Search Results

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

Page 43/66 | < Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

  • How to detect whether an EventWaitHandle is waiting?

    - by AngryHacker
    I have a fairly well multi-threaded winforms app that employs the EventWaitHandle in a number of places to synchronize access. So I have code similar to this: List<int> _revTypes; EventWaitHandle _ewh = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset); void StartBackgroundTask() { _ewh.Reset(); Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(LoadStuff)); t.Start(); } void LoadStuff() { _revTypes = WebServiceCall.GetRevTypes() // ...bunch of other calls fetching data from all over the place // using the same pattern _ewh.Set(); } List<int> RevTypes { get { _ewh.WaitOne(); return _revTypes; } } Then I just call .RevTypes somewehre from the UI and it will return data to me when LoadStuff has finished executing. All this works perfectly correctly, however RevTypes is just one property - there are actually several dozens of these. And one or several of these properties are holding up the UI from loading in a fast manner. Short of placing benchmark code into each property, is there a way to see which property is holding the UI from loading? Is there a way to see whether the EventWaitHandle is forced to actually wait?

    Read the article

  • How to find where program crashed

    - by Mick
    I have a program that crashes (attempting to read a bad memory address) while running the "release" version but does not report any problems while running the "debug" version in the visual studio debugger. When the program crashes the OS asks if I'd like to open up the debugger, and if I say yes then I see an arrow pointing to where I am in a listing of some assembler which I am not skilled enough to read properly (I learned 6502 assembler 30 years ago). Is there any way for my to determine where in my sourcecode the offending memory read was located?

    Read the article

  • Java, Massive message processing with queue manager (trading)

    - by Ronny
    Hello, I would like to design a simple application (without j2ee and jms) that can process massive amount of messages (like in trading systems) I have created a service that can receive messages and place them in a queue to so that the system won't stuck when overloaded. Then I created a service (QueueService) that wraps the queue and has a pop method that pops out a message from the queue and if there is no messages returns null, this method is marked as "synchronized" for the next step. I have created a class that knows how process the message (MessageHandler) and another class that can "listen" for messages in a new thread (MessageListener). The thread has a "while(true)" and all the time tries to pop a message. If a message was returned, the thread calls the MessageHandler class and when it's done, he will ask for another message. Now, I have configured the application to open 10 MessageListener to allow multi message processing. I have now 10 threads that all time are in a loop. Is that a good design?? Can anyone reference me to some books or sites how to handle such scenario?? Thanks, Ronny

    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

  • 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

  • Terminal-based snake game: input thread manipulates output

    - by enlightened
    I'm writing a snake game for the terminal, i.e. output via print. The following works just fine: while status[snake_monad] do print to_string draw canvas, compose_all([ frame, specs, snake_to_hash(snake[snake_monad]) ]) turn! snake_monad, get_dir move! snake_monad, specs sleep 0.25 end But I don't want the turn!ing to block, of course. So I put it into a new Thread and let it loop: Thread.new do loop do turn! snake_monad, get_dir end end while status[snake_monad] do ... # no turn! here ... end Which also works logically (the snake is turning), but the output is somehow interspersed with newlines. As soon as I kill the input thread (^C) it looks normal again. So why and how does the thread have any effect on my output? And how do I work around this issue? (I don't know much about threads, even less about them in ruby. Input and output concurrently on the same terminal make the matter worse, I guess...) Also (not really important): Wanting my program as pure as possible, would it be somewhat easily possible to get the input non-blockingly while passing everything around? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • non blocking client server chat application in java using nio

    - by Amith
    I built a simple chat application using nio channels. I am very much new to networking as well as threads. This application is for communicating with server (Server / Client chat application). My problem is that multiple clients are not supported by the server. How do I solve this problem? What's the bug in my code? public class Clientcore extends Thread { SelectionKey selkey=null; Selector sckt_manager=null; public void coreClient() { System.out.println("please enter the text"); BufferedReader stdin=new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(System.in)); SocketChannel sc = null; try { sc = SocketChannel.open(); sc.configureBlocking(false); sc.connect(new InetSocketAddress(8888)); int i=0; while (!sc.finishConnect()) { } for(int ii=0;ii>-22;ii++) { System.out.println("Enter the text"); String HELLO_REQUEST =stdin.readLine().toString(); if(HELLO_REQUEST.equalsIgnoreCase("end")) { break; } System.out.println("Sending a request to HelloServer"); ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.wrap(HELLO_REQUEST.getBytes()); sc.write(buffer); } } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } finally { if (sc != null) { try { sc.close(); } catch (Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } public void run() { try { coreClient(); } catch(Exception ej) { ej.printStackTrace(); }}} public class ServerCore extends Thread { SelectionKey selkey=null; Selector sckt_manager=null; public void run() { try { coreServer(); } catch(Exception ej) { ej.printStackTrace(); } } private void coreServer() { try { ServerSocketChannel ssc = ServerSocketChannel.open(); try { ssc.socket().bind(new InetSocketAddress(8888)); while (true) { sckt_manager=SelectorProvider.provider().openSelector(); ssc.configureBlocking(false); SocketChannel sc = ssc.accept(); register_server(ssc,SelectionKey.OP_ACCEPT); if (sc == null) { } else { System.out.println("Received an incoming connection from " + sc.socket().getRemoteSocketAddress()); printRequest(sc); System.err.println("testing 1"); String HELLO_REPLY = "Sample Display"; ByteBuffer buffer = ByteBuffer.wrap(HELLO_REPLY.getBytes()); System.err.println("testing 2"); sc.write(buffer); System.err.println("testing 3"); sc.close(); }}} catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } finally { if (ssc != null) { try { ssc.close(); } catch (IOException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } catch(Exception E) { System.out.println("Ex in servCORE "+E); } } private static void printRequest(SocketChannel sc) throws IOException { ReadableByteChannel rbc = Channels.newChannel(sc.socket().getInputStream()); WritableByteChannel wbc = Channels.newChannel(System.out); ByteBuffer b = ByteBuffer.allocate(1024); // read 1024 bytes while (rbc.read(b) != -1) { b.flip(); while (b.hasRemaining()) { wbc.write(b); System.out.println(); } b.clear(); } } public void register_server(ServerSocketChannel ssc,int selectionkey_ops)throws Exception { ssc.register(sckt_manager,selectionkey_ops); }} public class HelloClient { public void coreClientChat() { Clientcore t=new Clientcore(); new Thread(t).start(); } public static void main(String[] args)throws Exception { HelloClient cl= new HelloClient(); cl.coreClientChat(); }} public class HelloServer { public void coreServerChat() { ServerCore t=new ServerCore(); new Thread(t).start(); } public static void main(String[] args) { HelloServer st= new HelloServer(); st.coreServerChat(); }}

    Read the article

  • Does Interlocked guarantee visibility to other threads in C# or do I still have to use volatile?

    - by Lirik
    I've been reading the answer to a similar question, but I'm still a little confused... Abel had a great answer, but this is the part that I'm unsure about: ...declaring a variable volatile makes it volatile for every single access. It is impossible to force this behavior any other way, hence volatile cannot be replaced with Interlocked. This is needed in scenarios where other libraries, interfaces or hardware can access your variable and update it anytime, or need the most recent version. Does Interlocked guarantee visibility of the atomic operation to all threads, or do I still have to use the volatile keyword on the value in order to guarantee visibility of the change? Here is my example: public class CountDownLatch { private volatile int m_remain; // <--- do I need the volatile keyword there since I'm using Interlocked? private EventWaitHandle m_event; public CountDownLatch (int count) { Reset(count); } public void Reset(int count) { if (count < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); m_remain = count; m_event = new ManualResetEvent(false); if (m_remain == 0) { m_event.Set(); } } public void Signal() { // The last thread to signal also sets the event. if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref m_remain) == 0) m_event.Set(); } public void Wait() { m_event.WaitOne(); } }

    Read the article

  • How can I kill a Perl system call after a timeout?

    - by Fergal
    I've got a Perl script I'm using for running a file processing tool which is started using backticks. The problem is that occasionally the tool hangs and It needs to be killed in order for the rest of the files to be processed. Whats the best way best way to apply a timeout after which the parent script will kill the hung process? At the moment I'm using: foreach $file (@FILES) { $runResult = `mytool $file >> $file.log`; } But when mytool hangs after n seconds I'd like to be able to kill it and continue to the next file.

    Read the article

  • Various way to stop a thread - which is the correct way

    - by Yan Cheng CHEOK
    I had came across different suggestion of stopping a thread. May I know, which is the correct way? Or it depends? Using Thread Variable http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/guide/misc/threadPrimitiveDeprecation.html private volatile Thread blinker; public void stop() { blinker = null; } public void run() { Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread(); while (blinker == thisThread) { try { thisThread.sleep(interval); } catch (InterruptedException e){ } repaint(); } } Using boolean flag private volatile boolean flag; public void stop() { flag = false; } public void run() { while (flag) { try { thisThread.sleep(interval); } catch (InterruptedException e){ } repaint(); } } Using Thread Variable together with interrupt private volatile Thread blinker; public void stop() { blinker.interrupt(); blinker = null; } public void run() { Thread thisThread = Thread.currentThread(); while (!thisThread.isInterrupted() && blinker == thisThread) { try { thisThread.sleep(interval); } catch (InterruptedException e){ } repaint(); } }

    Read the article

  • What is the optimal number of threads for performing IO operations in java?

    - by marc
    In Goetz's "Java Concurrency in Practice", in a footnote on page 101, he writes "For computational problems like this that do not I/O and access no shared data, Ncpu or Ncpu+1 threads yield optimal throughput; more threads do not help, and may in fact degrade performance..." My question is, when performing I/O operations such as file writing, file reading, file deleting, etc, are there guidelines for the number of threads to use to achieve maximum performance? I understand this will be just a guide number, since disk speeds and a host of other factors play into this. Still, I'm wondering: can 20 threads write 1000 separate files to disk faster than 4 threads can on a 4-cpu machine?

    Read the article

  • POSIX Threads and signal masks

    - by Max
    Is there a way to change the signal mask of a thread from another thread? I am supposed to write a multithreaded C application that doesn't use mutex, semaphores and condition variables, only signals. So it would look like something like this: The main Thread sends SIGUSR1 to its process and and one of the 2 threads (not including the main thread), will respond to the signal and block SIGUSR1 from the sigmask and sleep. Then the main thread sends SIGUSR1 again, the other thread will respond, block SIGUSR1 from its sigmask, unblock SIGUSR1 from the other threads sigmask, so it will respond to SIGUSR1 again. So essentially whenever the main thread sends SIGUSR1 the two other threads swap between each other. Can somebody help?

    Read the article

  • Is this a correct way to stop Execution Task

    - by Yan Cheng CHEOK
    I came across code to stop execution's task. private final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(); public void stop() { executor.shutdownNow(); try { executor.awaitTermination(100, TimeUnit.DAYS); } catch (InterruptedException ex) { log.error(null, ex); } } public Runnable getRunnable() { return new Runnable() { public void run() { while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) { // What if inside fun(), someone try to clear the interrupt flag? // Say, through Thread.interrupted(). We will stuck in this loop // forever. fun(); } } }; } I realize that, it is possible for Runnable to be in forever loop, as Unknown fun may Thread.sleep, clear the interrupt flag and ignore the InterruptedException Unknown fun may Thread.interrupted, clear the interrupt flag. I was wondering, is the following way correct way to fix the code? private final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(); private volatile boolean flag = true; public void stop() { flag = false; executor.shutdownNow(); try { executor.awaitTermination(100, TimeUnit.DAYS); } catch (InterruptedException ex) { log.error(null, ex); } } public Runnable getRunnable() { return new Runnable() { public void run() { while (flag && !Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) { // What if inside fun(), someone try to clear the interrupt flag? // Say, through Thread.interrupted(). We will stuck in this loop // forever. fun(); } } }; }

    Read the article

  • Threading errors with Application.LoadComponent (key already exists)

    - by Kellls
    MSDN says that public static members of System.Windows.Application are thread safe. But when I try to run my app with multiple threads I get the following exception: ArgumentException: An entry with the same key already exists. at System.ThrowHelper.ThrowArgumentException(ExceptionResource resource) at System.Collections.Generic.SortedList`2.Add(TKey key, TValue value) at System.IO.Packaging.Package.AddIfNoPrefixCollisionDetected(ValidatedPartUri partUri, PackagePart part) at System.IO.Packaging.Package.GetPartHelper(Uri partUri) at System.IO.Packaging.Package.GetPart(Uri partUri) at System.Windows.Application.GetResourceOrContentPart(Uri uri) at System.Windows.Application.LoadComponent(Uri resourceLocator, Boolean bSkipJournaledProperties) at System.Windows.Application.LoadComponent(Uri resourceLocator) The application works fine on a single thread and even on two or three. When I get up past 5 then I get the error every time. Am I doing something wrong? What can I do to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Problems with Threading in Python 2.5, KeyError: 51, Help debugging?

    - by vignesh-k
    I have a python script which runs a particular script large number of times (for monte carlo purpose) and the way I have scripted it is that, I queue up the script the desired number of times it should be run then I spawn threads and each thread runs the script once and again when its done. Once the script in a particular thread is finished, the output is written to a file by accessing a lock (so my guess was that only one thread accesses the lock at a given time). Once the lock is released by one thread, the next thread accesses it and adds its output to the previously written file and rewrites it. I am not facing a problem when the number of iterations is small like 10 or 20 but when its large like 50 or 150, python returns a KeyError: 51 telling me element doesn't exist and the error it points out to is within the lock which puzzles me since only one thread should access the lock at once and I do not expect an error. This is the class I use: class errorclass(threading.Thread): def __init__(self, queue): self.__queue=queue threading.Thread.__init__(self) def run(self): while 1: item = self.__queue.get() if item is None: break result = myfunction() lock = threading.RLock() lock.acquire() ADD entries from current thread to entries in file and REWRITE FILE lock.release() queue = Queue.Queue() for i in range(threads): errorclass(queue).start() for i in range(desired iterations): queue.put(i) for i in range(threads): queue.put(None) Python returns with KeyError: 51 for large number of desired iterations during the adding/write file operation after lock access, I am wondering if this is the correct way to use the lock since every thread has a lock operation rather than every thread accessing a shared lock? What would be the way to rectify this?

    Read the article

  • C++0x thread interruption

    - by Nicola Bonelli
    According to the C++0x final draft, there's no way to request a thread to terminate. That said, if required we need to implement a do-it-yourself solution. In your opinion, what's the best solution? Designing your own cooperative 'interruption mechanism' or going native?

    Read the article

  • Trying to run multiple HTTP requests in parallel, but being limited by Windows (registry)

    - by Nailuj
    I'm developing an application (winforms C# .NET 4.0) where I access a lookup functionality from a 3rd party through a simple HTTP request. I call an url with a parameter, and in return I get a small string with the result of the lookup. Simple enough. The challenge is however, that I have to do lots of these lookups (a couple of thousands), and I would like to limit the time needed. Therefore I would like to run requests in parallel (say 10-20). I use a ThreadPool to do this, and the short version of my code looks like this: public void startAsyncLookup(Action<LookupResult> returnLookupResult) { this.returnLookupResult = returnLookupResult; foreach (string number in numbersToLookup) { ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(lookupNumber, number); } } public void lookupNumber(Object threadContext) { string numberToLookup = (string)threadContext; string url = @"http://some.url.com/?number=" + numberToLookup; WebClient webClient = new WebClient(); Stream responseData = webClient.OpenRead(url); LookupResult lookupResult = parseLookupResult(responseData); returnLookupResult(lookupResult); } I fill up numbersToLookup (a List<String>) from another place, call startAsyncLookup and provide it with a call-back function returnLookupResult to return each result. This works, but I found that I'm not getting the throughput I want. Initially I thought it might be the 3rd party having a poor system on their end, but I excluded this by trying to run the same code from two different machines at the same time. Each of the two took as long as one did alone, so I could rule out that one. A colleague then tipped me that this might be a limitation in Windows. I googled a bit, and found amongst others this post saying that by default Windows limits the number of simultaneous request to the same web server to 4 for HTTP 1.0 and to 2 for HTTP 1.1 (for HTTP 1.1 this is actually according to the specification (RFC2068)). The same post referred to above also provided a way to increase these limits. By adding two registry values to [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings] (MaxConnectionsPerServer and MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server), I could control this myself. So, I tried this (sat both to 20), restarted my computer, and tried to run my program again. Sadly though, it didn't seem to help any. I also kept an eye on the Resource Monitor (see screen shot) while running my batch lookup, and I noticed that my application (the one with the title blacked out) still only was using two TCP connections. So, the question is, why isn't this working? Is the post I linked to using the wrong registry values? Is this perhaps not possible to "hack" in Windows any longer (I'm on Windows 7)? Any ideas would be highly appreciated :) And just in case anyone should wonder, I have also tried with different settings for MaxThreads on ThreadPool (everyting from 10 to 100), and this didn't seem to affect my throughput at all, so the problem shouldn't be there either.

    Read the article

  • Select calls seems to not time out.

    - by martsbradley
    HI Folks, I have a threaded C++ program where up to three threads are calling select on a three separate socket descriptors waiting for data to become available. Each thread handles one socket and adds it to the readfds with a timeout of 300 seconds. After select returns if there is data available I'm calling recv to read it. Is there anything that I need to be aware of with winsock and threads because for some reason after a number of hours the select calls all seem to be not timing out. Can a multi threaded program select from a number of threads without issue? I know that I should have one thread listening to all three sockets however that would be a large change for this app and I'm only looking to apply a bug fix. cheers, Martin.

    Read the article

  • Boost threading/mutexs, why does this work?

    - by Flamewires
    Code: #include <iostream> #include "stdafx.h" #include <boost/thread.hpp> #include <boost/thread/mutex.hpp> using namespace std; boost::mutex mut; double results[10]; void doubler(int x) { //boost::mutex::scoped_lock lck(mut); results[x] = x*2; } int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { boost::thread_group thds; for (int x = 10; x>0; x--) { boost::thread *Thread = new boost::thread(&doubler, x); thds.add_thread(Thread); } thds.join_all(); for (int x = 0; x<10; x++) { cout << results[x] << endl; } return 0; } Output: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Press any key to continue . . . So...my question is why does this work(as far as i can tell, i ran it about 20 times), producing the above output, even with the locking commented out? I thought the general idea was: in each thread: calculate 2*x copy results to CPU register(s) store calculation in correct part of array copy results back to main(shared) memory I would think that under all but perfect conditions this would result in some part of the results array having 0 values. Is it only copying the required double of the array to a cpu register? Or is it just too short of a calculation to get preempted before it writes the result back to ram? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Minimizing Java Thread Context Switching Overhead

    - by binil
    I have a Java application running on Sun 1.6 32-bit VM/Solaris 10 (x86)/Nahelem 8-core(2 threads per core). A specific usecase in the application is to respond to some external message. In my performance test environment, when I prepare and send the response in the same thread that receives the external input, I get about 50 us advantage than when I hand off the message to a separate thread to send the response. I use a ThreadPoolExecutor with a SynchronousQueue to do the handoff. In your experience what is the acceptable delay between scheduling a task to a thread pool and it getting picked up for execution? What ideas had worked for you in the past to try improve this?

    Read the article

  • Is there a concurrent container library for C++

    - by Lirik
    I'm looking for implementations of lock-free containers: Blocking Queue Blocking Stack Hash Map etc... Are there any good libraries out there? I would like to refrain from writing these data structures... I would much rather use something that has been tested by the community.

    Read the article

  • Does the managed main UI thread stay on the same (unmanaged) Operation System thread?

    - by Daniel Rose
    I am creating a managed WPF UI front-end to a legacy Win32-application. The WPF front-end is the executable; as part of its startup routines I start the legacy app as a DLL in a second thread. Any UI-operation (including CreateWindowsEx, etc.) by the legacy app is invoked back on the main UI-thread. As part of the shutdown process of the app I want to clean up properly. Among other things, I want to call DestroyWindow on all unmanaged windows, so they can properly clean themselves up. Thus, during shutdown I use EnumWindows to try to find all my unmanaged windows. Then I call DestroyWindow one the list I generate. These run on the main UI-thread. After this background knowledge, on to my actual question: In the enumeration procedure of EnumWindows, I have to check if one of the returned top-level windows is one of my unmanaged windows. I do this by calling GetWindowThreadProcessId to get the process id and thread id of the window's creator. I can compare the process id with Process.GetCurrentProcess().Id to check if my app created it. For additional security, I also want to see if my main UI-thread created the window. However, the returned thread id is the OS's ThreadId (which is different than the managed thread id). As explained in this question, the CLR reserves the right to re-schedule the managed thread to different OS threads. Can I rely on the CLR to be "smart enough" to never do this for the main UI thread (due to thread-affinity of the UI)? Then I could call GetCurrentThreadId to get the main UI-thread's unmanaged thread id for comparison.

    Read the article

  • Performing time consuming operation on STL container within a lock

    - by Ashley
    I have an unordered_map of an unordered_map which stores a pointer of objects. The unordered map is being shared by multiple threads. I need to iterate through each object and perform some time consuming operation (like sending it through network etc) . How could I lock the multiple unordered_map so that it won't blocked for too long? typedef std::unordered_map<string, classA*>MAP1; typedef std::unordered_map<int, MAP1*>MAP2; MAP2 map2; pthread_mutex_lock(&mutexA) //how could I lock the maps? Could I reduce the lock granularity? for(MAP2::iterator it2 = map2.begin; it2 != map2.end; it2++) { for(MAP1::iterator it1 = *(it2->second).begin(); it1 != *(it2->second).end(); it1++) { //perform some time consuming operation on it1->second eg sendToNetwork(*(it1->second)); } } pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutexA)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >