I have a Cap'n Proto RPC server that runs some OpenGL commands in a window. I am not interested in the window's events at all, but in order to avoid getting killed on Windows I need to poll events once a second or so. How can I do this in a simple fashion?
I have read that you can make your own EventPort, but I couldn't figure out how to actually use EventPorts. It might also be overkill when I'm not actually interested in the events. I would like prioritize RPC events over polling the window if possible.
Using something else than EZ-rpc is not a downside, as I want to move to shared memory communication later on.
So, there's this critical flaw in Windows event handling: The best way to handle network I/O, especially with many connections, is via I/O Completion Ports (IOCP). However, unfortunately, Windows provides no way for a thread to wait on IOCP events and GUI events in the same thread. This seems to be a serious design flaw in the Win32 API, yet it's been this way for decades. Weirder still, the internal NT kernel APIs do in fact support an alternative (specifically, they allow I/O completion events to be delivered via APC) but Microsoft hasn't made these APIs public, so applications that use them could break in a future version of Windows.
As a result, there are essentially two ways to design a program that simultaneously does network I/O and implements a GUI:
Use a MsgWaitForMultipleObjectsEx-based event loop instead of IOCP. You will be limited to no more than 64 connections, and the event loop will be relatively inefficient.
Have separate threads for network and GUI.
For your use case, it sounds like #1 would probably be fine, but there's another problem: The KJ event loop library (used by Cap'n Proto) doesn't implement this case yet. It only implements IOCP-based networking. There's a class Win32WaitObjectThreadPool defined in kj/async-win32.h meant to handle the GUI event loop approach... but at present it is not implemented. (PRs are welcome if you'd like to contribute!)
If you truly don't care about handling GUI events in a timely fashion, then perhaps a hack would work: You could use kj::Timer to create a loop that waits for a second, then checks the Win32 GUI event queue, then waits again, and so on. This is really ugly but would probably be easy to implement. I'm not sure if kj::Timer is exposed via EZ-rpc, so you may have to go to lower-level building blocks like kj::setupAsyncIo() instead.
Related
I am creating simple online chat with server and client in one application. I wrote client-side, but i don't know how will be correct use QTcpServer.
Need i create QTcpServer in new thread? So that I can connect to it as a client from this application. If yes, how do it? Or it's useless and not needed idea?
Need i create new thread for every new connection in order to process it?
I am developing a chat as a course project for a university
Assuming you are using Qt's networking APIs, you don't need to use multiple threads. The reason is that Qt's APIs are designed around a non-blocking event-loop model, so it is expected that no function-call should ever take more than a negligible amount of time (e.g. a few milliseconds) to return, after which the main thread's QEventLoop resumes execution and can therefore handle other tasks in a timely manner, all from within a single thread.
That said, there are a few optional methods in the Qt API that are blocking, and in a single-threaded application, calling those methods risks making your application un-responsive for (however long it takes for those methods to return). Fortunately those methods aren't necessary, and they are clearly documented. I recommend avoiding them, as there are always better, non-blocking ways to achieve the same result in Qt, e.g. by connecting the appropriate signals to the appropriate slots.
To sum up: threads aren't necessary in Qt-based networking, and your program will be simpler, more reliable, and easier to debug if you don't use threads. When implementing server-like functionality, a QTcpServer object is useful; you might want to have a look at this example program for cues on how to use it.
Our team is implementing a VNC viewer (=VNC client) on Windows. The protocol (called RFB) is stateful, meaning that the viewer has to read 1 byte, see what it is, then read either 3 or 10 bytes more, parse them, and so on.
We've decided to use asynchronous sockets and a single (UI) thread. Consequently, there are 2 ways to go:
1) state machine -- if we get a block on socket reading, just remember the current state and quit. Later on, a socket notification will arrive and the interrupted logic will resume from the proper stage;
2) inner message loop -- once we determine that reading from the socket would block, we enter an inner message loop and spin there until all the necessary data is finally received.
UI is not thus frozen in case of a block.
As experience showed, the second approach is bad, as any message can come while we're in the inner message loop. I cannot tell the full story here, but it simply is not reliable enough. Crashes and kludges.
The first option seems to be quite acceptable, but it is not easy to program in such a style. One has to remember the state of an algorithm and values of all the local variables required for further processing.
This is quite possible to use multiple threads, but we just thought that the problems in this case would be even much harder: synchronization of frame-buffer access, multi-threading issues, etc. Moreover, even in this variant it seems necessary to use asynchronous sockets as well.
So, what way is in your opinion the best ?
The problem is quite a general one. This is the problem of organizing asynchronous communication through stateful protocols.
Edit 1: We use C++ and MFC as UI framework.
I've done a few parallel computing projects and it seems that MPI (Message Passing Interface) might be helpful to your VNC project. You're probably not so interested in the parallel computing power provided by MPI, but you may want to use the simplified socket-like interface for asynchronous communication over a network.
http://www.open-mpi.org/
You can find other implementations of MPI and tons of use examples from google.
Don't bother with CSocket, you'll move to CAsyncSocket in the end because of the extra control you get (interrupting, shutting down etc.). I'd also recommend using a separate thread to manage the communication, it adds complexity but keeping the UI responsive should be a top priority.
I think you will find that your design will be simplified greatly by using a separate thread to handle a blocking socket.
The main reason for this is you don't need to spin and wait. The UI remains responsive while the network thread(s) block when it has nothing to do and comes back when it has stuff to do. You are effectively offloading a large portion of your overhead to the OS.
Remember, RFB does not require a whole lot of state info to work. Because client to server messages are short; there is nothing requiring you to receive a frame buffer before you send your next pointer input.
My point being is messages in RFB can be intermixed; the server will work on your schedule.
Now, Windows provides easy to use synchronization API's that while not always the most efficient, are more than enough for your purposes and will ease getting a proof of concept up and going.
Take a look at Windows Synchronization and specifically Critical Sections
Just my 2cents, I've implemented both a vnc server and client on windows, these were my impressions.
I have implemented a WebSocket handler in C++ and I need to send ping messages once in a while. However, I don't want to start one thread per socket/one global poll thread which only calls the ping function but instead use some OS functionality to call my timer function. On Windows, there is SetTimer but that requires a working message loop (which I don't have.) On Linux there is timer_create, which looks better.
Is there some portable, low-overhead method to get a function called periodically, ideally with some custom context? I.e. something like settimer (const int millisecond, const void* context, void (*callback)(const void*))?
[Edit] Just to make this a bit clearer: I don't want to have to manage additional threads. On Windows, I guess using CreateThreadpoolTimer on the system thread pool will do the trick, but I'm curious to hear if there is a simpler solution and how to port this over to Linux.
If you are intending to go cross-platform, I would suggest you use a cross platform event library like libevent.
libev is newer, however currently has weak Win32 support.
If you use sockets, you can use select, to wait sockets events with timeout,
and in this loop calc time and call callback in suitable time.
If you are looking for a timer that will not require an additional thread, let you do your work transparently and then call the timer function at the appropriate time in the same thread by pre-emptively interrupting your application, then there is no such portable thing.
The first reason is that it's downright dangerous. That's like writing a multi-threaded application with absolutely no synchronization. The second reason is that it is extremely difficult to have good semantics in multi-threaded applications. Which thread should execute the timer callback?
If you're writing a web-socket handler, you are probably already writing a select()-based loop. If so, then you can just use select() with a short timeout and check the different connections for which you need to ping each peer.
Whenever you have asynchronous events, you should have an event loop. This doesn't need to be some system default one, like Windows' message loop. You can create your own. But you should be using it.
The whole point about event-based programming is that you are decoupling your code handling to deal with well-defined functional fragments based on these asynchronous events. Without an event loop, you are condemning yourself to interleaving code that get's input and produces output based on poorly defined "states" that are just fragments of procedural code.
Without a well-defined separation of states using an event-based design, code quickly becomes unmanageable. Because code pauses inside procedures to do input tasks, you have lifetimes of objects that will not span entire procedure scopes, and you will begin to write if (nullptr == xx) in various places that access objects created or destroyed based on events. Dispatch becomes comnbinatorially complex because you have different events expected at each input point and no abstraction.
However, simply using an event loop and dispatch to state machines, you've decreased handling complexity to basic management of handlers (O(n) handlers versus O(mn) branch statements with n types of events and m states). You decouple handling but still allow for functionality to change depending on state. But now these states are well-defined using state classes. And new states can be added if the requirements of the product change.
I'm just saying, stop trying to avoid an event loop. It's a software pattern for very important reasons, all of which have to do with producing professional, reusable, scalable code. Use Boost.ASIO or some other framework for cross platform capabilities. Don't get in the habit of doing it wrong just because you think it will be less of an effort. In the end, even if it's not a professional project that needs maintenance long term, you want to practice making your code professional so you can do something with your skills down the line.
I am thinking of writing a server application - along the lines of mySQL or Apache.
The main requirements are:
Clients will communicate with the server via TCP/IP (sockets)
The server will spawn a new child process to handle requests (ala Apache)
Ideally, I would like to use the BOOST libraries rather than attempt to reinvent my own. There must be code somewhere that does most of what I am trying to do - so I can use it (or atleast part of it as my starting point) can anyone point me to a useful link?
In the (hopefully unlikely) event that there is no code I can use as a starting point, can someone point out the most appropriate BOOST libraries to use - and a general guideline on how to proceeed.
My main worry is how to know when one of the children has crashed. AFAIK, there are two ways of doing this:
Using heartbeats between the parent and children (this quickly becomes messy, and introduces more things that could go wrong)
Somehow wrap the spawning of the process with a timeout parameter - but this is a dumb approach, because if a child is carrying out time intensive work, the parent may incorrectly think that the child has died
What is the best practises of making the parent aware that a child has died?
[Edit]
BTW, I am developing/running/deploying on Linux
On what platform (Windows/Linux/both)? Processes on Windows are considered more heavy-weight than on Linux, so you may indeed consider threads.
Also, I think it is better (like Apache does) not to spawn a process for each request but to have a process pool, so you save the cost of creating a process, especially on Windows.
If you are on Linux, can waitpid() be useful for you? You can use it in the non-blocking mode to check recurrently with some interval whether one of the child processes terminated
I can say for sure that Pion is your only stable option.
I have never used it but I intend to, and the API looks very clean.
As for the Boost libraries you would need:
Boost.Asio
Boost.Threading
Boost.Spirit (or something similar to parse the HTTP protocol)
Boost.IPC
What about using threads (which are supported by Boost) rather than forking the process? This would allow you to make queries about the state of a child and, imho, threads are simpler to handle than forking.
Generally Boost.Asio is good point to begin with.
But several points to be aware of:
Boost.Asio is very good library but it is not very fork aware, so don't try to share Asio
event loop between several fork processes - this would not work (i.e. - if boost::asio::io_service was created before fork - don't use it in more then one process after it)
Also it does not allow you to release file handler from boost::asio::XX::socket
so only way is to call dup and then pass it to child process.
But to be honest? I don't think you'll find any network event loop library that is
fork aware (maybe with exception of CppCMS's booster.aio that I had written
to be fork aware by myself).
Waiting for children is quite simple you can define a signal handler with sigaction
on SIGCHLD signal that is send then child crashes or exits.
So all you need to do is handle this signal and in main loop call waitpid when such
signal received.
With asio you can use "self-pipe" trick to wake the loop from sleep from signal handler.
First, take a look at CPPCMS. It might already fit your needs.
Now, as pointed by others, boost::asio is a good starting point but is really the basics of the task.
Maybe you'll be more interested in the works being done about server-code based on boost::asio : cpp-netlib (that is made to be submitted in boost once done) The author's blog.
I've made an FOSS library for creating C++ applications in a modular way. It's hosted at
https://github.com/chilabot/chila
here's my blog: http://chilatools.blogspot.com/view/sidebar
It's specially suited for generic server creation (that was my motivation for constructing it), but I think it can be used for any kind of application.
The part that has to be deployed with the final binary is LGPL, so it can be used with commercial applications.
I'm working on an instant messenger client in C++ (Win32) and I'm experimenting with different asynchronous socket models. So far I've been using WSAAsyncSelect for receiving notifications via my main window. However, I've been experiencing some unexpected results with Winsock spawning additionally 5-6 threads (in addition to the initial thread created when calling WSAAsyncSelect) for one single socket.
I have plans to revamp the client to support additional protocols via DLL:s, and I'm afraid that my current solution won't be suitable based on my experiences with WSAAsyncSelect in addition to me being negative towards mixing network with UI code (in the message loop).
I'm looking for advice on what a suitable asynchronous socket model could be for a multi-protocol IM client which needs to be able to handle roughly 10-20+ connections (depending on amount of protocols and protocol design etc.), while not using an excessive amount of threads -- I am very interested in performance and keeping the resource usage down.
I've been looking on IO Completion Ports, but from what I've gathered, it seems overkill. I'd very much appreciate some input on what a suitable socket solution could be!
Thanks in advance! :-)
There are four basic ways to handle multiple concurrent sockets.
Multiplexing, that is using select() to poll the sockets.
AsyncSelect which is basically what you're doing with WSAAsyncSelect.
Worker Threads, creating a single thread for each connection.
IO Completion Ports, or IOCP. dp mentions them above, but basically they are an OS specific way to handle asynchronous I/O, which has very good performance, but it is a little more confusing.
Which you choose often depends on where you plan to go. If you plan to port the application to other platforms, you may want to choose #1 or #3, since select is not terribly different from other models used on other OS's, and most other OS's also have the concept of threads (though they may operate differently). IOCP is typically windows specific (although Linux now has some async I/O functions as well).
If your app is Windows only, then you basically want to choose the best model for what you're doing. This would likely be either #3 or #4. #4 is the most efficient, as it calls back into your application (similar, but with better peformance and fewer issues to WSAsyncSelect).
The big thing you have to deal with when using threads (either IOCP or WorkerThreads) is marshaling the data back to a thread that can update the UI, since you can't call UI functions on worker threads. Ultimately, this will involve some messaging back and forth in most cases.
If you were developing this in Managed code, i'd tell you to look at Jeffrey Richter's AysncEnumerator, but you've chose C++ which has it's pros and cons. Lots of people have written various network libraries for C++, maybe you should spend some time researching some of them.
consider to use the ASIO library you can find in boost (www.boost.org).
Just use synchronous models. Modern operating systems handle multiple threads quite well. Async IO is really needed in rare situations, mostly on servers.
In some ways IO Completion Ports (IOCP) are overkill but to be honest I find the model for asynchronous sockets easier to use than the alternatives (select, non-blocking sockets, Overlapped IO, etc.).
The IOCP API could be clearer but once you get past it it's actually easier to use I think. Back when, the biggest obstacle was platform support (it needed an NT based OS -- i.e., Windows 9x did not support IOCP). With that restriction long gone, I'd consider it.
If you do decide to use IOCP (which, IMHO, is the best option if you're writing for Windows) then I've got some free code available which takes away a lot of the work that you need to do.
Latest version of the code and links to the original articles are available from here.
And my views on how my framework compares to Boost::ASIO can be found here: http://www.lenholgate.com/blog/2008/09/how-does-the-socket-server-framework-compare-to-boostasio.html.