowing the
generality of the code, reducing its maintainability by prematurely settling on
implementation details. I have no desire to go back to a less mature period of
software development.
Such a change will have no impact on reliability.
You mean "harder to understand". It's my experience that functional code in C++
is much clearer to read (and use) when you don't specify the particular function
classes.

+{
+  /**
+   * Signal flag indicating to the consumer thread that it should continue running.
+   *
+   * This flag is true for the entire duration of the object lifetime;
+   *   it's set to false only in the destructor.
+   * To avoid race conditions, it's only accessed under mutex protection with calls to notify and wait.
+   * We accomplish this with lambdas passed as the functor arguments of the message queue functions 'Rouse' and 'WaitIf'.
+   * These lambdas are the only references to the variable after construction.
+   */
+  bool running;

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:07]

Hint: if we access it only from the working thread then we don't need any
protection.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:40]

Again: race conditions. And there's no extra protection used in 'ActiveQueue';
it uses the semaphore that's in its 'MessageQueue' member.

+
+  /**
+   * Functor to process each element as it is removed from the queue.
+   */
+  F& processor;

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:07]

In general it's a bad idea to use reference member type, especially in so
generic class. Even more, in C++ it's usually assumed that a functor can be
copied any number of times, so it's a burden of the caller to make the proper
memory management. But as pointed above, I think we can just get rid from this
member.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:40]

You did notice that this class contains a thread member, and so is not copyable,
right? 

+
+  /**
+   * The queue that the active thread behavior is wrapped around.
+   */
+  MessageQueue<T> queue;
+
+  /**
+   * Thread running the consumer process.
+   *
+   * This thread runs the entire lifetime of this object.
+   * It's started in the constructor and joined in the destructor.
+   *
+   * This member variable is declared last so that it is constructed last,
+   *   after all the other member necessary for proper functioning of the consumer.
+   */
+  std::thread thread;
+
+  /**
+   * Main function for the consumer thread.
+   *
+   * Strictly speaking, it's the effective main function for the thread.
+   * The actual main function is a lambda that only calls this function and nothing else.
+   */
+  void Consumer()
+  {
+    while (queue.WaitIf([this]() { return running; }))
+    {
+      // Drain the queue, processing all of its elements
+      while (

[sergei, 2015/10/01 15:50:06]

It means that it will run until the queue is not empty even if `running` is
already false. Is it intended? I would rather stop the loop and clear the queue.

[Eric, 2015/10/08 21:05:39]

Of course it's intended. The whole point here is that whatever you insert into
an 'ActiveQueue' is always consumed, no matter what. If an 'ActiveQueue' is
destroyed when it still has messages in it, it consumes those messages before
the destructor returns.

Remember that I built this queue to log debug and trace messages to disk. The
behavior you are suggesting is that we simply drop some of these messages if
they show up inconveniently late. That is _exactly_ the opposite what we need
for that purpose. The previous logging system could, in fact, drop messages at
termination.

+        queue.Remove(
+          [&](T&& t) {
+            try
+            {
+              processor(std::move(t));
+            }
+            catch (...)
+            {
+              // Ignore any exception 'processor' may throw.
+            }
+          }
+        )
+      )
+      {
+      }
+      // Loop termination: queue.Remove() removed nothing from the queue, so it's now empty
+    }
+  }
+
+public:
+  ActiveQueue(F& f)
+    : running(true), processor(f), queue(), thread([this]() { Consumer(); })
+  {}
+
+  ~ActiveQueue()
+  {
+    /*
+     * The consumer thread is waiting on the condition variable.
+     * If we don't wake it up, our thread won't terminate.
+     *
+     * Note that we don't have a race condition here with new elements arriving 
+     *   while we are draining the queue for the last time.
+     * We are executing in the destructor, so our member function Insert() is unavailable,
+     *   and it's the only way that new element enter the message queue.
+     */
+    queue.Rouse([this](){ running = false; });
+    thread.join();
+  }
+
+  ActiveQueue(const ActiveQueue&); // = delete
+  ActiveQueue(ActiveQueue&&); // = delete
+  ActiveQueue& operator=(const ActiveQueue&); // = delete
+  ActiveQueue& operator=(ActiveQueue&&); // = delete
+
+  /**
+   * Insert
+   */
+  void Insert(const T& t)
+  {
+    queue.Insert(t);
+  }
+
+  /**
+   * Insert
+   */
+  void Insert(T&& t)
+  {
+    queue.Insert(std::move(t));
+  }
+};