I'm trying to do a lot of network operation in parallel, and I want to set a timeout to each operation.
Since Parallel.ForEach doesn't have an easy timeout option, I'm using System.Reactive.
this is my code:
public void networkOps(List<MacCpe> source, Action<List<Router>, List<Exception>> onDone) {
var routers = new List<Router>();
var exceptions = new List<Exception>();
Observable.Defer(() => source.ToObservable())
.ObserveOn(Scheduler.CurrentThread)
.SubscribeOn(Scheduler.Default)
.SelectMany(it =>
Observable.Amb(
Observable.Start(() => {
switch(it.type) {
case AntennaType.type1: {
//network stuff
}
break;
case AntennaType.type2: {
//network stuff
}
break;
case AntennaType.type3: {
//network stuff
}
break;
case AntennaType.type4: {
//network stuff
}
break;
default: throw new NullReferenceException("Nothing");
}
}).Select(_ => true),
Observable.Timer(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(60)).Select(_ => false)
),
(it, result) => new { it, result }
)
.Subscribe (
x => {
Console.WriteLine("checked item number " + x.it.Id);
},
ex => {
Console.WriteLine("error string");
}, () => {
onDone(routers, exceptions);
}
);
}
I'm using the Observable.Amb operator to run in parallel a 60 seconds timer, that works as a timeout.
However when I run this method, the program exits immediately without ever getting to the callback onDone.
I see online that I can use ObserveOnDispatcher to observe on the Ui thread while running the blocking code on a pool of threads, but I'm using this on dotnet core on linux on a terminal application server side.
How would one go to observe on the "main thread" in a console application?
Thanks in advance for the responses.
As you are replacing Parallel.ForEach it sounds like you are happy to have a blocking operation. Using Rx the way you have set it up it is not a blocking operation, so hence the method ends immediately.
It's very simple to fix. Just change your .Subscribe to this:
.Do(
x =>
{
Console.WriteLine("checked item number " + x.it.Id);
},
ex =>
{
Console.WriteLine("error string");
}, () =>
{
onDone(routers, exceptions);
}
)
.Wait();
I'd also get rid of your .ObserveOn(Scheduler.CurrentThread) and .SubscribeOn(Scheduler.Default) until you are certain that you need those.
Related
In the following class, the _busy field acts as a semaphore; but, in "simultaneous" situations it fails to guard!
class Task {
_busy = false;
async run(s) {
try {
if (this._busy)
return;
this._busy = true;
await payload();
} finally {
this._busy = false;
}
}
}
The sole purpose of the run() is to execute the payload() exclusively, denying all the other invocations while it's still being carried on. In other words, when "any" of the invocations reach to to the run() method, I want it to only allow the first one to go through and lock it down (denying all the others) until it's done with its payload; "finally", it opens up once it's done.
In the implementation above, the racing condition do occur by invoking the run() method simultaneously through various parts of the app. Some of the invocations (more than 1) make it past through the "guarding" if statement, since none of them are yet reached to the this._busy = true to lock it down (they get past simultaneously). So, the current implementation doesn't cut it!
I just want to deny the simultaneous invocations while one of them is already being carried out. I'm looking for a simple solution to only resolve this issue. I've designated the async-mutex library as a last resort!
So, how to implement a simple "locking" mechanism to avoid racing conditions that bypass the guard statement in simultaneous actions?
For more clarification, as per the comments below, the following is almost the actual Task class (without the irrelevant).
class Task {
_cb;
_busy = false;
_count = 0;
constructor(cb) {
this._cb = cb;
}
async run(params = []) {
try {
if (this._busy)
return;
this._busy = true;
this._count++;
if (this._count > 1) {
console.log('Race condition!', 'count:', this._count);
this._count--;
return;
}
await this._cb(...params);
} catch (err) {
await someLoggingRoutine();
} finally {
this._busy = false;
this._count--;
}
}
}
I do encounter with the Race condition! log. Also, all the task instances are local to a simple driver file (the instances are not passed down to any other function, they only wander as local instances in a single function.) They are created in the following form:
const t1 = new Task(async () => { await doSth1(); /*...*/ });
const t2 = new Task(async () => { await doSth2(); /*...*/ });
const t3 = new Task(async () => { await doSth3(); /*...*/ });
// ...
I do call them in the various library events, some of which happen concurrently and causing the "race condition" issue; e.g.:
someLib.on('some-event', async function() { /*...*/ t1.run().then(); /*...*/ });
anotherLib.on('event-2', async function() { /*...*/ t1.run().then(); /*...*/ });
Oh god, now I see it. How could I have missed this so long! Here is your implemenation:
async run() {
try {
if (this._busy)
return;
...
} finally {
this._busy = false;
}
}
As per documentations:
The Statements in the finally block are executed before control flow exits the try...catch...finally construct. These statements execute regardless of whether an exception was thrown or caught.
Thus, when it's busy and the flow reaches the guarding if, and then, logically encounters the return statement. The return statement causes the flow to exit the try...catch...finally construct; thus, as per the documentations, the statements in the finally block are executed whatsoever: setting the this._busy = false;, opening the thing up!
So, the first call of run() sets this._busy as being true; then enters the critical section with its longrunning callback. While this callback is running, just another event causes the run() to be invoked. This second call is rationally blocked from entering the critical section by the guarding if statement:
if (this._busy) return;
Encountering the return statement to exit the function (and thus exiting the try...catch...finally construct) causes the statements in the finally block to be executed; thus, this._busy = false resets the flag, even though the first callback is still running! Now suppose a third call to the run() from yet another event is invoked! Since this._busy is just set to false, the flow happily enters the critical section again, even though the first callback is still running! In turn, it sets this._busy back to true. In the meantime, the first callback finishes, and reaches the finally block, where it set this._busy = false again; even though the other callback is still running. So the next call to run() can enter the critical section again with no problems... And so on and so forth...
So to resolve the issue, the check for the critical section should be outside of the try block:
async run() {
if (this._busy) return;
this._busy = true;
try { ... }
finally {
this._busy = false;
}
}
This code blocks, the exceptions that are thrown don't kill the loop
List(1, 2, 3, 4, 5).par.foreach { i =>
println("i = " + i)
if (i == 5) {
println("Sleeping forever")
java.lang.Thread.sleep(Long.MaxValue)
}
throw new IllegalArgumentException("foo")
} must throwA[IllegalArgumentException]
Is there a way to use .par but make it blow up properly?
I think that when using the par libs you should expect the exception to occour once all the threads actually finish and are are joined back into the current thread, I suspect this because by looking at the implementation of the foreach method (cmd clicking on foreach) a method named executeAndWaitResult is used
Here are some other q/s that seem somewhat similar perhaps it helps
interrupt scala parallel collection
How to cancel Future in Scala?
https://immutables.pl/2016/10/08/parallel-futures-and-exceptions/
This seems to work, but verbose though
implicit class PimpedListScala[T](l: List[T]) {
def parForeachThrowOnException(f: T => Unit, sleepMillis: Long): Unit = {
var exception: Option[Throwable] = None
val future = Future(
l.par.foreach(e =>
try {
f(e)
} catch {
case t: Throwable =>
if (exception.isEmpty) exception = Some(t)
}
)
)
while (exception.isEmpty && !future.isCompleted) {
java.lang.Thread.sleep(sleepMillis)
}
exception.foreach(throw _)
}
}
I've also tried this
def parForeachThrowOnException(f: T => Unit): Unit =
Await.result(Future.traverse(l)(a => Future(f(a))), Duration.Inf)
but this works unpredictably. For a live experiment it took a full 2 hours for the first exception thrown to propagate up and kill the application.
I'm trying to make my MVC controller action run asynchronously under .NET 4.0. However, none of my attempts have given me the results I want. I have the following action:
public ActionResult ImportXml()
{
try
{
if (_importRunning)
return Content("Already running");
var obj = new object();
lock (obj)
{
_importRunning = true;
Thread.Sleep(20000);
//_employesImportService.ImportXml();
_importRunning = false;
}
return Content("Done");
}
catch (Exception e)
{
return Content(e.Message);
}
}
When I run two browsers simultaneously that call this action, both seem to wait the 20 seconds I set in the Thread.Sleep(20000). I though that using the lock mechanism would block one request and return the "Already running" content immediately. I'm using .NET 4.0 and I don't have the option of using async await. But is there another way of implementing this so that one of the requests responds quickly?
I want to call a function to delete files and folders from the system in a parallel thread called by QtConcurrent::run() (Qt for Embedded Linux 4.8). Using only a QFuture<bool> with QFuture::waitForFinished() to grab the result (I need to run some code right after the operation), I was able to make the system work.
But I want to display the ongoing result of the operation in a QProgressBar derived class with its setValue(int) called via signals and slots mechanism from inside the delete function, and what I get with the above method is a freezed main thread while the operation isn't finished, and that is inadmissible.
So I though about using QFutureWatcher<bool> and connecting it's finished() signal to another slot containing the remaining code to be run after the delete operation is finished.
The problem I'm facing is that, when I do this, the delete function is simply not run by QtConcurrent::run()! I checked that with printed messages to Terminal. Everything that occurs is that the QFutureWatcher calls its finished() signal without any execution of the delete files function (and that also happens if I use QFutureWatcher::waitForFinished()).
Is this some bug from Qt?
Regarding code, it's pretty exactly as in Qt Assistant: create the QFuture and QFutureWatcher globally, connect the finished() signal with the slot, call QtConcurrent::run(), and setFuture() to the future. Nothing special.
Any help appreciated.
EDIT
Following the request of Kuba, here is the relevant part of the code:
//Declared globally in the .cpp
QFuture<bool> future;
QFutureWatcher<bool> watcher;
//
void SelectRecordToDeleteWidget::slotDeleteRecordStateMachine()
{
switch (deleteRecordStateMachine)
{
case PrepareToDelete:
{
//...
connect(&watcher,SIGNAL(finished()),this,SLOT(slotDeleteRecordStateMachine()),Qt::UniqueConnection);
//...
}
break;
case DeleteRecords:
{
//...
future = QtConcurrent::run(removeFiles, QString(DEFAULT_RECORD_DIR) + "/" + recordList.at(aaa).second.second, poProgressDialog, &itemCounter);
watcher.setFuture(future);
qApp->processEvents();
//...
}
break;
case FinishDelete:
{
//Run code after deleting files
}
break;
default:
break;
}
}
This is all the code using QFuture and QFutureWatcher. The removeFiles is as follows (not forgetting that it works well without QFutureWatcher):
bool removeFiles(const QString dirName, Interface::ProgressDialog* const poProgressDialog, qint32* const itemDeletedCounter)
{
bool result = true;
try
{
QDir dir(dirName);
if (dir.exists())
{
Q_FOREACH (QFileInfo info, dir.entryInfoList(QDir::NoDotAndDotDot | QDir::System | QDir::Hidden | QDir::AllDirs | QDir::Files, QDir::DirsFirst))
{
// if (Q_UNLIKELY(poProgressDialog->wasCanceled()))
// break;
if (info.isDir())
{
result = removeFiles(info.absoluteFilePath(),poProgressDialog,itemDeletedCounter);
if (!result)
return result;
}
else
{
result = QFile::remove(info.absoluteFilePath());
if (!result)
return result;
if (!QMetaObject::invokeMethod(poProgressDialog, "setValue",
Qt::BlockingQueuedConnection,
Q_ARG(qint32, *itemDeletedCounter)))
{
mDebugS(QString("removeFiles: %1QMetaObject::invokeMethod(poProgressDialog, \"setValue\"... failed!"));
}
++(*itemDeletedCounter);
// mDebugS(QString("removeFiles: %1").arg(*itemDeletedCounter));
}
}
result = dir.rmdir(dirName);
}
}
catch (...)
{
const QString strTemp = QString("An error in a call to removeFiles");
mDebugS(strTemp);
mLog(strTemp);
}
return result;
}
My code runs 4 function to fill in information (Using Invoke) to a class such as:
class Person
{
int Age;
string name;
long ID;
bool isVegeterian
public static Person GetPerson(int LocalID)
{
Person person;
Parallel.Invoke(() => {GetAgeFromWebServiceX(person)},
() => {GetNameFromWebServiceY(person)},
() => {GetIDFromWebServiceZ(person)},
() =>
{
// connect to my database and get information if vegeterian (using LocalID)
....
if (!person.isVegetrian)
return null
....
});
}
}
My question is: I can not return null if he's not a vegeterian, but I want to able to stop all threads, stop processing and just return null. How can it be achieved?
To exit the Parallel.Invoke as early as possible you'd have to do three things:
Schedule the action that detects whether you want to exit early as the first action. It's then scheduled sooner (maybe as first, but that's not guaranteed) so you'll know sooner whether you want to exit.
Throw an exception when you detect the error and catch an AggregateException as Jon's answer indicates.
Use cancellation tokens. However, this only makes sense if you have an opportunity to check their IsCancellationRequested property.
Your code would then look as follows:
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
try
{
Parallel.Invoke(
new ParallelOptions { CancellationToken = cts.Token },
() =>
{
if (!person.IsVegetarian)
{
cts.Cancel();
throw new PersonIsNotVegetarianException();
}
},
() => { GetAgeFromWebServiceX(person, cts.Token) },
() => { GetNameFromWebServiceY(person, cts.Token) },
() => { GetIDFromWebServiceZ(person, cts.Token) }
);
}
catch (AggregateException e)
{
var cause = e.InnerExceptions[0];
// Check if cause is a PersonIsNotVegetarianException.
}
However, as I said, cancellation tokens only make sense if you can check them. So there should be an opportunity inside GetAgeFromWebServiceX to check the cancellation token and exit early, otherwise, passing tokens to these methods doesn't make sense.
Well, you can throw an exception from your action, catch AggregateException in GetPerson (i.e. put a try/catch block around Parallel.Invoke), check for it being the right kind of exception, and return null.
That fulfils everything except stopping all the threads. I think it's unlikely that you'll easily be able to stop already running tasks unless you start getting into cancellation tokens. You could stop further tasks from executing by keeping a boolean value to indicate whether any of the tasks so far has failed, and make each task check that before starting... it's somewhat ugly, but it will work.
I suspect that using "full" tasks instead of Parallel.Invoke would make all of this more elegant though.
Surely you need to load your Person from the database first anyway? As it is your code calls the Web services with a null.
If your logic really is sequential, do it sequentially and only do in parallel what makes sense.