This might sound quite basic and stupid but it has been bothering me for a while. How can print be classified in terms of operation - main or background ?
As a small test, on putting print in a background task - web service call :
Webservice().loadHeadlinesForSource(source: source) { headlines in
print("background print")
self.headlineViewModels = headlines.map(HeadlineViewModel.init)
DispatchQueue.main.async {
print("main thread print")
completion()
}
}
Both the print statements get printed. From previous experience, if print was a main thread task, Xcode would have given me a warning saying that I need to put that in main thread. This is an evidence that print is not a main thread operation. Note that I am not saying print is a background task.
However, I have this understanding that since print displays output on Console, it is not a background operation. As a matter of fact all logging operations are not.
How would one justify the classification ?
It seems what you consider to be a main thread operation is a call that needs to be performed on the main thread. From that perspective you are correct and have found an evidence of this call not being a main thread operation.
But does this have anything to do with anything else? Internally if needed this method may still execute its real operation on the main thread or any other thread for what we care. So in this sense a main thread operation is a restriction that call needs to be performed on main thread but has nothing to do with its execution or multithreading.
Without looking into what print does in terms of coding we can see that it works across multiple "computers". You can run your app on your device (iPhone) while plugged and Xcode on your computer will print out logs. This makes a suspicion that print is much like call to the remote server in which case the server is responsible for serializing the events so it makes no difference what thread the client is on. There are other possibilities such as dropping logs into file and then sending it which really makes little difference.
So How can print be classified in terms of operation - main or background? The answer is probably none. The call is not restricted to any thread so it is not main. It will probably lock whatever thread it is on until the operation is complete so it is not background either. Think of it like Data(contentsOf: <#T##URL#>) which will block the thread until data from given URL is retrieved (or exception is thrown).
Related
so i know we should never call dispatch_sync on main queue, as its a serial queue.
so the below code will crash in xcode:
DispatchQueue.main.sync {
print("hello world")
}
but i am not able to understand 100% why it is going to crash or deadlock ?
can someone explain with some drawing because i don't have 100% proof explanation that why it is going to crash or deadlock.
i know main queue is serial queue. so it executes tasks one by one. suppose we have task A running on main queue and if i add another taskB on main queue then task B only starts after taskA finishes.
and i also know that main queue should only perform UI specific tasks.
but its just i don't have 100% proof explanation of why above code will crash / deadlock.
can someone explain with some kind of simple drawing.
i know main queue is serial queue. so it executes tasks one by one. suppose we have task A running on main queue and if i add another taskB on main queue then task B only starts after taskA finishes.
Correct
and i also know that main queue should only perform UI specific tasks.
Not correct. The UI must only be updated on the main queue but you can do whatever you want on the main queue. You can handle data on the main queue if it fits that particular application. If you're handling a lot of data and don't want to freeze the UI, then you would want to get off the main queue.
but its just i don't have 100% proof explanation of why above code will crash / deadlock.
// doing work...
DispatchQueue.main.sync { // stop the main thread and wait for the following to finish
print("hello world") // this will never execute on the main thread because we just stopped it
}
// deadlock
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.
Periodically in my app, I need to perform large writes to Realm, anywhere between 100 to 10,000 objects. Obviously this is a large write, so I'm attempting to perform this write in the background so that the user can perform other operations and not even notice the write. Unfortunately, even though I thought my write was being performed on a background thread, the main UI still gets blocked. Here is the jist of the method that I call to perform the writes to realm. This method is called repeatedly on single objects from an array I'm looping through. Does it look like I'm doing anything blatantly wrong? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
func writeCustomerToRealm(inputCustomer:Customer) {
let qualityOfServiceClass = QOS_CLASS_BACKGROUND
let backgroundQueue = dispatch_get_global_queue(qualityOfServiceClass, 0)
dispatch_async(backgroundQueue, {
let realm = try! Realm()
realm.beginWrite()
realm.add(self.swapCustomerForRealmCustomer(inputCustomer))
try! realm.commitWrite()
})
}
Your provided code is the correct way to perform an asynchronous, background write using Realm. It should not block the main thread unless the main thread itself attempts to perform a write transaction while the background write is in progress.
The instruments trace you shared indicates that the majority of the non-idle time spent on the main thread is spent processing web socket messages. There's no indication of any work related to Realm occurring on the main thread. The web socket message processing on the main thread accounts for 45% of the total time period of the trace, and is likely the cause of the blocked UI you're experiencing. The majority of the web socket processing time is spent performing work related to NSDateFormatter. In particular, the NSDateFormatter appears to be frequently regenerating its underlying CFDateFormatter. This suggests that properties of the NSDateFormatter are being frequently updated, or that new NSDateFormatter instances are being used for each call. Both of those practices should be avoided.
I have this piece of code:
[[FBController sharedController] getUserDetailsWithCompletionBlock:^(NSDictionary *details)
{
// Updating UI elements
}];
I don't understand a thing: when the block is fired, the secondary thread is still running. Isn't it more correct that the completion of a block should be executed on main thread automatically?
I know that I am wrong with something and I need a couple of explanations.
The Facebook SDK documentation should give you more details, but in general a well-behaved SDK would call completion blocks on the same thread that the SDK was called from. Any long-running or asynchronous operations that the SDK may perform should operate on a separate thread, usually only visible to the SDK. Whether or not that separate thread is still running or not, is an implementation detail of the SDK - and you shouldn't care about it from the client code perspective.
You can visualise it like this:
Client Code (Main Thread) : [Request]--[Response]-[Continue Thread]-------[Completion Block]
v ^ ^
SDK Code (Main Thread) : [Immediate Operations] |
v |
SDK Code (Private Thread) : [Long Running / Asynchronous Operations]----[Finished]
In the specific example you posted, there's no 'Response' from the getUserDetailsWithCompletionBlock method, so the thread carries on as usual.
The missing piece to the jigsaw puzzle might be - "How does my completion block get executed on the main thread". Essentially this comes down to the Runloop system. Your main thread isn't actually owned and operated by your code, it's behind the scenes. There's a Main Runloop which periodically looks for things to do. When there's something to do, it operates those somethings on the main thread sequentially. When those somethings have finished, it goes back to looking for something else to do. The SDK basically adds your completion block to the main runloop, so the next time it fires, your block is there waiting to be executed.
Other things that the runloop might be doing are:
UI Updates
Delegate callbacks from UI code
Handling Timers
Touch Handling
etc... etc...
When pthread_exit(PTHREAD_CANCELED) is called I have expected behavior (stack unwinding, destructors calls) but the call to pthread_cancel(pthread_self()) just terminated the thread.
Why pthread_exit(PTHREAD_CANCELED) and pthread_cancel(pthread_self()) differ significantly and the thread memory is not released in the later case?
The background is as follows:
The calls are made from a signal handler and reasoning behind this strange approach is to cancel a thread waiting for the external library semop() to complete (looping around on EINTR I suppose)
I have noticed that calling pthread_cancel from other thread does not work (as if semop was not a cancellation point) but signalling the thread and then calling pthread_exit works but calls the destructor within a signal handler.
pthread_cancel could postpone the action to the next cancellation point.
In terms of thread specific clean-up behaviour there should be no difference between cancelling a thread via pthread_cancel() and exiting a thread via pthread_exit().
POSIX says:
[...] When the cancellation is acted on, the cancellation clean-up handlers for thread shall be called. When the last cancellation clean-up handler returns, the thread-specific data destructor functions shall be called for thread. When the last destructor function returns, thread shall be terminated.
From Linux's man pthread_cancel:
When a cancellation requested is acted on, the following steps occur for thread (in this order):
Cancellation clean-up handlers are popped (in the reverse of the order in which they were pushed) and called. (See pthread_cleanup_push(3).)
Thread-specific data destructors are called, in an unspecified order. (See pthread_key_create(3).)
The thread is terminated. (See pthread_exit(3).)
Referring the strategy to introduce a cancellation point by signalling a thread, I have my doubts this were the cleanest way.
As many system calls return on receiving a signal while setting errno to EINTR, it would be easy to catch this case and simply let the thread end itself cleanly under this condition via pthread_exit().
Some pseudo code:
while (some condition)
{
if (-1 == semop(...))
{ /* getting here on error or signal reception */
if (EINTR == errno)
{ /* getting here on signal reception */
pthread_exit(...);
}
}
}
Turned out that there is no difference.
However some interesting side effects took place.
Operations on std::iostream especially cerr/cout include cancellation points. When the underlying operation is canceled the stream is marked as not good. So you will get no output from any other thread if only one has discovered cancellation on an attempt to print.
So play with pthread_setcancelstate() and pthread_testcancel() or just call cerr.clear() when needed.
Applies to C++ streams only, stderr,stdin seems not be affected.
First of all, there are two things associated to thread which will tell what to do when you call pthread_cancel().
1. pthread_setcancelstate
2. pthread_setcanceltype
first function will tell whether that particular thread can be cancelled or not, and the second function tells when and how that thread should be cancelled, for example, should that thread be terminated as soon as you send cancellation request or it need to wait till that thread reaches some milestone before getting terminated.
when you call pthread_cancel(), thread wont be terminated directly, above two actions will be performed, i.e., checking whether that thread can be cancelled or not, and if yes, when to cancel.
if you disable cancel state, then pthread_cancel() can't terminate that thread, but the cancellation request will stay in a queue waiting for that thread to become cancellable, i.e., at some point of time if you are enabling cancel state, then your cancel request will start working on terminating that thread
whereas if you use pthread_exit(), then the thread will be terminated irrespective to the cancel state and cancel type of that particular thread.
*this is one of the differences between pthread_exit() and pthread_cancel(), there can be few more.