Search Results

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

Page 4/66 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • C#: Parallel forms, multithreading and "applications in application"

    - by Harry
    First, what I need is - n WebBrowser-s, each in its own window doing its own job. The user should be able to see them all, or just one of them (or none), and to execute commands on each one. There is a main form, without a browser, this one contains control panel for my application. The key feautre is, each browser logs on to secured web page and it needs to stay logged in as long as possible. Well, I've done it, but I'm afraid something is wrong with my approach. The question is: Is code below valid, or rather a nasty hack which can cause problems: internal class SessionList : List<Session> { public SessionList(Server main) { MyRecords.ForEach(record => { var st = new System.Threading.Thread((data) => { var s = new Session(main, data as MyRecord); this.Add(s); Application.Run(s); Application.ExitThread(); }); st.SetApartmentState(System.Threading.ApartmentState.STA); st.Start(record); }); } // some other uninteresting methods here... } What's going on here? Session inherits from Form, so it creates a form, puts WebBrowser into it, and has methods to operate on websites. WebBrowser requires to be run in STA thread, so we provide one for each browser. The most interesting part of it is Application.Run(s). It makes the newly created forms alive and interactive. The next Application.ExitThread() is called after browser window is closed and its controls disposed. Main application stays alive to perform the rest of the cleanup job. When user select "Exit" or "Shutdown" option - first the browser threads are ended, so Application.ExitThread() is called. It all works, but everywhere I can read about "main GUI thread" - and here - I've created many GUI threads. I handle communication between main form and my new forms (sessions) with thread-safe methods using Invoke(). It all works, so is it right or is it wrong? Is everything right with using Application.Run() more than once in one application? :) An ugly hack or a normal practice? This code dies if I start a WebBrowser from the session form thread. It beats me why. It works however if I start WebBrowser (by changing its Url property) from any other thread. I'd like to know more what is really happening in such application. But most of all - I'd like to know if my idea of "applications in application" is OK. I'm not sure what exactly does Application.Run() do. Without it forms created in new threads were dead unresponsive. How is it possible I can call Application.Run() many times? It seems to do exactly what it should, but it seems a little undocumented feature to me. I'm almost sure, that the crashes are caused by WebBrowser component itself (since it's not completely "managed" and "native"). But maybe it's something else.

    Read the article

  • Multithreading, when to yield versus sleep

    - by aaa
    hello. To clarify terminology, yield is when thread gives up its time slice. My platform of interest is POSIX threads, but I think question is general. Suppose I have consumer/producer pattern. If I want to throttle either consumer or producer, which is better to use, sleep or yield? I am mostly interested in efficiency of using either function. Thanks

    Read the article

  • What is the simplest way to implement multithreading in c# to existing code

    - by Kaeso
    I have already implemented a functionnal application that parses 26 pages of html all at once to produce an xml file with data contained on the web pages. I would need to implement a thread so that this method can work in the background without causing my app to seems unresponsive. Secondly, I have another function that is decoupled from the first one which compares two xml files to produce a third one and then transform this third xml file to produce an html page using XSLT. This would have to be on a thread, where I can click Cancel to stop the thread whithout crashing the app. What is the easiest best way to do this using WPF forms in VS 2010 ? I have chosen to use the BackgroundWorker. BackgroundWorker implementation: public partial class MainWindow : Window { private BackgroundWorker bw = new BackgroundWorker(); public MainWindow() { InitializeComponent(); bw.WorkerReportsProgress = true; bw.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(bw_DoWork); bw.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(backgroundWorker1_RunWorkerCompleted); } private void Window_Loaded(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { this.LoadFiles(); } private void btnCompare_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (bw.IsBusy != true) { progressBar2.IsIndeterminate = true; // Start the asynchronous operation. bw.RunWorkerAsync(); } } private void bw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) { StatsProcessor proc = new StatsProcessor(); if (lstStatsBox1.SelectedItem != null) if (lstStatsBox2.SelectedItem != null) proc.CompareStats(lstStatsBox1.SelectedItem.ToString(), lstStatsBox2.SelectedItem.ToString()); } private void backgroundWorker1_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e) { progressBar2.IsIndeterminate = false; progressBar2.Value = 100; } I have started with the bgworker solution, but it seems that the bw_DoWork method is never called when btnCompare is clicked, I must be doing something wrong... I am new to threads.

