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 54/66 | < Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • Java: "implements Runnable" vs. "extends Thread"

    - by goosefraba19
    From what time I've spent with threads in Java, I've found these two ways to write threads. public class ThreadA implements Runnable { public void run() { //Code } } //with a "new Thread(threadA).start()" call public class ThreadB extends Thread { public ThreadB() { super("ThreadB"); } public void run() { //Code } } //with a "threadB.start()" call Is there any significant difference in these two blocks of code?

    Read the article

  • C++ thread to seperate process

    - by silverbandit91
    Is there any way i can have a thread branch off into it's own independent process? I know there's the CreateProcess function but as far as I can tell, you can only run external applications with it. Is what I'm asking for at all possible?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Interrupt a thread in DatagramSocket.receive

    - by SEK
    I'm building an application that listens on both TCP and UDP, and I've run into some trouble with my shutdown mechanism. When I call Thread.interrupt() on each of the listening threads, the TCP thread is interrupted from listening, whereas the UDP listener isn't. To be specific, the TCP thread uses Socket.accept(), which simply returns (without actually connecting). Whereas the UDP thread uses DatagramSocket.receive, and doesn't exit that method. Is this an issue in my JRE, my OS, or should I just switch to (Datagram)Socket.close()?

    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

  • C# Threading in a method

    - by user177883
    I have the following method : public List<string> someMethod() { // populate list of strings // dump them to csv file //return to output } Question is: i dont want the user to wait for csv dump, which might take a while. If i use a thread for csvdump, will it complete? before or after the return of output?

    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

  • "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

  • Java: multi-threaded maps: how do the implementations compare?

    - by user346629
    I'm looking for a good hash map implementation. Specifically, one that's good for creating a large number of maps, most of them small. So memory is an issue. It should be thread-safe (though losing the odd put might be an OK compromise in return for better performance), and fast for both get and put. And I'd also like the moon on a stick, please, with a side-order of justice. The options I know are: HashMap. Disastrously un-thread safe. ConcurrentHashMap. My first choice, but this has a hefty memory footprint - about 2k per instance. Collections.sychronizedMap(HashMap). That's working OK for me, but I'm sure there must be faster alternatives. Trove or Colt - I think neither of these are thread-safe, but perhaps the code could be adapted to be thread safe. Any others? Any advice on what beats what when? Any really good new hash map algorithms that Java could use an implementation of? Thanks in advance for your input!

    Read the article

  • C# Multi threading- Move objects between threads

    - by Grant
    Hi, i am working with a winforms control that is both a GUI element and also does some internal processing that has not been exposed to the developer. When this component is instantiated it may take between 5 and 15 seconds to become ready so what i want to do is put it on another thread and when its done bring it back to the gui thread and place it on my form. The problem is that this will (and has) cause a cross thread exception. Normally when i work with worker threads its just with simple data objects i can push back when processing is complete and then use with controls already on the main thread but ive never needed to move an entire control in this fashion. Does anyone know if this is possible and if so how? If not how does one deal with a problem like this where there is the potential to lock the main gui?

    Read the article

  • How to debug ConcurrentModificationException?

    - by Dani
    I encountered ConcurrentModificationException and by looking at it I can't see the reason why it's happening; the area throwing the exception and all the places modifying the collection are surrounded by synchronized (this.locks.get(id)) { ... } // locks is a HashMap<String, Object>; I tried to catch the the pesky thread but all I could nail (by setting a breakpoint in the exception) is that the throwing thread owns the monitor while the other thread (there are two threads in the program) sleeps. How should I proceed? What do you usually do when you encounter similar threading issues?

    Read the article

  • passing variables when calling methon in new thread (iphone)

    - by Mouhamad Lamaa
    dear stacks i need to pass variables to the thread method when creating a new thread my code is the follwing //generating thread [NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:@selector(startThread) toTarget:self withObject:nil]; thread job - (void)startThread:(NSInteger *)var img:(UIImageView *) Img{ NSAutoreleasePool *pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; [NSThread sleepForTimeInterval:var]; [self performSelectorOnMainThread:@selector(threadMethod) withObject:nil waitUntilDone:NO]; //i need to pass Img to threadMethod: [pool release]; } thread Method - (void)threadMethod:(UIImageView *) Img { //do some coding. } so how i can do this (pass parameter to both of methods

    Read the article

  • Thread-Safe lazy instantiating using MEF

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private static readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { // It seems the `IsValueCreated` is not up-to-date if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile static int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. I should notice the CompositionContainer has a thread-safe option in constructor which is already used. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

  • Can one thread open a socket and other thread close it?

    - by Pkp
    I have some kernel threads in Linux kernel, inside my KLM. I have a server thread, that listens to the channel, Once it sees there is an incoming connection, it creates an accept socket, accepts the connection and spawns a child thread. It also passes the accepted socket to the child kernel thread as the (void *) argument. The code is working fine. I had a design question. Suppose now the threads have to be terminated, main and the child threads, what would be the best way to close the accept socket. I can see two ways, 1] The main thread waits for all the child threads to exit, each of the child threads close the accept sockets while exiting, the last child thread passes a signal to the main thread for it to exit . Here even though the main thread was the one that created the accept socket, the child threads close that socket, and they do this before the main thread exits. So is this acceptable? Any problems you guys forsee here? 2] Second is the main thread closes all the accept sockets it created before it exits. But there may be a possibility(corner case) that the main thread gets an exception and will have to close, so if it closes the accept sockets before exiting, the child threads using that socket will be in danger. Hence i am using the first case i mentioned.Let me know what you guys think?

    Read the article

  • Multi-threading does not work correctly using std::thread (C++ 11)

    - by user1364743
    I coded a small c++ program to try to understand how multi-threading works using std::thread. Here's the step of my program execution : Initialization of a 5x5 matrix of integers with a unique value '42' contained in the class 'Toto' (initialized in the main). I print the initialized 5x5 matrix. Declaration of std::vector of 5 threads. I attach all threads respectively with their task (threadTask method). Each thread will manipulate a std::vector<int> instance. I join all threads. I print the new state of my 5x5 matrix. Here's the output : 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 It should be : 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 Here's the code sample : #include <iostream> #include <vector> #include <thread> class Toto { public: /* ** Initialize a 5x5 matrix with the 42 value. */ void initData(void) { for (int y = 0; y < 5; y++) { std::vector<int> vec; for (int x = 0; x < 5; x++) { vec.push_back(42); } this->m_data.push_back(vec); } } /* ** Display the whole matrix. */ void printData(void) const { for (int y = 0; y < 5; y++) { for (int x = 0; x < 5; x++) { printf("%d ", this->m_data[y][x]); } printf("\n"); } printf("\n"); } /* ** Function attached to the thread (thread task). ** Replace the original '42' value by another one. */ void threadTask(std::vector<int> &list, int value) { for (int x = 0; x < 5; x++) { list[x] = value; } } /* ** Return the m_data instance propertie. */ std::vector<std::vector<int> > &getData(void) { return (this->m_data); } private: std::vector<std::vector<int> > m_data; }; int main(void) { Toto toto; toto.initData(); toto.printData(); //Display the original 5x5 matrix (first display). std::vector<std::thread> threadList(5); //Initialization of vector of 5 threads. for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) { //Threads initializationss std::vector<int> vec = toto.getData()[i]; //Get each sub-vectors. threadList.at(i) = std::thread(&Toto::threadTask, toto, vec, i); //Each thread will be attached to a specific vector. } for (int j = 0; j < 5; j++) { threadList.at(j).join(); } toto.printData(); //Second display. getchar(); return (0); } However, in the method threadTask, if I print the variable list[x], the output is correct. I think I can't print the correct data in the main because the printData() call is in the main thread and the display in the threadTask function is correct because the method is executed in its own thread (not the main one). It's strange, it means that all threads created in a parent processes can't modified the data in this parent processes ? I think I forget something in my code. I'm really lost. Does anyone can help me, please ? Thank a lot in advance for your help.

    Read the article

  • Waiting for thread to finish Python

    - by lunchtime
    Alright, here's my problem. I have a thread that creates another thread in a pool, applies async so I can work with the returned data, which is working GREAT. But I need the current thread to WAIT until the result is returned. Here is the simplified code, as the current script is over 300 lines. I'm sure i've included everything for you to make sense of what I'm attempting: from multiprocessing.pool import ThreadPool import threading pool = ThreadPool(processes=1) class MyStreamer(TwythonStreamer): #[...] def on_success(self, data): #### Everytime data comes in, this is called #[...] #<Pseudocode> if score >= limit if list exists: Do stuff elif list does not exist: #</Pseudocode> dic = [] dic.append([k1, v1]) did = dict(dic) async_result = pool.apply_async(self.list_step, args=(did)) return_val = async_result.get() slug = return_val[0] idd = return_val[1] #[...] def list_step(self, *args): ## CREATE LIST ## RETURN 2 VALUES class threadStream (threading.Thread): def __init__(self, auth): threading.Thread.__init__(self) self.auth = auth def run(self): stream = MyStreamer(auth = auth[0], *auth[0]) stream.statuses.filter(track=auth[1]) t = threadStream(auth=AuthMe) t.start() I receive the results as intended, which is great, but how do I make it so this thread t waits for the async_result to come in?? My problem is everytime new data comes in, it seems that the ## CREATE LIST function is called multiple times if similar data comes in quickly enough. So I'm ending up with many lists of the same name when I have code in place to ensure that a list will never be created if the name already exists. So to reiterate: How do I make this thread wait on the function to complete before accepting new data / continuing. I don't think time.sleep() works because on_success is called when data enters the stream. I don't think Thread.Join() will work either since I have to use a ThreadPool.apply_async to receive the data I need. Is there a hack I can make in the MyStreamer class somehow? I'm kind of at a loss here. Am I over complicating things and can this be simplified to do what I want?

    Read the article

  • Rails: Thread won't affect database unless joined to main Thread

    - by hatboysam
    I have a background operation I would like to occur every 20 seconds in Rails given that some condition is true. It kicked off when a certain controller route is hit, and it looks like this def startProcess argId = self.id t = Thread.new do while (Argument.isRunning(argId)) do Argument.update(argId) Argument.markVotes(argId) puts "Thread ran" sleep 20 end end end However, this code does absolutely nothing to my database unless I call "t.join" in which case my whole server is blocked for a long time (but it works). Why can't the read commit ActiveRecords without being joined to the main thread? The thread calls methods that look something like def sample model = Model.new() model.save() end but the models are not saved to the DB unless the thread is joined to the main thread. Why is this? I have been banging my head about this for hours.

    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 | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >