Search Results

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

Page 59/66 | < Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >

  • how do I repaint an applet while moving a sprite?

    - by Nagrom_17
    I have a little java applet where I create 2 threads, one thread repaints and the other moves an image from a point to where the user clicks. The problem is that when I call the move function it loops until the image is where the user clicks but it wont repaint until I break out of the loop even though the thread doing the moving and the thread doing the painting are separate. shortened version of key points: my program is an applet using the paint() method I have 2 threads one moves an image and the other paints that image when I am moving the image it is in a while loop the painting thread is still calling repaint() but that is as far as the call goes, it never repaints thank you for your time.

    Read the article

  • Threading in C#

    - by j-t-s
    Hi All Just looking for something ultra simple. I need to spawn a method off to a new thread. I don't care when or how it ends. Can somebody please help me with this? Thank you

    Read the article

  • Perform tasks with delay, without delaying web response (ASP.NET)

    - by Tomas Lycken
    I'm working on a feature that needs to send two text messages with a 30 second delay, and it is crucial that both text messages are sent. Currently, this feature is built with ajax requests, that are sent with a 30 second javascript delay, but since this requires the user to have his browser open and left on the same page for at least 30 seconds, it is not a method I like. Instead, I have tried to solve this with threading. This is what I've done: Public Shared Sub Larma() Dim thread As New System.Threading.Thread(AddressOf Larma_Thread) thread.Start() End Sub Private Shared Sub Larma_Thread() StartaLarm() Thread.Sleep(1000 * 30) StoppaLarm() End Sub A web handler calls Larma(), and StartaLarm() and StoppaLarm() are the methods that send the first and second text messages respectively. However, I only get the first text message delivered - the second is never sent. Am I doing something wrong here? I have no deep understanding of how threading works in ASP.NET, so please let me know how to accomplish this.

    Read the article

  • Is it safe to read global data from multiple threads?

    - by user362515
    The scenario is as follows: Create an instance of a class (std::map) and sore it as global variable. Spawn threads. Threads read and use the same global instance of the class All spawned threads quit Global class instance is destroyed No mutex, no thread modifies the global class instance. Is this OK? Thank You

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to reliably detect the total number of CPU cores?

    - by John Sheares
    I need a reliable way to detect how many CPU cores are on a computer. I am creating a numerically intense simulation C# application and want to create the maximum number of running threads as cores. I have tried many of the methods suggested around the internet like Environment.ProcessorCount, using WMI, this code: http://blogs.adamsoftware.net/Engine/DeterminingthenumberofphysicalCPUsonWindows.aspx. None of them seem to think a AMD X2 has two cores. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • IS ResultSet thread safe

    - by javatraniee
    Is ResultSet Thread safe? My question arises because in this i have used a different statement for each query i have delsared a ResultSet as an local variable but it gives me a error of Operation not allowed after ResultSet is closed. But my statements are working as i'm using the statements in insert and delete query.I have commented the ResultSet part and have not got the error !! The source code of my program can be referd to , in my earlier Question .

    Read the article

  • linux process scheduling delayed for long time

    - by Medicine
    I have done strace on my multi-threaded c++ application running on linux after couple hours of running, none of the threads got run, for about 12 seconds. I have seen that the unfinished select system call which is called with a timeout was unfinished before the thread was suspended, reported after it resumed that, it took 11.x seconds for the operation to finish. This is clear indication that the process got starved for a long time. All threads in the process are created with default scheduling policy(SCHED_OTHER) of linux and default priority. There are another 5 similar apps running on the same box which are also heavy I/O bound like this app due to heavy data received on the socket. But most of the time, this app is getting scheduled delay. The other apps are created with same sched policy and priority as this i.e. the defaults. why is only this process gets blocked almost all of the time? Could it be because this process is more I/O intensive as in more busy due to may be higher rates of data? So, the linux dynamic priority adjusting in play here which pushed this process down?

    Read the article

  • Reading from a very large table using multiple threads (Java ) and writing them to a single file

    - by user2534926
    I am currently facing a situation where i have a table with almost 80 millions data and i have to take a dump of that table and store it into a csv file. Currently i am using a not so professional approach( with a perl script+DBI interface , printing the values to stdout and redirecting to a csv file). Now i am planning to use java threading approach. Can you suggest a way forward. Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • How do I make child thread exit when main thread exit?

    - by httpinterpret
    void forloop2() { int i = 0; while(TRUE) { printf("forloop2\n"); } } int main() { GThread *Thread1; GtkWidget *window; g_thread_init(NULL); gdk_threads_init(); gdk_threads_enter (); Thread1 = g_thread_create((GThreadFunc)forloop2, NULL, TRUE, NULL); gtk_init(NULL, NULL); window = gtk_window_new(GTK_WINDOW_TOPLEVEL); gtk_widget_show_all (window); gtk_main(); g_thread_join(Thread1); gdk_threads_leave (); } When I close the window, how to make Thread1 also exit?

    Read the article

  • Create table class as a singleton

    - by Mark
    I got a class that I use as a table. This class got an array of 16 row classes. These row classes all have 6 double variables. The values of these rows are set once and never change. Would it be a good practice to make this table a singleton? The advantage is that it cost less memory, but the table will be called from multiple threads so I have to synchronize my code which way cause a bit slower application. However lookups in this table are probably a very small portion of the total code that is executed. EDIT: This is my code, are there better ways to do this or is this a good practice? Removed synchronized keyword according to recommendations in this question. final class HalfTimeTable { private HalfTimeRow[] table = new HalfTimeRow[16]; private static final HalfTimeTable instance = new HalfTimeTable(); private HalfTimeTable() { if (instance != null) { throw new IllegalStateException("Already instantiated"); } table[0] = new HalfTimeRow(4.0, 1.2599, 0.5050, 1.5, 1.7435, 0.1911); table[1] = new HalfTimeRow(8.0, 1.0000, 0.6514, 3.0, 1.3838, 0.4295); //etc } @Override @Deprecated public Object clone() throws CloneNotSupportedException { throw new CloneNotSupportedException(); } public static HalfTimeTable getInstance() { return instance; } public HalfTimeRow getRow(int rownumber) { return table[rownumber]; } }

    Read the article

  • ThreadQueue problems in "Accelerated C# 2008"

    - by Singlet
    Example for threading queue book "Accelerated C# 2008" (CrudeThreadPool class) not work correctly. If I insert long job in WorkFunction() on 2-processor machine executing for next task don't run before first is over. How to solve this problem? I want to load the processor to 100 percent public class CrudeThreadPool { static readonly int MAX_WORK_THREADS = 4; static readonly int WAIT_TIMEOUT = 2000; public delegate void WorkDelegate(); public CrudeThreadPool() { stop = 0; workLock = new Object(); workQueue = new Queue(); threads = new Thread[ MAX_WORK_THREADS ]; for( int i = 0; i < MAX_WORK_THREADS; ++i ) { threads[i] = new Thread( new ThreadStart(this.ThreadFunc) ); threads[i].Start(); } } private void ThreadFunc() { lock( workLock ) { int shouldStop = 0; do { shouldStop = Interlocked.Exchange( ref stop, stop ); if( shouldStop == 0 ) { WorkDelegate workItem = null; if( Monitor.Wait(workLock, WAIT_TIMEOUT) ) { // Process the item on the front of the queue lock( workQueue ) { workItem =(WorkDelegate) workQueue.Dequeue(); } workItem(); } } } while( shouldStop == 0 ); } } public void SubmitWorkItem( WorkDelegate item ) { lock( workLock ) { lock( workQueue ) { workQueue.Enqueue( item ); } Monitor.Pulse( workLock ); } } public void Shutdown() { Interlocked.Exchange( ref stop, 1 ); } private Queue workQueue; private Object workLock; private Thread[] threads; private int stop; } public class EntryPoint { static void WorkFunction() { Console.WriteLine( "WorkFunction() called on Thread {0}",Thread.CurrentThread.GetHashCode() ); //some long job double s = 0; for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++) s += Math.Sin(i); } static void Main() { CrudeThreadPool pool = new CrudeThreadPool(); for( int i = 0; i < 10; ++i ) { pool.SubmitWorkItem( new CrudeThreadPool.WorkDelegate( EntryPoint.WorkFunction) ); } pool.Shutdown(); } }

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to put a form control on its own thread?

    - by BVernon
    I'm using a DataGridView and some operations that I do cause it to become unresponsive for periods of time. Normally I would put data processing in its own thread to make the form more responsive, but in this case it's the DataGridView itself that's taking so long. This leads me to wonder whether it's possible to have the main form on one thread and the DataGridView on another thread so it doesn't prevent the main form from responding. I completely understand that doing so is probably not 'safe' and likely opens up a can of worms that makes it hardly worth trying and I fully expect this post will be getting down votes for merely suggesting such a ridiculous idea. Is this possible? And if so how would you go about it?

    Read the article

  • How to tell if there is an available thread in a thread pool in java

    - by Gormcito
    I am trying to proccess a queue of tasks from a database table as fast as possible while also limiting the number of threads to process the tasks. I am using a fixed sized thread pool with Executors.newFixedThreadPool(N); I want to know if there is a way of knowing if the thread pool is full, by that I mean are there currently 50 threads running, if so then I'll wait for a thread to be available before starting a new one instead of sleeping the main thread. Code of what I would like to do: ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(N); ResultSet results; while( true ) { results = getWaitingTasksStmt.executeQuery(); while( results.next() && executor.notFull() ) { executor.submit( new thread( new runnableInheritedClass(results) ) ); } }

    Read the article

  • The cross-thread usage of "HttpContext.Current" property and related things

    - by smwikipedia
    I read from < Essential ASP.NET with Examples in C# the following statement: Another useful property to know about is the static Current property of the HttpContext class. This property always points to the current instance of the HttpContext class for the request being serviced. This can be convenient if you are writing helper classes that will be used from pages or other pipeline classes and may need to access the context for whatever reason. By using the static Current property to retrieve the context, you can avoid passing a reference to it to helper classes. For example, the class shown in Listing 4-1 uses the Current property of the context to access the QueryString and print something to the current response buffer. Note that for this static property to be correctly initialized, the caller must be executing on the original request thread, so if you have spawned additional threads to perform work during a request, you must take care to provide access to the context class yourself. I am wondering about the root cause of the bold part, and one thing leads to another, here is my thoughts: We know that a process can have multiple threads. Each of these threads have their own stacks, respectively. These threads also have access to a shared memory area, the heap. The stack then, as I understand it, is kind of where all the context for that thread is stored. For a thread to access something in the heap it must use a pointer, and the pointer is stored on its stack. So when we make some cross-thread calls, we must make sure that all the necessary context info is passed from the caller thread's stack to the callee thread's stack. But I am not quite sure if I made any mistake. Any comments will be deeply appreciated. Thanks. ADD Here the stack is limited to user stack.

    Read the article

  • Help with java threads or executors: Executing several MySQL selects, inserts and updates simmultane

    - by Martin
    Hi. I'm writing an application to analyse a MySQL database, and I need to execute several DMLs simmultaneously; for example: // In ResultSet rsA: Select * from A; rsA.beforeFirst(); while (rsA.next()) { id = rsA.getInt("id"); // Retrieve data from table B: Select * from B where B.Id=" + id; // Crunch some numbers using the data from B // Close resultset B } I'm declaring an array of data objects, each with its own Connection to the database, which in turn calls several methods for the data analysis. The problem is all threads use the same connection, thus all tasks throw exceptios: "Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction" I believe there is a way to write the code in such a way that any given object has its own connection and executes the required tasks independent from any other object. For example: DataObject dataObject[0] = new DataObject(id[0]); DataObject dataObject[1] = new DataObject(id[1]); DataObject dataObject[2] = new DataObject(id[2]); ... DataObject dataObject[N] = new DataObject(id[N]); // The 'DataObject' class has its own connection to the database, // so each instance of the object should use its own connection. // It also has a "run" method, which contains all the tasks required. Executor ex = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(10); for(i=0;i<=N;i++) { ex.execute(dataObject[i]); } // Here where the problem is: Each instance creates a new connection, // but every DML from any of the objects is cluttered in just one connection // (in MySQL command line, "SHOW PROCESSLIST;" throws every connection, and all but // one are idle). Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What happens if you break out of a Lock() statement?

    - by cyclotis04
    I'm writing a program which listens to an incoming TcpClient and handles data when it arrives. The Listen() method is run on a separate thread within the component, so it needs to be threadsafe. If I break out of a do while loop while I'm within a lock() statement, will the lock be released? If not, how do I accomplish this? Thanks! (Any other advice on the subject of Asynchronous TCP Sockets is welcome as well.) private void Listen() { do { lock (_client) { if (!_client.Connected) break; lock (_stateLock) { if (!_listening) break; if (_client.GetStream().DataAvailable) HandleData(); } } Thread.Sleep(0); } while (true); }

    Read the article

  • When should ThreadLocal be used instead of Thread.SetData/Thread.GetData?

    - by Jon Ediger
    Prior to .net 4.0, I implemented a solution using named data slots in System.Threading.Thread. Now, in .net 4.0, there is the idea of ThreadLocal. How does ThreadLocal usage compare to named data slots? Does the ThreadLocal value get inherited by children threads? Is the idea that ThreadLocal is a simplified version of using named data slots? An example of some stuff using named data slots follows. Could this be simplified through use of ThreadLocal, and would it retain the same properties as the named data slots? public static void SetSliceName(string slice) { System.Threading.Thread.SetData(System.Threading.Thread.GetNamedDataSlot(SliceVariable), slice); } public static string GetSliceName(bool errorIfNotFound) { var slice = System.Threading.Thread.GetData(System.Threading.Thread.GetNamedDataSlot(SliceVariable)) as string; if (errorIfNotFound && string.IsNullOrEmpty(slice)) {throw new ConfigurationErrorsException("Server slice name not configured.");} return slice; }

    Read the article

  • Java concurrency - Should block or yield?

    - by teto
    Hi, I have multiple threads each one with its own private concurrent queue and all they do is run an infinite loop retrieving messages from it. It could happen that one of the queues doesn't receive messages for a period of time (maybe a couple seconds), and also they could come in big bursts and fast processing is necessary. I would like to know what would be the most appropriate to do in the first case: use a blocking queue and block the thread until I have more input or do a Thread.yield()? I want to have as much CPU resources available as possible at a given time, as the number of concurrent threads may increase with time, but also I don't want the message processing to fall behind, as there is no guarantee of when the thread will be reescheduled for execution when doing a yield(). I know that hardware, operating system and other factors play an important role here, but setting that aside and looking at it from a Java (JVM?) point of view, what would be the most optimal?

    Read the article

  • run two thread at the same time in java

    - by user1805005
    i have used timertask to schedule my java program. now when the run method of timertask is in process, i want to run two threads which run at the same time and do different functions. here is my code.. please help me.. import java.util.Calendar; import java.util.Date; import java.util.Timer; import java.util.TimerTask; public class timercheck extends TimerTask{ // my first thread Thread t1 = new Thread(){ public void run(){ for(int i = 1;i <= 10;i++) { System.out.println(i); } } }; // my second thread Thread t2 = new Thread(){ public void run(){ for(int i = 11;i <= 20;i++) { System.out.println(i); } } }; public static void main(String[] args){ long ONCE_PER_DAY = 1000*60*60*24; Calendar calendar = Calendar.getInstance(); calendar.set(Calendar.HOUR_OF_DAY, 12); calendar.set(Calendar.MINUTE, 05); calendar.set(Calendar.SECOND, 00); Date time = calendar.getTime(); TimerTask check = new timercheck(); Timer timer = new Timer(); timer.scheduleAtFixedRate(check, time ,ONCE_PER_DAY); } @Override // run method of timer task public void run() { t1.start(); t2.start(); } }

    Read the article

  • Thread-safe get (accessor method)

    - by sonofdelphi
    I'm currently using the following code for thread-safe access of a variable. int gnVariable; void getVariableValue(int *pnValue) { acquireLock(); //Acquires the protection mechanism *pnValue = gnVariable; releaseLock(); //Releasing the protection mechanism } I would like to change my API signature to a more user-friendly int getVariableValue(void); How should I rewrite the function - such that the users of the API don't have to bother about the locking/unlocking details?

    Read the article

  • unprotected access to member in property get

    - by Lenik
    I have a property public ObservableCollection<string> Name { get { return _nameCache; } } _nameCache is updated by multiple threads in other class methods. The updates are guarded by a lock. The question is: should I use the same lock around my return statement? Will not using a lock lead to a race condition?

    Read the article

  • makecontext segfault?

    - by cdietschrun
    I am working on a homework assignment that will be due in the next semester. It requires us to implement our own context switching/thread library using the ucontext API. The professor provides code that does it, but before a thread returns, he manually does some work and calls an ISR that finds another thread to use and swapcontexts to it or if none are left, exits. The point of the assignment is to use the uc_link field of the context so that when it hits a return it takes care of the work. I've created a function (type void/void args) that just does the work the functions did before (clean up and then calls ISR). The professor said he wanted this. So all that's left is to do a makecontext somewhere along the way on the context in the uc_link field so that it runs my thread, right? Well, when I do makecontext on seemingly any combination of ucontext_t's and function, I get a segfault and gdb provides no help.. I can skip the makecontext and my program exist 'normally' when it hits a return in the threads I created because (presumably) the uc_link field is not properly setup (which is what I'm trying to do). I also can't find anything on why makecontext would segfault. Can anyone help? stack2.ss_sp = (void *)(malloc(STACKSIZE)); if(stack2.ss_sp == NULL){ printf("thread failed to get stack space\n"); exit(8); } stack2.ss_size = STACKSIZE; stack2.ss_flags = 0; if(getcontext(&main_context) == -1){ perror("getcontext in t_init, rtn_env"); exit(5); } //main_context.uc_stack = t_state[i].mystk; main_context.uc_stack = stack2; main_context.uc_link = 0; makecontext(&main_context, (void (*)(void))thread_rtn, 0); I've also tried just thread_rtn, &thread_rtn and other things. thread_rtn is declared as void thread_rtn(void). later, in each thread. run_env is of type ucontext_t: ... t_state[i].run_env.uc_link = &main_context;

    Read the article

  • Java synchronizing static list ?

    - by JavaUser
    Hi, In a Java class , i am having a static list so this list is shared across all the objects of this class.The business logic in this class will run periodically which is invoked by some method with out passing instance parameters.Now I want to invoke this run method based on the list(I will add some vales into this list based on JMS) ,this list may empty sometimes and after finishing the run , i am emptying this list.Now my question is , whether I need to synchronize this list or not? Also let me know is there any other way to pass value in one object instance(Thread1) to other object instance (Thread2) other than having Static variable(static list)? Thx

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >