Search Results

Search found 8588 results on 344 pages for 'thread abort'.

Page 2/344 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Launching a WPF Window in a Separate Thread, Part 1

    - by Reed
    Typically, I strongly recommend keeping the user interface within an application’s main thread, and using multiple threads to move the actual “work” into background threads.  However, there are rare times when creating a separate, dedicated thread for a Window can be beneficial.  This is even acknowledged in the MSDN samples, such as the Multiple Windows, Multiple Threads sample.  However, doing this correctly is difficult.  Even the referenced MSDN sample has major flaws, and will fail horribly in certain scenarios.  To ease this, I wrote a small class that alleviates some of the difficulties involved. The MSDN Multiple Windows, Multiple Threads Sample shows how to launch a new thread with a WPF Window, and will work in most cases.  The sample code (commented and slightly modified) works out to the following: // Create a thread Thread newWindowThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart( () => { // Create and show the Window Window1 tempWindow = new Window1(); tempWindow.Show(); // Start the Dispatcher Processing System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.Run(); })); // Set the apartment state newWindowThread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA); // Make the thread a background thread newWindowThread.IsBackground = true; // Start the thread newWindowThread.Start(); .csharpcode, .csharpcode pre { font-size: small; color: black; font-family: consolas, "Courier New", courier, monospace; background-color: #ffffff; /*white-space: pre;*/ } .csharpcode pre { margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .rem { color: #008000; } .csharpcode .kwrd { color: #0000ff; } .csharpcode .str { color: #006080; } .csharpcode .op { color: #0000c0; } .csharpcode .preproc { color: #cc6633; } .csharpcode .asp { background-color: #ffff00; } .csharpcode .html { color: #800000; } .csharpcode .attr { color: #ff0000; } .csharpcode .alt { background-color: #f4f4f4; width: 100%; margin: 0em; } .csharpcode .lnum { color: #606060; } This sample creates a thread, marks it as single threaded apartment state, and starts the Dispatcher on that thread. That is the minimum requirements to get a Window displaying and handling messages correctly, but, unfortunately, has some serious flaws. The first issue – the created thread will run continuously until the application shuts down, given the code in the sample.  The problem is that the ThreadStart delegate used ends with running the Dispatcher.  However, nothing ever stops the Dispatcher processing.  The thread was created as a Background thread, which prevents it from keeping the application alive, but the Dispatcher will continue to pump dispatcher frames until the application shuts down. In order to fix this, we need to call Dispatcher.InvokeShutdown after the Window is closed.  This would require modifying the above sample to subscribe to the Window’s Closed event, and, at that point, shutdown the Dispatcher: // Create a thread Thread newWindowThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart( () => { Window1 tempWindow = new Window1(); // When the window closes, shut down the dispatcher tempWindow.Closed += (s,e) => Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.BeginInvokeShutdown(DispatcherPriority.Background); tempWindow.Show(); // Start the Dispatcher Processing System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.Run(); })); // Setup and start thread as before This eliminates the first issue.  Now, when the Window is closed, the new thread’s Dispatcher will shut itself down, which in turn will cause the thread to complete. The above code will work correctly for most situations.  However, there is still a potential problem which could arise depending on the content of the Window1 class.  This is particularly nasty, as the code could easily work for most windows, but fail on others. The problem is, at the point where the Window is constructed, there is no active SynchronizationContext.  This is unlikely to be a problem in most cases, but is an absolute requirement if there is code within the constructor of Window1 which relies on a context being in place. While this sounds like an edge case, it’s fairly common.  For example, if a BackgroundWorker is started within the constructor, or a TaskScheduler is built using TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() with the expectation of synchronizing work to the UI thread, an exception will be raised at some point.  Both of these classes rely on the existence of a proper context being installed to SynchronizationContext.Current, which happens automatically, but not until Dispatcher.Run is called.  In the above case, SynchronizationContext.Current will return null during the Window’s construction, which can cause exceptions to occur or unexpected behavior. Luckily, this is fairly easy to correct.  We need to do three things, in order, prior to creating our Window: Create and initialize the Dispatcher for the new thread manually Create a synchronization context for the thread which uses the Dispatcher Install the synchronization context Creating the Dispatcher is quite simple – The Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher property gets the current thread’s Dispatcher and “creates a new Dispatcher if one is not already associated with the thread.”  Once we have the correct Dispatcher, we can create a SynchronizationContext which uses the dispatcher by creating a DispatcherSynchronizationContext.  Finally, this synchronization context can be installed as the current thread’s context via SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext.  These three steps can easily be added to the above via a single line of code: // Create a thread Thread newWindowThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart( () => { // Create our context, and install it: SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext( new DispatcherSynchronizationContext( Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher)); Window1 tempWindow = new Window1(); // When the window closes, shut down the dispatcher tempWindow.Closed += (s,e) => Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.BeginInvokeShutdown(DispatcherPriority.Background); tempWindow.Show(); // Start the Dispatcher Processing System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.Run(); })); // Setup and start thread as before This now forces the synchronization context to be in place before the Window is created and correctly shuts down the Dispatcher when the window closes. However, there are quite a few steps.  In my next post, I’ll show how to make this operation more reusable by creating a class with a far simpler API…

    Read the article

  • Inside the Concurrent Collections: ConcurrentBag

    - by Simon Cooper
    Unlike the other concurrent collections, ConcurrentBag does not really have a non-concurrent analogy. As stated in the MSDN documentation, ConcurrentBag is optimised for the situation where the same thread is both producing and consuming items from the collection. We'll see how this is the case as we take a closer look. Again, I recommend you have ConcurrentBag open in a decompiler for reference. Thread Statics ConcurrentBag makes heavy use of thread statics - static variables marked with ThreadStaticAttribute. This is a special attribute that instructs the CLR to scope any values assigned to or read from the variable to the executing thread, not globally within the AppDomain. This means that if two different threads assign two different values to the same thread static variable, one value will not overwrite the other, and each thread will see the value they assigned to the variable, separately to any other thread. This is a very useful function that allows for ConcurrentBag's concurrency properties. You can think of a thread static variable: [ThreadStatic] private static int m_Value; as doing the same as: private static Dictionary<Thread, int> m_Values; where the executing thread's identity is used to automatically set and retrieve the corresponding value in the dictionary. In .NET 4, this usage of ThreadStaticAttribute is encapsulated in the ThreadLocal class. Lists of lists ConcurrentBag, at its core, operates as a linked list of linked lists: Each outer list node is an instance of ThreadLocalList, and each inner list node is an instance of Node. Each outer ThreadLocalList is owned by a particular thread, accessible through the thread local m_locals variable: private ThreadLocal<ThreadLocalList<T>> m_locals It is important to note that, although the m_locals variable is thread-local, that only applies to accesses through that variable. The objects referenced by the thread (each instance of the ThreadLocalList object) are normal heap objects that are not specific to any thread. Thinking back to the Dictionary analogy above, if each value stored in the dictionary could be accessed by other means, then any thread could access the value belonging to other threads using that mechanism. Only reads and writes to the variable defined as thread-local are re-routed by the CLR according to the executing thread's identity. So, although m_locals is defined as thread-local, the m_headList, m_nextList and m_tailList variables aren't. This means that any thread can access all the thread local lists in the collection by doing a linear search through the outer linked list defined by these variables. Adding items So, onto the collection operations. First, adding items. This one's pretty simple. If the current thread doesn't already own an instance of ThreadLocalList, then one is created (or, if there are lists owned by threads that have stopped, it takes control of one of those). Then the item is added to the head of that thread's list. That's it. Don't worry, it'll get more complicated when we account for the other operations on the list! Taking & Peeking items This is where it gets tricky. If the current thread's list has items in it, then it peeks or removes the head item (not the tail item) from the local list and returns that. However, if the local list is empty, it has to go and steal another item from another list, belonging to a different thread. It iterates through all the thread local lists in the collection using the m_headList and m_nextList variables until it finds one that has items in it, and it steals one item from that list. Up to this point, the two threads had been operating completely independently. To steal an item from another thread's list, the stealing thread has to do it in such a way as to not step on the owning thread's toes. Recall how adding and removing items both operate on the head of the thread's linked list? That gives us an easy way out - a thread trying to steal items from another thread can pop in round the back of another thread's list using the m_tail variable, and steal an item from the back without the owning thread knowing anything about it. The owning thread can carry on completely independently, unaware that one of its items has been nicked. However, this only works when there are at least 3 items in the list, as that guarantees there will be at least one node between the owning thread performing operations on the list head and the thread stealing items from the tail - there's no chance of the two threads operating on the same node at the same time and causing a race condition. If there's less than three items in the list, then there does need to be some synchronization between the two threads. In this case, the lock on the ThreadLocalList object is used to mediate access to a thread's list when there's the possibility of contention. Thread synchronization In ConcurrentBag, this is done using several mechanisms: Operations performed by the owner thread only take out the lock when there are less than three items in the collection. With three or greater items, there won't be any conflict with a stealing thread operating on the tail of the list. If a lock isn't taken out, the owning thread sets the list's m_currentOp variable to a non-zero value for the duration of the operation. This indicates to all other threads that there is a non-locked operation currently occuring on that list. The stealing thread always takes out the lock, to prevent two threads trying to steal from the same list at the same time. After taking out the lock, the stealing thread spinwaits until m_currentOp has been set to zero before actually performing the steal. This ensures there won't be a conflict with the owning thread when the number of items in the list is on the 2-3 item borderline. If any add or remove operations are started in the meantime, and the list is below 3 items, those operations try to take out the list's lock and are blocked until the stealing thread has finished. This allows a thread to steal an item from another thread's list without corrupting it. What about synchronization in the collection as a whole? Collection synchronization Any thread that operates on the collection's global structure (accessing anything outside the thread local lists) has to take out the collection's global lock - m_globalListsLock. This single lock is sufficient when adding a new thread local list, as the items inside each thread's list are unaffected. However, what about operations (such as Count or ToArray) that need to access every item in the collection? In order to ensure a consistent view, all operations on the collection are stopped while the count or ToArray is performed. This is done by freezing the bag at the start, performing the global operation, and unfreezing at the end: The global lock is taken out, to prevent structural alterations to the collection. m_needSync is set to true. This notifies all the threads that they need to take out their list's lock irregardless of what operation they're doing. All the list locks are taken out in order. This blocks all locking operations on the lists. The freezing thread waits for all current lockless operations to finish by spinwaiting on each m_currentOp field. The global operation can then be performed while the bag is frozen, but no other operations can take place at the same time, as all other threads are blocked on a list's lock. Then, once the global operation has finished, the locks are released, m_needSync is unset, and normal concurrent operation resumes. Concurrent principles That's the essence of how ConcurrentBag operates. Each thread operates independently on its own local list, except when they have to steal items from another list. When stealing, only the stealing thread is forced to take out the lock; the owning thread only has to when there is the possibility of contention. And a global lock controls accesses to the structure of the collection outside the thread lists. Operations affecting the entire collection take out all locks in the collection to freeze the contents at a single point in time. So, what principles can we extract here? Threads operate independently Thread-static variables and ThreadLocal makes this easy. Threads operate entirely concurrently on their own structures; only when they need to grab data from another thread is there any thread contention. Minimised lock-taking Even when two threads need to operate on the same data structures (one thread stealing from another), they do so in such a way such that the probability of actually blocking on a lock is minimised; the owning thread always operates on the head of the list, and the stealing thread always operates on the tail. Management of lockless operations Any operations that don't take out a lock still have a 'hook' to force them to lock when necessary. This allows all operations on the collection to be stopped temporarily while a global snapshot is taken. Hopefully, such operations will be short-lived and infrequent. That's all the concurrent collections covered. I hope you've found it as informative and interesting as I have. Next, I'll be taking a closer look at ThreadLocal, which I came across while analyzing ConcurrentBag. As you'll see, the operation of this class deserves a much closer look.

    Read the article

  • .NET threading: how can I capture an abort on an unstarted thread?

    - by Groxx
    I have a chunk of threads I wish to run in order, on an ASP site running .NET 2.0 with Visual Studio 2008 (no idea how much all that matters, but there it is), and they may have aborted-clean-up code which should be run regardless of how far through their task they are. So I make a thread like this: Thread t = new Thread(delegate() { try { /* do things */ System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("try"); } catch (ThreadAbortException) { /* cleanup */ System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("catch"); } }); Now, if I wish to abort the set of threads part way through, the cleanup may still be desirable later on down the line. Looking through MSDN implies you can .Abort() a thread that has not started, and then .Start() it, at which point it will receive the exception and perform normally. Or you can .Join() the aborted thread to wait for it to finish aborting. Presumably you can combine them. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ty8d3wta(v=VS.80).aspx To wait until a thread has aborted, you can call the Join method on the thread after calling the Abort method, but there is no guarantee the wait will end. If Abort is called on a thread that has not been started, the thread will abort when Start is called. If Abort is called on a thread that is blocked or is sleeping, the thread is interrupted and then aborted. Now, when I debug and step through this code: t.Abort(); // ThreadState == Unstarted | AbortRequested t.Start(); // throws ThreadStartException: "Thread failed to start." // so I comment it out, and t.Join(); // throws ThreadStateException: "Thread has not been started." At no point do I see any output, nor do any breakpoints on either the try or catch block get reached. Oddly, ThreadStartException is not listed as a possible throw of .Start(), from here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/a9fyxz7d(v=VS.80).aspx (or any other version) I understand this could be avoided by having a start parameter, which states if the thread should jump to cleanup code, and foregoing the Abort call (which is probably what I'll do). And I could .Start() the thread, and then .Abort() it. But as an indeterminate amount of time may pass between .Start and .Abort, I'm considering it unreliable, and the documentation seems to say my original method should work. Am I missing something? Is the documentation wrong? edit: ow. And you can't call .Start(param) on a non-parameterized Thread(Start). Is there a way to find out if a thread is parameterized or not, aside from trial and error? I see a private m_Delegate, but nothing public...

    Read the article

  • How to abort iPhone's NSXMLParser wait

    - by Wayne Lo
    When init the NSXLParser as below: NSXMLParser* xmlParser=[[NSXMLParser alloc] initWithContentsOfURL:[NSURL URLWithString:urlstring]]; if the server is down, it will wait for quite some time before the thread returns. It is really annoying even if I exit the application and restart the application, it will continue to wait with a black screen until it times out. How to I abort the init? Is there a better way to check whether the server is up before calling the parser? Thanks for helping.

    Read the article

  • Java thread dump where main thread has no call stack? (jsvc)

    - by dwhsix
    We have a java process running as a daemon (under jsvc). Every several days it just stops doing any work; output to the logfile stops (it is pretty verbose, on 5-minute intervals) and it consumes no CPU or IO. There are no exceptions logged in the logfile nor in syserr or sysout. The last log statement is just prior to a db commit being done, but there is no open connection on the db server (MySQL) and reviewing the code, there should always be additional log output after that, even if it had encountered an exception that was going to bubble up. The most curious thing I find is that in the thread dump (included below), there's no thread in our code at all, and the main thread seems to have no context whatsoever: "main" prio=10 tid=0x0000000000614000 nid=0x445d runnable [0x0000000000000000] java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE As noted earlier, this is a daemon process running using jsvc, but I don't know if that has anything to do with it (I can restructure the code to also allow running it directly, to test). Any suggestions on what might be happening here? Thanks... dwh Full thread dump: Full thread dump Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (14.2-b01 mixed mode): "MySQL Statement Cancellation Timer" daemon prio=10 tid=0x00002aaaf81b8800 nid=0x447b in Object.wait() [0x00002aaaf6a22000] java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (on object monitor) at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method) - waiting on <0x00002aaab5556d50> (a java.util.TaskQueue) at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:485) at java.util.TimerThread.mainLoop(Timer.java:483) - locked <0x00002aaab5556d50> (a java.util.TaskQueue) at java.util.TimerThread.run(Timer.java:462) "Low Memory Detector" daemon prio=10 tid=0x00000000006a4000 nid=0x4479 runnable [0x0000000000000000] java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE "CompilerThread1" daemon prio=10 tid=0x00000000006a1000 nid=0x4477 waiting on condition [0x0000000000000000] java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE "CompilerThread0" daemon prio=10 tid=0x000000000069d000 nid=0x4476 waiting on condition [0x0000000000000000] java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE "Signal Dispatcher" daemon prio=10 tid=0x000000000069b000 nid=0x4465 waiting on condition [0x0000000000000000] java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE "Finalizer" daemon prio=10 tid=0x0000000000678800 nid=0x4464 in Object.wait() [0x00002aaaf61d6000] java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (on object monitor) at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method) - waiting on <0x00002aaab54a1cb8> (a java.lang.ref.ReferenceQueue$Lock) at java.lang.ref.ReferenceQueue.remove(ReferenceQueue.java:118) - locked <0x00002aaab54a1cb8> (a java.lang.ref.ReferenceQueue$Lock) at java.lang.ref.ReferenceQueue.remove(ReferenceQueue.java:134) at java.lang.ref.Finalizer$FinalizerThread.run(Finalizer.java:159) "Reference Handler" daemon prio=10 tid=0x0000000000676800 nid=0x4463 in Object.wait() [0x00002aaaf60d5000] java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (on object monitor) at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method) - waiting on <0x00002aaab54a1cf0> (a java.lang.ref.Reference$Lock) at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:485) at java.lang.ref.Reference$ReferenceHandler.run(Reference.java:116) - locked <0x00002aaab54a1cf0> (a java.lang.ref.Reference$Lock) "main" prio=10 tid=0x0000000000614000 nid=0x445d runnable [0x0000000000000000] java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE "VM Thread" prio=10 tid=0x0000000000670000 nid=0x4462 runnable "GC task thread#0 (ParallelGC)" prio=10 tid=0x000000000061e000 nid=0x445e runnable "GC task thread#1 (ParallelGC)" prio=10 tid=0x0000000000620000 nid=0x445f runnable "GC task thread#2 (ParallelGC)" prio=10 tid=0x0000000000622000 nid=0x4460 runnable "GC task thread#3 (ParallelGC)" prio=10 tid=0x0000000000623800 nid=0x4461 runnable "VM Periodic Task Thread" prio=10 tid=0x00000000006a6800 nid=0x447a waiting on condition JNI global references: 797 Heap PSYoungGen total 162944K, used 48388K [0x00002aaadff40000, 0x00002aaaf2ab0000, 0x00002aaaf5490000) eden space 102784K, 47% used [0x00002aaadff40000,0x00002aaae2e81170,0x00002aaae63a0000) from space 60160K, 0% used [0x00002aaaeb850000,0x00002aaaeb850000,0x00002aaaef310000) to space 86720K, 0% used [0x00002aaae63a0000,0x00002aaae63a0000,0x00002aaaeb850000) PSOldGen total 699072K, used 699072K [0x00002aaab5490000, 0x00002aaadff40000, 0x00002aaadff40000) object space 699072K, 100% used [0x00002aaab5490000,0x00002aaadff40000,0x00002aaadff40000) PSPermGen total 21248K, used 9252K [0x00002aaab0090000, 0x00002aaab1550000, 0x00002aaab5490000) object space 21248K, 43% used [0x00002aaab0090000,0x00002aaab09993e8,0x00002aaab1550000)

    Read the article

  • SIlverlight 4RC threading - can a new Thread return the UI Thread

    - by Darko Z
    Hi all, Let's say I have a situation in Silverlight where there is a background thread (guaranteed to NOT be the UI thread) doing some work and it needs to create a new thread. Something like this: //running in a background thread Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(delegate{}); t.Start(); Lets also say that the UI thread at this particular time is just hanging around doing nothing. Keeping in mind that I am not that knowledgeable about the Silverlight threading model, is there any danger of the new Thread() call giving me the UI thread? The motivation or what I am trying to achieve is not important - I do not want modification to the existing code. I just want to know if there is a possibility of getting the UI thread back unexpectedly. Cheers

    Read the article

  • Thread sleep and thread join.

    - by Dhruv Gairola
    hi guys, if i put a thread to sleep in a loop, netbeans gives me a caution saying Invoking Thread.sleep in loop can cause performance problems. However, if i were to replace the sleep with join, no such caution is given. Both versions compile and work fine tho. My code is below (check the last few lines for "Thread.sleep() vs t.join()"). public class Test{ //Display a message, preceded by the name of the current thread static void threadMessage(String message) { String threadName = Thread.currentThread().getName(); System.out.format("%s: %s%n", threadName, message); } private static class MessageLoop implements Runnable { public void run() { String importantInfo[] = { "Mares eat oats", "Does eat oats", "Little lambs eat ivy", "A kid will eat ivy too" }; try { for (int i = 0; i < importantInfo.length; i++) { //Pause for 4 seconds Thread.sleep(4000); //Print a message threadMessage(importantInfo[i]); } } catch (InterruptedException e) { threadMessage("I wasn't done!"); } } } public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException { //Delay, in milliseconds before we interrupt MessageLoop //thread (default one hour). long patience = 1000 * 60 * 60; //If command line argument present, gives patience in seconds. if (args.length > 0) { try { patience = Long.parseLong(args[0]) * 1000; } catch (NumberFormatException e) { System.err.println("Argument must be an integer."); System.exit(1); } } threadMessage("Starting MessageLoop thread"); long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); Thread t = new Thread(new MessageLoop()); t.start(); threadMessage("Waiting for MessageLoop thread to finish"); //loop until MessageLoop thread exits while (t.isAlive()) { threadMessage("Still waiting..."); //Wait maximum of 1 second for MessageLoop thread to //finish. /*******LOOK HERE**********************/ Thread.sleep(1000);//issues caution unlike t.join(1000) /**************************************/ if (((System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime) > patience) && t.isAlive()) { threadMessage("Tired of waiting!"); t.interrupt(); //Shouldn't be long now -- wait indefinitely t.join(); } } threadMessage("Finally!"); } } As i understand it, join waits for the other thread to complete, but in this case, arent both sleep and join doing the same thing? Then why does netbeans throw the caution?

    Read the article

  • Ctrl + C doesn't abort programs in terminal

    - by jake
    I changed the keyboard shortcut in terminal so that Ctrl + C would copy text. I realized I can't abort a program I am running since Ctrl + C used to be the abort command. I know that Ctrl + Shift + C works but want it switched back. Is there a way to revert the keyboard shortcuts to the real defaults before I decided to mess with it? What is the abort command defined as in keyboard shortcuts? Not a big program if I can't but it would be nice to know.

    Read the article

  • Monitor.Wait, Pulse - When worker thread should conditionally behave as an actual worker thread

    - by Griever
    My particular scenario: - Main thread starts a worker thread. - Main thread needs to block itself until either worker thread is completed (yeah funny) or worker thread itself informs main thread to go on Alright, so what I did in main thread: wokerThread.Start(lockObj); lock(lockObj) Monitor.Wait(lockObj); Somewhere in worker thread: if(mainThreadShouldGoOn) lock(lockObj) Monitor.Pulse(lockObj); Also, at the end of worker thread: lock(lockObj) Monitor.Pulse(lockObj); So far, it's working perfect. But is it a good solution? Is there a better one?

    Read the article

  • XNA Xbox 360 Content Manager Thread freezing Draw Thread

    - by Alikar
    I currently have a game that takes in large images, easily bigger than 1MB, to serve as backgrounds. I know exactly when this transition is supposed to take place, so I made a loader class to handle loading these large images in the background, but when I load the images it still freezes the main thread where the drawing takes place. Since this code runs on the 360 I move the thread to the 4th hardware thread, but that doesn't seem to help. Below is the class I am using. Any thoughts as to why my new content manager which should be in its own thread is interrupting the draw in my main thread would be appreciated. namespace FileSystem { /// <summary> /// This is used to reference how many objects reference this texture. /// Everytime someone references a texture we increase the iNumberOfReferences. /// When a class calls remove on a specific texture we check to see if anything /// else is referencing the class, if it is we don't remove it. If there isn't /// anything referencing the texture its safe to dispose of. /// </summary> class TextureContainer { public uint uiNumberOfReferences = 0; public Texture2D texture; } /// <summary> /// This class loads all the files from the Content. /// </summary> static class FileManager { static Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Content.ContentManager Content; static EventWaitHandle wh = new AutoResetEvent(false); static Dictionary<string, TextureContainer> Texture2DResourceDictionary; static List<Texture2D> TexturesToDispose; static List<String> TexturesToLoad; static int iProcessor = 4; private static object threadMutex = new object(); private static object Texture2DMutex = new object(); private static object loadingMutex = new object(); private static bool bLoadingTextures = false; /// <summary> /// Returns if we are loading textures or not. /// </summary> public static bool LoadingTexture { get { lock (loadingMutex) { return bLoadingTextures; } } } /// <summary> /// Since this is an static class. This is the constructor for the file loadeder. This is the version /// for the Xbox 360. /// </summary> /// <param name="_Content"></param> public static void Initalize(IServiceProvider serviceProvider, string rootDirectory, int _iProcessor ) { Content = new Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Content.ContentManager(serviceProvider, rootDirectory); Texture2DResourceDictionary = new Dictionary<string, TextureContainer>(); TexturesToDispose = new List<Texture2D>(); iProcessor = _iProcessor; CreateThread(); } /// <summary> /// Since this is an static class. This is the constructor for the file loadeder. /// </summary> /// <param name="_Content"></param> public static void Initalize(IServiceProvider serviceProvider, string rootDirectory) { Content = new Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Content.ContentManager(serviceProvider, rootDirectory); Texture2DResourceDictionary = new Dictionary<string, TextureContainer>(); TexturesToDispose = new List<Texture2D>(); CreateThread(); } /// <summary> /// Creates the thread incase we wanted to set up some parameters /// Outside of the constructor. /// </summary> static public void CreateThread() { Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(StartThread)); t.Start(); } // This is the function that we thread. static public void StartThread() { //BBSThreadClass BBSTC = (BBSThreadClass)_oData; FileManager.Execute(); } /// <summary> /// This thread shouldn't be called by the outside world. /// It allows the File Manager to loop. /// </summary> static private void Execute() { // Make sure our thread is on the correct processor on the XBox 360. #if WINDOWS #else Thread.CurrentThread.SetProcessorAffinity(new int[] { iProcessor }); Thread.CurrentThread.IsBackground = true; #endif // This loop will load textures into ram for us away from the main thread. while (true) { wh.WaitOne(); // Locking down our data while we process it. lock (threadMutex) { lock (loadingMutex) { bLoadingTextures = true; } bool bContainsKey = false; for (int con = 0; con < TexturesToLoad.Count; con++) { // If we have already loaded the texture into memory reference // the one in the dictionary. lock (Texture2DMutex) { bContainsKey = Texture2DResourceDictionary.ContainsKey(TexturesToLoad[con]); } if (bContainsKey) { // Do nothing } // Otherwise load it into the dictionary and then reference the // copy in the dictionary else { TextureContainer TC = new TextureContainer(); TC.uiNumberOfReferences = 1; // We start out with 1 referece. // Loading the texture into memory. try { TC.texture = Content.Load<Texture2D>(TexturesToLoad[con]); // This is passed into the dictionary, thus there is only one copy of // the texture in memory. // There is an issue with Sprite Batch and disposing textures. // This will have to wait until its figured out. lock (Texture2DMutex) { bContainsKey = Texture2DResourceDictionary.ContainsKey(TexturesToLoad[con]); Texture2DResourceDictionary.Add(TexturesToLoad[con], TC); } // We don't have the find the reference to the container since we // already have it. } // Occasionally our texture will already by loaded by another thread while // this thread is operating. This mainly happens on the first level. catch (Exception e) { // If this happens we don't worry about it since this thread only loads // texture data and if its already there we don't need to load it. } } Thread.Sleep(100); } } lock (loadingMutex) { bLoadingTextures = false; } } } static public void LoadTextureList(List<string> _textureList) { // Ensuring that we can't creating threading problems. lock (threadMutex) { TexturesToLoad = _textureList; } wh.Set(); } /// <summary> /// This loads a 2D texture which represents a 2D grid of Texels. /// </summary> /// <param name="_textureName">The name of the picture you wish to load.</param> /// <returns>Holds the image data.</returns> public static Texture2D LoadTexture2D( string _textureName ) { TextureContainer temp; lock (Texture2DMutex) { bool bContainsKey = false; // If we have already loaded the texture into memory reference // the one in the dictionary. lock (Texture2DMutex) { bContainsKey = Texture2DResourceDictionary.ContainsKey(_textureName); if (bContainsKey) { temp = Texture2DResourceDictionary[_textureName]; temp.uiNumberOfReferences++; // Incrementing the number of references } // Otherwise load it into the dictionary and then reference the // copy in the dictionary else { TextureContainer TC = new TextureContainer(); TC.uiNumberOfReferences = 1; // We start out with 1 referece. // Loading the texture into memory. try { TC.texture = Content.Load<Texture2D>(_textureName); // This is passed into the dictionary, thus there is only one copy of // the texture in memory. } // Occasionally our texture will already by loaded by another thread while // this thread is operating. This mainly happens on the first level. catch(Exception e) { temp = Texture2DResourceDictionary[_textureName]; temp.uiNumberOfReferences++; // Incrementing the number of references } // There is an issue with Sprite Batch and disposing textures. // This will have to wait until its figured out. Texture2DResourceDictionary.Add(_textureName, TC); // We don't have the find the reference to the container since we // already have it. temp = TC; } } } // Return a reference to the texture return temp.texture; } /// <summary> /// Go through our dictionary and remove any references to the /// texture passed in. /// </summary> /// <param name="texture">Texture to remove from texture dictionary.</param> public static void RemoveTexture2D(Texture2D texture) { foreach (KeyValuePair<string, TextureContainer> pair in Texture2DResourceDictionary) { // Do our references match? if (pair.Value.texture == texture) { // Only one object or less holds a reference to the // texture. Logically it should be safe to remove. if (pair.Value.uiNumberOfReferences <= 1) { // Grabing referenc to texture TexturesToDispose.Add(pair.Value.texture); // We are about to release the memory of the texture, // thus we make sure no one else can call this member // in the dictionary. Texture2DResourceDictionary.Remove(pair.Key); // Once we have removed the texture we don't want to create an exception. // So we will stop looking in the list since it has changed. break; } // More than one Object has a reference to this texture. // So we will not be removing it from memory and instead // simply marking down the number of references by 1. else { pair.Value.uiNumberOfReferences--; } } } } /*public static void DisposeTextures() { int Count = TexturesToDispose.Count; // If there are any textures to dispose of. if (Count > 0) { for (int con = 0; con < TexturesToDispose.Count; con++) { // =!THIS REMOVES THE TEXTURE FROM MEMORY!= // This is not like a normal dispose. This will actually // remove the object from memory. Texture2D is inherited // from GraphicsResource which removes it self from // memory on dispose. Very nice for game efficency, // but "dangerous" in managed land. Texture2D Temp = TexturesToDispose[con]; Temp.Dispose(); } // Remove textures we've already disposed of. TexturesToDispose.Clear(); } }*/ /// <summary> /// This loads a 2D texture which represnets a font. /// </summary> /// <param name="_textureName">The name of the font you wish to load.</param> /// <returns>Holds the font data.</returns> public static SpriteFont LoadFont( string _fontName ) { SpriteFont temp = Content.Load<SpriteFont>( _fontName ); return temp; } /// <summary> /// This loads an XML document. /// </summary> /// <param name="_textureName">The name of the XML document you wish to load.</param> /// <returns>Holds the XML data.</returns> public static XmlDocument LoadXML( string _fileName ) { XmlDocument temp = Content.Load<XmlDocument>( _fileName ); return temp; } /// <summary> /// This loads a sound file. /// </summary> /// <param name="_fileName"></param> /// <returns></returns> public static SoundEffect LoadSound( string _fileName ) { SoundEffect temp = Content.Load<SoundEffect>(_fileName); return temp; } } }

    Read the article

  • Difference between Thread.Sleep(0) and Thread.Yield()

    - by Xose Lluis
    As Java has had Sleep and Yield from long ago, I've found answers for that platform, but not for .Net .Net 4 includes the new Thread.Yield() static method. Previously the common way to hand over the CPU to other process was Thread.Sleep(0). Apart from Thread.Yield() returning a boolean, are there other performance, OS internals differences? For example, I'm not sure if Thread.Sleep(0) checks if other thread is ready to run before changing the current Thread to waiting state... if that's not the case, when no other threads are ready, Thread.Sleep(0) would seem rather worse that Thread.Yield().

    Read the article

  • C++ Multithreading with pthread is blocking (including sockets)

    - by Sebastian Büttner
    I am trying to implement a multi threaded application with pthread. I did implement a thread class which looks like the following and I call it later twice (or even more), but it seems to block instead of execute the threads parallel. Here is what I got until now: The Thread Class is an abstract class which has the abstract method "exec" which should contain the thread code in a derive class (I did a sample of this, named DerivedThread) Thread.hpp #ifndef THREAD_H_ #define THREAD_H_ #include <pthread.h> class Thread { public: Thread(); void start(); void join(); virtual int exec() = 0; int exit_code(); private: static void* thread_router(void* arg); void exec_thread(); pthread_t pth_; int code_; }; #endif /* THREAD_H_ */ And Thread.cpp #include <iostream> #include "Thread.hpp" /*****************************/ using namespace std; Thread::Thread(): code_(0) { cout << "[Thread] Init" << endl; } void Thread::start() { cout << "[Thread] Created Thread" << endl; pthread_create( &pth_, NULL, Thread::thread_router, reinterpret_cast<void*>(this)); } void Thread::join() { cout << "[Thread] Join Thread" << endl; pthread_join(pth_, NULL); } int Thread::exit_code() { return code_; } void Thread::exec_thread() { cout << "[Thread] Execute" << endl; code_ = exec(); } void* Thread::thread_router(void* arg) { cout << "[Thread] exec_thread function in thread" << endl; reinterpret_cast<Thread*>(arg)->exec_thread(); return NULL; } DerivedThread.hpp #include "Thread.hpp" class DerivedThread : public Thread { public: DerivedThread(); virtual ~DerivedThread(); int exec(); void Close() = 0; DerivedThread.cpp [...] #include "DerivedThread.cpp" [...] int DerivedThread::exec() { //code to be executed do { cout << "Thread executed" << endl; usleep(1000000); } while (true); //dummy, just to let it run for a while } [...] Basically, I am calling this like the here: DerivedThread *thread; cout << "Creating Thread" << endl; thread = new DerivedThread(); cout << "Created thread, starting..." << endl; thread->start(); cout << "Started thread" << endl; cout << "Creating 2nd Thread" << endl; thread = new DerivedThread(); cout << "Created 2nd thread, starting..." << endl; thread->start(); cout << "Started 2nd thread" << endl; What is working great if I am only starting one of these Threads , but if I start multiple which should run together (not synced, only parallel) . But I discovered, that the thread is created, then as it tries to execute it (via start) the problem seems to block until the thread has closed. After that the next Thread is processed. I thought that pthread would do it unblocked for me, so what did I wrong? A sample output might be: Creating Thread [Thread] Thread Init Created thread, starting... [Thread] Created thread [Thread] exec_thread function in thread [Thread] Execute Thread executed Thread executed Thread executed Thread executed Thread executed Thread executed Thread executed .... Until Thread 1 is not terminated, a Thread 2 won't be created not executed. The process above is executed in an other class. Just for the information: I am trying to create a multi threaded server. The concept is like this: MultiThreadedServer Class has a main loop, like this one: ::inet::ServerSock *sock; //just a simple self made wrapper class for sockets DerivedThread *thread; for (;;) { sock = new ::inet::ServerSock(); this->Socket->accept( *sock ); cout << "Creating Thread" << endl; //Threads (according to code sample above) thread = new DerivedThread(sock); //I did not mentoine the parameter before as it was not neccesary, in fact, I pass the socket handle with the connected socket to the thread cout << "Created thread, starting..." << endl; thread->start(); cout << "Started thread" << endl; } So I thought that this would loop over and over and wait for new connections to accept. and when a new client arrives, I am creating a new thread and give the thread the connected socket as a parameter. In the DerivedThread::exec I am doing the handling for the connected client. Like: [...] do { [...] if (this-sock_-read( Buffer, sizeof(PacketStruc) ) 0) { cout << "[Handler_Base] Recv Packet" << endl; //handle the packet } else { Connected = false; } delete Buffer; } while ( Connected ); So I loop in the created thread as long as the client keeps the connection. I think, that the socket may cause the blocking behaviour. Edit: I figured out, that it is not the read() loop in the DerivedThread Class as I simply replaced it with a loop over a simple cout-usleep part. It did also only execute the first one and after first thread finished, the 2nd one was executed. Many thanks and best regards, Sebastian

    Read the article

  • Pass data from thread into Activity

    - by Laimoncijus
    Hi, I am want to pass data back from a Thread to Activity (which created the thread). So I am doing like described on Android documentation: public class MyActivity extends Activity { [ . . . ] // Need handler for callbacks to the UI thread final Handler mHandler = new Handler(); // Create runnable for posting final Runnable mUpdateResults = new Runnable() { public void run() { updateResultsInUi(); } }; @Override protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); [ . . . ] } protected void startLongRunningOperation() { // Fire off a thread to do some work that we shouldn't do directly in the UI thread Thread t = new Thread() { public void run() { mResults = doSomethingExpensive(); mHandler.post(mUpdateResults); } }; t.start(); } private void updateResultsInUi() { // Back in the UI thread -- update our UI elements based on the data in mResults [ . . . ] } } Only one thing I am missing here - where and how should be defined mResults so I could access it from both Activity and Thread, and also would be able to modify as needed? If I define it as final in MyActivity, I can't change it anymore in Thread - as it is shown in example... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • multi-thread in mmorpg server

    - by jean
    For MMORPG, there is a tick function to update every object's state in a map. The function was triggered by a timer in fixed interval. So each map's update can be dispatch to different thread. At other side, server handle player incoming package have its own threads also: I/O threads. Generally, the handler of the corresponding incoming package run in I/O threads. So there is a problem: thread synchronization. I have consider two methods: Synchronize with mutex. I/O thread lock a mutex before execute handler function and map thread lock same mutex before it execute map's update. Execute all handler functions in map's thread, I/O thread only queue the incoming handler and let map thread to pop the queue then call handler function. These two have a disadvantage: delay. For method 1, if the map's tick function is running, then all clients' request need to waiting the lock release. For method 2, if map's tick function is running, all clients' request need to waiting for next tick to be handle. Of course, there is another method: add lock to functions that use data which will be accessed both in I/O thread & map thread. But this is hard to maintain and easy to goes incorrect. It needs carefully check all variables whether or not accessed by both two kinds thread. My problem is: is there better way to do this? Notice that I said map is logic concept means no interactions can happen between two map except transport. I/O thread means thread in 3rd part network lib which used to handle client request.

    Read the article

  • What are the differences between currently executing .NET thread and Win32 thread

    - by Ybbest
    I am reading the Asp.net security documentation on msdn.I come across these tow terms and get really confused. # WindowsIdentity = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent() which returns the identity of the security context of the currently executing Win32 thread. # Thread = Thread.CurrentPrincipal which returns the principal of the currently executing .NET thread which rides on top of the Win32 thread.

    Read the article

  • what are the differences between currectly excecuting .net thread and Win32 thread

    - by Ybbest
    I am reading the Asp.net security documentation on msdn.I come across these tow terms and get really confused. # WindowsIdentity = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent(), which returns the identity of the security context of the currently executing Win32 thread. # Thread = Thread.CurrentPrincipal which returns the principal of the currently executing .NET thread which rides on top of the Win32 thread.

    Read the article

  • what are the differences between correctly executing .net thread and Win32 thread

    - by Ybbest
    I am reading the Asp.net security documentation on msdn.I come across these tow terms and get really confused. # WindowsIdentity = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent(), which returns the identity of the security context of the currently executing Win32 thread. # Thread = Thread.CurrentPrincipal which returns the principal of the currently executing .NET thread which rides on top of the Win32 thread.

    Read the article

  • Thread placement policies on NUMA systems - update

    - by Dave
    In a prior blog entry I noted that Solaris used a "maximum dispersal" placement policy to assign nascent threads to their initial processors. The general idea is that threads should be placed as far away from each other as possible in the resource topology in order to reduce resource contention between concurrently running threads. This policy assumes that resource contention -- pipelines, memory channel contention, destructive interference in the shared caches, etc -- will likely outweigh (a) any potential communication benefits we might achieve by packing our threads more densely onto a subset of the NUMA nodes, and (b) benefits of NUMA affinity between memory allocated by one thread and accessed by other threads. We want our threads spread widely over the system and not packed together. Conceptually, when placing a new thread, the kernel picks the least loaded node NUMA node (the node with lowest aggregate load average), and then the least loaded core on that node, etc. Furthermore, the kernel places threads onto resources -- sockets, cores, pipelines, etc -- without regard to the thread's process membership. That is, initial placement is process-agnostic. Keep reading, though. This description is incorrect. On Solaris 10 on a SPARC T5440 with 4 x T2+ NUMA nodes, if the system is otherwise unloaded and we launch a process that creates 20 compute-bound concurrent threads, then typically we'll see a perfect balance with 5 threads on each node. We see similar behavior on an 8-node x86 x4800 system, where each node has 8 cores and each core is 2-way hyperthreaded. So far so good; this behavior seems in agreement with the policy I described in the 1st paragraph. I recently tried the same experiment on a 4-node T4-4 running Solaris 11. Both the T5440 and T4-4 are 4-node systems that expose 256 logical thread contexts. To my surprise, all 20 threads were placed onto just one NUMA node while the other 3 nodes remained completely idle. I checked the usual suspects such as processor sets inadvertently left around by colleagues, processors left offline, and power management policies, but the system was configured normally. I then launched multiple concurrent instances of the process, and, interestingly, all the threads from the 1st process landed on one node, all the threads from the 2nd process landed on another node, and so on. This happened even if I interleaved thread creating between the processes, so I was relatively sure the effect didn't related to thread creation time, but rather that placement was a function of process membership. I this point I consulted the Solaris sources and talked with folks in the Solaris group. The new Solaris 11 behavior is intentional. The kernel is no longer using a simple maximum dispersal policy, and thread placement is process membership-aware. Now, even if other nodes are completely unloaded, the kernel will still try to pack new threads onto the home lgroup (socket) of the primordial thread until the load average of that node reaches 50%, after which it will pick the next least loaded node as the process's new favorite node for placement. On the T4-4 we have 64 logical thread contexts (strands) per socket (lgroup), so if we launch 48 concurrent threads we will find 32 placed on one node and 16 on some other node. If we launch 64 threads we'll find 32 and 32. That means we can end up with our threads clustered on a small subset of the nodes in a way that's quite different that what we've seen on Solaris 10. So we have a policy that allows process-aware packing but reverts to spreading threads onto other nodes if a node becomes too saturated. It turns out this policy was enabled in Solaris 10, but certain bugs suppressed the mixed packing/spreading behavior. There are configuration variables in /etc/system that allow us to dial the affinity between nascent threads and their primordial thread up and down: see lgrp_expand_proc_thresh, specifically. In the OpenSolaris source code the key routine is mpo_update_tunables(). This method reads the /etc/system variables and sets up some global variables that will subsequently be used by the dispatcher, which calls lgrp_choose() in lgrp.c to place nascent threads. Lgrp_expand_proc_thresh controls how loaded an lgroup must be before we'll consider homing a process's threads to another lgroup. Tune this value lower to have it spread your process's threads out more. To recap, the 'new' policy is as follows. Threads from the same process are packed onto a subset of the strands of a socket (50% for T-series). Once that socket reaches the 50% threshold the kernel then picks another preferred socket for that process. Threads from unrelated processes are spread across sockets. More precisely, different processes may have different preferred sockets (lgroups). Beware that I've simplified and elided details for the purposes of explication. The truth is in the code. Remarks: It's worth noting that initial thread placement is just that. If there's a gross imbalance between the load on different nodes then the kernel will migrate threads to achieve a better and more even distribution over the set of available nodes. Once a thread runs and gains some affinity for a node, however, it becomes "stickier" under the assumption that the thread has residual cache residency on that node, and that memory allocated by that thread resides on that node given the default "first-touch" page-level NUMA allocation policy. Exactly how the various policies interact and which have precedence under what circumstances could the topic of a future blog entry. The scheduler is work-conserving. The x4800 mentioned above is an interesting system. Each of the 8 sockets houses an Intel 7500-series processor. Each processor has 3 coherent QPI links and the system is arranged as a glueless 8-socket twisted ladder "mobius" topology. Nodes are either 1 or 2 hops distant over the QPI links. As an aside the mapping of logical CPUIDs to physical resources is rather interesting on Solaris/x4800. On SPARC/Solaris the CPUID layout is strictly geographic, with the highest order bits identifying the socket, the next lower bits identifying the core within that socket, following by the pipeline (if present) and finally the logical thread context ("strand") on the core. But on Solaris on the x4800 the CPUID layout is as follows. [6:6] identifies the hyperthread on a core; bits [5:3] identify the socket, or package in Intel terminology; bits [2:0] identify the core within a socket. Such low-level details should be of interest only if you're binding threads -- a bad idea, the kernel typically handles placement best -- or if you're writing NUMA-aware code that's aware of the ambient placement and makes decisions accordingly. Solaris introduced the so-called critical-threads mechanism, which is expressed by putting a thread into the FX scheduling class at priority 60. The critical-threads mechanism applies to placement on cores, not on sockets, however. That is, it's an intra-socket policy, not an inter-socket policy. Solaris 11 introduces the Power Aware Dispatcher (PAD) which packs threads instead of spreading them out in an attempt to be able to keep sockets or cores at lower power levels. Maximum dispersal may be good for performance but is anathema to power management. PAD is off by default, but power management polices constitute yet another confounding factor with respect to scheduling and dispatching. If your threads communicate heavily -- one thread reads cache lines last written by some other thread -- then the new dense packing policy may improve performance by reducing traffic on the coherent interconnect. On the other hand if your threads in your process communicate rarely, then it's possible the new packing policy might result on contention on shared computing resources. Unfortunately there's no simple litmus test that says whether packing or spreading is optimal in a given situation. The answer varies by system load, application, number of threads, and platform hardware characteristics. Currently we don't have the necessary tools and sensoria to decide at runtime, so we're reduced to an empirical approach where we run trials and try to decide on a placement policy. The situation is quite frustrating. Relatedly, it's often hard to determine just the right level of concurrency to optimize throughput. (Understanding constructive vs destructive interference in the shared caches would be a good start. We could augment the lines with a small tag field indicating which strand last installed or accessed a line. Given that, we could augment the CPU with performance counters for misses where a thread evicts a line it installed vs misses where a thread displaces a line installed by some other thread.)

    Read the article

  • wpf exit thread automatically when application closes

    - by toni
    Hi, I have a main wpf window and one of its controls is a user control that I have created. this user control is an analog clock and contains a thread that update hour, minute and second hands. Initially it wasn't a thread, it was a timer event that updated the hour, minutes and seconds but I have changed it to a thread because the application do some hard work when the user press a start button and then the clock don't update so I changed it to a thread. COde snippet of wpf window: <Window xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:local="clr-namespace:GParts" xmlns:Microsoft_Windows_Themes="clr-namespace:Microsoft.Windows.Themes assembly=PresentationFramework.Aero" xmlns:UC="clr-namespace:GParts.UserControls" x:Class="GParts.WinMain" Title="GParts" WindowState="Maximized" Closing="Window_Closing" Icon="/Resources/Calendar-clock.png" x:Name="WMain" > <...> <!-- this is my user control --> <UC:AnalogClock Grid.Row="1" x:Name="AnalogClock" Background="Transparent" Margin="0" Height="Auto" Width="Auto"/> <...> </Window> My problem is when the user exits the application then the thread seems to continue executing. I would like the thread finishes automatically when main windows closes. code snippet of user control constructor: namespace GParts.UserControls { /// <summary> /// Lógica de interacción para AnalogClock.xaml /// </summary> public partial class AnalogClock : UserControl { System.Timers.Timer timer = new System.Timers.Timer(1000); public AnalogClock() { InitializeComponent(); MDCalendar mdCalendar = new MDCalendar(); DateTime date = DateTime.Now; TimeZone time = TimeZone.CurrentTimeZone; TimeSpan difference = time.GetUtcOffset(date); uint currentTime = mdCalendar.Time() + (uint)difference.TotalSeconds; christianityCalendar.Content = mdCalendar.Date("d/e/Z", currentTime, false); // this was before implementing thread //timer.Elapsed += new System.Timers.ElapsedEventHandler(timer_Elapsed); //timer.Enabled = true; // The Work to perform ThreadStart start = delegate() { // With this condition the thread exits when main window closes but // despite of this it seems like the thread continues executing after // exiting application because in task manager cpu is very busy // while ((this.IsInitialized) && (this.Dispatcher.HasShutdownFinished== false)) { this.Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Normal, (Action)(() => { DateTime hora = DateTime.Now; secondHand.Angle = hora.Second * 6; minuteHand.Angle = hora.Minute * 6; hourHand.Angle = (hora.Hour * 30) + (hora.Minute * 0.5); DigitalClock.CurrentTime = hora; })); } Console.Write("Quit ok"); }; // Create the thread and kick it started! new Thread(start).Start(); } // this was before implementing thread void timer_Elapsed(object sender, System.Timers.ElapsedEventArgs e) { this.Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Normal, (Action)(() => { DateTime hora = DateTime.Now; secondHand.Angle = hora.Second * 6; minuteHand.Angle = hora.Minute * 6; hourHand.Angle = (hora.Hour * 30) + (hora.Minute * 0.5); DigitalClock.CurrentTime = hora; })); } } // end class } // end namespace How can I exit correctly from thread automatically when main window closes and then application exits? Thanks very much!

    Read the article

  • Stopping work from one thread using another thread

    - by 113483626144458436514
    Not sure if my title is worded well, but whatever :) I have two threads: the main thread with the work that needs to be done, and a worker thread that contains a form with a progress bar and a cancel button. In normal code, it would be the other way around, but I can't do that in this case. When the user clicks the cancel button, a prompt is displayed asking if he wants to really cancel the work. The problem is that work continues on the main thread. I can get the main thread to stop work and such, but I would like for it to stop doing work when he clicks "Yes" on the prompt. Example: // Main thread work starts here t1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(progressForm_Start)); t1.Start(); // Working for (i = 0; i <= 10000; i++) { semaphore.WaitOne(); if (pBar.Running) bgworker_ProgressChanged(i); semaphore.Release(); if (pBar.IsCancelled) break; } t1.Abort(); // Main thread work ends here // Start progress bar form in another thread void progressForm_Start() { pBar.Status("Starting"); pBar.ShowDialog(); } I could theoretically include a prompt in the cancelWatch() function, but then I would have to do that everywhere I'm implementing this class.

    Read the article

  • I just can't kill Java thread.

    - by Adrian
    I have a thread that downloads some images from internet using different proxies. Sometimes it hangs, and can't be killed by any means. public HttpURLConnection uc; public InputStream in; Proxy proxy = new Proxy(Proxy.Type.HTTP, new InetSocketAddress("server", 8080)); URL url = new URL("http://images.com/image.jpg"); uc = (HttpURLConnection)url.openConnection(proxy); uc.setConnectTimeout(30000); uc.setAllowUserInteraction(false); uc.setDoOutput(true); uc.addRequestProperty("User-Agent","Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0)"); uc.connect(); in = uc.getInputStream(); When it hangs, it freezes at the uc.getInputStream() method. I made a timer which tries to kill the thread if it's run time exceeds 3 minutes. I tried .terminate() the thread. No effect. I tried uc.disconnect() from the main thread. The method also hangs and with it, the main thread. I tried in.close(). No effect. I tried uc=null, in=null hoping for an exception that will end the thread. It keeps running. It never passes the uc.getInputStream() method. In my last test the thread lasted over 14 hours after receiving all above commands (or various combinations). I had to kill the Java process to stop the thread. If I just ignore the thread, and set it's instance to null, the thread doesn't die and is not cleaned by garbage collector. I know that because if I let the application running for several days, the Java process takes more and more system memory. In 3 days it took 10% of my 8Gb. RAM system. It is impossible to kill a thread whatever?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >