Do they repeatedly check for the condition and execute if the condition is met. Ex, how the OS knows exactly when a USB device is plugged in, or how MSN knows exactly when you get an email. How does this work?
Thanks
At the low level, the OS kernel "knows" when something happens, because the device in question sends the CPU a hardware interrupt.
So when, say a network packet arrives, the network controller sends an interrupt, and the OS kernel responds as appropriate.
At the program level, it works quite differently - most application programs run an "event loop", where they fetch a message (say, a message from the OS saying that "the mouse was clicked on this point in your application"), perform the appropriate actions in response to that, and then, listen for more messages. If there is no message, the OS sleeps the thread until it has a message to deliver.
Take a look at Interrupts this should explain how the hardware initiates certain 'events'
Depends.
Often an event listener is registered with the object that generates the event. When the event occurs, the object iterates through all listeners registered with it informing them of the event. Have a look at the AWT/Swing event model in Java for example.
ow the OS knows exactly when it gets a USB
At a low level I suspect thats a hardware interupt (someone correct me if I'm mistaken) which is handled by the kernel/USB driver. There's often higher level systems (e.g. DBUS) that listen for this and have event listeners listening to them.
or how MSN knows exactly when you get an email.
I suspect that's a simple case of polling the mail box (e.g. over POP3) every x seconds and checking the message count (could be wrong though).
Anon. explains the difference between hardware interrupts and software level event listening quite well.
Programs like email checkers will usually be running background services that query their email server every X period checking for new mail. There are other ways of doing it, but for software level events, it's almost certainly going to be something like that.
Related
I need to hook globally mouse clicks and block last click if delay between two clicks is less than was set.
I wrote it for windows using WM_MOUSE_LL hook.
I was unable to find any solution for me. Is it even possible to globally block mouse click in X11 ?
Windows full code
As far as I know the standard X11 protocol doesn't allow this. The XInput 2.0 extension might, but I doubt it.. while Windows assumes a single event queue that every program listens to, so that a program can intercept an event and prevent it from being sent down the queue to other listeners, every X11 client has its own independent queue and all clients that register interest in an event receive an independent copy of it in their queue. This means that under normal circumstances it's impossible for an errant program to block other programs from running; but it also means that, for those times when a client must block other clients, it must do a server grab to prevent the server from processing events for any other client.
Which means you can either
use an X server proxy (won't be hard, but will be pretty slower)
or
do it on the input device level. /dev/input/event<n> give you the input events. You can read off the keypresses there and decide if they should propagate further be consumed. Unfortunately there's no real documentation for this, but the header file linux/include/input.h is quite self explanatory.
Is there a way to trigger the USB Device Discovery of Windows, such that removed devices are detected faster?
I have a USB Serial modem that I unplug (the USB plug, not the serial one). I want to detect the DBT_DEVICEREMOVECOMPLETE event which is sent as soon as the unplugging is detected (That's what I assume). The detection of the Event works as desired, it is sent sometimes 1s after removal, sometimes several minutes after removal.
Is there a way to decrease the refresh interval, or another way to make this event getting sent faster?
Well, the problem here is that DBT_DEVICEREMOVECOMPLETE is sent after Windows decides it has detected the removal, and you can't influence that, at least not in the general case. There are various things that make Windows do this faster or slower (type of device, current "data flow" with the device, the device itself), and it also varies between OS versions. What I found helps to some degree in some of cases is to remove, from the Registry, references to USB devices that were plugged into that USB port before (there are various utilities for this).
At the extreme, since this is a Windows Broadcast message (non-queued), there will not be another one sent in until the previous is processed. Thus, you may not receive it at all! To solve that, keep message handling fast and simple and don't set a breakpoint there while debugging.
Also, having a separate Windows and Thread for the specific purpose of handling USB device arrival/removal notifications may help.
But, from my experience, polling will not help, as the main problems seems to be in the criteria Windows uses to detect the removal. The time from that event until you receive the message is small. Of course, in your case this may not be true - to find out, use a tool like SysInternals Process Monitor. Depending on what you see going on there, there may be something you can do to make it faster.
I want to know if a process (started with a QProcess class) doesn't respond anymore. For instance, my process is an application that only prints 1 every seconds.
My problem is that I want to know if (for some mystical reason), that process is blocked for a short period of time (more than 1 second, something noticeable by a human).
However, the different states of a QProcess (Not Running, Starting, Running) don't include a "Blocked" state.
I mean blocked as "Don't Answer to the OS" when we got the "Non Responding" message in the Task Manager. Such as when a Windows MMI (like explorer.exe) is blocked and becomes white.
But : I want to detect that "Not Responding" state for ANY processes. Not just MMI.
Is there a way to detect such a state ?
Qt doesn't provide any api for that. You'd need to use platform-specific mechanisms. On some platforms (Windows!), there is no notion of a hung application, merely that of a hung window. You can have one application that has both responsive and unresponsive windows :)
On Windows, you'd enumerate all windows using EnumWindows, check if they belong to your process by comparing the pid from GetWindowThreadProcessId to process->pid(), and finally checking if the window is hung through IsHungAppWindow.
Caveats
Generally, there's is no such thing as an all-encompassing notion of a "non responding" process.
Suppose you have a web server. What does it mean that it's not responding? It's under heavy load, so it may deny some incoming connections. Is that "non responding" from your perspective? It may be, but there's nothing you can do about it - killing and restarting the process won't fix it. If anything, it will make things worse for the already connected clients.
Suppose you have a process that is blocking on a filesystem read because the particular drive it tries to access is slow, or under heavy load. Does it mean that it's not responding? Will killing and restarting it always fix this? If the process then retries the read from the beginning of the file, it may well make things worse.
Suppose you have a poorly designed process with a GUI. It's doing blocking serial port reads in the GUI thread. The read it's doing takes long time, and the GUI is nonresponsive for several seconds. You kill the process, it restarts and tries that long read again - you've only made things worse.
You have to tread very carefully here.
Solution Ideas
There are multiple approaches to determining what is a "responsive" process. It was already mentioned that processes with a GUI are monitored by the operating system on both Windows and OS X. Thus one can use native APIs that can query whether a window or a process is hung or not. This makes sense for applications that offer a UI, and subject to caveats above.
If the process is providing a service, you may periodically use the service to determine if it's still available, subject to some deadlines. Any elections as to what to do with a "hung" process should take into account CPU and I/O load of the system.
It may be worthwhile to keep a history of the latency of the service's response to the service request. Only "large" changes to the latency should be taken to be an indication of a problem. Suppose you're keeping track of the average latency. One could have set an ultimate deadline to 50x the previous average latency. Missing this deadline, the service is presumed dead and up for forced recycling. An "action flag" deadline may be set to 5-10x the average latency. A human would then be given an option to orderly restart the service. The flag would be automatically removed when latency backs down to, say, 30% below the deadline that triggered the flag.
If you are the developer of the monitored process, then you can invert the monitoring aspect and become a passive watchdog of the monitored process. The monitored process must then periodically, actively "wake" the watchdog to indicate that it's alive. The emission of the wake signal (in generic terms) should be performed in strategic location(s) in the code. Periodic reception of wake "signals" should allow you to reason that the process is still alive. You may have multiple wake signals, tagged with the location in the watched process. Everything depends on how many threads the process has, what is it doing, etc.
I'm studying some codes about RS232 with Borland C++. The implementation of reading data from the port is polling the status of the port by timer. There are some events checking whether the status of the port changed. If the status changed, events trigger the data-reading subroutine.
However, I think that polling is so bad that much resource is spent on the action. Could the program be passive in monitoring the port without any aggressive polling or something else? In other words,
the program hibernates unless some events which triggered by incoming
data in the port activate it.
Is the idea is possible?
Thank you for reading
Best regards
I think for your requirements the design pattern named Reactor is appropriate. Reactor is based on the system call 'select' (which is available in both Unix and Windows environments). From the referenced document,
Blocks awaiting events to occur on a set of Handles. It returns when it is possible to
initiate an operation on a Handle without blocking. A common demultiplexer for I/O
events is select [1], which is an event demultiplexing system call provided by the UNIX
and Win32 OS platforms. The select call indicates which Handles can have operations
invoked on them synchronously without blocking the application process.
You can see that this pattern is encoded as a library in several frameworks such as ACE, Boost.
If you are working with the Win32 API functions for reading the serial port you can call ReadFile. It will suspend until it has the number of bytes you requested or until a timeout that you can set. If your program is a GUI then the serial read should be in a secondary thread so the GUI thread can react to any received Windows messages.
I'm using Qt framework which has by default non-blocking I/O to develop an application navigating through several web pages (online stores) and carrying out different actions on these pages. I'm "mapping" specific web page to a state machine which I use to navigate through this page.
This state machine has these transitions;
Connect, LogIn, Query, LogOut, Disconnect
and these states;
Start, Connecting, Connected, LoggingIn, LoggedIn, Querying, QueryDone, LoggingOut, LoggedOut, Disconnecting, Disconnected
Transitions from *ing to *ed states (Connecting->Connected), are due to LoadFinished asynchronous network events received from network object when currently requested url is loaded. Transitions from *ed to *ing states (Connected->LoggingIn) are due to events send by me.
I want to be able to send several events (commands) to this machine (like Connect, LogIn, Query("productA"), Query("productB"), LogOut, LogIn, Query("productC"), LogOut, Disconnect) at once and have it process them. I don't want to block waiting for the machine to finish processing all events I sent to it. The problem is they have to be interleaved with the above mentioned network events informing machine about the url being downloaded. Without interleaving machine can't advance its state (and process my events) because advancing from *ing to *ed occurs only after receiving network type of event.
How can I achieve my design goal?
EDIT
The state machine I'm using has its own event loop and events are not queued in it so could be missed by machine if they come when the machine is busy.
Network I/O events are not posted directly to neither the state machine nor the event queue I'm using. They are posted to my code (handler) and I have to handle them. I can forward them as I wish but please have in mind remark no. 1.
Take a look at my answer to this question where I described my current design in details. The question is if and how can I improve this design by making it
More robust
Simpler
Sounds like you want the state machine to have an event queue. Queue up the events, start processing the first one, and when that completes pull the next event off the queue and start on that. So instead of the state machine being driven by the client code directly, it's driven by the queue.
This means that any logic which involves using the result of one transition in the next one has to be in the machine. For example, if the "login complete" page tells you where to go next. If that's not possible, then the event could perhaps include a callback which the machine can call, to return whatever it needs to know.
Asking this question I already had a working design which I didn't want to write about not to skew answers in any direction :) I'm going to describe in this pseudo answer what the design I have is.
In addition to the state machine I have a queue of events. Instead of posting events directly to the machine I'm placing them in the queue. There is however problem with network events which are asynchronous and come in any moment. If the queue is not empty and a network event comes I can't place it in the queue because the machine will be stuck waiting for it before processing events already in the queue. And the machine will wait forever because this network event is waiting behind all events placed in the queue earlier.
To overcome this problem I have two types of messages; normal and priority ones. Normal ones are those send by me and priority ones are all network ones. When I get network event I don't place it in the queue but instead I send it directly to the machine. This way it can finish its current task and progress to the next state before pulling the next event from the queue of events.
It works designed this way only because there is exactly 1:1 interleave of my events and network events. Because of this when the machine is waiting for a network event it's not busy doing anything (so it's ready to accept it and does not miss it) and vice versa - when the machine waits for my task it's only waiting for my task and not another network one.
I asked this question in hope for some more simple design than what I have now.
Strictly speaking, you can't. Because you only have state "Connecting", you don't know whether you need top login afterwards. You'd have to introduce a state "ConnectingWithIntentToLogin" to represent the result of a "Connect, then Login" event from the Start state.
Naturally there will be a lot of overlap between the "Connecting" and the "ConnectingWithIntentToLogin" states. This is most easily achieved by a state machine architecture that supports state hierarchies.
--- edit ---
Reading your later reactions, it's now clear what your actual problem is.
You do need extra state, obviously, whether that's ingrained in the FSM or outside it in a separate queue. Let's follow the model you prefer, with extra events in a queue. The rick here is that you're wondering how to "interleave" those queued events vis-a-vis the realtime events. You don't - events from the queue are actively extracted when entering specific states. In your case, those would be the "*ed" states like "Connected". Only when the queue is empty would you stay in the "Connected" state.
If you don't want to block, that means you don't care about the network replies. If on the other hand the replies interest you, you have to block waiting for them. Trying to design your FSM otherwise will quickly lead to your automaton's size reaching infinity.
How about moving the state machine to a different thread, i. e. QThread. I would implent a input queue in the state machine so I could send queries non blocking and a output queue to read the results of the queries. You could even call back a slotted function in your main thread via connect(...) if a result of a query arrives, Qt is thread safe in this regard.
This way your state machine could block as long as it needs without blocking your main program.
Sounds like you just want to do a list of blocking I/O in the background.
So have a thread execute:
while( !commands.empty() )
{
command = command.pop_back();
switch( command )
{
Connect:
DoBlockingConnect();
break;
...
}
}
NotifySenderDone();