I'm currently using a thread to handle Connect and Send calls asynchronously. This is all working fine, but now I want to make receiving asynchronous too. How should I receive data without pausing the whole queue while waiting for data? The only solution I can think of right now is a second thread.
Look into non-blocking sockets and polling APIs like select(2)/poll(2)/epoll(4)/kqueue(2).
Specifically in C++, look into boost::asio.
Depending on what you're doing, non-blocking I/O with select may be the answer.
Take a look at this tutorial.
Related
I am trying to write a log forwarded for Windows. The plan is simple - receive an event notification and then write it over a TCP socket. This MSDN example shows that I should be using EvtSubscribe. However, I am confused as to how I should share the file descriptor for the open TCP socket. Will the EvtSubscribe callback block by default or will it thread or...?
Thank you in advance for any tips, picking up C++ on Windows after C on Linux has been a bit of a challenge for me :)
The docs are quite sparse in details, but I reckon that it works as follows:
If you use the subscription callback, then it will be called in a dedicated thread. So, if you delay in it, it will block further callbacks, but not other thread of the program
If you use the SignalEvent, it will get signaled when the event arrives, and no threads are created automatically.
You can check that it is really another thread by calling GetCurrentThreadId() from the code that calls EvSubscribe() and from the callback, and compare the values.
My recommendation is to use the thread options, as the Event handlers in Windows are so difficult to be programmed correctly.
About sharing the TCP socket, you can share a socket between threads, but you should not write to it from more than one thread at a time. Nor read.
You can, however, read from one thread and write from another. Also, you can close the socket from one thread while other is in a blocking operation: it will get cancelled.
If you find this limiting, you should create a user thread and use it to send and/or receive data, while communicating with the other threads with queues, or similar.
I have been struggling to try and find my answer for this on google, as I dont know the exact terms I am looking to search for.
If someone were to build an msn messenger-like program, is it possible to have always-open connections and no while(true) loop? If so, could someone point me in the direction of how this is achieved?
Using boost::asio library for socket handling, i think it is possible to define callbacks upon data reception.
The one single magic word your looking for is asynchronous I/O. This can be achieved either through using asynchronous APIs (functions such as ReadThis() that return immediately and signal on success/failure -- like but not limited by boost::asio) or by deferring blocking calls to different threads. Picking either method requires careful weighing of both the underlying implementation and the scale of your operations.
You want to use ACE. It has a Reactor pattern which will notify you when data is available to be use.
Reactor Pattern
You could have:
while(1) {
sleep(100); // 100 ms
// check if there is a message
// process message
//...
}
This is ok, but there is an overhead on servers running 10000s of threads since threads come out of sleep and check for a message, causing context-switching. Instead, operating systems provide functions like select and epoll on Linux, which allow a thread to wait on an event.
while(1) {
// wait for message
// process message
//...
}
Using wait, the thread is not "woken up" unless a message is received.
You can only hide your while loop (or some kind of loop) somewhere buried in some library or restart the waiting for next IO in an event callback, but you aren't going to be able to completely avoid it.
That's a great question. Like nj said, you want to use asynchronous I/O. Too many programs use a polling strategy. It is not uncommon to have 1000 threads running on a system. If all of them were polling, you would have a slow system. Use asynchronous I/O whenever possible.
what about udp protocol communication ? you dont have to wait in while loop for every clients
just open one connection on specified port and call receive method
I'm writing a daemon that needs to both run in the background and take care of tasks and also receive input directly from a frontend. I've been attempting to use sockets to take care of this task, however, I can't get it to work properly since sockets pause the program while waiting for a connection. Is there anyway to get around this?
I'm using the socket wrappers provided at http://linuxgazette.net/issue74/tougher.html
Thank you for any and all help
You will need to use threads to make the socket operations asynchronous. Or use some library that has already implemented it, one of the top ones is Boost Asio.
There are a few ways to handle this problem. This most common is using an event loop and something like libevent. Then you use non-blocking sockets.
Doing this in an event driven fashion can require a big shift in your program logic. But doing it with threads has its own complexities and isn't clearly a better choice.
Usually the daemons use event loops to avoid the problem of waiting for events.
It's the smartest solution to the problem that you present (do not wait to an asynchronous event). รง
Althought, usually the entire daemon is build over the event loop and it's callback architecture, and can cause a partial rewritting, so usually the quick and dirty solution is creating a separate thread to handle those events wich usually creates more bugs than it solves. So, use an event loop:
libevent.
glib event loop.
libev.
boost::asio
...
From your description, you have already divided your application into a frontend (receiving input) and backend (socket handling and tasks). If the input from the frontend is sent over the socket (via the backend) rather receiving input from the socket then it seems like you are describing a client and not a server. Client programs are typically not implemented as daemons.
You have created a blocking socket and need to either monitor in a separate thread execution a thread or even separate process) or make a non-blocking socket and poll frequently for updates.
The link to the LinuxGazette is a basic intro to network programming. If you would like a little more depth then take a look at Beej's Guide to Network Programming where the various API calls available to you are explained in a little detail.. and will, perhaps, make you appreciate more wrapper libraries such as Boost::ASIO.
Can be worth retaining control of the event loop yourself - its no complicated and provides flexibility down the track.
"C++ pseudo-code" for an event loop.
while (!done)
{
bool workDone = false;
// Loop over each event source or internal worker
for each module
{
// If it has work to do, do some.
if (module.hasWorkDoTo())
{
// Generally, do as little work as possible; e.g. process a single event for this module.
// But tinker with this to manage priorities if need be.
// E.g. Maybe allow the GUI to flush its queue.
module.doSomeWork();
workDone = true;
}
}
if (!workDone)
{
// System idle. No Sleep for a bit so we have benign idle baheviour.
nanosleep(...);
}
}
I have a QThread that reads from a socket and sends a signal (QT signal) when there are any data available.
This would be easy with blocking read(2), but i need to be able to stop the thread from outside without waiting for too long.
If I were using pthread I would use pselect and pthread_kill(thread_id, some_signal), but QThread doesn't
seem to have any similar methods. And adding a dependcy on pthread to this project doesn't seem to elegant.
I also don't want to use the other ugly methods like constantly trying to read from the socket with some relatively small timeout.
Edit: The sockets are not TCP, but bluetooth L2CAP.
A not too elegant, but simple and working solution:
Create a pipe and let select wait for either the pipe or my socket. This way I can stop the wait anytime by writing something to the pipe.
Instead of dealing with the threading yourself you can use the asynchronous interface of QTcpSocket. Check out the Fortune Client example.
You can send a signal to the terminate() slot of your QThread. This will stop your thread according to OS scheduling policies.
I'm designing event loop for asynchronous socket IO using epoll/devpoll/kqueue/poll/select (including windows-select).
I have two options of performing, IO operation:
Non-blocking mode, poll on EAGAIN
Set socket to non-blocking mode.
Read/Write to socket.
If operation succeeds, post completion notification to event loop.
If I get EAGAIN, add socket to "select list" and poll socket.
Polling mode: poll and then execute
Add socket to select list and poll it.
Wait for notification that it is readable writable
read/write
Post completion notification to event loop of sucseeds
To me it looks like first would require less system calls when using in normal mode,
especially for writing to socket (buffers are quite big).
Also it looks like that it would be possible to reduce the overhead over number of "select"
executions, especially it is nice when you do not have something that scales well
as epoll/devpoll/kqueue.
Questions:
Are there any advantages of the second approach?
Are there any portability issues with non-blocking operations on sockets/file descriptors over numerous operating systems: Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, MacOSX, Windows.
Notes: Please do not suggest using existing event-loop/socket-api implementations
I'm not sure there's any cross-platform problem; at the most you would have to use Windows Sockets API, but with the same results.
Otherwise, you seem to be polling in either case (avoiding blocking waits), so both approaches are fine. As long as you don't put yourself in a position to block (ex. read when there's no data, write when buffer's full), it makes no difference at all.
Maybe the first approach is easier to code/understand; so, go with that.
It might be of interest to you to check out the documentation of libev and the c10k problem for interesting ideas/approaches on this topic.
The first design is the Proactor Pattern, the second is the Reactor Pattern
One advantage of the reactor pattern is that you can design your API such that you don't have to allocate read buffers until the data is actually there to be read. This reduces memory usage while you're waiting for I/O.
from my experience with low latency socket apps:
for writes - try to write directly into the socket from writing thread (you need to obtain event loop mutex for that), if write is incomplete subscribe to write readiness with event loop (select/waitformultipleobjects) and write from event loop thread when socket gets writable
for reads - be always "subscribed" for read readiness for all sockets, so you always read from within event loop thread when the socket gets readable