I want to implement something like the producer-consumer problem (with only one information transmitted at a time), but I want the producer to wait for someone to take his message before leaving.
Here is an example that doesn't block the producer but works otherwise.
class Channel[T]
{
private var _msg : Option[T] = None
def put(msg : T) : Unit =
{
this.synchronized
{
waitFor(_msg == None)
_msg = Some(msg)
notifyAll
}
}
def get() : T =
{
this.synchronized
{
waitFor(_msg != None)
val ret = _msg.get
_msg = None
notifyAll
return ret
}
}
private def waitFor(b : => Boolean) =
while(!b) wait
}
How can I changed it so the producers gets blocked (as the consumer is) ?
I tried to add another waitFor at the end of but sometimes my producer doesn't get released.
For instance, if I have put ; get || get ; put, most of the time it works, but sometimes, the first put is not terminated and the left thread never even runs the get method (I print something once the put call is terminated, and in this case, it never gets printed).
This is why you should use a standard class, SynchronousQueue in this case.
If you really want to work through your problematic code, start by giving us a failing test case or a stack trace from when the put is blocking.
You can do this by means of a BlockingQueue descendant whose producer put () method creates a semaphore/event object that is queued up with the passed message and then the producer thread waits on it.
The consumer get() method extracts a message from the queue and signals its semaphore, so allowing its original producer to run on.
This allows a 'synchronous queue' with actual queueing functionality, should that be what you want?
I came up with something that appears to be working.
class Channel[T]
{
class Transfer[A]
{
protected var _msg : Option[A] = None
def msg_=(a : A) = _msg = Some(a)
def msg : A =
{
// Reading the message destroys it
val ret = _msg.get
_msg = None
return ret
}
def isEmpty = _msg == None
def notEmpty = !isEmpty
}
object Transfer {
def apply[A](msg : A) : Transfer[A] =
{
var t = new Transfer[A]()
t.msg = msg
return t
}
}
// Hacky but Transfer has to be invariant
object Idle extends Transfer[T]
protected var offer : Transfer[T] = Idle
protected var request : Transfer[T] = Idle
def put(msg : T) : Unit =
{
this.synchronized
{
// push an offer as soon as possible
waitFor(offer == Idle)
offer = Transfer(msg)
// request the transfer
requestTransfer
// wait for the transfer to go (ie the msg to be absorbed)
waitFor(offer isEmpty)
// delete the completed offer
offer = Idle
notifyAll
}
}
def get() : T =
{
this.synchronized
{
// push a request as soon as possible
waitFor(request == Idle)
request = new Transfer()
// request the transfer
requestTransfer
// wait for the transfer to go (ie the msg to be delivered)
waitFor(request notEmpty)
val ret = request.msg
// delete the completed request
request = Idle
notifyAll
return ret
}
}
protected def requestTransfer()
{
this.synchronized
{
if(offer != Idle && request != Idle)
{
request.msg = offer.msg
notifyAll
}
}
}
protected def waitFor(b : => Boolean) =
while(!b) wait
}
It has the advantage of respecting symmetry between producer and consumer but it is a bit longer than what I had before.
Thanks for your help.
Edit : It is better but still not safeā¦
Related
First of all, I'm new in Kotlin, so please be nice :).
It's also my first time posting on StackOverflow
I want to literally STOP the current thread that I created but nothing works.
I tried quit(), quitSafely(), interrupt() but nothing works.
I created a class (Data.kt), in which I create and initialize a Handler and HandlerThread as follows :
class Dispatch(private val label: String = "main") {
var handler: Handler? = null
var handlerThread: HandlerThread? = null
init {
if (label == "main") {
handlerThread = null
handler = Handler(Looper.getMainLooper())
} else {
handlerThread = HandlerThread(label)
handlerThread!!.start()
handler = Handler(handlerThread!!.looper)
}
}
fun async(runnable: Runnable) = handler!!.post(runnable)
fun async(block: () -> (Unit)) = handler!!.post(block)
fun asyncAfter(milliseconds: Long, function: () -> (Unit)) {
handler!!.postDelayed(function, milliseconds)
}
fun asyncAfter(milliseconds: Long, runnable: Runnable) {
handler!!.postDelayed(runnable, milliseconds)
}
companion object {
val main = Dispatch()
private val global = Dispatch("global")
//fun global() = global
}
}
And now, in my DataManager, I use these to do asynchronous things :
fun getSomething(forceNetwork: Boolean ) {
val queue1 = Dispatch("thread1") // Create a thread called "thread1"
queue1.async {
for (i in 0..2_000_000) {
print("Hello World")
// Do everything i want in the current thread
}
// And on the main thread I call my callback
Dispatch.main.async {
//callback?.invoke(.........)
}
}
}
Now, in my MainActivity, I made 2 buttons :
One for running the function getSomething()
The other one is used for switching to another Controller View :
val button = findViewById<Button>(R.id.button)
button.setOnClickListener {
DataManager.getSomething(true)
}
val button2 = findViewById<Button>(R.id.button2)
button2.setOnClickListener {
val intent = Intent(this, Test::class.java) // Switch to my Test Controller
intent.setFlags(Intent.FLAG_ACTIVITY_NO_HISTORY)
startActivity(intent)
finish()
}
Is there a way to stop the thread, because when I switch to my second View, print("Hello World") is still triggered, unfortunately.
Thanks for helping me guys I hope that you understand !
A thread needs to periodically check a (global) flag and when it becomes true then the thread will break out from the loop. Java threads cannot be safely stopped without its consent.
Refer to page 252 here http://www.rjspm.com/PDF/JavaTheCompleteReference.pdf that describes the true story behind the legend.
I think that a truly interruptible thread is only possible through the support of the operating system kernel. The actual true lock is held deep down by the CPU hardware microprocessor.
I have to implement a blocking and synchronized queue in scala.
If I don't miss something, synchronizing is pretty simple, but for my queue to be blocking I could only think of that (which works) :
def pop() : T = {
this.synchronized
{
_read()
if(_out.isEmpty) throw new Empty()
val ret = _out.head
_out = _out.tail
_length -= 1
return ret
}
}
def waitPop() : T =
{
var ret : Option[T] = None
// Possibly wait forever
while(ret.isEmpty)
{
try { ret = Some(pop) }
catch { case e : Empty => Thread.sleep(1000) }
}
ret.get
}
The problem here is Thread.sleep, it could compromise performance, couldn't it ?
Of course, putting a lower value would mean consuming more of the CPU.
Is there a way to wait properly ?
Thanks.
Thanks to Voo, I got what I needed :
def waitPop() : T =
{
this.synchronized
{
while(isEmpty) wait
pop
}
}
While in push, I added notifyAll (still in a synchronized block).
notify was also working, but with notifyAll the result appears less deterministic.
Thanks a lot !
I want to make an actor sleep for a while, specifically it should decide whether to sleep itself depending on a condition:
class MyActor extends Actor {
def receive {
case "doWork" => doWork()
}
def doWork(): Unit = {
// doing some work
val condition = calculateCondition
if (condition) {
// sleep for 5 seconds
// Thread.sleep(5000)
}
}
}
I'm pretty much sure it's not a good thing to call Thread.sleep(5000) inside an actor and there should be another way. Therefore, how do I make it sleep?
I would look to do this using changes of state/behaviour for the Actor. Akka gives you a couple of means of doing this: you can implement a full-on state machine, or make use of context.become (and mix in akka.actor.Stash), and have the actor pass (scheduled) messages to itself. The former feels like overkill for this case, so here is how I would look to code it up:
import akka.actor._
import scala.concurrent.duration._
class MySleepyActor(duration: FiniteDuration = (5 seconds)) extends Actor with Stash {
import context._
override def preStart() { become(running) }
def receive = PartialFunction.empty
def running: Actor.Receive = {
case "doWork" =>
if (doWork()) {
scheduleReactivate
become(paused)
}
case "wakeUp" => // already awake
}
def paused: Actor.Receive = {
case "doWork" => stash()
case "wakeUp" =>
unstashAll()
become(running)
}
def scheduleReactivate: Unit = {
system.scheduler.scheduleOnce(duration, self, "wakeUp")
}
def doWork(): Boolean = {
// doing some work, then:
calculateCondition
}
}
Note: I have not tested this code! Should give you some ideas to work with, though.
I have a timer to verify one condition every time and show pop up form only once if the condition is verified. I want to verify in parallel all instances, so i used parallel.for, but i have this error "Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'CameraViewVS' accessed from a thread other than the thread it was created on." in line " frm.WindowState = FormWindowState.Normal;"
this is my code:
public void timer1_Tick(object source, EventArgs e)
{
Parallel.For(0, nbre, l =>
{
cameraInstanceList[l].Start();
if (cameraInstanceList[l].MoveDetection == true)
{
//show the the form S once
foreach (Form S in Application.OpenForms)
{
var frm = S as Formes.CameraViewVS;
if (frm != null && frm.IP == cameraInstanceList[l].adresse)
{
cameraInstanceList[l].MoveDetection = false;
frm.WindowState = FormWindowState.Normal;
frm.Activate();
return;
}
}
f1 = new Formes.CameraViewVS(cameraInstanceList[l],
adresseIPArray[l]);
f1.Show(this);
}
}
);
Most properties on WinForm object instances need to be accessed from the thread that they were created on. You can use the Control.InvokeRequired property to determine if you need to use the control (or form) Invoke method to execute the code on the UI thread.
It is also a good practise to create most WinForm controls on the main UI thread, and not on any thread pool threads. In WinForms applications, you can use the SynchronizationContext to ensure some code, such as creating a form, is called on the UI thread.
EDIT: changed so that the method doesn't return after movement detected.
public void timer1_Tick(object source, EventArgs e)
{
// assume this is being called on the UI thread, and save the thread synchronization context
var uiContext = SynchronizationContext.Current;
Parallel.For(0, nbre, l =>
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(250); // <--- sleep for 250 ms to avoid "busy" wait
cameraInstanceList[l].Start();
if (cameraInstanceList[l].MoveDetection == true)
{
// capture instances used in closures below
var cameraInstance = cameraInstanceList[l];
var ipAdresse = adresseIPArray[l];
//show the the form S once
foreach (Form S in Application.OpenForms)
{
var frm = S as Formes.CameraViewVS;
if (frm != null)
{
// create delegate to be invoked on form's UI thread.
var action = new Action(() =>
{
if (frm.IP == cameraInstance.adresse)
{
cameraInstance.MoveDetection = false;
frm.WindowState = FormWindowState.Normal;
frm.Activate();
}
};
if (frm.InvokeRequired)
frm.Invoke(action);
else
action();
continue; // <--- go back to the top of the while loop
// and wait for next detection
}
}
// create delegate to create new form on UI thread.
var createNewFormCallback = new SendOrPostCallback((o) =>
{
f1 = new Formes.CameraViewVS(cameraInstance, ipAdresse);
f1.Show(this);
};
// and invoke the delegate on the ui thread
uiContext.Send(createNewFormCallback, null);
}
}
}
);
}
Thomas is very close to right answer ,Because Every Control runs in a different thread .You should just write a code for context-switching of resources which is being used by Controls
Thread ..Don't worry you have a lot of facility for this in c sharp.Just use BeginInvoke and Invoke and i hope you would be able to resolve your problem.Write this in place of your old code block ..
var action = new Action(() =>
{
if (frm.IP == cameraInstance.adresse)
{
cameraInstance.MoveDetection = false;
frm.WindowState = FormWindowState.Normal;
frm.Activate();
}
};
if (frm.InvokeRequired)
frm.BeginInvoke(action);
else
frm.Invoke(action);
I wrote logic for testing urls using threads.
This works good for less number of urls and failing with more than 400 urls to check .
class URL extends Thread{
def valid
def url
URL( url ) {
this.url = url
}
void run() {
try {
def connection = url.toURL().openConnection()
connection.setConnectTimeout(10000)
if(connection.responseCode == 200 ){
valid = Boolean.TRUE
}else{
valid = Boolean.FALSE
}
} catch ( Exception e ) {
valid = Boolean.FALSE
}
}
}
def threads = [];
urls.each { ur ->
def reader = new URL(ur)
reader.start()
threads.add(reader);
}
while (threads.size() > 0) {
for(int i =0; i < threads.size();i++) {
def tr = threads.get(i);
if (!tr.isAlive()) {
if(tr.valid == true){
threads.remove(i);
i--;
}else{
threads.remove(i);
i--;
}
}
}
Could any one please tell me how to optimize the logic and where i was going wrong .
thanks in advance.
Have you considered using the java.util.concurrent helpers? It allows multithreaded programming at a higher level of abstraction. There's a simple interface to run parallel tasks in a thread pool, which is easier to manage and tune than just creating n threads for n tasks and hoping for the best.
Your code then ends up looking something like this, where you can tune nThreads until you get the best performance:
import java.util.concurrent.*
def nThreads = 1000
def pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(nThreads)
urls.each { url ->
pool.submit(url)
}
def timeout = 60
pool.awaitTermination(timeout, TimeUnit.SECONDS)
Using ataylor's suggestion, and your code, I got to this:
import java.util.concurrent.Executors
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit
class MyURL implements Runnable {
def valid
def url
void run() {
try {
url.toURL().openConnection().with {
connectTimeout = 10000
if( responseCode == 200 ) {
valid = true
}
else {
valid = false
}
disconnect()
}
}
catch( e ) {
valid = false
}
}
}
// A list of URLs to check
def urls = [ 'http://www.google.com',
'http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2720325/groovy-thread-for-urls',
'http://www.nonexistanturlfortesting.co.ch/whatever' ]
// How many threads to kick off
def nThreads = 3
def pool = Executors.newFixedThreadPool( nThreads )
// Construct a list of the URL objects we're running, submitted to the pool
def results = urls.inject( [] ) { list, url ->
def u = new MyURL( url:url )
pool.submit u
list << u
}
// Wait for the poolclose when all threads are completed
def timeout = 10
pool.shutdown()
pool.awaitTermination( timeout, TimeUnit.SECONDS )
// Print our results
results.each {
println "$it.url : $it.valid"
}
Which prints out this:
http://www.google.com : true
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2720325/groovy-thread-for-urls : true
http://www.nonexistanturlfortesting.co.ch/whatever : false
I changed the classname to MyURL rather than URL as you had it, as it will more likely avoid problems when you start using the java.net.URL class