I need a lock in cocoa that does not use one cpu when I try to lock it and it is locked somewhere else. Something that is implemented in the kernel scheduler.
It sounds like you're trying to find a lock that's not a spin lock. EVERY lock must use some CPU, or else it couldn't function. :-)
NSLock is the most obvious in Cocoa. It has a simple -lock, -unlock interface and uses pthread mutexes in its implementation. There are a number of more sophisticated locks in Cocoa for more specific needs: NSRecursiveLock, NSCondition, NSDistributedLock, etc.
There is also the #synchronized directive which is even simpler to use but has some additional overhead to it.
GCD also has a counted semaphore object if you're looking for something like that.
My recommendation is that, instead of locks, you look at using NSOperations and an NSOperationQueue where you -setMaxConcurrentOperationCount: to 1 to access the shared resource. By using a single-wide operation queue, you can guarantee that only one thing at a time will make use of a resource, while still allowing for multiple threads to do so.
This avoids the need for locks, and since everything is done in user space, can provide much better performance. I've replaced almost all of my locking around shared resources with this technique, and have been very pleased with the results.
Do you mean "lock" as in a mutex between threads, or a mutex between processes, or a mutex between disparate resources on a network, or...?
If it's between threads, you use NSLock. If it's between processes, then you can use POSIX named semaphores.
If you really want kernel locks and know what you are doing, you can use
<libkern/OSAtomic.h>
Be sure to always use the "barrier" variants. These are faster and much more dangerous than posix locks. If you can target 10.6 with new code, then GCD is a great way to go. There is a great podcast on using the kernel synchronization primitives at: http://www.mac-developer-network.com/shows/podcasts/lnc/lnc032/
Related
I've been using Windows CRITICAL_SECTION since the 1990s and I've been aware of the TryEnterCriticalSection function since it first appeared. I understand that it's supposed to help me avoid a context switch and all that.
But it just occurred to me that I have never used it. Not once.
Nor have I ever felt I needed to use it. In fact, I can't think of a situation in which I would.
Generally when I need to get an exclusive lock on something, I need that lock and I need it now. I can't put it off until later. I certainly can't just say, "oh well, I won't update that data after all". So I need EnterCriticalSection, not TryEnterCriticalSection
So what exactly is the use case for TryEnterCriticalSection?
I've Googled this, of course. I've found plenty of quick descriptions on how to use it but almost no real-world examples of why. I did find this example from Intel that, frankly doesn't help much:
CRITICAL_SECTION cs;
void threadfoo()
{
while(TryEnterCriticalSection(&cs) == FALSE)
{
// some useful work
}
// Critical Section of Code
LeaveCriticalSection (&cs);
}
// other work
}
What exactly is a scenario in which I can do "some useful work" while I'm waiting for my lock? I'd love to avoid thread-contention but in my code, by the time I need the critical section, I've already been forced to do all that "useful work" in order to get the values that I'm updating in shared data (for which I need the critical section in the first place).
Does anyone have a real-world example?
As an example you might have multiple threads that each produce a high volume of messages (events of some sort) that all need to go on a shared queue.
Since there's going to be frequent contention on the lock on the shared queue, each thread can have a local queue and then, whenever the TryEnterCriticalSection call succeeds for the current thread, it copies everything it has in its local queue to the shared one and releases the CS again.
In C++11 therestd::lock which employs deadlock-avoidance algorithm.
In C++17 this has been elaborated to std::scoped_lock class.
This algorithm tries to lock on mutexes in one order, and then in another, until succeeds. It takes try_lock to implement this approach.
Having try_lock method in C++ is called Lockable named requirement, whereas mutexes with only lock and unlock are BasicLockable.
So if you build C++ mutex on top of CTRITICAL_SECTION, and you want to implement Lockable, or you'll want to implement lock avoidance directly on CRITICAL_SECTION, you'll need TryEnterCriticalSection
Additionally you can implement timed mutex on TryEnterCriticalSection. You can do few iterations of TryEnterCriticalSection, then call Sleep with increasing delay time, until TryEnterCriticalSection succeeds or deadline has expired. It is not a very good idea though. Really timed mutexes based on user-space WIndows synchronization objects are implemented on SleepConditionVariableSRW, SleepConditionVariableCS or WaitOnAddress.
Because windows CS are recursive TryEnterCriticalSection allows a thread to check whether it already owns a CS without risk of stalling.
Another case would be if you have a thread that occasionally needs to perform some locked work but usually does something else, you could use TryEnterCriticalSection and only perform the locked work if you actually got the lock.
AFAIK, the mutex API was introduced to the kernel after LDD3 (Linux device drivers 3rd edition) was written so it's not described in the book.
The book describes how to use the kernel's semaphore API for mutex functionality.
It suggest to use down_interruptable() instead of down():
You do not, as a general rule,
want to use noninterruptible operations unless there truly is no alternative. Non-interruptible operations are a good way to create unkillable processes (the dreaded
“D state” seen in ps), and annoy your users [Linux Device Drivers 3rd ed]
Now. here's my question:
The mutex API has two "similar" functions:
mutex_lock_killable() an mutex_lock_interruptable(). Which one should I choose?
Use mutex_lock_interruptible() function to allow your driver to be interrupted by any signal.
This implies that your system call should be written so that it can be restarted.
(Also see ERESTARTSYS.)
Use mutex_lock_killable() to allow your driver to be interrupted only by signals that actually kill the process, i.e., when the process has no opportunity to look at the results of your system call, or even to try it again.
Use mutex_lock() when you can guarantee that the mutex will not be held for a long time.
I am writing a simple character device driver. (kernel 2.6.26)
Multiple concurrent reader & writers are expected.
I am not sure what type of lock is best used to synchronize a short access to internal structures.
Any advice will be most appreciated
Compare with http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/kernel-locking/c214.html . An old document from before when mutexes existed, but given mutexes are a sleeping lock, they count towards user context.
spinlock — spinlock_bh — mutex — semaphore
If your data structures are only ever accessed by functions whose execution is triggered by userspace, all lock primitives are available to you. It depends on gut feeling of how short a "short access" is.
And then there is RCU as a fifth way of doing things, though it is somewhat not a locking primitive in its own right. (It is used together with one of the lock primitives.)
Start with a mutex. Once you've got it working you can think about reworking the locking.
I need to do some network bound calls (e.g., fetch a website) and I don't want it to block the UI. Should I be using NSThread's or python's threading module if I am working in pyobjc? I can't find any information on how to choose one over the other. Note, I don't really care about Python's GIL since my tasks are not CPU bound at all.
It will make no difference, you will gain the same behavior with slightly different interfaces. Use whichever fits best into your system.
Learn to love the run loop. Use Cocoa's URL-loading system (or, if you need plain sockets, NSFileHandle) and let it call you when the response (or failure) comes back. Then you don't have to deal with threads at all (the URL-loading system will use a thread for you).
Pretty much the only time to create your own threads in Cocoa is when you have a large task (>0.1 sec) that you can't break up.
(Someone might say NSOperation, but NSOperationQueue is broken and RAOperationQueue doesn't support concurrent operations. Fine if you already have a bunch of NSOperationQueue code or really want to prepare for working NSOperationQueue, but if you need concurrency now, run loop or threads.)
I'm more fond of the native python threading solution since I could join and reference threads around. AFAIK, NSThreads don't support thread joining and cancelling, and you could get a variety of things done with python threads.
Also, it's a bummer that NSThreads can't have multiple arguments, and though there are workarounds for this (like using NSDictionarys and NSArrays), it's still not as elegant and as simple as invoking a thread with arguments laid out in order / corresponding parameters.
But yeah, if the situation demands you to use NSThreads, there shouldn't be any problem at all. Otherwise, it's cool to stick with native python threads.
I have a different suggestion, mainly because python threading is just plain awful because of the GIL (Global Interpreter Lock), especially when you have more than one cpu core. There is a video presentation that goes into this in excruciating detail, but I cannot find the video right now - it was done by a Google employee.
Anyway, you may want to think about using the subprocess module instead of threading (have a helper program that you can execute, or use another binary on the system. Or use NSThread, it should give you more performance than what you can get with CPython threads.
I am developing a multi-threaded application in Cocoa. The main thread takes values from the user, and when a button is clicked I invoke a secondary thread in which a long calculation takes place. Now from this thread I have to return the output of every step of the calculation to the main thread. I want to periodically send data from one thread to the other. I can't find any simple example that does this. Any ideas?
There are a number of ways to do this, in rough order of complexity (easiest first):
use NSObject's performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: which is pretty self explanatory.
use performSelector:onThread:withObject:waitUntilDone:, which will let you go the other way
use an NSNotification (and NSDistributedNotificationCenter), though you can easily run into a race condition if you're not careful
Use NSPorts to send data back and forth
Check out the doc that Abizer mentioned for details on all of these.
performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: is often the easiest way to update the UI with a background thread's progress. You could also create your own storage area that's safe to access between threads using NSLock or a similar mechanism, or even use distributed objects (which also works between processes or over a network).
Then there's NSOperationQueue and NSOperation which does help a lot to simplify multi-threaded programming, although a lot of programmers have been avoiding it since it can cause a crash in certain circumstances under Leopard.
Have a look at the Apple docs for this.
You may need to create an ADC member account, but this is free
Multi-threaded Cocoa Programs