Develop Reference

Why moving this line cause deadlock?

I think I am missing something obvious here:
Why does this code doesn't cause deadlock:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
object _lock1 = new object();
object _lock2 = new object();
Thread code1 = new Thread(() =>
{
lock (_lock1)
{
lock (_lock2)
{
Console.WriteLine("A");
Thread.Sleep(3000);
}
}
});
Thread code2 = new Thread(() =>
{
lock (_lock2)
{
lock (_lock1)
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
Thread.Sleep(3000);
}
}
});
code1.Start();
code2.Start();
code1.Join();
code2.Join();
Console.WriteLine("Done");
}
But this one does:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
object _lock1 = new object();
object _lock2 = new object();
Thread code1 = new Thread(() =>
{
lock (_lock1)
{
lock (_lock2)
{
Thread.Sleep(3000);
Console.WriteLine("A");
}
}
});
Thread code2 = new Thread(() =>
{
lock (_lock2)
{
Thread.Sleep(3000);
lock (_lock1)
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
}
}
});
code1.Start();
code2.Start();
code1.Join();
code2.Join();
Console.WriteLine("Done");
}

Both code snippets can cause deadlocks and should be avoided. It is just a coincidence, that first snippet didn't get into deadlock. Adding some operation between locks increases probability to get dead lock.
For example, if you add Console.Writeline in between lock1 and lock2 it also increases probability of the deadlock.
You can run your first snippet in loop and receive a deadlock. For example, this code get into deadlock after a while:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
object _lock1 = new object();
object _lock2 = new object();
Thread code1 = new Thread(() =>
{
lock (_lock1)
{
lock (_lock2)
{
Console.WriteLine("A");
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
});
Thread code2 = new Thread(() =>
{
lock (_lock2)
{
lock (_lock1)
{
Console.WriteLine("B");
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
});
code1.Start();
code2.Start();
code1.Join();
code2.Join();
}
Console.WriteLine("Done");
}

Regular Flow "assuming" Thread 1 executes first (this can actually still deadlock if t2 happens to catch l2 before t1):
t1 acquires l1
t1 acquires l2 //before t2..
t1 unlocks l2
t1 unlocks l1
t2 acquires l2
t2 sleeps
t2 acquires l1
t2 unlocks l1
t2 unlocks l2
If t2 "happens to run first"..
t2 acquires l2
t2 sleeps
t1 acquires l1 (while t2 is still sleeping)
t1 tries to acquire l2 but blocks.. it's already acquired by t2..
t2 is finished sleeping..
t2 tries to acquire l1 but blocks.. it's already acquired by t1..
IE: You can debug and see it print like:
Start T2
T2 - Locked L2
T2 - Sleeping
Start T1
T1 - Locked L1
-- DeadLock.. Neither can continue unless the other unlocks..
It's undefined behaviour. You also shouldn't be guessing which thread runs first.

To help explain the "deadlock" question -
Use Thread.Sleep if you really want to suspend the thread.
But in this case where you don't want to suspend the thread, just suspend the 'task'.
Use some like this:
await Task.Delay(myDuration);
This will not suspend the entire thread, but just the single task you want to suspend.
All other tasks on the same thread can continue running...

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

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

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

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

Is it possible to know which thread completed first?

If I have fire 3 threads. Is it possible to know which thread completed first.
Some sample code
Thread thread1 = new Thread(() => MyFunc());
Thread thread2 = new Thread(() => MyFunc());
Thread thread3 = new Thread(() => MyFunc());
thread1.Start();
thread2.Start();
thread3.Start();
while (thread1.IsAlive || thread2.IsAlive || thread3.IsAlive)
{
//I need condition to which thread dead first.
}

You can use Interlocked.CompareExchange to set the winning thread:
static Thread winner = null;
private static void MyFunc()
{
Thread.Sleep((int)(new Random().NextDouble() * 1000));
Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref winner, Thread.CurrentThread, null);
}
public static void Main()
{
Thread thread1 = new Thread(() => MyFunc());
Thread thread2 = new Thread(() => MyFunc());
Thread thread3 = new Thread(() => MyFunc());
thread1.Name = "thread1";
thread2.Name = "thread2";
thread3.Name = "thread3";
thread1.Start();
thread2.Start();
thread3.Start();
thread1.Join();
thread2.Join();
thread3.Join();
Console.WriteLine("The winner is {0}", winner.Name);
}
Live Demo
UPDATE: If you don't want all threads to finish before you check, there is an easier method using AutoResetEvents and WaitHandle.WaitAny():
private static void MyFunc(AutoResetEvent ev)
{
Thread.Sleep((int)(new Random().NextDouble() * 1000));
ev.Set();
}
public static void Main()
{
AutoResetEvent[] evs = {new AutoResetEvent(false), new AutoResetEvent(false), new AutoResetEvent(false)};
Thread thread1 = new Thread(() => MyFunc(evs[0]));
Thread thread2 = new Thread(() => MyFunc(evs[1]));
Thread thread3 = new Thread(() => MyFunc(evs[2]));
thread1.Start();
thread2.Start();
thread3.Start();
int winner = WaitHandle.WaitAny(evs);
Console.WriteLine("The winner is thread{0}", winner + 1);
}
Live Demo

one simple workaround would be that you write the thread name to a list or something when it completes?

All threads can have an arbitrary delay after the last instruction of your code is completed. After the last instruction has run the OS still has some work to do. It can take an arbitrarily long time.
For that reason it is never meaningful to find out what thread completed first. This is the XY-Problem. This question is meaningless. Its answer will not help you accomplish anything. Ask a new question with the real problem.
You probably want to tell which one of multiple side-effects happened first. Even if they completed in order A, B the threads they ran on can complete in any order. The thread order tells you nothing.

How to use wait handles in C# threading?

I have three threads in my program and I want that when thread one finishes it signals thread 2 to start and when thread 2 finishes it should signal thread 3 to start.
How can I achieve this, I know there are wait handles to do that in C#, but I don't know how to use them ?
Following is the code of my program:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t1 = new Thread(Task1);
Thread t2 = new Thread(Task2);
Thread t3 = new Thread(Task3);
t1.Start();
t2.Start();
t3.Start();
Console.Read();
}
public static void Task1()
{
Console.WriteLine("I am assigned task 1:");
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task1" );
}
}
public static void Task2()
{
Console.WriteLine("I am assigned task 2:");
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task2");
}
}
public static void Task3()
{
Console.WriteLine("I am assigned task 3:");
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task3");
}
}
}

You need to pass events into the threaded functions that indicate what to signal when each one has finished and what to wait on before they run. Take a look at the (untested) code below to see what I mean:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t1 = new Thread(Task1);
ManualResetEvent e1=new ManualResetEvent(false);
Thread t2 = new Thread(Task2);
ManualResetEvent e2=new ManualResetEvent(false);
Thread t3 = new Thread(Task3);
ManualResetEvent e3=new ManualResetEvent(false);
t1.Start(()=>Task1(e1));
t2.Start(()=>Task2(e1,e2));
t3.Start(()=>Task3(e2,e3);
Console.Read();
t1.Join();
t2.Join();
t3.Join();
}
public static void Task1(EventWaitHandle handle)
{
Console.WriteLine("I am assigned task 1:");
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task1" );
}
handle.Set();
}
public static void Task2(EventWaitHandle waitFor, EventWaitHandle handle)
{
waitFor.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("I am assigned task 2:");
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task2");
}
handle.Set();
}
public static void Task3(EventWaitHandle waitFor, EventWaitHandle handle)
{
waitFor.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("I am assigned task 3:");
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Task3");
}
handle.Set();
}
}

It appears that you want to run Tasks 1 - 3 to execute synchronously. So, you might as well do:
Task1();
Task2();
Task3();
If you want to offload the execution of these tasks to another thread, you can do:
static void RunTasks()
{
Task1();
Task2();
Task3();
}
static void Main()
{
new Thread(RunTasks).Start();
}
If you really wanted each task to run on a separate thread, and wait for the previous task to finish, you can use the Thread.Join method.
EDIT:
Since you really want to use wait-handles to accomplish this, take a look at the ManualResetEvent class.
Notifies one or more waiting threads
that an event has occurred.
Call the WaitOne method on it to wait on the event, and the Set method to signal it.
Example (horribly contrived code):
var afterT1Event = new ManualResetEvent(false);
var afterT2Event = new ManualResetEvent(false);
Thread t1 = new Thread(() => { Task1(); afterT1Event.Set(); });
Thread t2 = new Thread(() => { afterT1Event.WaitOne(); Task2(); afterT2Event.Set(); });
Thread t3 = new Thread(() => { afterT2Event.WaitOne(); Task3(); });
t1.Start();
t2.Start();
t3.Start();

If you want to use WaitHandles to acheive these then you could do the following:
declare the following two fields:
static ManualResetEvent handle1 = new ManualResetEvent(false);
static ManualResetEvent handle2 = new ManualResetEvent(false);
then at the end of Task1, add this:
handle1.Set();
at the beginning of Task2, add:
handle1.WaitOne();
then at the end, add
handle2.Set();
then finally at the beginning of Task3 add
handle2.WaitOne();

This feels very artificial, almost like homework...
... but basically you can use Join on a thread to wait for it.
Or the old msdn tutorial/example is very reasonable on this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa645740(VS.71).aspx

You could use ManualResetEvents and WaitHandle.WaitAny. Basically when one thread is done you would notify the other thread by using a ManualResetEvent (ManualResetEvent.Set()).
ManualResetEvent threadFinished = new ManualResetEvent(false);
//You would set this in the thread that has finished
threadFinished.Set()
//You would use this in the thread that you want to wait for this event to be signalled
int nWait = WaitHandle.WaitAny(new ManualResetEvent[] { threadFinished }, 10, true);
//if yes stop thread
if (nWait == 0)
{
//Thread is finished
}

i think using thread.join() will be more simpler any other solution

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.