Search Results

Search found 10773 results on 431 pages for 'concurrency testing'.

Page 75/431 | < Previous Page | 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82  | Next Page >

  • Can fields of the class and arguments of the method interfere?

    - by Roman
    I have a class with a fields called "a". In the class I have a method and in the list of arguments of this method I also have "a". So, which "a" I will see inside of the method? Will it be the field or it will be the argument of the method? public class myClass { private String a; // Method which sets the value of the field "a". public void setA(String a) { a = a; } } By the way, there is a similar situation. A method has some local (for method) variables whose names coincide with the names of the fields. What will the "see" the method if I refer to such a method-local variable inside the method (the field or the local variable)?

    Read the article

  • Is there a concurrent container library for C++

    - by Lirik
    I'm looking for implementations of lock-free containers: Blocking Queue Blocking Stack Hash Map etc... Are there any good libraries out there? I would like to refrain from writing these data structures... I would much rather use something that has been tested by the community.

    Read the article

  • Physical Cores vs Virtual Cores in Parallelism

    - by Code Curiosity
    When it comes to virtualization, I have been deliberating on the relationship between the physical cores and the virtual cores, especially in how it effects applications employing parallelism. For example, in a VM scenario, if there are less physical cores than there are virtual cores, if that's possible, what's the effect or limits placed on the application's parallel processing? I'm asking, because in my environment, it's not disclosed as to what the physical architecture is. Is there still much advantage to parallelizing if the application lives on a dual core VM hosted on a single core physical machine?

    Read the article

  • Is there any point in using a volatile long?

    - by Adamski
    I occasionally use a volatile instance variable in cases where I have two threads reading from / writing to it and don't want the overhead (or potential deadlock risk) of taking out a lock; for example a timer thread periodically updating an int ID that is exposed as a getter on some class: public class MyClass { private volatile int id; public MyClass() { ScheduledExecutorService execService = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1); execService.scheduleAtFixedRate(new Runnable() { public void run() { ++id; } }, 0L, 30L, TimeUnit.SECONDS); } public int getId() { return id; } } My question: Given that the JLS only guarantees that 32-bit reads will be atomic is there any point in ever using a volatile long? (i.e. 64-bit). Caveat: Please do not reply saying that using volatile over synchronized is a case of pre-optimisation; I am well aware of how / when to use synchronized but there are cases where volatile is preferable. For example, when defining a Spring bean for use in a single-threaded application I tend to favour volatile instance variables, as there is no guarantee that the Spring context will initialise each bean's properties in the main thread.

    Read the article

  • How to write my own global lock / unlock functions for PostgreSQL

    - by rafalmag
    I have postgresql (in perlu) function getTravelTime(integer, timestamp), which tries to select data for specified ID and timestamp. If there are no data or if data is old, it downloads them from external server (downloading time ~300ms). Multiple process use this database and this function. There is an error when two process do not find data and download them and try to do an insert to travel_time table (id and timestamp pair have to be unique). I thought about locks. Locking whole table would block all processes and allow only one to proceed. I need to lock only on id and timestamp. pg_advisory_lock seems to lock only in "current session". But my processes uses their own sessions. I tried to write my own lock/unlock functions. Am I doing it right? I use active waiting, how can I omit this? Maybe there is a way to use pg_advisory_lock() as global lock? My code: CREATE TABLE travel_time_locks ( id_key integer NOT NULL, time_key timestamp without time zone NOT NULL, UNIQUE (id_key, time_key) ); ------------ -- Function: mylock(integer, timestamp) DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS mylock(integer, timestamp) CASCADE; -- Usage: SELECT mylock(1, '2010-03-28T19:45'); -- function tries to do a global lock similar to pg_advisory_lock(key, key) CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION mylock(id_input integer, time_input timestamp) RETURNS void AS $BODY$ DECLARE rows int; BEGIN LOOP BEGIN -- active waiting here !!!! :( INSERT INTO travel_time_locks (id_key, time_key) VALUES (id_input, time_input); EXCEPTION WHEN unique_violation THEN CONTINUE; END; EXIT; END LOOP; END; $BODY$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE COST 1; ------------ -- Function: myunlock(integer, timestamp) DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS myunlock(integer, timestamp) CASCADE; -- Usage: SELECT myunlock(1, '2010-03-28T19:45'); -- function tries to do a global unlock similar to pg_advisory_unlock(key, key) CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION myunlock(id_input integer, time_input timestamp) RETURNS integer AS $BODY$ DECLARE BEGIN DELETE FROM ONLY travel_time_locks WHERE id_key=id_input AND time_key=time_input; RETURN 1; END; $BODY$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE COST 1;

    Read the article

  • What strategies are efficient to handle concurrent reads on heterogeneous multi-core architectures?

    - by fabrizioM
    I am tackling the challenge of using both the capabilities of a 8 core machine and a high-end GPU (Tesla 10). I have one big input file, one thread for each core, and one for the the GPU handling. The Gpu thread, to be efficient, needs a big number of lines from the input, while the Cpu thread needs only one line to proceed (storing multiple lines in a temp buffer was slower). The file doesn't need to be read sequentially. I am using boost. My strategy is to have a mutex on the input stream and each thread locks - unlocks it. This is not optimal because the gpu thread should have a higher precedence when locking the mutex, being the fastest and the most demanding one. I can come up with different solutions but before rush into implementation I would like to have some guidelines. What approach do you use / recommend ?

    Read the article

  • Java: serial thread confinement question

    - by denis
    Assume you have a Collection(ConcurrentLinkedQueue) of Runnables with mutable state. Thread A iterates over the Collection and hands the Runnables to an ExecutorService. The run() method changes the Runnables state. The Runnable has no internal synchronization. The above is a repetitive action and the worker threads need to see the changes made by previous iterations. So a Runnable gets processed by one worker thread after another, but is never accessed by more than one thread at a time - a case of serial thread confinement(i hope ;)). The question: Will it work just with the internal synchronization of the ConcurrentLinkedQueue/ExecutorSerivce? To be more precise: If Thread A hands Runnable R to worker thread B and B changes the state of R, and then A hands R to worker thread C..does C see the modifications done by B?

    Read the article

  • Multiple arrangements/asserts per unit test?

    - by lance
    A group of us (.NET developers) are talking unit testing. Not any one framework (we've hit on MSpec, NUint, MSTest, RhinoMocks, TypeMock, etc) -- we're just talking generally. We see lots of syntax that forces a distinct unit test per scenario, but we don't see an avenue to re-using one unit test with various inputs or scenarios. Also, we don't see an avenue to multiple asserts in a given test without an early assert's failure threatening the testing of later asserts (in the same test). Is there anything like that happening in .NET unit testing (state- or behavior-based) today?

    Read the article

  • GAE update different fields of the same entity

    - by bach
    Hi, UserA and UserB are changing objectA.filedA objectA.filedB respectively and at the same time. Because they are not changing the same field one might think that there are no overlaps. Is that true? or the implementation of pm.makePersistnace() actually override the whole object... good to know...

    Read the article

  • PHP thread pool?

    - by embedded
    I have scheduled a CRON job to run every 4 hours which needs to gather user accounts information. Now I want to speed things up and to split the work between several processes and to use one process to update the MySQL DB with the retrieved data from other processes. In JAVA I know that there is a thread pool which I can dedicate some threads to accomplish some work. how do I do it in PHP? Any advice is welcome. Thank

    Read the article

  • Ensuring all waiting threads complete

    - by Daniel
    I'm building a system where the progress of calling threads is dependent on the state of two variables. One variable is updated sporadically by an external source (separate from the client threads) and multiple client threads block on a condition of both variables. The system is something like this TypeB waitForB() { // Can be called by many threads. synchronized (B) { while (A <= B) { B.wait(); } A = B; return B; { } void updateB(TypeB newB) { // Called by one thread. synchronized (B) { B.update(newB); B.notifyAll(); // All blocked threads must receive new B. } } I need all the blocked threads to receive the new value of B once it has been updated. But the problem is once a single thread finishes and updates A, the waiting condition becomes true again so some of the other threads become blocked and don't receive the new value of B. Is there a way of ensuring that only the last thread that was blocked on B updates A, or another way of getting this behaviour?

    Read the article

  • Java - Thread safety of ArrayList constructors

    - by andy boot
    I am looking at this piece of code. This constructor delegates to the native method "System.arraycopy" Is it Thread safe? And by that I mean can it ever throw a ConcurrentModificationException? public Collection<Object> getConnections(Collection<Object> someCollection) { return new ArrayList<Object>(someCollection); } Does it make any difference if the collection being copied is ThreadSafe eg a CopyOnWriteArrayList? public Collection<Object> getConnections(CopyOnWriteArrayList<Object> someCollection) { return new ArrayList<Object>(someCollection); }

    Read the article

  • Call two Matlab functions simultaneously from .net

    - by Silv3rSurf
    I am writing a C# application and I would like to make calls to different matlab functions simultaneously(from different threads). Each Matlab function is located in its own compiled .net library. It seems that I am only able to call one Matlab function at a time however. ie, if matlab_func1() gets called from thread1 then matlab_func2() gets called from thread2, matlab_func2() must wait for matlab_func1() to finish executing. Is there a way to call different matlab functions simultaneously? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Updating an atom with a single value

    - by mikera
    I have a number of atoms in my code where a common requirement is to update them to a new value, regardless of the current value. I therefore find myself writing something like this: (swap! atom-name (fn [_] (identity new-value))) This works but seems pretty ugly and presumably incurs a performance penalty for constructing the anonymous closure. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Java Synchronized function

    - by leon
    Hi I have a question. In the following code, if a thread were blocked at wait statement, and another thread attempts to execute foo(), would the hello wolrd message be printed? and Why? Many Thanks synchronized foo(){ system.out.println("hello world"); ..... wait(); ..... }

    Read the article

  • How can CopyOnWriteArrayList be thread-safe?

    - by Shooshpanchick
    I've taken a look into OpenJDK's sources of CopyOnWriteArrayList and it seems that all write operations are protected by the same lock and read operations are not protected at all. As I understand, under JMM all accesses to a variable (both read and write) should be protected by lock or reordering effects may occur. For example, set(int, E) method contains these lines (under lock): /* 1 */ int len = elements.length; /* 2 */ Object[] newElements = Arrays.copyOf(elements, len); /* 3 */ newElements[index] = element; /* 4 */ setArray(newElements); The get(int) method, on the other hand, only does return get(getArray(), index);. In my understanding of JMM, this means that get may observe the array in an inconsistent state if statements 1-4 are reordered like 1-2(new)-4-2(copyOf)-3. Do I understand JMM incorrectly or is there any other explanations on why CopyOnWriteArrayList is thread-safe?

    Read the article

  • What is the effect of final variable declaration in methods?

    - by Finbarr
    Classic example of a simple server: class ThreadPerTaskSocketServer { public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException { ServerSocket socket = new ServerSocket(80); while (true) { final Socket connection = socket.accept(); Runnable task = new Runnable() { public void run() { handleRequest(connection); } }; new Thread(task).start(); } } } Why should the Socket be declared as final? Is it because the new Thread that handles the request could refer back to the socket variable in the method and cause some sort of ConcurrentModificationException?

    Read the article

  • Violation of primary key constraint, multiple users

    - by MC.
    Lets say UserA and UserB both have an application open and are working with the same type of data. UserA inserts a record into the table with value 10 (PrimaryKey='A'), UserB does not currently see the value UserA entered and attempts to insert a new value of 20 (PrimaryKey='A'). What I wanted in this situation was a DBConcurrencyException, but instead what I have is a primary key violation. I understand why, but I have no idea how to resolve this. What is a good practice to deal with such a circumstance? I do not want to merge before updating the database because I want an error to inform the user that multiple users updated this data.

    Read the article

  • Java Download Concurrent Data

    - by xger86x
    Hi, i'm developing an app which download map tiles around different places in a city. To do this, i have one thread for each place in which i select the tiles and create a thread to download each. Well, the question is how to avoid creating a thread for a tile that already exists in the thread pool. Should not just check if the file exists, since it is possible that the thread for that tile already exists (other place already need that tile) but the file has not been created- Any idea? Thanks

    Read the article

  • ArrayBlockingQueue exceeds given capacity

    - by Wojciech Reszelewski
    I've written program solving bounded producer & consumer problem. While constructing ArrayBlockingQueue I defined capacity 100. I'm using methods take and put inside threads. And I've noticed that sometimes I see put 102 times with any take's between them. Why does it happen? Producer run method: public void run() { Object e = new Object(); while(true) { try { queue.put(e); } catch (InterruptedException w) { System.out.println("Oj, nie wyszlo, nie bij"); } System.out.println("Element added"); } } Consumer run method: public void run() { while(true) { try { queue.take(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println("Element removed"); } } Part of uniq -c on file with output: 102 Element removed 102 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added 2 Element removed 2 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added

    Read the article

  • Why wait should always be in synchronized block

    - by diy
    Hi gents, We all know that in order to invoke Object.wait() , this call must be placed in synchronized block,otherwise,IllegalMonitorStateException is thrown.But what's the reason for making this restriction?I know that wait() releases the monitor, but why do we need to explicitly acquire the monitor by making particular block synchronized and then release the monitor by calling wait() ? What is the potential damage if it was possible to invoke wait() outside synch block, retaining it's semantics - suspending the caller thread ? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Synchronize write to two collections

    - by glaz666
    I need to put some value to maps if it is not there yet. The key-value (if set) should always be in two collections (that is put should happen in two maps atomically). I have tried to implement this as follows: private final ConcurrentMap<String, Object> map1 = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, Object>(); private final ConcurrentMap<String, Object> map2 = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, Object>(); public Object putIfAbsent(String key) { Object retval = map1.get(key); if (retval == null) { synchronized (map1) { retval = map1.get(key); if (retval == null) { Object value = new Object(); //or get it somewhere synchronized (map2) { map1.put(key, value); map2.put(key, new Object()); } retval = value; } } } return retval; } public void doSomething(String key) { Object obj1 = map1.get(key); Object obj2 = map2.get(key); //do smth } Will that work fine in all cases? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Will this make the object thread-safe?

    - by sharptooth
    I have a native Visual C++ COM object and I need to make it completely thread-safe to be able to legally mark it as "free-threaded" in th system registry. Specifically I need to make sure that no more than one thread ever accesses any member variable of the object simultaneously. The catch is I'm almost sure that no sane consumer of my COM object will ever try to simultaneously use the object from more than one thread. So I want the solution as simple as possible as long as it meets the requirement above. Here's what I came up with. I add a mutex or critical section as a member variable of the object. Every COM-exposed method will acquire the mutex/section at the beginning and release before returning control. I understand that this solution doesn't provide fine-grained access and this might slow execution down, but since I suppose simultaneous access will not really occur I don't care of this. Will this solution suffice? Is there a simpler solution?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82  | Next Page >