Do two writes to the NSOutputStream result in two NSStreamEventHasBytesAvailable (where I handle the data read) in stream:handleEvent:?
Have you checked out the "Stream Programming Guide" on output streams? https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/Streams/Articles/WritingOutputStreams.html
On output streams, the sequence is:
alloc/init
set delegate
schedule in run loop
open
wait for NSStreamEventOpenCompleted
wait for NSStreamEventHasSpaceAvailable
When NSStreamEventHasSpaceAvailable is received (this will only be received once in response to each write operation), you have the option of performing a write. If you perform a write, you then need to wait to receive NSStreamEventHasSpaceAvailable before writing again. When performing a write, you must also confirm that everything that you attempted to write was actually written. It may be necessary to handle partial writes if the write attempt only partially completes.
Related
I'm writing a program in LabVIEW 2014 in order to control a linear actuator. The program is very simple, it sets a speed and then runs the subVIs to move the actuator back and forth.
There is a case structure inside a while loop so it would stop when a desired number or iterations is reached. The problem is that the iteration count of the while loop occurs faster than the execution of the program inside the case structure, and therefore the program stops before all the cycles of movement have been completed.
send pulses subVI:
activate subVI:
I tried different time delays in different parts of the code, but none of that worked. I think that the issue is that the while loop iterations run faster than the code of the case structure and somehow I need to slow it down. Or maybe I'm wrong and it is a complete different thing.
Here is the link of the actuator documentation:
https://jp.optosigma.com/html/en_jp/software/motorize/manual_en/SRC-101_InstructionManual_Ver1_1_EN.pdf
Welcome to the fun and infuriating world of interfacing to serial instruments.
Each iteration of a LabVIEW loop can only complete once all the code inside the loop structure has completed, so it's not possible that 'the while loop iterations run faster than the code of the case structure'. There's nothing explicitly wrong with any of your code, but evidently it isn't doing what you expected it to. The way to approach developing an instrument driver is always to start with the simplest case (e.g. one single movement of your actuator), get that working, and build up from there.
The documentation for an instrument's serial interface is rarely perfect and yours is no exception, but it does tell us that
every command is acknowledged by a response, and
you should not send a new command until you have received the response from the previous command.
Your code to send commands and receive the response looks OK. A VISA Read operation will read bytes from the computer's serial buffer until either the number of bytes to read is reached, or a byte matching the termination char is read, or the timeout expires. The manual implies that the instrument's responses are followed by the CR and LF characters, and the default configuration of the serial port in LabVIEW is to terminate each read when an LF is received, so you shouldn't need a time delay between each write and the following read; the instrument's response will be received into the buffer by the OS, then your code will read it out and return it as soon as it hits the LF.
What isn't completely clear from the manual is how the instrument responds to the activation command, G: - does it
Return the acknowledgement immediately, then execute the movement: you can check whether the movement is finished using the status command !:, or
Execute the movement, then return the acknowledgement to show that it's finished.
I think it's 1. but that's the first thing I would check. Unless all your movements are completed in less than 500 ms then I think this is what is wrong here: your program receives the acknowledgement then moves straight on to send the next command, but the actuator is still moving and not ready. In this case you have two options:
add a time delay after the read, calculated to be long enough for the actuator move to finish - this would be easiest, but potentially unreliable
in a While loop after you have got the acknowledgement of the G: command, send the !: command and check the response until you get R for 'ready'. (Remember that the acknowledgement string you receive will also have the CRLF on the end.) Use a time delay in this loop so you don't bombard the instrument with status checks - maybe something like 200 to 1000 ms would be suitable.
If it's case 2. then you would also have two options:
configure your serial port with a read timeout long enough to cover the longest move operation, then the read operation will just block until the acknowledgement is received - again this is the quick and dirty way, or
configure a short timeout, say 1000 ms, and place the read in a While loop that repeats until the acknowledgement is received or too many timeouts have occurred. Note that a timeout is considered an error, so you will have to turn off automatic error handling for the VI and instead test the error wire out of the VISA Read, discard the timeout error and handle any other error yourself.
Just as a general tip, whenever you pass an error wire into a loop and out again, I would use a shift register. That way if one iteration generates an error, the next iteration will see that error and fail immediately, so (for example) if communication fails you don't have to wait for the read timeouts to expire multiple times before your code can exit.
You'll probably have to do some experimenting and referring to LabVIEW help to get this fully working but hopefully this is enough to get you going.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the logic behind hasSpaceAvailable on NSOutputStream.
In my app, I'm sending large amounts of data (100MB) broken up into 4080byte chunks (hard limit) over a CFSocket managed by NSInput/output streams.
When I start writing the data, about a quarter way through hasSpaceAvailable suddenly becomes NO, and so I add the data to a queue. However, if I ignore that and try to write the data anyways, the write seems to work as the return value of write:maxLength: matches the maxLength parameter (4080).
What does the output stream have space for? As far as I can tell, when using UNIX/Berkley sockets there is no logic available to determine if the socket can be written to, you just write and determine if all of the data was written.
The documentation for the property states:
A boolean value that indicates whether the receiver can be written to. (read-only)
YES if the receiver can be written to or if a write must be attempted in order to determine if space is available, NO otherwise.
In my example where I'm seeing a NO, what factor is causing this result when I can still write to that socket.
I think the hasSpaceAvailable property just returns YES if the stream has sent a "space available" stream event since the last time you called the write method. You shouldn't poll that property, and it arguably shouldn't even exist. Instead, you should wait for a stream event on the output stream that says that there's space available for writing instead.
When that stream event occurs, it means that the outgoing packet queue has at least one byte fewer than the maximum number of bytes that the socket is configured to allow you to queue up. In other words, a send() or write() system call on the socket is guaranteed to write at least one byte without blocking, and the socket is guaranteed to be in a nonblocking mode.
Note that after you write data, the stream will send another space available event immediately if the stream's buffer can take more data (or after it has sent some data if the buffer is full).
From user view, the property of "may not transmit all of the data" is a trouble thing. That will cause handler calls more than one time(may be).
The free function async_write ensure handler call only once, but it requires caller must call it in sequence or the data written will be interleaving. For network application usage, this is more bad than handler be called more than once.
If user want to handler called only once and data written is correct, user need to to do something.
I want to ask is: why asio not just make socket::async_write_some transmit all data?
I want to ask is: why asio not just make socket::async_write_some
transmit all data?
Opposed to async_write, socket::async_write_some is lower-level method.
The OS network stack is designed with send buffers and receive buffers. This buffers are required to be limited with some amount of memory. When you send many data over socket, receiving side can be more slow than sending and/or there can be network speed issues.
This is the reason why socket send buffers are limited and as a result system's syscalls like write or writev should be able to notify user program that system cannot accept chunk of data right now. With socket in async mode its even more critical. So, socket syscalls cannot work in async manner without signaling program to hold on.
So, the async_write_some as a mid-level wrapper to writev is required to support partial writes. In other hand async_write is composed operation and can call async_write_some many times in order to send buffers until operation is complete or possibly failed. It calls completion handler only once, not for each chunk of data passed to network stack.
If user want to handler called only once and data written is correct,
user need to to do something.
Nothing special, just to use async_write, not socket::async_write_some.
im studying multithreading and what i want is some clarification on subject matter.
As far as i know, SERIAL queue execute tasks serially, are always executing one task at a time.
Now, SYNCHRONOUS function is a function, that returns only after all tasks complete.
Now, i'm a bit confused. What difference between those two?
if i understand correct, both of them will block current thread (if they are not "covered" in global concurrent queue), and both of them execute tasks exactly in FIFO order.
So, what exactly a difference between them? Yes, i understand that serial is a property of a queue, and sync is a function (or operation). But their functionality is like to be similiar.
You are comparing a queue with a function, so it is difficult to define "difference". Using a serial queue does guarantee sequential behaviour of its operations. Typically, you use a synchronous dispatch if your program has to wait for all queued operations to complete before your program completes. If every dispatch on a given queue is synchronous, then indeed there is no difference between using a queue or calling the operations.
However, here is a very useful case that shows the difference. Suppose operation A is lengthy and you do not want to block. Suppose operation B returns something computed by operation A, but it is called some arbitrary time later (like in response to a user action). You dispatch_async A onto the queue. Your program is not blocked. Sometime later, you need the result. You dispatch_sync operation B on the same serial queue.
Now if A is already complete, the queue is empty when you add B and B executes immediately. But (and here is the good part) if A is still executing (asynchronously), B is not dispatched until A is done, so your program is blocked until the result it needs is ready.
For more explanation of this, see here.
The dangers of deadlock nicely handled for you by gcd.
in my Cocoa project, I communicate with a device connected to a serial port. Now, I am waiting for the serial device to send a particular message of some bytes. For the read operation (and the reaction for once the desired message has been received), I created a new thread. On user request, I want to be able to cancel the thread.
As Apple suggests in the docs, I added a flag to the thread dictionary, periodically check if the flag has been set and if so, call [NSThread exit]. This works fine.
Now, the thread may be stuck waiting for the serial device to finally send the 12 byte message. The read call looks like this:
numBytes = read(fileDescriptor, buffer, 12);
Once the thread starts reading from the device, but no data comes in, I can set the flag to tell the thread to finish, but the thread is not going to read the flag unless it finally received at least 12 bytes of data and continues processing.
Is there a way to kill a thread that currently performs a read operation on a serial device?
Edit for clarification:
I do not insist in creating a separate thread for the I/O operations with the serial device. If there is a way to encapsulate the operations such that I am able to "kill" them if the user presses a cancel button, I am perfectly happy.
I am developing a Cocoa application for desktop Mac OS X, so no restrictions regarding mobile devices and their capabilities apply.
A workaround would be to make the read function return immediately if there are no bytes to read. How can I do this?
Use select or poll with a timeout to detect when the descriptor is ready for reading.
Set the timeout to (say) half a second and call it in a loop while checking to see if your thread should exit.
Asynchronous thread cancellation is almost always a bad idea. Try to stick with event-driven interfaces (and, if necessary, timeouts).
This is exactly what the pthread_cancel interface was designed for. You'll want to wrap the block with read in pthread_cleanup_push and pthread_cleanup_pop in order that you can safely clean up if the thread is cancelled, and also disable cancellation (with pthread_setcancelstate) in other code that runs in this thread that you don't want to be cancellable. This can be a pain if proper cleanup would involve multiple call frames; it essentially forces you to use pthread_cleanup_push at every call level and structure your thread code like C++ or Java with try/catch style exception handling.
An alternative approach would be to install a signal handler for an otherwise-unused signal (like SIGUSR1 or one of the realtime signals) without the SA_RESTART flag, so that it interrupts syscalls with EINTR. The signal handler itself can be a complete no-op; the only purpose of it is to interrupt things. Then you can use pthread_kill to interrupt the read (or any other syscall) in a particular thread. This has the advantage that you don't have to switch your code to using C++/Java-type idioms. You can handle the EINTR error by checking a flag (indicating whether the thread was requested to abort) and resume the read if the flag is not set, or return an error code that causes the caller to clean up and eventually pthread_exit.
If you do use interrupting signal handlers, make sure all your syscalls that can return EINTR are wrapped in loops that retry (or check the abort flag and optionally retry) on EINTR. Otherwise things can break badly.