I am aware that Action Script does not provide multithreading so when writing flex application we are limited to work on one thread. which is ok for rendering my UI.
However some questions arise when preferring flex over silverlight:
As a UI layer single thread is good enough but is it fair to assume that for Aync httpservice like operations in flex , internally it would use some worker threads to manage the async operation and then come back to the main thread ? it looks like it does since my UI does not freeze.
Can the flex/flash player deal with multiple httpservice calls in parallel ? ( e.g more than one section of the UI loading data at the same time.)
How about the animation stuff ( e.g the parallel animation ) - does flash player internally leverages some threading for accelerating graphics or is it all done on the UI thread ?
but is it fair to assume that for Aync httpservice like operations in flex , internally it would use some worker threads to manage the async operation and then come back to the main thread
No.
Processing of the response data occurs in the same thread as updating the UI. For example, if you return 5,000 AMF objects in a single call, the Flash Player will deserialize these on the thread, which will cause the UI to freeze.
Internally, the browser may be using threads to manage the loading of the response from the end URL. However, once the response has been returned, and handed off from the browser to the Flash player plugin, the deserialization and processing of that data occurs on the main thread.
Can the flex/flash player deal with multiple httpservice calls in parallel ? ( e.g more than one section of the UI loading data at the same time.)
Yes.
The limitation here is enforced from the browser, in the maximum number of concurrent HTTP requests that the browser. This varies from browser-to-browser, but generally speaking, it's fine (and encouraged) to send multiple requests to backend services.
It's worth familiarizing yourself with AsyncToken, which is Flex's main class used when handling concurrent calls, ensuring that the request and response are matched together.
Be aware that most classes in Flex which are used for communciating with remote services (eg., HttpService and RemoteObject) expose a concurrency property, which defines how the object should react to multiple concurrent requests. (Allowing the developer to explicilty allow or prohibit it).
How about the animation stuff ( e.g the parallel animation ) - does flash player internally leverages some threading for accelerating graphics or is it all done on the UI thread ?
This is not my area of speciality, and someone may correct me. However, I believe that Flex creates animations by generating a series of KeyFrames which change the properties of values on a UIComponent over time, and then executing them. (The execution occurs in the same thread as everything else).
Therefore, Parallal animations are generated by aggregating the targets for the keyframes, and executing them together.
eg: Keyframe n at ms300 = { UIComponent1.x = 300; UIComponent2.y = 300 }
Related
I switched to Vulkan from OpenGL to use multi-threading improvements.
In OpenGL, I was able to load dynamically object to the scene (buffer, textures, etc) while rendering by using a waiting system. I was loading all app-side stuffs in a thread, then when it was ready, just before a frame render in the main thread, I was sending everything into the video memory. That was fine.
With Vulkan, I know I can call some functions between threads without provoking the well known segfault from OpenGL. But, this doesn't works with vkQueueSubmit(). I already know, I tried the naive way. To me, it seems logical you can't bother a queue from multiple threads.
I came with some ideas, but I don't know which one is good or bad.
First, I would go the OpenGL way, I will prepare everything I can from the CPU/App side, then just before render a frame, I will submit buffers (with transfer queue) to the video memory. But I feel there is no a real improvement from OpenGL way...
Second, I will try to use the synchronization mechanism to be able to send buffers in a thread and render from an other. But I keep reading there is a lot of way to slow down everything by causing irrelevant locks or by using incorrectly semaphores and fences.
So my question, is basically what path to pick to solve this problem ? How can I load a buffer dynamically from an other thread while the main thread is rendering without making too much pain to performances ? How Vulkan can help ?
If you want to stream resources for immediate use (i.e. the main render cannot proceed without them), then you're pretty much going to either block the main thread waiting, or have it spin doing something visually interesting (e.g. an animated loading screen) waiting for the resources to load.
If you want to stream resources while the app is doing real rendering then the main trick here is to load resources asynchronously in the background and only switch to using those resources in the main thread once they are already loaded. If the main thread ever ends up actually blocked on a semaphore then you've probably already started dropping frames, so your "engine" design needs to ensure that never happens. A lot of game use simple low-detail proxy objects as stand-in versions while the high-detail version is loading in the background.
