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.
Related
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 getting started with Haxe and OpenFl, and have some experience with Javascript and Lua.
It was going pretty well, till I got to a point where I needed a function similar to wait() in Lua, etc, which stops the script until the number of seconds you set is over.
How would I go about doing this?
EDIT: To clarify, I am building to Flash.
Although this is old, I wanted to add another point for reference. The OP mentioned in a comment this was for a game. One method I often use is (and could probably be put in a library):
var timerCount:Float = 0;
var maxTimerCounter:Float = 5;
function update () {
timerCounter += elapsedTime;
if (timerCounter > maxTimerCounter){
onTimerComplete();
timerCount = 0;
}
}
In SYS you are looking for:
static function sleep( seconds : Float ) : Void
Suspend the current execution for the given time (in seconds).
Example: Sys.sleep(.5);
http://haxe.org/api/sys/
Edit: User is porting to flash.
So the suggestion is to use Timer
http://haxe.org/api/haxe/timer
In Timer the suggestion is to use
static function delay( f : Void -> Void, time_ms : Int ) : Timer
Someone on stack overflow has an example that looks like this: haxe.Timer.delay(callback(someFunction,"abc"), 10); located here... Pass arguments to a delayed function with Haxe
For the Flash compile target, the best you can do is use a timer, and something like this setTimeout() function.
This means slicing your function into two - everything before the setTimeout(), and everything after that, which is in a separate function that the timeout can call.
so somethine like, eg:
tooltipTimerId = GlobalTimer.setTimeout(
Tooltip.TOOLTIP_DELAY_MS,
handleTooltipAppear,
tootipParams
);
[...]
class GlobalTimer {
private static var timerList:Array<Timer>;
public static function setTimeout(milliseconds:Int, func:Dynamic, args:Array<Dynamic>=null):Int {
var timer:Timer = new Timer(milliseconds);
var id = addTimer(timer, timerList);
timer.run = function() {
Reflect.callMethod(null, func, args);
clearTimeout(id);
}
return id;
}
private static function addTimer(timer:Timer, arr:Array<Timer>):Int {
for (i in 0...arr.length) {
if (null == arr[i]) {
arr[i] = timer;
return i;
}
}
arr.push(timer);
return arr.length -1;
}
public static function clearTimeout(id:Int) {
var timers:Array<Timer> = GlobalTimer.getInstance().timerList;
try {
timers[id].stop();
timers[id] = null;
} catch(e:Error) {/* Nothing we can do if it fails, really. */}
}
}
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 got CyclicBarrier code from oracle page to understand it more. I modified it and now having one doubt.
Below code doesn't terminate but If I uncomment Thread.sleep condition, It works fine.
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.concurrent.BrokenBarrierException;
import java.util.concurrent.CyclicBarrier;
class Solver {
final int N;
final float[][] data;
boolean done = false;
final CyclicBarrier barrier;
class Worker implements Runnable {
int myRow;
Worker(int row) {
myRow = row;
}
public void run() {
while (!done) {
processRow(myRow);
try {
barrier.await();
} catch (InterruptedException ex) {
return;
} catch (BrokenBarrierException ex) {
return;
}
}
System.out.println("Run finish for " + Thread.currentThread().getName());
}
private void processRow(int row) {
float[] rowData = data[row];
for (int i = 0; i < rowData.length; i++) {
rowData[i] = 1;
}
/*try {
Thread.sleep(2000);
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
e.printStackTrace();
}*/
done = true;
}
}
public Solver(float[][] matrix) {
data = matrix;
N = matrix.length;
barrier = new CyclicBarrier(N, new Runnable() {
public void run() {
for (int i = 0; i < data.length; i++) {
System.out.println("Data " + Arrays.toString(data[i]));
}
System.out.println("Completed:");
}
});
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
new Thread(new Worker(i), "Thread "+ i).start();
}
}
public class CyclicBarrierTest {
public static void main(String[] args) {
float[][] matrix = new float[5][5];
Solver solver = new Solver(matrix);
}
}
Why Thread.sleep is required in above code?
I've not run your code but there may be a race condition, here is a scenario that reveals it:
you start the first thread, it runs during a certain amount of time sufficient for it to finish the processRow method call so it sets done to true and then waits on the barrier,
the other threads start but they see that all is "done" so they don't enter the loop and they'll never wait on the barrier, and end directly
the barrier will never be activated as only one of the N threads has reached it
deadlock
Why it is working with the sleep:
when one of the thread starts to sleep it lets the other threads work before marking the work as "done"
the other threads have enough time to work and can themselves reach the barrier
2 seconds is largely enough for 5 threads to end a processing that should not last longer than 10ms
But note that if your system is ovrerloaded it could too deadlock:
the first thread starts to sleep
the OS scheduler lets another application work during more than 2 seconds
the OS scheduler comes back to your application and the threads scheduler chooses the first thread again and lets it terminate, setting done to true
and here again the first scenario => deadlock too
And a possible solution (sorry not tested):
change your while loops for do/while loops:
do
{
processRow(myRow);
...
}
while (!done);
I'm calling a powershell script from C#. The script is pretty small and is "gps;$host.SetShouldExit(9)", which list process, and then send back an exit code to be captured by the PSHost object.
The problem I have is when the pipeline has been stopped and disposed, the output reader PSHost collection still seems to be written to, and is filling up. So when I try and copy it to my own output object, it craps out with a OutOfMemoryException when I try to iterate over it. Sometimes it will except with a Collection was modified message. Here is the code.
private void ProcessAndExecuteBlock(ScriptBlock Block)
{
Collection<PSObject> PSCollection = new Collection<PSObject>();
Collection<Object> PSErrorCollection = new Collection<Object>();
Boolean Error = false;
int ExitCode=0;
//Send for exection.
ExecuteScript(Block.Script);
// Process the waithandles.
while (PExecutor.PLine.PipelineStateInfo.State == PipelineState.Running)
{
// Wait for either error or data waithandle.
switch (WaitHandle.WaitAny(PExecutor.Hand))
{
// Data
case 0:
Collection<PSObject> data = PExecutor.PLine.Output.NonBlockingRead();
if (data.Count > 0)
{
for (int cnt = 0; cnt <= (data.Count-1); cnt++)
{
PSCollection.Add(data[cnt]);
}
}
// Check to see if the pipeline has been closed.
if (PExecutor.PLine.Output.EndOfPipeline)
{
// Bring back the exit code.
ExitCode = RHost.ExitCode;
}
break;
case 1:
Collection<object> Errordata = PExecutor.PLine.Error.NonBlockingRead();
if (Errordata.Count > 0)
{
Error = true;
for (int count = 0; count <= (Errordata.Count - 1); count++)
{
PSErrorCollection.Add(Errordata[count]);
}
}
break;
}
}
PExecutor.Stop();
// Create the Execution Return block
ExecutionResults ER = new ExecutionResults(Block.RuleGuid,Block.SubRuleGuid, Block.MessageIdentfier);
ER.ExitCode = ExitCode;
// Add in the data results.
lock (ReadSync)
{
if (PSCollection.Count > 0)
{
ER.DataAdd(PSCollection);
}
}
// Add in the error data if any.
if (Error)
{
if (PSErrorCollection.Count > 0)
{
ER.ErrorAdd(PSErrorCollection);
}
else
{
ER.InError = true;
}
}
// We have finished, so enque the block back.
EnQueueOutput(ER);
}
and this is the PipelineExecutor class which setups the pipeline for execution.
public class PipelineExecutor
{
private Pipeline pipeline;
private WaitHandle[] Handles;
public Pipeline PLine
{
get { return pipeline; }
}
public WaitHandle[] Hand
{
get { return Handles; }
}
public PipelineExecutor(Runspace runSpace, string command)
{
pipeline = runSpace.CreatePipeline(command);
Handles = new WaitHandle[2];
Handles[0] = pipeline.Output.WaitHandle;
Handles[1] = pipeline.Error.WaitHandle;
}
public void Start()
{
if (pipeline.PipelineStateInfo.State == PipelineState.NotStarted)
{
pipeline.Input.Close();
pipeline.InvokeAsync();
}
}
public void Stop()
{
pipeline.StopAsync();
}
}
An this is the DataAdd method, where the exception arises.
public void DataAdd(Collection<PSObject> Data)
{
foreach (PSObject Ps in Data)
{
Data.Add(Ps);
}
}
I put a for loop around the Data.Add, and the Collection filled up with 600k+ so feels like the gps command is still running, but why. Any ideas.
Thanks in advance.
Found the problem. Named the resultant collection and the iterator the same, so as it was iterating, it was adding to the collection, and back into the iterator, and so forth. Doh!.