we are running an ASP.NET 6 webapplication and are having strange issues with deadlocks.
The app suddenly freezes after some weeks of operations and it seems that it might be caused by our locking mechanism with the SemaphoreSlim class.
I tried to reproduce the issue with a simple test-project and found something strange.
The following code is simply starting 1000 tasks where each is doing some work (requesting semaphore-handle, waiting for 10 ms and releasing the semaphore).
I expected this code to simply execute one task after another. But it freezes because of a deadlock in the first call of the DoWork method (at await Task.Delay(10)).
Does anyone know why this causes a deadlock? I tried exactly the same code with ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem instead of Task.Run and Thread.Sleep instead of Task.Delay and this worked as expected. But as soon as I use the tasks it stops working.
Here is the complete code-snippet:
internal class Program
{
static int timeoutSec = 60;
static SemaphoreSlim semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(1);
static int numPerIteration = 1000;
static int iteration = 0;
static int doneCounter = numPerIteration;
static int successCount = 0;
static int failedCount = 0;
static Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
static Random rnd = new Random();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Task.WaitAll(TestUsingTasks());
}
static async Task TestUsingTasks()
{
while (true)
{
var tasks = new List<Task>();
if (doneCounter >= numPerIteration)
{
doneCounter = 0;
if (iteration >= 1)
{
Log($"+++++ FINISHED TASK ITERATION {iteration} - SUCCESS: {successCount} - FAILURES: {failedCount} - Seconds: {sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds:F1}", ConsoleColor.Magenta);
}
iteration++;
sw.Restart();
for (int i = 0; i < numPerIteration; i++)
{
// Start indepdent tasks to do some work
Task.Run(async () =>
{
if (await DoWork())
{
successCount++;
}
else
{
failedCount++;
}
doneCounter++;
});
}
}
await Task.Delay(10);
}
}
static async Task<bool> DoWork()
{
if (semaphore.Wait(timeoutSec * 1000)) // Request the semaphore to ensure that one 1 task at a time can enter
{
Log($"Got handle for {iteration} within {sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds:F1}", ConsoleColor.Green);
var totalSec = sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds;
await Task.Delay(10); // Wait for 10ms to simulate some work => Deadlock seems to happen here
Log($"RELEASING LOCK handle for {iteration} within {sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds:F1}. WAIT took " + (sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds - totalSec) + " seconds", ConsoleColor.Gray);
semaphore.Release();
return true;
}
else
{
Log($"ERROR: TASK handle failed for {iteration} within {sw.Elapsed.TotalSeconds:F1} sec", ConsoleColor.Red);
return false;
}
}
static void Log(string message, ConsoleColor color)
{
Console.ForegroundColor = color;
Console.WriteLine(message);
Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.White;
}
}
Thanks in advance!
But it freezes because of a deadlock in the first call of the DoWork method (at await Task.Delay(10)).
I would argue that it is not deadlock but a thread starvation issue. If you wait long enough you will see that threads will be able to finish the simulation wait from time to time.
The quick fix here is using non-blocking WaitAsync call with await:
static async Task<bool> DoWork()
{
if (await semaphore.WaitAsync(timeoutSec * 1000))
{
...
}
}
Also note:
It is recommended to wrap the code after Wait.. into try-finally block and release the semaphore in the finally.
Incrementing counters in parallel environments better should be done in atomic fashion, for example with Interlocked.Increment.
Related
In C# I have an example:
public async static Task TaskTest(int i)
{
await Task.Delay(1);
Console.WriteLine($"{i}. {DateTime.Now.ToString("HH:mm:ss fff")} " +
$"ThreadId:{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId} Start");
int count = 1;
while (true)
{
DoSomeThing(count);
var stopWatch = new Stopwatch();
stopWatch.Start();
await Task.Delay(100);
stopWatch.Stop();
if (stopWatch.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds > 200)
Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.Red;
Console.WriteLine($"Id:{count} Time:{DateTime.Now.ToString("HH:mm:ss fff")} " +
$"ThreadID:{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId} Time Delay:{stopWatch.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds }");
Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.White;
count++;
}
}
public async static Task DoSomeThing(int index)
{
await Task.Delay(1);
Task.Delay(1000).Wait();
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
int i = 1;
while (i < 2)
{
TaskTest(i);
Task.Delay(1).Wait();
i++;
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
Here is my result
Result
Id:8 Time:23:03:59 972 ThreadID:12 Time Delay:582.6348
Id:22 Time:23:04:01 974 ThreadID:14 Time Delay:552.7234000000001
Id:42 Time:23:04:04 967 ThreadID:8 Time Delay:907.3214
I don't know why Task sometimes delay more than 200 milliseconds.
Update:
Thank for all answer.
I update my code to use Thread and Thread.Sleep() and Task.Run(). I increase number of Threads run forever to 500. I tested in 30 minutes and 500 threads never sleep more than 200ms.
Do you think that is bad code?
Please leave a comment!
Thank you so much!
public static void TaskTest(object i)
{
Console.WriteLine($"{i} Start");
int count = 1;
while (true)
{
// Open Task to do work
Task.Run(() => { DoSomeThing(count); });
var stopWatch = new Stopwatch();
stopWatch.Start();
Thread.Sleep(100);
stopWatch.Stop();
if (stopWatch.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds > 200)
{
Console.WriteLine($"Id:{count} Time:{DateTime.Now.ToString("HH:mm:ss fff")} " +
$"ThreadID:{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId} Time Delay:{stopWatch.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds }");
}
count++;
}
}
public static void DoSomeThing(int index)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000); // Time spent complete work
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
int i = 0;
while (i < 500)
{
// Open Thread for TaskTest
Thread tesThread = new Thread(TaskTest);
tesThread.IsBackground = true;
tesThread.Start(i);
i++;
}
Console.WriteLine("Finish init");
Console.ReadKey();
}
Task.Delay, like any other multi-threaded sleep function, yields the thread it's running on back to the system (or in the case of the thread pool, back to the thread pool scheduler), asking to be re-scheduled some time after the amount of time specified.
That is the only guarantee you have, that it will wait at least the amount specified. How long it will actually wait heavily depends on your thread pool load (you're delaying an awful lot of tasks there), general system load (there's thousands of threads at any given point in time to be scheduled on an average computer OS) and on your CPU&OS's capability to schedule threads quickly (in Windows, look at timeBeginPeriod).
Long story short, if precise timing matters to you, don't relinquish your thread.
I have some code that runs thousands of URLs through a third party library. Occasionally the method in the library hangs which takes up a thread. After a while all threads are taken up by processes doing nothing and it grinds to a halt.
I am using a SemaphoreSlim to control adding new threads so I can have an optimal number of tasks running. I need a way to identify tasks that have been running too long and then to kill them but also release a thread from the SemaphoreSlim so a new task can be created.
I am struggling with the approach here so I made some test code that immitates what I am doing. It create tasks that have a 10% chance of hanging so very quickly all threads have hung.
How should I be checking for these and killing them off?
Here is the code:
class Program
{
public static SemaphoreSlim semaphore;
public static List<Task> taskList;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<string> urlList = new List<string>();
Console.WriteLine("Generating list");
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
//adding random strings to simulate a large list of URLs to process
urlList.Add(Path.GetRandomFileName());
}
Console.WriteLine("Queueing tasks");
semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(10, 10);
Task.Run(() => QueueTasks(urlList));
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void QueueTasks(List<string> urlList)
{
taskList = new List<Task>();
foreach (var url in urlList)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} tasks can enter the semaphore.",
semaphore.CurrentCount);
semaphore.Wait();
taskList.Add(DoTheThing(url));
}
}
static async Task DoTheThing(string url)
{
Random rand = new Random();
// simulate the IO process
await Task.Delay(rand.Next(2000, 10000));
// add a 10% chance that the thread will hang simulating what happens occasionally with http request
int chance = rand.Next(1, 100);
if (chance <= 10)
{
while (true)
{
await Task.Delay(1000000);
}
}
semaphore.Release();
Console.WriteLine(url);
}
}
As people have already pointed out, Aborting threads in general is bad and there is no guaranteed way of doing it in C#. Using a separate process to do the work and then kill it is a slightly better idea than attempting Thread.Abort; but still not the best way to go. Ideally, you want co-operative threads/processes, which use IPC to decide when to bail out themselves. This way the cleanup is done properly.
With all that said, you can use code like below to do what you intend to do. I have written it assuming your task will be done in a thread. With slight changes, you can use the same logic to do your task in a process
The code is by no means bullet-proof and is meant to be illustrative. The concurrent code is not really tested well. Locks are held for longer than needed and some places I am not locking (like the Log function)
class TaskInfo {
public Thread Task;
public DateTime StartTime;
public TaskInfo(ParameterizedThreadStart startInfo, object startArg) {
Task = new Thread(startInfo);
Task.Start(startArg);
StartTime = DateTime.Now;
}
}
class Program {
const int MAX_THREADS = 1;
const int TASK_TIMEOUT = 6; // in seconds
const int CLEANUP_INTERVAL = TASK_TIMEOUT; // in seconds
public static SemaphoreSlim semaphore;
public static List<TaskInfo> TaskList;
public static object TaskListLock = new object();
public static Timer CleanupTimer;
static void Main(string[] args) {
List<string> urlList = new List<string>();
Log("Generating list");
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
//adding random strings to simulate a large list of URLs to process
urlList.Add(Path.GetRandomFileName());
}
Log("Queueing tasks");
semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(MAX_THREADS, MAX_THREADS);
Task.Run(() => QueueTasks(urlList));
CleanupTimer = new Timer(CleanupTasks, null, CLEANUP_INTERVAL * 1000, CLEANUP_INTERVAL * 1000);
Console.ReadLine();
}
// TODO: Guard against re-entrancy
static void CleanupTasks(object state) {
Log("CleanupTasks started");
lock (TaskListLock) {
var now = DateTime.Now;
int n = TaskList.Count;
for (int i = n - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
var task = TaskList[i];
Log($"Checking task with ID {task.Task.ManagedThreadId}");
// kill processes running for longer than anticipated
if (task.Task.IsAlive && now.Subtract(task.StartTime).TotalSeconds >= TASK_TIMEOUT) {
Log("Cleaning up hung task");
task.Task.Abort();
}
// remove task if it is not alive
if (!task.Task.IsAlive) {
Log("Removing dead task from list");
TaskList.RemoveAt(i);
continue;
}
}
if (TaskList.Count == 0) {
Log("Disposing cleanup thread");
CleanupTimer.Dispose();
}
}
Log("CleanupTasks done");
}
static void QueueTasks(List<string> urlList) {
TaskList = new List<TaskInfo>();
foreach (var url in urlList) {
Log($"Trying to schedule url = {url}");
semaphore.Wait();
Log("Semaphore acquired");
ParameterizedThreadStart taskRoutine = obj => {
try {
DoTheThing((string)obj);
} finally {
Log("Releasing semaphore");
semaphore.Release();
}
};
var task = new TaskInfo(taskRoutine, url);
lock (TaskListLock)
TaskList.Add(task);
}
Log("All tasks queued");
}
// simulate all processes get hung
static void DoTheThing(string url) {
while (true)
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
static void Log(string msg) {
Console.WriteLine("{0:HH:mm:ss.fff} Thread {1,2} {2}", DateTime.Now, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString(), msg);
}
}
I have 2 tasks running parallelly and here is the task information.
Task 1 - Launch and run application
Task 2 - Monitor the application run duration. If it exceeds 30 mins, issue a stop command of task 1 application and restart both task.
Task 1 application bit heavy and memory leak prone during longer runs.
I am requesting, how can we implement robust threading solution for this situation.
using QuickTest;
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace TaskParallelExample
{
internal class Program
{
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
Parallel.Invoke(RunApplication, MonitorApplication);
}
private static void RunApplication()
{
Application uftInstance = new Application();
uftInstance.Launch();
QuickTest.Test uftTestInstance = uftInstance.Test;
uftInstance.Open(#"C:\Tasks\Test1");
uftInstance.Test.Run(); // It will may run more then 30 mins or less then also. It it exceeds 30 mins which is calculated from Monitor Application.
}
private static void MonitorApplication()
{
Application uftInstance = new Application();
try
{
DateTime uftTestRunMonitor = DateTime.Now;
int runningTime = (DateTime.Now - uftTestRunMonitor).Minutes;
while (runningTime <= 30)
{
Thread.Sleep(5000);
runningTime = (DateTime.Now - uftTestRunMonitor).Minutes;
if (!uftInstance.Test.IsRunning)
{
break;
}
}
}
catch (Exception exception)
{
//To-do
}
finally
{
if (uftInstance.Test.IsRunning)
{
//Assume it is still running and it is more then 30 mins
uftInstance.Test.Stop();
uftInstance.Test.Close();
uftInstance.Quit();
}
}
}
}
}
Thanks,
Ram
Could you use a CancellationTokenSource with timeout set to 30 mins?
var stopAfter30Mins = new CancellationTokenSource(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(30));
Then you would pass that to your worker method:
var task = Task.Run(() => worker(stopAfter30Mins.Token), stopAfter30Mins.Token);
...
static void worker(CancellationToken cancellation)
{
while (true) // Or until work completed.
{
cancellation.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
Thread.Sleep(1000); // Simulate work.
}
}
Note that if the worker task cannot periodically check the cancellation status, there is NO robust way to handle task timeout.
System.Threading.Tasks.Task do the job
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken token = cts.Token;
Task myTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
for (int i = 0; i < 2000; i++)
{
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
// Body of for loop.
}
}, token);
//Do sometohing else
//if cancel needed
cts.Cancel();
I have a windows service (written in C#) that use the task parallel library dll to perform some parallel tasks (5 tasks a time)
After the tasks are executed once I would like to repeat the same tasks on an on going basis (hourly). Call the QueuePeek method
Do I use a timer or a counter like I have setup in the code snippet below?
I am using a counter to set up the tasks, once I reach five I exit the loop, but I also use a .ContinueWith to decrement the counter, so my thought is that the counter value would be below 5 hence the loop would continue. But my ContinueWith seems to be executing on the main thread and the loop then exits.
The call to DecrementCounter using the ContinueWith does not seem to work
FYI : The Importer class is to load some libraries using MEF and do the work
This is my code sample:
private void QueuePeek()
{
var list = SetUpJobs();
while (taskCounter < 5)
{
int j = taskCounter;
Task task = null;
task = new Task(() =>
{
DoLoad(j);
});
taskCounter += 1;
tasks[j] = task;
task.ContinueWith((t) => DecrementTaskCounter());
task.Start();
ds.SetJobStatus(1);
}
if (taskCounter == 0)
Console.WriteLine("Completed all tasks.");
}
private void DoLoad(int i)
{
ILoader loader;
DataService.DataService ds = new DataService.DataService();
Dictionary<int, dynamic> results = ds.AssignRequest(i);
var data = results.Where(x => x.Key == 2).First();
int loaderId = (int)data.Value;
Importer imp = new Importer();
loader = imp.Run(GetLoaderType(loaderId));
LoaderProcessor lp = new LoaderProcessor(loader);
lp.ExecuteLoader();
}
private void DecrementTaskCounter()
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Decrementing task counter with threadId: {0}",Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId) );
taskCounter--;
}
I see a few issues with your code that can potentially lead to some hard to track-down bugs. First, if using a counter that all of the tasks can potentially be reading and writing to at the same time, try using Interlocked. For example:
Interlocked.Increment(ref _taskCounter); // or Interlocked.Decrement(ref _taskCounter);
If I understand what you're trying to accomplish, I think what you want to do is to use a timer that you re-schedule after each group of tasks is finished.
public class Worker
{
private System.Threading.Timer _timer;
private int _timeUntilNextCall = 3600000;
public void Start()
{
_timer = new Timer(new TimerCallback(QueuePeek), null, 0, Timeout.Infinite);
}
private void QueuePeek(object state)
{
int numberOfTasks = 5;
Task[] tasks = new Task[numberOfTasks];
for(int i = 0; i < numberOfTasks; i++)
{
tasks[i] = new Task(() =>
{
DoLoad();
});
tasks[i].Start();
}
// When all tasks are complete, set to run this method again in x milliseconds
Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAll(tasks, (t) => { _timer.Change(_timeUntilNextCall, Timeout.Infinite); });
}
private void DoLoad() { }
}
I'm running into a common pattern in the code that I'm writing, where I need to wait for all threads in a group to complete, with a timeout. The timeout is supposed to be the time required for all threads to complete, so simply doing Thread.Join(timeout) for each thread won't work, since the possible timeout is then timeout * numThreads.
Right now I do something like the following:
var threadFinishEvents = new List<EventWaitHandle>();
foreach (DataObject data in dataList)
{
// Create local variables for the thread delegate
var threadFinish = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset);
threadFinishEvents.Add(threadFinish);
var localData = (DataObject) data.Clone();
var thread = new Thread(
delegate()
{
DoThreadStuff(localData);
threadFinish.Set();
}
);
thread.Start();
}
Mutex.WaitAll(threadFinishEvents.ToArray(), timeout);
However, it seems like there should be a simpler idiom for this sort of thing.
I still think using Join is simpler. Record the expected completion time (as Now+timeout), then, in a loop, do
if(!thread.Join(End-now))
throw new NotFinishedInTime();
With .NET 4.0 I find System.Threading.Tasks a lot easier to work with. Here's spin-wait loop which works reliably for me. It blocks the main thread until all the tasks complete. There's also Task.WaitAll, but that hasn't always worked for me.
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
tasks[i] = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
DoThreadStuff(localData);
});
}
while (tasks.Any(t => !t.IsCompleted)) { } //spin wait
This doesn't answer the question (no timeout), but I've made a very simple extension method to wait all threads of a collection:
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace Extensions
{
public static class ThreadExtension
{
public static void WaitAll(this IEnumerable<Thread> threads)
{
if(threads!=null)
{
foreach(Thread thread in threads)
{ thread.Join(); }
}
}
}
}
Then you simply call:
List<Thread> threads=new List<Thread>();
//Add your threads to this collection
threads.WaitAll();
Since the question got bumped I will go ahead and post my solution.
using (var finished = new CountdownEvent(1))
{
for (DataObject data in dataList)
{
finished.AddCount();
var localData = (DataObject)data.Clone();
var thread = new Thread(
delegate()
{
try
{
DoThreadStuff(localData);
threadFinish.Set();
}
finally
{
finished.Signal();
}
}
);
thread.Start();
}
finished.Signal();
finished.Wait(YOUR_TIMEOUT);
}
Off the top of my head, why don't you just Thread.Join(timeout) and remove the time it took to join from the total timeout?
// pseudo-c#:
TimeSpan timeout = timeoutPerThread * threads.Count();
foreach (Thread thread in threads)
{
DateTime start = DateTime.Now;
if (!thread.Join(timeout))
throw new TimeoutException();
timeout -= (DateTime.Now - start);
}
Edit: code is now less pseudo. don't understand why you would mod an answer -2 when the answer you modded +4 is exactly the same, only less detailed.
This may not be an option for you, but if you can use the Parallel Extension for .NET then you could use Tasks instead of raw threads and then use Task.WaitAll() to wait for them to complete.
I read the book C# 4.0: The Complete Reference of Herbert Schildt. The author use join to give a solution :
class MyThread
{
public int Count;
public Thread Thrd;
public MyThread(string name)
{
Count = 0;
Thrd = new Thread(this.Run);
Thrd.Name = name;
Thrd.Start();
}
// Entry point of thread.
void Run()
{
Console.WriteLine(Thrd.Name + " starting.");
do
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
Console.WriteLine("In " + Thrd.Name +
", Count is " + Count);
Count++;
} while (Count < 10);
Console.WriteLine(Thrd.Name + " terminating.");
}
}
// Use Join() to wait for threads to end.
class JoinThreads
{
static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("Main thread starting.");
// Construct three threads.
MyThread mt1 = new MyThread("Child #1");
MyThread mt2 = new MyThread("Child #2");
MyThread mt3 = new MyThread("Child #3");
mt1.Thrd.Join();
Console.WriteLine("Child #1 joined.");
mt2.Thrd.Join();
Console.WriteLine("Child #2 joined.");
mt3.Thrd.Join();
Console.WriteLine("Child #3 joined.");
Console.WriteLine("Main thread ending.");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
I was tying to figure out how to do this but i could not get any answers from google.
I know this is an old thread but here was my solution:
Use the following class:
class ThreadWaiter
{
private int _numThreads = 0;
private int _spinTime;
public ThreadWaiter(int SpinTime)
{
this._spinTime = SpinTime;
}
public void AddThreads(int numThreads)
{
_numThreads += numThreads;
}
public void RemoveThread()
{
if (_numThreads > 0)
{
_numThreads--;
}
}
public void Wait()
{
while (_numThreads != 0)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(_spinTime);
}
}
}
Call Addthreads(int numThreads) before executing a thread(s).
Call RemoveThread() after each one has completed.
Use Wait() at the point that you want to wait for all the threads to complete
before continuing
Possible solution:
var tasks = dataList
.Select(data => Task.Factory.StartNew(arg => DoThreadStuff(data), TaskContinuationOptions.LongRunning | TaskContinuationOptions.PreferFairness))
.ToArray();
var timeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(1);
Task.WaitAll(tasks, timeout);
Assuming dataList is the list of items and each item needs to be processed in a separate thread.
Here is an implementation inspired by Martin v. Löwis's answer:
/// <summary>
/// Blocks the calling thread until all threads terminate, or the specified
/// time elapses. Returns true if all threads terminated in time, or false if
/// at least one thread has not terminated after the specified amount of time
/// elapsed.
/// </summary>
public static bool JoinAll(IEnumerable<Thread> threads, TimeSpan timeout)
{
ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(threads);
if (timeout < TimeSpan.Zero)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(timeout));
Stopwatch stopwatch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
foreach (Thread thread in threads)
{
if (!thread.IsAlive) continue;
TimeSpan remaining = timeout - stopwatch.Elapsed;
if (remaining < TimeSpan.Zero) return false;
if (!thread.Join(remaining)) return false;
}
return true;
}
For measuring the remaining time, instead of the DateTime.Now it uses a Stopwatch. The Stopwatch component is not sensitive to system-wide clock adjustments.
Usage example:
bool allTerminated = JoinAll(new[] { thread1, thread2 }, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
The timeout must be a positive or zero TimeSpan. The Timeout.InfiniteTimeSpan constant is not supported.