Search Results

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

Page 52/66 | < Previous Page | 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  | Next Page >

  • Solve a maze using multicores?

    - by acidzombie24
    This question is messy, i dont need a working solution, i need some psuedo code. How would i solve this maze? This is a homework question. I have to get from point green to red. At every fork i need to 'spawn a thread' and go that direction. I need to figure out how to get to red but i am unsure how to avoid paths i already have taken (finishing with any path is ok, i am just not allowed to go in circles). Heres an example of my problem, i start by moving down and i see a fork so one goes right and one goes down (or this thread can take it, it doesnt matter). Now lets ignore the rest of the forks and say the one going right hits the wall, goes down, hits the wall and goes left, then goes up. The other thread goes down, hits the wall then goes all the way right. The bottom path has been taken twice, by starting at different sides. How do i mark this path has been taken? Do i need a lock? Is this the only way? Is there a lockless solution? Implementation wise i was thinking i could have the maze something like this. I dont like the solution because there is a LOT of locking (assuming i lock before each read and write of the haveTraverse member). I dont need to use the MazeSegment class below, i just wrote it up as an example. I am allowed to construct the maze however i want. I was thinking maybe the solution requires no connecting paths and thats hassling me. Maybe i could split the map up instead of using the format below (which is easy to read and understand). But if i knew how to split it up i would know how to walk it thus the problem. How do i walk this maze efficiently? The only hint i receive was dont try to conserve memory by reusing it, make copies. However that was related to a problem with ordering a list and i dont think the hint was a hint for this. class MazeSegment { enum Direction { up, down, left, right} List<Pair<Direction, MazeSegment*>> ConnectingPaths; int line_length; bool haveTraverse; } MazeSegment root; class MazeSegment { enum Direction { up, down, left, right} List<Pair<Direction, MazeSegment*>> ConnectingPaths; bool haveTraverse; } void WalkPath(MazeSegment segment) { if(segment.haveTraverse) return; segment.haveTraverse = true; foreach(var v in segment) { if(v.haveTraverse == false) spawn_thread(v); } } WalkPath(root);

    Read the article

  • Semaphore - What is the use of initial count?

    - by Sandbox
    http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.semaphoreslim.aspx To create a semaphore, I need to provide an initial count and maximum count. MSDN states that an initial count is - The initial number of requests for the semaphore that can be granted concurrently. While it states that maximum count is The maximum number of requests for the semaphore that can be granted concurrently. I can understand that the maximum count is the maximum number of threads that can access a resource concurrently. But, what is the use of initial count? If I create a semaphore with an initial count of 0 and a maximum count of 2, none of my threadpool threads are able to access the resource. If I set the initial count as 1 and maximum count as 2 then only thread pool thread can access the resource. It is only when I set both initial count and maximum count as 2, 2 threads are able to access the resource concurrently. So, I am really confused about the significance of initial count? SemaphoreSlim semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(0, 2); //all threadpool threads wait SemaphoreSlim semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 2);//only one thread has access to the resource at a time SemaphoreSlim semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(2, 2);//two threadpool threads can access the resource concurrently

    Read the article

  • how to run TimerTask off main UI thread?

    - by huskyd97
    I am having trouble with a TimerTask Interfering with In App Purchasing (Async Tasks). I am weak with Threads, so I believe it is running on the main UI thread, eating up resources. How can I run this outside the UI thread? I have searched, and tried some suggestions using handlers. but seems like I get the same result, app gets really laggy. when I don't run this task (refreshes every 500mS), the activity runs smoothly, and there are no hangs during In app purchases. Your help is appreciated, code snippet below: public class DummyButtonClickerActivity extends Activity { protected Timer timeTicker = new Timer("Ticker"); private Handler timerHandler = new Handler(); protected int timeTickDown = 20; @Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.mainhd); // start money earned timer handler TimerTask tick = new TimerTask() { public void run() { myTickTask(); } }; timeTicker.scheduleAtFixedRate(tick, 0, 500); // 500 ms each } // End OnCreate protected void myTickTask() { if (timeTickDown == 0) { /// run my code here //total = total + _Rate; timerHandler.post(doUpdateTimeout); } else if(timeTickDown < 0) { // do nothing } timeTickDown--; } private Runnable doUpdateTimeout = new Runnable() { public void run() { updateTimeout(); } }; private void updateTimeout() { // reset tick timeTickDown = 2; // 2* 500ms == once a second } }

    Read the article

  • How to generate distinct random numbers per distinct threads in .NET?

    - by mark
    Dear ladies and sirs. I have to generate 19 bit random numbers. However, there is a constraint - two threads may not generate the same random number when running certain code. The simplest solution is lock the entire code. However, I would like to know if there is a non locking solution. I thought, I can incorporate ManagedThreadId within the produced random numbers, but the ManagedThreadId documentation on the Internet mentions that it may span the whole Int32 range. Unmanaged thread id seems to be limited to 11 bits, still this leaves me with just 8 truly random bits. Are there any other ways? Somehow to utilize the Thread Local Storage, may be? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is this use of PreparedStatements in a Thread in JAVA correct?

    - by Gormcito
    I'm still an undergrad just working part time and so I'm always trying to be aware of better ways to do things. Recently I had to write a program for work where the main thread of the program would spawn "task" threads (for each db "task" record) which would perform some operations and then update the record to say that it has finished. Therefore I needed a database connection object and PreparedStatement objects in or available to the ThreadedTask objects. This is roughly what I ended up writing, is creating a PreparedStatement object per thread a waste? I thought static PreparedStatments could create race conditions... Thread A stmt.setInt(); Thread B stmt.setInt(); Thread A stmt.execute(); Thread B stmt.execute(); A´s version never gets execed.. Is this thread safe? Is creating and destroying PreparedStatement objects that are always the same not a huge waste? public class ThreadedTask implements runnable { private final PreparedStatement taskCompleteStmt; public ThreadedTask() { //... taskCompleteStmt = Main.db.prepareStatement(...); } public run() { //... taskCompleteStmt.executeUpdate(); } } public class Main { public static final db = DriverManager.getConnection(...); }

    Read the article

  • Can I have multiple instance of the mandlebrot example in one program?

    - by yan bellavance
    Basically what I did is I took the Mandlebrot example and have 3 instances of it in my program. So the program would look like a mainwindow that has 3 mandlebrot widgets in it, one besides the other. Is it possible that GDB doesnt support debugging multiple intances of a classe that derives from qthread or is it thread-unsafe to do so? I don't have any problems at run-time but when I put breakpoints in a function called by the QThread run() function I get a segmentation fault. I can clearly see that the function doesn't complete before returning to the breakpoint ie I the program stops at the breakpoint, I step into the lines of codes one by one but after a couple of instructions another thread startS using the function(even though they are different instances).

    Read the article

  • Threads in PHP.

    - by Muhammad Sajid
    Hello.. I am creating a web application using zend, here i create an interface from where user-A can send email to more than one user(s) & it works excellent but it slow the execution time because of which user-A wait too much for the "acknowledged response" ( which will show after the emails have sent. ) In Java there are "Threads" by which we can perform that task (send emails) & it does not slow the rest application. Is there any technique in PHP/Zend just like in Java by which we can divide our tasks which could take much time eg: sending emails. Thanks..

    Read the article

  • Why should I use a thread vs using a process?

    - by danmine
    I'm a newbie at this so please forgive me for my ignorance. Separating different parts of a program into different processes seems (to me) to make a more elegant program then just threading everything. In what scenario would it make sense to make things run on a thread vs separating the program into different processes? When should I use a thread? Edit: Anything on how (or if) they act differently with single core and multi core would also be helpful.

    Read the article

  • Threadpool with pasistant worker instances

    - by Matt Smokey-waters Holmes
    So basically what im trying to do is queue up tasks in a thread pool to be executed as soon as a worker becomes free, i have found various examples of this but in all cases the examples have been setup to use a new Worker instance for each job, i want persistent workers. Im trying to make a ftp backup tool, i have it working but because of the limitations of a single connection it is slow. What i ideally want to do is have a single connection for scanning directories and building up a file list then four workers to download said files. Here is an example of my worker /** * FTP Worker */ public class Worker implements Runnable { protected FTPClient _ftp; // Connection details protected String _host = ""; protected String _user = ""; protected String _pass = ""; // worker status protected boolean _working = false; public Worker(String host, String user, String pass) { this._host = host; this._user = user; this._pass = pass; } // Check if the worker is in use public boolean inUse() { return this._working; } @Override public void run() { this._ftp = new FTPClient(); this._connect(); } // Download a file from the ftp server public boolean download(String base, String path, String file) { this._working = true; boolean outcome = true; //create directory if not exists File pathDir = new File(base + path); if (!pathDir.exists()) { pathDir.mkdirs(); } //download file try { OutputStream output = new FileOutputStream(base + path + file); this._ftp.retrieveFile(file, output); output.close(); } catch (Exception e) { outcome = false; } finally { this._working = false; return outcome; } } // Connect to the server protected boolean _connect() { try { this._ftp.connect(this._host); this._ftp.login(this._user, this._pass); } catch (Exception e) { return false; } return this._ftp.isConnected(); } // Disconnect from the server protected void _disconnect() { try { this._ftp.disconnect(); } catch (Exception e) { /* do nothing */ } } } and basically i want to be able to call Worker.download(...) for each task in a queue whenever a worker becomes available without having to create a new connection to the ftp server for each download Any help would be appreciated as iv'e never used threads before and I'm going round in circles at the moment

    Read the article

  • boost scoped_lock mutex crashes

    - by JahSumbar
    hello, I have protected a std::queue's access functions, push, pop, size, with boost::mutexes and boost::mutex::scoped_lock in these functions from time to time it crashes in a scoped lock the call stack is this: 0 0x0040f005 boost::detail::win32::interlocked_bit_test_and_set include/boost/thread/win32/thread_primitives.hpp 361 1 0x0040e879 boost::detail::basic_timed_mutex::timed_lock include/boost/thread/win32/basic_timed_mutex.hpp 68 2 0x0040e9d3 boost::detail::basic_timed_mutex::lock include/boost/thread/win32/basic_timed_mutex.hpp 64 3 0x0040b96b boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>::lock include/boost/thread/locks.hpp 349 4 0x0040b998 unique_lock include/boost/thread/locks.hpp 227 5 0x00403837 MyClass::inboxSize - this is my inboxSize function that uses this code: MyClass::inboxSize () { boost::mutex::scoped_lock scoped_lock(m_inboxMutex); return m_inbox.size(); } and the mutex is declared like this: boost::mutex m_inboxMutex; it crashes at the last pasted line in this function: inline bool interlocked_bit_test_and_set(long* x,long bit) { long const value=1<<bit; long old=*x; and x has this value: 0xababac17 Thanks for the help

    Read the article

  • Faking a Single Address Space

    - by dsimcha
    I have a large scientific computing task that parallelizes very well with SMP, but at too fine grained a level to be easily parallelized via explicit message passing. I'd like to parallelize it across address spaces and physical machines. Is it feasible to create a scheduler that would parallelize already multithreaded code across multiple physical computers under the following conditions: The code is already multithreaded and can scale pretty well on SMP configurations. The fact that not all of the threads are running in the same address space or on the same physical machine must be transparent to the program, even if this comes at a significant performance penalty in some use cases. You may assume that all of the physical machines involved are running operating systems and CPU architectures that are binary compatible. Things like locks and atomic operations may be slow (having network latency to deal with and all) but must "just work".

    Read the article

  • "pseudo-atomic" operations in C++

    - by dan
    So I'm aware that nothing is atomic in C++. But I'm trying to figure out if there are any "pseudo-atomic" assumptions I can make. The reason is that I want to avoid using mutexes in some simple situations where I only need very weak guarantees. 1) Suppose I have globally defined volatile bool b, which initially I set true. Then I launch a thread which executes a loop while(b) doSomething(); Meanwhile, in another thread, I execute b=true. Can I assume that the first thread will continue to execute? In other words, if b starts out as true, and the first thread checks the value of b at the same time as the second thread assigns b=true, can I assume that the first thread will read the value of b as true? Or is it possible that at some intermediate point of the assignment b=true, the value of b might be read as false? 2) Now suppose that b is initially false. Then the first thread executes bool b1=b; bool b2=b; if(b1 && !b2) bad(); while the second thread executes b=true. Can I assume that bad() never gets called? 3) What about an int or other builtin types: suppose I have volatile int i, which is initially (say) 7, and then I assign i=7. Can I assume that, at any time during this operation, from any thread, the value of i will be equal to 7? 4) I have volatile int i=7, and then I execute i++ from some thread, and all other threads only read the value of i. Can I assume that i never has any value, in any thread, except for either 7 or 8? 5) I have volatile int i, from one thread I execute i=7, and from another I execute i=8. Afterwards, is i guaranteed to be either 7 or 8 (or whatever two values I have chosen to assign)?

    Read the article

  • Does the Java Memory Model (JSR-133) imply that entering a monitor flushes the CPU data cache(s)?

    - by Durandal
    There is something that bugs me with the Java memory model (if i even understand everything correctly). If there are two threads A and B, there are no guarantees that B will ever see a value written by A, unless both A and B synchronize on the same monitor. For any system architecture that guarantees cache coherency between threads, there is no problem. But if the architecture does not support cache coherency in hardware, this essentially means that whenever a thread enters a monitor, all memory changes made before must be commited to main memory, and the cache must be invalidated. And it needs to be the entire data cache, not just a few lines, since the monitor has no information which variables in memory it guards. But that would surely impact performance of any application that needs to synchronize frequently (especially things like job queues with short running jobs). So can Java work reasonably well on architectures without hardware cache-coherency? If not, why doesn't the memory model make stronger guarantees about visibility? Wouldn't it be more efficient if the language would require information what is guarded by a monitor? As i see it the memory model gives us the worst of both worlds, the absolute need to synchronize, even if cache coherency is guaranteed in hardware, and on the other hand bad performance on incoherent architectures (full cache flushes). So shouldn't it be more strict (require information what is guarded by a monitor) or more lose and restrict potential platforms to cache-coherent architectures? As it is now, it doesn't make too much sense to me. Can somebody clear up why this specific memory model was choosen? EDIT: My use of strict and lose was a bad choice in retrospect. I used "strict" for the case where less guarantees are made and "lose" for the opposite. To avoid confusion, its probably better to speak in terms of stronger or weaker guarantees.

    Read the article

  • Why aren't my threads start at the same time? Java

    - by Ada
    Hi, I have variable number of threads which are used for parallel downloading. I used this, for(int i = 0; i< sth; i++){ thrList.add(new myThread (parameters)); thrList.get(i).start(); thrList.get(i).join(); } I don't know why but they wait for each other to complete. When using threads, I am supposed get mixed print outs, since right then there are several threads running that code. However, when I print them out, they are always in order and one thread waits for the previous one to finish first. I only want them to join the main thread, not wait for each other. I noticed that when I measured time while downloading in parallel. How can I fix this? Why are they doing it in order? In my .java, there is MyThread class with run and there is Downloader class with static methods and variables. Would they be the cause of this? The static methods and variables? How can I fix this problem?

    Read the article

  • MonoTouch Load image in background

    - by user1058951
    I am having a problem trying to load an image and display it using System.Threading.Task My Code is as follows Task DownloadTask { get; set; } public string Instrument { get; set; } public PriceChartViewController(string Instrument) { this.Instrument = Instrument; DownloadTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { }); } private void LoadChart(ChartType chartType) { NSData data = new NSData(); DownloadTask = DownloadTask.ContinueWith(prevTask => { try { UIApplication.SharedApplication.NetworkActivityIndicatorVisible = true; NSUrl nsUrl = new NSUrl(chartType.Uri(Instrument)); data = NSData.FromUrl(nsUrl); } finally { UIApplication.SharedApplication.NetworkActivityIndicatorVisible = false; } }); DownloadTask = DownloadTask.ContinueWith(t => { UIImage image = new UIImage(data); chartImageView = new UIImageView(image); chartImageView.ContentScaleFactor = 2f; View.AddSubview(chartImageView); this.Title = chartType.Title; }, CancellationToken.None, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion, TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext()); } The second Continue with does not seem to be being called? Initially my code looked like the following without the background processing and it worked perfectly. private void oldLoadChart(ChartType chartType) { UIApplication.SharedApplication.NetworkActivityIndicatorVisible = true; NSUrl nsUrl = new NSUrl(chartType.Uri(Instrument)); NSData data = NSData.FromUrl(nsUrl); UIImage image = new UIImage(data); chartImageView = new UIImageView(image); chartImageView.ContentScaleFactor = 2f; View.AddSubview(chartImageView); this.Title = chartType.Title; UIApplication.SharedApplication.NetworkActivityIndicatorVisible = false; } Does anyone know what I am doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • memcpy() safety on adjacent memory regions

    - by JaredC
    I recently asked a question on using volatile and was directed to read some very informative articles from Intel and others discussing memory barriers and their uses. After reading these articles I have become quite paranoid though. I have a 64-bit machine. Is it safe to memcpy into adjacent, non-overlapping regions of memory from multiple threads? For example, say I have a buffer: char buff[10]; Is it always safe for one thread to memcpy into the first 5 bytes while a second thread copies into the last 5 bytes? My gut reaction (and some simple tests) indicate that this is completely safe, but I have been unable to find documentation anywhere that can completely convince me.

    Read the article

  • VB.net SyncLock Object

    - by Budius
    I always seen on SyncLock examples people using Private Lock1 As New Object ' declaration SyncLock Lock1 ' usage but why? In my specific case I'm locking a Queue to avoid problems on mult-threading Enqueueing and Dequeueing my data. Can I lock the Queue object itself, like this? Private cmdQueue As New Queue(Of QueueItem) ' declaration SyncLock cmdQueue ' usage Any help appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What is the absolute fastest way to implement a concurrent queue with ONLY one consumer and one producer?

    - by JohnPristine
    java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentLinkedQueue comes to mind, but is it really optimum for this two-thread scenario? I am looking for the minimum latency possible on both sides (producer and consumer). If the queue is empty you can immediately return null AND if the queue is full you can immediately discard the entry you are offering. Does ConcurrentLinkedQueue use super fast and light locks (AtomicBoolean) ? Has anyone benchmarked ConcurrentLinkedQueue or knows about the ultimate fastest way of doing that? Additional Details: I imagine the queue should be a fair one, meaning the consumer should not make the consumer wait any longer than it needs (by front-running it) and vice-versa.

    Read the article

  • How to implement a multi-threaded asynchronous operation?

    - by drowneath
    Here's how my current approach looks like: // Somewhere in a UI class // Called when a button called "Start" clicked MyWindow::OnStartClicked(Event &sender) { _thread = new boost::thread(boost::bind(&MyWindow::WorkToDo, this)); } MyWindow::WorkToDo() { for(int i = 1; i < 10000000; i++) { int percentage = (int)((float)i / 100000000.f); _progressBar->SetValue(percentage); _statusText->SetText("Working... %d%%", percentage); printf("Pretend to do something useful...\n"); } } // Called on every frame MyWindow::OnUpdate() { if(_thread != 0 && _thread->timed_join(boost::posix_time::seconds(0)) { _progressBar->SetValue(100); _statusText->SetText("Completed!"); delete _thread; _thread = 0; } } But I'm afraid this is far from safe since I keep getting unhandled exception at the end of the program execution. I basically want to separate a heavy task into another thread without blocking the GUI part.

    Read the article

  • Start a thread using a method pointer

    - by Michael
    Hi ! I'm trying to develop a thread abstraction (POSIX thread and thread from the Windows API), and I would very much like it to be able to start them with a method pointer, and not a function pointer. What I would like to do is an abstraction of thread being a class with a pure virtual method "runThread", which would be implanted in the future threaded class. I don't know yet about the Windows thread, but to start a POSIX thread, you need a function pointer, and not a method pointer. And I can't manage to find a way to associate a method with an instance so it could work as a function. I probably just can't find the keywords (and I've been searching a lot), I think it's pretty much what Boost::Bind() does, so it must exist. Can you help me ?

    Read the article

  • LINQ Changeset multi-threading

    - by Xodarap
    I'm using LINQ to SQL and after I submit some changes I want to spawn a thread which looks through all the changes and updates our lucene index as necessary. My code looks vaguely like: (new Thread(() => { UpdateIndex(context.GetChangeSet()); }).Start(); Sometimes though I get an InvalidOperationException, which I think is because context.GetChangeSet() is not thread-safe, and so if the change set is modified in one thread while another thread is enumerating through it, problems arise. Is there a "thread-safe" version of GetChangeSet()? Or some way I can do ChangeSet.clone() or something?

    Read the article

  • Works on debug but not release

    - by user146780
    I have a thread that sets a value to true when it is done. Until then I wait: while(1) { if(done[0] == true) { break; } } This code works just fine in Debug but in Release it stays in the loop forever even though the debugger clearly says that it is true and not false. Why would this not work? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Debug.writeline locks

    - by Carra
    My program frequently stops with a deadlock. When I do a break-all and look at the threads I see that three threads are stuck in our logging function: public class Logging { public static void WriteClientLog(LogLevel logLevel, string message) { #if DEBUG System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine(String.Format("{0} {1}", DateTime.Now.ToString("HH:mm:ss"), message)); //LOCK #endif //...Log4net logging } } If I let the program continue the threads are still stuck on that line. I can't see where this can lock. The debug class, string class & datetime class seem to be thread safe. The error goes away when I remove the "#if DEBUG System... #endif" code but I'm curious why this behavior happens. Thread one: public void CleanCache() { Logging.WriteClientLog(LogLevel.Debug, "Start clean cache.");//Stuck } Thread two: private void AliveThread() { Logging.WriteClientLog(LogLevel.Debug, "Check connection");//Stuck }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59  | Next Page >