I think a straightforward question that i cant seem to find any information on. When calling ASIOs io_context.run(), if there is at that moment nothing yet to read/write asynchronously, does asio do busy waiting with that thread or does it do something more clever where the thread can be released and used in other parts of the application or OS?
I looked into the code but its not very clear to me what the answer is. I do see usage of conditional variables in some places so i can only presume that the run call is not busy waiting if it doesnt have to be.
I ask because in our case, we would like to maximise thread efficiency so it was suggested to place a thread sleep inside a recursive async read handler in case asio is busy waiting. We dont get that much network activity for a single thread to be used maximally.
It's not busy-waiting. This is documented here: The Proactor Design Pattern: Concurrency Without Threads
It highlights what underlying API's are preferred depending on platforms:
On many platforms, Boost.Asio implements the Proactor design pattern in terms of a Reactor, such as select, epoll or kqueue.
And
On Windows NT, 2000 and XP, Boost.Asio takes advantage of overlapped I/O to provide an efficient implementation of the Proactor design pattern.
Q. it was suggested to place a thread sleep inside a recursive async read handler in case asio is busy waiting
Don't do that. Keeping handlers short will allow you to multiplex all IO on a single service. If you do blocking work, consider posting it to a separate thread (pool).
Related
In my app I will receive various events that I would like to process asynchronously in a prioritised order.
I could do this with a boost::asio::io_service, but my application is single threaded. I don't want to pay for locks and mallocs you might need for a multi threaded program (the performance cost really is significant to me). I'm basically looking for a boost::asio::io_service that is written for single threaded execution.
I'm pretty sure I could implement this myself using boost::coroutine, but before I do, does something like a boost::asio::io_service that is written for single threaded execution exist already? I scanned the list of boost libraries already and nothing stood out to me
Be aware that you have to pay for synchronization as soon as you use any non-blocking calls of Asio.
Even though you might use a single thread for scheduling work and processing the resulting callbacks, Asio might still have to spawn additional threads internally for executing asynchronous calls. Those will access the io_service concurrently.
Think of an async_read on a socket: As soon as the received data becomes available, the socket has to notify the io_service. This happens concurrent to your main thread, so additional synchronization is required.
For blocking I/O this problem goes away in theory, but since asynchronous I/O is sort of the whole point of the library, I would not expect to find too many optimizations for this case in the implementation.
As was pointed out in the comments already, the contention on the io_service will be very low with only one main thread, so unless profiling indicates a clear performance bottleneck there, you should not worry about it too much.
I suggest to use boost::asio together with boost::coroutine -> boost::asio::yield_context (does already the coupling between coroutine + io_service). If you detect an task with higher priority you could suspend the current task and start processing the task with higher priority.
The problem is that you have to define/call certain check-points in the code of your task in order to suspend the task if the condition (higher prio task enqueued) is given.
I'm writing a thread pool class in C++ which receives tasks to be executed in parallel. I want all cores to be busy, if possible, but sometimes some threads are idle because they are blocked for a time for synchronization purposes. When this happens I would like to start a new thread, so that there are always approximately as many threads awake as there are cpu cores. For this purpose I need a way to find out whether a certain thread is awake or sleeping (blocked). How can I find this out?
I'd prefer to use the C++11 standard library or boost for portability purposes. But if necessary I would also use WinAPI. I'm using Visual Studio 2012 on Windows 7. But really, I'd like to have a portable way of doing this.
Preferably this thread-pool should be able to master cases like
MyThreadPool pool;
for ( int i = 0; i < 100; ++i )
pool.addTask( &block_until_this_function_has_been_called_a_hundred_times );
pool.join(); // waits until all tasks have been dispatched.
where the function block_until_this_function_has_been_called_a_hundred_times() blocks until 100 threads have called it. At this time all threads should continue running. One requirement for the thread-pool is that it should not deadlock because of a too low number of threads in the pool.
Add a facility to your thread pool for a thread to say "I'm blocked" and then "I'm no longer blocked". Before every significant blocking action (see below for what I mean by that) signal "I'm blocked", and then "I'm no longer blocked" afterwards.
What constitutes a "significant blocking action"? Certainly not a simple mutex lock: mutexes should only be held for a short period of time, so blocking on a mutex is not a big deal. I mean things like:
Waiting for I/O to complete
Waiting for another pool task to complete
Waiting for data on a shared queue
and other similar events.
Use Boost Asio. It has its own thread pool management and scheduling framework. The basic idea is to push tasks to the io_service object using the post() method, and call run() from as many threads as many CPU cores you have. You should create a work object while the calculation is running to avoid the threads from exiting if they don't have enough jobs.
The important thing about Asio is never to use any blocking calls. For I/O calls, use the asynchronous calls of Asio's own I/O objects. For synchronization, use strand objects instead of mutexes. If you post functions to the io service that is wrapped in a strand, then it ensures that at any time at most one task runs that belongs to a certain strand. If there is a conflict, the task remains in Asio's event queue instead of blocking a working thread.
There is one drawback of using asynchronous programming though. It is much harder to read a code that is scattered into several asynchronous calls than one with a clear control flow. You should be aware of this when designing your program.
I'm working on a project, where a primary server thread needs to dispatch events to a series of worker threads. The work that goes on in the worker threads relies on polling (ie. epoll or kqueue depending on the UNIX system in question) with timeouts on these operations needing to be handles. This means, that a normal conditional variable or semaphore structure is not viable for this dispatch, as it would make one or the other block resulting in an unwanted latency between either handling the events coming from polling or the events originating from the server thread.
So, I'm wondering what the most optimal construct for dispatching such events between threads in a pollable fashion is? Essentially, all that needs to be delivered is a pollable "signal" that tells the worker thread, that it has more events to fetch. I've looked at using UNIX pipes (unnamed ones, as it's internal to the process) which seems like a decent solution given that a single byte can be written to the pipe and read back out when the queue is cleared -- but, I'm wondering if this is the best approach available? Or the fastest?
Alternatively, there is the possibility to use signalfd(2) on Linux, but as this is not available on BSD systems, I'd rather like to avoid this construct. I'm also wondering how great the overhead in using system signals actually is?
Jan Hudec's answer is correct, although I wouldn't recommend using signals for a few reasons:
Older versions of glibc emulated pselect and ppoll in a non-atomic fashion, making them basically worthless. Even when you used the mask correctly, signals could get "lost" between the pthread_sigprocmask and select calls, meaning they don't cause EINTR.
I'm not sure signalfd is any more efficient than the pipe. (Haven't tested it, but I don't have any particular reason to believe it is.)
signals are generally a pain to get right. I've spent a lot of effort on them (see my sigsafe library) and I'd recommend avoiding them if you can.
Since you're trying to have asynchronous handling portable to several systems, I'd recommend looking at libevent. It will abstract epoll or kqueue for you, and it will even wake up workers on your behalf when you add a new event. See event.c
2058 static inline int
2059 event_add_internal(struct event *ev, const struct timeval *tv,
2060 int tv_is_absolute)
2061 {
...
2189 /* if we are not in the right thread, we need to wake up the loop */
2190 if (res != -1 && notify && EVBASE_NEED_NOTIFY(base))
2191 evthread_notify_base(base);
...
2196 }
Also,
The worker thread deals with both socket I/O and asynchronous disk I/O, which means that it is optimally always waiting for the event queuing mechanism (epoll/kqueue).
You're likely to be disappointed here. These event queueing mechanisms don't really support asynchronous disk I/O. See this recent thread for more details.
As far as performance goes, the cost of system call is comparably huge to other operations, so it's the number of system calls that matters. There are two options:
Use the pipes as you wrote. If you have any useful payload for the message, you get one system call to send, one system call to wait and one system call to receive. Try to pass any relevant data down the pipe instead of reading them from a shared structure to avoid additional overhead from locking.
The select and poll have variants, that also waits for signals (pselect, ppoll). Linux epoll can do the same using signalfd, so it remains a question whether kqueue can wait for signals, which I don't know. If it can, than you could use them (you are using different mechanism on Linux and *BSD anyway). It would save you the syscall for reading if you don't have good use for the passed data.
I would expect passing the data over socket to be more efficient if it allows you do do away with any other locking.
So, the situation is this. I've got a C++ library that is doing some interprocess communication, with a wait() function that blocks and waits for an incoming message. The difficulty is that I need a timed wait, which will return with a status value if no message is received in a specified amount of time.
The most elegant solution is probably to rewrite the library to add a timed wait to its API, but for the sake of this question I'll assume it's not feasible. (In actuality, it looks difficult, so I want to know what the other option is.)
Here's how I'd do this with a busy wait loop, in pseudocode:
while(message == false && current_time - start_time < timeout)
{
if (Listener.new_message()) then message = true;
}
I don't want a busy wait that eats processor cycles, though. And I also don't want to just add a sleep() call in the loop to avoid processor load, as that means slower response. I want something that does this with a proper sort of blocks and interrupts. If the better solution involves threading (which seems likely), we're already using boost::thread, so I'd prefer to use that.
I'm posting this question because this seems like the sort of situation that would have a clear "best practices" right answer, since it's a pretty common pattern. What's the right way to do it?
Edit to add: A large part of my concern here is that this is in a spot in the program that's both performance-critical and critical to avoid race conditions or memory leaks. Thus, while "use two threads and a timer" is helpful advice, I'm still left trying to figure out how to actually implement that in a safe and correct way, and I can easily see myself making newbie mistakes in the code that I don't even know I've made. Thus, some actual example code would be really appreciated!
Also, I have a concern about the multiple-threads solution: If I use the "put the blocking call in a second thread and do a timed-wait on that thread" method, what happens to that second thread if the blocked call never returns? I know that the timed-wait in the first thread will return and I'll see that no answer has happened and go on with things, but have I then "leaked" a thread that will sit around in a blocked state forever? Is there any way to avoid that? (Is there any way to avoid that and avoid leaking the second thread's memory?) A complete solution to what I need would need to avoid having leaks if the blocking call doesn't return.
You could use sigaction(2) and alarm(2), which are both POSIX. You set a callback action for the timeout using sigaction, then you set a timer using alarm, then make your blocking call. The blocking call will be interrupted if it does not complete within your chosen timeout (in seconds; if you need finer granularity you can use setitimer(2)).
Note that signals in C are somewhat hairy, and there are fairly onerous restriction on what you can do in your signal handler.
This page is useful and fairly concise:
http://www.gnu.org/s/libc/manual/html_node/Setting-an-Alarm.html
What you want is something like select(2), depending on the OS you are targeting.
It sounds like you need a 'monitor', capable of signaling availability of resource to threads via a shared mutex (typically). In Boost.Thread a condition_variable could do the job.
You might want to look at timed locks: Your blocking method can aquire the lock before starting to wait and release it as soon as the data is availabe. You can then try to acquire the lock (with a timeout) in your timed wait method.
Encapsulate the blocking call in a separate thread. Have an intermediate message buffer in that thread that is guarded by a condition variable (as said before). Make your main thread timed-wait on that condition variable. Receive the intermediately stored message if the condition is met.
So basically put a new layer capable of timed-wait between the API and your application. Adapter pattern.
Regarding
what happens to that second thread if the blocked call never returns?
I believe there is nothing you can do to recover cleanly without cooperation from the called function (or library). 'Cleanly' means cleaning up all resources owned by that thread, including memory, other threads, locks, files, locks on files, sockets, GPU resources... Un-cleanly, you can indeed kill the runaway thread.
In my application I have two threads
a "main thread" which is busy most of the time
an "additional thread" which sends out some HTTP request and which blocks until it gets a response.
However, the HTTP response can only be handled by the main thread, since it relies on it's thread-local-storage and on non-threadsafe functions.
I'm looking for a way to tell the main thread when a HTTP response was received and the corresponding data. The main thread should be interrupted by the additional thread and process the HTTP response as soon as possible, and afterwards continue working from the point where it was interrupted before.
One way I can think about is that the additional thread suspends the main thread using SuspendThread, copies the TLS from the main thread using some inline assembler, executes the response-processing function itself and resumes the main thread afterwards.
Another way in my thoughts is, setting a break point onto some specific address in the second threads callback routine, so that the main thread gets notified when the second threads instruction pointer steps on that break point - and therefore - has received the HTTP response.
However, both methods don't seem to be nicely at all, they hurt even if just thinking about them, and they don't look really reliable.
What can I use to interrupt my main thread, saying it that it should be polite and process the HTTP response before doing anything else? Answers without dependencies on libraries are appreciated, but I would also take some dependency, if it provides some nice solution.
Following question (regarding the QueueUserAPC solution) was answered and explained that there is no safe method to have a push-behaviour in my case.
This may be one of those times where one works themselves into a very specific idea without reconsidering the bigger picture. There is no singular mechanism by which a single thread can stop executing in its current context, go do something else, and resume execution at the exact line from which it broke away. If it were possible, it would defeat the purpose of having threads in the first place. As you already mentioned, without stepping back and reconsidering the overall architecture, the most elegant of your options seems to be using another thread to wait for an HTTP response, have it suspend the main thread in a safe spot, process the response on its own, then resume the main thread. In this scenario you might rethink whether thread-local storage still makes sense or if something a little higher in scope would be more suitable, as you could potentially waste a lot of cycles copying it every time you interrupt the main thread.
What you are describing is what QueueUserAPC does. But The notion of using it for this sort of synchronization makes me a bit uncomfortable. If you don't know that the main thread is in a safe place to interrupt it, then you probably shouldn't interrupt it.
I suspect you would be better off giving the main thread's work to another thread so that it can sit and wait for you to send it notifications to handle work that only it can handle.
PostMessage or PostThreadMessage usually works really well for handing off bits of work to your main thread. Posted messages are handled before user input messages, but not until the thread is ready for them.
I might not understand the question, but CreateSemaphore and WaitForSingleObject should work. If one thread is waiting for the semaphore, it will resume when the other thread signals it.
Update based on the comment: The main thread can call WaitForSingleObject with a wait time of zero. In that situation, it will resume immediately if the semaphore is not signaled. The main thread could then check it on a periodic basis.
It looks like the answer should be discoverable from Microsoft's MSDN. Especially from this section on 'Synchronizing Execution of Multiple Threads'
If your main thread is GUI thread why not send a Windows message to it? That what we all do to interact with win32 GUI from worker threads.
One way to do this that is determinate is to periodically check if a HTTP response has been received.
It's better for you to say what you're trying to accomplish.
In this situation I would do a couple of things. First and foremost I would re-structure the work that the main thread is doing to be broken into as small of pieces as possible. That gives you a series of safe places to break execution at. Then you want to create a work queue, probably using the microsoft slist. The slist will give you the ability to have one thread adding while another reads without the need for locking.
Once you have that in place you can essentially make your main thread run in a loop over each piece of work, checking periodically to see if there are requests to handle in the queue. Long-term what is nice about an architecture like that is that you could fairly easily eliminate the thread localized storage and parallelize the main thread by converting the slist to a work queue (probably still using the slist), and making the small pieces of work and the responses into work objects which can be dynamically distributed across any available threads.