Two functions: CheckInput and SendKey
CheckInput checks for Alt-J to be pressed. When Alt-J is pressed, a bool is toggled which allows for SendKey to keep sending the Enter key every 500ms.
I need for CheckInput to still be able to get user input and change the bool - thus stopping enter being sent - whilst the SendKey is still waiting within the sleep, otherwise right now I have to hold down Alt-J until the next 500ms is up.
Any ideas on how to do this? It just seems so basic yet I can't wrap my head around it...
( Basically, a script that presses enter every 500ms and can be toggled on and off without needing to wait 500ms )
void CheckInput() {
if ((GetKeyState(0x12) & 0x8000) && (GetKeyState(0x4A) & 0x8000)) {
Active = !Active;
}
}
void SendKey() {
if (Active) {
keybd_event(0x0D, 0x0A, 0, 0);
Sleep(16);
keybd_event(0x0D, 0X0A, KEYEVENTF_KEYUP, 0);
Sleep(500);
}
}
int main()
{
while (1) {
thread t1(CheckInput);
thread t2(SendKey);
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
return 0;
}
This would go much smoother if you could use a Windows event loop.
If you can't, you should simulate it.
Create a thread-safe queue that can store event information. You need two types of events - keystrokes and timer ticks.
One thread will sleep for 500ms and send a timer tick event - in a loop. The other thread will call Console.ReadKey and send a keystroke event - also in a loop.
Your main thread will wait for events to arrive from the queue and handle them.
As the commenter mentioned, you need to put your loops in the threads, like in this example:
atomic_int temp;
std::thread t( [&temp]()
{
while( temp!= -1){
std::this_thread::sleep_for(std::chrono::milliseconds(500));
temp=0;
}
});
You can use a condition variable and have one thread to wait upon it.
The second thread(or the main loop) would wait for the keyboard input in a loop and signal the condition variable once the input arrives.
I've figured out to just check if the time since last time that Enter was pressed is over 500ms ago, so that it works off of system-time. Unfortunately I still have'nt found a way to have two simultaneous processes running at once, but this seems to work like I needed it to:
void SendKey() {
if (Active){
keybd_event(0x0D, 0x0A, 0, 0);
Sleep(16);
keybd_event(0x0D, 0X0A, KEYEVENTF_KEYUP, 0);
}
}
void CheckInput() {
auto t1 = Clock::now() + chrono::seconds(1);
int temp = 0;
while (temp == 0) {
if ((GetKeyState(0x12) & 0x8000) && (GetKeyState(0x4A) & 0x8000)) {
Active = !Active;
}
if (Clock::now() > t1) {
SendKey();
temp = 1;
}
}
}
int main()
{
while (1) {
thread t1(CheckInput);
t1.join();
}
return 0;
}
This basically stores the time that CheckInput was run at, and sets a set goal thats 1 second in the future. Then it will just keep checking the inputs and it will also check if the time has passed that set goal, which when it has, then it will call SendKey, before repeating again.
Related
I have an arduino that does mostly data collection and sends it to an ESP8266 over serial. Serial communication to the ESP is not quick as you may know and it depends on a lot of waiting. I have a button and I want to immediately stop any data collection or sending and have it open a door. The door opening takes about 30 seconds. What's the best way to do this?
Not the full code, but it goes something like the below.
Of course this doesn't work because you can't use WHILE or DELAY in an ISR, but I don't know how to restructure it.
attachInterrupt(4 , openadoor, FALLING);
void loop(){
gathersomedata();
senddatatoESP();
if(wait_for_esp_response(2000,"OK")) lightGreenLED();
else lightRedLED();
}
byte wait_for_esp_response(int timeout, const char* term) {
unsigned long t = millis();
bool found = false;
int i = 0;
int len = strlen(term);
while (millis() < t + timeout) {
if (Serial2.available()) {
buffer[i++] = Serial2.read();
if (i >= len) {
if (strncmp(buffer + i - len, term, len) == 0) {
found = true;
break;
}
}
}
}
buffer[i] = 0;
}
void openadoor(){
while (doortimer + dooropentime >= millis() && digitalRead(openbutton) == HIGH && digitalRead(closebutton) == HIGH) {
digitalWrite(DoorOpenRelay, LOW);
}
digitalWrite(DoorOpenRelay, HIGH);
}
TL;DR - see Nick's Answer. :-)
Without the complete code, I can only guess at a few things:
1) You shouldn't wait in an ISR. Even calling millis() is discouraged, as it depends on the Timer0 ISR getting called, which will be prevented as long as you're in your openadoor ISR.
2) In general, the ISR should only do things that are very quick... think microseconds. That's tens to hundreds of instructions, which can be just a few lines of code. Even digitalWrite is almost too slow. If there's more to do, you should just set a volatile flag that is watched in loop. Then loop can do the time-consuming work.
3) Calculating elapsed time must be in this form:
if (millis() - startTime >= DESIRED_TIME)
where startTime is the same type as millis(), a uint32_t:
uint32_t startTime;
You set startTime whereever it's appropriate:
startTime = millis();
This avoids the rollover problem, when millis() rolls over from 232-1 to 0.
4) It looks like you know how to "block" until a certain amount of time has elapsed: the while loop will keep your sketch at that point. If you just change it to an if statement, the Arduino can continue on its way to handle other things.
Because loop happens so quickly, the if statement will check the time very frequently... unless you delay or block somewhere else, like wait_for_esp_response. :-( That while loop should change to an if statement as well. The routine is more like check_for_esp_response.
5) You have to track the state of the door opening and closing process. This is a Finite-State machine problem. Nick has a good description here, too. You can use the enum type to define the states that the door can be in: CLOSED, OPENING, OPENED and CLOSING.
When the OPEN button is pressed, you can look at the state and see if you should start opening it. Then start a timer, turn on the relay and, most importantly, set the state to OPENING. Next time through loop, you can test the state (a switch statement), and for the OPENING case, look at the time to see if it has been long enough. If it has set the state to OPENED. And so on.
If I incorporate all these things into your sketch, it should start to look like this:
volatile bool doorOpenPressed = false;
volatile bool doorClosePressed = false;
static const uint32_t DOOR_OPEN_TIME = 30000UL; // ms
static const uint32_t DOOR_CLOSE_TIME = 30000UL; // ms
static const uint32_t DATA_SAMPLE_TIME = 60000UL; // ms
static uint32_t lastDataTime, sentTime, relayChanged;
static bool waitingForResponse = false;
static uint8_t responseLen = 0;
enum doorState_t { DOOR_CLOSED, DOOR_OPENING, DOOR_OPENED, DOOR_CLOSING };
doorState_t doorState = DOOR_CLOSED;
void setup()
{
attachInterrupt(4 , openadoor, FALLING);
}
void loop()
{
// Is it time to take another sample?
if (millis() - lastDataTime > DATA_SAMPLE_TIME) {
lastDataTime = millis();
gathersomedata();
// You may want to read all Serial2 input first, to make
// sure old data doesn't get mixed in with the new response.
senddatatoESP();
sentTime = millis();
waitingForResponse = true;
responseLen = 0; // ready for new response
}
// If we're expecting a response, did we get it?
if (waitingForResponse) {
if (check_for_esp_response("OK")) {
// Got it!
lightGreenLED();
waitingForResponse = false;
} else if (millis() - sentTime > 2000UL) {
// Too long!
lightRedLED();
waitingForResponse = false;
} // else, still waiting
}
// Check and handle the door OPEN and CLOSE buttons,
// based on the current door state and time
switch (doorState) {
case DOOR_CLOSED:
if (doorOpenPressed) {
digitalWrite(DoorOpenRelay, LOW);
relayChanged = millis();
doorState = DOOR_OPENING;
}
break;
case DOOR_OPENING:
// Has the door been opening long enough?
if (millis() - relayChanged > DOOR_OPEN_TIME) {
digitalWrite(DoorOpenRelay, HIGH);
doorState = DOOR_OPENED;
} else if (!doorOpenPressed && doorClosePressed) {
// Oops, changed their mind and pressed the CLOSE button.
// You may want to calculate a relayChanged time that
// is set back from millis() based on how long the
// door has been opening. If it just started opening,
// you probably don't want to drive the relay for the
// full 30 seconds.
...
}
break;
case DOOR_OPENED:
if (doorClosePressed) {
...
}
break;
case DOOR_CLOSING:
if (millis() - relayChanged > DOOR_CLOSE_TIME) {
...
}
break;
}
}
void openadoor()
{
doorOpenPressed = true;
}
bool check_for_esp_response(const char* term)
{
bool found = false;
if (Serial2.available()) {
// You should make sure you're not running off the end
// of "buffer" here!
buffer[responseLen++] = Serial2.read();
int len = strlen(term);
if (responseLen >= len) {
if (strncmp(buffer + responseLen - len, term, len) == 0) {
found = true;
}
}
}
return found;
}
The key is that you don't block or delay anywhere. loop gets called over and over, and it just checks a few variables. Most of the time, there's nothing to do. But sometimes, based on the state or the current time, it gathers some data, sends it, reads the response, and opens or closes the door. These actions do not interfere with each other, because there are no blocking while loops, only quick checks with if statements.
Open the door in the ISR and set a flag. Also store the time when you opened it. Both of those variables should be declared volatile.
Then in your main loop see if:
The flag is set; and
Time is up
If so, close the door (and clear the flag).
May I assume that setting the variables as "volatile" will prevent the compiler optimizing them? If so, then would you mind explaining why you thought this necessary.
Variables modified inside an ISR may change when the compiler does not expect them to. Using volatile tells the compiler to reload such variables from RAM (and not cache them into a register) so it always gets the most up-to-date copy.
Just as an example, say you had a flag set inside an ISR. And in your main (non-ISR) code you had this:
flag = false;
while (!flag)
{ } // wait for flag to be set
The compiler looks at that and thinks "well, flag will never change" and optimizes away the test for it changing. With volatile though, the compiler keeps the test, because it has to keep reloading flag from RAM.
My project is consists of two threads: one main thread and the other thread which handles another window content. So, the when the main thread wants to ask the another windows to update itself it calls the draw function which is as follows:
void SubApplicationManager::draw() {
// Zero number of applications which has finished the draw counter
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(SubApplication::draw_mutex);
SubApplication::num_draws = 0;
}
// Draw the sub applications.
for (size_t i = 0; i < m_subApplications.size(); i++)
m_subApplications[i].signal_draw();
// Wait until all the sub applications finish drawing.
while (true){
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(SubApplication::draw_mutex);
std::cout << SubApplication::num_draws << std::endl;
if (SubApplication::num_draws >= m_subApplications.size()) break;
}
}
The draw function just signals the other thread that a new task is received.
void SubApplication::signal_draw() {
task = TASK::TASK_DRAW;
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(task_received_mutex);
task_received = true;
}
task_start_condition.notify_all();
}
The body of other thread is as follows. It waits for the task to arrive and then start to process:
void SubApplication::thread() {
clock_t start_time, last_update;
start_time = last_update = clock();
//! Creates the Sub Application
init();
while (!done) // Loop That Runs While done=FALSE
{
// Draw The Scene. Watch For ESC Key And Quit Messages From DrawGLScene()
if (active) // Program Active?
{
// Wait here, until a update/draw command is received.
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> start_lock(task_start_mutex);
while (!task_received){
task_start_condition.wait(start_lock);
}
// Task received is set to false, for next loop.
{
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(task_received_mutex);
task_received = false;
}
clock_t frame_start_time = clock();
switch (task){
case TASK_UPDATE:
update();
break;
case TASK_DRAW:
draw();
swapBuffers();
break;
case TASK_CREATE:
create();
break;
default:
break;
}
clock_t frame_end_time = clock();
double task_time = static_cast<float>(frame_end_time - frame_start_time) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
}
}
}
The problem is that if I run the code as it is, it never runs the other thread with task = TASK::TASK_DRAW; but if I add a std::cout << "Draw\n"; to the beginning of SubApplication::draw(), it will work as it should. I am looking for the reason which it is happening and what is the usual way to fix it?
boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> lock(task_received_mutex);
task_received = true;
Okay, the task_received_mutex protects task_received.
boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> start_lock(task_start_mutex);
while (!task_received){
task_start_condition.wait(start_lock);
}
Oops, we're reading task_received without holding the mutex that protects it. What prevents a race where one thread reads task_received while another thread is modifying it? This could immediately lead to deadlock.
Also, you have code that claims to "Wait until all the sub applications finish drawing" but there's no call to any wait function. So it actually spins rather than waiting, which is awful.
As a starter, signal the task_start_condition under the task_start_mutex lock.
Consider locking that mutex during thread creation to avoid obvious races.
Third: it seems you have several mutexes named for "logical tasks" (draw, start). In reality, however, mutexes guard resources, not "logical tasks". So it's good practice to name them after the shared resource they should guard. _(In this case I get the impression that a single mutex could be enough/better. But we can't tell for sure from the code shown)).
In a separate thread (std::thread), I have an event loop that waits on xcb_wait_for_event. When the program exits, I'd like to shut things down nicely by interrupting (I have a solution that sets a thread-local variable, and checkpoints in the loop throw an exception), and then joining my event thread into the main thread. The issue is xcb_wait_for_event; I need a way to return from it early, or I need an alternative to the function.
Can anyone suggest a solution? Thanks for your help!
I believe I've come up with a suitable solution. I've replaced xcb_wait_for_event with the following function:
xcb_generic_event_t *WaitForEvent(xcb_connection_t *XConnection)
{
xcb_generic_event_t *Event = nullptr;
int XCBFileDescriptor = xcb_get_file_descriptor(XConnection);
fd_set FileDescriptors;
struct timespec Timeout = { 0, 250000000 }; // Check for interruptions every 0.25 seconds
while (true)
{
interruptible<std::thread>::check();
FD_ZERO(&FileDescriptors);
FD_SET(XCBFileDescriptor, &FileDescriptors);
if (pselect(XCBFileDescriptor + 1, &FileDescriptors, nullptr, nullptr, &Timeout, nullptr) > 0)
{
if ((Event = xcb_poll_for_event(XConnection)))
break;
}
}
interruptible<std::thread>::check();
return Event;
}
Making use of xcb_get_file_descriptor, I can use pselect to wait until there are new events, or until a specified timeout has occurred. This method incurs negligible additional CPU costs, resting at a flat 0.0% (on this i7). The only "downside" is having to wait a maximum of 0.25 seconds to check for interruptions, and I'm sure that limit could be safely lowered.
A neater way would be to do something like this (the code snippet is extracted from some code I am currently working on):
void QXcbEventQueue::sendCloseConnectionEvent() const {
// A hack to close XCB connection. Apparently XCB does not have any APIs for this?
xcb_client_message_event_t event;
memset(&event, 0, sizeof(event));
event.response_type = XCB_CLIENT_MESSAGE;
event.format = 32;
event.sequence = 0;
event.window = m_connection->clientLeader();
event.type = m_connection->atom(QXcbAtom::_QT_CLOSE_CONNECTION);
event.data.data32[0] = 0;
xcb_connection_t *c = m_connection->xcb_connection();
xcb_send_event(c, false, m_connection->clientLeader(),
XCB_EVENT_MASK_NO_EVENT, reinterpret_cast<const char *>(&event));
xcb_flush(c); }
For _QT_CLOSE_CONNECTION use your own atom to signal an exit and in my case clientLeader() is some invisible window that is always present on my X11 connection. If you don't have any invisible windows that could be reused for this purpose, create one :)
With this you can terminate the thread with xcb_wait_for_event when you see this special event arriving.
I'm writing a simple function that, when called, allows to execute 2 different actions (exclusive).
So there are two threads. User_choice waits until the user inserts an input and the Time_choice waits until time expires.
The choice_done shared var says that, if true, one thread has already started and blocking (it doesn't do anything!) the other one; Whereas thread_done says, if true, that thread (it doesn't matter which) has already finished, so func() waits until one thread finishes.
Here is the code.
The func procedure will be called more times during the program execution.
The various user_choice thread will be waiting forever on getline! Is it a problem? What if, after four times the program will call func() and the user doesn't insert anything, the 5th time the user inserts "yes"?
Will every user_choice thread continue the execution?? How can I kill the waiting thread? Are there other solutions?
How can I wait inside func() that a thread sets thread_done to true?
bool choice_done = false;
bool thread_done = false;
void func(){
boost::thread t1(boost::bind( time_choice() ));
boost::thread t2(boost::bind( user_choice() ));
//whait untile thread_done == true
do something...
}
// Time choice thread
void time_choice(){
sleep(5);
if(choice_done == false){
printf("Automatic choice\n");
choice_done == true;
do something...
thread_done = true;
}
}
// User choice thread
void user_choice(){
printf("Start emergency procedure?\n");
string tmp;
getline(cin, tmp);
if((tmp.compare("yes") == 0) && (choice_done == false)){
printf("Manual choice\n");
choice_done == true;
do something...
thread_done = true;
}
}
Having to create a thread for a timer is generally a sign of sub-optimal design. It does not scale well (imagine thousands of timers) and the code gets multi-threaded and more complex for no good reason. Also, sleep is not thread-safe on Linux.
Just use one thread with select and a timeout. select will wait on STDIN_FILENO for user input and timeout simultaneously.
Or, better, use a 3rd-party event-demultiplexing library, like libevent or boost::asio.
I am coding a telemetry system in C++ and have been having some difficulty syncing certain threads with the standard pthread_cond_timedwait and pthread_cond_broadcast.
The problem was that I needed some way for the function that was doing the broadcasting to know if another thread acted on the broadcast.
After some hearty searching I decided I might try using a barrier for the two threads instead. However, I still wanted the timeout functionality of the pthread_cond_timedwait.
Here is basically what I came up with: (However it feels excessive)
Listen Function: Checks for a period of milliseconds to see if an event is currently being triggered.
bool listen(uint8_t eventID, int timeout)
{
int waitCount = 0;
while(waitCount <= timeout)
{
globalEventID = eventID;
if(getUpdateFlag(eventID) == true)
{
pthread_barrier_wait(&barEvent);
return true;
}
threadSleep(); //blocks for 1 millisecond
++waitCount;
}
return false;
}
Trigger Function: Triggers an event for a period of milliseconds by setting an update flag for the triggering period
bool trigger(uint8_t eventID, int timeout)
int waitCount = 0;
while(waitCount <= timeout)
{
setUpdateFlag(eventID, true); //Sets the update flag to true
if(globalEventID == eventID)
{
pthread_barrier_wait(&barEvent);
return true;
}
threadSleep(); //blocks for 1 millisecond
++waitCount;
}
setUpdateFlag(eventID, false);
return false;
}
My questions: Is another way to share information with the broadcaster, or are barriers really the only efficient way? Also, is there another way of getting timeout functionality with barriers?
Based on your described problem:
Specifically, I am trying to let thread1 know that the message it is
waiting for has been parsed and stored in a global list by thread2,
and that thread2 can continue parsing and storing because thread1 will
now copy that message from the list ensuring that thread2 can
overwrite that message with a new version and not disrupt the
operations of thread1.
It sounds like your problem can be solved by having both threads alternately wait on the condition variable. Eg. in thread 1:
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
while (!message_present)
pthread_cond_wait(&cond, &mutex);
copy_message();
message_present = 0;
pthread_cond_broadcast(&cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);
process_message();
and in thread 2:
parse_message();
pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex);
while (message_present)
pthread_cond_wait(&cond, &mutex);
store_message();
message_present = 1;
pthread_cond_broadcast(&cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex);