I'm using descendant of PageKeyedDataSource. In its loadInitial, rx chain is running. When I specify no schedulers for the chain, it's running whatever background thread body of loadInitial is executed at. Let's imagine the chain needs to switch to some thread via subscribeOn. How to gracefully switch it back to the thread of loadInitial?
Related
in a non preemptive system, after an ISR finishes execution, will the interrupted task continue execution even if a higher priority task was activated?
This answer is specific to FreeRTOS, and may not be relevant to other RTOS'es.
FreeRTOS is preemptive by default. However, it can also be configured to be non-preemptive by the config option in FreeRTOSConfig.h
#define configUSE_PREEMPTION 0
Normally, a return from ISR does not trigger a context switch. But in preemptive systems it's often desirable, so in most FreeRTOS examples, you see portYIELD_FROM_ISR(xHigherPriorityTaskWoken); at the end of the ISR, which triggers a context switch if xHigherPriorityTaskWoken is pdTRUE.
xHigherPriorityTaskWoken is initialized to pdFALSE at the start of the ISR (manually by the user), and operations which can cause a context switch, such as vTaskNotifyGiveFromISR() , xQueueSendToBackFromISR() etc. , take it as an argument and set it to pdTRUE if a context switch is required after the system call.
In a non-preemptive configuration, you simply pass NULL to such system calls instead of xHigherPriorityTaskWoken, and do not call portYIELD_FROM_ISR() at the end of the ISR. In this case, even if a higher priority task is awakened by the ISR, execution returns to the currently running task and remains there until this task yields or makes a blocking system call.
You may mix ISR yield mechanism with preemption method. For example, you can force a context switch (preemption) from ISR even when configUSE_PREEMPTION is 0, but this may cause problems if the interrupted/preempted task doesn't expect it to happen, so I don't recommend it.
I am having trouble with the JVM immediately exiting using various new applications I wrote which spawn threads through the Scala 2.10 Futures + Promises framework.
It seems that at least with the default execution context, even if I'm using blocking, e.g.
future { blocking { /* work */ }}
no non-daemon thread is launched, and therefore the JVM thinks it can immediately quit.
A stupid work around is to launch a dummy Thread instance which is just waiting, but then I also need to make sure that this thread stops when the processes are done.
So how to I enforce them to run on non-daemon threads?
In looking at the default ExecutionContext attached to ExecutionContext.global, it's of the fork join variety and the Threadfactory it uses sets the threads to daemon. If you want to work around this, you could use a different ExecutionContext, one you set up yourself. If you still want the FJP variety (and you probably do as it scales the best), you should be able to look at what they are doing in ExecutionContextImpl via this link and create something similar. Or just use a cached thread pool via Executors.newCachedThreadPool as that won't shut down immediately before your futures complete.
spawn processes
If this means processes and not just tasks, then scala.sys.process spawns non-daemon threads to run OS processes.
Otherwise, if you're creating a bunch of tasks, this is what Future.sequence helps with. Then just Await ready (Future sequence List(futures)) on the main thread.
I have an NSManagedObjectContext declared like so:
- (NSManagedObjectContext *) backgroundMOC {
if (backgroundMOC != nil) {
return backgroundMOC;
}
backgroundMOC = [[NSManagedObjectContext alloc] initWithConcurrencyType:NSPrivateQueueConcurrencyType];
return backgroundMOC;
}
Notice that it is declared with a private queue concurrency type, so its tasks should be run on a background thread. I have the following code:
-(void)testThreading
{
/* ok */
[self.backgroundMOC performBlock:^{
assert(![NSThread isMainThread]);
}];
/* CRASH */
[self.backgroundMOC performBlockAndWait:^{
assert(![NSThread isMainThread]);
}];
}
Why does calling performBlockAndWait execute the task on the main thread rather than background thread?
Tossing in another answer, to try an explain why performBlockAndWait will always run in the calling thread.
performBlock is completely asynchronous. It will always enqueue the block onto the queue of the receiving MOC, and then return immediately. Thus,
[moc performBlock:^{
// Foo
}];
[moc performBlock:^{
// Bar
}];
will place two blocks on the queue for moc. They will always execute asynchronously. Some unknown thread will pull blocks off of the queue and execute them. In addition, those blocks are wrapped within their own autorelease pool, and also they will represent a complete Core Data user event (processPendingChanges).
performBlockAndWait does NOT use the internal queue. It is a synchronous operation that executes in the context of the calling thread. Of course, it will wait until the current operations on the queue have been executed, and then that block will execute in the calling thread. This is documented (and reasserted in several WWDC presentations).
Furthermore, performBockAndWait is re-entrant, so nested calls all happen right in that calling thread.
The Core Data engineers have been very clear that the actual thread in which a queue-based MOC operation runs is not important. It's the synchronization by using the performBlock* API that's key.
So, consider 'performBlock' as "This block is being placed on a queue, to be executed at some undetermined time, in some undetermined thread. The function will return to the caller as soon as it has been enqueued"
performBlockAndWait is "This block will be executed at some undetermined time, in this exact same thread. The function will return after this code has completely executed (which will occur after the current queue associated with this MOC has drained)."
EDIT
Are you sure of "performBlockAndWait does NOT use the internal queue"?
I think it does. The only difference is that performBlockAndWait will
wait until the block's completion. And what do you mean by calling
thread? In my understanding, [moc performBlockAndWait] and [moc
performBloc] both run on its private queue (background or main). The
important concept here is moc owns the queue, not the other way
around. Please correct me if I am wrong. – Philip007
It is unfortunate that I phrased the answer as I did, because, taken by itself, it is incorrect. However, in the context of the original question it is correct. Specifically, when calling performBlockAndWait on a private queue, the block will execute on the thread that called the function - it will not be put on the queue and executed on the "private thread."
Now, before I even get into the details, I want to stress that depending on internal workings of libraries is very dangerous. All you should really care about is that you can never expect a specific thread to execute a block, except anything tied to the main thread. Thus, expecting a performBlockAndWait to not execute on the main thread is not advised because it will execute on the thread that called it.
performBlockAndWait uses GCD, but it also has its own layer (e.g., to prevent deadlocks). If you look at the GCD code (which is open source), you can see how synchronous calls work - and in general they synchronize with the queue and invoke the block on the thread that called the function - unless the queue is the main queue or a global queue. Also, in the WWDC talks, the Core Data engineers stress the point that performBlockAndWait will run in the calling thread.
So, when I say it does not use the internal queue, that does not mean it does not use the data structures at all. It must synchronize the call with the blocks already on the queue, and those submitted in other threads and other asynchronous calls. However, when calling performBlockAndWait it does not put the block on the queue... instead it synchronizes access and runs the submitted block on the thread that called the function.
Now, SO is not a good forum for this, because it's a bit more complex than that, especially w.r.t the main queue, and GCD global queues - but the latter is not important for Core Data.
The main point is that when you call any performBlock* or GCD function, you should not expect it to run on any particular thread (except something tied to the main thread) because queues are not threads, and only the main queue will run blocks on a specific thread.
When calling the core data performBlockAndWait the block will execute in the calling thread (but will be appropriately synchronized with everything submitted to the queue).
I hope that makes sense, though it probably just caused more confusion.
EDIT
Furthermore, you can see the unspoken implications of this, in that the way in which performBlockAndWait provides re-entrant support breaks the FIFO ordering of blocks. As an example...
[context performBlockAndWait:^{
NSLog(#"One");
[context performBlock:^{
NSLog(#"Two");
}];
[context performBlockAndWait:^{
NSLog(#"Three");
}];
}];
Note that strict adherence to the FIFO guarantee of the queue would mean that the nested performBlockAndWait ("Three") would run after the asynchronous block ("Two") since it was submitted after the async block was submitted. However, that is not what happens, as it would be impossible... for the same reason a deadlock ensues with nested dispatch_sync calls. Just something to be aware of if using the synchronous version.
In general, avoid sync versions whenever possible because dispatch_sync can cause a deadlock, and any re-entrant version, like performBlockAndWait will have to make some "bad" decision to support it... like having sync versions "jump" the queue.
Why not? Grand Central Dispatch's block concurrency paradigm (which I assume MOC uses internally) is designed so that only the runtime and operating system need to worry about threads, not the developer (because the OS can do it better than you can do to having more detailed information). Too many people assume that queues are the same as threads. They are not.
Queued blocks are not required to run on any given thread (the exception being blocks in the main queue must execute on the main thread). So, in fact, sometimes sync (i.e. performBlockAndWait) queued blocks will run on the main thread if the runtime feels it would be more efficient than creating a thread for it. Since you are waiting for the result anyway, it wouldn't change the way your program functioned if the main thread were to hang for the duration of the operation.
This last part I am not sure if I remember correctly, but in the WWDC 2011 videos about GCD, I believe that it was mentioned that the runtime will make an effort to run on the main thread, if possible, for sync operations because it is more efficient. In the end though, I suppose the answer to "why" can only be answered by the people who designed the system.
I don't think that the MOC is obligated to use a background thread; it's just obligated to ensure that your code will not run into concurrency issues with the MOC if you use performBlock: or performBlockAndWait:. Since performBlockAndWait: is supposed to block the current thread, it seems reasonable to run that block on that thread.
The performBlockAndWait: call only makes sure that you execute the code in such a way that you don't introduce concurrency (i.e. on 2 threads performBlockAndWait: will not run at the same time, they will block each other).
The long and the short of it is that you can't depend on which thread a MOC operation runs on, well basically ever. I've learned the hard way that if you use GCD or just straight up threads, you always have to create local MOCs for each operation and then merge them to the master MOC.
There is a great library (MagicalRecord) that makes that process very simple.
My program is something like this.. I wanted to know will I make my program slow, if I call pthread join???
void* a(void *a)
{
do---something();//which is a very long procedure, I mean takes a lot of time...
pthread_exit();
}
main()
{
while(1)
{
pthread_create(a);
pthread_join(a);
}
}
So, if I call pthread_join, will I halt at that point until the child thread finishes it execution, or do I go on and create one more thread ?????
From the POSIX spec:
The pthread_join() function shall suspend execution of the calling
thread until the target thread terminates, unless the target thread
has already terminated.
If this is not what you want, either defer the call to pthread_join (putting all of the pthread_t's in a container so you can join them later) or use pthread_detach so you do not need to join them at all.
pthread_join() blocks until the child thread has exited, but you still want/need to call it in order for the child thread to be cleaned up properly once it has gone away. But as you say you don't want to have your main thread blocked, so how to deal with this? The way I would do it is to have the child thread send a message (via socket-pair or some other mechanism) back to its parent thread just before it exits.... when the parent thread receives this message, then it knows that now is a good time to call pthread_join(), since the child thread is already gone (or almost gone) and therefore pthread_join will never block (or at least not for more than a few milliseconds).
the join call blocks until the thread exits
You probably want to use non-blocking sockets to handle many clients without having to create a thread for each. See often quoted The C10K problem for more details.
I have some updating to do when my application comes from the background, but some updates are dependent on a certain function that although executes first, it finishes after the other update methods(it calls a bunch of chained functions).
How can i ensure that a function tree is finished so that i may then execute the rest of the code?
Have you looked at NSOperationQueue? It enables you to specify dependencies among NSOperations so that you can rely on certain execution orders to be followed.
This might work, with wait untill done flag set to YES. Give it a shot.
(void)performSelector:(SEL)aSelector
onThread:(NSThread *)thr withObject:(id)arg waitUntilDone:(BOOL)wait;
Apple doc says that setting the waitUntillDone on YES will stop the current thread untill your selector has finished its execution.
wait - A Boolean that specifies whether the current thread blocks until
after the specified selector is performed on the receiver on the
specified thread. Specify YES to block this thread; otherwise, specify
NO to have this method return immediately. If the current thread and
target thread are the same, and you specify YES for this parameter,
the selector is performed immediately on the current thread. If you
specify NO, this method queues the message on the thread’s run loop
and returns, just like it does for other threads. The current thread
must then dequeue and process the message when it has an opportunity
to do so.
Let me know if it worked.