Try to use OTP-style in project and got one OTP-interface question. What solution is more popular/beautiful?
What I have:
web-server with mochiweb
one process, what spawns many (1000-2000) children.
Children contain state (netflow-speed). Process proxies messages to children and create new children, if need.
In mochiweb I have one page with speed of all actors, how whey made:
nf_collector ! {get_abonents_speed, self()},
receive
{abonents_speed_count, AbonentsCount} ->
ok
end,
%% write http header, chunked
%% and while AbonentsCount != 0, receive speed and write http
This is not-opt style, how i can understand. Solutions:
In API synchronous function get all requests with speed and return list with all speeds. But I want write it to client at once.
One argument of API-function is callback:
nf_collector:get_all_speeds(fun (Speed) -> Resp:write_chunk(templater(Speed)) end)
Return iterator:
One of results of get_all_speeds will be function with receive-block. Every call of it will return {ok, Speed}, at the end it return {end}.
get_all_speeds() ->
nf_collector ! {get_abonents_speed, self()},
receive
{abonents_speed_count, AbonentsCount} ->
ok
end,
{ok, fun() ->
create_receive_fun(AbonentsCount)
end}.
create_receive_fun(0)->
{end};
create_receive_fun(Count)->
receive
{abonent_speed, Speed} ->
Speed
end,
{ok, Speed, create_receive_fun(Count-1)}.
Spawn your 'children' from a supervisor:
-module(ch_sup).
-behaviour(supervisor).
-export([start_link/0, init/1, start_child/1]).
start_link() -> supervisor:start_link({local, ?MODULE}, ?MODULE, []).
init([]) -> {ok, {{simple_one_for_one}, [{ch, {ch, start_link, []}, transient, 1000, worker, [ch]}]}}.
start_child(Data) -> supervisor:start_child(?MODULE, [Data]).
Start them with ch_sup:start_child/1 (Data is whatever).
Implement your children as a gen_server:
-module(ch).
-behaviour(gen_server).
-record(?MODULE, {speed}).
...
get_speed(Pid, Timeout) ->
try
gen_server:call(Pid, get, Timeout)
catch
exit:{timeout, _} -> timeout;
exit:{noproc, _} -> died
end
.
...
handle_call(get, _From, St) -> {reply, {ok, St#?MODULE.speed}, St} end.
You can now use the supervisor to get the list of running children and query them, though you have to accept the possibility of a child dying between getting the list of children and calling them, and obviously a child could for some reason be alive but not respond, or respond with an error, etc.
The get_speed/2 function above returns either {ok, Speed} or died or timeout. It remains for you to filter appropriately according to your applications needs; easy with a list comprehension, here's a few.
Just the speeds:
[Speed || {ok, Speed} <- [ch:get_speed(Pid, 1000) || Pid <-
[Pid || {undefined, Pid, worker, [ch]} <-
supervisor:which_children(ch_sup)
]
]].
Pid and speed tuples:
[{Pid, Speed} || {Pid, {ok, Speed}} <-
[{Pid, ch:get_speed(Pid, 1000)} || Pid <-
[Pid || {undefined, Pid, worker, [ch]} <-
supervisor:which_children(ch_sup)]
]
].
All results, including timeouts and 'died' results for children that died before you got to them:
[{Pid, Any} || {Pid, Any} <-
[{Pid, ch:get_speed(Pid, 1000)} || Pid <-
[Pid || {undefined, Pid, worker, [ch]} <-
supervisor:which_children(ch_sup)]
]
].
In most situations you almost certainly don't want anything other than the speeds, because what are you going to do about deaths and timeouts? You want those that die to be respawned by the supervisor, so the problem is more or less fixed by the time you know about it, and timeouts, as with any fault, are a separate problem, to be dealt with in whatever way you see fit... There's no need to mix the fault fixing logic with the data retrieval logic though.
Now, the problem with all these, which I think you were getting at in your post, but I'm not quite sure, is that the timeout of 1000 is for each call, and each call is synchronous one after the other, so for 1000 children with a 1 second timeout, it could take 1000 seconds to produce no results. Making time timeout 1ms might be the answer, but to do it properly is a bit more complicated:
get_speeds() ->
ReceiverPid = self(),
Ref = make_ref(),
Pids = [Pid || {undefined, Pid, worker, [ch]} <-
supervisor:which_children(ch_sup)],
lists:foreach(
fun(Pid) -> spawn(
fun() -> ReceiverPid ! {Ref, ch:get_speed(Pid, 1000)} end
) end,
Pids),
receive_speeds(Ref, length(Pids), os_milliseconds(), 1000)
.
receive_speeds(_Ref, 0, _StartTime, _Timeout) ->
[];
receive_speeds(Ref, Remaining, StartTime, Timeout) ->
Time = os_milliseconds(),
TimeLeft = Timeout - Time + StartTime,
receive
{Ref, acc_timeout} ->
[];
{Ref, {ok, Speed}} ->
[Speed | receive_speeds(Ref, Remaining-1, StartTime, Timeout)];
{Ref, _} ->
receive_speeds(Ref, Remaining-1, StartTime, Timeout)
after TimeLeft ->
[]
end
.
os_milliseconds() ->
{OsMegSecs, OsSecs, OsMilSecs} = os:timestamp(),
round(OsMegSecs*1000000 + OsSecs + OsMilSecs/1000)
.
Here each call is spawned in a different process and the replies collected, until the 'master timeout' or they have all been received.
Code has largely been cut-n-pasted from various works I have lying round, and edited manually and by search replace, to anonymise it and remove surplus, so it's probably mostly compilable quality, but I don't promise I didn't break anything.
Related
I want to spawn 1000 or a variable number of processes in Erlang.
server.erl:
-module(server).
-export([start/2]).
start(LeadingZeroes, InputString) ->
% io:format("Leading Zeroes: ~w", [LeadingZeroes]),
% io:format("InputString: ~p", [InputString]).
mineCoins(LeadingZeroes, InputString, 100).
mineCoins(LeadingZeroes, InputString, Target) ->
PID = spawn(miner, findTargetHash(), []), % How to spawn this process 1000 times so that each process computes something and sends the results here
PID ! {self(), {mine, LeadingZeroes, InputString, Target}},
receive
{found, Number} ->
io:fwrite("Rectangle area: ~w", [Number]);
% {square, Area} ->
% io:fwrite("Square area: ~w", [Area]);
Other ->
io:fwrite("In Other!")
end.
% io:fwrite("Yolo: ~w", [Square_Area]).
miner.erl (client):
-module(miner).
-export([findTargetHash/0]).
findTargetHash() ->
receive
{From , {mine, LeadingZeroes, InputString, Target}} ->
% do something here
From ! {found, Number};
{From, {else, X}} ->
io:fwrite("In Else area"),
From ! {square, X*X}
end,
findTargetHash().
Here, I wish to spawn the processes, 1000 of them(miner), how does one achieve this? Through list comprehensions or recursion or any other way?
Generally, you can do something N times like this:
-module(a).
-compile(export_all).
go(0) ->
io:format("!finished!~n");
go(N) ->
io:format("Doing something: ~w~n", [N]),
go(N-1).
In the shell:
3> c(a).
a.erl:2:2: Warning: export_all flag enabled - all functions will be exported
% 2| -compile(export_all).
% | ^
{ok,a}
4> a:go(3).
Doing something: 3
Doing something: 2
Doing something: 1
!finished!
ok
If you need to start N processes and subsequently send messages to them, then you will need their pids to do that, so you will have to save their pids somewhere:
go(0, Pids) ->
io:format("All workers have been started.~n"),
Pids;
go(N, Pids) ->
Pid = spawn(b, worker, [self()]),
go(N-1, [Pid|Pids]).
-module(b).
-compile(export_all).
worker(From) ->
receive
{From, Data} ->
io:format("Worker ~w received ~w.~n", [self(), Data]),
From ! {self(), Data * 3};
Other ->
io:format("Error, received ~w.~n", [Other])
end.
To start N=3 worker processes, you would call go/2 like this:
Pids = a:go(3, []).
That's a little bit awkward for someone who didn't write the code: why do I have to pass an empty list? So, you could define a go/1 like this:
go(N) -> go(N, []).
Then, you can start 3 worker processes by simply writing:
Pids = go(3).
Next, you need to send each of the worker processes a message containing the work they need to do:
do_work([Pid|Pids], [Data|Datum]) ->
Pid ! {self(), Data},
do_work(Pids, Datum);
do_work([], []) ->
io:format("All workers have been sent their work.~n").
Finally, you need to gather the results from the workers:
gather_results([Worker|Workers], Results) ->
receive
{Worker, Result} ->
gather_results(Workers, [Result|Results])
end;
gather_results([], Results) ->
Results.
A couple of things to note about gather_results/2:
The Worker variable in the receive has already been assigned a value in the head of the function, so the receive is not waiting for just any worker process to send a message, rather the receive is waiting for a particular worker process to send a message.
The first Worker process in the list of Workers may be the longest running process, and you may wait in the receive for, say, 10 minutes for that process to finish, but then getting the results from the other worker processes will require no waiting. Therefore, gathering all the results will essentially take as long as the longest process plus a few microseconds to loop through the other processes. Similarly, for other orderings of the longest and shortest processes in the list, it will only take a time equal to the longest process plus a few microseconds to receive all the results.
Here is a test run in the shell:
27> c(a).
a.erl:2:2: Warning: export_all flag enabled - all functions will be exported
% 2| -compile(export_all).
% | ^
{ok,a}
28> c(b).
b.erl:2:2: Warning: export_all flag enabled - all functions will be exported
% 2| -compile(export_all).
% | ^
{ok,b}
29> Pids = a:go(3, []).
All workers have been started.
[<0.176.0>,<0.175.0>,<0.174.0>]
30> a:do_work(Pids, [1, 2, 3]).
All workers have been sent their work.
Worker <0.176.0> received 1.
Worker <0.175.0> received 2.
Worker <0.174.0> received 3.
ok
31> a:gather_results(Pids, []).
[9,6,3]
I'm trying to implement a process that I can query/update for some state information (I'm working on an SMS service and want to store some local data based on responses - later I will use a DB but for now I want to use ETS, this is my first Erlang project so I think it's useful to learn). Unfortunately it seems like my inserts are not coming through and I don't understand why. This is the module:
-module(st).
-compile(export_all).
maintain_state() ->
Tab = ets:new(state, [set]),
receive
{Pid, lookup, Key} ->
Pid ! ets:lookup(Tab, Key),
maintain_state();
{Pid, update, Key, Handler} ->
NewState = Handler(ets:lookup(Tab, Key)),
Status = ets:insert(Tab, NewState),
Pid ! {Status, NewState},
maintain_state();
{Pid, statelist} ->
Pid ! ets:tab2list(Tab),
maintain_state();
kill ->
void
end,
ets:delete(Tab).
start_state_maintainer() ->
Pid = spawn(st, maintain_state, []),
register(state, Pid).
update_state(StateHandler) ->
state ! {self(), update, testing, StateHandler},
receive
After ->
After
after 1000 ->
throw("Timeout in update_state")
end.
lookup_state() ->
state ! {self(), lookup, testing},
receive
Value ->
Value
after 1000 ->
throw("Timeout in lookup_state")
end.
all_state() ->
state ! {self(), statelist},
receive
Value ->
Value
after 1000 ->
throw("Timeout in all_state")
end.
Which I then load in an erl session:
> c(st).
> st:start_state_maintainer().
> st:lookup_state().
[]
> st:update_state(fun (St) -> {testing, myval} end).
{true, {testing, myval}}
> st:all_state().
[]
Since update_state shows true I figured the insert was successful, but nothing seems to be stored in the table. What am I doing wrong?
PS: if this whole approach is flawed or you have other remarks about my code I would appreciate those as well.
Ok. Let's run your code again.
1> c(st). % compile your code
{ok,st}
% Before doing anything. let's get count of all ETS tables using ets:all/0
2> length(ets:all()).
16 % So the Erlang VM has 16 tables after starting it
3> st:start_state_maintainer().
true
% Let's check count of tables again:
4> length(ets:all()).
17 % Your process has created its own table
5> st:lookup_state().
[]
% Check count of tables again
6> length(ets:all()).
18 % Why????
7> st:update_state(fun (St) -> {testing, myval} end).
{true,{testing,myval}}
8> length(ets:all()).
19
9> st:all_state().
[]
10> length(ets:all()).
20
So in line 5 in function maintain_state/0 you are creating an ETS table and in lines 9, 14 and 17 you are calling this function again ! So after receiving each message (except void) you are creating new ETS table!
Let's see those tables:
11> P = whereis(state). % Get process id of 'state' and assign it to P
<0.66.0>
12> Foreach =
fun(Tab) ->
case ets:info(Tab, owner) of
P -> % If owner of table is state's pid
io:format("Table ~p with data ~p~n"
,[Tab, ets:tab2list(Tab)]);
_ ->
ok
end
end.
#Fun<erl_eval.6.118419387>
13> lists:foreach(Foreach, ets:all()).
Table 28691 with data []
Table 24594 with data []
Table 20497 with data [{testing,myval}]
Table 16400 with data []
ok
And after killing your process, We should have 16 tables again:
14> exit(P, kill).
true
15> length(ets:all()).
16
You have two choises. You can use named tables like this:
maintain_state() ->
% With 'named_table' option, we can use the name of table in code:
Tab = ets:new(state, [set, named_table]),
maintain_state2().
maintain_state2() ->
receive
{Pid, lookup, Key} ->
Pid ! ets:lookup(state, Key), % I used name of table
maintain_state2();
...
Or use table as argument of maintain_state2:
maintain_state() ->
Tab = ets:new(state, [set]),
maintain_state2(Tab).
maintain_state2(Tab) ->
receive
{Pid, lookup, Key} ->
Pid ! ets:lookup(Tab, Key),
maintain_state2(Tab);
...
I changed the code to one of above examples and here is the result:
1> st:start_state_maintainer().
true
2> st:lookup_state().
[]
3> st:update_state(fun (St) -> {testing, myval} end).
{true,{testing,myval}}
4> st:all_state().
[{testing,myval}]
5> length(ets:all()).
17
After playing with Erlang's message passing and understanding its functionality and its concepts, I really suggest you to learn OTP design principles and OTP behaviors like gen_server and use them instead of writing your own receive ... and Pid ! ... statements.
Here is an example trace where I'm able to call erlang:monitor/2 on the same Pid:
1> Loop = fun F() -> F() end.
#Fun<erl_eval.30.99386804>
2> Pid = spawn(Loop).
<0.71.0>
3> erlang:monitor(process, Pid).
#Ref<0.2485499597.1470627842.126937>
4> erlang:monitor(process, Pid).
#Ref<0.2485499597.1470627842.126942>
5> erlang:monitor(process, Pid).
#Ref<0.2485499597.1470627842.126947>
The expressions returned by instruction #4 and #5 are different than #3, meaning that it is possible to create multiple monitor references between the current process and Pid. Is there a practical case where you would need or use multiple monitor references to the same process?
I would expect this to return the same reference (returning a new one would perhaps imply that the old one had failed/crashed), following the same logic that exists for link/1.
Imagine you use third party library which does this (basically what OTP *:call/* functions does):
call(Pid, Request) ->
call(Pid, Request, ?DEFAULT_TIMEOUT).
call(Pid, Request, Timeout) ->
MRef = erlang:monitor(process, Pid),
Pid ! {call, self(), MRef, Request},
receive
{answer, MRef, Result} ->
erlang:demonitor(Mref, [flush]),
{ok, Result};
{'DOWN', MRef, _, _, Info} ->
{error, Info}
after Timeout ->
erlang:demonitor(MRef, [flush]),
{error, timeout}
end.
and then you use it in your code where you would monitor the same process Pid and then call function call/2,3.
my_fun1(Service) ->
MRef = erlang:monitor(process, Service),
ok = check_if_service_runs(MRef),
my_fun2(Service),
mind_my_stuf(),
ok = check_if_service_runs(MRef),
erlang:demonitor(MRef, [flush]),
return_some_result().
check_if_service_runs(MRef) ->
receive
{'DOWN', MRef, _, _, Info} -> {down, Info}
after 0 -> ok
end.
my_fun2(S) -> my_fun3(S).
% and a many layers of other stuff and modules
my_fun3(S) -> call(S, hello).
What a nasty surprise it would be if erlang:monitor/2,3 would always return the same reference and if erlang:demonitor/1,2 would remove your previous monitor. It would be a source of ugly and unsolvable bugs. You should start to think that there are libraries, other processes, your code is part of a huge system and Erlang was made by experienced people who thought it through. Maintainability is key here.
Following is the program in which i have tried to spawn 3 processes form a method called best. I want to receive response from all the processes and store them in a tuple but I am able to get only one response.
test() ->
receive
{From,N} -> From!{self(),N},
loop()
end.
best(N) ->
Aid=spawn(fun t:loop/0),
Aid ! {self(),N},
Bid=spawn(fun t:loop/0),
Bid ! {self(),N},
Cid=spawn(fun t:loop/0),
Cid ! {self(),N},
receive
{Pid,Response} ->{Response}
end.
Can someone please help me out with this probem
Your receive bloc, in the best/2 function exit as soon as it receives one message. If you launch this code in the shell, you can verify that the other message are still in the message queue with the function flush(). (The code you posted is missing the t:loop/0 function, I guess it will compute something based on N and return the answer via a message to the spawner)
To be able to receive more than one message, you must put the receive bloc in a "loop" that recursively calls itself until it got all answers. You will have to use a variable that allows the recursive loop to know when it is finished (number of answers expected, list of processes that should answer...) and collect the answers in a list variable for example.
-module(wy).
-compile(export_all).
loop() ->
Self = self(),
receive
{From, Ref, N} ->
From ! {Self, Ref, N * N}
end.
receive_result(Ref) ->
receive
{Pid, Ref, R} ->
io:format("process ~p: ~p~n", [Pid, R]),
receive_result(Ref)
after 10 ->
ok
end.
best() ->
APid = spawn(fun loop/0),
BPid = spawn(fun loop/0),
CPid = spawn(fun loop/0),
Self = self(),
Ref = make_ref(),
APid ! {Self, Ref, 2},
BPid ! {Self, Ref, 3},
CPid ! {Self, Ref, 4},
receive_result(Ref).
You can follow this small code. The result is:
9> wy:best().
process <0.77.0>: 4
process <0.78.0>: 9
process <0.79.0>: 16
ok
The following code is also from rabbitmq's supervisor2.erl. The code's function is to kill supervisor's children, by for every child:
monitor child send an trappable exit signal
start timer
if timer's arrive, send an untrappable exit signal (kill).
My question about EXIT and DOWN signal.
If the child doesn't trap the exit signal, the supervisor will receive 2 signal, first is exit signal, and then is DOWN signal, is it right? Is the signal sequence is strictly guaranteed?
If the child traps the exit signal, the supervisor will receive only 1 signal, just down signal, is it right?
terminate_simple_children(Child, Dynamics, SupName) ->
Pids = dict:fold(fun (Pid, _Args, Pids) ->
erlang:monitor(process, Pid),
unlink(Pid),
exit(Pid, child_exit_reason(Child)),
[Pid | Pids]
end, [], Dynamics),
TimeoutMsg = {timeout, make_ref()},
TRef = timeout_start(Child, TimeoutMsg),
{Replies, Timedout} =
lists:foldl(
fun (_Pid, {Replies, Timedout}) ->
{Reply, Timedout1} =
receive
TimeoutMsg ->
Remaining = Pids -- [P || {P, _} <- Replies],
[exit(P, kill) || P <- Remaining],
receive {'DOWN', _MRef, process, Pid, Reason} ->
{{error, Reason}, true}
end;
{'DOWN', _MRef, process, Pid, Reason} ->
{child_res(Child, Reason, Timedout), Timedout};
{'EXIT', Pid, Reason} -> %%<==== strict signal, first EXIT, then DOWN.
receive {'DOWN', _MRef, process, Pid, _} ->
{{error, Reason}, Timedout}
end
end,
{[{Pid, Reply} | Replies], Timedout1}
end, {[], false}, Pids),
timeout_stop(Child, TRef, TimeoutMsg, Timedout),
ReportError = shutdown_error_reporter(SupName),
[case Reply of
{_Pid, ok} -> ok;
{Pid, {error, R}} -> ReportError(R, Child#child{pid = Pid})
end || Reply <- Replies],
ok.
There are two things you are confusing here:
First, the child is the one trapping exits, but you are looking at the supervisor code. What the child does with exit signals does not directly affect the supervisor.
the kill exit signal cannot be trapped. It always kills the child.
The supervisor2 has a monitor on the child. This means it is guaranteed to get a 'DOWN' message and this code is concerned about getting that kind of message. If supervisor2 is also trapping exits, it will get the 'EXIT' message in addition.