Search Results

Search found 8588 results on 344 pages for 'thread abort'.

Page 66/344 | < Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >

  • How to signal a buffer full state between posix threads

    - by mikip
    Hi I have two threads, the main thread 'A' is responsible for message handling between a number of processes. When thread A gets a buffer full message, it should inform thread B and pass a pointer to the buffer which thread B will then process. When thread B has finished it should inform thread A that it has finished. How do I go about implementing this using posix threads using C on linux. I have looked at conditional variables, is this the way to go? . I'm not experienced in multi threaded programming and would like some advice on the best avenue to take. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Multi-threaded Pooled Allocators

    - by Darren Engwirda
    I'm having some issues using pooled memory allocators for std::list objects in a multi-threaded application. The part of the code I'm concerned with runs each thread function in isolation (i.e. there is no communication or synchronization between threads) and therefore I'd like to setup separate memory pools for each thread, where each pool is not thread-safe (and hence fast). I've tried using a shared thread-safe singleton memory pool and found the performance to be poor, as expected. This is a heavily simplified version of the type of thing I'm trying to do. A lot has been included in a pseudo-code kind of way, sorry if it's confusing. /* The thread functor - one instance of MAKE_QUADTREE created for each thread */ class make_quadtree { private: /* A non-thread-safe memory pool for int linked list items, let's say that it's * something along the lines of BOOST::OBJECT_POOL */ pooled_allocator<int> item_pool; /* The problem! - a local class that would be constructed within each std::list as the * allocator but really just delegates to ITEM_POOL */ class local_alloc { public : //!! I understand that I can't access ITEM_POOL from within a nested class like //!! this, that's really my question - can I get something along these lines to //!! work?? pointer allocate (size_t n) { return ( item_pool.allocate(n) ); } }; public : make_quadtree (): item_pool() // only construct 1 instance of ITEM_POOL per // MAKE_QUADTREE object { /* The kind of data structures - vectors of linked lists * The idea is that all of the linked lists should share a local pooled allocator */ std::vector<std::list<int, local_alloc>> lists; /* The actual operations - too complicated to show, but in general: * * - The vector LISTS is grown as a quadtree is built, it's size is the number of * quadtree "boxes" * * - Each element of LISTS (each linked list) represents the ID's of items * contained within each quadtree box (say they're xy points), as the quadtree * is grown a lot of ID pop/push-ing between lists occurs, hence the memory pool * is important for performance */ } }; So really my problem is that I'd like to have one memory pool instance per thread functor instance, but within each thread functor share the pool between multiple std::list objects.

    Read the article

  • Can I find out which thread is running using Eclipse?

    - by Roman
    I close my application by pressing a "Close" button. But in the Eclipse I see a red square indicating that something is still running. When I press this red square, I kill my application completely. Is it possible to find out what is still running (which method, which loop) using Eclipse? P.S. I am a newbie. So, it would be nice to have a simple solution. I also might not understand your answer if you use "technical" words which I do not know.

    Read the article

  • What is the "task" in twitter Storm parallelism

    - by John Wang
    I'm trying to learn twitter storm by following the great article "Understanding the parallelism of a Storm topology" However I'm a bit confused by the concept of "task". Is a task an running instance of the component(spout or bolt) ? A executor having multiple tasks actually is saying the same component is executed for multiple times by the executor, am I correct ? Moreover in a general parallelism sense, Storm will spawn a dedicated thread(executor) for a spout or bolt, but what is contributed to the parallelism by an executor(thread) having multiple tasks ? I think having multiple tasks in a thread, since a thread executes sequentially, only make the thread a kind of "cached" resource, which avoids spawning new thread for next task run. Am I correct? I may clear those confusion by myself after taking more time to investigate, but you know, we both love stackoverflow ;-) Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Best ASP.NET Background Service Implementation

    - by Jason N. Gaylord
    What's the best implementation for more than one background service in an ASP.NET application? Timer Callback Timer timer = new Timer(new TimerCallback(MyWorkCallback), HttpContext, 5000, 5000); Thread or ThreadPool Thread thread = new Thread(Work); thread.IsBackground = true; thread.Start(); BackgroundWorker BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker(); worker.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(DoMyWork); worker.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(DoMyWork_Completed); worker.RunWorkerAsync(); Caching like http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/ASPNETService.aspx (located in Jeff Atwood's post here) I need to run multiple background "services" at a given time. One service may run every 5 minutes where another may be once a day. It will never be more than 10 services running at a time.

    Read the article

  • How to tell which thread(s) are producing all the garbage?

    - by Brad Hein
    I have an app with about 15 threads. Most do mundane tasks and sleep most of their lives. Others collect information and cache it in hashmaps. The hashmaps grow to a moderate size and level out. The number of keys and size of value remains constant, but the contents of the values changes (at 33 keys per second average). When I start my app, I notice the garbage collection interval goes from minutes to once per second, and the amount of garbage is 700k+ each time. In fact as I was writing this, it caused my phone to reboot with an error "Referencetable Overflow". Here's my question: Are there any tricks to identifying which threads are producing the garbage, or even finding out more about what garbage they are producing?

    Read the article

  • cannot read but can write on serial port through Android Emulator

    - by Aad
    I am working on a program that is communicating with serial port over USB through Android emulator. emulator -qemu -serial /dev/ttyUSB0 The emulator is able to open the port and write into it. However, read is not happening. The program has a timeout for read maintained by a timer. The read happens in a separate 'read' thread. The main thread has a socketpair fd pair to signal the read-thread that the serial port is closed post timeout. In the read-thread, polling happens(poll() function call) over the 2 file-descriptors: one is serial port fd, the other is one of the socketpair. The board that I have connected to works fine with sending commands over 'cutecom' The poll never succeeds for serial port. However, poll succeeds for 'socketpair'ed fd and the thread ends on a close-signal sent from main-thread post timeout. Ouestions: Are there any special settings for read as even loop-back fails Are there differences between settings for read and write on a serial port?

    Read the article

  • breaking out from socket select

    - by kamziro
    I have a loop which basically calls this every few seconds (after the timeout): while(true){ if(finished) return; switch(select(FD_SETSIZE, &readfds, 0, 0, &tv)){ case SOCKET_ERROR : report bad stuff etc; return; default : break; } // do stuff with the incoming connection } So basically for every few seconds (which is specified by tv), it reactivates the listening. This is run on thread B (not a main thread). There are times when I want to end this acceptor loop immediately from thread A (main thread), but seems like I have to wait until the time interval finishes.. Is there a way to disrupt the select function from another thread so thread B can quit instantly?

    Read the article

  • Standard term for a thread I/O reorder buffer?

    - by Crashworks
    I have a case where many threads all concurrently generate data that is ultimately written to one long, serial file. I need to somehow serialize these writes so that the file gets written in the right order. ie, I have an input queue of 2048 jobs j0..jn, each of which produces a chunk of data oi. The jobs run in parallel on, say, eight threads, but the output blocks have to appear in the file in the same order as the corresponding input blocks — the output file has to be in the order o0o1o2... The solution to this is pretty self evident: I need some kind of buffer that accumulates and writes the output blocks in the correct order, similar to a CPU reorder buffer in Tomasulo's algorithm, or to the way that TCP reassembles out-of-order packets before passing them to the application layer. Before I go code it, I'd like to do a quick literature search to see if there are any papers that have solved this problem in a particularly clever or efficient way, since I have severe realtime and memory constraints. I can't seem to find any papers describing this though; a Scholar search on every permutation of [threads, concurrent, reorder buffer, reassembly, io, serialize] hasn't yielded anything useful. I feel like I must just not be searching the right terms. Is there a common academic name or keyword for this kind of pattern that I can search on?

    Read the article

  • How to display data into datagridview using multi thread?

    - by Mark
    Hi, I have application where I read/receive data all the time (text) and I need to display this data into datagridview, what is the best way to do that in real time, so the data will be changed all the time. I thought about multi threading, if this is a good idea can you guide me with link to explain how to implement it. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How to know who kills my threads

    - by mcabral
    I got a thread that is just banishing.. i'd like to know who is killing my thread and why. It occurs to me my thread is being killed by the OS, but i'd like to confirm this and if possible to know why it's killing it. As for the thread, i can assert it has at least 40 min of execution before dying, but it suddenly dies around 5 min. public void RunWorker() { Thread worker = new Thread(delegate() { DoSomethingForALongLongTime(); }); worker.IsBackground = true; worker.SetApartmentState(System.Threading.ApartmentState.STA); worker.Start(); }

    Read the article

  • Question on a tutorial

    - by hansa
    Hello, i´m trying to get following tutorial to run and understand: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/web/library/wa-cometjava/index.html In the example code which can be downloaded at the bottom of the page is everything in one class with two inner classes. How can i make the the thread of "MessageSender" (Listing 3) visible to "The Weatherman" (Listing 4) so i can use it in the run method without using inner classes? Thank you hansa Reformulation of Question: How to make the send-method of inner class MessageSender make accessible in ClassThatDoSomething. Example-Code: public class Example extends HttpServlet implements CometProcessor { private MessageSender messageSender = null; @Override public void init() throws ServletException { // starts thread MessageSender } public event(CometEvent) { // Object of ClassThatDoSomething gets created started } private class ClassThatDoSomething { public void start() { Runnable runnable = new Runnable() { public void run(){ messageSender.send(message); } Thread thread = new Thread(runnable); thread.start(); } } private class MessageSender implements Runnable { public void send(String message) { //... } public void run() { //...} } }

    Read the article

  • GetMessage with a timeout

    - by qdii
    I have an application which second thread calls GetMessage() in a loop. At some point the first thread realizes that the user wants to quit the application and notifies the second thread that he should terminate. As the first thread is stuck on GetMessage(), the program never quits. Is there a way to wait for messages with a timeout? I’m open to other ideas too. EDIT: (additional explanations) The second thread runs that snippet of code: while ( !m_quit && GetMessage( &msg, NULL, 0, 0 ) ) { TranslateMessage( &msg ); DispatchMessage( &msg ); } The first thread sets m_quit to true.

    Read the article

  • More threads and orientation changes questions.

    - by synic
    When it comes to threads and orientation changes, it seems the normal thing to do is something like this: public class Bwent extends Activity { private static Bwent instance; @Override public void onCreate(Bundle icicle) { super.onCreate(icicle); instance = this; } //... That way, if you're making a network request with a thread, and someone changes the orientation of the phone, the thread will know to use the new Activity. However, is it possible that the thread could finish during the time Android is destroying the old Activity and creating a new one? Is there a moment in the process where the thread still might be pointing to the wrong Activity, or a partially destroyed activity? It seems like there shouldn't be, but even using a Handler created in the main thread, I'm having intermittent issues with a thread trying to update an object that no longer exists. It's rare, but it does happen.

    Read the article

  • Communication between Multiple Threads in a WPF Application

    - by Robert
    I'm creating a WPF application that uses a custom object to populate all the controls. The constructor of that object is initiated by an EventHandler that waits for an API. The problem I'm having is when I try to access any information from that object using a button for example, it returns an error saying "The calling thread cannot access this object because a different thread owns it". I'm assuming this is because the EventHandler creates a new thread which doesn't allow the Main Thread to have access to it. Any ideas on how to get around this? I'm basically having the error "The calling thread cannot access this object because a different thread owns it" when trying to get or set a CollectionViewSource.

    Read the article

  • How do I know that a process has more than 1 thread?

    - by Richard77
    I'have typed ps -ALF and got the following results. Actually there are more to the tow lines that I typed. UID PID PPID LWP C NLWP SZ RSS PSR STIME TTY TIME CMD root 1 0 1 0 1 5900 1644 1 Nov05 ? 00:00:05 /sbin/init root 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 Nov05 ? 00:00:00 [kthreadd] I'm supposed to find which process has more than 1 threads. Which column am I supposed to examine? Thanks for helping

    Read the article

  • How do I make a lock that allows only ONE thread to read from the resource ?

    - by mare
    I have a file that holds an integer ID value. Currently reading the file is protected with ReaderWriterLockSlim as such: public int GetId() { _fileLock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock(); int id = 0; try { if(!File.Exists(_filePath)) CreateIdentityFile(); FileStream readStream = new FileStream(_filePath, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read); StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(readStream); string line = sr.ReadLine(); sr.Close(); readStream.Close(); id = int.Parse(line); return int.Parse(line); } finally { SaveNextId(id); // increment the id _fileLock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock(); } } The problem is that subsequent actions after GetId() might fail. As you can see the GetId() method increments the ID every single time, disregarding what happens after it has issued an ID. The issued ID might be left hanging (as said, exceptions might occur). As the ID is incremented, some IDs might be left unused. So I was thinking of moving the SaveNextId(id) out, remove it (the SaveNextId() actually uses the lock too, except that it's EnterWriteLock). And call it manually from outside after all the required methods have executed. That brings out another problem - multiple threads might enter the GetId() method before the SaveNextId() gets executed and they might all receive the same ID. I don't want any solutions where I have to alter the IDs after the operation, correcting them in any way because that's not nice and might lead to more problems. I need a solution where I can somehow callback into the FileIdentityManager (that's the class that handles these IDs) and let the manager know that it can perform the saving of the next ID and then release the read lock on the file containing the ID. Essentialy I want to replicate the relational databases autoincrement behaviour - if anything goes wrong during row insertion, the ID is not used, it is still available for use but it also never happens that the same ID is issued. Hopefully the question is understandable enough for you to provide some solutions..

    Read the article

  • When Something Occurs in a BackgroundWorker, Trigger Code on a Different Thread?

    - by Soo
    I have a background worker that runs and looks for stuff, and when it finds stuff, I want to update my main WinForm. The issue that I'm having is that when I try to update my WinForm from my background worker, I get errors that tell me I can't modify things that were made outside of my background worker (in other words, everything in my form). Can someone provide a simple code example of how I can get my code to work the way I want it to? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • LINQ Changeset multi-threading

    - by Xodarap
    I'm using LINQ to SQL and after I submit some changes I want to spawn a thread which looks through all the changes and updates our lucene index as necessary. My code looks vaguely like: (new Thread(() => { UpdateIndex(context.GetChangeSet()); }).Start(); Sometimes though I get an InvalidOperationException, which I think is because context.GetChangeSet() is not thread-safe, and so if the change set is modified in one thread while another thread is enumerating through it, problems arise. Is there a "thread-safe" version of GetChangeSet()? Or some way I can do ChangeSet.clone() or something?

    Read the article

  • How solve consumer/producer task using semaphores

    - by user1074896
    I have SimpleProducerConsumer class that illustrate consumer/producer problem (I am not sure that it's correct). public class SimpleProducerConsumer { private Stack<Object> stack = new Stack<Object>(); private static final int STACK_MAX_SIZE = 10; public static void main(String[] args) { SimpleProducerConsumer pc = new SimpleProducerConsumer(); new Thread(pc.new Producer(), "p1").start(); new Thread(pc.new Producer(), "p2").start(); new Thread(pc.new Consumer(), "c1").start(); new Thread(pc.new Consumer(), "c2").start(); new Thread(pc.new Consumer(), "c3").start(); } public synchronized void push(Object d) { while (stack.size() >= STACK_MAX_SIZE) try { wait(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } stack.push(new Object()); System.out.println("push " + Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " + stack.size()); notify(); } public synchronized Object pop() { while (stack.size() == 0) try { wait(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } try { Thread.sleep(50); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } stack.pop(); System.out.println("pop " + Thread.currentThread().getName() + " " + stack.size()); notify(); return null; } class Consumer implements Runnable { @Override public void run() { while (true) { pop(); } } } class Producer implements Runnable { @Override public void run() { while (true) { push(new Object()); } } } } I found simple realization of semaphore(here:http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/concurrency/guardmeth.html I know that there is concurrency package) How I need to change code to exchange java objects monitors to my custom semaphore. (To illustrate C/P problem using semaphores) Semaphore: class Semaphore { private int counter; public Semaphore() { this(0); } public Semaphore(int i) { if (i < 0) throw new IllegalArgumentException(i + " < 0"); counter = i; } public synchronized void release() { if (counter == 0) { notify(); } counter++; } public synchronized void acquire() throws InterruptedException { while (counter == 0) { wait(); } counter--; } }

    Read the article

  • What is better and why to use List as thread safe: BlockingCollection or ReaderWriterLockSlim or lock?

    - by theateist
    I have System.Collections.Generic.List _myList and many threads can read from it or add items to it simultaneously. From what I've read I should using 'BlockingCollection' so this will work. I also read about ReaderWriterLockSlim' and 'lock', but I don't figure out how to use them instead ofBlockingCollection`, so my question is can I do the same with: ReaderWriterLockSlim lock instead of using 'BlockingCollection'. If YES, can you please provide simple example and what pros and cons of using BlockingCollection, ReaderWriterLockSlim, lock?

    Read the article

  • Python sqlite3 and concurrency

    - by RexE
    I have a Python program that uses the "threading" module. Once every second, my program starts a new thread that fetches some data from the web, and stores this data to my hard drive. I would like to use sqlite3 to store these results, but I can't get it to work. The issue seems to be about the following line: conn = sqlite3.connect("mydatabase.db") If I put this line of code inside each thread, I get an OperationalError telling me that the database file is locked. I guess this means that another thread has mydatabase.db open through a sqlite3 connection and has locked it. If I put this line of code in the main program and pass the connection object (conn) to each thread, I get a ProgrammingError, saying that SQLite objects created in a thread can only be used in that same thread. Previously I was storing all my results in CSV files, and did not have any of these file-locking issues. Hopefully this will be possible with sqlite. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to address thread-safety of service data used for maintaining static local variables in C++?

    - by sharptooth
    Consider the following scenario. We have a C++ function with a static local variable: void function() { static int variable = obtain(); //blahblablah } the function needs to be called from multiple threads concurrently, so we add a critical section to avoid concurrent access to the static local: void functionThreadSafe() { CriticalSectionLockClass lock( criticalSection ); static int variable = obtain(); //blahblablah } but will this be enough? I mean there's some magic that makes the variable being initialized no more than once. So there's some service data maintained by the runtime that indicates whether each static local has already been initialized. Will the critical section in the above code protect that service data as well? Is any extra protection required for this scenario?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >