I can't seem to find this specific implementation detail, or even a pointer to where in an OS book to find this.
Basically, main thread calls an async task (to be run later) on itself. So... when does it run?
Does it wait for the run loop to finish? Or does it just randomly interrupt the run-loop in the middle of any function?
I understand the registers will be the same (unless separate thread), but not really the instruction pointer and what happens to the stack, if anything does happen.
Thank you
In C# the task is scheduled to be run on the current SynchronizationContext. The context basically has a queue of tasks which it schedules to run on the threads it is associated with, in a GUI app there is only one thread so the task is scheduled to run there.
The GUI thread is not interrupted but it executes the task when it finishes all other tasks preceding it in the queue.
The threads of a process all share the same address space, not the same CPU registers. The thread scheduling is done depends on the programming language and the O/S. Usually there are explicit scheduling points, such as returning from a system call, blocking awaiting I/O completion, or between p-code instructions for interpreted languages. Some O/S implemtations reschedule depending on how long a thread has run for time-based scheduling. Often languages include a function that explicitly offers the CPU to any other thread or process by transferring control to the process or thread scheduler component of the O/S.
The act of switching from one thread or process to another is known as a context switch and is carefully tuned code because this is often done thousands of times per second. This can make the code difficult to follow.
The best explanation of this I've ever seen is http://www.amazon.com/The-Design-UNIX-Operating-System/dp/0132017997 classic.
Related
javafx.concurrent.Service uses internally a java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService to execute its Tasks. Instances of ExecutorService need to be shut down after usage. This does not seem to be the case for javafx.concurrent.Service. How and when does javafx.concurrent.Service shutdown its ExecutorService ?
I think your misunderstanding here comes from:
Instances of ExecutorService need to be shut down after usage.
Calling shutdown() prevents an ExecutorService from accepting new tasks. You only need to do that if it makes sense to do so (e.g. you are trying to exit the application and want to make sure that any new tasks submitted during application exit are ignored. This might happen with a scheduled executor service, for example).
The related shutdownNow() will additionally attempt to interrupt any currently running threads. So if your tasks are implemented to accept interrupts gracefully, calling shutdownNow() gives those tasks the opportunity to perform any cleanup operations necessary (closing connections, etc).
In many use cases, however, there is no need to call either of these methods. If you are assured no further tasks will be submitted to the executor, shutdown() is unnecessary. If your tasks are not long-running, shutdownNow() is unnecessary. When the application attempts to exit, any existing tasks will complete (presumably reasonably quickly) and then the application can exit.
Note that if your executor service uses daemon threads, then when the application attempts to exit, those threads will not prevent application exit (they will be terminated, without interruption). So if your tasks are short-lived, require no cleanup, and can be safely terminated at any point, this is a viable strategy.
There is nothing special about javafx.concurrent.Service here: in some sense it is a wrapper for an ExecutorService that provides additional functionality for interacting with the FX Application Thread. Just note that the default executor service provided uses daemon threads, so as above, if your tasks need cleanup you would likely provide a different executor service and shut it down gracefully in the application's stop() method.
I read about Jesque at https://github.com/gresrun and I would like to understand how does it perform under huge payload. Is the only way of queuing a job to create an instance of Job class and then using a Thread to start off the worker or are there any other approaches? I am a little skeptical about using java.lang.Thread objects like it is done in the example on this link for batch jobs where data payload is huge.
Actually spawing threads without control is never a good idea.
I would suggest the approach to put your workers in a BlockingQueue and then spawn a very limited number of threads (as much as your CPUs, in order to reduce contention) to start off those workers. Once the work has finished, the thread pick up a new worker and start the process again. Once there are no worker in the queue, the threads just hangs on the queue, waiting for new workers.
You can have a look at the Thread Pool Pattern
I'm trying to get around the concept of cooperative multitasking system and exactly how it works in a single threaded application.
My understanding is that this is a "form of multitasking in which multiple tasks execute by voluntarily ceding control to other tasks at programmer-defined points within each task."
So if you have a list of tasks and one task is executing, how do you determine to pass execution to another task? And when you give execution back to a previous task, how do resume from where you were previously?
I find this a bit confusing because I don't understand how this can be achieve without a multithreaded application.
Any advice would be very helpeful :)
Thanks
In your specific scenario where a single process (or thread of execution) uses cooperative multitasking, you can use something like Windows' fibers or POSIX setcontext family of functions. I will use the term fiber here.
Basically when one fiber is finished executing a chunk of work and wants to voluntarily allow other fibers to run (hence the "cooperative" term), it either manually switches to the other fiber's context or more typically it performs some kind of yield() or scheduler() call that jumps into the scheduler's context, then the scheduler finds a new fiber to run and switches to that fiber's context.
What do we mean by context here? Basically the stack and registers. There is nothing magic about the stack, it's just a block of memory the stack pointer happens to point to. There is also nothing magic about the program counter, it just points to the next instruction to execute. Switching contexts simply saves the current registers somewhere, changes the stack pointer to a different chunk of memory, updates the program counter to a different stream of instructions, copies that context's saved registers into the CPU, then does a jump. Bam, you're now executing different instructions with a different stack. Often the context switch code is written in assembly that is invoked in a way that doesn't modify the current stack or it backs out the changes, in either case it leaves no traces on the stack or in registers so when code resumes execution it has no idea anything happened. (Again, the theme: we assume that method calls fiddle with registers, push arguments to the stack, move the stack pointer, etc but that is just the C calling convention. Nothing requires you to maintain a stack at all or to have any particular method call leave any traces of itself on the stack).
Since each stack is separate, you don't have some continuous chain of seemingly random method calls eventually overflowing the stack (which might be the result if you naively tried to implement this scheme using standard C methods that continuously called each other). You could implement this manually with a state machine where each fiber kept a state machine of where it was in its work, periodically returning to the calling dispatcher's method, but why bother when actual fiber/co-routine support is widely available?
Also remember that cooperative multitasking is orthogonal to processes, protected memory, address spaces, etc. Witness Mac OS 9 or Windows 3.x. They supported the idea of separate processes. But when you yielded, the context was changed to the OS context, allowing the OS scheduler to run, which then potentially selected another process to switch to. In theory you could have a full protected virtual memory OS that still used cooperative multitasking. In those systems, if a errant process never yielded, the OS scheduler never ran, so all other processes in the system were frozen. **
The next natural question is what makes something pre-emptive... The answer is that the OS schedules an interrupt timer with the CPU to stop the currently executing task and switch back to the OS scheduler's context regardless of whether the current task cares to release the CPU or not, thus "pre-empting" it.
If the OS uses CPU privilege levels, the (kernel configured) timer is not cancelable by lower level (user mode) code, though in theory if the OS didn't use such protections an errant task could mask off or cancel the interrupt timer and hijack the CPU. There are some other scenarios like IO calls where the scheduler can be invoked outside the timer, and the scheduler may decide no other process has higher priority and return control to the same process without a switch... And in reality most OSes don't do a real context switch here because that's expensive, the scheduler code runs inside the context of whatever process was executing, so it has to be very careful not to step on the stack, to save register states, etc.
** You might ask why not just fire a timer if yield isn't called within a certain period of time. The answer lies in multi-threaded synchronization. In a cooperative system, you don't have to bother taking locks, worry about re-entrance, etc because you only yield when things are in a known good state. If this mythical timer fires, you have now potentially corrupted the state of the program that was interrupted. If programs have to be written to handle this, congrats... You now have a half-assed pre-emptive multitasking system. Might as well just do it right! And if you are changing things anyway, may as well add threads, protected memory, etc. That's pretty much the history of the major OSes right there.
The basic idea behind cooperative multitasking is trust - that each subtask will relinquish control, of its own accord, in a timely fashion, to avoid starving other tasks of processor time. This is why tasks in a cooperative multitasking system need to be tested extremely thoroughly, and in some cases certified for use.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I imagine cooperative tasks could be implemented as state machines, where passing control to the task would cause it to run for the absolute minimal amount of time it needs to make any kind of progress. For example, a file reader might read the next few bytes of a file, a parser might parse the next line of a document, or a sensor controller might take a single reading, before returning control back to a cooperative scheduler, which would check for task completion.
Each task would have to keep its internal state on the heap (at object level), rather than on the stack frame (at function level) like a conventional blocking function or thread.
And unlike conventional multitasking, which relies on a hardware timer to trigger a context switch, cooperative multitasking relies on the code to be written in such a way that each step of each long-running task is guaranteed to finish in an acceptably small amount of time.
The tasks will execute an explicit wait or pause or yield operation which makes the call to the dispatcher. There may be different operations for waiting on IO to complete or explicitly yielding in a heavy computation. In an application task's main loop, it could have a *wait_for_event* call instead of busy polling. This would suspend the task until it has input to process.
There may also be a time-out mechanism for catching runaway tasks, but it is not the primary means of switching (or else it wouldn't be cooperative).
One way to think of cooperative multitasking is to split a task into steps (or states). Each task keeps track of the next step it needs to execute. When it's the task's turn, it executes only that one step and returns. That way, in the main loop of your program you are simply calling each task in order, and because each task only takes up a small amount of time to complete a single step, we end up with a system which allows all of the tasks to share cpu time (ie. cooperate).
What is preemptive multitasking? After googling it I couldn't find an answer can someone help me?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preemption_(computing)
Read the Wikipedia article. Think of it this way, it is a way to allow you to run many different programs at once without each program needing to have been written to give up the processor's time - the OS handles it. The idea is that each process is "preempted" at some point.
simply if a process is a preemptive then it can be stopped and send to ready queue by external interruption(trap).
When a process switches from the running state to the waiting state (for example, as the result of an I/O request or an invocation of wait() for the termination of a child process)
When a process switches from the running state to the ready state (for example, when an interrupt occurs)
When a process switches from the waiting state to the ready state (for example, at completion of I/O)
When a process terminates
For situations 1 and 4,there is not-preemptive
Preemptive Multitasking requires two main components: A timer interrupt ( say every 10 msec ) and a scheduler which is 'Connected' to that interrupt. The scheduler then saves the 'context' of the "interrupted/preempted" task ( which is fancy term for all the registers/stack pointer) in some area ( like stack) and then determines via its scheduling algorithm which ( other) task can "run" next.
If it finds one, it unwinds/restores the context for THAT task and returns from the timer interrupt. BTW, just like a "call" which places the return address ( usually the address after the Call instruction on the stack, an interrupt works the same way and when an interrupt "returns" it uses what is on the stack an jumps to it. So when we're returning from some other task to its 'interrupt' point we just have to manipulate the stack, and place the return address from THAT task on the TOP of the stack and do an "Return-from_Interrupt" instruction. Different from normal return. I bet you're now sorry you asked !
Cheers,
The POSIX standard defines several routines for thread synchronization, based on concepts like mutexes and conditional variables.
my question is now: are these (like e.g. pthreads_cond_init(), pthreads_mutex_init(), pthreads_mutex_lock()... and so on) system calls or just library calls? i know they are included via "pthread.h", but do they finally result in a system call and therefore are implemented in the kernel of the operating system?
On Linux a pthread mutex makes a "futex" system call, but only if the lock is contended. That means that taking a lock no other thread wants is almost free.
In a similar way, sending a condition signal is only expensive when there is someone waiting for it.
So I believe that your answer is that pthread functions are library calls that sometimes result in a system call.
Whenever possible, the library avoids trapping into the kernel for performance reasons. If you already have some code that uses these calls you may want to take a look at the output from running your program with strace to better understand how often it is actually making system calls.
I never looked into all those library call , but as far as I understand they all involve kernel operations as they are supposed to provide synchronisations between process and/or threads at global level - I mean at the OS level.
The kernel need to maintain for a mutex, for instance, a thread list: threads that are currently sleeping, waiting that a locked mutex get released. When the thread that currently lock/owns that mutex invokes the kernel with pthread_mutex_release(), the kernel system call will browse that aforementioned list to get the higher priority thread that is waiting for the mutex release, flag the new mutex owner into the mutex kernel structure, and then will give away the cpu (aka "ontect switch") to the newly owner thread, thus this process will return from the posix library call pthread_mutex_lock().
I only see a cooperation with the kernel when it involves IPC between processes (I am not talking between threads at a single process level). Therefore I expect those library call to invoke the kernel, so.
When you compile a program on Linux that uses pthreads, you have to add -lphtread to the compiler options. by doing this, you tell the linker to link libpthreads. So, on linux, they are calls to a library.