That's kind of design question. Say, I have a worker thread and a GUI thread. The worker thread does some work and the GUI must show the information about current status of this work (for example, worker can process some files and the GUI must show the number of processed files, having separate counters for different types of files).
In Qt the information exchange between threads should be done via signals-slots mechanism. But if I have a lot of different kinds of information to pass from thread to thread, should I create different signals for each type of information (for example, for each type of file), or it would be better to create one signal (for example, informationUpdated(InfoContainer); with a special struct (InfoContainer), which will store the data I want to pass?
It completely depends on what kind of data types you are going to emit.
1- If they are simple non-structured types, you can use QVariant which can handle many types ( primitives and Qt types like QString, QPoint etc)
2- Alternatively, you can use a container class like QMap to pass a list of QVariant as Johannes Schaub said in the comment.
3- You may also want to create your own Message class which is integrated with the meta-object system. Then, convert it to QVariant to be emitted. Here is a good Custom Type Example from Qt documentation.
I choose the last method for better integration and expandability.
Related
Let's have a worker thread which is accessed from a wide variety of objects. This worker object has some public slots, so anyone who connects its signals to the worker's slots can use emit to trigger the worker thread's useful tasks.
This worker thread needs to be almost global, in the sense that several different classes use it, some of them are deep in the hierarchy (child of a child of a child of the main application).
I guess there are two major ways of doing this:
All the methods of the child classes pass their messages upwards the hierarchy via their return values, and let the main (e.g. the GUI) object handle all the emitting.
All those classes which require the services of the worker thread have a pointer to the Worker object (which is a member of the main class), and they all connect() to it in their constructors. Every such class then does the emitting by itself. Basically, dependency injection.
Option 2. seems much more clean and flexible to me, I'm only worried that it will create a huge number of connections. For example, if I have an array of an object which needs the thread, I will have a separate connection for each element of the array.
Is there an "official" way of doing this, as the creators of Qt intended it?
There is no magic silver bullet for this. You'll need to consider many factors, such as:
Why do those objects emit the data in the first place? Is it because they need to do something, that is, emission is a “command”? Then maybe they could call some sort of service to do the job without even worrying about whether it's going to happen in another thread or not. Or is it because they inform about an event? In such case they probably should just emit signals but not connect them. Its up to the using code to decide what to do with events.
How many objects are we talking about? Some performance tests are needed. Maybe it's not even an issue.
If there is an array of objects, what purpose does it serve? Perhaps instead of using a plain array some sort of “container” class is needed? Then the container could handle the emission and connection and objects could just do something like container()->handle(data). Then you'd only have one connection per container.
I want to look for files with given extensions recursively from a given root directory and to display the number of files currently found in my GUI.
Since this kind of processing may be long, the GUI may be blocked.
I could just wait for the end of the processing and get the file count, but I am learning Qt (PyQt), so I see this as a training.
So I have read Qt doc:
When to Use Alternatives to Threads, and I don't think it's for me.
Then I read:
Choosing an Appropriate Approach, and I think my solution is the first one:
Run a new linear function within another thread, optionally with
progress updates during the run
But in this case you have 3 choices:
Qt provides different solutions:
Place the function in a reimplementation of QThread::run() and start the QThread. Emit signals to update progress. OR
Place the function in a reimplementation of QRunnable::run() and add the QRunnable to a QThreadPool. Write to a thread-safe variable
to update progress. OR
Run the function using QtConcurrent::run(). Write to a thread-safe variable to update progress.
Could you tell me how to choose the best one?
I have read some "solutions" but I'd like to understand why you should use one methodology instead of another one.
And also since I am looking for files, I may have a directory in which many files would match the search criteria. So it would mean lots of interruptions. Is there something special to keep in mind regarding this?
Thank you!
From what I know (hopefully more can chime in).
QThread offers support with signal interaction. For example, you'd be able to stop your concurrent function with a signal. Not sure how you'd do that with the other options, if at all.
Things to keep in mind: widgets all have to live in the main thread, but can communicate with other other threads via signals & slots.
Another quick thread on the topic w/ some decent bullet-points.
https://qt-project.org/forums/viewthread/50165/
Best of luck on your project, and welcome to Qt!
I'm designing a large-scale project, and I think I see a way I could drastically improve performance by taking advantage of multiple cores. However, I have zero experience with multiprocessing, and I'm a little concerned that my ideas might not be good ones.
Idea
The program is a video game that procedurally generates massive amounts of content. Since there's far too much to generate all at once, the program instead tries to generate what it needs as or slightly before it needs it, and expends a large amount of effort trying to predict what it will need in the near future and how near that future is. The entire program, therefore, is built around a task scheduler, which gets passed function objects with bits of metadata attached to help determine what order they should be processed in and calls them in that order.
Motivation
It seems to be like it ought to be easy to make these functions execute concurrently in their own processes. But looking at the documentation for the multiprocessing modules makes me reconsider- there doesn't seem to be any simple way to share large data structures between threads. I can't help but imagine this is intentional.
Questions
So I suppose the fundamental questions I need to know the answers to are thus:
Is there any practical way to allow multiple threads to access the same list/dict/etc... for both reading and writing at the same time? Can I just launch multiple instances of my star generator, give it access to the dict that holds all the stars, and have new objects appear to just pop into existence in the dict from the perspective of other threads (that is, I wouldn't have to explicitly grab the star from the process that made it; I'd just pull it out of the dict as if the main thread had put it there itself).
If not, is there any practical way to allow multiple threads to read the same data structure at the same time, but feed their resultant data back to a main thread to be rolled into that same data structure safely?
Would this design work even if I ensured that no two concurrent functions tried to access the same data structure at the same time, either for reading or for writing?
Can data structures be inherently shared between processes at all, or do I always explicitly have to send data from one process to another as I would with processes communicating over a TCP stream? I know there are objects that abstract away that sort of thing, but I'm asking if it can be done away with entirely; have the object each thread is looking at actually be the same block of memory.
How flexible are the objects that the modules provide to abstract away the communication between processes? Can I use them as a drop-in replacement for data structures used in existing code and not notice any differences? If I do such a thing, would it cause an unmanageable amount of overhead?
Sorry for my naivete, but I don't have a formal computer science education (at least, not yet) and I've never worked with concurrent systems before. Is the idea I'm trying to implement here even remotely practical, or would any solution that allows me to transparently execute arbitrary functions concurrently cause so much overhead that I'd be better off doing everything in one thread?
Example
For maximum clarity, here's an example of how I imagine the system would work:
The UI module has been instructed by the player to move the view over to a certain area of space. It informs the content management module of this, and asks it to make sure that all of the stars the player can currently click on are fully generated and ready to be clicked on.
The content management module checks and sees that a couple of the stars the UI is saying the player could potentially try to interact with have not, in fact, had the details that would show upon click generated yet. It produces a number of Task objects containing the methods of those stars that, when called, will generate the necessary data. It also adds some metadata to these task objects, assuming (possibly based on further information collected from the UI module) that it will be 0.1 seconds before the player tries to click anything, and that stars whose icons are closest to the cursor have the greatest chance of being clicked on and should therefore be requested for a time slightly sooner than the stars further from the cursor. It then adds these objects to the scheduler queue.
The scheduler quickly sorts its queue by how soon each task needs to be done, then pops the first task object off the queue, makes a new process from the function it contains, and then thinks no more about that process, instead just popping another task off the queue and stuffing it into a process too, then the next one, then the next one...
Meanwhile, the new process executes, stores the data it generates on the star object it is a method of, and terminates when it gets to the return statement.
The UI then registers that the player has indeed clicked on a star now, and looks up the data it needs to display on the star object whose representative sprite has been clicked. If the data is there, it displays it; if it isn't, the UI displays a message asking the player to wait and continues repeatedly trying to access the necessary attributes of the star object until it succeeds.
Even though your problem seems very complicated, there is a very easy solution. You can hide away all the complicated stuff of sharing you objects across processes using a proxy.
The basic idea is that you create some manager that manages all your objects that should be shared across processes. This manager then creates its own process where it waits that some other process instructs it to change the object. But enough said. It looks like this:
import multiprocessing as m
manager = m.Manager()
starsdict = manager.dict()
process = Process(target=yourfunction, args=(starsdict,))
process.run()
The object stored in starsdict is not the real dict. instead it sends all changes and requests, you do with it, to its manager. This is called a "proxy", it has almost exactly the same API as the object it mimics. These proxies are pickleable, so you can pass as arguments to functions in new processes (like shown above) or send them through queues.
You can read more about this in the documentation.
I don't know how proxies react if two processes are accessing them simultaneously. Since they're made for parallelism I guess they should be safe, even though I heard they're not. It would be best if you test this yourself or look for it in the documentation.
I have a Silverlight app where I've implemented the M-V-VM pattern so my actual UI elements (Views) are separated from the data (Models). Anyways, at one point after the user has gone and done some selections and possible other input, I'd like to asyncronously go though the model and scan it and compile a list of optiions that the user has changed (different from the default), and eventually update that on the UI as a summary, but that would be a final step.
My question is that if I use a background worker to do this, up until I actually want to do the UI updates, I just want to read current values in one of my models, I don't have to synchronize access to the model right? I'm not modifying data just reading current values...
There are Lists (ObservableCollections), so I will have to call methods of those collections like "_ABCCollection.GetSelectedItems()" but again I'm just reading, I'm not making changes. Since they are not primitives, will I have to synchronize access to them for just reads, or does that not matter?
I assume I'll have to sychronize my final step as it will cause PropertyChanged events to fire and eventually the Views will request the new data through the bindings...
Thanks in advance for any and all advice.
You are correct. You can read from your Model objects and ObservableCollections on a worker thread without having a cross-thread violation. Getting or setting the value of a property on a UI element (more specifically, an object that derives from DispatcherObject) must be done on the UI thread (more specifically, the thread on which the DispatcherObject subclass instance was created). For more info about this, see here.
Here's yet another question on Core Data and multithreading:
I'm writing an application on the iPhone that retrieves XML data from the internet, parses it in a background thread (using NSXMLparser) and saves the data in Core Data using its own NSManagedObjectContext. I have a class - let's call it DataRetriever - that does this for me.
There are different UIViewControllers that then retrieve the data to display it in their respective UITableViews, of course this happens on the main thread using NSFetchedResultsControllers and a single managed object context that is used for reading.
I've read the answer to this question, which tells me that I need to register for NSManagedObjectDidSaveNotifications on the background thread (this will be done by the DataRetriever class I suppose) and then call the mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification method on the reading context from that class on the main thread. This, I think, is totally thread-unsafe. I might have interpreted this the wrong way, though.
I've also read this part of Apple's documentation on the subject (Track Changes in Other Threads Using Notifications), and it tells me to simply register for NSManagedObjectDidSaveNotifications coming from the reading context in the view controller on the main thread and then it would have to call mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification to update its reading context.
I went with Apple's recommendations: I now have my view controllers register themselves to NSManagedObjectDidSaveNotifications on the main thread using the reading managed object context as the source of the notifications. Doing this on the writing context probably isn't thread safe, and Apple's documentation isn't very specific on this.
Result: No crashes, but I am not receiving any notifications either.
Side note: I've read in Apple's documentation that notifications don't automatically propagate to other threads and I might even be listening for notifications from the wrong context, but why is Apple telling me to do it this way, then?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
-- EDIT --
Just to be clear, I'm registering for notifications coming from a particular NSManagedObjectContext, Apple's documentation specifically states (here) that some system frameworks may use an instance of Core Data themselves, so I could be receiving notifications from contexts that don't concern me if I don't specify a source. The documentation I referred to earlier on doesn't say anything about this, though. Any comments on this design choice are welcome.
The UI runs on the main thread so you want any intensive processing that might bog the UI down done on another thread. You have the context in the main thread listen for notifications because the main thread context is usually the only one that needs to update itself because of changes by other context in other threads.
All this is thread safe because data won't be deleted from the persistent store as long as one or more context is still using it. So, if context A has an object with the data while context B deletes another object representing the same data, the object in context A remains alive until context A calls for a merge.
Basically, each context operates in its own little world until you call merge. The race conditions that normally bedevil thread based data operations don't occur with Core Data.