C# how can I make this function run in parallel ?

Question

0.00/5 (No votes)

See more:

C# How can I make this function run in parallel using more threads or processor cores to be faster?

C#

<pre> public void ReadAOB(string Scancode)
        {
            if ((int)processhandle > 0)
            {
                IntPtr bytesRead = IntPtr.Zero;
                long MaxAddress = 0;
                if(isbit64)
                     MaxAddress = 0x7fffffffffffffff;
                else
                    MaxAddress = 0x7fffffff;
                long address = 0;
                addresses.Clear();
                do
                {
                    MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION m;
                    int result = VirtualQueryEx(processhandle, (IntPtr)address, out m, (uint)Marshal.SizeOf(typeof(MEMORY_BASIC_INFORMATION)));

                    if (m.Protect == AllocationProtectEnum.PAGE_READWRITE)
                    {
                        byte[] buffer = new byte[(int)m.RegionSize];
                        // IntPtr buffer = IntPtr.Zero;
                        ReadProcessMemory(processhandle, m.BaseAddress, buffer, (int)m.RegionSize, out bytesRead);
                        BoyerAlgo(m.BaseAddress, buffer, Scancode, ref addresses);
                    }
                    if (address == (long)m.BaseAddress + (long)m.RegionSize)
                        break;
                    address = (long)m.BaseAddress + (long)m.RegionSize;
                } while (address <= MaxAddress);

            }
        }

What I have tried:

It works but when it goes to the memory scan takes a long time to finish.

Posted 31-Mar-18 5:40am

ShakalX

Updated 31-Mar-18 8:06am

Add a Solution

2 solutions

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Uroš Šmon · Answer 1 · 2018-03-31T08:08:00

Solution 2

You can try to solve in few steps
1. Put your complete do loop in new method with parameters start and end address
2. Divide complete memory range (currently 0 to MaxAddress) into several ranges
3. Call new method with Task.Run and parameters start and end memory range from step 2
4. Await all tasks to finish with Task.Await

For best performance, you should try and determine how many tasks in parallel is optimal on you computer.

Posted 31-Mar-18 8:08am

Uroš Šmon

Comments

Jon McKee 31-Mar-18 15:10pm

Using this kind of approach, Parallel.For would be easier and handle the optimal parallelism for you :)

ShakalX 1-Apr-18 11:51am

My problem is that I do not know how to implement this. Where can I find a freelancer to do this for me?
I'm an apprentice yet.

Uroš Šmon 2-Apr-18 8:07am

This is programmer helping programmer site, not freelancer find site.
So sory, you will have to look elsewhere

ShakalX 2-Apr-18 9:47am

its ok. ^^

Patrice T · Answer 2 · 2018-03-31T06:08:00

Solution 1

Not the answer you are looking for, but another problem.

C++

unsigned long MaxAddress = 0;
if(isbit64)
     MaxAddress = 0xffffffffffffffff;
else
    MaxAddress = 0xffffffff;

Addresses are never negative, they are unsigned, this error make you miss half of the range.
There is no need to initialize to zero because you store real value just after.

Posted 31-Mar-18 6:08am

Patrice T

Comments

ShakalX 31-Mar-18 12:26pm

oh thanks =) So can you start on how much?