Search Results

Search found 1638 results on 66 pages for 'multithreading'.

Page 22/66 | < Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >

  • Delphi TerminateThread equivalent for Android

    - by Martin
    I have been discussing a problem on the Indy forums related to a thread that is not terminating correctly under Android. They have suggested that there may be an underlying problem with TThread for ARC. Because this problem is holding up the release of a product a work around would be to simply forcibly terminate the thread. I know this is not nice but in this case I cant think of a side effect from doing so. Its wrong but its better than a deadlocked app. Is there a way to forcibly terminate a thread under Android like TerminateThread does under windows? Martin

    Read the article

  • thread reaches end but isn't removed

    - by pstanton
    I create a bunch of threads to do some processing: new Thread("upd-" + id){ @Override public void run(){ try{ doSomething(); } catch (Throwable e){ LOG.error("error", e); } finally{ LOG.debug("thread death"); } } }.start(); I know i should be using a threadPool but i need to understand the following problem before i change it: I'm using eclipse's debugger and looking at the threads in the debug pane which lists active threads. Many of them complete as you would expect, and are removed from the debug pane, however some seem to stay in the list of active threads even though the log shows the "thread death" entry for these. When i attempt to debug these threads, they either do not pause for debugging or show an error dialog: "A timeout occurred while retrieving stack frames for thread: upd-...". there is some synchronization going on within the doSomething() call but i'm fairly sure it's ok and since the "thread death" log is being called i'm assuming these threads aren't deadlocked in that method. i don't do any Thread.join()s, however i do call a third party API but doubt they do either. Can anyone think of another reason these threads are lingering? Thanks. EDIT: I created this test to check the Garbage Collection theory: Thread thread = new Thread("!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!") { @Override public void run() { System.out.println("running"); ThreadUs.sleepQuiet(5000); System.out.println("finished"); // <-- thread removed from list here } }; thread.start(); ThreadUs.sleepQuiet(10000); System.out.println(thread.isAlive()); // <-- thread already removed from list but hasn't been GC'd ThreadUs.sleepQuiet(10000); this proves that it is nothing to do with garbage collection as eclipse removes the thread from the thread list as soon as it completes and isn't waiting for the object to be de-referenced/GC'd.

    Read the article

  • Terminate long running thread in thread pool that was created using QueueUserWorkItem(win 32/nt5).

    - by Jake
    I am programming in a win32 nt5 environment. I have a function that is going to be called many times. Each call is atomic. I would like to use QueueUserWorkItem to take advantage of multicore processors. The problem I am having is I only want to give the function 3 seconds to complete. If it has not completed in 3 seconds I want to terminate the thread. Currently I am doing something like this: HANDLE newThreadFuncCall= CreateThread(NULL,0,funcCall,&func_params,0,NULL); DWORD result = WaitForSingleObject(newThreadFuncCall, 3000); if(result == WAIT_TIMEOUT) { TerminateThread(newThreadFuncCall,WAIT_TIMEOUT); } I just spawn a single thread and wait for 3 seconds or it to complete. Is there anyway to do something similar to but using QueueUserWorkItem to queue up the work? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • SendMessage to window created by AllocateHWND cause deadlock

