Yesterday I read somewhere that NSTask isn't thread safe and that bothers me a lot, because I'm running a NSTask within a NSThread and is so far not experiencing any threading issues with it.
My code is organized like this
A: main thread -> B: worker thread -> C: worker task
C: The worker task is a commandline program.
B: The worker thread can start/stop the worker task and send it commands.
A: The main thread can send commands to the worker thread.
If NSTask is supposed to be used only within the main thread, then I'm considering moving the NSTask start/stop code to the main thread, just to prevent possible threading issues.
Can NSTask be used outside the main thread?
And if not then what may be the threading issues with NSTask?
I read somewhere that NSTask isn't thread safe…
That's not what that page says. It says that you'll get the process-terminated notification on the same thread you launched it from, which suggests that NSTask is aware of threads and tries to do the right thing.
The problem one of the editors of that page encountered was that they started their process from a thread, then let the thread die. That caused a crash because the framework was no longer able to deliver the process-terminated notification to the correct thread.
The Thread Safety Summary (bookmark that) says something similar, listing NSTask in a list of classes about which it says:
In most cases, you can use these classes from any thread as long as you use them from only one thread at a time. Check the class documentation for additional details.
The NSTask documentation doesn't say anything additional about threads, so it sounds like NSTask is one of the “most cases”: You can use a task from the thread you created it on. Don't use the same task on another thread, and (as noted above) make sure the thread lasts at least as long as the task process.
I will note, however, that in most cases, there is no need to run a task on a separate thread. Separate processes tend to run on other processors just as other threads in your process do, and the run loop does a good job of multiplexing many small events and keeping the UI responsive. You can use NSFileHandle's readInBackgroundAndNotify method if you need to read output from the task. You may be able to cut out your worker threads entirely.
The alternative is, as Eimantas suggested, to use NSOperation: Have an operation that simply starts a particular task and waits for that task to exit (perhaps synchronously reading output from it). The operation is complete when the task has exited.
Yes, it can, but I suggest you using NSOperation. It's KVO-agnostic (unlike threaded NSTask). Also you may want to look into receptionist design pattern regarding KVO and threaded environment (in case you need KVO).
Related
I'm new to Ruby and quick googling of the question did not give a result. For this case it is relatively easy to code a test, however it might be worth to ask it here to get an authoritative answer.
Consider scenario: in a ruby application invoked from command line the main thread creates and starts worker threads. Worker threads perform long computations. A method of the main thread does not wait for anything and simply completes after spawning workers.
Will the process exit and worker threads be terminated after the main thread exits?
Is there a documentation describing this behavior?
As long as these threads are daemon threads, then they will exit along with your program. There is documentation regarding the exiting of threads (although its short) here. However, if your looking for processes to stay around after being spawned by another process (and the corresponding process ending), then you should look at a multi-processing gem or library suited for the task.
I've noticed that if I create an NSURLConnection and fire the request, all is well. My delegate methods get called and the last delegate method get's called well after the code block invoking the connection completes. Great.
That leads me to believe the connections are asynchronous which implies that they're multi-threaded. Is that correct? Could they be asynchronous but in the same thread? No, that's crazy - right?
But, in every example I've seen using an NSOperation, NSURLConnections are always scheduledInRunLoop after which [runLoop runMode ...] is invoked in a while loop.
Can someone explain exactly what is happening here? It seems to me that the first case requires spawning secondary threads but no manual invocation of the run loop (on those threads) while NSOperation (in a new thread) does require manual invocation of the run loop.
Why is no manual invocation required for the first case?
NSURLConnection does spawn a single background thread to manage all instances of itself, but this is generally irrelevant to the caller, since the delegate calls are made on whatever thread owns the runloop the connection was scheduled in. (This fact turned out to be very relevant to me recently, but these things really only come up when dealing with insane crashers in multi-threaded apps.)
For more caller-relevant details, you should look at the docs for -[NSURLConnection scheduleInRunLoop:forMode:]. It explains how to manually handle scheduling and unscheduling, and how NSURLConnections behave in a multi-threaded environment.
If you are unclear on how run loops work and how they perform asynchronous actions without requiring additional threads, you should read Run Loops in the Threading Programming Guide. This is a very important topic for moving to more advanced Cocoa development.
Because the main thread already has a run loop, I'd imagine.
If you want to run NSURLConnection in another thread, you should create a run loop like this in your thread's main method:
while (!finished)
{
[[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] runUntilDate:[NSDate dateWithTimeIntervalSinceNow:1]];
}
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.
I'm making an iPhone app using threads.
I was used C# for a while, there was a method Thread.Join() which blocks current thread for specific thread completes execution. What's the equivalent in Cocoa for it? Or Alternatives?
---edit---
PS. I'm using NSThread.
---edit---
I'm finding a method like 'waitForThreadExit' which blocks caller thread until thread completes execution.
The threads created with Cocoa cannot be created as detached. NSThread instances always wrap attached POSIX threads for resource management reasons. As quoted in the Thread Programming Guide:
If you do want to create joinable
threads, the only way to do so is
using POSIX threads. POSIX creates
threads as joinable by default. To
mark a thread as detached or joinable,
modify the thread attributes using the
pthread_attr_setdetachstate function
prior to creating the thread. After
the thread begins, you can change a
joinable thread to a detached thread
by calling the pthread_detach
function. For more information about
these POSIX thread functions, see the
pthread man page. For information on
how to join with a thread, see the
pthread_join man page.
If you are looking for a way to be notified of the end of a NSThread, you can use the NSThreadWillExitNotification notification.
NSThread does not expose a Join method by any name. NSThread is a very simple, high level, wrapper class. It's very useful for doing threading in a GUI app as it simplifies calling back onto the main thread. For simple backgrounding of tasks and communicating the result back to the main thread on completion this should be sufficient and is fairly easy to get right. If you want to do more "advanced" things (and that includes Join, here) then you'll either have to go to pthreads or layer the semantics on top of NSThread (perhaps by using NSCondition).
If you are using pthreads, then use: pthread_join.
On the other hand, if you are using NSThread class, there is no equivalent to join method you are referring to.
You could try wiht NSObject's message performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone:
But I am not exactly sure what you are trying to accomplish here.
Here's is Apple's Multithreading Programming Guide.
You can do this yourself using NSConditionLock. Define two conditions: "running" and "terminated". The worker thread acquires the lock "running" and upon termination it unlocks with condition "terminated". A join would then be to acquire the lock "terminated" and then unlock it "terminated".
I've read the documentation for ReadDirectoryChangesW() and also seen the CDirectoryChangeWatcher project, but neither say why one would want to call it asynchronously. I understand that the current thread will not block, but, at least for the CDirectoryChangeWatcher code that uses a completion port, when it calls GetQueuedCompletionStatus(), that thread blocks anyway (if there are no changes).
So if I call ReadDirectoryChangesW() synchronously in a separate thread in the first place that I don't care if it blocks, why would I ever want to call ReadDirectoryChangesW() asynchronously?
When you call it asynchronously, you have more control over which thread does the waiting. It also allows you to have a single thread wait for multiple things, such as a directory change, an event, and a message. Finally, even if you're doing the waiting in the same thread that set up the watch in the first place, it gives you control over how long you're willing to wait. GetQueuedCompletionStatus has a timeout parameter that ReadDirectoryChangesW doesn't offer by itself.
You would call ReadDirectoryChangesW such that it returns its results asynchronously if you ever needed the calling thread to not block. A tautology, but the truth.
Candidates for such threads: the UI thread & any thread that is solely responsible for servicing a number of resources (Sockets, any sort of IPC, independent files, etc.).
Not being familiar with the project, I'd guess the CDirectoryChangeWatcher doesn't care if its worker thread blocks. Generally, that's the nature of worker threads.
I tried using ReadDirectoryChanges in a worker thread synchronously, and guess what, it blocked so that the thread wouldn't exit by itself at the program exit.
So if you don't want to use evil things like TerminateThread, you should use asynchronous calls.