None of this is particularly related to the graphics API - both GL and Vulkan need the same macro-scale behavior. Vulkan API features don't particularly help because the major bottlenecks which cause problems here are storage/network/CPU which have nothing to do with the graphics part of the problem.
I decided to trust threads !
In the first place it seems to work, I get a lot of :
[MESSAGE:Validation Error: [ UNASSIGNED-Threading-MultipleThreads ] Object 0: handle = 0x56414228bad8, type = VK_OBJECT_TYPE_QUEUE; | MessageID = 0x141cb623 | THREADING ERROR : vkQueueSubmit(): object of type VkQueue is simultaneously used in thread 0x7f6b977fe640 and thread 0x7f6bc2bcb740]
But it works !
So, the basic idea is to have a thread for loading objects while the engine is drawing. This thread takes care of creating the UBO for the location of the object, then when the geometry is loaded from RAM, it creates the VBO and IBO (I left material with image/UBO on hold for now), then creates the graphics pipeline (with layout, descriptor layout, shaders compiled with GLSLang on the fly) (The next idea is to reuse pipeline for similar needs) and finallly sets a flag to say the object is ready to use. In the other hand, I have my main thread rendering and takes new objects when they shows up ready.
I think it works because I have a gentle video card (GTX 1070) with multiple queues setup, I had one for graphics and an other one for transfer setup.
I'm pretty sure, this will crash or goes poorly with a GPU with a single queue, and this should be why the validation layers tolds me these messages.
I am working on a multi threaded OpenGL application with OpenTK 3 and WinForms.
I have 2 shared GraphicsContexts:
a "main" rendering context, used for scene drawing and synchronous load operations.
a "secondary" resource loader context, used to load resources during draw.
This secondary context is used to load video frames coming from a Windows Media Foundation session (with a custom media sink). However, i have no control on what thread this media sink is running on, so i need a way, after each loading operation, to "unbind" that secondary GraphicsContext, so that it can be bound in the next thread where it will be needed.
Do I have to P/Invoke wglMakeCurrent(NULL, NULL) or is there a proper OpenTK way of doing this?
Short answer
Use OpenTK feature:
mycontext.MakeCurrent(null);
Long answer
Today's wglMakeCurrent doc has eliminated this old comment:
If hglrc is NULL, the function makes the calling thread's current
rendering context no longer current, and releases the device context
that is used by the rendering context. In this case, hdc is ignored.
I would trust that comment is still valid, due to so many code relying on it.
Pay attention to "releases the device context". Perhaps OpenTK does some action related to the device context. Perhaps the hdc is private (by using window style flag CS_OWNDC) So, let OpenTK handles this "NULL" case.
Better approach
Be aware that even when you use several shared contexts, is the GPU (normally one unique card) that does the loading, and not many cards allow loading while doing other jobs. Thus, it isn't guaranteed you get better performance. But shared contexts exist to this purpose, somehow.
Why should you use the same context in different threads?
I'd use a different thread for load video frames (without any gl-call) and for upload them to the GPU. This last thread is permanent and has its own gl-context, so it doesn't need to set as current every time it works. It sleeps or waits until the other thread has finished loading data, and after that task is completed it uploads that data to the GPU.
I've been doing a fair amount of work with Node lately, trying to build a system which has certain characteristics, one of which is non-blocking / parallelism - a Node strong suit, as I understand it.
What I don't fully understand is when a separate thread is spun off to handle some processing. I'm pretty sue this happens on a function call/call back, but certainly not all of them.
In my specific case, it's an Express based app. At app start-up it does several things including instantiating a RabbitMQ based "bus", an object with a method which will write to the bus (objA) and object which will subscribe to the bus and process messages coming across it (objB).
objA will write to the bus inside an express callback
app.put((req,res) => {
objA.methodWhichWritesToBus();
});
I believe at this point, that objA.methodWhichWritesToBus is executed in a background/worker thread - whatever you call it, not on the main event loop.
Is that the only point at which this sort of thing happens? methodWhichWritesToBus is IO instensive (it calls an elastic search service on another box and brings back 10's to 100's of thousands of records) with lots of chained promises etc., but none of that gets split off, does it?
How about the fact that the obj on which the method is called is instantiated outside the Express callback - does that affect the parallel-ism?
Finally, are the ways to effect/force a method etc to "run in the background"?
I've been noodling this, testing it, for awhile now but all on one machine so it's difficult to tell what's going on.
Who can clarify this for me?
Pre-answer: this is a topic best learned by going and reading, doing coding exercises to solidify your understanding, and working with the technology in a significant way. You're not going to "get it" based on a Q&A format. That said...
What I don't fully understand is when a separate thread is spun off to handle some processing.
Never, sort of. "Processing" as in the computation that happens in your javascript program, happens in the main event loop thread. End of story. However, waiting on I/O to come back from the OS is not considered "processing" so there are various queues managed by node and the OS to track pending I/O requests and invoke callbacks when data is ready. There are a handful of threads node uses internally to manage this stuff with the OS, but from your program's perspective, those threads are irrelevant. Your program can ask node to do some IO, then your program keeps running in parallel, and when the I/O is done, node will eventually invoke the callback in the main event loop and you can process the results.
I believe at this point, that objA.methodWhichWritesToBus is executed in a background/worker thread - whatever you call it, not on the main event loop.
You call it "asynchronously" and it happens whenever you do IO, including filesystem calls, networking, or child processes. Which is to say, quite a lot.
How about the fact that the obj on which the method is called is instantiated outside the Express callback - does that affect the parallel-ism?
Nope.
Finally, are the ways to effect/force a method etc to "run in the background"?
Generally I/O is done asynchronously by default, so no you don't normally need to force anything to run in the background. It's baked into the node design by way of the node core APIs themselves. However, there are ways to delay synchronous processing to a future event loop using setImmediate, setTimeout, or process.nextTick. I explain these in some detail in my blog post setTimeout and friends.
More precisely, all networking is asynchronous. End of story. Specifically, the APIs in node core that are available are all asynchronous, and there's simply no synchronous API available in node. For filesystem IO and child processes, there are both synchronous and asynchronous APIs, but the synchronous APIs must only be used under special limited circumstances, and if you don't know confidently that it's OK in this specific case to make a synchronous IO API call, you should use the asynchronous API so you don't break the lynchpin that makes node perform as it does.
I am using LibGDX to make a game. I want to simultaneously load/unload assets on the fly as needed. However, waiting for assets to load in the main thread causes lag. In order to remedy this, I've created a background thread that monitors which assets need to be loaded (textures, sounds, etc.) and loads/unloads them appropriately.
Unfortunately, I get the following error when calling AssetManager.update() from that thread.
com.badlogic.gdx.utils.GdxRuntimeException: java.lang.RuntimeException: No OpenGL context found in the current thread.
I've tried runing the background thread in the main thread in the beginning and just dealing with the first few screens, and everything works fine. I can also change the algorithm to just load everything into memory from the start in the same thread, and that works as well. However, neither works in the background thread.
When I run this on Android with OpenGL ES 2.0 (which is flexible in odd ways) instead of on Windows, everything runs fine, and I can even get the pixel dimensions of the images - but the textures render black.
My searches have told me that this is an issue of the OpenGL context being bound to a single thread, but not much else. This explains why everything works when I shove it in the main thread, and not when I put it in a different one. How do I fix this context problem?
First things first, you should not access the OpenGL context outside of the rendering thread.
I assume you have looked at these already, but just to make sure read up on the AssetManager wiki article, which talks a bit about how to use the AssetManager for asynchronous managing of assets. In addition to the wiki article, check out the AssetManagerTest to better understand how to use it. The asset manager test is probably your best bet into loading at how to dynamically load assets.
If you are loading a ton of stuff, you may want to look into creating a loading bar to load anything large upfront. It might work to check assets and such from another thread (and set a flag to call update), but at the end of the day you will need to call update() on the rendering thread.
Keeping in mind you have to call update() it from a different thread, I don't see why you would want another thread to check conditions and set a flag. There is probably more overhead using another thread and synchronizing the update() call than to just do it all on the rendering thread. Also, the update() method only pauses for a couple milliseconds at a time as it incrementally loads files. Typically, you would simply call load() for your asset, then check isLoaded() on your asset. If it isn't loaded you would then call update() once per frame until isLoaded() returns true. Once it returns true, you can then call get() and get whatever asset you were loading. This can all be done via the main rendering thread without having the app lag while its loading.
If you really want your other thread to call update(), you need to create a Runnable object and call postRunnable() such as how they have it described in the wiki article on multi-threading with libGDX. However, this defeats the whole point of using other threads because anything you use with postRunnable runs synchronously on the rendering thread.
In WinForms, pretty much all your UI is thread-specific. You have to use [STAThread] so that the common dialogs will work, and you can't (safely) access a UI element from any thread other than the one that created it. From what I've heard, that's because that's just how Windows works -- window handles are thread-specific.
In WPF, these same restrictions were kept, because ultimately it's still building on top of the same Windows API, still window handles (though mostly just for top-level windows), etc. In fact, WPF even made things more restrictive, because you can't even access things like bitmaps across threads.
Now along comes WinRT, a whole new way of accessing Windows -- a fresh, clean slate. Are we still stuck with the same old threading restrictions (specifically: only being able to manipulate a UI control from the thread that created it), or have they opened this up?
I would expect it to be the same model - but much easier to use, at least from C# and VB, with the new async handling which lets you write a synchronous-looking method which just uses "await" when it needs to wait for a long-running task to complete before proceeding.
Given the emphasis on making asynchronous code easier to write, it would be surprising for MS to forsake the efficiency of requiring single-threaded access to the UI at the same time.
The threading model is identical. There is still a notion of single threaded and multi-threaded apartments (STA/MTA), it must be initialized by a call to RoInitialize. Which behaves very much like CoInitialize in name, argument and error returns. The user interface thread is single threaded, confirmed at 36:00 in this video.
The HTML/CSS UI model is inherently single threaded (until the advent of web workers recently, JS didn't support threads). Xaml is also single threaded (because it's really hard for developers to write code to a multithreaded GUI).
The underlying threading model does have some key differences. When your application starts, an ASTA (Application STA) is created to run your UI code as I showed in the talk. This ASTA does not allow reentrancy - you will not receive unrelated calls while making an outgoing call. This is a significant difference from STAs.
You are allowed to create async workitems - see the Windows.System.Threadpool namespace. These workitem threads are automatically initialized to MTA. As Larry mentioned, webworkers are the JS equivalent concept.
Your UI components are thread affined. See the Windows.UI.Core.CoreDispatcher class for information on how to execute code on the UI thread. You can check out the threading sample for some example code to update the UI from an async operation.
Things are different in pretty important ways.
While it's true the underlying threading model is the same, your question is generally related to how logical concurrency works with UI, and with respect to this what developers see in Windows 8 will be new.
As you mention most dialogs previously blocked. For Metro apps many UI components do not block all. Remember the talk of WinRT being asynchronous? It applies to UI components also.
For example this .NET 4 code will not necessarily kill your harddrive because the UI call blocks on Show (C# example):
bool formatHardDrive = true;
if (MessageBox.Show("Format your harddrive?") == NO)
formatHardDrive = false;
if (formatHardDrive == true)
Format();
With Windows 8 Metro many UI components like Windows.UI.Popups.MessageDialog, are by default Asynchronous so the Show call would immediately (logically) fall through to the next line of code before the user input is retrieved.
Of course there is an elegant solution to this based on the await/promise design patterns (Javascript example):
var md = Windows.UI.Popups.MessageDialog("Hello World!");
md.showAsync().then(function (command) {
console.log("pressed: " + command.label); });
The point is that while the threading model doesn't change, when most people mention UI and threading they are thinking about logical concurrency and how it affects the programming model.
Overall I think the asynchronous paradigm shift is a positive thing. It requires a bit of a shift in perspective, but it's consistent with the way other platforms are evolving on both the client and server sides.