Develop Reference

How to handle threads that hang when using SemaphoreSlim

I have some code that runs thousands of URLs through a third party library. Occasionally the method in the library hangs which takes up a thread. After a while all threads are taken up by processes doing nothing and it grinds to a halt.
I am using a SemaphoreSlim to control adding new threads so I can have an optimal number of tasks running. I need a way to identify tasks that have been running too long and then to kill them but also release a thread from the SemaphoreSlim so a new task can be created.
I am struggling with the approach here so I made some test code that immitates what I am doing. It create tasks that have a 10% chance of hanging so very quickly all threads have hung.
How should I be checking for these and killing them off?
Here is the code:
class Program
{
public static SemaphoreSlim semaphore;
public static List<Task> taskList;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<string> urlList = new List<string>();
Console.WriteLine("Generating list");
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
//adding random strings to simulate a large list of URLs to process
urlList.Add(Path.GetRandomFileName());
}
Console.WriteLine("Queueing tasks");
semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(10, 10);
Task.Run(() => QueueTasks(urlList));
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void QueueTasks(List<string> urlList)
{
taskList = new List<Task>();
foreach (var url in urlList)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} tasks can enter the semaphore.",
semaphore.CurrentCount);
semaphore.Wait();
taskList.Add(DoTheThing(url));
}
}
static async Task DoTheThing(string url)
{
Random rand = new Random();
// simulate the IO process
await Task.Delay(rand.Next(2000, 10000));
// add a 10% chance that the thread will hang simulating what happens occasionally with http request
int chance = rand.Next(1, 100);
if (chance <= 10)
{
while (true)
{
await Task.Delay(1000000);
}
}
semaphore.Release();
Console.WriteLine(url);
}
}

As people have already pointed out, Aborting threads in general is bad and there is no guaranteed way of doing it in C#. Using a separate process to do the work and then kill it is a slightly better idea than attempting Thread.Abort; but still not the best way to go. Ideally, you want co-operative threads/processes, which use IPC to decide when to bail out themselves. This way the cleanup is done properly.
With all that said, you can use code like below to do what you intend to do. I have written it assuming your task will be done in a thread. With slight changes, you can use the same logic to do your task in a process
The code is by no means bullet-proof and is meant to be illustrative. The concurrent code is not really tested well. Locks are held for longer than needed and some places I am not locking (like the Log function)
class TaskInfo {
public Thread Task;
public DateTime StartTime;
public TaskInfo(ParameterizedThreadStart startInfo, object startArg) {
Task = new Thread(startInfo);
Task.Start(startArg);
StartTime = DateTime.Now;
}
}
class Program {
const int MAX_THREADS = 1;
const int TASK_TIMEOUT = 6; // in seconds
const int CLEANUP_INTERVAL = TASK_TIMEOUT; // in seconds
public static SemaphoreSlim semaphore;
public static List<TaskInfo> TaskList;
public static object TaskListLock = new object();
public static Timer CleanupTimer;
static void Main(string[] args) {
List<string> urlList = new List<string>();
Log("Generating list");
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
//adding random strings to simulate a large list of URLs to process
urlList.Add(Path.GetRandomFileName());
}
Log("Queueing tasks");
semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(MAX_THREADS, MAX_THREADS);
Task.Run(() => QueueTasks(urlList));
CleanupTimer = new Timer(CleanupTasks, null, CLEANUP_INTERVAL * 1000, CLEANUP_INTERVAL * 1000);
Console.ReadLine();
}
// TODO: Guard against re-entrancy
static void CleanupTasks(object state) {
Log("CleanupTasks started");
lock (TaskListLock) {
var now = DateTime.Now;
int n = TaskList.Count;
for (int i = n - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
var task = TaskList[i];
Log($"Checking task with ID {task.Task.ManagedThreadId}");
// kill processes running for longer than anticipated
if (task.Task.IsAlive && now.Subtract(task.StartTime).TotalSeconds >= TASK_TIMEOUT) {
Log("Cleaning up hung task");
task.Task.Abort();
}
// remove task if it is not alive
if (!task.Task.IsAlive) {
Log("Removing dead task from list");
TaskList.RemoveAt(i);
continue;
}
}
if (TaskList.Count == 0) {
Log("Disposing cleanup thread");
CleanupTimer.Dispose();
}
}
Log("CleanupTasks done");
}
static void QueueTasks(List<string> urlList) {
TaskList = new List<TaskInfo>();
foreach (var url in urlList) {
Log($"Trying to schedule url = {url}");
semaphore.Wait();
Log("Semaphore acquired");
ParameterizedThreadStart taskRoutine = obj => {
try {
DoTheThing((string)obj);
} finally {
Log("Releasing semaphore");
semaphore.Release();
}
};
var task = new TaskInfo(taskRoutine, url);
lock (TaskListLock)
TaskList.Add(task);
}
Log("All tasks queued");
}
// simulate all processes get hung
static void DoTheThing(string url) {
while (true)
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
static void Log(string msg) {
Console.WriteLine("{0:HH:mm:ss.fff} Thread {1,2} {2}", DateTime.Now, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString(), msg);
}
}

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

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

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

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

Creating threads in method in Console fails in C#

I am new in Threads.
And wanted to write a simple program with threads in C#.
The goal was when I press any key it must create new thread,
and every thread must write count which increments it's value every time,
when new thread was created. But result was not what expected :).
It first waits for keypress and after keypress it writes only 111111111111111.... It does not write 2, 3 ,4 and etc. So what is the problem? How can I solve it?
The expected result was like that:
11112222333311112222333344441111...
The code is below.
class Program
{
static Thread t;
static int count = 1;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.Title = "Thread Test";
t = new Thread(wait);
t.Start();
Console.WriteLine("Main Thread End...");
}
static void write(object o)
{
while(true)
{
Console.Write(o.ToString());
Thread.Sleep(500);
}
}
static void wait()
{
Console.ReadKey();
Thread tt = new Thread(write);
tt.Start(count);
count++;
}
}

Perhaps a recursive wait() method is what you want?
static void wait()
{
Console.ReadKey();
Thread tt = new Thread(write);
tt.Start(count);
count++;
wait(); //Added
}

Try this sample :-)
You can try to create more different tasks with different priority.
In the write() method you can printing the name of current task, if you want storage in class more different value you can add property through inheritance
class Program
{
static List<Thread> lst = new List<Thread>();
//static Thread t;
static int count = 1;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
System.Console.Title = "Thread Test";
createThread();
foreach (Thread t in lst) t.Start();
//System.Console.WriteLine("Main Thread End...");
}
static void write()
{
while (true)
{
System.Console.Write(Thread.CurrentThread.Name);
Thread.Sleep(500);
}
}
static void createThread()
{
Random rnd = new Random();
while (count<=5)
{
Thread tt = new Thread(write);
if (rnd.Next(0,10)>=5)
{
tt.Priority = ThreadPriority.Highest;
}
else
{
tt.Priority = ThreadPriority.Lowest;
}
tt.Name = count.ToString();
lst.Add(tt);
count++;
}
}
}

TPL Dataflow Blocks

Question: Why using a WriteOnceBlock (or BufferBlock) for getting back the answer (like sort of callback) from another BufferBlock<Action> (getting back the answer happens in that posted Action) causes a deadlock (in this code)?
I thought that methods in a class can be considered as messages that we are sending to the object (like the original point of view about OOP that was proposed by - I think - Alan Kay). So I wrote this generic Actor class that helps to convert and ordinary object to an Actor (Of-course there are lots of unseen loopholes here because of mutability and things, but that's not the main concern here).
So we have these definitions:
public class Actor<T>
{
private readonly T _processor;
private readonly BufferBlock<Action<T>> _messageBox = new BufferBlock<Action<T>>();
public Actor(T processor)
{
_processor = processor;
Run();
}
public event Action<T> Send
{
add { _messageBox.Post(value); }
remove { }
}
private async void Run()
{
while (true)
{
var action = await _messageBox.ReceiveAsync();
action(_processor);
}
}
}
public interface IIdGenerator
{
long Next();
}
Now; why this code works:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var idGenerator1 = new IdInt64();
var idServer1 = new Actor<IIdGenerator>(idGenerator1);
const int n = 1000;
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
var t = new Task(() =>
{
var answer = new WriteOnceBlock<long>(null);
Action<IIdGenerator> action = x =>
{
var buffer = x.Next();
answer.Post(buffer);
};
idServer1.Send += action;
Trace.WriteLine(answer.Receive());
}, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning); // Runs on a separate new thread
t.Start();
}
Console.WriteLine("press any key you like! :)");
Console.ReadKey();
Trace.Flush();
}
And this code does not work:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var idGenerator1 = new IdInt64();
var idServer1 = new Actor<IIdGenerator>(idGenerator1);
const int n = 1000;
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
var t = new Task(() =>
{
var answer = new WriteOnceBlock<long>(null);
Action<IIdGenerator> action = x =>
{
var buffer = x.Next();
answer.Post(buffer);
};
idServer1.Send += action;
Trace.WriteLine(answer.Receive());
}, TaskCreationOptions.PreferFairness); // Runs and is managed by Task Scheduler
t.Start();
}
Console.WriteLine("press any key you like! :)");
Console.ReadKey();
Trace.Flush();
}
Different TaskCreationOptions used here to create Tasks. Maybe I am wrong about TPL Dataflow concepts here, just started to use it (A [ThreadStatic] hidden somewhere?).

The problematic issue with your code is this part: answer.Receive().
When you move it inside the action the deadlock doesn't happen:
var t = new Task(() =>
{
var answer = new WriteOnceBlock<long>(null);
Action<IIdGenerator> action = x =>
{
var buffer = x.Next();
answer.Post(buffer);
Trace.WriteLine(answer.Receive());
};
idServer1.Send += action;
});
t.Start();
So why is that? answer.Receive();, as opposed to await answer.ReceiveAsnyc(); blocks the thread until an answer is returned. When you use TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning each task gets its own thread, so there's no problem, but without it (the TaskCreationOptions.PreferFairness is irrelevant) all the thread pool threads are busy waiting and so everything is much slower. It doesn't actually deadlock, as you can see when you use 15 instead of 1000.
There are other solutions that help understand the problem:
Increasing the thread pool with ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(1000, 0); before the original code.
Using ReceiveAsnyc:
Task.Run(async () =>
{
var answer = new WriteOnceBlock<long>(null);
Action<IIdGenerator> action = x =>
{
var buffer = x.Next();
answer.Post(buffer);
};
idServer1.Send += action;
Trace.WriteLine(await answer.ReceiveAsync());
});

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