Search Results

Search found 1638 results on 66 pages for 'multithreading'.

Page 39/66 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

  • stop thread that does not get interrupted

    - by prmatta
    I have a thread that sits and reads objects off of an ObjectInputStream: public void run() { try { ois = new ObjectInputStream(clientSocket.getInputStream()); Object o; while ((o = ois.readObject()) != null) { //do something with object } } catch (Exception ex) { //Log exception } } readObject does not throw InterruptedException and as far as I can tell, no exception is thrown when this thread is interrupted. How do I stop this thread?

    Read the article

  • how to write silverlight threading function in another file or project

    - by Piyush
    I am using three tier architecture.I have SilverlightUI and UIController two projects.SilverlightUI contains only UI pages and controls while UIController contains all proxies of WCF services. Now I have created threads to update my controls dynamically and to do processing parallel.AS the requirement I want to define all functionality of threads in UIController projects.What should I do? Currenty what I am doing - private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { StartThreads(); } private void StartThreads() { private Thread _thread1; _thread1 = new Thread(DoThread1); _thread1.Start(); } public static void DoThread1() { _data1.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(delegate() { _data1.Text = _count1.ToString(); }); System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000); } I Want to write DoThread1() method in UIController project and call that function from here button_click()

    Read the article

  • Java - Call to start method on thread : how does it route to Runnable interface's run () ?

    - by Bhaskar
    Ok , I know the two standard ways to create a new thread and run it in Java : 1 Implement Runnable in a class , define run method ,and pass an instance of the class to a new Thread. When the start method on the thread instance is called , the run method of the class instance will be invoked. 2 Let the class derive from Thread, so it can to override the method run() and then when a new instance's start method is called , the call is routed to overridden method. In both methods , basically a new Thread object is created and its start method invoked. However , while in the second method , the mechanism of the call being routed to the user defined run() method is very clear ,( its a simple runtime polymorphism in play ), I dont understand how the call to start method on the Thread object gets routed to run() method of the class implementing Runnable interface. Does the Thread class have an private field of Type Runnable which it checks first , and if it is set then invokes the run method if it set to an object ? that would be a strange mechanism IMO. How does the call to start() on a thread get routed to the run method of the Runnable interface implemented by the class whose object is passed as a parameter when contructing the thread ?

    Read the article

  • using qsub (sge) with multi-threaded applications

    - by dan12345
    i wanted to submit a multi-threaded job to the cluster network i'm working with - but the man page about qsub is not clear how this is done - By default i guess it just sends it as a normal job regardless of the multi-threading - but this might cause problems, i.e. sending many multi-threaded jobs to the same computer, slowing things down. Does anyone know how to accomplish this? thanks. The batch server system is sge.

    Read the article

  • Can getAttribute() method of Tomcat ServletContext implementation be called without synchronization?

    - by oo_olo_oo
    I would like to read some parameters during servlet initializtion (in init() method), and store them among servlet context attributes (using getServletContext().setAttribute()). I would like to read these parameters later - during some request processing (using getServletContext().getAttribute()). So, the multiple threads could do this simultaneously. My question is if such an attempt is safe? Could I be sure that multi threaded calls to the getAttribute() don't mess up any internal state of the servlet context? Please take into account that I'm not going to call the setAttribute() anywhere besides the initialization. So, only calls to the getAttribute() are going to be done from multiple threads. But depending on the internal implementation, this also could be dangerous. So, any information about Tomcat's implementation would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • How to improve multi-threaded access to Cache (custom implementation)

    - by Andy
    I have a custom Cache implementation, which allows to cache TCacheable<TKey> descendants using LRU (Least Recently Used) cache replacement algorithm. Every time an element is accessed, it is bubbled up to the top of the LRU queue using the following synchronized function: // a single instance is created to handle all TCacheable<T> elements public class Cache() { private object syncQueue = new object(); private void topQueue(TCacheable<T> el) { lock (syncQueue) if (newest != el) { if (el.elder != null) el.elder.newer = el.newer; if (el.newer != null) el.newer.elder = el.elder; if (oldest == el) oldest = el.newer; if (oldest == null) oldest = el; if (newest != null) newest.newer = el; el.newer = null; el.elder = newest; newest = el; } } } The bottleneck in this function is the lock() operator, which limits cache access to just one thread at a time. Question: Is it possible to get rid of lock(syncQueue) in this function while still preserving the queue integrity?

    Read the article

  • Is it safe to draw three separate QImages in three separate QThreads?

    - by yan bellavance
    I have a QMainWindow with three widgets inside that are promoted to a class containing a subclassed QThread. They each draw on a local QImage in their rexpective qthread which is sent with a signal once its drawn and then rendered by calling update (mandlebrot example) from the slot. Is this safe or dangerous? They do not share any data, at least none that I am generating and am wondering what data they could be sharing that is outside of my coding range ie that is generated by Qt automatically.

    Read the article

  • Java: design for using many executors services and only few threads

    - by Guillaume
    I need to run in parallel multiple threads to perform some tests. My 'test engine' will have n tests to perform, each one doing k sub-tests. Each test result is stored for a later usage. So I have n*k processes that can be ran concurrently. I'm trying to figure how to use the java concurrent tools efficiently. Right now I have an executor service at test level and n executor service at sub test level. I create my list of Callables for the test level. Each test callable will then create another list of callables for the subtest level. When invoked a test callable will subsequently invoke all subtest callables test 1 subtest a1 subtest ...1 subtest k1 test n subtest a2 subtest ...2 subtest k2 call sequence: test manager create test 1 callable test1 callable create subtest a1 to k1 testn callable create subtest an to kn test manager invoke all test callables test1 callable invoke all subtest a1 to k1 testn callable invoke all subtest an to kn This is working fine, but I have a lot of new treads that are created. I can not share executor service since I need to call 'shutdown' on the executors. My idea to fix this problem is to provide the same fixed size thread pool to each executor service. Do you think it is a good design ? Do I miss something more appropriate/simple for doing this ?

    Read the article

  • Delegates And Cross Thread Exception

    - by Neo
    Whenever i am updating UI in windows form using delegate it gives me cross thread exception why it is happening like this? is there new thread started for each delegate call ? void Port_DataReceived(object sender, SerialDataReceivedEventArgs e) { //this call delegate to display data clsConnect(statusMsg); } protected void displayResponse(string resp) { //here cross thread exception occur if directly set to lblMsgResp.Text="Test"; if (lblMsgResp.InvokeRequired) { lblMsgResp.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(delegate { lblMsgResp.Text = resp; })); } }

    Read the article

  • how to share a variable between two threads

    - by prmatta
    I just inherited some code, two threads within this code need to perform a system task. One thread should do the system task before the other thread. They should not be performing the system task together. The two threads do not have references to each other. Now, I know I can use some sort of a semaphore to achieve this. But my question is what is the right way to get both threads to access this semaphore. I could create a static variable/method a new class : public class SharedSemaphore { private static Semaphore s = new Semaphore (1, true); public static void performSystemTask () { s.acquire(); } public static void donePerformingSystemTask() { s.release(); } } This would work (right?) but this doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Because, the threads now have access to a semaphore, without ever having a reference to it. This sort of thing doesn't seem like a good programming practice. Am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • What is wrong with locking non-static fields? What is the correct way to lock a particular instance?

    - by smartcaveman
    Why is it considered bad practice to lock non-static fields? And, if I am not locking non-static fields, then how do I lock an instance method without locking the method on all other instances of the same or derived class? I wrote an example to make my question more clear. public abstract class BaseClass { private readonly object NonStaticLockObject = new object(); private static readonly object StaticLockObject = new object(); protected void DoThreadSafeAction<T>(Action<T> action) where T: BaseClass { var derived = this as T; if(derived == null) { throw new Exception(); } lock(NonStaticLockObject) { action(derived); } } } public class DerivedClass :BaseClass { private readonly Queue<object> _queue; public void Enqueue(object obj) { DoThreadSafeAction<DerivedClass>(x=>x._queue.Enqueue(obj)); } } If I make the lock on the StaticLockObject, then the DoThreadSafeAction method will be locked for all instances of all classes that derive from BaseClass and that is not what I want. I want to make sure that no other threads can call a method on a particular instance of an object while it is locked.

