简体   繁体   English

Thread.Sleep的精确替代

[英]Precise alternative to Thread.Sleep

I have a method Limit() which counts a bandwidth passed thought some channel in certain time and limits by using Thread.Sleep() it (if bandwidth limit is reached). 我有一个方法Limit(),它计算在一定时间内通过某个通道通过的带宽,并通过使用Thread.Sleep()来限制它(如果达到带宽限制)。 Method itself produces proper ( in my opinion results ) but Thread.Sleep doesn't ( due to multithreaded CPU usage ) because i have proper "millisecondsToWait" but speed check afterwards is far from limitation i've passed. 方法本身会产生适当的(我认为结果),但是Thread.Sleep不会(由于多线程CPU使用情况)没有产生,因为我有适当的“ millisecondsToWait”,但是之后的速度检查远未达到我的限制。

Is there a way to make limitation more precise ? 有没有办法使限制更加精确?

Limiter Class 限幅器类

    private readonly int m_maxSpeedInKbps;
    public Limiter(int maxSpeedInKbps)
    {
        m_maxSpeedInKbps = maxSpeedInKbps;
    }

    public int Limit(DateTime startOfCycleDateTime, long writtenInBytes)
    {
        if (m_maxSpeedInKbps > 0)
        {
            double totalMilliseconds = DateTime.Now.Subtract(startOfCycleDateTime).TotalMilliseconds;
            int currentSpeedInKbps = (int)((writtenInBytes / totalMilliseconds));
            if (currentSpeedInKbps - m_maxSpeedInKbps > 0)
            {
                double delta = (double)currentSpeedInKbps / m_maxSpeedInKbps;
                int millisecondsToWait = (int)((totalMilliseconds * delta) - totalMilliseconds);
                if (millisecondsToWait > 0)
                {
                    Thread.Sleep(millisecondsToWait);
                    return millisecondsToWait;
                }
            }
        }

        return 0;
    }

Test Class which always fails in large delta 测试类总是在大三角洲中失败

[TestMethod]
public void ATest()
{
    List<File> files = new List<File>();
    for (int i = 0; i < 1; i++)
    {
        files.Add(new File(i + 1, 100));
    }

    const int maxSpeedInKbps = 1024; // 1MBps
    Limiter limiter = new Limiter(maxSpeedInKbps);

    DateTime startDateTime = DateTime.Now;
    Parallel.ForEach(files, new ParallelOptions {MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 5}, file =>
    {
        DateTime currentFileStartTime = DateTime.Now;
        Thread.Sleep(5);
        limiter.Limit(currentFileStartTime, file.Blocks * Block.Size);
    });

    long roundOfWriteInKB = (files.Sum(i => i.Blocks.Count) * Block.Size) / 1024;
    int currentSpeedInKbps = (int) (roundOfWriteInKB/DateTime.Now.Subtract(startDateTime).TotalMilliseconds*1000);

    Assert.AreEqual(maxSpeedInKbps, currentSpeedInKbps, string.Format("maxSpeedInKbps {0} currentSpeedInKbps {1}", maxSpeedInKbps, currentSpeedInKbps));
} 

I used to use Thread.Sleep a lot until I discovered waithandles . 在发现waithandles之前,我经常使用Thread.Sleep Using waithandles you can suspend threads, which will come alive again when the waithandle is triggered from elsewhere, or when a time threshold is reached. 使用等待句柄可以暂停线程,当从其他地方触发等待句柄或达到时间阈值时,线程将再次生效。 Perhaps it's possible to re-engineer your limit methodology to use waithandles in some way, because in a lot of situations they are indeed much more precise than Thread.Sleep ? 也许可以重新设计您的限制方法以某种方式使用等待句柄,因为在很多情况下,它们确实比Thread.Sleep更精确?

You can do it fairly accurately using a busy wait, but I wouldn't recommend it. 您可以使用繁忙的等待来相当准确地完成此操作,但我不建议这样做。 You should use one of the multimedia timers to wait instead. 您应该使用多媒体定时器之一来代替。

However, this method will wait fairly accurately: 但是,此方法将相当准确地等待:

void accurateWait(int millisecs)
{
    var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

    if (millisecs >= 100)
        Thread.Sleep(millisecs - 50);

    while (sw.ElapsedMilliseconds < millisecs)
        ;
}

But it is a busy wait and will consume CPU cycles terribly. 但这是一个繁忙的等待 ,将严重消耗CPU周期。 Also it could be affected by garbage collections or task rescheduling. 同样,它可能会受到垃圾回收或任务重新安排的影响。

Here's the test program: 这是测试程序:

using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;

namespace Demo
{
    class Program
    {
        void run()
        {
            for (int i = 1; i < 10; ++i)
                test(i);

            for (int i = 10; i < 100; i += 5)
                test(i);

            for (int i = 100; i < 200; i += 10)
                test(i);

            for (int i = 200; i < 500; i += 20)
                test(i);
        }

        void test(int millisecs)
        {
            var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
            accurateWait(millisecs);
            Console.WriteLine("Requested wait = " + millisecs + ", actual wait = " + sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
        }

        void accurateWait(int millisecs)
        {
            var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();

            if (millisecs >= 100)
                Thread.Sleep(millisecs - 50);

            while (sw.ElapsedMilliseconds < millisecs)
                ;
        }

        static void Main()
        {
            new Program().run();
        }
    }
}

声明:本站的技术帖子网页,遵循CC BY-SA 4.0协议,如果您需要转载,请注明本站网址或者原文地址。任何问题请咨询:yoyou2525@163.com.

 
粤ICP备18138465号  © 2020-2024 STACKOOM.COM