Search Results

Search found 3089 results on 124 pages for 'lock up'.

Page 51/124 | < Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >

  • Thread-safe data structure design

    - by Inso Reiges
    Hello, I have to design a data structure that is to be used in a multi-threaded environment. The basic API is simple: insert element, remove element, retrieve element, check that element exists. The structure's implementation uses implicit locking to guarantee the atomicity of a single API call. After i implemented this it became apparent, that what i really need is atomicity across several API calls. For example if a caller needs to check the existence of an element before trying to insert it he can't do that atomically even if each single API call is atomic: if(!data_structure.exists(element)) { data_structure.insert(element); } The example is somewhat awkward, but the basic point is that we can't trust the result of "exists" call anymore after we return from atomic context (the generated assembly clearly shows a minor chance of context switch between the two calls). What i currently have in mind to solve this is exposing the lock through the data structure's public API. This way clients will have to explicitly lock things, but at least they won't have to create their own locks. Is there a better commonly-known solution to these kinds of problems? And as long as we're at it, can you advise some good literature on thread-safe design? EDIT: I have a better example. Suppose that element retrieval returns either a reference or a pointer to the stored element and not it's copy. How can a caller be protected to safely use this pointer\reference after the call returns? If you think that not returning copies is a problem, then think about deep copies, i.e. objects that should also copy another objects they point to internally. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • ORA- 01157 / Cant connect to database

    - by Tom
    Hi everyone, this is a follow up from this question. Let me start by saying that i am NOT a DBA, so i'm really really lost with this. A few weeks ago, we lost contact with one of our SID'S. All the other services are working, but this one in particular is not. What we got was this message when trying to connect ORA-01033: ORACLE initialization or shutdown in progress An attempt to alter database open ended up in ORA-01157: cannot identify/lock data file 6 - see DBWR trace file ORA-01110: data file 6: '/u01/app/oracle/oradata/xxx/xxx_data.dbf' I tried to shutdown / restart the database, but got this message. Total System Global Area 566231040 bytes Fixed Size 1220604 bytes Variable Size 117440516 bytes Database Buffers 444596224 bytes Redo Buffers 2973696 bytes Database mounted. ORA-01157: cannot identify/lock data file 6 - see DBWR trace file ORA-01110: data file 6: '/u01/app/oracle/oradata/xxx/xxx_data.dbf' When all continued the same, I erased the dbf files (rm xxx_data.dbf xxx_index.dbf), and recreated them using touch xxx_data.dbf. I also tried to recreate the tablespaces using `CREATE TABLESPACE DATA DATAFILE XXX_DATA.DBF` and got Database not open As I said, i don't know how bad this is, or how far i'm from gaining access to my database (well, to this SID at least, the others are working). I would imagine that a last resource would be to throw everything away, and recreating it, but I don't know how to, and I was hoping there's a less destructive solution. Any help will be greatly appreciated . Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Why MSMQ won't send a space character?

    - by cyclotis04
    I'm exploring MSMQ services, and I wrote a simple console client-server application that sends each of the client's keystrokes to the server. Whenever hit a control character (DEL, ESC, INS, etc) the server understandably throws an error. However, whenever I type a space character, the server receives the packet but doesn't throw an error and doesn't display the space. Server: namespace QIM { class Program { const string QUEUE = @".\Private$\qim"; static MessageQueue _mq; static readonly object _mqLock = new object(); static XmlSerializer xs; static void Main(string[] args) { lock (_mqLock) { if (!MessageQueue.Exists(QUEUE)) _mq = MessageQueue.Create(QUEUE); else _mq = new MessageQueue(QUEUE); } xs = new XmlSerializer(typeof(string)); _mq.BeginReceive(new TimeSpan(0, 1, 0), new object(), OnReceive); while (Console.ReadKey().Key != ConsoleKey.Escape) { } } static void OnReceive(IAsyncResult result) { Message msg; lock (_mqLock) { try { msg = _mq.EndReceive(result); Console.Write("."); Console.Write(xs.Deserialize(msg.BodyStream)); } catch (Exception ex) { Console.Write(ex); } } _mq.BeginReceive(new TimeSpan(0, 1, 0), new object(), OnReceive); } } } Client: namespace QIM_Client { class Program { const string QUEUE = @".\Private$\qim"; static MessageQueue _mq; static void Main(string[] args) { if (!MessageQueue.Exists(QUEUE)) _mq = MessageQueue.Create(QUEUE); else _mq = new MessageQueue(QUEUE); ConsoleKeyInfo key = new ConsoleKeyInfo(); while (key.Key != ConsoleKey.Escape) { key = Console.ReadKey(); _mq.Send(key.KeyChar.ToString()); } } } } Client Input: Testing, Testing... Server Output: .T.e.s.t.i.n.g.,..T.e.s.t.i.n.g...... You'll notice that the space character sends a message, but the character isn't displayed.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to prevent out-of-order execution by using single volatile

    - by Yan Cheng CHEOK
    By referring article, it is using a pair of volatile to prevent out-of-order execution. I was wondering, is it possible to prevent it using single volatile? void fun_by_thread_1() { this.isNuclearFactory = true; this.factory = new NuclearFactory(); } void fun_by_thread_2() { Factory _factory = this.factory; if (this.isNuclearFactory) { // Do not operate nuclear factory!!! return; } // If out-of-order execution happens, _factory might // be NuclearFactory instance. _factory.operate(); } Factory factory = new FoodFactory(); volatile boolean isNuclearFactory = false; The reason I ask, is because I have a single guard flag (similar to isNuclearFactory flag), to guard against multiple variables (similar to many Factory). I do not wish to mark all the Factory as volatile. Or, shall I fall into the following solution? void fun_by_thread_1() { try { writer.lock(); this.isNuclearFactory = true; this.factory = new NuclearFactory(); } finally { writer.unlock(); } } void fun_by_thread_2() { try { reader.lock(); Factory _factory = this.factory; if (this.isNuclearFactory) { // Do not operate nuclear factory!!! return; } } finally { reader.unlock(); } _factory.operate(); } Factory factory = new FoodFactory(); boolean isNuclearFactory = false; P/S: I know instanceof. Factory is just an example to demonstrate of out-of-order problem.

    Read the article

  • How to Perform Continues Iteration over Shared Dictionary in Multi-threaded Environment

    - by Mubashar Ahmad
    Dear Gurus. Note Pls do not tell me regarding alternative to custom session, Pls answer only relative to the Pattern Scenario I have Done Custom Session Management in my application(WCF Service) for this I have a Dictionary shared to all thread. When a specific function Gets called I add a New Session and Issue SessionId to the client so it can use that sessionId for rest of his calls until it calls another specific function, which terminates this session and removes the session from the Dictionary. Due to any reason Client may not call session terminator function so i have to implement time expiration logic so that i can remove all such sessions from the memory. For this I added a Timer Object which calls ClearExpiredSessions function after the specific period of time. which iterates on the dictionary. Problem: As this dictionary gets modified every time new client comes and leaves so i can't lock the whole dictionary while iterating over it. And if i do not lock the dictionary while iteration, if dictionary gets modified from other thread while iterating, Enumerator will throw exception on MoveNext(). So can anybody tell me what kind of Design i should follow in this case. Is there any standard pattern available.

    Read the article

  • AssemblyResolve event is not firing during compilation of a dynamic assembly for an aspx page.

    - by John
    This one is really pissing me off. Here goes: My goal is to load assemblies at run-time that contain embedded aspx,ascx etc. What I would also like is to not lock the assembly file on disk so I can update it at run-time without having to restart the application (I know this will leave the previous version(s) loaded). To that end I have written a virtual path provider that does the trick. I have subscribed to the CurrentDomain.AssemblyResolve event so as to redirect the framework to my assemblies. The problem is that the when the framework tries to compile the dynamic assembly for the aspx page I get the following: Compiler Error Message: CS0400: The type or namespace name 'Pages' could not be found in the global namespace (are you missing an assembly reference?) Source Error: public class app_resource_pages__version_1_0_0_0__culture_neutral__publickeytoken_null_default_aspx : global::Pages._Default, System.Web.SessionState.IRequiresSessionState, System.Web.IHttpHandle I noticed that if I load the assembly with Assembly.Load(AssemblyName) or Assembly.LoadFrom(filename) I dont get the above error. If I load it with Assembly.Load(byte[]) (so as to not lock it), the exception is thrown but my AssemblyResolve handler, when called is returning the assembly correctly (it is called once). So I am guessing that it is called once when the framework parses the asp markup but not when it tries to create the dynamic assembly for the aspx page.

    Read the article

  • Can I prevent a Linux user space pthread yielding in critical code?

    - by KermitG
    I am working on an user space app for an embedded Linux project using the 2.6.24.3 kernel. My app passes data between two file nodes by creating 2 pthreads that each sleep until a asynchronous IO operation completes at which point it wakes and runs a completion handler. The completion handlers need to keep track of how many transfers are pending and maintain a handful of linked lists that one thread will add to and the other will remove. // sleep here until events arrive or time out expires for(;;) { no_of_events = io_getevents(ctx, 1, num_events, events, &timeout); // Process each aio event that has completed or thrown an error for (i=0; i<no_of_events; i++) { // Get pointer to completion handler io_complete = (io_callback_t) events[i].data; // Get pointer to data object iocb = (struct iocb *) events[i].obj; // Call completion handler and pass it the data object io_complete(ctx, iocb, events[i].res, events[i].res2); } } My question is this... Is there a simple way I can prevent the currently active thread from yielding whilst it runs the completion handler rather than going down the mutex/spin lock route? Or failing that can Linux be configured to prevent yielding a pthread when a mutex/spin lock is held?

    Read the article

  • mysql row locking via php

    - by deezee
    I am helping a friend with a web based form that is for their business. I am trying to get it ready to handle multiple users. I have set it up so that just before the record is displayed for editing I am locking the record with the following code. $query = "START TRANSACTION;"; mysql_query($query); $query = "SELECT field FROM table WHERE ID = \"$value\" FOR UPDATE;"; mysql_query($query); (okay that is greatly simplified but that is the essence of the mysql) It does not appear to be working. However, when I go directly to mysql from the command line, logging in with the same user and execute START TRANSACTION; SELECT field FROM table WHERE ID = "40" FOR UPDATE; I can effectively block the web form from accessing record "40" and get the timeout warning. I have tried using BEGIN instead of START TRANSACTION. I have tried doing SET AUTOCOMMIT=0 first and starting the transaction after locking but I cannot seem to lock the row from the PHP code. Since I can lock the row from the command line I do not think there is a problem with how the database is set up. I am really hoping that there is some simple something that I have missed in my reading. FYI, I am developing on XAMPP version 1.7.3 which has Apache 2.2.14, MySQL 5.1.41 and PHP 5.3.1. Thanks in advance. This is my first time posting but I have gleaned alot of knowledge from this site in the past.

    Read the article

  • Returning pointers in a thread-safe way.

