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

  • How to have a run in an Service?

    - by user1497664
    I have implemented an service that runs in a seperate process. This service contains a separate thread where i have a socket connection. This thread has a run() where it is continuously sending data to the port. My problem is after triggering the run() in the thread i don't get any contact with it anymore, i can see in the program that have open the socket that it consciously sends the data but the idea was that i while it is running i could change data that it sends for an example time. here is my run in the external thread: public void run() { if(run) { // Team and player names message is sent when entering in a game setBaseMessage(); SendMessageToCOMPort(base_message + CalculateCRC(base_message)); sleep(); // waits for 100 ms } } Anyone have any idea what might be wrong ?

    Read the article

  • Using two threads and controlling one from the other in java?

    - by sidra
    Can someone please help me out. I need to use two threads in a way that one thread will run permanently while(true) and will keep track of a positioning pointer (some random value coming in form a method). This thread has a logic, if the value equals something, it should start the new thread. And if the value does not equal it should stop the other thread. Can someone give me some code snippet (block level) about how to realize this?

    Read the article

  • Is a Critical Section around an integer getter and setter redundant?

    - by Tim Gradwell
    Do critical sections inside trivial int accessors actually do anything useful? int GetFoo() { CriticalSection(crit_id); return foo; } void SetFoo(int value) { CriticalSection(crit_id); foo = value; } Is it possible for two threads to be attempting to read and write foo simultaneously? I'd have thought 'no' unless integers are written byte-at-a-time, in which case I can see the use. But I'd have though modern cpus would read/write integers in a single atomic action...

    Read the article

  • What does the GDI+ background thread do?

    - by uj
    Upon initialization, GDI+ (non .NET) creates a background thread, which can optionally be suppressed subject to calling some hook functions. MSDN, however, doesn't say what this thread actually does. Google doesn't seem to know either. What is it for?

    Read the article

  • Waiting on threads

    - by Paul Reiners
    I have a method that contains the following (Java) code: doSomeThings(); doSomeOtherThings(); doSomeThings() creates some threads, each of which will run for only a finite amount of time. The problem is that I don't want doSomeOtherThings() to be called until all the threads launched by doSomeThings() are finished. (Also doSomeThings() will call methods that may launch new threads and so on. I don't want to execute doSomeOtherThings() until all these threads have finished.) This is because doSomeThings(), among other things will set myObject to null, while doSomeOtherThings() calls myObject.myMethod() and I do not want myObject to be null at that time. Is there some standard way of doing this kind of thing (in Java)?

    Read the article

  • How to show and update popup in 1 thread

    - by user3713986
    I have 1 app. 2 Forms are MainFrm and PopupFrm, 1 thread to update some information to PopupFrm Now to update PopupFrm i use: In MainFrm.cs private PopupFrm mypop; MainFrm() { .... PopupFrm mypop= new PopupFrm(); mypop.Show(); } MyThread() { Process GetData();... mypop.Update(); ... } In PopupFrm.cs public void Update() { this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate .... }); } Problem here that mypopup alway display when MainFrm display (Start application not when has data to update). So i change MainFrm.cs to : private PopupFrm mypop; private bool firstdisplay=false; MainFrm() { .... PopupFrm mypop= new PopupFrm(); //mypop.Show(); } MyThread() { Process GetData();... if(!firstdisplay) { mypop.Show(); firstdisplay=true; } mypop.Update(); ... } But it can not update Popup GUI. So how can i fix this issue ? Thanks all.

    Read the article

  • Threading in java vs C#

    - by ffayyaz
    I need a little confirmation over something i am confused at . I know how threads work in java. new DialList(string a , string b).start(); // where DialList is a class public class DialList extends Thread { public DialList(String a, string b) { FilePath = a; ThreadLogFile = b"; } public void run() { // some code to run in different thread } } Now i want to run same code in C# , Shall i put the code which is in run() into a method and do something like Thread t = new Thread (runcsharp); // Kick off a new thread t.Start(); static void runcsharp() { // code } or is there some other way to do it ?

    Read the article

  • Execute PHP file in background

    - by Spyric
    I have some php code, that execute for a very long time. I need to realise next scheme: User enter on some page(page 1) This page starts execution of my large PHP script in background .(Every change is writting to database) We sent every N seconds query to database to get current status of execution. I don't want to use exec command because 1000 users makes 1000 php processes. It's not way for me...

    Read the article

  • How do I pause main() until all other threads have died?

    - by thechiman
    In my program, I am creating several threads in the main() method. The last line in the main method is a call to System.out.println(), which I don't want to call until all the threads have died. I have tried calling Thread.join() on each thread however that blocks each thread so that they execute sequentially instead of in parallel. Is there a way to block the main() thread until all other threads have finished executing? Here is the relevant part of my code: public static void main(String[] args) { //some other initialization code //Make array of Thread objects Thread[] racecars = new Thread[numberOfRaceCars]; //Fill array with RaceCar objects for(int i=0; i<numberOfRaceCars; i++) { racecars[i] = new RaceCar(laps, args[i]); } //Call start() on each Thread for(int i=0; i<numberOfRaceCars; i++) { racecars[i].start(); try { racecars[i].join(); //This is where I tried to using join() //It just blocks all other threads until the current //thread finishes. } catch(InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } //This is the line I want to execute after all other Threads have finished System.out.println("It's Over!"); } Thanks for the help guys! Eric

    Read the article

  • Any reason NOT to slap the 'synchronized' keyword everywhere?

    - by unknown
    In my java project, almost every non-static method I've written is synchronized. I've decided to fix up some code today, by removing most of the synchronized keywords. Right there I created several threading issues that took quite a while to fix, with no increase in performance. In the end I reverted everything. I don't see anyone else writing code with "synchronized" everywhere. So is there any reason I shouldn't have "synchronized" everywhere? What if I don't care too much about performance (ie. the method isn't called more than once every few seconds)?

    Read the article

  • how a thread can signal when it's finished?

    - by Kyle
    #include <iostream> #include <boost/thread.hpp> using std::endl; using std::cout; using namespace boost; mutex running_mutex; struct dostuff { volatile bool running; dostuff() : running(true) {} void operator()(int x) { cout << "dostuff beginning " << x << endl; this_thread::sleep(posix_time::seconds(2)); cout << "dostuff is done doing stuff" << endl; mutex::scoped_lock running_lock(running_mutex); running = false; } }; bool is_running(dostuff& doer) { mutex::scoped_lock running_lock(running_mutex); return doer.running; } int main() { cout << "Begin.." << endl; dostuff doer; thread t(doer, 4); if (is_running(doer)) cout << "Cool, it's running.\n"; this_thread::sleep(posix_time::seconds(3)); if (!is_running(doer)) cout << "Cool, it's done now.\n"; else cout << "still running? why\n"; // This happens! :( return 0; } Why is the output of the above program: Begin.. Cool, it's running. dostuff beginning 4 dostuff is done doing stuff still running? why How can dostuff correctly flag when it is done? I do not want to sit around waiting for it, I just want to be notified when it's done.

    Read the article

  • unprotected access to member in property get

    - by Lenik
    I have a property public ObservableCollection<string> Name { get { return _nameCache; } } _nameCache is updated by multiple threads in other class methods. The updates are guarded by a lock. The question is: should I use the same lock around my return statement? Will not using a lock lead to a race condition?

    Read the article

  • C# start a static thread

    - by user595605
    I have a Queue of items I want to process in a thread, and any instance of a class can add items to the Queue to be processed. My idea for doing this is to have a static Thread in the class that processes the items, the only problem is that I don't know where to start this thread, since I can't start it in its initialization. Is there a way I can start a static thread? Or should I be changing the architecture completely?

    Read the article

  • OpenGL multiple threads, variable handling [closed]

    - by toeplitz
    I have written an OpenGL program which runs in the following way: Main: - Initialize SDL - Create thread which has the OpenGL context: - Renderloop - Set camera (view) matrix with glUniform. - glDrawElements() .... etc. - Swapbuffers(); - Main SDL loop handling input events and such. - Update camera matrix of type glm::mat4. This is how I pass my camera object to the class that handles opengl. Camera *cam = new Camera(); gl.setCam(cam); where void setCam(Camera *camera) { this->camera = camera; } For rendering in the opengl context thread, this happens: glm::mat4 modelView = camera->view * model; glUniformMatrix4fv(shader->bindUniform("modelView"), 1, GL_FALSE, glm::value_ptr(modelView)); In the main program where my SDL and other things are handles I then recompute the view matrix. This his working fine without me using any mutex locks. Is this correct? On the other hand, I add objects to my scene by an "upload queue" and in this case I have to mutex lock my upload queue vector (vector class type) when adding items to it or else the program crashes. In summary: I recompute my matrix in a different thread and then use it in the opengl thread without any mutex lock. Why is this working? Edit: I think my question is similar to what was asked here: Should I lock a variable in one thread if I only need it's value in other threads, and why does it work if I don't?, only in my case it is even more simple with only one matrix being changed.

    Read the article

  • Is it safe to read global data from multiple threads?

    - by user362515
    The scenario is as follows: Create an instance of a class (std::map) and sore it as global variable. Spawn threads. Threads read and use the same global instance of the class All spawned threads quit Global class instance is destroyed No mutex, no thread modifies the global class instance. Is this OK? Thank You

    Read the article

  • Java Multi threading - Avoid duplicate request processing

    - by seawaves
    I have following multi threaded environment scenario - Requests are coming to a method and I want to avoid the duplicate processing of concurrent requests coming. As multiple similar requests might be waiting for being processed in blocked state. I used hashtable to keep track of processed request, but it will create memory leaks, so how should keep track of processed request and avoid the same requests to be processed which may be in blocking state.

    Read the article

  • Dispatcher.CheckAccess() isn't working from my console application, is there a better way.

    - by zimmer62
    I wrote an application in WPF / VB and separated the business logic and UI into different projects. The business layer uses a serial port which runs on a different thread, Now that I'm trying to write a command line interface for the same business layer, it seems to fail when .Invoke() is called. (no error, just doesn't work) I'm pretty sure the reason I had to add in checkaccess and .invoke was because I have collections that would be changed during processing the serial port data and wanted the NotifyCollectionChanged to be handled by WPF data binding. (The reason I'm not 100% sure is because it was months ago I wrote that part and it all worked great from the GUI, now adding the console app has made me rethink some of this) I would like my business layer to run these processes on the thread they were created, I need this to work from both my GUI version and the command line version. Am I misusing the Dispatcher in my business layer? Is there a better way to handle an event from the serial port, and then return to the main thread to processes the data?

    Read the article

  • How to call 3 threads sequentially many times?

    - by Hello
    How to call 3 threads sequentially many times? For example: In iteration 1, execution order should be "Thread0-thread1-thread2" then in iteration 2 should be same i.e "Thread0 - thread1-thread2" and so on. The sample code is just executing 3 threads only once. It is not going to 2nd iteration. Thread0 = CreateThread( NULL,0,ThreadProc0, NULL, CREATE_SUSPENDED, &ThreadID); Thread1 = CreateThread( NULL,0,ThreadProc1, NULL, CREATE_SUSPENDED, &ThreadID); Thread2 = CreateThread( NULL,0,ThreadProc2, NULL, CREATE_SUSPENDED, &ThreadID); for(i=0;i<iterations;i++) //Iterations in calling threads { ResumeThread(Thread0); WaitForSingleObject(Thread0, INFINITE); ResumeThread(Thread1); WaitForSingleObject(Thread1, INFINITE); ResumeThread(Thread2); WaitForSingleObject(Thread2, INFINITE); } // Close thread and semaphore handles

    Read the article

  • Simulators for thread scheduling on multicore

    - by shijie xu
    I am seeking a simulator for thread scheduling at multi-core architecture, that is mapping threads to the cores at runtime. During runtime, simulator collects overall cache and IPC statistics. I checked below simulators, but seems there are not sufficient for me: Simplescalar: A simulator only for single core. SESC: multiprocessor simulator with detailed power, thermal, and performance models, QSim: provides instruction-level control of the emulated environment and detailed information about the executing instruction stream. It seems both SESC and QSim supports instructions scheduling instead of thread scheduling on the cores? Anyone can help provide some clues or share experience for this part?

    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 | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >