Develop Reference

Event after BackgroundWorker thread is aborted

Perhaps I am over thinking this but I have a number of threads doing a rather lengthy process and I want to be able to cleanly abort them if necessary. This is primarily because I don't want to start new threads until the old ones are finished. Is there a way to tell via Event or other method that a thread is fully aborted? Or should I not worry about this? Currently I have code in my abort method as follows:
private void AbortProcessing()
{
if (!Processing) return;
StopFlag = true;
for (int x = 0; x < MaxThreads; x++)
{
try
{
BW[x].CancelAsync();
}
catch { }
//Processing = false;
}
bool aborted = false;
while (!aborted)
{
aborted = true;
for (int x = 0; x < MaxThreads; x++)
{
if (BW[x].IsBusy) aborted = false;
}
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
The IsBusy is always true, forever, after signalling abort so this doesn't work. Any suggestions?

try this:Simple Sample for this
Thread o;
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
ThreadStart starter = ThreaadFunction;
starter += () => {
//this is this event you want to do any thing after a threaad finished the job
};
o = new Thread(starter) {IsBackground =true };
o.Start();
}
public void ThreaadFunction()
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
// what you do in thread
}
}

Create a multi threaded applications to run multiple queries in c#

I'm trying to build a Windows Forms tool that runs queries asynchronously.
The app has a datagridview with 30 possible queries to run. The user checks the queries he wants to execute, say 10 queries, and hits a button.
The app has a variable called maxthreads = 3 (for the sake of discussion) that indicates how many threads can be used to async run the queries. The queries run on a production environment and we don't want to overload the system with too many threads running in the same time. Each query runs for an average of 30 sec. (some 5 min., others 2 sec.)
In the datagridview there is an image column containing an icon that depicts the status of each query (0- Available to be run, 1-Selected for running, 2- Running, 3- Successfully completed, -1 Error)
I need to be able to communicate with the UI every time a query starts and finishes. Once a query finishes, the results are being displayed in a datagridview contained in a Tabcontrol (one tab per query)
The approach: I was thinking to create a number of maxthread backgroundworkers and let them run the queries. As a backgroundworker finishes it communicates to the UI and is assigned to a new query and so on until all queries have been run.
I tried using an assignmentWorker that would dispatch the work to the background workers but don't know how to wait for all threads to finish. Once a bgw finishes it reports progress on the RunWorkerCompleted event to the assignmentWorker, but that one has already finished.
In the UI thread I call the assignment worker with all the queries that need to be run:
private void btnRunQueries_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (AnyQueriesSelected())
{
tcResult.TabPages.Clear();
foreach (DataGridViewRow dgr in dgvQueries.Rows)
{
if (Convert.ToBoolean(dgr.Cells["chk"].Value))
{
Query q = new Query(dgr.Cells["ID"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["Name"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["FileName"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["ShortDescription"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["LongDescription"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["Level"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["Task"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["Importance"].Value.ToString(),
dgr.Cells["SkillSet"].Value.ToString(),
false,
new Dictionary<string, string>()
{ { "#ClntNb#", txtClntNum.Text }, { "#Staff#", "100300" } });
qryList.Add(q);
}
}
assignmentWorker.RunWorkerAsync(qryList);
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show("Please select at least one query.",
"Warning",
MessageBoxButtons.OK,
MessageBoxIcon.Information);
}
}
Here is the AssignmentWorker:
private void assignmentWorker_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
foreach (Query q in (List<Query>)e.Argument)
{
while (!q.Processed)
{
for (int threadNum = 0; threadNum < maxThreads; threadNum++)
{
if (!threadArray[threadNum].IsBusy)
{
threadArray[threadNum].RunWorkerAsync(q);
q.Processed = true;
assignmentWorker.ReportProgress(1, q);
break;
}
}
//If all threads are being used, sleep awhile before checking again
if (!q.Processed)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
}
}
}
}
All bgw run the same event:
private void backgroundWorkerFiles_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
try
{
Query qry = (Query)e.Argument;
DataTable dtNew = DataAccess.RunQuery(qry).dtResult;
if (dsQryResults.Tables.Contains(dtNew.TableName))
{
dsQryResults.Tables.Remove(dtNew.TableName);
}
dsQryResults.Tables.Add(dtNew);
e.Result = qry;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
}
Once the Query has returned and the DataTable has been added to the dataset:
private void backgroundWorkerFiles_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender,
RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
try
{
if (e.Error != null)
{
assignmentWorker.ReportProgress(-1, e.Result);
}
else
{
assignmentWorker.ReportProgress(2, e.Result);
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
int o = 0;
}
}
The problem I have is that the assignment worker finishes before the bgw finish and the call to assignmentWorker.ReportProgress go to hell (excuse my French).
How can I wait for all the launched bgw to finish before finishing the assignment worker?
Thank you!

As noted in the comment above, you have overcomplicated your design. If you have a specific maximum number of tasks (queries) that should be executing concurrently, you can and should simply create that number of workers, and have them consume tasks from your queue (or list) of tasks until that queue is empty.
Lacking a good Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable code example that concisely and clearly illustrates your specific scenario, it's not feasible to provide code that would directly address your question. But, here's an example using a List<T> as your original code does, which will work as I describe above:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace TestSO42101517WaitAsyncTasks
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Random random = new Random();
int maxTasks = 30,
maxActive = 3,
maxDelayMs = 1000,
currentDelay = -1;
List<TimeSpan> taskDelays = new List<TimeSpan>(maxTasks);
for (int i = 0; i < maxTasks; i++)
{
taskDelays.Add(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(random.Next(maxDelayMs)));
}
Task[] tasks = new Task[maxActive];
object o = new object();
for (int i = 0; i < maxActive; i++)
{
int workerIndex = i;
tasks[i] = Task.Run(() =>
{
DelayConsumer(ref currentDelay, taskDelays, o, workerIndex);
});
}
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for consumer tasks");
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
Console.WriteLine("All consumer tasks completed");
}
private static void DelayConsumer(ref int currentDelay, List<TimeSpan> taskDelays, object o, int workerIndex)
{
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} starting");
while (true)
{
TimeSpan delay;
int delayIndex;
lock (o)
{
delayIndex = ++currentDelay;
if (delayIndex < taskDelays.Count)
{
delay = taskDelays[delayIndex];
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} exiting");
return;
}
}
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} sleeping for {delay.TotalMilliseconds} ms, task #{delayIndex}");
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(delay);
}
}
}
}
In your case, each worker would report progress to some global state. You don't show the ReportProgress handler for your "assignment" worker, so I can't say specifically what this would look like. But presumably it would involve passing either -1 or 2 to some method that knows what to do with those values (i.e. what would otherwise have been your ReportProgress handler).
Note that the code can simplified somewhat, particularly where the individual tasks are consumed, if you use an actual queue data structure for the tasks. That approach would look something like this:
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace TestSO42101517WaitAsyncTasks
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Random random = new Random();
int maxTasks = 30,
maxActive = 3,
maxDelayMs = 1000,
currentDelay = -1;
ConcurrentQueue<TimeSpan> taskDelays = new ConcurrentQueue<TimeSpan>();
for (int i = 0; i < maxTasks; i++)
{
taskDelays.Enqueue(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(random.Next(maxDelayMs)));
}
Task[] tasks = new Task[maxActive];
for (int i = 0; i < maxActive; i++)
{
int workerIndex = i;
tasks[i] = Task.Run(() =>
{
DelayConsumer(ref currentDelay, taskDelays, workerIndex);
});
}
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for consumer tasks");
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
Console.WriteLine("All consumer tasks completed");
}
private static void DelayConsumer(ref int currentDelayIndex, ConcurrentQueue<TimeSpan> taskDelays, int workerIndex)
{
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} starting");
while (true)
{
TimeSpan delay;
if (!taskDelays.TryDequeue(out delay))
{
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} exiting");
return;
}
int delayIndex = System.Threading.Interlocked.Increment(ref currentDelayIndex);
Console.WriteLine($"worker #{workerIndex} sleeping for {delay.TotalMilliseconds} ms, task #{delayIndex}");
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(delay);
}
}
}
}

Synchronization with semaphore

I try to synchronize three threads (named "1", "2" and "3") using Semaphore class. They have to print a string into console respecting consequence: 1->2->3. Here is my code:
class MyThread
{
public Thread Thrd;
static Semaphore sem = new Semaphore(1, 1);
static int flag = 1;
public MyThread(string name)
{
Thrd = new Thread(this.Run);
Thrd.Name = name;
Thrd.Start();
}
void Run()
{
sem.WaitOne();
if (Convert.ToInt32(Thrd.Name) == flag)
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread " + Thrd.Name);
flag++;
}
if (flag == 4)
flag = 1;
Thread.Sleep(300);
sem.Release();
}
}
class SemaphoreDemo
{
static void Main()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
MyThread mt1 = new MyThread("1");
MyThread mt2 = new MyThread("2");
MyThread mt3 = new MyThread("3");
mt1.Thrd.Join();
mt2.Thrd.Join();
mt3.Thrd.Join();
}
}
}
But sometimes strings from threads #2 and #3 are not seen. Where is my mistake and how can I fix this problem?
Thank you very much!

The problem is that sometimes a thread will acquire the semaphore out of order, and you don't have any retry logic. Take a look at your Run method.
void Run()
{
sem.WaitOne();
if (Convert.ToInt32(Thrd.Name) == flag)
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread " + Thrd.Name);
flag++;
}
if (flag == 4)
flag = 1;
Thread.Sleep(300);
sem.Release();
}
Now, what happens if the thread named "3" acquires the semaphore first? flag is equal to 1, so the conditional code won't be executed. The thread will just sleep for 300 milliseconds and then exit. If you want this to work, you have to make the thread retry:
void Run()
{
bool success = false;
while (!success)
{
sem.WaitOne();
if (Convert.ToInt32(Thrd.Name) == flag)
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread " + Thrd.Name);
flag++;
success = true;
}
sem.Release();
if (!success)
{
// let somebody else try
Thread.Sleep(300);
}
}
}
That will make your sample work as expected.
I suspect that this is just an exercise to see how threading and semaphores work. Note, however, that a Mutex is usually more appropriate than a Semaphore with a maximum count of 1.
Note also that there are other ways to make threads execute in sequence, although truthfully if you're going to sequence your threads then you probably don't need more than one thread. Unless those threads are doing other things and they only need to sequence once--or infrequently.

How to stop thread when Lock is encountered?

I have the following code that starts some threads:
List<Stuff> lNewStuff = new List<Stuff>();
// populate lNewStuff
for (int i = 0; i < accounts.Length; i++)
{
Account aTemp = _lAccounts.Find(item => item.ID == accounts[i]);
Thread tTemp = new Thread(() => aTemp.ExecuteMe(lNewStuff));
tTemp.Start();
}
Then in the Account class you have the ExecuteMe method that has a lock:
public class Account
{
private Object lockThis = new Object();
public void ExecuteMe(List<Stuff> lNewStuff)
{
//Ensure only one thread at a time can run this code
lock (lockThis)
{
//main code processing
}
}
}
Now, sometimes the thread starts with lNewStuff == null since it sometimes does not find any New Stuff with the Account ID. This is normal for this project. The thread should always try to run but when null I want this thread to die and not wait when a lock is encountered.
So specifically:
If lNewStuff is null and there is a lock then terminate the thread. (how to do this?)
If lNewStuff is null and there is no lock then run normally (does this already)
If lNewStuff is not null and there is a lock then wait for the lock to finish (does this already)
if lNewStuff is not null and there is no lock then run normally (does this already)

When lNewStuff is null you could use Monitor.TryEnter and only continue if the lock is granted:
public class Account
{
private readonly object lockThis = new object();
public void ExecuteMe(List<Stuff> lNewStuff)
{
bool lockTaken = false;
try
{
if (lNewStuff == null)
{
// non-blocking - only takes the lock if it's available
Monitor.TryEnter(lockThis, ref lockTaken);
}
else
{
// blocking - equivalent to the standard lock statement
Monitor.Enter(lockThis, ref lockTaken);
}
if (lockTaken)
{
// main code processing
}
}
finally
{
if (lockTaken)
{
Monitor.Exit(lockThis);
}
}
}
}

If lNewStuff is null and there is a lock then terminate the thread. (how to do this?) ,
do you want to still start a thread if lNewStuff is Null if answer is no then solution must be very simple.
List<Stuff> lNewStuff = new List<Stuff>();
// populate lNewStuff
for (int i = 0; i < accounts.Length; i++)
{
Account aTemp = _lAccounts.Find(item => item.ID == accounts[i]);
if(lNewStuff!=null)
{
Thread tTemp = new Thread(() => aTemp.ExecuteMe(lNewStuff));
tTemp.Start();
}
}
also you shd create a single lock object
private Object lockThis = new Object(); // this statement is creating new lock object with every account object, and hence does not ensure critical section protection.
Change this to
private static Object lockThis = new Object();

Just to be different:
public class Foo : IDisposable
{
private Semaphore _blocker;
public Foo(int maximumAllowed)
{
_blocker = new Semaphore(1,1);
}
public void Dispose()
{
if(_blocker != null)
{
_blocker.Dispose();
_blocker.Close();
}
}
public void LimitedSpaceAvailableActNow(object id)
{
var gotIn = _blocker.WaitOne(0);
if(!gotIn)
{
Console.WriteLine("ID:{0} - No room!", id);
return;
}
Console.WriteLine("ID:{0} - Got in! Taking a nap...", id);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
_blocker.Release();
}
}
Test rig:
void Main()
{
using(var foo = new Foo(1))
{
Enumerable.Range(0, 10)
.Select(t =>
Tuple.Create(t, new Thread(foo.LimitedSpaceAvailableActNow)))
.ToList()
.AsParallel()
.ForAll(t => t.Item2.Start(t.Item1));
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Output:
ID:4 - Got in! Taking a nap...
ID:8 - No room!
ID:0 - No room!
ID:7 - No room!
ID:2 - No room!
ID:6 - No room!
ID:5 - No room!
ID:9 - No room!
ID:1 - No room!
ID:3 - No room!

Executing method by timer inside threadpool

In my multi threaded web app I invoke in the ThreadPool SomeMethod which can throw an exception. Suppose I want to make a few attempts if it causes an exception at first call. I decide to use System.Timers.Timer inside my action for attempts. Can I use the code below? Is it safely?
static void Caller()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(action =>
{
try
{
SomeMethod();
Console.WriteLine("Done.");
}
catch
{
var t = new System.Timers.Timer(1000);
t.Start();
var count = 0;
t.Elapsed += new System.Timers.ElapsedEventHandler((o, a) =>
{
var timer = o as System.Timers.Timer;
count++;
var done = false;
Exception exception = null;
try
{
Console.WriteLine(count);
SomeMethod();
done = true;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
exception = ex;
}
if (done || count == 10)
{
Console.WriteLine(String.Format("Stopped. done: {0}, count: {1}", done, count));
t.Stop();
if (!done) throw exception;
}
});
}
});
Thread.Sleep(100000);
}
static void SomeMethod()
{
var x = 1 / new Random().Next(0, 2);
}

You should Dispose each Timer after use, that's for sure. But, probably you could do something even simpler:
static void Main()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(action =>
{
while (TrySomeMethod() == false)
Thread.Sleep(1000);
});
// wait here
Console.Read();
}
static bool TrySomeMethod()
{
try
{
SomeMethod();
return true;
}
catch
{
return false;
}
}

I do not think that using a timer in a thread pool thread is a safe approach. I may be wrong, but the timer will raise its elapsed event when the thread method has already been finished to execute. In this case, the exception will be thrown. Also, I do not see that you are not disposing the timer which leads to resource leaks. If you explain why you need the timer, I will try to find a safe solution...

I don't see the point of using a Timer within a ThreadPool queue, because the ThreadPool would spawn a new thread, and the Timer would spawn a new thread as well.
I would just have a loop within that delegate, because it would not block the main thread either way. Groo showed a good example of that.