Search Results

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

Page 15/33 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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 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 to synchronize multiple proccess in c through basic signal handling

  - by atreyu

  Hi, people. For a academic exercise i have to implement a program in c for nix platform which is to synchronize multiple processes through signal handling, using only signal,pause,kill and fork basic functions. I searched google and have not found any clear example: I hope the wisdom of one of you will light my way. Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to avoid concurrent execution of a time-consuming task without blocking?

  - by Diego V

  I want to efficiently avoid concurrent execution of a time-consuming task in a heavily multi-threaded environment without making threads wait for a lock when another thread is already running the task. Instead, in that scenario, I want them to gracefully fail (i.e. skip its attempt to execute the task) as fast as possible. To illustrate the idea considerer this unsafe (has race condition!) code: private static boolean running = false; public void launchExpensiveTask() { if (running) return; // Do nothing running = true; try { runExpensiveTask(); } finally { running = false; } } I though about using a variation of Double-Checked Locking (consider that running is a primitive 32-bit field, hence atomic, it could work fine even for Java below 5 without the need of volatile). It could look like this: private static boolean running = false; public void launchExpensiveTask() { if (running) return; // Do nothing synchronized (ThisClass.class) { if (running) return; running = true; try { runExpensiveTask(); } finally { running = false; } } } Maybe I should also use a local copy of the field as well (not sure now, please tell me). But then I realized that anyway I will end with an inner synchronization block, that still could hold a thread with the right timing at monitor entrance until the original executor leaves the critical section (I know the odds usually are minimal but in this case we are thinking in several threads competing for this long-running resource). So, could you think in a better approach?

  Read the article

• Limiting object allocation over multiple threads

  - by John

  I have an application which retrieves and caches the results of a clients query. The client then requests different chunks of data and the application sends the relevant results and removes them from the cache. A new requirement for this application is that there needs to be a run-time configurable maximum number of results which may be cached. I've taken the naive approach and implemented this by using a counter under a lock which is incremented every time a result is cached and decremented whenever a result is removed from the cache. Unfortunately, this has drastically reduced the applications performance when processing a large number of concurrent requests. I have tried both a critical section lock and spin-lock; the performance improves a bit with a spin-lock, but is still unacceptably slow. Is there a better way to solve this problem which may improve performance? Right now I have a thread pool that services requests and each request is tied to a Request object which stores that cached results for that particular request. Here is a simplified pseudo code version of my current implementation: void ResultCallback( Result result, Request *request ) { lock totalResultsCached lock cachedLimit if( totalResultsCached + 1 > cachedLimit ) { unlock cachedLimit unlock totalResultsCached //cancel the request return; } ++totalResultsCached; unlock cachedLimit unlock totalResultsCached request.add(result) } void SendResults( int resultsToSend, Request *request ) { while ( resultsToSend > 0 ) { send(request.remove()) lock totalResultsCached --totalResultsCached unlock totalResultsCached --resultsToSend; } }

  Read the article

• Java - Multithreading !

  - by Gogi

  What does phrase "synchronization with main memory" mean?

  Read the article

• Semaphore - What is the use of initial count?

  - by Sandbox

  http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.semaphoreslim.aspx To create a semaphore, I need to provide an initial count and maximum count. MSDN states that an initial count is - The initial number of requests for the semaphore that can be granted concurrently. While it states that maximum count is The maximum number of requests for the semaphore that can be granted concurrently. I can understand that the maximum count is the maximum number of threads that can access a resource concurrently. But, what is the use of initial count? If I create a semaphore with an initial count of 0 and a maximum count of 2, none of my threadpool threads are able to access the resource. If I set the initial count as 1 and maximum count as 2 then only thread pool thread can access the resource. It is only when I set both initial count and maximum count as 2, 2 threads are able to access the resource concurrently. So, I am really confused about the significance of initial count? SemaphoreSlim semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(0, 2); //all threadpool threads wait SemaphoreSlim semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 2);//only one thread has access to the resource at a time SemaphoreSlim semaphoreSlim = new SemaphoreSlim(2, 2);//two threadpool threads can access the resource concurrently

  Read the article

• ConcurentModificationException in Java HashMap

  - by Bear

  Suppose I have two methods in my classes, writeToMap() and processKey() and both methods are called by multiple threads. writeToMap is a method to write something in hashmap and processKey() is used to do sth based on the keySet of HashMap. Inside processKey, I first copy the originalMap before getting the key set. new HashMap<String, Map<String,String>(originalMap).get("xx").keySet(); But I am still getting ConcurrentModificationException even though I always copy the hashmap. Whats the problem?

  Read the article

• FileInputStream and FileOutputStream to the same file: Is a read() guaranteed to see all write()s that "happened before"?

  - by user946850

  I am using a file as a cache for big data. One thread writes to it sequentially, another thread reads it sequentially. Can I be sure that all data that has been written (by write()) in one thread can be read() from another thread, assuming a proper "happens-before" relationship in terms of the Java memory model? Is this behavior documented? EDIT: In my JDK, FileOutputSream does not override flush(), and OutputStream.flush() is empty. That's why I'm wondering... EDIT^2: The streams in question are owned exclusively by a class that I have full control of. Each stream is guaranteed to be accesses by one thread only. My tests show that it works as expected, but I'm still wondering if this is guaranteed and documented. See also this related discussion: http://chat.stackoverflow.com/rooms/17598/discussion-between-hussain-al-mutawa-and-user946850

  Read the article

• Putting a thread to sleep until event X occurs

  - by tipu

  I'm writing to many files in a threaded app and I'm creating one handler per file. I have HandlerFactory class that manages the distribution of these handlers. What I'd like to do is that thread A requests and gets foo.txt's file handle from the HandlerFactory class thread B requests foo.txt's file handler handler class recognizes that this file handle has been checked out handler class puts thread A to sleep thread B closes file handle using a wrapper method from HandlerFactory HandlerFactory notifies sleeping threads thread B wakes and successfully gets foo.txt's file handle This is what I have so far, def get_handler(self, file_path, type): self.lock.acquire() if file_path not in self.handlers: self.handlers[file_path] = open(file_path, type) elif not self.handlers[file_path].closed: time.sleep(1) self.lock.release() return self.handlers[file_path][type] I believe this covers the sleeping and handler retrieval successfully, but I am unsure how to wake up all threads, or even better wake up a specific thread.

  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

• Is NFS capable of preserving order of operations?

  - by JustJeff

  I have a diskless host 'A', that has a directory NFS mounted on server 'B'. A process on A writes to two files F1 and F2 in that directory, and a process on B monitors these files for changes. Assume that B polls for changes faster than A is expected to make them. Process A seeks the head of the files, writes data, and flushes. Process B seeks the head of the files and does reads. Are there any guarantees about how the order of the changes performed by A will be detected at B? Specifically, if A alternately writes to one file, and then the other, is it reasonable to expect that B will notice alternating changes to F1 and F2? Or could B conceivably detect a series of changes on F1 and then a series on F2? I know there are a lot of assumptions embedded in the question. For instance, I am virtually certain that, even operating on just one file, if A performs 100 operations on the file, B may see a smaller number of changes that give the same result, due to NFS caching some of the actions on A before they are communicated to B. And of course there would be issues with concurrent file access even if NFS weren't involved and both the reading and the writing process were running on the same real file system. The reason I'm even putting the question up here is that it seems like most of the time, the setup described above does detect the changes at B in the same order they are made at A, but that occasionally some events come through in transposed order. So, is it worth trying to make this work? Is there some way to tune NFS to make it work, perhaps cache settings or something? Or is fine-grained behavior like this just too much expect from NFS?

  Read the article

• Best way to reuse a Runnable

  - by Gandalf

  I have a class that implements Runnable and am currently using an Executor as my thread pool to run tasks (indexing documents into Lucene). executor.execute(new LuceneDocIndexer(doc, writer)); My issue is that my Runnable class creates many Lucene Field objects and I would rather reuse them then create new ones every call. What's the best way to reuse these objects (Field objects are not thread safe so I cannot simple make them static) - should I create my own ThreadFactory? I notice that after a while the program starts to degrade drastically and the only thing I can think of is it's GC overhead. I am currently trying to profile the project to be sure this is even an issue - but for now lets just assume it is.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >