Search Results

Search found 3093 results on 124 pages for 'weng lock mok'.

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

• General SQL Server query performance

  - by Kiril

  Hey guys, This might be stupid, but databases are not my thing :) Imagine the following scenario. A user can create a post and other users can reply to his post, thus forming a thread. Everything goes in a single table called Posts. All the posts that form a thread are connected with each other through a generated key called ThreadID. This means that when user #1 creates a new post, a ThreadID is generated, and every reply that follows has a ThreadID pointing to the initial post (created by user #1). What I am trying to do is limit the number of replies to let's say 20 per thread. I'm wondering which of the approaches bellow is faster: 1 I add a new integer column (e.x. Counter) to Posts. After a user replies to the initial post, I update the initial post's Counter field. If it reaches 20 I lock the thread. 2 After a user replies to the initial post, I select all the posts that have the same ThreadID. If this collection has more than 20 items, I lock the thread. For further information: I am using SQL Server database and Linq-to-SQL entity model. I'd be glad if you tell me your opinions on the two approaches or share another, faster approach. Best Regards, Kiril

  Read the article

• Long running transactions with Spring and Hibernate?

  - by jimbokun

  The underlying problem I want to solve is running a task that generates several temporary tables in MySQL, which need to stay around long enough to fetch results from Java after they are created. Because of the size of the data involved, the task must be completed in batches. Each batch is a call to a stored procedure called through JDBC. The entire process can take half an hour or more for a large data set. To ensure access to the temporary tables, I run the entire task, start to finish, in a single Spring transaction with a TransactionCallbackWithoutResult. Otherwise, I could get a different connection that does not have access to the temporary tables (this would happen occasionally before I wrapped everything in a transaction). This worked fine in my development environment. However, in production I got the following exception: java.sql.SQLException: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction This happened when a different task tried to access some of the same tables during the execution of my long running transaction. What confuses me is that the long running transaction only inserts or updates into temporary tables. All access to non-temporary tables are selects only. From what documentation I can find, the default Spring transaction isolation level should not cause MySQL to block in this case. So my first question, is this the right approach? Can I ensure that I repeatedly get the same connection through a Hibernate template without a long running transaction? If the long running transaction approach is the correct one, what should I check in terms of isolation levels? Is my understanding correct that the default isolation level in Spring/MySQL transactions should not lock tables that are only accessed through selects? What can I do to debug which tables are causing the conflict, and prevent those tables from being locked by the transaction?

  Read the article

• Synchronizing Access to a member of the ASP.NET session

  - by Sam

  I'm building a Javascript application and eash user has an individual UserSession. The application makes a bunch of Ajax calls. Each Ajax call needs access to a single UserSession object for the user. Each Ajax call needs a UserSession object. Data in the UserSession object is unique to each user. Originally, during each Ajax call I would create a new UserSession object and it's data members were stored in the ASP.NET Session. However, I found that the UserSession object was being instantiated a lot. To minimize the construction of the UserSession object, I wrapped it in a Singleton pattern and sychronized access to it. I believe that the synchronization is happening application wide, however I only need it to happen per user. I saw a post here that says the ASP.NET cache is synchronized, however the time between creating the object and inserting it into the cache another Thread could start construction it's another object and insert it into the cache. Here is the way I'm currently synchronizing access to the object. Is there a better way than using "lock"... should be be locking on the HttpContext.Session object? private static object SessionLock = new object(); public static WebSession GetSession { get { lock (SessionLock) { try { var context = HttpContext.Current; WebSession result = null; if (context.Session["MySession"] == null) { result = new WebSession(context); context.Session["MySession"] = result; } else { result = (WebSession)context.Session["MySession"]; } return result; } catch (Exception ex) { ex.Handle(); return null; } } } }

  Read the article

• Optimizing a shared buffer in a producer/consumer multithreaded environment

  - by Etan

  I have some project where I have a single producer thread which writes events into a buffer, and an additional single consumer thread which takes events from the buffer. My goal is to optimize this thing for a single machine to achieve maximum throughput. Currently, I am using some simple lock-free ring buffer (lock-free is possible since I have only one consumer and one producer thread and therefore the pointers are only updated by a single thread). #define BUF_SIZE 32768 struct buf_t { volatile int writepos; volatile void * buffer[BUF_SIZE]; volatile int readpos;) }; void produce (buf_t *b, void * e) { int next = (b->writepos+1) % BUF_SIZE; while (b->readpos == next); // queue is full. wait b->buffer[b->writepos] = e; b->writepos = next; } void * consume (buf_t *b) { while (b->readpos == b->writepos); // nothing to consume. wait int next = (b->readpos+1) % BUF_SIZE; void * res = b->buffer[b->readpos]; b->readpos = next; return res; } buf_t *alloc () { buf_t *b = (buf_t *)malloc(sizeof(buf_t)); b->writepos = 0; b->readpos = 0; return b; } However, this implementation is not yet fast enough and should be optimized further. I've tried with different BUF_SIZE values and got some speed-up. Additionaly, I've moved writepos before the buffer and readpos after the buffer to ensure that both variables are on different cache lines which resulted also in some speed. What I need is a speedup of about 400 %. Do you have any ideas how I could achieve this using things like padding etc?

  Read the article

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

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