Develop Reference

C# Multithreading with slots

I have this function which checks for proxy servers and currently it checks only a number of threads and waits for all to finish until the next set is starting. Is it possible to start a new thread as soon as one is finished from the maximum allowed?
for (int i = 0; i < listProxies.Count(); i+=nThreadsNum)
{
for (nCurrentThread = 0; nCurrentThread < nThreadsNum; nCurrentThread++)
{
if (nCurrentThread < nThreadsNum)
{
string strProxyIP = listProxies[i + nCurrentThread].sIPAddress;
int nPort = listProxies[i + nCurrentThread].nPort;
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew<ProxyAddress>(() => CheckProxyServer(strProxyIP, nPort, nCurrentThread)));
}
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
foreach (var tsk in tasks)
{
ProxyAddress result = tsk.Result;
UpdateProxyDBRecord(result.sIPAddress, result.bOnlineStatus);
}
tasks.Clear();
}

This seems much more simple:
int numberProcessed = 0;
Parallel.ForEach(listProxies,
new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = nThreadsNum },
(p)=> {
var result = CheckProxyServer(p.sIPAddress, s.nPort, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
UpdateProxyDBRecord(result.sIPAddress, result.bOnlineStatus);
Interlocked.Increment(numberProcessed);
});
With slots:
var obj = new Object();
var slots = new List<int>();
Parallel.ForEach(listProxies,
new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = nThreadsNum },
(p)=> {
int threadId = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId;
int slot = slots.IndexOf(threadId);
if (slot == -1)
{
lock(obj)
{
slots.Add(threadId);
}
slot = slots.IndexOf(threadId);
}
var result = CheckProxyServer(p.sIPAddress, s.nPort, slot);
UpdateProxyDBRecord(result.sIPAddress, result.bOnlineStatus);
});
I took a few shortcuts there to guarantee thread safety. You don't have to do the normal check-lock-check dance because there will never be two threads attempting to add the same threadid to the list, so the second check will always fail and isn't needed. Secondly, for the same reason, I don't believe you need to ever lock around the outer IndexOf either. That makes this a very highly efficient concurrent routine that rarely locks (it should only lock nThreadsNum times) no matter how many items are in the enumerable.

Another solution is to use a SemaphoreSlim or the Producer-Consumer Pattern using a BlockinCollection<T>. Both solution support cancellation.
SemaphoreSlim
private async Task CheckProxyServerAsync(IEnumerable<object> proxies)
{
var tasks = new List<Task>();
int currentThreadNumber = 0;
int maxNumberOfThreads = 8;
using (semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(maxNumberOfThreads, maxNumberOfThreads))
{
foreach (var proxy in proxies)
{
// Asynchronously wait until thread is available if thread limit reached
await semaphore.WaitAsync();
string proxyIP = proxy.IPAddress;
int port = proxy.Port;
tasks.Add(Task.Run(() => CheckProxyServer(proxyIP, port, Interlocked.Increment(ref currentThreadNumber)))
.ContinueWith(
(task) =>
{
ProxyAddress result = task.Result;
// Method call must be thread-safe!
UpdateProxyDbRecord(result.IPAddress, result.OnlineStatus);
Interlocked.Decrement(ref currentThreadNumber);
// Allow to start next thread if thread limit was reached
semaphore.Release();
},
TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion));
}
// Asynchronously wait until all tasks are completed
// to prevent premature disposal of semaphore
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
}
Producer-Consumer Pattern
// Uses a fixed number of same threads
private async Task CheckProxyServerAsync(IEnumerable<ProxyInfo> proxies)
{
var pipe = new BlockingCollection<ProxyInfo>();
int maxNumberOfThreads = 8;
var tasks = new List<Task>();
// Create all threads (count == maxNumberOfThreads)
for (int currentThreadNumber = 0; currentThreadNumber < maxNumberOfThreads; currentThreadNumber++)
{
tasks.Add(
Task.Run(() => ConsumeProxyInfo(pipe, currentThreadNumber)));
}
proxies.ToList().ForEach(pipe.Add);
pipe.CompleteAdding();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
private void ConsumeProxyInfo(BlockingCollection<ProxyInfo> proxiesPipe, int currentThreadNumber)
{
while (!proxiesPipe.IsCompleted)
{
if (proxiesPipe.TryTake(out ProxyInfo proxy))
{
int port = proxy.Port;
string proxyIP = proxy.IPAddress;
ProxyAddress result = CheckProxyServer(proxyIP, port, currentThreadNumber);
// Method call must be thread-safe!
UpdateProxyDbRecord(result.IPAddress, result.OnlineStatus);
}
}
}

If I'm understanding your question properly, this is actually fairly simple to do with await Task.WhenAny. Basically, you keep a collection of all of the running tasks. Once you reach a certain number of tasks running, you wait for one or more of your tasks to finish, and then you remove the tasks that were completed from your collection and continue to add more tasks.
Here's an example of what I mean below:
var tasks = new List<Task>();
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++)
{
// I want my list of tasks to contain at most 5 tasks at once
if (tasks.Count == 5)
{
// Wait for at least one of the tasks to complete
await Task.WhenAny(tasks.ToArray());
// Remove all of the completed tasks from the list
tasks = tasks.Where(t => !t.IsCompleted).ToList();
}
// Add some task to the list
tasks.Add(Task.Factory.StartNew(async delegate ()
{
await Task.Delay(1000);
}));
}

I suggest changing your approach slightly. Instead of starting and stopping threads, put your proxy server data in a concurrent queue, one item for each proxy server. Then create a fixed number of threads (or async tasks) to work on the queue. This is more likely to provide smooth performance (you aren't starting and stopping threads over and over, which has overhead) and is a lot easier to code, in my opinion.
A simple example:
class ProxyChecker
{
private ConcurrentQueue<ProxyInfo> _masterQueue = new ConcurrentQueue<ProxyInfo>();
public ProxyChecker(IEnumerable<ProxyInfo> listProxies)
{
foreach (var proxy in listProxies)
{
_masterQueue.Enqueue(proxy);
}
}
public async Task RunChecks(int maximumConcurrency)
{
var count = Math.Max(maximumConcurrency, _masterQueue.Count);
var tasks = Enumerable.Range(0, count).Select( i => WorkerTask() ).ToList();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
private async Task WorkerTask()
{
ProxyInfo proxyInfo;
while ( _masterList.TryDequeue(out proxyInfo))
{
DoTheTest(proxyInfo.IP, proxyInfo.Port)
}
}
}

How to create working thread that start on signal and also rest

I want to create a working thread that starts on signal(task was added to shared task list), and will rest when done.
Requirements:
Other system threads can add task any time
the working thread should rest if it has nothing to-do
if more tasks are added while the working thread is active, it should complete them too.
working thread can rest for hours -> work arrive like raindrops(sometime we have a storm)
After thread adds new task to the workingList(shared list) it signals(AutoRestEvent.Set()) the working-thread to start working.
I have race condition between the Set() and the WaitOne() functions.
public static void AddWork(object obj)
{
Monitor.Enter(_syncO);
_workingList.Add(obj);
_signal.Set();
Monitor.Exit(_syncO);
}
static object _syncO = new object();
static AutoResetEvent _signal = new AutoResetEvent(false);
static List<object> _workingList = new List<object>();
static void DoWork()
{
Thread tradeThread1 = new Thread(() =>
{
Thread.CurrentThread.IsBackground = true;
string tradeMessage = string.Empty;
while (true)
{
Monitor.Enter(_syncO);
var arr = _workingList.ToArray();
Monitor.Exit(_syncO);
// race condition when the set happens just before the
// thread was locked
if (arr.Count() == 0)
_signal.WaitOne();
Monitor.Enter(_syncO);
arr = _workingList.ToArray();
Monitor.Exit(_syncO);
int count = 0;
var deleteList = new List<object>();
while (true)
{
foreach (var item in arr)
{
// the value is changing every iteration.
// this is why I need the Sleep at the end
bool b = Handle4(item);
if (b)
deleteList.Add(item);
}
if (count == 100)
break;
Thread.Sleep(100);
count++;
}
// remove done tasks from _workingList
RemoveItems(deleteList);
// we can't close, so we re-set footprints(notifications) on our price cable. -> execute on broker tick(the right tick)
// reHang trade on cable
foreach (var item in _workingList)
{
// re-use the undeleted tasks
}
}
});
tradeThread1.Start();
}
Based on the help of #John Wu I come up with the following solution:
The BlockingCollection will act as gate for the working thread. each iteration will copy the new task
private static void AddWork(object tap)
{
queue.Add(tap);
}
private static BlockingCollection<object> queue = new BlockingCollection<object>();
static void Work()
{
Thread tradeThread1 = new Thread(() =>
{
while (true)
{
var workingList = new List<object>();
var deleteList = new List<object>();
var reEvaluateList = new List<object>();
while (true)
{
if (workingList.Count() == 0)
{
// thread will wait until new work arrives -> it will start working again on the first task to come in.
workingList.Add(queue.Take());
}
foreach (var item in workingList)
{
bool b = Handle4(item);
if (b)
deleteList.Add(item);
else
item.ExitCounter++;
if (item.ExitCounter == 1000)
reEvaluateList.Add(item);
}
RemoveItems(deleteList, workingList);
// we can't close, so we re-set
// we reevaluate tasks that are working for X amount of time and didn't finish
foreach (var item in reEvaluateList)
ReEvaluate(item);
RemoveItems(reEvaluateList, workingList);
// wait.. the item change-over-time, so a wait is a type of calculation.
Thread.Sleep(100);
// we want to avoid locking if we still have task to process
if (queue.Count() == 0)
continue;
// add new work to local list
workingList.Add(queue.Take());
}
}
});
tradeThread1.Start();
}
It feels a-little-bit messy. Any ideas on how to make it better?

Why this C# code throws SemaphoreFullException?

I have following code which throws SemaphoreFullException, I don't understand why ?
If I change _semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(0, 2) to
_semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(0, int.MaxValue)
then all works fine.
Can anyone please find fault with this code and explain to me.
class BlockingQueue<T>
{
private Queue<T> _queue = new Queue<T>();
private SemaphoreSlim _semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(0, 2);
public void Enqueue(T data)
{
if (data == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("data");
lock (_queue)
{
_queue.Enqueue(data);
}
_semaphore.Release();
}
public T Dequeue()
{
_semaphore.Wait();
lock (_queue)
{
return _queue.Dequeue();
}
}
}
public class Test
{
private static BlockingQueue<string> _bq = new BlockingQueue<string>();
public static void Main()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
_bq.Enqueue("item-" + i);
}
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
Thread t = new Thread(Produce);
t.Start();
}
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
Thread t = new Thread(Consume);
t.Start();
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static Random _random = new Random();
private static void Produce()
{
while (true)
{
_bq.Enqueue("item-" + _random.Next());
Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
}
private static void Consume()
{
while (true)
{
Console.WriteLine("Consumed-" + _bq.Dequeue());
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}

If you want to use the semaphore to control the number of concurrent threads, you're using it wrong. You should acquire the semaphore when you dequeue an item, and release the semaphore when the thread is done processing that item.
What you have right now is a system that allows only two items to be in the queue at any one time. Initially, your semaphore has a count of 2. Each time you enqueue an item, the count is reduced. After two items, the count is 0 and if you try to release again you're going to get a semaphore full exception.
If you really want to do this with a semaphore, you need to remove the Release call from the Enqueue method. And add a Release method to the BlockingQueue class. You then would write:
private static void Consume()
{
while (true)
{
Console.WriteLine("Consumed-" + _bq.Dequeue());
Thread.Sleep(1000);
bq.Release();
}
}
That would make your code work, but it's not a very good solution. A much better solution would be to use BlockingCollection<T> and two persistent consumers. Something like:
private BlockingCollection<int> bq = new BlockingCollection<int>();
void Test()
{
// create two consumers
var c1 = new Thread(Consume);
var c2 = new Thread(Consume);
c1.Start();
c2.Start();
// produce
for (var i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
{
bq.Add(i);
}
bq.CompleteAdding();
c1.Join();
c2.Join();
}
void Consume()
{
foreach (var i in bq.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
Console.WriteLine("Consumed-" + i);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
That gives you two persistent threads consuming the items. The benefit is that you avoid the cost of spinning up a new thread (or having the RTL assign a pool thread) for each item. Instead, the threads do non-busy waits on the queue. You also don't have to worry about explicit locking, etc. The code is simpler, more robust, and much less likely to contain a bug.

NullReferenceException when creating a thread

I was looking at this thread on creating a simple thread pool. There, I came across #MilanGardian's response for .NET 3.5 which was elegant and served my purpose:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace SimpleThreadPool
{
public sealed class Pool : IDisposable
{
public Pool(int size)
{
this._workers = new LinkedList<Thread>();
for (var i = 0; i < size; ++i)
{
var worker = new Thread(this.Worker) { Name = string.Concat("Worker ", i) };
worker.Start();
this._workers.AddLast(worker);
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
var waitForThreads = false;
lock (this._tasks)
{
if (!this._disposed)
{
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
this._disallowAdd = true; // wait for all tasks to finish processing while not allowing any more new tasks
while (this._tasks.Count > 0)
{
Monitor.Wait(this._tasks);
}
this._disposed = true;
Monitor.PulseAll(this._tasks); // wake all workers (none of them will be active at this point; disposed flag will cause then to finish so that we can join them)
waitForThreads = true;
}
}
if (waitForThreads)
{
foreach (var worker in this._workers)
{
worker.Join();
}
}
}
public void QueueTask(Action task)
{
lock (this._tasks)
{
if (this._disallowAdd) { throw new InvalidOperationException("This Pool instance is in the process of being disposed, can't add anymore"); }
if (this._disposed) { throw new ObjectDisposedException("This Pool instance has already been disposed"); }
this._tasks.AddLast(task);
Monitor.PulseAll(this._tasks); // pulse because tasks count changed
}
}
private void Worker()
{
Action task = null;
while (true) // loop until threadpool is disposed
{
lock (this._tasks) // finding a task needs to be atomic
{
while (true) // wait for our turn in _workers queue and an available task
{
if (this._disposed)
{
return;
}
if (null != this._workers.First && object.ReferenceEquals(Thread.CurrentThread, this._workers.First.Value) && this._tasks.Count > 0) // we can only claim a task if its our turn (this worker thread is the first entry in _worker queue) and there is a task available
{
task = this._tasks.First.Value;
this._tasks.RemoveFirst();
this._workers.RemoveFirst();
Monitor.PulseAll(this._tasks); // pulse because current (First) worker changed (so that next available sleeping worker will pick up its task)
break; // we found a task to process, break out from the above 'while (true)' loop
}
Monitor.Wait(this._tasks); // go to sleep, either not our turn or no task to process
}
}
task(); // process the found task
this._workers.AddLast(Thread.CurrentThread);
task = null;
}
}
private readonly LinkedList<Thread> _workers; // queue of worker threads ready to process actions
private readonly LinkedList<Action> _tasks = new LinkedList<Action>(); // actions to be processed by worker threads
private bool _disallowAdd; // set to true when disposing queue but there are still tasks pending
private bool _disposed; // set to true when disposing queue and no more tasks are pending
}
public static class Program
{
static void Main()
{
using (var pool = new Pool(5))
{
var random = new Random();
Action<int> randomizer = (index =>
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}: Working on index {1}", Thread.CurrentThread.Name, index);
Thread.Sleep(random.Next(20, 400));
Console.WriteLine("{0}: Ending {1}", Thread.CurrentThread.Name, index);
});
for (var i = 0; i < 40; ++i)
{
var i1 = i;
pool.QueueTask(() => randomizer(i1));
}
}
}
}
}
I am using this as follows:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
...
...
while(keepRunning)
{
...
pool.QueueTask(() => DoTask(eventObject);
}
...
}
private static void DoTask(EventObject e)
{
// Do some computations
pool.QueueTask(() => DoAnotherTask(eventObject)); // this is a relatively smaller computation
}
I am getting the following exception after running the code for about two days:
Unhandled Exception: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
at System.Collections.Generic.LinkedList`1.InternalInsertNodeBefore(LinkedListNode`1 node, LinkedListNode`1 newNode)
at System.Collections.Generic.LinkedList`1.AddLast(T value)
at MyProg.Pool.Worker()
at System.Threading.ThreadHelper.ThreadStart_Context(Object state)
at System.Threading.ExecutionContext.Run(ExecutionContext executionContext, ContextCallback callback, Object state)
at System.Threading.ThreadHelper.ThreadStart()
I am unable to figure out what is causing this as I am unable to get this error again. Any suggestions on how to fix this?

Seems like access to _workers linked list is not properly synchronized. Consider this scenario:
Lets assume that at some point this._workets list contains one item.
First thread calls this._workers.AddLast(Thread.CurrentThread); but gets interrupted at a very special place - inside AddLast() method:
public void AddLast(LinkedListNode<T> node)
{
this.ValidateNewNode(node);
if (this.head == null)
{
this.InternalInsertNodeToEmptyList(node);
}
else
{
// here we got interrupted - the list was not empty,
// but it would be pretty soon, and this.head becomes null
// InternalInsertNodeBefore() does not expect that
this.InternalInsertNodeBefore(this.head, node);
}
node.list = (LinkedList<T>) this;
}
Other thread calls this._workers.RemoveFirst();. There is no lock() around that statement so it completes and now list is empty. AddLast() now should call InternalInsertNodeToEmptyList(node); but it can't as the condition was already evaluated.
Putting a simple lock(this._tasks) around single this._workers.AddLast() line should prevent such scenario.
Other bad scenarios include adding item to the same list at the same time by two threads.

Think I found the issue. The code sample has a missed lock()
private void Worker()
{
Action task = null;
while (true) // loop until threadpool is disposed
{
lock (this._tasks) // finding a task needs to be atomic
{
while (true) // wait for our turn in _workers queue and an available task
{
....
}
}
task(); // process the found task
this._workers.AddLast(Thread.CurrentThread);
task = null;
}
}
The lock should be extended or wrapped around this._workers.AddLast(Thread.CurrentThread);
If you look at the other code that modifies LinkedList (Pool.QueueTask), it is wrapped in a lock.

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.