Search Results

Search found 274 results on 11 pages for 'mutex'.

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

  • How to safely operate on parameters in threads, using C++ & Pthreads?

    - by ChrisCphDK
    Hi. I'm having some trouble with a program using pthreads, where occassional crashes occur, that could be related to how the threads operate on data So I have some basic questions about how to program using threads, and memory layout: Assume that a public class function performs some operations on some strings, and returns the result as a string. The prototype of the function could be like this: std::string SomeClass::somefunc(const std::string &strOne, const std::string &strTwo) { //Error checking of strings have been omitted std::string result = strOne.substr(0,5) + strTwo.substr(0,5); return result; } Is it correct to assume that strings, being dynamic, are stored on the heap, but that a reference to the string is allocated on the stack at runtime? Stack: [Some mem addr] pointer address to where the string is on the heap Heap: [Some mem addr] memory allocated for the initial string which may grow or shrink To make the function thread safe, the function is extended with the following mutex (which is declared as private in the "SomeClass") locking: std::string SomeClass::somefunc(const std::string &strOne, const std::string &strTwo) { pthread_mutex_lock(&someclasslock); //Error checking of strings have been omitted std::string result = strOne.substr(0,5) + strTwo.substr(0,5); pthread_mutex_unlock(&someclasslock); return result; } Is this a safe way of locking down the operations being done on the strings (all three), or could a thread be stopped by the scheduler in the following cases, which I'd assume would mess up the intended logic: a. Right after the function is called, and the parameters: strOne & strTwo have been set in the two reference pointers that the function has on the stack, the scheduler takes away processing time for the thread and lets a new thread in, which overwrites the reference pointers to the function, which then again gets stopped by the scheduler, letting the first thread back in? b. Can the same occur with the "result" string: the first string builds the result, unlocks the mutex, but before returning the scheduler lets in another thread which performs all of it's work, overwriting the result etc. Or are the reference parameters / result string being pushed onto the stack while another thread is doing performing it's task? Is the safe / correct way of doing this in threads, and "returning" a result, to pass a reference to a string that will be filled with the result instead: void SomeClass::somefunc(const std::string &strOne, const std::string &strTwo, std::string result) { pthread_mutex_lock(&someclasslock); //Error checking of strings have been omitted result = strOne.substr(0,5) + strTwo.substr(0,5); pthread_mutex_unlock(&someclasslock); } The intended logic is that several objects of the "SomeClass" class creates new threads and passes objects of themselves as parameters, and then calls the function: "someFunc": int SomeClass::startNewThread() { pthread_attr_t attr; pthread_t pThreadID; if(pthread_attr_init(&attr) != 0) return -1; if(pthread_attr_setdetachstate(&attr, PTHREAD_CREATE_DETACHED) != 0) return -2; if(pthread_create(&pThreadID, &attr, proxyThreadFunc, this) != 0) return -3; if(pthread_attr_destroy(&attr) != 0) return -4; return 0; } void* proxyThreadFunc(void* someClassObjPtr) { return static_cast<SomeClass*> (someClassObjPtr)->somefunc("long string","long string"); } Sorry for the long description. But I hope the questions and intended purpose is clear, if not let me know and I'll elaborate. Best regards. Chris

    Read the article

  • C++ Mutexes and STL Lists Across Subclasses

    - by Genesis
    I am currently writing a multi-threaded C++ server using Poco and am now at the point where I need to be keeping information on which users are connected, how many connections each of them have, and given it is a proxy server, where each of those connections are proxying through to. For this purpose I have created a ServerStats class which holds an STL list of ServerUser objects. The ServerStats class includes functions which can add and remove objects from the list as well as find a user in the list an return a pointer to them so I can access member functions within any given ServerUser object in the list. The ServerUser class contains an STL list of ServerConnection objects and much like the ServerStats class it contains functions to add, remove and find elements within this list. Now all of the above is working but I am now trying to make it threadsafe. I have defined a Poco::FastMutex within the ServerStats class and can lock/unlock this in the appropriate places so that STL containers are not modified at the same time as being searched for example. I am however having an issue setting up mutexes within the ServerUser class and am getting the following compiler error: /root/poco/Foundation/include/Poco/Mutex.h: In copy constructor âServerUser::ServerUser(const ServerUser&)â: src/SocksServer.cpp:185: instantiated from âvoid __gnu_cxx::new_allocator<_Tp::construct(_Tp*, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = ServerUser]â /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_list.h:464: instantiated from âstd::_List_node<_Tp* std::list<_Tp, _Alloc::_M_create_node(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = ServerUser, _Alloc = std::allocator]â /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_list.h:1407: instantiated from âvoid std::list<_Tp, _Alloc::_M_insert(std::_List_iterator<_Tp, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = ServerUser, _Alloc = std::allocator]â /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/stl_list.h:920: instantiated from âvoid std::list<_Tp, _Alloc::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = ServerUser, _Alloc = std::allocator]â src/SocksServer.cpp:301: instantiated from here /root/poco/Foundation/include/Poco/Mutex.h:164: error: âPoco::FastMutex::FastMutex(const Poco::FastMutex&)â is private src/SocksServer.cpp:185: error: within this context In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.4/x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/c++allocator.h:34, from /usr/include/c++/4.4/bits/allocator.h:48, from /usr/include/c++/4.4/string:43, from /root/poco/Foundation/include/Poco/Bugcheck.h:44, from /root/poco/Foundation/include/Poco/Foundation.h:147, from /root/poco/Net/include/Poco/Net/Net.h:45, from /root/poco/Net/include/Poco/Net/TCPServerParams.h:43, from src/SocksServer.cpp:1: /usr/include/c++/4.4/ext/new_allocator.h: In member function âvoid __gnu_cxx::new_allocator<_Tp::construct(_Tp*, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = ServerUser]â: /usr/include/c++/4.4/ext/new_allocator.h:105: note: synthesized method âServerUser::ServerUser(const ServerUser&)â first required here src/SocksServer.cpp: At global scope: src/SocksServer.cpp:118: warning: âstd::string getWord(std::string)â defined but not used make: * [/root/poco/SocksServer/obj/Linux/x86_64/debug_shared/SocksServer.o] Error 1 The code for the ServerStats, ServerUser and ServerConnection classes is below: class ServerConnection { public: bool continue_connection; int bytes_in; int bytes_out; string source_address; string destination_address; ServerConnection() { continue_connection = true; } ~ServerConnection() { } }; class ServerUser { public: string username; int connection_count; string client_ip; ServerUser() { } ~ServerUser() { } ServerConnection* addConnection(string source_address, string destination_address) { //FastMutex::ScopedLock lock(_connection_mutex); ServerConnection connection; connection.source_address = source_address; connection.destination_address = destination_address; client_ip = getWord(source_address, ":"); _connections.push_back(connection); connection_count++; return &_connections.back(); } void removeConnection(string source_address) { //FastMutex::ScopedLock lock(_connection_mutex); for(list<ServerConnection>::iterator it = _connections.begin(); it != _connections.end(); it++) { if(it->source_address == source_address) { it = _connections.erase(it); connection_count--; } } } void disconnect() { //FastMutex::ScopedLock lock(_connection_mutex); for(list<ServerConnection>::iterator it = _connections.begin(); it != _connections.end(); it++) { it->continue_connection = false; } } list<ServerConnection>* getConnections() { return &_connections; } private: list<ServerConnection> _connections; //UNCOMMENTING THIS LINE BREAKS IT: //mutable FastMutex _connection_mutex; }; class ServerStats { public: int current_users; ServerStats() { current_users = 0; } ~ServerStats() { } ServerUser* addUser(string username) { FastMutex::ScopedLock lock(_user_mutex); for(list<ServerUser>::iterator it = _users.begin(); it != _users.end(); it++) { if(it->username == username) { return &(*it); } } ServerUser newUser; newUser.username = username; _users.push_back(newUser); current_users++; return &_users.back(); } void removeUser(string username) { FastMutex::ScopedLock lock(_user_mutex); for(list<ServerUser>::iterator it = _users.begin(); it != _users.end(); it++) { if(it->username == username) { _users.erase(it); current_users--; break; } } } ServerUser* getUser(string username) { FastMutex::ScopedLock lock(_user_mutex); for(list<ServerUser>::iterator it = _users.begin(); it != _users.end(); it++) { if(it->username == username) { return &(*it); } } return NULL; } private: list<ServerUser> _users; mutable FastMutex _user_mutex; }; Now I have never used C++ for a project of this size or mutexes for that matter so go easy please :) Firstly, can anyone tell me why the above is causing a compiler error? Secondly, can anyone suggest a better way of storing the information I require? Bear in mind that I need to update this info whenever connections come or go and it needs to be global to the whole server.

    Read the article

  • How can I sync between multiple threads so that their transaction ID be unique without using mutex?

    - by poly
    I'm writing an application in C that requires multiple threads to request a unique transaction ID from a function as shown below; struct list{ int id; struct list *next }; function generate_id() { linked-list is built here to hold 10 millions } How can I sync between two or more threads so that their transaction ID be unique among them without using mutex, is it possible? Please share anything even if I need to change linked list to something else.

    Read the article

  • ????????????3?????

    - by Feng
    ?? ??blog?????oracle????????????,??????????????,??????: ?????????. ???????: ??????????,????????; ????????????,?” ???”??. 1. OS swapping/paging ??????concurrency??????? Oracle?????????, ??latch/mutex???????”?”,??????????????/???(????????????,??????????????????). ????OS??????swapping/paging????,???????????,??latch/mutex???????,????????????hung/slow???. ??swapping/paging??????: a). ???? b). ??????; ?????, ?????????????? c). ?????/????? ????????????????? ???????: Lock SGA, ??SGA(???latch/mutex)???pin???????swapping???. ???SGA??????,????large page(hugepage)??,??latch/mutex??/?????. 2. SGA resizing?????????? ?AMM/ASMM??????????, shared pool?buffer cache?????component????????????,??ora-4031???.??????????,???????resize????????????(?latch/mutex?????)?????, ?????????latch/mutex??. ????shared pool?resize??????,??latch/mutex???????. ?????????:  ?????bug; ???????????,??resize???????????????,???????????. ??bug?fix??????????impact, ???????????. ???????: 1). ??buffer cache?shared pool??(???????????,?????????) 2). ??resize???????16?? alter system set "_memory_broker_stat_interval"=999; Disable AMM/ASMM?????????,?????: ??ora-4031????????????. 3. DDL?????????? ??????????????????. ???????????DDL (??grant, ?????, ????????),???????????SQL?????invalidate?;????????SQL????????????,?????????hard parse ? SQL??????. ??????? “hardparse storm”, latch/mutex????????, ??library cache lock/row cache lock????; ??????????slow/hung. ???????: ???????????DDL ??????????,???????????,?? “????????????3?????"?

    Read the article

  • How can I improve my real-time behavior in multi-threaded app using pthreads and condition variables

    - by WilliamKF
    I have a multi-threaded application that is using pthreads. I have a mutex() lock and condition variables(). There are two threads, one thread is producing data for the second thread, a worker, which is trying to process the produced data in a real time fashion such that one chuck is processed as close to the elapsing of a fixed time period as possible. This works pretty well, however, occasionally when the producer thread releases the condition upon which the worker is waiting, a delay of up to almost a whole second is seen before the worker thread gets control and executes again. I know this because right before the producer releases the condition upon which the worker is waiting, it does a chuck of processing for the worker if it is time to process another chuck, then immediately upon receiving the condition in the worker thread, it also does a chuck of processing if it is time to process another chuck. In this later case, I am seeing that I am late processing the chuck many times. I'd like to eliminate this lost efficiency and do what I can to keep the chucks ticking away as close to possible to the desired frequency. Is there anything I can do to reduce the delay between the release condition from the producer and the detection that that condition is released such that the worker resumes processing? For example, would it help for the producer to call something to force itself to be context switched out? Bottom line is the worker has to wait each time it asks the producer to create work for itself so that the producer can muck with the worker's data structures before telling the worker it is ready to run in parallel again. This period of exclusive access by the producer is meant to be short, but during this period, I am also checking for real-time work to be done by the producer on behalf of the worker while the producer has exclusive access. Somehow my hand off back to running in parallel again results in significant delay occasionally that I would like to avoid. Please suggest how this might be best accomplished.

    Read the article

  • PHP rewrite to included file - is this a valid script?

    - by Poni
    Hi all! I've made this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2921469/php-mutual-exclusion-mutex As said there, I want several sources to send their stats once in a while, and these stats will be showed at the website's main page. My problem is that I want this to be done in an atomic manner, so no update of the stats will overlap another one running in the background. Now, I came up with this solution and I want you PHP experts to judge it. stats.php <?php define("my_counter", 12); ?> index.php <?php include "stats.php"; echo constant("my_counter"); ?> update.php <?php $old_error_reporting = error_reporting(0); include "stats.php"; define("my_stats_template",' <?php define("my_counter", %d); ?> '); $fd = fopen("stats.php", "w+"); if($fd) { if (flock($fd, LOCK_EX)) { $my_counter = 0; try { $my_counter = constant("my_counter"); } catch(Exception $e) { } $my_counter++; $new_stats = sprintf(constant("my_stats_template"), $my_counter); echo "Counter should stand at $my_counter"; fwrite($fd, $new_stats); } flock($fd, LOCK_UN); fclose($fd); } error_reporting($old_error_reporting); ?> Several clients will call the "update.php" file once every 60sec each. The "index.php" is going to use the "stats.php" file all the time as you can see. What's your opinion?

    Read the article

  • PHP rewrite an included file - is this a valid script?

    - by Poni
    Hi all! I've made this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2921469/php-mutual-exclusion-mutex As said there, I want several sources to send their stats once in a while, and these stats will be showed at the website's main page. My problem is that I want this to be done in an atomic manner, so no update of the stats will overlap another one running in the background. Now, I came up with this solution and I want you PHP experts to judge it. stats.php <?php define("my_counter", 12); ?> index.php <?php include "stats.php"; echo constant("my_counter"); ?> update.php <?php $old_error_reporting = error_reporting(0); include "stats.php"; define("my_stats_template",' <?php define("my_counter", %d); ?> '); $fd = fopen("stats.php", "w+"); if($fd) { if (flock($fd, LOCK_EX)) { $my_counter = 0; try { $my_counter = constant("my_counter"); } catch(Exception $e) { } $my_counter++; $new_stats = sprintf(constant("my_stats_template"), $my_counter); echo "Counter should stand at $my_counter"; fwrite($fd, $new_stats); } flock($fd, LOCK_UN); fclose($fd); } error_reporting($old_error_reporting); ?> Several clients will call the "update.php" file once every 60sec each. The "index.php" is going to use the "stats.php" file all the time as you can see. What's your opinion?

    Read the article

  • [Delphi] open text files in one application

    - by Remus Rigo
    hi all I want to write an text editor and to assign the txt files to it. My problem is that I want to have only one instance running and when a new file is opened to send the filename to the first app that is already running... (I want to do this using mutex). Here is a small test DPR looks like this uses Windows, Messages, SysUtils, Forms, wndMain in 'wndMain.pas' {frmMain}; {$R *.res} var PrevWindow : HWND; S : string; CData : TCopyDataStruct; begin PrevWindow := 0; if OpenMutex(MUTEX_ALL_ACCESS, False, 'MyMutex') <> 0 then begin repeat PrevWindow:=FindWindow('TfrmMain', nil); until PrevWindow<>Application.Handle; if IsWindow(PrevWindow) then begin SendMessage(PrevWindow, WM_SYSCOMMAND, SC_RESTORE, 0); BringWindowToTop(PrevWindow); SetForegroundWindow(PrevWindow); if FileExists(ParamStr(1)) then begin S:=ParamStr(1); CData.dwData:=0; CData.lpData:=PChar(S); CData.cbData:=1+Length(S); SendMessage(PrevWindow, WM_COPYDATA, 0, DWORD(@CData) ); end; end; end else CreateMutex(nil, False, 'MyMutex'); Application.Initialize; Application.CreateForm(TfrmMain, frmMain); Application.Run; end. PAS: type TfrmMain = class(TForm) memo: TMemo; private procedure WMCopyData ( var msg : TWMCopyData ) ; message WM_COPYDATA; public procedure OpenFile(f : String); end; var frmMain: TfrmMain; implementation {$R *.dfm} procedure TfrmMain.WMCopyData ( var msg : TWMCopyData ) ; var f : String; begin f:=PChar(msg.CopyDataStruct.lpData); //ShowMessage(f); OpenFile(f); end; procedure TfrmMain.OpenFile(f : String); begin memo.Clear; memo.Lines.LoadFromFile(f); Caption:=f; end; this code should be ok, but if i want to open a text file (from the second app), the first app receives a message like this: thanks

