Earlier this month I asked this question 'What is a runloop?' After reading the answers and did some tries I got it to work, but still I do not understand it completely. If a runloop is just an loop that is associated with an thread and it don't spawn another thread behind the scenes how can any of the other code in my thread(mainthread to keep it simple) execute without getting "blocked"/not run because it somewhere make an infinite loop?
That was question number one. Then over to my second.
If I got something right about this after having worked with this, but not completely understood it a runloop is a loop where you attach 'flags' that notify the runloop that when it comes to the point where the flag is, it "stops" and execute whatever handler that is attached at that point? Then afterwards it keep running to the next in que.
So in this case no events is placed in que in connections, but when it comes to events it take whatever action associated with tap 1 and execute it before it runs to connections again and so on. Or am I as far as I can be from understanding the concept?
"Sort of."
Have you read this particular documentation?
It goes into considerable depth -- quite thorough depth -- into the architecture and operation of run loops.
A run loop will get blocked if it dispatches a method that takes too long or that loops forever.
That's the reason why an iPhone app will want to do everything which won't fit into 1 "tick" of the UI run loop (say at some animation frame rate or UI response rate), and with room to spare for any other event handlers that need to be done in that same "tick", either broken up asynchronously, on dispatched to another thread for execution.
Otherwise stuff will get blocked until control is returned to the run loop.
Related
I am exploring different ways to end a UVM test. One method that has come often from studying different blogs from Verification Academy and other sites is to use the Phase Ready to End. I have some questions regarding the implementation of this method.
I am using this method in scoreboard class, where my understanding is after my usual run phase is finished, it will call the phase ready to end method and implement it. The reason I am using it my scoreboard's run_phase finishes early, and there are some data into queues that need to be processed. So I am trying to prolong this scoreboard run_phase using this method. Here are is some pseudo-code that I have used.
function void phase_ready_to_end(uvm_phase phase);
if (phase.get_name() != "run") return;
if (queue.size() != 0) begin
phase.raise_objection(.obj(this));
fork
begin
delay_phase(phase);
end
join_none
end
endfunction
task delay_phase(uvm_phase phase);
wait(queue.size() == 0);
phase.drop_objection(.obj(this));
endtask
I have taken inspiration for this implementation from this link UVM-End of Test Mechanism for your reference. Here are some of the ungated thoughts in my mind on which I need guidance and help.
to the best of my understanding the phase_ready_to_end is called at the end of run_phase and when it runs it raises the objection for that scoreboard run_phase and runs delay_phase task.
That Delay Phase task is just waiting for the queue to end, but I am not seeing any method or task which will pop the items from the queue. Does I have to call some method to pop from the queue or as according to the 1st point above the raised objection will start the run phase so there is no need for that and we have to wait for a considerable amount of time?
Let me give you some pre-context to this question. I have a scoreboard where there are two queues whose write methods are implemented and they are being fed correctly by their source.
task run_phase (uvm_phase phase);
forever begin
compare_queues(); // this method takes data from two queues and compares them, both queues implementation are fine and they take data from their respective sources. Let me give you a scenario, let's suppose there are a total of 10 transactions being generated but the scoreboard was able to process only 6 of them and there are 4 transactions left when all objections are dropped. So to tackle that I implement this phase_to_ready_end method in my scoreboard.
end
endtask
The problem with this method that I am having is that, when I raise the objection in this phase_ready_to_end and call delay_phase method, nothing happens. And I am curious is there more to this implementation or not?
Sorry for the delay. I have shared more context to the existing question. Please see to that, let me know if it is confusing.
We have a pair of monitors that calls write method implemented inside the scoreboard. The monitors typically capture the transaction from BUS and call these WR methods to push the transactions. Thus two source and destination monitors WR into two - source and destination - queues as and when they find the transactions.
We have a checker task with RD-n-check running in forever loop in the run-phase of scoreboard. It's in a while loop and watches if the destination queue has non-zero entry. Once it finds so, it pops the head entry from destination queue and then pops the head entry from source queue as well and compares the two entries to declare if the check was a PASS or FAIL.
There are more than 2 queues and more than a pair of source/destination of course, but broadly this is the architecture around here.
Now in the current scenario, it seems that the checker tasks stop prints after certain point of time in some of the test cases. Upon adding debug prints thoroughly, it seems that checker tasks that does the job #2/#3 above and gets called inside the forever loop of the run-phase, exits gracefully one last time. However they are entered again - which is to say that the forever loop that should be calling them didn't call. As if the forever loop of run-phase stopped completely.
We also added another forever loop in run-phase that observes whether the queues are empty. From prints inside that parallel loop and from the monitor prints, we know that the queues aren't empty and monitors did push WRs into the queues for a long time.
It seems that the forever loop stopped working suddenly ( going by prints spewed out) all of a sudden but another set of threads that we added in runphase in another forever loop just to monitor those queues - keep printing that the queues have contents. So run-phase shouldn't be over but the checker tasks running in forever has stopped.
We are using Vivado 2020.2 for the simulation. This is a baffling/weird problem for us and we did go through prints multiple times to make sure nothing has been missed out. It seems we are missing very very basic or has hit a bug/broken some basics of UVM coding to land into here.
If you have any help, thoughts here, will appreciate that greatly.
The function phase_ready_to_end() gets called at the end of every task-based phase when all objections have been dropped (or never raised at all).
Typically a scoreboard has a queue or some kind of array of transactions waiting to be checked sent from a monitor via an analysis_port write() method. If your scoreboard is an in-order comparison checker, the queue size is zero when there are no more transactions waiting to be received.
If you look at the code in the link you shared, there is the following in the write_south method doing exactly that:
if (!item.compare(item_stream.pop_front()))
I've been recently taught, the concept of monitors. My prof, said "only one thread per time can be in the monitor". I am not sure I get this that's why I did my research. Wikipaideia states what i wrote as a title. My book states though, that inside monitor there are queues, for threads that are waiting , until some defined condition is met. What really confused me is a pseudocode we were given as solution to the bounded buffer problem with monitors.
My question is : If a process is not stopped by a wait() inside the monitor, does monitor structure guaruntee us that it will be permitted to execute the whole method without being interrupted by a context switch or just that, while it is executing the method nobody else produce or consumer is executing their according method?? .
Because in this, slide:
It seems like we only wake up a consumer if the buffer was empty, and we just produced an item.
Everytime a producer that reaches that part of code, has produced an item. Why don't we signal everytime? I supposed that , we (may) consider that: if the buffer wasn't empty, then they may be "active" consumers waiting, to be resumed because they were interrupted by a context switch, but then I thought to myself is this possible? Is it possible to be interrupted inside a method (not because you are "waited") but by a context switch?
I have a UIAnimation that pulls out a message log, but I need to populate the message log using a for loop as well. I have the animation taking place before the for loop begins, however, the animation doesn't actually begin until after the for loop finishes executing (even though the loop is located after the UIAnimation).
I've tried putting the contents of the for loop within an autoreleasepool (did not work)
I've tried running the for loop on a background thread, however, most of the code within the loop needs to be executed on the main thread, and I haven't had success with that approach.
The for loop is very large, and most of the code is irrelevant to the question, so you can set this up using any UIAnimation, and any relatively time consuming for loop...
for example:
let someView = UIView(frame:CGRect(x:self.view.frame.size.width,y:0,width:self.view.frame.size.width,height:self.view.frame.size.height))
someView.backgroundColor = .red
UIView.animate(withDuration:0.3,animations:{
self.someView.frame.origin.x = 0
})
//You can wrap this with something like:
//DispatchQueue.global(qos: .background).async(execute: {
//But this^ doesn't work on the majority of the code within the loop
for i in 0...1000{
print("hopefully this loop takes a few seconds to finish executing")
print("mainthread tasks being executed")
print("populating UITable in my particular case, and rendering Images/Video/text")
}
The closest that I can get to making it better is to add a "completion" to my UIAnimation, (which will allow the UIView to pull out completely/immediately) but then there is still a second of wait time before the first messages appear...
Also, I am populating a UITableView within the for loop. Not sure if that has any extra relevance to the primary issue I'm having or not...
I'm pretty familiar with DispatchQueue and the differences between async/sync. If you have any potential solutions, or ideas, please let me know.
The animation does not happen immediately, when you call UIView.animate. In stead all the animations are collected and run at some appropriate time. This is why the animation only starts after your for loop is done.
So the way to fix it is to get the animation to run before your for loop runs. Now, accepting what you say, that the for must run on the main thread, you have a number of options. You could put the for loop inside a DispatchQueue.main.async{} or somehow throttle it down so that the animation gets going first. Your idea of using the completion is a good one but you mention some practical issues you picked up with it. So either solve those practical issues, try to run the for inside a DispatchQueue.main.async{} or even, based on practical considerations, start the for loop on the main thread but somewhere else, say in something like didLayoutSubviews (fixed) or as now together with the animation but after a few millis delay to allow the animation to get going.
It's an interesting question. This made me think!
Yes, you mentioned that you understand differences between async/sync but didn't mention if you tried animating in the main thread.
Did you try putting the
UIView.animate(...) in DispatchQueue.main.async{}?
I have a processing thread that I use to fill a data buffer. Elsewhere a piece of hardware triggers a callback which reads from this data buffer. The processing thread then kicks in and refills the buffer.
When the buffer fills up I am currently telling the thread to wait by:
while( [self FreeWriteSpace] < mProcessBufferSize && InActive) {
[NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:.0001];
}
However when I profile I am getting a lot of CPU time spent in sleep. Is there a better way to wait? Do I even care if the profiles says time is spent in sleep?
Time spent in sleep is effectively free. In Instruments, look at "running samples" rather than "all samples." But this still isn't an ideal solution.
First, your sleep interval is crazy. Do you really need .1µs granularity? The system almost certainly isn't giving you because the processor isn't that fast. I have to believe you could up this to .1 or .01. But that's still busy-waiting which is not ideal if you can help it.
The better solution is to use an NSCondition. In this thread, wait on the condition, and in your processing thread, trigger the condition when there's room to write.
Do be careful with your naming. Do not name methods with leading caps (that indicates that it's a class name). And avoid accessing ivars directly (InActive) like this. "InActive" is also a very confusing name. Does it mean the system is active (In Active) or not active (inactive). Naming in Objective-C is extremely important. The compiler will not protect you the way it does in C# and C++. Good naming is how you keep your programs working, and many parts of ObjC rely on it.
You may also want to investigate Grand Central Dispatch, which is particularly designed for these kinds of problems. Look at dispatch_async() to run things when new data comes in.
However when I profile I am getting a
lot of CPU time spent in sleep. Is
there a better way to wait? Do I even
care if the profiles says time is
spent in sleep?
Yes -- never, never poll. Polling eats CPU, makes your app less responsive, eats battery, and is an all around waste.
Notify instead.
The easiest way is to use one of the variants of "perform selector on main thread" (see NSThread's documentation). Or dispatch to a queue (including something like dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{ ... yo, data be ready ...});).
In my last question, OpenCl cleanup causes segfault. , somebody hinted that missing event handling, i.e. not waiting for code to finish, could cause the seg faults. Since then I looked again into the tutorials I used, but they don't pay attention to events (Matrix Multiplication 1 (OpenCL) and NVIDIA_OpenCL_GettingStartedLinux.pdf) or talk about it in detail and (for me) understandable.
Do you know a tutorial on where and how to wait in OpenCL?
Merci!
I don't have a tutorial on events in OpenCL, and I'm by no means an expert, but since no one else is responding...
As a rule of thumb, you'll need to wait for any function named clEnqueue*. Those functions return immediately before the job is done. The easiest way to make sure your queue is finished is to call clFinish(). It won't return until the entire queue has completed.
If you want to get a little fancier, most of the clEnqueue* functions have an optional cl_event parameter that you can pass in. You can check on a particular event with clGetEventInfo(), and you can wait for a particular set of events to finish with clWaitForEvents().