I have Qt4 app which binds QStandardItemModel to the QListView and have the model updated from background/non-UI thread.
Sometimes, when the QStandardItem's setText(..) method is called very repeatedly from the non-UI thread, the application will crash at a la dataChanged(..) handler. I can reproduce the issue by calling setText("xxxxx") repeatedly in a for loop. In my app, the data is read from network hence I update the model in separate, non-UI thread.
Is this a common pb? If I understand correctly, this is related to queued connection and QStandardItemModel is not thread safe? How to get around this issue?
Thanks!
QStandardItemModel is part of the QtGui Library, iirc all classes in there are considered not threadsafe. You should be ok if you move the actual setting of the data into the GUI thread. You can do that pretty easily by using a queued signal from you network thread.
Related
I am learning how to use PyQt5 and there are quite a few points that elude me.
I have started implementing QThreads to replace the threads I have been using in my UI as I realised that mixing threads and QThreads could possibly lead to issues later and have started using pyqtSignal simultaneously
So far I have seen that the pyqtSygnal needs to be implemented on a class level to be able to work ( putting it in a class constructor does not work )
In the architecture I use currently, I have a pyqtSignal that is instantiated in the main thread and is then used by all of the child threads. This is due to having one class that is responsible for my logs of all the program.
I am unsure if this is a good implementation or not.
Here are my questions :
are pyqtSignals thread safe ?I know that they use a queue system to be thread safe but is the emit() method itself thread safe ? My understanding of them is a bit limited
Do I need to protect my pyqtSignals with locks ?
Can I have multiple different signals emitting to the same slot without having any issues ?
The signals are one of the few elements of the QObjects that are thread-safe so it is not necessary to protect the data. So you can have different types of signals connected to the same slot.
Since the signals are thread-safe then Qt recommended to communicate QObjects that live in different threads.
Everywhere is noticed that VCL is not thread-safe and we must synchronize access to it. So it's VCL faults that is not thread-safe.
How VCL itself can be thread-safe?
What, precisely, does "thread-safe" mean to you? What about someone else? Every time I see this brought up, it ends up boiling down to this: "I want VCL to be thread-safe so I don't have to think about threading and synchronization issues. I want to write my code as if it is still single-threaded."
No matter how much work went into making VCL so-called "thread-safe", there will always be situations where you can get into trouble. How would you go about making it thread-safe? I don't say this to be combative, rather I merely want to demonstrate that it is not a simple problem with a simple, "works-in-all-cases" solution. To highlight this, let's look at some potential "solutions."
The simplest and most direct approach I see is each component has some kind of "lock", say a mutex or critical section. Every method on the component grabs the lock on entry and then releases the lock just prior to exit. Let's continue down this path with a thought experiment. Consider how Windows processes messages:
Main thread obtains a message from the message queue and then dispatches it to the appropriate WndProc. This message is then routed to the appropriate TWinControl component. Since the component has a "lock", as the message is routed to the appropriate message handler on the component, the lock is acquired. So far so good.
Now take the proverbial button-click message processing. The OnClick message handler is now called which will most likely be a method on the owning TForm. Since the TForm descendant is also a TWinControl component, the TForm's lock is now acquired while the OnClick handler is processed. Now the button component is locked and the TForm component is also locked.
Continuing on this line of thinking, suppose the OnClick handler now wants add an item to a listbox, listview, or some other visual list or grid component. Now suppose some other thread (not the main UI thread) is already in the midst of accessing this same component. Once a method is called on the list from the UI thread it will attempt to acquire the lock, which it cannot since the other thread is currently holding it. As long as the non-UI thread doesn't hold that lock for very long, the UI thread will only block for a brief period.
So far so good, right? Now suppose, that while the non-UI thread is holding the list control's lock, a notification event is called. Since, it will most likely be a method on the owning TForm, upon entry to the event handler, the code will attempt to acquire the lock for the TForm.
Do you see the problem? Remember the button OnClick handler? It already has the TForm lock in the UI thread! It is now blocked waiting for the lock on the list control, which the non-UI thread owns. This is a classic dead-lock. Thread A holds lock A and attempts to acquire lock B which is held by thread B. Thread B is at the same time attempting to acquire lock A.
Clearly, if every control/component has a lock that is automatically acquired and released for every method isn't a solution. What if we left the locking up to the user? Do you see how that also doesn't solve the problem either? How can you be certain that all the code you have (including any third-party components) properly locks/unlocks the controls/components? How does this keep the above scenario from happening?
What about a single shared lock for the whole of VCL? In this scenario, for each message that is processed, the lock is acquired while the message is processed regardless of what component the message is routed to. Again, how does this solve a similar scenario I described above? What if the user's code added other locks for synchronization with other non-UI threads? Even the simple act of blocking until a non-UI thread terminates can cause a dead lock if it is done while the UI thread holds the VCL lock.
What about non-UI components? Database, serial, network, containers, etc...? How should they be handled?
As excellently explained by the other answers, Windows already does a pretty decent job of properly segregating UI message processing to only the thread on which each HWND is created. In fact, learning precisely how Windows works in this regard will go a long way to understanding how you can write your code to work with Windows and VCL in a manner that avoids most of the pitfalls I highlighted above. The bottom line is writing multi-threaded code is difficult, requires a rather drastic mental shift, and lots of practice. Read as much as you can on multi-threading from as many sources as possible. Learn and understand as many coding examples of "thread-safe" code as you can, in any language.
Hopefully this was informative.
The VCL is not thread safe. It is a wrapper around Win32. Win32 is thread safe but has threading rules that give meaning to that statement. Most specifically a window has affinity to the thread that created it.
The design of the Windows message queue means that it is almost always preferable to have all your GUI windows created by the main thread. The VCL designers decided that it was reasonable only to support that mode of operation. And so all VCL code must be executed from the main thread.
There's nothing that can be done to change this. This is by design. If you wish to execute VCL code, it must be done on the main thread. Use TThread.Synchronize or TThread.Queue to arrange that.
There are a lot of reasons why the VCL (especially UI controls) is not thread safe.
Race conditions on message input, especially in code that directly calls TControl.Perform()/TObject.Dispatch() instead of using PostMessage()/SendMessage(). The former does not perform any synchronizing of the control's message handlers, but the latter does. So it is not safe to perform non-HWND based messages from outside of the main thread.
An HWND has thread affinity. It receives and processes messages only on, and can be destroyed only on, the thread context that creates it. A TWinControl can destroy and recreate its HWND at any time, even multiple times, during its lifetime. The TWinControl.Handle property getter creates a new HWND if none exists yet. So if the control is in the process of recreating its HWND when another thread reads from the Handle property, the control can end up with a new HWND that was created in the wrong thread context, making the control no longer responsive to the main message loop (and can potentially leak a second HWND as well). So it is not safe to read from the TWinControl.Handle property from outside of the main thread.
The VCL has a MakeObjectInstance() function that creates a dynamic proxy to allow a TWndMethod class method to be used as a Win32 WNDPROC window callback procedure. All TWinControl controls, and some utility classes like TTimer, use this function. Internally, it maintains a global linked list of proxies, and that list is not protected from concurrent access across threads. So it is not safe to create/destroy HWND-based VCL controls from outside of the main thread.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but these are the big ones.
Everywhere is noticed that VCL is not thread-safe and we must synchronize access to it. So it's VCL faults that is not thread-safe.
How VCL itself can be thread-safe?
What, precisely, does "thread-safe" mean to you? What about someone else? Every time I see this brought up, it ends up boiling down to this: "I want VCL to be thread-safe so I don't have to think about threading and synchronization issues. I want to write my code as if it is still single-threaded."
No matter how much work went into making VCL so-called "thread-safe", there will always be situations where you can get into trouble. How would you go about making it thread-safe? I don't say this to be combative, rather I merely want to demonstrate that it is not a simple problem with a simple, "works-in-all-cases" solution. To highlight this, let's look at some potential "solutions."
The simplest and most direct approach I see is each component has some kind of "lock", say a mutex or critical section. Every method on the component grabs the lock on entry and then releases the lock just prior to exit. Let's continue down this path with a thought experiment. Consider how Windows processes messages:
Main thread obtains a message from the message queue and then dispatches it to the appropriate WndProc. This message is then routed to the appropriate TWinControl component. Since the component has a "lock", as the message is routed to the appropriate message handler on the component, the lock is acquired. So far so good.
Now take the proverbial button-click message processing. The OnClick message handler is now called which will most likely be a method on the owning TForm. Since the TForm descendant is also a TWinControl component, the TForm's lock is now acquired while the OnClick handler is processed. Now the button component is locked and the TForm component is also locked.
Continuing on this line of thinking, suppose the OnClick handler now wants add an item to a listbox, listview, or some other visual list or grid component. Now suppose some other thread (not the main UI thread) is already in the midst of accessing this same component. Once a method is called on the list from the UI thread it will attempt to acquire the lock, which it cannot since the other thread is currently holding it. As long as the non-UI thread doesn't hold that lock for very long, the UI thread will only block for a brief period.
So far so good, right? Now suppose, that while the non-UI thread is holding the list control's lock, a notification event is called. Since, it will most likely be a method on the owning TForm, upon entry to the event handler, the code will attempt to acquire the lock for the TForm.
Do you see the problem? Remember the button OnClick handler? It already has the TForm lock in the UI thread! It is now blocked waiting for the lock on the list control, which the non-UI thread owns. This is a classic dead-lock. Thread A holds lock A and attempts to acquire lock B which is held by thread B. Thread B is at the same time attempting to acquire lock A.
Clearly, if every control/component has a lock that is automatically acquired and released for every method isn't a solution. What if we left the locking up to the user? Do you see how that also doesn't solve the problem either? How can you be certain that all the code you have (including any third-party components) properly locks/unlocks the controls/components? How does this keep the above scenario from happening?
What about a single shared lock for the whole of VCL? In this scenario, for each message that is processed, the lock is acquired while the message is processed regardless of what component the message is routed to. Again, how does this solve a similar scenario I described above? What if the user's code added other locks for synchronization with other non-UI threads? Even the simple act of blocking until a non-UI thread terminates can cause a dead lock if it is done while the UI thread holds the VCL lock.
What about non-UI components? Database, serial, network, containers, etc...? How should they be handled?
As excellently explained by the other answers, Windows already does a pretty decent job of properly segregating UI message processing to only the thread on which each HWND is created. In fact, learning precisely how Windows works in this regard will go a long way to understanding how you can write your code to work with Windows and VCL in a manner that avoids most of the pitfalls I highlighted above. The bottom line is writing multi-threaded code is difficult, requires a rather drastic mental shift, and lots of practice. Read as much as you can on multi-threading from as many sources as possible. Learn and understand as many coding examples of "thread-safe" code as you can, in any language.
Hopefully this was informative.
The VCL is not thread safe. It is a wrapper around Win32. Win32 is thread safe but has threading rules that give meaning to that statement. Most specifically a window has affinity to the thread that created it.
The design of the Windows message queue means that it is almost always preferable to have all your GUI windows created by the main thread. The VCL designers decided that it was reasonable only to support that mode of operation. And so all VCL code must be executed from the main thread.
There's nothing that can be done to change this. This is by design. If you wish to execute VCL code, it must be done on the main thread. Use TThread.Synchronize or TThread.Queue to arrange that.
There are a lot of reasons why the VCL (especially UI controls) is not thread safe.
Race conditions on message input, especially in code that directly calls TControl.Perform()/TObject.Dispatch() instead of using PostMessage()/SendMessage(). The former does not perform any synchronizing of the control's message handlers, but the latter does. So it is not safe to perform non-HWND based messages from outside of the main thread.
An HWND has thread affinity. It receives and processes messages only on, and can be destroyed only on, the thread context that creates it. A TWinControl can destroy and recreate its HWND at any time, even multiple times, during its lifetime. The TWinControl.Handle property getter creates a new HWND if none exists yet. So if the control is in the process of recreating its HWND when another thread reads from the Handle property, the control can end up with a new HWND that was created in the wrong thread context, making the control no longer responsive to the main message loop (and can potentially leak a second HWND as well). So it is not safe to read from the TWinControl.Handle property from outside of the main thread.
The VCL has a MakeObjectInstance() function that creates a dynamic proxy to allow a TWndMethod class method to be used as a Win32 WNDPROC window callback procedure. All TWinControl controls, and some utility classes like TTimer, use this function. Internally, it maintains a global linked list of proxies, and that list is not protected from concurrent access across threads. So it is not safe to create/destroy HWND-based VCL controls from outside of the main thread.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but these are the big ones.
This is my first experience on threading with Qt, so bear with me.
I have a singleton "system" object which periodically executes a heavy piece of code.
I control the system singleton from my UI, but the system is not aware of the UI.
I create a thread in my main, and then move the system to it:
QThread systemThread;
System::instance()->moveToThread(&systemThread);
systemThread.start();
qApp.exec();
The UI hangs until the system's periodical processing cycle is complete.
I have also tried to subclass QThread and calling exec from the run method.
What could be the problem? I'm certainly doing something wrong.
Best regards
See the excellent article about Threads, Events and QObjects in the Qt developer wiki. Something seems to be wrong with the thread affinity, you can check that with QObject::thread().
I advice you to follow this guideline from a Qt Developer himself when implementing multithreading: https://www.qt.io/blog/2010/06/17/youre-doing-it-wrong
It is way more effective and painless.
systemThread.start() will start systemThread.run() method in thread so you need to implement it inside run().
To create your own threads, subclass QThread and reimplement run().
Main (function main is there) thread of my program is reserved for non-GUI tasks. It calls a number of lengthy calculation functions. All implemented GUI's have been doing their work in a separate threads.
I'm now going to implement one more GUI using Qt. Qt documentation says all GUI related tasks should be done in main thread.
In my case, inserting occasional QCoreApplication::processEvents() calls in main thread would be virtually useless due to great delays between them.
Is there any way to overcome this constraint of Qt?
Is it impossible to do something non-GUI related in main thread of Qt program?
No, you should be doing your calculations in a separate thread. As you already mentioned, there is a work-around available in QCoreApplication::processEvents(), but it sounds like you're unable to make that work for you.
If you don't want to have to do all the work of setting up a QThread and moving all your code, you may find that the QtConcurrent::run function is useful - it allows you to run a function asynchronously.
A few pointers: You should try and keep your main (GUI) thread as light as possible. Large amounts of IO or calculations should either be done asynchronously using QtConcurrent::run, or run inside a separate QThread. Depending on the complexity of your code, you may be able to get away with the QtConcurrent method.
It's best to offload the long computations onto other threads so the main GUI thread remains responsive. The old-school uniprocessing way of doing things would be be to make sure your computations never run for too long without polling GUI event handler, but that doesn't scale to multi-cores.
Fortunately Qt has excellent threading support. In the past you'd have to roll-you-own system for e.g farming out tasks to a thread-pool using QThread, QMutex, QWaitCondition etc, but recent Qt releases have made things easier with higher level abstractions like QThreadPool, QtConcurrent::run and QFuture.
I don't know how things will go if you call QApplication::exec() from another thread, which then becomes your gui thread. Just an idea.
(Let us know if it works, it'd be interesting...)
The concept of main thread is not clearly defined in Qt documentation. Actually, the main thread of a process (process that executes the Process.run function) can be different from the main Qt thread (thread that instantiates the first Qt object like a QApplication), although both "main" threads are often the same one.
Example of valid code structure:
function below will run in the process' non-main thread 'thread-1', that will become immediately Qt's main thread.
def startThread1():
app = QApplication(sys.argv)
app.exec_() # enter event loop
code below run in process' main thread, not to be confused with the main Qt and unique GUI thread of the process.
thread1 = Thread(target=self.startThread1)
thread1.start()
input('I am busy until you press enter')