I'm writing an OS X app that records real time events that come from a serial port and saves them to disk. So each millisecond I get 7 integers that I need to save and later "play back" by drawing them in a sort of live line chart. The saving stuff to disk is already done; playing them back is where I'm stuck.
I've done this sort of thing before with other technologies (Arduino, Corona, Processing) where I get a main game loop in which I can do whatever I want time-wise. What I need to know is how set up some sort of 'onEnterFrame' loop to be able to compare the elapsed time to the first event in my stack and fire it when needed. In this loop I would need to tell my views to update themselves and I know Apple guides state that UI updates must happen in the main thread.
I'm a little lost on how to conceptually achieve this kind of onEnterFrame loop in Cocoa as the paradigm is quite different to what I already know.
Of the many things I encountered, this gave me good timing accuracy in my initial tests (1/10th of a millisecond error):
func test() {
print("test")
}
// Run test() every 1 millisecond
let timer = NSTimer.scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval(0.001, target: self, selector: #selector(test), userInfo: nil, repeats: true)
Related
I've been attempting to do a bit of performance review on an app I have, it's a back end Kotlin app that just pulls in some data, does a bit of data transformation and dumps it out, nothing too fancy. One thing that caught my eye was the final bit of execution where we dump our final data onto a queue, at first I noticed when we start up the app the final network call takes a very long time at first, sometimes over a second. Normally we run this network call in a coroutine to stop that last call blocking everything but I started trying to time the coroutine and the network call separately and got some odd results, from what I can see the coroutine takes can take forever to launch/complete compared to the network call. It's entirely possible I'm not recording things correctly but this is the general timing approach I have:
val coroutineTime - Instant.now().toEpochMillis()
GlobalScope.launch {
executionTime = measureTimeMillis { <--DO Message Sending -->}
totalTime = Instant.now().toEpochMillis() - coroutineTime
// Log out execution Time and total time
}
Now here what I'll see is something like
- totalTime = ~800ms
- executionTime = ~150ms
These aren't one-offs either, I have multiple of these processes going on at once ( up to 10 threads I think) and the first total times will always take significantly longer than the actual executionTime/network call. Eventually after a new dozen messages the overhead will calm down and these times will become equivalent at about 15ms, but having nearly 700ms overhead on coroutine start up seems insane to me.
Is this normal/expected behavior? I've tested this in a separate app and see similar but less extreme results where the first coroutine will take about 70ms to boot up, I'm struggling to find any other examples of this type of discussion outside of kotlin being used in android development.
As a first note, it's almost never a good idea to use the GlobalScope unless you really know what you're doing. This is why it was marked as delicate API. You should instead use a scope that is appropriately closed (following the lifecycle of whatever component launches this work).
Now, AFAIK, this GlobalScope runs on the default dispatcher, so maybe this is due to a cold start of that default thread pool. Later, it could also be a problem to use this dispatcher for network calls depending on the amount of concurrent coroutines you have. It would be more appropriate to use Disptachers.IO instead for IO bound work (or a custom thread pool).
It still doesn't explain the cold start, but I would first change that before investigating.
This is expected behavior if you use coroutines inappropriately ;-)
My guess is that your message sending is a blocking operation. By default GlobalScope.launch() dispatches coroutines with Dispatchers.Default which is designed to perform CPU-intensive operations, it has a limited number of threads and you should never block when using it. If you do you may run out of threads and coroutines will need to wait until some blocking operations will finish.
If you need to run blocking or IO code, you should use Dispatchers.IO instead:
GlobalScope.launch(Dispatchers.IO) {
I was facing similar issue, I have a function that loads some data from shared prefs, makes some calculations on the data (all this done in Dispatcher.Default), and return the result on Dispatcher.Main. I measured how long it took the Coroutine to actually start executing the block inside Dispatchers.Main.launch { } after calculations are done(time from tag2 to tag3 below), and got about 950ms (!!) Here is the function :
fun someName() {
CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.Default).launch {
val time = System.currentTimeMillis()
//load data and calculations
Log.d("tag2", "load and calculations took " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - time))
CoroutineScope(Dispatchers.Main.immediate).launch {
Log.d("tag3", "reached main thread code " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - time))
//do something
Log.d("tag4", "do something took " + (System.currentTimeMillis() - time))
}
}
}
But then I realized this happens while app launch, and main thread is busy creating all the UI, so even with .immediate it takes time until main thread will get to execute the dispatched code... then I tried to run this function after app already started and waiting, and found that from tag2 to tag 3 takes about 1ms (!!) (with .immediate). So looks like when dispatching something on Coroutine, when thread isn't busy it will start immediately
Basically I want an Aktor to change a scalafx-GUI safely.
I've read many posts describing this, but there where sometimes contradictory and some years old, so some of them might be outdated.
I have a working example code and I basically want to know if this kind of programming is thread-save.
The other question is if I can configure sbt or the compiler or something in a way, that all threads (from the gui, the actors and the futures) are started by the same dispatcher.
I've found some example code "scalafx-akka-demo" on GitHub, which is 4 years old. What I did in the following example is basically the same, just a little simplified to keep things easy.
Then there is the scalatrix-example approximately with the same age. This example really worries me.
In there is a self-written dispatcher from Viktor Klang from 2012, and I have no idea how to make this work or if I really need it. The question is: Is this dispatcher only an optimisation or do I have to use something like it to be thread save?
But even if I don't absolutely need the dispatcher like in scalatrix, it is not optimal to have a dispatcher for the aktor-threads and one for the scalafx-event-threads. (And maybe one for the Futures-threads as well?)
In my actual project, I have some measurement values coming from a device over TCP-IP, going to an TCP-IP actor and are to be displayed in a scalafx-GUI. But this is much to long.
So here is my example code:
import akka.actor.{Actor, ActorRef, ActorSystem, Props}
import scala.concurrent.{Await, Future}
import scala.concurrent.duration._
import scalafx.Includes._
import scalafx.application.{JFXApp, Platform}
import scalafx.application.JFXApp.PrimaryStage
import scalafx.event.ActionEvent
import scalafx.scene.Scene
import scalafx.scene.control.Button
import scalafx.stage.WindowEvent
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
object Main extends JFXApp {
case object Count
case object StopCounter
case object CounterReset
val aktorSystem: ActorSystem = ActorSystem("My-Aktor-system") // Create actor context
val guiActor: ActorRef = aktorSystem.actorOf(Props(new GUIActor), "guiActor") // Create GUI actor
val button: Button = new Button(text = "0") {
onAction = (_: ActionEvent) => guiActor ! Count
}
val someComputation = Future {
Thread.sleep(10000)
println("Doing counter reset")
guiActor ! CounterReset
Platform.runLater(button.text = "0")
}
class GUIActor extends Actor {
def receive: Receive = counter(1)
def counter(n: Int): Receive = {
case Count =>
Platform.runLater(button.text = n.toString)
println("The count is: " + n)
context.become(counter(n + 1))
case CounterReset => context.become(counter(1))
case StopCounter => context.system.terminate()
}
}
stage = new PrimaryStage {
scene = new Scene {
root = button
}
onCloseRequest = (_: WindowEvent) => {
guiActor ! StopCounter
Await.ready(aktorSystem.whenTerminated, 5.seconds)
Platform.exit()
}
}
}
So this code brings up a button, and every time it is clicked the number of the button increases. After some time the number on the button is reset once.
In this example-code I tried to bring the scalafx-GUI, the actor and the Future to influence each other. So the button click sends a message to the actor, and then the actor changes the gui - which is what I am testing here.
The Future also sends to the actor and changes the gui.
So far, this example works and I haven't found everything wrong with it.
But unfortunately, when it comes to thread-safety this doesn't mean much
My concrete questions are:
Is the method to change the gui in the example code thread save?
Is there may be a better way to do it?
Can the different threads be started from the same dispatcher?
(if yes, then how?)
To address your questions:
1) Is the method to change the gui in the example code thread save?
Yes.
JavaFX, which ScalaFX sits upon, implements thread safety by insisting that all GUI interactions take place upon the JavaFX Application Thread (JAT), which is created during JavaFX initialization (ScalaFX takes care of this for you). Any code running on a different thread that interacts with JavaFX/ScalaFX will result in an error.
You are ensuring that your GUI code executes on the JAT by passing interacting code via the Platform.runLater method, which evaluates its arguments on the JAT. Because arguments are passed by name, they are not evaluated on the calling thread.
So, as far as JavaFX is concerned, your code is thread safe.
However, potential issues can still arise if the code you pass to Platform.runLater contains any references to mutable state maintained on other threads.
You have two calls to Platform.runLater. In the first of these (button.text = "0"), the only mutable state (button.text) belongs to JavaFX, which will be examined and modified on the JAT, so you're good.
In the second call (button.text = n.toString), you're passing the same JavaFX mutable state (button.text). But you're also passing a reference to n, which belongs to the GUIActor thread. However, this value is immutable, and so there are no threading issues from looking at its value. (The count is maintained by the Akka GUIActor class's context, and the only interactions that change the count come through Akka's message handling mechanism, which is guaranteed to be thread safe.)
That said, there is one potential issue here: the Future both resets the count (which will occur on the GUIActor thread) as well as setting the text to "0" (which will occur on the JAT). Consequently, it's possible that these two actions will occur in an unexpected order, such as button's text being changed to "0" before the count is actually reset. If this occurs simultaneously with the user clicking the button, you'll get a race condition and it's conceivable that the displayed value may end up not matching the current count.
2) Is there may be a better way to do it?
There's always a better way! ;-)
To be honest, given this small example, there's not a lot of further improvement to be made.
I would try to keep all of the interaction with the GUI inside either GUIActor, or the Main object to simplify the threading and synchronization issues.
For example, going back to the last point in the previous answer, rather than have the Future update button.text, it would be better if that was done as part of the CounterReset message handler in GUIActor, which then guarantees that the counter and button appearance are synchronized correctly (or, at least, that they're always updated in the same order), with the displayed value guaranteed to match the count.
If your GUIActor class is handling a lot of interaction with the GUI, then you could have it execute all of its code on the JAT (I think this was the purpose of Viktor Klang's example), which would simplify a lot of its code. For example, you would not have to call Platform.runLater to interact with the GUI. The downside is that you then cannot perform processing in parallel with the GUI, which might slow down its performance and responsiveness as a result.
3) Can the different threads be started from the same dispatcher? (if yes, then how?)
You can specify custom execution contexts for both futures and Akka actors to get better control of their threads and dispatching. However, given Donald Knuth's observation that "premature optimization is the root of all evil", there's no evidence that this would provide you with any benefits whatsoever, and your code would become significantly more complicated as a result.
As far as I'm aware, you can't change the execution context for JavaFX/ScalaFX, since JAT creation must be finely controlled in order to guarantee thread safety. But I could be wrong.
In any case, the overhead of having different dispatchers is not going to be high. One of the reasons for using futures and actors is that they will take care of these issues for you by default. Unless you have a good reason to do otherwise, I would use the defaults.
I am working on a game where the rate of change of an image changes over time. At first the image change every two seconds and then it will speed up.
var change = 2.0
func setupGame(){
change = 2.0
changeImage()
}
func changeImage(){
timer = NSTimer.scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval(change, target: self, selector: #selector(SecondViewController.changeColors), userInfo: nil, repeats: true)
change -= 0.1
}
The problem is that it speeds up too much and it doesn't stop. Eventually the change value becomes negative.
Any way to make this work?
You are forgetting two things.
First, you are creating a new repeating timer every time the timer fires. You need to invalidate the old timer before creating the new timer. And since you are going to replace the timer anyway, you do not want this to be a repeating timer; you need to say false instead of true.
Second, if you don't want change to keep getting smaller, you need some sort of condition where you check how small change has become and, if you don't want to get any faster, don't decrement it.
I am displaying information from a data model on a user interface. My current approach to doing so is by means of delegation as follows:
#protocol DataModelDelegate <NSObject>
- (void)updateUIFromDataModel;
#end
I am implementing the delegate method in my controller class as follows, using GCD to push the UI updating to the main thread:
- (void)updateUIFromDataModel {
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
// Code to update various UI controllers
// ...
// ...
});
}
What I am concerned about is that in some situations, this method can be called very frequently (~1000 times per second, each updating multiple UI objects), which to me feels very much like I am 'spamming' the main thread with commands.
Is this too much to be sending to the main thread? If so does anyone have any ideas on what would be the best way of approaching this?
I have looked into dispatch_apply, but that appears to be more useful when coalescing data, which is not what I am after - I really just want to skip updates if they are too frequent so only a sane amount of updates are sent to the main thread!
I was considering taking a different approach and implementing a timer instead to constantly poll the data, say every 10 ms, however since the data updating tends to be sporadic I feel that it would be wasteful to do so.
Combining both approaches, another option I have considered would be to wait for an update message and respond by setting the timer to poll the data at a set interval, and then disabling the timer if the data appears to have stopped changing. But would this be over-complicating the issue, and would the sane approach be to simply have a constant timer running?
edit: Added an answer below showing the adaptations using a dispatch source
One option is to use a Dispatch Source with type DISPATCH_SOURCE_TYPE_DATA_OR which lets you post events repeatedly and have libdispatch combine them together for you. When you have something to post, you use dispatch_source_merge_data to let it know there's something new to do. Multiple calls to dispatch_source_merge_data will be coalesced together if the target queue (in your case, the main queue) is busy.
I have been experimenting with dispatch sources and got it working as expected now - Here is how I have adapted my class implementation in case it is of use to anyone who comes across this question:
#implementation AppController {
#private
dispatch_source_t _gcdUpdateUI;
}
- (void)awakeFromNib {
// Added the following code to set up the dispatch source event handler:
_gcdUpdateUI = dispatch_source_create(DISPATCH_SOURCE_TYPE_DATA_ADD, 0, 0,
dispatch_get_main_queue());
dispatch_source_set_event_handler(_gcdUpdateUI, ^{
// For each UI element I want to update, pull data from model object:
// For testing purposes - print out a notification:
printf("Data Received. Messages Passed: %ld\n",
dispatch_source_get_data(_gcdUpdateUI));
});
dispatch_resume(_gcdUpdateUI);
}
And now in the delegate method I have removed the call to dispatch_async, and replaced it with the following:
- (void)updateUIFromDataModel {
dispatch_source_merge_data(_gcdUpdateUI, 1);
}
This is working absolutely fine for me. Now Even during the most intense data updating the UI stays perfectly responsive.
Although the printf() output was a very crude way of checking if the coalescing is working, a quick scrolling back up the console output showed me that the majority of the messages print outs had a value 1 (easily 98% of them), however there were the intermittent jumps to around 10-20, reaching a peak value of just over 100 coalesced messages around a time when the model was sending the most update messages.
Thanks again for the help!
If the app beach-balls under heavy load, then you've blocked the main thread for too long and you need to implement a coalescing strategy for UI updates. If the app remains responsive to clicks, and doesn't beach-ball, then you're fine.
I have a Cocoa application that records datestamps on events. I need to know when the system time is reset and by how much, but I can't seem to fine a notification anywhere that tells me such a thing has happened. This change could happen because NTP reset the clock or because the user reset (e.g. from System Preferences). It would be great if there was just a NSNotification I could register to receive, but I'm open to any suggestions.
Apple added in NSSystemClockDidChangeNotification, part of NSDate, in Snow Leopard (10.6). There doesn't appear to be a way to do it in Leopard (10.5) or earlier. Per the Apple NSDate docs:
Posted whenever the system clock is changed. This can be initiated by a call to settimeofday() or the user changing values in the Date and Time Preference panel. The notification object is null. This notification does not contain a userInfo dictionary.
This doesn't appear to tell you "how much" time has changed. You could possibly calculate that by periodically (say, every 5 seconds in a NSTimer) capturing the system time with [NSDate date], saving it into a variable, and then after NSSystemClockDidChangeNotification fires, grab the new date and compare the two together using NSDate's timeIntervalSinceDate: method to get the difference.
Not millisecond or even second accurate, but pretty close.
EDIT: See this post. You could possibly use the UpTime() C command to grab the system uptime in CPU tics (which you can later convert to seconds). You could use this to figure out by how much time has changed (assuming no system restart or sleep). This works even if the system clock is changed by the user or network time protocol.
If some on is looking for solution know system date change change event from 10.4
OSStatus DateChangeEventHandler(EventHandlerCallRef nextHandler, EventRef theEvent, void *userData)
{
NSLog(#"Event received!\n");
return 0;
}
- (void)SystemTimeChangeHandler
{
EventTypeSpec eventType;
eventType.eventClass = kEventClassSystem;
eventType.eventKind = kEventSystemTimeDateChanged;
EventHandlerUPP eventHandlerUPP =
NewEventHandlerUPP(DateChangeEventHandler);
EventHandlerRef eventHandlerRef = NULL;
(void)InstallApplicationEventHandler(
eventHandlerUPP,
1,
&eventType,
self,
&eventHandlerRef);
}
Time moves constantly. A notification every time the current time changed would be a constant, CPU-soaking stream of notifications.
What you need to do is get the current time in your event handler—the one that receives the events you're datestamping. You get the current time by calling [NSDate date].
I don't think there's a single way to do that because of the different mechanisms by which the time could change. But it wouldn't be very expensive (too expensive? Don't know, have you profiled it yet? ;-) to set an NSTimer once a second to check the time and compare it with the previous value. If it's not advanced by about a second, something interesting happened and you can notify your audit object.