Search Results

Search found 813 results on 33 pages for 'concurrency'.

Page 9/33 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • How can I speed-up this loop (in C)?

    - by splicer
    Hi! I'm trying to parallelize a convolution function in C. Here's the original function which convolves two arrays of 64-bit floats: void convolve(const Float64 *in1, UInt32 in1Len, const Float64 *in2, UInt32 in2Len, Float64 *results) { UInt32 i, j; for (i = 0; i < in1Len; i++) { for (j = 0; j < in2Len; j++) { results[i+j] += in1[i] * in2[j]; } } } In order to allow for concurrency (without semaphores), I created a function that computes the result for a particular position in the results array: void convolveHelper(const Float64 *in1, UInt32 in1Len, const Float64 *in2, UInt32 in2Len, Float64 *result, UInt32 outPosition) { UInt32 i, j; for (i = 0; i < in1Len; i++) { if (i > outPosition) break; j = outPosition - i; if (j >= in2Len) continue; *result += in1[i] * in2[j]; } } The problem is, using convolveHelper slows down the code about 3.5 times (when running on a single thread). Any ideas on how I can speed-up convolveHelper, while maintaining thread safety?

    Read the article

  • quartz: preventing concurrent instances of a job in jobs.xml

    - by Jason S
    This should be really easy. I'm using Quartz running under Apache Tomcat 6.0.18, and I have a jobs.xml file which sets up my scheduled job that runs every minute. What I would like to do, is if the job is still running when the next trigger time rolls around, I don't want to start a new job, so I can let the old instance complete. Is there a way to specify this in jobs.xml (prevent concurrent instances)? If not, is there a way I can share access to an in-memory singleton within my application's Job implementation (is this through the JobExecutionContext?) so I can handle the concurrency myself? (and detect if a previous instance is running) update: After floundering around in the docs, here's a couple of approaches I am considering, but either don't know how to get them to work, or there are problems. Use StatefulJob. This prevents concurrent access... but I'm not sure what other side-effects would occur if I use it, also I want to avoid the following situation: Suppose trigger times would be every minute, i.e. trigger#0 = at time 0, trigger #1 = 60000msec, #2 = 120000, #3 = 180000, etc. and the trigger#0 at time 0 fires my job which takes 130000msec. With a plain Job, this would execute triggers #1 and #2 while job trigger #0 is still running. With a StatefulJob, this would execute triggers #1 and #2 in order, immediately after #0 finishes at 130000. I don't want that, I want #1 and #2 not to run and the next trigger that runs a job should take place at #3 (180000msec). So I still have to do something else with StatefulJob to get it to work the way I want, so I don't see much of an advantage to using it. Use a TriggerListener to return true from vetoJobExecution(). Although implementing the interface seems straightforward, I have to figure out how to setup one instance of a TriggerListener declaratively. Can't find the docs for the xml file. Use a static shared thread-safe object (e.g. a semaphore or whatever) owned by my class that implements Job. I don't like the idea of using singletons via the static keyword under Tomcat/Quartz, not sure if there are side effects. Also I really don't want them to be true singletons, just something that is associated with a particular job definition. Implement my own Trigger which extends SimpleTrigger and contains shared state that could run its own TriggerListener. Again, I don't know how to setup the XML file to use this trigger rather than the standard <trigger><simple>...</simple></trigger>.

    Read the article

  • Java: Making concurrent MySQL queries from multiple clients synchronised

    - by Misha Gale
    I work at a gaming cybercafe, and we've got a system here (smartlaunch) which keeps track of game licenses. I've written a program which interfaces with this system (actually, with it's backend MySQL database). The program is meant to be run on a client PC and (1) query the database to select an unused license from the pool available, then (2) mark this license as in use by the client PC. The problem is, I've got a concurrency bug. The program is meant to be launched simultaneously on multiple machines, and when this happens, some machines often try and acquire the same license. I think that this is because steps (1) and (2) are not synchronised, i.e. one program determines that license #5 is available and selects it, but before it can mark #5 as in use another copy of the program on another PC tries to grab that same license. I've tried to solve this problem by using transactions and table locking, but it doesn't seem to make any difference - Am I doing this right? Here follows the code in question: public LicenseKey Acquire() throws SmartLaunchException, SQLException { Connection conn = SmartLaunchDB.getConnection(); int PCID = SmartLaunchDB.getCurrentPCID(); conn.createStatement().execute("LOCK TABLE `licensekeys` WRITE"); String sql = "SELECT * FROM `licensekeys` WHERE `InUseByPC` = 0 AND LicenseSetupID = ? ORDER BY `ID` DESC LIMIT 1"; PreparedStatement statement = conn.prepareStatement(sql); statement.setInt(1, this.id); ResultSet results = statement.executeQuery(); if (results.next()) { int licenseID = results.getInt("ID"); sql = "UPDATE `licensekeys` SET `InUseByPC` = ? WHERE `ID` = ?"; statement = conn.prepareStatement(sql); statement.setInt(1, PCID); statement.setInt(2, licenseID); statement.executeUpdate(); statement.close(); conn.commit(); conn.createStatement().execute("UNLOCK TABLES"); return new LicenseKey(results.getInt("ID"), this, results.getString("LicenseKey"), results.getInt("LicenseKeyType")); } else { throw new SmartLaunchException("All licenses of type " + this.name + "are in use"); } }

    Read the article

  • Why can i read dirty rows in MySql

    - by acidzombie24
    I cant believe this, i always throught the below would be concurrency safe. I write to a row in one transaction and i am able to read the dirty value from another transaction/command/connection! Why is this possible (not my main question) isnt this not desired and cause more troubles!?! Anyways, i expected that once i write to a row nothing else will be able to read to the row until the transaction is finished. And at least if the row can be still read that the clean (original) value will be read. (but maybe that would cause problems as well if the transaction doesnt use the newly commited data from the other transaction when it is ran) I would like count to == 11. I thought this would be safe in all variants of sql. What can i do to either 1) Not read the dirty value but clean 2) Have that row be locked until the transaction is finished? static MySqlConnection MakeConn() { string connStr = "server=192.168.126.128;user=root;database=TestDB;port=3306;password=a;"; MySqlConnection conn = new MySqlConnection(connStr); conn.Open(); return conn; } static Semaphore sem1 = new Semaphore(1, 1); static Semaphore sem2 = new Semaphore(1, 1); static void Main2() { Console.WriteLine("Starting Test"); // sem1.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("1W"); sem2.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("2W"); Thread oThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(fn2)); oThread.Start(); var conn = MakeConn(); var cmd = new MySqlCommand(@" CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS Persons ( P_Id int NOT NULL, name varchar(255), count int, PRIMARY KEY (P_Id) )", conn); cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); cmd.CommandText = "delete from Persons; insert into Persons(name, count) VALUES('E', '4');"; cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); cmd.CommandText = "select count from Persons;"; var count = (int)cmd.ExecuteScalar(); Console.WriteLine("Finish inserting. v={0}", count); sem2.Release(); Console.WriteLine("2R"); sem1.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("1W"); Console.WriteLine("Starting transaction"); using (var tns = conn.BeginTransaction()) { cmd.CommandText = "update Persons set count=count+1"; cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); cmd.CommandText = "select count from Persons;"; count = (int)cmd.ExecuteScalar(); Console.WriteLine("count is {0}", count); sem2.Release(); Console.WriteLine("2R"); sem1.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("1W"); count += 5; //10 cmd.CommandText = "update Persons set count=" + count.ToString(); cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); cmd.CommandText = "select count from Persons;"; count = (int)cmd.ExecuteScalar(); Console.WriteLine("count is {0}", count); tns.Commit(); } Console.WriteLine("finished transaction 1"); sem2.Release(); Console.WriteLine("2R"); sem1.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("1W"); cmd.CommandText = "select count from Persons;"; count = (int)cmd.ExecuteScalar(); Console.WriteLine("count is {0}", count); sem2.Release(); Console.WriteLine("2R"); //sem1.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("1W"); } static void fn2() { int count; Console.WriteLine("Starting thread 2"); sem2.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("1W"); var conn = MakeConn(); var cmd = new MySqlCommand("", conn); sem1.Release(); Console.WriteLine("1R"); sem2.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("2W"); using (var tns = conn.BeginTransaction()) { cmd.CommandText = "update Persons set count=count+1"; cmd.ExecuteNonQuery(); cmd.CommandText = "select count from Persons;"; count = (int)cmd.ExecuteScalar(); Console.WriteLine("count is {0}", count); sem1.Release(); Console.WriteLine("1R"); sem2.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("2W"); tns.Commit(); } Console.WriteLine("finished transaction 2"); sem1.Release(); Console.WriteLine("1R"); sem2.WaitOne(); Console.WriteLine("2W"); cmd.CommandText = "select count from Persons;"; count = (int)cmd.ExecuteScalar(); Console.WriteLine("count is {0}", count); //should be 11. 4 + 1x2(one each thread) += 5 from first thread == 11 sem1.Release(); Console.WriteLine("1R"); } console Starting Test 1W 2W Starting thread 2 Finish inserting. v=4 2R 1W 1R 1W Starting transaction count is 5 2R 2W count is 6 1R 1W count is 10 finished transaction 1 2R 2W finished transaction 2 1R 1W count is 10 2R 2W count is 10 1R

    Read the article

  • Recommended book on Actors concurrency model (patterns, pitfalls, etc.)?

    - by Larry OBrien
    The Actors concurrency model is clearly gaining favor. Is there a good book that presents the patterns and pitfalls of the model? I am thinking about something that would discuss, for instance, the problems of consistency and correctness in the context of hundreds or thousands of independent Actors. It would be okay if it were associated with a specific language (erlang, I would imagine, since that seems universally regarded as the proven implementation of Actors), but I am hoping for something more than an introductory chapter or two. (FWIW, I'm actually most interested in Actors as they are implemented in Scala.)

    Read the article

  • Solving embarassingly parallel problems using Python multiprocessing

    - by gotgenes
    How does one use multiprocessing to tackle embarrassingly parallel problems? Embarassingly parallel problems typically consist of three basic parts: Read input data (from a file, database, tcp connection, etc.). Run calculations on the input data, where each calculation is independent of any other calculation. Write results of calculations (to a file, database, tcp connection, etc.). We can parallelize the program in two dimensions: Part 2 can run on multiple cores, since each calculation is independent; order of processing doesn't matter. Each part can run independently. Part 1 can place data on an input queue, part 2 can pull data off the input queue and put results onto an output queue, and part 3 can pull results off the output queue and write them out. This seems a most basic pattern in concurrent programming, but I am still lost in trying to solve it, so let's write a canonical example to illustrate how this is done using multiprocessing. Here is the example problem: Given a CSV file with rows of integers as input, compute their sums. Separate the problem into three parts, which can all run in parallel: Process the input file into raw data (lists/iterables of integers) Calculate the sums of the data, in parallel Output the sums Below is traditional, single-process bound Python program which solves these three tasks: #!/usr/bin/env python # -*- coding: UTF-8 -*- # basicsums.py """A program that reads integer values from a CSV file and writes out their sums to another CSV file. """ import csv import optparse import sys def make_cli_parser(): """Make the command line interface parser.""" usage = "\n\n".join(["python %prog INPUT_CSV OUTPUT_CSV", __doc__, """ ARGUMENTS: INPUT_CSV: an input CSV file with rows of numbers OUTPUT_CSV: an output file that will contain the sums\ """]) cli_parser = optparse.OptionParser(usage) return cli_parser def parse_input_csv(csvfile): """Parses the input CSV and yields tuples with the index of the row as the first element, and the integers of the row as the second element. The index is zero-index based. :Parameters: - `csvfile`: a `csv.reader` instance """ for i, row in enumerate(csvfile): row = [int(entry) for entry in row] yield i, row def sum_rows(rows): """Yields a tuple with the index of each input list of integers as the first element, and the sum of the list of integers as the second element. The index is zero-index based. :Parameters: - `rows`: an iterable of tuples, with the index of the original row as the first element, and a list of integers as the second element """ for i, row in rows: yield i, sum(row) def write_results(csvfile, results): """Writes a series of results to an outfile, where the first column is the index of the original row of data, and the second column is the result of the calculation. The index is zero-index based. :Parameters: - `csvfile`: a `csv.writer` instance to which to write results - `results`: an iterable of tuples, with the index (zero-based) of the original row as the first element, and the calculated result from that row as the second element """ for result_row in results: csvfile.writerow(result_row) def main(argv): cli_parser = make_cli_parser() opts, args = cli_parser.parse_args(argv) if len(args) != 2: cli_parser.error("Please provide an input file and output file.") infile = open(args[0]) in_csvfile = csv.reader(infile) outfile = open(args[1], 'w') out_csvfile = csv.writer(outfile) # gets an iterable of rows that's not yet evaluated input_rows = parse_input_csv(in_csvfile) # sends the rows iterable to sum_rows() for results iterable, but # still not evaluated result_rows = sum_rows(input_rows) # finally evaluation takes place as a chain in write_results() write_results(out_csvfile, result_rows) infile.close() outfile.close() if __name__ == '__main__': main(sys.argv[1:]) Let's take this program and rewrite it to use multiprocessing to parallelize the three parts outlined above. Below is a skeleton of this new, parallelized program, that needs to be fleshed out to address the parts in the comments: #!/usr/bin/env python # -*- coding: UTF-8 -*- # multiproc_sums.py """A program that reads integer values from a CSV file and writes out their sums to another CSV file, using multiple processes if desired. """ import csv import multiprocessing import optparse import sys NUM_PROCS = multiprocessing.cpu_count() def make_cli_parser(): """Make the command line interface parser.""" usage = "\n\n".join(["python %prog INPUT_CSV OUTPUT_CSV", __doc__, """ ARGUMENTS: INPUT_CSV: an input CSV file with rows of numbers OUTPUT_CSV: an output file that will contain the sums\ """]) cli_parser = optparse.OptionParser(usage) cli_parser.add_option('-n', '--numprocs', type='int', default=NUM_PROCS, help="Number of processes to launch [DEFAULT: %default]") return cli_parser def main(argv): cli_parser = make_cli_parser() opts, args = cli_parser.parse_args(argv) if len(args) != 2: cli_parser.error("Please provide an input file and output file.") infile = open(args[0]) in_csvfile = csv.reader(infile) outfile = open(args[1], 'w') out_csvfile = csv.writer(outfile) # Parse the input file and add the parsed data to a queue for # processing, possibly chunking to decrease communication between # processes. # Process the parsed data as soon as any (chunks) appear on the # queue, using as many processes as allotted by the user # (opts.numprocs); place results on a queue for output. # # Terminate processes when the parser stops putting data in the # input queue. # Write the results to disk as soon as they appear on the output # queue. # Ensure all child processes have terminated. # Clean up files. infile.close() outfile.close() if __name__ == '__main__': main(sys.argv[1:]) These pieces of code, as well as another piece of code that can generate example CSV files for testing purposes, can be found on github. I would appreciate any insight here as to how you concurrency gurus would approach this problem. Here are some questions I had when thinking about this problem. Bonus points for addressing any/all: Should I have child processes for reading in the data and placing it into the queue, or can the main process do this without blocking until all input is read? Likewise, should I have a child process for writing the results out from the processed queue, or can the main process do this without having to wait for all the results? Should I use a processes pool for the sum operations? If yes, what method do I call on the pool to get it to start processing the results coming into the input queue, without blocking the input and output processes, too? apply_async()? map_async()? imap()? imap_unordered()? Suppose we didn't need to siphon off the input and output queues as data entered them, but could wait until all input was parsed and all results were calculated (e.g., because we know all the input and output will fit in system memory). Should we change the algorithm in any way (e.g., not run any processes concurrently with I/O)?

    Read the article

  • ConcurrentDictionary and updating values

    - by rboarman
    Hello, After searching via Google and coming up empty, I decided to ask the gurus here on StackOverflow. I am trying to update entries in a ConcurrentDictionary something like this: class Class1 { public int Counter { get; set; } } class Test { private ConcurrentDictionary<int, Class1> dict = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, Class1>(); public void TestIt() { foreach (var foo in dict) { foo.Value.Counter = foo.Value.Counter + 1; // Simplified example } } } Essentially I need to iterate over the dictionary and update a field on each Value. I understand from the documentation that I need to avoid using the Value property. Instead I think I need to use TryUpdate except that I don’t want to replace my whole object. Instead, I want to update a field on the object. After reading this: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2010/01/08/9945809.aspx Perhaps I need to use AddOrUpdate and simply do nothing in the add delegate. Does anyone have any insight as to how to do this? Thank you, Rick

    Read the article

  • Locking Cache Key without Locking the entire Cache

    - by Gandalf
    I have servlets that caches user information rather then retrieving it from the user store on every request (shared Ehcache). The issue I have is that if a client is multi-threaded and they make more then one simultaneous request, before they have been authenticated, then I get this in my log: Retrieving User [Bob] Retrieving User [Bob] Retrieving User [Bob] Returned [Bob] ...caching Returned [Bob] ...caching Returned [Bob] ...caching What I would want is that the first request would call the user service, while the other two requests get blocked - and when the first request returns, and then caches the object, the other two requests go through: Retrieving User [Bob] blocking... blocking... Returned [Bob] ...caching [Bob] found in cache [Bob] found in cache I've thought about locking on the String "Bob" (because due to interning it's always the same object right?). Would that work? And if so how do I keep track of the keys that actually exist in the cache and build a locking mechanism around them that would then return the valid object once it's retrieved. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Java ReentrantReadWriteLocks - how to safely acquire write lock?

    - by Andrzej Doyle
    I am using in my code at the moment a ReentrantReadWriteLock to synchronize access over a tree-like structure. This structure is large, and read by many threads at once with occasional modifications to small parts of it - so it seems to fit the read-write idiom well. I understand that with this particular class, one cannot elevate a read lock to a write lock, so as per the Javadocs one must release the read lock before obtaining the write lock. I've used this pattern successfully in non-reentrant contexts before. What I'm finding however is that I cannot reliably acquire the write lock without blocking forever. Since the read lock is reentrant and I am actually using it as such, the simple code lock.getReadLock().unlock(); lock.getWriteLock().lock() can block if I have acquired the readlock reentrantly. Each call to unlock just reduces the hold count, and the lock is only actually released when the hold count hits zero. EDIT to clarify this, as I don't think I explained it too well initially - I am aware that there is no built-in lock escalation in this class, and that I have to simply release the read lock and obtain the write lock. My problem is/was that regardless of what other threads are doing, calling getReadLock().unlock() may not actually release this thread's hold on the lock if it acquired it reentrantly, in which case the call to getWriteLock().lock() will block forever as this thread still has a hold on the read lock and thus blocks itself. For example, this code snippet will never reach the println statement, even when run singlethreaded with no other threads accessing the lock: final ReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock(); lock.getReadLock().lock(); // In real code we would go call other methods that end up calling back and // thus locking again lock.getReadLock().lock(); // Now we do some stuff and realise we need to write so try to escalate the // lock as per the Javadocs and the above description lock.getReadLock().unlock(); // Does not actually release the lock lock.getWriteLock().lock(); // Blocks as some thread (this one!) holds read lock System.out.println("Will never get here"); So I ask, is there a nice idiom to handle this situation? Specifically, when a thread that holds a read lock (possibly reentrantly) discovers that it needs to do some writing, and thus wants to "suspend" its own read lock in order to pick up the write lock (blocking as required on other threads to release their holds on the read lock), and then "pick up" its hold on the read lock in the same state afterwards? Since this ReadWriteLock implementation was specifically designed to be reentrant, surely there is some sensible way to elevate a read lock to a write lock when the locks may be acquired reentrantly? This is the critical part that means the naive approach does not work.

    Read the article

  • Updating fields of values in a ConcurrentDictionary

    - by rboarman
    I am trying to update entries in a ConcurrentDictionary something like this: class Class1 { public int Counter { get; set; } } class Test { private ConcurrentDictionary<int, Class1> dict = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, Class1>(); public void TestIt() { foreach (var foo in dict) { foo.Value.Counter = foo.Value.Counter + 1; // Simplified example } } } Essentially I need to iterate over the dictionary and update a field on each Value. I understand from the documentation that I need to avoid using the Value property. Instead I think I need to use TryUpdate except that I don’t want to replace my whole object. Instead, I want to update a field on the object. After reading this blog entry on the PFX team blog: Perhaps I need to use AddOrUpdate and simply do nothing in the add delegate. Does anyone have any insight as to how to do this?

    Read the article

  • Android 2.1 GoogleMaps ItemizedOverlay ConcurrentModificationException

    - by Soumya Simanta
    Hi, I cannot figure out the origin of the ConcurrentModificationException. In my activity I'm calling updateMapOverlay(). I'm also calling updateMapOverlay() inside another Thread (a TimerTask) that is invoked on regular intervals. I'm taking the appropriate locks when invoking updateMapOverlay() from both the threads. Is this problem being caused because I'm invoking updateMapOverlay from inside a non-UI thread (i.e., TimerTask). Has anyone else faced a similar issue ? private void updateMapOverlay() { this.itemizedOverlay.refreshItems(createOverlayItemsList()); List<Overlay> overlays = mapView.getOverlays(); overlays.clear(); overlays.add(cotItemizedOverlay); this.mapview.invalidate(); } Thanks. Exception: W/dalvikvm(10641): threadid=3: thread exiting with uncaught exception (group=0x4001b180) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): Uncaught handler: thread main exiting due to uncaught exception E/AndroidRuntime(10641): java.util.ConcurrentModificationException E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at java.util.AbstractList$SimpleListIterator.next(AbstractList.java:64) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at com.google.android.maps.OverlayBundle.draw(OverlayBundle.java:41) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at com.google.android.maps.MapView.onDraw(MapView.java:494) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.View.draw(View.java:6535) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewGroup.drawChild(ViewGroup.java:1531) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewGroup.dispatchDraw(ViewGroup.java:1258) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewGroup.drawChild(ViewGroup.java:1529) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewGroup.dispatchDraw(ViewGroup.java:1258) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.View.draw(View.java:6538) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.widget.FrameLayout.draw(FrameLayout.java:352) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewGroup.drawChild(ViewGroup.java:1531) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewGroup.dispatchDraw(ViewGroup.java:1258) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewGroup.drawChild(ViewGroup.java:1529) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewGroup.dispatchDraw(ViewGroup.java:1258) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.View.draw(View.java:6538) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.widget.FrameLayout.draw(FrameLayout.java:352) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at com.android.internal.policy.impl.PhoneWindow$DecorView.draw(PhoneWindow.java:1830) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewRoot.draw(ViewRoot.java:1349) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewRoot.performTraversals(ViewRoot.java:1114) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.view.ViewRoot.handleMessage(ViewRoot.java:1633) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.os.Handler.dispatchMessage(Handler.java:99) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.os.Looper.loop(Looper.java:123) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at android.app.ActivityThread.main(ActivityThread.java:4363) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at java.lang.reflect.Method.invokeNative(Native Method) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:521) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit$MethodAndArgsCaller.run(ZygoteInit.java:860) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at com.android.internal.os.ZygoteInit.main(ZygoteInit.java:618) E/AndroidRuntime(10641): at dalvik.system.NativeStart.main(Native Method) I/Process ( 95): Sending signal. PID: 10641 SIG: 3

    Read the article

  • Can I query DOM Document with xpath expression from multiple threads safely?

    - by Dan
    I plan to use dom4j DOM Document as a static cache in an application where multiples threads can query the document. Taking into the account that the document itself will never change, is it safe to query it from multiple threads? I wrote the following code to test it, but I am not sure that it actually does prove that operation is safe? package test.concurrent_dom; import org.dom4j.Document; import org.dom4j.DocumentException; import org.dom4j.DocumentHelper; import org.dom4j.Element; import org.dom4j.Node; /** * Hello world! * */ public class App extends Thread { private static final String xml = "<Session>" + "<child1 attribute1=\"attribute1value\" attribute2=\"attribute2value\">" + "ChildText1</child1>" + "<child2 attribute1=\"attribute1value\" attribute2=\"attribute2value\">" + "ChildText2</child2>" + "<child3 attribute1=\"attribute1value\" attribute2=\"attribute2value\">" + "ChildText3</child3>" + "</Session>"; private static Document document; private static Element root; public static void main( String[] args ) throws DocumentException { document = DocumentHelper.parseText(xml); root = document.getRootElement(); Thread t1 = new Thread(){ public void run(){ while(true){ try { sleep(3); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } Node n1 = root.selectSingleNode("/Session/child1"); if(!n1.getText().equals("ChildText1")){ System.out.println("WRONG!"); } } } }; Thread t2 = new Thread(){ public void run(){ while(true){ try { sleep(3); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } Node n1 = root.selectSingleNode("/Session/child2"); if(!n1.getText().equals("ChildText2")){ System.out.println("WRONG!"); } } } }; Thread t3 = new Thread(){ public void run(){ while(true){ try { sleep(3); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } Node n1 = root.selectSingleNode("/Session/child3"); if(!n1.getText().equals("ChildText3")){ System.out.println("WRONG!"); } } } }; t1.start(); t2.start(); t3.start(); System.out.println( "Hello World!" ); } }

    Read the article

  • Cannot use READPAST in snapshot isolation mode

    - by Marcus
    I have a process which is called from multiple threads which does the following: Start transaction Select unit of work from work table with by finding the next row where IsProcessed=0 with hints (UPDLOCK, HOLDLOCK, READPAST) Process the unit of work (C# and SQL stored procedures) Commit the transaction The idea of this is that a thread dips into the pool for the "next" piece of work, and processes it, and the locks are there to ensure that a single piece of work is not processed twice. (the order doesn't matter). All this has been working fine for months. Until today that is, when I happened to realise that despite enabling snapshot isolation and making it the default at the database level, the actual transaction creation code was manually setting an isolation level of "ReadCommitted". I duly changed that to "Snapshot", and of course immediately received the "You can only specify the READPAST lock in the READ COMMITTED or REPEATABLE READ" error message. Oops! The main reason for locking the row was to "mark the row" in such a way that the "mark" would be removed when the transaction that applied the mark was committed and the lock seemed to be the best way to do this, since this table isn't read otherwise except by these threads. If I were to use the IsProcessed flag as the lock, then presumably I would need to do the update first, and then select the row I just updated, but I would need to employ the NOLOCK flag to know whether any other thread had set the flag on a row. All sounds a bit messy. The easiest option would be to abandon the snapshot isolation mode altogether, but the design of step #3 requires it. Any bright ideas on the best way to resolve this problem? Thanks Marcus

    Read the article

  • Multithreading/Parallel Processing in PHP

    - by manyxcxi
    I have a PHP script that will generate a report using PHPExcel from data queried from a MySQL DB. Currently, it is linear in processing in that it gets the data back from MySQL, reads in the Excel template, writes the data to the template, then outputs it. I have optimized the code to the point that the data is only iterated over once, and there is very little processing done on the PHP side. The query returns hundreds of lines in less than .001 seconds, so it is running fast enough. After some timing I have found my bottlenecks to be (surprise, surprise) reading the template and writing the output. I would like to do this: Spawn a thread/process to read the template Spawn a thread/process to fetch the data Return back to parent thread - Parent thread will wait until both are complete Proceed on as normal My main questions are is this possible, is it worth it? If yes to both, how would you tackle it? Also, it is PHP 5 on CentOS

    Read the article

  • Do the ‘up to date’ guarantees for values of Java's final fields extend to indirect references?

    - by mattbh
    The Java language spec defines semantics of final fields in section 17.5: The usage model for final fields is a simple one. Set the final fields for an object in that object's constructor. Do not write a reference to the object being constructed in a place where another thread can see it before the object's constructor is finished. If this is followed, then when the object is seen by another thread, that thread will always see the correctly constructed version of that object's final fields. It will also see versions of any object or array referenced by those final fields that are at least as up-to-date as the final fields are. My question is - does the 'up-to-date' guarantee extend to the contents of nested arrays, and nested objects? An example scenario: Thread A constructs a HashMap of ArrayLists, then assigns the HashMap to final field 'myFinal' in an instance of class 'MyClass' Thread B sees a (non-synchronized) reference to the MyClass instance and reads 'myFinal', and accesses and reads the contents of one of the ArrayLists In this scenario, are the members of the ArrayList as seen by Thread B guaranteed to be at least as up to date as they were when MyClass's constructor completed? I'm looking for clarification of the semantics of the Java Memory Model and language spec, rather than alternative solutions like synchronization. My dream answer would be a yes or no, with a reference to the relevant text.

    Read the article

  • atomic writes to ehcache

    - by Jacques René Mesrine
    Context I am storing a java.util.List inside ehcache. Key(String) --> List<UserDetail> The ordered List contains a Top 10 ranking of my most active users. Problem Concurrent 3rd party clients might be requesting for this list. I have a requirement to be as current as possible with regards to the ranking. Thus if the ranking is changed due the activities of users, the ordered List in the cache must not be left stale for very long. Once I've recalculated a new List, I want to replace the one in cache immediately. Consider a busy scenario whereby multiple concurrent clients are requesting for the ranking; how can I replace the cache item in an fashion such that: Clients can continue to pull a possibly stale snapshot. They should never get a null value. There will only be 1 server thread that writes to the cache.

    Read the article

  • Java LockSupport Memory Consistency

    - by Lachlan
    Java 6 API question. Does calling LockSupport.unpark(thread) have a happens-before relationship to the return from LockSupport.park in the just-unparked thread? I strongly suspect the answer is yes, but the Javadoc doesn't seem to mention it explicitly.

    Read the article

  • Java AtomicInteger: what are the differences between compareAndSet and weakCompareAndSet?

    - by WizardOfOdds
    (note that this question is not about CAS, it's about the "May fail spuriously" Javadoc). The only difference in the Javadoc between these two methods from the AtomicInteger class is that the weakCompareAndSet contains the comment: "May fail spuriously". Now unless my eyes are cheated by some spell, both method do look to be doing exactly the same: public final boolean compareAndSet(int expect, int update) { return unsafe.compareAndSwapInt(this, valueOffset, expect, update); } /* ... * May fail spuriously. */ public final boolean weakCompareAndSet(int expect, int update) { return unsafe.compareAndSwapInt(this, valueOffset, expect, update); } So I realize that "May" doesn't mean "Must" but then why don't we all start adding this to our codebase: public void doIt() { a(); } /** * May fail spuriously */ public void weakDoIt() { a(); } I'm really confused with that weakCompareAndSet() that appears to do the same as the compareAndSet() yet that "may fail spuriously" while the other can't. Apparently the "weak" and the "spurious fail" are in a way related to "happens-before" ordering but I'm still very confused by these two AtomicInteger (and AtomicLong etc.) methods: because apparently they call exactly the same unsafe.compareAndSwapInt method. I'm particularly confused in that AtomicInteger got introduced in Java 1.5, so after the Java Memory Model change (so it is obviously not something that could "fail spuriously in 1.4" but whose behavior changed to "shall not fail spuriously in 1.5").

    Read the article

  • Java Memory Model: reordering and concurrent locks

    - by Steffen Heil
    Hi The java meomry model mandates that synchronize blocks that synchronize on the same monitor enforce a before-after-realtion on the variables modified within those blocks. Example: // in thread A synchronized( lock ) { x = true; } // in thread B synchronized( lock ) { System.out.println( x ); } In this case it is garanteed that thread B will see x==true as long as thread A already passed that synchronized-block. Now I am in the process to rewrite lots of code to use the more flexible (and said to be faster) locks in java.util.concurrent, especially the ReentrantReadWriteLock. So the example looks like this: // in thread A synchronized( lock ) { lock.writeLock().lock(); x = true; lock.writeLock().unlock(); } // in thread B synchronized( lock ) { lock.readLock().lock(); System.out.println( x ); lock.readLock().unlock(); } However, I have not seen any hints within the memory model specification that such locks also imply the nessessary ordering. Looking into the implementation it seems to rely on the access to volatile variables inside AbstractQueuedSynchronizer (for the sun implementation at least). However this is not part of any specification and moreover access to non-volatile variables is not really condsidered covered by the memory barrier given by these variables, is it? So, here are my questions: Is it safe to assume the same ordering as with the "old" synchronized blocks? Is this documented somewhere? Is accessing any volatile variable a memory barrier for any other variable? Regards, Steffen

    Read the article

  • How is spin lock implemented under the hood?

    - by httpinterpret
    This is a lock that can be held by only one thread of execution at a time. An attempt to acquire the lock by another thread of execution makes the latter loop until the lock is released. How does it handle the case when two threads try to acquire the lock exactly the same time? I think this question also applies to various of other mutex implementation.

    Read the article

  • Lost Update Anomaly in Sql Server Update Command

    - by Javed
    Hi, I am very much confused. I have a transaction in ReadCommitted Isolation level. Among other things I am also updating a counter value in it, something similar to below: Update tblCount set counter = counter + 1 My application is a desktop application and this transaction happens to occur quite frequently and concurrently. We recently noticed an error that sometimes the counter value doesn't get updated or is missed. We also insert one record on each counter update so we are sure that records have been inserted but somehow counter fails to update. This happens once in 2000 simulaneous transactions. I seriously doubt it is a lost update anomaly I am facing but if you look at the command above, it's just update the counter from its own value: if I have started a transaction and the transaction has reached this statement, it should have locked the row. This should not cause lost update, but it's happening somehow. Is the thing that this update command works in two parts? Like first it reads the counter value (during which it doesn't get the exclusive lock) and then writes the new calculated value (when it does get an exclusive lock)? Please help, I have got really confused.

    Read the article

  • Java 1.4 singleton containing a mutable field

    - by Philippe
    Hi, I'm working on a legacy Java 1.4 project, and I have a factory that instantiates a csv file parser as a singleton. In my csv file parser, however, I have a HashSet that will store objects created from each line of my CSV file. All that will be used by a web application, and users will be uploading CSV files, possibly concurrently. Now my question is : what is the best way to prevent my list of objects to be modified by 2 users ? So far, I'm doing the following : final class MyParser { private File csvFile = null; private static Set myObjects = Collections.synchronizedSet(new HashSet); public synchronized void setFile(File file) { this.csvFile = file; } public void parse() FileReader fr = null; try { fr = new FileReader(csvFile); synchronized(myObjects) { myObjects.clear(); while(...) { // foreach line of my CSV, create a "MyObject" myObjects.add(new MyObject(...)); } } } catch (Exception e) { //... } } } Should I leave the lock only on the myObjects Set, or should I declare the whole parse() method as synchronized ? Also, how should I synchronize - both - the setting of the csvFile and the parsing ? I feel like my actual design is broken because threads could modify the csv file several times while a possibly long parse process is running. I hope I'm being clear enough, because myself am a bit confused on those multi-synchronization issues. Thanks ;-)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >