I'm making an app with using XF pcl.
I'm curious its main thread is a single thread on both iOS/Android platforms. Because I faced this error rarely on XF/Android.
When I try to access myarray[i], I faced this rarely on XF/Android.
[NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an
object.]
I believe Clean() and Update() both are called from Main Thread, so it can't occur or am I wrong?
Code
IList<MyData> myarray = new List<MyData>();
void Clean() //when ContentPage is popped.
{
....
StopMyTimer();
myarray.Clear();
myarray = null;
}
void Update() //every 50ms by Device.StartTimer
{
....
if(myarray != null)
{
for(int i = myarray.Count - 1 ; i >= 0 ; i--)
{
MyData = myarray[i];
if(/*needdelete*/)
myarray.remove(MyData);
}
}
....
}
Related
I want to call qmodbusreply related monitoring function in the std thread.
void DigitalInputController::monitoring()
{
QModbusReply* reply = nullptr;
QModbusDataUnit d(QModbusDataUnit::Coils, 0, 8);
reply = m_pDevice->sendReadRequest(d, m_DeviceID);
if (reply)
{
if (!reply->isFinished())
{
connect(reply, &QModbusReply::finished, this, &DigitalInputController::receivedDigitalInputData);
}
else
{
delete reply;
}
}
}
The mainwindow source is as below.
:
:
std::thread th(&MainWindow::serialCommandQueueMonitoringThread, this);
th.detach();
for (int i=0; i<4; i++)
{
m_pPickingController[i]->m_pDigitalInputController->moveToThread(this->thread());
m_pPickingController[i]->moveToThread(this->thread());
}
:
:
void MainWindow::serialCommandQueueMonitoringThread()
{
while(!m_bCheckThreadStopFlag)
{
if (g_queueSerialCommandTypeInfo->size() > 0)
{
g_mutexSerialCommand->lock();
SerialCommandTypeInfo info = g_queueSerialCommandTypeInfo->dequeue();
g_mutexSerialCommand->unlock();
SerialCommandParamter p = info.parameter;
if (info.type == MONITORING_DIGITALINPUT)
{
m_pPickingController[p.objectIndex]->m_pDigitalInputController->monitoring();
}
}
QThread::msleep(20);
}
}
When executed, the following warning appears and the monitoring function cannot be called.
QObject: Cannot create children for a parent that is in a different thread.
(Parent is QModbusRtuSerialMaster(0x2c56de33090), parent's thread is QThread(0x2c5670790b0), current thread is QThread(0x2c56ddb6290)
QObject::startTimer: Timers can only be used with threads started with QThread
How should I do?
I have a java thread which is running a path-finding algorithm in a constant while loop. Then, every so often I want to retrieve the most updated path from the thread. However, I am unsure how to do this, and think I might be doing it wrong.
My thread consists of the following code:
public class BotThread extends Thread {
Bot bot;
AStar pathFinder;
Player targetPlayer;
public List<boolean[]> plan;
public BotThread(Bot bot) {
this.bot = bot;
this.plan = new ArrayList<>();
pathFinder = new AStar(bot, bot.getLevelHandler());
}
public void run() {
while (true) {
System.out.println("THREAD RUNNING");
targetPlayer = bot.targetPlayer;
plan = pathFinder.optimise(targetPlayer);
}
}
public boolean[] getNextAction() {
return plan.remove(0);
}
}
I then create an object of BotThread, and call start(). Then when I call getNextAction() on the thread, I seem to receive a null pointer. Is this because I am not able to call another method on the thread whilst it is in the main loop? How should I do this properly?
This is because you are not giving enough time to thread to initialise plan Arraylist. You need to add sleeping time to the threads. Something like this while calling BotThread class from main:
int num_threads = 8;
BotThread myt[] = new BotThread[num_threads];
for (int i = 0; i < num_threads; ++i) {
myt[i] = new BotThread();
myt[i].start();
Thread.sleep(1000);
myt[i].getNextAction();
}
I am trying to get multithreading more unraveled in my head. I made these three classes.
A global variable class
public partial class globes
{
public bool[] sets = new bool[] { false, false, false };
public bool boolChanged = false;
public string tmpStr = string.Empty;
public int gcount = 0;
public bool intChanged = false;
public Random r = new Random();
public bool gDone = false;
public bool first = true;
}
Drop in point
class Driver
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("start");
globes g = new globes();
Thread[] threads = new Thread[6];
ParameterizedThreadStart[] pts = new ParameterizedThreadStart[6];
lockMe _lockme = new lockMe();
for (int b = 0; b < 3; b++)
{
pts[b] = new ParameterizedThreadStart(_lockme.paramThreadStarter);
threads[b] = new Thread(pts[b]);
threads[b].Name = string.Format("{0}", b);
threads[b].Start(b);
}
}
}
And then my threading class
class lockMe
{
#region Fields
private string[] words = new string[] {"string0", "string1", "string2", "string3"};
private globes g = new globes();
private object myKey = new object();
private string[] name = new string[] { String.Empty, String.Empty, String.Empty };
#endregion
#region methods
// first called for all threads
private void setName(Int16 i)
{
Monitor.Enter(myKey);
{
try
{
name[i] = string.Format("{0}:{1}", Thread.CurrentThread.Name, g.r.Next(100, 500).ToString());
}
finally
{
Monitor.PulseAll(myKey);
Monitor.Exit(myKey);
}
}
}
// thread 1
private void changeBool(Int16 a)
{
Monitor.Enter(myKey);
{
try
{
int i = getBools();
//Thread.Sleep(3000);
if (g.gcount > 5) { g.gDone = true; return; }
if (i == 3) resets();
else { for (int x = 0; x <= i; i++) { g.sets[x] = true; } }
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} ran through changeBool()\n", name[a]);
}
finally
{
Monitor.PulseAll(myKey);
Monitor.Exit(myKey);
}
}
}
// thread 2
private void changeInt(Int16 i)
{
Monitor.Enter(myKey);
{
try
{
g.gcount++;
//Thread.Sleep(g.r.Next(1000, 3000));
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0}: Count is now at {1}\n", name[i], g.gcount);
}
finally
{
Monitor.PulseAll(myKey);
Monitor.Exit(myKey);
}
}
}
// thread 3
private void printString(Int16 i)
{
Monitor.Enter(myKey);
{
try
{
Console.WriteLine("...incoming...");
//Thread.Sleep(g.r.Next(1500, 2500));
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} printing...{1}\n", name[i], words[g.r.Next(0, 3)]);
}
finally
{
Monitor.PulseAll(myKey);
Monitor.Exit(myKey);
}
}
}
// not locked- called from within a locked peice
private int getBools()
{
if ((g.sets[0] == false) && (g.sets[1] == false) && (g.sets[2] == false)) return 0;
else if ((g.sets[0] == true) && (g.sets[1] == false) && (g.sets[2] == false)) return 1;
else if ((g.sets[2] == true) && (g.sets[3] == false)) return 2;
else if ((g.sets[0] == true) && (g.sets[1] == true) && (g.sets[2] == true)) return 3;
else return 99;
}
// should not need locks- called within locked statement
private void resets()
{
if (g.first) { Console.WriteLine("FIRST!!"); g.first = false; }
else Console.WriteLine("Cycle has reset...");
}
private bool getStatus()
{
bool x = false;
Monitor.Enter(myKey);
{
try
{
x = g.gDone;
}
finally
{
Monitor.PulseAll(myKey);
Monitor.Exit(myKey);
}
}
return x;
}
#endregion
#region Constructors
public void paramThreadStarter(object starter)
{
Int16 i = Convert.ToInt16(starter);
setName(i);
do
{
switch (i)
{
default: throw new Exception();
case 0:
changeBool(i);
break;
case 1:
changeInt(i);
break;
case 2:
printString(i);
break;
}
} while (!getStatus());
Console.WriteLine("fin");
Console.ReadLine();
}
#endregion
}
So I have a few questions. The first- is it better to have my global class set like this? Or should I be using a static class with properties and altering them that way? Next question is, when this runs, at random one of the threads will run, pulse/exit the lock, and then step right back in (sometimes like 5-10 times before the next thread picks up the lock). Why does this happen?
Each thread is given a certain amount of CPU time, I doubt that one particular thread is getting more actual CPU time over the others if you are locking all the calls in the same fashion and the thread priorities are the same among the threads.
Regarding how you use your global class, it doesn't really matter. The way you are using it wouldn't change it one way or the other. Your use of globals was to test thread safety, so when multiple threads are trying to change shared properties all that matters is that you enforce thread safety.
Pulse might be a better option knowing that only one thread can actually enter, pulseAll is appropriate when you lock something because you have a task to do, once that task is complete and won't lock the very next time. In your scenario you lock every time so doing a pulseAll is just going to waste cpu because you know that it will be locked for the next request.
Common example of when to use static classes and why you must make them thread safe:
public static class StoreManager
{
private static Dictionary<string,DataStore> _cache = new Dictionary<string,DataStore>(StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
private static object _syncRoot = new object();
public static DataStore Get(string storeName)
{
//this method will look for the cached DataStore, if it doesn't
//find it in cache it will load from DB.
//The thread safety issue scenario to imagine is, what if 2 or more requests for
//the same storename come in? You must make sure that only 1 thread goes to the
//the DB and all the rest wait...
//check to see if a DataStore for storeName is in the dictionary
if ( _cache.ContainsKey( storeName) == false )
{
//only threads requesting unknown DataStores enter here...
//now serialize access so only 1 thread at a time can do this...
lock(_syncRoot)
{
if (_cache.ContainsKey(storeName) == false )
{
//only 1 thread will ever create a DataStore for storeName
DataStore ds = DataStoreManager.Get(storeName); //some code here goes to DB and gets a DataStore
_cache.Add(storeName,ds);
}
}
}
return _cache[storeName];
}
}
What's really important to see is that the Get method only single threads the call when there is no DataStore for the storeName.
Double-Check-Lock:
You can see the first lock() happens after an if, so imagine 3 threads simultaneously run the if ( _cache.ContainsKey(storeName) .., now all 3 threads enter the if. Now we lock so that only 1 thread can enter, now we do the same exact if statement, only the very first thread that gets here will actually pass this if statement and get the DataStore. Once the first thread .Add's the DataStore and exits the lock the other 2 threads will fail the second check (double check).
From that point on any request for that storeName will get the cached instance.
So we single threaded our application only in the spots that required it.
I have a program which has a Ui with which users choose the way to display and do small configurations. It also has a background procedure, which continuously reads data from the network and update the data to display.
Now I put them in one process:
background procedure:
STATE MainWindow::Rcv()
{
DeviceMAP::iterator dev;
for(dev= dev_map.begin(); dev!= dev_map.end(); dev++)
{
dev->second.rcvData();//receive data from the network, the time can be ignored.
BitLog* log = new BitLog();
dev->second.parseData(log);
LogItem* logItem = new LogItem();
logItem->time = QString::fromLocal8Bit(log->rcvTime.c_str());
logItem->name = QString::fromLocal8Bit(log->basicInfo.getName().c_str());
logItem->PIN = QString::fromLocal8Bit(log->basicInfo.getPIN().c_str()).toShort();
delete log;
add_logItem(logItem);
}
return SUCCESS;
}
add_logItem:
void MainWindow::add_logItem(LogItem* logItem)
{
writeToFile(logItem);
Device* r = getDevbyPIN(QString::number(logItem->PIN));
if(r == NULL)return;
devInfo_inside_widget::States state = logItem->state;
bool bool_list[portsNum_X];
for(int i =0; i < portsNum_X; i++)
{
bool_list[i] = 0;
}
for(int i = 0; i < portsNum; i++)
{
bool_list[i] = (logItem->BITS[i/8] >> (7 - i%8)) & 0x1;
}
r->refresh(state, logItem->time, bool_list);//update data inside...state, time , BITS...
IconLabel* icl = getIConLabelByDev(r);//update data
icl->refresh(state);
logDisplayQueue.enqueue(logItem);//write queue here
int size = logDisplayQueue.size();
if(size > 100)
{
logDisplayQueue.dequeue();//write queue here
}
}
The section above has not dealt with any ui operations yet, but when user push a radio button in the ui, the program has to filter the data in the queue and display it in the table widget:
ui operations:
void MainWindow::filter_log_display(bool bol)
{
row_selectable = false;
ui->tableWidget->setRowCount(0);//delete table items all
row_selectable = true;
int size_1 = logDisplayQueue.size() - 1;
ui->tableWidget->verticalScrollBar()->setSliderPosition(0);
if(size_1+1 < 100)
{
ui->tableWidget->setRowCount(size_1 + 1);
}
else
{
ui->tableWidget->setRowCount(100);//display 100 rows at most
}
if(bol)//filter from logDisplayQueue and display unworking-state-log rows
{
int index = 0;
for(int queue_i = size_1; queue_i >= 0; queue_i--)
{
LogItem* logItem = (LogItem*)logDisplayQueue.at(queue_i); // read queue here
if(logItem->state == STATE_WORK || logItem->state == STATE_UN)continue;
QString BITS_str = bits2Hexs(logItem->BITS);
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 0, new QTableWidgetItem(logItem->time));//time
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 1, new QTableWidgetItem(logItem->name));//name
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 2, new QTableWidgetItem(BITS_str));//BITS
if(queue_i == oldRowItemNo)ui->tableWidget->selectRow(index);
index++;
}
ui->tableWidget->setRowCount(index);
}
else//display all rows
{
for(int queue_i = size_1, index = 0; queue_i >= 0; queue_i--, index++)
{
LogItem* logItem = (LogItem*)logDisplayQueue.at(queue_i); //read queue here
QString BITS_str = bits2Hexs(logItem->BITS);//
finish = clock();
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 0, new QTableWidgetItem(logItem->time));//time
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 1, new QTableWidgetItem(logItem->name));//name
ui->tableWidget->setItem(index, 2, new QTableWidgetItem(BITS_str));//BITS
if(queue_i == oldRowItemNo)ui->tableWidget->selectRow(index);
}
}
}
So the queue is quite samll and the background procedure is quite frequent(nearly 500 times per sec). That is, the queue will be written 500 times in 1 sec, but displayed time from time by the user.
I want to split the functions into two threads and run them together, one rev and update data, one display.
If i do not use any lock or mutex, the user may get the wrong data, but if i force the write-data procedure enter critical section and leave critical section everytime, it will be a heavy overload. :)
Should I use CRITICAL_SECTION or something else, any suggestions related?(my words could be verbose for you :) , i only hope for some hints :)
I'd put "Recv" function in another QObject derived class, put it under other QThread not main gui thread and connect "logItemAdded(LogItem* item)" signal to main window's "addLogItem(LogItem* item)" slot.
for just quick and dirty hint my conceptual code follows.
#include <QObject>
class Logger : public QObject
{
Q_OBJECT
public:
Logger(QObject* parent=0);
virtual ~Logger();
signals:
void logItemAdded(LogItem* logItem);
public slots:
protected:
void Rcv()
{
// ...
// was "add_logItem(logItem)"
emit logItemAdded(logItem);
}
};
MainWindow::MainWindow(...)
{
Logger logger = new Logger;
// setup your logger
QThread* thread = new QThread;
logger->moveToThread(thread);
connect(thread, SIGNAL(finished()), thread, SLOT(deleteLater()));
thread->start();
}
Hope this helps.
Good luck.
Hi i am trying to grab a value from my threading but it seem work not so find to me course i found that my code structure are unstable enough..here is my code i name my thread class as "clsThreadCount" and below is my implementation
public volatile bool Grab = false;
public volatile int count = 0;
public void Initialization(int i)
{
count = i;
}
public void Play()
{
Grab = false;
_shouldStop = false;
ThreadTest();
}
public void Stop()
{
_shouldStop = true;
workerThread.Join(1);
workerThread.Abort();
}
private void ThreadTest()
{
workerThread = new Thread(DoWork);
workerThread.Start();
while (!workerThread.IsAlive) ;
}
private void DoWork()
{
try
{
while (!_shouldStop)
{
if (Grab)
{
count++;
Grab = false;
}
}
}
catch (Exception)
{
Play();
}
finally
{
}
}
when my program(main menu) are starting to run i will trigger the initialize function at pass the parameter as 7
ObjThreadCount.Initialization(7); // count = 7
ObjThreadCount.Play(); // the thread are running
ObjThreadCount.Grab = true; // the grab equal to true, count++ are trigger
Thread.Sleep(100); // wait awhile
lblResult.Text = ObjThreadCount.count.ToString(); // sometime i can get count++ result (e.g. 8)
ObjThreadCount.Stop(); // thread stop
sometime my program can able to get a right counting from the thread but sometime are not.
i realize at my while loop implementation there are something are missing..
something like waitone or waitautoevent..can i ignore Thread.Sleep(100) ?? what are the suitable code should i add in the while loop ?
Please help me~ :S
** sorry in the first upload i forgot to write down "volatile" into the variable
thank you..
If C# (and C and java, and probably C++), you need to declare _shouldStop and Grab as volatile.