Search Results

Search found 166 results on 7 pages for 'pthreads'.

Page 1/7 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >

  • gcc: Do I need -D_REENTRANT with pthreads?

    - by stefanB
    On Linux (kernel 2.6.5) our build system calls gcc with -D_REENTRANT. Is this still required when using pthreads? How is it related to gcc -pthread option? I understand that I should use -pthread with pthreads, do I still need -D_REENTRANT? On a side note, is there any difference that you know off between the usage of REENTRANT between gcc 3.3.3 and gcc 4.x.x ? When I use -pthread gcc option I can see that _REENTRANT gets defined. Will omitting -D_REENTRANT from command line make any difference, for example could some objects be compiled without multithreaded support and then linked into binary that uses pthreads and will cause problems? I assume it should be ok just to use: g++ -pthread > echo | g++ -E -dM -c - > singlethreaded > echo | g++ -pthread -E -dM -c - > multithreaded > diff singlethreaded multithreaded 39a40 > #define _REENTRANT 1 We're compiling multiple static libraries and applications that link with the static libraries, both libraries and application use pthreads. I believe it was required at some stage in the past but want to know if it is still required. Googling hasn't returned any recent information mentioning -D_REENTRANT with pthreads. Could you point me to links or references discussing the use in recent version of kernel/gcc/pthread? Clarification: At the moment we're using -D_REENTRANT and -lpthread, I assume I can replace them with just g++ -pthread, looking at man gcc it sets the flags for both preprocessor and linker. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Portability of pthreads-win32 over various compilers.

    - by Artyom
    Hello, I'm using pthreads-win32 for portable threading support for windows. At least, according to the documentation pthreads-win32 should work with MSVC and even MSVC builds provided. But I don't know if the library is tested with latest MSVC compilers like MSVC-2008 and if it is supported under 64bit windows. Does anybody aware of any issues with this library? Note: Do not even try to recommend using Boost.Thread, I'm not interested in. And I'm familiar with Boost.Thread library

    Read the article

  • Tutorial on Using OpenSSL with pthreads

    - by Sadeq Dousti
    OpenSSL documents state that it can safely be used in multi-threaded applications provided that at least two callback functions are set, locking_function and threadid_func.... I've written programs which use OpenSSL API. Moreover, I know how to use pthreads. However, the OpenSSL documents are written in the form of a manual, and I can't see a step-by-step guide on what I have to do when using OpenSSL in a multi-threaded app. Is there a tutorial on using OpenSSL with pthreads? (I searched the web, but no satisfactory result appeared.) PS: I'm working in Debian Lenny & Ubuntu Lucid/Maverick. PS2: OpenSSL includes a sample, but it's far too complicated to start with.

    Read the article

  • Avoding multiple thread spawns in pthreads

    - by madman
    Hi StackOverflow, I have an application that is parallellized using pthreads. The application has a iterative routine call and a thread spawn within the rountine (pthread_create and pthread_join) to parallelize the computation intensive section in the routine. When I use an instrumenting tool like PIN to collect the statistics the tool reports statistics for several threads(no of threads x no of iterations). I beleive it is because it is spawning new set of threads each time the routine is called. How can I ensure that I create the thread only once and all successive calls use the threads that have been created first. When I do the same with OpenMP and then try to collect the statistics, I see that the threads are created only once. Is it beacause of the OpenMP runtime ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Performance characteristics of pthreads vs ucontext

    - by Robert Mason
    I'm trying to port a library that uses ucontext over to a platform which supports pthreads but not ucontext. The code is pretty well written so it should be relatively easy to replace all the calls to the ucontext API with a call to pthread routines. However, does this introduce a significant amount of additional overhead? Or is this a satisfactory replacement. I'm not sure how ucontext maps to operating system threads, and the purpose of this facility is to make coroutine spawning fairly cheap and easy. So, question is: Does replacing ucontext calls with pthread calls significantly change the performance characteristics of a library?

    Read the article

  • Can't get any speedup from parallelizing Quicksort using Pthreads

    - by Murat Ayfer
    I'm using Pthreads to create a new tread for each partition after the list is split into the right and left halves (less than and greater than the pivot). I do this recursively until I reach the maximum number of allowed threads. When I use printfs to follow what goes on in the program, I clearly see that each thread is doing its delegated work in parallel. However using a single process is always the fastest. As soon as I try to use more threads, the time it takes to finish almost doubles, and keeps increasing with number of threads. I am allowed to use up to 16 processors on the server I am running it on. The algorithm goes like this: Split array into right and left by comparing the elements to the pivot. Start a new thread for the right and left, and wait until the threads join back. If there are more available threads, they can create more recursively. Each thread waits for its children to join. Everything makes sense to me, and sorting works perfectly well, but more threads makes it slow down immensely. I tried setting a minimum number of elements per partition for a thread to be started (e.g. 50000). I tried an approach where when a thread is done, it allows another thread to be started, which leads to hundreds of threads starting and finishing throughout. I think the overhead was way too much. So I got rid of that, and if a thread was done executing, no new thread was created. I got a little more speedup but still a lot slower than a single process. The code I used is below. http://pastebin.com/UaGsjcq2 Does anybody have any clue as to what I could be doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • SUA + Visual Studio + pthreads

    - by vasek7
    Hi, I cannot compile this code under SUA: #include <unistd.h> #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <pthread.h> void * thread_function(void *arg) { printf("thread_function started. Arg was %s\n", (char *)arg); // pause for 3 seconds sleep(3); // exit and return a message to another thread // that may be waiting for us to finish pthread_exit ("thread one all done"); } int main() { int res; pthread_t a_thread; void *thread_result; // create a thread that starts to run ‘thread_function’ pthread_create (&a_thread, NULL, thread_function, (void*)"thread one"); printf("Waiting for thread to finish...\n"); // now wait for new thread to finish // and get any returned message in ‘thread_result’ pthread_join(a_thread, &thread_result); printf("Thread joined, it returned %s\n", (char *)thread_result); exit(0); } I'm running on Windows 7 Ultimate x64 with Visual Studio 2008 and 2010 and I have installed: Windows Subsystem for UNIX Utilities and SDK for Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications in Microsoft Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Include directories property of Visual Studio project is set to "C:\Windows\SUA\usr\include" What I have to configure in order to compile and run (and possibly debug) pthreads programs in Visual Studio 2010 (or 2008)?

    Read the article

  • C - circular character buffer w/ pthreads

    - by Matt
    I have a homework assignment where I have to implement a circular buffer and add and remove chars with separate threads: #include <pthread.h> #include <stdio.h> #define QSIZE 10 pthread_cond_t full,/* count == QSIZE */ empty,/* count == 0 */ ready; pthread_mutex_t m, n; /* implements critical section */ unsigned int iBuf, /* tail of circular queue */ oBuf; /* head of circular queue */ int count; /* count characters */ char buf [QSIZE]; /* the circular queue */ void Put(char s[]) {/* add "ch"; wait if full */ pthread_mutex_lock(&m); int size = sizeof(s)/sizeof(char); printf("size: %d", size); int i; for(i = 0; i < size; i++) { while (count >= QSIZE) pthread_cond_wait(&full, &m);/* is there empty slot? */ buf[iBuf] = s[i]; /* store the character */ iBuf = (iBuf+1) % QSIZE; /* increment mod QSIZE */ count++; if (count == 1) pthread_cond_signal(&empty);/* new character available */ } pthread_mutex_unlock(&m); } char Get() {/* remove "ch" from queue; wait if empty */ char ch; pthread_mutex_lock(&m); while (count <= 0) pthread_cond_wait(&empty, &m);/* is a character present? */ ch = buf[oBuf]; /* retrieve from the head of the queue */ oBuf = (oBuf+1) % QSIZE; count--; if (count == QSIZE-1) pthread_cond_signal(&full);/* signal existence of a slot */ pthread_mutex_unlock(&m); return ch; } void * p1(void *arg) { int i; for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) { Put("hella"); } } void * p2(void *arg) { int i; for (i = 0; i < 5; i++) { Put("goodby"); } } int main() { pthread_t t1, t2; void *r1, *r2; oBuf = 0; iBuf = 0; count=0; /* all slots are empty */ pthread_cond_init(&full, NULL); pthread_cond_init(&empty, NULL); pthread_mutex_init(&m, NULL); pthread_create(&t1, NULL, p1, &r1); pthread_create(&t2, NULL, p2, &r2); printf("Main"); char c; int i = 0; while (i < 55) { c = Get(); printf("%c",c); i++; } pthread_join(t1, &r1); pthread_join(t2, &r2); return 0; } I shouldn't have to change the logic much at all, the requirements are pretty specific. I think my problem lies in the Put() method. I think the first thread is going in and blocking the critical section and causing a deadlock. I was thinking I should make a scheduling attribute? Of course I could be wrong. I am pretty new to pthreads and concurrent programming, so I could really use some help spotting my error.

    Read the article

  • pthreads: reader/writer locks, upgrading read lock to write lock

    - by ScaryAardvark
    I'm using read/write locks on Linux and I've found that trying to upgrade a read locked object to a write lock deadlocks. i.e. // acquire the read lock in thread 1. pthread_rwlock_rdlock( &lock ); // make a decision to upgrade the lock in threads 1. pthread_rwlock_wrlock( &lock ); // this deadlocks as already hold read lock. I've read the man page and it's quite specific. The calling thread may deadlock if at the time the call is made it holds the read-write lock (whether a read or write lock). What is the best way to upgrade a read lock to a write lock in these circumstances.. I don't want to introduce a race on the variable I'm protecting. Presumably I can create another mutex to encompass the releasing of the read lock and the acquiring of the write lock but then I don't really see the use of read/write locks. I might as well simply use a normal mutex. Thx

    Read the article

  • Creating an independent draw thread using pthreads (C++)

    - by sagekilla
    Hi all, I'm working on a graphical application which looks something like this: while (Simulator.simulating) { Simulator.update(); InputManager.processInput(); VideoManager.draw(); } I do this several times a second, and in the vast majority of cases my computation will be taking up 90 - 99% of my processing time. What I would like to do is take out the processInput and draw functions and have each one run independently. That way, I can have the input thread always checking for input (at a reasonable rate), and the draw thread attempting to redraw at a given frame rate. My issue is I'm not sure how I can properly do this. How would I properly initialize my pthread_t and associated pthread_attr_t so that the thread runs without blocking what I'm doing? Any help or even a link is appreciated, thanks!

    Read the article

  • pthreads: reader/writer locks, upgrading read lock to write lock

    - by ScaryAardvark
    I'm using read/write locks on Linux and I've found that trying to upgrade a read locked object to a write lock deadlocks. i.e. // acquire the read lock in thread 1. pthread_rwlock_rdlock( &lock ); // make a decision to upgrade the lock in threads 1. pthread_rwlock_wrlock( &lock ); // this deadlocks as already hold read lock. I've read the man page and it's quite specific. The calling thread may deadlock if at the time the call is made it holds the read-write lock (whether a read or write lock). What is the best way to upgrade a read lock to a write lock in these circumstances.. I don't want to introduce a race on the variable I'm protecting. Presumably I can create another mutex to encompass the releasing of the read lock and the acquiring of the write lock but then I don't really see the use of read/write locks. I might as well simply use a normal mutex. Thx

    Read the article

  • pthreads recursively calling system command and segfault appears

    - by jess
    I have a code base where i am creating 8 threads and each thread just calls system command to display date in a continuous cycle, as shown below: void * system_thread(void *arg) { int cpu = (int)arg; printf("thread : start %d\n", cpu); for (;;) { // date ã³ãã³ãã®å®è¡ if (mode == 0) { system("date"); } else { f_hfp_nlc_Fsystem("date"); } } sleep(timerval); return NULL; } This application segfaults after running for 2-3 seconds, due to following 2 reasons: 1. read access, where the address is out of VM area 2. write acces, where it does not of write permission and its trying to modify some structure.

    Read the article

  • Apache2 + Php + Pthreads HowTos

    - by Drug
    04 LTS 64 bit. What I would really love to do is sudo apt-get install libapache2-mod-php5 but compile PHP with --enable-maintainer-zts so I could later install pthreads with pecl install pthreads. Sadly I understand that it is not possible. I know that the easiest way is to recompile PHP together with apache support and zts. However I really like the way the standard Ubuntu PHP package is configured and I am used to the path`s for CLI php.ini config, Apache php.ini config and other paths for modules and files that this Ubuntu package defines. So i just want to change the package source a little bit and install it. # Get the stuff necessary to build the package sudo apt-get build-dep php5-common # Get the package source sudo apt-get source php5-common At this point I am getting sources not for the php5-common package but the whole php5 package. If I would sudo make && make install at this point, would it mean that I am installing a lot of unnecessary stuff? # Add configuration options ./configure --enable-maintainer-zts Does this mean that I am appending a configuration option? Or am I generating a whole new config? Alternative at this point Is there a way of getting the config options that this package defines, so that I can grab a php source from php.net and compile it with $ ./configure --prefix=package_prefix \ // Option 1 from package --enable-embed \ // Option 2 from package --with-regex=php \ // Option 3 from package Continuing the main idea ... Solution 1 # Compile (Not compiling) sudo make && make install Will I be building PHP with EVERYTHING at this point? If I compile like this, I will not be able to remove the mess I made using sudo apt-get purge php5? Solution 2 # ReCompile the package dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -uc -b This does not compile also. Please correct my steps, so I can install everything correctly.

    Read the article

  • How can I improve my real-time behavior in multi-threaded app using pthreads and condition variables

    - by WilliamKF
    I have a multi-threaded application that is using pthreads. I have a mutex() lock and condition variables(). There are two threads, one thread is producing data for the second thread, a worker, which is trying to process the produced data in a real time fashion such that one chuck is processed as close to the elapsing of a fixed time period as possible. This works pretty well, however, occasionally when the producer thread releases the condition upon which the worker is waiting, a delay of up to almost a whole second is seen before the worker thread gets control and executes again. I know this because right before the producer releases the condition upon which the worker is waiting, it does a chuck of processing for the worker if it is time to process another chuck, then immediately upon receiving the condition in the worker thread, it also does a chuck of processing if it is time to process another chuck. In this later case, I am seeing that I am late processing the chuck many times. I'd like to eliminate this lost efficiency and do what I can to keep the chucks ticking away as close to possible to the desired frequency. Is there anything I can do to reduce the delay between the release condition from the producer and the detection that that condition is released such that the worker resumes processing? For example, would it help for the producer to call something to force itself to be context switched out? Bottom line is the worker has to wait each time it asks the producer to create work for itself so that the producer can muck with the worker's data structures before telling the worker it is ready to run in parallel again. This period of exclusive access by the producer is meant to be short, but during this period, I am also checking for real-time work to be done by the producer on behalf of the worker while the producer has exclusive access. Somehow my hand off back to running in parallel again results in significant delay occasionally that I would like to avoid. Please suggest how this might be best accomplished.

    Read the article

  • For buffer overflows, what is the stack address when using pthreads?

    - by t2k32316
    I'm taking a class in computer security and there is an extra credit assignment to insert executable code into a buffer overflow. I have the c source code for the target program I'm trying to manipulate, and I've gotten to the point where I can successfully overwrite the eip for the current function stack frame. However, I always get a Segmentation fault, because the address I supply is always wrong. The problem is that the current function is inside a pthread, and therefore, the address of the stack seems to always change between different runs of the program. Is there any method for finding the stack address within a pthread (or for estimating the stack address within a pthread)? (note: pthread_create's 2nd argument is null, so we're not manually assigning a stack address)

    Read the article

  • How to tell the parent that the thread is done in C++ using pthreads ?

    - by milleroff
    Hi. I have a TCP Server application that serves each client in a new thread using POSIX Threads and C++. The server calls "listen" on its socket and when a client connects, it makes a new object of class Client. The new object runs in its own thread and processes the client's requests. When a client disconnects, i want some way to tell my main() thread that this thread is done, and main() can delete this object and log something like "Client disconnected". My question is, how do i tell to the main thread, that a thread is done ?

    Read the article

  • posix pthreads in c

    - by Codenotguru
    Iam new to c programming and needs some help. long *taskids[NUM_THREADS]; for(t=0; t<NUM_THREADS; t++) { taskids[t] = (long *) malloc(sizeof(long)); *taskids[t] = t; printf("Creating thread %ld\n", t); rc = pthread_create(&threads[t], NULL, PrintHello, (void *) taskids[t]); ... } This code fragment demonstrates how to pass a simple integer to each thread. The calling thread uses a unique data structure for each thread, insuring that each thread's argument remains intact throughout the program. Iam not able to understand how this is happening can somebody explain it??

    Read the article

  • Pthread Queue System

    - by Wallace
    Hi. I'm working on my assignment on pthreads. I'm new and never touched on pthreads before. Is there any sample codes or resources out there that anyone of you have, that might aid me in my assignment? Here are my assignment details. A pthread program about queue system: Write a C/C++ Pthread program for a Dental clinic’s queuing system that declares an array of integers of size N, where N is the maximum number of queue for the day. The pthread program uses two threads. Whenever there is a new dental appointment, the first thread (the creator) puts the queue numbers in the array, one after the other. The second thread (the remover) removes the queue numbers from the array whenever the dentist has seen the patient. This is done in a FIFO fashion (First In First Out). The algorithm of the creator is as follows: • If the array is not full then put a new number in it (the numbers start at 1 and are incremented by one each time, so the creator create queue number 1, 2, 3 etc.) • sleep for 1 to 10 seconds, randomly • repeat The algorithm of the remover is as follows: • If the array is not empty then remove its smallest queue number • sleep for 1 to 10 seconds, randomly • repeat You should use mutex locks to protect things that must be protected. Each thread should print on the screen what it is doing (eg: "number 13 is added into the queue", "number 7 is removed from the queue", etc.). The program should run forever. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Pthread-ed filetransfer application crash

    - by N.R.S.Sowrabh
    I am developing a file transfer application and am using pthreads on the receiver side for receiving multiple files. The function which is passed to pthreads calls the following function and at the end of this function I get a SIGABRT error and stack-smashing error appears on the terminal. Please help me find the bugs. If you need anymore code I'd be able to post the same. Thanks in advance. void recv_mesg(int new_sockid, char *fname) { cout<<"New Thread created with "<<new_sockid<<" and "<<fname<<endl; char buf[MAXLINE]; int fd; fd = open(fname, O_WRONLY ); int len =0; while (len<1024) { int curr = recv(new_sockid, buf, 1024-len, 0); //fprintf(stdout,"Message from Client:\n"); len += curr; //write (fd, buf, curr); fputs(buf, stderr); } int file_size = 0; sscanf(buf,"%d",&file_size); if(file_size<=0) perror("File Size < 0"); sprintf(buf,"Yes"); send(new_sockid,buf,strlen(buf),0); len = 0; while (len<file_size) { int curr = recv(new_sockid, buf, min(file_size-len,MAXLINE), 0); len += curr; write (fd, buf, curr); //fputs(buf, stdout); //fflush(stdout); } len = 0; close(fd); close(new_sockid); }

    Read the article

  • monitoring unix resources from inside a process

    - by kamziro
    I've had a bunch of EAGAIN's from trying to fork() or spawning threads, which lead me to believe that I'm leaking resources somewhere. Is it possible, in POSIX, to get the following from inside the process itself: number of active pthreads number of active child processes number of active pipes number of active sockets (or maybe this and pipes would be counted as file descriptors?) Or do these have to be counted manually? There's already counters for them, but I think one of them are leaking.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to ‘join’ (block) in POSIX threads, without exiting the joinee?

    - by elliottcable
    I’m buried in multithreading / parallelism documents, trying to figure out how to implement a threading implementation in a programming language I’ve been designing. I’m trying to map a mental model to the pthreads.h library, but I’m having trouble with one thing: I need my interpreter instances to continue to exist after they complete interpretation of a routine (the language’s closure/function data type), because I want to later assign other routines to them for interpretation, thus saving me the thread and interpreter setup/teardown time. This would be fine, except that pthread_join(3) requires that I call pthread_exit(3) to ‘unblock’ the original thread. How can I block the original thread (when it needs the result of executing the routine), and then unblock it when interpretation of the child routine is complete?

    Read the article

  • Multiple Socket Connections

    - by BSchlinker
    I need to write a server which accepts connections from multiple client machines, maintains track of connected clients and sends individual clients data as necessary. Sometimes, all clients may be contacted at once with the same message, other times, it may be one individual client or a group of clients. Since I need confirmation that the clients received the information and don't want to build an ACK structure for a UDP connection, I decided to use a TCP streaming method. However, I've been struggling to understand how to maintain multiple connections and keep them idle. I seem to have three options. Use a fork for each incoming connection to create a separate child process, use pthread_create to create an entire new thread for each process, or use select() to wait on all open socket IDs for a connection. Recommendations as to how to attack this? I've begun working with pthreads but since performance will likely not be an issue, multicore processing is not necessary and perhaps there is a simpler way.

    Read the article

  • Is a signal sent with kill to a parent thread guaranteed to be processed before the next statement?

    - by Jonathan M Davis
    Okay, so if I'm running in a child thread on linux (using pthreads if that matters), and I run the following command kill(getpid(), someSignal); it will send the given signal to the parent of the current thread. My question: Is it guaranteed that the parent will then immediately get the CPU and process the signal (killing the app if it's a SIGKILL or doing whatever else if it's some other signal) before the statement following kill() is run? Or is it possible - even probable - that whatever command follows kill() will run before the signal is processed by the parent thread?

    Read the article

  • Cancel UDP recvfrom in C on Unix

    - by hora
    I'm just starting to learn how network programming in C works, and I've written a small program that sends messages to and from a UNIX terminal. I'm using pthreads in my program, one of which essentially just waits on recvfrom() to receive a message. However, I want to be able to close all threads properly if the users chooses to quit the program. The way I have it set up right now, a different thread just cancels the thread waiting on recvfrom, but I'm worried this might not be a good idea since I'm leaving sockets unclosed and I'm not freeing all the memory I allocated. Is there a way to cancel a recvfrom() call, or some way to run a certain routine upon cancelling a pthread? Thanks.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7  | Next Page >