In my app I use this code to start a NSThread
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:#selector(threadStart) toTarget:self withObject:nil];
- (void)threadStart
{
NSAutoreleasePool* pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
//something to do...
[pool release];
}
my problem is that I want start and stop this thread sometimes, then I have to declare a thread in .h, to have a generic thread...is it possible?
The correct way to stop your thread executing is to ask it nicely to stop executing. Then, in your thread, you listen for such requests and obey them at an appropriate time.
According to Apple's Thread Programming Guide:
Although Cocoa, POSIX, and Multiprocessing Services offer routines for killing threads directly, the use of such routines is strongly discouraged. Killing a thread prevents that thread from cleaning up after itself. Memory allocated by the thread could potentially be leaked and any other resources currently in use by the thread might not be cleaned up properly, creating potential problems later.
If you anticipate the need to terminate a thread in the middle of an operation, you should design your threads from the outset to respond to a cancel or exit message. For long-running operations, this might mean stopping work periodically and checking to see if such a message arrived. If a message does come in asking the thread to exit, the thread would then have the opportunity to perform any needed cleanup and exit gracefully; otherwise, it could simply go back to work and process the next chunk of data.
You could either use [NSThread exit]; in your thread to stop itself i.e. to cancel the current thread,
or you can also use [NSThread cancel] method to signal another thread in your program to cancel..
It's not clear what you're asking. Threads cannot be stopped from another thread (safely). There are several approaches to do work on a background thread and to manage other threads lifetime.
You should describe what you're trying to accomplish. Why do you want to stop the background thread? Is there sometimes no work to be done?
Related
I have an NSManagedObjectContext declared like so:
- (NSManagedObjectContext *) backgroundMOC {
if (backgroundMOC != nil) {
return backgroundMOC;
}
backgroundMOC = [[NSManagedObjectContext alloc] initWithConcurrencyType:NSPrivateQueueConcurrencyType];
return backgroundMOC;
}
Notice that it is declared with a private queue concurrency type, so its tasks should be run on a background thread. I have the following code:
-(void)testThreading
{
/* ok */
[self.backgroundMOC performBlock:^{
assert(![NSThread isMainThread]);
}];
/* CRASH */
[self.backgroundMOC performBlockAndWait:^{
assert(![NSThread isMainThread]);
}];
}
Why does calling performBlockAndWait execute the task on the main thread rather than background thread?
Tossing in another answer, to try an explain why performBlockAndWait will always run in the calling thread.
performBlock is completely asynchronous. It will always enqueue the block onto the queue of the receiving MOC, and then return immediately. Thus,
[moc performBlock:^{
// Foo
}];
[moc performBlock:^{
// Bar
}];
will place two blocks on the queue for moc. They will always execute asynchronously. Some unknown thread will pull blocks off of the queue and execute them. In addition, those blocks are wrapped within their own autorelease pool, and also they will represent a complete Core Data user event (processPendingChanges).
performBlockAndWait does NOT use the internal queue. It is a synchronous operation that executes in the context of the calling thread. Of course, it will wait until the current operations on the queue have been executed, and then that block will execute in the calling thread. This is documented (and reasserted in several WWDC presentations).
Furthermore, performBockAndWait is re-entrant, so nested calls all happen right in that calling thread.
The Core Data engineers have been very clear that the actual thread in which a queue-based MOC operation runs is not important. It's the synchronization by using the performBlock* API that's key.
So, consider 'performBlock' as "This block is being placed on a queue, to be executed at some undetermined time, in some undetermined thread. The function will return to the caller as soon as it has been enqueued"
performBlockAndWait is "This block will be executed at some undetermined time, in this exact same thread. The function will return after this code has completely executed (which will occur after the current queue associated with this MOC has drained)."
EDIT
Are you sure of "performBlockAndWait does NOT use the internal queue"?
I think it does. The only difference is that performBlockAndWait will
wait until the block's completion. And what do you mean by calling
thread? In my understanding, [moc performBlockAndWait] and [moc
performBloc] both run on its private queue (background or main). The
important concept here is moc owns the queue, not the other way
around. Please correct me if I am wrong. – Philip007
It is unfortunate that I phrased the answer as I did, because, taken by itself, it is incorrect. However, in the context of the original question it is correct. Specifically, when calling performBlockAndWait on a private queue, the block will execute on the thread that called the function - it will not be put on the queue and executed on the "private thread."
Now, before I even get into the details, I want to stress that depending on internal workings of libraries is very dangerous. All you should really care about is that you can never expect a specific thread to execute a block, except anything tied to the main thread. Thus, expecting a performBlockAndWait to not execute on the main thread is not advised because it will execute on the thread that called it.
performBlockAndWait uses GCD, but it also has its own layer (e.g., to prevent deadlocks). If you look at the GCD code (which is open source), you can see how synchronous calls work - and in general they synchronize with the queue and invoke the block on the thread that called the function - unless the queue is the main queue or a global queue. Also, in the WWDC talks, the Core Data engineers stress the point that performBlockAndWait will run in the calling thread.
So, when I say it does not use the internal queue, that does not mean it does not use the data structures at all. It must synchronize the call with the blocks already on the queue, and those submitted in other threads and other asynchronous calls. However, when calling performBlockAndWait it does not put the block on the queue... instead it synchronizes access and runs the submitted block on the thread that called the function.
Now, SO is not a good forum for this, because it's a bit more complex than that, especially w.r.t the main queue, and GCD global queues - but the latter is not important for Core Data.
The main point is that when you call any performBlock* or GCD function, you should not expect it to run on any particular thread (except something tied to the main thread) because queues are not threads, and only the main queue will run blocks on a specific thread.
When calling the core data performBlockAndWait the block will execute in the calling thread (but will be appropriately synchronized with everything submitted to the queue).
I hope that makes sense, though it probably just caused more confusion.
EDIT
Furthermore, you can see the unspoken implications of this, in that the way in which performBlockAndWait provides re-entrant support breaks the FIFO ordering of blocks. As an example...
[context performBlockAndWait:^{
NSLog(#"One");
[context performBlock:^{
NSLog(#"Two");
}];
[context performBlockAndWait:^{
NSLog(#"Three");
}];
}];
Note that strict adherence to the FIFO guarantee of the queue would mean that the nested performBlockAndWait ("Three") would run after the asynchronous block ("Two") since it was submitted after the async block was submitted. However, that is not what happens, as it would be impossible... for the same reason a deadlock ensues with nested dispatch_sync calls. Just something to be aware of if using the synchronous version.
In general, avoid sync versions whenever possible because dispatch_sync can cause a deadlock, and any re-entrant version, like performBlockAndWait will have to make some "bad" decision to support it... like having sync versions "jump" the queue.
Why not? Grand Central Dispatch's block concurrency paradigm (which I assume MOC uses internally) is designed so that only the runtime and operating system need to worry about threads, not the developer (because the OS can do it better than you can do to having more detailed information). Too many people assume that queues are the same as threads. They are not.
Queued blocks are not required to run on any given thread (the exception being blocks in the main queue must execute on the main thread). So, in fact, sometimes sync (i.e. performBlockAndWait) queued blocks will run on the main thread if the runtime feels it would be more efficient than creating a thread for it. Since you are waiting for the result anyway, it wouldn't change the way your program functioned if the main thread were to hang for the duration of the operation.
This last part I am not sure if I remember correctly, but in the WWDC 2011 videos about GCD, I believe that it was mentioned that the runtime will make an effort to run on the main thread, if possible, for sync operations because it is more efficient. In the end though, I suppose the answer to "why" can only be answered by the people who designed the system.
I don't think that the MOC is obligated to use a background thread; it's just obligated to ensure that your code will not run into concurrency issues with the MOC if you use performBlock: or performBlockAndWait:. Since performBlockAndWait: is supposed to block the current thread, it seems reasonable to run that block on that thread.
The performBlockAndWait: call only makes sure that you execute the code in such a way that you don't introduce concurrency (i.e. on 2 threads performBlockAndWait: will not run at the same time, they will block each other).
The long and the short of it is that you can't depend on which thread a MOC operation runs on, well basically ever. I've learned the hard way that if you use GCD or just straight up threads, you always have to create local MOCs for each operation and then merge them to the master MOC.
There is a great library (MagicalRecord) that makes that process very simple.
I wonder if AppDelegate is thread safe? I currently have an operation running networking tasks on the secondary thread, when the task begins, I would like to set NetworkActivityIndicatorVisible to YES, and when the task is done, set it to NO. Do I have to always call it in the main thread, or I can do it in the current run loop thread?
Thanks
In general, UIKit is not thread safe. While you may be able to "get away" with some things, you should always do UIKit stuff on the main thread. There are a few, well documented, exceptions.
The pattern for doing this from a background thread is simple.
dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{
// Put any code you want to execute in the main thread here.
});
The code inside the block you pass to dispatch_async will be scheduled to run in the main run loop.
How can I kill a thread created by performSelectorInBackground:withObject: from the main thread? I need to force termination of freezing threads.
You cannot kill background threads from the main thread, the method that is executing in a background thread has to return for the thread to end.
Your actual problem seems to be that your background thread is freezing, you should solve that instead of trying to work around it.
I'm not sure if this may help but here goes:
Assuming you're calling that performSelector call from class A. And assuming that class A is about to be released from memory in class B (which is where if the selector hasn't been performed yet, you might be getting a crash - Hence you're posting this question on SO):
Wherever you're releasing A from B, do this:
[NSObject cancelPreviousPerformRequestsWithTarget:A];
Apple documentation says
The recommended way to exit a thread is to let it exit its entry point
routine normally. Although Cocoa, POSIX, and Multiprocessing Services
offer routines for killing threads directly, the use of such routines
is strongly discouraged. Killing a thread prevents that thread from
cleaning up after itself. Memory allocated by the thread could
potentially be leaked and any other resources currently in use by the
thread might not be cleaned up properly, creating potential problems
later.
The Problem
I have an NSOperationQueue called logEntryGeneratorQueue
I want to wait until all operations on the queue have completed
If I use:
[logEntryGeneratorQueue waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished];
it works fine if the thread adding to the queue is in the background itself.
However, if I'm running this code via a unit test, it'll be running on the main thread. So I
came up with this "solution", which I really don't like:
if ([NSThread isMainThread]) {
while ([[logEntryGeneratorQueue operations] count] > 0) {
[[NSRunLoop currentRunLoop] runUntilDate:[NSDate dateWithTimeIntervalSinceNow:1]];
}
} else {
[logEntryGeneratorQueue waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished];
}
This was always less than ideal, but has always worked fine on 10.5. However, now I've upgraded my project to using the 10.6 SDK, and this breaks.
On one test, it actually quit the test before it completed. I've no idea why - I assume it's something to do with the way NSOperationQueues work differently in 10.6 - they now use GCD.
What I've Tried
I've tried replacing the runUntilDate with sleep, which, as I thought, means every test pauses forever when it gets here.
My Question
Is there a better way to wait for an NSOperationQueue to finish on a main thread? If not, how can I get this code working under 10.6?
The Solution
I realised that my code was in an eternal loop because I was calling mergeChangesFromContextDidSaveNotification on the main thread whilst also waiting for the queue to finish on the main thread. And since the merge changes was called after waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished, it never got executed.
I think the answer is to change where I run NSOperationQueues from. I shouldn't run an NSOperationQueue that deals with core data stuff on the main thread. And I shouldn't really be running this intensive stuff on the main thread for performance reasons anyway I guess.
I'd say that waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished should work as expected on 10.6, no matter from what thread it's called. Since operation queues in 10.6 no longer use the run loop, there is no point in not blocking and having the loop run. Did you try to just call waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished=
I agree with Max: -waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished should work. Is your queue -suspended ?
IMHO you need to consider the possibility that waitUntilAllOperationsAreFinished may hang if one (or all) of its operations are progressing using main app thread as a carrier. Example: your nsoperation is not concurrent and uses glkview auto-update loop for animation and updating own state and your operation is only done (and operation is marked finished) only if main thread has a chance to work. But it can't as it is blocked in waiting for finishing these operations.
I have created one testing app for running deep counter loop. I run the loop function in background thread using performSelectorInBackground and also NSOperation subclass separately.
I am also using performSelectorOnMainThread to notify main thread within backgroundthread method and [NSNotificationCenter defaultCenter] postNotificationName within NSOperation subclass to notify main thread for updating UI.
Initially both the implementation giving me same result and i am able to update UI without having any problem. The only difference I found is the Thread count between two implementations.
The performSelectorInBackground implementation created one thread and got terminated after loop finished and my app thread count again goes to 1.
The NSOperation subclass implementation created two new threads and keep exists in the application and i can see 3 threads after loop got finished in main() function.
So, my question is why two threads created by NSOperation and why it didn't get terminated just like the first background thread implementation?
I am little bit confuse and unable to decide which implementation is best in-terms of performance and memory management.
It's likely the operation queue is keeping threads alive, waiting for new operations to appear.
You have to remember that the operation queue is designed to work efficiently with many operations, so creating and destroying threads for each operation is going to hurt performance. So what you are seeing is probably just the way the queue is designed to work by keeping a pool of threads alive.
Basically, as long as you are using the operation queue properly and according to the documentation I wouldn't worry about it.