Search Results

Search found 1358 results on 55 pages for 'concurrency violation'.

Page 19/55 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

  • Asynchrous calls cause StaleObjectStateException

    - by Mulone
    Hi all, I'm struggling with a Grails service. The service gets AJAX calls from the clients and behaves like a simple local cache for remote objects: void **someCallFromClient**() { // extract params def results = remoteService.queryService(params) results.each{ // try to fetch result object from local DB def obj = SomeClass.findBySomeField(result.someField) if (!obj){ obj = new Result(params) obj.save() } // do stuff on obj } } The service works fine when only one client is connected, but as soon as 2 or more clients start bombing the server with requests, I start getting: 2010-05-24 13:09:49,764 [30893094@qtp-26315919-2] ERROR errors.GrailsExceptionResolver - Row was updated or deleted by another transaction (or unsaved-value mapping was incorrect): [ some object #892901] org.hibernate.StaleObjectStateException: Row was updated or deleted by another transaction (or unsaved-value mapping was incorrect): [ some object #892901] // very long stactrace It probably happens when 2 calls are trying to create the same object concurrently. I suppose this is a rather typical situation to end up in. Could you recommend any pattern/good practice to fix this issue? For example, is there a way to say to one of the service instances to hang on and wait for the other to finish its stuff and try again? Cheers!

    Read the article

  • Inconsistency in java.util.concurrent.Future?

    - by loganj
    For the sake of argument, let's say I'm implementing Future for a task which is not cancelable. The Java 6 API doc says: After [cancel()] returns, subsequent calls to isDone() will always return true. [cancel()] returns false if the task could not be cancelled, typically because it has already completed normally It also says: [isDone()] returns true if this task completed. But what if my cancellation fails not because the task is already completed, but because it simply cannot be cancelled? Is there a way out of this contradiction (other than making my uncancelable task cancelable and sidestepping it altogether)?

    Read the article

  • How to synchronize static method in java.

    - by Summer_More_More_Tea
    Hi there: I come up with this question when implementing singleton pattern in Java. Even though the example listed blow is not my real code, yet very similar to the original one. public class ConnectionFactory{ private static ConnectionFactory instance; public static synchronized ConnectionFactory getInstance(){ if( instance == null ){ instance = new ConnectionFactory(); } return instance; } private ConnectionFactory(){ // private constructor implementation } } Because I'm not quite sure about the behavior of a static synchronized method, I get some suggestion from google -- do not have (or as less as possible) multiple static synchronized methods in the same class. I guess when implementing static synchronized method, a lock belongs to Class object is used so that multiple static synchronized methods may degrade performance of the system. Am I right? or JVM use other mechanism to implement static synchronized method? What's the best practice if I have to implement multiple static synchronized methods in a class? Thank you all! Kind regards!

    Read the article

  • Standard term for a thread I/O reorder buffer?

    - by Crashworks
    I have a case where many threads all concurrently generate data that is ultimately written to one long, serial file. I need to somehow serialize these writes so that the file gets written in the right order. ie, I have an input queue of 2048 jobs j0..jn, each of which produces a chunk of data oi. The jobs run in parallel on, say, eight threads, but the output blocks have to appear in the file in the same order as the corresponding input blocks — the output file has to be in the order o0o1o2... The solution to this is pretty self evident: I need some kind of buffer that accumulates and writes the output blocks in the correct order, similar to a CPU reorder buffer in Tomasulo's algorithm, or to the way that TCP reassembles out-of-order packets before passing them to the application layer. Before I go code it, I'd like to do a quick literature search to see if there are any papers that have solved this problem in a particularly clever or efficient way, since I have severe realtime and memory constraints. I can't seem to find any papers describing this though; a Scholar search on every permutation of [threads, concurrent, reorder buffer, reassembly, io, serialize] hasn't yielded anything useful. I feel like I must just not be searching the right terms. Is there a common academic name or keyword for this kind of pattern that I can search on?

    Read the article

  • Would this prevent the row from being read during the transaction?

    - by acidzombie24
    I remember an example where reads in a transaction then writing back the data is not safe because another transaction may read/write to it in the time between. So i would like to check the date and prevent the row from being modified or read until my transaction is finish. Would this do the trick? and are there any sql variants that this will not work on? update tbl set id=id where date>expire_date and id=@id Note: dateexpire_date happens to be my condition. It could be anything. Would this prevent other transaction from reading the row until i commit or rollback?

    Read the article

  • Java: serial thread confinement question

    - by denis
    Assume you have a Collection(ConcurrentLinkedQueue) of Runnables with mutable state. Thread A iterates over the Collection and hands the Runnables to an ExecutorService. The run() method changes the Runnables state. The Runnable has no internal synchronization. The above is a repetitive action and the worker threads need to see the changes made by previous iterations. So a Runnable gets processed by one worker thread after another, but is never accessed by more than one thread at a time - a case of serial thread confinement(i hope ;)). The question: Will it work just with the internal synchronization of the ConcurrentLinkedQueue/ExecutorSerivce? To be more precise: If Thread A hands Runnable R to worker thread B and B changes the state of R, and then A hands R to worker thread C..does C see the modifications done by B?

    Read the article

  • Is PetraVM Jinx Beta 1 good?

    - by Brian T Hannan
    PetraVM recently came out with a Beta release of their Jinx product. Has anyone checked it out yet? Any feedback? By good, I mean: 1) easy to use 2) intuitive 3) useful 4) doesn't take a lot of code to integrate ... those kinds of things. Thanks guys!

    Read the article

  • Is there any point in using a volatile long?

    - by Adamski
    I occasionally use a volatile instance variable in cases where I have two threads reading from / writing to it and don't want the overhead (or potential deadlock risk) of taking out a lock; for example a timer thread periodically updating an int ID that is exposed as a getter on some class: public class MyClass { private volatile int id; public MyClass() { ScheduledExecutorService execService = Executors.newScheduledThreadPool(1); execService.scheduleAtFixedRate(new Runnable() { public void run() { ++id; } }, 0L, 30L, TimeUnit.SECONDS); } public int getId() { return id; } } My question: Given that the JLS only guarantees that 32-bit reads will be atomic is there any point in ever using a volatile long? (i.e. 64-bit). Caveat: Please do not reply saying that using volatile over synchronized is a case of pre-optimisation; I am well aware of how / when to use synchronized but there are cases where volatile is preferable. For example, when defining a Spring bean for use in a single-threaded application I tend to favour volatile instance variables, as there is no guarantee that the Spring context will initialise each bean's properties in the main thread.

    Read the article

  • PHP thread pool?

    - by embedded
    I have scheduled a CRON job to run every 4 hours which needs to gather user accounts information. Now I want to speed things up and to split the work between several processes and to use one process to update the MySQL DB with the retrieved data from other processes. In JAVA I know that there is a thread pool which I can dedicate some threads to accomplish some work. how do I do it in PHP? Any advice is welcome. Thank

    Read the article

  • How to write my own global lock / unlock functions for PostgreSQL

    - by rafalmag
    I have postgresql (in perlu) function getTravelTime(integer, timestamp), which tries to select data for specified ID and timestamp. If there are no data or if data is old, it downloads them from external server (downloading time ~300ms). Multiple process use this database and this function. There is an error when two process do not find data and download them and try to do an insert to travel_time table (id and timestamp pair have to be unique). I thought about locks. Locking whole table would block all processes and allow only one to proceed. I need to lock only on id and timestamp. pg_advisory_lock seems to lock only in "current session". But my processes uses their own sessions. I tried to write my own lock/unlock functions. Am I doing it right? I use active waiting, how can I omit this? Maybe there is a way to use pg_advisory_lock() as global lock? My code: CREATE TABLE travel_time_locks ( id_key integer NOT NULL, time_key timestamp without time zone NOT NULL, UNIQUE (id_key, time_key) ); ------------ -- Function: mylock(integer, timestamp) DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS mylock(integer, timestamp) CASCADE; -- Usage: SELECT mylock(1, '2010-03-28T19:45'); -- function tries to do a global lock similar to pg_advisory_lock(key, key) CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION mylock(id_input integer, time_input timestamp) RETURNS void AS $BODY$ DECLARE rows int; BEGIN LOOP BEGIN -- active waiting here !!!! :( INSERT INTO travel_time_locks (id_key, time_key) VALUES (id_input, time_input); EXCEPTION WHEN unique_violation THEN CONTINUE; END; EXIT; END LOOP; END; $BODY$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE COST 1; ------------ -- Function: myunlock(integer, timestamp) DROP FUNCTION IF EXISTS myunlock(integer, timestamp) CASCADE; -- Usage: SELECT myunlock(1, '2010-03-28T19:45'); -- function tries to do a global unlock similar to pg_advisory_unlock(key, key) CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION myunlock(id_input integer, time_input timestamp) RETURNS integer AS $BODY$ DECLARE BEGIN DELETE FROM ONLY travel_time_locks WHERE id_key=id_input AND time_key=time_input; RETURN 1; END; $BODY$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql' VOLATILE COST 1;

    Read the article

  • Synchronize write to two collections

    - by glaz666
    I need to put some value to maps if it is not there yet. The key-value (if set) should always be in two collections (that is put should happen in two maps atomically). I have tried to implement this as follows: private final ConcurrentMap<String, Object> map1 = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, Object>(); private final ConcurrentMap<String, Object> map2 = new ConcurrentHashMap<String, Object>(); public Object putIfAbsent(String key) { Object retval = map1.get(key); if (retval == null) { synchronized (map1) { retval = map1.get(key); if (retval == null) { Object value = new Object(); //or get it somewhere synchronized (map2) { map1.put(key, value); map2.put(key, new Object()); } retval = value; } } } return retval; } public void doSomething(String key) { Object obj1 = map1.get(key); Object obj2 = map2.get(key); //do smth } Will that work fine in all cases? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What strategies are efficient to handle concurrent reads on heterogeneous multi-core architectures?

    - by fabrizioM
    I am tackling the challenge of using both the capabilities of a 8 core machine and a high-end GPU (Tesla 10). I have one big input file, one thread for each core, and one for the the GPU handling. The Gpu thread, to be efficient, needs a big number of lines from the input, while the Cpu thread needs only one line to proceed (storing multiple lines in a temp buffer was slower). The file doesn't need to be read sequentially. I am using boost. My strategy is to have a mutex on the input stream and each thread locks - unlocks it. This is not optimal because the gpu thread should have a higher precedence when locking the mutex, being the fastest and the most demanding one. I can come up with different solutions but before rush into implementation I would like to have some guidelines. What approach do you use / recommend ?

    Read the article

  • Can fields of the class and arguments of the method interfere?

    - by Roman
    I have a class with a fields called "a". In the class I have a method and in the list of arguments of this method I also have "a". So, which "a" I will see inside of the method? Will it be the field or it will be the argument of the method? public class myClass { private String a; // Method which sets the value of the field "a". public void setA(String a) { a = a; } } By the way, there is a similar situation. A method has some local (for method) variables whose names coincide with the names of the fields. What will the "see" the method if I refer to such a method-local variable inside the method (the field or the local variable)?

    Read the article

  • GAE update different fields of the same entity

    - by bach
    Hi, UserA and UserB are changing objectA.filedA objectA.filedB respectively and at the same time. Because they are not changing the same field one might think that there are no overlaps. Is that true? or the implementation of pm.makePersistnace() actually override the whole object... good to know...

    Read the article

  • What is the effect of final variable declaration in methods?

    - by Finbarr
    Classic example of a simple server: class ThreadPerTaskSocketServer { public static void main(String[] args) throws IOException { ServerSocket socket = new ServerSocket(80); while (true) { final Socket connection = socket.accept(); Runnable task = new Runnable() { public void run() { handleRequest(connection); } }; new Thread(task).start(); } } } Why should the Socket be declared as final? Is it because the new Thread that handles the request could refer back to the socket variable in the method and cause some sort of ConcurrentModificationException?

    Read the article

  • How can CopyOnWriteArrayList be thread-safe?

    - by Shooshpanchick
    I've taken a look into OpenJDK's sources of CopyOnWriteArrayList and it seems that all write operations are protected by the same lock and read operations are not protected at all. As I understand, under JMM all accesses to a variable (both read and write) should be protected by lock or reordering effects may occur. For example, set(int, E) method contains these lines (under lock): /* 1 */ int len = elements.length; /* 2 */ Object[] newElements = Arrays.copyOf(elements, len); /* 3 */ newElements[index] = element; /* 4 */ setArray(newElements); The get(int) method, on the other hand, only does return get(getArray(), index);. In my understanding of JMM, this means that get may observe the array in an inconsistent state if statements 1-4 are reordered like 1-2(new)-4-2(copyOf)-3. Do I understand JMM incorrectly or is there any other explanations on why CopyOnWriteArrayList is thread-safe?

    Read the article

  • Updating an atom with a single value

    - by mikera
    I have a number of atoms in my code where a common requirement is to update them to a new value, regardless of the current value. I therefore find myself writing something like this: (swap! atom-name (fn [_] (identity new-value))) This works but seems pretty ugly and presumably incurs a performance penalty for constructing the anonymous closure. Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Generating different randoms valid for a day on different independent devices?

    - by Pentium10
    Let me describe the system. There are several mobile devices, each independent from each other, and they are generating content for the same record id. I want to avoid generating the same content for the same record on different devices, for this I though I would use a random and make it so too cluster the content pool based on these randoms. Suppose you have choices from 1 to 100. Day 1 Device#1 will choose for the record#33 between 1-10 Device#2 will choose for the record#33 between 40-50 Device#3 will choose for the record#33 between 50-60 Device#1 will choose for the record#55 between 40-50 Device#2 will choose for the record#55 between 1-10 Device#3 will choose for the record#55 between 10-20 Device#1 will choose for the record#11 between 1-10 Device#2 will choose for the record#22 between 1-10 Device#3 will choose for the record#99 between 1-10 Day 2 Device#1 will choose for the record#33 between 90-100 Device#2 will choose for the record#33 between 1-10 Device#3 will choose for the record#33 between 50-60 They don't have access to a central server. Data available for each of them: IMEI (unique per mobile) Date of today (same on all devices) Record id (same on all devices) What do you think, how is it possible? ps. tags can be edited

    Read the article

  • Call two Matlab functions simultaneously from .net

    - by Silv3rSurf
    I am writing a C# application and I would like to make calls to different matlab functions simultaneously(from different threads). Each Matlab function is located in its own compiled .net library. It seems that I am only able to call one Matlab function at a time however. ie, if matlab_func1() gets called from thread1 then matlab_func2() gets called from thread2, matlab_func2() must wait for matlab_func1() to finish executing. Is there a way to call different matlab functions simultaneously? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • ArrayBlockingQueue exceeds given capacity

    - by Wojciech Reszelewski
    I've written program solving bounded producer & consumer problem. While constructing ArrayBlockingQueue I defined capacity 100. I'm using methods take and put inside threads. And I've noticed that sometimes I see put 102 times with any take's between them. Why does it happen? Producer run method: public void run() { Object e = new Object(); while(true) { try { queue.put(e); } catch (InterruptedException w) { System.out.println("Oj, nie wyszlo, nie bij"); } System.out.println("Element added"); } } Consumer run method: public void run() { while(true) { try { queue.take(); } catch (InterruptedException e) { e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println("Element removed"); } } Part of uniq -c on file with output: 102 Element removed 102 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added 2 Element removed 2 Element added 102 Element removed 102 Element added

    Read the article

  • How to avoid concurrent execution of a time-consuming task without blocking?

    - by Diego V
    I want to efficiently avoid concurrent execution of a time-consuming task in a heavily multi-threaded environment without making threads wait for a lock when another thread is already running the task. Instead, in that scenario, I want them to gracefully fail (i.e. skip its attempt to execute the task) as fast as possible. To illustrate the idea considerer this unsafe (has race condition!) code: private static boolean running = false; public void launchExpensiveTask() { if (running) return; // Do nothing running = true; try { runExpensiveTask(); } finally { running = false; } } I though about using a variation of Double-Checked Locking (consider that running is a primitive 32-bit field, hence atomic, it could work fine even for Java below 5 without the need of volatile). It could look like this: private static boolean running = false; public void launchExpensiveTask() { if (running) return; // Do nothing synchronized (ThisClass.class) { if (running) return; running = true; try { runExpensiveTask(); } finally { running = false; } } } Maybe I should also use a local copy of the field as well (not sure now, please tell me). But then I realized that anyway I will end with an inner synchronization block, that still could hold a thread with the right timing at monitor entrance until the original executor leaves the critical section (I know the odds usually are minimal but in this case we are thinking in several threads competing for this long-running resource). So, could you think in a better approach?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >