In Erlang, can I call some function f (BIF or not), whose job is to spawn a process, run the function argf I provided, and doesn't "return" until argf has "returned", and do this without using receive clause (the reason for this is that f will be invoked in a gen_server, I don't want pollute the gen_server's mailbox).
A snippet would look like this:
%% some code omitted ...
F = fun() -> blah, blah, timer:sleep(10000) end,
f(F), %% like `spawn(F), but doesn't return until 10 seconds has passed`
%% ...
The only way to communicate between processes is message passing (of course you can consider to poll for a specific key in an ets or a file but I dont like this).
If you use a spawn_monitor function in f/1 to start the F process and then have a receive block only matching the possible system messages from this monitor:
f(F) ->
{_Pid, MonitorRef} = spawn_monitor(F),
receive
{_Tag, MonitorRef, _Type, _Object, _Info} -> ok
end.
you will not mess your gen_server mailbox. The example is the minimum code, you can add a timeout (fixed or parameter), execute some code on normal or error completion...
You will not "pollute" the gen_servers mailbox if you spawn+wait for message before you return from the call or cast. A more serious problem with this maybe that you will block the gen_server while you are waiting for the other process to terminate. A way around this is to not explicitly wait but return from the call/cast and then when the completion message arrives handle it in handle_info/2 and then do what is necessary.
If the spawning is done in a handle_call and you want to return the "result" of that process then you can delay returning the value to the original call from the handle_info handling the process termination message.
Note that however you do it a gen_server:call has a timeout value, either implicit or explicit, and if no reply is returned it generates an error in the calling process.
Main way to communicate with process in Erlang VM space is message passing with erlang:send/2 or erlang:send/3 functions (alias !). But you can "hack" Erlang and use multiple way for communicating over process.
You can use erlang:link/1 to communicate stat of the process, its mainly used in case of your process is dying or is ended or something is wrong (exception or throw).
You can use erlang:monitor/2, this is similar to erlang:link/1 except the message go directly into process mailbox.
You can also hack Erlang, and use some internal way (shared ETS/DETS/Mnesia tables) or use external methods (database or other things like that). This is clearly not recommended and "destroy" Erlang philosophy... But you can do it.
Its seems your problem can be solved with supervisor behavior. supervisor support many strategies to control supervised process:
one_for_one: If one child process terminates and is to be restarted, only that child process is affected. This is the default restart strategy.
one_for_all: If one child process terminates and is to be restarted, all other child processes are terminated and then all child processes are restarted.
rest_for_one: If one child process terminates and is to be restarted, the 'rest' of the child processes (that is, the child processes after the terminated child process in the start order) are terminated. Then the terminated child process and all child processes after it are restarted.
simple_one_for_one: A simplified one_for_one supervisor, where all child processes are dynamically added instances of the same process type, that is, running the same code.
You can also modify or create your own supervisor strategy from scratch or base on supervisor_bridge.
So, to summarize, you need a process who wait for one or more terminating process. This behavior is supported natively with OTP, but you can also create your own model. For doing that, you need to share status of every started process, using cache or database, or when your process is spawned. Something like that:
Fun = fun
MyFun (ParentProcess, {result, Data})
when is_pid(ParentProcess) ->
ParentProcess ! {self(), Data};
MyFun (ParentProcess, MyData)
when is_pid(ParentProcess) ->
% do something
MyFun(ParentProcess, MyData2) end.
spawn(fun() -> Fun(self(), InitData) end).
EDIT: forgot to add an example without send/receive. I use an ETS table to store every result from lambda function. This ETS table is set when we spawn this process. To get result, we can select data from this table. Note, the key of the row is the process id of the process.
spawner(Ets, Fun, Args)
when is_integer(Ets),
is_function(Fun) ->
spawn(fun() -> Fun(Ets, Args) end).
Fun = fun
F(Ets, {result, Data}) ->
ets:insert(Ets, {self(), Data});
F(Ets, Data) ->
% do something here
Data2 = Data,
F(Ets, Data2) end.
Related
I'm trying to monitor a process with a registered name in a different module than where the monitor code is placed. This is an assignment for school, which is why I'm not going to post all of my code. However, here's the outline:
module1:start() spawns a process and registers its name:
register(name, Pid = spawn(?MODULE, loop, [])), Pid.
The loop waits for messages. If the message is of the wrong type it crashes.
module2:start() should start the registered process in module1 and monitor it, restarting it if it's crashed. I've been able to get it working using:
spawn(?MODULE, loop, [module1:start()]).
Then in the loop function I use erlang:monitor(process, Pid).
This way of solving the problem means the registered process can crash before the monitoring starts. I've been looking at spawn_monitor, but haven't been able to get the monitoring to work. The latest I've tried is:
spawn(?MODULE, loop, [spawn_monitor(name, start, [])]).
It starts the registered process. I can send messages to it, but I can't seem to detect anything. In the loop function I have a receive block, where I try to pattern match {'DOWN', Ref, process, Pid, _Why}. I've tried using spawn_monitor in module1 instead of simply spawn, but I noticed no change. I've also been trying to solve this using links (as in spawn_link), but I haven't gotten that to work either.
Any suggestions? What am I monitoring, if I'm not monitoring the registered process?
Since this is a homework assignment, I won't give you a complete answer.
Generally, you need two loops, one in module1 to do the work, and one in module2 to supervise the work. You already have a module1:start/0 function that calls spawn to execute the module1:loop/0 function to do the work, but as you've stated, this leaves a window of vulnerability between the spawning of the process and its monitoring by module2 that you're trying to close. As a hint, you could change the start function to call spawn_monitor instead:
start() ->
{Pid, Ref} = spawn_monitor(?MODULE, loop, []),
register(name, Pid),
{Pid, Ref}.
and then your module2:start/0 function would then just call it like this:
start() ->
{Pid, Ref} = module1:start(),
receive
{'DOWN', Ref, process, Pid, _Why} ->
%% restart the module1 pid
%% details left out intentionally
end.
Note that this implies that module2:start/0 needs a loop of some sort to spawn and monitor the module1 pid, and restart it when necessary. I leave that to your homework efforts.
Also, using spawn_link instead of spawn_monitor is definitely worth exploring.
I want to pass some arguments to supervisor:init/1 function and it is desirable, that the application's interface was so:
redis_pool:start() % start all instances
redis_pool:start(Names) % start only given instances
Here is the application:
-module(redis_pool).
-behaviour(application).
...
start() -> % start without params
application:ensure_started(?APP_NAME, transient).
start(Names) -> % start with some params
% I want to pass Names to supervisor init function
% in order to do that I have to bypass application:ensure_started
% which is not GOOD :(
application:load(?APP_NAME),
case start(normal, [Names]) of
{ok, _Pid} -> ok;
{error, {already_started, _Pid}} -> ok
end.
start(_StartType, StartArgs) ->
redis_pool_sup:start_link(StartArgs).
Here is the supervisor:
init([]) ->
{ok, Config} = get_config(),
Names = proplists:get_keys(Config),
init([Names]);
init([Names]) ->
{ok, Config} = get_config(),
PoolSpecs = lists:map(fun(Name) ->
PoolName = pool_utils:name_for(Name),
{[Host, Port, Db], PoolSize} = proplists:get_value(Name, Config),
PoolArgs = [{name, {local, PoolName}},
{worker_module, eredis},
{size, PoolSize},
{max_overflow, 0}],
poolboy:child_spec(PoolName, PoolArgs, [Host, Port, Db])
end, Names),
{ok, {{one_for_one, 10000, 1}, PoolSpecs}}.
As you can see, current implementation is ugly and may be buggy. The question is how I can pass some arguments and start application and supervisor (with params who were given to start/1) ?
One option is to start application and run redis pools in two separate phases.
redis_pool:start(),
redis_pool:run([] | Names).
But what if I want to run supervisor children (redis pool) when my app starts?
Thank you.
The application callback Module:start/2 is not an API to call in order to start the application. It is called when the application is started by application:start/1,2. This means that overloading it to provide differing parameters is probably the wrong thing to do.
In particular, application:start will be called directly if someone adds your application as a dependency of theirs (in the foo.app file). At this point, they have no control over the parameters, since they come from your .app file, in the {mod, {Mod, Args}} term.
Some possible solutions:
Application Configuration File
Require that the parameters be in the application configuration file; you can retrieve them with application:get_env/2,3.
Don't start a supervisor
This means one of two things: becoming a library application (removing the {mod, Mod} term from your .app file) -- you don't need an application behaviour; or starting a dummy supervisor that does nothing.
Then, when someone wants to use your library, they can call an API to create the pool supervisor, and graft it into their supervision tree. This is what poolboy does with poolboy:child_spec.
Or, your application-level supervisor can be a normal supervisor, with no children by default, and you can provide an API to start children of that, via supervisor:start_child. This is (more or less) what cowboy does.
You can pass arguments in the AppDescr argument to application:load/1 (though its a mighty big tuple already...) as {mod, {Module, StartArgs}} according to the docs ("according to the docs" as in, I don't recall doing it this way myself, ever: http://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/kernel/application.html#load-1).
application:load({application, some_app, {mod, {Module, [Stuff]}}})
Without knowing anything about the internals of the application you're starting, its hard to say which way is best, but a common way to do this is to start up the application and then send it a message containing the data you want it to know.
You could make receipt of the message form tell the application to go through a configuration assertion procedure, so that the same message you send on startup is also the same sort of thing you would send it to reconfigure it on the fly. I find this more useful than one-shotting arguments on startup.
In any case, it is usually better to think in terms of starting something, then asking it to do something for you, than to try telling it everything in init parameters. This can be as simple as having it start up and wait for some message that will tell the listener to then spin up the supervisor the way you're trying to here -- isolated one step from the application inclusion issues RL mentioned in his answer.
To exchange data,it becomes important to link the process first.The following code does the job of linking two processes.
start_link(Name) ->
gen_fsm:start_link(?MODULE, [Name], []).
My Question : which are the two processes being linked here?
In your example, the process that called start_link/1 and the process being started as (?MODULE, Name, Args).
It is a mistake to think that two processes need to be linked to exchange data. Data links the fate of the two processes. If one dies, the other dies, unless a system process is the one that starts the link (a "system process" means one that is trapping exits). This probably isn't what you want. If you are trying to avoid a deadlock or do something other than just timeout during synchronous messaging if the process you are sending a message to dies before responding, consider something like this:
ask(Proc, Request, Data, Timeout) ->
Ref = monitor(process, Proc),
Proc ! {self(), Ref, {ask, Request, Data}},
receive
{Ref, Res} ->
demonitor(Ref, [flush]),
Res;
{'DOWN', Ref, process, Proc, Reason} ->
some_cleanup_action(),
{fail, Reason}
after
Timeout ->
{fail, timeout}
end.
If you are just trying to spawn a worker that needs to give you an answer, you might want to consider using spawn_monitor instead and using its {pid(), reference()} return as the message you're listening for in response.
As I mentioned above, the process starting the link won't die if it is trapping exits, but you really want to avoid trapping exits in most cases. As a basic rule, use process_flag(trap_exit, true) as little as possible. Getting trap_exit happy everywhere will have structural effects you won't intend eventually, and its one of the few things in Erlang that is difficult to refactor away from later.
The link is bidirectional, between the process which is calling the function start_link(Name) and the new process created by gen_fsm:start_link(?MODULE, [Name], []).
A called function is executed in the context of the calling process.
A new process is created by a spawn function. You should find it in the gen_fsm:start_link/3 code.
When a link is created, if one process exit for an other reason than normal, the linked process will die also, except if it has set process_flag(trap_exit, true) in which case it will receive the message {'EXIT',FromPid,Reason} where FromPid is the Pid of the process that came to die, and Reason the reason of termination.
I'm currently reading Programming Erlang! , at the end of Chapter 13, we want to create a keep-alive process,
the example likes:
on_exit(Pid, Fun) ->
spawn(fun() ->
Ref = monitor(process, Pid),
receive
{'DOWN', Ref, process, Pid, Info} ->
Fun(Info)
end
end).
keep_alive(Name, Fun) ->
register(Name, Pid = spawn(Fun)),
on_exit(Pid, fun(_Why) -> keep_alive(Name, Fun) end).
but when between register/2 and on_exit/2 the process maybe exit, so the monitor will failed, I changed the keep_alive/2 like this:
keep_alive(Name, Fun) ->
{Pid, Ref} = spawn_monitor(Fun),
register(Name, Pid),
receive
{'DOWN', Ref, process, Pid, _Info} ->
keep_alive(Name, Fun)
end.
There also an bug, between spawn_monitor/2 and register/2, the process maybe exit. How could this come to run successfully? Thanks.
I'm not sure that you have a problem that needs solving. Monitor/2 will succeed even if your process exits after register/2. Monitor/2 will send a 'DOWN' message whose Info component will be noproc. Per the documentation:
A 'DOWN' message will be sent to the monitoring process if Item dies, if Item does not exist, or if the connection is lost to the node which Item resides on. (see http://www.erlang.org/doc/man/erlang.html#monitor-2).
So, in your original code
register assocates Name to the Pid
Pid dies
on_exit is called and monitor/2 is executed
monitor immediately sends a 'DOWN' message which is received by the function spawned by on_exit
the Fun(Info) of the received statement is executed calling keep_alive/2
I think all is good.
So why you did't want to use erlang supervisor behaviour? it's provides useful functions for creating and restarting keep-alive processes.
See here the example: http://www.erlang.org/doc/design_principles/sup_princ.html
In your second example, if process exits before registration register will fail with badarg. The easiest way to get around that would be surrounding register with try ... catch and handle error in catch.
You can even leave catch empty, because even if registration failed, the 'DOWN' message, will be sent.
On the other hand, I wouldn't do that in production system. If your worker fails so fast, it is very likely, that the problem is in its initialisation code and I would like to know, that it failed to register and stopped the system. Otherwise, it could fail and be respawned in an endless loop.
I'm currently writing a piece of software in erlang, which is now based on gen_server behaviour. This gen_server should export a function (let's call it update/1) which should connect using ssl to another service online and send to it the value passed as argument to the function.
Currently update/1 is like this:
update(Value) ->
gen_server:call(?SERVER, {update, Value}).
So once it is called, there is a call to ?SERVER which is handled as:
handle_call({update, Value}, _From, State) ->
{ok, Socket} = ssl:connect("remoteserver.com", 5555, [], 3000).
Reply = ssl:send(Socket, Value).
{ok, Reply, State}.
Once the packet is sent to the remote server, the peer should severe the connection.
Now, this works fine with my tests in shell, but what happens if we have to call 1000 times mymod:update(Value) and ssl:connect/4 is not working well (i.e. is reaching its timeout)?
At this point, my gen_server will have a very large amount of values and they can be processed only one by one, leading to the point that the 1000th update will be done only 1000*3000 milliseconds after its value was updated using update/1.
Using a cast instead of a call would leave to the same problem. How can I solve this problem? Should I use a normal function and not a gen_server call?
From personal experience I can say that 1000 messages per gen_server process wont be a problem unless you are queuing big messages.
If from your testing it seems that your gen_server is not able to handle this much load, then you must create multiple instances of your gen_server preferably under a supervisor process at the boot time (or run-time) of your application.
Besides that, I really don't understand the requirement of making a new connection for each update!! you should consider some optimization like cached connections/ pre-connections to the server..no?