I have an application that requires several threads, otherwise the main UI thread would end up frozen.i am after a little advice as i have not really don alot of threaded applications.
First Question;
I have a thread which handles data coming in from the serial port( this wil become much more complicated), is it safe to use a synclock on the serialport object : -
[code]...
I was just wondering if mixing SyncLock blocks and Monitor.Enter/Exit statements is dangerous. I know SyncLock uses Monitor and a Try block in the background, but are there any problems with using the two together for thread synchronization?
View 1 RepliesI am pretty new to multi-threading in general and I would like to know how can I lock a shared integer variable to not be accessed by other threads while it is read/updated by an other thread.When I try do do SyncLock myInteger, I get that error : Error 6 'SyncLock' operand cannot be of type 'Integer' because 'Integer' is not a reference type.
Here a simplified example of what I mean
Private Shared myInteger As Integer
Private Sub MySub()
SyncLock myInteger ' This does not work
' read/write a new value to myInteger
End SyncLock
End Sub
MySub is called by multiple instances of the class, and running in multiple threads?
Is there simple way to SyncLock an object that can be null? And before you ask for it, yes, I know that it isn't logical to perform a SyncLock on a null variable. However, that would simplify my code because right now, I have no choice but to perform a null check all over the place before calling a SyncLock.
[Code]...
If I have two Synclocks
synclock a
synclock b
end synclock
[code].....
I was wondering if this is known / expected behavior. By design?Is it documented somewhere?
My 'real' code does need something to keep one thread from accessing a listview while another is busy clearing and refreshing the Items collection, so it's not as easy as omitting the synclock section in the example below (The SyncLock in my case is on the ListView).
This code, which can be pasted over a new empty form's user code class, deadlocks during the Invoke call. It doesn't reach the entry point of SetText (setting a brakpoint there, the deadlock occurs before the breakpoint is hit).[cod]e...
Suppose I have a byte array, Private Data as Byte(). This array is private within a class. The class provides public functions for reading and writing to Data. This class can be accessed by multiple threads, so I want to avoid a situation where reading from it and writing from it don't happen at the same time.
For now, I am using SyncLock to avoid issues. Can I put SyncLock Data in just the write functions, or does it need to be in the read functions? Or, both? I don't have a specific code example in mind. I am just curious if there is any benefit to locking for both read and write functions if the writing functions' SyncLock will make writing have exclusive access to it in the first place.
I'm trying to SyncLock my DataTable, to avoid problems with multithreading and stuff. But it doesn't seems to work. I'm trying to lock a DataTable wich is acceseed inside a nested for-loop:
vb.net
SyncLock radiolopere
For Each row As DataRowView In tableview
[code].....
I have a class that contains a List(of T) used in a multithreaded application. I have three methods Get, Add and Remove where these access and modify the List(of T). I was using SyncLock to lock m_List any time I queried it for the desired object as well as when I added or removed objects. However I'm curious as to if there is a performance gain by simply locking m_List when I add an object or remove an object as opposed to when I'm searching for a desired object?
[Code]...
I have a List of objects shared by multiple threads, it sometimes generate IndexOutOfRangeException when trying to Clear. While searching for solution I found that I should use SyncLock while accessing the List. But my question if what is the importance of lockObject in SyncLock block
E.g. while clearing myList
Can I use
Synclock myList
myList.Clear
End SyncLock
or lockObject should be different from myList?
What I think about sysnclock is "lock is obtained for object specified as lockObject". What if I specify list to be cleared as lockObject, shouldn't the compiler supposed to obtain the exclusive access to list before clearing it ?
Once again Invoke has come back to haunt me! I have an application that has some background threads, serial communications and obviously a GUI. Now, the serial ports received incoming messages as events and these get processed and incoming data is logged both to a file and also appended to a RTB in the GUI (done using Invoke if InvokeRequired is true).Now, under normal circumstances everything is super happy and runs quite nicely but when stressed I reach some sort of deadlock.
What happens is I have two methods AddOutput and RemoveOutput. These both sync over an object SyncOutput As Object. When messages are received on the serial port they are processed and depending on whether or not a response is required AddOutput is called. This adds out going messages to a dictionary which is then accessed by a thread and the messages are sent out. If an acknowledgement message is received then the corresponding message in the dictionary is removed.
[Code]...
If completedOrders.Count <> 0 Then
For i = 0 To completedOrders.Count - 1
SyncLock completedOrders
'Do some work, for example this:
Dim text As String = completedOrders(0).getCN & " " & completedOrders(0).getDeviceName & " "
End SyncLock
Next
End If
Is a synclock needed before the if statement or for loop? In other words. When you call methods like .length or .count is it necessary to synclock them or can another thread be writing to it at the same time. CompletedOrders is a generic list of a class.
Ok so I coded this app that generates a number/word and it will upload to my database. Speed wasn't the issue when my db was under 1million entry. Now that I got about 100million entry it takes a few mins to upload.I worked with threading before but now I want all my threads to access this function that will give them a string. Now here is the problem, if 2 or more thread access the function at the same time, it will crash.How can I by pass that?I read about SyncLock. Can I use SyncLock on my function on each thread?
View 1 RepliesSay I have some code that does this:
Public Function AppendToLogFile(ByVal s As String) As Boolean
Dim success As Boolean = True
Dim fs As IO.FileStream = Nothing
[Code].....
First of all: is it a problem that I have that Try/Catch/Finally block inside of a SyncLock?
Second of all: suppose this code runs, on an event, potentially many times within a small timeframe--say, ten times in one second. Is it OK to have it SyncLock like this, or would it make more sense to have it add a line to a Queue, and then write all the lines from the Queue to the file on a timer that goes off, say, every second?
Is it possible to skip a code block when a synclock is active?
For instance:
A object of class Bicycle is used by thread 1 and has a synclock on it.
Then thread 2 comes along and needs to know if the lights of the bike are working. But if there is a synclock active then thread 2 just forgets about checking the lights and goes to make a delicious chocolate pie.
Can someone who is using a 64 bit machine help me pintpoint this crash to either the VS2010 IDE itself or one of the plugins I have installed?
It's the code fragment below. When I copy & paste it into the Main() function of a new VB.Net console app on my Win7 64 bit machine, the VS IDE crashes and dies onthe spot, every time I try it.
Doing exactly the same on a 32 bit XP machine, nothing abnormal happens.
The 64 bit machine does have some IDE plug-ins installed, the biggest of which is DevExpress (the free version), so i think either one of those or the fact that the IDE is running on 64 bit must be the culprit.
This is the code. The static variable can also be made a module-level variable, with the same result.
I'm having trouble working out how to lock my application out of a section of code while it waits for a response from an external program've used Synclock on a section of code with the Me object in the expression. In this Synclock I call an overridden ShowDialog method of a dialog box, which has a timeout parameter, but does return the value from the underlying ShowDialog function call ,once the timer is setup. Works like this.
SyncLock Me
Dim frmDlgWithTimeout As New frmDlgWithTimeout ' dialog box with overridden ShowDialog '
Dim res As DialogResult = frmDlgWithTimeout.ShowDialog(10 * 1000) ' 10 sec timeout '
[code]....
i have some test code which i run at every load of a page in my asp.net website [Code] the "dotrace" simply add a record to a log table in the db. now the right result would be that i should have the entries in the db in order "entered","exiting","exited" but actually when i look in the db i see first 2 "entered" then 2 "exiting" etc. meaning that the multi-threading is working ok, but not the synclock. is that correct?
and how can this be fixed? the real code will be adding records to the db and might be called from several pages of different sessions, but the same code must not run twice concurrently. if i open multiple pages at once, they still clash some times. but if i'm correct, the issue is now not with the synclock as much as with the httpruntime.cache, because when using a standard property, on one page, the code works 100%. so how can i make sure that 2 threads, even from totally different sessions never run the trylock simultaneously?
I am trying to get a handle on SyncLock and multithreading, but I am having some trouble wrapping my head around exactly how it should be implemented. I have a Public Class Utilities with a many Shared Functions. I want to make sure that each function can only be executed when there are no other concurrent calls to the same function. So If I have 2 functions, A and B in a Public Class Utilities, what is the syntax so that a function "locks" while it is being executed, preventing any subsequent calls until the "locking" thread has completed?
CODE
Public Class Utilities
Public Shared Function A (ByRef i As Integer) As Integer
[CODE].............................
I know I need to wrap the statements of execution in a SyncLock block, but I am unsure of the scope of the parameter used with SyncLock...is it private to the function, class, etc? Can the same object be used to lock both functions if they are independent?
I am using Synclock to prevent multiple threads from logging text messages to the same file at the same time, but this doesn't seem to work:I get frequent sharing errors on the logfile, within the synclock block.The Synclock is using the variable holding the filename, because it exists all the time and because it is always the same object, whatever class instance or thread I'm in.[code]Despite using Synclock and a Using block around the code, I keep getting this error in the sw.WriteLine(Msg) line:System.IO.IOException: The process cannot access the file '(filename)' because it is being used by another process.Should I use some other type of object than a string to synchronize on?I cannot use a user interface object (button or so) because it is a windows service project.It was written and compiled in Visual Studio 2008, but targeting the 2.0 framework because it has to be able to run on some old Win2000 machines.
View 12 RepliesI'm on my way to MSDN but thought I'd stop by here first because the answers are usually more cogent.I have a test bed that mimmicks my product app. The general architecture is a factory that builds/instantiates a number of objects (device controllers) that are scalable in number based on requirement. Each object has a threaded portion that reads a device. This way, each object can read its own device simultaneously with all the others. To perform the read, the object calls a routine in a Module that houses the device interfaces. Interestingly (and happily), it seems like each thread has its own copy of the Module routine.
The test bed seems to verify what I'm seeing in the app. In the testbed, a 500 mil second delay is substituted for the device call. Even enclosing the test module portion that hosts the delay in a Synclock results in multi-threaded execution of the pseudo device call. I haven't tested for data yet, but this seems to indicate that when the module routine is called from controller object, it too carries it's own copy of the data just like the calling object. As a long time c++ programmer...that don't quite seem right.
I have this protocol for getting a favicon: (I stole it from Thomas Maxwell, and adapted it, but still)
Public Shared Function GetFaviconSilent(ByVal IconURL As String)
On Error Resume Next
Dim oIcon As Icon
[code].....
I am using VS2005, using VB.Net?I just created a local copy of a project on my drive. The original copy is being worked on by another developer.I deleted the .vspscc & .scc files?However, everytime I make a change, I get the message that the file is locked, and exclusively checkout by another developer. How can I make changes to the project, that I have copied to my drive. I need to disconnect it from VSS.
View 2 RepliesI need to generate the IV and the KEY for an AES cryptography. I want to use the password and i am asking if it is safe to use the same password to get the Key and the IV?
View 2 Replies[code]...
Unless the person actually gets into the source code they can't get the password am I right? Is it actually possible for them to get into the source code.
Basically what I'm asking is, is this safe and if not why not and how can it be made secure?
I'm calling a c++ dll I made myself - and it appears to be very VERY not thread safe!
I'm referencing it like this
<System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport("D:ACS DesktopdcxdcxDebugStringLibrary.dll", EntryPoint:="firstIndexOfKeyword", CallingConvention:=Runtime.InteropServices.CallingConvention.Cdecl)> _
Public Shared Function firstIndexOfKeyword(ByVal s As String, ByVal substr As String(), ByVal substrLength As Integer, ByVal markers As Integer()) As Integer End Function
Is there a way to make this IMPORT create something more threadsafe?
[Code]...
I'm dropping into this function - from several threads - to add an OBJECT to a dictionary collection
Private Delegate Function ReaderRegisterDelegate(ByRef rrFSOb As FSObject) As FSObject
Private Function ReaderRegister(ByRef rrFSOb As FSObject) As FSObject
Try[code].....
It's getting Object reference not set to an instance of an object.The FILEID key being added is F1. F2, F3 and F4 are in the dictionary. Seems like F1 arrived and the object wasn't properly setup. Or thread-slice caused me to see a partially messed with dictionary list?How can I make that a thread safe operation? I thought dropping out to the UI thread was a safe place to mess with code like this? Oddly enough I can go to the immediate window and do this
m_FSObCollection.Add("F" + rrFSOb.FileId.ToString, rrFSOb)
?m_FSObCollection.Count 4
ex.data is a dictionary list that looks like this
directcast(ex.Data , System.Collections.IDictionary).Count 0
I am trying to read caller id from a internal modem. modem is caller id enable and it works in hyper terminal. but when i try from vb.net it only shows 'RING'. here is my full code
[Code]...
I am using VB 2005 and need to trap a serial port timeout. I use a standard try/catch block, but if no characters arrive the code still hangs at the ReadByte call. Here is the code:
Try
SerialPort.ReadTimeout = 200
' read timeout of 200 mSecs
thisByte = SerialPort.ReadByte()
[code]....
Recently while trying to help someone with an issue using USB SerialPort's I discovered sometheing interesting when the ports Handshake was set to RequestToSend. My setup COMx <---> BreakOutBox <---> COMy COMx and COMy are on the same PC. The breakout box is used to create a null modem, pins 2 & 3 crossed, pin 20 to pin 6.When the handshake was set to RequestToSend every Write resulted in Carrier Detect and Ring being raised. Is this just my adapter or are all USB SerialPorts like this?Serial Port Random Microsoft® Community Contributor 2011
View 2 Replies