I am using boost:asio with multiple io_services to keep different forms of blocking I/O separate. E.g. I have one io_service for blocking file I/O, and another for long-running CPU-bound tasks (and this could be extended to a third for blocking network I/O, etc.) Generally speaking I want to ensure that one form of blocking I/O cannot starve the others.
The problem I am having is that since tasks running in one io_service can post events to other io_service (e.g. a CPU-bound task may need to start a file I/O operation, or a completed file I/O operation may invoke a CPU-bound callback), I don't know how to keep both io_services running until they are both out of events.
Normally with a single I/O service, you do something like:
shared_ptr<asio::io_service> io_service (new asio::io_service);
shared_ptr<asio::io_service::work> work (
new asio::io_service::work(*io_service));
// Create worker thread(s) that call io_service->run()
io_service->post(/* some event */);
work.reset();
// Join worker thread(s)
However if I simply do this for both io_services, the one into which I did not post an initial event finishes immediately. And even if I post initial events to both, if the initial event on io_service B finishes before the task on io_service A posts a new event to B, io_service B will finish prematurely.
How can I keep io_service B running while io_service A is still processing events (because one of the queued events in service A might post a new event to B), and vice-versa, while still ensuring that both io_services exit their run() methods if they are ever both out of events at the same time?
Figured out a way to do this, so documenting it for the record in case anyone else finds this question in a search:
Create each N cross-communicating io_services, create a work object for each of them, and then start their worker threads.
Create a "master" io_service object which will not run any worker threads.
Do not allow posting events directly to the services. Instead, create accessor functions to the io_services which will:
Create a work object on the master thread.
Wrap the callback in a function that runs the real callback, then deletes the work.
Post this wrapped callback instead.
In the main flow of execution, once all of the N io_services have started and you have posted work to at least one of them, call run() on the master io_service.
When the master io_service's run() method returns, delete all of the initial work on the N cross-communicating io_services, and join all worker threads.
Having the master io_service's thread own work on each of the other io_services ensures that they will not terminate until the master io_service runs out of work. Having each of the other io_services own work on the master io_service for every posted callback ensure that the master io_service will not run out of work until every one of the other io_services no longer has any posted callbacks left to process.
An example (could be enapsulated in a class):
shared_ptr<boost::asio::io_service> master_io_service;
void RunWorker(boost::shared_ptr<boost::asio::io_service> io_service) {
io_service->run();
}
void RunCallbackAndDeleteWork(boost::function<void()> callback,
boost::asio::io_service::work* work) {
callback();
delete work;
}
// All new posted callbacks must come through here, rather than being posted
// directly to the io_service object.
void PostToService(boost::shared_ptr<boost::asio::io_service> io_service,
boost::function<void()> callback) {
io_service->post(boost::bind(
&RunCallbackAndDeleteWork, callback,
new boost::asio::io_service::work(*master_io_service)));
}
int main() {
vector<boost::shared_ptr<boost::asio::io_service> > io_services;
vector<boost::shared_ptr<boost::asio::io_service::work> > initial_work;
boost::thread_pool worker_threads;
master_io_service.reset(new boost::asio::io_service);
const int kNumServices = X;
const int kNumWorkersPerService = Y;
for (int i = 0; i < kNumServices; ++i) {
shared_ptr<boost::asio::io_service> io_service(new boost::asio::io_service);
io_services.push_back(io_service);
initial_work.push_back(new boost::asio::io_service::work(*io_service));
for (int j = 0; j < kNumWorkersPerService; ++j) {
worker_threads.create_thread(boost::bind(&RunWorker, io_service));
}
}
// Use PostToService to start initial task(s) on at least one of the services
master_io_service->run();
// At this point, there is no real work left in the services, only the work
// objects in the initial_work vector.
initial_work.clear();
worker_threads.join_all();
return 0;
}
The HTTP server example 2 does something similar that you may find useful. It uses the concept of an io_service pool that retains vectors of shared_ptr<boost::asio::io_service> and a shared_ptr<boost::asio::io_service::work> for each io_service. It uses a thread pool to run each service.
The example uses a round-robin scheduling for doling out work to the I/O services, I don't think that will apply in your case since you have specific tasks for io_service A and io_service B.
Related
I am write an app using boost:asio.
I have a single io_serice::run() thread, and many worker threads. All the worker threads may send msg at any time.
Here is how I implement the send_msg().
// Note: send_msg() could be called from any thread.
// 'msg' must be 'malloc'ed, and its owner ship will be transfered to '_send_q'
//
// NetLibConnection has base classes of tcp::socket and boost::enable_shared_from_this
void NetLibConnection::send_msg(PlainNetLibMsg* msg)
{
AutoLocker __dummy(this->_lock_4_send_q); // _lock_4_send_q is a 'mutex'
bool write_in_progress = ! this->_send_q.empty(); // _send_q is std::deque<PlainNetLibMsg* >,
// the 'send_q' mechansim is learned from boost_asio_example/cpp03/chat
this->_send_q.push_back(msg);
if (write_in_progress)
{
return;
}
this->get_io_service().post( // queue the 'send operation' to a singlton io_serivce::run() thread
boost::bind(&NetLibConnection::async_send_front_of_q
, boost::dynamic_pointer_cast<NetLibConnection>(shared_from_this())
)
);
}
void NetLibConnection::async_send_front_of_q()
{
boost::asio::async_write(*this
, boost::asio::buffer( this->_send_q.front() , _send_q.front()->header.DataSize + sizeof(NetLibChunkHeader) )
, this->_strand.wrap( // this great post https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12794107/why-do-i-need-strand-per-connection-when-using-boostasio/
// convinced me that I should use strand along with Connection
boost::bind( &NetLibConnection::handle_send
, boost::dynamic_pointer_cast<NetLibConnection>(shared_from_this())
, boost::asio::placeholders::error
)
)
);
}
The code works fine. But I am not satisfied with its verbosity. I feel the senq_q acts as the same role of strand.
Since
all real async_write call happen in a single io_service::run() thread
all real async_write are queued one-by-one via the send_q
Do I still need the strand?
Yes, indeed. The documentation details this here:
Threads And Boost Asio
By only calling io_service::run() from a single thread, the user's code can avoid the development complexity associated with synchronisation. For example, a library user can implement scalable servers that are single-threaded (from the user's point of view).
Thinking a bit more broadly, your scenario is the simplest form of having a single logical strand. There are other ways in which you can maintain logical strands (by chaining handlers), see this most excellent answer on the subject: Why do I need strand per connection when using boost::asio?
How do I properly integrate Cap'n'Proto client usage with surrounding multi-threaded code? The Cap'n'Proto docs say that each Cap'n'Proto interface is single-threaded with a dedicated event loop. Additionally they recommend using Cap'n'Proto to communicate between threads. However, the docs don't seem to describe how non-Cap'n'Proto threads (e.g. the UI loop) could integrate with that. Even if could integrate Cap'n'Proto event loops with the UI loop in some places, other models like thread pools (Android Binder, global libdispatch queues) seem more challenging.
I think the solution is to cache the thread executor for the client thread in a synchronized place that the non-capnp thread will access it.
I believe though that the calling thread always needs to be on its own event loop as well to marry them but I just want to make sure that's actually the case. My initial attempt to do that in a simple unit test is failing. I created a KjLooperEventPort class (following the structure for the node libuv adapter) to marry KJ & ALooper on Android.
Then my test code is:
TEST(KjLooper, CrossThreadPromise) {
std::thread::id kjThreadId;
ConditionVariable<const kj::Executor*> executorCv{nullptr};
ConditionVariable<std::pair<bool, kj::Promise<void>>> looperThreadFinished{false, nullptr};
std::thread looperThread([&] {
auto looper = android::newLooper();
android::KjLooperEventPort kjEventPort{looper};
kj::WaitScope waitScope(kjEventPort.getKjLoop());
auto finished = kj::newPromiseAndFulfiller<void>();
looperThreadFinished.constructValueAndNotifyAll(true, kj::mv(finished.promise));
executorCv.waitNotValue(nullptr);
auto executor = executorCv.readCopy();
kj::Promise<void> asyncPromise = executor->executeAsync([&] {
ASSERT_EQ(std::this_thread::get_id(), kjThreadId);
});
asyncPromise = asyncPromise.then([tid = std::this_thread::get_id(), kjThreadId, &finished] {
std::cerr << "Running promise completion on original thread\n";
ASSERT_NE(tid, kjThreadId);
ASSERT_EQ(std::this_thread::get_id(), tid);
std::cerr << "Fulfilling\n";
finished.fulfiller->fulfill();
std::cerr << "Fulfilled\n";
});
asyncPromise.wait(waitScope);
});
std::thread kjThread([&] {
kj::Promise<void> finished = kj::NEVER_DONE;
looperThreadFinished.wait([&](auto& promise) {
finished = kj::mv(promise.second);
return promise.first;
});
auto ioContext = kj::setupAsyncIo();
kjThreadId = std::this_thread::get_id();
executorCv.setValueAndNotifyAll(&kj::getCurrentThreadExecutor());
finished.wait(ioContext.waitScope);
});
looperThread.join();
kjThread.join();
}
This crashes fulfilling the promise back to the kj thread.
terminating with uncaught exception of type kj::ExceptionImpl: kj/async.c++:1269: failed: expected threadLocalEventLoop == &loop || threadLocalEventLoop == nullptr; Event armed from different thread than it was created in. You must use
Executor to queue events cross-thread.
Most Cap'n Proto RPC and KJ Promise-related objects can only be accessed in the thread that created them. Resolving a promise cross-thread, for example, will fail, as you saw.
Some ways you could solve this include:
You can use kj::Executor to schedule code to run on a different thread's event loop. The calling thread does NOT need to be a KJ event loop thread if you use executeSync() -- however, this function blocks until the other thread has had a chance to wake up and execute the function. I'm not sure how well this will perform in practice; if it's a problem, there is probably room to extend the Executor interface to handle this use case more efficiently.
You can communicate between threads by passing messages over pipes or socketpairs (but sending big messages this way would involve a lot of unnecessary copying to/from the socket buffer).
You could signal another thread's event loop to wake up using a pipe, signal, or (on Linux) eventfd, then have it look for messages in a mutex-protected queue. (But kj::Executor mostly obsoletes this technique.)
It's possible, though not easy, to adapt KJ's event loop to run on top of other event loops, so that both can run in the same thread. For example, node-capnp adapts KJ to run on top of libuv.
Currently I'm trying to make it possible to remove work queued through post or dispatch to an io_context. The work is queued by a small amount of queuer groups for which the work shall be removeable all at once:
boost::asio::io_context context;
auto work = [] {
// ...
};
boost::asio::post(context, std::move(work));
// ... now I want to remove the work
Is there such a functionality provided by the asio library?
Currently the application I'm working on, is using a thread pool which invokes io_context::run() from multiple threads.
My idea was that I could create multiple io_contexts that are dispatched by the thread pool such that one io_context represents a group that could be removed through io_context::stop(). All io_contexts would be held inside a single list which is then pooled for outstanding events.
However I believe that pooling or waiting for many io_contexts could lead to performance issues.
Is there a different solution?
No, there's no mechanism for removing posted jobs from an io_context. Alternatively, you could modify your jobs to check if a 'cancel flag' is set before they run (untested):
// create a cancellation flag
const auto cancel = std::make_shared<std::atomic<bool> >();
auto work = [=] {
// check to see if the flag has been set
// if so, return without performing our task
if(*cancel)
return;
// perform some task
};
// post our job
boost::asio::post(context, std::move(work));
...
// cancel all jobs checking this flag
*cancel = true;
Referring to HTTP Server- Single threaded Implementation
I am trying to Explicitly control Lifetime of server instance
My Requirements are:
1) I should be able to explicitly destroy the server
2) I need to keep multiple Server Instances alive which should listen to different ports
3) Manager Class maintains list of all active server instances; should be able to create and destroy the server instances by create and drop methods
I am trying to implement Requirement 1 and
I have come up with code:
void server::stop()
{
DEBUG_MSG("Stopped");
io_service_.post(boost::bind(&server::handle_stop, this));
}
where handle_stop() is
void server::handle_stop()
{
// The server is stopped by cancelling all outstanding asynchronous
// operations. Once all operations have finished the io_service::run() call
// will exit.
acceptor_.close();
connection_manager_.stop_all();
}
I try to call it from main() as:
try
{
http::server::server s("127.0.0.1","8973");
// Run the server until stopped.
s.run();
boost::this_thread::sleep_for(boost::chrono::seconds(3));
s.stop();
}
catch (std::exception& e)
{
std::cerr << "exception: " << e.what() << "\n";
}
Question 1)
I am not able to call server::handle_stop().
I suppose io_service_.run() is blocking my s.stop() call.
void server::run()
{
// The io_service::run() call will block until all asynchronous operations
// have finished. While the server is running, there is always at least one
// asynchronous operation outstanding: the asynchronous accept call waiting
// for new incoming connections.
io_service_.run();
}
How do I proceed?
Question 2:
For requirement 2) where I need to have multiple server instances, i think I will need to create an io_service instance in main and must pass the same instance to all server instances. Am I right?
Is it mandatory to have only one io_service instance per process or can I have more than one ?
EDIT
My aim is to implement a class which can control multi server instances:
Something of below sort (Incorrect code // Just giving view, what I try to implement ) I want to achieve-
How do i design?
I have confusion regarding io_Service and how do I cleanly call mng.create(), mng.drop()
Class Manager{
public:
void createServer(ServerPtr)
{
list_.insert(make_shared<Server> (ip, port));
}
void drop()
{
list_.drop((ServerPtr));
}
private:
io_service iO_;
set<server> list_;
};
main()
{
io_service io;
Manager mng(io);
mng.createServer(ip1,port1);
mng.createServer(ip2,port2);
io.run();
mng.drop(ip1,port1);
}
I am not able to call server::handle_stop().
As you say, run() won't return until the service is stopped or runs out of work. There's no point calling stop() after that.
In a single-threaded program, you can call stop() from an I/O handler - for your example, you could use a deadline_timer to call it after three seconds. Or you could do something complicated with poll() rather than run(), but I wouldn't recommend that.
In a multi-threaded program, you could call it from another thread than the one calling run(), as long as you make sure it's thread-safe.
For [multiple servers] I think I will need to create an io_service instance in main
Yes, that's probably the best thing to do.
Is it mandatory to have only one io_service instance per process or can I have more than one?
You can have as many as you like. But I think you can only run one at a time on a single thread, so it would be tricky to have more than one in a single-threaded program. I'd have a single instance that all the servers can use.
You are right, it's not working because you call stop after blocking run, and run blocks until there are some unhandled callbacks. There are multiple ways to solve this and it depands from what part of program stop will be called:
If you can call it from another thread, then run each instance of server in separate thread.
If you need to stop server after some IO operation for example you can simply do as you have tried io_service_.post(boost::bind(&server::handle_stop, this));, but it should be registered from another thread or from another callback in current thread.
You can use io_service::poll(). It is non-blocking version of run, so you create a loop where you call poll until you need to stop server.
You can do it both ways. Even with the link you provided you can take a look at:
HTTP Server 3 - An HTTP server using a single io_service and a thread pool
and HTTP Server 2 - An HTTP server using an io_service-per-CPU design
I have been reading the boost thread documentation, and cannot find an example of what I need.
I need to run a method in a timed thread, and if it has not completed within a number of milliseconds,
then raise a timeout error.
So I have a method called invokeWithTimeOut() that looks like this:
// Method to invoke a request with a timeout.
bool devices::server::CDeviceServer::invokeWithTimeout(CDeviceClientRequest& request,
CDeviceServerResponse& response)
{
// Retrieve the timeout from the device.
int timeout = getTimeout();
timeout += 100; // Add 100ms to cover invocation time.
// TODO: insert code here.
// Invoke the request on the device.
invoke(request, response);
// Return success.
return true;
}
I need to call invoke(request, response), and if it has not completed within timeout, the method needs to return false.
Can someone supple a quick boost::thread example of how to do this please.
Note: The timeout is in milliseconds. Both getTimeout() and invoke() are pure-virtual functions, that have been implemented on the device sub-classes.
Simplest solution: Launch invoke in a separate thread and use a future to indicate when invoke finishes:
boost::promise<void> p;
boost::future<void> f = p.get_future();
boost::thread t([&]() { invoke(request, response); p.set_value(); });
bool did_finish = (f.wait_for(boost::chrono::milliseconds(timeout)) == boost::future_status::ready)
did_finish will be true if and only if the invoke finished before the timeout.
The interesting question is what to do if that is not the case. You still need to shutdown the thread t gracefully, so you will need some mechanism to cancel the pending invoke and do a proper join before destroying the thread. While in theory you could simply detach the thread, that is a very bad idea in practice as you lose all means of interacting with the thread and could for example end up with hundreds of deadlocked threads without noticing.