why in D I can't send to another thread through Tid.send local instances of structs?
I would like to make simple handling of thread communication like this:
void main()
{
...
tid.send(Command.LOGIN, [ Variant("user"), Variant("hello1234") ] );
...
}
void thread()
{
...
receive(
(Command cmd, Variant[] args) { ... })
)
...
}
If I understand it correctly, D should create the array of Variants in the stack and
then copy content of the array the send function right? So there should not be any
issues about synchronization and concurrency. I'm quiet confused, this concurrency is
wierd, I'm used to code with threads in C# and C.
Also I'm confused about the shared keyword, and creating shared classes.
Usualy when I try to call method of shared class instance from non-shared object, the
compiler throws an error. Why?
you should idup the array and it will be able to go through, normal arrays are default sharable (as they have a shared mutable indirection)
as is the compiler can rewrite the sending as
Variant[] variants = [ Variant("user"), Variant("hello1234") ] ;
tid.send(Command.LOGIN, variants);
and Variant[] fails the hasUnsharedAlias test
you can fix this by making the array shared or immutable (and receiving the appropriate one on the other side)
Related
I came across codebase, where "moving ownership" through move semantic is used very frequently to deallocate resources. Example:
void process_and_free(Foo&& arg) {
auto local_arg = std::move(arg);
... // Use local_arg
}
void caller() {
Foo foo;
process_and_free(std::move(foo));
...
}
If there are some movable/dynamic resources in Foo after calling process_and_free, they will be deallocated (they will be moved to local_arg, which runs out of scope inside process_and_free). So far so good...
However, I was wondering what happens, if local_arg is not created:
void process(Foo&& arg) {
... // Use arg everywhere
}
Will the resources in Foo be deallocated in this case as well?
Second question: do you think, is it a good SWE style to use processing methods to deallocate dynamic resources of the passed argument? I was reading that the move semantics does not guarantee moving of dynamic resources: supposedly they can be moved but don't have to. Hence, IMHO it may be ambiguous in which state foo is after process_and_free call...
I think for code reader/reviewer it may be more obvious, if the resources are deallocated inside the caller:
void caller() {
{
Foo foo;
process_and_free(foo);
}
...
}
Answering both questions:
Without creating the local_arg variable, the resources will not be moved, i.e. the Foo&& arg argument does not take ownership of the resources during process(std::move(foo)) call.
Because the resources are not moved in the second example, IMHO it looks to me as a bad and confusing coding style. The reason is that looking only at the call process(std::move(foo)), the reader doesn't know what happens with foo without reviewing also process (btw. if process is a member method, it can be const with the same effect):
void process(Foo&& arg) const {
auto local_arg = std::move(arg);
...
}
I'm exploring Kotlin Native and have a program with a bunch of Workers doing concurrent stuff
(running on Windows, but this is a general question).
Now, I wanted to add simple logging. A component that simply logs strings by appending them as new lines to a file that is kept open in 'append' mode.
(Ideally, I'd just have a "global" function...
fun log(text:String) {...} ]
...that I would be able to call from anywhere, including from "inside" other workers and that would just work. The implication here is that it's not trivial to do this because of Kotlin Native's rules regarding passing objects between threads (TLDR: you shouldn't pass mutable objects around. See: https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin-native/blob/master/CONCURRENCY.md#object-transfer-and-freezing ).
Also, my log function would ideally accept any frozen object. )
What I've come up with are solutions using DetachedObjectGraph:
First, I create a detached logger object
val loggerGraph = DetachedObjectGraph { FileLogger("/foo/mylogfile.txt")}
and then use loggerGraph.asCPointer() ( asCPointer() ) to get a COpaquePointer to the detached graph:
val myPointer = loggerGraph.asCPointer()
Now I can pass this pointer into the workers ( via the producer lambda of the Worker's execute function ), and use it there. Or I can store the pointer in a #ThreadLocal global var.
For the code that writes to the file, whenever I want to log a line, I have to create a DetachedObjectGraph object from the pointer again,
and attach() it in order to get a reference to my fileLogger object:
val fileLogger = DetachedObjectGraph(myPointer).attach()
Now I can call a log function on the logger:
fileLogger.log("My log message")
This is what I've come up with looking at the APIs that are available (as of Kotlin 1.3.61) for concurrency in Kotlin Native,
but I'm left wondering what a better approach would be ( using Kotlin, not resorting to C ). Clearly it's bad to create a DetachedObjectGraph object for every line written.
One could pose this question in a more general way: How to keep a mutable resource open in a separate thread ( or worker ), and send messages to it.
Side comment: Having Coroutines that truly use threads would solve this problem, but the question is about how to solve this task with the APIs currently ( Kotlin 1.3.61 ) available.
You definitely shouldn't use DetachedObjectGraph in the way presented in the question. There's nothing to prevent you from trying to attach on multiple threads, or if you pass the same pointer, trying to attach to an invalid one after another thread as attached to it.
As Dominic mentioned, you can keep the DetachedObjectGraph in an AtomicReference. However, if you're going to keep DetachedObjectGraph in an AtomicReference, make sure the type is AtomicRef<DetachedObjectGraph?> and busy-loop while the DetachedObjectGraph is null. That will prevent the same DetachedObjectGraph from being used by multiple threads. Make sure to set it to null, and repopulate it, in an atomic way.
However, does FileLogger need to be mutable at all? If you're writing to a file, it doesn't seem so. Even if so, I'd isolate the mutable object to a separate worker and send log messages to it rather than doing a DetachedObjectGraph inside an AtomicRef.
In my experience, DetachedObjectGraph is super uncommon in production code. We don't use it anywhere at the moment.
To isolate mutable state to a Worker, something like this:
class MutableThing<T:Any>(private val worker:Worker = Worker.start(), producer:()->T){
private val arStable = AtomicReference<StableRef<T>?>(null)
init {
worker.execute(TransferMode.SAFE, {Pair(arStable, producer).freeze()}){
it.first.value = StableRef.create(it.second()).freeze()
}
}
fun <R> access(block:(T)->R):R{
return worker.execute(TransferMode.SAFE, {Pair(arStable, block).freeze()}){
it.second(it.first.value!!.get())
}.result
}
}
object Log{
private val fileLogger = MutableThing { FileLogger() }
fun log(s:String){
fileLogger.access { fl -> fl.log(s) }
}
}
class FileLogger{
fun log(s:String){}
}
The MutableThing uses StableRef internally. producer makes the mutable state you want to isolate. To log something, call Log.log, which will wind up calling the mutable FileLogger.
To see a basic example of MutableThing, run the following test:
#Test
fun goIso(){
val mt = MutableThing { mutableListOf("a", "b")}
val workers = Array(4){Worker.start()}
val futures = mutableListOf<Future<*>>()
repeat(1000) { rcount ->
val future = workers[rcount % workers.size].execute(
TransferMode.SAFE,
{ Pair(mt, rcount).freeze() }
) { pair ->
pair.first.access {
val element = "ttt ${pair.second}"
println(element)
it.add(element)
}
}
futures.add(future)
}
futures.forEach { it.result }
workers.forEach { it.requestTermination() }
mt.access {
println("size: ${it.size}")
}
}
The approach you've taken is pretty much correct and the way it's supposed to be done.
The thing I would add is, instead of passing around a pointer around. You should pass around a frozen FileLogger, which will internally hold a reference to a AtomicRef<DetachedObjectGraph>, the the attaching and detaching should be done internally. Especially since DetachedObjectGraphs are invalid once attached.
I am writing multi-threaded server that handles async read from many tcp sockets. Here is the section of code that bothers me.
void data_recv (void) {
socket.async_read_some (
boost::asio::buffer(rawDataW, size_t(648*2)),
boost::bind ( &RPC::on_data_recv, this,
boost::asio::placeholders::error,
boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred));
} // RPC::data_recvW
void on_data_recv (boost::system::error_code ec, std::size_t bytesRx) {
if ( rawDataW[bytesRx-1] == ENDMARKER { // <-- this code is fine
process_and_write_rawdata_to_file
}
else {
read_socket_until_endmarker // <-- HELP REQUIRED!!
process_and_write_rawadata_to_file
}
}
Nearly always the async_read_some reads in data including the endmarker, so it works fine. Rarely, the endmarker's arrival is delayed in the stream and that's when my program fails. I think it fails because I have not understood how boost bind works.
My first question:
I am confused with this boost totorial example , in which "this" does not appear in the handler declaration. ( Please see code of start_accept() in the example.) How does this work? Does compiler ignore the "this" ?
my second question:
In the on_data_recv() method, how do I read data from the same socket that was read in the on_data() method? In other words, how do I pass the socket as argument from calling method to the handler? when the handler is executed in another thread? Any help in form of a few lines of code that can fit into my "read_socket_until_endmarker" will be appreciated.
My first question: I am confused with this boost totorial example , in which "this" does not appear in the handler declaration. ( Please see code of start_accept() in the example.) How does this work? Does compiler ignore the "this" ?
In the example (and I'm assuming this holds for your functions as well) the start_accept() is a member function. The bind function is conveniently designed such that when you use & in front of its first argument, it interprets it as a member function that is applied to its second argument.
So while a code like this:
void foo(int x) { ... }
bind(foo, 3)();
Is equivalent to just calling foo(3)
Code like this:
struct Bar { void foo(int x); }
Bar bar;
bind(&foo, &bar, 3)(); // <--- notice the & before foo
Would be equivalent to calling bar.foo(3).
And thus as per your example
boost::bind ( &RPC::on_data_recv, this, // <--- notice & again
boost::asio::placeholders::error,
boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred)
When this object is invoked inside Asio it shall be equivalent to calling this->on_data_recv(error, size). Checkout this link for more info.
For the second part, it is not clear to me how you're working with multiple threads, do you run io_service.run() from more than one thread (possible but I think is beyond your experience level)? It might be the case that you're confusing async IO with multithreading. I'm gonna assume that is the case and if you correct me I'll change my answer.
The usual and preferred starting point is to have just one thread running the io_service.run() function. Don't worry, this will allow you to handle many sockets asynchronously.
If that is the case, your two functions could easily be modified as such:
void data_recv (size_t startPos = 0) {
socket.async_read_some (
boost::asio::buffer(rawDataW, size_t(648*2)) + startPos,
boost::bind ( &RPC::on_data_recv, this,
startPos,
boost::asio::placeholders::error,
boost::asio::placeholders::bytes_transferred));
} // RPC::data_recvW
void on_data_recv (size_t startPos,
boost::system::error_code ec,
std::size_t bytesRx) {
// TODO: Check ec
if (rawDataW[startPos + bytesRx-1] == ENDMARKER) {
process_and_write_rawdata_to_file
}
else {
// TODO: Error if startPos + bytesRx == 648*2
data_recv(startPos + bytesRx);
}
}
Notice though that the above code still has problems, the main one being that if the other side sent two messages quickly one after another, we could receive (in one async_read_some call) the full first message + part of the second message, and thus missing the ENDMARKER from the first one. Thus it is not enough to only test whether the last received byte is == to the ENDMARKER.
I could go on and modify this function further (I think you might get the idea on how), but you'd be better off using async_read_until which is meant exactly for this purpose.
Consider an operation with a standard asynchronous interface:
std::future<void> op();
Internally, op needs to perform a (variable) number of asynchronous operations to complete; the number of these operations is finite but unbounded, and depends on the results of the previous asynchronous operations.
Here's a (bad) attempt:
/* An object of this class will store the shared execution state in the members;
* the asynchronous op is its member. */
class shared
{
private:
// shared state
private:
// Actually does some operation (asynchronously).
void do_op()
{
...
// Might need to launch more ops.
if(...)
launch_next_ops();
}
public:
// Launches next ops
void launch_next_ops()
{
...
std::async(&shared::do_op, this);
}
}
std::future<void> op()
{
shared s;
s.launch_next_ops();
// Return some future of s used for the entire operation.
...
// s destructed - delayed BOOM!
};
The problem, of course, is that s goes out of scope, so later methods will not work.
To amend this, here are the changes:
class shared : public std::enable_shared_from_this<shared>
{
private:
/* The member now takes a shared pointer to itself; hopefully
* this will keep it alive. */
void do_op(std::shared_ptr<shared> p); // [*]
void launch_next_ops()
{
...
std::async(&shared::do_op, this, shared_from_this());
}
}
std::future<void> op()
{
std::shared_ptr<shared> s{new shared{}};
s->launch_next_ops();
...
};
(Asides from the weirdness of an object calling its method with a shared pointer to itself, )the problem is with the line marked [*]. The compiler (correctly) warns that it's an unused variable.
Of course, it's possible to fool it somehow, but is this an indication of a fundamental problem? Is there any chance the compiler will optimize away the argument and leave the method with a dead object? Is there a better alternative to this entire scheme? I don't find the resulting code the most intuitive.
No, the compiler will not optimize away the argument. Indeed, that's irrelevant as the lifetime extension comes from shared_from_this() being bound by decay-copy ([thread.decaycopy]) into the result of the call to std::async ([futures.async]/3).
If you want to avoid the warning of an unused argument, just leave it unnamed; compilers that warn on unused arguments will not warn on unused unnamed arguments.
An alternative is to make do_op static, meaning that you have to use its shared_ptr argument; this also addresses the duplication between this and shared_from_this. Since this is fairly cumbersome, you might want to use a lambda to convert shared_from_this to a this pointer:
std::async([](std::shared_ptr<shared> const& self){ self->do_op(); }, shared_from_this());
If you can use C++14 init-captures this becomes even simpler:
std::async([self = shared_from_this()]{ self->do_op(); });
I'm writing a C++ app with native threads (pthreads) and I need to call some Java methods etc. I'm not sure which JNI objects can be safely cached ie stored in my C++ object for use later, possibly/probably by a different thread. I do know that if my class' methods can be called by different threads I mustn't cache the JNIEnv, but instead cache the JavaVM and get a JNIEnv by attaching the current thread. But does that also mean I can't cache anything obtained from a JNIEnv? I need to use the objects obtained by the following JNIEnv methods:
FindClass, GetMethodID, NewObject, NewGlobalRef
Do those stay valid across threads, or do I have to get new ones every time? If the latter, is there a way to create an object in one native thread and be able to access the same object in a different thread?
JNI methods like FindClass, GetMethodID, GetFieldID are expensive operation that are guaranteed to generate the same result over the life of the JVM. Since these operations are time consuming, it is wise to store the result somewhere to be reused later on in the native side (this is caching).
JNI caching regards only these JNI function calls. If you want to cache any other C++ or Java object this is a different topic. (Just to be clear).
The cached classes, methods and fields do not depend on the thread they are retrieved from, so they are valid across different threads. At most you have to perform thread safe operations when getting or setting some object's field with Set<type>Field or Get<type>Field.
Since FindClass returns a local reference to the class object, you have to turn it into a global reference to guarantee its reuse after the function that retrieves it ends. You can achieve this by using NewGlobalReference:
jclass tmp_double_Class = env->FindClass( "java/lang/Double" ); // Check for exceptions!
double_Class = static_cast<jclass>( env->NewGlobalRef( tmp_double_Class ) );
if( double_Class == NULL )
return;
env->DeleteLocalRef( tmp_double_Class );
Here you have an example of the all JNI Caching topic:
MyJni.cpp:
// Just a shortcut for checking for exceptions
#define CHECK_JNI_EXCEPTION( JNIenv ) \
if( JNIenv->ExceptionCheck() )\
{\
JNIenv->ExceptionClear();\
return JNI_FALSE;\
}\
\
// Global variables
jclass point_Class;
jmethodID point_ctor_Method;
jfieldID point_x_Field;
jfieldID point_y_Field;
JNIEXPORT jboolean JNICALL Java_com_company_package_MyClass_nativeInit( JNIEnv * env,
jclass clazz )
{
// Cache java.lang.Double class, methods and fields
jclass tmp_point_Class = env->FindClass( "android/graphics/Point" );
CHECK_JNI_EXCEPTION( env )
point_Class = static_cast<jclass>( env->NewGlobalRef( tmp_point_Class ) );
if( point_Class == NULL )
return JNI_FALSE;
env->DeleteLocalRef( tmp_point_Class );
point_ctor_Method = env->GetMethodID( point_Class, "<init>", "(II)V" );
CHECK_JNI_EXCEPTION( env )
point_x_Field = env->GetFieldID( point_Class, "x", "I" );
CHECK_JNI_EXCEPTION( env )
point_y_Field = env->GetFieldID( point_Class, "y", "I" );
CHECK_JNI_EXCEPTION( env )
return JNI_TRUE;
}
MyJni.java:
package com.company.package;
class MyClass {
// ... All java code here ...
// Trigger JNI Caching (could be also done using JNI_OnLoad...)
private static native void nativeInit();
static {
System.loadLibrary( "mylib" );
nativeInit(); // should check the result
}
}
Have fun ;)
Objects are not thread-specific. They are initially "local" references, and if you want to keep a copy you have to tell the VM that you're doing so by creating (and, eventually, deleting) a "global" reference.
See http://developer.android.com/training/articles/perf-jni.html, especially the "Local and Global References" section.