I was wondering - is there a straightforward way to wait for all tasks to finish running before exiting without keeping track of all the ObjectIDs (and get()ing them)? Use case is when I launch #remotes for saving output, for example, where there is no return result needed. It's just extra stuff to keep track of if I have to store those futures.
Currently there is no standard way to block until all tasks have finished.
There are some workarounds that can be used.
Keep track of all of the object IDs in a list object_ids and then call ray.get(object_ids) or ray.wait(object_ids, num_returns=len(object_ids)).
Loop as long as some resources are being used.
import time
while (ray.global_state.cluster_resources() !=
ray.global_state.available_resources()):
time.sleep(1)
The above code will loop until it detects that no tasks are currently being executed. However this is not a foolproof approach. It's possible that there could be a moment in time when no tasks are running but a scheduler a task is about to start running.
Related
There is a task which creates database record {R) when it runs for the first time. When task is started second time it should read database record, perform some calculations and call external API. First and second start happens in a loop
In case of single start of the task there are no problems, but in the case of loops (at each loop's iteration the new task is created and starts at certain time) there is a problem. In the task queue (for it we use a flower) we have crashed task on every second iteration.
If we add, at the and of the loop time.sleep(1) sometimes the tasks work properly, but sometimes - not. How to avoid this problem? We afraid that task for different combination of two users started at the same time also will be crashed.
Is there some problem with running tasks in Celery simultaneously? Or something we should consider, tasks are for scheduled payments so they have to work rock solid
My application is futures-based with async/await, and has the following structure within one of its components:
a "manager", which is responsible for starting/stopping/restarting "workers", based both on external input and on the current state of "workers";
a dynamic set of "workers", which perform some continuous work, but may fail or be stopped externally.
A worker is just a spawned task which does some I/O work. Internally it is a loop which is intended to be infinite, but it may exit early due to errors or other reasons, and in this case the worker must be restarted from scratch by the manager.
The manager is implemented as a loop which awaits on several channels, including one returned by async_std::stream::interval, which essentially makes the manager into a poller - and indeed, I need this because I do need to poll some Mutex-protected external state. Based on this state, the manager, among everything else, creates or destroys its workers.
Additionally, the manager stores a set of async_std::task::JoinHandles representing live workers, and it uses these handles to check whether any workers has exited, restarting them if so. (BTW, I do this currently using select(handle, future::ready()), which is totally suboptimal because it relies on the select implementation detail, specifically that it polls the left future first. I couldn't find a better way of doing it; something like race() would make more sense, but race() consumes both futures, which won't work for me because I don't want to lose the JoinHandle if it is not ready. This is a matter for another question, though.)
You can see that in this design workers can only be restarted when the next poll "tick" in the manager occurs. However, I don't want to use a too small interval for polling, because in most cases polling just wastes CPU cycles. Large intervals, however, can delay restarting a failed/canceled worker by too much, leading to undesired latencies. Therefore, I though I'd set up another channel of ()s back from each worker to the manager, which I'd add to the main manager loop, so when a worker stops due to an error or otherwise, it will first send a message to its channel, resulting in the manager being woken up earlier than the next poll in order to restart the worker right away.
Unfortunately, with any kinds of channels this might result in more polls than needed, in case two or more workers stop at approximately the same time (which due to the nature of my application, is somewhat likely to happen). In such case it would make sense to only run the manager loop once, handling all of the stopped workers, but with channels it will necessarily result in the number of polls equal to the number of stopped workers, even if additional polls don't do anything.
Therefore, my question is: how do I notify the manager from its workers that they are finished, without resulting in extra polls in the manager? I've tried the following things:
As explained above, regular unbounded channels just won't work.
I thought that maybe bounded channels could work - if I used a channel with capacity 0, and there was a way to try and send a message into it but just drop the message if the channel is full (like the offer() method on Java's BlockingQueue), this seemingly would solve the problem. Unfortunately, the channels API, while providing such a method (try_send() seems to be like it), also has this property of having capacity larger than or equal to the number of senders, which means it can't really be used for such notifications.
Some kind of atomic or a mutex-protected boolean flag also look as if it could work, but there is no atomic or mutex API which would provide a future to wait on, and would also require polling.
Restructure the manager implementation to include JoinHandles into the main select somehow. It might do the trick, but it would result in large refactoring which I'm unwilling to make at this point. If there is a way to do what I want without this refactoring, I'd like to use that first.
I guess some kind of combination of atomics and channels might work, something like setting an atomic flag and sending a message, and then skipping any extra notifications in the manager based on the flag (which is flipped back to off after processing one notification), but this also seems like a complex approach, and I wonder if anything simpler is possible.
I recommend using the FuturesUnordered type from the futures crate. This collection allows you to push many futures of the same type into a collection and wait for any one of them to complete at once.
It implements Stream, so if you import StreamExt, you can use unordered.next() to obtain a future that completes once any future in the collection completes.
If you also need to wait for a timeout or mutex etc., you can use select to create a future that completes once either the timeout or one of the join handles completes. The future returned by next() implements Unpin, so it is usable with select without problems.
I'm developing a C++14 Windows DLL on VS2015 that runs on all Windows version >= XP.
TL;DR
Is there a limit to the number of events, created with CreateEvent, with different names of course?
Background
I'm writing a thread pool class.
The class interface is simple:
void AddTask(std::function<void()> task);
Task is added to a queue of tasks and waiting workers (vector <thread>) activate the task when available.
Requirement
Wait (block) for a task for a little bit before continuing with the flow. Meaning, some users of ThreadPool, after calling AddTask, may want to wait for a while (say 1 second) for the task to end, before continuing with the flow. If the task is not done yet, they will continue with the flow anyways.
Problem
ThreadPool class cannot provide Wait interface. Not its responsibility.
Solution
ThreadPool will SetEvent when task is done.
Users of ThreadPool will wait (or not. depend on their need) for the event to be signaled.
So, I've changed the return value of ThreadPool::AddTask from void to int where int is a unique task ID which is essentially the name of the event to be singled when a task is done.
Question
I don't expect more than ~500 tasks but I'm afraid that creating hundreds of events is not possible or even a bad practice.
So is there a limit? or a better approach?
Of course there is a limit (if nothing else; at some point the system runs out of memory).
In reality, the limit is around 16 million per process.
You can read more details here: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/markrussinovich/2009/09/29/pushing-the-limits-of-windows-handles/
You're asking the wrong question. Fortunately you gave enough background to answer your real question. But before we get to that:
First, if you're asking what's the maximum number of events a process can open or a system can hold, you're probably doing something very very wrong. Same goes for asking what's the maximum number of files a process can open or what's the maximum number of threads a process can create.
You can create 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000... but where does it stop? If you're even considering creating that many of them that you have to ask about a limit, you're on the wrong track.
Second, the answer depends on too many implementation details: OS version, amount of RAM installed, registry settings, and maybe more. Other programs running also affect that "limit".
Third, even if you knew the limit - even if you could somehow calculate it at runtime based on all the relevant factors - it wouldn't allow you to do anything that you can't already do now.
Lets say you find out the limit is L and you have created exactly L events by now. Another task come in. What do you do? Throw away the task? Execute the task without signaling an event? Wait until there are fewer than L events and only then create an event and start executing the task? Crash the process?
Whatever you decide you can do it just the same when CreateEvent fails. All of this is completely pointless. And this is yet another indication that you're asking the wrong question.
But maybe the most wrong thing you're doing is saying "the thread pool class can't provide wait because it's not its responsibility, so lets have the thread pool class provide an event for each task that the thread pool will signal when the task ends" (in paraphrase).
It looks like by the end of the sentence you forgot the premise from the beginning: It's not the thread pool's responsibility!
If you want to wait for the task to finish have the task itself signal when it's done. There's no reason to complicate the thread pool because someone, sometimes want to wait on tasks. Signaling that the task is done is the task's job:
event evt; ///// this
thread_pool.queue([evt] {
// whatever
evt.signal(); ///// and this
});
auto reason = wait(evt, 1s);
if (reason == timeout) {
log("bummer");
}
The event class could be anything you want - a Windows event, and std::promise and std::future pair, or anything else.
This is so simple and obvious.
Complicating the thread pool infrastructure, taking up valuable system resources for nothing, and signaling synchronization primitives even when no one's listening just to save the two marked code lines above in the few cases where you actually want to wait for the task is unjustifiable.
I am writing my first threaded application for an industrial machine that has a very fast line speed. I am using the MFC for the UI and once the user pushes the "Start" machine button, I need to be simultaneously executing three operations. I need to collect data, process it and output results very quickly as well as checking to see if the user has turned the machine "off". When I say very quickly, I expect the analyze portion of the execution to take the longest and it needs to happen in well under a second. I am mostly concerned about overhead elimination associated with threads. What is the fastest way to implement the loop below:
void Scanner(CString& m_StartStop) {
std::thread Collect(CollectData);
while (m_StartStop == "Start") {
Collect.join();
std::thread Analyze(AnalyzeData);
std::thread Collect(CollectData);
Analyze.join();
std::thread Send(SendData);
Send.join();
}
}
I realize this sample is likely way off base, but hopefully it gets the point across. Should I be creating three threads and suspending them instead of creating and joining them over and over? Also, I am a little unclear if the UI needs its own thread since the user needs to able to pause or stop the line at anytime.
In case anyone is wondering why this needs to be threaded as opposed to sequential, the answer is that the line speed of the machine will cause the need to be collecting data for the second part while the first part is being analyzed. Every 1 second equates to 3 ft of linear part movement down this machine.
Think about functionnal problem before thinking about implementation.
So we have a continuous flow of data that need to be collected, analyzed and sent elsewhere, with a supervision point to be able to stop of pause the process.
collection should be limited by the input flow
analyze should only be cpu limited
sending should be io bound
You just need to make sure that the slowest part must be collection.
That is a correct use case for threads. Implementation could use:
a pool of input buffers that would be filled by collect task and used by analyze task
one thread that continuously:
controls if it should exit (a dedicated variable)
takes an input object from the pool
fills it with data
passes it to analyze task
one thread that continuously
waits for the first of an input object from collect task and a request to exit
analyzes the object and prepares output
send the output
Optionnaly, you can have a separate thread for processing the output. In that case, the last lines becomes
passes an output object to the sending task
and we must add:
one thread that continuously
waits for the first of an output object from analze task and a request to exit
send the output
And you must provide a way to signal the request for pause or exit, either with a completely external program and a signalisation mechanism, or a GUI thread
Any threads you need should already be running, waiting for work. You should not create or join threads.
If job A has to finish before job B can start, the completion of job A should trigger the start of job B. That is, when the thread doing job A finished doing job A, it should either do job B itself or trigger the dispatch of job B. There shouldn't need to be some other thread that's waiting for job A to finish so that it can start job B.
I have encountered the need to use multithreading in my windows form GUI application using C++. From my research on the topic it seems background worker threads are the way to go for my purposes. According to example code I have
System::Void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(System::Object^ sender, System::ComponentModel::DoWorkEventArgs^ e)
{
BackgroundWorker^ worker = dynamic_cast<BackgroundWorker^>(sender);
e->Result = SomeCPUHungryFunction( safe_cast<Int32>(e->Argument), worker, e );
}
However there are a few things I need to get straight and figure out
Will a background worker thread make my multithreading life easier?
Why do I need e->Result?
What are the arguments passed into the backgroundWorker1_DoWork function for?
What is the purpose of the parameter safe_cast(e->Argument)?
What things should I do in my CPUHungryFunction()?
What if my CPUHungryFunction() has a while loop that loops indefinitely?
Do I have control over the processor time my worker thread gets?
Can more specifically control the number of times the loop loops within a set period? I don’t want to be using up cpu looping 1000s of times a second when I only need to loop 30 times a second.
*Is it necessary to control the rate at which the GUI is updated?
Will a background worker thread make my multithreading life easier?
Yes, very much so. It helps you deal with the fact that you cannot update the UI from a worker thread. Particularly the ProgressChanged event lets you show progress and the RunWorkerCompleted event lets you use the results of the worker thread to update the UI without you having to deal with the cross-threading problem.
Why do I need e->Result?
To pass back the result of the work you did to the UI thread. You get the value back in your RunWorkerCompleted event handler, e->Result property. From which you then update the UI with the result.
What are the arguments passed into the function for?
To tell the worker thread what to do, it is optional. Otherwise identical to passing arguments to any method, just more awkward since you don't get to chose the arguments. You typically pass some kind of value from your UI for example, use a little helper class if you need to pass more than one. Always favor this over trying to obtain UI values in the worker, that's very troublesome.
What things should I do in my CPUHungryFunction()?
Burn CPU cycles of course. Or in general do something that takes a long time, like a dbase query. Which doesn't burn CPU cycles but takes too long to allow the UI thread to go dead while waiting for the result. Roughly, whenever you need to do something that takes more than a second then you should execute it on a worker thread instead of the UI thread.
What if my CPUHungryFunction() has a while loop that loops indefinitely?
Then your worker never completes and never produces a result. This may be useful but it isn't common. You would not typically use a BGW for this, just a regular Thread that has its IsBackground property set to true.
Do I have control over the processor time my worker thread gets?
You have some by artificially slowing it down by calling Thread.Sleep(). This is not a common thing to do, the point of starting a worker thread is to do work. A thread that sleeps is using an expensive resource in a non-productive way.
Can more specifically control the number of times the loop loops within a set period? I don’t want to be using up cpu looping 1000s of times a second when I only need to loop 30 times a second.
Same as above, you'd have to sleep. Do so by executing the loop 30 times and then sleep for a second.
Is it necessary to control the rate at which the GUI is updated?
Yes, that's very important. ReportProgress() can be a fire-hose, generating many thousands of UI updates per second. You can easily get into a problem with this when the UI thread just can't keep up with that rate. You'll notice, the UI thread stops taking care of its regular duties, like painting the UI and responding to input. Because it keeps having to deal with another invoke request to run the ProgressChanged event handler. The side-effect is that the UI looks frozen, you've got the exact problem back you were trying to solve with a worker. It isn't actually frozen, it just looks that way, it is still running the event handler. But your user won't see the difference.
The one thing to keep in mind is that ReportProgress() only needs to keep human eyes happy. Which cannot see updates that happen more frequently than 20 times per second. Beyond that, it just turns into an unreadable blur. So don't waste time on UI updates that just are not useful anyway. You'll automatically also avoid the fire-hose problem. Tuning the update rate is something you have to program, it isn't built into BGW.
I will try to answer you question by question
Yes
DoWork is a void method (and need to be so). Also DoWork executes
in a different thread from the calling one, so you need to have a
way to return something to the calling thread. The e->Result
parameter will be passed to the RunWorkerCompleted event inside
the RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs
The sender argument is the backgroundworker itself that you can use
to raise events for the UI thread, the DoWorkEventArgs eventually
contains parameters passed from the calling thread (the one who has
called RunWorkerAsync(Object))
Whatever you have need to do. Paying attention to the userinterface
elements that are not accessible from the DoWork thread. Usually, one
calculate the percentage of work done and update the UI (a progress
bar or something alike) and call ReportProgress to communicate with
the UI thread. (Need to have WorkerReportProgress property set to
True)
Nothing runs indefinitely. You can always unplug the cord.
Seriously, it is just another thread, the OS takes care of it and
destroys everything when your app ends.
Not sure what do you mean with this, but it is probably related
to the next question
You can use the Thread.Sleep or Thread.Join methods to release the
CPU time after one loop. The exact timing to sleep should be fine
tuned depending on what you are doing, the workload of the current
system and the raw speed of your processor
Please refer to MSDN docs on BackgroundWorker and Thread classes