Search Results

Search found 9137 results on 366 pages for 'worker thread'.

Page 18/366 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

  • Unintentional run-in with C# thread concurrency

    - by geekrutherford
    For the first time today we began conducting load testing on a ASP.NET application already in production. Obviously you would normally want to load test prior to releasing to a production environment, but that isn't the point here.   We ran a test which simulated 5 users hitting the application doing the same actions simultaneously. The first few pages visited seemed fine and then things just hung for a while before the test failed. While the test was running I was viewing the performance counters on the server noting that the CPU was consistently pegged at 100% until the testing tool gave up.   Fortunately the application logs all exceptions including those unhandled to the database (thanks to log4net). I checked the log and low and behold the error was:   System.ArgumentException: An item with the same key has already been added. (The rest of the stack trace intentionally omitted)   Since the code was running with debug on the line number where the exception occured was also provided. I began inspecting the code and almost immediately it hit me, the section of code responsible for the exception is trying to initialize a static class. My next question was how is this code being hit multiple times when I have a rudimentary check already in place to prevent this kind of thing (i.e. a check on a public variable of the static class before entering the initializing routine). The answer...the check fails because the value is not set before other threads have already made it through.   Not being one who consistently works with threading I wasn't quite sure how to handle this problem. Fortunately a co-worker recalled having to lock a section of code in the past but couldn't recall exactly how. After a quick search on Google the solution is as follows:   Object objLock = new Object(); lock(objLock) { //logic requiring lock }   The lock statement takes an object and tells the .NET runtime that the current thread has exclusive access while the code within brackets is executing. Once the code completes, the lock is released for another thread to utilize.   In my case, I only need to execute the inner code once to initialize my static class. So within the brackets I have a check on a public variable to prevent it from being initialized again.

    Read the article

  • Use Thread-local Storage to Reduce Synchronization

    Synchronization is often an expensive operation that can limit the performance of a multithreaded program. Using thread-local data structures instead of data structures shared by the threads can reduce synchronization in certain cases, allowing a program to run faster.

    Read the article

  • Getting IIS Worker Process Crash dumps

    - by CVertex
    I'm doing something bad in my ASP.NET app. It could be the any number of CTP libraries I'm using or I'm just not disposing something properly. But when I redeploy my ASP.NET to my Vista IIS7 install or my server's IIS6 install I crash an IIS worker process. I've narrowed the problem down to my HTTP crawler, which is a multithreaded beast that crawls sites for useful information when asked to. After I start a crawler and redeploy the app over the top, rather than gracefully unloading the appDomain and reloading, an IIS worker process will crash (popping up a crash message) and continue reloading the app domain. When this crash happens, where can I find the crash dump for analysis?

    Read the article

  • How to "kill" background worker completely?

    - by Ken Hung
    Hi All, I am writing a windows application that runs a sequence of digital IO actions repeatedly. This sequence of actions starts when the user click a "START" button, and it is done by a background worker in backgroundWorker1_DoWork(). However, there are occasions when I get the "This backgroundworker is currently busy......." error message. I am thinking of implementing the following in the code, by using a while loop to "kill" the background worker before starting another sequence of action: if (backgroundWorker1.IsBusy == true) { backgroundWorker1.CancelAsync(); while (backgroundWorker1.IsBusy == true) { backgroundWorker1.CancelAsync(); } backgroundWorker1.Dispose(); } backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerAsync(); I think my main concern is, will the backgroundWorker1 be "killed" eventually? If it will, will it take a long time to complete it? Will this coding get me into an infinite loop?

    Read the article

  • [Java] - Problem having my main thread sleeping

    - by Chris
    I'm in a Java class and our assignment is to let us explore threads in Java. So far so good except for this one this one problem. And I believe that could be because of my lack of understanding how Java threads work at the moment. I have the main thread of execution which spawns new threads. In the main thread of execution in main() I am calling Thread.sleep(). When I do I get an Unhandled exception type InterruptedException. I am unsure of why I am getting this? I thought this was because I needed a reference to the main thread so I went ahead and made a reference to it via Thread.currentThread(). Is this not the way to have the thread sleep? What I need to do is have the main thread wait/sleep/delay till it does it required work again. Any help would be much appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Thread Local Storage and local method variables

    - by miguel
    In c#, each thread has its own stack space. If this is the case, why is the following code not thread-safe? (It is stated that this code is thread-safe on this post: Locking in C# class Foo { private int count = 0; public void TrySomething() { count++; } } As count is an int (stack variable), surely this value would be isolated to an individual thread, on its own stack, and therefore thread-safe? I am probably missing something here, but I dont understand what is actually in Thread Local Storage if not stack-based variables for the thread?

    Read the article

  • How to correctly stop thread which is using Control.Invoke

    - by codymanix
    I tried the following (pseudocode) but I always get a deadlock when Iam trying to stop my thread. The problem is that Join() waits for the thread to complete and a pending Invoke() operation is also waiting to complete. How can I solve this? Thread workerThread = new Thread(BackupThreadRunner); volatile bool cancel; // this is the thread worker routine void BackupThreadRunner() { while (!cancel) { DoStuff(); ReportProgress(); } } // main thread void ReportProgress() { if (InvokeRequired) { Invoke(ReportProgress); } UpdateStatusBarAndStuff(); } // main thread void DoCancel() { cancel=true; workerThread.Join(); }

    Read the article

  • Java: serial thread confinement question

    - by denis
    Assume you have a Collection(ConcurrentLinkedQueue) of Runnables with mutable state. Thread A iterates over the Collection and hands the Runnables to an ExecutorService. The run() method changes the Runnables state. The Runnable has no internal synchronization. The above is a repetitive action and the worker threads need to see the changes made by previous iterations. So a Runnable gets processed by one worker thread after another, but is never accessed by more than one thread at a time - a case of serial thread confinement(i hope ;)). The question: Will it work just with the internal synchronization of the ConcurrentLinkedQueue/ExecutorSerivce? To be more precise: If Thread A hands Runnable R to worker thread B and B changes the state of R, and then A hands R to worker thread C..does C see the modifications done by B?

    Read the article

  • c style thread creation in python

    - by chandank
    Hi I am new to python and want to create multiple threads in a loop something like (in C style) for (;i < 10; i++) thread[i]= pthread_create(&thread[i],&attr,func) I am not sure how to do the same in python? Basically I want have that thread[] variable as global will create all thread at once and then will start then in once. I have written a similar python program that does it but I think having it in above style will be better. def thread_create(thread_number): command_string = "Thread-" + "%d" %thread_number thread = myThread(thread_number, command_string) thread.start() # Start new Threads for i in range(5): thread_create(i)

    Read the article

  • Java Thread Message Passing

    - by pkulak
    I'm writing an Android app. I have a main method, which creates and runs a new Thread using an anonymous inner Runnable class. The run() method, when it's done, calls a method on it's parent class (in the main thread) that calls notifyDataSetChanged() so that the main thread can redraw the new data. This is causing all kinds of trouble (ViewRoot$CalledFromWrongThreadException). The thing is, this method being called from the worker thread is on the class that's created in the UI thread. Shouldn't that be running on the UI thread? Or am I missing something? Here's some code about what I'm talking about: public class Mealfire extends Activity { @Override public void onCreate(Bundle icicle) { (new Thread() { public void run() { // Do a bunch of slow network stuff. update(); } }).start(); } private void update() { myAdapter.notifyDatasetChanged(); } }

    Read the article

  • Turn based synchronization between threads

    - by Amarus
    I'm trying to find a way to synchronize multiple threads having the following conditions: * There are two types of threads: 1. A single "cyclic" thread executing an infinite loop to do cyclic calculations 2. Multiple short-lived threads not started by the main thread * The cyclic thread has a sleep duration between each cycle/loop iteration * The other threads are allowed execute during the inter-cycle sleep of the cyclic thread: - Any other thread that attempts to execute during an active cycle should be blocked - The cyclic thread will wait until all other threads that are already executing to be finished Here's a basic example of what I was thinking of doing: // Somewhere in the code: ManualResetEvent manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(true); // Allow Externally call CountdownEvent countdownEvent = new CountdownEvent(1); // Can't AddCount a CountdownEvent with CurrentCount = 0 void ExternallyCalled() { manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); // Wait until CyclicCalculations is having its beauty sleep countdownEvent.AddCount(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that it should wait for this method call to finish before starting the next cycle Thread.Sleep(1000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic countdownEvent.Signal(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that this call is finished } void CyclicCalculations() { while (!stopCyclicCalculations) { manualResetEvent.Reset(); // Block all incoming calls to ExternallyCalled from this point forward countdownEvent.Signal(); // Dirty workaround for the issue with AddCount and CurrentCount = 0 countdownEvent.Wait(); // Wait until all of the already executing calls to ExternallyCalled are finished countdownEvent.Reset(); // Reset the CountdownEvent for next cycle. Thread.Sleep(2000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic manualResetEvent.Set(); // Unblock all threads executing ExternallyCalled Thread.Sleep(1000); // Inter-cycles delay } } Obviously, this doesn't work. There's no guarantee that there won't be any threads executing ExternallyCalled that are in between manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); and countdownEvent.AddCount(); at the time the main thread gets released by the CountdownEvent. I can't figure out a simple way of doing what I'm after, and almost everything that I've found after a lengthy search is related to producer/consumer synchronization which I can't apply here.

    Read the article

  • Does SetThreadPriority cause thread reschedulling?

    - by Suma
    Consider following situation, assuming single CPU system: thread A is running with a priority THREAD_PRIORITY_NORMAL, signals event E thread B with a priority THREAD_PRIORITY_LOWEST is waiting for an event E (Note: at this point the thread is not scheduled because it is runnable, but A is higher priority and runnable as well) thread A calls SetThreadPriority(B, THREAD_PRIORITY_ABOVE_NORMAL) Is thread B re-scheduled immediately to run, or is thread A allowed to continue until current time-slice is over, and B is scheduled only once a new time-slice has begun? I would be interested to know the answer for WinXP, Vista and Win7, if possible. Note: the scenario above is simplified from my real world code, where multiple threads are running on multiple cores, but the main object of the question stays: does SetThreadPriority cause thread scheduling to happen?

    Read the article

  • Call an AsyncTask inside a Thread

    - by Arun
    I am working in an android application and I want to call an AsyncTask from my UI main thread. For that I want to call my AsyncTask from a thread. This is the method that I call from my main UI thread. This is working correctly CommonAysnk mobjCommonAysnk = new CommonAysnk(this, 1); mobjCommonAysnk.execute(); CommonAysnk is my AsyncTask class.I want to pass my activity and an integer parameter to the AsyncTask constructor. How can I call this from a thread as shown below method. Thread t = new Thread() { public void run() { try { CommonAysnk mobjCommonAysnk = new CommonAysnk(this, 1); mobjCommonAysnk.execute(); } catch (Exception ex) { }}}; t.start(); When I tried to call it from a Thread and I am not able to pass the activity parameter correctly. How can we sole this. Thanks

    Read the article

  • site timing out when under heavy load

    - by naunu
    My client sends out eblasts at 8am monday/wed/friday. Between 8:15-8:45 the site becomes extremely slow and many users sessions timeout. My setup: Mediatemple VE 2gb dedicated ram (3 burst) Ubuntu 9.10 Apache2-mpm-worker PHP5.3-fcgi MySQL 5 I recently tried to remedy the problem by switching from apache2-mpm-prefork to mpm-worker, but am still having the same issues. My apache settings are: Timeout 100 KeepAlive On MaxKeepAliveRequests 100 <IfModule mpm_worker_module> StartServers 12 MinSpareThreads 25 MaxSpareThreads 96 ThreadLimit 96 ThreadsPerChild 25 MaxClients 225 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 </IfModule> The site is only getting ~10,000 page views during the 8am-9am hour, which I dont think should be stressing the server too badly. Maybe it is an error with the PHP settings, or bandwidth per unit time, or the site outgrew the server? Any suggestions would be very helpful - as you can see i've given it a good go before looking for help (installed mpm-worker). Also, can anyone suggest to me some free load testing software, or a tutorial on mod_status? Thank you

    Read the article

  • C++ Simple thread with parameter (no .net)

    - by Marc Vollmer
    I've searched the internet for a while now and found different solutions but then all don't really work or are to complicated for my use. I used C++ until 2 years ago so it might be a bit rusty :D I'm currently writing a program that posts data to an URL. It only posts the data nothing else. For posting the data I use curl, but it blocks the main thread and while the first post is still running there will be a second post that should start. In the end there are about 5-6 post operations running at the same time. Now I want to push the posting with curl into another thread. One thread per post. The thread should get a string parameter with the content what to push. I'm currently stuck on this. Tried the WINAPI for windows but that crashes on reading the parameter. (the second thread is still running in my example while the main thread ended (waiting on system("pause")). It would be nice to have a multi plattform solution, because it will run under windows and linux! Heres my current code: #define CURL_STATICLIB #include <curl/curl.h> #include <curl/easy.h> #include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string> #if defined(WIN32) #include <windows.h> #else //#include <pthread.h> #endif using namespace std; void post(string post) { // Function to post it to url CURL *curl; // curl object CURLcode res; // CURLcode object curl = curl_easy_init(); // init curl if(curl) { // is curl init curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_URL, "http://10.8.27.101/api.aspx"); // set url string data = "api=" + post; // concat post data strings curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_POSTFIELDS, data.c_str()); // post data res = curl_easy_perform(curl); // execute curl_easy_cleanup(curl); // cleanup } else { cerr << "Failed to create curl handle!\n"; } } #if defined(WIN32) DWORD WINAPI thread(LPVOID data) { // WINAPI Thread string pData = *((string*)data); // convert LPVOID to string [THIS FAILES] post(pData); // post it with curl } #else // Linux version #endif void startThread(string data) { // FUnction to start the thread string pData = data; // some Test #if defined(WIN32) CreateThread(NULL, 0, (LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE)thread, &pData, 0, NULL); // Start a Windows thread with winapi #else // Linux version #endif } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { // The post data to send string postData = "test1234567890"; startThread(postData); // Start the thread system("PAUSE"); // Dont close the console window return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Has anyone a suggestion? Thanks for the help!

    Read the article

  • gdb - thread log

    - by sthustfo
    Hi all, While I trying to debug a 'C' program with gdb, I always get the following continuously on the gdb console. [Thread 0xb7fe4b70 (LWP 30576) exited] [New Thread 0xb7fe4b70 (LWP 30577)] [Thread 0xb7fe4b70 (LWP 30577) exited] [New Thread 0xb7fe4b70 (LWP 30578)] [Thread 0xb7fe4b70 (LWP 30578) exited] Is there any reason why this is printed? And anyway to block this? note: the program makes use of timers. Is that a possible cause?

    Read the article

  • How to catch exception in the main thread if the exception occurs in the secondary thread?

    - by Ashish Ashu
    How to catch exception in the main thread if the exception occurs in the secondary thread? The code snippet for the scenario is given below: private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { try { Thread th1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Test)); th1.Start(); } catch (Exception) { } } void Test() { for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { Thread.Sleep(100); if (i == 2) throw new MyException(); } } }

    Read the article

  • C#. How to terminate a thread which has spawned another thread which is sleeping?

    - by Bobb
    I have a long running thread made from Thread.Start(). It spawns a background thread using QueueUserWorkItem which sleeps most of the time. Then the class-owner get disposed I call thread1.Join() but naturally it doesnt return because its child background thread is sleeping. What would be the right solution to gracefully terminate a thread which has other threads with little hassle? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to terminate a thread which has spawned another thread which is sleeping?

    - by Bobb
    I have a long running thread made from Thread.Start(). It spawns a background thread using QueueUserWorkItem which sleeps most of the time. Then the class-owner get disposed I call thread1.Join() but naturally it doesnt return because its child background thread is sleeping. What would be the right solution to gracefully terminate a thread which has other threads with little hassle?

    Read the article

  • multi-thread access MySQL error

    - by user188916
    I have written a simple multi-threaded C program to access MySQL,it works fine except when i add usleep() or sleep() function in each thread function. i created two pthreads in the main method, int main(){ mysql_library_init(0,NULL,NULL); printf("Hello world!\n"); init_pool(&p,100); pthread_t producer; pthread_t consumer_1; pthread_t consumer_2; pthread_create(&producer,NULL,produce_fun,NULL); pthread_create(&consumer_1,NULL,consume_fun,NULL); pthread_create(&consumer_2,NULL,consume_fun,NULL); mysql_library_end(); } void * produce_fun(void *arg){ pthread_detach(pthread_self()); //procedure while(1){ usleep(500000); printf("producer...\n"); produce(&p,cnt++); } pthread_exit(NULL); } void * consume_fun(void *arg){ pthread_detach(pthread_self()); MYSQL db; MYSQL *ptr_db=mysql_init(&db); mysql_real_connect(); //procedure while(1){ usleep(1000000); printf("consumer..."); int item=consume(&p); addRecord_d(ptr_db,"test",item); } mysql_thread_end(); pthread_exit(NULL); } void addRecord_d(MYSQL *ptr_db,const char *t_name,int item){ char query_buffer[100]; sprintf(query_buffer,"insert into %s values(0,%d)",t_name,item); //pthread_mutex_lock(&db_t_lock); int ret=mysql_query(ptr_db,query_buffer); if(ret){ fprintf(stderr,"%s%s\n","cannot add record to ",t_name); return; } unsigned long long update_id=mysql_insert_id(ptr_db); // pthread_mutex_unlock(&db_t_lock); printf("add record (%llu,%d) ok.",update_id,item); } the program output errors like: [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] [New Thread 0xb7ae3b70 (LWP 7712)] Hello world! [New Thread 0xb72d6b70 (LWP 7713)] [New Thread 0xb6ad5b70 (LWP 7714)] [New Thread 0xb62d4b70 (LWP 7715)] [Thread 0xb7ae3b70 (LWP 7712) exited] producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31441,0) ok.add record (31442,1) ok.producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31443,2) ok.add record (31444,3) ok.producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31445,4) ok.add record (31446,5) ok.producer... producer... consumer...consumer...add record (31447,6) ok.add record (31448,7) ok.producer... Error in my_thread_global_end(): 2 threads didn't exit [Thread 0xb72d6b70 (LWP 7713) exited] [Thread 0xb6ad5b70 (LWP 7714) exited] [Thread 0xb62d4b70 (LWP 7715) exited] Program exited normally. and when i add pthread_mutex_lock in function addRecord_d,the error still exists. So what exactly the problem is?

    Read the article

  • C# - periodic data reading and Thread.Sleep()

    - by CaldonCZE
    Hello, my C# application reads data from special USB device. The data are read as so-called "messages", each of them having 24 bytes. The amount of messages that must be read per second may differ (maximal frequency is quite high, about 700 messages per second), but the application must read them all. The only way to read the messages is by calling function "ReadMessage", that returns one message read from the device. The function is from external DLL and I cannot modify it. My solution: I've got a seperate thread, that is running all the time during the program run and it's only job is to read the messages in cycle. The received messages are then processed in main application thread. The function executed in the "reading thread" is the following: private void ReadingThreadFunction() { int cycleCount; try { while (this.keepReceivingMessages) { cycleCount++; TRxMsg receivedMessage; ReadMessage(devHandle, out receivedMessage); //...do something with the message... } } catch { //... catch exception if reading failed... } } This solution works fine and all messages are correctly received. However, the application consumes too much resources, the CPU of my computer runs at more than 80%. Therefore I'd like to reduce it. Thanks to the "cycleCount" variable I know that the "cycling speed" of the thread is about 40 000 cycles per second. This is unnecessarily too much, since I need to receive maximum 700 messagges/sec. (and the device has buffer for about 100 messages, so the cycle speed can be even a little lower) I tried to reduce the cycle speed by suspending the thread for 1 ms by Thread.Sleep(1); command. Of course, this didn't work and the cycle speed became about 70 cycles/second which was not enough to read all messages. I know that this attempt was silly, that putting the thread to sleep and then waking him up takes much longer than 1 ms. However, I don't know what else to do: Is there some other way how to slow the thread execution down (to reduce CPU consumption) other than Thread.Sleep? Or am I completely wrong and should I use something different for this task instead of Thread, maybe Threading.Timer or ThreadPool? Thanks a lot in advance for all suggestions. This is my first question here and I'm a beginner at using threads, so please excuse me if it's not clear enough.

    Read the article

  • How to get thread status..in Multi threading..

    - by Qutbuddin Kamaal
    Hi, May be it sound dumb but if I want some computed value from other thread and other value from one more thread and this two value in my main thread how can I,if In case second thread completed before first one.it will create problem..so I just want is there any way that I can get the thread status means its still running or stop. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >