Search Results

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

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

Page 53/66 | < Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Locking individual elements in a static collection?

    - by user638474
    I have a static collection of objects that will be frequently updated from multiple threads. Is it possible to lock individual objects in a collection instead of locking the entire collection so that only threads trying to access the same object in the collection would get blocked instead of every thread? If there is a better way to update objects in a collection from multiple threads, I'm all ears.

    Read the article

  • Does async and await incease performance of an ASP.Net application

    - by Kerezo
    I recently read a article about c#-5 and new $ nice asynchronous programming. I see it works greate in windows application. The question came to me before is if this feature can increase ASP.Net performance? consider this code: public T GetData() { var d = GetSomeData(); return d; } and public async T GetData2() { var d = await GetSomeData(); return d; } Has in an ASP.Net appication that two codes difference? thanks

    Read the article

  • Turn based synchronization between threads

    - by Amarus
    I'm trying to find a way to synchronize multiple threads having the following conditions: * There are two types of threads: 1. A single "cyclic" thread executing an infinite loop to do cyclic calculations 2. Multiple short-lived threads not started by the main thread * The cyclic thread has a sleep duration between each cycle/loop iteration * The other threads are allowed execute during the inter-cycle sleep of the cyclic thread: - Any other thread that attempts to execute during an active cycle should be blocked - The cyclic thread will wait until all other threads that are already executing to be finished Here's a basic example of what I was thinking of doing: // Somewhere in the code: ManualResetEvent manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(true); // Allow Externally call CountdownEvent countdownEvent = new CountdownEvent(1); // Can't AddCount a CountdownEvent with CurrentCount = 0 void ExternallyCalled() { manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); // Wait until CyclicCalculations is having its beauty sleep countdownEvent.AddCount(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that it should wait for this method call to finish before starting the next cycle Thread.Sleep(1000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic countdownEvent.Signal(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that this call is finished } void CyclicCalculations() { while (!stopCyclicCalculations) { manualResetEvent.Reset(); // Block all incoming calls to ExternallyCalled from this point forward countdownEvent.Signal(); // Dirty workaround for the issue with AddCount and CurrentCount = 0 countdownEvent.Wait(); // Wait until all of the already executing calls to ExternallyCalled are finished countdownEvent.Reset(); // Reset the CountdownEvent for next cycle. Thread.Sleep(2000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic manualResetEvent.Set(); // Unblock all threads executing ExternallyCalled Thread.Sleep(1000); // Inter-cycles delay } } Obviously, this doesn't work. There's no guarantee that there won't be any threads executing ExternallyCalled that are in between manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); and countdownEvent.AddCount(); at the time the main thread gets released by the CountdownEvent. I can't figure out a simple way of doing what I'm after, and almost everything that I've found after a lengthy search is related to producer/consumer synchronization which I can't apply here.

    Read the article

  • Thread class closing from other Class (Activity) with protected void onStop() Android

    - by user1761337
    I have a Problem with Closing the Thread. I will Closing the Thread with onStop,onPause and onDestroy. This is my Source in the Activity Class: @Override protected void onStop(){ super.onStop(); finish(); } @Override protected void onPause() { super.onPause(); finish(); } @Override public void onDestroy() { this.mWakeLock.release(); super.onDestroy(); } And the Thread Class: public class GameThread extends Thread { private SurfaceHolder mSurfaceHolder; private Handler mHandler; private Context mContext; private Paint mLinePaint; private Paint blackPaint; //for consistent rendering private long sleepTime; //amount of time to sleep for (in milliseconds) private long delay=1000/30; //state of game (Running or Paused). int state = 1; public final static int RUNNING = 1; public final static int PAUSED = 2; public final static int STOPED = 3; GameSurface gEngine; public GameThread(SurfaceHolder surfaceHolder, Context context, Handler handler,GameSurface gEngineS){ //data about the screen mSurfaceHolder = surfaceHolder; mHandler = handler; mContext = context; gEngine=gEngineS; } //This is the most important part of the code. It is invoked when the call to start() is //made from the SurfaceView class. It loops continuously until the game is finished or //the application is suspended. private long beforeTime; @Override public void run() { //UPDATE while (state==RUNNING) { Log.d("State","Thread is runnig"); //time before update beforeTime = System.nanoTime(); //This is where we update the game engine gEngine.Update(); //DRAW Canvas c = null; try { //lock canvas so nothing else can use it c = mSurfaceHolder.lockCanvas(null); synchronized (mSurfaceHolder) { //clear the screen with the black painter. //reset the canvas c.drawColor(Color.BLACK); //This is where we draw the game engine. gEngine.doDraw(c); } } finally { // do this in a finally so that if an exception is thrown // during the above, we don't leave the Surface in an // inconsistent state if (c != null) { mSurfaceHolder.unlockCanvasAndPost(c); } } this.sleepTime = delay-((System.nanoTime()-beforeTime)/1000000L); try { //actual sleep code if(sleepTime>0){ this.sleep(sleepTime); } } catch (InterruptedException ex) { Logger.getLogger(GameThread.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex); } while (state==PAUSED){ Log.d("State","Thread is pausing"); try { this.sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } } } }} How i can close the Thread from Activity Class??

    Read the article

  • C++ volatile required when spinning on boost::shared_ptr operator bool()?

    - by JaredC
    I have two threads referencing the same boost::shared_ptr: boost::shared_ptr<Widget> shared; On thread is spinning, waiting for the other thread to reset the boost::shared_ptr: while(shared) boost::thread::yield(); And at some point the other thread will call: shared.reset(); My question is whether or not I need to declare the shared pointer as volatile to prevent the compiler from optimizing the call to shared.operator bool() out of the loop and never detecting the change? I know that if I were simply looping on a variable, waiting for it to reach 0 I would need volatile, but I'm not sure if boost::shared_ptr is implemented in such a way that it is not necessary here.

    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

  • 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

  • C# Spawn Multiple Threads for work then wait until all finished

    - by pharoc
    just want some advice on "best practice" regarding multi-threading tasks. as an example, we have a C# application that upon startup reads data from various "type" table in our database and stores the information in a collection which we pass around the application. this prevents us from hitting the database each time this information is required. at the moment the application is reading data from 10 tables synchronously. i would really like to have the application read from each table in a different thread all running in parallel. the application would wait for all the threads to complete before continuing with the startup of the application. i have looked into BackGroundWorker but just want some advice on accomplishing the above. Does the method sound logical in order to speed up the startup time of our application How can we best handle all the threads keeping in mind that each thread's work is independent of one another, we just need to wait for all the threads to complete before continuing. i look forward to some answers

    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

  • 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

  • Will lock() statement block all threads in the proccess/appdomain?

    - by MikeJ
    Maybe the question sounds silly, but I don't understand 'something about threads and locking and I would like to get a confirmation (here's why I ask). So, if I have 10 servers and 10 request in the same time come to each server, that's 100 request across the farm. Without locking, thats 100 request to the database. If I do something like this: private static readonly object myLockHolder = new object(); if (Cache[key] == null) { lock(myLockHolder) { if (Cache[key] == null) { Cache[key] = LengthyDatabaseCall(); } } } How many database requests will I do? 10? 100? Or as much as I have threads?

    Read the article

  • Tomcat thread waiting on and locking the same resource

    - by Adam Matan
    Consider the following Java\Tomcat thread dump: "http-0.0.0.0-4080-4" daemon prio=10 tid=0x0000000019a2b000 nid=0x360e in Object.wait() [0x0000000040b71000] java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (on object monitor) at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method) - waiting on <0x00002ab5565fe358> (a org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker) at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:485) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker.await(JIoEndpoint.java:458) - locked <0x00002ab5565fe358> (a org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker.run(JIoEndpoint.java:484) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662) Is this a deadlock? It seems that the same resource (0x00002ab5565fe358) is both locked and waited on - what does it mean?

    Read the article

  • Lua operations, that works in mutitheaded environment

    - by SBKarr
    My application uses Lua in multithreaded environment with global mutex. It implemented like this: Thread locks mutex, Call lua_newthread Perform some initialization on coroutine Run lua_resume on coroutine Unlocks mutex lua_lock/unlock is not implemented, GC is stopped, when lua works with coroutine. My question is, can I perform steps 2 and 3 without locking, if initialisation process does not requires any global Lua structs? Can i perform all this process without locking at all, if coroutine does not requires globals too? In what case I generally can use Lua functions without locking?

    Read the article

  • Help regarding multi-threading in MFC,please help me firends!

    - by kiddo
    Hello all,in my application there is a small part of function,in which it will read files to get some information,the number of filecount would be utleast 50,So I thought of implementing threading.Say if the user is giving 50 files,I wanted to separate it as 5 *10, 5 thread should be created,so that each thread can handle 10 files which can speed up the process.And also from the below code you can see that some variables are common.I read some articles about threading and I am aware that only one thread should access a variable/contorl at a me(CCriticalStiuation can be used for that).For me as a beginner,I am finding hard to imlplement what I have learned about threading.Somebody please give me some idea with code shown below..thanks in advance file read function:// void CMyClass::GetWorkFilesInfo(CStringArray& dataFilesArray,CString* dataFilesB, int* check,DWORD noOfFiles,LPWSTR path) { CString cFilePath; int cIndex =0; int exceptionInd = 0; wchar_t** filesForWork = new wchar_t*[noOfFiles]; int tempCheck; int localIndex =0; for(int index = 0;index < noOfFiles; index++) { tempCheck = *(check + index); if(tempCheck == NOCHECKBOX) { *(filesForWork+cIndex) = new TCHAR[MAX_PATH]; wcscpy(*(filesForWork+cIndex),*(dataFilesB +index)); cIndex++; } else//CHECKED or UNCHECKED { dataFilesArray.Add(*(dataFilesB+index)); *(check + localIndex) = *(check + index); localIndex++; } } WorkFiles(&cFilePath,dataFilesArray,filesForWork, path, cIndex); dataFilesArray.Add(cFilePath); *(check + localIndex) = CHECKED; }

    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

  • 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

  • Multithreaded update of multiple ProgressBars

    - by ClaudeS
    I have developped an application that can process data (in my case image algorithms performed on videos). I have developed different ProcessingMethods. Sometimes several videos are processed in parallel. Each process runs in a seperate thread. I have a GUI with several ProgressBars, one for each thread that is processing data. What is a good way to update the ProgressBar? Today my GUI is creating all the processing threads and one progressBars for each thread. Then I pass those progressBars to the threads, which pass them to the ProcessingMethod. The ProcessingMethod will then update the progressbar (using Invoke(..)). I have different processingMethods. Within each of these methods I have copy-paste code to update the progressBar. Although I am a new to programming, I know copy-paste is not good. What is a good way to make it better?

    Read the article

  • Manually Increasing the Amount of CPU a Java Application Uses

    - by SkylineAddict
    I've just made a program with Eclipse that takes a really long time to execute. It's taking even longer because it's loading my CPU to 25% only (I'm assuming that is because I'm using a quad-core and the program is only using one core). Is there any way to make the program use all 4 cores to max it out? Java is supposed to be natively multi-threaded, so I don't understand why it would only use 25%.

    Read the article

  • How do I read and write to a file using threads in java?

    - by WarmWaffles
    I'm writing an application where I need to read blocks in from a single file, each block is roughly 512 bytes. I am also needing to write blocks simultaneously. One of the ideas I had was BlockReader implements Runnable and BlockWriter implements Runnable and BlockManager manages both the reader and writer. The problem that I am seeing with most examples that I have found was locking problems and potential deadlock situations. Any ideas how to implement this?

    Read the article

  • Using AsyncTask, but experiencing unexpected behaviour

    - by capcom
    Please refer to the following code which continuously calls a new AsyncTask. The purpose of the AsyncTask is to make an HTTP request, and update the string result. package room.temperature; import java.io.BufferedReader; import java.io.InputStream; import java.io.InputStreamReader; import java.util.ArrayList; import java.util.concurrent.ExecutionException; import org.apache.http.HttpEntity; import org.apache.http.HttpResponse; import org.apache.http.NameValuePair; import org.apache.http.client.HttpClient; import org.apache.http.client.entity.UrlEncodedFormEntity; import org.apache.http.client.methods.HttpPost; import org.apache.http.impl.client.DefaultHttpClient; import android.app.Activity; import android.os.AsyncTask; import android.os.Bundle; import android.util.Log; import android.widget.TextView; public class RoomTemperatureActivity extends Activity { String result = null; StringBuilder sb=null; TextView TemperatureText, DateText; ArrayList<NameValuePair> nameValuePairs; @Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); setContentView(R.layout.main); TemperatureText = (TextView) findViewById(R.id.temperature); DateText = (TextView) findViewById(R.id.date); nameValuePairs = new ArrayList<NameValuePair>(); for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { RefreshValuesTask task = new RefreshValuesTask(); task.execute(""); } } // The definition of our task class private class RefreshValuesTask extends AsyncTask<String, Integer, String> { @Override protected void onPreExecute() { super.onPreExecute(); } @Override protected String doInBackground(String... params) { InputStream is = null; try { HttpClient httpclient = new DefaultHttpClient(); HttpPost httppost = new HttpPost("http://mywebsite.com/roomtemp/tempscript.php"); httppost.setEntity(new UrlEncodedFormEntity(nameValuePairs)); HttpResponse response = httpclient.execute(httppost); HttpEntity entity = response.getEntity(); is = entity.getContent(); } catch(Exception e) { Log.e("log_tag", "Error in http connection" + e.toString()); } try { BufferedReader reader = new BufferedReader(new InputStreamReader(is,"iso-8859-1"),8); sb = new StringBuilder(); sb.append(reader.readLine()); is.close(); result=sb.toString(); } catch(Exception e) { Log.e("log_tag", "Error converting result " + e.toString()); } return result; } @Override protected void onProgressUpdate(Integer... values) { super.onProgressUpdate(values); } @Override protected void onPostExecute(String result) { super.onPostExecute(result); //System.out.println(result); setValues(result); } } public void setValues(String resultValue) { System.out.println(resultValue); String[] values = resultValue.split("&"); TemperatureText.setText(values[0]); DateText.setText(values[1]); } } The problem I am experiencing relates to the AsyncTask in some way or the function setValues(), but I am not sure how. Essentially, I want each call to the AsyncTask to run, eventually in an infinite while loop, and update the TextView fields as I have attempted in setValues. I have tried since yesterday after asking a question which led to this code, for reference. Oh yes, I did try using the AsyncTask get() method, but that didn't work either as I found out that it is actually a synchronous call, and renders the whole point of AsyncTask useless.

    Read the article

  • Implementing deadlock condition

    - by Bhaskar
    I am trying to implementing deadlock condition but somehow I am not able to get it working. Both the threads Thread1 and Thread2 are entering in the run function but only one of them enters in Sub/Sum depending on who entered run first. Example : if Thread2 entered run first the it will call sub() and Thread1 never calls sum(). I have also added sleep time so that Thread2 sleeps before calling sum() and Thread1 gets enough time to enter Sum() but Thread1 never enters. public class ExploringThreads { public static void main(String[] args) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub threadexample a1 = new threadexample(); Thread t1 = new Thread(a1, "Thread1"); Thread t2 = new Thread(a1,"Thread2"); t1.start(); t2.start(); } } class threadexample implements Runnable{ public int a = 10; public void run(){ if(Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("Thread1")) sum(); else if(Thread.currentThread().getName().equals("Thread2")) sub(); } public synchronized void sum() { try { Thread.sleep(2000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+"In Sum"); sub(); } public synchronized void sub() { try { Thread.sleep(2000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName()+"In Sub"); sum(); } }

    Read the article

  • How to have synchronous writing to a file (Threads) ?

    - by bobby
    Hi all. I created and started some Threads that each one writes something to a common text file. but the following error appears to me: "The process cannot access the file 'C:\hello.txt' because it is being used by another process." void AccessFile() { int num = 5; Thread[] trds = new Thread[5]; for (int i = 0; i < num; i++) { trds[i] = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(WriteToFile)); } for (int i = 0; i < num; i++) { trds[i].Start(String.Format("{0}: Hello from thread id:#{1}", i, trds[i].ManagedThreadId)); } } void WriteToFile(object message) { string FileName = "C:\\hello.txt"; string mess = (string)message; System.IO.StreamWriter sw = null; FileStream objStream = null; sw = File.AppendText(FileName); if (sw == null) { objStream = new FileStream(FileName, FileMode.OpenOrCreate, FileAccess.ReadWrite, FileShare.ReadWrite); sw = new StreamWriter(objStream); } sw.WriteLine(mess); sw.Close(); sw.Dispose(); } the AccessFile() method is the starting point. could any one tell me what should i do?

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >