Hi all,
Does anyone know of a way to achieve multi-theaded platform invokes? I have
been taking quite a performance hit using the syncronised attribute:
[MethodImpl(Meth odImplOptions.S ynchronized)].
Cheers
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004 5 1785
Duncan,
Are you attributing the actual function delcaration with MethodImpl? If
so, then this is probably a bad idea, since it will lock on the type, and if
you have multiple method definitions on the same type, they will all lock on
the same thing (when it probably isn't required).
Are you sure that your library functions are not re-entrant? Are you
sure you have to do this?
If so, then what you should do is create an object (new object()) for
each function that you declare. Declare them as private, and then write
static wrappers around them. In the static wrapper, lock on the object that
corresponds to the method that you are calling through the P/Invoke layer.
Hope this helps.
--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mv*@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m
"Duncan Mole" <du************ **************@ ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Yx******** *********@newsf e3-gui.ntli.net... Hi all,
Does anyone know of a way to achieve multi-theaded platform invokes? I have been taking quite a performance hit using the syncronised attribute: [MethodImpl(Meth odImplOptions.S ynchronized)].
Cheers
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004
Hi Nicholas,
Thanks for the quick response. I am only assuming that they are not
re-entrant because I was getting exceptions being thrown once I have moved
into mutli-threaded processesing that weren't there in the single threaded
versions: "Object not set to an instance of an object"; I am still in the
process of figuring out why this is. I am thinking maybe its my interop
complaining not the dll - but if I must declare pinvokes as static extern,
how can I avoid it?
I can see how your solution benefits me in that I lock on a single method
rather than the type that owns it however I am working with an encoding dll
that will bottleneck on one particualar method so the improvement will not
be that marked.
"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mv*@spam.guard .caspershouse.c om> wrote in
message news:uK******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl... Duncan,
Are you attributing the actual function delcaration with MethodImpl?
If so, then this is probably a bad idea, since it will lock on the type, and
if you have multiple method definitions on the same type, they will all lock
on the same thing (when it probably isn't required).
Are you sure that your library functions are not re-entrant? Are you sure you have to do this?
If so, then what you should do is create an object (new object()) for each function that you declare. Declare them as private, and then write static wrappers around them. In the static wrapper, lock on the object
that corresponds to the method that you are calling through the P/Invoke layer.
Hope this helps.
-- - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] - mv*@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m
"Duncan Mole" <du************ **************@ ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:Yx******** *********@newsf e3-gui.ntli.net... Hi all,
Does anyone know of a way to achieve multi-theaded platform invokes? I have been taking quite a performance hit using the syncronised attribute: [MethodImpl(Meth odImplOptions.S ynchronized)].
Cheers
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004
Duncan,
If the bottleneck will be on one particular method, then how is it the
synchronization of the calls to the DLL functions which is causing the
bottleneck? Based on what you said, it would seem this is not the case, and
that in fact, something else is amiss.
--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mv*@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m
"Duncan Mole" <du************ **************@ ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:rX******** ********@newsfe 3-gui.ntli.net... Hi Nicholas,
Thanks for the quick response. I am only assuming that they are not re-entrant because I was getting exceptions being thrown once I have moved into mutli-threaded processesing that weren't there in the single threaded versions: "Object not set to an instance of an object"; I am still in the process of figuring out why this is. I am thinking maybe its my interop complaining not the dll - but if I must declare pinvokes as static extern, how can I avoid it?
I can see how your solution benefits me in that I lock on a single method rather than the type that owns it however I am working with an encoding dll that will bottleneck on one particualar method so the improvement will not be that marked.
"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mv*@spam.guard .caspershouse.c om> wrote in message news:uK******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl... Duncan,
Are you attributing the actual function delcaration with MethodImpl? If so, then this is probably a bad idea, since it will lock on the type, and if you have multiple method definitions on the same type, they will all lock on the same thing (when it probably isn't required).
Are you sure that your library functions are not re-entrant? Are you sure you have to do this?
If so, then what you should do is create an object (new object()) for each function that you declare. Declare them as private, and then write static wrappers around them. In the static wrapper, lock on the object that corresponds to the method that you are calling through the P/Invoke layer.
Hope this helps.
-- - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] - mv*@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m
"Duncan Mole" <du************ **************@ ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:Yx******** *********@newsf e3-gui.ntli.net... > Hi all, > > Does anyone know of a way to achieve multi-theaded platform invokes? I > have > been taking quite a performance hit using the syncronised attribute: > [MethodImpl(Meth odImplOptions.S ynchronized)]. > > Cheers > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004 > >
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004
Yeah, thats what I was *slowly* figuring. Can you see a problem with the
following
public static uint EncodeChunk(uin t hbeStream, byte[] buffer, int index,
uint nBytes, byte[] pOutput, ref uint pdwOutput)
{
uint res = 0;
GCHandle handle = GCHandle.Alloc( buffer, GCHandleType.Pi nned);
try
{
IntPtr ptr = (IntPtr)(handle .AddrOfPinnedOb ject().ToInt32( )+index);
res = beEncodeChunk(h beStream, nBytes/2/*Samples*/, ptr, pOutput, ref
pdwOutput);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
MessageBox.Show (e.Message);
}
finally
{
handle.Free();
}
return res;
}
"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mv*@spam.guard .caspershouse.c om> wrote in
message news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. .. Duncan,
If the bottleneck will be on one particular method, then how is it the synchronization of the calls to the DLL functions which is causing the bottleneck? Based on what you said, it would seem this is not the case,
and that in fact, something else is amiss.
-- - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] - mv*@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m
"Duncan Mole" <du************ **************@ ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:rX******** ********@newsfe 3-gui.ntli.net... Hi Nicholas,
Thanks for the quick response. I am only assuming that they are not re-entrant because I was getting exceptions being thrown once I have
moved into mutli-threaded processesing that weren't there in the single
threaded versions: "Object not set to an instance of an object"; I am still in
the process of figuring out why this is. I am thinking maybe its my interop complaining not the dll - but if I must declare pinvokes as static
extern, how can I avoid it?
I can see how your solution benefits me in that I lock on a single
method rather than the type that owns it however I am working with an encoding dll that will bottleneck on one particualar method so the improvement will
not be that marked.
"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mv*@spam.guard .caspershouse.c om> wrote in message news:uK******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl... Duncan,
Are you attributing the actual function delcaration with
MethodImpl? If so, then this is probably a bad idea, since it will lock on the type,
and if you have multiple method definitions on the same type, they will all
lock on the same thing (when it probably isn't required).
Are you sure that your library functions are not re-entrant? Are
you sure you have to do this?
If so, then what you should do is create an object (new object())
for each function that you declare. Declare them as private, and then
write static wrappers around them. In the static wrapper, lock on the object that corresponds to the method that you are calling through the P/Invoke layer.
Hope this helps.
-- - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] - mv*@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m
"Duncan Mole" <du************ **************@ ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:Yx******** *********@newsf e3-gui.ntli.net... > Hi all, > > Does anyone know of a way to achieve multi-theaded platform invokes?
I > have > been taking quite a performance hit using the syncronised attribute: > [MethodImpl(Meth odImplOptions.S ynchronized)]. > > Cheers > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004 > >
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004
Duncan,
Why are you pinning the address of the array? There isn't much reason
to do that, the P/Invoke layer will handle all of that for you (unless the
array is being held by the function somewhere else and operated on outside
of the call).
--
- Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
- mv*@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m
"Duncan Mole" <du************ **************@ ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:zK******** *********@newsf e3-gui.ntli.net... Yeah, thats what I was *slowly* figuring. Can you see a problem with the following
public static uint EncodeChunk(uin t hbeStream, byte[] buffer, int index, uint nBytes, byte[] pOutput, ref uint pdwOutput)
{
uint res = 0;
GCHandle handle = GCHandle.Alloc( buffer, GCHandleType.Pi nned);
try
{
IntPtr ptr = (IntPtr)(handle .AddrOfPinnedOb ject().ToInt32( )+index);
res = beEncodeChunk(h beStream, nBytes/2/*Samples*/, ptr, pOutput, ref pdwOutput);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
MessageBox.Show (e.Message);
}
finally
{
handle.Free();
}
return res;
}
"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mv*@spam.guard .caspershouse.c om> wrote in message news:%2******** ********@TK2MSF TNGP09.phx.gbl. .. Duncan,
If the bottleneck will be on one particular method, then how is it the synchronization of the calls to the DLL functions which is causing the bottleneck? Based on what you said, it would seem this is not the case, and that in fact, something else is amiss.
-- - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] - mv*@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m
"Duncan Mole" <du************ **************@ ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:rX******** ********@newsfe 3-gui.ntli.net... > Hi Nicholas, > > Thanks for the quick response. I am only assuming that they are not > re-entrant because I was getting exceptions being thrown once I have moved > into mutli-threaded processesing that weren't there in the single threaded > versions: "Object not set to an instance of an object"; I am still in the > process of figuring out why this is. I am thinking maybe its my interop > complaining not the dll - but if I must declare pinvokes as static extern, > how can I avoid it? > > I can see how your solution benefits me in that I lock on a single method > rather than the type that owns it however I am working with an encoding > dll > that will bottleneck on one particualar method so the improvement will not > be that marked. > > > "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mv*@spam.guard .caspershouse.c om> > wrote > in > message news:uK******** ******@TK2MSFTN GP12.phx.gbl... >> Duncan, >> >> Are you attributing the actual function delcaration with MethodImpl? > If >> so, then this is probably a bad idea, since it will lock on the type, and > if >> you have multiple method definitions on the same type, they will all lock > on >> the same thing (when it probably isn't required). >> >> Are you sure that your library functions are not re-entrant? Are you >> sure you have to do this? >> >> If so, then what you should do is create an object (new object()) for >> each function that you declare. Declare them as private, and then write >> static wrappers around them. In the static wrapper, lock on the >> object > that >> corresponds to the method that you are calling through the P/Invoke >> layer. >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> >> -- >> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP] >> - mv*@spam.guard. caspershouse.co m >> >> "Duncan Mole" <du************ **************@ ntlworld.com> wrote in >> message >> news:Yx******** *********@newsf e3-gui.ntli.net... >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Does anyone know of a way to achieve multi-theaded platform invokes? I >> > have >> > been taking quite a performance hit using the syncronised attribute: >> > [MethodImpl(Meth odImplOptions.S ynchronized)]. >> > >> > Cheers >> > >> > >> > --- >> > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> > Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004 >> > >> > >> >> > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004 > >
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 16/08/2004
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics |
by: ajikoe |
last post by:
Hello,
Is anyone has experiance in running python code to run multi thread
parallel in multi processor. Is it possible ?
Can python manage which cpu shoud do every thread?
Sincerely Yours,
Pujo
|
by: Frank Jona |
last post by:
Intellisense with C# and a multi-file assembly is not
working. With VB.NET it is working.
Is there a fix availible?
We're using VisualStudio 2003
Regards
Frank
|
by: * ProteanThread * |
last post by:
but depends upon the clique:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=954drf%24oca%241%40agate.berkeley.edu&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522cross%2Bposting%2Bversus%2Bmulti%2Bposting%2522%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%3Den
...
|
by: frankenberry |
last post by:
I have multi-page tiff files. I need to extract individual frames from the
multi-page tiffs and save them as single-page tiffs. 95% of the time I
receive multi-page tiffs containing 1 or more black and white CCITT4
compressed files (frames) inside the tiff. Every now and then I receive a
mixture of black and white CCITT4 and JPEG compressed files, and sometimes
just multi-page tiffs with JPEG only. The code runs great when dealing with
the...
|
by: cody |
last post by:
What are multi file assemblies good for?
What are the advantages of using multiple assemblies (A.DLL+B.DLL) vs. a
single multi file assembly (A.DLL+A.NETMODULE)?
| |
by: mimmo |
last post by:
Hi! I should convert the accented letters of a string in the correspondent
letters not accented. But when I compile with -Wall it give me:
warning: multi-character character constant
Do the problem is the charset? How I can avoid this warning? But the worst
thing isn't the warning, but that the program doesn't work! The program
execute all other operations well, but it don't print the converted
letters: for example, in the string...
|
by: Shane Story |
last post by:
I can seem to get the dimensions of a frame in a multiframe tiff.
After selecting activeframe, the Width/Height is still really much larger
than the page's actual dimensions.
When I split a TIFF to several PNG files this causes a problem, becuase the
resulting image is (the page to the far left and a lot of black space
surrounding it and a filesize that is larger than needed.
Any ideas?
|
by: bobwansink |
last post by:
Hi, I'm relatively new to programming and I would like to create a C++
multi user program. It's for a project for school. This means I will
have to write a paper about the theory too. Does anyone know a good
place to start looking for some theory on the subject of multi user
applications?
I know only bits and pieces, like about transactions, but a compendium
of possible approches to multi user programming would be very
appreciated!
|
by: Sabri.Pllana |
last post by:
We apologize if you receive multiple copies of this call for papers.
***********************************************************************
2008 International Workshop on Multi-Core Computing Systems
(MuCoCoS'08)
Barcelona, Spain, March 4 - 7, 2008; in conjunction with CISIS'08.
<http://www.par.univie.ac.at/~pllana/mucocos08>
***********************************************************************
Context
|
by: mknoll217 |
last post by:
I am recieving this error from my code:
The multi-part identifier "PAR.UniqueID" could not be bound.
The multi-part identifier "Salary.UniqueID" could not be bound.
The multi-part identifier "PAR.UniqueID" could not be bound.
The multi-part identifier "PAR.PAR_Status" could not be bound.
The multi-part identifier "Salary.New_Salary" could not be bound.
The multi-part identifier "Salary.UniqueID" could not be bound.
The multi-part...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it.
First, let's disable language synchronization. With a Microsoft account, language settings sync across devices. To prevent any complications,...
| |
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed.
This is as boiled down as I can make it.
Here is my compilation command:
g++-12 -std=c++20 -Wnarrowing bit_field.cpp
Here is the code in...
|
by: tracyyun |
last post by:
Dear forum friends,
With the development of smart home technology, a variety of wireless communication protocols have appeared on the market, such as Zigbee, Z-Wave, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. Each protocol has its own unique characteristics and advantages, but as a user who is planning to build a smart home system, I am a bit confused by the choice of these technologies. I'm particularly interested in Zigbee because I've heard it does some...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then launch it, all on its own....
Now, this would greatly impact the work of software developers. The idea...
|
by: isladogs |
last post by:
The next Access Europe User Group meeting will be on Wednesday 1 May 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC+1) and finishing by 19:30 (7.30PM).
In this session, we are pleased to welcome a new presenter, Adolph Dupré who will be discussing some powerful techniques for using class modules.
He will explain when you may want to use classes instead of User Defined Types (UDT). For example, to manage the data in unbound forms.
Adolph will...
|
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert into image.
Globals.ThisAddIn.Application.ActiveDocument.Select();...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in the same network. But I'm wondering if it's possible to do the same thing, with 2 Pfsense firewalls...
| |
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
| |