Does async operation in iOS, internally create a new thread, and allocate task to it ?
An async operation is capable to internally create a new thread and allocate task to it. But in order for this to happen you need to run an async operation which creates a new thread and allocates task to it. Or in other words: There is no direct correlation.
I assume that by async you mean something like DispatchQueue.main.async { <#code here#> }. This does not create a new thread as main thread should already be present. How and why does this work can be (if oversimplified) explained with an array of operations and an endless loop which is basically what RunLoop is there for. Imagine the following:
Array<Operations> allOperations;
int main() {
bool continueRunning = true;
for(;continueRunning;) {
allOperations.forEach { $0.run(); }
allOperations.clear();
}
return 0;
}
And when you call something like DispatchQueue.main.async it basically creates a new operation and inserts it into allOperations. The same thread will eventually go into a new loop (within for-loop) and call your operation asynchronously. Again keep in mind that this is all over-simplified just to illustrate the idea behind all of it. You can from this also imagine how for instance timers work; the operation will evaluate if current time is greater then the one of next scheduled execution and if so it will trigger the operation on timer. That is also why timers can not be very precise since they depend on rest of execution and thread may be busy.
A new thread on the other hand may be spawned when you create a new queue DispatchQueue(label: "Will most likely run on a new thread"). When(if) exactly will a thread be made is not something that needs to be fixed. It may vary from implementations and systems being run on. The tool will only guarantee to perform what it is designed for but not how it will do it.
And then there is also Thread class which can generate a new thread. But the deal is same as for previous one; it might internally instantly create a new thread or it might do it later, lazily. All it guarantees is that it will work for it's public interface.
I am not saying that these things change over time, implementation or system they run on. I am only saying that they potentially could and they might have had.
Related
For the purposes of this question, assume that I need to run some function on some object and that function will take a long time to execute (minutes). Also assume that I have no control over this function (*). How do I now cancel this function's execution?
I want to run it in a background thread to keep the main thread free and I could do that with GCD, NSOperation or NSThread. However, as far as I know, none of these support forced stopping. They can all be cancelled, but this cancellation must be implemented in the function itself - but I don't have access to that function, so I can't do that. The closest I got was using NSThread and exit(), but unfortunately it can't be applied to a instance variable (see the code example). My current plan is to try to send a notification and observe that within the object/function and kill the thread from within using Thread.exit(). I'm justing wondering if there is a "cleaner" or easier way, either built-in or 3rd party.
let someObject = Object()
// Using GCD
dispatchQueue.async { someObject.expensiveFunction() }
// Using NSOperation
operationQueue.addOperation { someObject.expensiveFunction() }
// Using NSThread
let thread = Thread { someObject.expensiveFunction() }
thread.exit() // exit is not available on an instance
(*) In this case I do have control over the function and could implement an actual cancellation, but due to the libraries I'm using, this would require a lot of refactoring.
I want to know As we all know how asynchronous task are necessary for concurrency but Wanted to know why we need the synchronous tasks. while we can achieve the same with the normal usage of function.
Thanks & regards
Rohit
When you calls something synchronously, it means that 'the thread that initiated that operation will wait for the task to finish before
continuing'. Asynchronous means that it will not wait for finish the task.
synchronous calls stops your current action and returns when the call returned. with asynchronous calls you can continue.
synchronous is the opposite of asynchronous code, and therefore is ordinary code.
At the end, if asynchronous is totally out of scope then you will not emphasize the word synchronous.
It helps to synchronise threads, as the name suggests.
consider a typical usage of GCD async and sync (pseudo)
async background_thread {
//1 call webservice or other long task that would block the main thread
sync main_thread {
//2 update UI with results from 1
}
//3 do something else that relies on 2
}
now if 2 was in an async and you needed to do something at 3 that relies on the updates at 2 to have happened, then you are not guaranteed (and most likely wont) get the behaviour you are expecting. instead, you use a sync to make sure that the task is completed before continuing the execution in the background thread.
If you are asking now, why not just take out the sync/async around 2 so it executes in order anyway? the problem is, the UI must not be updated on a background thread otherwise the behaviour is undefined (which usually means the UI lags a lot). So in essence what happens is the background thread waits at 2's sync until the main thread gets round to executing that block, then it will continue with the rest of the execution on the background thread.
If you were dealing with a task that doesnt require the main thread (or some other thread) to execute properly, then yes you may as well take out the sync at 2.
This is just one example of how a sync is useful, there are others if you are doing advanced threading in your app.
Hope this helps
Typically it's because you want to do an operation on a specific different thread but you need the result of that operation. You cannot do the operation asynchronously because your code will proceed before the operation on the other thread completes.
Apple has a very nice example:
func asset() -> AVAsset? {
var theAsset : AVAsset!
self.assetQueue.sync {
theAsset = self.getAssetInternal().copy() as! AVAsset
}
return theAsset
}
Any thread might call the asset method; but to avoid problems with shared data, we require that only functions that are executed from a particular queue (self.assetQueue) may touch an AVAsset, so when we call getAssetInternal we do it on self.assetQueue. But we also need the result returned by our call to getAssetInternal; hence the call to sync rather than async.
I've inherited a codebase that's using the following structure for threading:
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), { () -> Void in
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0), { () -> Void in
//Several AFNetworking Server calls...
})
})
I'm not very experienced with threading, so I'm trying to figure out what the possible intention behind this structure. Why grab the main queue only to access another queue immediately? Is this a common practice? For a little more context, this code is executed in an UIApplicationDidBecomeActiveNotification notification, making several necessary service calls.
Is this structure safe? Essentially my goal is to make the service calls without blocking the UI. Any help or input is appreciated.
So I think this is an interesting few lines that somebody decided to write, so let's break down what's happening here (I may be breaking things down too much, sorry in advance, it just helps my own train of thought)
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), dispatch_block_t block)
This will put the block as a task on the main queue (which you the code is already running in), then immediately continue executing the code in the rest of the method (If he had wanted to wait for the block task to finish before continuing, he'd have made a dispatch_sync call instead).
The main queue is serial, so it will perform these tasks exactly in this order:
go ahead and execute the block after the end of the current method (the end of the run loop for the current task)
execute any other tasks that may have been asynchronously added to the main queue before you dispatch_async your block task into the queue
execute the block task
Now block just dispatches another task to the high priority global queue.
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0), block2)
The DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH is a concurrent queue-- so if you were to dispatch multiple tasks to this queue, it could potentially do them in parallel, depending on several system factors.
Your old co-worker wanted to make sure the networking calls in block2 were done ASAP
Because block is calling dispatch_async (which returns immediately), block task finishes, allowing the main queue to execute the next task in the queue.
The net result so far is that block2 is queued into the high priority global queue. After it executes, and your network calls complete, callback methods will be called and yadayada
...So what is the order of what's happening?
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), { () -> Void in
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0), { () -> Void in
//Several AFNetworking Server calls...
})
})
//moreCode
1) moreCode executes
2) block executes (adds block2 with network calls onto global queue)
3/4) Next task in main queue executes
4/3) Network task in global queue executes
The order of which would happen first may vary between 3 and 4, but that's concurrency for you :)
So unless old coworker wanted moreCode to execute first before adding the network calls to a global queue, you can go ahead and remove that initial dispatch_async into the main queue.
Assuming it looks like they wanted the network calls done ASAP, there probably is no reason to delay the addition of those networking tasks into a global queue.
Open to any input ^^. My experience involves reading all of the documentation on GCD today, then deciding to look at some GCD tagged questions
I have a specific task routine which performs some operations in a specific order, and these operations handle few volatile variables. There is a specific interrupt which updates these volatile variables asynchronously. Hence, the task routine should restart if such an interrupt occurs. Normally FreeRTOS will resume the task, but this will result in wrong derived values, hence the requirement for restarting the routine. I also cannot keep the task routine under critical section, because I should not be missing any interrupts.
Is there a way in FreeRTOS with which I can achieve this? Like a vtaskRestart API. I could have deleted the task and re-created it, but this adds a lot of memory management complications, which I would like to avoid. Currently my only option is to add checks in the routine on a flag to see if a context switch have occured and if yes, restart, else continue.
Googling did not fetch any clue on this. Seems like people never faced such a problem or may be its that this design is poor. In FreeRTOS forum, few who asked for a task-restart didn't seem to have this same problem. stackOverflow didn't have a result on freertos + task + restart. So, this could be the first post with this tag combination ;)
Can someone please tell me if this is directly possible in FreeRTOS?
You can use semaphore for this purpose. If you decide using semaphore, you should do the steps below.
Firstly, you should create a binary semaphore.
The semaphore must be given in the interrupt routine with
xSemaphoreGiveFromISR( Example_xSemaphore, &xHigherPriorityTaskWoken
);
And, you must check taking semaphore in the task.
void vExample_Task( void * pvParameters )
{
for( ;; )
{
if (xSemaphoreTake( Example_xSemaphore, Example_PROCESS_TIME)==pdTRUE)
{
}
}
}
For this purpose you should use a queue and use the queue peek function to yield at your volatile data.
I'm using it as I have a real time timer and this way I make the time available to all my task, without any blocking.
Here it how it goes:
Declare the queue:
xQueueHandle RTC_Time_Queue;
Create the queue of 1 element:
RTC_Time_Queue = xQueueCreate( 1, sizeof(your volatile struct) );
Overwrite the queue everytime your interrupt occurs:
xQueueOverwriteFromISR(RTC_Time_Queue, (void*) &time);
And from other task peek the queue:
xQueuePeek(RTC_GetReadQueue(), (void*) &TheTime, 0);
The 0 at the end of xQueuePeek means you don't want to wait if the queue is empty. The queue peek won't delete the value in the queue so it will be present every time you peek and the code will never stop.
Also you should avoid having variable being accessed from ISR and the RTOS code as you may get unexpected corruption.
I've seen 2 flavors of working with asyncronous operations in mvc controllers.
First:
public void GetNewsAsync()
{
AsyncManager.OutstandingOperations.Increment();
using (ManualResetEvent mre = new ManualResetEvent(false))
{
//Perform the actual operation in a worker thread
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((object _mre) =>
{
//do some work in GetFeed that takes a long time
var feed = GetFeed();
AsyncManager.Parameters["Feed"] = feed;
AsyncManager.OutstandingOperations.Decrement();
mre.Set();
}, mre);
//Wait for the worker thread to finish
mre.WaitOne(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(SomeNumberOfSecondsToWait));
}
}
Second:
public void GetNewsAsync()
{
AsyncManager.OutstandingOperations.Increment();
//Perform the actual operation in a worker thread
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((object x) =>
{
//do some work in GetFeed that takes a long time
var feed = GetFeed();
AsyncManager.Parameters["Feed"] = feed;
AsyncManager.OutstandingOperations.Decrement();
}, null);
}
The first blocks GetNewsAsync for SomeNumberOfSecondsToWait, the second does not. Both perform the work inside a of a worker thread and the results passed to GetNewsCompleted.
So my question is, which is the correct way to handle an Ajax call to GetNews; Wait, or don't wait?
I don't know where did you see the first example but that's a total anti-pattern that completely defeats the purpose of an asynchronous controller. The whole point of an asynchronous operation is to execute asynchronously and free the main thread as fast as possible.
This being said if GetFeed is a blocking call (which is what its name supposes it is) you get strictly 0 benefit from an asyncrhonous controller so the second example is also wrong for me. You could use a standard synchronous controller action in this case. With the second example you draw a thread from the pool and instead of blocking inside the main thread you block inside the other thread so the net effect is almost the same (in reality it's worse) if you had used a standard synchronous controller action.
So both those examples will bring more overhead than any benefit.
Where asynchronous controllers are useful is when you have some I/O intensive API such as a database or web service call where you could take advantage of IO Completion Ports. The following article provides a good example of this scenario. The newsService used there is providing real asynchronous methods and there is no blocking during the I/O network call. No worker thread being jeopardized.
I would also recommend you reading the following article. Even if it is for classic WebForms it still contains some very useful information.