I am very new with motorola mc3190 and c#. I can't deploy my application anymore cause the .exe file is in use by another process. I found that process but I can't kill it. How can I kill a process hanging on my mc3190?
Francesco
To stop a process from being hung make sure you are disposing of all of your objects on exiting.. i just noticed that i would have background processors running on similar devices if i hadn't disposed of the scanner object or etc...
Try disconnecting then reconnecting from your base if you are using a base with USB tether. If that doesn't work, then try doing a warm boot on the device (usually by holding down the power button for five seconds on this series of devices).
Related
We have a process (written in c++ /managed), which receives network data via tcpip.
After running the process for a while while tracking network load, it seems that network get into freeze state and the process does not getting data, there are other processes in the system that using networking (same nic) which operates normally.
the process gets out of this frozen situation by itself after several minutes.
Any idea what is happening?
Any counter i can track to see if my process reach some limitations ?
It is going to be very difficult to answer specifically,
-- without knowing what exactly is your process/application about,
-- whether it is a network chat application, or a file server/client, or ......
-- without other details about your process how it is implemented, what libraries it uses, if relevant to problem.
Also you haven't mentioned what OS and environment you are running this process under,
there is very little anyone can help . It could be anything, a busy wait loopl in your code, locking problems if its a multi-threaded code,....
Nonetheless , here are some options to check:
If its linux try below commands to debug and monitor the behaviour of the process and see what could be problem-
top
Check top to see ow much resources(CPU, memory) your process is using and if there is anything abnormally high values in CPU usage for it.
pstack
This should stack frames of the process executing at time of the problem.
netstat
Run this with necessary options (tcp/udp) to check what is the stae of the network sockets opened by your process
gcore -s -c
This forces your process to core when the mentioned problem happens, and then analyze that core file using gdb
gdb
and then use command where at gdb prompt to get full back trace of the process (which functions it was executing last and previous function calls.
I need to implement (in Qt) some solution to communicate between two programs running on Linux machine. One program is Worker, and the second is Watchdog. Basically I need Watchdog to periodically check on Worker and in case something wrong (no process,hangup - no answer from Worker) kill Worker (if present) and start it again.
Worker runs as a daemon, so I think starting it from unix /etc/init.d/worker would be appropriate.
I can see two solutions
Unix signals - both of them can send and receive Unix SIGUSR1
Shared memory
Which one to choose?
With signals both of programs will have to know others pid, probably reading from filesystem /var/run so it looks like a drawback.
With shared memory, all I need is "key" that programs will have hardcoded, so no need to read pids from filesystem. Since Watchdog should start first it can create shared mem segment, and Worker will only attach to it and maybe update its timestamp value??? However, to stop Worker by Watchdog (in case of hungup) Watchdog will still need Worker pid to send him SIGKILL, maybe it can read it from shared mem? Both concepts are new to me.
So what is the proper way to build reliable Watchdog, or am I missing something?
best regards
Marek
I think this is the best solution available through Qt:
http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qlocalsocket.html
http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qlocalserver.html
The QLocalSocket class provides a local socket. On Windows this is a
named pipe and on Unix this is a local domain socket.
http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/ipc-localfortuneserver.html
http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/ipc-localfortuneclient.html
Hope that helps.
I accidentally wrote a while loop that would never break in a kernel and I sent this to the GPU. After 30 seconds my screens started flickering, I realised what I have done and terminated the application by force. The problem is that I had to shut down the computer afterwards to make sure the kernels are gone. Therefore my questions are:
If I forcefully terminate the program (the program that's launching the kernels) without it freeing the GPU resources (freeing buffers, queues, kernels, CL.destroying) will the kernels still run?
If they are still running can I do anything to stop them? Say, like, release resources I don't have a handle to any more.
If you are using an NVIDIA card, then by terminating the application you will eventually free the resources on the card to allow it to run again. This is because NVIDIA has a watchdog monitor on the device (which you can turn off).
If you are using an AMD card, you are out of luck AFAIK and will have to restart the machine after every crash.
We're preparing an application using Qt that has a main process that controls the GUI and spawns processes that do the actual data processing. Messages are exchanged between the main process and the data-processing processes using the Qt mechanisms and the stdin/stdout pipes.
Now, in the event that the GUI crashes, the other processes keep running. What we'd like to be able to do is to, when a new GUI starts, reconnect to these processes as before. Anyone know if this is possible, and if so, how to achieve it?
This is possible if you are using a named pipe for communicating with the process. stdin/out are closed if the process they belong to is terminated.
You might want to investigate shared memory for the communication between processes. I seem to recall that it was able to recover in a very similar situation at a previous job.
Another possibility, if your platform supports it, is to use dbus for the communication between processes. If that is the case, neither process would have to be there, but will act get the appropriate messages if it is running.
A bit of history: We have an application, which was originally written many years ago (1998 is the first date in PVCS but the app is about 5 years older than that as it originally was a DOS program). This application communicates with a piece of hardware via serial. When we got to Windows XP we started receiving reports of the app dying after a short time of running. It seems that the serial comms just 'died' and the app was left in a stuck state. The only way to recover from this situation was to restart the application.
The only information I can find regarding this problem was apparently the Windows Message system would miss that information was received, the buffer would fill and the system would get stuck. This snippet of information was left in a old word document, but there's no evidence to back this up. It also mentions that this is only prevalent at high baud rates (115200+).
The solution was to provide customers with USB->Serial converters along with the hardware.
Today: We are working on a new version of the hardware that will run across a network as well as serial ports. So to allow me to work on the network code, minus the actual hardware we are using a VSCOM NetCom113 device. It also installs a virtual comm port on the users (ie: mine) machine.
Now I have got the network code integrated with the app, it appears that the NetCom device exhibits the same behaviour as a physical commport. This is undesirable as I need the app to run longer than ~30 seconds.
Google turns up zero problems that we experience.
I was wondering:
Has anyone experienced this before? If so what did you do to fix/workaround the problem?
Does anyone have any suggestions as to whether the original author of the document is correct and what I can do to test the theory?
Unfortunately I can't post code as the serial code is tightly couple with the rest of the system, though if you have questions regarding it I can answer questions about it.
Updates:
The code is written using Win32 Comm routines - so I am using CreateFile, ReadFile. There's also judicious calls to GetOverlappedResult.
It's not hanging per se, it's just that the comms stops. You can access the menus, click the buttons, but nothing can interact with the connected hardware. Using realterm you can see that no data is coming in or going out.
I think the reference to the windows message is that the problem is internal to windows. Data has arrived but the kernal has missed it and thus not told the rest of the system about it.
Flow control is not used.
Writing a 'simple' test is difficult due the the fact that the code is tightly coupled and the underlying protocol is quite complex and would require a lot of work.
Are you using DOS-style serial code, or the Win32 CreateFile approach?
If the former, be very suspicious: if at all possible I'd convert to the latter.
If the latter, do you know on what kind of system call it's hanging? Are you in a blocking read call? or an overlapped I/O call? or waiting on an event? (I'm not sure I have enough experience to help, but those are the kinds of questions that come to mind)
You might also check into the queue size, which you can set with the SetupComm function.
I don't buy the "Windows Message system" stuff -- it sounds fishy; you can write good Win32 serial i/o code that never uses Windows messages.
edit: does your Overlapped I/O use events? I seem to remember something about auto-reset events occasionally missing their trigger... check your overlapped I/O calls very carefully to see whether you're handling the possible outcomes properly. Perhaps there's a way to make your code more robust by automatically cancelling the overlapped i/o and restarting another read. (I assume the problem is in the read half, not the write half?)
edit 2: A suggestion: assuming the win32 side has missed a byte or packet, and your devices are in deadlock because they're both expecting each other to respond to something, can you tweak the other side of the serial I/O to regularly send some type of "ping" packet with an incrementing counter? (and log the ping packets on the PC side; that way you can see whether you've missed any)
Are you sure you have your flow control set up correctly? DTR, RTS, etc...
-Adam
i have written apps that use usb / bluetooth serial ports and have never had an issue. with bluetooth i have seen bit rates (sustained) of 800,000 bps for long periods of time. most people don't properly implement the port.
My serial port
Not sure if this is a possibility for you, but if you could re-write the code using C#.NET you'd have access to the SerialPort class there. It might remedy your problem. I know a lot of legacy code based around the Win32 API for hardware I/O ports tended to fail in XP due to timing (had a small bit of experience with MIDI).
In addition, I don't know if you can use the Win32 method of Serial Port access in Vista, so that might shut out future MS OSes from being able to use your code.