I am using Rust and Tokio 1.6 to build an app which can interact with an Elgato StreamDeck via hidapi = "1.2". I want to poll the HID device for events (key down / key up) and send those events on an mpsc channel, while watching a separate mpsc channel for incoming commands to update the device state (reset, change brightness, update image, etc). Since the device handle is not thread safe, I need to do both things from a single thread.
major edits below
This is a rewrite of my original question. I've left my interim answer below, but in the interest of a more self contained example, here is a the basic process using device_query = "0.2":
use device_query::{DeviceState, Keycode};
use std::time::Duration;
use tokio;
use tokio::sync::mpsc::{Receiver, Sender};
use tokio::time::timeout;
#[tokio::main]
async fn main() {
// channel for key press events coming from device loop
let (key_tx, mut key_rx) = tokio::sync::mpsc::channel(32);
// channel for commands sent to device loop
let (dev_tx, mut dev_rx) = tokio::sync::mpsc::channel(32);
start_device_loop(60, key_tx, dev_rx);
println!("Waiting for key presses");
while let Some(k) = key_rx.recv().await {
match k {
Some(ch) => match ch {
Keycode::Q => dev_tx.clone().try_send(String::from("Quit!")).expect("Could not send command"),
ch => println!("{}", ch),
},
_ => (),
}
}
println!("Done.")
}
/// Starts a tokio task, polling the supplied device and sending key events
/// on the supplied mpsc sender
pub fn start_device_loop(hz: u32, tx: Sender<Option<Keycode>>, mut rx: Receiver<String>) {
let poll_wait = 1000 / hz;
let poll_wait = Duration::from_millis(poll_wait as u64);
tokio::task::spawn(async move {
let dev = DeviceState::new();
loop {
let mut keys = dev.query_keymap();
match keys.len() {
0 => (),
1 => tx.clone().try_send(Some(keys.remove(0))).unwrap(),
_ => println!("So many keys..."),
}
match timeout(poll_wait, rx.recv()).await {
Ok(cmd) => println!("Command '{}' received.", cmd.unwrap()),
_ => (),
};
// std::thread::sleep(poll_wait);
}
});
}
Note this does not compile - I get an error future created by async block is not 'Send' and within 'impl Future', the trait 'Send' is not implemented for '*mut x11::xlib::_XDisplay'. My understanding of the error is that because device_query is not thread-safe, and awaiting introduces the possibility of scope moving across threads, nothing may be awaited while a non-thread-safe object is in scope. And indeed, if I comment out the block around match timeout... and uncomment the std::thread::sleep everything compiles and runs.
Which brings me back to the original question; how can I both send and receive messages in a single thread without using await or the apparently forbidden fruit of poll_recv()?
After much hunting I found noop_waker in the futures crate which appears to do what I need in combination with poll_recv:
pub fn start_device_loop(hz: u32, tx: Sender<Option<Keycode>>, mut rx: Receiver<String>) {
let poll_wait = 1000 / hz;
let poll_wait = Duration::from_millis(poll_wait as u64);
tokio::task::spawn_blocking(move || {
let dev = DeviceState::new();
let waker = futures::task::noop_waker();
let mut cx = std::task::Context::from_waker(&waker);
loop {
let mut keys = dev.query_keymap();
match keys.len() {
0 => (),
1 => tx.clone().try_send(Some(keys.remove(0))).unwrap(),
_ => println!("So many keys..."),
}
match rx.poll_recv(&mut cx) {
Poll::Ready(cmd) => println!("Command '{}' received.", cmd.unwrap()),
_ => ()
};
std::thread::sleep(poll_wait);
}
});
}
After digging through docs and tokio source more I can't find anything that suggests poll_recv is supposed to be an internal-only function or that using it here would have any obvious side effects. Letting the process run at 125hz I'm not seeing any excess resource usage either.
I'm leaving the above code for posterity, but since asking this question the try_recv method has been added to Receivers, making this all much cleaner.
Related
I am pretty new to Rust, and cannot manage to keep both Arcs values updated in both threads I'm spawning. The idea would be that one thread loops over received events and when it receives one, updates the object, which the other thread constantly watches. How can I achieve that in Rust, or if this method isn't adequate, would there be a better way to do it ?
(The concrete idea would be one thread listening for MIDI events and the other one re-rendering on a LED strip the notes received)
Here's what I currently have:
main.rs
mod functions;
mod structs;
use crate::functions::*;
use crate::structs::*;
use portmidi as pm;
use rs_ws281x::{ChannelBuilder, ControllerBuilder, StripType};
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex};
use std::{fs, thread, time};
const MIDI_TIMEOUT: u64 = 10;
const MIDI_CHANNEL: usize = 0;
#[tokio::main]
async fn main() {
let config: Arc<std::sync::Mutex<Config>> = Arc::new(Mutex::new(
toml::from_str(&fs::read_to_string("config.toml").unwrap()).unwrap(),
));
let config_midi = config.clone();
let config_leds = config.clone();
let leds_status = Arc::new(Mutex::new(vec![0; config.lock().unwrap().leds.num_leds]));
let leds_status_midi = Arc::clone(&leds_status);
let leds_status_leds = Arc::clone(&leds_status);
thread::spawn(move || {
let config = config_midi.lock().unwrap();
let midi_context = pm::PortMidi::new().unwrap();
let device_info = midi_context
.device(config.midi.id)
.expect(format!("Could not find device with id {}", config.midi.id).as_str());
println!("Using device {}) {}", device_info.id(), device_info.name());
let input_port = midi_context
.input_port(device_info, config.midi.buffer_size)
.expect("Could not create input port");
let mut leds_status = leds_status_midi.lock().unwrap();
loop {
if let Ok(_) = input_port.poll() {
if let Ok(Some(events)) = input_port.read_n(config.midi.buffer_size) {
for event in events {
let event_type =
get_midi_event_type(event.message.status, event.message.data2);
match event_type {
MidiEventType::NoteOn => {
let key = get_note_position(event.message.data1, &config);
leds_status[key] = 1;
}
MidiEventType::NoteOff => {
let key = get_note_position(event.message.data1, &config);
leds_status[key] = 0;
}
_ => {}
}
}
}
}
thread::sleep(time::Duration::from_millis(MIDI_TIMEOUT));
}
});
thread::spawn(move || {
let config = config_leds.lock().unwrap();
let mut led_controller = ControllerBuilder::new()
.freq(800_000)
.dma(10)
.channel(
MIDI_CHANNEL,
ChannelBuilder::new()
.pin(config.leds.pin)
.count(config.leds.num_leds as i32)
.strip_type(StripType::Ws2812)
.brightness(config.leds.brightness)
.build(),
)
.build()
.unwrap();
loop {
let leds_status = leds_status_leds.lock().unwrap();
print!("\x1b[2J\x1b[1;1H");
println!(
"{:?}",
leds_status.iter().filter(|x| (**x) > 0).collect::<Vec<_>>()
);
}
});
}
functions.rs
use crate::structs::MidiEventType;
pub fn get_note_position(note: u8, config: &crate::structs::Config) -> usize {
let mut note_offset = 0;
for i in 0..config.leds.offsets.len() {
if note > config.leds.offsets[i][0] {
note_offset = config.leds.offsets[i][1];
break;
}
}
note_offset -= config.leds.shift;
let note_pos_raw = 2 * (note - 20) - note_offset;
config.leds.num_leds - (note_pos_raw as usize)
}
pub fn get_midi_event_type(status: u8, velocity: u8) -> MidiEventType {
if status == 144 && velocity > 0 {
MidiEventType::NoteOn
} else if status == 128 || (status == 144 && velocity == 0) {
MidiEventType::NoteOff
} else {
MidiEventType::ControlChange
}
}
structs.rs
use serde_derive::Deserialize;
#[derive(Deserialize, Debug)]
pub struct Config {
pub leds: LedsConfig,
pub midi: MidiConfig,
}
#[derive(Deserialize, Debug)]
pub struct LedsConfig {
pub pin: i32,
pub num_leds: usize,
pub brightness: u8,
pub offsets: Vec<Vec<u8>>,
pub shift: u8,
pub fade: i8,
}
#[derive(Deserialize, Debug)]
pub struct MidiConfig {
pub id: i32,
pub buffer_size: usize,
}
#[derive(Debug)]
pub enum MidiEventType {
NoteOn,
NoteOff,
ControlChange,
}
Thank you very much !
The idea would be that one thread loops over received events and when it receives one, updates the object, which the other thread constantly watches.
That's a good way to do it, particularly if one of the threads needs to be near-realtime (e.g. live audio processing). You can use channels to achieve this. You transfer the sender to one thread and the receiver to another. In a realtime scenario, the receiver can loop until try_recv errs with Empty (limiting to some number of iterations to prevent starvation of the processing code). For example, something like this, given a r: Receiver:
// Process 100 messages max to not starve the thread of the other stuff
// it needs to be doing.
for _ in 0..100 {
match r.try_recv() {
Ok(msg) => { /* Process msg, applying it to the current state */ },
Err(TryRecvError::Empty) => break,
Err(TryRecvError::Disconnected) => {
// The sender is gone, maybe this is our signal to terminate?
return;
},
}
}
Alternatively, if one thread needs to act only when a message is received, it can simply iterate the receiver, which will continue to loop as long as messages are received and the channel is open:
for msg in r {
// Handle the message
}
It really is that simple. If the channel is empty but there are senders alive, it will block until a message is received. Once all senders are gone and the channel is empty, the loop will terminate.
A channel can convey messages of exactly one type; if only one kind of message needs to be sent, you can use a struct. Otherwise, an enum with variants for each kind of message works well.
Given the sending side of the channel, s: Sender, you just s.send(your_message_value).
Another option would be to create an Arc<Mutex<_>>, which it looks like you are doing in your sample code. This way is fine if the lock contention is not too high, but this can inhibit the ability of both threads to run concurrently, which is often the goal of multithreading. Channels tend to work better in message-passing scenarios because there isn't a need for a mutual exclusion lock.
As a side note, you are using Tokio with an async main(), but you never actually do anything with any futures, so there's no reason to even use Tokio in this code.
I have a task (downloading something from the Web) that runs regularly with pauses 10 min between runs.
If my program notices that the data is outdated, then it should run the download task immediately unless it is already running. If the download task happened out-of-time, the next task should be after 10 min since the out-of-time task so all future tasks and pauses are shifted later in time.
How do I do this with Tokio?
I made a library to run a sequence of tasks, but trying to use it for my problem failed.
mod tasks_with_regular_pauses;
use std::future::Future;
use std::pin::Pin;
use std::sync::Arc;
use tokio::spawn;
use tokio::sync::mpsc::{channel, Receiver, Sender};
use tokio::sync::Mutex;
use tokio::task::JoinHandle;
use tokio_interruptible_future::{
interruptible, interruptible_sendable, interruptible_straight, InterruptError,
};
pub type TaskItem = Pin<Box<dyn Future<Output = ()> + Send>>;
/// Execute futures from a stream of futures in order in a Tokio task. Not tested code.
pub struct TaskQueue {
tx: Sender<TaskItem>,
rx: Arc<Mutex<Receiver<TaskItem>>>,
}
impl TaskQueue {
pub fn new() -> Self {
let (tx, rx) = channel(1);
Self {
tx,
rx: Arc::new(Mutex::new(rx)),
}
}
async fn _task(this: Arc<Mutex<Self>>) {
// let mut rx = ReceiverStream::new(rx);
loop {
let this2 = this.clone();
let fut = {
// block to shorten locks lifetime
let obj = this2.lock().await;
let rx = obj.rx.clone();
let mut rx = rx.lock().await;
rx.recv().await
};
if let Some(fut) = fut {
fut.await;
} else {
break;
}
}
}
pub fn spawn(
this: Arc<Mutex<Self>>,
notify_interrupt: async_channel::Receiver<()>,
) -> JoinHandle<Result<(), InterruptError>> {
spawn(interruptible_straight(notify_interrupt, async move {
Self::_task(this).await;
Ok(())
}))
}
pub async fn push_task(&self, fut: TaskItem) {
let _ = self.tx.send(fut).await;
}
}
I'd recommend using select! instead of interruptible futures to detect one of 3 conditions in your loop:
download task is finished
the data is outdated signal
data expired timeout signal
"The data is outdated" signal can be conveyed using a dedicated channel.
select! allows waiting for futures (like downloading and timeouts), and reading from channels at the same time. See the tutorial for examples of that.
Solution sketch:
loop {
// it is time to download
let download_future = ...; // make your URL request
let download_result = download_future.await;
// if the outdated signal is generated while download
// was in progress, ignore the signal by draining the receiver
while outdated_data_signal_receiver.try_recv().is_ok() {}
// send results upstream for processing
download_results_sender.send(download_result);
// wait to re-download
select! {
// after a 10 min pause
_ = sleep(Duration::from_minutes(10)) => break,
// or by an external signal
_ = outdated_data_signal_receiver.recv() => break,
}
}
This logic can be simplified further by the timeout primitive:
loop {
// it is time to download
let download_future = ...; // make your URL request
let download_result = download_future.await;
// if the outdated signal is generated while download
// was in progress, ignore the signal by draining the receiver
while outdated_data_signal_receiver.try_recv().is_ok() {}
// send results upstream for processing
download_results_sender.send(download_result);
// re-download by a signal, or timeout (whichever comes first)
_ = timeout(Duration::from_minutes(10), outdated_data_signal_receiver.recv()).await;
}
Given several threads that complete with an Output value, how do I get the first Output that's produced? Ideally while still being able to get the remaining Outputs later in the order they're produced, and bearing in mind that some threads may or may not terminate.
Example:
struct Output(i32);
fn main() {
let mut spawned_threads = Vec::new();
for i in 0..10 {
let join_handle: ::std::thread::JoinHandle<Output> = ::std::thread::spawn(move || {
// pretend to do some work that takes some amount of time
::std::thread::sleep(::std::time::Duration::from_millis(
(1000 - (100 * i)) as u64,
));
Output(i) // then pretend to return the `Output` of that work
});
spawned_threads.push(join_handle);
}
// I can do this to wait for each thread to finish and collect all `Output`s
let outputs_in_order_of_thread_spawning = spawned_threads
.into_iter()
.map(::std::thread::JoinHandle::join)
.collect::<Vec<::std::thread::Result<Output>>>();
// but how would I get the `Output`s in order of completed threads?
}
I could solve the problem myself using a shared queue/channels/similar, but are there built-in APIs or existing libraries which could solve this use case for me more elegantly?
I'm looking for an API like:
fn race_threads<A: Send>(
threads: Vec<::std::thread::JoinHandle<A>>
) -> (::std::thread::Result<A>, Vec<::std::thread::JoinHandle<A>>) {
unimplemented!("so far this doesn't seem to exist")
}
(Rayon's join is the closest I could find, but a) it only races 2 closures rather than an arbitrary number of closures, and b) the thread pool w/ work stealing approach doesn't make sense for my use case of having some closures that might run forever.)
It is possible to solve this use case using pointers from How to check if a thread has finished in Rust? just like it's possible to solve this use case using an MPSC channel, however here I'm after a clean API to race n threads (or failing that, n closures on n threads).
These problems can be solved by using a condition variable:
use std::sync::{Arc, Condvar, Mutex};
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Output(i32);
enum State {
Starting,
Joinable,
Joined,
}
fn main() {
let pair = Arc::new((Mutex::new(Vec::new()), Condvar::new()));
let mut spawned_threads = Vec::new();
let &(ref lock, ref cvar) = &*pair;
for i in 0..10 {
let my_pair = pair.clone();
let join_handle: ::std::thread::JoinHandle<Output> = ::std::thread::spawn(move || {
// pretend to do some work that takes some amount of time
::std::thread::sleep(::std::time::Duration::from_millis(
(1000 - (100 * i)) as u64,
));
let &(ref lock, ref cvar) = &*my_pair;
let mut joinable = lock.lock().unwrap();
joinable[i] = State::Joinable;
cvar.notify_one();
Output(i as i32) // then pretend to return the `Output` of that work
});
lock.lock().unwrap().push(State::Starting);
spawned_threads.push(Some(join_handle));
}
let mut should_stop = false;
while !should_stop {
let locked = lock.lock().unwrap();
let mut locked = cvar.wait(locked).unwrap();
should_stop = true;
for (i, state) in locked.iter_mut().enumerate() {
match *state {
State::Starting => {
should_stop = false;
}
State::Joinable => {
*state = State::Joined;
println!("{:?}", spawned_threads[i].take().unwrap().join());
}
State::Joined => (),
}
}
}
}
(playground link)
I'm not claiming this is the simplest way to do it. The condition variable will awake the main thread every time a child thread is done. The list can show the state of each thread, if one is (about to) finish, it can be joined.
No, there is no such API.
You've already been presented with multiple options to solve your problem:
Use channels
Use a CondVar
Use futures
Sometimes when programming, you have to go beyond sticking pre-made blocks together. This is supposed to be a fun part of programming. I encourage you to embrace it. Go create your ideal API using the components available and publish it to crates.io.
I really don't see what's so terrible about the channels version:
use std::{sync::mpsc, thread, time::Duration};
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Output(i32);
fn main() {
let (tx, rx) = mpsc::channel();
for i in 0..10 {
let tx = tx.clone();
thread::spawn(move || {
thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis((1000 - (100 * i)) as u64));
tx.send(Output(i)).unwrap();
});
}
// Don't hold on to the sender ourselves
// Otherwise the loop would never terminate
drop(tx);
for r in rx {
println!("{:?}", r);
}
}
impl A {
fn new() -> (A, std::sync::mpsc::Receiver<Data>) {
let (sender, receiver) = std::sync::mpsc::channel();
let objA = A { sender: sender, }; // A spawns threads, clones and uses sender etc
(objA, receiver)
}
}
impl B {
fn new() -> B {
let (objA, receiver) = A::new();
B {
a: objA,
join_handle: Some(std::thread::spwan(move || {
loop {
match receiver.recv() {
Ok(data) => /* Do Something, inform main thread etc */,
Err(_) => break,
}
}
})),
}
}
}
impl Drop for B {
fn drop(&mut self) {
// Want to do something like "sender.close()/receiver.close()" etc so that the following
// thread joins. But there is no such function. How do i break the following thread ?
self.join_handle().take().unwrap().join().unwrap();
}
}
Is there a way to cleanly exit under such a circumstance ? The thing is that when either receiver or sender is dropped the other sniffs this and gives an error. In case of receiver it will be woken up and will yield an error in which case i am breaking out of the infinite and blocking loop above. However how do i do that explicitly using this very property of channels, without resorting to other flags in conjunction with try_recv()etc., and cleanly exit my thread deterministically?
Why not sending a specific message to shut this thread? I do not know what is your data but most of the time it may be an enum and adding a enum variant like 'MyData::Shutdown' in your receive you can simply break out of the loop.
You can wrap the a field of your B type in an Option. This way in the Drop::drop method you can do drop(self.a.take()) which will replace the field with a None and drop the sender. This closes the channel and your thread can now be properly joined.
You can create a new channel and swap your actual sender out with the dummy-sender. Then you can drop your sender and therefor join the thread:
impl Drop for B {
fn drop(&mut self) {
let (s, _) = channel();
drop(replace(&mut self.a.sender, s));
self.join_handle.take().unwrap().join().unwrap();
}
}
Try it out in the playpen: http://is.gd/y7A9L0
I don't know what the overhead of creating and immediately dropping a channel is, but it's not free and unlikely to be optimized out (There's an Arc in there).
on a side-note, Your infinite loop with a match on receiver.recv() could be replaced by a for loop using the Receiver::iter method:
for _ in receiver.iter() {
// do something with the value
}
Editor's note — this example was created before Rust 1.0 and the specific types have changed or been removed since then. The general question and concept remains valid.
I have spawned a thread with an infinite loop and timer inside.
thread::spawn(|| {
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
let periodic = timer.periodic(Duration::milliseconds(200));
loop {
periodic.recv();
// Do my work here
}
});
After a time based on some conditions, I need to terminate this thread from another part of my program. In other words, I want to exit from the infinite loop. How can I do this correctly? Additionally, how could I to suspend this thread and resume it later?
I tried to use a global unsafe flag to break the loop, but I think this solution does not look nice.
For both terminating and suspending a thread you can use channels.
Terminated externally
On each iteration of a worker loop, we check if someone notified us through a channel. If yes or if the other end of the channel has gone out of scope we break the loop.
use std::io::{self, BufRead};
use std::sync::mpsc::{self, TryRecvError};
use std::thread;
use std::time::Duration;
fn main() {
println!("Press enter to terminate the child thread");
let (tx, rx) = mpsc::channel();
thread::spawn(move || loop {
println!("Working...");
thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(500));
match rx.try_recv() {
Ok(_) | Err(TryRecvError::Disconnected) => {
println!("Terminating.");
break;
}
Err(TryRecvError::Empty) => {}
}
});
let mut line = String::new();
let stdin = io::stdin();
let _ = stdin.lock().read_line(&mut line);
let _ = tx.send(());
}
Suspending and resuming
We use recv() which suspends the thread until something arrives on the channel. In order to resume the thread, you need to send something through the channel; the unit value () in this case. If the transmitting end of the channel is dropped, recv() will return Err(()) - we use this to exit the loop.
use std::io::{self, BufRead};
use std::sync::mpsc;
use std::thread;
use std::time::Duration;
fn main() {
println!("Press enter to wake up the child thread");
let (tx, rx) = mpsc::channel();
thread::spawn(move || loop {
println!("Suspending...");
match rx.recv() {
Ok(_) => {
println!("Working...");
thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(500));
}
Err(_) => {
println!("Terminating.");
break;
}
}
});
let mut line = String::new();
let stdin = io::stdin();
for _ in 0..4 {
let _ = stdin.lock().read_line(&mut line);
let _ = tx.send(());
}
}
Other tools
Channels are the easiest and the most natural (IMO) way to do these tasks, but not the most efficient one. There are other concurrency primitives which you can find in the std::sync module. They belong to a lower level than channels but can be more efficient in particular tasks.
The ideal solution would be a Condvar. You can use wait_timeout in the std::sync module, as pointed out by #Vladimir Matveev.
This is the example from the documentation:
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex, Condvar};
use std::thread;
use std::time::Duration;
let pair = Arc::new((Mutex::new(false), Condvar::new()));
let pair2 = pair.clone();
thread::spawn(move|| {
let &(ref lock, ref cvar) = &*pair2;
let mut started = lock.lock().unwrap();
*started = true;
// We notify the condvar that the value has changed.
cvar.notify_one();
});
// wait for the thread to start up
let &(ref lock, ref cvar) = &*pair;
let mut started = lock.lock().unwrap();
// as long as the value inside the `Mutex` is false, we wait
loop {
let result = cvar.wait_timeout(started, Duration::from_millis(10)).unwrap();
// 10 milliseconds have passed, or maybe the value changed!
started = result.0;
if *started == true {
// We received the notification and the value has been updated, we can leave.
break
}
}
Having been back to this question several times myself, here's what I think addresses OP's intent and others' best practice of getting the thread to stop itself. Building on the accepted answer, Crossbeam is a nice upgrade to mpsc in allowing message endpoints to be cloned and moved. It also has a convenient tick function. The real point here is it has try_recv() which is non-blocking.
I'm not sure how universally useful it'd be to put a message checker in the middle of an operational loop like this. I haven't found that Actix (or previously Akka) could really stop a thread without--as stated above--getting the thread to do it itself. So this is what I'm using for now (wide open to correction here, still learning myself).
// Cargo.toml:
// [dependencies]
// crossbeam-channel = "0.4.4"
use crossbeam_channel::{Sender, Receiver, unbounded, tick};
use std::time::{Duration, Instant};
fn main() {
let (tx, rx):(Sender<String>, Receiver<String>) = unbounded();
let rx2 = rx.clone();
// crossbeam allows clone and move of receiver
std::thread::spawn(move || {
// OP:
// let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
// let periodic = timer.periodic(Duration::milliseconds(200));
let ticker: Receiver<Instant> = tick(std::time::Duration::from_millis(500));
loop {
// OP:
// periodic.recv();
crossbeam_channel::select! {
recv(ticker) -> _ => {
// OP: Do my work here
println!("Hello, work.");
// Comms Check: keep doing work?
// try_recv is non-blocking
// rx, the single consumer is clone-able in crossbeam
let try_result = rx2.try_recv();
match try_result {
Err(_e) => {},
Ok(msg) => {
match msg.as_str() {
"END_THE_WORLD" => {
println!("Ending the world.");
break;
},
_ => {},
}
},
_ => {}
}
}
}
}
});
// let work continue for 10 seconds then tell that thread to end.
std::thread::sleep(std::time::Duration::from_secs(10));
println!("Goodbye, world.");
tx.send("END_THE_WORLD".to_string());
}
Using strings as a message device is a tad cringeworthy--to me. Could do the other suspend and restart stuff there in an enum.