When i press button1 (execute) on UI i run AsyncTask. The task was run success.
I press another button2 (cancel) to stop asynctask from main thread
asynctask.cancel(true);
but AsyncTask thread dont self kill! (see second screenshot)
The asynctask switch to WAIT mode
then i can press button1 (execute) again and run NEW task and press button2 (cancel)
And i have queations:
Why task dont selfkill after used cancel(true)?
And whay mean WAIT mode?
AsyncTask under the hood uses a ThreadPoolExecutor. Those threads might not go away for a bit because it'd be a waste to keep creating and tearing down those threads too often. After a while if you create more AsyncTasks you'll find that it'll stop creating new threads and it'll re-use the old ones.
Update to address some details:
You would think that if there are free threads in the pool, it wouldn't create new ones, but this isn't exactly true. The idea is that there's a certain number of threads that are useful to have around to keep processing asynchronous tasks. This is called the core pool size. In Android's AsyncTask case, they seem to have set it to 5. If you look at the documentation for ThreadPoolExecutor it says:
When a new task is submitted in method execute(Runnable), and fewer than corePoolSize threads are running, a new thread is created to handle the request, even if other worker threads are idle.
There's also a maximum fittingly called the maximum pool size.
Related
What I would like to do is to have one thread waiting for messages (WaitMessage) and another processing the logic of the application. The first thread would wake up on every message, signal somehow this event to the other thread, go to sleep again, etc. Is this possible?
UPDATE
Consider the following situation. We have a GUI thread, and this thread is busy in a long calculation. If there is no other thread, there is no option but to check for new messages from time to time. Otherwise, the GUI would become irresponsive during the long calculation. Right now my system uses this "polling" approach (it has a single thread that checks the message queue from time to time.) However, I would like to know whether this other solution is possible: Have another thread waiting on the OS message queue of the GUI so that when a Windows message arrives this thread will wake up and tell the other about the message. Note that I'm not asking how to communicate the news between threads but whether it is possible for the second thread to wait for OS messages that arrive in the queue of the first thread.
I should also add that I cannot have two different threads, one for the GUI and another for the calculations, because the system I'm working on is a Virtual Machine on top of which runs a Smalltalk image that is not thread safe. That's why having a thread that only signals new OS messages would be the ideal solution (if possible.)
This depends on what the second thread needs to do once the first thread has received a message.
If the second thread simply needs to know the first thread received a message, the first thread could signal an Event object using SetEvent() or PulseEvent(), and the second thread could wait on that event using WaitForSingleObject().
If the second thread needs data from the first thread, it could use an I/O Completion Port. The first thread could wrap the data inside a dynamically allocated struct and post it to the port using PostQueuedCompletionStatus(), and the second thread could wait for the data using GetQueuedCompletionStatus() and then free it when done using it.
Update: based on new information you have provided, it is not possible for one thread to wait on or service another thread's message queue. Only the thread that created and owns the queue can poll messages from its queue. Each thread has its own message queue.
You really need to move your long calculations to a different thread, they don't belong in the GUI thread to begin with. Let the GUI thread manage the GUI and service messages, do any long-running things in another thread.
If you can't do that because your chosen library is not thread safe, then you have 4 options:
find a different library that is thread safe.
have the calculations poll the message queue periodically when running in the GUI thread.
break up the calculations into small chunks that can be triggered by the GUI thread posting messages to itself. Post a message and return to the message loop. When the message is received, do a little bit of work, post the next message, and return to the message loop. Repeat as needed until the work is done. This allows the GUI thread to continue servicing the message queue in between each calculation step.
move the library to a separate process that communicates back with your main app as needed.
I have a working GUI and now need to add some code that will need to run continuously and update the GUI with data. Where should this code go? I know that it should not go into the message loop because it might block incoming messages to the window, but I'm confused on where in my window process this code could run.
You have a choice: you can use a thread and post messages back to the main thread to update the GUI (or update the GUI directly, but don't try this if you used MFC), or you can use a timer that will post you messages periodically, you then simply implement a handler for the timer and do whatever you need to there.
The thread is best for a complicated, slow process that might block. If the process of getting data is quick (and/or can be set to timeout on error) then a timer is simpler.
Have you looked into threading at all?
Typically, you would create one thread that performs the background task (in this case, reading the voltage data) and storing it into a shared buffer. The GUI thread simply reads that buffer every so often (on redraw, every 30 seconds, when the user clicks refresh, etc) and displays the data.
Your background thread runs on its own schedule, getting CPU time from the OS, and is not bound to the UI or message pump. It can use some type of timer to monitor the data source and read things in as necessary.
Now, since the threads run separately and may run at the same time, you need to make them aware of one another. This can be done with locks (look into mutexes). For example:
The monitor reads the current voltage and stores it in the buffer.
The background/monitor thread locks the buffer holding the latest sample.
The monitor copies the internal buffer to the shared one.
The monitor unlocks the buffer.
Simultaneously, but separately, the UI thread:
Gets a redraw call.
Waits for the buffer to be unlocked, then reads the value.
Draws the UI with the buffer value.
Setting up a new thread and using it, in most Windows GUI-producing languages, is pretty simple. C/++ and C# both have very simple APIs for creating a new thread and having it work on some task, you usually just need to provide a function for the thread to process. See the MSDN docs on CreateThread for a C example.
The concept of threading and locking is for the most part language-agnostic, and similar in most C-inspired languages. You'll need to have your main (in this case, probably UI) thread control the lifetime of the worker: start the worker after the UI is created, and kill it before the UI is shut down.
This approach has a little bit of overhead up front, especially if your data fetch is very simple. If your data source changes (a network request, some blocking data source, reading over actual wires from a physical sensor, etc) then you only need to change the monitor thread and the UI doesn't need to know.
I am writing an audio recording application for WP7. I have a DispatcherTimer object in my ViewModel class, that when the recording is happening, counts the elapsed seconds to show the length of the recording to a user. I have the following problem with the app:
The tick interval for the DispatcherTimer is set to one second (1000) ms.
When I press the start button, the DispatcherTimer starts.
When I press the stop button, the DispatcherTimers thread exits. (in a second!, thought I didn't intend it to be that way))
If I do press the start button after pressing stop to swiftly (less then a second inbetween), my DispatcherTimer fails to start again, since it hasn't yet stopped. (it's thread hasn't exited)
Basically, my biggest concern is why does DispatcherTimer has to wait until it's time for its tick, to realize that it has been stopped, and the thread it created to perform ticks in has to exit?
How can I work around this problem? Thank you.
DispatcherTimers are not guaranteed to execute exactly when the time interval occurs, but they are guaranteed to not execute before the time interval occurs. This is because DispatcherTimer operations are placed on the DispatcherTimer queue like other operations. When the DispatcherTimer operation executes is dependent on the other jobs in the queue and their priorities.
Reference: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.threading.dispatchertimer(v=VS.95).aspx
You should better use a System.Threading.Timer, which is a timer class that fires on a separate thread. This is good for purely numerical timing, where you're not trying to update the UI, etc.
It is best to describe my question in an example:
We create a Windows Event handle by CreateEvent, with manualReset as FALSE.
We create 4 threads. Ensure that they all start running and waiting on the above event by WaitForSingleObject.
In the main thread, in a for loop, we signal this event 4 times, by SetEvent. such as:
for (int i = 0; i < 4; ++i) ::SetEvent(event);
My question is, can we say that all these 4 threads will certainly be waken up from waiting on this event?
According to my understanding of Windows Event, the answer is YES. Because when the event is set, there is always a thread waiting for it.
However, I read on MSDN that "Setting an event that is already set has no effect". Since the waiting threads probably do not get a chance to run while main thread setting event in the loop. Can they still be notified and reset the event to nonsignaled? If the event is not reset, the following SetEvent in the loop is obviously useless.
Or the OS kernel knows which thread should be notified when an event is set, and reset this event immediately if there is a waiting thread. So the waiting thread does not need to be schedule to reset the event to nonsignaled?
Any clarification or references are welcome. Thanks.
Because when the event is set, there is always a thread waiting for it.
No, you don't know that. A thread may indefinitely suspended for some reason just before the NtWaitForSingleObject system call.
Since the waiting threads probably do not get a chance to run while main thread setting event in the loop.
If a thread is waiting for an object, it doesn't run at all - that's the whole point of being able to block on a synchronization object.
Can they still be notified and reset the event to nonsignaled? If the event is not reset, the following SetEvent in the loop is obviously useless.
The thread that sets the event is the one that resets the signal state back to 0, not the thread that gets woken up. Of course, if there's no thread waiting the signal state won't be reset.
Or the OS kernel knows which thread should be notified when an event is set, and reset this event immediately if there is a waiting thread.
Yes, the kernel does know. Every dispatcher object has a wait list, and when a thread waits on an object it pushes a wait block onto that list.
In a word? No.
There's no guarantee that each and every call to Set() will signal a waiting thread. MSDN describes this behavior as follows:
There is no guarantee that every call
to the Set method will release a
thread from an EventWaitHandle whose
reset mode is
EventResetMode::AutoReset. If two
calls are too close together, so that
the second call occurs before a thread
has been released, only one thread is
released. It is as if the second call
did not happen. Also, if Set is called
when there are no threads waiting and
the EventWaitHandle is already
signaled, the call has no effect.
(Source)
If you want to ensure that a specific number of threads will be signaled, you should use a more suitable kind of synchronization primitive, such as a Semaphore.
When you do SetEvent(event), since your manual reset is set as false for the event, any thread (windows doesnt specify any preferences) from one of the four would get passed the waitforsingleobject() and on the subsequent calls the other 3 threads would randomly be selected since your event is autoreset after releasing every thread.
If you're trying to imply the threads are re-entrant, the threads getting released every time would again be one out of four randomly by OSes choice.
I'm trying to learn about threading and I'm thoroughly confused. I'm sure all the answers are there in the apple docs but I just found it really hard to breakdown and digest. Maybe somebody could clear a thing or 2 up for me.
1)performSelectorOnMainThread
Does the above simply register an event in the main run loop or is it somehow a new thread even though the method says "mainThread"? If the purpose of threads is to relieve processing on the main thread how does this help?
2) RunLoops
Is it true that if I want to create a completely seperate thread I use
"detachNewThreadSelector"? Does calling start on this initiate a default run loop for the thread that has been created? If so where do run loops come into it?
3) And Finally , I've seen examples using NSOperationQueue. Is it true to say that If you use performSelectorOnMainThread the threads are in a queue anyway so NSOperation is not needed?
4) Should I forget about all of this and just use the Grand Central Dispatch instead?
Run Loops
You can think of a Run Loop to be an event processing for-loop associated to a thread. This is provided by the system for every thread, but it's only run automatically for the main thread.
Note that running run loops and executing a thread are two distinct concepts. You can execute a thread without running a run loop, when you're just performing long calculations and you don't have to respond to various events.
If you want to respond to various events from a secondary thread, you retrieve the run loop associated to the thread by
[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop]
and run it. The events run loops can handle is called input sources. You can add input sources to a run-loop.
PerformSelector
performSelectorOnMainThread: adds the target and the selector to a special input source called performSelector input source. The run loop of the main thread dequeues that input source and handles the method call one by one, as part of its event processing loop.
NSOperation/NSOperationQueue
I think of NSOperation as a way to explicitly declare various tasks inside an app which takes some time but can be run mostly independently. It's easier to use than to detach the new thread yourself and maintain various things yourself, too. The main NSOperationQueue automatically maintains a set of background threads which it reuses, and run NSOperations in parallel.
So yes, if you just need to queue up operations in the main thread, you can do away with NSOperationQueue and just use performSelectorOnMainThread:, but that's not the main point of NSOperation.
GCD
GCD is a new infrastructure introduced in Snow Leopard. NSOperationQueue is now implemented on top of it.
It works at the level of functions / blocks. Feeding blocks to dispatch_async is extremely handy, but for a larger chunk of operations I prefer to use NSOperation, especially when that chunk is used from various places in an app.
Summary
You need to read Official Apple Doc! There are many informative blog posts on this point, too.
1)performSelectorOnMainThread
Does the above simply register an event in the main run loop …
You're asking about implementation details. Don't worry about how it works.
What it does is perform that selector on the main thread.
… or is it somehow a new thread even though the method says "mainThread"?
No.
If the purpose of threads is to relieve processing on the main thread how does this help?
It helps you when you need to do something on the main thread. A common example is updating your UI, which you should always do on the main thread.
There are other methods for doing things on new secondary threads, although NSOperationQueue and GCD are generally easier ways to do it.
2) RunLoops
Is it true that if I want to create a completely seperate thread I use "detachNewThreadSelector"?
That has nothing to do with run loops.
Yes, that is one way to start a new thread.
Does calling start on this initiate a default run loop for the thread that has been created?
No.
I don't know what you're “calling start on” here, anyway. detachNewThreadSelector: doesn't return anything, and it starts the thread immediately. I think you mixed this up with NSOperations (which you also don't start yourself—that's the queue's job).
If so where do run loops come into it?
Run loops just exist, one per thread. On the implementation side, they're probably lazily created upon demand.
3) And Finally , I've seen examples using NSOperationQueue. Is it true to say that If you use performSelectorOnMainThread the threads are in a queue anyway so NSOperation is not needed?
These two things are unrelated.
performSelectorOnMainThread: does exactly that: Performs the selector on the main thread.
NSOperations run on secondary threads, one per operation.
An operation queue determines the order in which the operations (and their threads) are started.
Threads themselves are not queued (except maybe by the scheduler, but that's part of the kernel, not your application). The operations are queued, and they are started in that order. Once started, their threads run in parallel.
4) Should I forget about all of this and just use the Grand Central Dispatch instead?
GCD is more or less the same set of concepts as operation queues. You won't understand one as long as you don't understand the other.
So what are all these things good for?
Run loops
Within a thread, a way to schedule things to happen. Some may be scheduled at a specific date (timers), others simply “whenever you get around to it” (sources). Most of these are zero-cost when idle, only consuming any CPU time when the thing happens (timer fires or source is signaled), which makes run loops a very efficient way to have several things going on at once without any threads.
You generally don't handle a run loop yourself when you create a scheduled timer; the timer adds itself to the run loop for you.
Threads
Threads enable multiple things to happen at the exact same time on different processors. Thing 1 can happen on thread A (on processor 1) while thing 2 happens on thread B (on processor 0).
This can be a problem. Multithreaded programming is a dance, and when two threads try to step in the same place, pain ensues. This is called contention, and most discussion of threaded programming is on the topic of how to avoid it.
NSOperationQueue and GCD
You have a thing you need done. That's an operation. You can't have it done on the main thread, or you'd simply send a message like normal; you need to run it in the background, on a secondary thread.
To achieve this, express it as either an NSOperation object (you create a subclass of NSOperation and instantiate it) or a block (or both), then add it to either an NSOperationQueue (NSOperations, including NSBlockOperation) or a dispatch queue (bare block).
GCD can be used to make things happen on the main thread, as well; you can create serial queues and add blocks to them. A serial queue, as its name suggests, will run exactly one block at a time, rather than running a bunch of them in parallel.
So what should I do?
I would not recommend creating threads directly. Use NSOperationQueue or GCD instead; they force you into better thinking habits that will reduce the risk of your threaded code inducing headaches.
For things that run periodically, not fitting into the “thing I need done” model of NSOperations and GCD blocks, consider just using the run loop on the main thread. Chances are, you don't need to put it on a thread after all. A rendering loop in a 3D game, for example, can be a simple timer.