Search Results

Search found 51 results on 3 pages for 'nonblocking'.

Page 2/3 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3  | Next Page >

• how does a non-blocking event loop work?

  - by aharon

  Twisted has a "non-blocking" event loop. I understand what a blocking event loop does (sort of, from the Wikipedia page) but can't figure out how a non-blocking one does.

  Read the article

• Asynchronous event loop design and issues.

  - by Artyom

  Hello, I'm designing event loop for asynchronous socket IO using epoll/devpoll/kqueue/poll/select (including windows-select). I have two options of performing, IO operation: Non-blocking mode, poll on EAGAIN Set socket to non-blocking mode. Read/Write to socket. If operation succeeds, post completion notification to event loop. If I get EAGAIN, add socket to "select list" and poll socket. Polling mode: poll and then execute Add socket to select list and poll it. Wait for notification that it is readable writable read/write Post completion notification to event loop of sucseeds To me it looks like first would require less system calls when using in normal mode, especially for writing to socket (buffers are quite big). Also it looks like that it would be possible to reduce the overhead over number of "select" executions, especially it is nice when you do not have something that scales well as epoll/devpoll/kqueue. Questions: Are there any advantages of the second approach? Are there any portability issues with non-blocking operations on sockets/file descriptors over numerous operating systems: Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, MacOSX, Windows. Notes: Please do not suggest using existing event-loop/socket-api implementations

  Read the article

• Replace low level web-service reference call transport with custom one

  - by hoodoos

  I'm not sure if title sounds right actually, so I will give more explanation here. I will begin from very beginning :) I'm using c# and .net for my development. I have an application that makes requests to some soap web-service and for each user request it produces 3 to 10 requests for web-service, they should all run async to finish in one time, so I use Async method of the web-service generated reference and then wait for result on callback. But it seems like it starts a thread (or takes it from pool) for every async call I make, so if I have 10 clients I got to spawn 30 to 100 threads and it sounds terrible even for my 16 cores server :) So i wanted to replace low level transport implementation with my own which uses non-blocking sockets and can handle at least 50 sockets run parallel in one thread with not much overhead. But I actually dunno where to put my override best. I analyzed System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapHttpClientProtocol class and see that it has some GetWebRequest method which I actually could use. If only I could somehow interupt the object it creates and get a http request with all headers and body from there and then send it with my own sockets.. Any ideas what approach to use? Or maybe there's something built in the framework I can use?

  Read the article

• how do twisted/tornado et cetera work

  - by aharon

  I understand that they work in some way distinct from making a thread per user. How exactly does that work? (Does 'non-blocking' have something to do with it?)

  Read the article

• Is there an use case for non-blocking receive when I have threads?

  - by Gabriel Šcerbák

  I know non-blocking receive is not used as much in message passing, but still some intuition tells me, it is needed. Take for example GUI event driven applications, you need some way to wait for a message in a non-blocking way, so your program can execute some computations. One of the ways to solve this is to have a special thread with message queue. Is there some use case, where you would really need non-blocking receive even if you have threads?

  Read the article

• What is the point/purpose of Ruby EventMachine, Python Twisted, or JavaScript Node.js?

  - by CCw

  I don't understand what problem these frameworks solve. Are they replacements for a HTTP server like Apache HTTPD, Tomcat, Mongrel, etc? Or are they more? Why might I use them... some real world examples? I've seen endless examples of chat rooms and broadcast services, but don't see how this is any different than, for instance, setting up a Java program to open sockets and dispatch a thread for each request. I think I understand the non-blocking I/O, but I don't understand how that is any different than a multi-threaded web server.

  Read the article

• Non-blocking TCP connection issues.

  - by Poni

  Hi! I think I'm in a problem. I have two TCP apps connected to each other which use winsock I/O completion ports to send/receive data (non-blocking sockets). Everything works just fine until there's a data transfer burst. The sender starts sending incorrect/malformed data. I allocate the buffers I'm sending on the stack, and if I understand correctly, that's a wrong to do, because these buffers should remain as I sent them until I get the "write complete" notification from IOCP. Take this for example: void some_function() { char cBuff[1024]; // filling cBuff with some data WSASend(...); // sending cBuff, non-blocking mode // filling cBuff with other data WSASend(...); // again, sending cBuff // ..... and so forth! } If I understand correctly, each of these WSASend() calls should have its own unique buffer, and that buffer can be reused only when the send completes. Correct? Now, what strategies can I implement in order to maintain a big sack of such buffers, how should I handle them etc'? And, if I am to use buffers that means I should copy the data to be sent from the source buffer to the temporary one, thus, I'd set SO_SNDBUF on each socket to zero, so the system will not re-copy what I already copied. Are you with me? Please let me know if I wasn't clear.

  Read the article

• Is there a non-blocking version of MessageBox.Show (or something like it)?

  - by Dan Tao

  Often you just want to notify the user that something has occurred, but there's really no need for any input from them. In this common scenario, I sometimes see code like this: MessageBox.Show("Something has occurred", "Something", MessageBoxButtons.OK); This code, as we all know, causes a little pop-up window to appear with only an OK button. Now here's the thing: this code blocks (the UI thread). But in the vast majority of cases, it seems to me, if you only have an OK button, there's very little need to block. (Isn't the purpose of blocking typically to receive some input from the user? And if the user's only choice is "OK," in this typical case, isn't blocking pretty pointless?) Obviously I could just write my own little form that does basically exactly what MessageBox.Show does, except that it returns nothing (no DialogResult) and doesn't block. But I was just wondering if something like this exists already that I didn't know about.

  Read the article

• Java Non-Blocking HTTP Server

  - by Marcus

  I have written an application using embedded Jetty that makes network calls to other services. I presume that the serving threads are idle whilst waiting for the network calls to complete. Is there any way to have a worker thread that switches between requests to perform work that can be done at the current time and then when the network calls return also handle that? A request would be returned when all work has been completed for it. I know this is a common paradigm, and I have used it for non-blocking TCP networking, but I'm unsure as to how to achieve this on a Java HTTP server whilst also waiting on external results. Any links or explanations are appreciated. Thanks

  Read the article

• check whether fgets would block

  - by lv

  Hi, I was just wondering whether in C is it possible to peek in the input buffer or perform similar trickery to know whether a call to fgets would block at a later time. Java allows to do something like that by calling BufferedReader.ready(), this way I can implement console input something like this: while (on && in.ready()) { line = in.readLine(); /* do something with line */ if (!in.ready()) Thread.sleep(100); } this allows an external thread to gracefully shutdown the input loop by setting on to false; I'd like to perform a similar implementation in C without resorting to non portable tricks, I already know I can make a "timed out fgets" under unix by resorting to signals or (better, even though requering to take care of buffering) reimplement it on top of recv/select, but I'd prefer something that would work on windows too. TIA

  Read the article

• non-blocking socket client connection

  - by Igor

  ALL, I am looking for a simple example of non-blocking socket connection that will run on Windows. I tried to Google, but all samples are either for *nix (POSIX) or blocking sockets on Windows. Looking thru msdn I see that it is easy to make a socket non-blocking and issue a connect(), but then you need some preparation in order to put the socket back. So, all in all I need something on a non-blocking socket that will connect and then put it back to be blocking. The read and write operation should be performed on the blocking socket. The reason for a non-blocking socket is that I need a connection timeout and there is no other way than non-blocking socket. Or is there? Thank you.

  Read the article

• Fast way to pass a simple java object from one thread to another

  - by Adal

  I have a callback which receives an object. I make a copy of this object, and I must pass it on to another thread for further processing. It's very important for the callback to return as fast as possible. Ideally, the callback will write the copy to some sort of lock-free container. I only have the callback called from a single thread and one processing thread. I only need to pass a bunch of doubles to the other thread, and I know the maximum number of doubles (around 40). Any ideas? I'm not very familiar with Java, so I don't know the usual ways to pass stuff between threads.

  Read the article

• Why is a non-blocking TCP connect() occasionally so slow on Linux?

  - by pts

  I was trying to measure the speed of a TCP server I'm writing, and I've noticed that there might be a fundamental problem of measuring the speed of the connect() calls: if I connect in a non-blocking way, connect() operations become very slow after a few seconds. Here is the example code in Python: #! /usr/bin/python2.4 import errno import os import select import socket import sys def NonBlockingConnect(sock, addr): while True: try: return sock.connect(addr) except socket.error, e: if e.args[0] not in (errno.EINPROGRESS, errno.EALREADY): raise os.write(2, '^') if not select.select((), (sock,), (), 0.5)[1]: os.write(2, 'P') def InfiniteClient(addr): while True: sock = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM, 0) sock.setblocking(0) sock.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1) # sock.connect(addr) NonBlockingConnect(sock, addr) sock.close() os.write(2, '.') def InfiniteServer(server_socket): while True: sock, addr = server_socket.accept() sock.close() server_socket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM, 0) server_socket.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1) server_socket.bind(('127.0.0.1', 45454)) server_socket.listen(128) if os.fork(): # Parent. InfiniteServer(server_socket) else: addr = server_socket.getsockname() server_socket.close() InfiniteClient(addr) With NonBlockingConnect, most connect() operations are fast, but in every few seconds there happens to be one connect() operation which takes at least 2 seconds (as indicated by 5 consecutive P letters on the output). By using sock.connect instead of NonBlockingConnect all connect operations seem to be fast. How is it possible to get rid of these slow connect()s? I'm running Ubuntu Karmic desktop with the standard PAE kernel: Linux narancs 2.6.31-20-generic-pae #57-Ubuntu SMP Mon Feb 8 10:23:59 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux

  Read the article

• Java - Handling Non-Blocking Calls

  - by sarav

  In my application I am using a third-party API. It is a non-blocking method which returns immediately. I have a collection of elements over which I have to invoke this method. Now, my problem is that I have to find a way till all the method execution gets completed and do my next operation. How can I handle this? I cannot modify the third-party API. In short it looks like this for(Object object: objects){ methodA(object); //this is a non-blocking call and returns immediately } // here I want to do my next task only after all the methodA calls completed execution

  Read the article

• Force blocking read after EAGAIN?

  - by Daniel Trebbien

  I have a file descriptor that is open for reading which may be non-blocking. What I need to do is simply read all data until reaching EOF and write that data to a writable file descriptor. As the process that performs this copying is not "aware" of anything that is going on around it, I don't think that I can do something useful while waiting for data, and I don't want to use a while loop (while errno is not EAGAIN) because I think that it would be wasteful. Is there a way to block or otherwise suspend execution of the copying process until data becomes available?

  Read the article

• Handling file upload in a non-blocking manner

  - by Kaliyug Antagonist

  The background thread is here Just to make objective clear - the user will upload a large file and must be redirected immediately to another page for proceeding different operations. But the file being large, will take time to be read from the controller's InputStream. So I unwillingly decided to fork a new Thread to handle this I/O. The code is as follows : The controller servlet /** * @see HttpServlet#doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse * response) */ protected void doPost(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException { // TODO Auto-generated method stub System.out.println("In Controller.doPost(...)"); TempModel tempModel = new TempModel(); tempModel.uploadSegYFile(request, response); System.out.println("Forwarding to Accepted.jsp"); /*try { Thread.sleep(1000 * 60); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); }*/ request.getRequestDispatcher("/jsp/Accepted.jsp").forward(request, response); } The model class package com.model; import java.io.IOException; import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException; import java.util.concurrent.Future; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest; import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletResponse; import com.utils.ProcessUtils; public class TempModel { public void uploadSegYFile(HttpServletRequest request, HttpServletResponse response) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub System.out.println("In TempModel.uploadSegYFile(...)"); /* * Trigger the upload/processing code in a thread, return immediately * and notify when the thread completes */ try { FileUploaderRunnable fileUploadRunnable = new FileUploaderRunnable( request.getInputStream()); /* * Future<FileUploaderRunnable> future = ProcessUtils.submitTask( * fileUploadRunnable, fileUploadRunnable); * * FileUploaderRunnable processed = future.get(); * * System.out.println("Is file uploaded : " + * processed.isFileUploaded()); */ Thread uploadThread = new Thread(fileUploadRunnable); uploadThread.start(); } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } /* * catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block * e.printStackTrace(); } catch (ExecutionException e) { // TODO * Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } */ System.out.println("Returning from TempModel.uploadSegYFile(...)"); } } The Runnable package com.model; import java.io.File; import java.io.FileInputStream; import java.io.FileNotFoundException; import java.io.FileOutputStream; import java.io.IOException; import java.io.InputStream; import java.nio.ByteBuffer; import java.nio.channels.Channels; import java.nio.channels.ReadableByteChannel; public class FileUploaderRunnable implements Runnable { private boolean isFileUploaded = false; private InputStream inputStream = null; public FileUploaderRunnable(InputStream inputStream) { // TODO Auto-generated constructor stub this.inputStream = inputStream; } public void run() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub /* Read from InputStream. If success, set isFileUploaded = true */ System.out.println("Starting upload in a thread"); File outputFile = new File("D:/06c01_output.seg");/* * This will be changed * later */ FileOutputStream fos; ReadableByteChannel readable = Channels.newChannel(inputStream); ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.allocate(1000000); try { fos = new FileOutputStream(outputFile); while (readable.read(buffer) != -1) { fos.write(buffer.array()); buffer.clear(); } fos.flush(); fos.close(); readable.close(); } catch (FileNotFoundException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println("File upload thread completed"); } public boolean isFileUploaded() { return isFileUploaded; } } My queries/doubts : Spawning threads manually from the Servlet makes sense to me logically but scares me coding wise - the container isn't aware of these threads after all(I think so!) The current code is giving an Exception which is quite obvious - the stream is inaccessible as the doPost(...) method returns before the run() method completes : In Controller.doPost(...) In TempModel.uploadSegYFile(...) Returning from TempModel.uploadSegYFile(...) Forwarding to Accepted.jsp Starting upload in a thread Exception in thread "Thread-4" java.lang.NullPointerException at org.apache.coyote.http11.InternalInputBuffer.fill(InternalInputBuffer.java:512) at org.apache.coyote.http11.InternalInputBuffer.fill(InternalInputBuffer.java:497) at org.apache.coyote.http11.InternalInputBuffer$InputStreamInputBuffer.doRead(InternalInputBuffer.java:559) at org.apache.coyote.http11.AbstractInputBuffer.doRead(AbstractInputBuffer.java:324) at org.apache.coyote.Request.doRead(Request.java:422) at org.apache.catalina.connector.InputBuffer.realReadBytes(InputBuffer.java:287) at org.apache.tomcat.util.buf.ByteChunk.substract(ByteChunk.java:407) at org.apache.catalina.connector.InputBuffer.read(InputBuffer.java:310) at org.apache.catalina.connector.CoyoteInputStream.read(CoyoteInputStream.java:202) at java.nio.channels.Channels$ReadableByteChannelImpl.read(Unknown Source) at com.model.FileUploaderRunnable.run(FileUploaderRunnable.java:39) at java.lang.Thread.run(Unknown Source) Keeping in mind the point 1., does the use of Executor framework help me in anyway ? package com.utils; import java.util.concurrent.Future; import java.util.concurrent.ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor; public final class ProcessUtils { /* Ensure that no more than 2 uploads,processing req. are allowed */ private static final ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor threadPoolExec = new ScheduledThreadPoolExecutor( 2); public static <T> Future<T> submitTask(Runnable task, T result) { return threadPoolExec.submit(task, result); } } So how should I ensure that the user doesn't block and the stream remains accessible so that the (uploaded)file can be read from it?

  Read the article

• Python - How can I make this code asynchronous?

  - by dave

  Here's some code that illustrates my problem: def blocking1(): while True: yield 'first blocking function example' def blocking2(): while True: yield 'second blocking function example' for i in blocking1(): print 'this will be shown' for i in blocking2(): print 'this will not be shown' I have two functions which contain while True loops. These will yield data which I will then log somewhere (most likely, to an sqlite database). I've been playing around with threading and have gotten it working. However, I don't really like it... What I would like to do is make my blocking functions asynchronous. Something like: def blocking1(callback): while True: callback('first blocking function example') def blocking2(callback): while True: callback('second blocking function example') def log(data): print data blocking1(log) blocking2(log) How can I achieve this in Python? I've seen the standard library comes with asyncore and the big name in this game is Twisted but both of these seem to be used for socket IO. How can I async my non-socket related, blocking functions?

  Read the article

• How to do a non-waiting write on a named pipe (c#) ?

  - by Jelly Amma

  Hello, I'm using .net 3.5 named pipes and my server side is : serverPipeStream = new NamedPipeServerStream("myPipe", PipeDirection.InOut, 1, PipeTransmissionMode.Byte, PipeOptions.Asynchronous); When I write some data with, say, BinaryWriter, the write() call itself doesn't return until the client side has called a read() on its NamedPipeClientStream. How can I make my write() to the named pipe non-blocking ? Thanks in advance for any help.

  Read the article

• Utility that helps in file locking - expert tips wanted

  - by maix

  I've written a subclass of file that a) provides methods to conveniently lock it (using fcntl, so it only supports unix, which is however OK for me atm) and b) when reading or writing asserts that the file is appropriately locked. Now I'm not an expert at such stuff (I've just read one paper [de] about it) and would appreciate some feedback: Is it secure, are there race conditions, are there other things that could be done better … Here is the code: from fcntl import flock, LOCK_EX, LOCK_SH, LOCK_UN, LOCK_NB class LockedFile(file): """ A wrapper around `file` providing locking. Requires a shared lock to read and a exclusive lock to write. Main differences: * Additional methods: lock_ex, lock_sh, unlock * Refuse to read when not locked, refuse to write when not locked exclusivly. * mode cannot be `w` since then the file would be truncated before it could be locked. You have to lock the file yourself, it won't be done for you implicitly. Only you know what lock you need. Example usage:: def get_config(): f = LockedFile(CONFIG_FILENAME, 'r') f.lock_sh() config = parse_ini(f.read()) f.close() def set_config(key, value): f = LockedFile(CONFIG_FILENAME, 'r+') f.lock_ex() config = parse_ini(f.read()) config[key] = value f.truncate() f.write(make_ini(config)) f.close() """ def __init__(self, name, mode='r', *args, **kwargs): if 'w' in mode: raise ValueError('Cannot open file in `w` mode') super(LockedFile, self).__init__(name, mode, *args, **kwargs) self.locked = None def lock_sh(self, **kwargs): """ Acquire a shared lock on the file. If the file is already locked exclusively, do nothing. :returns: Lock status from before the call (one of 'sh', 'ex', None). :param nonblocking: Don't wait for the lock to be available. """ if self.locked == 'ex': return # would implicitly remove the exclusive lock return self._lock(LOCK_SH, **kwargs) def lock_ex(self, **kwargs): """ Acquire an exclusive lock on the file. :returns: Lock status from before the call (one of 'sh', 'ex', None). :param nonblocking: Don't wait for the lock to be available. """ return self._lock(LOCK_EX, **kwargs) def unlock(self): """ Release all locks on the file. Flushes if there was an exclusive lock. :returns: Lock status from before the call (one of 'sh', 'ex', None). """ if self.locked == 'ex': self.flush() return self._lock(LOCK_UN) def _lock(self, mode, nonblocking=False): flock(self, mode | bool(nonblocking) * LOCK_NB) before = self.locked self.locked = {LOCK_SH: 'sh', LOCK_EX: 'ex', LOCK_UN: None}[mode] return before def _assert_read_lock(self): assert self.locked, "File is not locked" def _assert_write_lock(self): assert self.locked == 'ex', "File is not locked exclusively" def read(self, *args): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).read(*args) def readline(self, *args): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).readline(*args) def readlines(self, *args): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).readlines(*args) def xreadlines(self, *args): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).xreadlines(*args) def __iter__(self): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).__iter__() def next(self): self._assert_read_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).next() def write(self, *args): self._assert_write_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).write(*args) def writelines(self, *args): self._assert_write_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).writelines(*args) def flush(self): self._assert_write_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).flush() def truncate(self, *args): self._assert_write_lock() return super(LockedFile, self).truncate(*args) def close(self): self.unlock() return super(LockedFile, self).close() (the example in the docstring is also my current use case for this) Thanks for having read until down here, and possibly even answering :)

  Read the article

• Node.js as a custom (streaming) upload handler for Django

  - by Gijs

  I want to build an upload-centric app using Django. One way to do this is with nginx's upload module (nonblocking) but it has its problems. Node.js is supposed to be a good candidate for this type of application. But how can I make node.js act as an upload_handler() for Django (http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.1/topics/http/file-uploads/#modifying-upload-handlers-on-the-fly) I'm not sure where to look for examples?

  Read the article

• fwrite = unblocking ?

  - by John Michaels

  Since you can't be sure that what you write with fwrite has been written (god thats an awesome sentence) before you call fflush can i consider fwrite a nonblocking write?? And if not, why not and what are my alternatives?

  Read the article

• java background task

  - by markovuksanovic

  I was wondering which would be the most efficient approach to implement some kind of background task in java (I guess that would be some kind of nonblocking Threads). To be more precise - I have some java code and then at some point I need to execute a long running operation. What I would like to do is to execute that operation in the background so that the rest of the program can continue executing and when that task is completed just update some specific object which. This change would be then detected by other components.

  Read the article

• Issues writing to serial port on MAC OSX using unistd.h in c

  - by Schuyler

  I am trying to write to a bluetooth device on MAC OSX using the unistd.h Linux functions in c. I am connecting fine and writing the first few bytes with success. When I try to write other commands to it (there are bytes added to the write buffer every 15ms), I don't see any results even though the write() function returns 1 (write success). If you start a write and it doesn't finish by the time you try to start another write (since it is non-blocking), could that possibly screw up the initial write? (If so, is there any way to check if a write has completed?) That is the only thing I can think of since the writes are occurring fairly frequently and the first two are successfully sent. qwbyte() simply adds a byte to the output array and increments its length The open port function: BAMid = -1; struct termios options; struct termios originalTTYAttrs; // Open the serial port read/write, nonblocking, with no controlling terminal, and don't wait for a connection. BAMid = open(strPath, O_RDWR | O_NOCTTY | O_NONBLOCK); if (BAMid == -1) { printf("Error opening serial port %s - %s(%d).\n", strPath, strerror(errno), errno); goto error; } // Issue TIOCEXCL ioctl to prevent additional opens except by root-owned processes. if (ioctl(BAMid, TIOCEXCL) == -1) { printf("Error setting TIOCEXCL on %s - %s(%d).\n", strPath, strerror(errno), errno); goto error; } // Get the current options and save them so we can restore the default settings later. if (tcgetattr(BAMid, &originalTTYAttrs) == -1) { printf("Error getting tty attributes %s - %s(%d).\n", strPath, strerror(errno), errno); goto error; } // The serial port attributes such as timeouts and baud rate are set by modifying the termios // structure and then calling tcsetattr() to cause the changes to take effect. Note that the // changes will not become effective without the tcsetattr() call. options = originalTTYAttrs; // Set raw input (non-canonical) mode, with reads blocking until either a single character // has been received or a one second timeout expires. [should be moot since we are leaving it as nonblocking] cfmakeraw(&options); options.c_cc[VMIN] = 1; options.c_cc[VTIME] = 10; cfsetspeed(&options, B57600); // Set 57600 baud options.c_cflag |= CS8; // Use 8 bit words // Cause the new options to take effect immediately. if (tcsetattr(BAMid, TCSANOW, &options) == -1) { printf("Error setting tty attributes %s - %s(%d).\n", strPath, strerror(errno), errno); goto error; } //flush old transmissions if (tcflush(BAMid,TCIOFLUSH) == -1) { printf("Error flushing BAM serial port - %s(%d).\n", strerror(errno), errno); } oBufLength = 0; // Ask it to start if (! qwbyte(CmdStart) ) { goto error; } if (! qwbyte(CmdFull) ) { goto error; } //this transmit works txbytes(); printf("success opening port!"); return -1; // Failure path error: if (BAMid != -1) { close(BAMid); } printf("returning an error--%d",errno); return errno; } The write function (txbytes): int i, bufSize, numBytes; if(oBufLength != 0) { //if the output array isn't empty //duplicating the output array and its size so it can //be overwritten while this write is occuring printf("about to transmit: "); for(i = 0; i < oBufLength; i++) { printf(" %u",oBuf[i]); tempBuf[i] = oBuf[i]; } printf("\n"); bufSize = oBufLength; oBufLength = 0; numBytes = write(BAMid, &tempBuf, bufSize); printf("bytes written = %d\n",numBytes); if (numBytes == -1) { printf("Error writing to port - %s(%d).\n", strerror(errno), errno); } return (numBytes 0); } else { return 0; }

  Read the article

• Java Concurrency: CAS vs Locking

  - by Hugo Walker

  Im currently reading the Book Java Concurrency in Practice. In the Chapter 15 they are speaking about the Nonblocking algorithms and the compare-and-swap (CAS) Method. It is written that the CAS perform much better than the Locking Methods. I want to ask the people which already worked with both of this concepts and would like to hear when you are preferring which of these concept? Is it really so much faster? Personally for me the usage of Locks is much clearer and easier to understand and maybe even better to maintain. (Please correct me if I am wrong). Should we really focus creating our concurrent code related on CAS than Locks to get a better performance boost or is sustainability a higher thing? I know there is maybe not a strict rule, when to use what. But I just would like to hear some opinions, experiences with the new concept of CAS.

  Read the article

• Read non-blocking from multiple fifos in parallel

  - by Ole Tange

  I sometimes sit with a bunch of output fifos from programs that run in parallel. I would like to merge these fifos. The naïve solution is: cat fifo* > output But this requires the first fifo to complete before reading the first byte from the second fifo, and this will block the parallel running programs. Another way is: (cat fifo1 & cat fifo2 & ... ) > output But this may mix the output thus getting half-lines in output. When reading from multiple fifos, there must be some rules for merging the files. Typically doing it on a line by line basis is enough for me, so I am looking for something that does: parallel_non_blocking_cat fifo* > output which will read from all fifos in parallel and merge the output on with a full line at a time. I can see it is not hard to write that program. All you need to do is: open all fifos do a blocking select on all of them read nonblocking from the fifo which has data into the buffer for that fifo if the buffer contains a full line (or record) then print out the line if all fifos are closed/eof: exit goto 2 So my question is not: can it be done? My question is: Is it done already and can I just install a tool that does this?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3  | Next Page >