I am just trying to understand this: multithread is a way of firing a method in another thread, so it will not hang the main thread (when something heavy must be done). But I have seen stuff like this:
this goes on the main code:
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:#selector(createNewThread) toTarget:self withObject:nil];
and here goes the thread
-(void) createNewThread {
NSAutoreleasePool* p = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:#selector(doSomeStuff) withObject:nil waitUntilDone:YES];
[p release];
}
My problem with this is: if the thread is intended to relieve the main thread from doing something, why is doSomeStuff being called using performSelectorOnMainThread? Isn't that insane? I mean, you fire a second thread just to run something on the main thread, a thread that in fact you shouldn't be using.
I have seen a lot of code on the web write this way.
I know that probably it is done that way because it is doing something that is not thread safe, but is doing this really useful? To me sounds that it is totally useless and it would be better to do something like
[self performSelector:#selector(doSomeStuff) withObject:nil afterDelay:0.01];
what do you guys think?
thanks in advance.
performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: puts the call on a queue to perform on the next iteration of the run loop. performSelector:withObject:afterDelay: sets up a timer to perform the action. However, creating a new thread to call performSelectorOnMainThread makes no sense because it puts the call on the queue even if it is already on the main thread.
If that's the entire body of the createNewThread method then it makes no sense. But if other stuff actually happens in createNewThread then there might be a good reason. The most common scenario for having a background thread use performSelectorOnMainThread: is if the UI needs to update as a result of the background activity. Like if you're processing a large data set and you want to show the user how much progress has been made so far. UIKit is not thread-safe so you can't update the UI from the background thread. But you might do something like, have the background doing a lot of work in a loop, and at every pass through the loop (or every 5, or whatever) call back to the main thread to update the UI. This makes the code switch back to the main loop just long enough to update the UI before returning to the background for the heavy duty work.
Related
I have a method, someMethod, that is called when a) the user taps the view and b) when a user drags the view. In someMethod, there is a UIView animateWithDuration block that makes the toolbar on top of the view disappear, and resets its frame accordingly. If the user taps the view, than drags it, someMethod will be fired while the animation is still completing, and this isn't the behavior I want (simply canceling the animation doesn't work because the completion block still fires (even if I check the 'finished' BOOL). All things being considered, I just don't want this method to be fired while the animation is still in progress.
Obviously an easy solution to this is to set a manual lock with a BOOL and only allow the method to be called once the lock is free.
I'm wondering, is there a more elegant way to accomplish this? Possible to use GCD or some other library to accomplish this so it's more fool proof?
Update: I did try to use synchronized, the problem though is the method fires off the animation, finishes, but the animation is still running on another thread. Any other ideas?
A timer running out does not imply or require a secondary thread. You're in control of what thread a timer is scheduled on. If you just schedule the timer on the main thread, then both things happen on the main thread.
The suggestions of using #synchronized achieve the effect that a given block of code is not running for the same object (whatever is the parameter of #synchronized) at the same time, but that's not the same thing as saying it's not run on two different threads.
If you want to detect if a method is called on a thread other than the main thread and then shunt it over to the main thread, you can use +[NSThread isMainThread] and dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{ /* re-call current method */ });.
In modern iOS and OS X, the most elegant mechanism for controlling the execution is to use dispatch queues and blocks. For a global lock, you can use a single serial queue and make request to it either synchronously or asynchronously, depending on whether you want the remainder of the execution on that thread to stop while you execute the critical code.
Declare your queue globally somewhere:
dispatch_queue_t myQueue;
So, when you launch, you'll create your queue:
myQueue = dispatch_queue_create( "CRITICAL_SECTION", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL); // FIFO
And when you want to execute the critical section of code, you use:
dispatch_sync( shpLockQueue, ^{
// critical section here
});
Depending on your needs, you might want to call your method within one of these blocks, or you might want to have the block within the object that you are protecting.
You could use the main dispatch queue for this, if you needed to make sure that the routine is run on the main thread, but if that's unnecessary, it's going to be more efficient to use your own queue. If you elect to use the main queue, you don't need to set up your own queue, or store it, you can just execute your code within:
dispatch_sync( dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
// critical section here
});
I would suggest the #synchronized() block, Heres a great blog post on the explanation of it:
http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2006/10/synchronized-swimming.html
#synchronized(self) {
[self someMethod];
}
Well even using just a global variable, doesn't guarantee mutual exclusion, since the variable is copied to the register before being updated, if that indeed is what you meant by "manual lock BOOL ..." and unfortunately their aren't any really elegant solutions ....
Check out https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/ipad/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Multithreading/ThreadSafety/ThreadSafety.html
Good luck.
When I cancel an NSOperation (when user presses a button) cancel method is called from the main thread, but evidently the operation is running in another thread.
So, to avoid race conditions when I change _isExecuting and _isFinished, I think cancel (or at least its logic) should be called from the same thread that the NSOperation. Apart from that, when user cancels it, several files are deleted and it takes time. Because cancel is called from main thread, all the app becomes unresponsive for a while, which is ugly.
How can I execute cancel code in the same thread that the current NSOperation?
I tried this in cancel (similar to what I saw in ASIHTTPRequest):
if (_operationThread) {
[self performSelector:#selector(cancelOnRequestThread) onThread:_operationThread withObject:nil waitUntilDone:NO];
} else {
[self cancelOnRequestThread];
}
And _operationThread is setted in start method using:
_operationThread=[NSThread currentThread];
But it doesn't work.
Any idea or suggestion?
Note: I use concurrent operations, so I use start instead of main.
Thanks a lot for help.
Ricardo.
It's fine to call cancel on an NSOperation from the main thread. The cancel method is thread-safe.
That shouldn't cause any blocking on your main thread because the cancel method itself shouldn't be doing any work. If you have overridden the cancel method of your operation to delete files, etc then that is the wrong approach. You shouldn't override the cancel method, instead just check the isCancelled method at regular points within the operation's main method (e.g. inside any tight loops) and then return from main early if isCancelled returns YES, which will then cancel the operation on the same thread as the rest of the execution.
If that's how you've implemented it already and you're still having performance issues, is it possible that your operation is not really running on a background thread at all? For example if you've added it to the queue returned by [NSOperationQueue mainQueue] then that's actually running on the main application thread.
I’m an experienced C/C++ programmer coming up to speed on Objective C on the iPhone. I have done a lot of searching, but haven’t found a satisfactory answer on what must be a common question; I apologize if this is answered elsewhere, pointers would be appreciated.
My app is very CPU intensive. The UI has a simple display that shows progress and a start/stop button. What is the best way to allocate the most possible CPU cycles to getting the work done, while still ensuring that the display is updated regularly and the start/stop button is responsive? I have read that you should not do work in the main thread, but beyond that I haven’t found many suggestions. In light of this I have implemented my work in an NSOperation queue. I have also put the screen refresh in its own queue. I have also liberally sprinkled the code with NSThread sleepForTimeIntervals. I have experimented with different sleep times from .001 to 1 ([NSThread sleepForTimeIntervals .1] for instance). In spite of this the screen display is sluggish at best (10s of seconds) and pressing the stop button highlights the button but nothing happens again for 10s of seconds.
1.) Are NSOperation Queues a reasonable choice? If not, what else?
2.) How do I minimize the sleeping? (Obviously I want the work to get as many cycles as possible/reasonable, and I’m not sure that my sleeps are doing anything at all to all the UI to update.)
3.) Is there a better technique to keep the UI up to date? For instance, can I use NSTimer or some other method to send a message to the UI telling it to update and/or check the status of the buttons?
Thank you for your support.
1.) Are NSOperation Queues a reasonable choice? If not, what else?
NSOperationQueue sounds like it would be reasonable.
of course, you have choice: pthreads, libdispatch (aka GCD), c++ thread libraries built on top of pthreads, etc, etc , etc. if you don't spawn much/many, then it just comes down to the model you favor.
2.) How do I minimize the sleeping? (Obviously I want the work to get as many cycles as possible/reasonable, and I’m not sure that my sleeps are doing anything at all to all the UI to update.)
don't sleep =) you can use a timer for your ui elements or an explicit callback or notification to notify dependencies. if the dependencies peform ui updates, then you will likely add the message to the main thread's message queue.
3.) Is there a better technique to keep the UI up to date? For instance, can I use NSTimer or some other method to send a message to the UI telling it to update and/or check the status of the buttons?
that really depends on what you are doing. if you merely want to update a progress bar, then you can write the value from the secondary thread and read the value from the main thread. then use a timer on the main run loop to periodically message your object to update its display (based on the current value). for something like an unstaged progress indicator this may be good.
another alternative is more useful for events or stages: it would involve posting updates (e.g. notifications or callbacks to a delegate) from the secondary thread as progress is made (more info under #2).
Update
I wasn't sure this was appropriate in the iOS model, but it sounds like it is.
yes, that's fine - there are many appraches you can take. which is 'best' depends on the context.
My current understanding is to launch the UI in one thread (not the main!),
you really don't explicitly launch the UI; the main thread is (generally) driven by pushing events and messages onto the main thread. the main thread uses a run loop and processes the queued messages/events at each iteration of the run loop. you can also schedule these messages in the future (more on that in a bit). having said that, all your messages to UIKit and AppKit (if you target osx) objects should be on the main thread (as a generalization which you will eventually learn there are exceptions to this). if you have a specific implementation which is completely separated from messaging UIKit objects' methods and that program is thread safe, then you can actually perform those messages from any thread because it does not affect the state of the UIKit implementation. simplest example:
#interface MONView : UIView
#end
#implementation MONView
// ...
- (NSString *)iconImageName { return #"tortoise.png"; } // pure and threadsafe
#end
launch my worker thread, use a timer to generate a signal to the UI to take a look at a progress value and update the progress bar appropriately. For the purposes of this particular application your second to last paragraph is ample and I don't need to go to the lengths of the last paragraph (at least for now). Thank you.
to do this, you can use an approach similar to this:
#interface MONView : UIView
{
NSTimer * timer;
MONAsyncWorker * worker; // << this would be your NSOperation subclass, if you use NSOperation.
}
#end
#implementation MONView
// callback for the operation 'worker' when it completes or is cancelled.
- (void)workerWillExit
{
assert([NSThread isMainThread]); // call on main
// end recurring updates
[self.timer invalidate];
self.timer = nil;
// grab what we need from the worker
self.worker = nil;
// update ui
}
// timer callback
- (void)timerUpdateCallback
{
assert([NSThread isMainThread]); // call on main
assert(self.worker);
double progress = self.worker.progress;
[self updateProgressBar:progress];
}
// controller entry to initiate an operation
- (void)beginDownload:(NSURL *)url
{
assert([NSThread isMainThread]); // call on main
assert(nil == worker); // call only once in view's lifetime
// create worker
worker = [[MONAsyncWorker alloc] initWithURL:url];
[self.operationQueue addOperation:worker];
// configure timer
const NSTimeInterval displayUpdateFrequencyInSeconds = 0.200;
timer = [[NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:displayUpdateFrequencyInSeconds target:self selector:#selector(timerUpdateCallback) userInfo:nil repeats:YES] retain];
}
#end
note that this is a very primitive demonstration. it's also more common to put the timer, update handling, and operation in the view's controller, not the view.
Are you doing your UI updates on the main thread? This is very important because UIKit is not thread-safe and using it from a secondary thread can lead to sluggish behavior (or crashes for that matter). You usually should not need to use sleep in your background threads/queues for the UI to remain responsive (unless your UI itself is very CPU-intensive but that doesn't seem to be the case here).
You can check any of your methods that update the UI if they are running on the main thread with something like
NSAssert([NSThread isMainThread], #"UI update not running on main thread");
An easy and lightweight way to synchronize UI updates with the main thread is to use Grand Central Dispatch:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^ {
//do your UI updates here...
});
Here you are my answers to your questions.
1) Since you are an experienced C programmer, you will feel comfortable with Grand Central Dispatch (GCD), a C based API for concurrency.
2) With GCD, you do not need to sleep at all. Simply dispatch asynchronously the work you need to do in a queue using the maximum priority (DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH).
3) When you need to update the UI, simply dispatch on the main queue ( within the same block doing the work, using dispatch_get_main_queue() ) the UI update as needed.
Take a look at the relevant GCD documentation here.
I'd have a model object that does the CPU tasks, which has a delegate callback for when the output changes, and a view controller. In viewDidLoad you set the view controller as the delegate of your model. The model, therefore, can use threads and sends messages back on the main queue, when the calculated data has been updated. Unless your case is specifically complex, is just use Grand Central Dispatch and dispatch_async the intensive task onto another thread.
Certainly, you should not be calling sleepForTimeInterval anywhere to achieve what you want.
I am a seemingly straightforward question that I can't seem to find an answer to (and it is hindering my app).
I have a background thread running a paricular method:
-(void)processImage:(UIImage *)image {
NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
//Process image here in the background here
[pool drain];
}
This much works great, but my question comes when I want to call another method from inside the already-background method. Does this call stay in the background? Do I need to add NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; and [pool drain]; to the new method to make it run in the background as well?
Any advice would be very helpful. I am a bit confused about this.
Many thanks,
Brett
It WILL stay in the background, on the same thread it was called from.
Some threading notes to consider with this:
It may not be obvious, but if you call a timer from the background thread, and the thread exits before the timer is supposed to go off, the timer will NOT be called. Thus it is recommended you setup timers from the main thread
You dont need another autorelease pool unless you spawn another thread.
Any UI updates should be done on the main thread
You don't need to add yet another autorelease pool, the one you already have is enough. And yes, all calls that you make that originate from that thread stay in that thread and thus also run "in the background". Exception would be the use of "performSelectorOnMainThread:", which of course makes the given selector to be performed on the main thread :-) If you want to call GUI methods (like setting the image on an UIImageView) you should make sure to do so on the main thread. See the docs for "performSelectorOnMainThread:waitUntilDone:" (sorry for not giving you you the links, am typing this on my iPad).
I'm new to Objective C, and Mac development... It appears that I can use the Posix threads API in my app.. Is this the recommended way? Or is their some Apple API I should be using for mutexes, condition variables and threads instead?
I should add that I'm developing for the iPhone.
I'd like to add exactly what I'm trying to do. Basically, CoreLocation is asynchronous... You tell it to start updating you, and then it just calls an update method on you periodically...
The problem I have is that I need another thread to block until an update occurs... How can I make the main application thread block until at least one CoreLocation update occurs? Is their an NSConditionVariable? :)
I'd suggest an even easier way to get stuck into threads is to use the following call:
[self performSelectorInBackground:(#selector(myMethod)) withObject:nil];
This will automatically create a new background thread for you to run in. Incidentally make sure you do the following inside your background method:
-(void) myMethod {
NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
// code you want to run in background thread;
[pool drain];
}
This is necessary because there isn't a default autorelease pool set up for any threads except the main one.
Finally, talking about blocking the main thread, you could use the following from your background thread to do this:
[self performSelectorOnMainThread:(#selector(myOtherMethod)) withObject:nil waitUntilDone:YES];
The optional third parameter will hold up the main thread for you if you want it to do so.
Hope that helps!
It depends on what you are trying to do, but I would start with NSOperation and NSOperationQueue. It makes it pretty simple to hand off background tasks. Take a look at Dave Dribin's blog post on NSOperation concurrency as well: http://www.dribin.org/dave/blog/archives/2009/05/05/concurrent_operations/
Instead of blocking the user interface by making it hang, I would suggest showing some kind of loading screen until you've received your first update. The could would look something like this:
- (void)viewDidLoad {
...
[myCLLocationManager beginUpdates];
[self showLoadingIndicator];
....
}
- (void)locationManager:(CLLocationManager *)manager didReceiveUpdates {
[self hideLoadingIndicator];
// Additionally load the rest of your UI here, if you haven't already
}
Don't quote me on those method calls verbatim, but that's how I suggest solving your problem, in essence.
Yes there is an NSCondition object, and it will probably do exactly what you want for the CoreLocation scenario you mentioned.