I use timer in my program:
timer = new Qtimer(); connect(timer, SIGNAL(timeout()), this, SLOT(readData())); timer.start(1000);
And there is also other slots which may be triggered by UI interation:
/*SLOT FUNCTION*/ on_pushbutton_triggered(){..../*write data*/...}.
(the code is written in qt, but I think it's a common question)
So I worry about the potential problem: may readData() reads wrong data while on_pushbutton_triggereed() is writting data?
I am not so familiar with how the timer really work behind the screen: is it in the same thread with my program?
Will readData() and on_pushbutton_triggereed() be called, executed, finished serially and have no mutex problem(that is: I have to use lock() and unlock())? Thank you for reading! I really hope for your hints!
Qt is using an event loop to implement concurrent activity in general and QTimer in particular within a single thread.
The event providers (QTimer in this case) are producing events and publish them to the event loop. Then they are processed according to their priority and order of publishing. This approach doesn't require any synchronization as there is only one section of code executed at the time, so it's safe to access data.
On Unix-like systems ps -eLf command will show information about all processes (PID column in the output) and their threads (LWP column). NLWP column shows how many threads particular process has.
Related
I have a multithreaded program that needs to run many executables at once and wait for their results.
I use [nstask waitUntilExit] in an NSOperationQueue that runs it on non-main thread (running NSTask on the main thread is completely out of the question).
My program randomly crashes or runs into assertion failures, and the crash stacks always point to the runloop run by waitUntilExit, which executes various callbacks and handlers, including—IMHO incorrectly—KVO and bindings updating the UI, which causes them to run on non-main thread (It's probably the problem described by Mike Ash)
How can I safely use waitUntilExit?
Is it a problem of waitUntilExit being essentially unusable, or do I need to do something special (apart from explicitly scheduling my callbacks on the main thread) when using KVO and IB bindings to prevent them from being handled on a wrong thread running waitUntilExit?
As Mike Ash points out, you just can't call waitUntilExit on a random runloop. It's convenient, but it doesn't work. You have to include "doesn't work" in your computation of "is this actually convenient?"
You can, however, use terminationHandler in 10.7+. It does not pump the runloop, so shouldn't create this problem. You can recreate waitUntilExit with something along these lines (untested; probably doesn't compile):
dispatch_group group = dispatch_group_create();
dispatch_group_enter(group);
task.terminationHandler = ^{ dispatch_group_leave(group); };
[task launch];
dispatch_group_wait(group, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
// If not using ARC:
dispatch_release(group);
Hard to say without general context of what are you doing...
In general you can't update interface from the non main threads. So if you observe some KVO notifications of NSTasks in non main thread and update UI then you are wrong.
In that case you can fix situation by simple
-[NSObject performSelectorOnMainThread:];
or similar when you want to update UI.
But as for me more grace solution:
write separated NSOperationQueue with maxConcurentOperationsCount = 1 (so FIFO queue) and write subclass of NSOperation which will execute NSTask and update UI through delegate methods. In that way you will control amount of executing tasks in application. (or you may stop all of them or else)
But high level solution for your problem I think will be writing privileged helper tool. Using this approach you will get 2 main benefits: your NSTask's will be executes in separated process and you will have root privilegies for executing your tasks.
I hope my answer covers your problem.
Using module_init I have created and woken up a kthread. In order to keep it alive and also do my function task, I used the following approach. That was the only approach I could make it running since I am changing the flag in an interrupt. Now I am facing an unbelievably drop in the performance of the code. I narrowed down a problem to the following piece of code:
while(1){
//Do my tasks here after changing flag
while(get_flag() ){ //Waiting for a flag, to basically do my Func in the previous line.
schedule();
}
}//to keep a kthread alive after initial create.
Details about dropping the performance: without using the second while(1) which includes schedule, the rate of data transmission in my code is 35MB/s but with this little line, it drops to 5MB/s.
Is there any other way that I can make a kthread sleep and wait for a flag change?
Ideally, This is not the way you should do this in Kernel. But if you have to do it this way.
See if you are doing a blocking check for the flag? If that is the case, change it to non-blocking wait, just check for the flag and schedule that should be enough in most of the cases. The scheduling algorithm will make sure to get the fair share of CPU for all the processes. Also, if you are doing a blocking check for flag you are unnecessarily wasting CPU cycles since you are doing the processing only on the next scheduler slice. with the same logic, if you want to get better performance, you should wake up your waiting process from your producer thread with wakeup_task()
-or-
if you just want to achieve the functionality, I feel the right way to do it is the following method. using a wait queue, wait_even_interruptible() and wake_up_interruptible()
From your above said kernel thread you just need to call the wait_event_interruptible
see the pseudo code below
while (1){
wait_event_interruptible(wq, your_flag)
{
<do your task>
}
}
and from the place you are setting the flag
{
<some event>
<set flag>
wake_up_interruptible (wq)
}
You don't have to call the schedule explicitly.
I'm new to multithread programming. I wrote this simple multi thread program with Qt. But when I run this program it freezes my GUI and when I click inside my widow, it responds that your program is not responding .
Here is my widget class. My thread starts to count an integer number and emits it when this number is dividable by 1000. In my widget simply I catch this number with signal-slot mechanism and show it in a label and a progress bar.
Widget::Widget(QWidget *parent) :
QWidget(parent),
ui(new Ui::Widget)
{
ui->setupUi(this);
MyThread *th = new MyThread;
connect( th, SIGNAL(num(int)), this, SLOT(setNum(int)));
th->start();
}
void Widget::setNum(int n)
{
ui->label->setNum( n);
ui->progressBar->setValue(n%101);
}
and here is my thread run() function :
void MyThread::run()
{
for( int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++){
if( i % 1000 == 0)
emit num(i);
}
}
thanks!
The problem is with your thread code producing an event storm. The loop counts very fast -- so fast, that the fact that you emit a signal every 1000 iterations is pretty much immaterial. On modern CPUs, doing a 1000 integer divisions takes on the order of 10 microseconds IIRC. If the loop was the only limiting factor, you'd be emitting signals at a peak rate of about 100,000 per second. This is not the case because the performance is limited by other factors, which we shall discuss below.
Let's understand what happens when you emit signals in a different thread from where the receiver QObject lives. The signals are packaged in a QMetaCallEvent and posted to the event queue of the receiving thread. An event loop running in the receiving thread -- here, the GUI thread -- acts on those events using an instance of QAbstractEventDispatcher. Each QMetaCallEvent results in a call to the connected slot.
The access to the event queue of the receiving GUI thread is serialized by a QMutex. On Qt 4.8 and newer, the QMutex implementation got a nice speedup, so the fact that each signal emission results in locking of the queue mutex is not likely to be a problem. Alas, the events need to be allocated on the heap in the worker thread, and then deallocated in the GUI thread. Many heap allocators perform quite poorly when this happens in quick succession if the threads happen to execute on different cores.
The biggest problem comes in the GUI thread. There seems to be a bunch of hidden O(n^2) complexity algorithms! The event loop has to process 10,000 events. Those events will be most likely delivered very quickly and end up in a contiguous block in the event queue. The event loop will have to deal with all of them before it can process further events. A lot of expensive operations happen when you invoke your slot. Not only is the QMetaCallEvent deallocated from the heap, but the label schedules an update() (repaint), and this internally posts a compressible event to the event queue. Compressible event posting has to, in worst case, iterate over entire event queue. That's one potential O(n^2) complexity action. Another such action, probably more important in practice, is the progressbar's setValue internally calling QApplication::processEvents(). This can, recursively call your slot to deliver the subsequent signal from the event queue. You're doing way more work than you think you are, and this locks up the GUI thread.
Instrument your slot and see if it's called recursively. A quick-and-dirty way of doing it is
void Widget::setNum(int n)
{
static int level = 0, maxLevel = 0;
level ++;
maxLevel = qMax(level, maxLevel);
ui->label->setNum( n);
ui->progressBar->setValue(n%101);
if (level > 1 && level == maxLevel-1) {
qDebug("setNum recursed up to level %d", maxLevel);
}
level --;
}
What is freezing your GUI thread is not QThread's execution, but the huge amount of work you make the GUI thread do. Even if your code looks innocuous.
Side Note on processEvents and Run-to-Completion Code
I think it was a very bad idea to have QProgressBar::setValue invoke processEvents(). It only encourages the broken way people code things (continuously running code instead of short run-to-completion code). Since the processEvents() call can recurse into the caller, setValue becomes a persona-non-grata, and possibly quite dangerous.
If one wants to code in continuous style yet keep the run-to-completion semantics, there are ways of dealing with that in C++. One is just by leveraging the preprocessor, for example code see my other answer.
Another way is to use expression templates to get the C++ compiler to generate the code you want. You may want to leverage a template library here -- Boost spirit has a decent starting point of an implementation that can be reused even though you're not writing a parser.
The Windows Workflow Foundation also tackles the problem of how to write sequential style code yet have it run as short run-to-completion fragments. They resort to specifying the flow of control in XML. There's apparently no direct way of reusing standard C# syntax. They only provide it as a data structure, a-la JSON. It'd be simple enough to implement both XML and code-based WF in Qt, if one wanted to. All that in spite of .NET and C# providing ample support for programmatic generation of code...
The way you implemented your thread, it does not have its own event loop (because it does not call exec()). I'm not sure if your code within run() is actually executed within your thread or within the GUI thread.
Usually you should not subclass QThread. You probably did so because you read the Qt Documentation which unfortunately still recommends subclassing QThread - even though the developers long ago wrote a blog entry stating that you should not subclass QThread. Unfortunately, they still haven't updated the documentation appropriately.
I recommend reading "You're doing it wrong" on Qt Blog and then use the answer by "Kari" as an example of how to set up a basic multi-threaded system.
But when I run this program it freezes my GUI and when I click inside my window,
it responds that your program is not responding.
Yes because IMO you're doing too much work in thread that it exhausts CPU. Generally program is not responding message pops up when process show no progress in handling application event queue requests. In your case this happens.
So in this case you should find a way to divide the work. Just for the sake of example say, thread runs in chunks of 100 and repeat the thread till it completes 10000000.
Also you should have look at QCoreApplication::processEvents() when you're performing a lengthy operation.
According to http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qpointer.html, QPointer is very useful. But I found it could be inefficient in the following context:
If I want to show label for three times or do something else, I have to use
if(label) label->show1();
if(label) label->show2();
if(label) label->show3();
instead of
if(label) { label->show1();label->show2();label->show3(); }
just because label might be destroyed in another thread after label->show1(); or label->show2();.
Is there a beautiful way other than three ifs to get the same functionality?
Another question is, when label is destroyed after if(label), is if(label) label->show1(); still wrong?
I don't have experience in multi-threaded programs. Any help is appreciated. ;)
I think the only safe way to do it is to make sure you only access your QWidgets from within the main/GUI thread (that is, the thread that is running Qt's event loop, inside QApplication::exec()).
If you have code that is running within a different thread, and that code wants the QLabels to be shown/hidden/whatever, then that code needs to create a QEvent object (or a subclass thereof) and call qApp->postEvent() to send that object to the main thread. Then when the Qt event loop picks up and handles that QEvent in the main thread, that is the point at which your code can safely do things to the QLabels.
Alternatively (and perhaps more simply), your thread's code could emit a cross-thread signal (as described here) and let Qt handle the event-posting internally. That might be better for your purpose.
Neither of your approaches is thread-safe. It's possible that your first thread will execute the if statement, then the other thread will delete your label, and then you will be inside of your if statement and crash.
Qt provides a number of thread synchronization constructs, you'll probably want to start with QMutex and learn more about thread-safety before you continue working on this program.
Using a mutex would make your function would look something like this:
mutex.lock();
label1->show();
label2->show();
label3->show();
mutex.unlock()
As long as your other thread is using locking that same mutex object then it will prevented from deleting your labels while you're showing them.
I am working on an user space app for an embedded Linux project using the 2.6.24.3 kernel.
My app passes data between two file nodes by creating 2 pthreads that each sleep until a asynchronous IO operation completes at which point it wakes and runs a completion handler.
The completion handlers need to keep track of how many transfers are pending and maintain a handful of linked lists that one thread will add to and the other will remove.
// sleep here until events arrive or time out expires
for(;;) {
no_of_events = io_getevents(ctx, 1, num_events, events, &timeout);
// Process each aio event that has completed or thrown an error
for (i=0; i<no_of_events; i++) {
// Get pointer to completion handler
io_complete = (io_callback_t) events[i].data;
// Get pointer to data object
iocb = (struct iocb *) events[i].obj;
// Call completion handler and pass it the data object
io_complete(ctx, iocb, events[i].res, events[i].res2);
}
}
My question is this...
Is there a simple way I can prevent the currently active thread from yielding whilst it runs the completion handler rather than going down the mutex/spin lock route?
Or failing that can Linux be configured to prevent yielding a pthread when a mutex/spin lock is held?
You can use the sched_setscheduler() system call to temporarily set the thread's scheduling policy to SCHED_FIFO, then set it back again. From the sched_setscheduler() man page:
A SCHED_FIFO process runs until either
it is blocked by an I/O request, it is
preempted by a higher priority
process, or it calls sched_yield(2).
(In this context, "process" actually means "thread").
However, this is quite a suspicious requirement. What is the problem you are hoping to solve? If you are just trying to protect your linked list of completion handlers from concurrent access, then an ordinary mutex is the way to go. Have the completion thread lock the mutex, remove the list item, unlock the mutex, then call the completion handler.
I think you'll want to use mutexes/locks to prevent race conditions here. Mutexes are by no way voodoo magic and can even make your code simpler than using arbitrary system-specific features, which you'd need to potentially port across systems. Don't know if the latter is an issue for you, though.
I believe you are trying to outsmart the Linux scheduler here, for the wrong reasons.
The correct solution is to use a mutex to prevent completion handlers from running in parallel. Let the scheduler do its job.