I have a function that process frames of video frame by frame and it's quite long. So I decided to put something like Pause and Resume button but I don't know how to end a running function using button. I guessed that it have to do something with thread but I don't know how to do it. Can you give me some advice?
(Note: I'm naming your function ProcessFramesOfVideo() just to make it easier to refer to below)
If the ProcessFramesOfVideo() function is running in your main thread, then most likely your GUI gets frozen up while the function runs, because the GUI event loop won't run until ProcessFramesOfVideo returns.
If that's the case, then the quick-and-dirty way to un-freeze your GUI while ProcessFramesOfVideo() is running would be to call qApp->processEvents() periodically (e.g. once every 50mS or something) from within your loop inside ProcessFramesOfVideo(). That would allow Qt to handle incoming GUI events (like mouse clicks) in a reasonably timely manner while the video is being processed, so that e.g. if the user resizes the window while video is being processed, the widgets resize as expected. Once you have that working, then it's just a matter of putting your Pause and Resume buttons in the GUI as usual, and maybe have them set a "please_stop_processing" boolean flag that also gets checked periodically by ProcessFramesOfVideo()'s loop; if the flag is true, ProcessFramesOfVideo() could return early, or etc.
If you are looking for a more elegant solution than that, the other option would be to spawn a QThread and run the ProcessFramesOfVideo() method in that separate thread. That would allow ProcessFramesOfVideo() to run truly in parallel with the Qt GUI event loop (especially on a multicore CPU), so that GUI responsiveness would not be reduced at all. ProcessFramesOfVideo() could still use the old periodic-check-of-a-boolean technique to know if it should pause or resume its processing; but since you'd have multiple threads involved you'd want to the GUI thread lock a mutex before writing to the boolean, and unlock the mutex afterwards, and you'd want to have the ProcessFramesOfVideo() function lock that same mutex before reading the boolean, and unlock the mutex afterwards. That would ensure that the CPUs' caches and/or compiler optimizations do not interfere with the threads "seeing" each others changes to the boolean flag.
Related
Back to stackoverflow with another question after hours of trying on my own haha.
Thank you all for reading this and helping in advance.
Please note the console program has following functionalities:
connect to a frame grabber
apply some configs
store the incoming data (640 * 480 16-bit grayscale imgs) in a stream of buffers inside a while loop
Exits the while loop upon a key press.
disconnect from device
And I'm only adding the displaying the images functionality on the MFC GUI app. In short,
i) Converting a console app to an MFC app (dialog based)
ii) decided to use thread for displaying images, but DK how to properly exit from thread when there are certain tasks to be done (such as call disconnectFromDevice(); freeBuffers();, etc) before exiting the thread.
iii) have tried making the while loop condition false but didn't work
( I actually want this to be a callback function that's called repeatedly but IDK how to implement it inside a thread)
iv) forcing AfxEndThread didn't work and it's not even the way it should be done (I think).
So my question is,
1. Are you supposed to use a while loop to excuete a certain job that should repeatedly be done? If not, do you have to implement a callback inside a thread? Or use Windows message loop? Why and how? Please provide a hello-world-like sample code example
(for example, you are printing "hello world" repeatedly inside a thread with a condtion in an MFC GUI app. How do you update or check the condition to end the thread if you can't just AfxEndThread() inside the threadproc)
2. If it's ok with a while, how do you exit from the while loop, in other words how do you properly update the exit condition outside the thread the while loop's in?
Please refer to the source code in the provided link
ctrl+F OnBnClickedConnectButton, AcquireImages and OnBnClickedDisconnectButton
https://github.com/MetaCortex728/img_processing/blob/main/IR140Dlg.cpp
Worker threads do not have message-queues, the (typically one and only) UI one does. The message-queue for a thread is created by the first call of the GetMessage() function. Why use messages to control processing in a worker thread? You would have to establish a special protocol for this, defining custom messages and posting them to the queue.
Worker threads can be implemented as a loop. The loop can be terminated based on various conditions, like failures to retrieve any data or request from the user. You can simply exit the thread proc to terminate the thread's execution. If the thread doesn't respond it may have stuck (unless it performs a really lengthy operation) and the UI thread must provide some mechanism to kill it. That is first request termination and if it doesn't respond within some set time then kill it.
The condition mechanism to terminate should best be some synchronization object (I would recommend a manual-reset event), interlocked variable or a simple boolean which you should access and set using a critical section.
Some considerations:
You pass a parameter block to the thread. Make sure that it remains alive throughout the thread's lifetime. For example, it should NOT be a local variable in a function that exits before the thread's termination.
The loop must be "efficient", ie do not loop infinitely if data are not available. Consider using blocking functions with timeouts, if available.
Resource management (eg connecting/disconnecting, allocating/releasing etc) should best be performed by the same thread.
An alternative implementation can be APCs. Then the thread's proc function is a while(!bTerminate) { SleepEx(INFINITE, TRUE); } loop, and other threads issue requests using a the QueueUserAPC() function.
The AfxEndThread(0) call in OnBnClickedDisconnectButton() is wrong, it terminates the current thread, which in this case is the main (UI) thread. Check the documentation.
A sidenote, my suggestion about the project type is not a dialog-based application but instead a normal MFC application without a document class (uncheck the Document/View architecture support option), as it offers features like menus, toolbars and the like, and most importantly the ON_UPDATE_COMMAND_UI handlers.
For the Gtkmm application I'm making, when a row in a ListBoxRow is selected, the callback needs to start a while-loop which will run indefinitely. Let's say the while-loop ends when a particular variable is set to false.
The problem with this, is that my current handler (when it starts the while-loop) completely blocks the main thread, hence blocking any interaction with the GUI.
I think I can use threads to solve this (e.g. start a new thread from the handler, and start the while-loop in the thread), but I foresee problems with this such as:
Multiple threads will be able to be created (by selecting more than 1 row, not at the same time but while another thread is running), so how will I store these threads?
If I store the threads in a vector object, how will I know which thread to join to the main thread, and when to join it?
I'm thinking this must be a fairly common problem, so does Gtkmm or anything else provide a method of perhaps running the handler as a non-blocking function, or something to that effect?
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
I am using SDL for the view parts of my game project. And I want to handle key press events without interrupting the main thread. So I decided to run an infinite loop in another view thread to catch any events and inform the main thread. However, I am not sure that this is the best since this may cause a workload and decrease the system performace? Is there any better way to do this kind of things?
Thanks.
Don't bother with another thread. What's the point?
What does your main thread do? I imagine something like this:
Update Logic
Render
Goto 1
If you receive input after (or during) the update cycle then you have to wait till the next update cycle before you'll see the effects. The same is true during rendering. You might as well just check for input before the update cycle and do it all singlethreaded.
Input
Update Logic
Render
Goto 1
Multithreading gains nothing here and just increases complexity.
For some added reading, check out Christer Ericson's blog post about input latency (he's the director of technology for the team that makes God of War).
And I want to handle key press events without interrupting the main thread.
SDL is not inherently an interrupt or event driven framework. IO occurs by reading events off of the event queue by calling SDL_WaitEvent or SDL_PollEvent. This must occur in the "main" thread, the one that called SDL_SetVideoMode.
That's not to say you cannot use multiple threads, and there's good justification for doing so, for instance, it can simplify network communication if it doesn't have to rely on the SDL event loop. If you want the simulation to occur in a separate thread, then it can pass information back and forth through synchronized shared objects. In particular, you can always put events into the SDL event queue safely from any thread.
I'm importing a portion of existing code into my Qt app and noticed a sleep function in there. I see that this type of function has no place in event programming. What should I do instead?
UPDATE: After thought and feedback I would say the answer is: call sleep outside the GUI main thread only and if you need to wait in the GUI thread use processEvents() or an event loop, this will prevent the GUI from freezing.
It isn't pretty but I found this in the Qt mailing list archives:
The sleep method of QThread is protected, but you can expose it like so:
class SleeperThread : public QThread
{
public:
static void msleep(unsigned long msecs)
{
QThread::msleep(msecs);
}
};
Then just call:
SleeperThread::msleep(1000);
from any thread.
However, a more elegant solution would be to refactor your code to use a QTimer - this might require you saving the state so you know what to do when the timer goes off.
I don't recommend sleep in a event based system but if you want to ...
You can use a waitcondition, that way you can always interrupt the sleep if neccesary.
//...
QMutex dummy;
dummy.lock();
QWaitCondition waitCondition;
waitCondition.wait(&dummy, waitTime);
//...
The reason why sleep is a bad idea in event based programming is because event based programming is effectively a form on non-preemptive multitasking. By calling sleep, you prevent any other event becoming active and therefore blocking the processing of the thread.
In a request response scenario for udp packets, send the request and immediately wait for the response. Qt has good socket APIs which will ensure that the socket does not block while waiting for the event. The event will come when it comes. In your case the QSocket::readReady signal is your friend.
If you want to schedule an event for some point of time in the future, use QTimer. This will ensure that other events are not blocked.
It is not necessary to break down the events at all. All I needed to do was to call QApplication::processEvents() where sleep() was and this prevents the GUI from freezing.
I don't know how the QTs handle the events internally, but on most systems at the lowest level the application life goes like this: the main thread code is basically a loop (the message loop), in which, at each iteration, the application calls a function that gives to it a new message; usually that function is blocking, i.e. if there are no messages the function does not return and the application is stopped.
Each time the function returns, the application has a new message to process, that usually has some recipient (the window to which is sent), a meaning (the message code, e.g. the mouse pointer has been moved) and some additional data (e.g. the mouse has been moved to coords 24, 12).
Now, the application has to process the message; the OS or the GUI toolkit usually do this under the hood, so with some black magic the message is dispatched to its recipient and the correct event handler is executed. When the event handler returns, the internal function that called the event handler returns, so does the one that called it and so on, until the control comes back to the main loop, that now will call again the magic message-retrieving function to get another message. This cycle goes on until the application terminates.
Now, I wrote all this to make you understand why sleep is bad in an event driven GUI application: if you notice, while a message is processed no other messages can be processed, since the main thread is busy running your event handler, that, after all, is just a function called by the message loop. So, if you make your event handler sleep, also the message loop will sleep, which means that the application in the meantime won't receive and process any other messages, including the ones that make your window repaint, so your application will look "hang" from the user perspective.
Long story short: don't use sleep unless you have to sleep for very short times (few hundreds milliseconds at most), otherwise the GUI will become unresponsive. You have several options to replace the sleeps: you can use a timer (QTimer), but it may require you to do a lot of bookkeeping between a timer event and the other. A popular alternative is to start a separate worker thread: it would just handle the UDP communication, and, being separate from the main thread, it would not cause any problem sleeping when necessary. Obviously you must take care to protect the data shared between the threads with mutexes and be careful to avoid race conditions and all the other kind of problems that occur with multithreading.