Search Results

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

Page 23/66 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • CPU Affinity Masks (Putting Threads on different CPUs)

    - by hahuang65
    I have 4 threads, and I am trying to set thread 1 to run on CPU 1, thread 2 on CPU 2, etc. However, when I run my code below, the affinity masks are returning the correct values, but when I do a sched_getcpu() on the threads, they all return that they are running on CPU 4. Anybody know what my problem here is? Thanks in advance! #define _GNU_SOURCE #include <stdio.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <sched.h> #include <errno.h> void *pthread_Message(char *message) { printf("%s is running on CPU %d\n", message, sched_getcpu()); } int main() { pthread_t thread1, thread2, thread3, thread4; pthread_t threadArray[4]; cpu_set_t cpu1, cpu2, cpu3, cpu4; char *thread1Msg = "Thread 1"; char *thread2Msg = "Thread 2"; char *thread3Msg = "Thread 3"; char *thread4Msg = "Thread 4"; int thread1Create, thread2Create, thread3Create, thread4Create, i, temp; CPU_ZERO(&cpu1); CPU_SET(1, &cpu1); temp = pthread_setaffinity_np(thread1, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpu1); printf("Set returned by pthread_getaffinity_np() contained:\n"); for (i = 0; i < CPU_SETSIZE; i++) if (CPU_ISSET(i, &cpu1)) printf("CPU1: CPU %d\n", i); CPU_ZERO(&cpu2); CPU_SET(2, &cpu2); temp = pthread_setaffinity_np(thread2, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpu2); for (i = 0; i < CPU_SETSIZE; i++) if (CPU_ISSET(i, &cpu2)) printf("CPU2: CPU %d\n", i); CPU_ZERO(&cpu3); CPU_SET(3, &cpu3); temp = pthread_setaffinity_np(thread3, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpu3); for (i = 0; i < CPU_SETSIZE; i++) if (CPU_ISSET(i, &cpu3)) printf("CPU3: CPU %d\n", i); CPU_ZERO(&cpu4); CPU_SET(4, &cpu4); temp = pthread_setaffinity_np(thread4, sizeof(cpu_set_t), &cpu4); for (i = 0; i < CPU_SETSIZE; i++) if (CPU_ISSET(i, &cpu4)) printf("CPU4: CPU %d\n", i); thread1Create = pthread_create(&thread1, NULL, (void *)pthread_Message, thread1Msg); thread2Create = pthread_create(&thread2, NULL, (void *)pthread_Message, thread2Msg); thread3Create = pthread_create(&thread3, NULL, (void *)pthread_Message, thread3Msg); thread4Create = pthread_create(&thread4, NULL, (void *)pthread_Message, thread4Msg); pthread_join(thread1, NULL); pthread_join(thread2, NULL); pthread_join(thread3, NULL); pthread_join(thread4, NULL); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • How to give highest priority to events generated from main thread than those generated from secondar

    - by martjno
    I have a c++ application written in wxWidgets, which has a main thread (GUI) and a working thread (calculations). The working thread executes commands requested by the main thread and communicates the result to the main thread posting an event after every step of the processing. The problem is that when the working thread is sending many events consecutively, the gui requests made by the user (i.e. interrupt the processing clicking a button) won't be processed by the event handler until the working thread has finished. This is actually happening on OSX, on Windows it works perfectly. I've tried to wxThread::SetPriority and wxThread::Yield but nothing changes. It is working if I put wxThread::Sleep in the working thread, but this slows down very much the processing.

    Read the article

  • Lock-Free, Wait-Free and Wait-freedom algorithms for non-blocking multi-thread synchronization.

    - by GJ
    In multi thread programming we can find different terms for data transfer synchronization between two or more threads/tasks. When exactly we can say that some algorithem is: 1)Lock-Free 2)Wait-Free 3)Wait-Freedom I understand what means Lock-free but when we can say that some synchronization algorithm is Wait-Free or Wait-Freedom? I have made some code (ring buffer) for multi-thread synchronization and it use Lock-Free methods but: 1) Algorithm predicts maximum execution time of this routine. 2) Therad which call this routine at beginning set unique reference, what mean that is inside of this routine. 3) Other threads which are calling the same routine check this reference and if is set than count the CPU tick count (measure time) of first involved thread. If that time is to long interrupt the current work of involved thread and overrides him job. 4) Thread which not finished job because was interrupted from task scheduler (is reposed) at the end check the reference if not belongs to him repeat the job again. So this algorithm is not really Lock-free but there is no memory lock in use, and other involved threads can wait (or not) certain time before overide the job of reposed thread. Added RingBuffer.InsertLeft function: function TgjRingBuffer.InsertLeft(const link: pointer): integer; var AtStartReference: cardinal; CPUTimeStamp : int64; CurrentLeft : pointer; CurrentReference: cardinal; NewLeft : PReferencedPtr; Reference : cardinal; label TryAgain; begin Reference := GetThreadId + 1; //Reference.bit0 := 1 with rbRingBuffer^ do begin TryAgain: //Set Left.Reference with respect to all other cores :) CPUTimeStamp := GetCPUTimeStamp + LoopTicks; AtStartReference := Left.Reference OR 1; //Reference.bit0 := 1 repeat CurrentReference := Left.Reference; until (CurrentReference AND 1 = 0)or (GetCPUTimeStamp - CPUTimeStamp > 0); //No threads present in ring buffer or current thread timeout if ((CurrentReference AND 1 <> 0) and (AtStartReference <> CurrentReference)) or not CAS32(CurrentReference, Reference, Left.Reference) then goto TryAgain; //Calculate RingBuffer NewLeft address CurrentLeft := Left.Link; NewLeft := pointer(cardinal(CurrentLeft) - SizeOf(TReferencedPtr)); if cardinal(NewLeft) < cardinal(@Buffer) then NewLeft := EndBuffer; //Calcolate distance result := integer(Right.Link) - Integer(NewLeft); //Check buffer full if result = 0 then //Clear Reference if task still own reference if CAS32(Reference, 0, Left.Reference) then Exit else goto TryAgain; //Set NewLeft.Reference NewLeft^.Reference := Reference; SFence; //Try to set link and try to exchange NewLeft and clear Reference if task own reference if (Reference <> Left.Reference) or not CAS64(NewLeft^.Link, Reference, link, Reference, NewLeft^) or not CAS64(CurrentLeft, Reference, NewLeft, 0, Left) then goto TryAgain; //Calcolate result if result < 0 then result := Length - integer(cardinal(not Result) div SizeOf(TReferencedPtr)) else result := cardinal(result) div SizeOf(TReferencedPtr); end; //with end; { TgjRingBuffer.InsertLeft } RingBuffer unit you can find here: RingBuffer, CAS functions: FockFreePrimitives, and test program: RingBufferFlowTest Thanks in advance, GJ

    Read the article

  • Some more multitasking java issues

    - 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/200660/ 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. When I type the values it sometimes catches them and decrease amount of matches but that's not exactly what I was up to :) Logics is : I check the value of current player. If it corresponds to this of the thread currently active I use scanner to catch the amount of matches. Else I wait one second (I know it's kinda harsh solution, but I have no other idea how to do it). Class Shared keeps the value of current player, and also amount of matches. By the way, is there any way I can make Player and Shared attributes private instead of public and still make the code work ? CONSOLE and INPUT-DIALOG is just for choosing way of inserting values. class PlayerMan extends Player{ static final int CONSOLE=0; static final int INPUT_DIALOG=1; private int input; public PlayerMan(String name, Shared data, int c){ super(name, data); input = c; } @Override public void run(){ Scanner scanner = new Scanner(System.in); int n = 0; System.out.println("Matches on table: "+data.matchesAmount); System.out.println("which: "+data.which); System.out.println("number: "+number); while(data.matchesAmount != 0){ if(number == data.which){ System.out.println("Choose amount of matches (from 1 to 3): "); n = scanner.nextInt(); if(data.matchesAmount == 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); } data.matchesAmount = data.matchesAmount - n; System.out.println(" "+ name+" takes "+n+" matches."); if(number != 0){ data.which = 0; } else{ data.which = 1; } } else{ try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch(InterruptedException exc) { System.out.println("End of thread."); return; } } System.out.println("Matches on table: "+data.matchesAmount); } if(data.matchesAmount == 0){ System.out.println("Winner is player: "+name); stop(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Limiting one of each Runnable type in ExecutorService queue.

    - by Andrew
    I have an Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1) that I send several different tasks to (all implementing Runnable), and they get queued up and run sequentially correct? What is the best way to only allow one of each task to be either running or queued up at one time? I want to ignore all tasks sent to the ExecutorService that are already in the queue.

    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

  • What should be the ideal number of parallel java threads for copying a large set of files from a qua

    - by ukgenie
    What should be the ideal number of parallel java threads for copying a large set of files from a quad core linux box to an external shared folder? I can see that with a single thread it is taking a hell lot of time to move the files one by one. Multiple threads is improving the copy performance, but I don't know what should be the exact number of threads. I am using Java executor service to create the thread pool.

    Read the article

  • Swingworker producing duplicate output/output out of order?

    - by Stefan Kendall
    What is the proper way to guarantee delivery when using a SwingWorker? I'm trying to route data from an InputStream to a JTextArea, and I'm running my SwingWorker with the execute method. I think I'm following the example here, but I'm getting out of order results, duplicates, and general nonsense. Here is my non-working SwingWorker: class InputStreamOutputWorker extends SwingWorker<List<String>,String> { private InputStream is; private JTextArea output; public InputStreamOutputWorker(InputStream is, JTextArea output) { this.is = is; this.output = output; } @Override protected List<String> doInBackground() throws Exception { byte[] data = new byte[4 * 1024]; int len = 0; while ((len = is.read(data)) > 0) { String line = new String(data).trim(); publish(line); } return null; } @Override protected void process( List<String> chunks ) { for( String s : chunks ) { output.append(s + "\n"); } } }

    Read the article

  • Can I spead out a long running stored proc accross multiple CPU's?

    - by Russ
    [Also on SuperUser - http://superuser.com/questions/116600/can-i-spead-out-a-long-running-stored-proc-accross-multiple-cpus] I have a stored procedure in SQL server the gets, and decrypts a block of data. ( Credit cards in this case. ) Most of the time, the performance is tolerable, but there are a couple customers where the process is painfully slow, taking literally 1 minute to complete. ( Well, 59377ms to return from SQL Server to be exact, but it can vary by a few hundred ms based on load ) When I watch the process, I see that SQL is only using a single proc to perform the whole process, and typically only proc 0. Is there a way I can change my stored proc so that SQL can multi-thread the process? Is it even feasible to cheat and to break the calls in half, ( top 50%, bottom 50% ), and spread the load, as a gross hack? ( just spit-balling here ) My stored proc: USE [Commerce] GO /****** Object: StoredProcedure [dbo].[GetAllCreditCardsByCustomerId] Script Date: 03/05/2010 11:50:14 ******/ SET ANSI_NULLS ON GO SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON GO ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[GetAllCreditCardsByCustomerId] @companyId UNIQUEIDENTIFIER, @DecryptionKey NVARCHAR (MAX) AS SET NoCount ON DECLARE @cardId uniqueidentifier DECLARE @tmpdecryptedCardData VarChar(MAX); DECLARE @decryptedCardData VarChar(MAX); DECLARE @tmpTable as Table ( CardId uniqueidentifier, DecryptedCard NVarChar(Max) ) DECLARE creditCards CURSOR FAST_FORWARD READ_ONLY FOR Select cardId from CreditCards where companyId = @companyId and Active=1 order by addedBy desc --2 OPEN creditCards --3 FETCH creditCards INTO @cardId -- prime the cursor WHILE @@Fetch_Status = 0 BEGIN --OPEN creditCards DECLARE creditCardData CURSOR FAST_FORWARD READ_ONLY FOR select convert(nvarchar(max), DecryptByCert(Cert_Id('Oh-Nay-Nay'), EncryptedCard, @DecryptionKey)) FROM CreditCardData where cardid = @cardId order by valueOrder OPEN creditCardData FETCH creditCardData INTO @tmpdecryptedCardData -- prime the cursor WHILE @@Fetch_Status = 0 BEGIN print 'CreditCardData' print @tmpdecryptedCardData set @decryptedCardData = ISNULL(@decryptedCardData, '') + @tmpdecryptedCardData print '@decryptedCardData' print @decryptedCardData; FETCH NEXT FROM creditCardData INTO @tmpdecryptedCardData -- fetch next END CLOSE creditCardData DEALLOCATE creditCardData insert into @tmpTable (CardId, DecryptedCard) values ( @cardId, @decryptedCardData ) set @decryptedCardData = '' FETCH NEXT FROM creditCards INTO @cardId -- fetch next END select CardId, DecryptedCard FROM @tmpTable CLOSE creditCards DEALLOCATE creditCards

    Read the article

  • Can I spread out a long running stored proc accross multiple CPU's?

    - by Russ
    [Also on SuperUser - http://superuser.com/questions/116600/can-i-spead-out-a-long-running-stored-proc-accross-multiple-cpus] I have a stored procedure in SQL server the gets, and decrypts a block of data. ( Credit cards in this case. ) Most of the time, the performance is tolerable, but there are a couple customers where the process is painfully slow, taking literally 1 minute to complete. ( Well, 59377ms to return from SQL Server to be exact, but it can vary by a few hundred ms based on load ) When I watch the process, I see that SQL is only using a single proc to perform the whole process, and typically only proc 0. Is there a way I can change my stored proc so that SQL can multi-thread the process? Is it even feasible to cheat and to break the calls in half, ( top 50%, bottom 50% ), and spread the load, as a gross hack? ( just spit-balling here ) My stored proc: USE [Commerce] GO /****** Object: StoredProcedure [dbo].[GetAllCreditCardsByCustomerId] Script Date: 03/05/2010 11:50:14 ******/ SET ANSI_NULLS ON GO SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON GO ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[GetAllCreditCardsByCustomerId] @companyId UNIQUEIDENTIFIER, @DecryptionKey NVARCHAR (MAX) AS SET NoCount ON DECLARE @cardId uniqueidentifier DECLARE @tmpdecryptedCardData VarChar(MAX); DECLARE @decryptedCardData VarChar(MAX); DECLARE @tmpTable as Table ( CardId uniqueidentifier, DecryptedCard NVarChar(Max) ) DECLARE creditCards CURSOR FAST_FORWARD READ_ONLY FOR Select cardId from CreditCards where companyId = @companyId and Active=1 order by addedBy desc --2 OPEN creditCards --3 FETCH creditCards INTO @cardId -- prime the cursor WHILE @@Fetch_Status = 0 BEGIN --OPEN creditCards DECLARE creditCardData CURSOR FAST_FORWARD READ_ONLY FOR select convert(nvarchar(max), DecryptByCert(Cert_Id('Oh-Nay-Nay'), EncryptedCard, @DecryptionKey)) FROM CreditCardData where cardid = @cardId order by valueOrder OPEN creditCardData FETCH creditCardData INTO @tmpdecryptedCardData -- prime the cursor WHILE @@Fetch_Status = 0 BEGIN print 'CreditCardData' print @tmpdecryptedCardData set @decryptedCardData = ISNULL(@decryptedCardData, '') + @tmpdecryptedCardData print '@decryptedCardData' print @decryptedCardData; FETCH NEXT FROM creditCardData INTO @tmpdecryptedCardData -- fetch next END CLOSE creditCardData DEALLOCATE creditCardData insert into @tmpTable (CardId, DecryptedCard) values ( @cardId, @decryptedCardData ) set @decryptedCardData = '' FETCH NEXT FROM creditCards INTO @cardId -- fetch next END select CardId, DecryptedCard FROM @tmpTable CLOSE creditCards DEALLOCATE creditCards

    Read the article

  • Can I spread out a long running stored proc accross multiple CPU's?

    - by Russ
    [Also on SuperUser - http://superuser.com/questions/116600/can-i-spead-out-a-long-running-stored-proc-accross-multiple-cpus] I have a stored procedure in SQL server the gets, and decrypts a block of data. ( Credit cards in this case. ) Most of the time, the performance is tolerable, but there are a couple customers where the process is painfully slow, taking literally 1 minute to complete. ( Well, 59377ms to return from SQL Server to be exact, but it can vary by a few hundred ms based on load ) When I watch the process, I see that SQL is only using a single proc to perform the whole process, and typically only proc 0. Is there a way I can change my stored proc so that SQL can multi-thread the process? Is it even feasible to cheat and to break the calls in half, ( top 50%, bottom 50% ), and spread the load, as a gross hack? ( just spit-balling here ) My stored proc: USE [Commerce] GO /****** Object: StoredProcedure [dbo].[GetAllCreditCardsByCustomerId] Script Date: 03/05/2010 11:50:14 ******/ SET ANSI_NULLS ON GO SET QUOTED_IDENTIFIER ON GO ALTER PROCEDURE [dbo].[GetAllCreditCardsByCustomerId] @companyId UNIQUEIDENTIFIER, @DecryptionKey NVARCHAR (MAX) AS SET NoCount ON DECLARE @cardId uniqueidentifier DECLARE @tmpdecryptedCardData VarChar(MAX); DECLARE @decryptedCardData VarChar(MAX); DECLARE @tmpTable as Table ( CardId uniqueidentifier, DecryptedCard NVarChar(Max) ) DECLARE creditCards CURSOR FAST_FORWARD READ_ONLY FOR Select cardId from CreditCards where companyId = @companyId and Active=1 order by addedBy desc --2 OPEN creditCards --3 FETCH creditCards INTO @cardId -- prime the cursor WHILE @@Fetch_Status = 0 BEGIN --OPEN creditCards DECLARE creditCardData CURSOR FAST_FORWARD READ_ONLY FOR select convert(nvarchar(max), DecryptByCert(Cert_Id('Oh-Nay-Nay'), EncryptedCard, @DecryptionKey)) FROM CreditCardData where cardid = @cardId order by valueOrder OPEN creditCardData FETCH creditCardData INTO @tmpdecryptedCardData -- prime the cursor WHILE @@Fetch_Status = 0 BEGIN print 'CreditCardData' print @tmpdecryptedCardData set @decryptedCardData = ISNULL(@decryptedCardData, '') + @tmpdecryptedCardData print '@decryptedCardData' print @decryptedCardData; FETCH NEXT FROM creditCardData INTO @tmpdecryptedCardData -- fetch next END CLOSE creditCardData DEALLOCATE creditCardData insert into @tmpTable (CardId, DecryptedCard) values ( @cardId, @decryptedCardData ) set @decryptedCardData = '' FETCH NEXT FROM creditCards INTO @cardId -- fetch next END select CardId, DecryptedCard FROM @tmpTable CLOSE creditCards DEALLOCATE creditCards

    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

  • 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

  • Whats wrong with my backgroundwork method

    - by diver-d
    I am trying to get a background worker process working in a wpf application. it creates 2 files then crashes. BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker(); worker.DoWork += delegate(object s, DoWorkEventArgs args) { CreateFile(i.ToString()); }; worker.RunWorkerAsync(); private void CreateFile(string fileName) { string path = string.Format(@"{0}\{1}.txt", directory, fileName); using (StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter(path)) { sw.WriteLine(fileName); } } I get this error " The requested operation cannot be performed on a file with a user-mapped section open." what am I doing wrong? Any help would be great

    Read the article

  • Clojure best way to achieve multiple threads?

    - by user286702
    Hello! I am working on a MUD client written in Clojure. Right now, I need two different threads. One which receives input from the user and sends it out to the MUD (via a simple Socket), and one that reads and displays output from the MUD, to the user. Should I just use Java Threads, or is there some Clojure-specific feature I should be turning to?

    Read the article

  • Of these 3 methods for reading linked lists from shared memory, why is the 3rd fastest?

    - by Joseph Garvin
    I have a 'server' program that updates many linked lists in shared memory in response to external events. I want client programs to notice an update on any of the lists as quickly as possible (lowest latency). The server marks a linked list's node's state_ as FILLED once its data is filled in and its next pointer has been set to a valid location. Until then, its state_ is NOT_FILLED_YET. I am using memory barriers to make sure that clients don't see the state_ as FILLED before the data within is actually ready (and it seems to work, I never see corrupt data). Also, state_ is volatile to be sure the compiler doesn't lift the client's checking of it out of loops. Keeping the server code exactly the same, I've come up with 3 different methods for the client to scan the linked lists for changes. The question is: Why is the 3rd method fastest? Method 1: Round robin over all the linked lists (called 'channels') continuously, looking to see if any nodes have changed to 'FILLED': void method_one() { std::vector<Data*> channel_cursors; for(ChannelList::iterator i = channel_list.begin(); i != channel_list.end(); ++i) { Data* current_item = static_cast<Data*>(i->get(segment)->tail_.get(segment)); channel_cursors.push_back(current_item); } while(true) { for(std::size_t i = 0; i < channel_list.size(); ++i) { Data* current_item = channel_cursors[i]; ACQUIRE_MEMORY_BARRIER; if(current_item->state_ == NOT_FILLED_YET) { continue; } log_latency(current_item->tv_sec_, current_item->tv_usec_); channel_cursors[i] = static_cast<Data*>(current_item->next_.get(segment)); } } } Method 1 gave very low latency when then number of channels was small. But when the number of channels grew (250K+) it became very slow because of looping over all the channels. So I tried... Method 2: Give each linked list an ID. Keep a separate 'update list' to the side. Every time one of the linked lists is updated, push its ID on to the update list. Now we just need to monitor the single update list, and check the IDs we get from it. void method_two() { std::vector<Data*> channel_cursors; for(ChannelList::iterator i = channel_list.begin(); i != channel_list.end(); ++i) { Data* current_item = static_cast<Data*>(i->get(segment)->tail_.get(segment)); channel_cursors.push_back(current_item); } UpdateID* update_cursor = static_cast<UpdateID*>(update_channel.tail_.get(segment)); while(true) { if(update_cursor->state_ == NOT_FILLED_YET) { continue; } ::uint32_t update_id = update_cursor->list_id_; Data* current_item = channel_cursors[update_id]; if(current_item->state_ == NOT_FILLED_YET) { std::cerr << "This should never print." << std::endl; // it doesn't continue; } log_latency(current_item->tv_sec_, current_item->tv_usec_); channel_cursors[update_id] = static_cast<Data*>(current_item->next_.get(segment)); update_cursor = static_cast<UpdateID*>(update_cursor->next_.get(segment)); } } Method 2 gave TERRIBLE latency. Whereas Method 1 might give under 10us latency, Method 2 would inexplicably often given 8ms latency! Using gettimeofday it appears that the change in update_cursor-state_ was very slow to propogate from the server's view to the client's (I'm on a multicore box, so I assume the delay is due to cache). So I tried a hybrid approach... Method 3: Keep the update list. But loop over all the channels continuously, and within each iteration check if the update list has updated. If it has, go with the number pushed onto it. If it hasn't, check the channel we've currently iterated to. void method_three() { std::vector<Data*> channel_cursors; for(ChannelList::iterator i = channel_list.begin(); i != channel_list.end(); ++i) { Data* current_item = static_cast<Data*>(i->get(segment)->tail_.get(segment)); channel_cursors.push_back(current_item); } UpdateID* update_cursor = static_cast<UpdateID*>(update_channel.tail_.get(segment)); while(true) { for(std::size_t i = 0; i < channel_list.size(); ++i) { std::size_t idx = i; ACQUIRE_MEMORY_BARRIER; if(update_cursor->state_ != NOT_FILLED_YET) { //std::cerr << "Found via update" << std::endl; i--; idx = update_cursor->list_id_; update_cursor = static_cast<UpdateID*>(update_cursor->next_.get(segment)); } Data* current_item = channel_cursors[idx]; ACQUIRE_MEMORY_BARRIER; if(current_item->state_ == NOT_FILLED_YET) { continue; } found_an_update = true; log_latency(current_item->tv_sec_, current_item->tv_usec_); channel_cursors[idx] = static_cast<Data*>(current_item->next_.get(segment)); } } } The latency of this method was as good as Method 1, but scaled to large numbers of channels. The problem is, I have no clue why. Just to throw a wrench in things: if I uncomment the 'found via update' part, it prints between EVERY LATENCY LOG MESSAGE. Which means things are only ever found on the update list! So I don't understand how this method can be faster than method 2. The full, compilable code (requires GCC and boost-1.41) that generates random strings as test data is at: http://pastebin.com/e3HuL0nr

