Search Results

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

Page 44/66 | < Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >

  • Invoking different methods on threads

    - by Kraken
    I have a main process main. It creates 10 threads (say) and then what i want to do is the following: while(required){ Thread t= new Thread(new ClassImplementingRunnable()); t.start(); counter++; } Now i have the list of these threads, and for each thread i want to do a set of process, same for all, hence i put that implementation in the run method of ClassImplementingRunnable. Now after the threads have done their execution, i wan to wait for all of them to stop, and then evoke them again, but this time i want to do them serially not in parallel. for this I join each thread, to wait for them to finish execution but after that i am not sure how to evoke them again and run that piece of code serially. Can i do something like for(each thread){ t.reevoke(); //how can i do that. t.doThis(); // Also where does `dothis()` go, given that my ClassImplementingRunnable is an inner class. } Also, i want to use the same thread, i.e. i want the to continue from where they left off, but in a serial manner. I am not sure how to go about the last piece of pseudo code. Kindly help. Working with with java.

    Read the article

  • Is private method in spring service implement class thread safe

    - by Roger Ray
    I got a service in an project using Spring framework. public class MyServiceImpl implements IMyService { public MyObject foo(SomeObject obj) { MyObject myobj = this.mapToMyObject(obj); myobj.setLastUpdatedDate(new Date()); return myobj; } private MyObject mapToMyObject(SomeObject obj){ MyObject myojb = new MyObject(); ConvertUtils.register(new MyNullConvertor(), String.class); ConvertUtils.register(new StringConvertorForDateType(), Date.class); BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj); ConvertUtils.deregister(Date.class); return myojb; } } Then I got a class to call foo() in multi-thread; There goes the problem. In some of the threads, I got error when calling BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj); saying Cannot invoke com.my.MyObject.setStartDate - java.lang.ClassCastException@2da93171 obviously, this is caused by ConvertUtils.deregister(Date.class) which is supposed to be called after BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj);. It looks like one of the threads deregistered the Date class out while another thread was just about to call BeanUtils.copyProperties(myojb , obj);. So My question is how do I make the private method mapToMyObject() thread safe? Or simply make the BeanUtils thread safe when it's used in a private method. And will the problem still be there if I keep the code this way but instead I call this foo() method in sevlet? If many sevlets call at the same time, would this be a multi-thread case as well?

    Read the article

  • Are C++ Reads and Writes of an int atomic

    - by theschmitzer
    I have two threads, one updating an int and one reading it. This value is a statistic where the order of the read and write is irrelevant. My question is, do I need to synchronize access to this multi-byte value anyway? Or, put another way, can part of the write be complete and get interrupted, and then the read happen. For example, think of value = ox0000FFFF increment value to 0x00010000 Is there a time where the value looks like 0x0001FFFF that I should be worried about? Certainly the larger the type, the more possible something like this is I've always synchronized these types of accesses, but was curious what the community thought.

    Read the article

  • Processing a database queue across multiple threads - design advice

    - by rwmnau
    I have a SQL Server table full of orders that my program needs to "follow up" on (call a webservice to see if something has been done with them). My application is multi-threaded, and could have instances running on multiple servers. Currently, every so often (on a Threading timer), the process selects 100 rows, at random (ORDER BY NEWID()), from the list of "unconfirmed" orders and checks them, marking off any that come back successfully. The problem is that there's a lot of overlap between the threads, and between the different processes, and their's no guarantee that a new order will get checked any time soon. Also, some orders will never be "confirmed" and are dead, which means that they get in the way of orders that need to be confirmed, slowing the process down if I keep selecting them over and over. What I'd prefer is that all outstanding orders get checked, systematically. I can think of two easy ways do this: The application fetches one order to check at a time, passing in the last order it checked as a parameter, and SQL Server hands back the next order that's unconfirmed. More database calls, but this ensures that every order is checked in a reasonable timeframe. However, different servers may re-check the same order in succession, needlessly. The SQL Server keeps track of the last order it asked a process to check up on, maybe in a table, and gives a unique order to every request, incrementing its counter. This involves storing the last order somewhere in SQL, which I wanted to avoid, but it also ensures that threads won't needlessly check the same orders at the same time Are there any other ideas I'm missing? Does this even make sense? Let me know if I need some clarification.

    Read the article

  • synchronized in java - Proper use

    - by ZoharYosef
    I'm building a simple program to use in multi processes (Threads). My question is more to understand - when I have to use a reserved word synchronized? Do I need to use this word in any method that affects the bone variables? I know I can put it on any method that is not static, but I want to understand more. thank you! here is the code: public class Container { // *** data members *** public static final int INIT_SIZE=10; // the first (init) size of the set. public static final int RESCALE=10; // the re-scale factor of this set. private int _sp=0; public Object[] _data; /************ Constructors ************/ public Container(){ _sp=0; _data = new Object[INIT_SIZE]; } public Container(Container other) { // copy constructor this(); for(int i=0;i<other.size();i++) this.add(other.at(i)); } /** return true is this collection is empty, else return false. */ public synchronized boolean isEmpty() {return _sp==0;} /** add an Object to this set */ public synchronized void add (Object p){ if (_sp==_data.length) rescale(RESCALE); _data[_sp] = p; // shellow copy semantic. _sp++; } /** returns the actual amount of Objects contained in this collection */ public synchronized int size() {return _sp;} /** returns true if this container contains an element which is equals to ob */ public synchronized boolean isMember(Object ob) { return get(ob)!=-1; } /** return the index of the first object which equals ob, if none returns -1 */ public synchronized int get(Object ob) { int ans=-1; for(int i=0;i<size();i=i+1) if(at(i).equals(ob)) return i; return ans; } /** returns the element located at the ind place in this container (null if out of range) */ public synchronized Object at(int p){ if (p>=0 && p<size()) return _data[p]; else return null; }

    Read the article

  • Ensuring all waiting threads complete

    - by Daniel
    I'm building a system where the progress of calling threads is dependent on the state of two variables. One variable is updated sporadically by an external source (separate from the client threads) and multiple client threads block on a condition of both variables. The system is something like this TypeB waitForB() { // Can be called by many threads. synchronized (B) { while (A <= B) { B.wait(); } A = B; return B; { } void updateB(TypeB newB) { // Called by one thread. synchronized (B) { B.update(newB); B.notifyAll(); // All blocked threads must receive new B. } } I need all the blocked threads to receive the new value of B once it has been updated. But the problem is once a single thread finishes and updates A, the waiting condition becomes true again so some of the other threads become blocked and don't receive the new value of B. Is there a way of ensuring that only the last thread that was blocked on B updates A, or another way of getting this behaviour?

    Read the article

  • Should I make my MutexLock volatile?

    - by sje397
    I have some code in a function that goes something like this: void foo() { { // scope the locker MutexLocker locker(&mutex); // do some stuff.. } bar(); } The function call bar() also locks the mutex. I am having an issue whereby the program crashes (for someone else, who has not as yet provided a stack trace or more details) unless the mutex lock inside bar is disabled. Is it possible that some optimization is messing around with the way I have scoped the locker instance, and if so, would making it volatile fix it? Is that a bad idea? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Background thread in C#

    - by Xodarap
    When the user saves some data, I want to spin off a background thread to update my indexes and do some other random stuff. Even if there is an error in this indexing the user can't do anything about it, so there is no point in forcing the main thread to wait until the background thread finishes. I'm doing this from a ASP.NET process, so I think I should be able to do this (as the main thread exiting won't kill the process). When I set a breakpoint in the background thread's method though, the main thread also appears to stop. Is this just an artifact of visual studio's debugger, or is the main thread really not going to return until the background thread stops?

    Read the article

  • How to wait for thread to finish with .NET?

    - by Maxim Z.
    I've never really used threading before in C# where I need to have two threads, as well as the main UI thread. Basically, I have the following. public void StartTheActions() { //Starting thread 1.... Thread t1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(action1)); t1.Start(); //Now, I want for the main thread (which is calling StartTheActions() ) to wait for t1 to finish (I have created an event in action1() for this) and then start t2... //HOW DO I DO THIS? Thread t2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(action2)); t2.Start(); } So, essentially, my question is how to have a thread wait for another one to finish. What is the best way to do this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to detect whether an EventWaitHandle is waiting?

    - by AngryHacker
    I have a fairly well multi-threaded winforms app that employs the EventWaitHandle in a number of places to synchronize access. So I have code similar to this: List<int> _revTypes; EventWaitHandle _ewh = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset); void StartBackgroundTask() { _ewh.Reset(); Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(LoadStuff)); t.Start(); } void LoadStuff() { _revTypes = WebServiceCall.GetRevTypes() // ...bunch of other calls fetching data from all over the place // using the same pattern _ewh.Set(); } List<int> RevTypes { get { _ewh.WaitOne(); return _revTypes; } } Then I just call .RevTypes somewehre from the UI and it will return data to me when LoadStuff has finished executing. All this works perfectly correctly, however RevTypes is just one property - there are actually several dozens of these. And one or several of these properties are holding up the UI from loading in a fast manner. Short of placing benchmark code into each property, is there a way to see which property is holding the UI from loading? Is there a way to see whether the EventWaitHandle is forced to actually wait?

    Read the article

  • Why do debug symbols so adversely affect the performance of threaded applications on Linux?

    - by fluffels
    Hi. I'm writing a ray tracer. Recently, I added threading to the program to exploit the additional cores on my i5 Quad Core. In a weird turn of events the debug version of the application is now running slower, but the optimized build is running faster than before I added threading. I'm passing the "-g -pg" flags to gcc for the debug build and the "-O3" flag for the optimized build. Host system: Ubuntu Linux 10.4 AMD64. I know that debug symbols add significant overhead to the program, but the relative performance has always been maintained. I.e. a faster algorithm will always run faster in both debug and optimization builds. Any idea why I'm seeing this behavior?

    Read the article

  • Performing time consuming operation on STL container within a lock

    - by Ashley
    I have an unordered_map of an unordered_map which stores a pointer of objects. The unordered map is being shared by multiple threads. I need to iterate through each object and perform some time consuming operation (like sending it through network etc) . How could I lock the multiple unordered_map so that it won't blocked for too long? typedef std::unordered_map<string, classA*>MAP1; typedef std::unordered_map<int, MAP1*>MAP2; MAP2 map2; pthread_mutex_lock(&mutexA) //how could I lock the maps? Could I reduce the lock granularity? for(MAP2::iterator it2 = map2.begin; it2 != map2.end; it2++) { for(MAP1::iterator it1 = *(it2->second).begin(); it1 != *(it2->second).end(); it1++) { //perform some time consuming operation on it1->second eg sendToNetwork(*(it1->second)); } } pthread_mutex_unlock(&mutexA)

    Read the article

  • java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread for multiple threads

    - by Kaustubh Ranjan Singh
    static class solver implements Runnable { static calculator(problem){ //Some code if(condition) {solver s = new solver(newproblem); new Thread(s).start();} } Public solver(int newproblem) { this.problem = newproblem ; } public void run() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub calculator(promblem); } } i am having a big array maze of 100x100 and i am trying to solve it and i am getting an error java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: unable to create new native thread(after running a code for some times). How can solve this , How can i use ExecutorService i think that will solve the problem or i want something like thisIf Number of generated threads4K then stop the first 100 threads

    Read the article

  • tiemout for a function that waits indefiinitely (like listen())

    - by Fantastic Fourier
    Hello, I'm not quite sure if it's possible to do what I'm about to ask so I thought I'd ask. I have a multi-threaded program where threads share a memory block to communicate necessary information. One of the information is termination of threads where threads constantly check for this value and when the value is changed, they know it's time for pthread_exit(). One of the threads contains listen() function and it seems to wait indefinitely. This can be problematic if there are nobody who wants to make connection and the thread needs to exit but it can't check the value whether thread needs to terminate or not since it's stuck on listen() and can't move beyond. while(1) { listen(); ... if(value == 1) pthread_exit(NULL); } My logic is something like that if it helps illustrate my point better. What I thought would solve the problem is to allow listen() to wait for a duration of time and if nothing happens, it moves on to next statement. Unfortunately, none of two args of listen() involves time limit. I'm not even sure if I'm going about the right way with multi-threaded programming, I'm not much experienced at all. So is this a good approach? Perhaps there is a better way to go about it? Thanks for any insightful comments.

    Read the article

  • How can I kill a Perl system call after a timeout?

    - by Fergal
    I've got a Perl script I'm using for running a file processing tool which is started using backticks. The problem is that occasionally the tool hangs and It needs to be killed in order for the rest of the files to be processed. Whats the best way best way to apply a timeout after which the parent script will kill the hung process? At the moment I'm using: foreach $file (@FILES) { $runResult = `mytool $file >> $file.log`; } But when mytool hangs after n seconds I'd like to be able to kill it and continue to the next file.

    Read the article

  • SQL Compact Edition 3.5 SP 1 - LockTimeOutException - how to debug?

    - by Bob King
    Intermittently in our app, we encounter LockTimeoutExceptions being throw from SQL CE. We've recently upgraded to 3.5 SP 1, and a number of them seem to have gone away, but we still do see them occasionally. I'm certain it's a bug in our code (which is multi-threaded) but I haven't been able to pin it down precisely. Does anyone have any good techniques for debugging this problem? The exceptions log like this (there's never a stack trace for these exceptions): SQL Server Compact timed out waiting for a lock. The default lock time is 2000ms for devices and 5000ms for desktops. The default lock timeout can be increased in the connection string using the ssce: default lock timeout property. [ Session id = 6,Thread id = 7856,Process id = 10116,Table name = Product,Conflict type = s lock (x blocks),Resource = DDL ] Our database is read-heavy, but does seldom writes, and I think I've got everything protected where it needs to be. EDIT: SQL CE already automatically uses NOLOCK http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms172398(sql.90).aspx

    Read the article

  • Can two threads of the same process produce the same GUID?

    - by mark
    Dear ladies and sirs. If two threads in a process generate a new GUID concurrently using .NET API (Guid.NewGuid()) is it possible that the two GUIDs will be identical? Thanks. UPDATE I want to get practical. I know that it is widely assumed that GUIDs are unique for all practical purposes. I am wondering if I can treat GUIDS produced by the different threads of the same process in the same manner.

    Read the article

  • A member variable's hashCode() value is different

    - by Jacques René Mesrine
    There's a piece of code that looks like this. The problem is that during bootup, 2 initialization takes place. (1) Some method does a reflection on ForumRepository & performs a newInstance() purely to invoke #setCacheEngine. (2) Another method following that invokes #start(). I am noticing that the hashCode of the #cache member variable is different sometimes in some weird scenarios. Since only 1 piece of code invokes #setCacheEngine, how can the hashCode change during runtime (I am assuming that a different instance will have a different hashCode). Is there a bug here somewhere ? public class ForumRepository implements Cacheable { private static CacheEngine cache; private static ForumRepository instance; public void setCacheEngine(CacheEngine engine) { cache = engine; } public synchronized static void start() { instance = new ForumRepository(); } public synchronized static void addForum( ... ) { cache.add( .. ); System.out.println( cache.hashCode() ); // snipped } public synchronized static void getForum( ... ) { ... cache.get( .. ); System.out.println( cache.hashCode() ); // snipped } }

    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

  • Issue with GCD and too many threads

    - by dariaa
    I have an image loader class which provided with NSURL loads and image from the web and executes completion block. Code is actually quite simple - (void)downloadImageWithURL:(NSString *)URLString completion:(BELoadImageCompletionBlock)completion { dispatch_async(_queue, ^{ // dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0), ^{ UIImage *image = nil; NSURL *URL = [NSURL URLWithString:URLString]; if (URL) { image = [UIImage imageWithData:[NSData dataWithContentsOfURL:URL]]; } dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^{ completion(image, URLString); }); }); } When I replace dispatch_async(_queue, ^{ with commented out dispatch_async(dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0), ^{ Images are loading much faster, wich is quite logical (before that images would be loaded one at a time, now a bunch of them are loading simultaneously). My issue is that I have perhaps 50 images and I call downloadImageWithURL:completion: method for all of them and when I use global queue instead of _queue my app eventually crashes and I see there are 85+ threads. Can the problem be that my calling dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_HIGH, 0) 50 times in a row makes GCD create too many threads? I thought that gcd handles all the treading and makes sure the number of threads is not huge, but if it's not the case is there any way I can influence number of threads?

    Read the article

  • Sleep a thread until an event is attended in another thread from a different class

    - by Afro Genius
    I have an application that fires 2 threads, the 1st launches another class to do some processing which in turn launches a 3rd class to do yet more processing. The 2nd thread in the main class should wait until some event in the 3rd class completes before it performs its job. How can this be achieved? I had tried implementing a wait/notify to share a lock object between the two threads but technically this will not work as I found the hard way. Can I share a lock between classes? Note, an instance of the 3rd class is declared in the 1st class and passed as parameter to the 2nd class. Also I tried creating boolean value in 3rd class that tells when event is complete then poll 2nd thread till this value is true. This worked but is not very desirable. Also is actionListner a better approach to this problem?

    Read the article

  • Multi-threaded Application with Readonly Properties

    - by Shiftbit
    Should my multithreaded application with read only properties require locking? Since nothing is being written I assume there is no need for locks, but I would like to make sure. Would the answer to this question be language agnostic? Without Lock: Private m_strFoo as new String = "Foo" Public ReadOnly Property Foo() As String Get return m_strFoo.copy() End Get End Property With Lock: Private m_strBar as new String = "Bar" Public ReadOnly Property Bar() As String Get SyncLock (me) return m_strBar.copy() End Synclock End Get End Property

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51  | Next Page >