    Read the article

  • Thread loses Message after wait() and notify()

    - by fugu2.0
    Hey Guys! I have a problem handling messages in a Thread. My run-method looks like this public void run() { Looper.prepareLooper(); parserHandler = new Handler { public void handleMessage(Message msg) { Log.i("","id from message: "+msg.getData.getString("id")); // handle message this.wait(); } } } I have several Activities sending messages to this thread, like this: Message parserMessage = new Message(); Bundle data = new Bundle(); data.putString("id", realId); data.putString("callingClass", "CategoryList"); parserMessage.setData(data); parserMessage.what = PARSE_CATEGORIES_OR_PRODUCTS; parserHandler = parser.getParserHandler(); synchronized (parserHandler) { parserHandler.notify(); Log.i("","message ID: " + parserMessage.getData().getString("id")); } parserHandler.sendMessage(parserMessage); The problem is that the run-method logs "id from message: null" though "message ID" has a value in the Log-statement. Why does the message "lose" it's data when being send to the thread? Has it something to do with the notify? Thanks for your help

    Read the article

  • Best way to identify and dispose locked thread in java.

    - by Bala R
    I have to call a function 3rd party module on a new thread. From what I've seen, the call either completes quickly if everything went well or it just hangs for ever locking up the thread. What's a good way to start the thread and make the call and wait for a few secs and if the thread is still alive, then assuming it's locked up, kill (or stop or abandon) the thread without using any deprecated methods. I have something like this for now, but I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it and I want to avoid calling Thread.stop() as it's deprecated. Thanks. private void foo() throws Exception { Runnable runnable = new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { // stuff that could potentially lock up the thread. } }; Thread thread; thread = new Thread(runnable); thread.start(); thread.join(3500); if (thread.isAlive()) { thread.stop(); throw new Exception(); } }

    Read the article

  • Does my Dictionary must use locking mechanism?

    - by theateist
    Many threads have access to summary. Each thread will have an unique key for accessing the dictionary; Dictionary<string, List<Result>> summary; Do I need locking for following operations? summary[key] = new List<Result>() summary[key].Add(new Result()); It seems that I don't need locking because each thread will access dictionary with different key, but won't the (1) be problematic because of adding concurrently new record to dictionary with other treads?

    Read the article

  • C#, Can I check on a lock without trying to acquire it?

    - by Biff MaGriff
    Hello, I have a lock in my c# web app that prevents users from running the update script once it has started. I was thinking I would put a notification in my master page to let the user know that the data isn't all there yet. Currently I do my locking like so. protected void butRefreshData_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(UpdateDatabase)); t.Start(this); //sleep for a bit to ensure that javascript has a chance to get rendered Thread.Sleep(100); } public static void UpdateDatabase(object con) { if (Monitor.TryEnter(myLock)) { Updater.RepopulateDatabase(); Monitor.Exit(myLock); } else { Common.RegisterStartupScript(con, AlreadyLockedJavaScript); } } And I do not want to do if(Monitor.TryEnter(myLock)) Monitor.Exit(myLock); else //show processing labal As I imagine there is a slight possibility that it might display the notification when it isn't actually running. Is there an alternative I can use? Edit: Hi Everyone, thanks a lot for your suggestions! Unfortunately I couldn't quite get them to work... However I combined the ideas on 2 answers and came up with my own solution.

    Read the article

  • How to handle all unhandled exceptions when using Task Parallel Library?

    - by Buu Nguyen
    I'm using the TPL (Task Parallel Library) in .NET 4.0. I want to be able to centralize the handling logic of all unhandled exceptions by using the Thread.GetDomain().UnhandledException event. However, in my application, the event is never fired for threads started with TPL code, e.g. Task.Factory.StartNew(...). The event is indeed fired if I use something like new Thread(threadStart).Start(). This MSDN article suggests to use Task#Wait() to catch the AggregateException when working with TPL, but that is not I want because it is not "centralized" enough a mechanism. Does anyone experience same problem at all or is it just me? Do you have any solution for this?

    Read the article

  • Have threads run indefinitely in a java application

    - by TP
    I am trying to program a game in which I have a Table class and each person sitting at the table is a separate thread. The game involves the people passing tokens around and then stopping when the party chime sounds. how do i program the run() method so that once I start the person threads, they do not die and are alive until the end of the game One solution that I tried was having a while (true) {} loop in the run() method but that increases my CPU utilization to around 60-70 percent. Is there a better method?

    Read the article

  • can a python script know that another instance of the same script is running... and then talk to it?

    - by Justin Grant
    I'd like to prevent multiple instances of the same long-running python command-line script from running at the same time, and I'd like the new instance to be able to send data to the original insance before the new instance commits suicide. How can I do this in a cross-platform way? Specifically, I'd like to enable the following behavior: "foo.py" is launched from the command line, and it will stay running for a long time-- days or weeks until the machine is rebooted or the parent process kills it. every few minutes the same script is launched again, but with different command-line parameters when launched, the script should see if any other instances are running. if other instances are running, then instance #2 should send its command-line parameters to instance #1, and then instance #2 should exit. instance #1, if it receives command-line parameters from another script, should spin up a new thread and (using the command-line parameters sent in the step above) start performing the work that instance #2 was going to perform. So I'm looking for two things: how can a python program know another instance of itself is running, and then how can one python command-line program communicate with another? Making this more complicated, the same script needs to run on both Windows and Linux, so ideally the solution would use only the Python standard library and not any OS-specific calls. Although if I need to have a Windows codepath and an *nix codepath (and a big if statement in my code to choose one or the other), that's OK if a "same code" solution isn't possible. I realize I could probably work out a file-based approach (e.g. instance #1 watches a directory for changes and each instance drops a file into that directory when it wants to do work) but I'm a little concerned about cleaning up those files after a non-graceful machine shutdown. I'd ideally be able to use an in-memory solution. But again I'm flexible, if a persistent-file-based approach is the only way to do it, I'm open to that option. More details: I'm trying to do this because our servers are using a monitoring tool which supports running python scripts to collect monitoring data (e.g. results of a database query or web service call) which the monitoring tool then indexes for later use. Some of these scripts are very expensive to start up but cheap to run after startup (e.g. making a DB connection vs. running a query). So we've chosen to keep them running in an infinite loop until the parent process kills them. This works great, but on larger servers 100 instances of the same script may be running, even if they're only gathering data every 20 minutes each. This wreaks havoc with RAM, DB connection limits, etc. We want to switch from 100 processes with 1 thread to one process with 100 threads, each executing the work that, previously, one script was doing. But changing how the scripts are invoked by the monitoring tool is not possible. We need to keep invocation the same (launch a process with different command-line parameters) but but change the scripts to recognize that another one is active, and have the "new" script send its work instructions (from the command line params) over to the "old" script.

    Read the article

  • Are memory barriers necessary for atomic reference counting shared immutable data?

    - by Dietrich Epp
    I have some immutable data structures that I would like to manage using reference counts, sharing them across threads on an SMP system. Here's what the release code looks like: void avocado_release(struct avocado *p) { if (atomic_dec(p->refcount) == 0) { free(p->pit); free(p->juicy_innards); free(p); } } Does atomic_dec need a memory barrier in it? If so, what kind of memory barrier? Additional notes: The application must run on PowerPC and x86, so any processor-specific information is welcomed. I already know about the GCC atomic builtins. As for immutability, the refcount is the only field that changes over the duration of the object.

    Read the article

  • What limits scaling in this simple OpenMP program?

    - by Douglas B. Staple
    I'm trying to understand limits to parallelization on a 48-core system (4xAMD Opteron 6348, 2.8 Ghz, 12 cores per CPU). I wrote this tiny OpenMP code to test the speedup in what I thought would be the best possible situation (the task is embarrassingly parallel): // Compile with: gcc scaling.c -std=c99 -fopenmp -O3 #include <stdio.h> #include <stdint.h> int main(){ const uint64_t umin=1; const uint64_t umax=10000000000LL; double sum=0.; #pragma omp parallel for reduction(+:sum) for(uint64_t u=umin; u<umax; u++) sum+=1./u/u; printf("%e\n", sum); } I was surprised to find that the scaling is highly nonlinear. It takes about 2.9s for the code to run with 48 threads, 3.1s with 36 threads, 3.7s with 24 threads, 4.9s with 12 threads, and 57s for the code to run with 1 thread. Unfortunately I have to say that there is one process running on the computer using 100% of one core, so that might be affecting it. It's not my process, so I can't end it to test the difference, but somehow I doubt that's making the difference between a 19~20x speedup and the ideal 48x speedup. To make sure it wasn't an OpenMP issue, I ran two copies of the program at the same time with 24 threads each (one with umin=1, umax=5000000000, and the other with umin=5000000000, umax=10000000000). In that case both copies of the program finish after 2.9s, so it's exactly the same as running 48 threads with a single instance of the program. What's preventing linear scaling with this simple program?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >