To create detachable Posix thread there is two solutions :
pthread_attr_t ThreadAttr; pthread_attr_init(&ThreadAttr); pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&ThreadAttr, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED); pthread_create(...); pthread_attr_destroy(&ThreadAttr)
pthread_detach(...)
Whatis the Pro & Con of each solutions?
The syntax for pthread_detach is simpler. The approach based on thread attributes gives the implementation an opportunity to optimize the creation of the new thread because it does not have to support future calls of pthread_detach or pthread_join on the thread.
Furthermore, according to POSIX, setting the detachstate attribute to PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED is the only way to create a non-joinable thread, and pthread_detach does not turn a joinable thread into a non-joinable thread. But glibc gets this wrong, so it might not matter to you.
Related
I don't understand the workings of a DispatchQueue and wanted to learn more about how they implement the foundational queueing theory requirements. I tried to inspect a queue using:
dump(DispatchQueue.global())
And this gave this output:
- <OS_dispatch_queue_global: com.apple.root.default-qos[0x10c041f00] = { xref = -2147483648, ref = -2147483648, sref = 1, target = [0x0], width = 0xfff, state = 0x0060000000000000, in-barrier}> #0
- super: OS_dispatch_queue
- super: OS_dispatch_object
- super: OS_object
- super: NSObject
I got that the label is com.apple.root.default-qos, and this is specified in the Apple docs and the class is the packaged OS_dispatch_queue_global. I understand qos is queryable on the queue itself and that makes sense as well. Width I think just means the allocated memory size.
What I don't understand are the relevances of xref, ref and sref, I think they are internal ids for the queues but I am not sure. I think they are related to fundamental queueing concepts (multithreading came to mind) but would be great to hone into this in more detail.
Is the autoreleaseFrequency hidden from this debug description? Also, what does in-barrier = 0 mean? I tried creating a custom queue and this was replaced by in-flight = 0.. so confused about that as well.
Any ideas on how these undocumented variables relate to queueing theory? I think these are undocumented internals of the API, so any educated and justified explanations would be fine!
Thanks.
Why ask this?
This is a fairly broad question about the internals of grand-central-dispatch. I had difficulty understanding the dumped output because the original WWDC '10 videos and slides for GCD are no longer public. I also didn't know about the open-source libdispatch repo (thanks Rob). That needn't be a problem, but there are no related QAs on SO explaining the topic in detail.
Why GCD?
According to the WWDC '10 GCD transcripts (Thanks Rob), the main idea behind the API was to simplify the boilerplate associated with using the #selector API for multithreading.
Benefits of GCD
Apple released a new block-based API instead of going with function pointers, to also enable type-safe code that wouldn't crash if the block had the wrong type signature. Using typedefs also made code cleaner when used in function parameters, local variables and #property declarations. Queues allow you to capture code and some state as a chunk of data that get managed, enqueued and executed automatically behind the scenes.
The same session mentions how GCD manages low-level threads under the hood. It enqueues blocks to execute on threads when they need to be executed and then releases those threads (PThreads to be precise) when they are no longer referenced. GCD manages threads automatically and doesn't expose this API - when a DispatchWorkItem is dequeued GCD creates a thread for this block to execute on.
Drawbacks of performSelector
performSelector:onThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: has numerous drawbacks that suggest poor design for the modern challenges of concurrency, waiting, synchronisation. leads to pyramids of doom when switching threads in a func. Furthermore, the NSObject.performSelector family of threading methods are inflexible and limited:
No options to optimise for concurrent, initially inactive, or synchronisation on a particular thread. Unlike GCD.
Only selectors can be dispatched on to new threads (awful).
Lots of threads for a given function leads to messy code (pyramids of doom).
No support for queueing without a limited (at the time when GCD was announced in iOS 4) NSOperation API. NSOperations are a high-level, verbose API that became more powerful after incorporating elements of dispatch (low-level API that became GCD) in iOS 4.
Lots of bugs related to unhandled invalid Selector errors (type safety).
DispatchQueue internals
I believe the xref, ref and sref are internal registers that manage reference counts for automatic reference counting. GCD calls dispatch_retain and dispatch_release in most cases when needed, so we don't need to worry about releasing a queue after all its blocks have been executed. However, there were cases when a developer could call retain and release manually when trying to ensure the queue is retained even when not directly in use. These registers allow libDispatch to crash when release is called on a queue with a positive reference count, for better error handling.
When calling a block with DispatchQueue.global().async or similar, I believe this increments the reference count of that queue (xref and ref).
The variables in the question are not documented explicitly, but from what I can tell:
xref counts the number of external references to a general DispatchQueue.
ref counts the total number of references to a general DispatchQueue.
sref counts the number of references to API serial/concurrent/runloop queues, sources and mach channels (these need to be tracked differently as they are represented using different types).
in-barrier looks like an internal state flag (DispatchWorkItemFlag) to track whether new work items submitted to a concurrent queue should be scheduled or not. Only once the barrier work item finishes, the queue returns to scheduling work items that were submitted after the barrier. in-flight means that there is no barrier in force currently.
state is also not documented explicitly but I presume points to memory where the block can access variables from the scope where the block was scheduled.
I just created a singleton method, and I would like to know what the function #synchronized() does, as I use it frequently, but do not know the meaning.
It declares a critical section around the code block. In multithreaded code, #synchronized guarantees that only one thread can be executing that code in the block at any given time.
If you aren't aware of what it does, then your application probably isn't multithreaded, and you probably don't need to use it (especially if the singleton itself isn't thread-safe).
Edit: Adding some more information that wasn't in the original answer from 2011.
The #synchronized directive prevents multiple threads from entering any region of code that is protected by a #synchronized directive referring to the same object. The object passed to the #synchronized directive is the object that is used as the "lock." Two threads can be in the same protected region of code if a different object is used as the lock, and you can also guard two completely different regions of code using the same object as the lock.
Also, if you happen to pass nil as the lock object, no lock will be taken at all.
From the Apple documentation here and here:
The #synchronized directive is a
convenient way to create mutex locks
on the fly in Objective-C code. The
#synchronized directive does what any
other mutex lock would do—it prevents
different threads from acquiring the
same lock at the same time.
The documentation provides a wealth of information on this subject. It's worth taking the time to read through it, especially given that you've been using it without knowing what it's doing.
The #synchronized directive is a convenient way to create mutex locks on the fly in Objective-C code.
The #synchronized directive does what any other mutex lock would do—it prevents different threads from acquiring the same lock at the same time.
Syntax:
#synchronized(key)
{
// thread-safe code
}
Example:
-(void)AppendExisting:(NSString*)val
{
#synchronized (oldValue) {
[oldValue stringByAppendingFormat:#"-%#",val];
}
}
Now the above code is perfectly thread safe..Now Multiple threads can change the value.
The above is just an obscure example...
#synchronized block automatically handles locking and unlocking for you. #synchronize
you have an implicit lock associated with the object you are using to synchronize. Here is very informative discussion on this topic please follow How does #synchronized lock/unlock in Objective-C?
Excellent answer here:
Help understanding class method returning singleton
with further explanation of the process of creating a singleton.
#synchronized is thread safe mechanism. Piece of code written inside this function becomes the part of critical section, to which only one thread can execute at a time.
#synchronize applies the lock implicitly whereas NSLock applies it explicitly.
It only assures the thread safety, not guarantees that. What I mean is you hire an expert driver for you car, still it doesn't guarantees car wont meet an accident. However probability remains the slightest.
Now that dispatch_get_current_queue is deprecated in iOS 6, how do I use dispatch_after to execute something in the current queue?
The various links in the comments don't say "it's better not to do it." They say you can't do it. You must either pass the queue you want or dispatch to a known queue. Dispatch queues don't have the concept of "current." Blocks often feed from one queue to another (called "targeting"). By the time you're actually running, the "current" queue is not really meaningful, and relying on it can (and historically did) lead to dead-lock. dispatch_get_current_queue() was never meant for dispatching; it was a debugging method. That's why it was removed (since people treated it as if it meant something meaningful).
If you need that kind of higher-level book-keeping, use an NSOperationQueue which tracks its original queue (and has a simpler queuing model that makes "original queue" much more meaningful).
There are several approaches used in UIKit that are appropriate:
Pass the call-back dispatch_queue as a parameter (this is probably the most common approach in new APIs). See [NSURLConnection setDelegateQueue:] or addObserverForName:object:queue:usingBlock: for examples. Notice that NSURLConnection expects an NSOperationQueue, not a dispatch_queue. Higher-level APIs and all that.
Call back on whatever queue you're on and leave it up to the receiver to deal with it. This is how callbacks have traditionally worked.
Demand that there be a runloop on the calling thread, and schedule your callbacks on the calling runloop. This is how NSURLConnection historically worked before queues.
Always make your callbacks on one of the well-known queues (particularly the main queue) unless told otherwise. I don't know of anywhere that this is done in UIKit, but I've seen it commonly in app code, and is a very easy approach most of the time.
Create a queue manually and dispatch both your calling code and your dispatch_after code onto that. That way you can guarantee that both pieces of code are run from the same queue.
Having to do this is likely because the need of a hack. You can hack around this with another hack:
id block = ^foo() {
[self doSomething];
usleep(delay_in_us);
[self doSomehingOther];
}
Instead of usleep() you might consider to loop in a run loop.
I would not recommend this "approach" though. The better way is to have some method which takes a queue as parameter and a block as parameter, where the block is then executed on the specified queue.
And, by the way, there are ways during a block executes to check whether it runs on a particular queue - respectively on any of its parent queue, provided you have a reference to that queue beforehand: use functions dispatch_queue_set_specific, and dispatch_get_specific.
Following an earlier question on SO, I'm now looking to compare two different grand central dispatch queues to try and determine if the current code is being run on the main thread or not. My question simply: is this a valid way of achieving this? Or are there some pitfalls of doing this that I haven't considered?
if (dispatch_get_current_queue() != dispatch_get_main_queue()) {
// We are currently on a background queue
} else {
// We are on the main queue
}
Cheers
Comparing the current queue against the main queue is not a valid way to check whether you are running on the main thread.
Use [NSThread isMainThread] or pthread_main_np() to explicitly check whether you are on the main thread if that is what you want to know.
You can be on the main thread without the current queue being the main queue, and you can be on the main queue without the current thread being the main thread (the latter only if dispatch_main() has been called, but still).
In recent releases this is documented explicitly in the CAVEATS section of the dispatch_get_main_queue(3) manpage:
The result of dispatch_get_main_queue() may or may not equal the result of dispatch_get_current_queue() when called on the main thread. Comparing the two is not a valid way to test whether code is executing on the main thread. Foundation/AppKit programs should use [NSThread isMainThread]. POSIX programs may use pthread_main_np(3).
In general you should avoid using queue pointer comparison to influence program logic. Dispatch queues exist in a dependency tree (the target queue hierarchy) and comparing individual leaves in that tree without taking their interdependency into account does not provide sufficient information to make safe decisions.
If you really need program logic based on queue interdependency, use the dispatch_get_specific(3)/dispatch_queue_set_specific(3) APIs which are target-queue aware and much more explicit.
Imagine you want to do many thing in the background of an iOS application but you code it properly so that you create threads (for example using GCD) do execute this background activity.
Now what if you need at some point to write update a variable but this update can occur or any of the threads you created.
You obviously want to protect that variable and you can use the keyword #synchronized to create the locks for you but here is the catch (extract from the Apple documentation)
The #synchronized() directive locks a section of code for use by a
single thread. Other threads are blocked until the thread exits the
protected code—that is, when execution continues past the last
statement in the #synchronized() block.
So that means if you synchronized an object and two threads are writing it at the same time, even the main thread will block until both threads are done writing their data.
An example of code that will showcase all this:
// Create the background queue
dispatch_queue_t queue = dispatch_queue_create("synchronized_example", NULL);
// Start working in new thread
dispatch_async(queue, ^
{
// Synchronized that shared resource
#synchronized(sharedResource_)
{
// Write things on that resource
// If more that one thread access this piece of code:
// all threads (even main thread) will block until task is completed.
[self writeComplexDataOnLocalFile];
}
});
// won’t actually go away until queue is empty
dispatch_release(queue);
So the question is fairly simple: How to overcome this ? How can we securely add a locks on all the threads EXCEPT the main thread which, we know, doesn't need to be blocked in that case ?
EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION
As you some of you commented, it does seem logical (and this was clearly what I thought at first when using synchronized) that only two the threads that are trying to acquire the lock should block until they are both done.
However, tested in a real situation, this doesn't seem to be the case and the main thread seems to also suffer from the lock.
I use this mechanism to log things in separate threads so that the UI is not blocked. But when I do intense logging, the UI (main thread) is clearly highly impacted (scrolling is not as smooth).
So two options here: Either the background tasks are too heavy that even the main thread gets impacted (which I doubt), or the synchronized also blocks the main thread while performing the lock operations (which I'm starting reconsidering).
I'll dig a little further using the Time Profiler.
I believe you are misunderstanding the following sentence that you quote from the Apple documentation:
Other threads are blocked until the thread exits the protected code...
This does not mean that all threads are blocked, it just means all threads that are trying to synchronise on the same object (the _sharedResource in your example) are blocked.
The following quote is taken from Apple's Thread Programming Guide, which makes it clear that only threads that synchronise on the same object are blocked.
The object passed to the #synchronized directive is a unique identifier used to distinguish the protected block. If you execute the preceding method in two different threads, passing a different object for the anObj parameter on each thread, each would take its lock and continue processing without being blocked by the other. If you pass the same object in both cases, however, one of the threads would acquire the lock first and the other would block until the first thread completed the critical section.
Update: If your background threads are impacting the performance of your interface then you might want to consider putting some sleeps into the background threads. This should allow the main thread some time to update the UI.
I realise you are using GCD but, for example, NSThread has a couple of methods that will suspend the thread, e.g. -sleepForTimeInterval:. In GCD you can probably just call sleep().
Alternatively, you might also want to look at changing the thread priority to a lower priority. Again, NSThread has the setThreadPriority: for this purpose. In GCD, I believe you would just use a low priority queue for the dispatched blocks.
I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, #synchronize doesn't block all threads but only the ones that want to execute the code inside of the block. So the solution probably is; Don't execute the code on the main thread.
If you simply want to avoid having the main thread acquire the lock, you can do this (and wreck havoc):
dispatch_async(queue, ^
{
if(![NSThread isMainThread])
{
// Synchronized that shared resource
#synchronized(sharedResource_)
{
// Write things on that resource
// If more that one thread access this piece of code:
// all threads (even main thread) will block until task is completed.
[self writeComplexDataOnLocalFile];
}
}
else
[self writeComplexDataOnLocalFile];
});