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 >

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type MyRunnable

  - by kaiwii ho

  Here is the whole code : import java.util.ArrayList; public class Test{ ThreadLocal<ArrayList<E>>arraylist=new ThreadLocal<ArrayList<E>>(){ @Override protected ArrayList<E> initialValue() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub //return super.initialValue(); ArrayList<E>arraylist=new ArrayList<E>(); for(int i=0;i<=20;i++) arraylist.add((E) new Integer(i)); return arraylist; } }; class MyRunnable implements Runnable{ private Test mytest; public MyRunnable(Test test){ mytest=test; // TODO Auto-generated constructor stub } @Override public void run() { System.out.println("before"+mytest.arraylist.toString()); ArrayList<E>myarraylist=(ArrayList<E>) mytest.arraylist.get(); myarraylist.add((E) new Double(Math.random())); mytest.arraylist.set(myarraylist); System.out.println("after"+mytest.arraylist.toString()); } // TODO Auto-generated method stub } public static void main(String[] args){ Test test=new Test<Double>(); System.out.println(test.arraylist.toString()); new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); System.out.println(arraylist.toString()); } } my questions are: 1\ why the new Thread(new MyRunnable(test)).start(); cause the error: Cannot make a static reference to the non-static type MyRunnable ? 2\ what is the static reference refer to right here? thx in advanced

  Read the article

• Progressbar behaves strangely

  - by wanderameise

  I just created an application in C# that uses a thread which polls the UART for a receive event. If data is received an event is triggered in my main thread (GUI) and a progress bar is controlled via PerformStep() method (of course, I previously set the Max value accordingly). PerformStep is invoked using the following expression to handle cross threading this.Invoke((Action)delegate{progressBar2.PerformStep();}) When running this application the progressbar never hits its final value. It stops at 80%. When debugging and stopping at the line mentioned above, everything works fine using single steps. I have no idea what is going one! Start read thread on main thread: pThreadWrite = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ReadThread)); pThreadWrite.Start(); Read Thread: private void ReadThread() { while(1) { if (ReceiveEvent) { FlashProgressBar(); } } } Event that is triggered in main thread: private void FlashProgressBar() { this.Invoke((Action)delegate { progressBar2.PerformStep();}); } (It's a simplified representation of my code) It seems as if the internal progress is faster than the visual one.

  Read the article

• How can one use multi threading in php applications

  - by Steve Obbayi

  Is there a realistic way of implementing a multi-threaded model in php whether truly or just simulating it. Some time back it was suggested that you can force the operating system to load another instance of the php executable and handle other simultaneous processes. The problem with this is that when the php code finished executing the php instance remains in memory because there is no way to kill it from within php. so if you are simulating several threads you can imagine whats going to happen. So am still looking for a way multi-threading can be done or simulated effectively from within php. Any ideas?

  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

• How do I stop Ant from hanging after executing a java program that attempted to interrupt a thread (and failed) and continued?

  - by Zugwalt

  I have Ant build and execute a java program. This program tries to do something that sometimes hangs, so we execute it in a thread. actionThread.start(); try { actionThread.join(10000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { System.out.println("InterruptedException: "+e.getMessage()); } if (actionThread.isAlive()) { actionThread.interrupt(); System.out.println("Thread timed out and never died"); } The ant call looks like this: <java fork="true" failonerror="yes" classname="myPackage.myPathName" classpath="build"> <arg line=""/> <classpath> <pathelement location="bin" /> <fileset dir="lib"> <include name="**/*.jar"/> </fileset> </classpath> </java> And when this runs I see the "Thread timed out and never died" statement, and I also see the main program finish execution, but then Ant just hangs. Presumably it is waiting for the child threads to finish, but they never will. How can I have Ant be done once it is done executing main() and just kill or ignore dead threads?

  Read the article

• How do I wait for all other threads to finish their tasks?

  - by Mike

  I have several threads consuming tasks from a queue using something similar to the code below. The problem is that there is one type of task which cannot run while any other tasks are being processed. Here is what I have: while (true) // Threaded code { while (true) { lock(locker) { if (close_thread) return; task = GetNextTask(); // Get the next task from the queue } if (task != null) break; wh.WaitOne(); // Wait until a task is added to the queue } task.Run(); } And this is kind of what I need: while (true) { while (true) { lock(locker) { if (close_thread) return; if (disable_new_tasks) { task = null; } else { task = GetNextTask(); } } if (task != null) break; wh.WaitOne(); } if(!task.IsThreadSafe()) { // I would set this to false inside task.Run() at // the end of the non-thread safe task disable_new_tasks = true; Wait_for_all_threads_to_finish_their_current_tasks(); } task.Run(); } The problem is I don't know how to achive this without creating a mess.

  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

• 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

• How to measure Java thread execution time?

  - by giolekva

  Hey, I want to measure thread execution time in Java. Now I'm monitoring thread start and end times, but I think it's not so accurate because thread could be suspended during it execution.

  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

• How to call a function though Control.BeginInvoke in a signal-slot-like fashion?

  - by Dimitri C.

  I'd like a delegate that calls a function in a different thread when it is invoked. Currently, I'm using the following implementation: delegate void someFunctionDelegate(); //... someFunctionDelegate callBackFunction = someForm.SomeFunction; someForm.Invoke(someFunctionDelegate); However, I'd like a more compact form, combining both the someForm instance and the SomeForm.SomeFunction member function. I'm thinking of something like this: var callBackFunction = new AsynchronousCrossThreadDelegate(someForm, SomeForm.SomeFunction); callBackFunction(); // Should call someForm.BeginInvoke(SomeForm.SomeFunction); Is there a way to do so in C#/.NET? Update I'm looking for a solution that will work for functions with 0 or more parameters.

  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

• 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

• Does PHP have threading?

  - by Thomas Owens

  I found this PECL package called threads, but there is not a release yet. And nothing is coming up on the PHP website.

  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

• Cocoa: NSOpenPanel Threads

  - by Craig

  I am monitoring my application using Activity Monitor and whenever NSOpenPanel is called the application appears as having 9 threads and stays like that until the application is closed. Is there a way to release those threads?, Or am I simply misunderstanding what the threads number means?, surely it isn't a good thing to have them open for no reason. Any help would be appreciated

  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

• What would happen to GC if I run process with priority = RealTime?

  - by Bobb

  I have a C# app which runs with priority RealTime. It was all fine until I made few hectic changes in past 2 days. Now it runs out of memory in few hours. I am trying to find whether it is a memory leak I created of this is because I consume lot more objects than before and GC simply cant collect them because it runs with same priority. My question is - what could happen to GC when it tries to collect objects in application with RealTime priority (there is also at least one thread running with Highest thread priority)? (P.S. by realtime priority I mean Process.GetCurrentProcess().PriorityClass = ProcessPriorityClass.RealTime) Sorry forgot to tell. GC is in Server mode

  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

• 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

• C# Alternating threads

  - by Mutoh

  Imagine a situation in which there are one king and n number of minions submissed to him. When the king says "One!", one of the minions says "Two!", but only one of them. That is, only the fastest minion speaks while the others must wait for another call of the king. This is my try: using System; using System.Threading; class Program { static bool leaderGO = false; void Leader() { do { lock(this) { //Console.WriteLine("? {0}", leaderGO); if (leaderGO) Monitor.Wait(this); Console.WriteLine("> One!"); Thread.Sleep(200); leaderGO = true; Monitor.Pulse(this); } } while(true); } void Follower (char chant) { do { lock(this) { //Console.WriteLine("! {0}", leaderGO); if (!leaderGO) Monitor.Wait(this); Console.WriteLine("{0} Two!", chant); leaderGO = false; Monitor.Pulse(this); } } while(true); } static void Main() { Console.WriteLine("Go!\n"); Program m = new Program(); Thread king = new Thread(() => m.Leader()); Thread minion1 = new Thread(() => m.Follower('#')); Thread minion2 = new Thread(() => m.Follower('$')); king.Start(); minion1.Start(); minion2.Start(); Console.ReadKey(); king.Abort(); minion1.Abort(); minion2.Abort(); } } The expected output would be this (# and $ representing the two different minions): > One! # Two! > One! $ Two! > One! $ Two! ... The order in which they'd appear doesn't matter, it'd be random. The problem, however, is that this code, when compiled, produces this instead: > One! # Two! $ Two! > One! # Two! > One! $ Two! # Two! ... That is, more than one minion speaks at the same time. This would cause quite the tumult with even more minions, and a king shoudln't allow a meddling of this kind. What would be a possible solution?

  Read the article

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