    Read the article

  • Thread resource sharing

    - by David
    I'm struggling with multi-threaded programming... I have an application that talks to an external device via a CAN to USB module. I've got the application talking on the CAN bus just fine, but there is a requirement for the application to transmit a "heartbeat" message every second. This sounds like a perfect time to use threads, so I created a thread that wakes up every second and sends the heartbeat. The problem I'm having is sharing the CAN bus interface. The heartbeat must only be sent when the bus is idle. How do I share the resource? Here is pseudo code showing what I have so far: TMainThread { Init: CanBusApi =new TCanBusApi; MutexMain =CreateMutex( "CanBusApiMutexName" ); HeartbeatThread =new THeartbeatThread( CanBusApi ); Execution: WaitForSingleObject( MutexMain ); CanBusApi->DoSomething(); ReleaseMutex( MutexMain ); } THeartbeatThread( CanBusApi ) { Init: MutexHeart =CreateMutex( "CanBusApiMutexName" ); Execution: Sleep( 1000 ); WaitForSingleObject( MutexHeart ); CanBusApi->DoHeartBeat(); ReleaseMutex( MutexHeart ); } The problem I'm seeing is that when DoHeartBeat is called, it causes the main thread to block while waiting for MutexMain as expected, but DoHeartBeat also stops. DoHeartBeat doesn't complete until after WaitForSingleObject(MutexMain) times out in failure. Does DoHeartBeat execute in the context of the MainThread or HeartBeatThread? It seems to be executing in MainThread. What am I doing wrong? Is there a better way? Thanks, David

    Read the article

  • Thread Synchronisation 101

    - by taspeotis
    Previously I've written some very simple multithreaded code, and I've always been aware that at any time there could be a context switch right in the middle of what I'm doing, so I've always guarded access the shared variables through a CCriticalSection class that enters the critical section on construction and leaves it on destruction. I know this is fairly aggressive and I enter and leave critical sections quite frequently and sometimes egregiously (e.g. at the start of a function when I could put the CCriticalSection inside a tighter code block) but my code doesn't crash and it runs fast enough. At work my multithreaded code needs to be a tighter, only locking/synchronising at the lowest level needed. At work I was trying to debug some multithreaded code, and I came across this: EnterCriticalSection(&m_Crit4); m_bSomeVariable = true; LeaveCriticalSection(&m_Crit4); Now, m_bSomeVariable is a Win32 BOOL (not volatile), which as far as I know is defined to be an int, and on x86 reading and writing these values is a single instruction, and since context switches occur on an instruction boundary then there's no need for synchronising this operation with a critical section. I did some more research online to see whether this operation did not need synchronisation, and I came up with two scenarios it did: The CPU implements out of order execution or the second thread is running on a different core and the updated value is not written into RAM for the other core to see; and The int is not 4-byte aligned. I believe number 1 can be solved using the "volatile" keyword. In VS2005 and later the C++ compiler surrounds access to this variable using memory barriers, ensuring that the variable is always completely written/read to the main system memory before using it. Number 2 I cannot verify, I don't know why the byte alignment would make a difference. I don't know the x86 instruction set, but does mov need to be given a 4-byte aligned address? If not do you need to use a combination of instructions? That would introduce the problem. So... QUESTION 1: Does using the "volatile" keyword (implicity using memory barriers and hinting to the compiler not to optimise this code) absolve a programmer from the need to synchronise a 4-byte/8-byte on x86/x64 variable between read/write operations? QUESTION 2: Is there the explicit requirement that the variable be 4-byte/8-byte aligned? I did some more digging into our code and the variables defined in the class: class CExample { private: CRITICAL_SECTION m_Crit1; // Protects variable a CRITICAL_SECTION m_Crit2; // Protects variable b CRITICAL_SECTION m_Crit3; // Protects variable c CRITICAL_SECTION m_Crit4; // Protects variable d // ... }; Now, to me this seems excessive. I thought critical sections synchronised threads between a process, so if you've got one you can enter it and no other thread in that process can execute. There is no need for a critical section for each variable you want to protect, if you're in a critical section then nothing else can interrupt you. I think the only thing that can change the variables from outside a critical section is if the process shares a memory page with another process (can you do that?) and the other process starts to change the values. Mutexes would also help here, named mutexes are shared across processes, or only processes of the same name? QUESTION 3: Is my analysis of critical sections correct, and should this code be rewritten to use mutexes? I have had a look at other synchronisation objects (semaphores and spinlocks), are they better suited here? QUESTION 4: Where are critical sections/mutexes/semaphores/spinlocks best suited? That is, which synchronisation problem should they be applied to. Is there a vast performance penalty for choosing one over the other? And while we're on it, I read that spinlocks should not be used in a single-core multithreaded environment, only a multi-core multithreaded environment. So, QUESTION 5: Is this wrong, or if not, why is it right? Thanks in advance for any responses :)

    Read the article

  • How to mult-thread this?

    - by WilliamKF
    I wish to have two threads. The first thread1 occasionally calls the following pseudo function: void waitForThread2() { if (thread2 is not idle) { return; } notifyThread2IamReady(); while (thread2IsExclusive) { } } The second thread2 is forever in the following pseudo loop: for (;;) { Notify thread1 I am idle. while (!thread1IsReady()) { } Notify thread1 I am exclusive. Do some work while thread1 is blocked. Notify thread1 I am busy. Do some work in parallel with thread1. } What is the best way to write this such that both thread1 and thread2 are kept as busy as possible on a machine with multiple cores. I would like to avoid long delays between notification in one thread and detection by the other. I tried using pthread condition variables but found the delay between thread2 doing 'notify thread1 I am busy' and the loop in waitForThread2() on thear2IsExclusive() can be up to almost one second delay. I then tried using a volatile sig_atomic_t shared variable to control the same, but something is going wrong, so I must not be doing it correctly.

    Read the article

  • Atomic int writes on file

    - by Waneck
    Hello! I'm writing an application that will have to be able to handle many concurrent accesses to it, either by threads as by processes. So no mutex'es or locks should be applied to this. To make the use of locks go down to a minimum, I'm designing for the file to be "append-only", so all data is first appended to disk, and then the address pointing to the info it has updated, is changed to refer to the new one. So I will need to implement a small lock system only to change this one int so it refers to the new address. How is the best way to do it? I was thinking about maybe putting a flag before the address, that when it's set, the readers will use a spin lock until it's released. But I'm afraid that it isn't at all atomic, is it? e.g. a reader reads the flag, and it is unset on the same time, a writer writes the flag and changes the value of the int the reader may read an inconsistent value! I'm looking for locking techniques but all I find is either for thread locking techniques, or to lock an entire file, not fields. Is it not possible to do this? How do append-only databases handle this? Thanks! Cauê

    Read the article

  • Linux synchronization with FIFO waiting queue

    - by EpsilonVector
    Are there locks in Linux where the waiting queue is FIFO? This seems like such an obvious thing, and yet I just discovered that pthread mutexes aren't FIFO, and semaphores apparently aren't FIFO either (I'm working on kernel 2.4 (homework))... Does Linux have a lock with FIFO waiting queue, or is there an easy way to make one with existing mechanisms?

    Read the article

  • What are some good ways to do intermachine locking?

    - by mike
    Our server cluster consists of 20 machines, each with 10 pids of 5 threads. We'd like some way to prevent any two threads, in any pid, on any machine, from modifying the same object at the same time. Our code's written in Python and runs on Linux, if that helps narrow things down. Also, it's a pretty rare case that two such threads want to do this, so we'd prefer something that optimizes the "only one thread needs this object" case to be really fast, even if it means that the "one thread has locked this object and another one needs it" case isn't great. What are some of the best practices?

    Read the article

  • Why boost::recursive_mutex is not working as expected?

    - by Kjir
    I have a custom class that uses boost mutexes and locks like this (only relevant parts): template<class T> class FFTBuf { public: FFTBuf(); [...] void lock(); void unlock(); private: T *_dst; int _siglen; int _processed_sums; int _expected_sums; int _assigned_sources; bool _written; boost::recursive_mutex _mut; boost::unique_lock<boost::recursive_mutex> _lock; }; template<class T> FFTBuf<T>::FFTBuf() : _dst(NULL), _siglen(0), _expected_sums(1), _processed_sums(0), _assigned_sources(0), _written(false), _lock(_mut, boost::defer_lock_t()) { } template<class T> void FFTBuf<T>::lock() { std::cerr << "Locking" << std::endl; _lock.lock(); std::cerr << "Locked" << std::endl; } template<class T> void FFTBuf<T>::unlock() { std::cerr << "Unlocking" << std::endl; _lock.unlock(); } If I try to lock more than once the object from the same thread, I get an exception (lock_error): #include "fft_buf.hpp" int main( void ) { FFTBuf<int> b( 256 ); b.lock(); b.lock(); b.unlock(); b.unlock(); return 0; } This is the output: sb@dex $ ./src/test Locking Locked Locking terminate called after throwing an instance of 'boost::lock_error' what(): boost::lock_error zsh: abort ./src/test Why is this happening? Am I understanding some concept incorrectly?

    Read the article

  • Fast inter-process (inter-threaded) communications IPC on large multi-cpu system.

    - by IPC
    What would be the fastest portable bi-directional communication mechanism for inter-process communication where threads from one application need to communicate to multiple threads in another application on the same computer, and the communicating threads can be on different physical CPUs). I assume that it would involve a shared memory and a circular buffer and shared synchronization mechanisms. But shared mutexes are very expensive (and there are limited number of them too) to synchronize when threads are running on different physical CPUs.

    Read the article

  • two threads going to do func()

    - by nisnis84
    2 threads going to use the same func(). The 2 threads should be mutually exclusive. How do I get it to work properly? (output should be "abcdeabcde") char arr[] = "ABCDE"; int len = 5; void func(){ for(int i = 0; i <len;i++) printf("%c,arr[i]); }

    Read the article

  • Are spinlocks a good choice for a memory allocator?

    - by dsimcha
    I've suggested to the maintainers of the D programming language runtime a few times that the memory allocator/garbage collector should use spinlocks instead of regular OS critical sections. This hasn't really caught on. Here are the reasons I think spinlocks would be better: At least in synthetic benchmarks that I did, it's several times faster than OS critical sections when there's contention for the memory allocator/GC lock. Edit: Empirically, using spinlocks didn't even have measurable overhead in a single-core environment, probably because locks need to be held for such a short period of time in a memory allocator. Memory allocations and similar operations usually take a small fraction of a timeslice, and even a small fraction of the time a context switch takes, making it silly to context switch in the case of contention. A garbage collection in the implementation in question stops the world anyhow. There won't be any spinning during a collection. Are there any good reasons not to use spinlocks in a memory allocator/garbage collector implementation?

    Read the article

  • Another thread safe queue implementation

    - by jensph
    I have a class, Queue, that I tried to make thread safe. It has these three member variables: std::queue<T> m_queue; pthread_mutex_t m_mutex; pthread_cond_t m_condition; and a push and pop implemented as: template<class T> void Queue<T>::push(T value) { pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); m_queue.push(value); if( !m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_signal( &m_condition ); } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); } template<class T> bool Queue<T>::pop(T& value, bool block) { bool rtn = false; pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); if( block ) { while( m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_wait( &m_condition, &m_mutex ); } } if( !m_queue.empty() ) { value = m_queue.front(); m_queue.pop(); rtn = true; } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); return rtn; } Unfortunately there are occasional issues that may be the fault of this code. That is, there are two threads and sometimes thread 1 never comes out of push() and at other times thread 2 never comes out of pop() (the block parameter is true) though the queue isn't empty. I understand there are other implementations available, but I'd like to try to fix this code, if needed. Anyone see any issues? The constructor has the appropriate initializations: Queue() { pthread_mutex_init( &mMutex, NULL ); pthread_cond_init( &mCondition, NULL ); } and the destructor, the corresponding 'destroy' calls.

    Read the article

  • How to multi-thread this?

    - by WilliamKF
    I wish to have two threads. The first thread1 occasionally calls the following pseudo function: void waitForThread2() { if (thread2 is not idle) { return; } notifyThread2IamReady(); while (thread2IsExclusive) { } } The second thread2 is forever in the following pseudo loop: for (;;) { Notify thread1 I am idle. while (!thread1IsReady()) { } Notify thread1 I am exclusive. Do some work while thread1 is blocked. Notify thread1 I am busy. Do some work in parallel with thread1. } What is the best way to write this such that both thread1 and thread2 are kept as busy as possible on a machine with multiple cores. I would like to avoid long delays between notification in one thread and detection by the other. I tried using pthread condition variables but found the delay between thread2 doing 'notify thread1 I am busy' and the loop in waitForThread2() on thear2IsExclusive() can be up to almost one second delay. I then tried using a volatile sig_atomic_t shared variable to control the same, but something is going wrong, so I must not be doing it correctly.

    Read the article

  • Can somebody explain this remark in the MSDN CreateMutex() documentation about the bInitialOwner fla

    - by Tom Williams
    The MSDN CreatMutex() documentation (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms682411%28VS.85%29.aspx) contains the following remark near the end: Two or more processes can call CreateMutex to create the same named mutex. The first process actually creates the mutex, and subsequent processes with sufficient access rights simply open a handle to the existing mutex. This enables multiple processes to get handles of the same mutex, while relieving the user of the responsibility of ensuring that the creating process is started first. When using this technique, you should set the bInitialOwner flag to FALSE; otherwise, it can be difficult to be certain which process has initial ownership. Can somebody explain the problem with using bInitialOwner = TRUE? Earlier in the same documentation it suggests a call to GetLastError() will allow you to determine whether a call to CreateMutext() created the mutex or just returned a new handle to an existing mutex: Return Value If the function succeeds, the return value is a handle to the newly created mutex object. If the function fails, the return value is NULL. To get extended error information, call GetLastError. If the mutex is a named mutex and the object existed before this function call, the return value is a handle to the existing object, GetLastError returns ERROR_ALREADY_EXISTS, bInitialOwner is ignored, and the calling thread is not granted ownership. However, if the caller has limited access rights, the function will fail with ERROR_ACCESS_DENIED and the caller should use the OpenMutex function.

    Read the article

  • How to create a Mutex with security attribute to share resource from different application?

    - by Antony Tess
    How to create a Mutex with security attribute rigth to share resource from different application? In according with Microsoft SDK documentation the CreateMutex API accept as first parameter a SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES pointer. HANDLE WINAPI CreateMutex( __in LPSECURITY_ATTRIBUTES lpMutexAttributes, __in BOOL bInitialOwner, __in LPCTSTR lpName ); I want to create the rigth security attribute so only my application group can open the MUTEX and access to a specific resource (a file) where my application gruop read/write data operation. The target opertaing system are XP, Vista and Seven. The feature must working in both, administrator/standard user, login shenario.

    Read the article

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