I worked on the synchronous libusb in my Qt project with good results and now I need the asynchronous features of this library. I understood reading here, here and here that, after I've registered my callback function using the libusb_fill_control_transfer and submitted a transfer with libusb_submit_transfer , I need to "keep live" the libusb_handle_events_completed inside a while loop to get the transfer related events since the libusb doesn't have its own thread. for example you can read a code like this
libusb_fill_control_transfer(transfer, dev, buffer, cb, &completed, 1000);
libusb_submit_transfer(transfer);
while (!completed) {
libusb_handle_events_completed(ctx, &completed);
}
Now if I want read a packet that I don't know when it occurs, I think that goes against the asynchronous nature submit a read and wait in the while with libusb_handle_events_completed until the event is triggered.
Then, do I need to create a separate thread within the libusb_handle_events_completed in an infinite while loop?
Can anyone, with experience in the asynchronous features of libusb library, give some suggestions on the right approach to handle the transfer events?
Related
how can i receive RS232C data by callback func?
i know there is many another way to solve ploblem.
ex)
using poll, select(), while(1){ read.... } ....
check event(WaitingOnRead, WaitCommEvent(), SetCommMask Function .. etc..)
but.
they all use thread or synchronous way.
i want
1. don't use thread
2. Asynchronous way
like
device(RS232C)---->COM // data receive event occur!!
-> callback func call // user func like save or printf receive data)
-> run user func
possible?
plz help me...
ps.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.ports.serialport.datareceived(v=vs.110).aspx
i don't need .NET Framework solution.
need WIN32 MFC way...
It has been awhile since this question was posted, so you may have already reached a solution. However if, as i understand your question, you want to read from a serial port asynchronously (ie non blocking) then you have to use threads.
One thread to read the data from the Serial Port, when it arrives, flag that 'Data Available', either by executing a pre-defined piece of code, or preferably by firing a 'Data Available' event. This thread then sleeps until another piece of data arrives.
A second thread then consumes the data, to do whatever you need, but without separate threads you are, by definition, working synchronously.
Using libev you can setpu callbacks to be triggered when data is available on the serial port. Reading and uderstanding of the usage of libev can help.
https://linux.die.net/man/3/ev
I have been struggling to try and find my answer for this on google, as I dont know the exact terms I am looking to search for.
If someone were to build an msn messenger-like program, is it possible to have always-open connections and no while(true) loop? If so, could someone point me in the direction of how this is achieved?
Using boost::asio library for socket handling, i think it is possible to define callbacks upon data reception.
The one single magic word your looking for is asynchronous I/O. This can be achieved either through using asynchronous APIs (functions such as ReadThis() that return immediately and signal on success/failure -- like but not limited by boost::asio) or by deferring blocking calls to different threads. Picking either method requires careful weighing of both the underlying implementation and the scale of your operations.
You want to use ACE. It has a Reactor pattern which will notify you when data is available to be use.
Reactor Pattern
You could have:
while(1) {
sleep(100); // 100 ms
// check if there is a message
// process message
//...
}
This is ok, but there is an overhead on servers running 10000s of threads since threads come out of sleep and check for a message, causing context-switching. Instead, operating systems provide functions like select and epoll on Linux, which allow a thread to wait on an event.
while(1) {
// wait for message
// process message
//...
}
Using wait, the thread is not "woken up" unless a message is received.
You can only hide your while loop (or some kind of loop) somewhere buried in some library or restart the waiting for next IO in an event callback, but you aren't going to be able to completely avoid it.
That's a great question. Like nj said, you want to use asynchronous I/O. Too many programs use a polling strategy. It is not uncommon to have 1000 threads running on a system. If all of them were polling, you would have a slow system. Use asynchronous I/O whenever possible.
what about udp protocol communication ? you dont have to wait in while loop for every clients
just open one connection on specified port and call receive method
I'm writing a daemon that needs to both run in the background and take care of tasks and also receive input directly from a frontend. I've been attempting to use sockets to take care of this task, however, I can't get it to work properly since sockets pause the program while waiting for a connection. Is there anyway to get around this?
I'm using the socket wrappers provided at http://linuxgazette.net/issue74/tougher.html
Thank you for any and all help
You will need to use threads to make the socket operations asynchronous. Or use some library that has already implemented it, one of the top ones is Boost Asio.
There are a few ways to handle this problem. This most common is using an event loop and something like libevent. Then you use non-blocking sockets.
Doing this in an event driven fashion can require a big shift in your program logic. But doing it with threads has its own complexities and isn't clearly a better choice.
Usually the daemons use event loops to avoid the problem of waiting for events.
It's the smartest solution to the problem that you present (do not wait to an asynchronous event). รง
Althought, usually the entire daemon is build over the event loop and it's callback architecture, and can cause a partial rewritting, so usually the quick and dirty solution is creating a separate thread to handle those events wich usually creates more bugs than it solves. So, use an event loop:
libevent.
glib event loop.
libev.
boost::asio
...
From your description, you have already divided your application into a frontend (receiving input) and backend (socket handling and tasks). If the input from the frontend is sent over the socket (via the backend) rather receiving input from the socket then it seems like you are describing a client and not a server. Client programs are typically not implemented as daemons.
You have created a blocking socket and need to either monitor in a separate thread execution a thread or even separate process) or make a non-blocking socket and poll frequently for updates.
The link to the LinuxGazette is a basic intro to network programming. If you would like a little more depth then take a look at Beej's Guide to Network Programming where the various API calls available to you are explained in a little detail.. and will, perhaps, make you appreciate more wrapper libraries such as Boost::ASIO.
Can be worth retaining control of the event loop yourself - its no complicated and provides flexibility down the track.
"C++ pseudo-code" for an event loop.
while (!done)
{
bool workDone = false;
// Loop over each event source or internal worker
for each module
{
// If it has work to do, do some.
if (module.hasWorkDoTo())
{
// Generally, do as little work as possible; e.g. process a single event for this module.
// But tinker with this to manage priorities if need be.
// E.g. Maybe allow the GUI to flush its queue.
module.doSomeWork();
workDone = true;
}
}
if (!workDone)
{
// System idle. No Sleep for a bit so we have benign idle baheviour.
nanosleep(...);
}
}
This is somewhat related to this question, but I think I need to know a little bit more. I've been trying to get my head around how to do this for a few days (whilst working on other parts), but the time has come for me to bite the bullet and get multi-threaded. Also, I'm after a bit more information than the question linked.
Firstly, about multi-threading. As I have been testing my code, I've not bothered with any multi-threading. It's just a console application that starts a connection to a test server and everything else is then handled. The main loop is this:
while(true)
{
Root::instance().performIO(); // calls io_service::runOne();
}
When I write my main application, I'm guessing this solution won't be acceptable (as it would have to be called in the message loop which, whilst possible, would have issues when the message queue blocks waiting for a message. You could change it so that the message-loop doesn't block, but then isn't that going to whack the CPU usage through the roof?)
The solution it seems is to throw another thread at it. Okay, fine. But then I've read that io_service::run() returns when there is no work to do. What is that? Is that when there's no data, or no connections? If at least one connection exists does it stay alive? If so, that's not so much of a problem as I only have to start up a new thread when the first connection is made and I'm happy if it all stops when there is nothing going on at all. I guess I am confused by the definition of 'no work to do'.
Then I have to worry about synchronizing my boost thread with my main GUI thread. So, I guess my questions are:
What is the best-practice way of using boost::asio in a client application with regard to threads and keeping them alive?
When writing to a socket from the main thread to the IO thread, is synchronization achieved using boost::asio::post, so that the call happens later in the io_service?
When data is received, how do people get the data back to the UI thread? In the past when I used completion ports, I made a special event that could post the data back to the main UI thread using a ::SendMessage. It wasn't elegant, but it worked.
I'll be reading some more today, but it would be great to get a heads up from someone who has done this already. The Boost::asio documentation isn't great, and most of my work so far has been based on a bit of the documentation, some trial/error, some example code on the web.
1) Have a look at io_service::work. As long as an work object exists io_service::run will not return. So if you start doing your clean up, destroy the work object, cancel any outstanding operations, for example an async_read on a socket, wait for run to return and clean up your resources.
2) io_service::post will asynchronously execute the given handler from a thread running the io_service. A callback can be used to get the result of the operation executed.
3) You needs some form of messaging system to inform your GUI thread of the new data. There are several possibilities here.
As far as your remark about the documention, I thing Asio is one of the better documented boost libraries and it comes with clear examples.
boost::io_service::run() will return only when there's nothing to do, so no async operations are pending, e.g. async accept/connection, async read/write or async timer wait. so before calling io_service::run() you first have to start any async op.
i haven't got do you have console or GUI app? in any case multithreading looks like a overkill. you can use Asio in conjunction with your message loop. if it's win32 GUI you can call io_service::run_one() from you OnIdle() handler. in case of console application you can setup deadline_timer that regularly checks (every 200ms?) for user input and use it with io_service::run(). everything in single thread to greatly simplify the solution
1) What is the best-practice way of using
boost::asio in a client application
with regard to threads and keeping
them alive?
As the documentation suggests, a pool of threads invoking io_service::run is the most scalable and easiest to implement.
2) When writing to a socket from the main
thread to the IO thread, is
synchronization achieved using
boost::asio::post, so that the call
happens later in the io_service?
You will need to use a strand to protect any handlers that can be invoked by multiple threads. See this answer as it may help you, as well as this example.
3) When data is received, how do people
get the data back to the UI thread? In
the past when I used completion ports,
I made a special event that could post
the data back to the main UI thread
using a ::SendMessage. It wasn't
elegant, but it worked.
How about providing a callback in the form of a boost::function when you post an asynchronous event to the io_service? Then the event's handler can invoke the callback and update the UI with the results.
When data is received, how do people get the data back to the UI thread? In the past when I used completion ports, I made a special event that could post the data back to the main UI thread using a ::SendMessage. It wasn't elegant, but it worked
::PostMessage may be more appropriate.
Unless everything runs in one thread these mechanisms must be used to safely post events to the UI thread.
I'm programming an online game for two reasons, one to familiarize myself with server/client requests in a realtime environment (as opposed to something like a typical web browser, which is not realtime) and to actually get my hands wet in that area, so I can proceed to actually properly design one.
Anywho, I'm doing this in C++, and I've been using winsock to handle my basic, basic network tests. I obviously want to use a framelimiter and have 3D going and all of that at some point, and my main issue is that when I do a send() or receive(), the program kindly idles there and waits for a response. That would lead to maybe 8 fps on even the best internet connection.
So the obvious solution to me is to take the networking code out of the main process and start it up in its own thread. Ideally, I would call a "send" in my main process which would pass the networking thread a pointer to the message, and then periodically (every frame) check to see if the networking thread had received the reply, or timed out, or what have you. In a perfect world, I would actually have 2 or more networking threads running simultaneously, so that I could say run a chat window and do a background download of a piece of armor and still allow the player to run around all at once.
The bulk of my problem is that this is a new thing to me. I understand the concept of threading, but I can see some serious issues, like what happens if two threads try to read/write the same memory address at the same time, etc. I know that there are already methods in place to handle this sort of thing, so I'm looking for suggestions on the best way to implement something like this. Basically, I need thread A to be able to start a process in thread B by sending a chunk of data, poll thread B's status, and then receive the reply, also as a chunk of data., ideally without any major crashing going on. ^_^ I'll worry about what that data actually contains and how to handle dropped packets, etc later, I just need to get that happening first.
Thanks for any help/advice.
PS: Just thought about this, may make the question simpler. Is there a way to use the windows event handling system to my advantage? Like, would it be possible to have thread A initialize data somewhere, then trigger an event in thread B to have it pick up the data, and vice versa for thread B to tell thread A it was done? That would probably solve a lot of my problems, since I don't really need both threads to be able to work on the data at the same time, more of a baton pass really. I just don't know if this is possible between two different threads. (I know one thread can create its own messages for the event handler.)
The easiest thing
for you to do, would be to simply invoke the windows API QueueUserWorkItem. All you have to specify is the function that the thread will execute and the input passed to it. A thread pool will be automatically created for you and the jobs executed in it. New threads will be created as and when is required.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684957(VS.85).aspx
More Control
You could have a more detailed control using another set of API's which can again manage the thread pool for you -
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms686980(VS.85).aspx
Do it yourself
If you want to control all aspects of your thread creation and the pool management you would have to create the threads yourself, decide how they should end , how many to create etc (beginthreadex is the api you should be using to create threads. If you use MFC you should use AfxBeginThread function).
Send jobs to worker threads - Io completion Ports
In this case, you would also have to worry about how to communicate your jobs - i would recommend IoCOmpletionPorts to do that. It is the most scalable notification mechanism that i currently know of made for this purpose. It has the additional advantage that it is implemented in the kernel so you avoid all kinds of dead loack sitautions you would encounter if you decide to handroll something yourself.
