Search Results

Search found 830 results on 34 pages for 'rolling stone'.

Page 34/34 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 

  • Implementing an async "read all currently available data from stream" operation

    - by Jon
    I recently provided an answer to this question: C# - Realtime console output redirection. As often happens, explaining stuff (here "stuff" was how I tackled a similar problem) leads you to greater understanding and/or, as is the case here, "oops" moments. I realized that my solution, as implemented, has a bug. The bug has little practical importance, but it has an extremely large importance to me as a developer: I can't rest easy knowing that my code has the potential to blow up. Squashing the bug is the purpose of this question. I apologize for the long intro, so let's get dirty. I wanted to build a class that allows me to receive input from a console's standard output Stream. Console output streams are of type FileStream; the implementation can cast to that, if needed. There is also an associated StreamReader already present to leverage. There is only one thing I need to implement in this class to achieve my desired functionality: an async "read all the data available this moment" operation. Reading to the end of the stream is not viable because the stream will not end unless the process closes the console output handle, and it will not do that because it is interactive and expecting input before continuing. I will be using that hypothetical async operation to implement event-based notification, which will be more convenient for my callers. The public interface of the class is this: public class ConsoleAutomator { public event EventHandler<ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs> StandardOutputRead; public void StartSendingEvents(); public void StopSendingEvents(); } StartSendingEvents and StopSendingEvents do what they advertise; for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume that events are always being sent without loss of generality. The class uses these two fields internally: protected readonly StringBuilder inputAccumulator = new StringBuilder(); protected readonly byte[] buffer = new byte[256]; The functionality of the class is implemented in the methods below. To get the ball rolling: public void StartSendingEvents(); { this.stopAutomation = false; this.BeginReadAsync(); } To read data out of the Stream without blocking, and also without requiring a carriage return char, BeginRead is called: protected void BeginReadAsync() { if (!this.stopAutomation) { this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.BeginRead( this.buffer, 0, this.buffer.Length, this.ReadHappened, null); } } The challenging part: BeginRead requires using a buffer. This means that when reading from the stream, it is possible that the bytes available to read ("incoming chunk") are larger than the buffer. Remember that the goal here is to read all of the chunk and call event subscribers exactly once for each chunk. To this end, if the buffer is full after EndRead, we don't send its contents to subscribers immediately but instead append them to a StringBuilder. The contents of the StringBuilder are only sent back whenever there is no more to read from the stream. private void ReadHappened(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { var bytesRead = this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.EndRead(asyncResult); if (bytesRead == 0) { this.OnAutomationStopped(); return; } var input = this.StandardOutput.CurrentEncoding.GetString( this.buffer, 0, bytesRead); this.inputAccumulator.Append(input); if (bytesRead < this.buffer.Length) { this.OnInputRead(); // only send back if we 're sure we got it all } this.BeginReadAsync(); // continue "looping" with BeginRead } After any read which is not enough to fill the buffer (in which case we know that there was no more data to be read during the last read operation), all accumulated data is sent to the subscribers: private void OnInputRead() { var handler = this.StandardOutputRead; if (handler == null) { return; } handler(this, new ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs(this.inputAccumulator.ToString())); this.inputAccumulator.Clear(); } (I know that as long as there are no subscribers the data gets accumulated forever. This is a deliberate decision). The good This scheme works almost perfectly: Async functionality without spawning any threads Very convenient to the calling code (just subscribe to an event) Never more than one event for each time data is available to be read Is almost agnostic to the buffer size The bad That last almost is a very big one. Consider what happens when there is an incoming chunk with length exactly equal to the size of the buffer. The chunk will be read and buffered, but the event will not be triggered. This will be followed up by a BeginRead that expects to find more data belonging to the current chunk in order to send it back all in one piece, but... there will be no more data in the stream. In fact, as long as data is put into the stream in chunks with length exactly equal to the buffer size, the data will be buffered and the event will never be triggered. This scenario may be highly unlikely to occur in practice, especially since we can pick any number for the buffer size, but the problem is there. Solution? Unfortunately, after checking the available methods on FileStream and StreamReader, I can't find anything which lets me peek into the stream while also allowing async methods to be used on it. One "solution" would be to have a thread wait on a ManualResetEvent after the "buffer filled" condition is detected. If the event is not signaled (by the async callback) in a small amount of time, then more data from the stream will not be forthcoming and the data accumulated so far should be sent to subscribers. However, this introduces the need for another thread, requires thread synchronization, and is plain inelegant. Specifying a timeout for BeginRead would also suffice (call back into my code every now and then so I can check if there's data to be sent back; most of the time there will not be anything to do, so I expect the performance hit to be negligible). But it looks like timeouts are not supported in FileStream. Since I imagine that async calls with timeouts are an option in bare Win32, another approach might be to PInvoke the hell out of the problem. But this is also undesirable as it will introduce complexity and simply be a pain to code. Is there an elegant way to get around the problem? Thanks for being patient enough to read all of this. Update: I definitely did not communicate the scenario well in my initial writeup. I have since revised the writeup quite a bit, but to be extra sure: The question is about how to implement an async "read all the data available this moment" operation. My apologies to the people who took the time to read and answer without me making my intent clear enough.

    Read the article

  • Implementing a robust async stream reader

    - by Jon
    I recently provided an answer to this question: C# - Realtime console output redirection. As often happens, explaining stuff (here "stuff" was how I tackled a similar problem) leads you to greater understanding and/or, as is the case here, "oops" moments. I realized that my solution, as implemented, has a bug. The bug has little practical importance, but it has an extremely large importance to me as a developer: I can't rest easy knowing that my code has the potential to blow up. Squashing the bug is the purpose of this question. I apologize for the long intro, so let's get dirty. I wanted to build a class that allows me to receive input from a Stream in an event-based manner. The stream, in my scenario, is guaranteed to be a FileStream and there is also an associated StreamReader already present to leverage. The public interface of the class is this: public class MyStreamManager { public event EventHandler<ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs> StandardOutputRead; public void StartSendingEvents(); public void StopSendingEvents(); } Obviously this specific scenario has to do with a console's standard output, but that is a detail and does not play an important role. StartSendingEvents and StopSendingEvents do what they advertise; for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume that events are always being sent without loss of generality. The class uses these two fields internally: protected readonly StringBuilder inputAccumulator = new StringBuilder(); protected readonly byte[] buffer = new byte[256]; The functionality of the class is implemented in the methods below. To get the ball rolling: public void StartSendingEvents(); { this.stopAutomation = false; this.BeginReadAsync(); } To read data out of the Stream without blocking, and also without requiring a carriage return char, BeginRead is called: protected void BeginReadAsync() { if (!this.stopAutomation) { this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.BeginRead( this.buffer, 0, this.buffer.Length, this.ReadHappened, null); } } The challenging part: BeginRead requires using a buffer. This means that when reading from the stream, it is possible that the bytes available to read ("incoming chunk") are larger than the buffer. Since we are only handing off data from the stream to a consumer, and that consumer may well have inside knowledge about the size and/or format of these chunks, I want to call event subscribers exactly once for each chunk. Otherwise the abstraction breaks down and the subscribers have to buffer the incoming data and reconstruct the chunks themselves using said knowledge. This is much less convenient to the calling code, and detracts from the usefulness of my class. To this end, if the buffer is full after EndRead, we don't send its contents to subscribers immediately but instead append them to a StringBuilder. The contents of the StringBuilder are only sent back whenever there is no more to read from the stream (thus preserving the chunks). private void ReadHappened(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { var bytesRead = this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.EndRead(asyncResult); if (bytesRead == 0) { this.OnAutomationStopped(); return; } var input = this.StandardOutput.CurrentEncoding.GetString( this.buffer, 0, bytesRead); this.inputAccumulator.Append(input); if (bytesRead < this.buffer.Length) { this.OnInputRead(); // only send back if we 're sure we got it all } this.BeginReadAsync(); // continue "looping" with BeginRead } After any read which is not enough to fill the buffer, all accumulated data is sent to the subscribers: private void OnInputRead() { var handler = this.StandardOutputRead; if (handler == null) { return; } handler(this, new ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs(this.inputAccumulator.ToString())); this.inputAccumulator.Clear(); } (I know that as long as there are no subscribers the data gets accumulated forever. This is a deliberate decision). The good This scheme works almost perfectly: Async functionality without spawning any threads Very convenient to the calling code (just subscribe to an event) Maintains the "chunkiness" of the data; this allows the calling code to use inside knowledge of the data without doing any extra work Is almost agnostic to the buffer size (it will work correctly with any size buffer irrespective of the data being read) The bad That last almost is a very big one. Consider what happens when there is an incoming chunk with length exactly equal to the size of the buffer. The chunk will be read and buffered, but the event will not be triggered. This will be followed up by a BeginRead that expects to find more data belonging to the current chunk in order to send it back all in one piece, but... there will be no more data in the stream. In fact, as long as data is put into the stream in chunks with length exactly equal to the buffer size, the data will be buffered and the event will never be triggered. This scenario may be highly unlikely to occur in practice, especially since we can pick any number for the buffer size, but the problem is there. Solution? Unfortunately, after checking the available methods on FileStream and StreamReader, I can't find anything which lets me peek into the stream while also allowing async methods to be used on it. One "solution" would be to have a thread wait on a ManualResetEvent after the "buffer filled" condition is detected. If the event is not signaled (by the async callback) in a small amount of time, then more data from the stream will not be forthcoming and the data accumulated so far should be sent to subscribers. However, this introduces the need for another thread, requires thread synchronization, and is plain inelegant. Specifying a timeout for BeginRead would also suffice (call back into my code every now and then so I can check if there's data to be sent back; most of the time there will not be anything to do, so I expect the performance hit to be negligible). But it looks like timeouts are not supported in FileStream. Since I imagine that async calls with timeouts are an option in bare Win32, another approach might be to PInvoke the hell out of the problem. But this is also undesirable as it will introduce complexity and simply be a pain to code. Is there an elegant way to get around the problem? Thanks for being patient enough to read all of this.

    Read the article

  • How to retrive message list from p2p

    - by cre-johnny07
    Hello friends I have a messaging system that uses p2p. Each peer has a incoming message list and a outgoing message list. What I need to do is whenever a new peer will join the mesh he will get the all the incoming messages from other peers and add those into it's own incoming message list. Now I know when I get the other peer info from I can ask them to give their own list to me. But I'm not finding the way how..? Any suggestion on this or help would be highly appreciated. I'm giving my code below. Thanking in Advance Johnny #region Instance Fields private string strOrigin = ""; //the chat member name private string m_Member; //the channel instance where we execute our service methods against private IServerChannel m_participant; //the instance context which in this case is our window since it is the service host private InstanceContext m_site; //our binding transport for the p2p mesh private NetPeerTcpBinding m_binding; //the factory to create our chat channel private ChannelFactory<IServerChannel> m_channelFactory; //an interface provided by the channel exposing events to indicate //when we have connected or disconnected from the mesh private IOnlineStatus o_statusHandler; //a generic delegate to execute a thread against that accepts no args private delegate void NoArgDelegate(); //an object to hold user details private IUserService userService; //an Observable Collection of object to get all the Application Instance Details in databas ObservableCollection<AppLoginInstance> appLoginInstances; // an Observable Collection of object to get all Incoming Messages types ObservableCollection<MessageType> inComingMessageTypes; // an Observable Collection of object to get all Outgoing Messages ObservableCollection<PDCL.ERP.DataModels.Message> outGoingMessages; // an Observable Collection of object to get all Incoming Messages ObservableCollection<PDCL.ERP.DataModels.Message> inComingMessages; //an Event Aggregator to publish event for other modules to subscribe private readonly IEventAggregator eventAggregator; /// <summary> /// an IUnityCOntainer to get the container /// </summary> private IUnityContainer container; private RefreshConnectionStatus refreshConnectionStatus; private RefreshConnectionStatusEventArgs args; private ReplyRequestMessage replyMessageRequest; private ReplyRequestMessageEventArgs eventsArgs; #endregion public P2pMessageService(IUserService UserService, IEventAggregator EventAggregator, IUnityContainer container) { userService = UserService; this.container = container; appLoginInstances = new ObservableCollection<AppLoginInstance>(); inComingMessageTypes = new ObservableCollection<MessageType>(); inComingMessages = new ObservableCollection<PDCL.ERP.DataModels.Message>(); outGoingMessages = new ObservableCollection<PDCL.ERP.DataModels.Message>(); this.args = new RefreshConnectionStatusEventArgs(); this.eventsArgs = new ReplyRequestMessageEventArgs(); this.eventAggregator = EventAggregator; this.refreshConnectionStatus = this.eventAggregator.GetEvent<RefreshConnectionStatus>(); this.replyMessageRequest = this.eventAggregator.GetEvent<ReplyRequestMessage>(); } #region IOnlineStatus Event Handlers void ostat_Offline(object sender, EventArgs e) { // we could update a status bar or animate an icon to //indicate to the user they have disconnected from the mesh //currently i don't have a "disconnect" button but adding it //should be trivial if you understand the rest of this code } void ostat_Online(object sender, EventArgs e) { try { m_participant.Join(userService.AppInstance); } catch (Exception Ex) { Logger.Exception(Ex, Ex.TargetSite.Name + ": " + Ex.TargetSite + ": " + Ex.Message); } } #endregion #region IServer Members //this method gets called from a background thread to //connect the service client to the p2p mesh specified //by the binding info in the app.config public void ConnectToMesh() { try { m_site = new InstanceContext(this); //use the binding from the app.config with default settings m_binding = new NetPeerTcpBinding("P2PMessageBinding"); m_channelFactory = new DuplexChannelFactory<IServerChannel>(m_site, "P2PMessageEndPoint"); m_participant = m_channelFactory.CreateChannel(); o_statusHandler = m_participant.GetProperty<IOnlineStatus>(); o_statusHandler.Online += new EventHandler(ostat_Online); o_statusHandler.Offline += new EventHandler(ostat_Offline); //m_participant.InitializeMesh(); //this.appLoginInstances.Add(this.userService.AppInstance); BackgroundWorkerHelper.DoWork<object>(() => { //this is an empty unhandled method on the service interface. //why? because for some reason p2p clients don't try to connect to the mesh //until the first service method call. so to facilitate connecting i call this method //to get the ball rolling. m_participant.InitializeMesh(); //SynchronizeMessage(this.inComingMessages); return new object(); }, arg => { }); this.appLoginInstances.Add(this.userService.AppInstance); } catch (Exception Ex) { Logger.Exception(Ex, Ex.TargetSite.Name + ": " + Ex.TargetSite + ": " + Ex.Message); } } public void Join(AppLoginInstance obj) { try { // Adding Instance to the PeerList if (appLoginInstances.SingleOrDefault(a => a.InstanceId == obj.InstanceId)==null) { appLoginInstances.Add(obj); this.refreshConnectionStatus.Publish(new RefreshConnectionStatusEventArgs() { Status = m_channelFactory.State }); } //this will retrieve any new members that have joined before the current user m_participant.SynchronizeMemberList(userService.AppInstance); } catch(Exception Ex) { Logger.Exception(Ex,Ex.TargetSite.Name + ": " + Ex.TargetSite + ": " + Ex.Message); } } /// <summary> /// Synchronizes member list /// </summary> /// <param name="obj">The AppLoginInstance Param</param> public void SynchronizeMemberList(AppLoginInstance obj) { //as member names come in we simply disregard duplicates and //add them to the member list, this way we can retrieve a list //of members already in the chatroom when we enter at any time. //again, since this is just an example this is the simplified //way to do things. the correct way would be to retrieve a list //of peernames and retrieve the metadata from each one which would //tell us what the member name is and add it. we would want to check //this list when we join the mesh to make sure our member name doesn't //conflict with someone else try { if (appLoginInstances.SingleOrDefault(a => a.InstanceId == obj.InstanceId) == null) { appLoginInstances.Add(obj); } } catch (Exception Ex) { Logger.Exception(Ex, Ex.TargetSite.Name + ": " + Ex.TargetSite + ": " + Ex.Message); } } /// <summary> /// This methos broadcasts the mesasge to all peers. /// </summary> /// <param name="msg">The whole message which is to be broadcasted</param> /// <param name="securityLevels"> Level of security</param> public void BroadCastMsg(PDCL.ERP.DataModels.Message msg, List<string> securityLevels) { try { foreach (string s in securityLevels) { if (this.userService.IsInRole(s)) { if (this.inComingMessages.Count == 0 && msg.CreatedByApp != this.userService.AppInstanceId) { this.inComingMessages.Add(msg); } else if (this.inComingMessages.SingleOrDefault(a => a.MessageId == msg.MessageId) == null && msg.CreatedByApp != this.userService.AppInstanceId) { this.inComingMessages.Add(msg); } } } } catch (Exception Ex) { Logger.Exception(Ex, Ex.TargetSite.Name + ": " + Ex.TargetSite + ": " + Ex.Message); } } /// <summary> /// /// </summary> /// <param name="msg">The Message to denyed</param> public void BroadCastReplyMsg(PDCL.ERP.DataModels.Message msg) { try { //if (this.inComingMessages.SingleOrDefault(a => a.MessageId == msg.MessageId) != null) //{ this.replyMessageRequest.Publish(new ReplyRequestMessageEventArgs() { Message = msg }); this.inComingMessages.Remove(this.inComingMessages.SingleOrDefault(o => o.MessageId == msg.MessageId)); //} } catch (Exception ex) { Logger.Exception(ex, ex.TargetSite.Name + ": " + ex.TargetSite + ": " + ex.Message); } } //again we need to sync the worker thread with the UI thread via Dispatcher public void Whisper(string Member, string MemberTo, string Message) { } public void InitializeMesh() { //do nothing } public void Leave(AppLoginInstance obj) { if (this.appLoginInstances.SingleOrDefault(a => a.InstanceId == obj.InstanceId) != null) { this.appLoginInstances.Remove(this.appLoginInstances.Single(a => a.InstanceId == obj.InstanceId)); } } //public void SynchronizeRemoveMemberList(AppLoginInstance obj) //{ // if (appLoginInstances.SingleOrDefault(a => a.InstanceId == obj.InstanceId) != null) // { // appLoginInstances.Remove(obj); // } //} #endregion

    Read the article

  • Implementing a robust async stream reader for a console

    - by Jon
    I recently provided an answer to this question: C# - Realtime console output redirection. As often happens, explaining stuff (here "stuff" was how I tackled a similar problem) leads you to greater understanding and/or, as is the case here, "oops" moments. I realized that my solution, as implemented, has a bug. The bug has little practical importance, but it has an extremely large importance to me as a developer: I can't rest easy knowing that my code has the potential to blow up. Squashing the bug is the purpose of this question. I apologize for the long intro, so let's get dirty. I wanted to build a class that allows me to receive input from a Stream in an event-based manner. The stream, in my scenario, is guaranteed to be a FileStream and there is also an associated StreamReader already present to leverage. The public interface of the class is this: public class MyStreamManager { public event EventHandler<ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs> StandardOutputRead; public void StartSendingEvents(); public void StopSendingEvents(); } Obviously this specific scenario has to do with a console's standard output. StartSendingEvents and StopSendingEvents do what they advertise; for the purposes of this discussion, we can assume that events are always being sent without loss of generality. The class uses these two fields internally: protected readonly StringBuilder inputAccumulator = new StringBuilder(); protected readonly byte[] buffer = new byte[256]; The functionality of the class is implemented in the methods below. To get the ball rolling: public void StartSendingEvents(); { this.stopAutomation = false; this.BeginReadAsync(); } To read data out of the Stream without blocking, and also without requiring a carriage return char, BeginRead is called: protected void BeginReadAsync() { if (!this.stopAutomation) { this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.BeginRead( this.buffer, 0, this.buffer.Length, this.ReadHappened, null); } } The challenging part: BeginRead requires using a buffer. This means that when reading from the stream, it is possible that the bytes available to read ("incoming chunk") are larger than the buffer. Since we are only handing off data from the stream to a consumer, and that consumer may well have inside knowledge about the size and/or format of these chunks, I want to call event subscribers exactly once for each chunk. Otherwise the abstraction breaks down and the subscribers have to buffer the incoming data and reconstruct the chunks themselves using said knowledge. This is much less convenient to the calling code, and detracts from the usefulness of my class. Edit: There are comments below correctly stating that since the data is coming from a stream, there is absolutely nothing that the receiver can infer about the structure of the data unless it is fully prepared to parse it. What I am trying to do here is leverage the "flush the output" "structure" that the owner of the console imparts while writing on it. I am prepared to assume (better: allow my caller to have the option to assume) that the OS will pass me the data written between two flushes of the stream in exactly one piece. To this end, if the buffer is full after EndRead, we don't send its contents to subscribers immediately but instead append them to a StringBuilder. The contents of the StringBuilder are only sent back whenever there is no more to read from the stream (thus preserving the chunks). private void ReadHappened(IAsyncResult asyncResult) { var bytesRead = this.StandardOutput.BaseStream.EndRead(asyncResult); if (bytesRead == 0) { this.OnAutomationStopped(); return; } var input = this.StandardOutput.CurrentEncoding.GetString( this.buffer, 0, bytesRead); this.inputAccumulator.Append(input); if (bytesRead < this.buffer.Length) { this.OnInputRead(); // only send back if we 're sure we got it all } this.BeginReadAsync(); // continue "looping" with BeginRead } After any read which is not enough to fill the buffer, all accumulated data is sent to the subscribers: private void OnInputRead() { var handler = this.StandardOutputRead; if (handler == null) { return; } handler(this, new ConsoleOutputReadEventArgs(this.inputAccumulator.ToString())); this.inputAccumulator.Clear(); } (I know that as long as there are no subscribers the data gets accumulated forever. This is a deliberate decision). The good This scheme works almost perfectly: Async functionality without spawning any threads Very convenient to the calling code (just subscribe to an event) Maintains the "chunkiness" of the data; this allows the calling code to use inside knowledge of the data without doing any extra work Is almost agnostic to the buffer size (it will work correctly with any size buffer irrespective of the data being read) The bad That last almost is a very big one. Consider what happens when there is an incoming chunk with length exactly equal to the size of the buffer. The chunk will be read and buffered, but the event will not be triggered. This will be followed up by a BeginRead that expects to find more data belonging to the current chunk in order to send it back all in one piece, but... there will be no more data in the stream. In fact, as long as data is put into the stream in chunks with length exactly equal to the buffer size, the data will be buffered and the event will never be triggered. This scenario may be highly unlikely to occur in practice, especially since we can pick any number for the buffer size, but the problem is there. Solution? Unfortunately, after checking the available methods on FileStream and StreamReader, I can't find anything which lets me peek into the stream while also allowing async methods to be used on it. One "solution" would be to have a thread wait on a ManualResetEvent after the "buffer filled" condition is detected. If the event is not signaled (by the async callback) in a small amount of time, then more data from the stream will not be forthcoming and the data accumulated so far should be sent to subscribers. However, this introduces the need for another thread, requires thread synchronization, and is plain inelegant. Specifying a timeout for BeginRead would also suffice (call back into my code every now and then so I can check if there's data to be sent back; most of the time there will not be anything to do, so I expect the performance hit to be negligible). But it looks like timeouts are not supported in FileStream. Since I imagine that async calls with timeouts are an option in bare Win32, another approach might be to PInvoke the hell out of the problem. But this is also undesirable as it will introduce complexity and simply be a pain to code. Is there an elegant way to get around the problem? Thanks for being patient enough to read all of this.

    Read the article

  • ubuntu: sem_timedwait not waking (C)

    - by gillez
    I have 3 processes which need to be synchronized. Process one does something then wakes process two and sleeps, which does something then wakes process three and sleeps, which does something and wakes process one and sleeps. The whole loop is timed to run around 25hz (caused by an external sync into process one before it triggers process two in my "real" application). I use sem_post to trigger (wake) each process, and sem_timedwait() to wait for the trigger. This all works successfully for several hours. However at some random time (usually after somewhere between two and four hours), one of the processes starts timing out in sem_timedwait(), even though I am sure the semaphore is being triggered with sem_post(). To prove this I even use sem_getvalue() immediately after the timeout, and the value is 1, so the timedwait should have been triggered. Please see following code: #include <stdio.h> #include <time.h> #include <string.h> #include <errno.h> #include <semaphore.h> sem_t trigger_sem1, trigger_sem2, trigger_sem3; // The main thread process. Called three times with a different num arg - 1, 2 or 3. void *thread(void *arg) { int num = (int) arg; sem_t *wait, *trigger; int val, retval; struct timespec ts; struct timeval tv; switch (num) { case 1: wait = &trigger_sem1; trigger = &trigger_sem2; break; case 2: wait = &trigger_sem2; trigger = &trigger_sem3; break; case 3: wait = &trigger_sem3; trigger = &trigger_sem1; break; } while (1) { // The first thread delays by 40ms to time the whole loop. // This is an external sync in the real app. if (num == 1) usleep(40000); // print sem value before we wait. If this is 1, sem_timedwait() will // return immediately, otherwise it will block until sem_post() is called on this sem. sem_getvalue(wait, &val); printf("sem%d wait sync sem%d. val before %d\n", num, num, val); // get current time and add half a second for timeout. gettimeofday(&tv, NULL); ts.tv_sec = tv.tv_sec; ts.tv_nsec = (tv.tv_usec + 500000); // add half a second if (ts.tv_nsec > 1000000) { ts.tv_sec++; ts.tv_nsec -= 1000000; } ts.tv_nsec *= 1000; /* convert to nanosecs */ retval = sem_timedwait(wait, &ts); if (retval == -1) { // timed out. Print value of sem now. This should be 0, otherwise sem_timedwait // would have woken before timeout (unless the sem_post happened between the // timeout and this call to sem_getvalue). sem_getvalue(wait, &val); printf("!!!!!! sem%d sem_timedwait failed: %s, val now %d\n", num, strerror(errno), val); } else printf("sem%d wakeup.\n", num); // get value of semaphore to trigger. If it's 1, don't post as it has already been // triggered and sem_timedwait on this sem *should* not block. sem_getvalue(trigger, &val); if (val <= 0) { printf("sem%d send sync sem%d. val before %d\n", num, (num == 3 ? 1 : num+1), val); sem_post(trigger); } else printf("!! sem%d not sending sync, val %d\n", num, val); } } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { pthread_t t1, t2, t3; // create semaphores. val of sem1 is 1 to trigger straight away and start the whole ball rolling. if (sem_init(&trigger_sem1, 0, 1) == -1) perror("Error creating trigger_listman semaphore"); if (sem_init(&trigger_sem2, 0, 0) == -1) perror("Error creating trigger_comms semaphore"); if (sem_init(&trigger_sem3, 0, 0) == -1) perror("Error creating trigger_vws semaphore"); pthread_create(&t1, NULL, thread, (void *) 1); pthread_create(&t2, NULL, thread, (void *) 2); pthread_create(&t3, NULL, thread, (void *) 3); pthread_join(t1, NULL); pthread_join(t2, NULL); pthread_join(t3, NULL); } The following output is printed when the program is running correctly (at the start and for a random but long time after). The value of sem1 is always 1 before thread1 waits as it sleeps for 40ms, by which time sem3 has triggered it, so it wakes straight away. The other two threads wait until the semaphore is received from the previous thread. [...] sem1 wait sync sem1. val before 1 sem1 wakeup. sem1 send sync sem2. val before 0 sem2 wakeup. sem2 send sync sem3. val before 0 sem2 wait sync sem2. val before 0 sem3 wakeup. sem3 send sync sem1. val before 0 sem3 wait sync sem3. val before 0 sem1 wait sync sem1. val before 1 sem1 wakeup. sem1 send sync sem2. val before 0 [...] However, after a few hours, one of the threads begins to timeout. I can see from the output that the semaphore is being triggered, and when I print the value after the timeout is is 1. So sem_timedwait should have woken up well before the timeout. I would never expect the value of the semaphore to be 1 after the timeout, save for the very rare occasion (almost certainly never but it's possible) when the trigger happens after the timeout but before I call sem_getvalue. Also, once it begins to fail, every sem_timedwait() on that semaphore also fails in the same way. See the following output, which I've line-numbered: 01 sem3 wait sync sem3. val before 0 02 sem1 wakeup. 03 sem1 send sync sem2. val before 0 04 sem2 wakeup. 05 sem2 send sync sem3. val before 0 06 sem2 wait sync sem2. val before 0 07 sem1 wait sync sem1. val before 0 08 !!!!!! sem3 sem_timedwait failed: Connection timed out, val now 1 09 sem3 send sync sem1. val before 0 10 sem3 wait sync sem3. val before 1 11 sem3 wakeup. 12 !! sem3 not sending sync, val 1 13 sem3 wait sync sem3. val before 0 14 sem1 wakeup. [...] On line 1, thread 3 (which I have confusingly called sem1 in the printf) waits for sem3 to be triggered. On line 5, sem2 calls sem_post for sem3. However, line 8 shows sem3 timing out, but the value of the semaphore is 1. thread3 then triggers sem1 and waits again (10). However, because the value is already 1, it wakes straight away. It doesn't send sem1 again as this has all happened before control is given to thread1, however it then waits again (val is now 0) and sem1 wakes up. This now repeats for ever, sem3 always timing out and showing that the value is 1. So, my question is why does sem3 timeout, even though the semaphore has been triggered and the value is clearly 1? I would never expect to see line 08 in the output. If it times out (because, say thread 2 has crashed or is taking too long), the value should be 0. And why does it work fine for 3 or 4 hours first before getting into this state? This is using Ubuntu 9.4 with kernel 2.6.28. The same procedure has been working properly on Redhat and Fedora. But I'm now trying to port to ubuntu! Thanks for any advice, Giles

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34