    Read the article

  • Thread feeding other MultiThreading

    - by alaamh
    I see it's easy to open pipe between two process using fork, but how we can passing open pipe to threads. Assume we need to pass out of PROGRAM A to PROGRAM B "may by more than one thread", PROGRAM B send his output to PROGRAM C #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <pthread.h> struct targ_s { char* reader; }; void *thread1(void *arg) { struct targ_s *targ = (struct targ_s*) arg; int status, fd[2]; pid_t pid; pipe(fd); pid = fork(); if (pid == 0) { int fd = fileno( targ->fd_reader ); dup2(STDIN_FILENO, fd); close(fd[0]); dup2(fd[1], STDOUT_FILENO); close(fd[1]); execvp ("PROGRAM B", NULL); exit(1); } else { close(fd[1]); dup2(fd[0], STDIN_FILENO); close(fd[0]); execl("PROGRAM C", NULL); wait(&status); return NULL; } } int main(void) { FILE *fpipe; char *command = "PROGRAM A"; char buffer[1024]; if (!(fpipe = (FILE*) popen(command, "r"))) { perror("Problems with pipe"); exit(1); } char* outfile = "out.dat"; FILE* f = fopen (outfile, "wb"); int fd = fileno( f ); struct targ_s targ; targ.fd_reader = outfile; pthread_t thid; if (pthread_create(&thid, NULL, thread1, &targ) != 0) { perror("pthread_create() error"); exit(1); } int len; while (read(fpipe, buffer, sizeof (buffer)) != 0) { len = strlen(buffer); write(fd, buffer, len); } pclose(fpipe); return (0); }

    Read the article

  • Multithreading using pthread in C++ with shared variables

    - by Saviour Self
    I'm new to threading (and C/C++ for that matter), and I'm attempting to use multiple threads to access shared variables. In the main, I've created a variable char inputarray[100]; Thread 1: This thread will be reading data from stdin in 2 byte bursts, and appending them to the inputarray. (input by feeding a file in) Thread 2: This thread will be reading data 1 byte at a time, performing a calculation, and putting its data into an output array. Thread 3: This thread will be outputting data from the output array in 2 byte bursts. (stdout) I've attempted the input part and got it working by passing a struct, but would like to do it without using a struct, but it has been giving me problems. If I can get input down, I'm sure I'll be able to use a similar strategy to complete output. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Below is a rough template for the input thread. #include <stdio.h> #include <pthread.h> using namespace std; void* input(void* arg) { char reading[3]; fread(reading,1,2,stdin); //append to char inputarray[]..??? } int main() { char inputarray[100]; pthread_t t1; pthread_create(&t1, NULL, &input, &inputarray); void *result; pthread_join(t1,&result); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Multithreading with STL container

    - by Steven
    I have an unordered map which stores a pointer of objects. I am not sure whether I am doing the correct thing to maintain the thread safety. typedef std::unordered_map<string, classA*>MAP1; MAP1 map1; pthread_mutex_lock(&mutexA) if(map1.find(id) != map1.end()) { pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutexA); //already exist, not adding items } else { classA* obj1 = new classA; map1[id] = obj1; obj1->obtainMutex(); //Should I create a mutex for each object so that I could obtain mutex when I am going to update fields for obj1? pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutexA); //release mutex for unordered_map so that other threads could access other object obj1->field1 = 1; performOperation(obj1); //takes some time obj1->releaseMutex(); //release mutex after updating obj1 }

    Read the article

  • All Callbacks on GUI Thread - Multithreading issues possible?

    - by miguel
    We have an external data provider which, in its construtor, takes a callback thread for returning data upon. There are some issues in the system which I am suspicious are related to threading, however, in theory they cannot be, due to the fact that the callbacks should all be returned on the same thread. My question is, does code like this require thread synchronisation? class Foo { ExternalDataProvider _provider; public Foo() { // This is the c'tor for the xternal data provider, taking a callback loop as param _provider = new ExternalDataProvider(UILoop); _provider.DataArrived += ExternalProviderCallbackMethod; } public ExternalProviderCallbackMethod(...) { //...(code omitted) var itemArray[] = new String[4] { "item1", "item2", "item3", "item4" }; for (int i = 0; i < itemArray.Length; i++) { string s = itemArray[i]; switch(s) { case "item1": DoItem1Action(); break; case "item2": DoItem2Action(); break; default: DoDefaultAction(); break; } //...(code omitted) } } } The issue is that, very infrequently, DoItem2Action is executingwhen DoItem1Action should be exectuing. Is it at all possible threading is at fault here? In theory, as all callbacks are arriving on the same thread, they should be serialized, right? So there should be no need for thread sync here?

    Read the article

  • I need to make a multithreading program (python)

    - by Andreawu98
    import multiprocessing import time from itertools import product out_file = open("test.txt", 'w') P = ['a', 'b', 'c', 'd', 'e', 'f', 'g', 'h', 'i', 'j', 'k', 'l', 'm', 'n', 'o', 'p','q', 'r', 's', 't', 'u', 'v', 'w', 'x', 'y', 'z',] N = [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] M = ['A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H', 'I', 'J', 'K', 'L', 'M', 'N', 'O', 'P', 'Q', 'R', 'S', 'T', 'U', 'V', 'W', 'X', 'Y', 'Z'] c = int(input("Insert the number of digits you want: ")) n = int(input("If you need number press 1: ")) m = int(input("If you need upper letters press 1: ")) i = [] if n == 1: P = P + N if m == 1: P = P + M then = time.time() def worker(): for i in product(P, repeat=c): #check every possibilities k = '' for z in range(0, c): # k = k + str(i[z]) # print each possibility in a txt without parentesis or comma out_file.write( k + '\n') # out_file.close() now = time.time() diff = str(now - then) # To see how long does it take print(diff) worker() time.sleep(10) # just to check console The code check every single possibility and print it out in a test.txt file. It works but I really can't understand how can I speed it up. I saw it use 1 core out of my quad core CPU so I thought Multi-threading might work even though I don't know how. Please help me. Sorry for my English, I am from Italy.

    Read the article

  • Multithreading: Read from / write to a pipe

    - by Tero Jokinen
    I write some data to a pipe - possibly lots of data and at random intervals. How to read the data from the pipe? Is this ok: in the main thread (current process) create two more threads (2, 3) the second thread writes sometimes to the pipe (and flush-es the pipe?) the 3rd thread has infinite loop which reads the pipe (and then sleeps for some time) Is this so far correct? Now, there are a few thing I don't understand: do I have to lock (mutex?) the pipe on write? IIRC, when writing to pipe and its buffer gets full, the write end will block until I read the already written data, right? How to check for read data in the pipe, not too often, not too rarely? So that the second thread wont block? Is there something like select for pipes? It is possible to set the pipe to unbuffered more or I have to flush it regularly - which one is better? Should I create one more thread, just for flushing the pipe after write? Because flush blocks as well, when the buffer is full, right? I just don't want the 1st and 2nd thread to block.... [Edit] Sorry, I thought the question is platform agnostic but just in case: I'm looking at this from Win32 perspective, possibly MinGW C...

    Read the article

  • Singleton & Multithreading in Java

    - by vivek jagtap
    What is the preferred way to work with Singleton class in multithreaded environment? Suppose if I have 3 thread, and all they try to access getInstance() method of singleton class at the same time - What would happen if no synchronization is maintained? Is it good practice to use synchronized getInstance() method or use synchronized block inside getInstance(). Please advise if there is any other way out.

    Read the article

  • MultiThreading question

    - by TiGer
    Hi, I am developing on Android but the question might be just as valid on any other Java platform. I have developed a multi-threaded app. Lets say I have a first class that needs to do a time-intensive task, thus this work is done in another Thread. When it's done that same Thread will return the time-intensive task result to another (3rd) class. This last class will do something and return it's result to the first-starting class. I have noticed though that the first class will be waiting the whole time, maybe because this is some kind of loop ? Also I'd like the Thread-class to stop itself, as in when it has passed it's result to the third class it should simply stop. The third class has to do it's work without being "incapsulated" in the second class (the Thread one). Anyone knows how to accomplish this ? right now the experience is that the first one seems to be waiting (hanging) till the second and the third one are done :(

    Read the article

  • matplotlib and python multithread file processing

    - by Napseis
    I have a large number of files to process. I have written a script that get, sort and plot the datas I want. So far, so good. I have tested it and it gives the desired result. Then I wanted to do this using multithreading. I have looked into the doc and examples on the internet, and using one thread in my program works fine. But when I use more, at some point I get random matplotlib error, and I suspect some conflict there, even though I use a function with names for the plots, and iI can't see where the problem could be. Here is the whole script should you need more comment, i'll add them. Thank you. #!/usr/bin/python import matplotlib matplotlib.use('GTKAgg') import numpy as np from scipy.interpolate import griddata import matplotlib.pyplot as plt import matplotlib.colors as mcl from matplotlib import rc #for latex import time as tm import sys import threading import Queue #queue in 3.2 and Queue in 2.7 ! import pdb #the debugger rc('text', usetex=True)#for latex map=0 #initialize the map index. It will be use to index the array like this: array[map,[x,y]] time=np.zeros(1) #an array to store the time middle_h=np.zeros((0,3)) #x phi c #for the middle of the box current_file=open("single_void_cyl_periodic_phi_c_middle_h_out",'r') for line in current_file: if line.startswith('# === time'): map+=1 np.append(time,[float(line.strip('# === time '))]) elif line.startswith('#'): pass else: v=np.fromstring(line,dtype=float,sep=' ') middle_h=np.vstack( (middle_h,v[[1,3,4]]) ) current_file.close() middle_h=middle_h.reshape((map,-1,3)) #3d array: map, x, phi,c ##### def load_and_plot(): #will load a map file, and plot it along with the corresponding profile loaded before while not exit_flag: print("fecthing work ...") #try: if not tasks_queue.empty(): map_index=tasks_queue.get() print("----> working on map: %s" %map_index) x,y,zp=np.loadtxt("single_void_cyl_growth_periodic_post_map_"+str(map_index),unpack=True, usecols=[1, 2,3]) for i,el in enumerate(zp): if el<0.: zp[i]=0. xv=np.unique(x) yv=np.unique(y) X,Y= np.meshgrid(xv,yv) Z = griddata((x, y), zp, (X, Y),method='nearest') figure=plt.figure(num=map_index,figsize=(14, 8)) ax1=plt.subplot2grid((2,2),(0,0)) ax1.plot(middle_h[map_index,:,0],middle_h[map_index,:,1],'*b') ax1.grid(True) ax1.axis([-15, 15, 0, 1]) ax1.set_title('Profiles') ax1.set_ylabel(r'$\phi$') ax1.set_xlabel('x') ax2=plt.subplot2grid((2,2),(1,0)) ax2.plot(middle_h[map_index,:,0],middle_h[map_index,:,2],'*r') ax2.grid(True) ax2.axis([-15, 15, 0, 1]) ax2.set_ylabel('c') ax2.set_xlabel('x') ax3=plt.subplot2grid((2,2),(0,1),rowspan=2,aspect='equal') sub_contour=ax3.contourf(X,Y,Z,np.linspace(0,1,11),vmin=0.) figure.colorbar(sub_contour,ax=ax3) figure.savefig('single_void_cyl_'+str(map_index)+'.png') plt.close(map_index) tasks_queue.task_done() else: print("nothing left to do, other threads finishing,sleeping 2 seconds...") tm.sleep(2) # except: # print("failed this time: %s" %map_index+". Sleeping 2 seconds") # tm.sleep(2) ##### exit_flag=0 nb_threads=2 tasks_queue=Queue.Queue() threads_list=[] jobs=list(range(map)) #each job is composed of a map print("inserting jobs in the queue...") for job in jobs: tasks_queue.put(job) print("done") #launch the threads for i in range(nb_threads): working_bee=threading.Thread(target=load_and_plot) working_bee.daemon=True print("starting thread "+str(i)+' ...') threads_list.append(working_bee) working_bee.start() #wait for all tasks to be treated tasks_queue.join() #flip the flag, so the threads know it's time to stop exit_flag=1 for t in threads_list: print("waiting for threads %s to stop..."%t) t.join() print("all threads stopped")

    Read the article

  • Python - Help with multiprocessing / threading basics.

    - by orokusaki
    I haven't ever used multi-threading, and I decided to learn it today. I was reluctant to ever use it before, but when I tried it out it seemed way to easy, which makes me wary. Are there any gotchas in my code, or is it really that simple? import uuid import time import multiprocessing def sleep_then_write(content): time.sleep(5) f = open(unicode(uuid.uuid4()), 'w') f.write(content) f.close() if __name__ == '__main__': for i in range(3): p = multiprocessing.Process(target=sleep_then_write, args=('Hello World',)) p.start() My primary purpose of using threading would be to offload multiple images to S3 after re-sizing them, all at the same time. Is that a reasonable task for Python's multiprocessing? I've read a lot about certain types of tasks not really getting any gain from using threading in Python due to the GIL, but it seems that multiprocessing completely removes that worry, yes? I can imagine a case where 50 users hit the system and it spawns 150 Python interpreters. I can also imagine that wouldn't be good on a production server. How can something like that be avoided? Finally (but most important): How can I return control back to the caller of the new processes? I need to be able to continue with returning an HTTP response and content back to the user and then have the processes continue doing there work after the user of my website is done with the transaction.

    Read the article

  • Able to ping but cannot browse after several hours running of my python program

    - by Shane
    It's a GUI program I wrote in python checking website/server status running on my XP SP3, multi threads are used to check different site/server. After several hours running, the program starts to get urlopen error timed out all the time, and this always happens right after a POST request from a server(not a certain one, might be A or B or C), and it's also not the first POST request causing the problem, normally after several hours running and it happens to make a POST request at an unknown moment, all you get from then on is urlopen error timed out. I'm still able to ping but cannot browse any site, once the program closed everything's fine. It's definitely the program causing this problem, well I just don't know how to debug/check what the problem is, also don't know if it's from OS side or my program wasting too many resources/connections(are you still able to ping when too many connections used?), would anybody please help me out?

    Read the article

  • python can't start a new thread

    - by Giorgos Komnino
    I am building a multi threading application. I have setup a threadPool. [ A Queue of size N and N Workers that get data from the queue] When all tasks are done I use tasks.join() where tasks is the queue . The application seems to run smoothly until suddently at some point (after 20 minutes in example) it terminates with the error thread.error: can't start new thread Any ideas? Edit: The threads are daemon Threads and the code is like: while True: t0 = time.time() keyword_statuses = DBSession.query(KeywordStatus).filter(KeywordStatus.status==0).options(joinedload(KeywordStatus.keyword)).with_lockmode("update").limit(100) if keyword_statuses.count() == 0: DBSession.commit() break for kw_status in keyword_statuses: kw_status.status = 1 DBSession.commit() t0 = time.time() w = SWorker(threads_no=32, network_server='http://192.168.1.242:8180/', keywords=keyword_statuses, cities=cities, saver=MySqlRawSave(DBSession), loglevel='debug') w.work() print 'finished' When the daemon threads are killed? When the application finishes or when the work() finishes? Look at the thread pool and the worker (it's from a recipe ) from Queue import Queue from threading import Thread, Event, current_thread import time event = Event() class Worker(Thread): """Thread executing tasks from a given tasks queue""" def __init__(self, tasks): Thread.__init__(self) self.tasks = tasks self.daemon = True self.start() def run(self): '''Start processing tasks from the queue''' while True: event.wait() #time.sleep(0.1) try: func, args, callback = self.tasks.get() except Exception, e: print str(e) return else: if callback is None: func(args) else: callback(func(args)) self.tasks.task_done() class ThreadPool: """Pool of threads consuming tasks from a queue""" def __init__(self, num_threads): self.tasks = Queue(num_threads) for _ in range(num_threads): Worker(self.tasks) def add_task(self, func, args=None, callback=None): ''''Add a task to the queue''' self.tasks.put((func, args, callback)) def wait_completion(self): '''Wait for completion of all the tasks in the queue''' self.tasks.join() def broadcast_block_event(self): '''blocks running threads''' event.clear() def broadcast_unblock_event(self): '''unblocks running threads''' event.set() def get_event(self): '''returns the event object''' return event

    Read the article

  • threading in Python taking up too much CPU

    - by KevinShaffer
    I wrote a chat program and have a GUI running using Tkinter, and to go and check when new messages have arrived, I create a new thread so Tkinter keeps doing its thing without locking up while the new thread goes and grabs what I need and updates the Tkinter window. This however becomes a huge CPU hog, and my guess is that it has to do somehow with the fact that the Thread is started and never really released when the function is done. Here's the relevant code (it's ugly and not optimized at the moment, but it gets the job done, and itself does not use too much processing power, as when I run it not threaded, it doesn't take up much CPU but it locks up Tkinter) Note: This is inside of a class, hence the extra tab. def interim(self): threading.Thread(target=self.readLog).start() self.after(5000,self.interim) def readLog(self): print 'reading' try: length = len(str(self.readNumber)) f = open('chatlog'+str(myport),'r') temp = f.readline().replace('\n','') while (temp[:length] != str(self.readNumber)) or temp[0] == '<': temp = f.readline().replace('\n','') while temp: if temp[0] != '<': self.updateChat(temp[length:]) self.readNumber +=1 else: self.updateChat(temp) temp = f.readline().replace('\n','') f.close() Is there a way to better manage the threading so I don't consume 100% of the CPU very quickly?

    Read the article

  • I have data that sends in "bursts" of 100 records with a significant delay. How do I structure my classes for multithreading?

    - by makerofthings7
    My datasource sends information in 100 batches of 100 records with a delay of 1 to 3 seconds between batches. I would like to start processing data as soon as it's received, but I'm not sure how to best approach this. Some ideas I've been playing with include: yield Concurrent Dictionary ConcurrentDictionary with INotifyProperyChanged Events etc. As you can see I'm all over the place, and would appreciate some tested guidance on how to approach this

    Read the article

  • Multithreading in Windows Phone 7 emulator: A bug

    - by Laurent Bugnion
    Multithreading is supported in Windows Phone 7 Silverlight applications, however the emulator has a bug (which I discovered and was confirmed to me by the dev lead of the emulator team): If you attempt to start a background thread in the MainPage constructor, the thread never starts. The reason is a problem with the emulator UI thread which doesn’t leave any time to the background thread to start. Thankfully there is a workaround (see code below). Also, the bug should be corrected in a future release, so it’s not a big deal, even though it is really confusing when you try to understand why the *%&^$£% thread is not &$%&%$£ starting (that was me in the plane the other day ;) This code does not work: public partial class MainPage : PhoneApplicationPage { public MainPage() { InitializeComponent(); SupportedOrientations = SupportedPageOrientation.Portrait | SupportedPageOrientation.Landscape; var counter = 0; ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(o => { while (true) { Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(() => { textBlockListTitle.Text = (counter++).ToString(); }); } }); } } This code does work: public MainPage() { InitializeComponent(); SupportedOrientations = SupportedPageOrientation.Portrait | SupportedPageOrientation.Landscape; var counter = 0; ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(o => { while (true) { Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(() => { textBlockListTitle.Text = (counter++).ToString(); }); // NOTICE THIS LINE!!! Thread.Sleep(0); } }); } Note that even if the thread is started in a later event (for example Click of a Button), the behavior without the Thread.Sleep(0) is not good in the emulator. As of now, i would recommend always sleeping when starting a new thread. Happy coding: Laurent   Laurent Bugnion (GalaSoft) Subscribe | Twitter | Facebook | Flickr | LinkedIn

    Read the article

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