Search Results

Search found 882 results on 36 pages for 'concurrency coordination'.

Page 15/36 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • How to synchronize static method in java.

    - by Summer_More_More_Tea
    Hi there: I come up with this question when implementing singleton pattern in Java. Even though the example listed blow is not my real code, yet very similar to the original one. public class ConnectionFactory{ private static ConnectionFactory instance; public static synchronized ConnectionFactory getInstance(){ if( instance == null ){ instance = new ConnectionFactory(); } return instance; } private ConnectionFactory(){ // private constructor implementation } } Because I'm not quite sure about the behavior of a static synchronized method, I get some suggestion from google -- do not have (or as less as possible) multiple static synchronized methods in the same class. I guess when implementing static synchronized method, a lock belongs to Class object is used so that multiple static synchronized methods may degrade performance of the system. Am I right? or JVM use other mechanism to implement static synchronized method? What's the best practice if I have to implement multiple static synchronized methods in a class? Thank you all! Kind regards!

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • "FOR UPDATE" v/s "LOCK IN SHARE MODE" : Allow concurrent threads to read updated "state" value of locked row

    - by shadesco
    I have the following scenario: User X logs in to the application from location lc1: call it Ulc1 User X (has been hacked, or some friend of his knows his login credential, or he just logs in from a different browser on his machine,etc.. u got the point) logs in at the same time from location lc2: call it Ulc2 I am using a main servlet which : - gets a connection from database pooling - sets autocommit to false - executes a command that goes through app layers: if all successful, set autocommit to true in a "finally" statement, and closes connection. Else if an exception happens, rollback(). In my database (mysql/innoDb) i have a "history" table, with row columns: id(primary key) |username | date | topic | locked The column "locked" has by default value "false" and it serves as a flag that marks if a specific row is locked or not. Each row is specific to a user (as u can see from the username column) So back to the scenario: --Ulc1 sends the command to update his history from the db for date "D" and topic "T". --Ulc2 sends the same command to update history from the db for the same date "D" and same topic "T" at the exact same time. I want to implement an mysql/innoDB locking system that will enable whichever thread arriving to do the following check: Is column "locked" for this row true or not? if true, return a message to the user that " he is already updating the same data from another location" if not true (ie not locked) : flag it as locked and update then reset locked to false once finished. Which of these two mysql locking techniques, will actually allow the 2nd arriving thread from reading the "updated" value of the locked column to decide wt action to take?Should i use "FOR UPDATE" or "LOCK IN SHARE MODE"? This scenario explains what i want to accomplish: - Ulc1 thread arrives first: column "locked" is false, set it to true and continue updating process - Ulc2 thread arrives while Ulc1's transaction is still in process, and even though the row is locked through innoDb functionalities, it doesn't have to wait but in fact reads the "new" value of column locked which is "true", and so doesn't in fact have to wait till Ulc1 transaction commits to read the value of the "locked" column(anyway by that time the value of this column will already have been reset to false). I am not very experienced with the 2 types of locking mechanisms, what i understand so far is that LOCK IN SHARE MODE allow other transaction to read the locked row while FOR UPDATE doesn't even allow reading. But does this read gets on the updated value? or the 2nd arriving thread has to wait the first thread to commit to then read the value? Any recommendations about which locking mechanism to use for this scenario is appreciated. Also if there's a better way to "check" if the row has been locked (other than using a true/false column flag) please let me know about it. thank you SOLUTION (Jdbc pseudocode example based on @Darhazer's answer) Table : [ id(primary key) |username | date | topic | locked ] connection.setautocommit(false); //transaction-1 PreparedStatement ps1 = "Select locked from tableName for update where id="key" and locked=false); ps1.executeQuery(); //transaction 2 PreparedStatement ps2 = "Update tableName set locked=true where id="key"; ps2.executeUpdate(); connection.setautocommit(true);// here we allow other transactions threads to see the new value connection.setautocommit(false); //transaction 3 PreparedStatement ps3 = "Update tableName set aField="Sthg" where id="key" And date="D" and topic="T"; ps3.executeUpdate(); // reset locked to false PreparedStatement ps4 = "Update tableName set locked=false where id="key"; ps4.executeUpdate(); //commit connection.setautocommit(true);

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

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