Search Results

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

Page 55/66 | < Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >

  • How can solve "Cross-thread operation not valid"?

    - by Phsika
    i try to start multi Thread but i can not it returns to me error: Cross-thread operation not valid: 'listBox1' thread was created to control outside access from another thread was. MyCodes: public DataTable dTable; public DataTable dtRowsCount; Thread t1; ThreadStart ts1; void ExcelToSql() { // SelectDataFromExcel(); ts1 = new ThreadStart(SelectDataFromExcel); t1 = new Thread(ts1); t1.Start(); } void SelectDataFromExcel() { string connectionString = @"Provider=Microsoft.ACE.OLEDB.12.0;Data Source=C:\Source\Addresses.xlsx;Extended Properties=""Excel 12.0;HDR=YES;"""; OleDbConnection excelConnection = new OleDbConnection(connectionString); string[] Sheets = new string[] { "Sayfa1"}; excelConnection.Open(); // This code will open excel file. OleDbCommand dbCommand; OleDbDataAdapter dataAdapter; // progressBar1.Minimum = 1; foreach (var sheet in Sheets) { dbCommand = new OleDbCommand("select * From[" + sheet + "$]", excelConnection); //progressBar1.Maximum = CountRowsExcel(sheet).Rows.Count; // progressBar2.Value = i + 1; System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000); **listBox1.Items.Add("Tablo ismi: "+sheet.ToUpper()+"Satir Adeti: "+CountRowsExcel(sheet).Rows.Count.ToString()+" ");** dataAdapter = new OleDbDataAdapter(dbCommand); dTable = new DataTable(); dataAdapter.Fill(dTable); dTable.TableName = sheet.ToUpper(); dTable.Dispose(); dataAdapter.Dispose(); dbCommand.Dispose(); ArrangedDataList(dTable); FillSqlTable(dTable, dTable.TableName); } excelConnection.Close(); excelConnection.Dispose(); }

    Read the article

  • [gtk+] run function in another thread than gui

    - by sterh
    Hello, I have simple C/gtk+ application. I have function in this app which load image in gtkimageview widget: gboolean main_win_open( MainWin* mw, const char* file_path) { ... //loading and displaing image in gtkimageview ... } The loading image is work, but i need to run this function in another thread then main gui form; I have function: void* argument_thread(void *args) { Data *data = (Data*)args; gdk_threads_enter(); main_win_open (data->win,data->argv); gdk_threads_leave(); } Data it's structure for main_win_open function arguments: typedef struct _Data { MainWin *win; char* argv; } Data; Then in main function i create thread and run it: int main(int argc, char** argv) { GError* err; GThread* thread; Data data; MainWin *win; // init thread support if(!g_thread_supported()) g_thread_init(NULL); gdk_threads_init(); // init GTK+ gtk_init (&argc, &argv); win = (MainWin*)main_win_new(); gtk_widget_show(GTK_WIDGET(win)); data.win = win; data.argv = argv[1]; if (argc == 2) { thread = g_thread_create((GThreadFunc)argument_thread,&data,FALSE, &err); } gdk_threads_enter(); gtk_main(); gdk_threads_leave(); } But when i try to run app from command line and try to load big-size image, gui is blocking. What's wrong? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • How to implement a multi-threaded asynchronous operation?

    - by drowneath
    Here's how my current approach looks like: // Somewhere in a UI class // Called when a button called "Start" clicked MyWindow::OnStartClicked(Event &sender) { _thread = new boost::thread(boost::bind(&MyWindow::WorkToDo, this)); } MyWindow::WorkToDo() { for(int i = 1; i < 10000000; i++) { int percentage = (int)((float)i / 100000000.f); _progressBar->SetValue(percentage); _statusText->SetText("Working... %d%%", percentage); printf("Pretend to do something useful...\n"); } } // Called on every frame MyWindow::OnUpdate() { if(_thread != 0 && _thread->timed_join(boost::posix_time::seconds(0)) { _progressBar->SetValue(100); _statusText->SetText("Completed!"); delete _thread; _thread = 0; } } But I'm afraid this is far from safe since I keep getting unhandled exception at the end of the program execution. I basically want to separate a heavy task into another thread without blocking the GUI part.

    Read the article

  • C++ volatile required when spinning on boost::shared_ptr operator bool()?

    - by JaredC
    I have two threads referencing the same boost::shared_ptr: boost::shared_ptr<Widget> shared; On thread is spinning, waiting for the other thread to reset the boost::shared_ptr: while(shared) boost::thread::yield(); And at some point the other thread will call: shared.reset(); My question is whether or not I need to declare the shared pointer as volatile to prevent the compiler from optimizing the call to shared.operator bool() out of the loop and never detecting the change? I know that if I were simply looping on a variable, waiting for it to reach 0 I would need volatile, but I'm not sure if boost::shared_ptr is implemented in such a way that it is not necessary here.

    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

  • Turn based synchronization between threads

    - by Amarus
    I'm trying to find a way to synchronize multiple threads having the following conditions: * There are two types of threads: 1. A single "cyclic" thread executing an infinite loop to do cyclic calculations 2. Multiple short-lived threads not started by the main thread * The cyclic thread has a sleep duration between each cycle/loop iteration * The other threads are allowed execute during the inter-cycle sleep of the cyclic thread: - Any other thread that attempts to execute during an active cycle should be blocked - The cyclic thread will wait until all other threads that are already executing to be finished Here's a basic example of what I was thinking of doing: // Somewhere in the code: ManualResetEvent manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(true); // Allow Externally call CountdownEvent countdownEvent = new CountdownEvent(1); // Can't AddCount a CountdownEvent with CurrentCount = 0 void ExternallyCalled() { manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); // Wait until CyclicCalculations is having its beauty sleep countdownEvent.AddCount(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that it should wait for this method call to finish before starting the next cycle Thread.Sleep(1000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic countdownEvent.Signal(); // Notify CyclicCalculations that this call is finished } void CyclicCalculations() { while (!stopCyclicCalculations) { manualResetEvent.Reset(); // Block all incoming calls to ExternallyCalled from this point forward countdownEvent.Signal(); // Dirty workaround for the issue with AddCount and CurrentCount = 0 countdownEvent.Wait(); // Wait until all of the already executing calls to ExternallyCalled are finished countdownEvent.Reset(); // Reset the CountdownEvent for next cycle. Thread.Sleep(2000); // TODO: Replace with actual method logic manualResetEvent.Set(); // Unblock all threads executing ExternallyCalled Thread.Sleep(1000); // Inter-cycles delay } } Obviously, this doesn't work. There's no guarantee that there won't be any threads executing ExternallyCalled that are in between manualResetEvent.WaitOne(); and countdownEvent.AddCount(); at the time the main thread gets released by the CountdownEvent. I can't figure out a simple way of doing what I'm after, and almost everything that I've found after a lengthy search is related to producer/consumer synchronization which I can't apply here.

    Read the article

  • Limiting object allocation over multiple threads

    - by John
    I have an application which retrieves and caches the results of a clients query. The client then requests different chunks of data and the application sends the relevant results and removes them from the cache. A new requirement for this application is that there needs to be a run-time configurable maximum number of results which may be cached. I've taken the naive approach and implemented this by using a counter under a lock which is incremented every time a result is cached and decremented whenever a result is removed from the cache. Unfortunately, this has drastically reduced the applications performance when processing a large number of concurrent requests. I have tried both a critical section lock and spin-lock; the performance improves a bit with a spin-lock, but is still unacceptably slow. Is there a better way to solve this problem which may improve performance? Right now I have a thread pool that services requests and each request is tied to a Request object which stores that cached results for that particular request. Here is a simplified pseudo code version of my current implementation: void ResultCallback( Result result, Request *request ) { lock totalResultsCached lock cachedLimit if( totalResultsCached + 1 > cachedLimit ) { unlock cachedLimit unlock totalResultsCached //cancel the request return; } ++totalResultsCached; unlock cachedLimit unlock totalResultsCached request.add(result) } void SendResults( int resultsToSend, Request *request ) { while ( resultsToSend > 0 ) { send(request.remove()) lock totalResultsCached --totalResultsCached unlock totalResultsCached --resultsToSend; } }

    Read the article

  • Thread too slow. Better way to execute code (Android AndEngine)?

    - by rphello101
    I'm developing a game where the user creates sprites with every touch. I then have a thread run to check to see if those sprites collide with any others. The problem is, if I tap too quickly, I cause a null pointer exception error. I believe it's because I'm tapping faster than my thread is running. This is the thread I have: public class grow implements Runnable{ public grow(Sprite sprite){ } @Override public void run() { float radf, rads; //fill radius/stationary radius float fx=0, fy=0, sx, sy; while(down){ if(spriteC[spriteNum].active){ spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.setScale(spriteC[spriteNum].scale += 0.001); if(spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.collidesWith(ground)||spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.collidesWith(roof)|| spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.collidesWith(left)||spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.collidesWith(right)){ down = false; spriteC[spriteNum].active=false; yourScene.unregisterTouchArea(spriteC[spriteNum].sprite); } fx = spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.getX(); fy = spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.getY(); radf=spriteC[spriteNum].sprite.getHeightScaled()/2; Log.e("F"+Float.toString(fx),Float.toString(fy)); if(spriteNum>0) for(int x=0;x<spriteNum;x++){ rads=spriteC[x].sprite.getHeightScaled()/2; sx = spriteC[x].body.getWorldCenter().x * 32; sy = spriteC[x].body.getWorldCenter().y * 32; Log.e("S"+Float.toString(sx),Float.toString(sy)); Log.e(Float.toString((float) Math.sqrt(Math.pow((fx-sx),2)+Math.pow((fy-sy),2))),Float.toString((radf+rads))); if(Math.sqrt(Math.pow((fx-sx),2)+Math.pow((fy-sy),2))<(radf+rads)){ down = false; spriteC[spriteNum].active=false; yourScene.unregisterTouchArea(spriteC[spriteNum].sprite); Log.e("Collided",Boolean.toString(down)); } } } } spriteC[spriteNum].body = PhysicsFactory.createCircleBody(mPhysicsWorld, spriteC[spriteNum].sprite, BodyType.DynamicBody, FIXTURE_DEF); mPhysicsWorld.registerPhysicsConnector(new PhysicsConnector(spriteC[spriteNum].sprite, spriteC[spriteNum].body, true, true)); } } Better solution anyone? I know there is something to do with a handler, but I don't exactly know what that is or how to use one.

    Read the article

  • Thread-Safe lazy instantiating using MEF

    - by Xaqron
    // Member Variable private static readonly object _syncLock = new object(); // Now inside a static method foreach (var lazyObject in plugins) { if ((string)lazyObject.Metadata["key"] = "something") { lock (_syncLock) { // It seems the `IsValueCreated` is not up-to-date if (!lazyObject.IsValueCreated) lazyObject.value.DoSomething(); } return lazyObject.value; } } Here I need synchronized access per loop. There are many threads iterating this loop and based on the key they are looking for, a lazy instance is created and returned. lazyObject should not be created more that one time. Although Lazy class is for doing so and despite of the used lock, under high threading I have more than one instance created (I track this with a Interlocked.Increment on a volatile static int and log it somewhere). The problem is I don't have access to definition of Lazy and MEF defines how the Lazy class create objects. I should notice the CompositionContainer has a thread-safe option in constructor which is already used. My questions: 1) Why the lock doesn't work ? 2) Should I use an array of locks instead of one lock for performance improvement ?

    Read the article

  • Threading and iterating through changing collections

    - by adamjellyit
    In C# (console app) I want to hold a collection of objects. All objects are of same type. I want to iterate through the collection calling a method on each object. And then repeat the process continuously. However during iteration objects can be added or removed from the list. (The objects themselves will not be destroyed .. just removed from the list). Not sure what would happen with a foreach loop .. or other similar method. This has to have been done 1000 times before .. can you recommend a solid approach?

    Read the article

  • .NET Threading : How to wait for other thread to finish some task

    - by Alex Ilyin
    Assume I have method void SomeMethod(Action callback) This method does some work in background thread and then invokes callback. The question is - how to block current thread until callback is called ? There is an example bool finished = false; SomeMethod(delegate{ finished = true; }); while(!finished) Thread.Sleep(); But I'm sure there should be better way

    Read the article

  • Application window sent behind other windows on closing different thread (C#)

    - by david.murrant
    I'm writing a Windows Forms Application in C#.NET On startup, the application displays a splash screen which is running in a separate thread. Whilst the splash screen is showing, the main application is initialising. Once the main application has finished initialising, the main form of the application is displayed, and the splash screen still shows over the top. Everything so far is as expected. Then, the Splash screen is closed, which causes that thread to exit. For some reason, at the point, the main application windows gets sent behind all other open Windows, notably the Windows Explorer window where you clicked the .exe file to run the application in the first place! What could be causing the windows to suddenly jump "behind" like this?

    Read the article

  • Threading and cores

    - by Matt
    If I have X cores on my machine and I start X threads. Let's assume for the sake of argument that each thread is completely separated in terms of the memory, hdd, etc it uses. Is the OS going to know to send each thread to a core or do more time slicing on one core for multiple threads. What the question boils down to, is if I have X cores and my program must do independent calculations, should I start X threads, will they each get piped to a core, or is the presumption that because I have X cores I can start X threads completely wrong? I'm thinking it is. This is with C# --

    Read the article

  • Android thread handler NullPointerException

    - by Realn0whereman
    So this null pointer is confusing me. I believe it is a scope issue. My main activity looks like this: public class App extends Activity { ProgressDialog progressDialog; ProgressThread progressThread; Then inside of the oncreate I do this: ProgressDialog progressDialog = new ProgressDialog(this); progressDialog.setProgressStyle(ProgressDialog.STYLE_SPINNER); progressDialog.setMessage("Fetching Images..."); ProgressThread progressThread = new ProgressThread(handler,mImageIds,mImages); progressThread.start(); progressDialog.show(); THEN inside progressThread which is a separate class I do mHandler.sendMessage(mHandler.obtainMessage()); Now up until this point i believe it behaves as it should. I have my handler hanging out in class scope right underneath my oncreate final Handler handler = new Handler() { public void handleMessage(Message msg){ progressDialog.hide(); progressThread.interrupt(); } }; The program thinks that progressDialog and progressThread are declared, but are null. Why would they be null if I instantiate in my oncreate.

    Read the article

  • lock statement not working when there is a loop inside it?

    - by Ngu Soon Hui
    See this code: public class multiply { public Thread myThread; public int Counter { get; private set; } public string name { get; private set; } public void RunConsolePrint() { lock(this) { RunLockCode("lock"); } } private void RunLockCode(string lockCode) { Console.WriteLine("Now thread "+lockCode+" " + name + " has started"); for (int i = 1; i <= Counter; i++) { Console.WriteLine(lockCode+" "+name + ": count has reached " + i + ": total count is " + Counter); } Console.WriteLine("Thread " + lockCode + " " + name + " has finished"); } public multiply(string pname, int pCounter) { name = pname; Counter = pCounter; myThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(RunConsolePrint)); } } And this is the test run code: static void Main(string[] args) { int counter = 50; multiply m2 = new multiply("Second", counter); multiply m1 = new multiply("First", counter); m1.myThread.Start(); m2.myThread.Start(); Console.ReadLine(); } I would expect that m2 must execute from start to finish before m1 starts executing, or vice versa, because of the lock statement. But the result I found was the call to lock first and lock second was intermingled together, i.e., something like this Now thread lock First has started Now thread lock Second has started lock First: Count has reached 1: total count is 50 lock First: Count has reached 2: total count is 50 lock Second: Count has reached 1: total count is 50 What did I do wrong?

    Read the article

  • iPhone "multi-threading" question

    - by MrDatabase
    I have a simple iPhone game consisting of two "threads": the main game loop where all updating and rendering happen 30 times per second (NSTimer)... and the "thread" that calls the accelerometer delegate 100 times per second. I have a variable "xPosition" that's updated in the accelerometer delegate function and used in the game loop. Is there a possibility of the two "threads" trying to use xPosition at the same time (hence causing a crash or some other problem). If so how can I fix this w/ minimal impact to the game's performance? I've been using this set-up for many months of development and incremental testing and I've never run into any problems. Cheers!

    Read the article

  • C++ Win/Linux thread syncronization Event

    - by JP
    Hello I have some code that is cross-platform by unsing #ifdef OS, I have a Queue protected by a CriticalSection on Windows, and by a pthread_mutex_t on Linux. I would like to implement a Wait(timeout) call that would block a thread until something has been enqueued. I though about using WaitForSingleObject on windows but it don't seem to support CriticalSection. Which Win32 and which Linux functions should I use to Wait and Signal for a condition to happen. Thank

    Read the article

  • multitreading scheduling related java

    - by vichi
    class A implements Runnable{ B b=new B(); public void run(){ while(true){ System.out.println("H1"+Thread.currentThread().getName()); } } } public class Test { public static void main(String[] str){ A a1 =new A(); // A a2 =new A(); // Thread t1 =new Thread(a1, "Vichi"); Thread t2 =new Thread(a1,"Vishu"); t1.start(); t2.start(); } } what will be the ans: 1) only one of them will get the chance to execute 2) both will get chance in arbitrary manner please suggest possible ans with explations

    Read the article

  • Best approach to synchronising properties across threads

    - by user290796
    Hi, I'm looking for some advice on the best approach to synchronising access to properties of an object in C++. The application has an internal cache of objects which have 10 properties. These objects are to be requested in sets which can then have their properties modified and be re-saved. They can be accessed by 2-4 threads at any given time but access is not intense so my options are: Lock the property accessors for each object using a critical section. This means lots of critical sections - one for each object. Return copies of the objects when requested and have an update function which locks a single critical section to update the object properties when appropriate. I think option 2 seems the most efficient but I just want to see if I'm missing a hidden 3rd option which would be more appropriate. Thanks, J

    Read the article

  • New form on a different thread

    - by Dan
    So I have a thread in my application, which purpose is to listen to messages from the server and act according to what it recieves. I ran into a problem when I wanted to fire off a message from the server, that when the client app recieves it, the client app would open up a new form. However this new form just freezes instantly. I think what's happening is that the new form is loaded up on the same thread as the thread listening to the server, which of course is busy listening on the stream, in turn blocking the thread. Normally, for my other functions in the clients listening thread, I'd use invokes to update the UI of the main form, so I guess what I'm asking for is if here's a way to invoke a new form on the main form.

    Read the article

  • Suggestions for lightweight, thread-safe scheduler

    - by nirvanai
    I am trying to write a round-robin scheduler for lightweight threads (fibers). It must scale to handle as many concurrently-scheduled fibers as possible. I also need to be able to schedule fibers from threads other than the one the run loop is on, and preferably unschedule them from arbitrary threads as well (though I could live with only being able to unschedule them from the run loop). My current idea is to have a circular doubly-linked list, where each fiber is a node and the scheduler holds a reference to the current node. This is what I have so far: using Interlocked = System.Threading.Interlocked; public class Thread { internal Future current_fiber; public void RunLoop () { while (true) { var fiber = current_fiber; if (fiber == null) { // block the thread until a fiber is scheduled continue; } if (fiber.Fulfilled) fiber.Unschedule (); else fiber.Resume (); //if (current_fiber == fiber) current_fiber = fiber.next; Interlocked.CompareExchange<Future> (ref current_fiber, fiber.next, fiber); } } } public abstract class Future { public bool Fulfilled { get; protected set; } internal Future previous, next; // this must be thread-safe // it inserts this node before thread.current_fiber // (getting the exact position doesn't matter, as long as the // chosen nodes haven't been unscheduled) public void Schedule (Thread thread) { next = this; // maintain circularity, even if this is the only node previous = this; try_again: var current = Interlocked.CompareExchange<Future> (ref thread.current_fiber, this, null); if (current == null) return; var target = current.previous; while (target == null) { // current was unscheduled; negotiate for new current_fiber var potential = current.next; var actual = Interlocked.CompareExchange<Future> (ref thread.current_fiber, potential, current); current = (actual == current? potential : actual); if (current == null) goto try_again; target = current.previous; } // I would lock "current" and "target" at this point. // How can I do this w/o risk of deadlock? next = current; previous = target; target.next = this; current.previous = this; } // this would ideally be thread-safe public void Unschedule () { var prev = previous; if (prev == null) { // already unscheduled return; } previous = null; if (next == this) { next = null; return; } // Again, I would lock "prev" and "next" here // How can I do this w/o risk of deadlock? prev.next = next; next.previous = prev; } public abstract void Resume (); } As you can see, my sticking point is that I cannot ensure the order of locking, so I can't lock more than one node without risking deadlock. Or can I? I don't want to have a global lock on the Thread object, since the amount of lock contention would be extreme. Plus, I don't especially care about insertion position, so if I lock each node separately then Schedule() could use something like Monitor.TryEnter and just keep walking the list until it finds an unlocked node. Overall, I'm not invested in any particular implementation, as long as it meets the requirements I've mentioned. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! P.S- For the curious, this is for an open source project I'm starting at http://github.com/nirvanai/Cirrus

    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

  • Can one thread open a socket and other thread close it?

    - by Pkp
    I have some kernel threads in Linux kernel, inside my KLM. I have a server thread, that listens to the channel, Once it sees there is an incoming connection, it creates an accept socket, accepts the connection and spawns a child thread. It also passes the accepted socket to the child kernel thread as the (void *) argument. The code is working fine. I had a design question. Suppose now the threads have to be terminated, main and the child threads, what would be the best way to close the accept socket. I can see two ways, 1] The main thread waits for all the child threads to exit, each of the child threads close the accept sockets while exiting, the last child thread passes a signal to the main thread for it to exit . Here even though the main thread was the one that created the accept socket, the child threads close that socket, and they do this before the main thread exits. So is this acceptable? Any problems you guys forsee here? 2] Second is the main thread closes all the accept sockets it created before it exits. But there may be a possibility(corner case) that the main thread gets an exception and will have to close, so if it closes the accept sockets before exiting, the child threads using that socket will be in danger. Hence i am using the first case i mentioned.Let me know what you guys think?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >