Htydjtk

I am looking for a way to guarantee that any time a thread locks a specific resource, it is forced to release that resource after a specific period of time (if it has not already released it).

I envision this is how it could be used:

{

    std::lock_guard<std::TimeLimitedMutex> lock(this->myTimeLimitedMutex, timeout);

    try {

        // perform some operation with the resource that myTimeLimitedMutex guards. 

    }

    catch (MutexTimeoutException ex) {

        // perform cleanup

    }

}

I see that there is a timed_mutex that lets the program timeout if a lock cannot be acquired. I need the timeout to occur after the lock is acquired.

This can't work, and it will never work. In other words, this can never be made. It goes against all concept of ownership and atomic transactions. Because when thread acquires the lock and implements two transactions in a row, it expects them to become atomically visible to outside word. In this scenario, it would be very possible that the transaction will be torn - first part of it will be performed, but the second will be not.

What's worse is that since the lock will be forcefully removed, the part-executed transaction will become visible to outside word, before the interrupted thread has any chance to roll-back.

This idea goes contrary to all school of multi-threaded thinking.

I support SergeyAs answer. Releasing a locked mutex after a timeout is a bad idea and cannot work. Mutex stands for mutual exclusion and this is a rock-hard contract which cannot be violated.

But you can do what you want:

Problem: You want to be able to specify a time T so that the thread never locks any mutex longer than time T.

Solution: Never lock the mutex for longer than T, but write your code so that you lock the mutex only for the absolutely necessary operations. It is always possible to give such a time T (modulo the uncertainties and limits given my a multitasking and multiuser operating system of course).

For example: Never do file I/O inside a locked section. Never sort a list while a mutex is locked. Never call a system call while a mutex is locked. There are exceptions to these rules, but the general guideline is: Make you code slightly less optimal (e.g. do some redundant copying inside the critical section) to make the critical section as short as possible. This is good multithreading programming.

You can't do that with only C++.

If you are using a Posix system, it can be done.
You'll have to trigger a SIGALARM signal that's only unmasked for the thread that'll timeout. In the signal handler, you'll have to set a flag and use longjmp to return to the thread code.
In the thread code, on the setjmp position, you can only be called if the signal was triggered, thus you can throw the Timeout exception.

Please see this answer for how to do that.

Also, on linux, it seems you can directly throw from the signal handler (so no longjmp/setjmp here).

BTW, if I were you, I would code the opposite. Think about it: You want to tell a thread "hey, you're taking too long, so let's throw away all the (long) work you've done so far so I can make progress".
Ideally, you should have your long thread be more cooperative, doing something like "I've done A of a ABCD task, let's release the mutex so other can progress on A. Then let's check if I can take it again to do B and so on."
You probably want to be more fine grained (have more mutex on smaller objects, but make sure you're locking in the same order) or use RW locks (so that other threads can use the objects if you're not modifying them), etc...

Such an approach cannot be enforced because the holder of the mutex needs the opportunity to clean up anything which is left in an invalid state part way through the transaction. This can take an unknown arbitrary amount of time.

The typical approach is to release the lock when doing long tasks, and re-aquire it as needed. You have to manage this yourself as everyone will have a slightly different approach.

The only situation I know of where this sort of thing is accepted practice is at the kernel level, especially with respect to microcontrollers (which either have no kernel, or are all kernel, depending on who you ask). You can set an interrupt which modifies the call stack, so that when it is triggered it unwinds the particular operations you are interested in.