    - by user2704265
    In my Delphi project, I derive a thread class TMyThread, and follow the advice from forums to use AllocateHWnd to create a window handle. In TMyThread object, I call SendMessage to send message to the window handle. When the messages sent are in small volume, then the application works well. However, when the messages are in large volume, the application will deadlock and lose responses. I think may be the message queue is full as in LogWndProc, there are only codes to process the message, but no codes to remove the messages from the queue, that may cause all the processed messages still exist in the queue and the queue becomes full. Is that correct? The codes are attached below: var hLogWnd: HWND = 0; procedure TForm1.FormCreate(Sender: TObject); begin hLogWnd := AllocateHWnd(LogWndProc); end; procedure TForm1.FormDestroy(Sender: TObject); begin if hLogWnd <> 0 then DeallocateHWnd(hLogWnd); end; procedure TForm1.LogWndProc(var Message: TMessage); var S: PString; begin if Message.Msg = WM_UPDATEDATA then begin S := PString(msg.LParam); try List1.Items.Add(S^); finally Dispose(S); end; end else Message.Result := DefWindowProc(hLogWnd, Message.Msg, Message.WParam, Message.LParam); end; procedure TMyThread.SendLog(I: Integer); var Log: PString; begin New(Log); Log^ := 'Log: current stag is ' + IntToStr(I); SendMessage(hLogWnd, WM_UPDATEDATA, 0, LPARAM(Log)); Dispose(Log); end;

    Read the article

  • how to find the active thread count?

    - by DayOne
    Hi, i have a c# program which calls into a c++ library. The c# programs process has a high thread count 50 - 60. Most seem to be created in c++ and i supect most are suspended/waiting. How do i find how many of these threads are active at a given point in time? thanks

    Read the article

  • C# thread with multiple parameters

    - by Lucas B
    Does anyone know how to pass multiple parameters into a Thread.Start routine? I thought of extending the class, but the C# Thread class is sealed. Here is what I think the code would look like: ... Thread standardTCPServerThread = new Thread(startSocketServerAsThread); standardServerThread.Start( orchestrator, initializeMemberBalance, arg, 60000); ... } static void startSocketServerAsThread(ServiceOrchestrator orchestrator, List<int> memberBalances, string arg, int port) { startSocketServer(orchestrator, memberBalances, arg, port); } Thank you in advance. BTW, I start a number of threads with different orchestrators, balances and ports. Please consider thread safety also.

    Read the article

  • Thread safety in Singleton

    - by Robert
    I understand that double locking in Java is broken, so what are the best ways to make Singletons Thread Safe in Java? The first thing that springs to my mind is: class Singleton{ private static Singleton instance; private Singleton(){} public static synchronized Singleton getInstance(){ if(instance == null) instance = new Singleton(); return instance; } } Does this work? if so, is it the best way (I guess that depends on circumstances, so stating when a particular technique is best, would be useful)

    Read the article

  • Why does C# thread die?

    - by JackN
    This is my 1st C# project so I may be doing something obviously improper in the code below. I am using .NET, WinForms (I think), and this is a desktop application until I get the bugs out. UpdateGui() uses Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate to update various GUI controls based on received serial data and sends a GetStatus() command out the serial port 4 times a second. Thread Read() reads the response from serial port whenever it arrives which should be near immediate. SerialPortFixer is a SerialPort IOException Workaround in C# I found at http://zachsaw.blogspot.com/2010/07/serialport-ioexception-workaround-in-c.html. After one or both threads die I'll see something like The thread 0x1288 has exited with code 0 (0x0). in the debug code output. Why do UpdateGui() and/or Read() eventually die? public partial class UpdateStatus : Form { private readonly byte[] Command = new byte[32]; private readonly byte[] Status = new byte[32]; readonly Thread readThread; private static readonly Mutex commandMutex = new Mutex(); private static readonly Mutex statusMutex = new Mutex(); ... public UpdateStatus() { InitializeComponent(); SerialPortFixer.Execute("COM2"); if (serialPort1.IsOpen) { serialPort1.Close(); } try { serialPort1.Open(); } catch (Exception e) { labelWarning.Text = LOST_COMMUNICATIONS + e; labelStatus.Text = LOST_COMMUNICATIONS + e; labelWarning.Visible = true; } readThread = new Thread(Read); readThread.Start(); new Timer(UpdateGui, null, 0, 250); } static void ProcessStatus(byte[] status) { Status.State = (State) status[4]; Status.Speed = status[6]; // MSB Status.Speed *= 256; Status.Speed += status[5]; var Speed = Status.Speed/GEAR_RATIO; Status.Speed = (int) Speed; ... } public void Read() { while (serialPort1 != null) { try { serialPort1.Read(Status, 0, 1); if (Status[0] != StartCharacter[0]) continue; serialPort1.Read(Status, 1, 1); if (Status[1] != StartCharacter[1]) continue; serialPort1.Read(Status, 2, 1); if (Status[2] != (int)Command.GetStatus) continue; serialPort1.Read(Status, 3, 1); ... statusMutex.WaitOne(); ProcessStatus(Status); Status.update = true; statusMutex.ReleaseMutex(); } catch (Exception e) { Console.WriteLine(@"ERROR! Read() " + e); } } } public void GetStatus() { const int parameterLength = 0; // For GetStatus statusMutex.WaitOne(); Status.update = false; statusMutex.ReleaseMutex(); commandMutex.WaitOne(); if (!SendCommand(Command.GetStatus, parameterLength)) { Console.WriteLine(@"ERROR! SendCommand(GetStatus)"); } commandMutex.ReleaseMutex(); } private void UpdateGui(object x) { try { Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { Text = DateTime.Now.ToLongTimeString(); statusMutex.WaitOne(); if (Status.update) { if (Status.Speed > progressBarSpeed.Maximum) { Status.Speed = progressBarSpeed.Maximum; } progressBarSpeed.Value = Status.Speed; labelSpeed.Text = Status.Speed + RPM; ... } else { labelWarning.Text = LOST_COMMUNICATIONS; labelStatus.Text = LOST_COMMUNICATIONS; labelWarning.Visible = true; } statusMutex.ReleaseMutex(); GetStatus(); }); } catch (Exception e) { Console.WriteLine(@"ERROR! UpdateGui() " + e); } } }

    Read the article

  • Django - Threading in views without hanging the server

    - by bobthabuilda
    One of my applications in my Django project require each request/visitor to that instance to have their own thread. This might sound confusing, so I'll describe what I'm looking to accomplish in a case based scenario, with steps: User visits application Thread starts Until the thread finishes, that user's server instance hangs Once the thread completes, a response is delivered to the user Other visitors to the site should not be affected by any other users using the application How can I accomplish something like this? If possible, I'd like to find a lightweight solution.

    Read the article

  • Best practices for Java logging from multiple threads?

    - by Jason S
    I want to have a diagnostic log that is produced by several tasks managing data. These tasks may be in multiple threads. Each task needs to write an element (possibly with subelements) to the log; get in and get out quickly. If this were a single-task situation I'd use XMLStreamWriter as it seems like the best match for simplicity/functionality without having to hold a ballooning XML document in memory. But it's not a single-task situation, and I'm not sure how to best make sure this is "threadsafe", where "threadsafe" in this application means that each log element should be written to the log correctly and serially (one after the other and not interleaved in any way). Any suggestions? I have a vague intuition that the way to go is to use a queue of log elements (with each one able to be produced quickly: my application is busy doing real work that's performance-sensitive), and have a separate thread which handles the log elements and sends them to a file so the logging doesn't interrupt the producers. The logging doesn't necessarily have to be XML, but I do want it to be structured and machine-readable. edit: I put "threadsafe" in quotes. Log4j seems to be the obvious choice (new to me but old to the community), why reinvent the wheel...

    Read the article

  • AppDomain.CurrentDomain.DomainUnload not be raised in Console app

    - by Guy
    I have an assembly that when accessed spins up a single thread to process items placed on a queue. In that assembly I attach a handler to the DomainUnload event: AppDomain.CurrentDomain.DomainUnload += new EventHandler(CurrentDomain_DomainUnload); That handler joins the thread to the main thread so that all items on the queue can complete processing before the application terminates. The problem that I am experiencing is that the DomainUnload event is not getting fired when the console application terminates. Any ideas why this would be? Using .NET 3.5 and C#

    Read the article

  • Deadlock sample in C#.net

    - by DotNetBeginner
    Can anybody give a simple Deadlock sample code in c#.net ? And please tell the simplest way to find deadlock in your C#.net code sample.(May be the tool which will detect the dead lock in the given sample code.) NOTE: I have VS 2008

    Read the article

  • Abort SAX parsing mid-document?

    - by CSharperWithJava
    I'm parsing a very simple XML schema with a SAX parser in Android. An example file would be <Lists> <List name="foo"> <Note title="note 1" .../> <Note title="note 2" .../> </List> <List name="bar"> <Note title="note 3" .../> </List> </Lists> The ... represents more note data as attributes that aren't important to question. I use a SAX parser to parse the document and only implement the startElement and 'endElement' methods of the HandlerBase to handle Note and List nodes. However, In some cases the files can be very large and take some time to process. I'd like to be able to abort the parsing process at any time (i.e. user presses cancel button). The best way I've come up with is to throw an exception from my startElement method when certain conditions are met (i.e. boolean stopParsing is true). Is there a better way to do this? I've always used DOM style parsers, so I don't fully understand the SAX parser. One final note, I'm running this on Android, so I will have the Parser running on a worker thread to keep the UI responsive. If you know how I can kill the thread safely while the parser is running that would answer my question as well.

    Read the article

  • How can I limit access to a particular class to one caller at a time in a web service?

    - by MusiGenesis
    I have a web service method in which I create a particular type of object, use it for a few seconds, and then dispose it. Because of problems arising from multiple threads creating and using instances of this class at the same time, I need to restrict the method so that only one caller at a time ever has one of these objects. To do this, I am creating a private static object: private static object _lock = new object(); ... and then inside the web service method I do this around the critical code: lock (_lock) { using (DangerousObject do = new DangerousObject()) { do.MakeABigMess(); do.CleanItUp(); } } I'm not sure this is working, though. Do I have this right? Will this code ensure that only one instance of DangerousObject is instantiated and in use at a time?

    Read the article

  • Symbian qt threading

    - by Umesha MS
    Hi, 1) In symbian c++ thread is not recommended. Instead of that they recommend active object for multi tasking. Presently I am using QT to develop a application in symbian. Since there is no active object in QT I thought of using thread. My question is , can I use thread, is it is recommended. If it is not recommended, how to achieve multitasking. 2) I have created a sample thread class as shown bellow. When I call test function from the constructer of the main window thread will start but UI will be in hung state, infact main window itself will not be displayed. Please help me to solve the problem. class CSampleThread: public QThread { Q_OBJECT public: CSampleThread(QObject *parent = 0) : QThread(parent) {} virtual ~CSampleThread() {} void test(){ QThread::start(LowPriority); } protected: void run() { while(true){} } };

    Read the article

  • What are shared by multi threads in the same process?

    - by skydoor
    I found that each thread still has its own registers. Also has its own stack, but other threads can read and write the stack memory. My questions, what are shared by the multi threads in the same process? What I can imagine is 1) address space of the process; 2) stack, register; 3) variables Can any body elaborate it and add more?

    Read the article

  • How to spin an independent dispacher thread for a Silverlight UserControl

    - by ondesertverge
    I am trying to move a lot of different elements by 1 pixel very often and in parallel. Trying to do this on one dispatcher thread means that the elements are visited one after another. The result is that the more elements I have the slower they will all move. In WPF I was able to use a HostVisual as described here to solve this. I can't seem to find anything similar in Silverlight. Is this a drawback of the lightweight framework or is there something I haven't stumbled upon yet? I am using SL4.

    Read the article

  • Python thread pool similar to the multiprocessing Pool?

    - by Martin
    Is there a Pool class for worker threads, similar to the multiprocessing module's Pool class? I like for example the easy way to parallelize a map function def long_running_func(p): c_func_no_gil(p) p = multiprocessing.Pool(4) xs = p.map(long_running_func, range(100)) however I would like to do it without the overhead of creating new processes. I know about the GIL. However, in my usecase, the function will be an IO-bound C function for which the python wrapper will release the GIL before the actual function call. Do I have to write my own threading pool?

    Read the article

  • How to log correct context with Threadpool threads using log4net?

    - by myotherme
    I am trying to find a way to log useful context from a bunch of threads. The problem is that a lot of code is dealt with on Events that are arriving via threadpool threads (as far as I can tell) so their names are not in relation to any context. The problem can be demonstrated with the following code: class Program { private static readonly log4net.ILog log = log4net.LogManager.GetLogger(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType); static void Main(string[] args) { new Thread(TestThis).Start("ThreadA"); new Thread(TestThis).Start("ThreadB"); Console.ReadLine(); } private static void TestThis(object name) { var nameStr = (string)name; Thread.CurrentThread.Name = nameStr; log4net.ThreadContext.Properties["ThreadContext"] = nameStr; log4net.LogicalThreadContext.Properties["LogicalThreadContext"] = nameStr; log.Debug("From Thread itself"); ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(x => log.Debug("From threadpool Thread: " + nameStr)); } } The Conversion pattern is: %date [%thread] %-5level %logger [%property] - %message%newline The output is like so: 2010-05-21 15:08:02,357 [ThreadA] DEBUG LogicalContextTest.Program [{LogicalThreadContext=ThreadA, log4net:HostName=xxx, ThreadContext=ThreadA}] - From Thread itself 2010-05-21 15:08:02,357 [ThreadB] DEBUG LogicalContextTest.Program [{LogicalThreadContext=ThreadB, log4net:HostName=xxx, ThreadContext=ThreadB}] - From Thread itself 2010-05-21 15:08:02,404 [7] DEBUG LogicalContextTest.Program [{log4net:HostName=xxx}] - From threadpool Thread: ThreadA 2010-05-21 15:08:02,420 [16] DEBUG LogicalContextTest.Program [{log4net:HostName=xxx}] - From threadpool Thread: ThreadB As you can see the last two rows have no Names of useful information to distinguish the 2 threads, other than manually adding the name to the message (which I want to avoid). How can I get the Name/Context into the log for the threadpool threads without adding it to the message at every call?

    Read the article

  • Does a multithreaded crawler in Python really speed things up?

    - by beagleguy
    Was looking to write a little web crawler in python. I was starting to investigate writing it as a multithreaded script, one pool of threads downloading and one pool processing results. Due to the GIL would it actually do simultaneous downloading? How does the GIL affect a web crawler? Would each thread pick some data off the socket, then move on to the next thread, let it pick some data off the socket, etc..? Basically I'm asking is doing a multi-threaded crawler in python really going to buy me much performance vs single threaded? thanks!

    Read the article

  • Deadlock sample in .net?

    - by DotNetBeginner
    Can anybody give a simple Deadlock sample code in c# ? And please tell the simplest way to find deadlock in your C# code sample. (May be the tool which will detect the dead lock in the given sample code.) NOTE: I have VS 2008

    Read the article

  • controlling threads flow

    - by owca
    I had a task to write simple game simulating two players picking up 1-3 matches one after another until the pile is gone. I managed to do it for computer choosing random value of matches but now I'd like to go further and allow humans to play the game. Here's what I already have : http://paste.pocoo.org/show/201761/ Class Player is a computer player, and PlayerMan should be human being. Problem is, that thread of PlayerMan should wait until proper value of matches is given but I cannot make it work this way. Logic is as follows: thread runs until matches equals to zero. If player number is correct at the moment function pickMatches() is called. After decreasing number of matches on table, thread should wait and another thread should be notified. I know I must use wait() and notify() but I can't place them right. Class Shared keeps the value of current player, and also amount of matches. public void suspendThread() { suspended = true; } public void resumeThread() { suspended = false; } @Override public void run(){ int matches=1; int which = 0; int tmp=0; Shared data = this.selectData(); String name = this.returnName(); int number = this.getNumber(); while(data.getMatches() != 0){ while(!suspended){ try{ which = data.getCurrent(); if(number == which){ matches = pickMatches(); tmp = data.getMatches() - matches; data.setMatches(tmp, number); if(data.getMatches() == 0){ System.out.println(" "+ name+" takes "+matches+" matches."); System.out.println("Winner is player: "+name); stop(); } System.out.println(" "+ name+" takes "+matches+" matches."); if(number != 0){ data.setCurrent(0); } else{ data.setCurrent(1); } } this.suspendThread(); notifyAll(); wait(); }catch(InterruptedException exc) {} } } } @Override synchronized public int pickMatches(){ Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in); int n = 0; Shared data = this.selectData(); System.out.println("Choose amount of matches (from 1 to 3): "); if(data.getMatches() == 1){ System.out.println("There's only 1 match left !"); while(n != 1){ n = scanner.nextInt(); } } else{ do{ n = scanner.nextInt(); } while(n <= 1 && n >= 3); } return n; } }

    Read the article

  • Difference in output from use of synchronized keyword and join()

    - by user2964080
    I have 2 classes, public class Account { private int balance = 50; public int getBalance() { return balance; } public void withdraw(int amt){ this.balance -= amt; } } and public class DangerousAccount implements Runnable{ private Account acct = new Account(); public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException{ DangerousAccount target = new DangerousAccount(); Thread t1 = new Thread(target); Thread t2 = new Thread(target); t1.setName("Ravi"); t2.setName("Prakash"); t1.start(); /* #1 t1.join(); */ t2.start(); } public void run(){ for(int i=0; i<5; i++){ makeWithdrawl(10); if(acct.getBalance() < 0) System.out.println("Account Overdrawn"); } } public void makeWithdrawl(int amt){ if(acct.getBalance() >= amt){ System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " is going to withdraw"); try{ Thread.sleep(500); }catch(InterruptedException e){ e.printStackTrace(); } acct.withdraw(amt); System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName() + " has finished the withdrawl"); }else{ System.out.println("Not Enough Money For " + Thread.currentThread().getName() + " to withdraw"); } } } I tried adding synchronized keyword in makeWithdrawl method public synchronized void makeWithdrawl(int amt){ and I keep getting this output as many times I try Ravi is going to withdraw Ravi has finished the withdrawl Ravi is going to withdraw Ravi has finished the withdrawl Ravi is going to withdraw Ravi has finished the withdrawl Ravi is going to withdraw Ravi has finished the withdrawl Ravi is going to withdraw Ravi has finished the withdrawl Not Enough Money For Prakash to withdraw Not Enough Money For Prakash to withdraw Not Enough Money For Prakash to withdraw Not Enough Money For Prakash to withdraw Not Enough Money For Prakash to withdraw This shows that only Thread t1 is working... If I un-comment the the line saying t1.join(); I get the same output. So how does synchronized differ from join() ? If I don't use synchronize keyword or join() I get various outputs like Ravi is going to withdraw Prakash is going to withdraw Prakash has finished the withdrawl Ravi has finished the withdrawl Prakash is going to withdraw Ravi is going to withdraw Prakash has finished the withdrawl Ravi has finished the withdrawl Prakash is going to withdraw Ravi is going to withdraw Prakash has finished the withdrawl Ravi has finished the withdrawl Account Overdrawn Account Overdrawn Not Enough Money For Ravi to withdraw Account Overdrawn Not Enough Money For Prakash to withdraw Account Overdrawn Not Enough Money For Ravi to withdraw Account Overdrawn Not Enough Money For Prakash to withdraw Account Overdrawn So how does the output from synchronized differ from join() ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29  | Next Page >