process Swift DispatchQueue without affecting resource - swift

I have a Swift DispatchQueue that receives data at 60fps.
However, depending on phones or amount of data received, the computation of those data becomes expensive to process at 60fps. In actuality, it is okay to process only half of them or as much as the computation resource allows.
let queue = DispatchQueue(label: "com.test.dataprocessing")
func processData(data: SomeData) {
queue.async {
// data processing
}
}
Does DispatchQueue somehow allow me to drop some data if a resource is limited? Currently, it is affecting the main UI of SceneKit. Or, is there something better than DispatchQueue for this type of task?

There are a couple of possible approaches:
The simple solution is to keep track of your own Bool as to whether your task is in progress or not, and when you have more data, only process it if there's not one already running:
private var inProgress = false
private var syncQueue = DispatchQueue(label: Bundle.main.bundleIdentifier! + ".sync.progress") // for reasons beyond the scope of this question, reader-writer with concurrent queue is not appropriate here
func processData(data: SomeData) {
let isAlreadyRunning = syncQueue.sync { () -> Bool in
if self.inProgress { return true }
self.inProgress = true
return false
}
if isAlreadyRunning { return }
processQueue.async {
defer {
self.syncQueue.async { self.inProgress = false }
}
// process `data`
}
}
All of that syncQueue stuff is to make sure that I have thread-safe access to the inProgress property. But don't get lost in those details; use whatever synchronization mechanism you want (e.g. a lock or whatever). All we want to make sure is that we have thread-safe access to the Bool status flag.
Focus on the basic idea, that we'll keep track of a Bool flag to know whether the processing queue is still tied up processing the prior set of SomeData. If it is busy, return immediately and don't process this new data. Otherwise, go ahead and process it.
While the above approach is conceptually simple, it won't offer great performance. For example, if your processing of data always takes 0.02 seconds (50 times per second) and your input data is coming in at a rate of 60 times per second, you'll end up getting 30 of them processed per second.
A more sophisticated approach is to use a GCD user data source, something that says "run the following closure when the destination queue is free". And the beauty of these dispatch user data sources is that it will coalesce them together. These data sources are useful for decoupling the speed of inputs from the processing of them.
So, you first create a data source that simply indicates what should be done when data comes in:
private var dataToProcess: SomeData?
private lazy var source = DispatchSource.makeUserDataAddSource(queue: processQueue)
func configure() {
source.setEventHandler() { [unowned self] in
guard let data = self.syncQueue.sync(execute: { self.dataToProcess }) else { return }
// process `data`
}
source.resume()
}
So, when there's data to process, we update our synchronized dataToProcess property and then tell the data source that there is something to process:
func processData(data: SomeData) {
syncQueue.async { self.dataToProcess = data }
source.add(data: 1)
}
Again, just like the previous example, we're using syncQueue to synchronize our access to some property across multiple threads. But this time we're synchronizing dataToProcess rather than the inProgress state variable we used in the first example. But the idea is the same, that we must be careful to synchronize our interation with a property across multiple threads.
Anyway, using this pattern with the above scenario (input coming in at 60 fps, whereas processing can only process 50 per second), the resulting performance much closer to the theoretical max of 50 fps (I got between 42 and 48 fps depending upon the queue priority), rather than 30 fps.
The latter process can conceivably lead to more frames (or whatever you're processing) to be processed per second and results in less idle time on the processing queue. The following image attempts to graphically illustrate how the two alternatives compare. In the former approach, you'll lose every other frame of data, whereas the latter approach will only lose a frame of data when two separate sets of input data came in prior to the processing queue becoming free and they were coalesced into a single call to the dispatch source.

Related

Will an item submitted to the main `DispatchQueue` ever interrupt currently executing code on the main thread?

The below code is used to execute a long running calculation on a background thread:
enum CalculationInterface {
private static var latestKey: AnyObject? // Used to cancel previous calculations when a new one is initiated.
static func output(from input: Input, return: #escaping (Output?) -> ()) {
self.latestKey = EmptyObject()
let key = self.latestKey! // Made to enable capturing `self.latestKey's` value.
DispatchQueue.global().async {
do {
let output = try calculateOutput(from: input, shouldContinue: { key === self.latestKey }) // Function cancels by throwing an error.
DispatchQueue.main.async { if (key === self.latestKey) { `return`(output) } }
} catch {}
}
}
}
This function is called from the main thread like so:
/// Initiates calculation of the output and sets it to the result when finished.
private func recalculateOutput() {
self.output = .calculating // Triggers calculation in-progress animation for user.
CalculationInterface.output(from: input) { self.output = $0 } // Ends animation once set and displays calculated output to user.
}
I'm wondering if it's possible for the closure that's pushed to DispatchQueue.main to execute while the main thread is running my code. Or in other words execute after self.output = .calculating but before self.latestKey is re-set to the new object. If it could, then the stale calculation output could be displayed to the user.
I'm wondering if it's possible for the closure that's pushed to DispatchQueue.main to execute while the main thread is running my code
No, it isn't possible. The main queue is a serial queue. If code is running on the main queue, no "other" main queue code can run. Your DispatchQueue.main.async effectively means: "Wait until all code running on the main queue comes naturally to an end, and then run this on the main queue."
On the other hand, DispatchQueue.global() is not a serial queue. Thus it is theoretically possible for two calls to calculateOutput to overlap. That isn't something you want to have happen; you want to be sure that any executing instance of calculateOutput finishes (and we proceed to grapple with the latestKey) before another one can start. In other words, you want to ensure that the sequence
set latestKey on the main thread
perform calculateOutput in the background
look at latestKey on the main thread
happens coherently. The way to ensure that is to set aside a DispatchQueue that you create with DispatchQueue(label:), that you will always use for running calculateOutput. That queue will be a serial queue by default.

Google Nest subscriptionWithMessageFoundHandler fires once?

I am trying to code around the fact that the messageLostHandler doesn't fire for many minutes after a device is out of range using Audio (or Earshot for Android).
I was hoping that every few secs a message would be received from another device. It fires once. Is this expected? Since I can't rely on the messageLost handler - how do I know when a device is truly out of range of the ultrasonic?
I coded up a timer after receiving the subscriptionWithMessageFoundHandler hoping another message coming in I could just invalidate or restart the timer. If the timer fired, I'd know that x seconds passed and that the other device must be out of range. No such luck.
UPDATE: Here is the code in question:
let strategy = GNSStrategy.init(paramsBlock: { (params: GNSStrategyParams!) -> Void in
params.discoveryMediums = .Audio
})
publication = messageMgr.publicationWithMessage(pubMessage, paramsBlock: { (pubParams: GNSPublicationParams!) in
pubParams.strategy = strategy
})
subscription = messageMgr.subscriptionWithMessageFoundHandler({[unowned self] (message: GNSMessage!) -> Void in
self.messageViewController.addMessage(String(data: message.content, encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding))
// We only seem to get a 1x notification of a message. So this timer is folly.
print("PING") //Only 1x per discovery.
}, messageLostHandler: {[unowned self](message: GNSMessage!) -> Void in
self.messageViewController.removeMessage(String(data: message.content, encoding: NSUTF8StringEncoding))
}, paramsBlock: { (subParams: GNSSubscriptionParams!) -> Void in
subParams.strategy = strategy
})
Notice that the "PING" only prints once.
When a device goes out of range, Nearby waits for 2 minutes before flushing the other device's token from its cache. So if you wait for 2 minutes, the messageLost handler should be called. Can you verify this? Also, is it safe to assume that you'd like to have a timeout shorter than 2 minutes? This timeout has been a topic of discussion, and there's been some talk of adding a parameter so apps can choose a value that's more appropriate for its use case.

Siesta handling multiple requests

I have a loop where I POST requests to the server:
for (traineeId, points) in traineePointsDict {
// create a new point
let parameters: NSDictionary = [
"traineeId": "\(traineeId)",
"numPoints": points,
"exerciseId": "\(exerciseId)"
]
DataManager.sharedInstance.api.points.request(.POST, json: parameters).success { data in
if data.json["success"].int == 1 {
self.pointCreated()
} else {
self.pointFailToCreate()
}
}.failure { error in
self.pointFailToCreate()
}
}
The problem is that for some reason the last request fails and I am guessing that this is due to posting too many requests to the server at the same time.
Is there a way to chain these requests so they wait for the one before to complete before executing the next?
I have been looking at PromiseKit, but I don't really know how to implement this and I am looking for a quick solution.
Siesta does not control how requests are queued or how many requests run concurrently. You have two choices:
control it on the app side, or
control it in the network layer.
I’d investigate option 2 first. It gives you less fine-grained control, but it give you more robust options on the cheap and is less prone to mistakes. If you are using URLSession as your networking layer (which is Siesta’s default), then investigate whether the HTTPMaximumConnectionsPerHost property of URLSessionConfiguration does what you need. (Here are some examples of passing custom configuration to Siesta.)
If that doesn’t work for you, a simple version of #1 is to use a completion handler to chain the requests:
func chainRequests(_ queue: [ThingsToRequest])
guard let thing = queue.first else { return }
params = makeParamsFor(thing)
resource.request(.POST, json: params)
.onSuccess {
...
}.onFailure {
...
}.onCompletion { _ in
chainRequests(queue[1 ..< queue.count])
}
}
Note that you can attach multiple overlapping handlers to the same request, and they’re called in the order you attached them. Note also that Siesta guarantees that the completion block is always called, no matter the outcome. This means that each request will result in calls to either closures 1 & 3 or closures 2 & 3. That’s why this approach works.

RXJS : Idiomatic way to create an observable stream from a paged interface

I have paged interface. Given a starting point a request will produce a list of results and a continuation indicator.
I've created an observable that is built by constructing and flat mapping an observable that reads the page. The result of this observable contains both the data for the page and a value to continue with. I pluck the data and flat map it to the subscriber. Producing a stream of values.
To handle the paging I've created a subject for the next page values. It's seeded with an initial value then each time I receive a response with a valid next page I push to the pages subject and trigger another read until such time as there is no more to read.
Is there a more idiomatic way of doing this?
function records(start = 'LATEST', limit = 1000) {
let pages = new rx.Subject();
this.connect(start)
.subscribe(page => pages.onNext(page));
let records = pages
.flatMap(page => {
return this.read(page, limit)
.doOnNext(result => {
let next = result.next;
if (next === undefined) {
pages.onCompleted();
} else {
pages.onNext(next);
}
});
})
.pluck('data')
.flatMap(data => data);
return records;
}
That's a reasonable way to do it. It has a couple of potential flaws in it (that may or may not impact you depending upon your use case):
You provide no way to observe any errors that occur in this.connect(start)
Your observable is effectively hot. If the caller does not immediately subscribe to the observable (perhaps they store it and subscribe later), then they'll miss the completion of this.connect(start) and the observable will appear to never produce anything.
You provide no way to unsubscribe from the initial connect call if the caller changes its mind and unsubscribes early. Not a real big deal, but usually when one constructs an observable, one should try to chain the disposables together so it call cleans up properly if the caller unsubscribes.
Here's a modified version:
It passes errors from this.connect to the observer.
It uses Observable.create to create a cold observable that only starts is business when the caller actually subscribes so there is no chance of missing the initial page value and stalling the stream.
It combines the this.connect subscription disposable with the overall subscription disposable
Code:
function records(start = 'LATEST', limit = 1000) {
return Rx.Observable.create(observer => {
let pages = new Rx.Subject();
let connectSub = new Rx.SingleAssignmentDisposable();
let resultsSub = new Rx.SingleAssignmentDisposable();
let sub = new Rx.CompositeDisposable(connectSub, resultsSub);
// Make sure we subscribe to pages before we issue this.connect()
// just in case this.connect() finishes synchronously (possible if it caches values or something?)
let results = pages
.flatMap(page => this.read(page, limit))
.doOnNext(r => this.next !== undefined ? pages.onNext(this.next) : pages.onCompleted())
.flatMap(r => r.data);
resultsSub.setDisposable(results.subscribe(observer));
// now query the first page
connectSub.setDisposable(this.connect(start)
.subscribe(p => pages.onNext(p), e => observer.onError(e)));
return sub;
});
}
Note: I've not used the ES6 syntax before, so hopefully I didn't mess anything up here.

What is the best way to "rate limit" consuming of an Observable?

I have a bunch of events coming in and I have to execute ALL of them without a loss, but I want to make sure that they are buffered and consumed at the appropriate time slots. Anyone have a solution?
I can't find any operators in Rx that can do that without the loss of the events (Throttle - looses events). I've also considered Buffered, Delay, etc... Can't find a good solution.
I've tried to put a timer in the middle, but somehow it doesn't work at all:
GetInitSequence()
.IntervalThrottle(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5))
.Subscribe(
item =>
{
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now);
// Process item
}
);
public static IObservable<T> IntervalThrottle<T>(this IObservable<T> source, TimeSpan dueTime)
{
return Observable.Create<T>(o =>
{
return source.Subscribe(x =>
{
new Timer(state =>
o.OnNext((T)state), x, dueTime, TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1));
}, o.OnError, o.OnCompleted);
});
}
The question is not 100% clear so I'm making some presumptions.
Observable.Delay is not what you want because that will create a delay from when each event arrives, rather than creating even time intervals for processing.
Observable.Buffer is not what you want because that will cause all events in each given interval to be passed to you, rather than one at a time.
So I believe you're looking for a solution that creates some sort of metronome that ticks away, and gives you an event per tick. This can be naively constructed using Observable.Interval for the metronome and Zip for connecting it to your source:
var source = GetInitSequence();
var trigger = Observable.Interval(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
var triggeredSource = source.Zip(trigger, (s,_) => s);
triggeredSource.Subscribe(item => Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now));
This will trigger every 5 seconds (in the example above), and give you the original items in sequence.
The only problem with this solution is that if you don't have any more source elements for (say) 10 seconds, when the source elements arrive they will be immediately sent out since some of the 'trigger' events are sitting there waiting for them. Marble diagram for that scenario:
source: -a-b-c----------------------d-e-f-g
trigger: ----o----o----o----o----o----o----o
result: ----a----b----c-------------d-e-f-g
This is a very reasonable issue. There are two questions here already that tackle it:
Rx IObservable buffering to smooth out bursts of events
A way to push buffered events in even intervals
The solution provided is a main Drain extension method and secondary Buffered extension. I've modified these to be far simpler (no need for Drain, just use Concat). Usage is:
var bufferedSource = source.StepInterval(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
The extension method StepInterval:
public static IObservable<T> StepInterval<T>(this IObservable<T> source, TimeSpan minDelay)
{
return source.Select(x =>
Observable.Empty<T>()
.Delay(minDelay)
.StartWith(x)
).Concat();
}
I know this could just be too simple, but would this work?
var intervaled = source.Do(x => { Thread.Sleep(100); });
Basically this just puts a minimum delay between values. Too simplistic?
Along the lines of Enigmativity's answer, if all you want to do is just Delay all of the values by a TimeSpan, I cant see why Delay is not the operator you want
GetInitSequence()
.Delay(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5)) //ideally pass an IScheduler here
.Subscribe(
item =>
{
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now);
// Process item
}
);
How about Observable.Buffer? This should return all the events in the 1s window as a single event.
var xs = Observable.Interval(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100));
var bufferdStream = xs.Buffer(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
bufferdStream.Subscribe(item => { Console.WriteLine("Number of events in window: {0}", item.Count); });
It might be what you're asking isnt that clear. What is your code supposed to do? It looks like you're just delaying by creating a timer for each event. It also breaks the semantics of the observable as the next and complete could occur before the next.
Note this is also only as accurate at the timer used. Typically the timers are accurate to at most 16ms.
Edit:
your example becomes, and item contains all the events in the window:
GetInitSequence()
.Buffer(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5))
.Subscribe(
item =>
{
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now);
// Process item
}
);