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 58/66 | < Previous Page | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | Next Page >

  • Should I use multiple threads in this situation? [Ruby]

    - by mr popo
    I'm opening multiple files and processing them, one line at a time. The files contain tokens separating the data, such that sometimes the processing of one file may have to wait for others to catch up to that same token. I was doing this initially with only one thread and an array indicating with true/false if the file should be read in the current iteration or if it should wait for some of the others to catch up. Would using threads make this simpler? More efficient? Does Ruby have a mechanism for this?

    Read the article

  • IS ResultSet thread safe

    - by javatraniee
    Is ResultSet Thread safe? My question arises because in this i have used a different statement for each query i have delsared a ResultSet as an local variable but it gives me a error of Operation not allowed after ResultSet is closed. But my statements are working as i'm using the statements in insert and delete query.I have commented the ResultSet part and have not got the error !! The source code of my program can be referd to , in my earlier Question .

    Read the article

  • Multithreaded SDL error in C++

    - by wyatt
    I'm building a program in C++, using SDL, and am occasionally receiving this error: * glibc detected * ./assistant: double free or corruption (!prev) It's difficult to replicate, so I can't find exactly what's causing it, but I just added a second thread to the program, and neither thread run on its own seems to cause the error. The threads don't share any variables, though they both run the functions SDL_BlitSurface and SDL_Flip. Could running these concurrently throw up such an error, or am I barking up the wrong tree? If this is the cause, should I simply throw a mutex around all SDL calls? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Java concurrency - Should block or yield?

    - by teto
    Hi, I have multiple threads each one with its own private concurrent queue and all they do is run an infinite loop retrieving messages from it. It could happen that one of the queues doesn't receive messages for a period of time (maybe a couple seconds), and also they could come in big bursts and fast processing is necessary. I would like to know what would be the most appropriate to do in the first case: use a blocking queue and block the thread until I have more input or do a Thread.yield()? I want to have as much CPU resources available as possible at a given time, as the number of concurrent threads may increase with time, but also I don't want the message processing to fall behind, as there is no guarantee of when the thread will be reescheduled for execution when doing a yield(). I know that hardware, operating system and other factors play an important role here, but setting that aside and looking at it from a Java (JVM?) point of view, what would be the most optimal?

    Read the article

  • Java - multithreaded access to a local value store which is periodically cleared

    - by Telax
    I'm hoping for some advice or suggestions on how best to handle multi threaded access to a value store. My local value storage is designed to hold onto objects which are currently in use. If the object is not in use then it is removed from the store. A value is pumped into my store via thread1, its entry into the store is announced to listeners, and the value is stored. Values coming in on thread1 will either be totally new values or updates for existing values. A timer is used to periodically remove any value from the store which is not currently in use and so all that remains of this value is its ID held locally by an intermediary. Now, an active element on thread2 may wake up and try to access a set of values by passing a set of value IDs which it knows about. Some values will be stored already (great) and some may not (sadface). Those values which are not already stored will be retrieved from an external source. My main issue is that items which have not already been stored and are currently being queried for may arrive in on thread1 before the query is complete. I'd like to try and avoid locking access to the store whilst a query is being made as it may take some time.

    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

  • C# thread safety for class instances

    - by Steveng
    I am learning C# and I am confused with the thread safety of the copies of the class instances as below: eg: classA objA; classA objB = objA; objA.field1 = value2; //do I need lock around modification of field1? //let say we pass the objB to another thread objB.field1 = value1 //do I need a lock for objB because of the modification of field1? I am confused because coming from the background of C++, the class in C# is the reference type. If both objA and objB refer to the same memory underlying, then I would need a lock to protect the simultaneous writing to the field1. Could someone confirm with this or am I missing something? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • pthread_exit return value

    - by Manty
    This is surprising for me. void * thread_func(void *arg) { pthread_exit(&ret); } int main(void) { pthread_t thr; int *exit_status; pthread_create(&thr, NULL, thread_func, NULL); sleep(2); pthread_join(thr, (void **)&exit_status); printf("value of exit status - %d\n", *exit_status); ret = 20; pthread_join(thr, (void **)&exit_status); printf("value of exit status - %d\n", *exit_status); return 0; } The output is value of exit status - 50 value of exit status - 20 I was expecting both the times the exit_status would be the actual exit value(50 in my case) of the thread. Instead it is just returning the value of the global variable which I used for pthread_exit. Is it not a bug?

    Read the article

  • Is PThread a good choice for multi-platorm C/C++ multi-threading program?

    - by RogerV
    Been doing mostly Java and smattering of .NET for last five years and haven't written any significant C or C++ during that time. So have been away from that scene for a while. If I want to write a C or C++ program today that does some multi-threading and is source code portable across Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux/Unix - is PThread a good choice? The C or C++ code won't be doing any GUI, so won't need to worry with any of that. For the Windows platform, I don't want to bring a lot of Unix baggage, though, in terms of unix emulation runtime libraries. Would prefer a PThread API for Windows that is a thin-as-possible wrapper over existing Windows threading APIs. ADDENDUM EDIT: Am leaning toward going with boost:thread - I also want to be able to use C++ try/catch exception handling too. And even though my program will be rather minimal and not particularly OOPish, I like to encapsulate using class and namespace - as opposed to C disembodied functions.

    Read the article

  • Running 2 threads simultaneously

    - by lamsaitat
    In the case of an IM client. I have made 2 separate threads to handle sending packets (by std io) and receiving packets. The question is how to make these 2 threads run simultaneously so that I can keep prompting for input while at the same time be ready to receive packets at any time? I have already tried setting a timer but the data is always lost receiving.

    Read the article

  • How to share a dictionary between multiple processes in python without locking

    - by RandomVector
    I need to share a huge dictionary (around 1 gb in size) between multiple processs, however since all processes will always read from it. I dont need locking. Is there any way to share a dictionary without locking? The multiprocessing module in python provides an Array class which allows sharing without locking by setting lock=false however There is no such option for Dictionary provided by manager in multiprocessing module.

    Read the article

  • Please suggest good book/website to for Threads and Concurrency?

    - by learner
    I have gone through Head First Java and some other sites but I couldn't find complete stuff related to Threads and additional concurrency packages at one place. Please suggest a book/website which covers complete Threads with more details like Synchronize and locking of objects More detailed about volatile Visibility issues in Threads java.util.concurrent package java.util.concurrent.atomic package

    Read the article

  • Threading across multiple files

    - by Zach M.
    My program is reading in files and using thread to compute the highest prime number, when I put a print statement into the getNum() function my numbers are printing out. However, it seems to just lag no matter how many threads I input. Each file has 1 million integers in it. Does anyone see something apparently wrong with my code? Basically the code is giving each thread 1000 integers to check before assigning a new thread. I am still a C noobie and am just learning the ropes of threading. My code is a mess right now because I have been switching things around constantly. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h> #include <string.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <math.h> #include <semaphore.h> //Global variable declaration char *file1 = "primes1.txt"; char *file2 = "primes2.txt"; char *file3 = "primes3.txt"; char *file4 = "primes4.txt"; char *file5 = "primes5.txt"; char *file6 = "primes6.txt"; char *file7 = "primes7.txt"; char *file8 = "primes8.txt"; char *file9 = "primes9.txt"; char *file10 = "primes10.txt"; char **fn; //file name variable int numberOfThreads; int *highestPrime = NULL; int fileArrayNum = 0; int loop = 0; int currentFile = 0; sem_t semAccess; sem_t semAssign; int prime(int n)//check for prime number, return 1 for prime 0 for nonprime { int i; for(i = 2; i <= sqrt(n); i++) if(n % i == 0) return(0); return(1); } int getNum(FILE* file) { int number; char* tempS = malloc(20 *sizeof(char)); fgets(tempS, 20, file); tempS[strlen(tempS)-1] = '\0'; number = atoi(tempS); free(tempS);//free memory for later call return(number); } void* findPrimality(void *threadnum) //main thread function to find primes { int tNum = (int)threadnum; int checkNum; char *inUseFile = NULL; int x=1; FILE* file; while(currentFile < 10){ if(inUseFile == NULL){//inUseFIle being used to check if a file is still being read sem_wait(&semAccess);//critical section inUseFile = fn[currentFile]; sem_post(&semAssign); file = fopen(inUseFile, "r"); while(!feof(file)){ if(x % 1000 == 0 && tNum !=1){ //go for 1000 integers and then wait sem_wait(&semAssign); } checkNum = getNum(file); /* * * * * I think the issue is here * * * */ if(checkNum > highestPrime[tNum]){ if(prime(checkNum)){ highestPrime[tNum] = checkNum; } } x++; } fclose(file); inUseFile = NULL; } currentFile++; } } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { if(argc != 2){ //checks for number of arguements being passed printf("To many ARGS\n"); return(-1); } else{//Sets thread cound to user input checking for correct number of threads numberOfThreads = atoi(argv[1]); if(numberOfThreads < 1 || numberOfThreads > 10){ printf("To many threads entered\n"); return(-1); } time_t preTime, postTime; //creating time variables int i; fn = malloc(10 * sizeof(char*)); //create file array and initialize fn[0] = file1; fn[1] = file2; fn[2] = file3; fn[3] = file4; fn[4] = file5; fn[5] = file6; fn[6] = file7; fn[7] = file8; fn[8] = file9; fn[9] = file10; sem_init(&semAccess, 0, 1); //initialize semaphores sem_init(&semAssign, 0, numberOfThreads); highestPrime = malloc(numberOfThreads * sizeof(int)); //create an array to store each threads highest number for(loop = 0; loop < numberOfThreads; loop++){//set initial values to 0 highestPrime[loop] = 0; } pthread_t calculationThread[numberOfThreads]; //thread to do the work preTime = time(NULL); //start the clock for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ pthread_create(&calculationThread[i], NULL, findPrimality, (void *)i); } for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ pthread_join(calculationThread[i], NULL); } for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ printf("this is a prime number: %d \n", highestPrime[i]); } postTime= time(NULL); printf("Wall time: %ld seconds\n", (long)(postTime - preTime)); } } Yes I am trying to find the highest number over all. So I have made some head way the last few hours, rescucturing the program as spudd said, currently I am getting a segmentation fault due to my use of structures, I am trying to save the largest individual primes in the struct while giving them the right indices. This is the revised code. So in short what the first thread is doing is creating all the threads and giving them access points to a very large integer array which they will go through and find prime numbers, I want to implement semaphores around the while loop so that while they are executing every 2000 lines or the end they update a global prime number. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h> #include <string.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <math.h> #include <semaphore.h> //Global variable declaration char *file1 = "primes1.txt"; char *file2 = "primes2.txt"; char *file3 = "primes3.txt"; char *file4 = "primes4.txt"; char *file5 = "primes5.txt"; char *file6 = "primes6.txt"; char *file7 = "primes7.txt"; char *file8 = "primes8.txt"; char *file9 = "primes9.txt"; char *file10 = "primes10.txt"; int numberOfThreads; int entries[10000000]; int entryIndex = 0; int fileCount = 0; char** fileName; int largestPrimeNumber = 0; //Register functions int prime(int n); int getNum(FILE* file); void* findPrimality(void *threadNum); void* assign(void *num); typedef struct package{ int largestPrime; int startingIndex; int numberCount; }pack; //Beging main code block int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { if(argc != 2){ //checks for number of arguements being passed printf("To many threads!!\n"); return(-1); } else{ //Sets thread cound to user input checking for correct number of threads numberOfThreads = atoi(argv[1]); if(numberOfThreads < 1 || numberOfThreads > 10){ printf("To many threads entered\n"); return(-1); } int threadPointer[numberOfThreads]; //Pointer array to point to entries time_t preTime, postTime; //creating time variables int i; fileName = malloc(10 * sizeof(char*)); //create file array and initialize fileName[0] = file1; fileName[1] = file2; fileName[2] = file3; fileName[3] = file4; fileName[4] = file5; fileName[5] = file6; fileName[6] = file7; fileName[7] = file8; fileName[8] = file9; fileName[9] = file10; FILE* filereader; int currentNum; for(i = 0; i < 10; i++){ filereader = fopen(fileName[i], "r"); while(!feof(filereader)){ char* tempString = malloc(20 *sizeof(char)); fgets(tempString, 20, filereader); tempString[strlen(tempString)-1] = '\0'; entries[entryIndex] = atoi(tempString); entryIndex++; free(tempString); } } //sem_init(&semAccess, 0, 1); //initialize semaphores //sem_init(&semAssign, 0, numberOfThreads); time_t tPre, tPost; pthread_t coordinate; tPre = time(NULL); pthread_create(&coordinate, NULL, assign, (void**)numberOfThreads); pthread_join(coordinate, NULL); tPost = time(NULL); } } void* findPrime(void* pack_array) { pack* currentPack= pack_array; int lp = currentPack->largestPrime; int si = currentPack->startingIndex; int nc = currentPack->numberCount; int i; int j = 0; for(i = si; i < nc; i++){ while(j < 2000 || i == (nc-1)){ if(prime(entries[i])){ if(entries[i] > lp) lp = entries[i]; } j++; } } return (void*)currentPack; } void* assign(void* num) { int y = (int)num; int i; int count = 10000000/y; int finalCount = count + (10000000%y); int sIndex = 0; pack pack_array[(int)num]; pthread_t workers[numberOfThreads]; //thread to do the workers for(i = 0; i < y; i++){ if(i == (y-1)){ pack_array[i].largestPrime = 0; pack_array[i].startingIndex = sIndex; pack_array[i].numberCount = finalCount; } pack_array[i].largestPrime = 0; pack_array[i].startingIndex = sIndex; pack_array[i].numberCount = count; pthread_create(&workers[i], NULL, findPrime, (void *)&pack_array[i]); sIndex += count; } for(i = 0; i< y; i++) pthread_join(workers[i], NULL); } //Functions int prime(int n)//check for prime number, return 1 for prime 0 for nonprime { int i; for(i = 2; i <= sqrt(n); i++) if(n % i == 0) return(0); return(1); }

    Read the article

  • std::thread and class constructor and destructor

    - by toeplitz
    When testing threads in C++11 I have created the following example: #include <iostream> #include <thread> class Foo { public: Foo(void) { std::cout << "Constructor called: " << this << std::endl; } ~Foo(void) { std::cout << "Destructor called: " << this << std::endl; } void operator()() const { std::cout << "Operatior called: " << this << std::endl; } }; void test_normal(void) { std::cout << "====> Standard example:" << std::endl; Foo f; } void test_thread(void) { std::cout << "====> Thread example:" << std::endl; Foo f; std::thread t(f); t.detach(); } int main(int argc, char **argv) { test_normal(); test_thread(); for(;;); } Which prints the following: Why is the destructor called 6 times for the thread? And why does the thread report different memory locations?

    Read the article

  • How can I get back into my main processing thread?

    - by daveomcd
    I have an app that I'm accessing a remote website with NSURLConnection to run some code and then save out some XML files. I am then accessing those XML Files and parsing through them for information. The process works fine except that my User Interface isn't getting updated properly. I want to keep the user updated through my UILabel. I'm trying to update the text by using setBottomBarToUpdating:. It works the first time when I set it to "Processing Please Wait..."; however, in the connectionDidFinishLoading: it doesn't update. I'm thinking my NSURLConnection is running on a separate thread and my attempt with the dispatch_get_main_queue to update on the main thread isn't working. How can I alter my code to resolve this? Thanks! [If I need to include more information/code just let me know!] myFile.m NSLog(@"Refreshing..."); dispatch_sync( dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_DEFAULT, 0), ^{ [self getResponse:@"http://mylocation/path/to/file.aspx"]; }); [self setBottomBarToUpdating:@"Processing Please Wait..."]; queue = dispatch_queue_create("updateQueue", DISPATCH_QUEUE_CONCURRENT); connectionDidFinishLoading: if ([response rangeOfString:@"Complete"].location == NSNotFound]) { // failed } else { //success dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(),^ { [self setBottomBarToUpdating:@"Updating Contacts..."]; }); [self updateFromXMLFile:@"http://thislocation.com/path/to/file.xml"]; dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(),^ { [self setBottomBarToUpdating:@"Updating Emails..."]; }); [self updateFromXMLFile:@"http://thislocation.com/path/to/file2.xml"]; }

    Read the article

  • Java redirected system output to jtext area, doesnt update until calculation is finished

    - by user1806716
    I have code that redirects system output to a jtext area, but that jtextarea doesnt update until the code is finished running. How do I modify the code to make the jtextarea update in real time during runtime? private void updateTextArea(final String text) { SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() { public void run() { consoleTextAreaInner.append(text); } }); } private void redirectSystemStreams() { OutputStream out = new OutputStream() { @Override public void write(int b) throws IOException { updateTextArea(String.valueOf((char) b)); } @Override public void write(byte[] b, int off, int len) throws IOException { updateTextArea(new String(b, off, len)); } @Override public void write(byte[] b) throws IOException { write(b, 0, b.length); } }; System.setOut(new PrintStream(out, true)); System.setErr(new PrintStream(out, true)); } The rest of the code is mainly just an actionlistener for a button: private void updateButtonActionPerformed(java.awt.event.ActionEvent evt) { // TODO add your handling code here: String shopRoot = this.shopRootDirTxtField.getText(); String updZipPath = this.updateZipTextField.getText(); this.mainUpdater = new ShopUpdater(new File(shopRoot), updZipPath); this.mainUpdater.update(); } That update() method begins the process of copying+pasting files on the file system and during that process uses system.out.println to provide an up-to-date status on where the program is currently at in reference to how many more files it has to copy.

    Read the article

  • Threaded Python port scanner

    - by Amnite
    I am having issues with a port scanner I'm editing to use threads. This is the basics for the original code: for i in range(0, 2000): s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM) result = s.connect_ex((TargetIP, i)) if(result == 0) : c = "Port %d: OPEN\n" % (i,) s.close() This takes approx 33 minutes to complete. So I thought I'd thread it to make it run a little faster. This is my first threading project so it's nothing too extreme, but I've ran the following code for about an hour and get no exceptions yet no output. Am I just doing the threading wrong or what? import threading from socket import * import time a = 0 b = 0 c = "" d = "" def ScanLow(): global a global c for i in range(0, 1000): s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM) result = s.connect_ex((TargetIP, i)) if(result == 0) : c = "Port %d: OPEN\n" % (i,) s.close() a += 1 def ScanHigh(): global b global d for i in range(1001, 2000): s = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM) result = s.connect_ex((TargetIP, i)) if(result == 0) : d = "Port %d: OPEN\n" % (i,) s.close() b += 1 Target = raw_input("Enter Host To Scan:") TargetIP = gethostbyname(Target) print "Start Scan On Host ", TargetIP Start = time.time() threading.Thread(target = ScanLow).start() threading.Thread(target = ScanHigh).start() e = a + b while e < 2000: f = raw_input() End = time.time() - Start print c print d print End g = raw_input()

    Read the article

  • Have main thread wait for a boost thread complete a task (but not finish).

    - by JAKE6459
    I have found plenty on making one thread wait for another to finish executing before continuing, but that is not what I wanted to do. I am not very familiar with using any multi-threading apis but right now I'm trying to learn boost. My situation is that I am using my main thread (the starting one from int main()) to create an instance of a class that is in charge of interacting with the main GUI. A class function is then called that creates a boost thread which in turn creates the GUI and runs the message pump. The thing I want to do is when my main thread calls the classes member function to create the GUI, I don't want that function to return until I tell it to from the newly created thread. This way my main thread can't continue and call more functions from the GUI class that interact with the GUI thread until that thread has completed GUI creation and entered the message loop. I think I may be able to figure it out if it was multiple boost thread objects interacting with each other, but when it is the main thread (non-boost object) interacting with a boost thread object, I get lost. Eventually I want a loop in my main thread to call a class function (among other tasks) to check if the user as entered any new input into the GUI (buy any changes detected by the message loop being updated into a struct and changing a bool to tell the main thread in the class function a change has occurred). Any suggestions for any of this would be greatly appreciated. This is the member function called by the main thread. int ANNGUI::CreateGUI() { GUIMain = new Main(); GUIThread = new boost::thread(boost::bind(&Main::MainThreadFunc, GUIMain)); return 0; }; This is the boost thread starting function. void Main::MainThreadFunc() { ANNVariables = new GUIVariables; WndProc = new WindowProcedure; ANNWindowsClass = new WindowsClass(ANNVariables, WndProc); ANNWindow = new MainWindow(ANNVariables); GUIMessagePump = new MessagePump; ANNWindow-ShowWindows(); while(true) { GUIMessagePump-ProcessMessage(); } }; BTW, everything compiles fine and when I run it, it works I just put a sleep() in the main thread so I can play with the GUI a little.

    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

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 | 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65  | Next Page >