I have different applications written in C# and C++ that communicate between each other. I would like to test this environment with some scenarios that I wrote.
Each scenario runs for different hours.
Is there a way to accelerate everything in order to have the scenarios run in minutes.
The applications may contains some Thread.Sleep(...) or equivalent in C++.
My idea is that a Thread.Sleep(2000) would wait for 2 seconds normally but when accelerated it should only wait for 200 ms.
Unfortunately I cannot change or refactor the code of the applications.
A first idea I have is to run the applications in an "accelerated Windows" system. A sort of wrapper of the OS where time run faster. But I have no idea on how to achieve this.
So any new idea or solution would be great.
Thanx
I don't think "making Windows run faster" is practical, but I would consider intercepting the Sleep() method calls and short-circuiting them. I haven't looked, but Thread.Sleep() will probably thunk down somewhere to a Win32 API or an NT API (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686298(v=vs.85).aspx).
You can use depends.exe from the Windows SDK and a debugger to see what your code uses, but I suspect (unless you know otherwise) that it won't simply be a Sleep() call, it'll more likely be a call waiting on some system object, I/O or a trigger, using WaitForMultipleObjectsEx() and friends.
Have a look at Detours from Microsoft Research for API interception http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms686298(v=vs.85).aspx
There are are also various writings by Jeffry Richter and Matt Pietrek on the subject. In fact here's a codeproject article inspired by one of those;
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/5178/DLL-Injection-and-function-interception-tutorial
Related
Is there a way/system to debug/monitor code without stopping execution?
In industrial automation control programming (PLC/PAC/DCS) it is possible to connect the debugger while the program is running, and see in the code editor the value of variables and expressions, without setting breakpoints or tracepoints.
As an example, let's have a F# multithreaded application, where code is executed in a continuous loop or triggered by timers. Is there a way to attach a debugger like Visual studio Debugger and see the values of variables and expressions (in the code editor or in a watch pane) WITHOUT interrupting the execution?
It doesn't matter if it's not synchronous, it's acceptable if the debugger/monitor does not capture all the code scans.
I am tasked to create an high level controller for a process plant and I would like to use C# or F# or even C++ with a managed or native application, instead of a PAC system. But being forced to interrupt execution to debug is a huge disadvantage in this kind of application.
UPDATE
First of all thanks to all for their answer.
Based on those answers, though, I realized that probably I need to reformulate my question as follows:
Is anyone aware of any library/framework/package/extension that allows to work with a native or managed application in windows or linux (C#, F# or C++) the exact same way as a PAC development platform, specifically:
1) Put the dev platform in "status" mode, where it shows automatically the runtime value for variables and expressions present in the code exceprt currently visible, without interrupting execution?
2) Create watch windows that show the runtime value of variables and expressions, again without interrupting execution?
Also, what I am looking for is something that (like any PAC platform) offers these features OUT OF THE BOX, without requiring any change in the application code (like adding log instructions).
Thank you in advance
UPDATE 2
It looks like there is something (see http://vsdevaids.webs.com/); does anyone know whether they are still available somewhere?
UPDATE 3
For those interested, I managed to download the last available release of VSDEVAIDS. I installed it and looks working, but it's pointless without a licence and couldn't find information on how to reach the author.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/vvdk2e0g6091r4h/VSDevAidsInstaller.msi
If somebody has better luck, please let me know.
this is a normal requirement - needing instrumentation / diagnostic data from a production system. Its not really a debugger. Its usually one of the first things you should establish in your system design.
Not knowing your system at all its hard to say what you need but generally they fall into 2 categories
human readable trace - something like log4net is what I would recommend
machine readable counters etc. Say 'number of widget shaving in last pass',..... This one is harder to generalize, you could layer it onto log4net too. Or invent your own pipe
With regards to your edited question, I can almost guarantee you that what you are looking for does not exist. Consequence-free debugging/monitoring of even moderate usefulness for production code with no prior effort? I'd have heard of it. Consider that both C++ and C# are extremely cross-platform. There are a few caveats:
There are almost certainly C++ compilers built for very specific hardware that do what you require. This hardware is likely to have very limited capabilities, and the compilers are likely to otherwise be inferior to their larger counterparts, such as gcc, clang, MSVC, to name a few.
Compile-time instrumentation can do what you require, although it affects speed and memory usage, and even stability, in my experience.
There ARE also frameworks that do what you require, but not without affecting your code. For example, if you are using WPF as your UI, it's possible to monitor anything directly related to the UI of your application. But...that's hardly a better solution than log4net.
Lastly, there are tools that can monitor EVERY system call your application makes for both Windows (procmon.exe/"Process Monitor" from SysInternals) and Linux (strace). There's very little you can't find out using these. That said, the ease of use is hardly what you're looking for, and strictly internal variables are still not going to be visible. Still might be something to consider if you know you'll be making system calls with the variables you're interested in and can set up adequate filtering.
Also, you should reconsider your "No impact on the code" requirement. There are .NET frameworks that can allow you to monitor an entire class merely by making a single function call during construction, or by deriving from a class in the framework. Many modern UIs are predicated on the UIs being able to be notified of any change to the data they are monitoring. Extensive effort has gone into making this as powerful and easy as possible. But it does require you to at least consider it when writing your code.
Many years ago (think 8 bit 6502/6809 days) you could buy (or usually rent, I seem to remember a figure of £40K to purchase one in the late 80s) a processor simulator, that would allow you replace the processor in your design with a pin compatible device that had a flying lead to the simulator box. this would allow things like capturing instructions/data leading up to a processor interrupt, or some other way of stopping the processor (even a 'push button to stop code' was possible). You could even step-backwards allowing you to see why an instruction or branch happened.
In these days of multi-core, nm-technology, I doubt there is such a thing.
I have been searching for this kind of features since quite a long time with no luck, unfortunately. Submitting the question to the StackOverflow community was sort of a "last resort", so now I'm ready to conclude that it doesn't exist.
VSDevAids (as #zzxyz pointed out) is not a solution, as it requires significant support from the application itself.
Pod cpu emulators (mentioned by #Neil) aka in-circuit emulators (ICE) and their evolutions are designed to thoroughly test the interaction between firmware and hardware, not so useful in high level programming (especially if managed like .NET).
Thanks for all contributions.
We have a very high performance multitasking, near real-time C# application. This performance was achieved primarily by implementing cooperative multitasking in-house with a home grown scheduler. This is often called micro-threads. In this system all the tasks communicate with other tasks via queues.
The specific problem that we have seems to only be solvable via first class continuations which C# does not support.
Specifically the problem arises in 2 cases dealing with queues. Whenever any particular task performs some work before placing an item on a queue. What if the queue is full?
Conversely, a different task may do some work and then need to take an item off of a queue. What if that queue is empty?
We have solved this in 90% of the cases by linking queues to tasks to avoid tasks getting invoked if any of their outbound queues are full or inbound queue is empty.
Furthermore certain tasks were converted into state machines so they can handle if a queue is full/empty and continue without waiting.
The real problem arises in a few edge cases where it is impractical to do either of those solutions. The idea in that scenario would be to save the stack state at the point and switch to a different task so that it can do the work and subsequently retry the waiting task whenever it is able to continue.
In the past, we attempted to have the waiting task call back into the schedule (recursively) to allow the other tasks to and later retry the waiting task. However, that led to too many "deadlock" situations.
There was an example somewhere of a custom CLR host to make the .NET threads actually operate as "fibers" which essentially allows switching stack state between threads. But now I can't seem to find any sample code for that. Plus it seems that will take some significant complexity to get it right.
Does anyone have any other creative ideas how to switch between tasks efficiently and avoid the above problems?
Are there any other CLR hosts that offer this, commercial or otherwise? Is there any add-on native library that can offer some form of continuations for C#?
There is the C# 5 CTP, which performs a continuation-passing-style transformation over methods declared with the new async keyword, and continuation-passing based calls when using the await keyword.
This is not actually a new CLR feature but rather a set of directives for the compiler to perform the CPS transformation over your code and a handful of library routines for manipulating and scheduling continuations. Activation records for async methods are placed on the heap instead of the stack, so they're not tied to a specific thread.
Nope, not going to work. C# (and even IL) is too complex language to perform such transformations (CPS) in a general way. The best you can get is what C# 5 will offer. That said, you will probably not be able to break/resume with higher order loops/iterations, which is really want you want from general purpose reifiable continuations.
Fiber mode was removed from v2 of the CLR because of issues under stress, see:
Fiber mode is gone...
Fibers and the CLR
Question to the CLR experts : fiber mode support in hosting
To my knowledge fiber support has not yet bee re-added, although from reading the above articles it may be added again (however the fact that nothing has mentioned for 6-7 years on the topic makes me believe that its unlikely).
FYI fiber support was intended to be a way for existing applications that use fibers (such as SQL Server) to host the CLR in a way that allows them to maximise performance, not as a method to allow .Net applications to create hundereds of threads - in short fibers are not a magic bullet solution to your problem, however if you have an application that uses fibers an wishes to host the CLR then the managed hosting APIs do provide the means for the CLR to "work nicely" with your application. A good source of information on this would be the managed hosting API documentation, or to look into how SQL Server hosts the CLR, of which there are several highly informative articles around.
Also take a quick read of Threads, fibers, stacks and address space.
Actually, we decided on a direction to go with this. We're using the Observer pattern with Message Passsing. We built a home grown library to handle all communication between "Agents" which are similar to an Erlang process. Later we will consider using AppDomains to even better separate Agents from each other. Design ideas were borrowed from the Erlang programming language which has extremely reliable mult-core and distributed processing.
The solution to your problem is to use lock-free algorithms allowing for system wide progress of at least one task. You need to use inline assembler that is CPU dependent to make sure that you atomic CAS (compare-and-swap). Wikipedia has an article as well as patterns described the the book by Douglas Schmidt called "Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture, Patterns for Concurrent and Networked Objects". It is not immediately clear to me how you will do that under the dotnet framework.
Other way of solving your problem is using the publish-subscriber pattern or possible thread pools.
Hope this was helpful?
I'm going to split a program into two parts, because I'm running out of process memory. One part is taking a picture and storing it on the file system (GUI) and the other part is analyzing the picture (OCR) and reporting the results back to the main part.
The communication between the two processes will look like this:
Is the OCR process responding?
If not, start OCR process.
Tell the OCR process that there is a new picture.
Wait until the OCR process returns the result (most likely less than 1 KB of characters)
The three most important things, in order of priority for me are:
High performance
High stability
Low complexity - I've only got around three days to finish and test the program.
The GUI is written in .NET/C#, so the solution must be compatible with that. Which method of IPC would you recommend me to use?
I'd probably use point to point queues for this. They perform very well and are stable - the kernel uses them for it's own notification system. The MSDN article already has the managed classes built for using them, so complexity is also low.
You could use WCF for Windows Mobile. Microsoft have released guidelines and sample projects for how to do this. If you set it up to use message queue end points (I'm not sure if named pipes are available), then performance should be very good. Apart from that, WCF is a very easy technology to get started with. Good luck!
Learning about threading is fascinating no doubt and there are some really good resources to do that. But, my question is threading applied explicitly either as part of design or development in real-world applications.
I have worked on some extensively used and well-architected .NET apps in C# but found no trace of explicit usage.Is there no real need due to this being managed by CLR or is there any specific reason?
Also, any example of threading coded in widely used .NET apps. in Codelplex or Gooogle Code are also welcome.
The simplest place to use threading is performing a long operation in a GUI while keeping the UI responsive.
If you perform the operation on the UI thread, the entire GUI will freeze until it finishes. (Because it won't run a message loop)
By executing it on a background thread, the UI will remain responsive.
The BackgroundWorker class is very useful here.
is threading applied explicitly either as part of design or development in real-world applications.
In order to take full advantage of modern, multi-core systems, threading must be part of the design from the start. While it's fairly easy (especially in .NET 4) to find small portions of code to thread, to get real scalability, you need to design your algorithms to handle being threaded, preferably at a "high level" in your code. The earlier this is done in the design phases, the easier it is to properly build threading into an application.
Is there no real need due to this being managed by CLR or is there any specific reason?
There is definitely a need. Threading doesn't come for free - it must be added in by the developer. The main reason this isn't found very often, especially in open source code, is really more a matter of difficulty. Even using .NET 4, properly designing algorithms to thread in a scalable, safe manner is difficult.
That entirely depends on the application.
For a client app that ever needs to do any significant work (or perform other potentially long-running tasks, such as making web service calls) I'd expect background threads to be used. This could be achieved via BackgroundWorker, explicit use of the thread pool, explicit use of Parallel Extensions, or creating new threads explicitly.
Web services and web applications are somewhat less likely to create their own threads, in my experience. You're more likely to effectively treat each request as having a separate thread (even if ASP.NET moves it around internally) and perform everything synchronously. Of course there are web applications which either execute asynchronously or start threads for other reasons - but I'd say this comes up less often than in client apps.
Definitely a +1 on the Parallel Extensions to .NET. Microsoft has done some great work here to improve the ThreadPool. You used to have one global queue which handled all tasks, even if they were spawned from a worker thread. Now they have a lock-free global queue and local queues for each worker thread. That's a very nice improvement.
I'm not as big a fan of things like Parallel.For, Parallel.Foreach, and Parallel.Invoke (regions), as I believe they should be pure language extensions rather than class libraries. Obviously, I understand why we have this intermediate step, but it's inevitable for C# to gain language improvements for concurrency and it's equally inevitable that we'll have to go back and change our code to take advantage of it :-)
Overall, if you're looking at building concurrent apps in .NET, you owe it to yourself to research the heck out of the Parallel Extensions. I also think, given that this is a pretty nascent effort from Microsoft, you should be very vocal about what works for you and what doesn't, independent of what you perceive your own skill level to be with concurrency. Microsoft is definitely listening, but I don't think there are that many people yet using the Parallel Extensions. I was at VSLive Redmond yesterday and watched a session on this topic and continue to be impressed with the team working on this.
Disclosure: I used to be the Marketing Director for Visual Studio and am now at a startup called Corensic where we're building tools to detect bugs in concurrent apps.
Most real-world usages of threading I've seen is to simply avoid blocking - UI, network, database calls, etc.
You might see it in use as BeginXXX and EndXXX method pairs, delegate.BeginInvoke calls, Control.Invoke calls.
Some systems I've seen, where threading would be a boon, actually use the isolation principle to achieve multiple "threads", in other words, split the work down into completely unrelated chunks and process them all independently of each other - "multi-threading" (or many-core utilisation) is automagically achieved by simply running all the processes at once.
I think it's fair to say you find a lot of stock-and-trade applications (data presentation) largely do not require massive parallisation, nor are they always able to be architected to be suitable for it. The examples I've seen are all very specific problems. This may attribute to why you've not seen any noticable implementations of it.
The question of whether to make use of an explicit threading implementation is normally a design consideration as others have mentioned here. Trying to implement concurrency as an afterthought usually requires a lot of radical and wholesale changes.
Keep in mind that simply throwing threads into an application doesn't inherently increase performance or speed, given that there is a cost in managing each thread, and also perhaps some memory overhead (not to mention, debugging it can be fun).
From my experience, the most common place to implement a threading design has been in Windows Services (background applications) and on applications which have had use case scenarios where a volume of work could be easily split up into smaller parcels of work (and handed off to threads to complete asynchronously).
As for examples, you could check out the Microsoft Robotics Studio (as far as I know there's a free version now) - it comes with an redistributable (I can't find it as a standalone download) of the Concurrency and Coordination Runtime, there's some coverage of it on Microsoft's Channel 9.
As mentioned by others the Parallel Extensions team (blog is here) have done some great work with thread safety and parallel execution and you can find some samples/examples on the MSDN Code site.
Threading is used in all sorts of scenarios, anything network based depends on threading, whether explicit (sockets stuff) or implicit (web services). Threading keeps UI responsive. And windows services having multiple parallel runs doing the same things in processing data working through queues that need to be processed.
Those are just the most common ones I've seen.
Most answers reference long-running tasks in a GUI application. Another very common usage scenario in my experience is Producer/Consumer queues. We have many utility applications that have to perform web requests etc. often to large number of endpoints. We use producer/consumer threading pattern (usually by integrating a custom thread pool) to allow high parallelization of these tasks.
In fact, at this very moment I am checking up on an application that uploads a 200MB file to 200 different FTP locations. We use SmartThreadPool and run up to around 50 uploads in parallel, which allows the whole batch to complete in under one hour (as opposed to over 50 hours were it all uploads to happen consecutively - so in our usage we find almost straight linear improvements in time).
As modern day programmers we love abstractions so we use threads by calling Async methods or BeginInvoke and by using things like BackgroundWorker or PFX in .Net 4.
Yet sometimes there is a need to do the threading yourself. For Example in a web app I built I have a mail queue that I add to from within the app and there is a background thread that sends the emails. If the thread notices that the queue is filling up faster that it is sending it creates another thread if it then sees that that thread is idle it kills it. This can be done with a higher level abstraction I guess but i did it manually.
I can't resist the edge case - in some applications where either a high degree of operational certainty must be achieved or a high degree of operational uncertainty must be tolerated, then threads and processes are considered from initial architecture design all the way through end delivery
Case 1 - for systems that must achieve extremely high levels of operational reliability, three completely separate subsystems using three different mechanisms may be used in a voting architecture - Spawn 3 threads/proceses across each of the voters, wait for them to conclude/die/be killed, and proceed IFF they all say the same thing - example - complex avionic susystems
Case 2 - for systems that must deal with a high degree of operational uncertainty - do the same thing, but once something/anything gets back to you, kill off the stragglers and go forth with the best answer you got - example - complex intraday trading algorithms endeavoring to destroy the business that employ them :-)
I want to try Multimedia Class Scheduler Service http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684247(v=VS.85).aspx
I hope it can reduce latency by scheduling my threads better.
How can it be done in C# ?
Note: my app is nothing to do with multimedia I just need features of MMCSS.
Each thread that is performing work
related to a particular task calls the
AvSetMmMaxThreadCharacteristics or
AvSetMmThreadCharacteristics function
to inform MMCSS that it is working on
that task.
It would seem all you need is to P/Invoke one or other of those API calls.
However, I suspect all that will be in vain when the garbage collector steps in and messes things up.
Have you done any profiling of the app to see what's going on under the covers? If you app is truly that latency sensitive then C# is probably the wrong choice of language to be honest.
I'm not sure what the point of using the MMCSS would be in a managed application. After all, the point of the MMCSS is to adjust the scheduling priority of the process to avoid stalls during multimedia stream processing - we're talking nanosecond level scheduling. But with a managed language where a garbage collection can happen at any time and potentially take tens or even hundreds of milliseconds, then I'm not sure what benefit the MMCSS would provide that wouldn't be totally wiped out by garbage collection.
With that in mind, I wouldn't expect to see a managed interface to the MMCSS any time soon. You can certainly access it via P/Invoke, but I wouldn't expect miracles from it :)