Search Results

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

Page 48/66 | < Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >

  • When Should I Use Threads?

    - by cam
    As far as I'm concerned, the ideal amount of threads is 3: one for the UI, one for CPU resources, and one for IO resources. But I'm probably wrong. I'm just getting introduced to them, but I've always used one for the UI and one for everything else. When should I use threads and how? How do I know if I should be using them?

    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

  • Using locks inside a loop

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile shared int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

  • How are the concepts of process and threads implementated in Linux kernel?

    - by Shan
    Can any one explain how are the concepts of process and threads implemented in Linux kernel ? I am looking for an intuitive explanation with some C snippets ( and important data structures) that clearly distinguishes between the two. I am just looking for the key implementation ideas I should get hold off. Essentially, I want to understand them and implement something similar in an embedded target (not supporte by any OS) in C language.

    Read the article

  • Help me find article on Multi-threading and Event Handling in Java

    - by JDR
    I once read an article on how to properly write event handlers for multi-threading in Java, but I can't for the life of me find it anymore. It described the pitfalls and potentials for deadlocks that can occur when firing events (not Swing events mind you, but general events like model update notifications). To clarify, the situation would be as such: // let's say this is code from an MVC model somewhere public void setSomeProperty(String myProperty){ if(!this.myProperty.equals(myProperty)){ this.myProperty = myProperty; fireMyPropertyChangedEvent(...); } } The article described how passing control to arbitrary external listener code was a potential cause for deadlock. I now find myself in a situation where I need to fire such events in a multithreaded environment and I would very much like to read the article again to see what it has to say before I continue. Does anyone know the article I'm referring to? I believe it came as a (fairly short) PDF. It started off with an initial naive implementation and incrementally pointed out flaws and improved upon it. It ended with a sort of final proper-way-to-fire-multithreaded-events. I've searched endlessly in my browse history and on google, but all I could find were endless amounts topics on Swing event dispatch threads. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • pthread_create followed by pthread_detach still results in possibly lost error in Valgrind.

    - by alesplin
    I'm having a problem with Valgrind telling me I have some memory possible lost: ==23205== 544 bytes in 2 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 156 of 265 ==23205== at 0x6022879: calloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so) ==23205== by 0x540E209: allocate_dtv (in /lib/ld-2.12.1.so) ==23205== by 0x540E91D: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.12.1.so) ==23205== by 0x623068D: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.2.5 (in /lib/libpthread-2.12.1.so) ==23205== by 0x758D66: MTPCreateThreadPool (MTP.c:290) ==23205== by 0x405787: main (MServer.c:317) The code that creates these threads (MTPCreateThreadPool) basically gets an index into a block of waiting pthread_t slots, and creates a thread with that. TI becomes a pointer to a struct that has a thread index and a pthread_t. (simplified/sanitized): for (tindex = 0; tindex < NumThreads; tindex++) { int rc; TI = &TP->ThreadInfo[tindex]; TI->ThreadID = tindex; rc = pthread_create(&TI->ThreadHandle,NULL,MTPHandleRequestsLoop,TI); /* check for non-success that I've omitted */ pthread_detach(&TI->ThreadHandle); } Then we have a function MTPDestroyThreadPool that loops through all the threads we created and cancels them (since the MTPHandleRequestsLoop doesn't exit). for (tindex = 0; tindex < NumThreads; tindex++) { pthread_cancel(TP->ThreadInfo[tindex].ThreadHandle); } I've read elsewhere (including other questions here on SO) that detaching a thread explicitly would prevent this possibly lost error, but it clearly isn't. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • logging one thread in Java using log4j

    - by Javier
    I have an web application written in Java, and I have a thread-pool. The application is huge, and I cannot make major changes, for example, I cannot change log4j. I am executing a batch process in the thread pool, and I want to log everything that goes is executed to execute that process. There will always be just one thread active in the thread pool. Any ideas of how can I do that?

    Read the article

  • Fast way to pass a simple java object from one thread to another

    - by Adal
    I have a callback which receives an object. I make a copy of this object, and I must pass it on to another thread for further processing. It's very important for the callback to return as fast as possible. Ideally, the callback will write the copy to some sort of lock-free container. I only have the callback called from a single thread and one processing thread. I only need to pass a bunch of doubles to the other thread, and I know the maximum number of doubles (around 40). Any ideas? I'm not very familiar with Java, so I don't know the usual ways to pass stuff between threads.

    Read the article

  • Where to begin with multi-threaded programming with c++?

    - by zoke
    I'm trying to implement my own IRC client as a personal proejct and I realized I needed a way to read and write from the socket at the same time. I realized I could have a reading thread which reads from the socket in the background and puts data in a queue and I could have another thread which writes data from a queue to the socket. However I have no idea on how to start with multithreaded programing or how to do it with c++. Where do I go from here?

    Read the article

  • How to stop Interruptible Threads in Java

    - by Dr.Lesh
    I have a Java application that I CAN'T EDIT that starts a Thread wich has this run method: public void run(){ while(true){ System.out.println("Something"); } } And at a certain moment I wanna stop it, but if I use thread.interrupt(); it won't work. If I use thread.stop(); it works, but this method is deprecated and its use is discouraged because soon it will be removed from JVM. Does anyone knows how to do it? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Pointer inside a struct / thread

    - by bruno
    Hi! I have this warning "warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type " in this line: data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; - void print_message_function ( void *ptr ) { dt *data; data = (dt *) ptr; printf("Dentro da thread Numero0: %ld\n", data->L_norm_NewBlock); pthread_exit(0); } typedef struct data_thread { long L_norm_NewBlock; int Bsize_X; int Bsize_Y; int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; long L_norm_OrigBlock; } dt; void function() { int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; pthread_t thread1; dt *data1; pthread_attr_t attr; pthread_attr_init(&attr); //Fills structure data1 = (dt *) malloc(sizeof(dt)); data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; data1->L_norm_NewBlock=0; data1->Bsize_Y = Bsize_Y; data1->Bsize_X = Bsize_X; pthread_create(&thread1, &attr, (void *) &print_message_function, (void *) &data1); } I want to get rid of that warning, and the values i get inside the thread are wrong. For example data1-L_norm_NewBlock=0; in the thread guives me a differente value (not 0 like it should be).

    Read the article

  • How do I know if a boost thread is done ?

    - by jules
    I am using boost::thread to process messages in a queue. When a first message comes I start a message processing thread. When a second message comes I check if the message processing thread is done. if it is done I start a new one if it is not done I don nothing. How do I know if the thread is done ? I tried with joinable() but it is not working, as when the thread is done, it is still joinable. I also tried to interrupt the process at once, and add an interruption point at the end of my thread, but it did not work. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Limiting object allocation over multiple threads

    - by John
    I have an application which retrieves and caches the results of a clients query. The client then requests different chunks of data and the application sends the relevant results and removes them from the cache. A new requirement for this application is that there needs to be a run-time configurable maximum number of results which may be cached. I've taken the naive approach and implemented this by using a counter under a lock which is incremented every time a result is cached and decremented whenever a result is removed from the cache. Unfortunately, this has drastically reduced the applications performance when processing a large number of concurrent requests. I have tried both a critical section lock and spin-lock; the performance improves a bit with a spin-lock, but is still unacceptably slow. Is there a better way to solve this problem which may improve performance? Right now I have a thread pool that services requests and each request is tied to a Request object which stores that cached results for that particular request. Here is a simplified pseudo code version of my current implementation: void ResultCallback( Result result, Request *request ) { lock totalResultsCached lock cachedLimit if( totalResultsCached + 1 > cachedLimit ) { unlock cachedLimit unlock totalResultsCached //cancel the request return; } ++totalResultsCached; unlock cachedLimit unlock totalResultsCached request.add(result) } void SendResults( int resultsToSend, Request *request ) { while ( resultsToSend > 0 ) { send(request.remove()) lock totalResultsCached --totalResultsCached unlock totalResultsCached --resultsToSend; } }

    Read the article

  • OGNL thread safety

    - by Dewfy
    I'm going to reuse OGNL library out of Struts2 scope. I have rather large set of formulas, that is why I would like to precompile all of them: Ognl.parseExpression(expressionString); But I'm not sure if precompiled expression can be used in multi-thread environment. Does anybody knows if it can be used?

    Read the article

  • No matter what, I can't get this stupid progress bar to update from a thread!

    - by Synthetix
    I have a Windows app written in C (using gcc/MinGW) that works pretty well except for a few UI problems. One, I simply cannot get the progress bar to update from a thread. In fact, I probably can't get ANY UI stuff to update. Basically, I have a spawned thread that does some processing, and from that thread I attempt to update the progress bar in the main thread. I tried this by using PostMessage() to the main hwnd, but no luck even though I can do other things like open message boxes. However, it's unclear whether the message box is getting called within the thread or on the main thread. Here's some code: //in header/globally accessible HWND wnd; //main application window HWND progress_bar; //progress bar typedef struct { //to pass to thread DWORD mainThreadId; HWND mainHwnd; char *filename; } THREADSTUFF; //callback function LRESULT CALLBACK WndProc(HWND hwnd, UINT msg, WPARAM wParam, LPARAM lParam){ switch(msg){ case WM_CREATE:{ //create progress bar progress_bar = CreateWindowEx( 0, PROGRESS_CLASS, (LPCTSTR)NULL, WS_CHILD | WS_VISIBLE, 79,164,455,15, hwnd, (HMENU)20, NULL, NULL); break; } case WM_COMMAND:{ if(LOWORD(wParam)==2){ //do some processing in a thread //struct of stuff I need to pass to thread THREADSTUFF *threadStuff; threadStuff = (THREADSTUFF*)malloc(sizeof(*threadStuff)); threadStuff->mainThreadId = GetCurrentThreadId(); threadStuff->mainHwnd = hwnd; threadStuff->filename = (void*)&filename; hThread1 = CreateThread(NULL,0,convertFile (LPVOID)threadStuff,0,NULL); }else if(LOWORD(wParam)==5){ //update progress bar MessageBox(hwnd,"I got a message!", "Message", MB_OK | MB_ICONINFORMATION); PostMessage(progress_bar,PBM_STEPIT,0,CLR_DEFAULT); } break; } } } This all seems to work okay. The problem is in the thread: DWORD WINAPI convertFile(LPVOID params){ //get passed params, this works perfectly fine THREADSTUFF *tData = (THREADSTUFF*)params; MessageBox(tData->mainHwnd,tData->filename,"File name",MB_OK | MB_ICONINFORMATION); //yep PostThreadMessage(tData->mainThreadId,WM_COMMAND,5,0); //only shows message PostMessage(tData->mainHwnd,WM_COMMAND,5,0); //only shows message } When I say, "only shows message," that means the MessageBox() function in the callback works, but not the PostMessage() to update the position of the progress bar. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • WM6x IMAPIAdviseSink::OnNotify threading issues

    - by violet313
    specifically WM6x, winCE5x Now my current understanding from trawling the msdn etal is that the IMAPIAdviseSink::OnNotify callback can be made from any old thread; from (ce)mapi or perhaps even from a third-party service provider. Under WM6x, i cannot seem to coax an in-thread response by invoking HrThisThreadAdviseSink, since while this function is declared in mapiutil.h, a definition appears not to exist (in cemapi.lib or wherever??) ~But i notice that all the OnNotify callbacks i receive derive from windows messages that i am receiving on my thread (=looks to me like an in-thread implementation in any case under cemapi)... So, can anyone confirm that this is infact always the case -or am i just getting lucky right now? ah, i should add that my advise source is IMAPISession::Advise erm i should also say that i might have cross-posted this on the msdn forum -but they're mostly numptys over there,,

    Read the article

  • C++ thread to separate process

    - by silverbandit91
    Is there any way I can have a thread branch off into its own independent process? I know there's the CreateProcess function but as far as I can tell, you can only run external applications with it. Is what I'm asking for at all possible?

    Read the article

  • What happens to an instance of ServerSocket blocked inside accept(), when I drop all references to i

    - by Hanno Fietz
    In a multithreaded Java application, I just tracked down a strange-looking bug, realizing that what seemed to be happening was this: one of my objects was storing a reference to an instance of ServerSocket on startup, one thread would, in its main loop in run(), call accept() on the socket while the socket was still waiting for a connection, another thread would try to restart the component under some conditions, the restart process missed the cleanup sequence before it reached the initialization sequence as a result, the reference to the socket was overwritten with a new instance, which then wasn't able to bind() anymore the socket which was blocking inside the accept() wasn't accessible anymore, leaving a complete shutdown and restart of the application as the only way to get rid of it. Which leaves me wondering: with no references left to the ServerSocket instance, what would free the socket for a new connection? At what point would the ServerSocket become garbage collected? In general, what are good practices I can follow to avoid this type of bug?

    Read the article

  • Java: Allowing the child thread to kill itself on InterruptedException?

    - by Zombies
    I am using a ThreadPool via ExecutorService. By calling shutDownNow() it interrupts all running threads in the pool. When this happens I want these threads to give up their resources (socket and db connections) and simply die, but without continuing to run anymore logic, eg: inserting anything into the DB. What is the simplest way to achieve this? Bellow is some sample code: public void threadTest() { Thread t = new Thread(new Runnable() { public void run() { try { Thread.sleep(999999); } catch (InterruptedException e) { //invoke thread suicide logic here } } }); t.start(); t.interrupt(); try { Thread.sleep(4000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { } }

    Read the article

  • multiple move operations and data processes in work thread

    - by younevertell
    main thread-- start workthread--StartStage(get list of positions for data process) -- move to one position -- data sampling*strong text*-- data collection--data analysis------data sampling*strong text* basically, work thread does the data sampling*strong text*-- data collection--data analysis------data sampling*strong text* loop for one positioin until press stop or target is obtained. my questions: After work thread finishs the loop for one positioin, it would end itself. now how to make the work thread moves to the next position to do the data process loop after work thread finish one position work, would not end itself until data process for all the positions are done? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Millisecond-Accurate Scheduling of Future Events in C++/CLI

    - by A Grad Student at a University
    I need to create a C++/CLI mixed assembly that can schedule future calls into a native DLL with millisecond accuracy. This will, of course, mean setting a timer (what kind?) for a millisecond or three beforehand, then spinning until the moment and calling the native DLL function. Based on what I've read, I would guess that the callback that the timer calls will need to be native to make sure there are no thunks or GC to delay handling the timer callback. Will the entire thread or process need to be native and CLR-free, though, or can this be done just as accurately with #pragma unmanaged or setting one file of the assembly to compile as native? If so, how? If there is indeed no way to do this in mixed-mode C++/CLI, what would be the easiest way to set up an app/thread (ie, DLL or exe?) to handle it and to get the data back and forth between the native and managed threads/apps?

    Read the article

  • Are Thread.stop and friends ever safe in Java?

    - by Stephen C
    The stop(), suspend(), and resume() in java.lang.Thread are deprecated because they are unsafe. The Sun recommended work around is to use Thread.interrupt(), but that approach doesn't work in all cases. For example, if you are call a library method that doesn't explicitly or implicitly check the interrupted flag, you have no choice but to wait for the call to finish. So, I'm wondering if it is possible to characterize situations where it is (provably) safe to call stop() on a Thread. For example, would it be safe to stop() a thread that did nothing but call find(...) or match(...) on a java.util.regex.Matcher? (If there are any Sun engineers reading this ... a definitive answer would be really appreciated.) EDIT: Answers that simply restate the mantra that you should not call stop() because it is deprecated, unsafe, whatever are missing the point of this question. I know that that it is genuinely unsafe in the majority of cases, and that if there is a viable alternative you should always use that instead. This question is about the subset cases where it is safe. Specifically, what is that subset?

    Read the article

  • Looking for suggestions about an architecture of a MultiThreaded app.

    - by Dimitri
    Hello everyone. I am looking to develop a multithreaded application that will be running in unconditional loop and processing high volume of data. High volume is 2000+ records per minute. Processing will involve data retrieval, calculations and data updates. I need the application to perform so that there is virtually no back log, meaning i need to be able to finish up all of the 2000 points in one minute or even faster. Our current implementation features a multithreaded application that is spawn multiple times (from 10 to 20) and we are noticing that it's not handling data as expected and i even feel that instances of the application compete with each other for processor time and eventually if not slowing, not benefiting each other for sure. I would like to know what would be the best approach: have a single instance running but maximize threads that can run simultaneously? or is there other ways i don't know? I'm open to suggestions. Thank you in advance

    Read the article

  • Can I safely bind to data on multi-threaded applications?

    - by Paul
    Hi everyone, I'm trying to solve a classic problem - I have a multi-threaded application which runs some processor-intensive calculations, with a GUI interface. Every time one of the threads has completed a task, I'd like to update a status on a table taskID | status I use DataGridView and BindingList in the following way: BindingList<Task> tasks; dataGridView.DataSource = tasks public class Task : INotifyPropertyChanged { ID{get;} Status{get;set;} } Can a background thread safely update a task's status? and changes will be seen in the correct order in the GUI? Second Question: When do I need to call to PropertyChanged? I tried running with and without the call, didn't seem to bother.. Third Question: I've seen on MSDN that dataGridView uses BindingSource as a mediator between DataGridView.DataSource and BindingList Is this really necessary?

    Read the article

  • Windows service thread not updating database until complete

    - by dfarney
    I have a windows service with a FileSystemWatcher. When a new file is dropped in my folder a new thread is created, started, and I begin processing the file. Throughout this process I am making updates to the database (Linq to SQL) to keep track of the file's processing progress. Problem is none of my database updates are reflected throughout the process, just an update after everything has been completed. Any ideas? Note: when doing dev/testing my code was in an aspx page and worked great, but when I put it in a windows service I no longer get the progress updates. Thanks!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55  | Next Page >