I am in the middle of creating a cloud integration framework for iOS. We allow you to save, query, count and remove with synchronous and asynchronous with selector/callback and block implementations. What is the correct practice? Running the completion blocks on the main thread or a background thread?
For simple cases, I just parameterize it and do all the work i can on secondary threads:
By default, callbacks will be made on any thread (where it is most efficient and direct - typically once the operation has completed). This is the default because messaging via main can be quite costly.
The client may optionally specify that the message must be made on the main thread. This way, it requires one line or argument. If safety is more important than efficiency, then you may want to invert the default value.
You could also attempt to batch and coalesce some messages, or simply use a timer on the main run loop to vend.
Consider both joined and detached models for some of your work.
If you can reduce the task to a result (remove the capability for incremental updates, if not needed), then you can simply run the task, do the work, and provide the result (or error) when complete.
Apple's NSURLConnection class calls back to its delegate methods on the thread from which it was initiated, while doing its work on a background thread. That seems like a sensible procedure. It's likely that a user of your framework will not enjoy having to worry about thread safety when writing a simple callback block, as they would if you created a new thread to run it on.
The two sides of the coin: If the callback touches the GUI, it has to be run on the main thread. On the other hand, if it doesn't, and is going to do a lot of work, running it on the main thread will block the GUI, causing frustration for the end user.
It's probably best to put the callback on a known, documented thread, and let the app programmer make the determination of the effect on the GUI.
Related
I've got a MacOS/X app which in general is not averse to app-napping, but sometimes it will spawn one or more child threads to do timing-sensitive networking tasks, which do need to avoid being app-napped.
The elegant thing to do would be to have each of these threads call [[NSProcess processInfo] beginActivityWithOptions [...]] when it starts, and also call [[NSProcess processInfo] endActivity [...]] just before it exits, which would (hopefully) have the effect of avoiding app-nap on my process (or at least on those particular threads) only when one or more of these network-threads is running.
My question is, is this a legal/acceptable calling pattern, or is NSProcessInfo more of a per-process-only kind of API that doesn't implement the thread-safe reference-counting logic that would be necessary to reliably yield the expected behavior if I call it from multiple threads? (if it's the latter, I can implement that logic myself, but I'd rather not reinvent the wheel here)
This API is considered like process-wide, to report that your entire Application is doing the specific kind of job, which should be or should not be affected by power saving heuristics (which are, again, per-process, not per-thread).
The best way to use it would be to begin one activity before all your background threads started, and finish it after all your important background threads finished.
You can do it with DispatchGroup or any other instrument you wish.
That is not the only way though.
beginActivityWithOptions would return the _NSActivityAssertion, which is not generally aware of threads. You could bring your own thread sync mechanism to this party.
Calling this API several times would create several _NSActivityAssertion objects, which is definetely redundant but should work, if you will properly end each of them.
First of all this API should be or should not be affected by power-saving heuristics.
The best way to use it would be to use it with a dispatch group
Lets say, i have a complex calculation running in NSOperation block. I have paused it. Closed the app. Then restarted the app. Can i recover the last state and continue from there?
Is there existing solution for such a problem or it can be only custom built for certain purposes?
The question is a bit vague, so it's hard to say without knowing all of the code in play. With that said, I may approach the problem by:
Option 1. In your subclass of NSOperation, add your own atomic KVO property "isPaused". Within the operation itself, observe that property and handle accordingly if it ever changes.
Option 2. Are you ever suspending the Operation Queue itself? If so, consider observing that property from within your operations, and each one independently can take action if that value changes.
Option 3. Cancel all operations in the queue, and if the view appears again, just restart with new operations.
Overall, though, there is no magic bullet for pausing operations already in progress. You'll have to bake your own solution. The damage shouldn't be too bad though.
Suspending and Resuming Queues If you want to issue a temporary halt to the execution of operations, you can suspend the corresponding operation queue using the setSuspended: method.
Suspending a queue does not cause already executing operations to pause in the middle of their tasks. It simply prevents new operations from being scheduled for execution. You might suspend a queue in response to a user request to pause any ongoing work, because the expectation is that the user might eventually want to resume that work.
For more detail Refer this link apple docs: http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/General/Conceptual/ConcurrencyProgrammingGuide/OperationObjects/OperationObjects.html
I have an iOS application using NSThreads for concurrency tasks. I will try to migrate it to be using the Grand Central Dispatch (GCD) for handling concurrency.
The problem is that the app needs information regarding how many threads has been created since a given time. And how many threads that was spawned since that given time is currently running.
At the moment this is done by creating a category that does a method swizzling on the -main method in NSThread. In the new swizzled method it simply increments the total number of threads running and then decrement the same variable before the new swizzled -main method returns.
The problem is that when I use GCD dispatch_async it does not create a NSThread, hence my category approach does not work. How can I achieve the same while using GCD to handle concurrency?
What I would like to detect is when a new block is added to GCD, and when that block has been executed.
Any suggestions on how to achieve the same is very welcome.
EDIT
Many thanks to #ipmcc and #RyanR for helping me out on this. :) I believe I need to tell some more about the background and what I am trying to accomplish.
What I am actually trying is to extend the iOS testing framework Frank. Frank embeds a small web-server within a given app which enables sending HTTP request to the iOS application and thereby simulating events, a swipe or a tap gesture as an example.
I would like to extend it in a way that enables it to wait until all work triggered by a specific simulated event has ended before returning upon a request.
However I found it hard to detect exactly what work was triggered by the received event. And thats how I came to the solution to just reset a thread counter and then increment this counter for all created threads after the event was simulated, and decrement it when the threads are finishing. And then block until threads count became zero again. I know this approach is not perfect either, and it wont work with GCP.
Is there any other way to achieve it? Another possible solution which I have thought of is to specify that everything must run synchronized except the thread handling the HTTP request. However I don't know if this possible.
Any suggestions on how to achieve blocking after each simulated event until work triggered by that event has completed?
The problem is that the app needs information regarding how many
threads has been created since a given time. And how many threads that
was spawned since that given time is currently running.
You will not be able to get this information from GCD. One of the points of GCD is that you do not manage the thread pool. It is opaque. You'll note that even pthreads, the underlying threading library on which NSThread and GCD are built, does not have a (public) means to enumerate all existing threads or get the number of running threads. This is not going to be doable without hard core low level hackery. If you need to control or know the number of threads, then you need to be the one to spawn and manage them, and GCD is the wrong abstraction for you.
At the moment this is done by creating a category that does a method
swizzling on the -main method in NSThread. In the new swizzled method
it simply increments the total number of threads running and then
decrement the same variable before the new swizzled -main method
returns.
Note that this only tells you the number of threads started using NSThread. As mentioned, NSThread is a fairly high level abstraction on top of pthreads. There is nothing to prevent library code from spawning its own threads using the pthreads API that will be invisible to your count.
The problem is that when I use GCD dispatch_async it does not create a
NSThread, hence my category approach does not work. How can I achieve
the same while using GCD to handle concurrency?
In short, you can't. If you want to go forth and patch functions all over the various frameworks, then you should look up a library called mach_override. (But please don't.)
What I would like to detect is when a new block is added to GCD, and
when that block has been executed.
Since GCD uses thread pools, the act of adding a block does not imply a new thread. (And that's sorta the whole point.)
If you have some limited resource whose consumption you need to manage, the traditional way to do that would be with a limiting semaphore, but that is just one option.
This whole question just reeks of a poor design. Like the number of pthreads, GCD's queue widths are opaque/non-public. Your previous solution was not particularly viable (as discussed), and further efforts are likely to yield similarly poor solutions. You should really rethink your architecture such that knowing how many threads are running isn't important.
EDIT: Thanks for the clarification. There's not really a generic way, from the outside, to tell when all the "work" is done. What if an action sets up a timer that won't call back for ten minutes? At the extreme, consider this: the main runloop continues to spin for the entire life of the app, and as long as the main runloop is spinning, "work" could be being done on it.
In order to detect "doneness" your app has to signal doneness. In order to signal doneness, the app has to have some way (internal to itself) to know it's done. Put differently, the app can't tell something else (i.e. Frank) something it doesn't know. One way to go about this would be to encapsulate all the work you do in your app in NSOperations. NSOperation/NSOperationQueue provide good ways of reporting "doneness." At the simplest level, you could wrap the code where you kickoff work in an NSBlockOperation, then add a completion block to that operation that signals something else when it's done, and enqueue it to an NSOperationQueue for execution. (You could also do this with dispatch_group and dispatch_group_notify if you prefer working in the GCD style.)
If you have specific questions about how to package up your app's work into NSOperations, I would suggest starting a new question.
You can hook into the dispatch introspection functions (introspection.h, methods all start with dispatch_introspection), but you have to link with that library which is supposed to be only for debugging. I don't think you can include that in a release build. Your best bet would be to encapsulate GCD into your own object, so all your code submits blocks to execute through that object and it submits them to GCD after tracking whatever you're interested in. You won't be able to track thread consumption though, because GCD intentionally abstracts that and reuses threads.
I am modifying my program to use the new iOS5 style.
So I simply use this code:
NSManagedObjectContext *threadContext = [[NSManagedObjectContext alloc] initWithConcurrencyType:NSPrivateQueueConcurrencyType];
threadContext.parentContext = [self managedObjectContextMainThread];
//threadContext.persistentStoreCoordinator= [self persistentStoreCoordinator]; //moc.persistentStoreCoordinator;// [moc persistentStoreCoordinator];
My new background ManagedObjectContext doesn't have a persistentStore but have parent store instead.\
After that I suppose I am supposed to add
performBlockAndWait on all operation where I use all operation that use the new MOC.
I don't use that and doing just fine at least so far
performBlockAndWait is done by executing the block at the same thread and wait till it's complete.
What's the difference between that and just type the code like usual?
I mean there has to be some used, but I am totally missing here.
I can understand performBlock. That'll be like executing something in back ground. Even then it's superseded with Global Central Dyspatch.
Yes there is this new thing called Queue. Okay, if we do something on the same thread, of course everything is done consecutively. Duh.... So why the queue?
Anyone care to explain?
It is possible that the thread that execute the block is not the same with the thread that call performBlockAndWait.
For example, some core data object may only be able to be executed at main thread.
Hence, the performBlockAndWait would do it on a main thread (different thread) and block the current thread.
Also it's saver. Core data would lock things up appropriately preventing collision. If you have several thread accessing the same managed object context, you need to pull this up.
The reason for performBlockAndWait: is it will get and hold the concurrency lock to access Core Data. You can consider it a modernization of the lock/unlock approach, but that's undocumented implementation detail.
If you just execute the code directly, it won't do proper concurrency locking. This is interesting for a number of reasons:
Requests to Core Data won't be properly serialized. That is, if you performBlock: (no wait) the code could end up executing at the same time as other Core Data code, which would probably cause a problem in the coordinator or persistent store.
It… well, I actually don't think it should work. It seems to most of the time in practice, but you're running Core Data without necessary locks. Pretty sure you're into undocumented behaviour here at a minimum.
So:
performBlockAndWait: sets up an environment where your block can access Core Data via the context and waits for the block to complete.
The documentation says nothing about the thread. It's not actually documented as running on the current thread.
Even if it doesn't now, it could be changed in the future to go to secondary threads in at least some circumstances.
Read the parent point again: That's what you're supposed to rely on. The rest is just details.
performBlock: sets up an environment where your block and access Core Data via the context and does not wait for the block to complete.
The documentation says nothing about the thread. It's not actually documented as running on a different thread.
Although unlikely, a future version of the OS could decide to run the block on the current thread at a later time.
Again, the parent point is what you're to rely on. The rest is undocumented details.
I hope that helps. Basically, you're supposed to play dumber than you are when touching these calls. Let the OS do the right thing, just try not to make assumptions about what it's doing. :)
The NSPrivateQueueConcurrencyType constant sets up too many expectations for how this works.
Here's my scenario: I have a thread running heavy calculations, saving the results via core data at the end. I have the thread set up with it's own autorelease pool and it's own NSManagedContext created within the thread. The user can change the inputs to the calculation on the main thread, in which case the calculation thread is terminated (via regular checks of a NSLocked variable) and relaunched with the new inputs. Everything is working fine here.
For performance reasons, the calculation thread doesn't have an undo manager and there is only one context save at the very end. If a termination command is detected I don't want to save the results. Right now I'm just skipping the context save and releasing it, which seems to work fine.
I noticed, however, that there's a reset method for NSManagedContext. Apple's documentation on this method isn't very helpful to me. It simply states that it returns the receiver's contents to it's base state and that all the receiver's managed objects are "forgotten".
What does that mean? Is it the equivalent to reverting to the last saved version? Is an undo manager required for proper operation of this method? Any reason I should use this method instead of what I'm doing now?
It sounds like you are using the context to cache changes independent of the context on the main thread, and if you don't want those changes to be recorded, you just throw them out by deleting the "local" context. This is good enough for the scenario you are describing. -reset might be useful if you didn't want to relaunch the background thread, but just start over using the same thread (and context), but with new inputs. Since you launch a new thread (thus creating a new NSManagedObjectContext on it), -reset is probably not very useful for you in this scenario. You already pretty much doing it as Apple recommends in several of their sample codes.