One of my threads entered the debugger. I want to switch to it, expect that stacktrace, choose a restart, etc... How can I do that?
I am using bordeaux-threads.
If you use SLIME, it should work automatically. Otherwise it depends on your implementation. In SBCL, (SB-THREAD:RELEASE-FOREGROUND) should let the other thread use the terminal.
SBCL manual, 12.8 Sessions/Debugging
Within a single session, threads arbitrate between themselves for the user's attention. A thread may be in one of three notional states: foreground, background, or stopped. When a background process attempts to print a repl prompt or to enter the debugger, it will stop and print a message saying that it has stopped. The user at his leisure may switch to that thread to find out what it needs. If a background thread enters the debugger, selecting any restart will put it back into the background before it resumes. Arbitration for the input stream is managed by calls to sb-thread:get-foreground (which may block) and sb-thread:release-foreground.
Related
I have a C++ application on Mac OS X. The app runs an event processing with the glfw library on the main thread and reads input and execute commands on a background C++ std::thread.
I am observing a frustrating phenomenon that I cannot explain so far.
If I make a call to a long running function on the background thread, initially that thread is using 100% of a core. But, after it has used a few seconds of CPU (10 seems to be the magic threshold), it gets throttled down to 25%.
If I start a computation run on a thread in the background before starting the glfw event processing loop (the event processing is essentially stuck waiting for events, as I don't even open a window), then it can use 100% for as long as it wants.
My biggest problem is that I have no idea what could be causing this nor how to figure it out. I've tested retrieving the pthread sched_param and changing the sched_priority from what seems to be default 31 to various values between 20 and 60 and it does not help.
I have identified one more condition for the phenomenon to happen:
The background thread has to have read from the terminal. It happens when I run the following background thread and enter a line for the computation to take place:
std::thread cmd([argc, argv, &scriptingRunner] {
for (std::string line; std::getline(std::cin, line); ) {
longComputation();
}
Perhaps App Nap is throttling your application to save energy. To check, open the Activity Monitor program and right-click on the header of the processes table to bring up the context menu, and click on "App Nap" in the context menu to enable the App Nap column; then look at your process in the table and see if its value in the App Nap column switches to "Yes" when the fault occurs.
If you want to disable app nap for your app, see the code listed in the question here.
I was playing on my virtual machine with some exploit learning tricks when i came across this script that was printing to 2 lines and then exit to prompt, and after 10 seconds it printed in my prompt like this :
[!] Wait for the "Done" message (even if you'll get the prompt back).
user#ubuntu:~/tests$ [+] Done! Now run ./exp
How is this possible ? It is clone involved or something like that ?
The program informs you that you should wait for the "Done" message even if you get the prompt back earlier.
This is because some other process is running, detached, in the background.
The process you started has finished, which is why you are getting the prompt back. But it spawned another (background) process, e.g. via fork() or some other mechanic. By the time you get your prompt back, that other process is still running, and you are told to wait for it to finish.
When it does, it prints "Done" to the standard output (stdout) it inherited from its parent -- which is (by default) the same terminal you used to start the initial process.
Not the smoothest design -- the main process could wait for the spawned process to finish before giving you that prompt back, since it is apparently important that other process finishes before you carry on. Perhaps the author didn't know how to do that. ;-)
The process, responsible for printing the messages are running in background (background process).
In general, running a process in background means detaching only the stdin, the stdout and stderr are still linked to the actual parent shell, so all the outputs are still visible on the terminal.
I am working on a big project that puts performance as a high priority. I have a little bit of experience using wxPython to create windows and dialog boxes for software, but I have no experience in getting processes to work in parallel during the course of a single program.
So basically, what I want to accomplish is the following:
I want one main class that controls the high level program. It sets up a configuration either from a config file or from user input. This much I have accomplished on my own.
I need PROCESS #1 to read in a file and a list of commands, execute the commands, and then pass the modified file to PROCESS #2 (this requires that PROCESS #2 is ready to accept new input.) Once the file is passed, PROCESS #1 would begin work on the next set of inputs and wait for PROCESS #2 to finish before the cycle repeats.
PROCESS #2 takes input from PROCESS #1 and writes output to a log file. Once the output is complete, it waits for the next set of output from PROCESS #1.
I know how to use wxTimers and the events associated with that, but what I have found is that a timer event will not execute if the program is otherwise occupied (like in the middle of a method.)
I have seen threads about "threading" and "Pool", but the terminology tends to go over my head, and I haven't gotten any of that sort of stuff to work.
If anybody can point me in the right direction, I would be greatly appreciative.
If you use threads, then I think this would be fairly easy to do. Here's what I would suggest:
Create a button (or some other widget) to execute process #1 in a thread. The thread itself will run BOTH processes. Here's some psuedo-code that might help:
# this is in your thread code:
result = self.call_process_1(args)
self.call_process_2(result)
This will allow you to start another process #1/2 with a new set of commands every time you press the button. Since the two processes are encapsulated in the thread, they don't have to wait for process #2 to finish. You will probably need to log to separate logs for the logs to make sense, but you can label the logs with a timestamp and a thread number or a uuid.
Depending on how many of these processes you need to do, you might need to look into setting up a cluster that's driven with celery or some such. But I think this is a good starting place.
I'm running a long process in the background. I've managed to output the console data to gui. But the problem is that, the data is returned only after the process is finished. But I need to display the data at realtime. ie, I need to display the data, every time it produces some output on the console. I'm running the process with in my gui from a seperate thread.
I mean, it would be like building a gui for the ping command, where output is displayed on console after each packet is send, ie at realtime. I just need to redirect that to gui, in realtime. I'm implementing the gui in wxwidgets. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanking You..
Jvc
Is the output you wish to display generated in a separate process from the process running the GUI? Or in a separate thread in the same process?
I ask because most people, when they ask this question, mean a a separate thread. Since you have tagged your question with "process" I will assume that is what you mean.
You need some inter-process communication. There is a bewildering variety of techniques to do this. Personally, I always use sockets.
wxWidgets has simple, easy to use socket classes wxSocketClient and wxSocketServer.
The background process is probably not running wxWidgets, so you will need something else there. I reccomend boost::asio. I know it looks intimidating, but in fact the tutorial code can be used as is.
There is a lot more to be said, but I risk straying away from the point, since there are so few details in your question.
You can have an output queue protected by a wxMutex. The thread doing the computation writes to the queue, then signals the GUI thread using wxQueueEvent with a custom event to let it know that the thread is not empty. The GUI thread then reads the queue and outputs the data.
I have an existing utility application, let's call it util.exe. It's a command-line tool which takes inputs from the command line, and creates a file on disk, let's say an image file
I want to use this within another application, by running util.exe. However it needs to be synchronous so the file is known to exist when processing continues.
e.g (psudeo)
bool CreateImageFile(params)
{
//ret is util.exe program exit code
int ret = runprocess("util.exe",params);
return ret==0;
}
Is there a single Win32 API call that will run the process and wait until it ends? I looked at CreateProcess but it returns as soon as it tries to start, I looked at ShellExecute but that seems a bit ugly even it were synchronous.
There's no single api, but this is actually a more interesting general question for Win32 apps. You can use CreateProcess or ShellExecuteEx and WaitForSingleObject on the process handle. GetExitCodeProcess at that point will give you the program's exit code. See here for simple sample code.
However this blocks your main thread completely, and can give you serious deadlock problems under some Win32 messaging scenarios. Let's say the spawned exe does a broadcast sendmessage. It can't proceed until all windows have processed the message - but you can't proceed because you're blocked waiting for it. Deadlock. Since you're using purely command line programs this issue probably doesn't apply to you though. Do you care if a command line program hangs for a while?
The best general solution for normal apps is probably to split a process launch-and-wait off onto a thread and post a message back to your main window when the thread runs to completion. When you receive the message, you know it is safe to continue, and there are no deadlock issues.
Process handle is a waitable object, AFAIK. This is exactly what you need.
However, I'd recommend against doing anything like that. Starting process on windows may be slow and it will block your UI. Consider a PeekMessage loop with 50ms wait timeouts to do it from a windows application.