Search Results

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

Page 42/66 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

  • Is this a correct way to stop Execution Task

    - by Yan Cheng CHEOK
    I came across code to stop execution's task. private final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(); public void stop() { executor.shutdownNow(); try { executor.awaitTermination(100, TimeUnit.DAYS); } catch (InterruptedException ex) { log.error(null, ex); } } public Runnable getRunnable() { return new Runnable() { public void run() { while (!Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) { // What if inside fun(), someone try to clear the interrupt flag? // Say, through Thread.interrupted(). We will stuck in this loop // forever. fun(); } } }; } I realize that, it is possible for Runnable to be in forever loop, as Unknown fun may Thread.sleep, clear the interrupt flag and ignore the InterruptedException Unknown fun may Thread.interrupted, clear the interrupt flag. I was wondering, is the following way correct way to fix the code? private final ExecutorService executor = Executors.newSingleThreadExecutor(); private volatile boolean flag = true; public void stop() { flag = false; executor.shutdownNow(); try { executor.awaitTermination(100, TimeUnit.DAYS); } catch (InterruptedException ex) { log.error(null, ex); } } public Runnable getRunnable() { return new Runnable() { public void run() { while (flag && !Thread.currentThread().isInterrupted()) { // What if inside fun(), someone try to clear the interrupt flag? // Say, through Thread.interrupted(). We will stuck in this loop // forever. fun(); } } }; }

    Read the article

  • How to prevent the other threads from accessing a method when one thread is accessing a method?

    - by geeta
    I want to search for a string in 10 files and write the matching lines to a single file. I wrote the matching lines from each file to 10 output files(o/p file1,o/p file2...) and then copied those to a single file using 10 threads. But the output single file has mixed output(one line from o/p file1,another line from o/p file 2 etc...) because its accessed simultaneously by many threads. If I wait for all threads to complete and then write the single file it will be much slower. I want the output file to be written by one thread at a time. What should i do? My source code:(only writing to single file method) public void WriteSingle(File output_file,File final_output) throws IOException { synchronized(output_file){ System.out.println("Writing Single file"); FileOutputStream fo = new FileOutputStream(final_output,true); FileChannel fi = fo.getChannel(); FileInputStream fs = new FileInputStream(output_file); FileChannel fc = fs.getChannel(); int maxCount = (64 * 1024 * 1024) - (32 * 1024); long size = fc.size(); long position = 0; while (position < size) { position += fc.transferTo(position, maxCount, fi); } } }

    Read the article

  • Best way to implement game loop without freezing UI thread

    - by Matt H
    I'm trying to make a simple 2D game in Java. So far I have a JFrame, with a menubar, and a class which extends JPanel and overrides it's paint method. Now, I need to get a game loop going, where I will update the position of images and so on. However, I'm stuck at how best to achieve this. Should I use multi-threading, because surely, if you put an infinite loop on the main thread, the UI (and thus my menu bar) will freeze up? Here's my code so far: import java.awt.Color; import java.awt.Graphics; import javax.swing.JPanel; @SuppressWarnings("serial") public class GameCanvas extends JPanel { public void paint(Graphics g) { while (true) { g.setColor(Color.DARK_GRAY); try { Thread.sleep(100); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } } import javax.swing.JFrame; import javax.swing.JMenu; import javax.swing.JMenuBar; import javax.swing.JMenuItem; @SuppressWarnings("serial") public class Main extends JFrame { GameCanvas canvas = new GameCanvas(); final int FRAME_HEIGHT = 400; final int FRAME_WIDTH = 400; public static void main(String args[]) { new Main(); } public Main() { super("Game"); JMenuBar menuBar = new JMenuBar(); JMenu fileMenu = new JMenu("File"); JMenuItem startMenuItem = new JMenuItem("Pause"); menuBar.add(fileMenu); fileMenu.add(startMenuItem); super.add(canvas); super.setVisible(true); super.setSize(FRAME_WIDTH, FRAME_WIDTH); super.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); super.setJMenuBar(menuBar); } } Any pointers/tips? Also, where should I put my loop? In my main class, or my GameCanvas class? Any help is appreciated, thanks.

    Read the article

  • Is there any class in the .NET Framework to represent a holding container for objects?

    - by Charles Prakash Dasari
    I am looking for a class that defines a holding structure for an object. The value for this object could be set at a later time than when this container is created. It is useful to pass such a structure in lambdas or in callback functions etc. Say: class HoldObject<T> { public T Value { get; set; } public bool IsValueSet(); public void WaitUntilHasValue(); } // and then we could use it like so ... HoldObject<byte[]> downloadedBytes = new HoldObject<byte[]>(); DownloadBytes("http://www.stackoverflow.com", sender => downloadedBytes.Value = sender.GetBytes()); It is rather easy to define this structure, but I am trying to see if one is available in FCL. I also want this to be an efficient structure that has all needed features like thread safety, efficient waiting etc. Any help is greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Multithreaded Delegates/Events

    - by Matt
    I am trying to disable parts of the UI in a .NET app based on polling done on a background thread. The background thread checks to see if the global database connection the app uses is still open and operable. What I need to do, and would prefer to do it without polling on the UI thread, is to add an event handler that can be raised by the background thread if the connection status changes. That way, any form can have a handler that will disable those parts of the UI that require the connection to function. Attempting to use a straight event declaration in the class that holds the thread sub, and raising the event in the background thread causing cross-thread execution errors regarding accessing UI controls from other threads. Obviously, there is a correct way to do this, but we have limited experience with events (single threaded apps mainly), and almost none with delegates. I've read through documentation and examples for delegates, and it seems to be closer to what we need, but I'm not sure how to make it work in this instance. The app is written mainly in VB.NET, but an example or help in C# is fine too.

    Read the article

  • Is it multitasking?

    - by Newbie
    Consider the below program myThread = new Thread( new ThreadStart( delegate { Method1(); Method2(); } ) ); Is it that 2 threads are getting called parallely(multitasking) or a single thread is calling the methods sequentially? It's urgent.

    Read the article

  • Queue access to the database to avoid multiple cache items

    - by MikeJ
    I have a music related ASP.NET web site which caches a lot of static information from the database on the first request. Sometimes, the application is reset and cache is cleared while the application is on heavy load and then all http requests go to the database to retrieve that static data and cache it for other requests. How can I ensure that only one request go to the database and cache the results, so that other request simply read that info from cache and not needlessly retrieve the same info over and over again. Can I use thread locking? For example, can I do something like lock(this) { db access here }?

    Read the article

  • Why does this threading approach not work?

    - by Tomas Lycken
    I have a wierd problem with threading in an ASP.NET application. For some reason, when I run the code in the request thread, everything works as expected. But when I run it in a separate thread, nothing happens. This is verified by calling the below handler with the three flags "on", "off" and "larma" respectively - in the two first cases everything works, but in the latter nothing happens. What am I doing wrong here? In the web project I have a generic handler with the following code: If task = "on" Then Alarm.StartaLarm(personId) context.Response.Write("Larmet är PÅ") ElseIf task = "off" Then Alarm.StoppaLarm(personId) context.Response.Write("Larmet är AV") ElseIf task = "larma" Then Alarm.Larma(personId) context.Response.Write("Larmar... (stängs av automagiskt)") Else context.Response.Write("inget hände - task: " & task) End If The Alarm class has the following methods: Private Shared Sub Larma_Thread(ByVal personId As Integer) StartaLarm(personId) Thread.Sleep(1000 * 30) StoppaLarm(personId) End Sub Public Shared Sub StartaLarm(ByVal personId As Integer) SandSMS(True, personId) End Sub Public Shared Sub StoppaLarm(ByVal personId As Integer) SandSMS(False, personId) End Sub Public Shared Sub SandSMS(ByVal setOn As Boolean, ByVal personId As Integer) ... End Sub

    Read the article

  • Explicit call of Runnable.run

    - by klaudio
    Hi, I have a question. Somebody, who was working on my code before me, created some method and passed Runnable as parameter, more likely: void myMethod(Runnable runnable){ runnable.run(); } Then calling myMethod out of main looks like: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new Runnable(){ public void run() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } So, to supply parameter to myMethod I need to instantiate object of (in this case anonymous) class implementing Runnable. My question is: is it necessary to use Runnable in this example? Can I use any different interface? I mean I can create new interface with single method i.e. interface MyInterface{ void doThis(); } then change look of myMethod: void myMethod(MyInterface myObject){ myObject.doThis(); } And of course client too: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new MyInterface (){ public void doThis() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } Or maybe something is about Runnable?!

    Read the article

  • Why does every thread in my application use a different hibernate session?

    - by Ittai
    Hi, I have a web-application which uses hibernate and for some reason every thread (httprequest or other threads related to queueing) uses a different session. I've implemented a HibernateSessionFactory class which looks like this: public class HibernateSessionFactory { private static final ThreadLocal<Session> threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<Session>(); private static Configuration configuration = new AnnotationConfiguration(); private static org.hibernate.SessionFactory sessionFactory; static { try { configuration.configure(configFile); sessionFactory = configuration.buildSessionFactory(); } catch (Exception e) {} } private HibernateSessionFactory() {} public static Session getSession() throws HibernateException { Session session = (Session) threadLocal.get(); if (session == null || !session.isOpen()) { if (sessionFactory == null) { rebuildSessionFactory();//This method basically does what the static init block does } session = (sessionFactory != null) ? sessionFactory.openSession(): null; threadLocal.set(session); } return session; } //More non relevant methods here. Now from my testing it seems that the threadLocal member is indeed initialized only once when the class is first loaded by the JVM but for some reason when different threads access the getSession() method they use different sessions. When a thread first accesses this class (Session) threadLocal.get(); will return null but as expected all other access requests will yeild the same session. I'm not sure how this can be happening as the threadLocal variable is final and the method threadLocal.set(session) is only used in the above context (which I'm 99.9% sure has to yeild a non null session as I would have encountered a NullPointerException at a different part of my app). I'm not sure this is relevant but these are the main parts of my hibernate.cfg.xml file: <hibernate-configuration> <session-factory> <property name="connection.url">someURL</property> <property name="connection.driver_class"> com.microsoft.sqlserver.jdbc.SQLServerDriver</property> <property name="dialect">org.hibernate.dialect.SQLServerDialect</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.isolation">1</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.username">User</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.password">Password</property> <property name="hibernate.connection.pool_size">10</property> <property name="show_sql">false</property> <property name="current_session_context_class">thread</property> <property name="hibernate.hbm2ddl.auto">update</property> <property name="hibernate.cache.use_second_level_cache">false</property> <property name="hibernate.cache.provider_class">org.hibernate.cache.NoCacheProvider</property> <!-- Mapping files --> I'd appreciate any help granted and of course if anyone has any questions I'd be happy to clarify. Ittai

    Read the article

  • ReaderWriterLockSlim question.

    - by Kamarey
    There are lots written about the ReaderWriterLockSlim class which allows multiple read and a single write. All of these (at least that I had found) tell how to use it without much explanation why and how it works. The standard code sample is: lock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock(); try { if (test if write is required) { lock.EnterWriteLock(); try { change the resourse here. } finally { lock.ExitWriteLock(); } } } finally { lock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock(); } The question is: if upgradeable lock permits only a single thread to enter its section, why I should call EnterWriteLock method within? What will happen if I don't? Or what will happen if instead of EnterUpgradeableReadLock I will call EnterWriteLock and will write to a resource without using upgradeable lock at all?

    Read the article

  • Thread sleep and thread join.

    - by Dhruv Gairola
    hi guys, if i put a thread to sleep in a loop, netbeans gives me a caution saying Invoking Thread.sleep in loop can cause performance problems. However, if i were to replace the sleep with join, no such caution is given. Both versions compile and work fine tho. My code is below (check the last few lines for "Thread.sleep() vs t.join()"). public class Test{ //Display a message, preceded by the name of the current thread static void threadMessage(String message) { String threadName = Thread.currentThread().getName(); System.out.format("%s: %s%n", threadName, message); } private static class MessageLoop implements Runnable { public void run() { String importantInfo[] = { "Mares eat oats", "Does eat oats", "Little lambs eat ivy", "A kid will eat ivy too" }; try { for (int i = 0; i < importantInfo.length; i++) { //Pause for 4 seconds Thread.sleep(4000); //Print a message threadMessage(importantInfo[i]); } } catch (InterruptedException e) { threadMessage("I wasn't done!"); } } } public static void main(String args[]) throws InterruptedException { //Delay, in milliseconds before we interrupt MessageLoop //thread (default one hour). long patience = 1000 * 60 * 60; //If command line argument present, gives patience in seconds. if (args.length > 0) { try { patience = Long.parseLong(args[0]) * 1000; } catch (NumberFormatException e) { System.err.println("Argument must be an integer."); System.exit(1); } } threadMessage("Starting MessageLoop thread"); long startTime = System.currentTimeMillis(); Thread t = new Thread(new MessageLoop()); t.start(); threadMessage("Waiting for MessageLoop thread to finish"); //loop until MessageLoop thread exits while (t.isAlive()) { threadMessage("Still waiting..."); //Wait maximum of 1 second for MessageLoop thread to //finish. /*******LOOK HERE**********************/ Thread.sleep(1000);//issues caution unlike t.join(1000) /**************************************/ if (((System.currentTimeMillis() - startTime) > patience) && t.isAlive()) { threadMessage("Tired of waiting!"); t.interrupt(); //Shouldn't be long now -- wait indefinitely t.join(); } } threadMessage("Finally!"); } } As i understand it, join waits for the other thread to complete, but in this case, arent both sleep and join doing the same thing? Then why does netbeans throw the caution?

    Read the article

  • Clarification on Threads and Run Loops In Cocoa

    - by dubbeat
    I'm trying to learn about threading and I'm thoroughly confused. I'm sure all the answers are there in the apple docs but I just found it really hard to breakdown and digest. Maybe somebody could clear a thing or 2 up for me. 1)performSelectorOnMainThread Does the above simply register an event in the main run loop or is it somehow a new thread even though the method says "mainThread"? If the purpose of threads is to relieve processing on the main thread how does this help? 2) RunLoops Is it true that if I want to create a completely seperate thread I use "detachNewThreadSelector"? Does calling start on this initiate a default run loop for the thread that has been created? If so where do run loops come into it? 3) And Finally , I've seen examples using NSOperationQueue. Is it true to say that If you use performSelectorOnMainThread the threads are in a queue anyway so NSOperation is not needed? 4) Should I forget about all of this and just use the Grand Central Dispatch instead?

    Read the article

  • Java Thread - Memory consistency errors

    - by Yatendra Goel
    I was reading a Sun's tutorial on Concurrency. But I couldn't understand exactly what memory consistency errors are? I googled about that but didn't find any helpful tutorial or article about that. I know that this question is a subjective one, so you can provide me links to articles on the above topic. It would be great if you explain it with a simple example.

    Read the article

  • Efficiently display file status when using background thread

    - by schmoopy
    How can i efficiently display the status of a file when using a background thread? For instance, lets say i have a 100MB file: when i do the code below via a thread (just as an example) it runs in about 1 min: foreach(byte b in file.bytes) { WriteByte(b, xxx); } But... if i want to update the user i have to use a delegate to update the UI from the main thread, the code below takes - FOREVER - literally i don't know how long im still waiting, ive created this post and its not even 30% done. int total = file.length; int current = 0; foreach(byte b in file.bytes) { current++; UpdateCurrentFileStatus(current, total); WriteByte(b, xxx); } public delegate void UpdateCurrentFileStatus(int cur, int total); public void UpdateCurrentFileStatus(int cur, int total) { // Check if invoke required, if so create instance of delegate // the update the UI if(this.InvokeRequired) { } else { UpdateUI(...) } }

    Read the article

  • Is a new thread in a Visual Studio test project aborted when the test ends?

    - by Michel
    Hi, i have to do some message exchange with a 3rd party (in a website). When the client posts a page, i start the message exchange. When that doesn't succeed for some reason, i report this to the client by rendering the page with a message. On the background, in a separate thread, i start a process to send abort messages to the 3rd party. I can't do this while the user is waiting for the page to come back, because it might take a few minutes. But in a test project, the test ends when the message to the 3rd party is sent, and after the new thread is started. But it seems that the new thread also ends, when the test is done. Is that normal behaviour? I do start the thread in a new class with a reference to 2 objects from the class which tries to send the message in the first place, may that be a problem?

    Read the article

  • C - How to use both aio_read() and aio_write().

    - by Slav
    I implement game server where I need to both read and write. So I accept incoming connection and start reading from it using aio_read() but when I need to send something, I stop reading using aio_cancel() and then use aio_write(). Within write's callback I resume reading. So, I do read all the time but when I need to send something - I pause reading. It works for ~20% of time - in other case call to aio_cancel() fails with "Operation now in progress" - and I cannot cancel it (even within permanent while cycle). So, my added write operation never happens. How to use these functions well? What did I missed? EDIT: Used under Linux 2.6.35. Ubuntu 10 - 32 bit. Example code: void handle_read(union sigval sigev_value) { /* handle data or disconnection */ } void handle_write(union sigval sigev_value) { /* free writing buffer memory */ } void start() { const int acceptorSocket = socket(AF_INET, SOCK_STREAM, 0); struct sockaddr_in addr; memset(&addr, 0, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); addr.sin_family = AF_INET; addr.sin_addr.s_addr = INADDR_ANY; addr.sin_port = htons(port); bind(acceptorSocket, (struct sockaddr*)&addr, sizeof(struct sockaddr_in)); listen(acceptorSocket, SOMAXCONN); struct sockaddr_in address; socklen_t addressLen = sizeof(struct sockaddr_in); for(;;) { const int incomingSocket = accept(acceptorSocket, (struct sockaddr*)&address, &addressLen); if(incomingSocket == -1) { /* handle error ... */} else { //say socket to append outcoming messages at writing: const int currentFlags = fcntl(incomingSocket, F_GETFL, 0); if(currentFlags < 0) { /* handle error ... */ } if(fcntl(incomingSocket, F_SETFL, currentFlags | O_APPEND) == -1) { /* handle another error ... */ } //start reading: struct aiocb* readingAiocb = new struct aiocb; memset(readingAiocb, 0, sizeof(struct aiocb)); readingAiocb->aio_nbytes = MY_SOME_BUFFER_SIZE; readingAiocb->aio_fildes = socketDesc; readingAiocb->aio_buf = mySomeReadBuffer; readingAiocb->aio_sigevent.sigev_notify = SIGEV_THREAD; readingAiocb->aio_sigevent.sigev_value.sival_ptr = (void*)mySomeData; readingAiocb->aio_sigevent.sigev_notify_function = handle_read; if(aio_read(readingAiocb) != 0) { /* handle error ... */ } } } } //called at any time from server side: send(void* data, const size_t dataLength) { //... some thread-safety precautions not needed here ... const int cancellingResult = aio_cancel(socketDesc, readingAiocb); if(cancellingResult != AIO_CANCELED) { //this one happens ~80% of the time - embracing previous call to permanent while cycle does not help: if(cancellingResult == AIO_NOTCANCELED) { puts(strerror(aio_return(readingAiocb))); // "Operation now in progress" /* don't know what to do... */ } } //otherwise it's okay to send: else { aio_write(...); } }

    Read the article

  • What is the optimal number of threads for performing IO operations in java?

    - by marc
    In Goetz's "Java Concurrency in Practice", in a footnote on page 101, he writes "For computational problems like this that do not I/O and access no shared data, Ncpu or Ncpu+1 threads yield optimal throughput; more threads do not help, and may in fact degrade performance..." My question is, when performing I/O operations such as file writing, file reading, file deleting, etc, are there guidelines for the number of threads to use to achieve maximum performance? I understand this will be just a guide number, since disk speeds and a host of other factors play into this. Still, I'm wondering: can 20 threads write 1000 separate files to disk faster than 4 threads can on a 4-cpu machine?

    Read the article

  • Implement a threading to prevent UI block on a bug in an async function

    - by Marcx
    I think I ran up againt a bug in an async function... Precisely the getDirectoryListingAsync() of the File class... This method is supposted to return an object containing the lists of files in a specified folder. I found that calling this method on a direcory with a lot of files (in my tests more than 20k files), after few seconds there is a block on the UI until the process is completed... I think that this method is separated in two main block: 1) get the list of files 2) create the array with the details of the files The point 1 seems to be async (for a few second the ui is responsive), then when the process pass from point 1 to point 2 the block of the UI occurs until the complete event is dispathed... Here's some (simple) code: private function checkFiles(dir:File):void { if (dir.exists) { dir.addEventListener( FileListEvent.DIRECTORY_LISTING, listaImmaginiLocale); dir.getDirectoryListingAsync(); // after this point, for the firsts seconds the UI respond well (point 1), // few seconds later (point 2) the UI is frozen } } private function listaImmaginiLocale( event:FileListEvent ):void { // from this point on the UI is responsive again... } Actually in my projects there are some function that perform an heavy cpu usage and to prevent the UI block I implemented a simple function that after some iteration will wait giving time to UI to be refreshed. private var maxIteration:int = 150000; private function sampleFunct(offset:int = 0) :void { if (offset < maxIteration) { // do something // call the recursive function using a timeout.. // if the offset in multiple by 1000 the function will wait 15 millisec, // otherwise it will be called immediately // 1000 is a random number for the pourpose of this example, but I usually change the // value based on how much heavy is the function itself... setTimeout(function():void{aaa(++offset);}, (offset%1000?15:0)); } } Using this method I got a good responsive UI without afflicting performance... I'd like to implement it into the getDirectoryListingAsync method but I don't know if it's possibile how can I do it where is the file to edit or extend.. Any suggestion???

    Read the article

  • Task.wait not working as I imagined

    - by user2357446
    I am trying to download a file, wait for the file to finish downloading, and then read the file afterwards. I have the following methods to do this: private async Task startDownload(string link, string savePath) { WebClient client = new WebClient(); client.DownloadProgressChanged += new DownloadProgressChangedEventHandler(client_DownloadProgressChanged); client.DownloadFileCompleted += new AsyncCompletedEventHandler(client_DownloadFileCompleted); await client.DownloadFileTaskAsync(new Uri(link), savePath); } private void checkUpdateButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { Task task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => startDownload(versionLink, versionSaveTo)); task.Wait(); if (task.IsCompleted) { checkVersion(); } } The checkVersion() method reads the file that was downloaded. This is throwing an IOException saying that the file is in use by something else and cannot be read. I thought that having task.Wait would prevent the rest of the method from executing until the task was finished?

    Read the article

  • java statistics collection for performance evaluation

    - by user384706
    What is the most efficient way to collect and report performance statistic analysis from an application? If I have an application that uses a series of network apis, and I want to report statistics at runtime, e.g. Method doA() was called 3 times and consumed on avg 500ms Method doB() was called 5 times and consumed on avg 1200ms etc Then, I thought of using a well defined data structure (of collection) that each thread updates per remote call, and this can be used for the report. But I think that it will make the performance worse, for the time spend for statistics collection. Am I correct? How would I procceed if I used a background thread for this, and the other threads that did the remote calls were unaware of this collection gathering? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Asynchronous database update in Django?

    - by Mark
    I have a big form on my site. When the users fill it out and submit it, most of the data just gets dumped to the database, and then they get redirected to a new page. However, I'd also like to use the data to query another site, and then parse the results. That might take a bit longer. It's not essential that the user sees these results right away, so I was wondering if it's possible to asynchronously call a function that will handle this, and then return an HttpResponse from my view like usual without making them wait? If so... how? Any particular libraries I should look at?

    Read the article

  • Problems with Threading in Python 2.5, KeyError: 51, Help debugging?

    - by vignesh-k
    I have a python script which runs a particular script large number of times (for monte carlo purpose) and the way I have scripted it is that, I queue up the script the desired number of times it should be run then I spawn threads and each thread runs the script once and again when its done. Once the script in a particular thread is finished, the output is written to a file by accessing a lock (so my guess was that only one thread accesses the lock at a given time). Once the lock is released by one thread, the next thread accesses it and adds its output to the previously written file and rewrites it. I am not facing a problem when the number of iterations is small like 10 or 20 but when its large like 50 or 150, python returns a KeyError: 51 telling me element doesn't exist and the error it points out to is within the lock which puzzles me since only one thread should access the lock at once and I do not expect an error. This is the class I use: class errorclass(threading.Thread): def __init__(self, queue): self.__queue=queue threading.Thread.__init__(self) def run(self): while 1: item = self.__queue.get() if item is None: break result = myfunction() lock = threading.RLock() lock.acquire() ADD entries from current thread to entries in file and REWRITE FILE lock.release() queue = Queue.Queue() for i in range(threads): errorclass(queue).start() for i in range(desired iterations): queue.put(i) for i in range(threads): queue.put(None) Python returns with KeyError: 51 for large number of desired iterations during the adding/write file operation after lock access, I am wondering if this is the correct way to use the lock since every thread has a lock operation rather than every thread accessing a shared lock? What would be the way to rectify this?

    Read the article

  • Thread synchronization and aborting.

    - by kubal5003
    Hello, I've got a little problem with ending the work of one of my threads. First things first so here's the app "layout": Thread 1 - worker thread (C++/CLI) - runs and terminates as expected for(...) { try { if(TabuStop) return; System::Threading::Monitor::Enter("Lock1"); //some work, unmanaged code } finally { if(stop) { System::Threading::Monitor::Pulse("Lock1"); } else { System::Threading::Monitor::Pulse("Lock1"); System::Threading::Monitor::Wait("Lock1"); } } } Thread 2 - display results thread (C#) while (WorkerThread.IsAlive) { lock ("Lock1") { if (TabuEngine.TabuStop) { Monitor.Pulse("Lock1"); } else { Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(RefreshAction); Monitor.Pulse("Lock1"); Monitor.Wait("Lock1", 5000); } } // Thread.Sleep(5000); } I'm trying to shut the whole thing down from app main thread like this: TabuEngine.TabuStop = true; //terminates nicely the worker thread and if (DisplayThread.IsAlive) { DisplayThread.Abort(); } I also tried using DisplayThread.Interrupt, but it always blocks on Monitor.Wait("Lock1", 5000); and I can't get rid of it. What is wrong here? How am I supposed to perform the synchronization and let it do the work that it is supposed to do? //edit I'm not even sure now if the trick with using "Lock1" string is really working and locks are placed on the same object..

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >