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.
Related
I'm developing a game in pyglet, that scheduled by a simple text file like :
0:00:01;event1
0:00:02;event2
0:00:03;event3
The fact is that, among these events, some might be blocking (for instance event2 might consist in displaying instructions until a key is pressed). As a consequence, event3 might not be executed at the proper time (i.e., during the event2). For now, my strategy is to schedule one event after the other :
Execute the first event
Once the first event is finished, compute the remaining duration between the first and the second event (delta_duration)
Schedule the second event with a delay of delta_duration
... and so on
For now, I did not succeed in implementing properly a blocking event with this strategy. It seems that anything blocking the event_loop (like a sleep call during event2) is preventing even the graphical elements of event2 (text instructions) to be displayed. On the other hand, if I do not put any blocking routine (sleep) in the event2, I'm able to see the vertices, but the scheduler keeps on scheduling (!), and so the event3 comes too soon.
My question is : what would be a general strategy, in pyglet, to articulate non-blocking to blocking events ? More precisely, is it possible (desirable) to use multiple clocks for that purpose ? The pyglet documentation mentions that multiple clocks can be used but it is not very well explained.
I don't want a solution that is specific to my events example but, rather, general indications about the way to go.
It's really up to your program on what blocks. If you are using input from Python for the console window, then yes that will block because it's blocking execution of Python in general. If you have a label popup in the window that is waiting for input from an on_key_press window event, then that is completely different as it's not blocking the pyglet loop, it was scheduled within it.
If your event is a 20 second long math calculation, then that should probably be ran in a thread. You will probably have to separate the types of events in order to differentiate how they should be ran. It's hard to say because without a runnable example or sample of code, I am just guessing at your intentions.
Although it sounds more like you are wanting some sort of callback system. When execution of func1 is declared done, go to func2. There is nothing built into pyglet like this, you would have to have a clever use of scheduling. There are examples of this using pure python though. I personally use Twisted Deferred's for this.
I am surprised that Linux kernel has infinite loop in 'do_select' function implementation. Is it normal practice?
Also I am interested in how file changes monitoring implemented in Linux kernel? Is it infinite loop again?
select.c source code
This is not an infinite loop; that term is reserved for loops with no exit condition at all. This loop has its exit condition in the middle: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.9/fs/select.c#L482 This is a very common idiom in C. It's called "loop and a half" and there's a simple pseudocode example here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/10767975/388520 which clearly illustrates why you would want to do this. (That question talks about Java but that's not important; this is a general structured-programming idiom.)
I'm not a kernel expert, but this particular loop appears to have been written this way because the logic of the inner loop needs to run both before and after the call to poll_schedule_timeout at the very bottom of the outer loop. That code is checking whether there are any events to return; if there are already events to return when select is invoked, it's supposed to return immediately; if there aren't any initially, there will be when poll_schedule_timeout returns. So in normal operation the outer loop should cycle either 0.5 or 1.5 times. (There may be edge-case circumstances where the outer loop cycles more times than that.) I might have chosen to pull the inner loop out to its own function, but that might involve passing pointers to too many local variables around.
This is also not a spin loop, by which I mean, the CPU is not wasting electricity checking for events over and over again until one happens. If there are no events to report when control reaches the call to poll_schedule_timeout, that function (by, ultimately, calling __schedule) will cause the calling thread to block -- the CPU is taken away from that thread and assigned to another process that can do something useful with it. (If there are no processes that need the CPU, it'll be put into a low-power "halt" until the next interrupt fires.) When one of the events happens, or the timeout, the thread that called select will get "woken up" and poll_schedule_timeout will return.
On a larger note, operating system kernels often do things that would be considered strange, poor style, or even flat-out wrong, in the service of other engineering goals (efficiency, code reuse, avoidance of race conditions that can only occur on some CPUs, ...) They are written by people who know exactly what they are doing and exactly how far they can get away with bending the rules. You can learn a lot from reading though OS code, but you probably shouldn't try to imitate it until you have a bit more experience. You wouldn't try to pastiche the style of James Joyce as your first exercise in creative writing, ne? Same deal.
I am currently working with three matlab functions to make them run near simultaneously in single Matlab session(as I known matlab is single-threaded), these three functions are allocated with individual tasks, it might be difficult for me to explain all the detail of each function here, but try to include as much information as possible.
They are CONTROL/CAMERA/DATA_DISPLAY tasks, The approach I am using is creating Timer objects to have all the function callback continuously with different callback period time.
CONTROL will sending and receiving data through wifi with udp port, it will check the availability of package, and execute callback constantly
CAMERA receiving camera frame continuously through tcp and display it, one timer object T1 for this function to refresh the capture frame
DATA_DISPLAY display all the received data, this will refresh continuously, so another timer T2 for this function to refresh the display
However I noticed that the timer T2 is blocking the timer T1 when it is executed, and slowing down the whole process. I am working on a system using a multi-core CPU and I would expect MATLAB to be able to execute both timer objects in parallel taking advantage of the computational cores.
Through searching the parallel computing toolbox in matlab, it seems not able to deal with infinite loop or continuous callback, since the code will not finish and display nothing when execute, probably I am not so sure how to utilize this toolbox
Or can anyone provide any good idea of re-structuring the code into more efficient structure.
Many thanks
I see a problem using the parallel computing toolbox here. The design implies that the jobs are controlled via your primary matlab instance. Besides this, the primary instance is the only one with a gui, which would require to let your DISPLAY_DATA-Task control everything. I don't know if this is possible, but it would result in a very strange architecture. Besides this, inter process communication is not the best idea when processing large data amounts.
To solve the issue, I would use Java to display your data and realise the 'DISPLAY_DATA'-Part. The connection to java is very fast and simple to use. You will have to write a small java gui which has a appendframe-function that allows your CAMERA-Job to push new data. Obviously updating the gui should be done parallel without blocking.
I am writing a Lua script that uses a library to access a hardware device with buttons. I register a callback function to handle the button presses. The code looks like:
globalvar = {}
function buttonCallback(buttonId)
...accessing globalvar
end
device.RegisterButtonCallback("buttonCallback")
while true do
end
This works.
Now I want to update the globalvar not only at a button presses but also at 1 minute intervals. Since I will need to access a network resource anyway I plan on using the socket.select call to get the 1 minute interval.
#require "socket"
globalvar = {}
function buttonCallback(buttonId)
...access globalvar
end
device.RegisterButtonCallback("buttonCallback")
while true do
socket.select(nil, nil, 60) -- wait 60 seconds
...access network
...access globalvar
end
Now I am concerned about the concurrent access of the globalvar. How can I prevent race conditions here? Most sources on multithreading in Lua advise to use continuations in cooperative scheduling but I don't see how that could be applied in my case.
Assuming the library you're using is creating another thread behind the scenes, and your only concern is about accessing globalvar from within the callback, you could avoid it by writing to a pipe in the callback, and reading from it in your select loop. In other words, use a standard POSIX-style pipe to communicate the callback back to the main thread. This is a fairly common technique when dealing with e.g. POSIX signals.
Lua is not thread-safe within a particular lua_State instance. You cannot modify a global variable from one thread while another thread is doing something else with that Lua instance. You most certainly cannot be executing two separate scripts on the same instance.
Thread safety is something you have to do outside of Lua. You cannot have the C/C++ thread that detects the button press actually call Lua code directly. It must send that data to the main thread via some thread-safe mechanism, where it will call the Lua script for them.
So I took a deep dive into the Lua books and online documentation, and contacted the author of the device driver. As the answers already indicated, it takes much more than anticipated to handle the button callbacks safely.
My approach now is to write the device driver myself and use sockets as communication channel between the device and the Lua script.
My initial approach was to use continuations as this is advocated as the Lua "replacement" for multithreading but when I read the programming in Lua book, it turns out that in order to prevent busy waits, it uses the socket.select (!). This increased my feeling that a socket-based approach is good, especially since I also need sockets for internet access in my script.
I've been learning some lua for game development. I heard about coroutines in other languages but really came up on them in lua. I just don't really understand how useful they are, I heard a lot of talk how it can be a way to do multi-threaded things but aren't they run in order? So what benefit would there be from normal functions that also run in order? I'm just not getting how different they are from functions except that they can pause and let another run for a second. Seems like the use case scenarios wouldn't be that huge to me.
Anyone care to shed some light as to why someone would benefit from them?
Especially insight from a game programming perspective would be nice^^
OK, think in terms of game development.
Let's say you're doing a cutscene or perhaps a tutorial. Either way, what you have are an ordered sequence of commands sent to some number of entities. An entity moves to a location, talks to a guy, then walks elsewhere. And so forth. Some commands cannot start until others have finished.
Now look back at how your game works. Every frame, it must process AI, collision tests, animation, rendering, and sound, among possibly other things. You can only think every frame. So how do you put this kind of code in, where you have to wait for some action to complete before doing the next one?
If you built a system in C++, what you would have is something that ran before the AI. It would have a sequence of commands to process. Some of those commands would be instantaneous, like "tell entity X to go here" or "spawn entity Y here." Others would have to wait, such as "tell entity Z to go here and don't process anymore commands until it has gone here." The command processor would have to be called every frame, and it would have to understand complex conditions like "entity is at location" and so forth.
In Lua, it would look like this:
local entityX = game:GetEntity("entityX");
entityX:GoToLocation(locX);
local entityY = game:SpawnEntity("entityY", locY);
local entityZ = game:GetEntity("entityZ");
entityZ:GoToLocation(locZ);
do
coroutine.yield();
until (entityZ:isAtLocation(locZ));
return;
On the C++ size, you would resume this script once per frame until it is done. Once it returns, you know that the cutscene is over, so you can return control to the user.
Look at how simple that Lua logic is. It does exactly what it says it does. It's clear, obvious, and therefore very difficult to get wrong.
The power of coroutines is in being able to partially accomplish some task, wait for a condition to become true, then move on to the next task.
Coroutines in a game:
Easy to use, Easy to screw up when used in many places.
Just be careful and not use it in many places.
Don't make your Entire AI code dependent on Coroutines.
Coroutines are good for making a quick fix when a state is introduced which did not exist before.
This is exactly what java does. Sleep() and Wait()
Both functions are the best ways to make it impossible to debug your game.
If I were you I would completely avoid any code which has to use a Wait() function like a Coroutine does.
OpenGL API is something you should take note of. It never uses a wait() function but instead uses a clean state machine which knows exactly what state what object is at.
If you use coroutines you end with up so many stateless pieces of code that it most surely will be overwhelming to debug.
Coroutines are good when you are making an application like Text Editor ..bank application .. server ..database etc (not a game).
Bad when you are making a game where anything can happen at any point of time, you need to have states.
So, in my view coroutines are a bad way of programming and a excuse to write small stateless code.
But that's just me.
It's more like a religion. Some people believe in coroutines, some don't. The usecase, the implementation and the environment all together will result into a benefit or not.
Don't trust benchmarks which try to proof that coroutines on a multicore cpu are faster than a loop in a single thread: it would be a shame if it were slower!
If this runs later on some hardware where all cores are always under load, it will turn out to be slower - ups...
So there is no benefit per se.
Sometimes it's convenient to use. But if you end up with tons of coroutines yielding and states that went out of scope you'll curse coroutines. But at least it isn't the coroutines framework, it's still you.
We use them on a project I am working on. The main benefit for us is that sometimes with asynchronous code, there are points where it is important that certain parts are run in order because of some dependencies. If you use coroutines, you can force one process to wait for another process to complete. They aren't the only way to do this, but they can be a lot simpler than some other methods.
I'm just not getting how different they are from functions except that
they can pause and let another run for a second.
That's a pretty important property. I worked on a game engine which used them for timing. For example, we had an engine that ran at 10 ticks a second, and you could WaitTicks(x) to wait x number of ticks, and in the user layer, you could run WaitFrames(x) to wait x frames.
Even professional native concurrency libraries use the same kind of yielding behaviour.
Lots of good examples for game developers. I'll give another in the application extension space. Consider the scenario where the application has an engine that can run a users routines in Lua while doing the core functionality in C. If the user needs to wait for the engine to get to a specific state (e.g. waiting for data to be received), you either have to:
multi-thread the C program to run Lua in a separate thread and add in locking and synchronization methods,
abend the Lua routine and retry from the beginning with a state passed to the function to skip anything, least you rerun some code that should only be run once, or
yield the Lua routine and resume it once the state has been reached in C
The third option is the easiest for me to implement, avoiding the need to handle multi-threading on multiple platforms. It also allows the user's code to run unmodified, appearing as if the function they called took a long time.