This article will show you how with code samples -
http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2004/03/29/101329.aspx
Communicate Back - Windows Messages
You could use windows messages to communicate the status back to your parent thread since it is doing the message wait anyway. use the PostMessage function to do this. (and check for errors)
ps : You could also allocate the data that needs to be sent out on a dedicated pointer and then the worker thread could take care of deleting it after sending it out. That way you avoid the return pointer traffic too.
BlodBath's suggestion of non-blocking sockets is potentially the right approach.
If you're trying to avoid using a multithreaded approach, then you could investigate the use of setting up overlapped I/O on your sockets. They will not block when you do a transmit or receive, but have the added bonus of giving you the option of waiting for multiple events within your single event loop. When your transmit has finished, you will receive an event. (see this for some details)
This is not incompatible with a multithreaded approach, so there's the option of changing your mind later. ;-)
On the design of your multithreaded app. the best thing to do is to work out all of the external activities that you want to be alerted to. For example, so far in your question you've listed network transmits, network receives, and user activity.
Depending on the number of concurrent connections you're going to be dealing with you'll probably find it conceptually simpler to have a thread per socket (assuming small numbers of sockets), where each thread is responsible for all of the processing for that socket.
Then you can implement some form of messaging system between your threads as RC suggested.
Arrange your system so that when a message is sent to a particular thread and event is also sent. Your threads can then be sent to sleep waiting for one of those events. (as well as any other stimulus - like socket events, user events etc.)
You're quite right that you need to be careful of situations where more than one thread is trying to access the same piece of memory. Mutexes and semaphores are the things to use there.
Also be aware of the limitations that your gui has when it comes to multithreading.
Some discussion on the subject can be found in this question.
But the abbreviated version is that most (and Windows is one of these) GUIs don't allow multiple threads to perform GUI operations simultaneously. To get around this problem you can make use of the message pump in your application, by sending custom messages to your gui thread to get it to perform gui operations.
I suggest looking into non-blocking sockets for the quick fix. Using non-blocking sockets send() and recv() do not block, and using the select() function you can get any waiting data every frame.
See it as a producer-consumer problem: when receiving, your network communication thread is the producer whereas the UI thread is the consumer. When sending, it's just the opposite. Implement a simple buffer class which gives you methods like push and pop (pop should be blocking for the network thread and non-blocking for the UI thread).
Rather than using the Windows event system, I would prefer something that is more portable, for example Boost condition variables.
I don't code games, but I've used a system similar to what pukku suggested. It lends nicely to doing things like having the buffer prioritize your messages to be processed if you have such a need.
I think of them as mailboxes per thread. You want to send a packet? Have the ProcessThread create a "thread message" with the payload to go on the wire and "send" it to the NetworkThread (i.e. push it on the NetworkThread's queue/mailbox and signal the condition variable of the NetworkThread so he'll wake up and pull it off). When the NetworkThread receives the response, package it up in a thread message and send it back to the ProcessThread in the same manner. Difference is the ProcessThread won't be blocked on a condition variable, just polling on mailbox.empty( ) when you want to check for the response.
You may want to push and pop directly, but a more convenient way for larger projects is to implement a toThreadName, fromThreadName scheme in a ThreadMsg base class, and a Post Office that threads register their Mailbox with. The PostOffice then has a send(ThreadMsg*); function that gets/pushes the messages to the appropriate Mailbox based on the to and from. Mailbox (the buffer/queue class) contains the ThreadMsg* = receiveMessage(), basically popping it off the underlying queue.
Depending on your needs, you could have ThreadMsg contain a virtual function process(..) that could be overridden accordingly in derived classes, or just have an ordinary ThreadMessage class with a to, from members and a getPayload( ) function to get back the raw data and deal with it directly in the ProcessThread.
Hope this helps.
Some topics you might be interested in:
mutex: A mutex allows you to lock access to specific resources for one thread only
semaphore: A way to determine how many users a certain resource still has (=how many threads are accessing it) and a way for threads to access a resource. A mutex is a special case of a semaphore.
critical section: a mutex-protected piece of code (street with only one lane) that can only be travelled by one thread at a time.
message queue: a way of distributing messages in a centralized queue
inter-process communication (IPC) - a way of threads and processes to communicate with each other through named pipes, shared memory and many other ways (it's more of a concept than a special technique)
All topics in bold print can be easily looked up on a search engine.