Search Results

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

Page 286/604 | < Previous Page | 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293  | Next Page >

  • how to emulate thread local storage at user space in C++ ?

    - by vprajan
    I am working on a mobile platform over Nucleus RTOS. It uses Nucleus Threading system but it doesn't have support for explicit thread local storage i.e, TlsAlloc, TlsSetValue, TlsGetValue, TlsFree APIs. The platform doesn't have user space pthreads as well. I found that __thread storage modifier is present in most of the C++ compilers. But i don't know how to make it work for my kind of usage. How does __thread keyword can be mapped with explicit thread local storage? I read many articles but nothing is so clear for giving me the following basic information will __thread variable different for each thread ? How to write to that and read from it ? does each thread has exactly one copy of the variable ? following is the pthread based implementation: pthread_key_t m_key; struct Data : Noncopyable { Data(T* value, void* owner) : value(value), owner(owner) {} int* value; }; inline ThreadSpecific() { int error = pthread_key_create(&m_key, destroy); if (error) CRASH(); } inline ~ThreadSpecific() { pthread_key_delete(m_key); // Does not invoke destructor functions. } inline T* get() { Data* data = static_cast<Data*>(pthread_getspecific(m_key)); return data ? data->value : 0; } inline void set(T* ptr) { ASSERT(!get()); pthread_setspecific(m_key, new Data(ptr, this)); } How to make the above code use __thread way to set & get specific value ? where/when does the create & delete happen? If this is not possible, how to write custom pthread_setspecific, pthread_getspecific kind of APIs. I tried using a C++ global map and index it uniquely for each thread and retrieved data from it. But it didn't work well.

    Read the article

  • .NET: Start a thread as suspended

    - by Ikaso
    In unmanaged code you can create a thread in suspended state. In .NET Framework I can't find this option. Is it because the Thread constructor puts the thread in a suspended state? Is there other reasons why this is not supported?

    Read the article

  • C++ Simple thread with parameter (no .net)

    - by Marc Vollmer
    I've searched the internet for a while now and found different solutions but then all don't really work or are to complicated for my use. I used C++ until 2 years ago so it might be a bit rusty :D I'm currently writing a program that posts data to an URL. It only posts the data nothing else. For posting the data I use curl, but it blocks the main thread and while the first post is still running there will be a second post that should start. In the end there are about 5-6 post operations running at the same time. Now I want to push the posting with curl into another thread. One thread per post. The thread should get a string parameter with the content what to push. I'm currently stuck on this. Tried the WINAPI for windows but that crashes on reading the parameter. (the second thread is still running in my example while the main thread ended (waiting on system("pause")). It would be nice to have a multi plattform solution, because it will run under windows and linux! Heres my current code: #define CURL_STATICLIB #include <curl/curl.h> #include <curl/easy.h> #include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string> #if defined(WIN32) #include <windows.h> #else //#include <pthread.h> #endif using namespace std; void post(string post) { // Function to post it to url CURL *curl; // curl object CURLcode res; // CURLcode object curl = curl_easy_init(); // init curl if(curl) { // is curl init curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_URL, "http://10.8.27.101/api.aspx"); // set url string data = "api=" + post; // concat post data strings curl_easy_setopt(curl, CURLOPT_POSTFIELDS, data.c_str()); // post data res = curl_easy_perform(curl); // execute curl_easy_cleanup(curl); // cleanup } else { cerr << "Failed to create curl handle!\n"; } } #if defined(WIN32) DWORD WINAPI thread(LPVOID data) { // WINAPI Thread string pData = *((string*)data); // convert LPVOID to string [THIS FAILES] post(pData); // post it with curl } #else // Linux version #endif void startThread(string data) { // FUnction to start the thread string pData = data; // some Test #if defined(WIN32) CreateThread(NULL, 0, (LPTHREAD_START_ROUTINE)thread, &pData, 0, NULL); // Start a Windows thread with winapi #else // Linux version #endif } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { // The post data to send string postData = "test1234567890"; startThread(postData); // Start the thread system("PAUSE"); // Dont close the console window return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Has anyone a suggestion? Thanks for the help!

    Read the article

  • Turn based synchronization between threads

    - by Amarus
    I'm trying to find a way to synchronize multiple threads having the following conditions: * There are two types of threads: 1. A single "cyclic" thread executing an infinite loop to do cyclic calculations 2. Multiple short-lived threads not started by the main thread * The cyclic thread has a sleep duration between each cycle/loop iteration * The other threads are allowed execute during the inter-cycle sleep of the cyclic thread: - Any other thread that attempts to execute during an active cycle should be blocked - The cyclic thread will wait until all other threads that are already executing to be finished Here's a basic example of what I was thinking of doing: // Somewhere in the code: ManualResetEvent manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(true); // Allow Externally call CountdownEvent countdownEvent = new CountdownEvent(1); // Can't AddCount a CountdownEvent with CurrentCount = 0 void ExternallyCalled() { manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); // Wait until CyclicCalculations is having its beauty sleep countdownEvent.AddCount(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that it should wait for this method call to finish before starting the next cycle Thread.Sleep(1000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic countdownEvent.Signal(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that this call is finished } void CyclicCalculations() { while (!stopCyclicCalculations) { manualResetEvent.Reset(); // Block all incoming calls to ExternallyCalled from this point forward countdownEvent.Signal(); // Dirty workaround for the issue with AddCount and CurrentCount = 0 countdownEvent.Wait(); // Wait until all of the already executing calls to ExternallyCalled are finished countdownEvent.Reset(); // Reset the CountdownEvent for next cycle. Thread.Sleep(2000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic manualResetEvent.Set(); // Unblock all threads executing ExternallyCalled Thread.Sleep(1000); // Inter-cycles delay } } Obviously, this doesn't work. There's no guarantee that there won't be any threads executing ExternallyCalled that are in between manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); and countdownEvent.AddCount(); at the time the main thread gets released by the CountdownEvent. I can't figure out a simple way of doing what I'm after, and almost everything that I've found after a lengthy search is related to producer/consumer synchronization which I can't apply here.

    Read the article

  • executorservice to read data from database in chuncks and run process on them

    - by TazMan
    I'm trying to write a process that would read data from a database and upload it onto a cloud datastore. How can I decide the partition strategy of the data? I want to query the table in chunks and process each chunk in 10 threads. Each thread basically will send the data to an individual node on a 10 node cluster on the cloud.. Where in the below multi threading code will the dataquery to extract and send 10 concurrent requests for uploading data to cloud would be? public class Caller { public static void main(String[] args) { ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10); for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { Runnable worker = new DomainCDCProcessor(i); executor.execute(worker); } executor.shutdown(); while (!executor.isTerminated()) { } System.out.println("Finished all threads"); } }

    Read the article

  • OGNL thread safety

    - by Dewfy
    I'm going to reuse OGNL library out of Struts2 scope. I have rather large set of formulas, that is why I would like to precompile all of them: Ognl.parseExpression(expressionString); But I'm not sure if precompiled expression can be used in multi-thread environment. Does anybody knows if it can be used?

    Read the article

  • Does the managed main UI thread stay on the same (unmanaged) Operation System thread?

    - by Daniel Rose
    I am creating a managed WPF UI front-end to a legacy Win32-application. The WPF front-end is the executable; as part of its startup routines I start the legacy app as a DLL in a second thread. Any UI-operation (including CreateWindowsEx, etc.) by the legacy app is invoked back on the main UI-thread. As part of the shutdown process of the app I want to clean up properly. Among other things, I want to call DestroyWindow on all unmanaged windows, so they can properly clean themselves up. Thus, during shutdown I use EnumWindows to try to find all my unmanaged windows. Then I call DestroyWindow one the list I generate. These run on the main UI-thread. After this background knowledge, on to my actual question: In the enumeration procedure of EnumWindows, I have to check if one of the returned top-level windows is one of my unmanaged windows. I do this by calling GetWindowThreadProcessId to get the process id and thread id of the window's creator. I can compare the process id with Process.GetCurrentProcess().Id to check if my app created it. For additional security, I also want to see if my main UI-thread created the window. However, the returned thread id is the OS's ThreadId (which is different than the managed thread id). As explained in this question, the CLR reserves the right to re-schedule the managed thread to different OS threads. Can I rely on the CLR to be "smart enough" to never do this for the main UI thread (due to thread-affinity of the UI)? Then I could call GetCurrentThreadId to get the main UI-thread's unmanaged thread id for comparison.

    Read the article

  • pthread_create followed by pthread_detach still results in possibly lost error in Valgrind.

    - by alesplin
    I'm having a problem with Valgrind telling me I have some memory possible lost: ==23205== 544 bytes in 2 blocks are possibly lost in loss record 156 of 265 ==23205== at 0x6022879: calloc (in /usr/lib/valgrind/vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so) ==23205== by 0x540E209: allocate_dtv (in /lib/ld-2.12.1.so) ==23205== by 0x540E91D: _dl_allocate_tls (in /lib/ld-2.12.1.so) ==23205== by 0x623068D: pthread_create@@GLIBC_2.2.5 (in /lib/libpthread-2.12.1.so) ==23205== by 0x758D66: MTPCreateThreadPool (MTP.c:290) ==23205== by 0x405787: main (MServer.c:317) The code that creates these threads (MTPCreateThreadPool) basically gets an index into a block of waiting pthread_t slots, and creates a thread with that. TI becomes a pointer to a struct that has a thread index and a pthread_t. (simplified/sanitized): for (tindex = 0; tindex < NumThreads; tindex++) { int rc; TI = &TP->ThreadInfo[tindex]; TI->ThreadID = tindex; rc = pthread_create(&TI->ThreadHandle,NULL,MTPHandleRequestsLoop,TI); /* check for non-success that I've omitted */ pthread_detach(&TI->ThreadHandle); } Then we have a function MTPDestroyThreadPool that loops through all the threads we created and cancels them (since the MTPHandleRequestsLoop doesn't exit). for (tindex = 0; tindex < NumThreads; tindex++) { pthread_cancel(TP->ThreadInfo[tindex].ThreadHandle); } I've read elsewhere (including other questions here on SO) that detaching a thread explicitly would prevent this possibly lost error, but it clearly isn't. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How do I stop Ant from hanging after executing a java program that attempted to interrupt a thread (and failed) and continued?

    - by Zugwalt
    I have Ant build and execute a java program. This program tries to do something that sometimes hangs, so we execute it in a thread. actionThread.start(); try { actionThread.join(10000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { System.out.println("InterruptedException: "+e.getMessage()); } if (actionThread.isAlive()) { actionThread.interrupt(); System.out.println("Thread timed out and never died"); } The ant call looks like this: <java fork="true" failonerror="yes" classname="myPackage.myPathName" classpath="build"> <arg line=""/> <classpath> <pathelement location="bin" /> <fileset dir="lib"> <include name="**/*.jar"/> </fileset> </classpath> </java> And when this runs I see the "Thread timed out and never died" statement, and I also see the main program finish execution, but then Ant just hangs. Presumably it is waiting for the child threads to finish, but they never will. How can I have Ant be done once it is done executing main() and just kill or ignore dead threads?

    Read the article

  • Pointer inside a struct / thread

    - by bruno
    Hi! I have this warning "warning: assignment from incompatible pointer type " in this line: data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; - void print_message_function ( void *ptr ) { dt *data; data = (dt *) ptr; printf("Dentro da thread Numero0: %ld\n", data->L_norm_NewBlock); pthread_exit(0); } typedef struct data_thread { long L_norm_NewBlock; int Bsize_X; int Bsize_Y; int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; long L_norm_OrigBlock; } dt; void function() { int *transformed_block[MAX_LEVEL]; pthread_t thread1; dt *data1; pthread_attr_t attr; pthread_attr_init(&attr); //Fills structure data1 = (dt *) malloc(sizeof(dt)); data1->transformed_block[l] = &transformed_block[l]; data1->L_norm_NewBlock=0; data1->Bsize_Y = Bsize_Y; data1->Bsize_X = Bsize_X; pthread_create(&thread1, &attr, (void *) &print_message_function, (void *) &data1); } I want to get rid of that warning, and the values i get inside the thread are wrong. For example data1-L_norm_NewBlock=0; in the thread guives me a differente value (not 0 like it should be).

    Read the article

  • How to check if a thread is busy in C#?

    - by Sam
    I have a Windows Forms UI running on a thread, Thread1. I have another thread, Thread2, that gets tons of data via external events that needs to update the Windows UI. (It actually updates multiple UI threads.) I have a third thread, Thread3, that I use as a buffer thread between Thread1 and Thread2 so that Thread2 can continue to update other threads (via the same method). My buffer thread, Thread3, looks like this: public class ThreadBuffer { public ThreadBuffer(frmUI form, CustomArgs e) { form.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { form.UpdateUI(e); }); } } What I would like to do is for my ThreadBuffer to check whether my form is currently busy doing previous updates. If it is, I'd like for it to wait until it frees up and then invoke the UpdateUI(e). I was thinking about either: a) //PseudoCode while(form==busy) { // Do nothing; } form.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { form.UpdateUI(e); }); How would I check the form==busy? Also, I am not sure that this is a good approach. b) Create an event in form1 that will notify the ThreadBuffer that it is ready to process. // psuedocode List<CustomArgs> elist = new List<CustomArgs>(); public ThreadBuffer(frmUI form, CustomArgs e) { from.OnFreedUp += from_OnFreedUp(); elist.Add(e); } private form_OnFreedUp() { if (elist.count == 0) return; form.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { form.UpdateUI(elist[0]); }); elist.Remove(elist[0]); } In this case, how would I write an event that will notify that the form is free? and c) an other ideas?

    Read the article

  • How do I know if a boost thread is done ?

    - by jules
    I am using boost::thread to process messages in a queue. When a first message comes I start a message processing thread. When a second message comes I check if the message processing thread is done. if it is done I start a new one if it is not done I don nothing. How do I know if the thread is done ? I tried with joinable() but it is not working, as when the thread is done, it is still joinable. I also tried to interrupt the process at once, and add an interruption point at the end of my thread, but it did not work. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Does thread pool size keep growing for scheduledthreadpoolexecutor?

    - by Sourajit Basak
    Imagine a situation where tasks are being added to scheduledthreadpoolexecutor. Each of these tasks will keep on running at different periodic intervals. Although all such tasks will not be running at the same time because each is set at different intervals, there may be a situation where a high number of threads are competing for execution. Is there any restriction on total number of threads ? It seems there is a restriction on the total number of idle threads. And does this concept of idle thread imply that long running tasks (thread) may be destroyed and recreated when needed ?

    Read the article

  • multiple move operations and data processes in work thread

    - by younevertell
    main thread-- start workthread--StartStage(get list of positions for data process) -- move to one position -- data sampling*strong text*-- data collection--data analysis------data sampling*strong text* basically, work thread does the data sampling*strong text*-- data collection--data analysis------data sampling*strong text* loop for one positioin until press stop or target is obtained. my questions: After work thread finishs the loop for one positioin, it would end itself. now how to make the work thread moves to the next position to do the data process loop after work thread finish one position work, would not end itself until data process for all the positions are done? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • What happens to an instance of ServerSocket blocked inside accept(), when I drop all references to i

    - by Hanno Fietz
    In a multithreaded Java application, I just tracked down a strange-looking bug, realizing that what seemed to be happening was this: one of my objects was storing a reference to an instance of ServerSocket on startup, one thread would, in its main loop in run(), call accept() on the socket while the socket was still waiting for a connection, another thread would try to restart the component under some conditions, the restart process missed the cleanup sequence before it reached the initialization sequence as a result, the reference to the socket was overwritten with a new instance, which then wasn't able to bind() anymore the socket which was blocking inside the accept() wasn't accessible anymore, leaving a complete shutdown and restart of the application as the only way to get rid of it. Which leaves me wondering: with no references left to the ServerSocket instance, what would free the socket for a new connection? At what point would the ServerSocket become garbage collected? In general, what are good practices I can follow to avoid this type of bug?

    Read the article

  • Can I safely bind to data on multi-threaded applications?

    - by Paul
    Hi everyone, I'm trying to solve a classic problem - I have a multi-threaded application which runs some processor-intensive calculations, with a GUI interface. Every time one of the threads has completed a task, I'd like to update a status on a table taskID | status I use DataGridView and BindingList in the following way: BindingList<Task> tasks; dataGridView.DataSource = tasks public class Task : INotifyPropertyChanged { ID{get;} Status{get;set;} } Can a background thread safely update a task's status? and changes will be seen in the correct order in the GUI? Second Question: When do I need to call to PropertyChanged? I tried running with and without the call, didn't seem to bother.. Third Question: I've seen on MSDN that dataGridView uses BindingSource as a mediator between DataGridView.DataSource and BindingList Is this really necessary?

    Read the article

  • Lua operations, that works in mutitheaded environment

    - by SBKarr
    My application uses Lua in multithreaded environment with global mutex. It implemented like this: Thread locks mutex, Call lua_newthread Perform some initialization on coroutine Run lua_resume on coroutine Unlocks mutex lua_lock/unlock is not implemented, GC is stopped, when lua works with coroutine. My question is, can I perform steps 2 and 3 without locking, if initialisation process does not requires any global Lua structs? Can i perform all this process without locking at all, if coroutine does not requires globals too? In what case I generally can use Lua functions without locking?

    Read the article

  • WM6x IMAPIAdviseSink::OnNotify threading issues

    - by violet313
    specifically WM6x, winCE5x Now my current understanding from trawling the msdn etal is that the IMAPIAdviseSink::OnNotify callback can be made from any old thread; from (ce)mapi or perhaps even from a third-party service provider. Under WM6x, i cannot seem to coax an in-thread response by invoking HrThisThreadAdviseSink, since while this function is declared in mapiutil.h, a definition appears not to exist (in cemapi.lib or wherever??) ~But i notice that all the OnNotify callbacks i receive derive from windows messages that i am receiving on my thread (=looks to me like an in-thread implementation in any case under cemapi)... So, can anyone confirm that this is infact always the case -or am i just getting lucky right now? ah, i should add that my advise source is IMAPISession::Advise erm i should also say that i might have cross-posted this on the msdn forum -but they're mostly numptys over there,,

    Read the article

  • Looking for suggestions about an architecture of a MultiThreaded app.

    - by Dimitri
    Hello everyone. I am looking to develop a multithreaded application that will be running in unconditional loop and processing high volume of data. High volume is 2000+ records per minute. Processing will involve data retrieval, calculations and data updates. I need the application to perform so that there is virtually no back log, meaning i need to be able to finish up all of the 2000 points in one minute or even faster. Our current implementation features a multithreaded application that is spawn multiple times (from 10 to 20) and we are noticing that it's not handling data as expected and i even feel that instances of the application compete with each other for processor time and eventually if not slowing, not benefiting each other for sure. I would like to know what would be the best approach: have a single instance running but maximize threads that can run simultaneously? or is there other ways i don't know? I'm open to suggestions. Thank you in advance

    Read the article

  • Why is volatile not considered useful in multithreaded C or C++ programming?

    - by Michael E
    As demonstrated in this answer I recently posted, I seem to be confused about the utility (or lack thereof) of volatile in multi-threaded programming contexts. My understanding is this: any time a variable may be changed outside the flow of control of a piece of code accessing it, that variable should be declared to be volatile. Signal handlers, I/O registers, and variables modified by another thread all constitute such situations. So, if you have a global int foo, and foo is read by one thread and set atomically by another thread (probably using an appropriate machine instruction), the reading thread sees this situation in the same way it sees a variable tweaked by a signal handler or modified by an external hardware condition and thus foo should be declared volatile (or, for multithreaded situations, accessed with memory-fenced load, which is probably a better a solution). How and where am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • Fast way to pass a simple java object from one thread to another

    - by Adal
    I have a callback which receives an object. I make a copy of this object, and I must pass it on to another thread for further processing. It's very important for the callback to return as fast as possible. Ideally, the callback will write the copy to some sort of lock-free container. I only have the callback called from a single thread and one processing thread. I only need to pass a bunch of doubles to the other thread, and I know the maximum number of doubles (around 40). Any ideas? I'm not very familiar with Java, so I don't know the usual ways to pass stuff between threads.

    Read the article

  • How to kill a thread immediately from another thread in java?

    - by Sara
    Hi, is there anyway to kill a thread or interrupt it immediately. Like in one of my thread, i call a method which takes time to execute (2-4 seconds). This method is in a while(boolean flag) block, so i can interrupt it from the main thread. But the problem is, if i interrupt it; it will wait till the executing loop is finished and then on next conditional check, it will stop execution. I want it to stop right then. Is there anyway to do this?

    Read the article

  • Are Thread.stop and friends ever safe in Java?

    - by Stephen C
    The stop(), suspend(), and resume() in java.lang.Thread are deprecated because they are unsafe. The Sun recommended work around is to use Thread.interrupt(), but that approach doesn't work in all cases. For example, if you are call a library method that doesn't explicitly or implicitly check the interrupted flag, you have no choice but to wait for the call to finish. So, I'm wondering if it is possible to characterize situations where it is (provably) safe to call stop() on a Thread. For example, would it be safe to stop() a thread that did nothing but call find(...) or match(...) on a java.util.regex.Matcher? (If there are any Sun engineers reading this ... a definitive answer would be really appreciated.) EDIT: Answers that simply restate the mantra that you should not call stop() because it is deprecated, unsafe, whatever are missing the point of this question. I know that that it is genuinely unsafe in the majority of cases, and that if there is a viable alternative you should always use that instead. This question is about the subset cases where it is safe. Specifically, what is that subset?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293  | Next Page >