Slashdot Mirror
Why Isn't X11 Thread-Safe?
blackcoot asks: "I've just spent a couple very frustrating days trying to figure out what 'unexpected async reply' means and fixing it. The problem is a result of the fact that X11 simply isn't designed to handle events from more than one thread at a time. Why? Given that more and more often, people are writing multi-threaded GUI applications, are there fundamental design decisions in X11 that make dealing with receiving events from multiple threads simultaneously, impossible? Or was the protocol never designed to handle concurrent updates? More to the point, is there an easy way in Qt (short of deriving a new widget for every widget and overriding it's paintEvent to lock the library first, paint, then unlock as Trolltech's docs seem to suggest) to make this problem go away?" I'm not sure if things have been done in recent revisions of XFree to fix this problem, but this message, from February of last year, might help some of you out that are suffering from this problem. Any ideas if this problem has been fixed in recent versions of XFree?
Hello,
Pursuant to the universal Slashdot Act of First Postage, it is hereby posted that this post, article number referenced above, is a declaration for first post in the following circumstances:
1. This post claims first post in this article, persuant to the limitations outlined in 3(a).
2. This post declares under Slashdot Bylaw TROLL 13.22 that this first post shall be unique, and all other posts of similar nature shall be moderated as accorded by Slashdot Bylaw TROLL 13.22b
3a. According to the Slashdot Bylaws, this post recognizes that other posts have been made to this article.
3b. According to the Slashdot Bylaws, the current reader agrees to accept this post as the rightful first post.
threads are stupid except for computational work.
GUIs are naturally event driven, there is no reason to use threads at all. just use an event loop.
What I do is create a GUI thread which handles all interface to the GUI. All of my other threads then fire their events to that thread through an interface that IS threadsafe. The GUI thread then synchronously handles the GUI events. This abstraction away from your actual GUI API allows you to more easily port your app to another platform because all of your X11 specific code is contained in one place.
Like democracy, X is an absolutely terrible system, clearly the worst choice, except for every other choice we have so far.
Hey, there are projects out there that would like to replace X, so there's hope.. In the meantime, there are a number of areas where X is a better choice than the primary `alternatives' (Windows and Mac OS; distinct from OS, network-capable, configurable/modular, source available).
This is the same approach taken by Swing ("lightweight" layer on top of Java AWT). Events fired by a GUI object are run in a GUI thread. For side effects from a non-GUI object, a convenience class is provide to push events into the GUI thread. Basically to make a GUI call from a non-GUI thread you throw a work request onto a queue which the Swing thread processes at an appropriate time. -- Jack
Queue all window/asyncyronous events and have one thread processing them all.
Stupid widnows VB/vc++ programs would have to send themselves a queue-able event for any interrupt driven things so that it would not mess up any currently executing GUI related events.
Making xlib reentrant, and taking the associated performance hit, would be simply silly. Why should, say, snes9x, run slower because you want reentrant capabilities? A tiny percentage of apps have a multithreaded GUI -- you said that you were using Qt. Fine -- I could see support in Qt, but putting in Xlib would be a Bad Thing for the 99% of people out there that *don't* require multithreaded access to the GUI.
Secondly, threading a GUI program is a Bad Idea -- there's lots of interaction between threads in a GUI, and locking could turn into a nightmare. All you do in a GUI is usually check a value, paint something, and you have to lock all the values that might be shared.
Thirdly, it doesn't make sense for an event-based GUI. You have a thread that handles incoming events, maybe starts a *non-GUI* thread if you're really wedded to the idea of threading, and then gets the hell back to waiting for another event pronto so that you don't have a lot of latency on user input. Here's an example, an instance that might seem *on the surface* like a good place to do threading if X were reentrant. You have a GUI ftp program. One thread handles events, and each thread would download data and update the progress bar by repainting it. Bad idea. Now if I require a redraw, I have to sit around and wait for more data to come in. What I *really* want to have happen is have a counter for how far the progress bar is. When I require an update (periodically, and when a redraw is required), the GUI thread does it, checking the progress distance value. The non-GUI thread doing the transfer would set that value (in addition to a "dirty" flag) so that I get updates once a second or so, not 400 times a second if lots of little chunks of data are coming in. The GUI is simply a separate task from non-GUI tasks.
May we never see th
Why do you think X sucks?
It is a very impressive protocol - just consider how long it has been around, and you can do just about anything without breaking it.
How many other protocols are there that can boast that?
What can't X do?
Xlib was made thread safe in the X11R6 release in 1994, but only if you initialize the locks it needs to do it properly via XInitThreads.
Xlib is thread safe but X11 is not. If your application has multiple threads then they must compete for the "display lock" with XLockDisplay and XUnlockDisplay. In other words, Xlib is used to solve the thread unsafety of X11. It's a library space (Xlib) solution to a protocol (X11) limitation.
So while you are right - Xlib is thread safe - you weren't answering the original question which is Why Isn't X11 Thread Safe? The answer is that it's not possible. He might as well ask why HTTP isn't thread safe, or why SMTP isn't thread safe. Imagine muxing two HTTP requests into a single request! It'd look like this:
It's not an issue for the protocol to solve. This is why it's a non-problem. The questioner is simply confused. You don't make a protocol thread safe. You make the library calls to the protocol thread safe, and as you point out this has been solved with XFree86 for almost a decade.
I think the only people who have a problem with X are the people who have only experienced it on XFree/Linux.
If you link against libqt-mt, you can post events outside of the main event thread. You still shouldn't call methods directly on QtWidgets. But the link should answer all of your questions and solve your problem.
http://doc.trolltech.com/3.0/threads.html
> It needs to be taken out the back and shot
Let us know when your competing system is ready for us to test.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'm going to explain myself more clearly because it's obvious from reading this thread that there is a LOT of confusion out there.
X11 is a protocol. Xlib is a C library that provides an API to the protocol. It is important to understand this distinction. Applications and toolkits do not have to use Xlib - they could generate X11 protocol streams directly, or they could use an Xlib replacement - but as there's nothing really wrong with Xlib nearly everybody uses it.
X11 is by design a client-server protocol. The client opens up a socket (UNIX socket, TCP/IP socket, etc) to the server. The client then sends multi-byte "messages" down the socket to tell the server to do stuff. For example, there is a message to draw a line. Each message has a few bytes to identify the command, then a bunch more bytes describing parameters to the command. The "line" message has one parameter describing which Window to draw to, one paramter for the Graphics Context (colour, line style, etc), and several parameters for the X,Y coordinates of the line.
Now imagine a threaded X11 client. Also imagine for the sake of argument that the client is generating X11 messages directly or is using a non-thread-safe Xlib. The client pseudo-code looks something like this:
Now remember that X11 is a protocol - a byte stream - so what is actually happening is that each thread is generating a sequence of bytes. The bytes look something like this:
Because these byte streams are both being fed down the same socket, and because the application is not thread safe, the resulting stream looks like this:
It's an absolute mess! The X server gets very confused - it thinks the client has gone haywire - and so nothing works. There are only two solutions to this problem.
#1 is make all messages ATOMIC. This is simply impossible for sockets. You can make it work by getting rid of sockets and forcing all X11 clients to use a messaging IPC - and this IPC might even use sockets at the lowest layer - but it's impossible to retrofit it to sockets. The messaging approach has been used by Berlin, GDI, and a bunch of other windowing systems.
#2 is to force all multi-threaded X11 clients to impose their own locking. Each thread shares a lock for the protocol stream. Threads cannot proceed until they have gained the lock and for efficiency they should release the lock as quickly as possible. This is the approach that X11R5 (and X11R6) have used. Each thread uses XLockDisplay and XUnlockDisplay which are two new calls provided by Xlib. The change to the pseudo-code from before is trivial.
With this simple change in place your multi-threaded X11 client is now perfectly compatible with all X11 servers. The combined protocol stream is not confusing: the ARC and LINE messages are sequential rather than munged together.
Now the reason I think there is confusion here is that people are asking "Why Can't X11 be Multi Threaded?". The question is nonsensical. Socket protocols are not threadable. It's impossible to do this. It is very helpful here to understand that X11 is a LOT like other client-server protocols such as HTTP. In fact the analogies with HTTP are strong. HTTP has a client called the "web browser". HTTP has a server such as "Apache". The client opens a TCP/IP socket to the server. Messages begin with the multi-byte string GET /page HTTP/1.0. Optional bytes can follow describing additional HTTP functionality. The only real difference to HTTP is that X11 is PERSISTENT and has SERVER SIDE STATE. There are also minor differences such as the protocol is binary instead of text.
Now you can have a multi-threaded web browser, and you can also have a multi-threaded X11 client. You can have a multi-threaded web server, and you can also have a multi-threaded X11 server. But you can't have a multi-threaded HTTP protocol stream. Similarly you can't have a multi-threaded X11 protocol stream. It doesn't make any sense to even ask for this. As I showed before, it would be like a web browser requiring two URLs from a single server, but generating an HTTP "request" that looked like this.
The solution is to serialise the HTTP commands in the web browser. The way to do this is with a serialisation library with locking. This is the same approach used by X11 with Xlib, provided by the XLockDisplay and XUnlockDisplay primitives.
You can reasonably argue that X11 wouldn't have this problem if it was a messaging protocol instead of a multi-byte stream protocol. That's the design decision that was made for X11, and I personally think it's a non-issue. There are other issues with the X11 protocol - it's quite heavy, many of the messages are limited or outdated, and some of the server-side state is useless - but the fact that is a BYTE STREAM protocol instead of a MESSAGING protocol is I think a non-argument. People seem to focus very heavily on it as the "reason that X11 sucks" but I think these people simply haven't investigated how the alternatives work. Eventually everything becomes a byte stream: it's just a design decision as to how early you make the conversion.
i'm working on a real time computer vision system. capture runs in its own thread, firing off imageArrived events which end up being executed in the capture thread (a subtlety of qt that i was unaware of). this imageArrived event gets plugged into whichever listeners are interested, the idea being to allow multiple paths of processing the same image. i attempted to do this using timers, having capture events posted peridiodically and then occasionally refreshing. this was very unsatisfactory for two reasons: 1) it looks awefully slow even though i know that it's running very quickly underneath and 2) (more importantly) this method will only ever use a single processor. as i expand to do more interesting processing, i'm going to be forced to use multithreading because a single processor will not be able to do it all in the allotted amount of time, however, multiple processors could because of how much of these processes are easily parallelizable. for a rough guestimate of how much processing is involved, there are four classifiers per pixel (three based on chrominance or one based on luminance and two based chrominance plus a classifier that combines the output of the three other classifiers), 640x480 pixels 30 frames per second for a grand total of 37 odd million classifications per second. add to this the possibility of yuv to rgb conversion, and contraction/expansion filtering to clean up noise and you can quickly see how the time adds up. this is before i even begin to do anything useful with the images --- this is just removing the boring pixels. so far, this is all integer arithmetic on arrays that are "cache friendly" in their layout. the really cpu intensive stuff comes later (this is all preprocessing in terms of my application)... updating classifier's background models, extending classification to foreground, background, and things that have been merged into the background (i.e. have stayed still long enough, either items removed from the scene, added to the scene or moved within the scene).
for those who were wondering, i did figure it out with a number of critical sections synchronized indirectly on xlib's mutex. performance is actually better threaded than with earlier single threaded prototypes (mostly because i am now able to start processing an image while i start getting the next one). looking back, i realize that most of my frustration is the result of the vast majority of my gui programming experience being done on windows in applications that were fundamentally stupid to thread. as the message that cliff pointed out notes, this particular quirk of x is not very well documented and has the potential to be very counter intuitive to people doing this for the first time.
anyways, thanks a lot for the help. for those who are curious, my goal is to release the source for the framework and sample application within a month.
A multithreaded program may simply open several connections to the X server, and operate independent UIs. One thread might operate a display window, while another operates a dialog box or progress bar. As far as X is concerned, it's talking to different programs.
Don't go looking for complicated solutions when simple ones are right at hand.
..What can't X do... Be combined with two other X servers, and become XXX and entertain me for hours..... Oh, you ment seriously... 4.3 seems to fix the command complaints... (Switching resolutions, if I'm not mistaken...)
You are a pedant or an idiot or both.
Mine's been ready for a while. My project's page is here
Take care,
Bill
Go look at KParts - KDE embedding. One window, one application, as far as the user is concerned, but subwindows are controlled possibly by different processes on different machines.
How do you think window managers work? The X server doesn't know from window managers - the way you prevent multiple window managers is by checking for atoms on the root window. Remember, conceptually any client of a server can do something with any window - you just need a way to get the window ID.
Wrong. The X server already handles multiple simultaneous connections. Whether the X client does or not is the client's choice. Lots of clients for other systems handle multiple connections (your web browser, for one). Um, add the hedge for some applications and I'll agree with you. Otherwise you're wedged in a one-track design mind. You're making your problem fit your design, rather than your design fit your problem. There's any number of interactive applications that make lots of logical sense to be multi-threaded. Take your typical movie player with its nifty visual feedback. One thread for putting the frames up. One thread to respond to user actions.The richer your interaction, the more application semantics are involved, the more likely that arbitrarily splitting the app in half along an arbitrary "UI/App" line is just not going to work. MVC has a similar problem. They're both cookie-cutter designs that pretend that every interactive app is structured the same way at the top level.
Go read papers on the "eXene" system in the programming language "ML". A pervasively multi-threaded X client library. One widget - one thread. It makes the widget code very easy to understand - you don't have to split your code into a bazillion little callbacks. You don't have to arbitrarily time-slice things that are conceptually continuous. Things like while (buttonIsDown) followTheMouse() work just fine. Ever have to break up a callback into multiple functions, triggered by timers, just so the app didn't appear to "freeze" while you were off doing something time-intensive? Multi-threading interaction can make the code much easier to maintain because you don't have to worry about "starving" parts of the application for events while busy working on others - the thread scheduler handles pre-emption for you.And eXene isn't some hot new thing. It dates from the early 90's.
Go back even earlier and find some of James "Java" Gosling's earliest work - NeWS. NeWS clients wrote multi-threaded PostScript to draw on the display.
Events, timer callbacks and the like are all just ways of simulating something continuous with discrete code - go look at TBAG from Sun and then the follow-on Fran from Microsoft Research. Forcing discretizations of continuous phenomena into an arbitrary serialization is just a way to kludge around a poor understanding of parallel activity.
It isn't the app - it's the libraries the app is trying to use. They're a poor fit to the abstraction blackcoot would like to use.-----
Klactovedestene!
You are ignorant and a dickhead which is why you have no friends.
You can receive events from different threads. In the other threads, open a new display using XOpenDisplay(). You can then use use XSendEvent() to send an event to the window you want. Window IDs are share between all X clients.
-- 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Sc3 de4: 4.Se4: Sd7 5.Sg5 Sgf6 6.Ld3 e6 7.S1f3 h6 8.Se6:
Thanks for the education.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Hmmm, a framebuffer with network access crufted in on top? It'll never fly...
haha windows has been thread-safe since NT 4 :P to all you linux programmers.
a big
Hey, everybody! Black Parrot is a liar! He claimed that "Microsoft destroyed my company," but when challenged, he refused to post any facts to back that statement up. See this thread for all the gory details. Black Parrot is an anti-Microsoft zealot and a liar! Whenever he posts an unsubstantiated assertion, tell him to "post or retract" and watch the backpedaling begin! Don't let anything he says go unchallenged!
This message was brought to you by Trolls Aligned Against People Who Are Really Stupid (TAAPWARS).
Nobody spoil the punchline. I haven't heard this one yet.
Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. Pick any two.
Because it's a bloated piece of shit that should have been put out of its fucking misery years ago?
Just wonderin'.
A multithreaded program may simply open several connections to the X server
Unless your X server severely limits the number of connections available to it, to force you to pay for X advanced server or X datacenter server. I've been told that programs such as X servers running on Microsoft Windows operating systems are subject to a limitation on the total number of incoming TCP connections.
Will I retire or break 10K?