    - by Roddy
    Assume I have a thread-safe collection of Things (call it a ThingList), and I want to add the following function. Thing * ThingList::findByName(string name) { return &item[name]; // or something similar.. } But by doing this, I've delegated the responsibility for thread safety to the calling code, which would have to do something like this: try { list.lock(); // NEEDED FOR THREAD SAFETY Thing *foo = list.findByName("wibble"); foo->Bar = 123; list.unlock(); } catch (...) { list.unlock(); throw; } Obviously a RAII lock/unlock object would simplify/remove the try/catch/unlocks, but it's still easy for the caller to forget. There are a few alternatives I've looked at: Return Thing by value, instead of a pointer - fine unless you need to modify the Thing Add function ThingList::setItemBar(string name, int value) - fine, but these tend to proliferate Return a pointerlike object which locks the list on creation and unlocks it again on destruction. Not sure if this is good/bad practice... What's the right approach to dealing with this?

    Read the article

  • Is something along the lines of nested memoization needed here?

    - by Daniel
    System.Transactions notoriously escalates transactions involving multiple connections to the same database to the DTC. The module and helper class, ConnectionContext, below are meant to prevent this by ensuring multiple connection requests for the same database return the same connection object. This is, in some sense, memoization, although there are multiple things being memoized and the second is dependent on the first. Is there some way to hide the synchronization and/or mutable state (perhaps using memoization) in this module, or perhaps rewrite it in a more functional style? (It may be worth nothing that there's no locking when getting the connection by connection string because Transaction.Current is ThreadStatic.) type ConnectionContext(connection:IDbConnection, ownsConnection) = member x.Connection = connection member x.OwnsConnection = ownsConnection interface IDisposable with member x.Dispose() = if ownsConnection then connection.Dispose() module ConnectionManager = let private _connections = new Dictionary<string, Dictionary<string, IDbConnection>>() let private getTid (t:Transaction) = t.TransactionInformation.LocalIdentifier let private removeConnection tid = let cl = _connections.[tid] for (KeyValue(_, con)) in cl do con.Close() lock _connections (fun () -> _connections.Remove(tid) |> ignore) let getConnection connectionString (openConnection:(unit -> IDbConnection)) = match Transaction.Current with | null -> new ConnectionContext(openConnection(), true) | current -> let tid = getTid current // get connections for the current transaction let connections = match _connections.TryGetValue(tid) with | true, cl -> cl | false, _ -> let cl = Dictionary<_,_>() lock _connections (fun () -> _connections.Add(tid, cl)) cl // find connection for this connection string let connection = match connections.TryGetValue(connectionString) with | true, con -> con | false, _ -> let initial = (connections.Count = 0) let con = openConnection() connections.Add(connectionString, con) // if this is the first connection for this transaction, register connections for cleanup if initial then current.TransactionCompleted.Add (fun args -> let id = getTid args.Transaction removeConnection id) con new ConnectionContext(connection, false)

    Read the article

  • Is there a term for this concept, and does it exist in a static-typed language?

    - by Strilanc
    Recently I started noticing a repetition in some of my code. Of course, once you notice a repetition, it becomes grating. Which is why I'm asking this question. The idea is this: sometimes you write different versions of the same class: a raw version, a locked version, a read-only facade version, etc. These are common things to do to a class, but the translations are highly mechanical. Surround all the methods with lock acquires/releases, etc. In a dynamic language, you could write a function which did this to an instance of a class (eg. iterate over all the functions, replacing them with a version which acquires/releases a lock.). I think a good term for what I mean is 'reflected class'. You create a transformation which takes a class, and returns a modified-in-a-desired-way class. Synchronization is the easiest case, but there are others: make a class immutable [wrap methods so they clone, mutate the clone, and include it in the result], make a class readonly [assuming you can identify mutating methods], make a class appear to work with type A instead of type B, etc. The important part is that, in theory, these transformations make sense at compile-time. Even though an ActorModel<T> has methods which change depending on T, they depend on T in a specific way knowable at compile-time (ActorModel<T> methods would return a future of the original result type). I'm just wondering if this has been implemented in a language, and what it's called.

    Read the article

  • Sql Compact and __sysobjects

    - by Scott Wisniewski
    I have some SQL Compact queries that create tables inside of transaction. This is mainly because I need to simulate temporary tables, which SQL Compact does not support. I do this by creating a real table, and then dropping it at the end of the transaction. This mostly works. Sometimes, however, when creating the tables Sql Compact will try to acquire PAGE level locks on the __sysobjects table. If there are several concurrent queries running that create "temp" tables, the attempt to acquire a page lock can result in a dead lock followed by a SqlLockTimeout exception. For normal tables I could fix this using a "with (rowlock)" hint. However, because I'm not writing the query to insert into __sysobjets (SQL server does that in response to "create table") I can't do this. Does anyone know of a way I could get around this? I've thought about pulling the table creation out of the transaction, but that opens up the possibility of phantom temporary tables that I'd then need to clean up regularly. Ideally I'd like to avoid that if possible.

    Read the article

  • Ensuring that all callbacks were completed before sending a new request through a DuplexChannel usin

    - by Etan
    I am experiencing some issues when using a Callback in a WCF project. First, the server invokes some function Foo on the client which then forwards the request to a Windows Forms GUI: GUI CLASS delegate void DoForward(); public void ForwardToGui() { if (this.cmdSomeButton.InvokeRequired) { DoForward d = new DoForward(ForwardToGui); this.Invoke(d); } else { Process(); // sets result variable in callback class as soon as done } } } CALLBACK CLASS object _m = new object(); private int _result; public int result { get { return _result; } set { _result = value; lock(_m) { Monitor.PulseAll(_m); } } } [OperationContract] public int Foo() { result = 0; Program.Gui.ForwardToGui(); lock(_m) { Monitor.Wait(_m, 30000); } return result; } The problem now is that the user should be able to cancel the process, which doesn't work properly: SERVER INTERFACE [OperationContract] void Cleanup(); GUI CLASS private void Gui_FormClosed(object sender, EventArgs e) { Program.callbackclass.nextAction = -1; // so that the monitor pulses and Foo() returns Program.server.Cleanup(); } The problem with this is that Cleanup() hangs. However, when I close the form when Process() is not running, it works properly. The source seems to be that the Cleanup() is called before the monitor pulses etc and therefore a new request is sent to the server before the last request from the server has not yet been responded. How can I solve this problem? How can I ensure before calling Cleanup() that no Foo() is currently being executed?

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to store Logon User information for Web Application?

    - by Morgan Cheng
    I was once in a project of web application developed on ASP.NET. For each logon user, there is an object (let's call it UserSessionObject here) created and stored in RAM. For each HTTP request of given user, matching UserSessoinObject instance is used to visit user state information and connection to database. So, this UserSessionObject is pretty important. This design brings several problems found later: 1) Since this UserSessionObject is cached in ASP.NET memory space, we have to config load balancer to be sticky connection. That is, HTTP request in single session would always be sent to one web server behind. This limit scalability and maintainability. 2) This UserSessionObject is accessed in every HTTP request. To keep the consistency, there is a exclusive lock for the UserSessionObject. Only one HTTP request can be processed at any given time because it must to obtain the lock first. The performance and response time is affected. Now, I'm wondering whether there is better design to handle such logon user case. It seems Sharing-Nothing-Architecture helps. That means long user info is retrieved from database each time. I'm afraid that would hurt performance. Is there any design pattern for long user web app? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Unit Testing an Event Firing From a Thread

    - by Dougc
    I'm having a problem unit testing a class which fires events when a thread starts and finishes. A cut down version of the offending source is as follows: public class ThreadRunner { private bool keepRunning; public event EventHandler Started; public event EventHandler Finished; public void StartThreadTest() { this.keepRunning = true; var thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.LongRunningMethod)); thread.Start(); } public void FinishThreadTest() { this.keepRunning = false; } protected void OnStarted() { if (this.Started != null) this.Started(this, new EventArgs()); } protected void OnFinished() { if (this.Finished != null) this.Finished(this, new EventArgs()); } private void LongRunningMethod() { this.OnStarted(); while (this.keepRunning) Thread.Sleep(100); this.OnFinished(); } } I then have a test to check that the Finished event fires after the LongRunningMethod has finished as follows: [TestClass] public class ThreadRunnerTests { [TestMethod] public void CheckFinishedEventFiresTest() { var threadTest = new ThreadRunner(); bool finished = false; object locker = new object(); threadTest.Finished += delegate(object sender, EventArgs e) { lock (locker) { finished = true; Monitor.Pulse(locker); } }; threadTest.StartThreadTest(); threadTest.FinishThreadTest(); lock (locker) { Monitor.Wait(locker, 1000); Assert.IsTrue(finished); } } } So the idea here being that the test will block for a maximum of one second - or until the Finish event is fired - before checking whether the finished flag is set. Clearly I've done something wrong as sometimes the test will pass, sometimes it won't. Debugging seems very difficult as well as the breakpoints I'd expect to be hit (the OnFinished method, for example) don't always seem to be. I'm assuming this is just my misunderstanding of the way threading works, so hopefully someone can enlighten me.

    Read the article

  • optimistic and pessimistic locks

    - by billmce
    Working on my first php/Codeigniter project and I’ve scoured the ‘net for information on locking access to editing data and haven’t found very much information. I expect it to be a fairly regular occurrence for 2 users to attempt to edit the same form simultaneously. My experience (in the stateful world of BBx, filePro, and other RAD apps) is that the data being edited is locked using a pessimistic lock—one user has access to the edit form at the time. The second user basically has to wait for the first to finish. I understand this can be done using Ajax sending XMLHttpRequests to maintain a ‘lock’ database. The php world, lacking state, seems to prefer optimistic locking. If I understand it correctly it works like this: both users get to access the data and they each record a ‘before changes’ version of the data. Before saving their changes, the data is once again retrieved and compared the ‘before changes’ version. If the two versions are identical then the users changes are written. If they are different; the user is shown what has changed since he/she started editing and some mechanism is added to resolve the differences—or the user is shown a ‘Sorry, try again’ message. I’m interested in any experience people here have had with implementing both pessimistic and optimistic locking. If there are any libraries, tools, or ‘how-to’s available I’m appreciate a link. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Thread mutex behaviour

    - by Alberteddu
    Hi there, I'm learning C. I'm writing an application with multiple threads; I know that when a variable is shared between two or more threads, it is better to lock/unlock using a mutex to avoid deadlock and inconsistency of variables. This is very clear when I want to change or view one variable. int i = 0; /** Global */ static pthread_mutex_t mutex = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER; /** Thread 1. */ pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex); i++; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex); /** Thread 2. */ pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex); i++; pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex); This is correct, I think. The variable i, at the end of the executions, contains the integer 2. Anyway, there are some situations in which I don't know exactly where to put the two function calls. For example, suppose you have a function obtain(), which returns a global variable. I need to call that function from within the two threads. I have also two other threads that call the function set(), defined with a few arguments; this function will set the same global variable. The two functions are necessary when you need to do something before getting/setting the var. /** (0) */ /** Thread 1, or 2, or 3... */ if(obtain() == something) { if(obtain() == somethingElse) { // Do this, sometimes obtain() and sometimes set(random number) (1) } else { // Do that, just obtain(). (2) } } else { // Do this and do that (3) // If # of thread * 3 > 10, then set(3*10) For example. (4) } /** (5) */ Where I have to lock, and where I have to unlock? The situation can be, I think, even more complex. I will appreciate an exhaustive answer. Thank you in advance. —Alberto

    Read the article

  • Is there a better way to throttle a high throughput job?

    - by ChaosPandion
    I created a simple class that shows what I am trying to do without any noise. Feel free to bash away at my code. That's why I posted it here. public class Throttled : IDisposable { private readonly Action work; private readonly Func<bool> stop; private readonly ManualResetEvent continueProcessing; private readonly Timer throttleTimer; private readonly int throttlePeriod; private readonly int throttleLimit; private int totalProcessed; public Throttled(Action work, Func<bool> stop, int throttlePeriod, int throttleLimit) { this.work = work; this.stop = stop; this.throttlePeriod = throttlePeriod; this.throttleLimit = throttleLimit; continueProcessing = new ManualResetEvent(true); throttleTimer = new Timer(ThrottleUpdate, null, throttlePeriod, throttlePeriod); } public void Dispose() { throttleTimer.Dispose(); ((IDisposable)continueProcessing).Dispose(); } public void Execute() { while (!stop()) { if (Interlocked.Increment(ref totalProcessed) > throttleLimit) { lock (continueProcessing) { continueProcessing.Reset(); } if (!continueProcessing.WaitOne(throttlePeriod)) { throw new TimeoutException(); } } work(); } } private void ThrottleUpdate(object state) { Interlocked.Exchange(ref totalProcessed, 0); lock (continueProcessing) { continueProcessing.Set(); } } }

    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

  • Any techniques to interrupt, kill, or otherwise unwind (releasing synchronization locks) a single de

    - by gojomo
    I have a long-running process where, due to a bug, a trivial/expendable thread is deadlocked with a thread which I would like to continue, so that it can perform some final reporting that would be hard to reproduce in another way. Of course, fixing the bug for future runs is the proper ultimate resolution. Of course, any such forced interrupt/kill/stop of any thread is inherently unsafe and likely to cause other unpredictable inconsistencies. (I'm familiar with all the standard warnings and the reasons for them.) But still, since the only alternative is to kill the JVM process and go through a more lengthy procedure which would result in a less-complete final report, messy/deprecated/dangerous/risky/one-time techniques are exactly what I'd like to try. The JVM is Sun's 1.6.0_16 64-bit on Ubuntu, and the expendable thread is waiting-to-lock an object monitor. Can an OS signal directed to an exact thread create an InterruptedException in the expendable thread? Could attaching with gdb, and directly tampering with JVM data or calling JVM procedures allow a forced-release of the object monitor held by the expendable thread? Would a Thread.interrupt() from another thread generate a InterruptedException from the waiting-to-lock frame? (With some effort, I can inject an arbitrary beanshell script into the running system.) Can the deprecated Thread.stop() be sent via JMX or any other remote-injection method? Any ideas appreciated, the more 'dangerous', the better! And, if your suggestion has worked in personal experience in a similar situation, the best!

    Read the article

  • How can one enforce calling a base class function after derived class constructor?

    - by Mike Elkins
    I'm looking for a clean C++ idiom for the following situation: class SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeLibraryClass() { /* start initialization */ } void addFoo() { /* we are a collection of foos */ } void funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() { /* Making sure this is called is the issue */ } }; class SomeUserClass : public SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeUserClass() { addFoo(); addFoo(); addFoo(); // SomeUserClass has three foos. } }; class SomeUserDerrivedClass : public SomeUserClass { public: SomeUserDerrivedClass() { addFoo(); // This one has four foos. } }; So, what I really want is for SomeLibraryClass to enforce the calling of funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos at the end of the construction process. The user can't put it at the end of SomeUserClass::SomeUserClass(), that would mess up SomeUserDerrivedClass. If he puts it at the end of SomeUserDerrivedClass, then it never gets called for SomeUserClass. To further clarify what I need, imagine that /* start initialization */ acquires a lock, and funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() releases a lock. The compiler knows when all the initializations for an object are done, but can I get at that information by some nice trick?

    Read the article

  • NULL pointer dereference in swiotlb_unmap_sg_attrs() on disk IO

    - by Inductiveload
    I'm getting an error I really don't understand when reading or writing files using a PCIe block device driver. I seem to be hitting an issue in swiotlb_unmap_sg_attrs(), which appears to be doing a NULL dereference of the sg pointer, but I don't know where this is coming from, as the only scatterlist I use myself is allocated as part of the device info structure and persists as long as the driver does. There is a stacktrace to go with the problem. It tends to vary a bit in exact details, but it always crashes in swiotlb_unmap_sq_attrs(). I think it's likely I have a locking issue, as I am not sure how to handle the locks around the IO functions. The lock is already held when the request function is called, I release it before the IO functions themselves are called, as they need an (MSI) IRQ to complete. The IRQ handler updates a "status" value, which the IO function is waiting for. When the IO function returns, I then take the lock back up and return to request queue handling. The crash happens in blk_fetch_request() during the following: if (!__blk_end_request(req, res, bytes)){ printk(KERN_ERR "%s next request\n", DRIVER_NAME); req = blk_fetch_request(q); } else { printk(KERN_ERR "%s same request\n", DRIVER_NAME); } where bytes is updated by the request handler to be the total length of IO (summed length of each scatter-gather segment).

    Read the article

  • How do I make this Java code operate properly? [Multi-threaded, race condition]

    - by Fixee
    I got this code from a student, and it does not work properly because of a race condition involving x++ and x--. He added synchronized to the run() method trying to get rid of this bug, but obviously this only excludes threads from entering run() on the same object (which was never a problem in the first place) but doesn't prevent independent objects from updating the same static variable x at the same time. public class DataRace implements Runnable { static volatile int x; public synchronized void run() { for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { x++; x--; } } public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { Thread [] threads = new Thread[100]; for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) threads[i] = new Thread(new DataRace()); for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) threads[i].start(); for (int i = 0; i < threads.length; i++) threads[i].join(); System.out.println(x); // x not always 0! } } Since we cannot synchronize on x (because it is primitive), the best solution I can think of is to create a new static object like static String lock = ""; and enclose the x++ and x-- within a synchronized block, locking on lock. But this seems really awkward. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • While in a transaction, how can reads to an affected row be prevented until the transaction is done?

    - by Mahn
    I'm fairly sure this has a simple solution, but I haven't been able to find it so far. Provided an InnoDB MySQL database with the isolation level set to SERIALIZABLE, and given the following operation: BEGIN WORK; SELECT * FROM users WHERE userID=1; UPDATE users SET credits=100 WHERE userID=1; COMMIT; I would like to make sure that as soon as the select inside the transaction is issued, the row corresponding to userID=1 is locked for reads until the transaction is done. As it stands now, UPDATEs to this row will wait for the transaction to be finished if it is in process, but SELECTs simply will read the previous value. I understand this is the expected behaviour in this case, but I wonder if there is a way to lock the row in such a way that SELECTs will also wait until the transaction is finished to return the values? The reason I'm looking for that is that at some point, and with enough concurrent users, it could happen that while the previous transaction is in process someone else reads the "credits" to calculate something else. Ideally the code run by that someone else should wait for the transaction to finish to use the new value, because otherwise it could lead to irreversible desync issues. Note that I don't want to lock the entire table for reads, just the specific row. Also, I could add a boolean "locked" field to the tables and set it to 1 every time I'm starting a transaction but I don't really feel this is the most elegant solution here, unless there is absolutely no other way to handle this through mysql directly.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Securing TRUNCATE Permissions in SQL Server

    - by pinaldave
    Download the Script of this article from here. On December 11, 2010, Vinod Kumar, a Databases & BI technology evangelist from Microsoft Corporation, graced Ahmedabad by spending some time with the Community during the Community Tech Days (CTD) event. As he was running through a few demos, Vinod asked the audience one of the most fundamental and common interview questions – “What is the difference between a DELETE and TRUNCATE?“ Ahmedabad SQL Server User Group Expert Nakul Vachhrajani has come up with excellent solutions of the same. I must congratulate Nakul for this excellent solution and as a encouragement to User Group member, I am publishing the same article over here. Nakul Vachhrajani is a Software Specialist and systems development professional with Patni Computer Systems Limited. He has functional experience spanning legacy code deprecation, system design, documentation, development, implementation, testing, maintenance and support of complex systems, providing business intelligence solutions, database administration, performance tuning, optimization, product management, release engineering, process definition and implementation. He has comprehensive grasp on Database Administration, Development and Implementation with MS SQL Server and C, C++, Visual C++/C#. He has about 6 years of total experience in information technology. Nakul is an member of the Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar SQL Server User Groups, and actively contributes to the community by actively participating in multiple forums and websites like SQLAuthority.com, BeyondRelational.com, SQLServerCentral.com and many others. Please note: The opinions expressed herein are Nakul own personal opinions and do not represent his employer’s view in anyway. All data from everywhere here on Earth go through a series of  four distinct operations, identified by the words: CREATE, READ, UPDATE and DELETE, or simply, CRUD. Putting in Microsoft SQL Server terms, is the process goes like this: INSERT, SELECT, UPDATE and DELETE/TRUNCATE. Quite a few interesting responses were received and evaluated live during the session. To summarize them, the most important similarity that came out was that both DELETE and TRUNCATE participate in transactions. The major differences (not all) that came out of the exercise were: DELETE: DELETE supports a WHERE clause DELETE removes rows from a table, row-by-row Because DELETE moves row-by-row, it acquires a row-level lock Depending upon the recovery model of the database, DELETE is a fully-logged operation. Because DELETE moves row-by-row, it can fire off triggers TRUNCATE: TRUNCATE does not support a WHERE clause TRUNCATE works by directly removing the individual data pages of a table TRUNCATE directly occupies a table-level lock. (Because a lock is acquired, and because TRUNCATE can also participate in a transaction, it has to be a logged operation) TRUNCATE is, therefore, a minimally-logged operation; again, this depends upon the recovery model of the database Triggers are not fired when TRUNCATE is used (because individual row deletions are not logged) Finally, Vinod popped the big homework question that must be critically analyzed: “We know that we can restrict a DELETE operation to a particular user, but how can we restrict the TRUNCATE operation to a particular user?” After returning home and having a nice cup of coffee, I noticed that my gray cells immediately started to work. Below was the result of my research. As what is always said, the devil is in the details. Upon looking at the Permissions section for the TRUNCATE statement in Books On Line, the following jumps right out: “The minimum permission required is ALTER on table_name. TRUNCATE TABLE permissions default to the table owner, members of the sysadmin fixed server role, and the db_owner and db_ddladmin fixed database roles, and are not transferable. However, you can incorporate the TRUNCATE TABLE statement within a module, such as a stored procedure, and grant appropriate permissions to the module using the EXECUTE AS clause.“ Now, what does this mean? Unlike DELETE, one cannot directly assign permissions to a user/set of users allowing or revoking TRUNCATE rights. However, there is a way to circumvent this. It is important to recall that in Microsoft SQL Server, database engine security surrounds the concept of a “securable”, which is any object like a table, stored procedure, trigger, etc. Rights are assigned to a principal on a securable. Refer to the image below (taken from the SQL Server Books On Line). urable”, which is any object like a table, stored procedure, trigger, etc. Rights are assigned to a principal on a securable. Refer to the image below (taken from the SQL Server Books On Line). SETTING UP THE ENVIRONMENT – (01A_Truncate Table Permissions.sql) Script Provided at the end of the article. By the end of this demo, one will be able to do all the CRUD operations, except the TRUNCATE, and the other will only be able to execute the TRUNCATE. All you will need for this test is any edition of SQL Server 2008. (With minor changes, these scripts can be made to work with SQL 2005.) We begin by creating the following: 1.       A test database 2.        Two database roles: associated logins and users 3.       Switch over to the test database and create a test table. Then, add some data into it. I am using row constructors, which is new to SQL 2008. Creating the modules that will be used to enforce permissions 1.       We have already created one of the modules that we will be assigning permissions to. That module is the table: TruncatePermissionsTest 2.       We will now create two stored procedures; one is for the DELETE operation and the other for the TRUNCATE operation. Please note that for all practical purposes, the end result is the same – all data from the table TruncatePermissionsTest is removed Assigning the permissions Now comes the most important part of the demonstration – assigning permissions. A permissions matrix can be worked out as under: To apply the security rights, we use the GRANT and DENY clauses, as under: That’s it! We are now ready for our big test! THE TEST (01B_Truncate Table Test Queries.sql) Script Provided at the end of the article. I will now need two separate SSMS connections, one with the login AllowedTruncate and the other with the login RestrictedTruncate. Running the test is simple; all that’s required is to run through the script – 01B_Truncate Table Test Queries.sql. What I will demonstrate here via screen-shots is the behavior of SQL Server when logged in as the AllowedTruncate user. There are a few other combinations than what are highlighted here. I will leave the reader the right to explore the behavior of the RestrictedTruncate user and these additional scenarios, as a form of self-study. 1.       Testing SELECT permissions 2.       Testing TRUNCATE permissions (Remember, “deny by default”?) 3.       Trying to circumvent security by trying to TRUNCATE the table using the stored procedure Hence, we have now proved that a user can indeed be assigned permissions to specifically assign TRUNCATE permissions. I also hope that the above has sparked curiosity towards putting some security around the probably “destructive” operations of DELETE and TRUNCATE. I would like to wish each and every one of the readers a very happy and secure time with Microsoft SQL Server. (Please find the scripts – 01A_Truncate Table Permissions.sql and 01B_Truncate Table Test Queries.sql that have been used in this demonstration. Please note that these scripts contain purely test-level code only. These scripts must not, at any cost, be used in the reader’s production environments). 01A_Truncate Table Permissions.sql /* ***************************************************************************************************************** Developed By          : Nakul Vachhrajani Functionality         : This demo is focused on how to allow only TRUNCATE permissions to a particular user How to Use            : 1. Run through, step-by-step through the sequence till Step 08 to create a test database 2. Switch over to the "Truncate Table Test Queries.sql" and execute it step-by-step in two different SSMS windows, one where you have logged in as 'RestrictedTruncate', and the other as 'AllowedTruncate' 3. Come back to "Truncate Table Permissions.sql" 4. Execute Step 10 to cleanup! Modifications         : December 13, 2010 - NAV - Updated to add a security matrix and improve code readability when applying security December 12, 2010 - NAV - Created ***************************************************************************************************************** */ -- Step 01: Create a new test database CREATE DATABASE TruncateTestDB GO USE TruncateTestDB GO -- Step 02: Add roles and users to demonstrate the security of the Truncate operation -- 2a. Create the new roles CREATE ROLE AllowedTruncateRole; GO CREATE ROLE RestrictedTruncateRole; GO -- 2b. Create new logins CREATE LOGIN AllowedTruncate WITH PASSWORD = 'truncate@2010', CHECK_POLICY = ON GO CREATE LOGIN RestrictedTruncate WITH PASSWORD = 'truncate@2010', CHECK_POLICY = ON GO -- 2c. Create new Users using the roles and logins created aboave CREATE USER TruncateUser FOR LOGIN AllowedTruncate WITH DEFAULT_SCHEMA = dbo GO CREATE USER NoTruncateUser FOR LOGIN RestrictedTruncate WITH DEFAULT_SCHEMA = dbo GO -- 2d. Add the newly created login to the newly created role sp_addrolemember 'AllowedTruncateRole','TruncateUser' GO sp_addrolemember 'RestrictedTruncateRole','NoTruncateUser' GO -- Step 03: Change over to the test database USE TruncateTestDB GO -- Step 04: Create a test table within the test databse CREATE TABLE TruncatePermissionsTest (Id INT IDENTITY(1,1), Name NVARCHAR(50)) GO -- Step 05: Populate the required data INSERT INTO TruncatePermissionsTest VALUES (N'Delhi'), (N'Mumbai'), (N'Ahmedabad') GO -- Step 06: Encapsulate the DELETE within another module CREATE PROCEDURE proc_DeleteMyTable WITH EXECUTE AS SELF AS DELETE FROM TruncateTestDB..TruncatePermissionsTest GO -- Step 07: Encapsulate the TRUNCATE within another module CREATE PROCEDURE proc_TruncateMyTable WITH EXECUTE AS SELF AS TRUNCATE TABLE TruncateTestDB..TruncatePermissionsTest GO -- Step 08: Apply Security /* *****************************SECURITY MATRIX*************************************** =================================================================================== Object                   | Permissions |                 Login |             | AllowedTruncate   |   RestrictedTruncate |             |User:NoTruncateUser|   User:TruncateUser =================================================================================== TruncatePermissionsTest  | SELECT,     |      GRANT        |      (Default) | INSERT,     |                   | | UPDATE,     |                   | | DELETE      |                   | -------------------------+-------------+-------------------+----------------------- TruncatePermissionsTest  | ALTER       |      DENY         |      (Default) -------------------------+-------------+----*/----------------+----------------------- proc_DeleteMyTable | EXECUTE | GRANT | DENY -------------------------+-------------+-------------------+----------------------- proc_TruncateMyTable | EXECUTE | DENY | GRANT -------------------------+-------------+-------------------+----------------------- *****************************SECURITY MATRIX*************************************** */ /* Table: TruncatePermissionsTest*/ GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE ON TruncateTestDB..TruncatePermissionsTest TO NoTruncateUser GO DENY ALTER ON TruncateTestDB..TruncatePermissionsTest TO NoTruncateUser GO /* Procedure: proc_DeleteMyTable*/ GRANT EXECUTE ON TruncateTestDB..proc_DeleteMyTable TO NoTruncateUser GO DENY EXECUTE ON TruncateTestDB..proc_DeleteMyTable TO TruncateUser GO /* Procedure: proc_TruncateMyTable*/ DENY EXECUTE ON TruncateTestDB..proc_TruncateMyTable TO NoTruncateUser GO GRANT EXECUTE ON TruncateTestDB..proc_TruncateMyTable TO TruncateUser GO -- Step 09: Test --Switch over to the "Truncate Table Test Queries.sql" and execute it step-by-step in two different SSMS windows: --    1. one where you have logged in as 'RestrictedTruncate', and --    2. the other as 'AllowedTruncate' -- Step 10: Cleanup sp_droprolemember 'AllowedTruncateRole','TruncateUser' GO sp_droprolemember 'RestrictedTruncateRole','NoTruncateUser' GO DROP USER TruncateUser GO DROP USER NoTruncateUser GO DROP LOGIN AllowedTruncate GO DROP LOGIN RestrictedTruncate GO DROP ROLE AllowedTruncateRole GO DROP ROLE RestrictedTruncateRole GO USE MASTER GO DROP DATABASE TruncateTestDB GO 01B_Truncate Table Test Queries.sql /* ***************************************************************************************************************** Developed By          : Nakul Vachhrajani Functionality         : This demo is focused on how to allow only TRUNCATE permissions to a particular user How to Use            : 1. Switch over to this from "Truncate Table Permissions.sql", Step #09 2. Execute this step-by-step in two different SSMS windows a. One where you have logged in as 'RestrictedTruncate', and b. The other as 'AllowedTruncate' 3. Return back to "Truncate Table Permissions.sql" 4. Execute Step 10 to cleanup! Modifications         : December 12, 2010 - NAV - Created ***************************************************************************************************************** */ -- Step 09A: Switch to the test database USE TruncateTestDB GO -- Step 09B: Ensure that we have valid data SELECT * FROM TruncatePermissionsTest GO -- (Expected: Following error will occur if logged in as "AllowedTruncate") -- Msg 229, Level 14, State 5, Line 1 -- The SELECT permission was denied on the object 'TruncatePermissionsTest', database 'TruncateTestDB', schema 'dbo'. --Step 09C: Attempt to Truncate Data from the table without using the stored procedure TRUNCATE TABLE TruncatePermissionsTest GO -- (Expected: Following error will occur) --  Msg 1088, Level 16, State 7, Line 2 --  Cannot find the object "TruncatePermissionsTest" because it does not exist or you do not have permissions. -- Step 09D:Regenerate Test Data INSERT INTO TruncatePermissionsTest VALUES (N'London'), (N'Paris'), (N'Berlin') GO -- (Expected: Following error will occur if logged in as "AllowedTruncate") -- Msg 229, Level 14, State 5, Line 1 -- The INSERT permission was denied on the object 'TruncatePermissionsTest', database 'TruncateTestDB', schema 'dbo'. --Step 09E: Attempt to Truncate Data from the table using the stored procedure EXEC proc_TruncateMyTable GO -- (Expected: Will execute successfully with 'AllowedTruncate' user, will error out as under with 'RestrictedTruncate') -- Msg 229, Level 14, State 5, Procedure proc_TruncateMyTable, Line 1 -- The EXECUTE permission was denied on the object 'proc_TruncateMyTable', database 'TruncateTestDB', schema 'dbo'. -- Step 09F:Regenerate Test Data INSERT INTO TruncatePermissionsTest VALUES (N'Madrid'), (N'Rome'), (N'Athens') GO --Step 09G: Attempt to Delete Data from the table without using the stored procedure DELETE FROM TruncatePermissionsTest GO -- (Expected: Following error will occur if logged in as "AllowedTruncate") -- Msg 229, Level 14, State 5, Line 2 -- The DELETE permission was denied on the object 'TruncatePermissionsTest', database 'TruncateTestDB', schema 'dbo'. -- Step 09H:Regenerate Test Data INSERT INTO TruncatePermissionsTest VALUES (N'Spain'), (N'Italy'), (N'Greece') GO --Step 09I: Attempt to Delete Data from the table using the stored procedure EXEC proc_DeleteMyTable GO -- (Expected: Following error will occur if logged in as "AllowedTruncate") -- Msg 229, Level 14, State 5, Procedure proc_DeleteMyTable, Line 1 -- The EXECUTE permission was denied on the object 'proc_DeleteMyTable', database 'TruncateTestDB', schema 'dbo'. --Step 09J: Close this SSMS window and return back to "Truncate Table Permissions.sql" Thank you Nakul to take up the challenge and prove that Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar SQL Server User Group has talent to solve difficult problems. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Best Practices, Pinal Dave, Readers Contribution, Readers Question, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Security, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >