2013-07-19 18:24:07 -05:00
|
|
|
// Copyright 2013 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT
|
2013-07-19 18:03:02 -05:00
|
|
|
// file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at
|
2013-07-19 18:24:07 -05:00
|
|
|
// http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT.
|
2013-07-19 18:03:02 -05:00
|
|
|
//
|
2013-07-19 18:24:07 -05:00
|
|
|
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or
|
|
|
|
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license
|
|
|
|
// <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your
|
|
|
|
// option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed
|
2013-07-19 18:03:02 -05:00
|
|
|
// except according to those terms.
|
2013-07-19 18:24:07 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
/*!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Synchronous Timers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This module exposes the functionality to create timers, block the current task,
|
|
|
|
and create ports which will receive notifications after a period of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Example
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-22 15:31:23 -06:00
|
|
|
```rust,ignore
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-11-11 00:46:32 -06:00
|
|
|
use std::io::Timer;
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
timer.sleep(10); // block the task for awhile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let timeout = timer.oneshot(10);
|
|
|
|
// do some work
|
|
|
|
timeout.recv(); // wait for the timeout to expire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let periodic = timer.periodic(10);
|
|
|
|
loop {
|
|
|
|
periodic.recv();
|
|
|
|
// this loop is only executed once every 10ms
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
2013-12-05 20:19:06 -06:00
|
|
|
use comm::Port;
|
2013-12-05 19:25:48 -06:00
|
|
|
use rt::rtio::{IoFactory, LocalIo, RtioTimer};
|
2014-01-29 18:33:57 -06:00
|
|
|
use io::IoResult;
|
2013-07-19 18:03:02 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-10-02 20:52:03 -05:00
|
|
|
pub struct Timer {
|
2013-10-16 16:48:05 -05:00
|
|
|
priv obj: ~RtioTimer
|
2013-10-02 20:52:03 -05:00
|
|
|
}
|
2013-07-19 18:03:02 -05:00
|
|
|
|
2013-09-14 09:00:13 -05:00
|
|
|
/// Sleep the current task for `msecs` milliseconds.
|
|
|
|
pub fn sleep(msecs: u64) {
|
2014-01-29 18:33:57 -06:00
|
|
|
let timer = Timer::new();
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = timer.ok().expect("timer::sleep: could not create a Timer");
|
2013-09-14 09:00:13 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timer.sleep(msecs)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2013-07-19 18:03:02 -05:00
|
|
|
impl Timer {
|
2013-10-16 19:05:28 -05:00
|
|
|
/// Creates a new timer which can be used to put the current task to sleep
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
/// for a number of milliseconds, or to possibly create channels which will
|
|
|
|
/// get notified after an amount of time has passed.
|
2014-01-29 18:33:57 -06:00
|
|
|
pub fn new() -> IoResult<Timer> {
|
2013-12-12 19:30:41 -06:00
|
|
|
LocalIo::maybe_raise(|io| io.timer_init().map(|t| Timer { obj: t }))
|
2013-07-19 18:03:02 -05:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
/// Blocks the current task for `msecs` milliseconds.
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
/// Note that this function will cause any other ports for this timer to be
|
|
|
|
/// invalidated (the other end will be closed).
|
2013-08-20 11:53:02 -05:00
|
|
|
pub fn sleep(&mut self, msecs: u64) {
|
2013-10-02 20:52:03 -05:00
|
|
|
self.obj.sleep(msecs);
|
2013-07-19 18:03:02 -05:00
|
|
|
}
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Creates a oneshot port which will have a notification sent when `msecs`
|
|
|
|
/// milliseconds has elapsed. This does *not* block the current task, but
|
|
|
|
/// instead returns immediately.
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
/// Note that this invalidates any previous port which has been created by
|
|
|
|
/// this timer, and that the returned port will be invalidated once the
|
|
|
|
/// timer is destroyed (when it falls out of scope).
|
2013-12-05 20:19:06 -06:00
|
|
|
pub fn oneshot(&mut self, msecs: u64) -> Port<()> {
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
self.obj.oneshot(msecs)
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/// Creates a port which will have a continuous stream of notifications
|
|
|
|
/// being sent every `msecs` milliseconds. This does *not* block the
|
|
|
|
/// current task, but instead returns immediately. The first notification
|
|
|
|
/// will not be received immediately, but rather after `msec` milliseconds
|
|
|
|
/// have passed.
|
|
|
|
///
|
|
|
|
/// Note that this invalidates any previous port which has been created by
|
|
|
|
/// this timer, and that the returned port will be invalidated once the
|
|
|
|
/// timer is destroyed (when it falls out of scope).
|
|
|
|
pub fn periodic(&mut self, msecs: u64) -> Port<()> {
|
|
|
|
self.obj.period(msecs)
|
|
|
|
}
|
2013-07-19 18:03:02 -05:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#[cfg(test)]
|
|
|
|
mod test {
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
iotest!(fn test_io_timer_sleep_simple() {
|
2013-12-12 19:20:58 -06:00
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
timer.sleep(1);
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
})
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
iotest!(fn test_io_timer_sleep_oneshot() {
|
2013-12-12 19:20:58 -06:00
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
timer.oneshot(1).recv();
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
})
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
iotest!(fn test_io_timer_sleep_oneshot_forget() {
|
2013-12-12 19:20:58 -06:00
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
timer.oneshot(100000000000);
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
})
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
iotest!(fn oneshot_twice() {
|
2013-12-12 19:20:58 -06:00
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
let port1 = timer.oneshot(10000);
|
|
|
|
let port = timer.oneshot(1);
|
|
|
|
port.recv();
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
assert_eq!(port1.recv_opt(), None);
|
|
|
|
})
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
iotest!(fn test_io_timer_oneshot_then_sleep() {
|
2013-12-12 19:20:58 -06:00
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
let port = timer.oneshot(100000000000);
|
|
|
|
timer.sleep(1); // this should invalidate the port
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
assert_eq!(port.recv_opt(), None);
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn test_io_timer_sleep_periodic() {
|
2013-12-12 19:20:58 -06:00
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
let port = timer.periodic(1);
|
|
|
|
port.recv();
|
|
|
|
port.recv();
|
|
|
|
port.recv();
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
})
|
2013-10-25 23:55:10 -05:00
|
|
|
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
iotest!(fn test_io_timer_sleep_periodic_forget() {
|
2013-12-12 19:20:58 -06:00
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
timer.periodic(100000000000);
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
})
|
2013-09-14 09:00:13 -05:00
|
|
|
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
iotest!(fn test_io_timer_sleep_standalone() {
|
2013-12-12 19:20:58 -06:00
|
|
|
sleep(1)
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn oneshot() {
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let port = timer.oneshot(1);
|
|
|
|
port.recv();
|
|
|
|
assert!(port.recv_opt().is_none());
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let port = timer.oneshot(1);
|
|
|
|
port.recv();
|
|
|
|
assert!(port.recv_opt().is_none());
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn override() {
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
let oport = timer.oneshot(100);
|
|
|
|
let pport = timer.periodic(100);
|
|
|
|
timer.sleep(1);
|
|
|
|
assert_eq!(oport.recv_opt(), None);
|
|
|
|
assert_eq!(pport.recv_opt(), None);
|
|
|
|
timer.oneshot(1).recv();
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn period() {
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
let port = timer.periodic(1);
|
|
|
|
port.recv();
|
|
|
|
port.recv();
|
|
|
|
let port2 = timer.periodic(1);
|
|
|
|
port2.recv();
|
|
|
|
port2.recv();
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn sleep() {
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
timer.sleep(1);
|
|
|
|
timer.sleep(1);
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn oneshot_fail() {
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
let _port = timer.oneshot(1);
|
|
|
|
fail!();
|
|
|
|
} #[should_fail])
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn period_fail() {
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
let _port = timer.periodic(1);
|
|
|
|
fail!();
|
|
|
|
} #[should_fail])
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn normal_fail() {
|
|
|
|
let _timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
fail!();
|
|
|
|
} #[should_fail])
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn closing_channel_during_drop_doesnt_kill_everything() {
|
|
|
|
// see issue #10375
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
let timer_port = timer.periodic(1000);
|
|
|
|
|
2014-01-26 21:42:26 -06:00
|
|
|
spawn(proc() {
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
timer_port.recv_opt();
|
2014-01-26 21:42:26 -06:00
|
|
|
});
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// when we drop the TimerWatcher we're going to destroy the channel,
|
|
|
|
// which must wake up the task on the other end
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn reset_doesnt_switch_tasks() {
|
|
|
|
// similar test to the one above.
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
let timer_port = timer.periodic(1000);
|
|
|
|
|
2014-01-26 21:42:26 -06:00
|
|
|
spawn(proc() {
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
timer_port.recv_opt();
|
2014-01-26 21:42:26 -06:00
|
|
|
});
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timer.oneshot(1);
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn reset_doesnt_switch_tasks2() {
|
|
|
|
// similar test to the one above.
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
let timer_port = timer.periodic(1000);
|
|
|
|
|
2014-01-26 21:42:26 -06:00
|
|
|
spawn(proc() {
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
timer_port.recv_opt();
|
2014-01-26 21:42:26 -06:00
|
|
|
});
|
Implement native timers
Native timers are a much hairier thing to deal with than green timers due to the
interface that we would like to expose (both a blocking sleep() and a
channel-based interface). I ended up implementing timers in three different ways
for the various platforms that we supports.
In all three of the implementations, there is a worker thread which does send()s
on channels for timers. This worker thread is initialized once and then
communicated to in a platform-specific manner, but there's always a shared
channel available for sending messages to the worker thread.
* Windows - I decided to use windows kernel timer objects via
CreateWaitableTimer and SetWaitableTimer in order to provide sleeping
capabilities. The worker thread blocks via WaitForMultipleObjects where one of
the objects is an event that is used to wake up the helper thread (which then
drains the incoming message channel for requests).
* Linux/(Android?) - These have the ideal interface for implementing timers,
timerfd_create. Each timer corresponds to a timerfd, and the helper thread
uses epoll to wait for all active timers and then send() for the next one that
wakes up. The tricky part in this implementation is updating a timerfd, but
see the implementation for the fun details
* OSX/FreeBSD - These obviously don't have the windows APIs, and sadly don't
have the timerfd api available to them, so I have thrown together a solution
which uses select() plus a timeout in order to ad-hoc-ly implement a timer
solution for threads. The implementation is backed by a sorted array of timers
which need to fire. As I said, this is an ad-hoc solution which is certainly
not accurate timing-wise. I have done this implementation due to the lack of
other primitives to provide an implementation, and I've done it the best that
I could, but I'm sure that there's room for improvement.
I'm pretty happy with how these implementations turned out. In theory we could
drop the timerfd implementation and have linux use the select() + timeout
implementation, but it's so inaccurate that I would much rather continue to use
timerfd rather than my ad-hoc select() implementation.
The only change that I would make to the API in general is to have a generic
sleep() method on an IoFactory which doesn't require allocating a Timer object.
For everything but windows it's super-cheap to request a blocking sleep for a
set amount of time, and it's probably worth it to provide a sleep() which
doesn't do something like allocate a file descriptor on linux.
2013-12-29 01:33:56 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timer.sleep(1);
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn sender_goes_away_oneshot() {
|
|
|
|
let port = {
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
timer.oneshot(1000)
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
assert_eq!(port.recv_opt(), None);
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn sender_goes_away_period() {
|
|
|
|
let port = {
|
|
|
|
let mut timer = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
timer.periodic(1000)
|
|
|
|
};
|
|
|
|
assert_eq!(port.recv_opt(), None);
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn receiver_goes_away_oneshot() {
|
|
|
|
let mut timer1 = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
timer1.oneshot(1);
|
|
|
|
let mut timer2 = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
// while sleeping, the prevous timer should fire and not have its
|
|
|
|
// callback do something terrible.
|
|
|
|
timer2.sleep(2);
|
|
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iotest!(fn receiver_goes_away_period() {
|
|
|
|
let mut timer1 = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
timer1.periodic(1);
|
|
|
|
let mut timer2 = Timer::new().unwrap();
|
|
|
|
// while sleeping, the prevous timer should fire and not have its
|
|
|
|
// callback do something terrible.
|
|
|
|
timer2.sleep(2);
|
|
|
|
})
|
2013-08-08 20:58:18 -05:00
|
|
|
}
|