    Read the article

  • Volatile or synchronized for primitive type?

    - by DKSRathore
    In java, assignment is atomic if the size of the variable is less that or equal to 32 bits but is not if more than 32 bits. What(volatile/synchronized) would be more efficient to use in case of double or long assignment. like, volatile double x = y; synchronized is not applicable with primitive argument. How do i use synchronized in this case. Of course I don't want to lock my class. so this should not be used.

    Read the article

  • How can Swing dialogs even work?

    - by Bart van Heukelom
    If you open a dialog in Swing, for example a JFileChooser, it goes somewhat like this pseudocode: swing event thread { create dialog add listener to dialog close event { returnValue = somethingFromDialog } show dialog (wait until it is closed) return returnValue } My question is: how can this possibly work? As you can see the thread waits to return until the dialog is closed. This means the Swing event thread is blocked. Yet, one can interact with the dialog, which AFAIK requires this thread to run. So how does that work?

    Read the article

  • Practices for Foreground/Background threads in .NET

    - by Andrei Taptunov
    I work with in-house legacy communication framework which exposes some high level abstractions. These abstractions are wrappers with some logic around .NET threads. When I looked at code I've noticed that some abstractions are wrappers around foreground threads while others are wrappers around background threads. The sad thing is that I don't see any logic why in some cases foreground threads are used and background in other cases. Are there any guidelines or patterns & practices when it's better to choose one over another on server side and client side (I believe there should be some difference)?

    Read the article

  • WCF service and COM interop callback

    - by Sjblack
    I have a COM object that creates an instance of a WCF service and passes a handle to itself as a callback. The com object is marked/initialized as MTA. The problem being every instance of the WCF service that makes a call to the callback occurs on the same thread so they are being processed one at a time which is causing session timeouts under a heavy load. The WCF service is session based not sure if that makes any difference.

    Read the article

  • Which number of processes will give me the best performance ?

    - by Maarten
    I am doing some expensive caluations right now. It is one programm, which I run several instances of at the same time. I am running them under linux on a machine with 4 cpus with 6 cores each. The cpus are Intel Xeon X5660, which support hyper thearting. (That's some insane hardware, huh?) Right now I am running 24 processes at once. Would it be better to run more, b/c of HT ?

    Read the article

  • Me.Invoke in VB.NET doesn't actually "Invoke" - threads stall on Invoke statement

    - by rwmnau
    I've got the following code: Public Delegate Sub SetStatusBarTextDelegate(ByVal StatusText As String) Private Sub SetStatusBarText(ByVal StatusText As String) If Me.InvokeRequired Then Me.Invoke(New SetStatusBarTextDelegate(AddressOf SetStatusBarText), StatusText) Else Me.labelScanningProgress.Text = StatusText End If End Sub The problem is that, when I call the "SetStatusBarText" sub from another thread, InvokeRequired is True (as it should be), but then my threads stall on the Me.Invoke statement - pausing execution shows them all just sitting there, not actually invoking anything. Any thoughts about why the threads seem to be afraid of the Invoke?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >