Related
When do you use threads in a application? For example, in simple CRUD operations, use of smtp, calling webservices that may take a few time if the server is facing bandwith issues, etc.
To be honest, i don't know how to determine if i need to use a thread (i know that it must be when we're excepting that a operation will take a few time to be done).
This may be a "noob" question but it'll be great if you share with me your experience in threads.
Thanks
I added C# and .NET tags to your question because you mention C# in your title. If that is not accurate, feel free to remove the tags.
There are different styles of multithreading. For example, there are asynchronous operations with callback functions. .NET 4 introduces the parallel Linq library. The style of multithreading you would use, or whether to use any at all, depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
Parallel execution, such as what parallel Linq would generally be trying to do, takes advantage of multiple processor cores executing instructions that do not need to wait for data from each other. There are many sources for such algorithms outside Linq, such as this. However, it is possible that parallel execution may be unable to you or that it does not suit your application.
More traditional multithreading takes advantage of threading within the .NET library (in this case) as provided by System.Thread. Remember that there is some overhead in starting processes on threads, so only use threads when the advantages of doing so outweigh this overhead. Generally speaking, you would only want to use this type of single-processor multithreading when the task running under the thread will have long gaps in which the processor could be doing something else. For example, I/O from hard disk (and, consequently, from a database system that uses one) is many orders of magnitude slower than memory access. Network access can also be slow, as another example. Multithreading could allow another process to be running while waiting for these slow (compared to the processor) operations to complete.
Another example when I have used traditional multithreading is to cache some values the first time a particular ASP.NET page is accessed within a session. I kick off a thread so that the user does not have to wait for the caching to complete before interacting with the page. I also regulate the behavior when the caching does not complete before the user requests another page so that, if the caching does not complete, it is not a problem. It simply makes some further requests faster that were previously too slow.
Consider also the cost that multithreading has to the maintainability of your application. Threaded applications can be harder to debug, for example.
I hope this answers your question at least somewhat.
Joseph Albahari summarized it very well here:
Maintaining a responsive user interface
Making efficient use of an otherwise blocked CPU
Parallel programming
Speculative execution
Allowing requests to be processed simultaneously
One reason to use threads is to split large, CPU-bound tasks across a number of CPUs/cores, to finish faster. Another is to let an extended task execute asynchronously, so the foreground can remain responsive while it runs.
Your examples seem to be concentrating on the second of these. While it can be a good reason, if you can use asynchronous I/O instead, that's usually preferable (e.g., almost anything using sockets can/will be better off using the socket(s) asynchronously). Asynchronous I/O is easier to cancel, and it'll usually have lower CPU overhead as well.
You can use threads when you need different execution paths. This leads(when done correctly) to more responsive and/or faster applications but also leads to more complex code and debugging.
In a simple CRUD scenario maybe is not that useful, but maybe your UI is consuming a slow web service. If you your code is tied to your UI thread you will have unresponsive UI between the service calls.
In that case, using System.Threading.Threads maybe be overkill because you don't need so much control. Using a BackgrounWorker maybe a better choice.
Threading is something difficult to master, but the benefits when used correctly are huge, performance is the most common.
Somehow you have answered your question by yourself. Using threads whenever you execute time consuming operations is right choice. Also you should it in situations when you want to make things faster. For example you want to process some amount of files - each file can be processed by different thread.
By using threads you can better utilize power of multi-core/processor machines.
Monitoring some data in background of your application.
There are dozens of such scenarios.
Realising my comment might suffice as an answer ...
I like to view multi-threading scenarios from a resource perspective. In other words, UI (graphics), networking, disk IO, CPU (cores), RAM etc. I find that helps when deciding where to use multi-threading in the general sense at least.
The reasoning behind this is simply that I can take advantage of one resource on a specific thread (eg. Disk IO) while at the same time using another thread to accomplish something else using a different resource.
I'm working on a ASP.NET website that on some requests will run a very lengthy caching process. I'm wondering what happens exactly if the execution timeout is reached while it is still running in terms of how the code handles it.
Particularly I am wondering about things like if the code is in the try of a try/finally block will the finally still be run?
Also given I am not sure I want the caching to terminate even if it goes on that long is there a way with spawning new threads, etc. that I can circumvent this execution timeout? I am thinking it would be much nicer to return to the user immediately and say "a cache build is happening" rather than just letting them time out. I have recently started playing with some locking code to make sure only one cache build happens at a time but am thinking about extending this to make it run out of sync.
I've not really played with creating threads and such like myself so am not sure exactly how they work, particularly in terms of interacting with ASP.NET. eg if the parent thread that launched it is terminated will that have any effect on the spawned thread?
I know there is kind of a lot of different questions in here and I can split them if that is deemed best but they all seem to go together... I'll try to summarise the questions though:
Will a finally block still be executed if a thread is terminated by ASP.NET while in the try block
Would newly created threads be subject to the same timeouts as the original thread?
Would newly created threads die at the same time as the parent thread that created them?
And the general one of what is the best way to do long running background processes on an ASP.NET site?
Sorry for some noobish questions, I've never really played with threads and they still intimidate me a bit (my brain says they are hard). I could probably test the answer to a lot of tehse questions but I wouldn't be confident enough of my tests. :)
Edit to add:
In response to Capital G:
The problem I have is that the ASp.NET execution timeout is currently set to one hour which is not always long enough for some of these processes I reckon. I've put some stuff in with locks to prevent more than one person setting off these long processes and I was worried the locks might not be released (which if finally blocks aren't always run might happen I guess).
Your comments on not running long processes in ASP.NET is why I was thinking of moving them to other threads rather than blocking the request thread but I don't know if that still counts as running within the ASP.NET architecture that you said was bad.
The code is not actually mine so I'm not allowed (and not sure I 100% understand it enough) to rework it into a service though that is certainly where it would best live.
Would using a BackgroundWorker process for something that could take an hour be feasible in this situation (with respect to comments on long running processes in ASP.NET). I would then make request return a "Cache is building" page until its finished and then go back to serving normally... Its all a bit of a nightmare but its my job so I've got to find a way to improve it. :)
Interesting question, just tested and no it's not guaranteed to execute the code in the finally block, if a thread is aborted it could stop at any point in the processing. You can design some sanity checking and other mechanisms to handle special cleanup routines and such but it has a lot to do with your thread handling as well.
Not necessarily, it depends on how your implementing your threads. If you are working with threads yourself, then you can easily get into situations where the parent thread is killed while it's child threads are still out there processing, you generally want to do some cleanup in the parent thread that ends the child threads as well. Some objects might do a lot of this for you as well, so it's a tough call to say one way or the other. Never assume this at the very least.
No, not necessarily, don't assume this at least, again has to do with your design and whether your doing threading yourself or using some higher level threading object/pattern. I would never assume this regardless.
I don't recommend long running processes within the ASP.NET architecture, unless its within the typical timeout, if it's 10-20s okay but if it's minutes, no, the reason is resource usage within ASP.NET and it's awfully bad on a user. That being said you could perform asynchronous operations where you hand off the work to the server, then you return back to the user when the processing is finished, (this is great for those 10-20s+ processes), the user can be given a little animation or otherwise not have their browser all stuck for that long waiting for whatever is happening on the server to happen.
If it is a long running process, things that take greater than 30-60s+, unless it absolutely has to be done in ASP.NET due to the nature of the process, I suggest moving it to a windows service and schedule it in some way to occur when required.
Note: Threading CAN be complicated, it's not that it's hard so much as that you have to be very aware of what your doing, which requires a firm understanding of what threads are and how they work, I'm no expert, but I'm also not completely new and I'll tell you that in most situations you don't need to get into the realm of threading, even when it seems like you do, if you must however, I would suggest looking into the BackgroundWorker object as they are simplified for the purposes of doing batched processing etc. (honestly for many situations that DO need threads, this is usually a very simple solution).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
Long or time consuming processes to be started behind the web-page; it should not hit the ASP.NET execution time out; the user page should be freed; running the requests under lock etc. All these situation points towards using async services. In one of the products, where I architected, used services for such scenarios. The service exposes some async method to initiate. The status of the progress can be queried using another method. Every request is given some id and no duplicate requests are fired ever. The progress proceeds even if the user logs out. The user can see the results at a later time.
If you have looked at such options already, let me know if there is any issue. Or if you are yet to look in this direction, please get it this way. For any help, just send in your comments.
In a previous question, I made a bit of a faux pas. You see, I'd been reading about threads and had got the impression that they were the tastiest things since kiwi jello.
Imagine my confusion then, when I read stuff like this:
[T]hreads are A Very Bad Thing. Or, at least, explicit management of threads is a bad thing
and
Updating the UI across threads is usually a sign that you are abusing threads.
Since I kill a puppy every time something confuses me, consider this your chance get your karma back in the black...
How should I be using thread?
Enthusiam for learning about threading is great; don't get me wrong. Enthusiasm for using lots of threads, by contrast, is symptomatic of what I call Thread Happiness Disease.
Developers who have just learned about the power of threads start asking questions like "how many threads can I possible create in one program?" This is rather like an English major asking "how many words can I use in a sentence?" Typical advice for writers is to keep your sentences short and to the point, rather than trying to cram as many words and ideas into one sentence as possible. Threads are the same way; the right question is not "how many can I get away with creating?" but rather "how can I write this program so that the number of threads is the minimum necessary to get the job done?"
Threads solve a lot of problems, it's true, but they also introduce huge problems:
Performance analysis of multi-threaded programs is often extremely difficult and deeply counterintuitive. I've seen real-world examples in heavily multi-threaded programs in which making a function faster without slowing down any other function or using more memory makes the total throughput of the system smaller. Why? Because threads are often like streets downtown. Imagine taking every street and magically making it shorter without re-timing the traffic lights. Would traffic jams get better, or worse? Writing faster functions in multi-threaded programs drives the processors towards congestion faster.
What you want is for threads to be like interstate highways: no traffic lights, highly parallel, intersecting at a small number of very well-defined, carefully engineered points. That is very hard to do. Most heavily multi-threaded programs are more like dense urban cores with stoplights everywhere.
Writing your own custom management of threads is insanely difficult to get right. The reason is because when you are writing a regular single-threaded program in a well-designed program, the amount of "global state" you have to reason about is typically small. Ideally you write objects that have well-defined boundaries, and that do not care about the control flow that invokes their members. You want to invoke an object in a loop, or a switch, or whatever, you go right ahead.
Multi-threaded programs with custom thread management require global understanding of everything that a thread is going to do that could possibly affect data that is visible from another thread. You pretty much have to have the entire program in your head, and understand all the possible ways that two threads could be interacting in order to get it right and prevent deadlocks or data corruption. That is a large cost to pay, and highly prone to bugs.
Essentially, threads make your methods lie. Let me give you an example. Suppose you have:
if (!queue.IsEmpty) queue.RemoveWorkItem().Execute();
Is that code correct? If it is single threaded, probably. If it is multi-threaded, what is stopping another thread from removing the last remaining item after the call to IsEmpty is executed? Nothing, that's what. This code, which locally looks just fine, is a bomb waiting to go off in a multi-threaded program. Basically that code is actually:
if (queue.WasNotEmptyAtSomePointInThePast) ...
which obviously is pretty useless.
So suppose you decide to fix the problem by locking the queue. Is this right?
lock(queue) {if (!queue.IsEmpty) queue.RemoveWorkItem().Execute(); }
That's not right either, necessarily. Suppose the execution causes code to run which waits on a resource currently locked by another thread, but that thread is waiting on the lock for queue - what happens? Both threads wait forever. Putting a lock around a hunk of code requires you to know everything that code could possibly do with any shared resource, so that you can work out whether there will be any deadlocks. Again, that is an extremely heavy burden to put on someone writing what ought to be very simple code. (The right thing to do here is probably to extract the work item in the lock and then execute it outside the lock. But... what if the items are in a queue because they have to be executed in a particular order? Now that code is wrong too because other threads can then execute later jobs first.)
It gets worse. The C# language spec guarantees that a single-threaded program will have observable behaviour that is exactly as the program is specified. That is, if you have something like "if (M(ref x)) b = 10;" then you know that the code generated will behave as though x is accessed by M before b is written. Now, the compiler, jitter and CPU are all free to optimize that. If one of them can determine that M is going to be true and if we know that on this thread, the value of b is not read after the call to M, then b can be assigned before x is accessed. All that is guaranteed is that the single-threaded program seems to work like it was written.
Multi-threaded programs do not make that guarantee. If you are examining b and x on a different thread while this one is running then you can see b change before x is accessed, if that optimization is performed. Reads and writes can logically be moved forwards and backwards in time with respect to each other in single threaded programs, and those moves can be observed in multi-threaded programs.
This means that in order to write multi-threaded programs where there is a dependency in the logic on things being observed to happen in the same order as the code is actually written, you have to have a detailed understanding of the "memory model" of the language and the runtime. You have to know precisely what guarantees are made about how accesses can move around in time. And you cannot simply test on your x86 box and hope for the best; the x86 chips have pretty conservative optimizations compared to some other chips out there.
That's just a brief overview of just a few of the problems you run into when writing your own multithreaded logic. There are plenty more. So, some advice:
Do learn about threading.
Do not attempt to write your own thread management in production code.
Use higher-level libraries written by experts to solve problems with threads. If you have a bunch of work that needs to be done in the background and want to farm it out to worker threads, use a thread pool rather than writing your own thread creation logic. If you have a problem that is amenable to solution by multiple processors at once, use the Task Parallel Library. If you want to lazily initialize a resource, use the lazy initialization class rather than trying to write lock free code yourself.
Avoid shared state.
If you can't avoid shared state, share immutable state.
If you have to share mutable state, prefer using locks to lock-free techniques.
Explicit management of threads is not intrinsically a bad thing, but it's frought with dangers and shouldn't be done unless absolutely necessary.
Saying threads are absolutely a good thing would be like saying a propeller is absolutely a good thing: propellers work great on airplanes (when jet engines aren't a better alternative), but wouldn't be a good idea on a car.
You cannot appreciate what kind of problems threading can cause unless you've debugged a three-way deadlock. Or spent a month chasing a race condition that happens only once a day. So, go ahead and jump in with both feet and make all the kind of mistakes you need to make to learn to fear the Beast and what to do to stay out of trouble.
There's no way I could offer a better answer than what's already here. But I can offer a concrete example of some multithreaded code that we actually had at my work that was disastrous.
One of my coworkers, like you, was very enthusiastic about threads when he first learned about them. So there started to be code like this throughout the program:
Thread t = new Thread(LongRunningMethod);
t.Start(GetThreadParameters());
Basically, he was creating threads all over the place.
So eventually another coworker discovered this and told the developer responsible: don't do that! Creating threads is expensive, you should use the thread pool, etc. etc. So a lot of places in the code that originally looked like the above snippet started getting rewritten as:
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(LongRunningMethod, GetThreadParameters());
Big improvement, right? Everything's sane again?
Well, except that there was a particular call in that LongRunningMethod that could potentially block -- for a long time. Suddenly every now and then we started seeing it happen that something our software should have reacted to right away... it just didn't. In fact, it might not have reacted for several seconds (clarification: I work for a trading firm, so this was a complete catastrophe).
What had ended up happening was that the thread pool was actually filling up with long-blocking calls, leading to other code that was supposed to happen very quickly getting queued up and not running until significantly later than it should have.
The moral of this story is not, of course, that the first approach of creating your own threads is the right thing to do (it isn't). It's really just that using threads is tough, and error-prone, and that, as others have already said, you should be very careful when you use them.
In our particular situation, many mistakes were made:
Creating new threads in the first place was wrong because it was far more costly than the developer realized.
Queuing all background work on the thread pool was wrong because it treated all background tasks indiscriminately and did not account for the possibility of asynchronous calls actually being blocked.
Having a long-blocking method by itself was the result of some careless and very lazy use of the lock keyword.
Insufficient attention was given to ensuring that the code that was being run on background threads was thread-safe (it wasn't).
Insufficient thought was given to the question of whether making a lot of the affected code multithreaded was even worth doing to begin with. In plenty of cases, the answer was no: multithreading just introduced complexity and bugs, made the code less comprehensible, and (here's the kicker): hurt performance.
I'm happy to say that today, we're still alive and our code is in a much healthier state than it once was. And we do use multithreading in plenty of places where we've decided it's appropriate and have measured performance gains (such as reduced latency between receiving a market data tick and having an outgoing quote confirmed by the exchange). But we learned some pretty important lessons the hard way. Chances are, if you ever work on a large, highly multithreaded system, you will too.
Unless you are on the level of being able to write a fully-fledged kernel scheduler, you will get explicit thread management always wrong.
Threads can be the most awesome thing since hot chocolate, but parallel programming is incredibly complex. However, if you design your threads to be independent then you can't shoot yourself in the foot.
As fore rule of the thumb, if a problem is decomposed into threads, they should be as independent as possible, with as few but well defined shared resources as possible, with the most minimalistic management concept.
I think the first statement is best explained as such: with the many advanced APIs now available, manually writing your own thread code is almost never necessary. The new APIs are a lot easier to use, and a lot harder to mess up!. Whereas, with the old-style threading, you have to be quite good to not mess up. The old-style APIs (Thread et. al.) are still available, but the new APIs (Task Parallel Library, Parallel LINQ, and Reactive Extensions) are the way of the future.
The second statement is from more of a design perspective, IMO. In a design that has a clean separation of concerns, a background task should not really be reaching directly into the UI to report updates. There should be some separation there, using a pattern like MVVM or MVC.
I would start by questioning this perception:
I'd been reading about threads and had got the impression that they were the tastiest things since kiwi jello.
Don’t get me wrong – threads are a very versatile tool – but this degree of enthusiasm seems weird. In particular, it indicates that you might be using threads in a lot of situations where they simply don’t make sense (but then again, I might just mistake your enthusiasm).
As others have indicated, thread handling is additionally quite complex and complicated. Wrappers for threads exist and only in rare occasions do they have to be handled explicitly. For most applications, threads can be implied.
For example, if you just want to push a computation to the background while leaving the GUI responsive, a better solution is often to either use callback (that makes it seem as though the computation is done in the background while really being executed on the same thread), or by using a convenience wrapper such as the BackgroundWorker that takes and hides all the explicit thread handling.
A last thing, creating a thread is actually very expensive. Using a thread pool mitigates this cost because here, the runtime creates a number of threads that are subsequently reused. When people say that explicit management of threads is bad, this is all they might be referring to.
Many advanced GUI Applications usually consist of two threads, one for the UI, one (or sometimes more) for Processing of data (copying files, making heavy calculations, loading data from a database, etc).
The processing threads shouldn't update the UI directly, the UI should be a black box to them (check Wikipedia for Encapsulation).
They just say "I'm done processing" or "I completed task 7 of 9" and call an Event or other callback method. The UI subscribes to the event, checks what has changed and updates the UI accordingly.
If you update the UI from the Processing Thread you won't be able to reuse your code and you will have bigger problems if you want to change parts of your code.
I think you should experiement as much as possible with Threads and get to know the benefits and pitfalls of using them. Only by experimentation and usage will your understanding of them grow. Read as much as you can on the subject.
When it comes to C# and the userinterface (which is single threaded and you can only modify userinterface elements on code executed on the UI thread). I use the following utility to keep myself sane and sleep soundly at night.
public static class UIThreadSafe {
public static void Perform(Control c, MethodInvoker inv) {
if(c == null)
return;
if(c.InvokeRequired) {
c.Invoke(inv, null);
}
else {
inv();
}
}
}
You can use this in any thread that needs to change a UI element, like thus:
UIThreadSafe.Perform(myForm, delegate() {
myForm.Title = "I Love Threads!";
});
A huge reason to try to keep the UI thread and the processing thread as independent as possible is that if the UI thread freezes, the user will notice and be unhappy. Having the UI thread be blazing fast is important. If you start moving UI stuff out of the UI thread or moving processing stuff into the UI thread, you run a higher risk of having your application become unresponsive.
Also, a lot of the framework code is deliberately written with the expectation that you will separate the UI and processing; programs will just work better when you separate the two out, and will hit errors and problems when you don't. I don't recall any specifics issues that I encountered as a result of this, though I have vague recollections of in the past trying to set certain properties of stuff the UI was responsible for outside of the UI and having the code refuse to work; I don't recall whether it didn't compile or it threw an exception.
Threads are a very good thing, I think. But, working with them is very hard and needs a lot of knowledge and training. The main problem is when we want to access shared resources from two other threads which can cause undesirable effects.
Consider classic example: you have a two threads which get some items from a shared list and after doing something they remove the item from the list.
The thread method that is called periodically could look like this:
void Thread()
{
if (list.Count > 0)
{
/// Do stuff
list.RemoveAt(0);
}
}
Remember that the threads, in theory, can switch at any line of your code that is not synchronized. So if the list contains only one item, one thread could pass the list.Count condition, just before list.Remove the threads switch and another thread passes the list.Count (list still contains one item). Now the first thread continues to list.Remove and after that second thread continues to list.Remove, but the last item already has been removed by the first thread, so the second one crashes. That's why it would have to be synchronized using lock statement, so that there can't be a situation where two threads are inside the if statement.
So that is the reason why UI which is not synchronized must always run in a single thread and no other thread should interfere with UI.
In previous versions of .NET if you wanted to update UI in another thread, you would have to synchronize using Invoke methods, but as it was hard enough to implement, new versions of .NET come with BackgroundWorker class which simplifies a thing by wrapping all the stuff and letting you do the asynchronous stuff in a DoWork event and updating UI in ProgressChanged event.
A couple of things are important to note when updating the UI from a non-UI thread:
If you use "Invoke" frequently, the performance of your non-UI thread may be severely adversely affected if other stuff makes the UI thread run sluggishly. I prefer to avoid using "Invoke" unless the non-UI thread needs to wait for the UI-thread action to be performed before it continues.
If you use "BeginInvoke" recklessly for things like control updates, an excessive number of invocation delegates may get queued, some of which may well be pretty useless by the time they actually occur.
My preferred style in many cases is to have each control's state encapsulated in an immutable class, and then have a flag which indicates whether an update is not needed, pending, or needed but not pending (the latter situation may occur if a request is made to update a control before it is fully created). The control's update routine should, if an update is needed, start by clearing the update flag, grabbing the state, and drawing the control. If the update flag is set, it should re-loop. To request another thread, a routine should use Interlocked.Exchange to set the update flag to update pending and--if it wasn't pending--try to BeginInvoke the update routine; if the BeginInvoke fails, set the update flag to "needed but not pending".
If an attempt to control occurs just after the control's update routine checks and clears its update flag, it may well happen that the first update will reflect the new value but the update flag will have been set anyway, forcing an extra screen redraw. On the occasions when this happens, it will be relatively harmless. The important thing is that the control will end up being drawn in the correct state, without there ever having been more than one BeginInvoke pending.
I've read that threads are very problematic. What alternatives are available? Something that handles blocking and stuff automatically?
A lot of people recommend the background worker, but I've no idea why.
Anyone care to explain "easy" alternatives? The user will be able to select the number of threads to use (depending on their speed needs and computer power).
Any ideas?
To summarize the problems with threads:
if threads share memory, you can get
race conditions
if you avoid races by liberally using locks, you
can get deadlocks (see the dining philosophers problem)
An example of a race: suppose two threads share access to some memory where a number is stored. Thread 1 reads from the memory address and stores it in a CPU register. Thread 2 does the same. Now thread 1 increments the number and writes it back to memory. Thread 2 then does the same. End result: the number was only incremented by 1, while both threads tried to increment it. The outcome of such interactions depend on timing. Worse, your code may seem to work bug-free but once in a blue moon the timing is wrong and bad things happen.
To avoid these problems, the answer is simple: avoid sharing writable memory. Instead, use message passing to communicate between threads. An extreme example is to put the threads in separate processes and communicate via TCP/IP connections or named pipes.
Another approach is to share only read-only data structures, which is why functional programming languages can work so well with multiple threads.
This is a bit higher-level answer, but it may be useful if you want to consider other alternatives to threads. Anyway, most of the answers discussed solutions based on threads (or thread pools) or maybe tasks from .NET 4.0, but there is one more alternative, which is called message-passing. This has been successfuly used in Erlang (a functional language used by Ericsson). Since functional programming is becoming more mainstream in these days (e.g. F#), I thought I could mention it. In genral:
Threads (or thread pools) can usually used when you have some relatively long-running computation. When it needs to share state with other threads, it gets tricky (you have to correctly use locks or other synchronization primitives).
Tasks (available in TPL in .NET 4.0) are very lightweight - you can split your program into thousands of tasks and then let the runtime run them (it will use optimal number of threads). If you can write your algorithm using tasks instead of threads, it sounds like a good idea - you can avoid some synchronization when you run computation using smaller steps.
Declarative approaches (PLINQ in .NET 4.0 is a great option) if you have some higher-level data processing operation that can be encoded using LINQ primitives, then you can use this technique. The runtime will automatically parallelize your code, because LINQ doesn't specify how exactly should it evaluate the results (you just say what results you want to get).
Message-passing allows you two write program as concurrently running processes that perform some (relatively simple) tasks and communicate by sending messages to each other. This is great, because you can share some state (send messages) without the usual synchronization issues (you just send a message, then do other thing or wait for messages). Here is a good introduction to message-passing in F# from Robert Pickering.
Note that the last three techniques are quite related to functional programming - in functional programming, you desing programs differently - as computations that return result (which makes it easier to use Tasks). You also often write declarative and higher-level code (which makes it easier to use Declarative approaches).
When it comes to actual implementation, F# has a wonderful message-passing library right in the core libraries. In C#, you can use Concurrency & Coordination Runtime, which feels a bit "hacky", but is probably quite powerful too (but may look too complicated).
Won't the parallel programming options in .Net 4 be an "easy" way to use threads? I'm not sure what I'd suggest for .Net 3.5 and earlier...
This MSDN link to the Parallel Computing Developer Center has links to lots of info on Parellel Programming including links to videos, etc.
I can recommend this project. Smart Thread Pool
Project Description
Smart Thread Pool is a thread pool written in C#. It is far more advanced than the .NET built-in thread pool.
Here is a list of the thread pool features:
The number of threads dynamically changes according to the workload on the threads in the pool.
Work items can return a value.
A work item can be cancelled.
The caller thread's context is used when the work item is executed (limited).
Usage of minimum number of Win32 event handles, so the handle count of the application won't explode.
The caller can wait for multiple or all the work items to complete.
Work item can have a PostExecute callback, which is called as soon the work item is completed.
The state object, that accompanies the work item, can be disposed automatically.
Work item exceptions are sent back to the caller.
Work items have priority.
Work items group.
The caller can suspend the start of a thread pool and work items group.
Threads have priority.
Can run COM objects that have single threaded apartment.
Support Action and Func delegates.
Support for WindowsCE (limited)
The MaxThreads and MinThreads can be changed at run time.
Cancel behavior is imporved.
"Problematic" is not the word I would use to describe working with threads. "Tedious" is a more appropriate description.
If you are new to threaded programming, I would suggest reading this thread as a starting point. It is by no means exhaustive but has some good introductory information. From there, I would continue to scour this website and other programming sites for information related to specific threading questions you may have.
As for specific threading options in C#, here's some suggestions on when to use each one.
Use BackgroundWorker if you have a single task that runs in the background and needs to interact with the UI. The task of marshalling data and method calls to the UI thread are handled automatically through its event-based model. Avoid BackgroundWorker if (1) your assembly does not already reference the System.Windows.Form assembly, (2) you need the thread to be a foreground thread, or (3) you need to manipulate the thread priority.
Use a ThreadPool thread when efficiency is desired. The ThreadPool helps avoid the overhead associated with creating, starting, and stopping threads. Avoid using the ThreadPool if (1) the task runs for the lifetime of your application, (2) you need the thread to be a foreground thread, (3) you need to manipulate the thread priority, or (4) you need the thread to have a fixed identity (aborting, suspending, discovering).
Use the Thread class for long-running tasks and when you require features offered by a formal threading model, e.g., choosing between foreground and background threads, tweaking the thread priority, fine-grained control over thread execution, etc.
Any time you introduce multiple threads, each running at once, you open up the potential for race conditions. To avoid these, you tend to need to add synchronization, which adds complexity, as well as the potential for deadlocks.
Many tools make this easier. .NET has quite a few classes specifically meant to ease the pain of dealing with multiple threads, including the BackgroundWorker class, which makes running background work and interacting with a user interface much simpler.
.NET 4 is going to do a lot to ease this even more. The Task Parallel Library and PLINQ dramatically ease working with multiple threads.
As for your last comment:
The user will be able to select the number of threads to use (depending on their speed needs and computer power).
Most of the routines in .NET are built upon the ThreadPool. In .NET 4, when using the TPL, the work load will actually scale at runtime, for you, eliminating the burden of having to specify the number of threads to use. However, there are ways to do this now.
Currently, you can use ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads to help limit the number of threads generated. In TPL, you can specify ParallelOptions.MaxDegreesOfParallelism, and pass an instance of the ParallelOptions into your routine to control this. The default behavior scales up with more threads as you add more processing cores, which is usually the best behavior in any case.
Threads are not problematic if you understand what causes problems with them.
For ex. if you avoid statics, you know which API's to use (e.g. use synchronized streams), you will avoid many of the issues that come up for their bad utilization.
If threading is a problem (this can happen if you have unsafe/unmanaged 3rd party dll's that cannot support multithreading. In this can an option is to create a meachism to queue the operations. ie store the parameters of the action to a database and just run through them one at a time. This can be done in a windows service. Obviously this will take longer but in some cases is the only option.
Threads are indispensable tools for solving many problems, and it behooves the maturing developer to know how to effectively use them. But like many tools, they can cause some very difficult-to-find bugs.
Don't shy away from some so useful just because it can cause problems, instead study and practice until you become the go-to guy for multi-threaded apps.
A great place to start is Joe Albahari's article: http://www.albahari.com/threading/.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
When should I not use the ThreadPool in .Net?
It looks like the best option is to use a ThreadPool, in which case, why is it not the only option?
What are your experiences around this?
#Eric, I'm going to have to agree with Dean. Threads are expensive. You can't assume that your program is the only one running. When everyone is greedy with resources, the problem multiplies.
I prefer to create my threads manually and control them myself. It keeps the code very easy to understand.
That's fine when it's appropriate. If you need a bunch of worker threads, though, all you've done is make your code more complicated. Now you have to write code to manage them. If you just used a thread pool, you'd get all the thread management for free. And the thread pool provided by the language is very likely to be more robust, more efficient, and less buggy than whatever you roll for yourself.
Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(DoSomething));
t.Start();
t.Join();
I hope that you would normally have some additional code in between Start() and Join(). Otherwise, the extra thread is useless, and you're wasting resources for no reason.
People are way too afraid of the resources used by threads. I've never seen creating and starting a thread to take more than a millisecond. There is no hard limit on the number of threads you can create. RAM usage is minimal. Once you have a few hundred threads, CPU becomes an issue because of context switches, so at that point you might want to get fancy with your design.
A millisecond is a long time on modern hardware. That's 3 million cycles on a 3GHz machine. And again, you aren't the only one creating threads. Your threads compete for the CPU along with every other program's threads. If you use not-quite-too-many threads, and so does another program, then together you've used too many threads.
Seriously, don't make life more complex than it needs to be. Don't use the thread pool unless you need something very specific that it offers.
Indeed. Don't make life more complex. If your program needs multiple worker threads, don't reinvent the wheel. Use the thread pool. That's why it's there. Would you roll your own string class?
The only reason why I wouldn't use the ThreadPool for cheap multithreading is if I need to…
interract with the method running (e.g., to kill it)
run code on a STA thread (this happened to me)
keep the thread alive after my application has died (ThreadPool threads are background threads)
in case I need to change the priority of the Thread. We can not change priority of threads in ThreadPool which is by default Normal.
P.S.: The MSDN article "The Managed Thread Pool" contains a section titled, "When Not to Use Thread Pool Threads", with a very similar but slightly more complete list of possible reasons for not using the thread pool.
There are lots of reasons why you would need to skip the ThreadPool, but if you don't know them then the ThreadPool should be good enough for you.
Alternatively, look at the new Parallel Extensions Framework, which has some neat stuff in there that may suit your needs without having to use the ThreadPool.
To quarrelsome's answer, I would add that it's best not to use a ThreadPool thread if you need to guarantee that your thread will begin work immediately. The maximum number of running thread-pooled threads is limited per appdomain, so your piece of work may have to wait if they're all busy. It's called "queue user work item", after all.
Two caveats, of course:
You can change the maximum number of thread-pooled threads in code, at runtime, so there's nothing to stop you checking the current vs maximum number and upping the maximum if required.
Spinning up a new thread comes with its own time penalty - whether it's worthwhile for you to take the hit depends on your circumstances.
Thread pools make sense whenever you have the concept of worker threads. Any time you can easily partition processing into smaller jobs, each of which can be processed independently, worker threads (and therefore a thread pool) make sense.
Thread pools do not make sense when you need thread which perform entirely dissimilar and unrelated actions, which cannot be considered "jobs"; e.g., One thread for GUI event handling, another for backend processing. Thread pools also don't make sense when processing forms a pipeline.
Basically, if you have threads which start, process a job, and quit, a thread pool is probably the way to go. Otherwise, the thread pool isn't really going to help.
I'm not speaking as someone with only
theoretical knowledge here. I write
and maintain high volume applications
that make heavy use of multithreading,
and I generally don't find the thread
pool to be the correct answer.
Ah, argument from authority - but always be on the look out for people who might be on the Windows kernel team.
Neither of us were arguing with the fact that if you have some specific requirements then the .NET ThreadPool might not be the right thing. What we're objecting to is the trivialisation of the costs to the machine of creating a thread.
The significant expense of creating a thread at the raison d'etre for the ThreadPool in the first place. I don't want my machines to be filled with code written by people who have been misinformed about the expense of creating a thread, and don't, for example, know that it causes a method to be called in every single DLL which is attached to the process (some of which will be created by 3rd parties), and which may well hot-up a load of code which need not be in RAM at all and almost certainly didn't need to be in L1.
The shape of the memory hierarchy in a modern machine means that 'distracting' a CPU is about the worst thing you can possibly do, and everybody who cares about their craft should work hard to avoid it.
When you're going to perform an operation that is going to take a long time, or perhaps a continuous background thread.
I guess you could always push the amount of threads available in the pool up but there would be little point in incurring the management costs of a thread that is never going to be given back to the pool.
Threadpool threads are appropriate for tasks that meet both of the following criteria:
The task will not have to spend any significant time waiting for something to happen
Anything that's waiting for the task to finish will likely be waiting for many tasks to finish, so its scheduling priority isn't apt to affect things much.
Using a threadpool thread instead of creating a new one will save a significant but bounded amount of time. If that time is significant compared with the time it will take to perform a task, a threadpool task is likely appropriate. The longer the time required to perform a task, however, the smaller the benefit of using the threadpool and the greater the likelihood of the task impeding threadpool efficiency.
MSDN has a list some reasons here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/0ka9477y.aspx
There are several scenarios in which it is appropriate to create and
manage your own threads instead of using thread pool threads:
You require a foreground thread.
You require a thread to have a particular priority.
You have tasks that cause the thread to block for long periods of time. The thread pool has a maximum number of threads, so a large
number of blocked thread pool threads might prevent tasks from
starting.
You need to place threads into a single-threaded apartment. All ThreadPool threads are in the multithreaded apartment.
You need to have a stable identity associated with the thread, or to dedicate a thread to a task.
#Eric
#Derek, I don't exactly agree with the scenario you use as an example. If you don't know exactly what's running on your machine and exactly how many total threads, handles, CPU time, RAM, etc, that your app will use under a certain amount of load, you are in trouble.
Are you the only target customer for the programs you write? If not, you can't be certain about most of that. You generally have no idea when you write a program whether it will execute effectively solo, or if it will run on a webserver being hammered by a DDOS attack. You can't know how much CPU time you are going to have.
Assuming your program's behavior changes based on input, it's rare to even know exactly how much memory or CPU time your program will consume. Sure, you should have a pretty good idea about how your program is going to behave, but most programs are never analyzed to determine exactly how much memory, how many handles, etc. will be used, because a full analysis is expensive. If you aren't writing real-time software, the payoff isn't worth the effort.
In general, claiming to know exactly how your program will behave is far-fetched, and claiming to know everything about the machine approaches ludicrous.
And to be honest, if you don't know exactly what method you should use: manual threads, thread pool, delegates, and how to implement it to do just what your application needs, you are in trouble.
I don't fully disagree, but I don't really see how that's relevant. This site is here specifically because programmers don't always have all the answers.
If your application is complex enough to require throttling the number of threads that you use, aren't you almost always going to want more control than what the framework gives you?
No. If I need a thread pool, I will use the one that's provided, unless and until I find that it is not sufficient. I will not simply assume that the provided thread pool is insufficient for my needs without confirming that to be the case.
I'm not speaking as someone with only theoretical knowledge here. I write and maintain high volume applications that make heavy use of multithreading, and I generally don't find the thread pool to be the correct answer.
Most of my professional experience has been with multithreading and multiprocessing programs. I have often needed to roll my own solution as well. That doesn't mean that the thread pool isn't useful, or appropriate in many cases. The thread pool is built to handle worker threads. In cases where multiple worker threads are appropriate, the provided thread pool should should generally be the first approach.