Search Results

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

Page 42/66 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

  • Using lock(obj) inside a recursive call

    - by Amby
    As per my understanding a lock is not released until the runtime completes the code block of the lock(obj) ( because when the block completes it calls Monitor.Exit(obj). With this understanding i am not able to understand the reason behind the behaviour of the following code. private static string obj = ""; private static void RecurseSome(int number) { Console.WriteLine(number); lock (obj) { RecurseSome(++number); } } //Call: RecurseSome(0) //Output: 0 1 2 3...... stack overflow exception There must be some concept that i am missing. Please help.

    Read the article

  • Clarification on Threads and Run Loops In Cocoa

    - by dubbeat
    I'm trying to learn about threading and I'm thoroughly confused. I'm sure all the answers are there in the apple docs but I just found it really hard to breakdown and digest. Maybe somebody could clear a thing or 2 up for me. 1)performSelectorOnMainThread Does the above simply register an event in the main run loop or is it somehow a new thread even though the method says "mainThread"? If the purpose of threads is to relieve processing on the main thread how does this help? 2) RunLoops Is it true that if I want to create a completely seperate thread I use "detachNewThreadSelector"? Does calling start on this initiate a default run loop for the thread that has been created? If so where do run loops come into it? 3) And Finally , I've seen examples using NSOperationQueue. Is it true to say that If you use performSelectorOnMainThread the threads are in a queue anyway so NSOperation is not needed? 4) Should I forget about all of this and just use the Grand Central Dispatch instead?

    Read the article

  • Multithreaded Delegates/Events

    - by Matt
    I am trying to disable parts of the UI in a .NET app based on polling done on a background thread. The background thread checks to see if the global database connection the app uses is still open and operable. What I need to do, and would prefer to do it without polling on the UI thread, is to add an event handler that can be raised by the background thread if the connection status changes. That way, any form can have a handler that will disable those parts of the UI that require the connection to function. Attempting to use a straight event declaration in the class that holds the thread sub, and raising the event in the background thread causing cross-thread execution errors regarding accessing UI controls from other threads. Obviously, there is a correct way to do this, but we have limited experience with events (single threaded apps mainly), and almost none with delegates. I've read through documentation and examples for delegates, and it seems to be closer to what we need, but I'm not sure how to make it work in this instance. The app is written mainly in VB.NET, but an example or help in C# is fine too.

    Read the article

  • BackgroundWorker

    - by vdh_ant
    Hi guys I'm working on some code that calls a service. This service call could fail and if it does I want the system to try again until it works or too much time has passed. I am wondering where I am going wrong as the following code doesn't seem to be working correctly... It randomly only does one to four loops... protected virtual void ProcessAsync(object data, int count) { var worker = new BackgroundWorker(); worker.DoWork += (sender, e) => { throw new InvalidOperationException("oh shiznit!"); }; worker.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, e) => { //If an error occurs we need to tell the data about it if (e.Error != null) { count++; System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(count * 5000); if (count <= 10) { if (count % 5 == 0) this.Logger.Fatal("LOAD ERROR - The system can't load any data", e.Error); else this.Logger.Error("LOAD ERROR - The system can't load any data", e.Error); this.ProcessAsync(data, count); } } }; worker.RunWorkerAsync(); } Cheers Anthony

    Read the article

  • Task.wait not working as I imagined

    - by user2357446
    I am trying to download a file, wait for the file to finish downloading, and then read the file afterwards. I have the following methods to do this: private async Task startDownload(string link, string savePath) { WebClient client = new WebClient(); client.DownloadProgressChanged += new DownloadProgressChangedEventHandler(client_DownloadProgressChanged); client.DownloadFileCompleted += new AsyncCompletedEventHandler(client_DownloadFileCompleted); await client.DownloadFileTaskAsync(new Uri(link), savePath); } private void checkUpdateButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { Task task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => startDownload(versionLink, versionSaveTo)); task.Wait(); if (task.IsCompleted) { checkVersion(); } } The checkVersion() method reads the file that was downloaded. This is throwing an IOException saying that the file is in use by something else and cannot be read. I thought that having task.Wait would prevent the rest of the method from executing until the task was finished?

    Read the article

  • java statistics collection for performance evaluation

    - by user384706
    What is the most efficient way to collect and report performance statistic analysis from an application? If I have an application that uses a series of network apis, and I want to report statistics at runtime, e.g. Method doA() was called 3 times and consumed on avg 500ms Method doB() was called 5 times and consumed on avg 1200ms etc Then, I thought of using a well defined data structure (of collection) that each thread updates per remote call, and this can be used for the report. But I think that it will make the performance worse, for the time spend for statistics collection. Am I correct? How would I procceed if I used a background thread for this, and the other threads that did the remote calls were unaware of this collection gathering? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Efficiently display file status when using background thread

    - by schmoopy
    How can i efficiently display the status of a file when using a background thread? For instance, lets say i have a 100MB file: when i do the code below via a thread (just as an example) it runs in about 1 min: foreach(byte b in file.bytes) { WriteByte(b, xxx); } But... if i want to update the user i have to use a delegate to update the UI from the main thread, the code below takes - FOREVER - literally i don't know how long im still waiting, ive created this post and its not even 30% done. int total = file.length; int current = 0; foreach(byte b in file.bytes) { current++; UpdateCurrentFileStatus(current, total); WriteByte(b, xxx); } public delegate void UpdateCurrentFileStatus(int cur, int total); public void UpdateCurrentFileStatus(int cur, int total) { // Check if invoke required, if so create instance of delegate // the update the UI if(this.InvokeRequired) { } else { UpdateUI(...) } }

    Read the article

  • Parallel software?

    - by mavric
    What is the meaning of "parallel software" and what are the differences between "parallel software" and "regular software"? What are its advantages and disadvantages? Does writing "parallel software" require a specific hardware or programming language ?

    Read the article

  • Are there any tools to optimize the number of consumer and producer threads on a JMS queue?

    - by lindelof
    I'm working on an application that is distributed over two JBoss instances and that produces/consumes JMS messages on several JMS queues. When we configured the application we had to determine which threading model we would use, in particular the number of producing and consuming threads per queue. We have done this in a rather ad-hoc fashion but after reading the most recent columns by Herb Sutter in Dr Dobbs (in particular this one) I would like to size our threads in a more rigorous manner. Are there any methods/tools to measure the throughput of JMS queues (in particular JBoss Messaging queues) as a function of the number of producing/consuming threads?

    Read the article

  • Why does this threading approach not work?

    - by Tomas Lycken
    I have a wierd problem with threading in an ASP.NET application. For some reason, when I run the code in the request thread, everything works as expected. But when I run it in a separate thread, nothing happens. This is verified by calling the below handler with the three flags "on", "off" and "larma" respectively - in the two first cases everything works, but in the latter nothing happens. What am I doing wrong here? In the web project I have a generic handler with the following code: If task = "on" Then Alarm.StartaLarm(personId) context.Response.Write("Larmet är PÅ") ElseIf task = "off" Then Alarm.StoppaLarm(personId) context.Response.Write("Larmet är AV") ElseIf task = "larma" Then Alarm.Larma(personId) context.Response.Write("Larmar... (stängs av automagiskt)") Else context.Response.Write("inget hände - task: " & task) End If The Alarm class has the following methods: Private Shared Sub Larma_Thread(ByVal personId As Integer) StartaLarm(personId) Thread.Sleep(1000 * 30) StoppaLarm(personId) End Sub Public Shared Sub StartaLarm(ByVal personId As Integer) SandSMS(True, personId) End Sub Public Shared Sub StoppaLarm(ByVal personId As Integer) SandSMS(False, personId) End Sub Public Shared Sub SandSMS(ByVal setOn As Boolean, ByVal personId As Integer) ... End Sub

    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

  • Asynchronous database update in Django?

    - by Mark
    I have a big form on my site. When the users fill it out and submit it, most of the data just gets dumped to the database, and then they get redirected to a new page. However, I'd also like to use the data to query another site, and then parse the results. That might take a bit longer. It's not essential that the user sees these results right away, so I was wondering if it's possible to asynchronously call a function that will handle this, and then return an HttpResponse from my view like usual without making them wait? If so... how? Any particular libraries I should look at?

    Read the article

  • Caveats to be aware of when using threading in Python?

    - by knorv
    I'm quite new to threading in Python and have a couple of beginner questions. When starting more than say fifty threads using the Python threading module I start getting MemoryError. The threads themselves are very slim and not very memory hungry, so it seems like it is the overhead of the threading that causes the memory issues. Is there something I can do to increase the memory capacity or otherwise make Python allow for a larger number of threads? What is the maximum number of threads you've been able to run in your Python code using the threading module? Did you do any tricks to achieve that number? Are there any other caveats to be aware of when using the threading module?

    Read the article

  • Is it multitasking?

    - by Newbie
    Consider the below program myThread = new Thread( new ThreadStart( delegate { Method1(); Method2(); } ) ); Is it that 2 threads are getting called parallely(multitasking) or a single thread is calling the methods sequentially? It's urgent.

    Read the article

  • Is a new thread in a Visual Studio test project aborted when the test ends?

    - by Michel
    Hi, i have to do some message exchange with a 3rd party (in a website). When the client posts a page, i start the message exchange. When that doesn't succeed for some reason, i report this to the client by rendering the page with a message. On the background, in a separate thread, i start a process to send abort messages to the 3rd party. I can't do this while the user is waiting for the page to come back, because it might take a few minutes. But in a test project, the test ends when the message to the 3rd party is sent, and after the new thread is started. But it seems that the new thread also ends, when the test is done. Is that normal behaviour? I do start the thread in a new class with a reference to 2 objects from the class which tries to send the message in the first place, may that be a problem?

    Read the article

  • How to prevent the other threads from accessing a method when one thread is accessing a method?

    - by geeta
    I want to search for a string in 10 files and write the matching lines to a single file. I wrote the matching lines from each file to 10 output files(o/p file1,o/p file2...) and then copied those to a single file using 10 threads. But the output single file has mixed output(one line from o/p file1,another line from o/p file 2 etc...) because its accessed simultaneously by many threads. If I wait for all threads to complete and then write the single file it will be much slower. I want the output file to be written by one thread at a time. What should i do? My source code:(only writing to single file method) public void WriteSingle(File output_file,File final_output) throws IOException { synchronized(output_file){ System.out.println("Writing Single file"); FileOutputStream fo = new FileOutputStream(final_output,true); FileChannel fi = fo.getChannel(); FileInputStream fs = new FileInputStream(output_file); FileChannel fc = fs.getChannel(); int maxCount = (64 * 1024 * 1024) - (32 * 1024); long size = fc.size(); long position = 0; while (position < size) { position += fc.transferTo(position, maxCount, fi); } } }

    Read the article

  • java will this threading setup work or what can i be doing wrong

    - by Erik
    Im a bit unsure and have to get advice. I have the: public class MyApp extends JFrame{ And from there i do; MyServer = new MyServer (this); MyServer.execute(); MyServer is a: public class MyServer extends SwingWorker<String, Object> { MyServer is doing listen_socket.accept() in the doInBackground() and on connection it create a new class Connection implements Runnable { I have the belove DbHelper that are a singleton. It holds an Sqlite connected. Im initiating it in the above MyApp and passing references all the way in to my runnable: class Connection implements Runnable { My question is what will happen if there are two simultaneous read or `write? My thought here was the all methods in the singleton are synchronized and would put all calls in the queue waiting to get a lock on the synchronized method. Will this work or what can i change? public final class DbHelper { private boolean initalized = false; private String HomePath = ""; private File DBFile; private static final String SYSTEM_TABLE = "systemtable"; Connection con = null; private Statement stmt; private static final ContentProviderHelper instance = new ContentProviderHelper (); public static ContentProviderHelper getInstance() { return instance; } private DbHelper () { if (!initalized) { initDB(); initalized = true; } } private void initDB() { DBFile = locateDBFile(); try { Class.forName("org.sqlite.JDBC"); // create a database connection con = DriverManager.getConnection("jdbc:sqlite:J:/workspace/workComputer/user_ptpp"); } catch (SQLException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } catch (ClassNotFoundException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } private File locateDBFile() { File f = null; try{ HomePath = System.getProperty("user.dir"); System.out.println("HomePath: " + HomePath); f = new File(HomePath + "/user_ptpp"); if (f.canRead()) return f; else { boolean success = f.createNewFile(); if (success) { System.out.println("File did not exist and was created " + HomePath); // File did not exist and was created } else { System.out.println("File already exists " + HomePath); // File already exists } } } catch (IOException e) { System.out.println("Maybe try a new directory. " + HomePath); //Maybe try a new directory. } return f; } public String getHomePath() { return HomePath; } private synchronized String getDate(){ SimpleDateFormat dateFormat = new SimpleDateFormat("yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss"); Date date = new Date(); return dateFormat.format(date); } public synchronized String getSelectedSystemTableColumn( String column) { String query = "select "+ column + " from " + SYSTEM_TABLE ; try { stmt = con.createStatement(ResultSet.TYPE_FORWARD_ONLY, ResultSet.CONCUR_READ_ONLY); ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery(query); while (rs.next()) { String value = rs.getString(column); if(value == null || value == "") return ""; else return value; } } catch (SQLException e ) { e.printStackTrace(); return ""; } finally { } return ""; } }

    Read the article

  • C - How to use both aio_read() and aio_write().

    - by Slav
    I implement game server where I need to both read and write. So I accept incoming connection and start reading from it using aio_read() but when I need to send something, I stop reading using aio_cancel() and then use aio_write(). Within write's callback I resume reading. So, I do read all the time but when I need to send something - I pause reading. It works for ~20% of time - in other case call to aio_cancel() fails with "Operation now in progress" - and I cannot cancel it (even within permanent while cycle). So, my added write operation never happens. How to use these functions well? What did I missed? EDIT: Used under Linux 2.6.35. Ubuntu 10 - 32 bit. Example code: void handle_read(union sigval sigev_value) { /* handle data or disconnection */ } void handle_write(union sigval sigev_value) { /* free writing buffer memory */ } void start() { const int acceptorSocket = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); struct sockaddr_in addr; memset(&addr, 0, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); addr.sin_family = AF_INET; addr.sin_addr.s_addr = INADDR_ANY; addr.sin_port = htons(port); bind(acceptorSocket, (struct sockaddr*)&addr, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); listen(acceptorSocket, SOMAXCONN); struct sockaddr_in address; socklen_t addressLen = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in); for(;;) { const int incomingSocket = accept(acceptorSocket, (struct sockaddr*)&address, &addressLen); if(incomingSocket == -1) { /* handle error ... */} else { //say socket to append outcoming messages at writing: const int currentFlags = fcntl(incomingSocket, F_GETFL, 0); if(currentFlags < 0) { /* handle error ... */ } if(fcntl(incomingSocket, F_SETFL, currentFlags | O_APPEND) == -1) { /* handle another error ... */ } //start reading: struct aiocb* readingAiocb = new struct aiocb; memset(readingAiocb, 0, sizeof(struct aiocb)); readingAiocb->aio_nbytes = MY_SOME_BUFFER_SIZE; readingAiocb->aio_fildes = socketDesc; readingAiocb->aio_buf = mySomeReadBuffer; readingAiocb->aio_sigevent.sigev_notify = SIGEV_THREAD; readingAiocb->aio_sigevent.sigev_value.sival_ptr = (void*)mySomeData; readingAiocb->aio_sigevent.sigev_notify_function = handle_read; if(aio_read(readingAiocb) != 0) { /* handle error ... */ } } } } //called at any time from server side: send(void* data, const size_t dataLength) { //... some thread-safety precautions not needed here ... const int cancellingResult = aio_cancel(socketDesc, readingAiocb); if(cancellingResult != AIO_CANCELED) { //this one happens ~80% of the time - embracing previous call to permanent while cycle does not help: if(cancellingResult == AIO_NOTCANCELED) { puts(strerror(aio_return(readingAiocb))); // "Operation now in progress" /* don't know what to do... */ } } //otherwise it's okay to send: else { aio_write(...); } }

    Read the article

  • VB.NET Two different approaches to generic cross-threaded operations; which is better?

    - by BASnappl
    VB.NET 2010, .NET 4 Hello, I recently read about using SynchronizationContext objects to control the execution thread for some code. I have been using a generic subroutine to handle (possibly) cross-thread calls for things like updating UI controls that utilizes Invoke. I'm an amateur and have a hard time understanding the pros and cons of any particular approach. I am looking for some insight on which approach might be preferable and why. Update: This question is motivated, in part, by statements such as the following from the MSDN page on Control.InvokeRequired. An even better solution is to use the SynchronizationContext returned by SynchronizationContext rather than a control for cross-thread marshaling. Method 1: Public Sub InvokeControl(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As T, ByVal Action As Action(Of T)) If Control.InvokeRequired Then Control.Invoke(New Action(Of T, Action(Of T))(AddressOf InvokeControl), New Object() {Control, Action}) Else Action(Control) End If End Sub Method 2: Public Sub UIAction(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As T, ByVal Action As Action(Of Control)) SyncContext.Send(New Threading.SendOrPostCallback(Sub() Action(Control)), Nothing) End Sub Where SyncContext is a Threading.SynchronizationContext object defined in the constructor of my UI form: Public Sub New() InitializeComponent() SyncContext = WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext.Current End Sub Then, if I wanted to update a control (e.g., Label1) on the UI form, I would do: InvokeControl(Label1, Sub(x) x.Text = "hello") or UIAction(Label1, Sub(x) x.Text = "hello") So, what do y'all think? Is one way preferred or does it depend on the context? If you have the time, verbosity would be appreciated! Thanks in advance, Brian

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't Perl threading work when I call readdir beforehand?

    - by Kevin
    Whenever I call readdir before I create a thread, I get an error that looks like this: perl(2820,0x7fff70c33ca0) malloc: * error for object 0x10082e600: pointer being freed was not allocated * set a breakpoint in malloc_error_break to debug Abort trap What's strange is that it happens when I call readdir before I create a thread (i.e. readdir is not called in any concurrent code). I don't even use the results from readdir, just making the call to it seems to screw things up. When I get rid of it, things seem to work fine. Some example code is below: opendir(DIR, $someDir); my @allFiles = readdir(DIR); close(DIR); my $thread = threads-create(\&sub1); $thread-join(); sub sub1 { print "in thread\n" }

    Read the article

  • Thread sleep and thread join.

    - by Dhruv Gairola
    hi guys, if i put a thread to sleep in a loop, netbeans gives me a caution saying Invoking Thread.sleep in loop can cause performance problems. However, if i were to replace the sleep with join, no such caution is given. Both versions compile and work fine tho. My code is below (check the last few lines for "Thread.sleep() vs t.join()"). public class Test{ //Display a message, preceded by the name of the current thread static void threadMessage(String message) { String threadName = Thread.currentThread().getName(); System.out.format("%s: %s%n", threadName, message); } private static class MessageLoop implements Runnable { public void run() { String importantInfo[] = { "Mares eat oats", "Does eat oats", "Little lambs eat ivy", "A kid will eat ivy too" }; try { for (int i = 0; i < importantInfo.length; i++) { //Pause for 4 seconds Thread.sleep(4000); //Print a message threadMessage(importantInfo[i]); } } catch (InterruptedException e) { threadMessage("I wasn't done!"); } } } public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException { //Delay, in milliseconds before we interrupt MessageLoop //thread (default one hour). long patience = 1000 * 60 * 60; //If command line argument present, gives patience in seconds. if (args.length > 0) { try { patience = Long.parseLong(args[0]) * 1000; } catch (NumberFormatException e) { System.err.println("Argument must be an integer."); System.exit(1); } } threadMessage("Starting MessageLoop thread"); long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); Thread t = new Thread(new MessageLoop()); t.start(); threadMessage("Waiting for MessageLoop thread to finish"); //loop until MessageLoop thread exits while (t.isAlive()) { threadMessage("Still waiting..."); //Wait maximum of 1 second for MessageLoop thread to //finish. /*******LOOK HERE**********************/ Thread.sleep(1000);//issues caution unlike t.join(1000) /**************************************/ if (((System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime) > patience) && t.isAlive()) { threadMessage("Tired of waiting!"); t.interrupt(); //Shouldn't be long now -- wait indefinitely t.join(); } } threadMessage("Finally!"); } } As i understand it, join waits for the other thread to complete, but in this case, arent both sleep and join doing the same thing? Then why does netbeans throw the caution?

    Read the article

  • Queue access to the database to avoid multiple cache items

    - by MikeJ
    I have a music related ASP.NET web site which caches a lot of static information from the database on the first request. Sometimes, the application is reset and cache is cleared while the application is on heavy load and then all http requests go to the database to retrieve that static data and cache it for other requests. How can I ensure that only one request go to the database and cache the results, so that other request simply read that info from cache and not needlessly retrieve the same info over and over again. Can I use thread locking? For example, can I do something like lock(this) { db access here }?

    Read the article

  • Best way to implement game loop without freezing UI thread

    - by Matt H
    I'm trying to make a simple 2D game in Java. So far I have a JFrame, with a menubar, and a class which extends JPanel and overrides it's paint method. Now, I need to get a game loop going, where I will update the position of images and so on. However, I'm stuck at how best to achieve this. Should I use multi-threading, because surely, if you put an infinite loop on the main thread, the UI (and thus my menu bar) will freeze up? Here's my code so far: import java.awt.Color; import java.awt.Graphics; import javax.swing.JPanel; @SuppressWarnings("serial") public class GameCanvas extends JPanel { public void paint(Graphics g) { while (true) { g.setColor(Color.DARK_GRAY); try { Thread.sleep(100); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } import javax.swing.JFrame; import javax.swing.JMenu; import javax.swing.JMenuBar; import javax.swing.JMenuItem; @SuppressWarnings("serial") public class Main extends JFrame { GameCanvas canvas = new GameCanvas(); final int FRAME_HEIGHT = 400; final int FRAME_WIDTH = 400; public static void main(String args[]) { new Main(); } public Main() { super("Game"); JMenuBar menuBar = new JMenuBar(); JMenu fileMenu = new JMenu("File"); JMenuItem startMenuItem = new JMenuItem("Pause"); menuBar.add(fileMenu); fileMenu.add(startMenuItem); super.add(canvas); super.setVisible(true); super.setSize(FRAME_WIDTH, FRAME_WIDTH); super.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); super.setJMenuBar(menuBar); } } Any pointers/tips? Also, where should I put my loop? In my main class, or my GameCanvas class? Any help is appreciated, thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >