Search Results

Search found 166 results on 7 pages for 'pthreads'.

Page 3/7 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >

  • nptl SIGCONT and thread scheduling

    - by piotr
    Hello, I'm trying to port a code that relies on SIGCONT to stop certain threads of an application. With current linux nptl implementation seems one can't rely on that in 2.6.x kernels. I'm trying to devise a method to stop other threads. Currently I can only think on mutexes and condition variables. Any hints is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • pthread with unique struct as parameter C

    - by sergiobuj
    Hi, i have this piece of code that is giving me trouble. I know all the threads are reading the same struct. But i have no idea how to fix this. #include <pthread.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> typedef struct { int a,b; } s_param; void * threadfunc(void *parm) { s_param *param2 = parm; printf("ID:%d and v:%d\n",param2->a,param2->b); pthread_exit(NULL); } int main(int argc, char **argv) { pthread_t thread[3]; int rc=0,i; void * status; for(i=0; i<3 ; ++i){ s_param param; param.b=10; param.a=i; rc = pthread_create(&thread[i], NULL, threadfunc, &param ); // !!!! if(rc){ exit(1); } } for(i=0; i<3 ; ++i){ pthread_join(thread[i],&status); } return 0; } output: ID:2 and v:10 ID:2 and v:10 ID:2 and v:10 and what i need: ID:0 and v:10 ID:1 and v:10 ID:2 and v:10 Thank you.

    Read the article

  • pthread condition variables on Linux, odd behaviour.

    - by janesconference
    Hi. I'm synchronizing reader and writer processes on Linux. I have 0 or more process (the readers) that need to sleep until they are woken up, read a resource, go back to sleep and so on. Please note I don't know how many reader processes are up at any moment. I have one process (the writer) that writes on a resource, wakes up the readers and does its business until another resource is ready (in detail, I developed a no starve reader-writers solution, but that's not important). To implement the sleep / wake up mechanism I use a Posix condition value, pthread_cond_t. The clients call a pthread_cond_wait() on the variable to sleep, while the server does a pthread_cond_broadcast() to wake them all up. As the manual says, I surround these two calls with a lock/unlock of the associated pthread mutex. The condition variable and the mutex are initialized in the server and shared between processes through a shared memory area (because I'm not working with threads, but with separate processes) an I'm sure my kernel / syscall support it (because I checked _POSIX_THREAD_PROCESS_SHARED). What happens is that the first client process sleeps and wakes up perfectly. When I start the second process, it blocks on its pthread_cond_wait() and never wakes up, even if I'm sure (by the logs) that pthread_cond_broadcast() is called. If I kill the first process, and launch another one, it works perfectly. In other words, the condition variable pthread_cond_broadcast() seems to wake up only one process a time. If more than one process wait on the very same shared condition variable, only the first one manages to wake up correctly, while the others just seem to ignore the broadcast. Why this behaviour? If I send a pthread_cond_broadcast(), every waiting process should wake up, not just one (and, however, not always the same one).

    Read the article

  • pthread and child process data sharing in C

    - by mustafabattal
    hi everyone, my question is somewhat conceptual, how is parent process' data shared with child process created by a "fork()" call or with a thread created by "pthread_create()" for example, are global variables directly passed into child process and if so, does modification on that variable made by child process effect value of it in parent process? i appreciate partial and complete answers in advance, if i'm missing any existing resource, i'm sorry, i've done some search on google but couldn't find good results thanks again for your time and answers

    Read the article

  • Wait on multiple condition variables on Linux without unnecessary sleeps?

    - by Joseph Garvin
    I'm writing a latency sensitive app that in effect wants to wait on multiple condition variables at once. I've read before of several ways to get this functionality on Linux (apparently this is builtin on Windows), but none of them seem suitable for my app. The methods I know of are: Have one thread wait on each of the condition variables you want to wait on, which when woken will signal a single condition variable which you wait on instead. Cycling through multiple condition variables with a timed wait. Writing dummy bytes to files or pipes instead, and polling on those. #1 & #2 are unsuitable because they cause unnecessary sleeping. With #1, you have to wait for the dummy thread to wake up, then signal the real thread, then for the real thread to wake up, instead of the real thread just waking up to begin with -- the extra scheduler quantum spent on this actually matters for my app, and I'd prefer not to have to use a full fledged RTOS. #2 is even worse, you potentially spend N * timeout time asleep, or your timeout will be 0 in which case you never sleep (endlessly burning CPU and starving other threads is also bad). For #3, pipes are problematic because if the thread being 'signaled' is busy or even crashes (I'm in fact dealing with separate process rather than threads -- the mutexes and conditions would be stored in shared memory), then the writing thread will be stuck because the pipe's buffer will be full, as will any other clients. Files are problematic because you'd be growing it endlessly the longer the app ran. Is there a better way to do this? Curious for answers appropriate for Solaris as well.

    Read the article

  • Linux synchronization with FIFO waiting queue

    - by EpsilonVector
    Are there locks in Linux where the waiting queue is FIFO? This seems like such an obvious thing, and yet I just discovered that pthread mutexes aren't FIFO, and semaphores apparently aren't FIFO either (I'm working on kernel 2.4 (homework))... Does Linux have a lock with FIFO waiting queue, or is there an easy way to make one with existing mechanisms?

    Read the article

  • Calling pthread_cond_signal without locking mutex

    - by Maysam
    Hi, I read somewhere that we should lock the mutex before calling pthread_cond_signal and unlock the mutext after calling it: The pthread_cond_signal() routine is used to signal (or wake up) another thread which is waiting on the condition variable. It should be called after mutex is locked, and must unlock mutex in order for pthread_cond_wait() routine to complete. My question is: isn't it OK to call pthread_cond_signal or pthread_cond_broadcast methods without locking the mutex?

    Read the article

  • pthread and recursively calling execvp in C

    - by eduke
    To begin I'm sorry for my english :) I looking for a way to create a thread each time my program finds a directory, in order to call the program itself but with a new argv[2] argument (which is the current dir). I did it successfully with fork() but with pthread I've some difficulties. I don't know if I can do something like that : #include <unistd.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <string.h> #include <sys/types.h> #include <sys/stat.h> #include <sys/wait.h> #include <dirent.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { pthread_t threadID[10] = {0}; DIR * dir; struct dirent * entry; struct stat status; pthread_attr_t attr; pthread_attr_init(&attr); int i = 0; char *res; char *tmp; char *file; if(argc != 3) { printf("Usage : %s <file> <dir>\n", argv[0]); exit(EXIT_FAILURE); } if(stat(argv[2],&status) == 0) { dir = opendir(argv[2]); file = argv[1]; } else exit(EXIT_FAILURE); while ((entry = readdir(dir))) { if (strcmp(entry->d_name, ".") && strcmp(entry->d_name, "..")) { tmp = malloc(strlen(argv[2]) + strlen(entry->d_name) + 2); strcpy(tmp, argv[2]); strcat(tmp, "/"); strcat(tmp, entry->d_name); stat(tmp, &status); if (S_ISDIR(status.st_mode)) { argv[2] = tmp; pthread_create( &threadID[i], &attr, execvp(argv[0], argv), NULL); printf("New thread created : %d", i); i++; } else if (!strcmp(entry->d_name, file)) { printf(" %s was found - Thread number = %d\n",tmp, i); break; } free(tmp); } } pthread_join( threadID[i] , &res ); exit(EXIT_SUCCESS); } Actually it doesn't works : pthread_create( &threadID[i], &attr, execvp(argv[0], argv), NULL); I have no runtime error, but when the file to find is in another directory, the thread is not created and so execvp(argv[0], argv) is not called... Thank you for you help, Simon

    Read the article

  • using pthread in c++

    - by ogzylz
    I am using pthread.h in a *.cc file. when I try to use pthread_exit(0); or pthread_join(mythrds[yy],NULL); it says : .cc:(.text+0x3e): undefined reference to `pthread_exit' when complied very similar code in a *.c file with gcc it work perfect. How Can I use pthread's in c++.. (I also added -lpthread) .. void *myThreads ( void *ptr ) { ... pthread_exit(0); } .. flags: g++ -lpthread -Wall -static -W -O9 -funroll-all-loops -finline -ffast-math

    Read the article

  • pthread_exit and/or pthread_join causing Abort and SegFaults.

    - by MJewkes
    The following code is a simple thread game, that switches between threads causing the timer to decrease. It works fine for 3 threads, causes and Abort(core dumped) for 4 threads, and causes a seg fault for 5 or more threads. Anyone have any idea why this might be happening? #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <errno.h> #include <assert.h> int volatile num_of_threads; int volatile time_per_round; int volatile time_left; int volatile turn_id; int volatile thread_running; int volatile can_check; void * player (void * id_in){ int id= (int)id_in; while(1){ if(can_check){ if (time_left<=0){ break; } can_check=0; if(thread_running){ if(turn_id==id-1){ turn_id=random()%num_of_threads; time_left--; } } can_check=1; } } pthread_exit(NULL); } int main(int argc, char *args[]){ int i; int buffer; pthread_t * threads =(pthread_t *)malloc(num_of_threads*sizeof(pthread_t)); thread_running=0; num_of_threads=atoi(args[1]); can_check=0; time_per_round = atoi(args[2]); time_left=time_per_round; srandom(time(NULL)); //Create Threads for (i=0;i<num_of_threads;i++){ do{ buffer=pthread_create(&threads[i],NULL,player,(void *)(i+1)); }while(buffer == EAGAIN); } can_check=1; time_left=time_per_round; turn_id=random()%num_of_threads; thread_running=1; for (i=0;i<num_of_threads;i++){ assert(!pthread_join(threads[i], NULL)); } return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Inject runtime exception to pthread sometime fails. How to fix that?

    - by lionbest
    I try to inject the exception to thread using signals, but some times the exception is not get caught. For example the following code: void _sigthrow(int sig) { throw runtime_error(strsignal(sig)); } struct sigaction sigthrow = {{&_sigthrow}}; void* thread1(void*) { sigaction(SIGINT,&sigthrow,NULL); try { while(1) usleep(1); } catch(exception &e) { cerr << "Thread1 catched " << e.what() << endl; } }; void* thread2(void*) { sigaction(SIGINT,&sigthrow,NULL); try { while(1); } catch(exception &e) { cerr << "Thread2 catched " << e.what() << endl; //never goes here } }; If I try to execute like: int main() { pthread_t p1,p2; pthread_create( &p1, NULL, &thread1, NULL ); pthread_create( &p2, NULL, &thread2, NULL ); sleep(1); pthread_kill( p1, SIGINT); pthread_kill( p2, SIGINT); sleep(1); return EXIT_SUCCESS; } I get the following output: Thread1 catched Interrupt terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::runtime_error' what(): Interrupt Aborted How can I make second threat catch exception? Is there better idea about injecting exceptions?

    Read the article

  • Mutex takes a long while to unlock

    - by l.thee.a
    I have two threads. First one is something like this: while(1) { pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex); //DO WORK pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex); pthread_yield(); } The second one locks the mutex on user event, change some settings and unlocks. Thread one does ~ 200 iterations a second. However on occasion it takes the second thread up to 3 seconds to get active (to unlock the mutex). How do I ensure faster response?

    Read the article

  • Thread-safety of read-only memory access

    - by Edmund
    I've implemented the Barnes-Hut gravity algorithm in C as follows: Build a tree of clustered stars. For each star, traverse the tree and apply the gravitational forces from each applicable node. Update the star velocities and positions. Stage 2 is the most expensive stage, and so is implemented in parallel by dividing the set of stars. E.g. with 1000 stars and 2 threads, I have one thread processing the first 500 stars and the second thread processing the second 500. In practice this works: it speeds the computation by about 30% with two threads on a two-core machine, compared to the non-threaded version. Additionally, it yields the same numerical results as the original non-threaded version. My concern is that the two threads are accessing the same resource (namely, the tree) simultaneously. I have not added any synchronisation to the thread workers, so it's likely they will attempt to read from the same location at some point. Although access to the tree is strictly read-only I am not 100% sure it's safe. It has worked when I've tested it but I know this is no guarantee of correctness! Questions Do I need to make a private copy of the tree for each thread? Even if it is safe, are there performance problems of accessing the same memory from multiple threads?

    Read the article

  • Simple POSIX threads question

    - by Andy
    Hi, I have this POSIX thread: void subthread(void) { while(!quit_thread) { // do something ... // don't waste cpu cycles if(!quit_thread) usleep(500); } // free resources ... // tell main thread we're done quit_thread = FALSE; } Now I want to terminate subthread() from my main thread. I've tried the following: quit_thread = TRUE; // wait until subthread() has cleaned its resources while(quit_thread); But it does not work! The while() clause does never exit although my subthread clearly sets quit_thread to FALSE after having freed its resources! If I modify my shutdown code like this: quit_thread = TRUE; // wait until subthread() has cleaned its resources while(quit_thread) usleep(10); Then everything is working fine! Could someone explain to me why the first solution does not work and why the version with usleep(10) suddenly works? I know that this is not a pretty solution. I could use semaphores/signals for this but I'd like to learn something about multithreading, so I'd like to know why my first solution doesn't work. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Not able to kill bad kernel running on NVIDIA GPU

    - by arvindkgs
    Hi, I am in a real fix. Please help. Its urgent. I have a host process that spawns multiple host(CPU) threads. These threads in turn call the CUDA kernel. These CUDA kernels are written by external users. So it might be bad kernels that enter infinite loop. In order to overcome this I have put a time-out of 2 mins that will kill the corresponding CPU thread. Will killing the CPU thread also kill the kernel running on the GPU? As far as what I have tested it does'nt. How can I also kill all the threads currently running in the GPU? Thanks, Arvind

    Read the article

  • pthread functions "_np" suffix

    - by osgx
    What does "_np" suffix mean here: pthread_mutex_timedlock_np or in macros PTHREAD_MUTEX_TIMED_NP Upd: From glibc2.2 enum { PTHREAD_MUTEX_TIMED_NP, PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP, PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK_NP, PTHREAD_MUTEX_ADAPTIVE_NP #ifdef __USE_UNIX98 , PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL = PTHREAD_MUTEX_TIMED_NP, PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE = PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE_NP, PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK = PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK_NP, PTHREAD_MUTEX_DEFAULT = PTHREAD_MUTEX_NORMAL #endif #ifdef __USE_GNU /* For compatibility. */ , PTHREAD_MUTEX_FAST_NP = PTHREAD_MUTEX_ADAPTIVE_NP #endif }; Does defining __USE_UNIX98 change portability of _NP functions/macro?

    Read the article

  • Execute another program in multi-threaded program

    - by Gary
    Hi, Just wondering how if it's possible to execute another program in a thread and send information to/get information from it. Essentially the same concept as with a child process and using pipes to communicate - however I don't want to use fork. I can't seem to find whether it's possible to do this, any help would be appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • efficient thread-safe singleton in C++

    - by user168715
    The usual pattern for a singleton class is something like static Foo &getInst() { static Foo *inst = NULL; if(inst == NULL) inst = new Foo(...); return *inst; } However, it's my understanding that this solution is not thread-safe, since 1) Foo's constructor might be called more than once (which may or may not matter) and 2) inst may not be fully constructed before it is returned to a different thread. One solution is to wrap a mutex around the whole method, but then I'm paying for synchronization overhead long after I actually need it. An alternative is something like static Foo &getInst() { static Foo *inst = NULL; if(inst == NULL) { pthread_mutex_lock(&mutex); if(inst == NULL) inst = new Foo(...); pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutex); } return *inst; } Is this the right way to do it, or are there any pitfalls I should be aware of? For instance, are there any static initialization order problems that might occur, i.e. is inst always guaranteed to be NULL the first time getInst is called?

    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

  • Multithreading using pthread in C++ with shared variables

    - by Saviour Self
    I'm new to threading (and C/C++ for that matter), and I'm attempting to use multiple threads to access shared variables. In the main, I've created a variable char inputarray[100]; Thread 1: This thread will be reading data from stdin in 2 byte bursts, and appending them to the inputarray. (input by feeding a file in) Thread 2: This thread will be reading data 1 byte at a time, performing a calculation, and putting its data into an output array. Thread 3: This thread will be outputting data from the output array in 2 byte bursts. (stdout) I've attempted the input part and got it working by passing a struct, but would like to do it without using a struct, but it has been giving me problems. If I can get input down, I'm sure I'll be able to use a similar strategy to complete output. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Below is a rough template for the input thread. #include <stdio.h> #include <pthread.h> using namespace std; void* input(void* arg) { char reading[3]; fread(reading,1,2,stdin); //append to char inputarray[]..??? } int main() { char inputarray[100]; pthread_t t1; pthread_create(&t1, NULL, &input, &inputarray); void *result; pthread_join(t1,&result); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • pthread_join from a signal handler

    - by liv2hak
    I have a capture program which in addition do capturing data and writing it into a file also prints some statistics.The function that prints the statistics static void* report(void) { /*Print statistics*/ } is called roughly every second using an ALARM that expires every second.So The program is like void capture_program() { pthread_t report_thread while(!exit_now) { if(pthread_create(&report_thread,NULL,report,NULL)){ fprintf(stderr,"Error creating reporting thread! \n"); } /* Capturing code -------------- -------------- */ if(doreport) usleep(5); } } void *report(void *param) { while(true) { if(doreport) { doreport = 0 //access some register from hardware usleep(5) } } } The expiry of the timer sets the doreport flag.If this flag is set report() is called which clears the flag.I am using usleep to alternate between two threads in the program.This seems to work fine. I also have a signal handler to handle SIGINT (i.e CTRL+C) static void anysig(int sig) { if (sig != SIGINT) dagutil_set_signal_handler(SIG_DFL); /* Tell the main loop to exit */ exit_now = 1; return; } My question: 1) Is it safe to call pthread_join from inside the signal handler? 2) Should I use exit_now flag for the report thread as well?

    Read the article

  • Why is sys+user > real in "time command"?

    - by shadyabhi
    I have a program that uses pthread library to do the matrix multiplication of 500x500 matrix. Each thread calculates 50 rows of the matrix. When I run tiem command:- shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~$ time ./a.out real 0m0.383s user 0m0.810s sys 0m0.000s shadyabhi@shadyabhi-desktop:~$ How come sys+user is greater than real time?

    Read the article

  • Using many mutex locks

    - by hanno
    I have a large tree structure on which several threads are working at the same time. Ideally, I would like to have an individual mutex lock for each cell. I looked at the definition of pthread_mutex_t in bits/pthreadtypes.h and it is fairly short, so the memory usage should not be an issue in my case. However, is there any performance penalty when using many (let's say a few thousand) different pthread_mutex_ts for only 8 threads?

    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

  • get return value from 2 threads in C

    - by polslinux
    #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <inttypes.h> typedef struct tmp_num{ int tmp_1; int tmp_2; }t_num; t_num t_nums; void *num_mezzo_1(void *num_orig); void *num_mezzo_2(void *num_orig); int main(int argc, char *argv[]){ pthread_t thread1, thread2; int tmp=0,rc1,rc2,num; num=atoi(argv[1]); if(num <= 3){ printf("Questo è un numero primo: %d\n", num); exit(0); } if( (rc1=pthread_create( &thread1, NULL, &num_mezzo_1, (void *)&num)) ){ printf("Creazione del thread fallita: %d\n", rc1); exit(1); } if( (rc2=pthread_create( &thread2, NULL, &num_mezzo_2, (void *)&num)) ){ printf("Creazione del thread fallita: %d\n", rc2); exit(1); } t_nums.tmp_1 = 0; t_nums.tmp_2 = 0; pthread_join(thread1, (void **)(&t_nums.tmp_1)); pthread_join(thread2, (void **)(&t_nums.tmp_2)); tmp=t_nums.tmp_1+t_nums.tmp_2; printf("%d %d %d\n", tmp, t_nums.tmp_1, t_nums.tmp_2); if(tmp>2){ printf("Questo NON è un numero primo: %d\n", num); } else{ printf("Questo è un numero primo: %d\n", num); } exit(0); } void *num_mezzo_1(void *num_orig){ int cont_1; int *n_orig=(int *)num_orig; t_nums.tmp_1 = 0; for(cont_1=1; cont_1<=(*n_orig/2); cont_1++){ if((*n_orig % cont_1) == 0){ (t_nums.tmp_1)++; } } pthread_exit((void *)(&t_nums.tmp_1)); return NULL; } void *num_mezzo_2(void *num_orig){ int cont_2; int *n_orig=(int *)num_orig; t_nums.tmp_2 = 0; for(cont_2=((*n_orig/2)+1); cont_2<=*n_orig; cont_2++){ if((*n_orig % cont_2) == 0){ (t_nums.tmp_2)++; } } pthread_exit((void *)(&t_nums.tmp_2)); return NULL; } How this program works: i have to input a number and this program will calculate if it is a prime number or not (i know that it is a bad algorithm but i only need to learn pthread). The problem is that the returned values are too much big.For example if i write "12" the value of tmp tmp_1 tmp_2 into the main are 12590412 6295204 6295208.Why i got those numbers??

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >