Hi there
i am wondering what happens, if 2 threads writes to an object at the same time?
Not sure if this should be threads, i have multiple copies of a view, each copy access and writes to a nsuserdefault object.
What happens if two or more copies of the view writes to the same object? is there some kind of locking mechanism?
Thanks
The NSUserDefaults class is thread-safe, see the documentation. So yes, there is probably some kind of locking mechanism inside.
If 2 threads write to the same object or structure without some kind of locking primitive, then very bad things will happen. At best, you'll end up with inconsistent state. At worst, your app will crash. NSUserDefaults is defined to be thread safe, so -- yes -- it is using locking of some kind.
If you have views running in different threads all writing to the same object, that is indicative of a whole different problem. The UIKit isn't completely thread safe. Most UI interaction must be done from the main thread.
The docs have a bunch of information on this.
Related
I suffered all the consequences of using a single MOC in multiple threads - my app crashes at random points because the MOC is created in the main thread and I also use it to fill the DB in another thread.
Though the code is synchronized (#synchronize) using a global singleton the app crashes.
I read that using a separate MOC for each thread will make things ok but I also read that it is considered also a bad approach to share NSManagedObjects across threads.
My use case is the following:
1)I load and parse XML from a server and during the parsing I insert each new NSManagedObject in the database. This all happens in a separate thread.
2)From the main thread the user interacts with the UI which reads data from the database.
In both threads I use NSManagedObjects. How would you suggest me to fix this? I failed multiple times already.
Most often the app creashed with error suggesting that I am modifying a collection while enumerating it which is not true as the code is synchronized and while I am iterating it no modifying happens and vice versa - while I modify it I don't iterate and I save once I am done.
Use one NSManagedObjectContext per thread. If you communicate between threads, pass the NSManagedObjectID, which is thread safe, and fetch the object again from you thread context. In my apps I sometimes even use one context per controller.
To manage the different contexts, register an Observer for the NSManagedObjectContextDidChangeNotification. Within this notification handling, you pass the notification to each of your contexts via the mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification: method. This method is thread save and makes the context update its state.
After this you have to refresh your views. If you have a table view based application, have a look at NSFetchedResultsController. This helps you update the table automatically with appropriate animations. If you don't use table views, you have to implement the UI update yourself.
If you are only supporting iOS 5 and above you don't need to deal with NSManagedObjectID and merging contexts anymore. You can use the new concurrency types of NSManagedObjectContext instead. Then do your operations within managedObjectContext:performBlock and they will be merged automatically.
See the answer from svena here for more information:
Core Data and Concurrency using NSOperationQueues
I am facing a design problem of my app.
Basically, the followings are what I am going to do in my app.
A single task is like this:
Read custom object from the underlying CoreData databse
Download a json from a url
Parse the json to update the custom object or create a new one (parsing may take 1 - 3 secs, big data)
Analyse the custom object (some calculations will be involved, may take 1 - 5 sec)
Save the custom object into CoreData database.
There may be a number of tasks being executed concurrently.
The steps within one task obviously are ordered (i.e., without step 2 downloading the json, step 3 cannot continue), but they also can be discrete. I mean, for example, task2's step 4 can be executed before task1's step 3 (if maybe task2's downloading is faster than task1's)
Tasks have priorities. User can start a task with higher priority so all the task's steps will be tried to be executed before all others.
I hope the UI can be responsive as much as possible.
So I was going to creating a NSThread with lowest priority.
I put a custom priority event queue in that thread. Every step of a task becomes an event (work unit). So, for example, step 1 downloading a json becomes an event. After downloading, the event generates another event for step 3 and be put into the queue. every event has its own priority set.
Now I see this article: Concurrency and Application Design. Apple suggests that we Move Away from Threads and use GCD or NSOperation.
I find that NSOperation match my draft design very much. But I have following questions:
In consideration of iPhone/iPad cpu cores, should I just use one NSOperationQueue or create multiple ones?
Will the NSOperationQueue or NSOperation be executed with lowest thread priority? Will the execution affect the UI response (I care because the steps involve computations)?
Can I generate a NSOpeartion from another one and put it to the queue? I don't see a queue property in NSOperation, how do I know the queue?
How do I cooperate NSOperationQueue with CoreData? Each time I access the CoreData, should I create a new context? Will that be expensive?
Each step of a task become a NSOperation, is this design correct?
Thanks
In consideration of iPhone/iPad cpu cores, should I just use one NSOperationQueue or create multiple ones?
Two (CPU, Network+I/O) or Three (CPU, Network, I/O) serial queues should work well for most cases, to keep the app responsive and your programs streaming work by what they are bound to. Of course, you may find another combination/formula works for your particular distribution of work.
Will the NSOperationQueue or NSOperation be executed with lowest thread priority? Will the execution affect the UI response (I care because the steps involve computations)?
Not by default. see -[NSOperation setThreadPriority:] if you want to reduce the priority.
Can I generate a NSOpeartion from another one and put it to the queue? I don't see a queue property in NSOperation, how do I know the queue?
Sure. If you use the serial approach I outlined, locating the correct queue is easy enough -- or you could use an ivar.
How do I cooperate NSOperationQueue with CoreData? Each time I access the CoreData, should I create a new context? Will that be expensive?
(no comment)
Each step of a task become a NSOperation, is this design correct?
Yes - dividing your queues to the resource it is bound to is a good idea.
By the looks, NSOperationQueue is what you're after. You can set the number of concurrent operations to be run at the same time. If using multiple NSOperation, they will all run at the same time ... unless you handle a queue on your own, which will be the same as using NSOperationQueue
Thread priority ... I'm not sure what you mean, but in iOS, the UI drawing, events and user interaction are all run on the main thread. If you are running things on the background thread, the interface will still be responsive, no matter how complicated or cpu-heavy operations you are running
Generating and handling of operations you should do it on the main thread, as it won't take any time, you just run them in a background thread so that your main thread doesn't get locked
CoreData, I haven't worked much with it specifically, but so far every Core~ I've worked with it works perfectly on background threads, so it shouldn't be a problem
As far as design goes, it's just a point of view ... As for me, I would've gone with having one NSOperation per task, and have it handle all the steps. Maybe write callbacks whenever a step is finished if you want to give some feedback or continue with another download or something
The affection of computation when multithreading is not going to be different just because you are using NSThread instead of NSOperation. However keep in mind that must current iOS devices are using dual core processors.
Some of the questions you have are not very specific. You may or may not want to use multiple NSOperationQueue. It all depends on how you want to approach it. if you have different NSOperation subclasses, or different NSBlockOperations, you can manage order of execution by using priorities, or you might want to have different queues for different types of operations (especially when working with serial queues). I personally prefer to use 1 operation queue when dealing with the same type of operation, and have a different operation queue when the operations are not related/dependable. This gives me the flexibility to cancel and stop the operations within a queue based on something happening (network dropping, app going to the background).
I have never found a good reason to add an operation based on something happening during the execution of a current operation. Should you need to do so, you can use NSOperationQueue's class method, currentQueue, which will give you the operation queue in which the current operation is operating.
If you are doing core data work using NSOperation, i would recommend to create a context for each particular operation. Make sure to initialize the context inside the main method, since this is where you are on the right thread of the NSOperation background execution.
You do not necessarily need to have one NSOperation object for each task. You can download the data and parse it inside the NSOperation. You can also do the data download abstractly and do the data manipulation of the content downloaded using the completion block property of NSOperation. This will allow you to use the same object to get the data, but have different data manipulation.
My recommendation would be to read the documentation for NSOperation, NSBlockOperation and NSOperationQueue. Check your current design to see how you can adapt these classes with your current project. I strongly suggest you to go the route of the NSOperation family instead of the NSThread family.
Good luck.
Just to add to #justin's answer
How do I cooperate NSOperationQueue with CoreData? Each time I access
the CoreData, should I create a new context? Will that be expensive?
You should be really careful when using NSOperation with Core Data.
What you always have to remember here is that if you want to run CoreData operations on a separate thread you have to create a new NSManagedObjectContext for that thread, and share the main's Managed Object Context persistant store coordinator (the "main" MOC is the one in the app delegate).
Also, it's very important that the new Managed Object Context for that thread is create from that thread.
So if you plan to use Core Data with NSOperation make sure you initialize the new MOC in NSOperation's main method instead of init.
Here's a really good article about Core Data and threading
Use GCD - its a much better framework than NS*
Keep all your CoreData access on one queue and dispatch_async at the end of your routines to save back to your CoreData database.
If you have a developer account, check this WWDC video out: https://developer.apple.com/videos/wwdc/2012/?id=712
So, there have been several posts here about importing and saving data from an external data source into Core Data. Apple documents a reasonable pattern for this: "import and save on background thread, merge saved objects to main thread." All fine and good.
I have a related but different problem: the user is modifying data in the UI and main thread, and thus modifies state of some objects in the managed object context (MOC). I would like to save these changes from time to time. What is a good way to do that?
Now, you could say that I could do the same: create a background thread with its own MOC and pass the changed objectID-s there. The catch-22 for me with this is that an object's ID changes when it is saved, and I cannot guarantee the order of things happening. I may end up passing a different objectID into the background thread for the same object, based on whether the object has been previously saved or not, and I don't know if Core Data can resolve this and see that different objectID-s are pointing to the same object and not create duplicates for me. (I could test this, but I'm lazywebbing with this question first.)
One thought I had: I could always do MOC saves on a background thread, and queue them up with operationqueue, so that there is always only one save in progress. I would not create a new MOC, I would just use the same MOC as in main thread. Now, this is not thread safe and when someone modifies the MOC in main thread while it is being saved in background thread, the results will probably be catastrophic. But, minus the thread safety, you can see what kind of solution I'd wish for.
To be clear, the problem I need to fix is that if I just do the save in main thread, it blocks the UI for an unacceptably long period of time, I want to move the save to background thread.
So, questions:
what about the reasoning of an object ID changing during saving, and Core Data being able to resolve them to the same object? Would this be the right way of addressing this problem?
any other good ways of doing this?
Simply put, you can't move the save to the background thread. Changes are relative to the NSManagedObjectContext and therefore are invisible to a NSManagedObjectContext on another thread.
I would suggest profiling your saves to find out why they are taking so long. Perhaps make them more frequently or find out what else might be causing the performance issue.
You are using a SQLite store right?
UPDATE
If you are using Binary it is definitely going to be an issue as I believe I mentioned to you before. Binary must be loaded 100% into memory and therefore must also be written 100% out to disk.
It may not solve all of your troubles, but there is a method -[NSManagedObjectContext obtainPermanentIDsForObjects:error:] that you can use to obtain the permanent ID for a managed object prior to saving it to the store. So that should be helpful in any synchronization you end up doing.
I have been using the AddressBook api of the iPhone for some time now. But doing some refactoring to improve application performance I have decided to "reuse" the ABAddressBookRef returned by AddressBookCreate because I noticed there are large performance improvements doing that. However, I am getting EXEC_BAD_ACCESS errors now randomly, and I think the reason is in this "caveat" in the iPhone reference implementation: http://developer.apple.com/iphone/library/documentation/ContactData/Conceptual/AddressBookProgrammingGuideforiPhone/300-BasicObjects/BasicObjects.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40007744-CH3-SW1
Important: Instances of ABAddressBookRef cannot be used by multiple threads. Each thread must make its own instance by calling ABAddressBookCreate.
Now, I thought that simply meant it was not thread-safe so I had to synchronise access to the API, but maybe I am wrong, and there is some other reasons multiple threads mess up the data structure?
Can someone confirm if it is indeed a thread-safe issue (so #synchronize should work) or some other issue?
Cheers
This is not a thread safety issue... there is no way for you to solve it with locks. The comment makes it pretty clear:
Important: Instances of ABAddressBookRef cannot be used by
multiple threads. Each thread must
make its own instance by calling
ABAddressBookCreate.
What you can do is create a single instance of the ABAddressBook and create a producer/consumer architecture that would manage the access to the object.
The wrapper will have a main thread which does one thing only: reads operation requests from a blocking queue, then performs the operations on the address book. All your threads will queue their operations to the single queue and the wrapper will execute those actions; if there is nothing in the queue then the wrapper will block until there is something in the queue.
This should solve the problem of not being allowed to use the ABAddressBookRef from multiple threads.
I am sold on KVO but if used in the obvious way it is synchronous. I would like to use it in a situation where I am firing off many KVO messages in rapid succession and it is causing my app to grind to a halt as the KVO messages are handled. Can someone suggest an approach - perhaps using NSOperation or NSThread - that will work here?
My goal is to retain the decoupled, flexibility of KVO if possible.
KVO is inherently single threaded in that the KVO notifications will be delivered on the same thread as the change.
Of course, UIKit and Cocoa both really only want you to be diddling UI elements on the main thread.
Thus, if you are doing asynchronous operations, you are most likely using threads and, if so, already have a synchronization issue in that you need to get the notifs from some thread to the main thread.
And therein lies the key. Instead of blindly forwarding each change notification as it comes in, you can coalesce the change notifications before passing them on to the main thread.
There are a variety of means via which you can do this. The specific solution is going to be quite unique to your application, most likely.
Personally, I try to avoid coalesce-and-forward of fine grained operations. I find it far simpler to tell the main thread that a particular sub-graph of objects have changed. More likely than not, the drawing code that will then make the changes visible to the user is going to need to redraw related state and, thus, related changes will be automatically reflected.
The key, as you have surmised, is to throttle the notifications so you don't bog down app responsiveness (or destroy the devices battery life).
Use the Receptionist Pattern as recommended by Apple https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/general/conceptual/CocoaEncyclopedia/ReceptionistPattern/ReceptionistPattern.html
Check out NSNotification. It's not quite the same thing, but you can fire off notifications on background threads (with a little bit of research and work). You can maintain the nice decoupling and fire-and-forget behavior.