Operating System: Confusion in the solution to first readers-writers synchronization issue - process

I am studying the solution to First Readers - Writers Problem from the book Operating System Concepts (9th edition) and it describes:
First readers–writers problem, requires that no reader be kept waiting unless a writer has already obtained permission to use the shared object. In other words, no reader should wait for other readers to finish simply because a writer is waiting.
And what I have understood from this is that if there is any reader running and a writer comes; then that writer would be blocked until reader has completed. But during the completion of first reader if there comes another reader (or multiple readers), then that (those) reader(s) will be given priority over writer.
First of all please correct me if I am wrong here. But if am right, then what I have understood is that, the code for Reader does not guarantee this.
Code for reader-writer is given below:
//data structures
semaphore rw_mutex = 1;
semaphore mutex = 1;
int read_count = 0;
//Code for writer
do {
wait(rw_mutex);
. . .
/* writing is performed */
. . .
signal(rw_mutex);
} while (true);
//Code for reader
do {
wait(mutex); //Line 01
read_count++;
if (read_count == 1)
wait(rw_mutex); //Line 02
signal(mutex);
. . .
/* reading is performed */
. . .
wait(mutex); //Line 03
read_count--;
if (read_count == 0)
signal(rw_mutex); //Line 04
signal(mutex);
} while (true);
Now suppose following sequence of events occurs:
Suppose first reader comes and it blocks the writer on the line mentioned as Line 02 in comments
Then a writer comes which is waiting for rw_mutex
Then first reader is executing the code line mentioned as Line 03 in comments in code and it has locked the mutex semaphore
At the same time second reader comes and it starts waiting on line mentioned as Line 01 in comments in code
Now when the first reader executes Line 04; it releases the lock on rw_mutex and the writer which was waiting in its while loop is unlocked now and starts executing
The second reader will be unlocked when the first reader executes the line after Line 04 that signals mutex semaphore
Now if we see the overall flow, then the writer runs before the second reader. So does the code logic work the same as described above?
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes the code will work same as you have understood. You can refer wiki page here , which have similar pseudo code which you have included in question.
Writer thread will obtain the rw_mutex as soon as it is freed by Reader-Thread1. But as you explained in your use-case, there will be nothing wrong with that.
In First-reader writer problem, writers can be starved if too many read operations are in progress.

Related

JMeter - Avoid threads abrupt shutdown

I have a testPlan that has several transacion controllers (that I called UserJourneys) and each one is composed by some samplers (JourneySteps).
The problem I'm facing is that once the test duration is over, Jmeter kills all the threads and does not take into consideration if they are in the middle of a UserJourney (transaction controller) or not.
On some of these UJs I do some important stuff that needs to be done before the user logs in again, otherwise the next iterations (new test run) will fail.
The question is: Is there a way to tell to JMeter that it needs to wait every thread reach the end of its flow/UJ/TransactionController before killing it?
Thanks in advance!
This is not possible as of version 5.1.1, you should request an enhancement at:
https://jmeter.apache.org/issues.html
The solution is to add as first child of Thread Group a Flow Control Action containing a JSR223 PreProcessor:
The JSR223 PreProcessor will contain this groovy code:
import org.apache.jorphan.util.JMeterStopTestException;
long startDate = vars["TESTSTART.MS"].toLong();
long now = System.currentTimeMillis();
String testDuration = Parameters;
if ((now - startDate) >= testDuration.toLong()) {
log.info("Test duration "+testDuration+" reached");
throw new JMeterStopTestException("Test duration "+testDuration+"reached ");
} else {
log.info("Test duration "+testDuration+" not reached yet");
}
And be configured like this:
Finally you can set the property testDuration in millis on command line using:
-JtestDuration=3600000
If you'd like to learn more about JMeter and performance testing this book can help you.

Parent process won't write correctly to lua child process stdin

I have a dart program, called file.dart, like so:
import 'dart:io';
import 'dart:convert';
main() {
final file = Directory.current.path + '/file.lua';
Process.start('lua', [file]).then((Process process) {
print('opened process');
process.stdout.pipe(stdout);
process.stdin.add([4]);
process.stdin.flush().then((blah) => print('flushed'));
});
}
I have a lua program, called file.lua, like so:
print('starting to read')
local data = io.stdin:read()
print('i read it ', data)
when i run the dart program this is what happens:
$ dart file.dart
opened process
flushed
starting to read
then it just sits there forever. the lua read is blocking and it never picks up the bytes written by the dart process.
I put a delay on the dart process so that it wrote and flushed a second later. the output of running that was
$ dart file.dart
opened process
starting to read
flushed
but it still hung up forever.
So i have 2 questions:
1) Why won't the lua process pick up the byte that the dart process wrote?
2) Is there a super easy way to make the lua read non-blocking? So that lua would poll instead of block.
Please put the number of the question that you are answering as you answer it. Thanks!
I solved this issue by sending a '\n\ or a new-line byte at then end of my transmissions!

Unable to exit while loop in UVM monitor

This might be a silly mistake from my side that I have overlooked but I'm fairly new to UVM and I tried tinkering with my code for a while before this. I'm trying to send in a stream of 8 bit data within a packet using Data valid stall protocol from my UVM driver to the DUT. I'm facing an issue with my input monitor not being able to pick up these transactions that are driven.
I have a while loop with a condition that the valid bit must be high and the stall bit should be low. As long as this condition holds good, the monitor needs to pick up the data byte and push into the queue. I know for a fact that the data is being picked up and pushed to a queue as I used $display statements along the way. The problem is arising once all the data bytes are received and the valid bit goes low. Ideally, this should cause the exit from the while loop but isn't doing so. Any help here would be appreciated. I have attached a snippet of the code below. Thanks in advance.
virtual task main_phase (uvm_phase phase);
$display("Run phase of input monitor");
collect_transfer();
endtask: main_phase
virtual task collect_transfer();
fork
forever begin
wait_for_valid_transaction_cycle();
create_and_populate_pkt();
broadcast_pkt();
#(iP0_vif.cb_iP0_MON);
end
join_none
endtask: collect_transfer
virtual task wait_for_valid_transaction_cycle();
wait(iP0_vif.cb_iP0_MON.ip_valid && ~iP0_vif.cb_iP0_MON.ip_stall);
endtask: wait_for_valid_transaction_cycle
virtual task create_and_populate_pkt();
pkt = Router_seq_item :: type_id :: create("pkt");
pkt.valid = iP0_vif.cb_iP0_MON.ip_valid;
pkt.sop = iP0_vif.cb_iP0_MON.ip_sop;
$display("before data collection");
while(iP0_vif.cb_iP0_MON.ip_valid === `HIGH && iP0_vif.cb_iP0_MON.ip_stall === `LOW) begin
$display("After checking for stall");
pkt.data = iP0_vif.cb_iP0_MON.ip_data;
$display(pkt.data);
pkt.data_q.push_front(pkt.data);
pkt.eop = iP0_vif.cb_iP0_MON.ip_eop;
$display("print check in input monitor # time = %0t", $time);
#(iP0_vif.cb_iP0_MON);
end
$display("before printing input packet from monitor");
Check_for_port_route_and_populate_packet_field(pkt);
print_packet(pkt);
endtask: create_and_populate_pkt
The $display statement "before printing input packet from monitor" is not being displayed.
HIGH is defined as a binary 1 and LOW is defined as a binary 0.
The output of the code in terms of display statements is as below.
before data collection
before checking for stall
After checking for stall
2
print check in input monitor # time = 105
before checking for stall
After checking for stall
1
print check in input monitor # time = 115
before checking for stall
After checking for stall
3
print check in input monitor # time = 125
It's possible that the main phase objection is being dropped elsewhere in your environment. UVM will automatically kill any threads that were spawned during a phase when it ends.
To fix this, do not object to the main phase in your monitor. Objecting to that phase is the responsibility of the threads creating the stimulus. Instead, you should be launching this monitor during the run_phase, which will ensure that your loop is not killed until the end of simulation.
Also, during the shutdown phase, you will want your monitor to object whenever it is currently seeing a packet. This will ensure that simulation doesn't end as soon as stimulus has been sent in, giving your other monitors time to collect responses from the DUT.

Pushing a chart to the the client using Wt

I am using server push in Wt and I am trying to push a new chart with the following code:
Wt::WApplication::UpdateLock uiLock(app);
if (uiLock){
chart_ste = new ScatterPlotExample(this,10*asf.get_outputSamplingRate());
app->triggerUpdate();
}
but it waits for the program to end and then it prints it whereas the following code in the same program pushes the word "Demokritus every 0.5 secs as it should do:
for (int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(500));
Wt::WApplication::UpdateLock uiLock(app);
if (uiLock) {
showFileName = new WText(this);
showFileName->setText(boost::lexical_cast<std::string>("Demokritus"));
app->triggerUpdate();
}
}
What might be my mistake?
The documentation for triggerUpdate mentions that "The update is not immediate, and thus changes that happen after this call will equally be pushed to the client." If the changes are not immediate, it could be that the first piece of code continuously tries to push updates as fast as your CPU will allow it, so it never gets to the server because a new update overwrites the last and it begins waiting again. Try adding boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(500)); to the first piece of code to see if that helps.
I've done a project once where I needed to update a chart every second with new data and had a very similar setup to yours. I put in the sleep from the start because I did not want my boost thread to use too much CPU.
Also, it is unclear if the first piece of code is in a bigger loop, if it is, you probably shouldn't make a new chart every time, but create it before hand and then update it with data. I hope some of this helps.

Suppressing NServicebus Transaction to write errors to database

I'm using NServiceBus to handle some calculation messages. I have a new requirement to handle calculation errors by writing them the same database. I'm using NHibernate as my DAL which auto enlists to the NServiceBus transaction and provides rollback in case of exceptions, which is working really well. However if I write this particular error to the database, it is also rolled back which is a problem.
I knew this would be a problem, but I thought I could just wrap the call in a new transaction with the TransactionScopeOption = Suppress. However the error data is still rolled back. I believe that's because it was using the existing session with has already enlisted in the NServiceBus transaction.
Next I tried opening a new session from the existing SessionFactory within the suppression transaction scope. However the first call to the database to retrieve or save data using this new session blocks and then times out.
InnerException: System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException
Message=Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the >operation or the server is not responding.
Finally I tried creating a new SessionFactory using it to open a new session within the suppression transaction scope. However again it blocks and times out.
I feel like I'm missing something obvious here, and would greatly appreciate any suggestions on this probably common task.
As Adam suggests in the comments, in most cases it is preferred to let the entire message fail processing, giving the built-in Retry mechanism a chance to get it right, and eventually going to the error queue. Then another process can monitor the error queue and do any required notification, including logging to a database.
However, there are some use cases where the entire message is not a failure, i.e. on the whole, it "succeeds" (whatever the business-dependent definition of that is) but there is some small part that is in error. For example, a financial calculation in which the processing "succeeds" but some human element of the data is "in error". In this case I would suggest catching that exception and sending a new message which, when processed by another endpoint, will log the information to your database.
I could see another case where you want the entire message to fail, but you want the fact that it was attempted noted somehow. This may be closest to what you are describing. In this case, create a new TransactionScope with TransactionScopeOption = Suppress, and then (again) send a new message inside that scope. That message will be sent whether or not your full message transaction rolls back.
You are correct that your transaction is rolling back because the NHibernate session is opened while the transaction is in force. Trying to open a new session inside the suppressed transaction can cause a problem with locking. That's why, most of the time, sending a new message asynchronously is part of the solution in these cases, but how you do it is dependent upon your specific business requirements.
I know I'm late to the party, but as an alternative suggestion, you coudl simply raise another separate log message, which NSB handles independently, for example:
public void Handle(DebitAccountMessage message)
{
var account = this.dbcontext.GetById(message.Id);
if (account.Balance <= 0)
{
// log request - new handler
this.Bus.Send(new DebitAccountLogMessage
{
originalMessage = message,
account = account,
timeStamp = DateTime.UtcNow
});
// throw error - NSB will handle
throw new DebitException("Not enough funds");
}
}
public void Handle(DebitAccountLogMessage message)
{
var messageString = message.originalMessage.Dump();
var accountString = message.account.Dump(DumpOptions.SuppressSecurityTokens);
this.Logger.Log(message.UniqueId, string.Format("{0}, {1}", messageString, accountString);
}