Search Results

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

Page 55/66 | < Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >

  • Python threading question (Working with a method that blocks forever)

    - by Nix
    I am trying to wrap a thread around some receiving logic in python. Basically we have an app, that will have a thread in the background polling for messages, the problem I ran into is that piece that actually pulls the messages waits forever for a message. Making it impossible to terminate... I ended up wrapping the pull in another thread, but I wanted to make sure there wasn't a better way to do it. Original code: class Manager: def __init__(self): receiver = MessageReceiver() receiver.start() #do other stuff... class MessageReceiver(Thread): receiver = Receiver() def __init__(self): Thread.__init__(self) def run(self): #stop is a flag that i use to stop the thread... while(not stopped ): #can never stop because pull below blocks message = receiver.pull() print "Message" + message What I refectored to: class Manager: def __init__(self): receiver = MessageReceiver() receiver.start() class MessageReceiver(Thread): receiver = Receiver() def __init__(self): Thread.__init__(self) def run(self): pullThread = PullThread(self.receiver) pullThread.start() #stop is a flag that i use to stop the thread... while(not stopped and pullThread.last_message ==None): pass message = pullThread.last_message print "Message" + message class PullThread(Thread): last_message = None def __init__(self, receiver): Thread.__init(self, target=get_message, args=(receiver)) def get_message(self, receiver): self.last_message = None self.last_message = receiver.pull() return self.last_message I know the obvious locking issues exist, but is this the appropriate way to control a receive thread that waits forever for a message? One thing I did notice was this thing eats 100% cpu while waiting for a message... **If you need to see the stopping logic please let me know and I will post.

    Read the article

  • ConcurrenctBag(Of MyType) Vs List(Of MyType)

    - by Ben
    What is the advantage of using a ConcurrentBag(Of MyType) against just using a List(Of MyType)? The MSDN page on the CB (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd381779(v=VS.100).aspx) states that ConcurrentBag(Of T) is a thread-safe bag implementation, optimized for scenarios where the same thread will be both producing and consuming data stored in the bag So what is the advantage? I can understand the advantage of the other collection types in the Concurrency namespace, but this one puzzled me. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • C++ boost thread reusing threads

    - by aaa
    hi. I am trying to accomplish something like this: thread t; // create/initialize thread t.launch(); // launch thread. t.wait(); // wait t.launch(); // relaunch the same thread How to go about implementing something like this using boost threads? in essence, I need persistent relaunch-able thread. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Threading and iterating through changing collections

    - by adamjellyit
    In C# (console app) I want to hold a collection of objects. All objects are of same type. I want to iterate through the collection calling a method on each object. And then repeat the process continuously. However during iteration objects can be added or removed from the list. (The objects themselves will not be destroyed .. just removed from the list). Not sure what would happen with a foreach loop .. or other similar method. This has to have been done 1000 times before .. can you recommend a solid approach?

    Read the article

  • New form on a different thread

    - by Dan
    So I have a thread in my application, which purpose is to listen to messages from the server and act according to what it recieves. I ran into a problem when I wanted to fire off a message from the server, that when the client app recieves it, the client app would open up a new form. However this new form just freezes instantly. I think what's happening is that the new form is loaded up on the same thread as the thread listening to the server, which of course is busy listening on the stream, in turn blocking the thread. Normally, for my other functions in the clients listening thread, I'd use invokes to update the UI of the main form, so I guess what I'm asking for is if here's a way to invoke a new form on the main form.

    Read the article

  • How to check if a thread is busy in C#?

    - by Sam
    I have a Windows Forms UI running on a thread, Thread1. I have another thread, Thread2, that gets tons of data via external events that needs to update the Windows UI. (It actually updates multiple UI threads.) I have a third thread, Thread3, that I use as a buffer thread between Thread1 and Thread2 so that Thread2 can continue to update other threads (via the same method). My buffer thread, Thread3, looks like this: public class ThreadBuffer { public ThreadBuffer(frmUI form, CustomArgs e) { form.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { form.UpdateUI(e); }); } } What I would like to do is for my ThreadBuffer to check whether my form is currently busy doing previous updates. If it is, I'd like for it to wait until it frees up and then invoke the UpdateUI(e). I was thinking about either: a) //PseudoCode while(form==busy) { // Do nothing; } form.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { form.UpdateUI(e); }); How would I check the form==busy? Also, I am not sure that this is a good approach. b) Create an event in form1 that will notify the ThreadBuffer that it is ready to process. // psuedocode List<CustomArgs> elist = new List<CustomArgs>(); public ThreadBuffer(frmUI form, CustomArgs e) { from.OnFreedUp += from_OnFreedUp(); elist.Add(e); } private form_OnFreedUp() { if (elist.count == 0) return; form.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { form.UpdateUI(elist[0]); }); elist.Remove(elist[0]); } In this case, how would I write an event that will notify that the form is free? and c) an other ideas?

    Read the article

  • Parent Thread exiting before Child Threads [python]

    - by crgwbr
    I'm using Python in a webapp (CGI for testing, FastCGI for production) that needs to send an occasional email (when a user registers or something else important happens). Since communicating with an SMTP server takes a long time, I'd like to spawn a thread for the mail function so that the rest of the app can finish up the request without waiting for the email to finish sending. I tried using thread.start_new(func, (args)), but the Parent return's and exits before the sending is complete, thereby killing the sending process before it does anything useful. Is there anyway to keep the process alive long enough for the child process to finish?

    Read the article

  • How to identify deadlock conditions in a third-party application?

    - by Imhotep is Invisible
    I am using a third-party application to handle batch CD audio extraction via multiple FireWire attached devices, but the application frequently (though non-deterministically) hangs during the extraction. I suspect that the multithreaded application is deadlocking over some shared resource. The developer, however, suspects the problem lies elsewhere but is not addressing the problem at this time. I would like to be able to do some legwork on my end to a) prove the condition exists and b) ideally point him in the right direction. The problems: while I used to be a programmer, it's been awhile and I need to shake off the dust (last work I did was back in '99 and it was under Solaris, while the application runs under XP). Rather than there being a dearth of information online, there's almost too much to digest. Are there any suggested guides or tutorials that might help me get back up to speed sufficient enough to help identify and/or diagnose the deadlock, or are there tools or approaches that I should study up on to aid me in my task? Many thanks for all suggestions!

    Read the article

  • What are all the concurrent things [data structure, algorithm, locking mechanism] missing in .Net 3.

    - by user49767
    First time I am bit disappointed in StackOverflow cause my http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2571727/c-concurrency-vs-java-concurrency-which-is-neatly-designed-which-is-better question was closed. My intension was just trying to gather knowledge from programming guru's who worked in both the programming technologies. Rather closing this question, please help me by discussing what is good, bad, and ugly in multi-threading part in both the platforms. It is also welcome, if someone would like to compare with .Net 4.0 with JDK 6 (or JDK 7)

    Read the article

  • Keeping track of threads when creating them recursively

    - by 66replica
    I'm currently working on some code for my Programming Languages course. I can't post the code but I'm permitted to talk about some high level concepts that I'm struggling with and receive input on them. Basically the code is a recursive DFS on a undirected graph that I'm supposed to convert to a concurrent program. My professor already specified that I should create my threads in the recursive DFS method and then join them in another method. Basically, I'm having trouble thinking of how I should keep track of the threads I'm creating so I can join all of them in the other method. I'm thinking an array of Threads but I'm unsure how to add each new thread to the array or even if that's the right direction.

    Read the article

  • lock statement not working when there is a loop inside it?

    - by Ngu Soon Hui
    See this code: public class multiply { public Thread myThread; public int Counter { get; private set; } public string name { get; private set; } public void RunConsolePrint() { lock(this) { RunLockCode("lock"); } } private void RunLockCode(string lockCode) { Console.WriteLine("Now thread "+lockCode+" " + name + " has started"); for (int i = 1; i <= Counter; i++) { Console.WriteLine(lockCode+" "+name + ": count has reached " + i + ": total count is " + Counter); } Console.WriteLine("Thread " + lockCode + " " + name + " has finished"); } public multiply(string pname, int pCounter) { name = pname; Counter = pCounter; myThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(RunConsolePrint)); } } And this is the test run code: static void Main(string[] args) { int counter = 50; multiply m2 = new multiply("Second", counter); multiply m1 = new multiply("First", counter); m1.myThread.Start(); m2.myThread.Start(); Console.ReadLine(); } I would expect that m2 must execute from start to finish before m1 starts executing, or vice versa, because of the lock statement. But the result I found was the call to lock first and lock second was intermingled together, i.e., something like this Now thread lock First has started Now thread lock Second has started lock First: Count has reached 1: total count is 50 lock First: Count has reached 2: total count is 50 lock Second: Count has reached 1: total count is 50 What did I do wrong?

    Read the article

  • Another thread safe queue implementation

    - by jensph
    I have a class, Queue, that I tried to make thread safe. It has these three member variables: std::queue<T> m_queue; pthread_mutex_t m_mutex; pthread_cond_t m_condition; and a push and pop implemented as: template<class T> void Queue<T>::push(T value) { pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); m_queue.push(value); if( !m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_signal( &m_condition ); } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); } template<class T> bool Queue<T>::pop(T& value, bool block) { bool rtn = false; pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); if( block ) { while( m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_wait( &m_condition, &m_mutex ); } } if( !m_queue.empty() ) { value = m_queue.front(); m_queue.pop(); rtn = true; } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); return rtn; } Unfortunately there are occasional issues that may be the fault of this code. That is, there are two threads and sometimes thread 1 never comes out of push() and at other times thread 2 never comes out of pop() (the block parameter is true) though the queue isn't empty. I understand there are other implementations available, but I'd like to try to fix this code, if needed. Anyone see any issues? The constructor has the appropriate initializations: Queue() { pthread_mutex_init( &mMutex, NULL ); pthread_cond_init( &mCondition, NULL ); } and the destructor, the corresponding 'destroy' calls.

    Read the article

  • C++ Win/Linux thread syncronization Event

    - by JP
    Hello I have some code that is cross-platform by unsing #ifdef OS, I have a Queue protected by a CriticalSection on Windows, and by a pthread_mutex_t on Linux. I would like to implement a Wait(timeout) call that would block a thread until something has been enqueued. I though about using WaitForSingleObject on windows but it don't seem to support CriticalSection. Which Win32 and which Linux functions should I use to Wait and Signal for a condition to happen. Thank

    Read the article

  • Is there a straightforward way to have a thread-local instance variable?

    - by Dan Tao
    With the ThreadStatic attribute I can have a static member of a class with one instance of the object per thread. This is really handy for achieving thread safety using types of objects that don't guarantee thread-safe instance methods (e.g., System.Random). It only works for static members, though. Is there any straightforward way to declare a class member as thread-local, meaning, each class instance gets an object per thread?

    Read the article

  • Look up values in a BDB for several files in parallel

    - by biznez
    What is the most efficient way to look up values in a BDB for several files in parallel? If I had a Perl script which did this for one file at a time, would forking/running the process in background with the ampersand in Linux work? How might Hadoop be used to solve this problem? Would threading be another solution?

    Read the article

  • Can I avoid a threaded UDP socket in Pyton dropping data?

    - by 666craig
    First off, I'm new to Python and learning on the job, so be gentle! I'm trying to write a threaded Python app for Windows that reads data from a UDP socket (thread-1), writes it to file (thread-2), and displays the live data (thread-3) to a widget (gtk.Image using a gtk.gdk.pixbuf). I'm using queues for communicating data between threads. My problem is that if I start only threads 1 and 3 (so skip the file writing for now), it seems that I lose some data after the first few samples. After this drop it looks fine. Even by letting thread 1 complete before running thread 3, this apparent drop is still there. Apologies for the length of code snippet (I've removed the thread that writes to file), but I felt removing code would just prompt questions. Hope someone can shed some light :-) import socket import threading import Queue import numpy import gtk gtk.gdk.threads_init() import gtk.glade import pygtk class readFromUDPSocket(threading.Thread): def __init__(self, socketUDP, readDataQueue, packetSize, numScans): threading.Thread.__init__(self) self.socketUDP = socketUDP self.readDataQueue = readDataQueue self.packetSize = packetSize self.numScans = numScans def run(self): for scan in range(1, self.numScans + 1): buffer = self.socketUDP.recv(self.packetSize) self.readDataQueue.put(buffer) self.socketUDP.close() print 'myServer finished!' class displayWithGTK(threading.Thread): def __init__(self, displayDataQueue, image, viewArea): threading.Thread.__init__(self) self.displayDataQueue = displayDataQueue self.image = image self.viewWidth = viewArea[0] self.viewHeight = viewArea[1] self.displayData = numpy.zeros((self.viewHeight, self.viewWidth, 3), dtype=numpy.uint16) def run(self): scan = 0 try: while True: if not scan % self.viewWidth: scan = 0 buffer = self.displayDataQueue.get(timeout=0.1) self.displayData[:, scan, 0] = numpy.fromstring(buffer, dtype=numpy.uint16) self.displayData[:, scan, 1] = numpy.fromstring(buffer, dtype=numpy.uint16) self.displayData[:, scan, 2] = numpy.fromstring(buffer, dtype=numpy.uint16) gtk.gdk.threads_enter() self.myPixbuf = gtk.gdk.pixbuf_new_from_data(self.displayData.tostring(), gtk.gdk.COLORSPACE_RGB, False, 8, self.viewWidth, self.viewHeight, self.viewWidth * 3) self.image.set_from_pixbuf(self.myPixbuf) self.image.show() gtk.gdk.threads_leave() scan += 1 except Queue.Empty: print 'myDisplay finished!' pass def quitGUI(obj): print 'Currently active threads: %s' % threading.enumerate() gtk.main_quit() if __name__ == '__main__': # Create socket (IPv4 protocol, datagram (UDP)) and bind to address socketUDP = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_DGRAM) host = '192.168.1.5' port = 1024 socketUDP.bind((host, port)) # Data parameters samplesPerScan = 256 packetsPerSecond = 1200 packetSize = 512 duration = 1 # For now, set a fixed duration to log data numScans = int(packetsPerSecond * duration) # Create array to store data data = numpy.zeros((samplesPerScan, numScans), dtype=numpy.uint16) # Create queue for displaying from readDataQueue = Queue.Queue(numScans) # Build GUI from Glade XML file builder = gtk.Builder() builder.add_from_file('GroundVue.glade') window = builder.get_object('mainwindow') window.connect('destroy', quitGUI) view = builder.get_object('viewport') image = gtk.Image() view.add(image) viewArea = (1200, samplesPerScan) # Instantiate & start threads myServer = readFromUDPSocket(socketUDP, readDataQueue, packetSize, numScans) myDisplay = displayWithGTK(readDataQueue, image, viewArea) myServer.start() myDisplay.start() gtk.gdk.threads_enter() gtk.main() gtk.gdk.threads_leave() print 'gtk.main finished!'

    Read the article

  • Android thread handler NullPointerException

    - by Realn0whereman
    So this null pointer is confusing me. I believe it is a scope issue. My main activity looks like this: public class App extends Activity { ProgressDialog progressDialog; ProgressThread progressThread; Then inside of the oncreate I do this: ProgressDialog progressDialog = new ProgressDialog(this); progressDialog.setProgressStyle(ProgressDialog.STYLE_SPINNER); progressDialog.setMessage("Fetching Images..."); ProgressThread progressThread = new ProgressThread(handler,mImageIds,mImages); progressThread.start(); progressDialog.show(); THEN inside progressThread which is a separate class I do mHandler.sendMessage(mHandler.obtainMessage()); Now up until this point i believe it behaves as it should. I have my handler hanging out in class scope right underneath my oncreate final Handler handler = new Handler() { public void handleMessage(Message msg){ progressDialog.hide(); progressThread.interrupt(); } }; The program thinks that progressDialog and progressThread are declared, but are null. Why would they be null if I instantiate in my oncreate.

    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

  • Blackberry screen navigation probelm

    - by dalandroid
    I have a Screen name DownloaderScreen when the screen start it will start download some file and when download is complete it will go forward to next screen autometically. I using the following code. public DownloaderScreen() { super(NO_VERTICAL_SCROLL | NO_HORIZONTAL_SCROLL | USE_ALL_HEIGHT | USE_ALL_WIDTH); this.application = UiApplication.getUiApplication(); HorizontalFieldManager outerBlock = new HorizontalFieldManager(USE_ALL_HEIGHT); VerticalFieldManager innerBlock = new VerticalFieldManager(USE_ALL_WIDTH | FIELD_VCENTER); innerBlock.setPadding(0, 10, 0, 10); outerBlock.setBackground(BackgroundFactory .createBitmapBackground(LangValue.dlBgimg)); outerBlock.add(innerBlock); add(outerBlock); phraseHelper = new PhraseHelper(); final String[][] phraseList = phraseHelper.getDownloadList(); gaugeField = new GaugeField("Downloading ", 0, phraseList.length, 0, GaugeField.PERCENT); innerBlock.add(gaugeField); Thread dlTread = new Thread() { public void run() { startDownload(phraseList); } }; dlTread.start(); } private void startDownload(String[][] phraseList){ if(phraseList.length!=0){ for(int i=0; i < phraseList.length ; i++){// gaugeField.setValue(i); // code for download } } goToNext(); } private void goToNext() { final Screen currentScreen = application.getActiveScreen(); if (UiApplication.isEventDispatchThread()) { application.popScreen(currentScreen); application.pushScreen(new HomeScreen()); } else { application.invokeLater(new Runnable() { public void run() { application.popScreen(currentScreen); application.pushScreen(new HomeScreen()); } }); } } The code is working fine and starts download files and when download is completed it is going forward to next screen. But when there is no file to download phraseList array length is zero, it is not going forward. What is problem in my code?

    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

  • Waiting for a submitted job to finish in Oracle PL/SQL?

    - by vicjugador
    I'm looking for the equivalent of Java's thread.join() in PL/SQL. I.e. I want to kick off a number of jobs (threads), and then wait for them to finish. How is this possible in PL/SQL? I'm thinking of using dbms_job.submit (I know it's deprecated). dbms_scheduler is also an alternative. My code: DECLARE jobno1 number; jobno2 number; BEGIN dbms_job.submit(jobno1,'begin dbms_lock.sleep(10); dbms_output.put_line(''job 1 exit'');end;'); dbms_job.submit(jobno2,'begin dbms_lock.sleep(10); dbms_output.put_line(''job 2 exit'');end;'); dbms_job.run(jobno1); dbms_job.run(jobno2); //Need code to Wait for jobno1 to finish //Need code to Wait for jobno2 to finish END;

    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

< Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >