This is not the actual code, only to provide the idea behind the logic in actual code. Do I need a Mutex, mylock2 ,inside the timer function?. The timer runs every 0.02 seconds. Or, the timers are safe in that regard?.
Static NSTimer *mylock1 = nil; //initialized and used for another purpose
Static NSTimer *mylock2 = nil //initialized and used for the timer
- (void)timerFireMethod:(NSTimer*)theTimer
{
[mylock2 lock];
Self.Mycount = 0;
for (int j = 0; j <n; j++)
{
if (b) NSLog(#”Hi”);
else Self.Mycount = Self.Mycount + 1;
}
If (Self.Mycount == n)
[self stopMytimer];
[mylock2 unlock];
}
You might be misunderstanding how NSTimer works.
NSTimer invocation is handled by a run loop, when a timer is scheduled it is attached to the current run loop. A run loop is, unsurprisingly, a loop and runs on a single thread. Each iteration of the run loop a check is made if any timer needs to be fired, and if so it is called and so the next operation the run loop will do cannot occur until that call returns...
the timer uses scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval. if the timer gets fired every 0.02 sec, how to void overlapping timer calls?
Under normal circumstances calls simply cannot overlap as the next one cannot occur until the current one returns.
Of course if you dispatch work asynchronously to another thread within your timer, start another run loop from within the timer and schedule the timer on that one as well, or any other creative way you come up with then it is possible to create the conditions for "overlapping" calls. Your timerFireMethod: is doing nothing like that and will simply be called, execute, and return.
does "Self.Mycount" become 0 in middle of the for loop execution causing unexpected behaviors?
Probably – as your method isn't designed for that scenario. But unless you fire up another thread (using NSThread, GCD (dispatch), etc.), and have it set Mycount to zero its not going to happen.
HTH
Related
I am trying to use NSTimer to create a Stop-watch style timer that increments every 0.1 seconds, but it seems to be running too fast sometimes ..
This is how I've done it:
Timer =[NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval: 0.1 target:self selector:#selector(updateTimeLabel) userInfo:nil repeats: YES];
and then:
-(void)updateTimeLabel
{
maxTime=maxTime+0.1;
timerLabel.text =[NSString stringWithFormat:#"%.1f Seconds",maxTime];
}
This will display the value of the timer in the Label, and I can later utilize maxTime as the time when the Timer is stopped ...
THe problem is that it runs very inaccurately.
Is there a method where I can make sure that NSTimer fires strictly every 0.1 seconds accurately ? I know that NSTimer isn't accurate , and I'm asking for a tweak to make it accurate.
THanks
According to the NSTimer documentation, it is not meant to be accurate.
Because of the various input sources a typical run loop manages, the effective resolution of the time interval for a timer is limited to on the order of 50-100 milliseconds. If a timer’s firing time occurs during a long callout or while the run loop is in a mode that is not monitoring the timer, the timer does not fire until the next time the run loop checks the timer. Therefore, the actual time at which the timer fires potentially can be a significant period of time after the scheduled firing time.
You may want to use the dispatch_after function from GCD, which is suggested by the official documentation for this exact purpose (creating a timer).
If you want to perform a block once after a specified time interval, you can use the dispatch_after or dispatch_after_f function.
By the way, I agree with Caleb's answer. You probably are going to solve your problems if you don't accumulate error like your doing right now.
If you store the start date and recalculate the time at every iteration using the -timeIntervalSince: method, you're gonna end up with an accurate UI update, regardless of the timer precision.
Here's a class you can use to do what you want:
#interface StopWatch()
#property ( nonatomic, strong ) NSTimer * displayTimer ;
#property ( nonatomic ) CFAbsoluteTime startTime ;
#end
#implementation StopWatch
-(void)dealloc
{
[ self.displayTimer invalidate ] ;
}
-(void)startTimer
{
self.startTime = CFAbsoluteTimeGetCurrent() ;
self.displayTimer = [ NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:0.05 target:self selector:#selector( timerFired: ) userInfo:nil repeats:YES ] ;
}
-(void)stopTimer
{
[ self.displayTimer invalidate ] ;
self.displayTimer = nil ;
CFAbsoluteTime elapsedTime = CFAbsoluteTimeGetCurrent() - self.startTime ;
[ self updateDisplay:elapsedTime ] ;
}
-(void)timerFired:(NSTimer*)timer
{
CFAbsoluteTime elapsedTime = CFAbsoluteTimeGetCurrent() - self.startTime ;
[ self updateDisplay:elapsedTime ] ;
}
-(void)updateDisplay:(CFAbsoluteTime)elapsedTime
{
// update your label here
}
#end
The key points are:
do your timing by saving the system time when the stop watch is started into a variable.
when the the stop watch is stopped, calculate the elapsed time by subtracting the stop watch start time from the current time
update your display using your timer. It doesn't matter if your timer is accurate or not for this. If you are trying to guarantee display updates at least every 0.1s, you can try setting your timer interval to 1/2 the minimum update time (0.05s).
maxTime=maxTime+0.1;
This is the wrong way to go. You don't want to use a timer to accumulate the elapsed time because you'll be accumulating error along with it. Use the timer to periodically trigger a method that calculates the elapsed time using NSDate, and then updates the display. So, change your code to do something instead:
maxTime = [[NSDate date] timeIntervalSince:startDate];
NSTimer is not guaranteed to be accurate, although in practice it usually is (if you're not doing anything else on your main thread...). However, it's perfectly reasonable for updating a display... just don't use the callback to calculate your timer. Save the current time when you start your timer, and get the difference between now and when you started every time the timer fires. Then it doesn't really matter how accurately NSTimer is firing, it only impacts how many times a second your on screen display updates.
I'm currently working on an app that will show a label that will start at zero, and count up to a number I specify. I wanted to do this using a simple loop like this one.
for (counterInt = 0; counterInt < 10; counterInt++)
{
NSLog(#"%i",counterInt);
}
The problem is, that this loop executes in less time than it takes for the view to appear on screen. My console logs 1-9 before the view finally loads with the label with showing 9. I've been researching for several hours trying to find a way to specify a duration for the loop and I can't seem to find any thing on this.
So my overall question is, is it possible to specify how long the loop should take to execute? If so, if anyone can point me in the right direction here it would be greatly appreciated!
Even if you slowed down the loop, it still wouldn't work. UI elements are only updated at the end of the run loop. You need to set up a timer and update the label in the method fired by the timer.
You're using the wrong approach. Try an NSTimer.
[NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:5.0
target:self
selector:#selector(incrementLabel:)
userInfo:nil
repeats:YES];
Then create a method called incrementLabel and have it increment an instance variable and update the label accordingly.
You can sleep a thread:
[NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:1];
However, jrturton and james supply the correct approach. I would place James' code in the viewDidAppear method so your label starts where you want it and the counter begins when the view appears.
I've been using Multithreading for a while I thought I got it but my program is crashing now.
I have a method that has to download data for the server and access memory depending on the data, that process takes long, so I execute it from a secondary thread like this:
-(void)showPeople{
dispatch_queue_t pintaOcupantes = dispatch_queue_create("Pinta Ocupantes", NULL);
dispatch_async(pintaOcupantes, ^{
//BUNCH OF CODE
[self isPersonIn:jid];
//MORE CODE that include methods calling isPersonIn
});
Inside that block there's isPersonIn. It crashes if I press too fast the button that executes showPeople. IsPersonIn is something like:
-(int)isPersonIn:(XMPPJID *)jid{
int i = 0;
for(NSDictionary *card in self.listaGente){
NSLog(#"la jid es: %#", [card objectForKey:#"jid"]);
NSLog(#"la jid del usuario es: %#", jid.user);
if([[card objectForKey:#"jid"] isEqualToString:jid.user]){
return i;
}
i++;
}
return -1;
}
It compares a XMPPJID with an array which is a instance variable.
isPersonIn is called several times from different methods but all the methods that call it belong to the block, so as I understand it, all the executions of isPersonIn should be serialized, FIFO, right?
But if I press the button that executes showPeople, the one containing the block, many times very fast the app crashes on isPersonIn, sometimes without any message. I can see the threads when it crashes and I see at least 2 threads with isPersonIn last in the stack, which doesn`t make sense, since the block should be executed one at a time, not several threads at the same time, right?
Any help will be very much appreaciated.
Thanks!
[EDIT]
Also the instance array, self.listaGente, is modified outside the block.
I'm not a GCD expert, but I suspect the reason you're getting multiple threads is that you're creating a new dispatch queue each time showPeople is called.
So rather than having a single serial queue with multiple blocks, I think you are ending up with multiple queues each executing a single block.
[EDIT] If the collection is modified outside of the block but during execution of the block, this could be the source of your crash. From Fast Enumeration Documentation:
Enumeration is “safe”—the enumerator has a mutation guard so that if you attempt to modify the collection during enumeration, an exception is raised.
In this case protecting the array, that was provoking my app to crash, fixed the problem.
using:
#syncronized(theArray){
//CODE THAT WILL ACCESS OR WRITE IN THE ARRAY
}
This way threads will stop before if there's a thread already executing that code, like a mutex or semaphore
I want to call the getData method after waiting 2 seconds each time this loop...loops. I've written out the NSTimer a number of times inside and outside the loop but can't get the correct usage for it to do what I want.
for (TwitterPerson *person in [tempDict allValues]) {
[self getDataFromTwitterUserAPIandArchiveFor:person.handle];
}
Could you set it up differently and call the [getData... method every time the timer fires? You could keep your dictionary keys in an array and pop the next key each time the timer fired.
I think the NSTimer is designed to not block the main thread whereas the for-loop definitely blocks the thread.
As in this related question Using NSTimer in a Loop, you might consider NSRunLoop.
Is there an equivalent to [NSOperationQueue currentQueue] or [NSThread currentThread] for NSOperation?
I have a fairly complex domain model where the heavy processing happens quite deep down in the call stack. In order to timely cancel an operation I would need to pass the NSOperation as a parameter to every method until I get to the point where I want to interrupt a longer running loop. Using threads I could use [[NSThread currentThread] isCancelled] so it would seem convenient if there is an equivalent for NSOperation, unfortunately there is only the seemingly useless [NSOperationQueue currentQueue].
Came up with an extension in swift that returns the running operations
extension NSOperationQueue {
public var runningOperations: [NSOperation] {
return operations.filter {$0.executing && !$0.finished && !$0.cancelled}
}
}
You can then pick up the first one
if let operation = aQueue.runningOperations.first {}
No, there's no method to find the currently executing operation.
Two ways to solve your problem:
Operations are objects. If you need object A to talk to object B, you'll need to arrange for A to have a reference to B. There are lots of ways to do that. One way is to pass the operation along to each object that needs to know about it. Another is to use delegation. A third is to make the operation part of some larger "context" that's passed along to each method or function. If you find that you need to pass a reference from one object through several others just to get it to the object that will finally use it, that's a clue that you should think about rearranging your code.
Have the "heavy lifting" method return some value that gets passed up the call chain. You don't necessarily need the heavy lifting method to call [currentOperation cancel] to accomplish your goal. In fact, it would be better to have it return some value that the operation will understand to mean "work is done, stop now" because it can check that return value and exit immediately rather than having to call -isCancelled once in a while to find out whether it has been cancelled.
This isn't a good idea. Operations are usually canceled by their queue. Within the operation's main() method, you can periodically check if self is cancelled (say, every n trips through a loop, or at the start of every major block of commands) and abort if so.
To respond to a cancellation (say, some UI element tied to the operation's or queue's status), you use key value observing (KVO) to have your controller observe the operations' started, completion, and cancelled properties (as needed), then set your UI's state (always on the main thread) when those keys are updated. Per JeremyP's comments, it's important to note the KVO notifications come from the op's thread and UI should (almost) always be manipulated on the main thread, so you'll need to use -performSelectorOnMainThread... methods to update your actual UI when you receive a state change KVO note about your operations.
What are you really trying to do? That is, why do you feel other parts of your app need to know directly about the current operation?
You could store the current operation in the thread dictionary. Just remember to get rid of it before you exit. You can safely use the thread dict if you created the object.
You can use a combination of [NSOperationQueue currentQueue] & [NSThread currentThread] to accomplish this.
Essentially, you need to loop through the operations on the currentQueue and find the operation running on the currentThread.
NSOperation doesn't provide access to the thread it is running on, so you need to add that property yourself and assign it.
You're probably already subclassing NSOperation and providing a main, so add a 'thread' property to that subclass:
#interface MyOperation : NSOperation
#property(nonatomic,strong) NSThread *thread ;
#end
Then, in your 'main' assign the current thread to that property
myOperation.thread = [NSThread currentThread]
You can then add a 'currentOperation' method:
+(MyOperation *)currentOperation
{
NSOperationQueue *opQueue = [NSOperationQueue currentQueue] ;
NSThread *currentThread = [NSThread currentThread] ;
for( MyOperation *op in opQueue.operations ) {
if( [op isExecuting] && [op respondsToSelector:#selector(thread)] ) {
if( op.thread == currentThread ) {
return ( op ) ;
}
}
}
}
return nil ;
}
How do you know which operation you want to cancel?
When you get to the point that you want to cancel, just call [myQueue operations] and go through the operations until you find ones that you now want to cancel. I guess if you have millions of operations (or thousands) this might not work.
[myQueue operations] is thread safe - a snapshot of the Queue contents. You can dive through it pretty quick cancelling at will.
Another way:
NSOperationQueue is not a singleton, so you can create a Q that has say 200 jobs on it, and then cancel all 20 by just getting that Q and cancelling them all. Store the Q's in a dictionary on the main thread, and then you can get the jobs you want canceled from the dict and cancel them all. i.e. you have 1000 kinds of operations and at the point in the code where you realize you don't need a certain task, you just get the Q for that kind, and look through it for jobs to cancel.