Search Results

Search found 15087 results on 604 pages for 'python multithreading'.

Page 284/604 | < Previous Page | 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291  | Next Page >

  • Why is my code stopping and not returning an exception?

    - by BeckyLou
    I have some code that starts a couple of threads to let them execute, then uses a while loop to check for the current time passing a set timeout period, or for the correct number of results to have been processed (by checking an int on the class object) (with a Thread.Sleep() to wait between loops) Once the while loop is set to exit, it calls Abort() on the threads and should return data to the function that calls the method. When debugging and stepping through the code, I find there can be exceptions in the code running on the separate threads, and in some cases I handle these appropriately, and at other times I don't want to do anything specific. What I have been seeing is that my code goes into the while loop and the thread sleeps, then nothing is returned from my function, either data or an exception. Code execution just stops completely. Any ideas what could be happening? Code sample: System.Threading.Thread sendThread = new System.Threading.Thread(new System.Threading.ThreadStart(Send)); sendThread.Start(); System.Threading.Thread receiveThread = new System.Threading.Thread(new System.Threading.ThreadStart(Receive)); receiveThread.Start(); // timeout Int32 maxSecondsToProcess = this.searchTotalCount * timeout; DateTime timeoutTime = DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(maxSecondsToProcess); Log("Submit() Timeout time: " + timeoutTime.ToString("yyyyMMdd HHmmss")); // while we're still waiting to receive results & haven't hit the timeout, // keep the threads going while (resultInfos.Count < this.searchTotalCount && DateTime.Now < timeoutTime) { Log("Submit() Waiting..."); System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(10 * 1000); // 1 minute } Log("Submit() Aborting threads"); // <== this log doesn't show up sendThread.Abort(); receiveThread.Abort(); return new List<ResultInfo>(this.resultInfos.Values);

    Read the article

  • Silverlight 4 Multithread

    - by DavyMac23
    I'm trying to update my Silverlight 4 UI approx every 1/2 second with new data. I've hooked into a WCF service using net.tcp binding and issuing callbacks from the server. To make sure I get the data from the service as quickly as possible I've started up my proxy on a backround worker inside of my Silverlight App. My question is, how do I get the results from the callback and update the ObservableCollection that is bound to a datagird? I've tried a number of different ways and keep getting the dreaded cross-thread error.

    Read the article

  • Multi-threaded random_r is slower than single threaded version.

    - by Nixuz
    The following program is essentially the same the one described here. When I run and compile the program using two threads (NTHREADS == 2), I get the following run times: real 0m14.120s user 0m25.570s sys 0m0.050s When it is run with just one thread (NTHREADS == 1), I get run times significantly better even though it is only using one core. real 0m4.705s user 0m4.660s sys 0m0.010s My system is dual core, and I know random_r is thread safe and I am pretty sure it is non-blocking. When the same program is run without random_r and a calculation of cosines and sines is used as a replacement, the dual-threaded version runs in about 1/2 the time as expected. #include <pthread.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #define NTHREADS 2 #define PRNG_BUFSZ 8 #define ITERATIONS 1000000000 void* thread_run(void* arg) { int r1, i, totalIterations = ITERATIONS / NTHREADS; for (i = 0; i < totalIterations; i++){ random_r((struct random_data*)arg, &r1); } printf("%i\n", r1); } int main(int argc, char** argv) { struct random_data* rand_states = (struct random_data*)calloc(NTHREADS, sizeof(struct random_data)); char* rand_statebufs = (char*)calloc(NTHREADS, PRNG_BUFSZ); pthread_t* thread_ids; int t = 0; thread_ids = (pthread_t*)calloc(NTHREADS, sizeof(pthread_t)); /* create threads */ for (t = 0; t < NTHREADS; t++) { initstate_r(random(), &rand_statebufs[t], PRNG_BUFSZ, &rand_states[t]); pthread_create(&thread_ids[t], NULL, &thread_run, &rand_states[t]); } for (t = 0; t < NTHREADS; t++) { pthread_join(thread_ids[t], NULL); } free(thread_ids); free(rand_states); free(rand_statebufs); } I am confused why when generating random numbers the two threaded version performs much worse than the single threaded version, considering random_r is meant to be used in multi-threaded applications.

    Read the article

  • Perl TCP Server handling multiple Client connections

    - by Matt
    I'll preface this by saying I have minimal experience with both Perl and Socket programming, so I appreciate any help I can get. I have a TCP Server which needs to handle multiple Client connections simultaneously and be able to receive data from any one of the Clients at any time and also be able to send data back to the Clients based on information it's received. For example, Client1 and Client2 connect to my Server. Client2 sends "Ready", the server interprets that and sends "Go" to Client1. The following is what I have written so far: my $sock = new IO::Socket::INET { LocalHost => $host, // defined earlier in code LocalPort => $port, // defined earlier in code Proto => 'tcp', Listen => SOMAXCONN, Reuse => 1, }; die "Could not create socket $!\n" unless $sock; while ( my ($new_sock,$c_addr) = $sock->accept() ) { my ($client_port, $c_ip) = sockaddr_in($c_addr); my $client_ipnum = inet_ntoa($c_ip); my $client_host = ""; my @threads; print "got a connection from $client_host", "[$client_ipnum]\n"; my $command; my $data; while ($data = <$new_sock>) { push @threads, async \&Execute, $data; } } sub Execute { my ($command) = @_; // if($command) = "test" { // send "go" to socket1 print "Executing command: $command\n"; system($command); } I know both of my while loops will be blocking and I need a way to implement my accept command as a thread, but I'm not sure the proper way of writing it.

    Read the article

  • boost thread pool

    - by Dtag
    I need a threadpool for my application, and I'd like to rely on standard (C++11 or boost) stuff as much as possible. I realize there is an unofficial(!) boost thread pool class, which basically solves what I need, however I'd rather avoid it because it is not in the boost library itself -- why is it still not in the core library after so many years? In some posts on this page and elsewhere, people suggested using boost::asio to achieve a threadpool like behavior. At first sight, that looked like what I wanted to do, however I found out that all implementations I have seen have no means to join on the currently active tasks, which makes it useless for my application. To perform a join, they send stop signal to all the threads and subsequently join them. However, that completely nullifies the advantage of threadpools in my use case, because that makes new tasks require the creation of a new thread. What I want to do is: ThreadPool pool(4); for (...) { for (int i=0;i<something;i++) pool.pushTask(...); pool.join(); // do something with the results } Can anyone suggest a solution (except for using the existing unofficial thread pool on sourceforge)? Is there anything in C++11 or core boost that can help me here? Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • Callbacks on GUI Thread

    - by miguel
    We have an external data provider which, in its construtor, takes a callback thread for returning data upon. There are some issues in the system which I am suspicious are related to threading, however, in theory they cannot be, due to the fact that the callbacks should all be returned on the same thread. My question is, does code like this require thread synchronisation? class Foo { ExternalDataProvider _provider; public Foo() { // This is the c'tor for the xternal data provider, taking a callback loop as param _provider = new ExternalDataProvider(UILoop); _provider.DataArrived += ExternalProviderCallbackMethod; } public ExternalProviderCallbackMethod() { var itemArray[] = new String[4] { "item1", "item2", "item3", "item4" }; for (int i = 0; i < itemArray.Length; i++) { string s = itemArray[i]; switch(s) { case "item1": DoItem1Action(); break; case "item2": DoItem2Action(); break; default: DoDefaultAction(); break; } } } } The issue is that, very infrequently, DoItem2Action is executingwhen DoItem1Action should be exectuing. Is it at all possible threading is at fault here? In theory, as all callbacks are arriving on the same thread, they should be serialized, right? So there should be no need for thread sync here?

    Read the article

  • dao as a member of a servlet - normal?

    - by EugeneP
    I guess, DAO is thread safe, does not use any class members. So can it be used without any problem as a private field of a Servlet ? We need only one copy, and multiple threads can access it simultaneously, so why bother creating a local variable, right?

    Read the article

  • Thread Question

    - by Polaris
    I have method which create background thread to make some action. In this background thread I create object. But this object while creating in runtime give me an exception : The calling thread must be STA, because many UI components require this. I know that I must use Dispatcher to make reflect something to UI. But in this case I just create an object and dont iteract with UI. This is my code: public void SomeMethod() { BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker(); worker.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(Background_Method); worker.RunWorkerAsync(); } void Background_Method(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) { TreeView tv = new TreeView(); } How can I create objects in background thread? I use WPF application

    Read the article

  • How to stop Interruptible Threads in Java

    - by Dr.Lesh
    I have a Java application that I CAN'T EDIT that starts a Thread wich has this run method: public void run(){ while(true){ System.out.println("Something"); } } And at a certain moment I wanna stop it, but if I use thread.interrupt(); it won't work. If I use thread.stop(); it works, but this method is deprecated and its use is discouraged because soon it will be removed from JVM. Does anyone knows how to do it? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How are the concepts of process and threads implementated in Linux kernel?

    - by Shan
    Can any one explain how are the concepts of process and threads implemented in Linux kernel ? I am looking for an intuitive explanation with some C snippets ( and important data structures) that clearly distinguishes between the two. I am just looking for the key implementation ideas I should get hold off. Essentially, I want to understand them and implement something similar in an embedded target (not supporte by any OS) in C language.

    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

  • Debugging instance of another thread altering my data

    - by Mick
    I have a huge global array of structures. Some regions of the array are tied to individual threads and those threads can modify their regions of the array without having to use critical sections. But there is one special region of the array which all threads may have access to. The code that accesses these parts of the array needs to carefully use critical sections (each array element has its own critical section) to prevent any possibility of two threads writing to the structure simultaneously. Now I have a mysterious bug I am trying to chase, it is occurring unpredictably and very infrequently. It seems that one of the structures is being filled with some incorrect number. One obvious explanation is that another thread has accidentally been allowed to set this number when it should be excluded from doing so. Unfortunately it seems close to impossible to track this bug. The array element in which the bad data appears is different each time. What I would love to be able to do is set some kind of trap for the bug as follows: I would enter a critical section for array element N, then I know that no other thread should be able to touch the data, then (until I exit the critical section) set some kind of flag to a debugging tool saying "if any other thread attempts to change the data here please break and show me the offending patch of source code"... but I suspect no such tool exists... or does it? Or is there some completely different debugging methodology that I should be employing.

    Read the article

  • Pattern for iPhone background loading during init?

    - by Rob S.
    Hi everyone, I'm currently kicking off a background thread to do some REST queries in my app delegate's didFinishLaunchingWithOptions. This thread creates some objects and populates the model as the rest of the app continues to load (because I don't block, and didFinishLaunchingWithOptions returns YES). I also put up a loading UIViewController 'on top' of the main view that I tear down after the background initialization is complete. My problem is that I need to notify the first view (call it the Home view) that the model is ready, and that it should populate itself. The trick is that the background download could have finished before Home.viewDidAppear is called, or any of the other Home.initX methods. I'm having difficulty synchronizing all of this and I've thought about it long enough that it feels like I'm barking up the wrong tree. Are there any patterns here for this sort of thing? I'm sure other apps start by performing lengthy operations with loading screens :) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Does Interlocked guarantee visibility to other threads in C# or do I still have to use volatile?

    - by Lirik
    I've been reading the answer to a similar question, but I'm still a little confused... Abel had a great answer, but this is the part that I'm unsure about: ...declaring a variable volatile makes it volatile for every single access. It is impossible to force this behavior any other way, hence volatile cannot be replaced with Interlocked. This is needed in scenarios where other libraries, interfaces or hardware can access your variable and update it anytime, or need the most recent version. Does Interlocked guarantee visibility of the atomic operation to all threads, or do I still have to use the volatile keyword on the value in order to guarantee visibility of the change? Here is my example: public class CountDownLatch { private volatile int m_remain; // <--- do I need the volatile keyword there since I'm using Interlocked? private EventWaitHandle m_event; public CountDownLatch (int count) { Reset(count); } public void Reset(int count) { if (count < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(); m_remain = count; m_event = new ManualResetEvent(false); if (m_remain == 0) { m_event.Set(); } } public void Signal() { // The last thread to signal also sets the event. if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref m_remain) == 0) m_event.Set(); } public void Wait() { m_event.WaitOne(); } }

    Read the article

  • Proper thread termination in multi-threaded C# application

    - by Brian
    I have what I think is a rather complex problem. I have a C# application that utilizes a plug-in architecture using reflection. The application loads plug-in dlls and the user is able to enable/disable them. When a plug-in is enabled, the main app starts a thread to run the plug-in in. In many cases the plug-in may have multiple threads of its own. When I want to disable a plug-in I am calling Thread.Abort(). This seems to kill the initial thread that was created for the plug-in, but any additional threads that the plug-in created continue running. Is there a better way to stop all of the associated plug-in's threads along with the main thread? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Using locks inside a loop

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile shared int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

  • Simple prime number program - Weird issue with threads C#

    - by Para
    Hi! This is my code: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Threading; namespace FirePrime { class Program { static bool[] ThreadsFinished; static bool[] nums; static bool AllThreadsFinished() { bool allThreadsFinished = false; foreach (var threadFinished in ThreadsFinished) { allThreadsFinished &= threadFinished; } return allThreadsFinished; } static bool isPrime(int n) { if (n < 2) { return false; } if (n == 2) { return true; } if (n % 2 == 0) { return false; } int d = 3; while (d * d <= n) { if (n % d == 0) { return false; } d += 2; } return true; } static void MarkPrimes(int startNumber,int stopNumber,int ThreadNr) { for (int j = startNumber; j < stopNumber; j++) nums[j] = isPrime(j); lock (typeof(Program)) { ThreadsFinished[ThreadNr] = true; } } static void Main(string[] args) { int nrNums = 100; int nrThreads = 10; //var threadStartNums = new List<int>(); ThreadsFinished = new bool[nrThreads]; nums = new bool[nrNums]; //var nums = new List<bool>(); nums[0] = false; nums[1] = false; for(int i=2;i<nrNums;i++) nums[i] = true; int interval = (int)(nrNums / nrThreads); //threadStartNums.Add(2); //int aux = firstStartNum; //int i = 2; //while (aux < interval) //{ // aux = interval*i; // i=i+1; // threadStartNums.Add(aux); //} int startNum = 0; for (int i = 0; i < nrThreads; i++) { var _thread = new System.Threading.Thread(() => MarkPrimes(startNum, Math.Min(startNum + interval, nrNums), i)); startNum = startNum + interval; //set the thread to run in the background _thread.IsBackground = true; //start our thread _thread.Start(); } while (!AllThreadsFinished()) { Thread.Sleep(1); } for (int i = 0; i < nrNums; i++) if(nums[i]) Console.WriteLine(i); } } } This should be a pretty simple program that is supposed to find and output the first nrNums prime numbers using nrThreads threads working in parallel. So, I just split nrNums into nrThreads equal chunks (well, the last one won't be equal; if nrThreads doesn't divide by nrNums, it will also contain the remainder, of course). I start nrThreads threads. They all test each number in their respective chunk and see if it is prime or not; they mark everything out in a bool array that keeps a tab on all the primes. The threads all turn a specific element in another boolean array ThreadsFinished to true when they finish. Now the weird part begins: The threads never all end. If I debug, I find that ThreadNr is not what I assign to it in the loop but another value. I guess this is normal since the threads execute afterwards and the counter (the variable i) is already increased by then but I cannot understand how to make the code be right. Can anyone help? Thank you in advance. P.S.: I know the algorithm is not very efficient; I am aiming at a solution using the sieve of Eratosthenes also with x given threads. But for now I can't even get this one to work and I haven't found any examples of any implementations of that algorithm anywhere in a language that I can understand.

    Read the article

  • Progressbar behaves strangely

    - by wanderameise
    I just created an application in C# that uses a thread which polls the UART for a receive event. If data is received an event is triggered in my main thread (GUI) and a progress bar is controlled via PerformStep() method (of course, I previously set the Max value accordingly). PerformStep is invoked using the following expression to handle cross threading this.Invoke((Action)delegate{progressBar2.PerformStep();}) When running this application the progressbar never hits its final value. It stops at 80%. When debugging and stopping at the line mentioned above, everything works fine using single steps. I have no idea what is going one! Start read thread on main thread: pThreadWrite = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ReadThread)); pThreadWrite.Start(); Read Thread: private void ReadThread() { while(1) { if (ReceiveEvent) { FlashProgressBar(); } } } Event that is triggered in main thread: private void FlashProgressBar() { this.Invoke((Action)delegate { progressBar2.PerformStep();}); } (It's a simplified representation of my code) It seems as if the internal progress is faster than the visual one.

    Read the article

  • Multiple things at once (Threads?)

    - by Jonathan
    All, What is a really simple way of having a program do more than one thing at once, even if the computer does not necessarily have multiple 'cores'. Can I do this by creating more than one Thread? My goal is to be able to have two computers networked (through Sockets) to respond to each-other's requests, while my program will at the same time be able to be managing a UI. I want the server to potentially handle more than one client at the same time as well. My understanding is that the communication is done with BufferedReader.readLine() and PrintWriter.println(). My problem is that I want the server to be waiting on multiple readLine() requests, and also be doing other things. How do I handle this? Many thanks, Jonathan

    Read the article

  • Unload event for the default AppDomain?

    - by Zor
    Hi, I need to have an event fired whenever any AppDomain unloads - including the default one of the process. The problem with AppDomain.DomainUnload is that it only fires for non-default AppDomains. Furthermore, AppDomain.ProcessExit has limited execution time, which I cannot rely on. Any suggestions as to how I can achieve this would be greatly appreciated! (Alternatively, having an event fired when a background thread (Thread.IsBackground == True) works too.) Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Win32 reset event like synchronization class with boost C++

    - by fgungor
    I need some mechanism reminiscent of Win32 reset events that I can check via functions having the same semantics with WaitForSingleObject() and WaitForMultipleObjects() (Only need the ..SingleObject() version for the moment) . But I am targeting multiple platforms so all I have is boost::threads (AFAIK) . I came up with the following class and wanted to ask about the potential problems and whether it is up to the task or not. Thanks in advance. class reset_event { bool flag, auto_reset; boost::condition_variable cond_var; boost::mutex mx_flag; public: reset_event(bool _auto_reset = false) : flag(false), auto_reset(_auto_reset) { } void wait() { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); if (flag) return; cond_var.wait(LOCK); if (auto_reset) flag = false; } bool wait(const boost::posix_time::time_duration& dur) { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); bool ret = cond_var.timed_wait(LOCK, dur) || flag; if (auto_reset && ret) flag = false; return ret; } void set() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = true; cond_var.notify_all(); } void reset() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = false; } }; Example usage; reset_event terminate_thread; void fn_thread() { while(!terminate_thread.wait(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(10))) { std::cout << "working..." << std::endl; boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::milliseconds(1000)); } std::cout << "thread terminated" << std::endl; } int main() { boost::thread worker(fn_thread); boost::this_thread::sleep(boost::posix_time::seconds(1)); terminate_thread.set(); worker.join(); return 0; } EDIT I have fixed the code according to Michael Burr's suggestions. My "very simple" tests indicate no problems. class reset_event { bool flag, auto_reset; boost::condition_variable cond_var; boost::mutex mx_flag; public: explicit reset_event(bool _auto_reset = false) : flag(false), auto_reset(_auto_reset) { } void wait() { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); if (flag) { if (auto_reset) flag = false; return; } do { cond_var.wait(LOCK); } while(!flag); if (auto_reset) flag = false; } bool wait(const boost::posix_time::time_duration& dur) { boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); if (flag) { if (auto_reset) flag = false; return true; } bool ret = cond_var.timed_wait(LOCK, dur); if (ret && flag) { if (auto_reset) flag = false; return true; } return false; } void set() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = true; cond_var.notify_all(); } void reset() { boost::lock_guard<boost::mutex> LOCK(mx_flag); flag = false; } };

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291  | Next Page >