Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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

  • 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

  • Simple prime number program - Weird issue with threads C#

    - by Para
    Hi! This is my code: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Threading; namespace FirePrime { class Program { static bool[] ThreadsFinished; static bool[] nums; static bool AllThreadsFinished() { bool allThreadsFinished = false; foreach (var threadFinished in ThreadsFinished) { allThreadsFinished &= threadFinished; } return allThreadsFinished; } static bool isPrime(int n) { if (n < 2) { return false; } if (n == 2) { return true; } if (n % 2 == 0) { return false; } int d = 3; while (d * d <= n) { if (n % d == 0) { return false; } d += 2; } return true; } static void MarkPrimes(int startNumber,int stopNumber,int ThreadNr) { for (int j = startNumber; j < stopNumber; j++) nums[j] = isPrime(j); lock (typeof(Program)) { ThreadsFinished[ThreadNr] = true; } } static void Main(string[] args) { int nrNums = 100; int nrThreads = 10; //var threadStartNums = new List<int>(); ThreadsFinished = new bool[nrThreads]; nums = new bool[nrNums]; //var nums = new List<bool>(); nums[0] = false; nums[1] = false; for(int i=2;i<nrNums;i++) nums[i] = true; int interval = (int)(nrNums / nrThreads); //threadStartNums.Add(2); //int aux = firstStartNum; //int i = 2; //while (aux < interval) //{ // aux = interval*i; // i=i+1; // threadStartNums.Add(aux); //} int startNum = 0; for (int i = 0; i < nrThreads; i++) { var _thread = new System.Threading.Thread(() => MarkPrimes(startNum, Math.Min(startNum + interval, nrNums), i)); startNum = startNum + interval; //set the thread to run in the background _thread.IsBackground = true; //start our thread _thread.Start(); } while (!AllThreadsFinished()) { Thread.Sleep(1); } for (int i = 0; i < nrNums; i++) if(nums[i]) Console.WriteLine(i); } } } This should be a pretty simple program that is supposed to find and output the first nrNums prime numbers using nrThreads threads working in parallel. So, I just split nrNums into nrThreads equal chunks (well, the last one won't be equal; if nrThreads doesn't divide by nrNums, it will also contain the remainder, of course). I start nrThreads threads. They all test each number in their respective chunk and see if it is prime or not; they mark everything out in a bool array that keeps a tab on all the primes. The threads all turn a specific element in another boolean array ThreadsFinished to true when they finish. Now the weird part begins: The threads never all end. If I debug, I find that ThreadNr is not what I assign to it in the loop but another value. I guess this is normal since the threads execute afterwards and the counter (the variable i) is already increased by then but I cannot understand how to make the code be right. Can anyone help? Thank you in advance. P.S.: I know the algorithm is not very efficient; I am aiming at a solution using the sieve of Eratosthenes also with x given threads. But for now I can't even get this one to work and I haven't found any examples of any implementations of that algorithm anywhere in a language that I can understand.

    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

  • 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

  • Python Terminated Thread Cannot Restart

    - by Mel Kaye
    Hello, I have a thread that gets executed when some action occurs. Given the logic of the program, the thread cannot possibly be started while another instance of it is still running. Yet when I call it a second time, I get a "RuntimeError: thread already started" error. I added a check to see if it is actually alive using the Thread.is_alive() function, and it is actually dead. What am I doing wrong? I can provide more details as are needed.

    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

  • Understanding java's native threads and the jvm

    - by Moev4
    I understand that the jvm is itself an application that turns the bytecode of the java executable into native machine code, but when using native threads I have some questions that I just cannot seem to answer. Does every thread create their own instance of the jvm to handle their particular execution? If not then does the jvm have to have some way to schedule which thread it will handle next, if so wouldn't this render the multi-threaded nature of java useless since only one thread can be ran at a time?

    Read the article

  • Will this make the object thread-safe?

    - by sharptooth
    I have a native Visual C++ COM object and I need to make it completely thread-safe to be able to legally mark it as "free-threaded" in th system registry. Specifically I need to make sure that no more than one thread ever accesses any member variable of the object simultaneously. The catch is I'm almost sure that no sane consumer of my COM object will ever try to simultaneously use the object from more than one thread. So I want the solution as simple as possible as long as it meets the requirement above. Here's what I came up with. I add a mutex or critical section as a member variable of the object. Every COM-exposed method will acquire the mutex/section at the beginning and release before returning control. I understand that this solution doesn't provide fine-grained access and this might slow execution down, but since I suppose simultaneous access will not really occur I don't care of this. Will this solution suffice? Is there a simpler solution?

    Read the article

  • What would happen if a same file being read and appended at the same time(python programming)?

    - by Shane
    I'm writing a script using two separate thread one doing file reading operation and the other doing appending, both threads run fairly frequently. My question is, if one thread happens to read the file while the other is just in the middle of appending strings such as "This is a test" into this file, what would happen? I know if you are appending a smaller-than-buffer string, no matter how frequently you read the file in other threads, there would never be incomplete line such as "This i" appearing in your read file, I mean the os would either do: append "This is a test" - read info from the file; or: read info from the file - append "This is a test" to the file; and such would never happen: append "This i" - read info from the file - append "s a test". But if "This is a test" is big enough(assuming it's a bigger-than-buffer string), the os can't do appending job in one operation, so the appending job would be divided into two: first append "This i" to the file, then append "s a test", so in this kind of situation if I happen to read the file in the middle of the whole appending operation, would I get such result: append "This i" - read info from the file - append "s a test", which means I might read a file that includes an incomplete string?

    Read the article

  • Multiple instances of the same Async task (Windows Phone)

    - by Bart Teunissen
    After googeling for ages, and reading some stuff about async task in books. I made a my first program with an async task in it. Only to find out, that i can only start one task. I want to run the task more then once. This is where i found out that that doesn't seem to work. to be a little bit clearer, here are some parts of my code: InitFunction(var); This is the Task itself public async Task InitFunction(string var) { _VarHandle = await _AdsClient.GetSymhandleByNameAsync(var); _Data = await _AdsClient.ReadAsync<T>(_VarHandle); _AdsClient.AddNotificationAsync<T>(_VarHandle, AdsTransmissionMode.OnChange, 1000, this); } This works like a charm when i execute the task only once.. But is there a possibility to run it multiple times. Something like this? InitFunction(var1); InitFunction(var2); InitFunction(var3); Because if i do this now (multiple tasks at once), the task it wants to start is still running, and it throws an exeption. if someone could help me with this, that would be awesome! ~ Bart

    Read the article

  • throwing exception from APCProc crashes program

    - by lazy_banana
    I started to do some research on how terminate a multithreaded application properly and I found those 2 post(first, second) about how to use QueueUserAPC to signal other threads to terminate. I thought I should give it a try, and the application keeps crashing when I throw the exception from the APCProc. Code: #include <stdio.h> #include <windows.h> class ExitException { public: char *desc; DWORD exit_code; ExitException(char *desc,int exit_code): desc(desc), exit_code(exit_code) {} }; //I use this class to check if objects are deconstructed upon termination class Test { public: char *s; Test(char *s): s(s) { printf("%s ctor\n",s); } ~Test() { printf("%s dctor\n",s); } }; DWORD CALLBACK ThreadProc(void *useless) { try { Test t("thread_test"); SleepEx(INFINITE,true); return 0; } catch (ExitException &e) { printf("Thread exits\n%s %lu",e.desc,e.exit_code); return e.exit_code; } } void CALLBACK exit_apc_proc(ULONG_PTR param) { puts("In APCProc"); ExitException e("Application exit signal!",1); throw e; return; } int main() { HANDLE thread=CreateThread(NULL,0,ThreadProc,NULL,0,NULL); Sleep(1000); QueueUserAPC(exit_apc_proc,thread,0); WaitForSingleObject(thread,INFINITE); puts("main: bye"); return 0; } My question is why does this happen? I use mingw for compilation and my OS is 64bit. Can this be the reason?I read that you shouldn't call QueueApcProc from a 32bit app for a thread which runs in a 64bit process or vice versa, but this shouldn't be the case.

    Read the article

  • What is the fastest (possibly unsafe) way to read a byte[]?

    - by Aidiakapi
    I'm working on a server project in C#, and after a TCP message is received, it is parsed, and stored in a byte[] of exact size. (Not a buffer of fixed length, but a byte[] of an absolute length in which all data is stored.) Now for reading this byte[] I'll be creating some wrapper functions (also for compatibility), these are the signatures of all functions I need: public byte ReadByte(); public sbyte ReadSByte(); public short ReadShort(); public ushort ReadUShort(); public int ReadInt(); public uint ReadUInt(); public float ReadFloat(); public double ReadDouble(); public string ReadChars(int length); public string ReadString(); The string is a \0 terminated string, and is probably encoded in ASCII or UTF-8, but I cannot tell that for sure, since I'm not writing the client. The data exists of: byte[] _data; int _offset; Now I can write all those functions manually, like this: public byte ReadByte() { return _data[_offset++]; } public sbyte ReadSByte() { byte r = _data[_offset++]; if (r >= 128) return (sbyte)(r - 256); else return (sbyte)r; } public short ReadShort() { byte b1 = _data[_offset++]; byte b2 = _data[_offset++]; if (b1 >= 128) return (short)(b1 * 256 + b2 - 65536); else return (short)(b1 * 256 + b2); } public short ReadUShort() { byte b1 = _data[_offset++]; return (short)(b1 * 256 + _data[_offset++]); } But I wonder if there's a faster way, not excluding the use of unsafe code, since this seems a little bit too much work for simple processing.

    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

  • How to kill a thread immediately from another thread in java?

    - by Sara
    Hi, is there anyway to kill a thread or interrupt it immediately. Like in one of my thread, i call a method which takes time to execute (2-4 seconds). This method is in a while(boolean flag) block, so i can interrupt it from the main thread. But the problem is, if i interrupt it; it will wait till the executing loop is finished and then on next conditional check, it will stop execution. I want it to stop right then. Is there anyway to do this?

    Read the article

  • Neat way of calling InvokeRequired and Invoke

    - by ho
    I seem to remember seeing some neat way of calling InvokeRequired and Invoke to avoid repeating too much code in every event handler but I can't remember what that was. So does anyone know a neat way of writing that code? Preferably for VB.Net 2005.

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with my @synchronized block?

    - by hyn
    I have 2 threads in my application, a game update thread and render/IO/main thread. My update thread updates the game state, and the render thread renders the scene based on the updated values of the game state models and a few other variables stored inside an object (gameEngine). The render thread gets executed while the game thread is still updating, which is a problem, so it appeared to me the solution is to use @synchronized like this: @synchronized(gameEngine) { [gameEngine update]; nextUpdate = now + GAME_UPDATE_INTERVAL; gameEngine.lastGameUpdateInterval = now - lastUpdate; gameEngine.lastGameUpdateTime = now; lastUpdate = now; } But the render thread still accesses the gameEngine object between -update and the last 3 lines of the block. Why is this?

    Read the article

  • What are common uses of condition variables in C++?

    - by jasonline
    I'm trying to learn about condition variables. I would like to know what are the common situations where condition variables are used. One example is in a blocking queue, where two threads access the queue - the producer thread pushes an item into the queue, while the consumer thread pops an item from the queue. If the queue is empty, the consumer thread is waiting until a signal is sent by the producer thread. What are other design situations where you need a condition variable to be used?

    Read the article

  • Is it safe to use a boolean flag to stop a thread from running in C#

    - by Lirik
    My main concern is with the boolean flag... is it safe to use it without any synchronization? I've read in several places that it's atomic. class MyTask { private ManualResetEvent startSignal; private CountDownLatch latch; private bool running; MyTask(CountDownLatch latch) { running = false; this.latch = latch; startSignal = new ManualResetEvent(false); } // A method which runs in a thread public void Run() { startSignal.WaitOne(); while(running) { startSignal.WaitOne(); //... some code } latch.Signal(); } public void Stop() { running = false; startSignal.Set(); } public void Start() { running = true; startSignal.Set(); } public void Pause() { startSignal.Reset(); } public void Resume() { startSignal.Set(); } } Is this a safe way to design a task? Any suggestions, improvements, comments? Note: I wrote my custom CountDownLatch class in case you're wondering where I'm getting it from.

    Read the article

  • Cleanest Way to Invoke Cross-Thread Events

    - by Nick
    I find that the .NET event model is such that I'll often be raising an event on one thread and listening for it on another thread. I was wondering what the cleanest way to marshal an event from a background thread onto my UI thread is. Based on the community suggestions, I've used this: // earlier in the code mCoolObject.CoolEvent+= new CoolObjectEventHandler(mCoolObject_CoolEvent); // then private void mCoolObject_CoolEvent(object sender, CoolObjectEventArgs args) { if (InvokeRequired) { CoolObjectEventHandler cb = new CoolObjectEventHandler( mCoolObject_CoolEvent); Invoke(cb, new object[] { sender, args }); return; } // do the dirty work of my method here }

    Read the article

  • wxpython - Running threads sequentially without blocking GUI

    - by ryantmer
    I've got a GUI script with all my wxPython code in it, and a separate testSequences module that has a bunch of tasks that I run based on input from the GUI. The tasks take a long time to complete (from 20 seconds to 3 minutes), so I want to thread them, otherwise the GUI locks up while they're running. I also need them to run one after another, since they all use the same hardware. (My rationale behind threading is simply to prevent the GUI from locking up.) I'd like to have a "Running" message (with varying number of periods after it, i.e. "Running", "Running.", "Running..", etc.) so the user knows that progress is occurring, even though it isn't visible. I'd like this script to run the test sequences in separate threads, but sequentially, so that the second thread won't be created and run until the first is complete. Since this is kind of the opposite of the purpose of threads, I can't really find any information on how to do this... Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! gui.py import testSequences from threading import Thread #wxPython code for setting everything up here... for j in range(5): testThread = Thread(target=testSequences.test1) testThread.start() while testThread.isAlive(): #wait until the previous thread is complete time.sleep(0.5) i = (i+1) % 4 self.status.SetStatusText("Running"+'.'*i) testSequences.py import time def test1(): for i in range(10): print i time.sleep(1) (Obviously this isn't the actual test code, but the idea is the same.)

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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