In sonme environment， my progrmae's message loop was full with WM_INPUTLANGCHANGEREQUEST , WM_INPUTLANGCHANGE and WM_IME_NOTIFY in order.
I really don't know where was the WM_INPUTLANGCHANGEREQUEST posted from. It makes the api PeekMessage(..., PM_REMOVE) always returns nonezero so that I can't do my logic in idle time.
When it happens, maxium and minium the window after some times. The message loop becomes clear. And evething goes right. Or still busy with dealing WM_INPUTLANGCHANGEREQUEST , WM_INPUTLANGCHANGE and WM_IME_NOTIFY loop.
It may happens when ime changes in the start of the programe launches.
Beg Help! Orz~~~~~。Sorry for my poor Engilsh.
Related
I hope this question isn't too broad.
I'm working with a legacy Ada application. This application is built around a very old piece of middleware that handles, among other things, our IPC. For the sake of this question, I can boil the middleware's provisions down to
1: a message loop that processes messages (from other programs or this program)
2: a function to send messages to this program or others
3: a function to read from a database
The program operates mainly on a message loop - simply something like
loop
This_Msg := Message_Loop.Wait_For_Message; -- Blocking wait call
-- Do things based on This_Msg's ID
end loop
however there are also callbacks that can be triggered by external stimuli. These callbacks run in their own threads. Some of these callbacks call the database-reading function, which has always been fine, EXCEPT, as we recently discovered, in a relatively rare condition. When this condition occurs, it turns out it isn't safe to read from the database when the message loop is executing its blocking Wait_For_Message.
It seemed like a simple solution would be to use a protected object to synchronize the Wait_For_Message and database read: if we try to read the database while Wait_For_Message is blocking, the read will block until Wait_For_Message returns, at which point the Wait_For_Message call will be blocked until the database read is complete. The next problem is that I can't guarantee the message loop will receive a message in a timely fashion, meaning that the database read could be blocked for an arbitrary amount of time. It seems like the solution to this is also simple: send a do-nothing message to the loop before blocking, ensuring that the Wait_For_Message call will yield.
What I'm trying to wrap my head around is:
If I send the do-nothing message and THEN block before the database read, I don't think I can guarantee that Wait_For_Message won't have returned, yielded, processed the do-nothing message, and started blocking again before the pre-database read block. I think I conceptually need to start blocking and THEN push a message, but I'm not sure how to do this. I think I could handle it with a second layer of locks, but I can't think of the most efficient way to do so, and don't know if that's even the right solution. This is really my first foray into concurrency in Ada, so I'm hoping for a pointer in the right direction.
Perhaps you should use a task for this; the following would have the task waiting at the SELECT to either process a message or access the DB while another call on an entry during the processing would queue on that entry for the loop to reiterate the select, thus eliminating the problem altogether... unless, somehow, your DB-access calls the message entry; but that shouldn't happen.
Package Example is
Task Message_Processor is
Entry Message( Text : String );
Entry Read_DB( Data : DB_Rec );
End Message_Processor;
End Example;
Package Body Example is
Task Body Message_Processor is
Package Message_Holder is new Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Holders
(Element_Type => String);
Package DB_Rec_Holder is new Ada.Containers.Indefinite_Holders
(Element_Type => DB_Rec);
Current_Message : Message_Holder.Holder;
Current_DB_Rec : DB_Rec_Holder.Holder;
Begin
MESSAGE_LOOP:
loop
select
accept Message (Text : in String) do
Current_Message:= Message_Holder.To_Holder( Text );
end Message;
-- Process the message **outside** the rendevouz.
delay 1.0; -- simulate processing.
Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line( Current_Message.Element );
or
accept Read_DB (Data : in DB_Rec) do
Current_DB_Rec:= DB_Rec_Holder.To_Holder( Data );
end Message;
-- Process the DB-record here, **outside** the rendevouz.
or
Terminate;
end select;
end loop MESSAGE_LOOP;
End Message_Processor;
End Example;
I have a piece of code which has to get executed every 100ms and update the GUI. When I am updating the GUI - I am pressing a button, which calls a thread and in turn it calls a target function. The target function gives back the message to the GUI thread using pub sub as follows.
wx.CallAfter(pub.sendMessage, "READ EVENT", arg1=data, arg2=status_read) # This command line is in my target function
pub.subscribe(self.ReadEvent, "READ EVENT") # This is in my GUI file - whihc calls the following function
def ReadEvent(self, arg1, arg2):
if arg2 == 0:
self.MessageBox('The program did not properly read data from MCU \n Contact the Program Developer')
return
else:
self.data = arg1
self.firmware_version_text_control.Clear()
#fwversion = '0x' + ''.join('{:02X}'.format(j) for j in reversed(fwversion))
self.firmware_version_text_control.AppendText(str(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'FwVersion')))
# Pump Model
self.pump_model_text_control.Clear()
self.pump_model_text_control.AppendText(str(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'ModelName')))
# Pump Serial Number
self.pump_serial_number_text_control.Clear()
self.pump_serial_number_text_control.AppendText(str(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'SerialNum'))[:10]) # Personal Hack to not to display the AA , AB and A0
# Pressure GAIN
self.gain_text_control.Clear()
self.gain_text_control.AppendText(str(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'PresGain')))
# Pressure OFFSET Offset
self.offset_text_control.Clear()
self.offset_text_control.AppendText(str(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'PresOffset')))
#Wagner Message:
#self.status_text.SetLabel(str(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'WelcomeMsg')))
# PUMP RUNNING OR STOPPED
if PumpState(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'PumpState')) == 1:
self.led6.SetBackgroundColour('GREEN')
elif PumpState(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'PumpState')) == 0:
self.led6.SetBackgroundColour('RED')
else:
self.status_text.SetLabel(PumpState(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'PumpState')))
# PUMP RPM
self.pump_rpm_text_control.Clear()
if not self.new_model_value.GetValue():
self.pump_rpm_text_control.AppendText("000")
else:
self.pump_rpm_text_control.AppendText(str(self.sheet_num.cell_value(self.sel+1,10)*(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'FrqQ5'))/65536))
# PUMP PRESSURE
self.pressure_text_control.Clear()
self.pressure_text_control.AppendText(str(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'PresPsi')))
# ON TIME -- HOURS AND MINUTES --- EDITING IF YOU WANT
self.on_time_text_control.Clear()
self.on_time_text_control.AppendText(str(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'OnTime')))
# JOB ON TIME - HOURS AND MINUTES - EDITING IF YOU WANT
self.job_on_time_text_control.Clear()
self.job_on_time_text_control.AppendText(str(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'JobOnTime')))
# LAST ERROR ----- RECHECK THIS AGAIN
self.last_error_text_control.Clear()
self.last_error_text_control.AppendText(str(SortAndDecode(self.data, 'LastErr')))
# LAST ERROR COUNT --- RECHECK THIS AGAIN
self.error_count_text_control.Clear()
self.error_count_text_control.AppendText("CHECK THIS")
As you can see my READEVENT is very big and it takes a while for the GUI to take enough time to successfully do all these things. My problem here is, when my GUI is updating the values of TEXTCTRL it is going unresponsive - I cannot do anything else. I cant press a button or enter data or anything else. My question is if there is a better way for me to do this, so my GUI wont go unresponsive. I dont know how I can put this in a different thread as all widgets are in the main GUI. But that also requires keep creating threads every 100ms - which is horrible. Any suggestions would be greatly helpful.
Some suggestions:
How long does SortAndDecode take? What about the str() of the result? Those may be good candidates for keeping that processing in the worker thread instead of the UI thread, and passing the values to the UI thread pre-sorted-and-decoded.
You can save a little time in each iteration by calling ChangeValue instead of Clear and AppendText. Why do two function calls for each text widget instead of just one? Function calls are relatively expensive in Python compared to other Python code.
If it's possible that the same value will be sent that was sent on the last iteration then adding checks for the new value matching the old value and skipping the update of the widget could potentially save lots of time. Updating widget values is very expensive compared to leaving them alone.
Unless there is a hard requirement for 100ms updates you may want to try 150 or 200. Fewer updates per second may be fast enough for most people, especially since it's mostly textual. How much text can you read in 100ms?
If you are still having troubles with having more updates than the UI thread can keep up with, then you may want to use a different approach than pubsub and wx.CallAfter. For example you could have the worker thread receive and process the data and then add an object to a Queue.Queue and then call wx.WakeUpIdle(). In the UI thread you can have an EVT_IDLE event handler that checks the queue and pulls the first item out of the queue, if there are any, and then updates the widgets with that data. This will give the benefit of not flooding the pending events list with events from too many wx.CallAfter calls, and you can also do things like remove items from your data queue if there are too many items in it.
I wrote a simple lock-free node stack (Delp[hi XE4, Win7-64, 32-bit app) where I can have multiple 'stacks' and pop/push nodes between them from various threads simultaneously.
It works 99.999% of the time but eventually glitch under a stress test using all CPU cores.
Stripped-down, it comes down to this (not real/compiled code):
Nodes are :
type POBNode = ^TOBNode;
[volatile]TOBNode = record
[volatile]Next : POBNode;
Data : Int64;
end;
Simplified stack :
type TOBStack = class
private
[volatile]Head:POBNode;
function Pop:POBNode;
procedure Push(NewNode:POBNode);
end;
procedure TOBStack.Push(NewNode:POBNode);
var zTmp : POBNode;
begin;
repeat
zTmp:=InterlockedCompareExchangePointer(Pointer(Head),nil,nil);(memory fenced-read*)
NewNode.Next:=zTmp;
if InterlockedCompareExchangePointer(Head,NewNode,zTmp)=zTmp
then break (*success*)
else continue;
until false;
end;
function TOBStack.Pop:POBNode;
begin;
repeat
Result:=InterlockedCompareExchangePointer(Pointer(Head),nil,nil);(memory fenced-read*)
if Result=nil
the exit;
NewHead:=Result.Next;
if InterlockedCompareExchangePointer(Pointer(Head),NewHead,Result)=Result
then break (*Success*)
else continue;(*Fail, try again*)
until False;
end;
I have tried many variations on this but cannot get it to be stable.
If I create a few threads that each have a stack and they all push/pop to/from a global stack, it eventually glitch, but not quickly. Only when I stress it for minutes on end from multiple threads, in tight loops.
I cannot have hidden bugs in my code, so I need more advice than to ask a specific question to get this running 100% error-free, 24/7.
Does the code above look fine for a lock-free thread-safe stack?
What else can I look at? This is impossible to debug normally as the errors occur at various places, telling me there is a pointer or RAM corruption happening somewhere. I also get duplicate entries, meaning that a node that was popped of one stack, then later returned to that same stack, is still on top of the old stack... Impossible to happen according to my algorithm? This lead me to believe it's possible to violate Delphi/Windows InterlockedCompareExchange Methods or there is some hidden knowledge I have yet to be revealed. :) (I also tried TInterlocked)
I have made a complete test case that can be copied from ftp.true.co.za.
In there I run 8 threads doing 400 000 push/pops each and it usually crashes (safely due to checks/raised exceptions) after a few cycles of these tests, sometimes many many test cycles complete before one suddenly crash.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Regards
Anton
E
At first I was skeptical of this being an ABA problem as indicated by gabr. It seemed to me that: if one thread looks at the current Head, and another thread pushes then pops; you're happy to still operate on the same Head in the same way.
However, consider this from your Pop method:
NewHead:=Result.Next;
if InterlockedCompareExchangePointer(Pointer(Head),NewHead,Result)=Result
If the thread is swapped out after the first line.
A value for NewHead is stored in a local variable.
Then another thread successfully pops the node this thread was targetting.
It also manages to push the same node back, but with a different value for Next before the first thread resumes.
The second line will pass the comparand check allowing head to receive the NewHead value from the local variable.
However, the current value for NewHead is incorrect, thereby corrupting your stack.
There's a subtle variation on this problem not even covered by your test app. This problem isn't checked in your test app because you aren't destroying any nodes until the end of your test.
Look at current head
Another thread pops some nodes.
The nodes are destroyed, and new nodes created and pushed.
By the time your "looking thread" is active again, it could be looking at an entirely different node that is coincidentally at the same address.
If you're popping, you might assign a garbage pointer to Head.
Apart form the above...
Looking at your test app there's also some really dodgy code. E.g.
You generate a "random number": J:=GetTickCount and 7;(*Get a 'random' number 0..7*).
Do you realise how fast computers are?
Do you realise that GetTickCount will generate reams of duplicates in a tight loop?
I.e. the numbers you generate will be nothing like random.
And when comments don't agree with code, my spidey-sense kicks in.
You're allocating memory of a hard-coded size: GetMem(zTmp,12);(*Allocate new node*).
Why aren't you using SizeOf?
You're using a multi-platform compiler.... The size of that structure can vary.
There is absolutely zero reason to hard-code the size of the structure.
Right now, given these two examples, I wouldn't be entirely confident that there isn't also an error in your test code.
I am trying to use MFC to create a tool. This tool main job is to sort data. Well, I found that when the tool is sorting, since there is only main thread; therefore, while it is doing sorting work, no dialog boxes can be moved or clicked. Hence, I created another thread to do sorting work and works fine.
But there is another problem after I used a thread. I don't how to make main thread to wait for the sorting thread. I want to do something after sorting thread is done, but right now, main thread just moves onto the next procedures without waiting for sorting thread to finish its work.
Here is snippet
AfxBeginThread(processfiles, tVals) // A thread do its work.
// below I want to do something with the result I got from the thread above.
//But main thread just do its work separately without waiting for the thread to finish its work.
.
please help thanks!!
So write code to do that. Pop up a dialog box. Indicate that the sorting is taking place. Do whatever you want. Have the other thread send your thread a signal when it's done, say by sending you a message with PostMessage.
So this is my question , threads are so confusing for me , let's say I have 5 threads , and 50 or 100 or more sites. So as far as I've learned about threads , I can make constructor create (link:string) and start new threads with different links , but than I wold need to make as much threads as the number of links I need to parse.So how can I make variable link shared between threads , so when thread one downloads link listbox1.items[0] it tells others that number 0 is downloaded and next thread should ask what link should I download and get answer listbox1.items[1] and so on until they download all links when they should terminate.
Can anyone provide me with simple example of how can this be done. Threads are killing me :(
You could have a thread-safe list of URLs to process, and a static-sized pool of worker threads each taking an unprocessed URL from the list at a time, processing it (downloading and parsing) and adding any found new URLs to the list, in a loop, as long as there are any unprocessed items in the list. Keep finished URLs in the list, only mark them as done, to avoid recursion.
Sounds like you simply need to set up a critical section.
This needs to be set up around the code segment which reads the next URL. To do this you would typically place a semaphore at the start of the code so that only one thread can enter it at any time. The semaphore is reset at the end of the code. As each new thread sees the URL list has expired, then it terminates.
Typically semaphores are boolean, but they can be integers for example if you want to allow a specific number of threads to enter the region at any time.
In your case you can simply set up a global boolean variable (visible to all threads), say "fSemaphore".
At the start of the region, the thread checks the flag. If it is false it sets it to true and enters the region (to get the next URL).
If it is true, then it loops - e.g. repeat sleep(0) until (not fSemaphore).
When it exits the region it set fSemaphore := False;
Obviously you need to make sure you guard against a possible infinite loop scenario...
Define a 'TURI' class for the request URI, result, error message and anything else needed for the web query except for the component to be used for the URI access. Descending from TObject shoud be fine. Create, initialize 100 of these and push them on a producer-consumer queue, (TObjectQueue, TCriticalSection and a semaphore should do fine). Hang a few TThreads off the queue that loop around and process the TURI instances until the queue is empty, whereupon they block.
You do not say what action you need taking with the processed TURI's - they will need freeing somewhere. If you wish to notify the main thread, PostMessage the completed URI's and free them in the message-handler.
Terminate the threads? Sure, if you really have to, then queue up some object that signals them to commit suicide, (a NIL maybe - the threads can check for 'assigned' just after popping the queue). When doing something like this, I oftem just leave the threads lying around even if I don't need to process any more URI during the app run - it's not worth the typing of terminating them.
Sadly, the Delphi examples and, I'm afraid, many textbooks, dont' get much further than suspend/resume control of threads, (don't do it), and 'TThread.Synchronize', 'TThread.WaitFor' and 'TThread.OnTerminate'. If you get a textbook like that, take it outside and burn it - you will learn next-to-nothing good.