Search Results

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

Page 45/66 | < Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >

  • Why do debug symbols so adversely affect the performance of threaded applications on Linux?

    - by fluffels
    Hi. I'm writing a ray tracer. Recently, I added threading to the program to exploit the additional cores on my i5 Quad Core. In a weird turn of events the debug version of the application is now running slower, but the optimized build is running faster than before I added threading. I'm passing the "-g -pg" flags to gcc for the debug build and the "-O3" flag for the optimized build. Host system: Ubuntu Linux 10.4 AMD64. I know that debug symbols add significant overhead to the program, but the relative performance has always been maintained. I.e. a faster algorithm will always run faster in both debug and optimization builds. Any idea why I'm seeing this behavior?

    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

  • Processing a database queue across multiple threads - design advice

    - by rwmnau
    I have a SQL Server table full of orders that my program needs to "follow up" on (call a webservice to see if something has been done with them). My application is multi-threaded, and could have instances running on multiple servers. Currently, every so often (on a Threading timer), the process selects 100 rows, at random (ORDER BY NEWID()), from the list of "unconfirmed" orders and checks them, marking off any that come back successfully. The problem is that there's a lot of overlap between the threads, and between the different processes, and their's no guarantee that a new order will get checked any time soon. Also, some orders will never be "confirmed" and are dead, which means that they get in the way of orders that need to be confirmed, slowing the process down if I keep selecting them over and over. What I'd prefer is that all outstanding orders get checked, systematically. I can think of two easy ways do this: The application fetches one order to check at a time, passing in the last order it checked as a parameter, and SQL Server hands back the next order that's unconfirmed. More database calls, but this ensures that every order is checked in a reasonable timeframe. However, different servers may re-check the same order in succession, needlessly. The SQL Server keeps track of the last order it asked a process to check up on, maybe in a table, and gives a unique order to every request, incrementing its counter. This involves storing the last order somewhere in SQL, which I wanted to avoid, but it also ensures that threads won't needlessly check the same orders at the same time Are there any other ideas I'm missing? Does this even make sense? Let me know if I need some clarification.

    Read the article

  • PHP thread pool?

    - by embedded
    I have scheduled a CRON job to run every 4 hours which needs to gather user accounts information. Now I want to speed things up and to split the work between several processes and to use one process to update the MySQL DB with the retrieved data from other processes. In JAVA I know that there is a thread pool which I can dedicate some threads to accomplish some work. how do I do it in PHP? Any advice is welcome. Thank

    Read the article

  • SQL Compact Edition 3.5 SP 1 - LockTimeOutException - how to debug?

    - by Bob King
    Intermittently in our app, we encounter LockTimeoutExceptions being throw from SQL CE. We've recently upgraded to 3.5 SP 1, and a number of them seem to have gone away, but we still do see them occasionally. I'm certain it's a bug in our code (which is multi-threaded) but I haven't been able to pin it down precisely. Does anyone have any good techniques for debugging this problem? The exceptions log like this (there's never a stack trace for these exceptions): SQL Server Compact timed out waiting for a lock. The default lock time is 2000ms for devices and 5000ms for desktops. The default lock timeout can be increased in the connection string using the ssce: default lock timeout property. [ Session id = 6,Thread id = 7856,Process id = 10116,Table name = Product,Conflict type = s lock (x blocks),Resource = DDL ] Our database is read-heavy, but does seldom writes, and I think I've got everything protected where it needs to be. EDIT: SQL CE already automatically uses NOLOCK http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms172398(sql.90).aspx

    Read the article

  • Is private method in spring service implement class thread safe

    - by Roger Ray
    I got a service in an project using Spring framework. public class MyServiceImpl implements IMyService { public MyObject foo(SomeObject obj) { MyObject myobj = this.mapToMyObject(obj); myobj.setLastUpdatedDate(new Date()); return myobj; } private MyObject mapToMyObject(SomeObject obj){ MyObject myojb = new MyObject(); ConvertUtils.register(new MyNullConvertor(), String.class); ConvertUtils.register(new StringConvertorForDateType(), Date.class); BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj); ConvertUtils.deregister(Date.class); return myojb; } } Then I got a class to call foo() in multi-thread; There goes the problem. In some of the threads, I got error when calling BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj); saying Cannot invoke com.my.MyObject.setStartDate - java.lang.ClassCastException@2da93171 obviously, this is caused by ConvertUtils.deregister(Date.class) which is supposed to be called after BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj);. It looks like one of the threads deregistered the Date class out while another thread was just about to call BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj);. So My question is how do I make the private method mapToMyObject() thread safe? Or simply make the BeanUtils thread safe when it's used in a private method. And will the problem still be there if I keep the code this way but instead I call this foo() method in sevlet? If many sevlets call at the same time, would this be a multi-thread case as well?

    Read the article

  • synchronized in java - Proper use

    - by ZoharYosef
    I'm building a simple program to use in multi processes (Threads). My question is more to understand - when I have to use a reserved word synchronized? Do I need to use this word in any method that affects the bone variables? I know I can put it on any method that is not static, but I want to understand more. thank you! here is the code: public class Container { // *** data members *** public static final int INIT_SIZE=10; // the first (init) size of the set. public static final int RESCALE=10; // the re-scale factor of this set. private int _sp=0; public Object[] _data; /************ Constructors ************/ public Container(){ _sp=0; _data = new Object[INIT_SIZE]; } public Container(Container other) { // copy constructor this(); for(int i=0;i<other.size();i++) this.add(other.at(i)); } /** return true is this collection is empty, else return false. */ public synchronized boolean isEmpty() {return _sp==0;} /** add an Object to this set */ public synchronized void add (Object p){ if (_sp==_data.length) rescale(RESCALE); _data[_sp] = p; // shellow copy semantic. _sp++; } /** returns the actual amount of Objects contained in this collection */ public synchronized int size() {return _sp;} /** returns true if this container contains an element which is equals to ob */ public synchronized boolean isMember(Object ob) { return get(ob)!=-1; } /** return the index of the first object which equals ob, if none returns -1 */ public synchronized int get(Object ob) { int ans=-1; for(int i=0;i<size();i=i+1) if(at(i).equals(ob)) return i; return ans; } /** returns the element located at the ind place in this container (null if out of range) */ public synchronized Object at(int p){ if (p>=0 && p<size()) return _data[p]; else return null; }

    Read the article

  • Ensuring all waiting threads complete

    - by Daniel
    I'm building a system where the progress of calling threads is dependent on the state of two variables. One variable is updated sporadically by an external source (separate from the client threads) and multiple client threads block on a condition of both variables. The system is something like this TypeB waitForB() { // Can be called by many threads. synchronized (B) { while (A <= B) { B.wait(); } A = B; return B; { } void updateB(TypeB newB) { // Called by one thread. synchronized (B) { B.update(newB); B.notifyAll(); // All blocked threads must receive new B. } } I need all the blocked threads to receive the new value of B once it has been updated. But the problem is once a single thread finishes and updates A, the waiting condition becomes true again so some of the other threads become blocked and don't receive the new value of B. Is there a way of ensuring that only the last thread that was blocked on B updates A, or another way of getting this behaviour?

    Read the article

  • Should I make my MutexLock volatile?

    - by sje397
    I have some code in a function that goes something like this: void foo() { { // scope the locker MutexLocker locker(&mutex); // do some stuff.. } bar(); } The function call bar() also locks the mutex. I am having an issue whereby the program crashes (for someone else, who has not as yet provided a stack trace or more details) unless the mutex lock inside bar is disabled. Is it possible that some optimization is messing around with the way I have scoped the locker instance, and if so, would making it volatile fix it? Is that a bad idea? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Multi-threaded Application with Readonly Properties

    - by Shiftbit
    Should my multithreaded application with read only properties require locking? Since nothing is being written I assume there is no need for locks, but I would like to make sure. Would the answer to this question be language agnostic? Without Lock: Private m_strFoo as new String = "Foo" Public ReadOnly Property Foo() As String Get return m_strFoo.copy() End Get End Property With Lock: Private m_strBar as new String = "Bar" Public ReadOnly Property Bar() As String Get SyncLock (me) return m_strBar.copy() End Synclock End Get End Property

    Read the article

  • Callbacks on GUI Thread

    - 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() { 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; } } } } 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

  • Background thread in .NET

    - by Xodarap
    When the user saves some data, I want to spin off a background thread to update my indexes and do some other random stuff. Even if there is an error in this indexing the user can't do anything about it, so there is no point in forcing the main thread to wait until the background thread finishes. I'm doing this from a ASP.NET process, so I think I should be able to do this (as the main thread exiting won't kill the process). When I set a breakpoint in the background thread's method though, the main thread also appears to stop. Is this just an artifact of visual studio's debugger, or is the main thread really not going to return until the background thread stops?

    Read the article

  • Can two threads of the same process produce the same GUID?

    - by mark
    Dear ladies and sirs. If two threads in a process generate a new GUID concurrently using .NET API (Guid.NewGuid()) is it possible that the two GUIDs will be identical? Thanks. UPDATE I want to get practical. I know that it is widely assumed that GUIDs are unique for all practical purposes. I am wondering if I can treat GUIDS produced by the different threads of the same process in the same manner.

    Read the article

  • Thread-safe blocking queue implementation on .NET

    - by Shrike
    Hello. I'm looking for an implementation of thread-safe blocking queue for .NET. By "thread-safe blocking queue" I mean: - thread-safe access to a queue where Dequeue method call blocks a thread untill other thread puts (Enqueue) some value. By the moment I'v found this one: http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20060414.asp (But it's for .NET 1.1). Could someone comment/criticize correctness of this implementation. Or suggest some another one. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • A member variable's hashCode() value is different

    - by Jacques René Mesrine
    There's a piece of code that looks like this. The problem is that during bootup, 2 initialization takes place. (1) Some method does a reflection on ForumRepository & performs a newInstance() purely to invoke #setCacheEngine. (2) Another method following that invokes #start(). I am noticing that the hashCode of the #cache member variable is different sometimes in some weird scenarios. Since only 1 piece of code invokes #setCacheEngine, how can the hashCode change during runtime (I am assuming that a different instance will have a different hashCode). Is there a bug here somewhere ? public class ForumRepository implements Cacheable { private static CacheEngine cache; private static ForumRepository instance; public void setCacheEngine(CacheEngine engine) { cache = engine; } public synchronized static void start() { instance = new ForumRepository(); } public synchronized static void addForum( ... ) { cache.add( .. ); System.out.println( cache.hashCode() ); // snipped } public synchronized static void getForum( ... ) { ... cache.get( .. ); System.out.println( cache.hashCode() ); // snipped } }

    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

  • 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

  • how to differentiate between two threads

    - by mithun1538
    Hello everyone, I have the following code in my program: Thread getUsersist, getChatUsers; getUsersList = new Thread(this, "getOnlineUsers"); getUsersList.start(); getChatUsers = new Thread(this, "getChatUsers"); getChatUsers.start(); In run(), I wish to know which thread is using run(). If its "getOnlineUsers" i will do something, If it is "getChatUsers" I will do something else. So how do I know which thread is using run()?

    Read the article

  • pthread_join from a signal handler

    - by liv2hak
    I have a capture program which in addition do capturing data and writing it into a file also prints some statistics.The function that prints the statistics static void* report(void) { /*Print statistics*/ } is called roughly every second using an ALARM that expires every second.So The program is like void capture_program() { pthread_t report_thread while(!exit_now) { if(pthread_create(&report_thread,NULL,report,NULL)){ fprintf(stderr,"Error creating reporting thread! \n"); } /* Capturing code -------------- -------------- */ if(doreport) usleep(5); } } void *report(void *param) { while(true) { if(doreport) { doreport = 0 //access some register from hardware usleep(5) } } } The expiry of the timer sets the doreport flag.If this flag is set report() is called which clears the flag.I am using usleep to alternate between two threads in the program.This seems to work fine. I also have a signal handler to handle SIGINT (i.e CTRL+C) static void anysig(int sig) { if (sig != SIGINT) dagutil_set_signal_handler(SIG_DFL); /* Tell the main loop to exit */ exit_now = 1; return; } My question: 1) Is it safe to call pthread_join from inside the signal handler? 2) Should I use exit_now flag for the report thread as well?

    Read the article

  • C# Express 2010 Multi-Threading

    - by Chris Evans
    Hi, I have a windows app that I have been running in c# Express 2008 for a year and have been trying to convert it over the last few days to 2010. The problem I am having is it is a multi-threaded application that has to run a series of code every second. What it does is have a main thread, that calls 3 worker threads, waits for them to finish then does some additional processing, sleeps till 1 second and runs again. The problem is part of the code can call a web service that takes 8 seconds to respond, so this bit of code gets called using ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem. The problem is when running in 2010 when this part of the code gets called the main thread continues to run but when it awakens the sub threads it hangs until the Threadpool method finishes running. This never happens in 2008. Any suggestions? So far I put that bit of code in it's own thread rather than using Threadpool but same issue.

    Read the article

  • Why is volatile not considered useful in multithreaded C or C++ programming?

    - by Michael E
    As demonstrated in this answer I recently posted, I seem to be confused about the utility (or lack thereof) of volatile in multi-threaded programming contexts. My understanding is this: any time a variable may be changed outside the flow of control of a piece of code accessing it, that variable should be declared to be volatile. Signal handlers, I/O registers, and variables modified by another thread all constitute such situations. So, if you have a global int foo, and foo is read by one thread and set atomically by another thread (probably using an appropriate machine instruction), the reading thread sees this situation in the same way it sees a variable tweaked by a signal handler or modified by an external hardware condition and thus foo should be declared volatile (or, for multithreaded situations, accessed with memory-fenced load, which is probably a better a solution). How and where am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • Pattern for iPhone background loading during init?

    - by Rob S.
    Hi everyone, I'm currently kicking off a background thread to do some REST queries in my app delegate's didFinishLaunchingWithOptions. This thread creates some objects and populates the model as the rest of the app continues to load (because I don't block, and didFinishLaunchingWithOptions returns YES). I also put up a loading UIViewController 'on top' of the main view that I tear down after the background initialization is complete. My problem is that I need to notify the first view (call it the Home view) that the model is ready, and that it should populate itself. The trick is that the background download could have finished before Home.viewDidAppear is called, or any of the other Home.initX methods. I'm having difficulty synchronizing all of this and I've thought about it long enough that it feels like I'm barking up the wrong tree. Are there any patterns here for this sort of thing? I'm sure other apps start by performing lengthy operations with loading screens :) Thanks!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >