I want to implement ring buffer for classic Producer--Consumer interaction. In the future both P and C will be implemented as permanent threads running during data processing task, and GUI will be the third thread only for displaying actual data and coordinate starts and stops of data processing by user interaction. C can be quite slow to be able to fully process all incoming data, but only a bit and for a short periods of time. So I want to just allocate ring buffer of several P's MTUs in size, but in any case, if C will be too slow to process existing data it's okay to loose old data in favor of new one (overwrite policy).
I've read QSemaphore example in Qt help and realized that by usage of semaphore's acquires and releases I can only implement discard policy, because acquiring of specified chunk in queue will block until there are no free space.
Are there any ways of implementing overwrite policy together with QSemaphore or I just need to go and implement another approach?
I've came to this solution. If we should push portion of the src data to the ring buffer at any costs (it's ok to drop possible newly incoming data) we should use acquire() in Producer part - that would provide us discard policy. In case we need overwrite policy we should use tryAcquire() in Producer - thus at the very first possible moment of time only the newest data will be pushed to the ring buffer
Related
The code should be written in C++. I'm mentioning this just in case someone will suggest a solution that won't work efficient when implementing in C++.
Objective:
Producer that runs on thread t1 inserts images to Consumer that runs on thread t2. The consumer has a list of clients that he should send the images to at various intervals. E.g. client1 requires images every 1sec, client2 requires images every 5sec and etc.
Suggested implementation:
There is one main queue imagesQ in Consumer to which Producer enqueues images to. In addition to the main queue, the Consumer manages a list of vector of queues clientImageQs of size as number of clients. The Consumer creates a sub-consumer, which runs on its own thread, for each client. Each such sub-consumer dequeues the images from a relevant queue from clientImageQs and sends images to its client at its interval.
Every time a new image arrives to imagesQ, the Consumer duplicates it and enqueus to each queue in clientImageQs. Thus, each sub-consumer will be able to send the images to its client at its own frequency.
Potential problem and solution:
If Producer enqueues images at much higher rate than one of the sub-consumers dequeues, the queue will explode. But, the Consumer can check the size of the queue in clientImageQs before enqueuing. And, if needed, Consumer will dequeue a few old images before enqueuing new ones.
Question
Is this a good design or there is a better one?
You describe the problem within a set of already determined solution limitations. Your description is complex, confusing, and I dare say, confused.
Why have a consumer that only distributes images out of a shared buffer? Why not allow each "client" as you call it read from the buffer as it needs to?
Why not implement the shared buffer as a single-image buffer. The producer writes at its rate. The clients perform non-destructive reads of the buffer at their own rate. Each client is ensured to read the most recent image in the buffer whenever the client reads the buffer. The producer simply over-writes the buffer with each write.
A multi-element queue offers no benefit in this application. In fact, as you have described, it greatly complicates the solution.
See http://sworthodoxy.blogspot.com/2015/05/shared-resource-design-patterns.html Look for the heading "unconditional buffer".
The examples in the posting listed above are all implemented using Ada, but the concepts related to concurrent design patterns are applicable to all programming languages supporting concurrency.
I have recently come across a question based on multi-threading. I was given a situation where there will be variable no of cars constantly changing there locations. Also there are multiple users who are posting requests to get location of any car at any moment. What would be data structure to handle this situation and why?
You could use a mutex (one per car).
Lock: before changing location of the associated car
Unlock: after changing location of the associated car
Lock: before getting location of the associated car
Unlock: after done doing work that relies on that location being up to date
I'd answer with:
Try to make threading an external concept to your system yet make the system as modular and encapsulated as possible at the same time. It will allow adding concurrency at later phase at low cost and in case the solution happens to work nicely in a single thread (say by making it event-loop-based) no time will have been burnt for nothing.
There are several ways to do this. Which way you choose depends a lot on the number of cars, the frequency of updates and position requests, the expected response time, and how accurate (up to date) you want the position reports to be.
The easiest way to handle this is with a simple mutex (lock) that allows only one thread at a time to access the data structure. Assuming you're using a dictionary or hash map, your code would look something like this:
Map Cars = new Map(...)
Mutex CarsMutex = new Mutex(...)
Location GetLocation(carKey)
{
acquire mutex
result = Cars[carKey].Location
release mutex
return result
}
You'd do that for Add, Remove, Update, etc. Any method that reads or updates the data structure would require that you acquire the mutex.
If the number of queries far outweighs the number of updates, then you can do better with a reader/writer lock instead of a mutex. With an RW lock, you can have an unlimited number of readers, OR you can have a single writer. With that, querying the data would be:
acquire reader lock
result = Cars[carKey].Location
release reader lock
return result
And Add, Update, and Remove would be:
acquire writer lock
do update
release writer lock
Many runtime libraries have a concurrent dictionary data structure already built in. .NET, for example, has ConcurrentDictionary. With those, you don't have to worry about explicitly synchronizing access with a Mutex or RW lock; the data structure handles synchronization for you, either with a technique similar to that shown above, or by implementing lock-free algorithms.
As mentioned in comments, a relational database can handle this type of thing quite easily and can scale to a very large number of requests. Modern relational databases, properly constructed and with sufficient hardware, are surprisingly fast and can handle huge amounts of data with very high throughput.
There are other, more involved, methods that can increase throughput in some situations depending on what you're trying to optimize. For example, if you're willing to have some latency in reported position, then you could have position requests served from a list that's updated once per minute (or once every five minutes). So position requests are fulfilled immediately with no lock required from a static copy of the list that's updated once per minute. Updates are queued and once per minute a new list is created by applying the updates to the old list, and the new list is made available for requests.
There are many different ways to solve your problem.
I have an application with Many Producers and consumers.
From my understanding, RingBuffer creates objects at start of RingBuffer init and you then copy object when you publish in Ring and get them from it in EventHandler.
My application LogHandler buffers received events in a List to send it in Batch mode further once the list has reached a certain size. So EventHandler#onEvent puts the received object in the list , once it has reached the size , it sends it in RMI to a server and clears it.
My question, is do I need to clone the object before I put in list, as I understand, once consumed they can be reused ?
Do I need to synchronize access to the list in my EventHandler#onEvent ?
Yes - your understanding is correct. You copy your values in and out of the ringbuffer slots.
I would suggest that yes you clone the values as you extract it from the ring buffer and into your event handler list; otherwise the slot can be reused.
You should not need to synchronise access to the list as long as it is a private member variable of your Event Handler and you only have one event handler instance per thread. If you have multiple event handlers adding to the same (eg static) List instance then you would need synchronisation.
Clarification:
Be sure to read the background in OzgurH's comments below. If you stick to using the endOfBatch flag on disruptor and use that to decide the size of your batch, you do not have to copy objects out of the list. If you are using your own accumulation strategy (such as size - as per the question), then you should clone objects out as the slot could be reused before you have had the chance to send.
Also worth noting that if you are needing to synchronize on the list instance, then you have missed a big opportunity with disruptor and will destroy your performance anyway.
It is possible to use slots in the Disruptor's RingBuffer (including ones containing a List) without cloning/copying values. This may be a preferable solution for you depending on whether you are worried about garbage creation, and whether you actually need to be concerned about concurrent updates to the objects being placed in the RingBuffer. If all the objects being placed in the slot's list are immutable, or if they are only being updated/read by a single thread at a time (a precondition which the Disruptor is often used to enforce), there will be nothing gained from cloning them as they are already immune to data races.
On the subject of batching, note that the Disruptor framework itself provides a mechanism for taking items from the RingBuffer in batches in your EventHandler threads. This is approach is fully thread-safe and lock-free, and could yield better performance by making your memory access patterns more predictable to the CPU.
In our scenario,
the consumer takes at least half-a-second to complete a cycle of process (against a row in a data table).
Producer produces at least 8 items in a second (no worries, we don't mind about the duration of a consuming).
the shared data is simply a data table.
we should never ask producer to wait (as it is a server and we don't want it to wait on this)
How can we achieve the above without locking the data table at all (as we don't want producer to wait in any way).
We cannot use .NET 4.0 yet in our org.
There is a great example of a producer/consumer queue using Monitors at this page under the "Producer/Consumer Queue" section. In order to synchronize access to the underlying data table, you can have a single consumer.
That page is probably the best resource for threading in .NET on the net.
Create a buffer that holds the data while it is being processed.
It takes you half a second to process, and you get 8 items a second... unless you have at least 4 processors working on it, you'll have a problem.
Just to be safe I'd use a buffer at least twice the side needed (16 rows), and make sure it's possible with the hardware.
There is no magic bullet that is going to let you access a DataTable from multiple threads without using a blocking synchronization mechanism. What I would do is to hold the lock for as short a duration as possible. Keep in mind that modifying any object in the data table's hierarchy will require locking the whole data table. This is because modifying a column value on a DataRow can change the internal indexing structures inside the parent DataTable.
So what I would do is from the producer acquire a lock, add a new row, and release the lock. Then in the conumser you will acquire the same lock, copy data contained in a DataRow into a separate data structure, and then release the lock immediately. Now, you can operate on the copied data without synchronization mechanisms since it is isolated. After you have completed the operation on it you will again acquire the lock, merge the changes back into the DataRow, and then release the lock and start the process all over again.
I have four threads in a C++/CLI GUI I'm developing:
Collects raw data
The GUI itself
A background processing thread which takes chunks of raw data and produces useful information
Acts as a controller which joins the other three threads
I've got the raw data collector working and posting results to the controller, but the next step is to store all of those results so that the GUI and background processor have access to them.
New raw data is fed in one result at a time at regular (frequent) intervals. The GUI will access each new item as it arrives (the controller announces new data and the GUI then accesses the shared buffer). The data processor will periodically read a chunk of the buffer (a seconds worth for example) and produce a new result. So effectively, there's one producer and two consumers which need access.
I've hunted around, but none of the CLI-supplied stuff sounds all that useful, so I'm considering rolling my own. A shared circular buffer which allows write-locks for the collector and read locks for the gui and data processor. This will allow multiple threads to read the data as long as those sections of the buffer are not being written to.
So my question is: Are there any simple solutions in the .net libraries which could achieve this? Am I mad for considering rolling my own? Is there a better way of doing this?
Is it possible to rephrase the problem so that:
The Collector collects a new data point ...
... which it passes to the Controller.
The Controller fires a GUI "NewDataPointEvent" ...
... and stores the data point in an array.
If the array is full (or otherwise ready for processing), the Controller sends the array to the Processor ...
... and starts a new array.
If the values passed between threads are not modified after they are shared, this might save you from needing the custom thread-safe collection class, and reduce the amount of locking required.