Search Results

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

Page 53/66 | < Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >

  • Threads syncronization with ThreadPoolExecutor

    - by justme1
    I'm trying to implement some logic when I create main(father) thread witch executes several other threads. Then it waits for some condition which child threads creates. After condition is meet the father executes some more child threads. The problem that when I use wait/notify I have java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException exception. Here is the code: public class MyExecutor { final static ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable> queue = new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(10); final static ExecutorService svc = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1); static final ThreadPoolExecutor threadPool = new ThreadPoolExecutor(5, 8, 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS, queue); public static void main(String[] args) throws InterruptedException { final MyExecutor me = new MyExecutor(); svc.execute(new Runnable() { public void run() { try { System.out.println("Main Thread"); me.execute(threadPool, 1); System.out.println("Main Thread waiting"); wait(); System.out.println("Main Thread notified"); me.execute(threadPool, 2); Thread.sleep(100); threadPool.shutdown(); threadPool.awaitTermination(20000, TimeUnit.SECONDS); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } }); svc.shutdown(); svc.awaitTermination(10000, TimeUnit.SECONDS); System.out.println("Main Thread finished"); } public void execute(ThreadPoolExecutor tpe, final int id) { tpe.execute(new Runnable() { public void run() { try { System.out.println("Child Thread " + id); Thread.sleep(2000); System.out.println("Child Thread " + id + " finished"); notify(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } }); } } When I comment wait and notify line I have the following output: Main Thread Main Thread waiting Main Thread notified Child Thread 1 Child Thread 2 Child Thread 1 finished Child Thread 2 finished Main Thread finished

    Read the article

  • Faking a Single Address Space

    - by dsimcha
    I have a large scientific computing task that parallelizes very well with SMP, but at too fine grained a level to be easily parallelized via explicit message passing. I'd like to parallelize it across address spaces and physical machines. Is it feasible to create a scheduler that would parallelize already multithreaded code across multiple physical computers under the following conditions: The code is already multithreaded and can scale pretty well on SMP configurations. The fact that not all of the threads are running in the same address space or on the same physical machine must be transparent to the program, even if this comes at a significant performance penalty in some use cases. You may assume that all of the physical machines involved are running operating systems and CPU architectures that are binary compatible. Things like locks and atomic operations may be slow (having network latency to deal with and all) but must "just work".

    Read the article

  • Is this a valid, lazy, thread-safe Singleton implementation for C#?

    - by Matthew
    I implemented a Singleton pattern like this: public sealed class MyClass { ... public static MyClass Instance { get { return SingletonHolder.instance; } } ... static class SingletonHolder { public static MyClass instance = new MyClass (); } } From Googling around for C# Singleton implementations, it doesn't seem like this is a common way to do things in C#. I found one similar implementation, but the SingletonHolder class wasn't static, and included an explicit (empty) static constructor. Is this a valid, lazy, thread-safe way to implement the Singleton pattern? Or is there something I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Do I need to using locking against integers in c++ threads

    - by Shane MacLaughlin
    The title says it all really. If I am accessing a single integer type (e.g. long, int, bool, etc...) in multiple threads, do I need to use a synchronisation mechanism such as a mutex to lock them. My understanding is that as atomic types, I don't need to lock access to a single thread, but I see a lot of code out there that does use locking. Profiling such code shows that there is a significant performance hit for using locks, so I'd rather not. So if the item I'm accessing corresponds to a bus width integer (e.g. 4 bytes on a 32 bit processor) do I need to lock access to it when it is being used across multiple threads? Put another way, if thread A is writing to integer variable X at the same time as thread B is reading from the same variable, is it possible that thread B could end up a few bytes of the previous value mixed in with a few bytes of the value being written? Is this architecture dependent, e.g. ok for 4 byte integers on 32 bit systems but unsafe on 8 byte integers on 64 bit systems? Edit: Just saw this related post which helps a fair bit.

    Read the article

  • Delphi - Is there any equivalent to C# lock?

    - by CaldonCZE
    I'm writing a multi-threaded application in Delphi and need to use something to protect shared resources. In C# I'd use the "lock" keyword: private someMethod() { lock(mySharedObj) { //...do something with mySharedObj } } In Delphi I couldn't find anything similar, I found just TThread.Synchronize(someMethod) method, which prevents potential conflicts by calling someMethod in main VCL thread, but it isn't exactly what I want to do.... Edit: I'm using Delphi 6

    Read the article

  • Does the Java Memory Model (JSR-133) imply that entering a monitor flushes the CPU data cache(s)?

    - by Durandal
    There is something that bugs me with the Java memory model (if i even understand everything correctly). If there are two threads A and B, there are no guarantees that B will ever see a value written by A, unless both A and B synchronize on the same monitor. For any system architecture that guarantees cache coherency between threads, there is no problem. But if the architecture does not support cache coherency in hardware, this essentially means that whenever a thread enters a monitor, all memory changes made before must be commited to main memory, and the cache must be invalidated. And it needs to be the entire data cache, not just a few lines, since the monitor has no information which variables in memory it guards. But that would surely impact performance of any application that needs to synchronize frequently (especially things like job queues with short running jobs). So can Java work reasonably well on architectures without hardware cache-coherency? If not, why doesn't the memory model make stronger guarantees about visibility? Wouldn't it be more efficient if the language would require information what is guarded by a monitor? As i see it the memory model gives us the worst of both worlds, the absolute need to synchronize, even if cache coherency is guaranteed in hardware, and on the other hand bad performance on incoherent architectures (full cache flushes). So shouldn't it be more strict (require information what is guarded by a monitor) or more lose and restrict potential platforms to cache-coherent architectures? As it is now, it doesn't make too much sense to me. Can somebody clear up why this specific memory model was choosen? EDIT: My use of strict and lose was a bad choice in retrospect. I used "strict" for the case where less guarantees are made and "lose" for the opposite. To avoid confusion, its probably better to speak in terms of stronger or weaker guarantees.

    Read the article

  • Swing: How do I run a job from AWT thread, but after a window was layed out?

    - by java.is.for.desktop
    My complete GUI runs inside the AWT thread, because I start the main window using SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(...). Now I have a JDialog which has just to display a JLabel, which indicates that a certain job is in progress, and close that dialog after the job was finished. The problem is: the label is not displayed. That job seems to be started before JDialog was fully layed-out. When I just let the dialog open without waiting for a job and closing, the label is displayed. The last thing the dialog does in its ctor is setVisible(true). Things such as revalidate(), repaint(), ... don't help either. Even when I start a thread for the monitored job, and wait for it using someThread.join() it doesn't help, because the current thread (which is the AWT thread) is blocked by join, I guess. Replacing JDialog with JFrame doesn't help either. So, is the concept wrong in general? Or can I manage it to do certain job after it is ensured that a JDialog (or JFrame) is fully layed-out? Simplified algorithm of what I'm trying to achieve: Create a subclass of JDialog Ensure that it and its contents are fully layed-out Start a process and wait for it to finish (threaded or not, doesn't matter) Close the dialog I managed to write a reproducible test case: EDIT Problem from an answer is now addressed: This use case does display the label, but it fails to close after the "simulated process", because of dialog's modality. import java.awt.*; import javax.swing.*; public class _DialogTest2 { public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { SwingUtilities.invokeAndWait(new Runnable() { final JLabel jLabel = new JLabel("Please wait..."); @Override public void run() { JFrame myFrame = new JFrame("Main frame"); myFrame.setDefaultCloseOperation(JFrame.EXIT_ON_CLOSE); myFrame.setSize(750, 500); myFrame.setLocationRelativeTo(null); myFrame.setVisible(true); JDialog d = new JDialog(myFrame, "I'm waiting"); d.setModalityType(Dialog.ModalityType.APPLICATION_MODAL); d.add(jLabel); d.setSize(300, 200); d.setLocationRelativeTo(null); d.setVisible(true); SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable() { @Override public void run() { try { Thread.sleep(3000); // simulate process jLabel.setText("Done"); } catch (InterruptedException ex) { } } }); d.setVisible(false); d.dispose(); myFrame.setVisible(false); myFrame.dispose(); } }); } }

    Read the article

  • Will lock() statement block all threads in the proccess/appdomain?

    - by MikeJ
    Maybe the question sounds silly, but I don't understand 'something about threads and locking and I would like to get a confirmation (here's why I ask). So, if I have 10 servers and 10 request in the same time come to each server, that's 100 request across the farm. Without locking, thats 100 request to the database. If I do something like this: private static readonly object myLockHolder = new object(); if (Cache[key] == null) { lock(myLockHolder) { if (Cache[key] == null) { Cache[key] = LengthyDatabaseCall(); } } } How many database requests will I do? 10? 100? Or as much as I have threads?

    Read the article

  • Thread class closing from other Class (Activity) with protected void onStop() Android

    - by user1761337
    I have a Problem with Closing the Thread. I will Closing the Thread with onStop,onPause and onDestroy. This is my Source in the Activity Class: @Override protected void onStop(){ super.onStop(); finish(); } @Override protected void onPause() { super.onPause(); finish(); } @Override public void onDestroy() { this.mWakeLock.release(); super.onDestroy(); } And the Thread Class: public class GameThread extends Thread { private SurfaceHolder mSurfaceHolder; private Handler mHandler; private Context mContext; private Paint mLinePaint; private Paint blackPaint; //for consistent rendering private long sleepTime; //amount of time to sleep for (in milliseconds) private long delay=1000/30; //state of game (Running or Paused). int state = 1; public final static int RUNNING = 1; public final static int PAUSED = 2; public final static int STOPED = 3; GameSurface gEngine; public GameThread(SurfaceHolder surfaceHolder, Context context, Handler handler,GameSurface gEngineS){ //data about the screen mSurfaceHolder = surfaceHolder; mHandler = handler; mContext = context; gEngine=gEngineS; } //This is the most important part of the code. It is invoked when the call to start() is //made from the SurfaceView class. It loops continuously until the game is finished or //the application is suspended. private long beforeTime; @Override public void run() { //UPDATE while (state==RUNNING) { Log.d("State","Thread is runnig"); //time before update beforeTime = System.nanoTime(); //This is where we update the game engine gEngine.Update(); //DRAW Canvas c = null; try { //lock canvas so nothing else can use it c = mSurfaceHolder.lockCanvas(null); synchronized (mSurfaceHolder) { //clear the screen with the black painter. //reset the canvas c.drawColor(Color.BLACK); //This is where we draw the game engine. gEngine.doDraw(c); } } finally { // do this in a finally so that if an exception is thrown // during the above, we don't leave the Surface in an // inconsistent state if (c != null) { mSurfaceHolder.unlockCanvasAndPost(c); } } this.sleepTime = delay-((System.nanoTime()-beforeTime)/1000000L); try { //actual sleep code if(sleepTime>0){ this.sleep(sleepTime); } } catch (InterruptedException ex) { Logger.getLogger(GameThread.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex); } while (state==PAUSED){ Log.d("State","Thread is pausing"); try { this.sleep(1000); } catch (InterruptedException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } } } }} How i can close the Thread from Activity Class??

    Read the article

  • Tomcat thread waiting on and locking the same resource

    - by Adam Matan
    Consider the following Java\Tomcat thread dump: "http-0.0.0.0-4080-4" daemon prio=10 tid=0x0000000019a2b000 nid=0x360e in Object.wait() [0x0000000040b71000] java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (on object monitor) at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method) - waiting on <0x00002ab5565fe358> (a org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker) at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:485) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker.await(JIoEndpoint.java:458) - locked <0x00002ab5565fe358> (a org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker) at org.apache.tomcat.util.net.JIoEndpoint$Worker.run(JIoEndpoint.java:484) at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:662) Is this a deadlock? It seems that the same resource (0x00002ab5565fe358) is both locked and waited on - what does it mean?

    Read the article

  • Does async and await incease performance of an ASP.Net application

    - by Kerezo
    I recently read a article about c#-5 and new $ nice asynchronous programming. I see it works greate in windows application. The question came to me before is if this feature can increase ASP.Net performance? consider this code: public T GetData() { var d = GetSomeData(); return d; } and public async T GetData2() { var d = await GetSomeData(); return d; } Has in an ASP.Net appication that two codes difference? thanks

    Read the article

  • How does lock(syncRoot) make sense on a static method?

    - by Rising Star
    The following code is excerpted from the (Windows Identity Foundation SDK) template that MS uses to create a new Security Token Service Web Site. public static CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration Current { get { HttpApplicationState httpAppState = HttpContext.Current.Application; CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration customConfiguration = httpAppState.Get( CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfigurationKey ) as CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration; if ( customConfiguration == null ) { lock ( syncRoot ) { customConfiguration = httpAppState.Get( CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfigurationKey ) as CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration; if ( customConfiguration == null ) { customConfiguration = new CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfiguration(); httpAppState.Add( CustomSecurityTokenServiceConfigurationKey, customConfiguration ); } } } return customConfiguration; } } I'm relatively new to multi-threaded programming. I assume that the reason for the lock statement is to make this code thread-safe in the event that two web requests arrive at the web site at the same time. However, I would have thought that using lock (syncRoot) would not make sense because syncRoot refers to the current instance that this method is operating on... but this is a static method? How does this make sense?

    Read the article

  • boost scoped_lock mutex crashes

    - by JahSumbar
    hello, I have protected a std::queue's access functions, push, pop, size, with boost::mutexes and boost::mutex::scoped_lock in these functions from time to time it crashes in a scoped lock the call stack is this: 0 0x0040f005 boost::detail::win32::interlocked_bit_test_and_set include/boost/thread/win32/thread_primitives.hpp 361 1 0x0040e879 boost::detail::basic_timed_mutex::timed_lock include/boost/thread/win32/basic_timed_mutex.hpp 68 2 0x0040e9d3 boost::detail::basic_timed_mutex::lock include/boost/thread/win32/basic_timed_mutex.hpp 64 3 0x0040b96b boost::unique_lock<boost::mutex>::lock include/boost/thread/locks.hpp 349 4 0x0040b998 unique_lock include/boost/thread/locks.hpp 227 5 0x00403837 MyClass::inboxSize - this is my inboxSize function that uses this code: MyClass::inboxSize () { boost::mutex::scoped_lock scoped_lock(m_inboxMutex); return m_inbox.size(); } and the mutex is declared like this: boost::mutex m_inboxMutex; it crashes at the last pasted line in this function: inline bool interlocked_bit_test_and_set(long* x,long bit) { long const value=1<<bit; long old=*x; and x has this value: 0xababac17 Thanks for the help

    Read the article

  • Another thread safe queue implementation

    - by jensph
    I have a class, Queue, that I tried to make thread safe. It has these three member variables: std::queue<T> m_queue; pthread_mutex_t m_mutex; pthread_cond_t m_condition; and a push and pop implemented as: template<class T> void Queue<T>::push(T value) { pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); m_queue.push(value); if( !m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_signal( &m_condition ); } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); } template<class T> bool Queue<T>::pop(T& value, bool block) { bool rtn = false; pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); if( block ) { while( m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_wait( &m_condition, &m_mutex ); } } if( !m_queue.empty() ) { value = m_queue.front(); m_queue.pop(); rtn = true; } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); return rtn; } Unfortunately there are occasional issues that may be the fault of this code. That is, there are two threads and sometimes thread 1 never comes out of push() and at other times thread 2 never comes out of pop() (the block parameter is true) though the queue isn't empty. I understand there are other implementations available, but I'd like to try to fix this code, if needed. Anyone see any issues? The constructor has the appropriate initializations: Queue() { pthread_mutex_init( &mMutex, NULL ); pthread_cond_init( &mCondition, NULL ); } and the destructor, the corresponding 'destroy' calls.

    Read the article

  • Threading across multiple files

    - by Zach M.
    My program is reading in files and using thread to compute the highest prime number, when I put a print statement into the getNum() function my numbers are printing out. However, it seems to just lag no matter how many threads I input. Each file has 1 million integers in it. Does anyone see something apparently wrong with my code? Basically the code is giving each thread 1000 integers to check before assigning a new thread. I am still a C noobie and am just learning the ropes of threading. My code is a mess right now because I have been switching things around constantly. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h> #include <string.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <math.h> #include <semaphore.h> //Global variable declaration char *file1 = "primes1.txt"; char *file2 = "primes2.txt"; char *file3 = "primes3.txt"; char *file4 = "primes4.txt"; char *file5 = "primes5.txt"; char *file6 = "primes6.txt"; char *file7 = "primes7.txt"; char *file8 = "primes8.txt"; char *file9 = "primes9.txt"; char *file10 = "primes10.txt"; char **fn; //file name variable int numberOfThreads; int *highestPrime = NULL; int fileArrayNum = 0; int loop = 0; int currentFile = 0; sem_t semAccess; sem_t semAssign; int prime(int n)//check for prime number, return 1 for prime 0 for nonprime { int i; for(i = 2; i <= sqrt(n); i++) if(n % i == 0) return(0); return(1); } int getNum(FILE* file) { int number; char* tempS = malloc(20 *sizeof(char)); fgets(tempS, 20, file); tempS[strlen(tempS)-1] = '\0'; number = atoi(tempS); free(tempS);//free memory for later call return(number); } void* findPrimality(void *threadnum) //main thread function to find primes { int tNum = (int)threadnum; int checkNum; char *inUseFile = NULL; int x=1; FILE* file; while(currentFile < 10){ if(inUseFile == NULL){//inUseFIle being used to check if a file is still being read sem_wait(&semAccess);//critical section inUseFile = fn[currentFile]; sem_post(&semAssign); file = fopen(inUseFile, "r"); while(!feof(file)){ if(x % 1000 == 0 && tNum !=1){ //go for 1000 integers and then wait sem_wait(&semAssign); } checkNum = getNum(file); /* * * * * I think the issue is here * * * */ if(checkNum > highestPrime[tNum]){ if(prime(checkNum)){ highestPrime[tNum] = checkNum; } } x++; } fclose(file); inUseFile = NULL; } currentFile++; } } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { if(argc != 2){ //checks for number of arguements being passed printf("To many ARGS\n"); return(-1); } else{//Sets thread cound to user input checking for correct number of threads numberOfThreads = atoi(argv[1]); if(numberOfThreads < 1 || numberOfThreads > 10){ printf("To many threads entered\n"); return(-1); } time_t preTime, postTime; //creating time variables int i; fn = malloc(10 * sizeof(char*)); //create file array and initialize fn[0] = file1; fn[1] = file2; fn[2] = file3; fn[3] = file4; fn[4] = file5; fn[5] = file6; fn[6] = file7; fn[7] = file8; fn[8] = file9; fn[9] = file10; sem_init(&semAccess, 0, 1); //initialize semaphores sem_init(&semAssign, 0, numberOfThreads); highestPrime = malloc(numberOfThreads * sizeof(int)); //create an array to store each threads highest number for(loop = 0; loop < numberOfThreads; loop++){//set initial values to 0 highestPrime[loop] = 0; } pthread_t calculationThread[numberOfThreads]; //thread to do the work preTime = time(NULL); //start the clock for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ pthread_create(&calculationThread[i], NULL, findPrimality, (void *)i); } for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ pthread_join(calculationThread[i], NULL); } for(i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++){ printf("this is a prime number: %d \n", highestPrime[i]); } postTime= time(NULL); printf("Wall time: %ld seconds\n", (long)(postTime - preTime)); } } Yes I am trying to find the highest number over all. So I have made some head way the last few hours, rescucturing the program as spudd said, currently I am getting a segmentation fault due to my use of structures, I am trying to save the largest individual primes in the struct while giving them the right indices. This is the revised code. So in short what the first thread is doing is creating all the threads and giving them access points to a very large integer array which they will go through and find prime numbers, I want to implement semaphores around the while loop so that while they are executing every 2000 lines or the end they update a global prime number. #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <time.h> #include <string.h> #include <pthread.h> #include <math.h> #include <semaphore.h> //Global variable declaration char *file1 = "primes1.txt"; char *file2 = "primes2.txt"; char *file3 = "primes3.txt"; char *file4 = "primes4.txt"; char *file5 = "primes5.txt"; char *file6 = "primes6.txt"; char *file7 = "primes7.txt"; char *file8 = "primes8.txt"; char *file9 = "primes9.txt"; char *file10 = "primes10.txt"; int numberOfThreads; int entries[10000000]; int entryIndex = 0; int fileCount = 0; char** fileName; int largestPrimeNumber = 0; //Register functions int prime(int n); int getNum(FILE* file); void* findPrimality(void *threadNum); void* assign(void *num); typedef struct package{ int largestPrime; int startingIndex; int numberCount; }pack; //Beging main code block int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { if(argc != 2){ //checks for number of arguements being passed printf("To many threads!!\n"); return(-1); } else{ //Sets thread cound to user input checking for correct number of threads numberOfThreads = atoi(argv[1]); if(numberOfThreads < 1 || numberOfThreads > 10){ printf("To many threads entered\n"); return(-1); } int threadPointer[numberOfThreads]; //Pointer array to point to entries time_t preTime, postTime; //creating time variables int i; fileName = malloc(10 * sizeof(char*)); //create file array and initialize fileName[0] = file1; fileName[1] = file2; fileName[2] = file3; fileName[3] = file4; fileName[4] = file5; fileName[5] = file6; fileName[6] = file7; fileName[7] = file8; fileName[8] = file9; fileName[9] = file10; FILE* filereader; int currentNum; for(i = 0; i < 10; i++){ filereader = fopen(fileName[i], "r"); while(!feof(filereader)){ char* tempString = malloc(20 *sizeof(char)); fgets(tempString, 20, filereader); tempString[strlen(tempString)-1] = '\0'; entries[entryIndex] = atoi(tempString); entryIndex++; free(tempString); } } //sem_init(&semAccess, 0, 1); //initialize semaphores //sem_init(&semAssign, 0, numberOfThreads); time_t tPre, tPost; pthread_t coordinate; tPre = time(NULL); pthread_create(&coordinate, NULL, assign, (void**)numberOfThreads); pthread_join(coordinate, NULL); tPost = time(NULL); } } void* findPrime(void* pack_array) { pack* currentPack= pack_array; int lp = currentPack->largestPrime; int si = currentPack->startingIndex; int nc = currentPack->numberCount; int i; int j = 0; for(i = si; i < nc; i++){ while(j < 2000 || i == (nc-1)){ if(prime(entries[i])){ if(entries[i] > lp) lp = entries[i]; } j++; } } return (void*)currentPack; } void* assign(void* num) { int y = (int)num; int i; int count = 10000000/y; int finalCount = count + (10000000%y); int sIndex = 0; pack pack_array[(int)num]; pthread_t workers[numberOfThreads]; //thread to do the workers for(i = 0; i < y; i++){ if(i == (y-1)){ pack_array[i].largestPrime = 0; pack_array[i].startingIndex = sIndex; pack_array[i].numberCount = finalCount; } pack_array[i].largestPrime = 0; pack_array[i].startingIndex = sIndex; pack_array[i].numberCount = count; pthread_create(&workers[i], NULL, findPrime, (void *)&pack_array[i]); sIndex += count; } for(i = 0; i< y; i++) pthread_join(workers[i], NULL); } //Functions int prime(int n)//check for prime number, return 1 for prime 0 for nonprime { int i; for(i = 2; i <= sqrt(n); i++) if(n % i == 0) return(0); return(1); }

    Read the article

  • passing parameter to dowork?

    - by safi
    How can i Pass parameter to background_DoWork? public void bgw1_DoWork(Object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) { make_zip_file argumentest = e.Argument as make_zip_file; Thread.Sleep(100); argumentest.return_path = argumentest.Makezipfile(files, IsOriginal); e.Result = argumentest; } i need to pass files,isOrginal parameter...? i am calling this method: public string run_async() { bgw1.DoWork += bgw1_DoWork; bgw1.RunWorkerCompleted += bgw1_RunWorkerCompleted; make_zip_file mzf2 = new make_zip_file(); bgw1.RunWorkerAsync(); return return_path; }

    Read the article

  • Manually Increasing the Amount of CPU a Java Application Uses

    - by SkylineAddict
    I've just made a program with Eclipse that takes a really long time to execute. It's taking even longer because it's loading my CPU to 25% only (I'm assuming that is because I'm using a quad-core and the program is only using one core). Is there any way to make the program use all 4 cores to max it out? Java is supposed to be natively multi-threaded, so I don't understand why it would only use 25%.

    Read the article

  • Is this use of PreparedStatements in a Thread in JAVA correct?

    - by Gormcito
    I'm still an undergrad just working part time and so I'm always trying to be aware of better ways to do things. Recently I had to write a program for work where the main thread of the program would spawn "task" threads (for each db "task" record) which would perform some operations and then update the record to say that it has finished. Therefore I needed a database connection object and PreparedStatement objects in or available to the ThreadedTask objects. This is roughly what I ended up writing, is creating a PreparedStatement object per thread a waste? I thought static PreparedStatments could create race conditions... Thread A stmt.setInt(); Thread B stmt.setInt(); Thread A stmt.execute(); Thread B stmt.execute(); A´s version never gets execed.. Is this thread safe? Is creating and destroying PreparedStatement objects that are always the same not a huge waste? public class ThreadedTask implements runnable { private final PreparedStatement taskCompleteStmt; public ThreadedTask() { //... taskCompleteStmt = Main.db.prepareStatement(...); } public run() { //... taskCompleteStmt.executeUpdate(); } } public class Main { public static final db = DriverManager.getConnection(...); }

    Read the article

  • How to debug ConcurrentModificationException?

    - by Dani
    I encountered ConcurrentModificationException and by looking at it I can't see the reason why it's happening; the area throwing the exception and all the places modifying the collection are surrounded by synchronized (this.locks.get(id)) { ... } // locks is a HashMap<String, Object>; I tried to catch the the pesky thread but all I could nail (by setting a breakpoint in the exception) is that the throwing thread owns the monitor while the other thread (there are two threads in the program) sleeps. How should I proceed? What do you usually do when you encounter similar threading issues?

    Read the article

  • How do I read and write to a file using threads in java?

    - by WarmWaffles
    I'm writing an application where I need to read blocks in from a single file, each block is roughly 512 bytes. I am also needing to write blocks simultaneously. One of the ideas I had was BlockReader implements Runnable and BlockWriter implements Runnable and BlockManager manages both the reader and writer. The problem that I am seeing with most examples that I have found was locking problems and potential deadlock situations. Any ideas how to implement this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >