I'm using libnetfilter_queue for my project. From C app queue is accessible by "queue file descriptor". I have 5 queues and 5 threads to handle them. What I want to achieve is to wake thread when there is exactly 2 packets in queue. I came up with idea to use select function and array of ints indicating how many packets were queued in each queue. After select exit with > 0 code I check which queue has received a packet and increment value in array, if it's bigger than 2 I wake up a thread. Everything would be fine, but select indicate that queue has data to read until I call recv and I can't do that because separate thread should handle these packets. Anyone has idea how to solve this issue? I know I can set SO_RCVLOWAT but it does not solve my problem, because I don't know what size will be those 2 packets.
As recommended by Tobu, epoll is a better choice and it performs better than select.
However, most of these polling functions will indicate there is an event (data available) unless someone reads.
If possible use the following model:
Use epoll/select to watch for the incoming data wake up the worker thread.
Let the worker thread decide what to do with the data (one packet, two or more) before actually doing the work.
OR:
One Reader thread-N Worker threads: Will use epoll to wait and read all the incoming data and post it to the corresponding worker thread's queue.
Once the # of packet reaches the threshold, wake up the Worker thread (using a semaphore).
You are looking for edge-triggered event notifications — notifications that are sent when the quantity of available data changes. epoll works like that when using the EPOLLET flag, and by default will rearm the notification so that you keep being notified of new packets.
Please note that you will be notified only once if several packets arrive between two epoll_wait calls.
Related
I have an applications with 2 threads. The first thread (main-thread) and the second thread (tcp-client-thread). The main-thread generates some messages and puts their in queue for tcp-client-thread. tcp-client-thread has to send those messages to server. But, tcp-client-thread also has to receive some messages from server.
How can I do that? recv stops current thread. Set up timeout forrecv? Then after recv timeout check queue (from main-thread) and if there is messages send their is no any messages start recv again?
You can do your I/O in one non-spinning/non-delayed thread but it's much more complex then just simply creating another thread as suggested in another answer. In short, you'll have to modify your code to handle waiting for multiple event types simultaneously, i.e. an event on the socket OR on a condition signalling data to send, for example. On Windows, you'd use something like WSAEventSelect + WaitForMultipleObjects instead of select, and on Linux you'd use something like eventfd with select. Note that when handling the socket, if it's blocking, you'd want to check for readability before issuing a recv and check for writeability before issuing a send so you don't block on one or the other. Like I said though, easier to just create a send thread...
The thing you need is non-blocking/asynchronous I/O.
You should read some theory before trying to forge any code.
This article, for example:
http://www.wangafu.net/~nickm/libevent-book/01_intro.html
If you are going to use 2 threads, you might want to extend to 3 threads. Let the send and receive functions be on separate threads.
The send thread is sleeping until the main thread gives it data. Specifically, a function in the send software unit places data into the queue, then signals the thread to wake up. The thread wakes up and sends data until the queue is empty, then it goes back to sleep.
Conversely, the receive thread sleeps until it receives data. It appends data to another queue, notifies the main thread that data was received and goes back to sleep.
Edit 1: One Thread
Per your title, if you want to perform the I/O in one thread, you will need to have a polling loop (you can have limited waiting, but not advised).
Loop:
if (data received) then place data into input queue.
if (data in input queue) process some data (use small chunks).
if (data in output queue) send some data.
end-loop.
The idea is to keep the blocks of data small to prevent missing of incoming data. The data can be processed and output when there is no data (and with multiple iterations). This will resolve most synchronization issues.
Hi I'm working on a networking project. I've a socket that is listening incoming data. Now I want to archive this: Socket will receive only 100 packets. And there is 3-4 clients. They are sending random data packets infinitely. I'll receive 100 packets and later I'll process them. After process I'll re-start receiving. But at this time there are some pending send() >> recv() operations. Now I want to cancel/discard pending recv operations. I think we'll recv datas and we'll not process them. Any other suggestions? (sorry for bad question composition)
Shutdown and close the connection. That will cancel everything immediately.
Better yet, rearchitect your application and network protocol so that you can reliably tell how much data to receive.
On Windows you can cancel outstanding receives using CancelIO, but that might result in lost data if the receive just happened to read something.
You can use select() or poll() loops.
you can use signal. recv() will return on receiving a signal so you can send a signal from another task to the task that blocks on recv(). But you need to make sure you don't specify SA_RESTART (see http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/sigaction.html)
Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asynchronous_I/O for more details
I would go with non-blocking sockets + cancellation socket.
You'll have to read into dedicated incremental buffer (as recv() may not receive all the data expected at once - this would be the case if you can only process full messages) and return to select()/poll() in your loop, where you can safely sit and wait for:
next data
next connection
cancellation event from a cancellation socket, to which your other thread will send a cancellation signal (some trivial send()).
UPD: the trivial event may be the number of the socket in the array or its handle - something to identify which one you'd like to cancel.
how to send and receive data and acknowledgement asynchrounously in c++ socket tcp/ip?, i can see in my program as when send some 145 byte data 50 times , i will be receiving the acknowledgement for the first six as it takes time to give the acknowledgement. I have tried waiting until i receive the acknowledgement for the current sent data, but it takes long time , which i dont want to do. I want to process with the data. So what i thought is i will put receive in a separate thread. and i want to process receive simultaneouly while send is happening? So Asynchronous receive will work? Can anyone help? The class which i am using to receive and send data is a static class. As i needed to call from two other classes to send data to same ip and port.
You can use socket for sending data in one thread and for receiving data in another thread, simultaneously. The thing you cannot do is performing the same action (sending or receiving) on the same socket from different threads.
Nevertheless, always try to avoid adding new threads if unnecessary. You can use some socket functions (select, WSAEventSelect) that will notify you when you can perform read/write on the socket. Put them in a loop in a single thread, wait for events and handle them - read/write in the same thread. If you need to process received data and that takes time, store received data in a queue shared with another, data processing thread. Of course, bear in mind you would need to make this queue thread-safe and synchronise socket and data processing thread.
If on Posix systems, you might need a multiplexing system call like poll or ppoll or pselect or select
If your system is non-Posix (e.g. windows) you should find some similar functionality, or use threads.
I am working on a multithreaded middleware enviornment. The framework is basically a capturing and streaming framework. So it involves a number of threads.
To give you all a brief idea of the threading architecture:
There are seprate threads for demultiplexer, receiveVideo, DecodeVideo, DisplayVideo etc. Each thread performs its functionlity, for eg:
demultiplexer extracts audio, video packets
receivevideo receives header + payload of video packet & removes payload
DecodeVideo receives payload & decodes payload packet
DisplayVideo receives decoded packets & displays the decoded packets on display
Thus each thread feeds the extracted data to the next thread. The threads share data buffers amongst them and the buffers are synchronised through use of mutexes and semaphores. Similarly, there are other threads for handling ananlogvideo and analogaudio etc.
All the threads are spawned in during initialization but they remain blocked on a semaphore and depending upon the input(analog/digitial) selective semaphores are signalled so that specifc threads get unblocked & move on to do their work. At various stages each thread calls some lower level(driver calls)to get data or write data etc. These calls are blocking and the errors resulting from these calls(driver returning corrupted data, driver stalling) should be handled but are not being handled currently.
I wanted to implement a thread monitoring mechanism where a thread will monitor these worker threads and if an error condition occurs will take some preventive actions. As I understand certain such mechanisms are commonly used like Watchdogs in UI or MMI applications. I am trying to look for something similar.
I am using pthreads and No Boost or STL(its a legacy code, pretty much procedural C++)
Any ideas about specific framework or design patterns or open source projects which do something similar and might help in with ideas for implementing my requirement?
Can you ping the threads - periodically send each one a message on its usual input queue, interleaved with all the other normal stuff, asking it to return its status? When each handler thread gets the message, it loads the message with status stuff - how many messages its processed since the last ping, length of its input/output queue, last time that its driver returned OK, that sort of stats - and queues it back to your Thread Monitoring Mechanism. Your TMM would have to time out the replies in case some thread/s is/are stuck.
You could, maybe, just post one message down the whole chain, each thread adding its own status in different fields. That would mean only one timeout, after which your TMM would have to examine the message to see how far down the chain it got.
There are other things - I like to keep an on-screen dump, on a 1s timer, of the length of queues and depth of buffer pools. If something stuffs, I can usually tell roughly where it is, (eg. a pool is emptying and some queue is growing - the queue comsumer is wasted).
Rgds,
Martin
What about using a signalling system to wake up your monitoring thread when something's gone awry in one of your worker threads. You can emulate the signalling with an ResetEvent of some type.
When an exception occurs in your worker thread, you have some data structure you fill up with the data about the exception and then you can pass that on to your monitoring thread. You wake up the monitoring thread by using the event.
Then the monitoring thread can do what you need it to do.
I'm guessing you don't wish to have your monitoring thread active unless something has gone wrong, right?
Here is my problem: I have to be able to send and receive to a device over serial. This has to be done in a multi-threaded fashion. The flow is as follows:
Wait for device to send me something - or if idle, then query status to see if online with device
If device sends me something, then process message, acknowledge, and tell device to perform other commands as necessary
Right now, I have a receive thread and transmit thread. The receive thread has a while loop that keeps checking the serial port via ReadFile(...) for one byte. If I have a byte, then I begin building my buffer and then parse the data to determine what was sent to me.
The send thread takes the next command defined by the read thread and sends it via WriteFile to the same COM port. The key is that there is a receive/send relationship between myself and the device.
My question is, do I have a nested Producer/Consumer model here? If my receive thread is consuming from the device and the send thread is producing to the device, the threads need to inherently talk so they are synchronized-right? What is the best way to synchronize my efforts in efficiently and quickly talk to the device? Note: I am using C++ Builder 5 which has TThreads and can use critical sections and mutexes.
Edit: I am also using polling so I am open to using WaitCommEvent as well if this will work better!
What resources are you sharing that you think you need to synchronize?
If you have something like a queue in between the two threads then that is a pretty classic producer/consumer model. E.G. If you just have one thread reading and then putting commands in a queue while another thread extracts from the queue, processes the command and writes to the device then you need to synchronize access to the queue with a mutex or semaphore.
Perhaps I'm missing something but this should only get complicated if you have multiple threads reading from the queue and the commands which need to be transmitted need to stay in order. So try to keep it simple.