I have an operation/task that I need to run, which is triggered by an event getting fired (I don't think this last thing is really important).
Thing is, this task is composed of several io operations, network calls mostly. Also, I would like to run this task atomically, start to end, one at the time, newer tasks should not start until the current one finishes.
I would normally do this using a critical section of some kind, but I don't think there's such a concept in js or the node base lib. How do you suggest I should handle a case like this?
thanks
EDIT: I've seen the "critical sections are not needed, this is single threaded" opinion several times in different posts and I think that is only partially true, it only applies to synchronous actions.
Suppose the typical scenario for which critical sections are used, you need to do 2 things A) check for the validity of a condition, B) apply an action only if A is either true or false, an action that would flip the condition. You don't want 2 threads to arrive to the conclusion that A is false at the same time, and that B should be done, so you wrap A and B in a critical section to make them atomic. In node.js, if A in synchronous then you are fine, no other thread will be running and you can do B safely. But if A is async, before it's callback fires, another event for A might show up on the event queue, before the first one get's it's B executed.
As mscdex noted a queue would be preferable, Async has queue() that would be able to handle the scenario you described. To guarantee the 'critical section' feel just set concurrency: 1 for the queue.
Related
I've been doing a fair amount of work with Node lately, trying to build a system which has certain characteristics, one of which is non-blocking / parallelism - a Node strong suit, as I understand it.
What I don't fully understand is when a separate thread is spun off to handle some processing. I'm pretty sue this happens on a function call/call back, but certainly not all of them.
In my specific case, it's an Express based app. At app start-up it does several things including instantiating a RabbitMQ based "bus", an object with a method which will write to the bus (objA) and object which will subscribe to the bus and process messages coming across it (objB).
objA will write to the bus inside an express callback
app.put((req,res) => {
objA.methodWhichWritesToBus();
});
I believe at this point, that objA.methodWhichWritesToBus is executed in a background/worker thread - whatever you call it, not on the main event loop.
Is that the only point at which this sort of thing happens? methodWhichWritesToBus is IO instensive (it calls an elastic search service on another box and brings back 10's to 100's of thousands of records) with lots of chained promises etc., but none of that gets split off, does it?
How about the fact that the obj on which the method is called is instantiated outside the Express callback - does that affect the parallel-ism?
Finally, are the ways to effect/force a method etc to "run in the background"?
I've been noodling this, testing it, for awhile now but all on one machine so it's difficult to tell what's going on.
Who can clarify this for me?
Pre-answer: this is a topic best learned by going and reading, doing coding exercises to solidify your understanding, and working with the technology in a significant way. You're not going to "get it" based on a Q&A format. That said...
What I don't fully understand is when a separate thread is spun off to handle some processing.
Never, sort of. "Processing" as in the computation that happens in your javascript program, happens in the main event loop thread. End of story. However, waiting on I/O to come back from the OS is not considered "processing" so there are various queues managed by node and the OS to track pending I/O requests and invoke callbacks when data is ready. There are a handful of threads node uses internally to manage this stuff with the OS, but from your program's perspective, those threads are irrelevant. Your program can ask node to do some IO, then your program keeps running in parallel, and when the I/O is done, node will eventually invoke the callback in the main event loop and you can process the results.
I believe at this point, that objA.methodWhichWritesToBus is executed in a background/worker thread - whatever you call it, not on the main event loop.
You call it "asynchronously" and it happens whenever you do IO, including filesystem calls, networking, or child processes. Which is to say, quite a lot.
How about the fact that the obj on which the method is called is instantiated outside the Express callback - does that affect the parallel-ism?
Nope.
Finally, are the ways to effect/force a method etc to "run in the background"?
Generally I/O is done asynchronously by default, so no you don't normally need to force anything to run in the background. It's baked into the node design by way of the node core APIs themselves. However, there are ways to delay synchronous processing to a future event loop using setImmediate, setTimeout, or process.nextTick. I explain these in some detail in my blog post setTimeout and friends.
More precisely, all networking is asynchronous. End of story. Specifically, the APIs in node core that are available are all asynchronous, and there's simply no synchronous API available in node. For filesystem IO and child processes, there are both synchronous and asynchronous APIs, but the synchronous APIs must only be used under special limited circumstances, and if you don't know confidently that it's OK in this specific case to make a synchronous IO API call, you should use the asynchronous API so you don't break the lynchpin that makes node perform as it does.
Simply put, I want to manipulate two motors in parallel, then when both are ready, continue with a 3rd thread.
Below is image of what I have now. In two top threads, it sets motors B and C to "unlimited", then waits until both trigger the switches, then sets a separate boolean variable for both.
Then in 3rd thread, I poll these two variables with 1 second interval, until AND operation gives true to the loop termination condition.
This is embedded system and all, so it may be ok here, but in "PC programming", this kind of polling loop would be rather horrible thing to do.
Question: Can I do either of both of
wait for variable without this kind of polling loop?
wait for a thread to finish without using a variable at all?
Your question is a bit vague on what you actually want to achieve and using which language. As I understood you want to be able to implement a similar multithreaded motor control mechanism in Labview?
If so, then the answer to both of your questions is yes, you can implement the wait without an explicitly defined variable (other than the error cluster, which you probably would be passing around anyway). The easiest method is to pass an error cluster to both your loops and then use Merge errors to combine the generated errors once the loops are finished. Merge errors will wait until both inputs have data, merges the errors, and passes the merged error cluster on. By wiring the merged error cluster to your teardown function you effectively achieve the thread synchronization you described. If you require thread synchronization for the two control loops, you would however still have to use semaphores, rendezvous', notifiers, and other built-in synch methods.
In the image there's an init function that opens two serial devices (purple wire) and passes them to the control loops, which both runs until an error (yellow-black wire) occurs. The errors from both are merged and passed to the teardown function that releases the serial devices. Notice that in this particular example the synchronization would occur at the end of program as long as there's at least one wire coming from each loop to the teardown function.
Similar functionality in a text based programming language would necessitate the use of more elaborate mechanisms, though some specialised language for parallel programming might help here.
I know the title sounds like a dupe of a dozen other questions, and it may well be. However, I've read those dozen questions, and Googled around for awhile, and found nothing that answers these questions to my satisfaction.
This might be because nobody has answered it properly, in which case you should vote me up.
This might be because I'm dumb and didn't understand the other answers (much more likely), in which case you should vote me down.
Context:
I know that IO operations in Node.js are detected and made to run asynchronously by default. My question is about non-IO operations that still might block/run for a long time.
Say I have a function blockingfunction with a for loop that does addition or whatnot (pure CPU cycles, no IO), and a lot of it. It takes a minute or more to run.
Say I want this function to run whenever someone makes a certain request to my server.
Question:
Obviously, if I explicitly invoke this loop at the outer level in my code, everything will block until it completes.
Most suggestions I've read suggest pushing it off into the future by starting all of my other handlers/servers etc. first, and deferring invocation of the function via process.nextTick or setTimeout(blockingfunction, 0).
But won't blockingfunction1 then just block on the next spin around the execution loop? I may be wrong, but it seems like doing that would start all of my other stuff without blocking the app, but then the first time someone made the request that results in blockingfunction being called, everything would block for as long as it took to complete.
Does putting blockingfunction inside a setTimeout or process.nextTick call somehow make it coexist with future operations without blocking them?
If not, is there a way to make blockingfunction do that without rewriting it?
How do others handle this problem? A lot of the answers I've seen are to the tune of "just trust your CPU-intensive things to be fast, they will be", but this doesn't satisfy.
Absent threading (where I can be guaranteed that the execution of blockingfunction will be interleaved with the execution of whatever else is going on), should I re-write CPU-intensive/time consuming loops to use process.nextTick to perform a fixed, guaranteed-fast number of iterations per tick?
Yes, you are correct. If you defer your function until the next tick, it will just block in that tick rather than the current one.
Unfortunately, there is no magic here that solves this for you. While it is possible to fire up that function in another process, it might not be worth the hassle, depending on what you're doing.
I recommend re-writing your function in such a way that work happens for a bit, and then continues on the next tick. Node ticks are very efficient... you could call them every iteration of a decent sized loop if needed, without a whole ton of overhead. Of course, you would have to profile it in your code to see what the impact is.
Yes, a blocking function will keep blocking even if you run it process.nextTick.
Some options:
If it truly takes a while, then perhaps it should be spun out to a queue where you can have a dedicated worker process handle it.
1a. Node.js has a child-process flavor specifically for forking other node.js files with a built in communication channel. So e.g. you can create one (or several) thread that handles these requests in order, then responds and hits the callback. See: http://nodejs.org/api/child_process.html#child_process_child_process_fork_modulepath_args_options
You can break up the blockingFunction into chunks that run in a loop. Have it call every X iterations with process.nextTick to make way for other events to be handled.
I am redesigning the messaging system for my app to use intel threading building blocks and am stumped trying to decide between two possible approaches.
Basically, I have a sequence of message objects and for each message type, a sequence of handlers. For each message object, I apply each handler registered for that message objects type.
The sequential version would be something like this (pseudocode):
for each message in message_sequence <- SEQUENTIAL
for each handler in (handler_table for message.type)
apply handler to message <- SEQUENTIAL
The first approach which I am considering processes the message objects in turn (sequentially) and applies the handlers concurrently.
Pros:
predictable ordering of messages (ie, we are guaranteed a FIFO processing order)
(potentially) lower latency of processing each message
Cons:
more processing resources available than handlers for a single message type (bad parallelization)
bad use of processor cache since message objects need to be copied for each handler to use
large overhead for small handlers
The pseudocode of this approach would be as follows:
for each message in message_sequence <- SEQUENTIAL
parallel_for each handler in (handler_table for message.type)
apply handler to message <- PARALLEL
The second approach is to process the messages in parallel and apply the handlers to each message sequentially.
Pros:
better use of processor cache (keeps the message object local to all handlers which will use it)
small handlers don't impose as much overhead (as long as there are other handlers also to be run)
more messages are expected than there are handlers, so the potential for parallelism is greater
Cons:
Unpredictable ordering - if message A is sent before message B, they may both be processed at the same time, or B may finish processing before all of A's handlers are finished (order is non-deterministic)
The pseudocode is as follows:
parallel_for each message in message_sequence <- PARALLEL
for each handler in (handler_table for message.type)
apply handler to message <- SEQUENTIAL
The second approach has more advantages than the first, but non-deterministic ordering is a big disadvantage..
Which approach would you choose and why? Are there any other approaches I should consider (besides the obvious third approach: parallel messages and parallel handlers, which has the disadvantages of both and no real redeeming factors as far as I can tell)?
Thanks!
EDIT:
I think what I'll do is use #2 by default, but allow a "conversation tag" to be attached to each message. Any messages with the same tag are ordered and handled sequentially in relation to its conversation. Handlers are passed the conversation tag alongside the message, so they may continue the conversation if they require. Something like this:
Conversation c = new_conversation()
send_message(a, c)
...
send_message(b, c)
...
send_message(x)
handler foo (msg, conv)
send_message(z, c)
...
register_handler(foo, a.type)
a is handled before b, which is handled before z. x can be handled in parallel to a, b and z. Once all messages in a conversation have been handled, the conversation is destroyed.
I'd say do something even different. Don't send work to the threads. Have the threads pull work when they finish previous work.
Maintain a fixed amount of worker threads (the optimal amount equal to the number of CPU cores in the system) and have each of them pull sequentially the next task to do from the global queue after it finishes with the previous one. Obviously, you would need to keep track of dependencies between messages to defer handling of a message until its dependencies are fully handled.
This could be done with very small synchronization overhead - possibly only with atomic operations, no heavy primitives like mutexes or semaphores.
Also, if you pass a message to each handler by reference, instead of making a copy, having the same message handled simultaneously by different handlers on different CPU cores can actually improve cache performance, as higher levels of cache (usually from L2 upwards) are often shared between CPU cores - so when one handler reads a message into the cache, the other handler on the second core will have this message already in L2. So think carefully - do you really need to copy the messages?
If possible I would go for number two with some tweaks. Do you really need every message tp be in order? I find that to be an unusual case. Some messages we just need to handle as soon as possible, and then some messages need be processed before another message but not before every message.
If there are some messages that have to be in order, then mark them someway. You can mark them with some conversation code that lets the processor know that it must be processed in order relative to the other messages in that conversation. Then you can process all conversation-less messages and one message from each conversation concurrently.
Give your design a good look and make sure that only messages that need to be in order are.
I Suppose it comes down to wether or not the order is important. If the order is unimportant you can go for method 2. If the order is important you go for method 1. Depending on what your application is supposed to do, you can still go for method 2, but use a sequence number so all the messages are processed in the correct order (unless of cause if it is the processing part you are trying to optimize).
The first method also has unpredictable ordering. The processing of message 1 on thread 1 could take very long, making it possible that message 2, 3 and 4 have long been processed
This would tip the balance to method 2
Edit:
I see what you mean.
However why in method 2 would you do the handlers sequentially. In method 1 the ordering doesn't matter and you're fine with that.
E.g. Method 3: both handle the messages and the handlers in parallel.
Of course, here also, the ordering is unguaranteed.
Given that there is some result of the handlers, you might just store the results in an ordered list, this way restoring ordering eventually.
I have 2 questions :
Q1) Can i implement an asynchronous timer in a single threaded application i.e i want a functionality like this.
....
Timer mytimer(5,timeOutHandler)
.... //this thread is doing some other task
...
and after 5 seconds, the timeOutHandler function is invoked.
As far as i can think this cannot be done for a single threaded application(correct me if i am wrong). I don't know if it can be done using select as the demultiplexer, but even if select could be used, the event loop would require one thread ? Isn't it ?
I also want to know whether i can implement a timer(not timeout) using select.
Select only waits on set of file descriptors, but i want to have a list of timers in ascending order of their expiry timeouts and want select to tell me when the first timer expires and so on. So the question boils down to can a asynchronous timer be implemented using select/poll or some other event demultiplexer ?
Q2) Now lets come to my second question. This is my main question.
Now i am using a dedicated thread for checking timeouts i.e i have a min heap of timers(expiry times) and this thread sleeps till the first timer expires and then invokes the callback.
i.e code looks something like this
lock the mutex
check the time of the first timer
condition timed wait for that time(and wake up if some other thread inserts a timer with expiry time less than the first timer) Condition wait unlocks the lock.
After the condition wait ends we have the lock. So unlock it, remove the timer from the heap and invoke the callback function.
go to 1
I want the time complexity of such asynchronous timer. From what i see
Insertion is lg(n)
Expiry is lg(n)
Cancellation
:( this is what makes me dizzy ) the problem is that i have a min heap of timers according to their times and when i insert a timer i get a unique id. So when i need to cancel the timer, i need to provide this timer id and searching for this timer id in the heap would take in the worst case O(n)
Am i wrong ?
Can cancellation be done in O(lg n)
Please do take care of some multithreading issues. I would elaborate on what i mean by my previous sentence once i get some responses.
It's definitely possible (and usually preferable) to implement timers using a single thread, if we can assume that the thread will be spending most of its time blocking in select().
You could check out using signal() and SIGALRM to implement the functionality under POSIX, but I'd recommend against it (Unix signals are ugly hacks, and when the signal callback function runs there is very little that you can do inside it safely, since it is running asynchronously to your app thread)
Your idea about using select()'s timeout to implement your timer functionality is a good one -- that is a very common technique and it works well. Basically you keep a list of pending/upcoming events that is sorted by timestamp, and just before you call select() you subtract the current time from the first timestamp in the list, and pass in that time-delta as the timeout value to select(). (note: if the time-delta is negative, pass in zero as the timeout value!) When select() returns, you compare the current time with the time of the first item in the list; if the current time is greater than or equal to the event time, handle the timer-event, pop the first item off the head of the list, and repeat.
As for efficiency, your big-O times will depend entirely on the data structure you use to store your ordered list of timers. If you use a priority queue (or a similar ordered tree type structure) you can have O(log N) times for all of your operations. You can even go further and store the events-list in both a hash table (keyed on the event IDs) and a linked list (sorted by time stamp), and that can give you O(1) times for all operations. O(log N) is probably sufficiently efficient though, unless you plan to have a really large number of events pending at once.
man pthread_cond_timedwait
man pthread_cond_signal
If you are a windows App, you can trigger a WM_TIMER message to be sent to you at some point in the future, which will work even if your app is single threaded. However, the accuracy of the timing will not be great.
If your app runs in a constant loop (like a game, rendering at 60Hz), you can simply check each time around the loop to see if triggered events need to be called.
If you want your app to basically be interrupted, your function to be called, then execution to return to where it was, then you may be out of luck.
If you're using C#, System.Timers.Timer will do what you want. You specify an event handler method that the timer calls when it expires, which can be in the class that you invoke the timer from. Note that when the timer calls the event handler, it will do it on a separate thread, which you need to take into account if you're updating the user interface, or use its SynchronizingObject property to run it on the UI thread.