I am using Futures.transform and I want my ListenableFuture to run on separate thread. Is it possible to that? I see ListenableFuture has sameThreadExecutor option, is there a option to run in different thread?
Details:
I have single thread that read data from the network using some async mechanism, depending on the requests it gets it has to dispatch the request to another thread so that this thread goes back to listen more requests. I am trying to use Futures.transform to do it.
You need an Executor that is not the sameThreadExecutor. The most common I've seen is the cached thread pool option, but if you're doing something simple with only one other thread, you might try this:
final ListeningExecutorService executor =
MoreExecutors.listeningDecorator(Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor());
If you're looking to run a single task in another thread, calling executor.submit() will then run your Callable on another thread. If instead you're trying to do the transformation of the future in another thread, you can pass this executor into Futures.transform.
Related
Using Delphi 7 & UIB, I'm running database operations in a background thread to eliminate problems like:
Timeout
Priority
Immediate Force-reconnect after network-loss
Non-blocked UI
Keeping an opened DB connection alive
User canceling
I've read ALL related topics here, and realized: using while isMyThreadStillRuning and not UserCanceled do sleep(100); end; isn't the recommended way to do this, but rather using TEvent.WaitFor(3000)....
The solutions here are either about sending signals FROM or TO... the thread, or doing it with messages, but never both ways.
Reading the help file, I've also found TSimpleEvent, which seems to be easier to use.
So what is the recommended way to communicate between Main-UI + DB-Thread in both ways?
Should I simply create 2+2 TSimpleEvent?
to start a new transaction (thread should stop sleeping)
force-STOP execution
to signal back if it's moved to a new stage (transaction started / executed / commited=done)
to signal back if there is any error happened
or should there be only 1 TEvent?
Update 2:
First tests show:
2x TSimpleEvent is enough (1 for Thread + 1 for Gui)
Both created as public properties of the background thread
Force-terminating the thread does not work. (Too many errors impossible to handle..)
Better to set a variable like (Stop_yourself) and let it cancel and free itself, (while creating a new instance from the same class and try again.)
(still work in progress...)
You should move the query to a TThread. Unfortunately, anonymous threads are not available in D7 so you need to write your own TThread derived class. Inside, you need its own DB connection to prevent shared resources. From the caller method, you can wait for the thread to end. The results should be stored somewhere in the caller class. Ensure that the access to parameters of the query and for storing the result of the query is handled thread-safe by using a TMutex or TMonitor.
I'm trying to understand the semantics of async/await in an infinitely looping worker thread started inside a windows service. I'm a newbie at this so give me some leeway here, I'm trying to understand the concept.
The worker thread will loop forever (until the service is stopped) and it processes an external queue resource (in this case a SQL Server Service Broker queue).
The worker thread uses config data which could be changed while the service is running by receiving commands on the main service thread via some kind of IPC. Ideally the worker thread should process those config changes while waiting for the external queue messages to be received. Reading from service broker is inherently asynchronous, you literally issue a "waitfor receive" TSQL statement with a receive timeout.
But I don't quite understand the flow of control I'd need to use to do that.
Let's say I used a concurrentQueue to pass config change messages from the main thread to the worker thread. Then, if I did something like...
void ProcessBrokerMessages() {
foreach (BrokerMessage m in ReadBrokerQueue()) {
ProcessMessage(m);
}
}
// ... inside the worker thread:
while (!serviceStopped) {
foreach (configChange in configChangeConcurrentQueue) {
processConfigChange(configChange);
}
ProcessBrokerMessages();
}
...then the foreach loop to process config changes and the broker processing function need to "take turns" to run. Specifically, the config-change-processing loop won't run while the potentially-long-running broker receive command is running.
My understanding is that simply turning the ProcessBrokerMessages() into an async method doesn't help me in this case (or I don't understand what will happen). To me, with my lack of understanding, the most intuitive interpretation seems to be that when I hit the async call it would go off and do its thing, and execution would continue with a restart of the outer while loop... but that would mean the loop would also execute the ProcessBrokerMessages() function over and over even though it's already running from the invocation in the previous loop, which I don't want.
As far as I know this is not what would happen, though I only "know" that because I've read something along those lines. I don't really understand it.
Arguably the existing flow of control (ie, without the async call) is OK... if config changes affect ProcessBrokerMessages() function (which they can) then the config can't be changed while the function is running anyway. But that seems like it's a point specific to this particular example. I can imagine a case where config changes are changing something else that the thread does, unrelated to the ProcessBrokerMessages() call.
Can someone improve my understanding here? What's the right way to have
a block of code which loops over multiple statements
where one (or some) but not all of those statements are asynchronous
and the async operation should only ever be executing once at a time
but execution should keep looping through the rest of the statements while the single instance of the async operation runs
and the async method should be called again in the loop if the previous invocation has completed
It seems like I could use a BackgroundWorker to run the receive statement, which flips a flag when its job is done, but it also seems weird to me to create a thread specifically for processing the external resource and then, within that thread, create a BackgroundWorker to actually do that job.
You could use a CancelationToken. Most async functions accept one as a parameter, and they cancel the call (the returned Task actually) if the token is signaled. SqlCommand.ExecuteReaderAsync (which you're likely using to issue the WAITFOR RECEIVE is no different. So:
Have a cancellation token passed to the 'execution' thread.
The settings monitor (the one responding to IPC) also has a reference to the token
When a config change occurs, the monitoring makes the config change and then signals the token
the execution thread aborts any pending WAITFOR (or any pending processing in the message processing loop actually, you should use the cancellation token everywhere). any transaction is aborted and rolled back
restart the execution thread, with new cancellation token. It will use the new config
So in this particular case I decided to go with a simpler shared state solution. This is of course a less sound solution in principle, but since there's not a lot of shared state involved, and since the overall application isn't very complicated, it seemed forgivable.
My implementation here is to use locking, but have writes to the config from the service main thread wrapped up in a Task.Run(). The reader doesn't bother with a Task since the reader is already in its own thread.
Vert.x have many thread pool, eventLoopGroup,acceptorEventLoopGroup,internalBlockingPool,workerPool.
Why need so many?
FileSystem read file will use internalBlockingPool, but like this code executeBlocking will use workerPool.
And in this code why resultHandler execute in eventLoop thread not
workpool?
vertx.executeBlocking(future -> {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
future.complete();
}, r -> {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
});
In my understanding eventloop just a single thread is endless loop for channel.If nothing to do with network, no need to use eventLoopGroup.
how to understand event in Vert.x, can give some Vert.x code not netty code？
Event loops: there can be more than one event loop thread. There typically will be more than one event loop thread (it depends on your number of cores). For example,if you start N instances of a verticle, you will want it to spread across multiple cores using multiple event loops. In the docs, look up the multi-reactor pattern.
Vert.x works differently here. Instead of a single event loop, each
Vertx instance maintains several event loops. By default we choose the
number based on the number of available cores on the machine, but this
can be overridden.
http://vertx.io/docs/vertx-core/java/#_reactor_and_multi_reactor
Regarding your question about the result handler: The execute blocking function will run on a worker thread, but once it is all done, it will be pushed over to the event loop thread to finish the result handler. This behavior helps with keeping certain logic on the event loop thread.
Regarding the other thread groups, they just handle specific functionality in vert.x. If you are stressed about the number of threads in vert.x, I would not worry about it. Vert.x does a good job keeping the OS threads to a minimum while maintaining high functionality and throughput.
I have a working thread running all along the runtime, who generates events.
I can handle those events inside the UI thread by using disp = Windows::UI::Core::CoreWindow::GetForCurrentThread()->Dispatcher.
more precisely, I do the modifications to the UI by using disp->RunAsync(...) anywhere inside the working thread.
but I don't know how to do the inverted operation. I want to have some Async function inside the UI thread to perform operation (on some std::unique_ptr) in the working thread when I click on some button.
If I understand correctly you want to be able to run an async operation when a button is clicked, but on a specific thread to which you refer as your worker thread.
First - Since you want to use a resource in 2 threads you should not use unique_ptr and use shared_ptr since you share this resource between the two threads.
Second - if you don't necessarily have to run the action on a specific thread then you can simply use Windows::System::Threading::ThreadPool::RunAsync and capture the shared_ptr by value.
e.g:
namespace WST = Windows::System::Threading;
WST::ThreadPool::RunAsync(
ref new WST::WorkItemHandler(
[mySharedPtr](Windows::Foundation::IAsyncAction^ operation)
{
mySharedPtr->Foo();
}));
In case you have to run the operation on a specific thread then I assume you want to be able to append operations to an already running thread, otherwise you are creating a thread and you can use the above example.
So in order to append operations to an already running thread, that thread must have the functionality of getting a new operations and then running those operations in a synchronous order. This functionality is basically what the Dispatcher provides. This is what an Event Loop is, also called: message dispatcher, message loop, message pump, or run loop. Also you can find information by reading on the Recator\Proactor design pattern.
This CodeProject page shows one way of implementing the pattern, and you can use Winrt component to make it better \ more conveniant \ more familiar
When I create a new thread in a program... in it's thread handle function, why do I pass variables that I want that thread to use through the thread function prototype as parameters (as a void pointer)? Since threads share the same memory segments (except for stack) as the main program, shouldn't I be able to just use the variables directly instead of passing parameters from main program to new thread?
Well, yes, you could use the variables directly. Maybe. Assuming that they aren't changed by some other thread before your thread starts running.
Also, a big part of passing parameters to functions (including thread functions) is to limit the amount of information the called function has to know about the outside world. If you pass the thread function everything it needs in order to do its work, then you can change the rest of the program with relative impunity and the thread will still continue to work. If, however, you force the thread to know that there is a global list of strings called MyStringList, then you can't change that global list without also affecting the thread.
Information hiding. Encapsulation. Separation of concerns. Etc.
You cannot pass parameters to a thread function in any kind of normal register/stack manner because thread functions are not called by the creating thread - they are given execution directly by the underlying OS and the API's that do this copy a fixed number of parameters, (usually only one void pointer), to the new and different stack of the new thread.
As Jim says, failure to understand this mechanism often results in disaster. There are numnerous questions on SO where the vars that devs. hope would be used by a new thread are RAII'd away before the new thread even starts.