Is a mutex defined statically in a function body able to lock properly? I am currently using this pattern in my logger system, but I have not tested it's thread safety yet.
I have the following class:Which is being used like this:When the EnqueueMessage method is called from my CreateBooking method the program hangs and does not go any further after hitting the line await topicClient.SendAsync(message.ToServiceBusMessage());
I have a requirement of locking several objects in one method in my java class. For an example look at the following class:
After Googling a lot, I found multiple definitions for volatile keyword.Concept 1:Some Website says, it is thread safe, as thread acts on the main memory where volatile keyword is stored and modifies it without pulling it to thread stack space.
Atomic newbie here. My code currently looks like this (simplified):In words, my idea is to let thread_b atomically swap the shared object (double-buffering), while thread_a performs some work on it. My question: can I safely assume that the shared object will be "protected" against data races while thread_a calls doSomething()...
I have a simple program that searches linearly in an array of 2D points. I do 1000 searches into an array of 1 000 000 points.
I have a singleton object that process requests. Each request takes around one millisecond to be completed, usually less. This object is not thread-safe and it expects requests in a particular format, encapsulated in the Request class, and returns the result as Response. This processor has another producer/consumer that sends/receives...
I just wonder what's the method for? In what kind of scenario I can use this method. My initial thought is RunSynchronously is for calling an async method and running that synchronously without causing a deadlock issue like what .wait() does.
With Java instruction reordering the execution order of the code is changed by the JVM at compile time or run time, possibly causing unrelated statements to be executed out-of-order.
Based on the info of the output, can anyone explains the code below? How can all of (a==1 && a==2 && a==3) be true?