Search Results

Search found 908 results on 37 pages for 'optimistic concurrency'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 17/37 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • Controlling race condition at startup.

    - by Will Hartung
    I have some code that I want to have some one time initialisation performed. But this code doesn't have a definite lifecycle, so my logic can be potentially invoked by multiple threads before my initialisation is done. So, I want to basically ensure that my logic code "waits" until initialisation is done. This is my first cut. public class MyClass { private static final AtomicBoolean initialised = new AtomicBoolean(false); public void initialise() { synchronized(initialised) { initStuff(); initialised.getAndSet(true); initialised.notifyAll(); } } public void doStuff() { synchronized(initialised) { if (!initialised.get()) { try { initialised.wait(); } catch (InterruptedException ex) { throw new RuntimeException("Uh oh!", ex); } } } doOtherStuff(); } } I basically want to make sure this is going to do what I think it's going to do -- block doStuff until the initialised is true, and that I'm not missing a race condition where doStuff might get stuck on a Object.wait() that will never arrive. Edit: I have no control over the threads. And I want to be able to control when all of the initialisation is done, which is why doStuff() can't call initialise(). I used an AtomicBoolean as it was a combination of a value holder, and an object I could synchronize. I could have also simply had a "public static final Object lock = new Object();" and a simple boolean flag. AtomicBoolean conveniently gave me both. A Boolean can not be modified. The CountDownLatch is exactly what I was looking for. I also considered using a Sempahore with 0 permits. But the CountDownLatch is perfect for just this task.

    Read the article

  • How to avoid concurrent execution of a time-consuming task without blocking?

    - by Diego V
    I want to efficiently avoid concurrent execution of a time-consuming task in a heavily multi-threaded environment without making threads wait for a lock when another thread is already running the task. Instead, in that scenario, I want them to gracefully fail (i.e. skip its attempt to execute the task) as fast as possible. To illustrate the idea considerer this unsafe (has race condition!) code: private static boolean running = false; public void launchExpensiveTask() { if (running) return; // Do nothing running = true; try { runExpensiveTask(); } finally { running = false; } } I though about using a variation of Double-Checked Locking (consider that running is a primitive 32-bit field, hence atomic, it could work fine even for Java below 5 without the need of volatile). It could look like this: private static boolean running = false; public void launchExpensiveTask() { if (running) return; // Do nothing synchronized (ThisClass.class) { if (running) return; running = true; try { runExpensiveTask(); } finally { running = false; } } } Maybe I should also use a local copy of the field as well (not sure now, please tell me). But then I realized that anyway I will end with an inner synchronization block, that still could hold a thread with the right timing at monitor entrance until the original executor leaves the critical section (I know the odds usually are minimal but in this case we are thinking in several threads competing for this long-running resource). So, could you think in a better approach?

    Read the article

  • ConcurentModificationException in Java HashMap

    - by Bear
    Suppose I have two methods in my classes, writeToMap() and processKey() and both methods are called by multiple threads. writeToMap is a method to write something in hashmap and processKey() is used to do sth based on the keySet of HashMap. Inside processKey, I first copy the originalMap before getting the key set. new HashMap<String, Map<String,String>(originalMap).get("xx").keySet(); But I am still getting ConcurrentModificationException even though I always copy the hashmap. Whats the problem?

    Read the article

  • Which parallel sorting algorithm has the best average case performance?

    - by Craig P. Motlin
    Sorting takes O(n log n) in the serial case. If we have O(n) processors we would hope for a linear speedup. O(log n) parallel algorithms exist but they have a very high constant. They also aren't applicable on commodity hardware which doesn't have anywhere near O(n) processors. With p processors, reasonable algorithms should take O(n/p log n/p) time. In the serial case, quick sort has the best runtime complexity on average. A parallel quick sort algorithm is easy to implement (see here and here). However it doesn't perform well since the very first step is to partition the whole collection on a single core. I have found information on many parallel sort algorithms but so far I have not seen anything pointing to a clear winner. I'm looking to sort lists of 1 million to 100 million elements in a JVM language running on 8 to 32 cores.

    Read the article

  • Keeping track of threads when creating them recursively

    - by 66replica
    I'm currently working on some code for my Programming Languages course. I can't post the code but I'm permitted to talk about some high level concepts that I'm struggling with and receive input on them. Basically the code is a recursive DFS on a undirected graph that I'm supposed to convert to a concurrent program. My professor already specified that I should create my threads in the recursive DFS method and then join them in another method. Basically, I'm having trouble thinking of how I should keep track of the threads I'm creating so I can join all of them in the other method. I'm thinking an array of Threads but I'm unsure how to add each new thread to the array or even if that's the right direction.

    Read the article

  • Semaphore - What is the use of initial count?

    - by Sandbox
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.semaphoreslim.aspx To create a semaphore, I need to provide an initial count and maximum count. MSDN states that an initial count is - The initial number of requests for the semaphore that can be granted concurrently. While it states that maximum count is The maximum number of requests for the semaphore that can be granted concurrently. I can understand that the maximum count is the maximum number of threads that can access a resource concurrently. But, what is the use of initial count? If I create a semaphore with an initial count of 0 and a maximum count of 2, none of my threadpool threads are able to access the resource. If I set the initial count as 1 and maximum count as 2 then only thread pool thread can access the resource. It is only when I set both initial count and maximum count as 2, 2 threads are able to access the resource concurrently. So, I am really confused about the significance of initial count? SemaphoreSlim semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(0, 2); //all threadpool threads wait SemaphoreSlim semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 2);//only one thread has access to the resource at a time SemaphoreSlim semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(2, 2);//two threadpool threads can access the resource concurrently

    Read the article

  • Does OpenCL allow concurrent writes to same memory address?

    - by Wonko
    Is two (or more) different threads allowed to write to the same memory location in global space in OpenCL? The write is always changing a uchar from 0 to 1 so the outcome should be predictable, but I'm getting erratic results in my program, so I'm wondering if the reason can be that some of the writes fail. Could it help to declare the buffer write-only and copy it to a read-only buffer afterwards?

    Read the article

  • How to debug ConcurrentModificationException?

    - by Dani
    I encountered ConcurrentModificationException and by looking at it I can't see the reason why it's happening; the area throwing the exception and all the places modifying the collection are surrounded by synchronized (this.locks.get(id)) { ... } // locks is a HashMap<String, Object>; I tried to catch the the pesky thread but all I could nail (by setting a breakpoint in the exception) is that the throwing thread owns the monitor while the other thread (there are two threads in the program) sleeps. How should I proceed? What do you usually do when you encounter similar threading issues?

    Read the article

  • Tomcat thread waiting on and locking the same resource

    - by Adam Matan
    Consider the following Java\Tomcat thread dump: "http-0.0.0.0-4080-4" daemon prio=10 tid=0x0000000019a2b000 nid=0x360e in Object.wait() [0x0000000040b71000] java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (on object monitor) at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method) - waiting on <0x00002ab5565fe358> (a org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker) at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:485) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker.await(JIoEndpoint.java:458) - locked <0x00002ab5565fe358> (a org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker.run(JIoEndpoint.java:484) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662) Is this a deadlock? It seems that the same resource (0x00002ab5565fe358) is both locked and waited on - what does it mean?

    Read the article

  • strange bug - how to pause a java program?

    - by TerraNova993
    I'm trying to: display a text in a jLabel, wait for two seconds, then write a new text in the jLabel this should be simple, but I get a strange bug: the first text is never written, the application just waits for 2 seconds and then displays the final text. here is the example code: private void testButtonActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt) { displayLabel.setText("Clicked!"); // first method with System timer /* long t0= System.currentTimeMillis(); long t1= System.currentTimeMillis(); do{ t1 = System.currentTimeMillis(); } while ((t1 - t0) < (2000)); */ // second method with thread.sleep() try { Thread.currentThread().sleep(2000); } catch (InterruptedException e) {} displayLabel.setText("STOP"); } with this code, the text "Clicked!" is never displayed. I just get a 2 seconds - pause and then the "STOP" text. I tried to use System timer with a loop, or Thread.sleep(), but both methods give the same result.

    Read the article

  • concurrent doubly-linked list (1 writer, n-readers)

    - by Arne
    Hi guys, I am back in the field of programming for my Diploma-thesis now and stumbled over the following issue: I need to implement a thread-safe doubly-linked list for one thread writing the list at any position (delete, insert, mutate node data) and one to many threads traversing and reading the list. I am well aware that mutexes can be used to serialize access to the list, still I presume that a naive lock around any write operation will be less than optimal. I am wondering whether there are better variants. (I am well aware that 'optimal' has not much of a practical meaning as long as no exact measure/profiling are available but this is an academic thesis after all..) I am very gratefull for code-samples as well as references to academic granted these have at least a tiny bit of practical relevance. Thanks at lot

    Read the article

  • What happens when I MPI_Send to a process that has finished?

    - by nieldw
    What happens when I MPI_Send to a process that has finished? I am learning MPI, and writing a small sugar distribution-simulation in C. When the factories stop producing, those processes end. When warehouses run empty, they end. Can I somehow tell if the shop's order to a warehouse did not succeed(because the warehouse process has ended) by looking at the return value of MPI_Send? The documentation doesn't mention a specific error code for this situation, but that no error is returned for success. Can I do: if (MPI_Send(...)) { ... /* destination has ended */ ... } And disregard the error code? Thanks

    Read the article

  • C++: is it safe to read an integer variable that's being concurrently modified without locking?

    - by Hongli
    Suppose that I have an integer variable in a class, and this variable may be concurrently modified by other threads. Writes are protected by a mutex. Do I need to protect reads too? I've heard that there are some hardware architectures on which, if one thread modifies a variable, and another thread reads it, then the read result will be garbage; in this case I do need to protect reads. I've never seen such architectures though. This question assumes that a single transaction only consists of updating a single integer variable so I'm not worried about the states of any other variables that might also be involved in a transaction.

    Read the article

  • Waiting for a subset of threads in a Java ThreadPool

    - by David Semeria
    Let's say I have a thread pool containing X items, and a given task employs Y of these items (where Y is much smaller than X). I want to wait for all of the threads of a given task (Y items) to finish, not the entire thread pool. If the thread pool's execute() method returned a reference to the employed thread I could simply join() to each of these Y threads, but it doesn't. Does anyone know of an elegant way to accomplish this? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Limiting object allocation over multiple threads

    - by John
    I have an application which retrieves and caches the results of a clients query. The client then requests different chunks of data and the application sends the relevant results and removes them from the cache. A new requirement for this application is that there needs to be a run-time configurable maximum number of results which may be cached. I've taken the naive approach and implemented this by using a counter under a lock which is incremented every time a result is cached and decremented whenever a result is removed from the cache. Unfortunately, this has drastically reduced the applications performance when processing a large number of concurrent requests. I have tried both a critical section lock and spin-lock; the performance improves a bit with a spin-lock, but is still unacceptably slow. Is there a better way to solve this problem which may improve performance? Right now I have a thread pool that services requests and each request is tied to a Request object which stores that cached results for that particular request. Here is a simplified pseudo code version of my current implementation: void ResultCallback( Result result, Request *request ) { lock totalResultsCached lock cachedLimit if( totalResultsCached + 1 > cachedLimit ) { unlock cachedLimit unlock totalResultsCached //cancel the request return; } ++totalResultsCached; unlock cachedLimit unlock totalResultsCached request.add(result) } void SendResults( int resultsToSend, Request *request ) { while ( resultsToSend > 0 ) { send(request.remove()) lock totalResultsCached --totalResultsCached unlock totalResultsCached --resultsToSend; } }

    Read the article

  • Create table class as a singleton

    - by Mark
    I got a class that I use as a table. This class got an array of 16 row classes. These row classes all have 6 double variables. The values of these rows are set once and never change. Would it be a good practice to make this table a singleton? The advantage is that it cost less memory, but the table will be called from multiple threads so I have to synchronize my code which way cause a bit slower application. However lookups in this table are probably a very small portion of the total code that is executed. EDIT: This is my code, are there better ways to do this or is this a good practice? Removed synchronized keyword according to recommendations in this question. final class HalfTimeTable { private HalfTimeRow[] table = new HalfTimeRow[16]; private static final HalfTimeTable instance = new HalfTimeTable(); private HalfTimeTable() { if (instance != null) { throw new IllegalStateException("Already instantiated"); } table[0] = new HalfTimeRow(4.0, 1.2599, 0.5050, 1.5, 1.7435, 0.1911); table[1] = new HalfTimeRow(8.0, 1.0000, 0.6514, 3.0, 1.3838, 0.4295); //etc } @Override @Deprecated public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException { throw new CloneNotSupportedException(); } public static HalfTimeTable getInstance() { return instance; } public HalfTimeRow getRow(int rownumber) { return table[rownumber]; } }

    Read the article

  • LinkedBlockingQueue limit ignored?

    - by tgguy
    I created a Java LinkedBlockingQueue like new LinkedBlockingQueue(1) to limit the size of the queue to 1. However, in my testing, this seems to be ignored and there is often several things in the queue at any given time. Why is this?

    Read the article

  • is this class thread safe?

    - by flash
    consider this class,with no instance variables and only methods which are non-synchronous can we infer from this info that this class in Thread-safe? public class test{ public void test1{ // do something } public void test2{ // do something } public void test3{ // do something } }

    Read the article

  • How to address thread-safety of service data used for maintaining static local variables in C++?

    - by sharptooth
    Consider the following scenario. We have a C++ function with a static local variable: void function() { static int variable = obtain(); //blahblablah } the function needs to be called from multiple threads concurrently, so we add a critical section to avoid concurrent access to the static local: void functionThreadSafe() { CriticalSectionLockClass lock( criticalSection ); static int variable = obtain(); //blahblablah } but will this be enough? I mean there's some magic that makes the variable being initialized no more than once. So there's some service data maintained by the runtime that indicates whether each static local has already been initialized. Will the critical section in the above code protect that service data as well? Is any extra protection required for this scenario?

    Read the article

  • Real World Examples of read-write in concurrent software

    - by Richard Fabian
    I'm looking for real world examples of needing read and write access to the same value in concurrent systems. In my opinion, many semaphores or locks are present because there's no known alternative (to the implementer,) but do you know of any patterns where mutexes seem to be a requirement? In a way I'm asking for candidates for the standard set of HARD problems for concurrent software in the real world.

    Read the article

  • What scenarios/settings will result in a query on SQL Server (2008) return stale data

    - by s1mm0t
    Most applications rarely need to display 100% accurate data. For example if this stack overflow question displays that there have been 0 views, when there have really been 10, it doesn't really matter. This is one way that the (perceived) performance of applications can be improved, by caching results and therefore sometimes not showing 100% accurate results. There are some cases where the data does need to be 100% accurate though. So if I run the query select * from Foo I want to be sure that the results are not stale. Now depending on how my database is set up, other activity on the database, use of transactions and isolation levels etc this query may or may not be a true reflection of the world. What scenario's and settings can people think of that will result in this query returning stale results or given that another connection is part way through a transaction that has updated this table, how can I guarantee that when the above query returns, the results will be accurate.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >