Ios – Difference between dispatch_async and dispatch_sync on serial queue

grand-central-dispatchiosmultithreading

I've created a serial queue like this:

    dispatch_queue_t _serialQueue = dispatch_queue_create("com.example.name", DISPATCH_QUEUE_SERIAL);

What's the difference between dispatch_async called like this

 dispatch_async(_serialQueue, ^{ /* TASK 1 */ });
 dispatch_async(_serialQueue, ^{ /* TASK 2 */ });

And dispatch_sync called like this on this serial queue?

 dispatch_sync(_serialQueue, ^{ /* TASK 1 */ });
 dispatch_sync(_serialQueue, ^{ /* TASK 2 */ });

My understanding is that, regardless of which dispatch method is used, TASK 1 will be executed and completed before TASK 2, correct?

Best Answer

Yes. Using serial queue ensure the serial execution of tasks. The only difference is that dispatch_sync only return after the block is finished whereas dispatch_async return after it is added to the queue and may not finished.

for this code

dispatch_async(_serialQueue, ^{ printf("1"); });
printf("2");
dispatch_async(_serialQueue, ^{ printf("3"); });
printf("4");

It may print 2413 or 2143 or 1234 but 1 always before 3

for this code

dispatch_sync(_serialQueue, ^{ printf("1"); });
printf("2");
dispatch_sync(_serialQueue, ^{ printf("3"); });
printf("4");

it always print 1234

Note: For first code, it won't print 1324. Because printf("3") is dispatched after printf("2") is executed. And a task can only be executed after it is dispatched.

The execution time of the tasks doesn't change anything. This code always print 12

dispatch_async(_serialQueue, ^{ sleep(1000);printf("1"); });
dispatch_async(_serialQueue, ^{ printf("2"); });

What may happened is

Thread 1: dispatch_async a time consuming task (task 1) to serial queue
Thread 2: start executing task 1
Thread 1: dispatch_async another task (task 2) to serial queue
Thread 2: task 1 finished. start executing task 2
Thread 2: task 2 finished.

and you always see 12

Related Solutions

The difference between a process and a thread

Both processes and threads are independent sequences of execution. The typical difference is that threads (of the same process) run in a shared memory space, while processes run in separate memory spaces.

I'm not sure what "hardware" vs "software" threads you might be referring to. Threads are an operating environment feature, rather than a CPU feature (though the CPU typically has operations that make threads efficient).

Erlang uses the term "process" because it does not expose a shared-memory multiprogramming model. Calling them "threads" would imply that they have shared memory.

Ios – What’s the difference between the atomic and nonatomic attributes

The last two are identical; "atomic" is the default behavior (~~note that it is not actually a keyword; it is specified only by the absence of nonatomic~~ -- atomic was added as a keyword in recent versions of llvm/clang).

Assuming that you are @synthesizing the method implementations, atomic vs. non-atomic changes the generated code. If you are writing your own setter/getters, atomic/nonatomic/retain/assign/copy are merely advisory. (Note: @synthesize is now the default behavior in recent versions of LLVM. There is also no need to declare instance variables; they will be synthesized automatically, too, and will have an _ prepended to their name to prevent accidental direct access).

With "atomic", the synthesized setter/getter will ensure that a whole value is always returned from the getter or set by the setter, regardless of setter activity on any other thread. That is, if thread A is in the middle of the getter while thread B calls the setter, an actual viable value -- an autoreleased object, most likely -- will be returned to the caller in A.

In nonatomic, no such guarantees are made. Thus, nonatomic is considerably faster than "atomic".

What "atomic" does not do is make any guarantees about thread safety. If thread A is calling the getter simultaneously with thread B and C calling the setter with different values, thread A may get any one of the three values returned -- the one prior to any setters being called or either of the values passed into the setters in B and C. Likewise, the object may end up with the value from B or C, no way to tell.

Ensuring data integrity -- one of the primary challenges of multi-threaded programming -- is achieved by other means.

Adding to this:

atomicity of a single property also cannot guarantee thread safety when multiple dependent properties are in play.

Consider:

 @property(atomic, copy) NSString *firstName;
 @property(atomic, copy) NSString *lastName;
 @property(readonly, atomic, copy) NSString *fullName;

In this case, thread A could be renaming the object by calling setFirstName: and then calling setLastName:. In the meantime, thread B may call fullName in between thread A's two calls and will receive the new first name coupled with the old last name.

To address this, you need a transactional model. I.e. some other kind of synchronization and/or exclusion that allows one to exclude access to fullName while the dependent properties are being updated.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

The difference between a process and a thread

Ios – What’s the difference between the atomic and nonatomic attributes

Related Topic