Search Results

Search found 16324 results on 653 pages for 'per thread'.

Page 26/653 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • How to know if all the Thread Pool's thread are already done with its tasks?

    - by mcxiand
    I have this application that will recurse all folders in a given directory and look for PDF. If a PDF file is found, the application will count its pages using ITextSharp. I did this by using a thread to recursively scan all the folders for pdf, then if then PDF is found, this will be queued to the thread pool. The code looks like this: //spawn a thread to handle the processing of pdf on each folder. var th = new Thread(() => { pdfDirectories = Directory.GetDirectories(pdfPath); processDir(pdfDirectories); }); th.Start(); private void processDir(string[] dirs) { foreach (var dir in dirs) { pdfFiles = Directory.GetFiles(dir, "*.pdf"); processFiles(pdfFiles); string[] newdir = Directory.GetDirectories(dir); processDir(newdir); } } private void processFiles(string[] files) { foreach (var pdf in files) { ThreadPoolHelper.QueueUserWorkItem( new { path = pdf }, (data) => { processPDF(data.path); } ); } } My problem is, how do i know that the thread pool's thread has finished processing all the queued items so i can tell the user that the application is done with its intended task?

    Read the article

  • c++ multithread

    - by chnet
    I use c++ to implement a thread class. The code is in the following. I initialize two objects, wish it will start two threads (I use pthread_self() to look the thread Id). But the result shows that there is only one thread beside the main thread. I am a bit confused... class Thread { public: int mask; pthread_t thread; Thread( int ); void start(); static void * EntryPoint (void *); void Run(); }; Thread::Thread( int a) { mask =a; } void Thread::Run() { cout<<"thread begin to run" <<endl; cout <<" Thread Id is: "<< pthread_self() << endl; // the same thread Id. } void * Thread::EntryPoint(void * pthis) { cout << "entry" <<endl; Thread *pt = (Thread *) pthis; pt->Run(); } void Thread::start() { pthread_create(&thread, NULL, EntryPoint, (void *)ThreadId ); pthread_join(thread, NULL); } int main() { int input_array[8]={3,1,2,5,6,8,7,4}; Thread t1(1); Thread t2(2); t1.start(); t2.start() }

    Read the article

  • c++ multithread

    - by chnet
    I use C++ to implement a thread class. My code shows in the following. I have a problem about how to access thread data. In the class Thread, I create a thread use pthread_create() function. then it calls EntryPoint() function to start thread created. In the Run function, I want to access the mask variable, it always shows segment fault. So, my question is whether the new created thread copy the data in original class? How to access the thread own data? class Thread { public: int mask; pthread_t thread; Thread( int ); void start(); static void * EntryPoint (void *); void Run(); }; Thread::Thread( int a) { mask =a; } void Thread::Run() { cout<<"thread begin to run" <<endl; cout << mask <<endl; // it always show segmentfault here } void * Thread::EntryPoint(void * pthis) { cout << "entry" <<endl; Thread *pt = (Thread *) pthis; pt->Run(); } void Thread::start() { pthread_create(&thread, NULL, EntryPoint, (void *)ThreadId ); pthread_join(thread, NULL); } int main() { int input_array[8]={3,1,2,5,6,8,7,4}; Thread t1(1); t1.start(); }

    Read the article

  • Determine if the current thread has low I/O priority

    - by Magnus Hoff
    I have a background thread that does some I/O-intensive background type work. To please the other threads and processes running, I set the thread priority to "background mode" using SetThreadPriority, like this: SetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), THREAD_MODE_BACKGROUND_BEGIN); However, THREAD_MODE_BACKGROUND_BEGIN is only available in Windows Server 2008 or newer, as well as Windows Vista and newer, but the program needs to work well on Windows Server 2003 and XP as well. So the real code is more like this: if (!SetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), THREAD_MODE_BACKGROUND_BEGIN)) { SetThreadPriority(GetCurrentThread(), THREAD_PRIORITY_LOWEST); } The problem with this is that on Windows XP it will totally disrupt the system by using too much I/O. I have a plan for a ugly and shameful way of mitigating this problem, but that depends on me being able to determine if the current thread has low I/O priority or not. Now, I know I can store which thread priority I ended up setting, but the control flow in the program is not really well suited for this. I would rather like to be able to test later whether or not the current thread has low I/O priority -- if it is in "background mode". GetThreadPriority does not seem to give me this information. Is there any way to determine if the current thread has low I/O priority?

    Read the article

  • Disposing ActiveX resources owned by another thread

    - by Stefan Teitge
    I've got a problem problem with threading and disposing resources. I've got a C# Windows Forms application which runs expensive operation in a thread. This thread instantiates an ActiveX control (AxControl). This control must be disposed as it uses a high amount of memory. So I implemented a Dispose() method and even a destructor. After the thread ends the destructor is called. This is sadly called by the UI thread. So invoking activexControl.Dispose(); fails with the message "COM object that has been separated from its underlying RCW", as the object belongs to another thread. How to do this correctly or is it just a bad design I use? (I stripped the code down to the minimum including removing any safety concerns.) class Program { [STAThread] static void Main() { // do stuff here, e.g. open a form new Thread(new ThreadStart(RunStuff); // do more stuff } private void RunStuff() { DoStuff stuff = new DoStuff(); stuff.PerformStuff(); } } class DoStuff : IDisposable { private AxControl activexControl; DoStuff() { activexControl = new AxControl(); activexControl.CreateControl(); // force instance } ~DoStuff() { Dispose(); } public void Dispose() { activexControl.Dispose(); } public void PerformStuff() { // invent perpetuum mobile here, takes time } }

    Read the article

  • Why do InterruptedExceptions clear a thread's interrupted status?

    - by Hanno Fietz
    If a thread is interrupted while inside Object.wait() or Thread.join(), it throws an InterruptedException, which resets the thread's interrupted status. I. e., if I have a loop like this inside a Runnable.run(): while (!this._workerThread.isInterrupted()) { // do something try { synchronized (this) { this.wait(this._waitPeriod); } } catch (InterruptedException e) { if (!this._isStopping()) { this._handleFault(e); } } } the thread will continue to run after calling interrupt(). This means I have to explicitly break out of the loop by checking for my own stop flag in the loop condition, rethrow the exception, or add a break. Now, this is not exactly a problem, since this behaviour is well documented and doesn't prevent me from doing anything the way I want. However, I don't seem to understand the concept behind it: Why is a thread not considered interrupted anymore once the exception has been thrown? A similar behaviour also occurs if you get the interrupted status with interrupted() instead of isInterrupted(), then, too, the thread will only appear interrupted once. Am I doing something unusual here? For example, is it more common to catch the InterruptedException outside the loop? (Even though I'm not exactly a beginner, I tagged this "beginner", because it seems like a very basic question to me, looking at it.)

    Read the article

  • how to call the method in thread with aruguments and return some value

    - by ratty
    i like to call the method in thread with aruguments and return some value here example class Program { static void Main() { Stopwatch stop = new Stopwatch(); stop.Start(); Thread FirstThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Fun1)); Thread SecondThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Fun2)); FirstThread.Start(); SecondThread.Start(); } public static void Fun1() { for (int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++) { Console.WriteLine("Fun1 writes:{0}", i); } } public static void Fun2() { for (int i = 1000; i >= 6; i--) { Console.WriteLine("Fun2 writes:{0}", i); } } } i know this above example run successfully but if method fun1 like this public int fun1(int i) { for (int n = i; n >= i+10; n++) { Console.WriteLine("Fun2 writes:{0}", i); } } then how can i call this in thread. Is it possible .Any body Help for me

    Read the article

  • Call event from original thread ??

    - by user311883
    Hi all, Here is my problem, I have a class which have a object who throw an event and in this event I throw a custom event from my class. But unfortunately the original object throw the event from another thread and so my event is also throw on another thread. This cause a exception when my custom event try to access from controls. Here is a code sample to better understand : class MyClass { // Original object private OriginalObject myObject; // My event public delegate void StatsUpdatedDelegate(object sender, StatsArgs args); public event StatsUpdatedDelegate StatsUpdated; public MyClass() { // Original object event myObject.AnEvent += new EventHandler(myObject_AnEvent); } // This event is called on another thread private void myObject_AnEvent(object sender, EventArgs e) { // Throw my custom event here StatsArgs args = new StatsArgs(..........); StatsUpdated(this, args); } } So when on my windows form I call try to update a control from the event StatsUpdated I get a cross thread exception cause it has been called on another thread. What I want to do is throw my custom event on the original class thread, so control can be used within it. Anyone can help me ?

    Read the article

  • How to end a thread in perl

    - by user1672190
    I am new to perl and i have a question about perl thread. I am trying to create a new thread to check if the running function is timed out, and my way of doing it is as below. Logic is 1.create a new thread 2.run the main function and see if it is timed out, if ture, kill it Sample code: $exit_tread = false; # a flag to make sure timeout thread will run my $thr_timeout = threads->new( \&timeout ); execute main function here; $exit_thread = true # set the flag to true to force thread ends $thr_timeout->join(); #wait for the timeout thread ends Code of timeout function sub timeout { $timeout = false; my $start_time = time(); while (!$exit_thread) { sleep(1); last if (main function is executed); if (time() - $start_time >= configured time ) { logmsg "process is killed as request timed out"; _kill_remote_process(); $timeout = true; last; } } } now the code is running as i expected, but i am just not very clear if the code $exit_thread = true works because there is a "last" at the end of while loop. Can anybody give me a answer? Thanks

    Read the article

  • The cross-thread usage of "HttpContext.Current" property and related things

    - by smwikipedia
    I read from < Essential ASP.NET with Examples in C# the following statement: Another useful property to know about is the static Current property of the HttpContext class. This property always points to the current instance of the HttpContext class for the request being serviced. This can be convenient if you are writing helper classes that will be used from pages or other pipeline classes and may need to access the context for whatever reason. By using the static Current property to retrieve the context, you can avoid passing a reference to it to helper classes. For example, the class shown in Listing 4-1 uses the Current property of the context to access the QueryString and print something to the current response buffer. Note that for this static property to be correctly initialized, the caller must be executing on the original request thread, so if you have spawned additional threads to perform work during a request, you must take care to provide access to the context class yourself. I am wondering about the root cause of the bold part, and one thing leads to another, here is my thoughts: We know that a process can have multiple threads. Each of these threads have their own stacks, respectively. These threads also have access to a shared memory area, the heap. The stack then, as I understand it, is kind of where all the context for that thread is stored. For a thread to access something in the heap it must use a pointer, and the pointer is stored on its stack. So when we make some cross-thread calls, we must make sure that all the necessary context info is passed from the caller thread's stack to the callee thread's stack. But I am not quite sure if I made any mistake. Any comments will be deeply appreciated. Thanks. ADD Here the stack is limited to user stack.

    Read the article

  • Why are my thread being terminated ?

    - by Sephy
    Hi, I'm trying to repeat calls to methods through 3 differents threads. But after I start my threads, during the next iteration of my loop, they are all terminated so nothing is executed... The code is as follows : public static void main(String[] args) { main = new Main(); pollingThread.start(); } static Thread pollingThread = new Thread() { @Override public void run() { while (isRunning) { main.poll(); // test the state of the threads try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } }; }; public void poll() { if (clientThread == null) { clientThread = new Thread(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { //create some objects } }); clientThread.start(); } else if (clientThread.isAlive()) { // do some treatment } if (gestionnaireThread == null) { gestionnaireThread = new Thread(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { //create some objects }; }); gestionnaireThread.start(); } else if (gestionnaireThread.isAlive()) { // do some treatment } if (marchandThread == null) { marchandThread = new Thread(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { // create some objects }; }); marchandThread.start(); } else if (marchandThread.isAlive()) { // do some treatment } } And for some reason, when I test the state of my different threads, they appear as runnable and then a the 2nd iteration, they are all terminated... What am I doing wrong? I actually have no error, but the threads are terminated and so my loop keeps looping and telling me the threads are terminated.... Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • run two thread at the same time in java

    - by user1805005
    i have used timertask to schedule my java program. now when the run method of timertask is in process, i want to run two threads which run at the same time and do different functions. here is my code.. please help me.. import java.util.Calendar; import java.util.Date; import java.util.Timer; import java.util.TimerTask; public class timercheck extends TimerTask{ // my first thread Thread t1 = new Thread(){ public void run(){ for(int i = 1;i <= 10;i++) { System.out.println(i); } } }; // my second thread Thread t2 = new Thread(){ public void run(){ for(int i = 11;i <= 20;i++) { System.out.println(i); } } }; public static void main(String[] args){ long ONCE_PER_DAY = 1000*60*60*24; Calendar calendar = Calendar.getInstance(); calendar.set(Calendar.HOUR_OF_DAY, 12); calendar.set(Calendar.MINUTE, 05); calendar.set(Calendar.SECOND, 00); Date time = calendar.getTime(); TimerTask check = new timercheck(); Timer timer = new Timer(); timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(check, time ,ONCE_PER_DAY); } @Override // run method of timer task public void run() { t1.start(); t2.start(); } }

    Read the article

  • How many MSDN accounts per MSDN subscription?

    - by ladenedge
    We recently bought a handful of MSDN subscriptions. Should we have received one MSDN account per subscription? Or must all of our subscriptions be managed through a single account? (In case you're curious about why we can't just examine whatever we received from Microsoft, the problem is that engineering and IT have a very antagonistic relationship around here.)

    Read the article

  • Keyboard layout per window

    - by Giorgi
    Hello, As you know when you change keyboard layout with alt-shift it affects all the windows of current application. Is it there any program which changes the behavior to per window? OS: Windows 7

    Read the article

  • Per-application volume control in windows XP?

    - by Chris Gow
    Is there a way either built-in (don't think there is) or via a third-party to specify the volume on a per application basis in Windows XP? For example, right now I am listening to some music on fairly loudly and I would like all of the alerts I am getting from other apps (email, twitter updates, IMs) to be reduced.

    Read the article

  • Linux IO monitoring per file?

    - by MattK
    I am interested in a utility or process for monitoring disk IO per file on CentOS. On Win2008, the resmon utility allows this type of drilldown, but none of the Linux utilities I have found do this (iostat, iotop, dstat, nmon). My interest in monitoring IO bottlenecks on database servers. With MSSQL, I have found it an informative diagnostic to know which files / filespaces are getting hit the hardest.

    Read the article

  • Linux per-process resource limits - a deep Red Hat Mystery

    - by BobBanana
    I have my own multithreaded C program which scales in speed smoothly with the number of CPU cores.. I can run it with 1, 2, 3, etc threads and get linear speedup.. up to about 5.5x speed on a 6-core CPU on a Ubuntu Linux box. I had an opportunity to run the program on a very high end Sunfire x4450 with 4 quad-core Xeon processors, running Red Hat Enterprise Linux. I was eagerly anticipating seeing how fast the 16 cores could run my program with 16 threads.. But it runs at the same speed as just TWO threads! Much hair-pulling and debugging later, I see that my program really is creating all the threads, they really are running simultaneously, but the threads themselves are slower than they should be. 2 threads runs about 1.7x faster than 1, but 3, 4, 8, 10, 16 threads all run at just net 1.9x! I can see all the threads are running (not stalled or sleeping), they're just slow. To check that the HARDWARE wasn't at fault, I ran SIXTEEN copies of my program independently, simultaneously. They all ran at full speed. There really are 16 cores and they really do run at full speed and there really is enough RAM (in fact this machine has 64GB, and I only use 1GB per process). So, my question is if there's some OPERATING SYSTEM explanation, perhaps some per-process resource limit which automatically scales back thread scheduling to keep one process from hogging the machine. Clues are: My program does not access the disk or network. It's CPU limited. Its speed scales linearly on a single CPU box in Ubuntu Linux with a hexacore i7 for 1-6 threads. 6 threads is effectively 6x speedup. My program never runs faster than 2x speedup on this 16 core Sunfire Xeon box, for any number of threads from 2-16. Running 16 copies of my program single threaded runs perfectly, all 16 running at once at full speed. top shows 1600% of CPUs allocated. /proc/cpuinfo shows all 16 cores running at full 2.9GHz speed (not low frequency idle speed of 1.6GHz) There's 48GB of RAM free, it is not swapping. What's happening? Is there some process CPU limit policy? How could I measure it if so? What else could explain this behavior? Thanks for your ideas to solve this, the Great Xeon Slowdown Mystery of 2010!

    Read the article

  • Per bytes RAM memory acess

    - by b-gen-jack-o-neill
    Hi, I have just a simple question. Today memory DDR chips are 64 bits wide, and the CPU data bus is also 64 bits wide. But memory is stil organised in single bytes. So, what I want to ask is, when CPU selects some memory adress, it should be one byte, right? Becouse the lowest memory portion you can access is 1 byte. But, if you get 1 byte per 1 adress, why is memory bus 8 bytes wide?

    Read the article

  • Why don't monitors have more pixels per inch?

    - by ULTRA_POROV
    72 ppi is nothing. And we have been stuck with this for 20 years. Why do we need to resort to stupid tech like anti-aliasing instead of resolving the core of the issue, more pixels per inch!!! It is really surprising considering all the progress cpu's, video cards, etc. have made.

    Read the article

  • Linux - quota per directory?

    - by depesz
    I have following scenarios: Single partition mounted as /, with lots of disk space. There is a range of directories (/pg/tbs1, /pg/tbs2, /pg/tbs3 and so on), and I would like to limit total size of these directories. One option is to make some big files, and then mkfs them, and mount over loopback, and then set quota, but this makes expansion a bit problematic. Is there any other way to make the quota work per directory?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >