Develop Reference

Deadlock using async Task and SemaphoreSlim

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.

how to run a timer in a finite loop in C#

I have a task where I have to record a video in multiple segments. Let's take the scenario in this way, the user has started recording a video through a webcam and after 5 seconds it has stopped the recording, now we have the value of 5 seconds and our system will start recording the video again for the next 5 seconds and save it in a file. This process will run for multiple times(the value is already set by the user, let's say 3 times).
This is what I want to do in real.
And the Block of code that I shared is an illustration of the real task where code will run a task wait for some time, and repeat the process till it meets a condition which in our case is 3.
This piece of code is working fine but sometimes it skips the counting of seconds. By skipping I mean it will show 1 then lag for 2 seconds then will show 2 and 3 and so on.
I am afraid if I use this technique it might give me the wrong output and I need to be very precise with the recording time.
Is there any way to improve this piece of code?
Stopwatch sw;
private void btnStart_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
sw = new Stopwatch();
timer1.Enabled = true;
sw.Start();
}
int counter = 1;
private void timer1_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (sw.Elapsed > TimeSpan.FromSeconds(4))
{
sw.Reset();
if (counter < 3)
{
sw.Start();
counter++;
}
else
{
sw.Reset();
timer1.Stop();
counter = 0;
MessageBox.Show("Counter has finished +"counter.ToString());
}
}
lblTime.Text = string.Format("{0:hh\\:mm\\:ss}", sw.Elapsed);
}

The question is a bit unclear and doesn't explain what needs to run. That matters.
One way to repeat a 5-second task 3 times would be to use a CancellationTokenSource that triggers after 5 seconds inside a loop. The worker code would have to check a CancellationToken to see when it needs to terminate :
async Task DoWorkAsync(CancellationToken token)
{
while(!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// The Block
}
}
async void btnStart_Clicked(object sender,EventArgs args)
{
var count=3;
var sw = new Stopwatch();
for (int i=0;i<count;i++)
{
sw.Restart();
using var cts=new CancellationTokenSource(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
await DoWorkAsync(cts.Token);
lblTime.Text = $("{sw.Elapsed:hh\\:mm\\:ss}");
}
MessageBox.Show($"Counter has finished + {count}");
}
The UI can be updated after each await call, or through a Progress class. If the code block runs for a long time it can be made to run in the background with Task.Run that can be cancelled using the same token. If the block executes asynchronous operations, they could be cancelled as well :
async Task DoWorkAsync(CancellationToken token,IProgress<string> pg)
{
try
{
while(!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
await Task.Run(()=>{
//Do Work 1
pg.Report("Done 1");
//Do Work 2
pg.Report("Done 2");
},token);
}
}
catch(OperationCanceledException)
{
pg.Report("Time's up!");
}
}
async void btnStart_Clicked(object sender,EventArgs args)
{
var pg=new Progress(DisplayProgress);
var count=3;
var sw = new Stopwatch();
for (int i=0;i<count;i++)
{
sw.Restart();
using var cts=new CancellationTokenSource(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
await DoWorkAsync(cts.Token,pg);
lblTime.Text = $("{sw.Elapsed:hh\\:mm\\:ss}");
}
MessageBox.Show($"Counter has finished + {count}");
}
void DisplayProgress(string msg)
{
lblMessage.Text=msg;
}

How to handle threads that hang when using SemaphoreSlim

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 am working on implementing job queue. Using TPL for the same. Trying to restrict number of jobs at a time using ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads. no luck

****To Restrict the thread :****
int workerThreads, completionPortThreads;
ThreadPool.GetMaxThreads(out workerThreads, out completionPortThreads);
workerThreads = 2;
ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads(workerThreads, completionPortThreads);
To run the job I tried 2 options
Option 1.
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(ThreadProc),task);
Option 2:
Task runner = new Task(() => taskProcessor.ImportIntoArt(task),TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning|TaskCreationOptions.PreferFairness);
runner.Start();
I expect this code has to pick up first two jobs for processing and 3rd one should go in to the queue. As expected first two jobs will start, however 3rd one will also be picked up for processing.
Any help is highly appreciated.

Use the QueuedTaskScheduler from this package in conjunction with Task.Factory.StartNew method:
var scheduler = new QueuedTaskScheduler(TaskScheduler.Default, 2);
var jobAction = new Action<string>(
jobName =>
{
Console.WriteLine("I am job " + jobName + " and I start at " + DateTime.Now.ToLongTimeString());
Thread.Sleep(10000);
Console.WriteLine("I am job " + jobName + " and I finish at " + DateTime.Now.ToLongTimeString());
});
var jobs = Enumerable
.Range(1, 6)
.Select(num => Task.Factory.StartNew(
() => jobAction("Job" + num),
CancellationToken.None,
TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning,
scheduler))
.ToList();
Task.WhenAll(jobs).Wait();

I know you want to achieve this task using TPL, but as #stuartd has made a comment that we can't do that with threadpool, then you can achieve this task traditional way by creating required number of thread and run them infinitely and observe the collection of a task which of type query.
Please refer below code if you want to achieve the task without using other libraries.
//Declare queue of task.
static Queue<int> taskQueue = new Queue<int>();
static readonly object lockObj = new object();
//Get task to perform.
static int? GetNextTask()
{
lock (lockObj)
{
if (taskQueue.Count > 0)
return taskQueue.Dequeue();
else return null;
}
}
//Add task to queue from different thread.
static void AddTask(int task)
{
lock (lockObj)
{
taskQueue.Enqueue(task);
}
}
static void PerformThreadOperation()
{
//Run infinite for current thread.
while (true)
{
var task = GetNextTask();
//If there is task then perform some action else make thread sleep for some time you can set event to resume thread.
if (task.HasValue)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task Initiate => {0}", task.Value);
Thread.Sleep(4000);
Console.WriteLine("Task Complete => {0}", task.Value);
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Task not found, thread is going to be sleep for some moment.");
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} enter in sleep mode.", Thread.CurrentThread.Name);
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
}
}
//Create required thread to process task parallely.
static void TestThreadApplication()
{
Thread thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(PerformThreadOperation));
Thread thread1 = new Thread(PerformThreadOperation);
thread.Start();
thread1.Start();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++)
{
taskQueue.Enqueue(i);
}
TestThreadApplication();
Thread.Sleep(20000);
for (int i = 6; i < 10; i++)
{
taskQueue.Enqueue(i);
}
Console.ReadKey();
}

Waiting for all threads to complete, with a timeout

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.