multithreading

问题 So, I was reading some stuff regarding nodejs and I was amazed when I came across Worker Threads. Having threads in my opinion is a great plus especially if you combine it with shared memory access. As you might think already -> SharedArrayBuffer ... Yeap that's what I thought. So The first thing that came into my mind was to give it a little test and try to implement a simple store (a simple object for now) that would be shared among the threads. The question is, (unless I'm missing

问题 So, I was reading some stuff regarding nodejs and I was amazed when I came across Worker Threads. Having threads in my opinion is a great plus especially if you combine it with shared memory access. As you might think already -> SharedArrayBuffer ... Yeap that's what I thought. So The first thing that came into my mind was to give it a little test and try to implement a simple store (a simple object for now) that would be shared among the threads. The question is, (unless I'm missing

问题 Suppose I have an application that may or may not have spawned multiple threads. Is it worth it to protect operations that need synchronization conditionally with a std::mutex as shown below, or is the lock so cheap that it does not matter when single-threading? #include <atomic> #include <mutex> std::atomic<bool> more_than_one_thread_active{false}; void operation_requiring_synchronization() { //... } void call_operation_requiring_synchronization() { if (more_than_one_thread_active) { static

问题 I'm attempting to measure the time spent in a thread for progress reporting purposes, but I'm getting very strange results from from the GetThreadTimes system call. Given the following program (compiled in VS 2013, targeting .NET 4.5): using System; using System.Diagnostics; using System.Runtime.InteropServices; using System.Threading; namespace ThreadTimingTest { class Program { static Stopwatch _wallClockTimer; static System.Timers.Timer _timer = new System.Timers.Timer(); private static

问题 Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers. Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow. Closed 5 years ago . ...for use in a multithreaded network server. I want to pass data around between multiple threads. Currently I'm using sockets, with the master thread blocking on select() and workers blocking on recv(), though I feel there probably are more advanced or prepackaged ways of handling this task in C++. 回答1: I would

问题 I have two processes: a producer which pushes messages via ZMQ to a consumer in a simple PULL-PUSH point-to-point pattern. The producer has several internal threads that send() via zmq. However, 0MQ's docs suggest not to share sockets between threads . Must I use a single thread to send? Assuming there is no strict requirement for keeping the sending order between the threads, doesn't the fact that the socket is a one-directional simplex allow multiple threads to use it without introducing

问题 I have two processes: a producer which pushes messages via ZMQ to a consumer in a simple PULL-PUSH point-to-point pattern. The producer has several internal threads that send() via zmq. However, 0MQ's docs suggest not to share sockets between threads . Must I use a single thread to send? Assuming there is no strict requirement for keeping the sending order between the threads, doesn't the fact that the socket is a one-directional simplex allow multiple threads to use it without introducing

问题 Multi-threading in Java is done by defining run() and invoking start(). Start delegates to a native method that launches a thread through operating system routines and run() is invoked from within this newly spawned thread. When a standalone application is started a main thread is automatically created to execute the main(). Now consider this code - public class Test extends Thread { public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { new Thread(new Test()).start(); throw new

问题 I'm creating a KVC/KVO-compliant mutable array on one of my objects the recommended way: @interface Factory { NSMutableArray *widgets; } - (NSArray *)widgets; - (void)insertObject:(id)obj inWidgetsAtIndex:(NSUInteger)idx; - (void)removeObjectFromWidgetsAtIndex:(NSUInteger)idx; @end Clearly this is a tricky thread-safety issue. In the insert and remove methods I'm locking around array access to prevent concurrent modification, as recommended. My question is, what is the proper way to implement

问题 This question already has answers here : Iterating through a Collection, avoiding ConcurrentModificationException when removing objects in a loop (24 answers) Why is a ConcurrentModificationException thrown and how to debug it (7 answers) ConcurrentModificationException despite using synchronized (3 answers) Closed 10 months ago . I'm using a Map object in my class that I've synchronized with Collections.synchronizedMap() for a LinkedHashMap like so: private GameObjectManager(){ gameObjects =