Develop Reference

What is the advantage of creating a thread outside threadpool?

Okay, So I wanted to know what happens when I use TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning. By this answer, I came to know that for long running tasks, I should use this options because it creates a thread outside of threadpool.
Cool. But what advantage would I get when I create a thread outside threadpool? And when to do it and avoid it?

what advantage would I get when I create a thread outside threadpool?
The threadpool, as it name states, is a pool of threads which are allocated once and re-used throughout, in order to save the time and resources necessary to allocate a thread. The pool itself re-sizes on demand. If you queue more work than actual workers exist in the pool, it will allocate more threads in 500ms intervals, one at a time (this exists to avoid allocation of multiple threads simultaneously where existing threads may already finish executing and can serve requests). If many long running operations are performed on the thread-pool, it causes "thread starvation", meaning delegates will start getting queued and ran only once a thread frees up. That's why you'd want to avoid a large amount of threads doing lengthy work with thread-pool threads.
The Managed Thread-Pool docs also have a section on this question:
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.
For more, see:
Thread vs ThreadPool
When should I not use the ThreadPool in .Net?
Dedicated thread or thread-pool thread?

"Long running" can be quantified pretty well, a thread that takes more than half a second is running long. That's a mountain of processor instructions on a modern machine, you'd have to burn a fat five billion of them per second. Pretty hard to do in a constructive way unless you are calculating the value of Pi to thousands of decimals in the fraction.
Practical threads can only take that long when they are not burning core but are waiting a lot. Invariably on an I/O completion, like reading data from a disk, a network, a dbase server. And often the reason you'd start considering using a thread in the first place.
The threadpool has a "manager". It determines when a threadpool thread is allowed to start. It doesn't happen immediately when you start it in your program. The manager tries to limit the number of running threads to the number of CPU cores you have. It is much more efficient that way, context switching between too many active threads is expensive. And a good throttle, preventing your program from consuming too many resources in a burst.
But the threadpool manager has the very common problem with managers, it doesn't know enough about what is going on. Just like my manager doesn't know that I'm goofing off at Stackoverflow.com, the tp manager doesn't know that a thread is waiting for something and not actually performing useful work. Without that knowledge it cannot make good decisions. A thread that does a lot of waiting should be ignored and another one should be allowed to run in its place. Actually doing real work.
Just like you tell your manager that you go on vacation, so he can expect no work to get done, you tell the threadpool manager the same thing with LongRunning.
Do note that it isn't quite a bad as it, perhaps, sounds in this answer. Particularly .NET 4.0 hired a new manager that's a lot smarter at figuring out the optimum number of running threads. It does so with a feedback loop, collecting data to discover if active threads actually get work done. And adjusts the optimum accordingly. Only problem with this approach is the common one when you close a feedback loop, you have to make it slow so the loop cannot become unstable. In other words, it isn't particularly quick at driving up the number of active threads.
If you know ahead of time that the thread is pretty abysmal, running for many seconds with no real cpu load then always pick LongRunning. Otherwise it is a tuning job, observing the program when it is done and tinkering with it to make it more optimal.

Is it necessary to use the async Begin/End methods if already on a separate thread?

Trying to figure out whether or not I should use async methods or not such as:
TcpListener.BeginAcceptTcpClient
TcpListener.EndcceptTcpClient
and
NetworkStream.BeginRead
NetworkStream.EndRead
as opposed to their synchronous TcpListener.AcceptTcpClient and NetworkStream.Read versions. I've been looking at related threads but I'm still a bit unsure about one thing:
Question: The main advantage of using an asynchronous method is that the GUI is not locked up. However, these methods will be called on separate Task threads as it is so there is no threat of that. Also, TcpListener.AcceptTcpClient blocks the thread until a connection is made so there is no wasted CPU cycles. Since this is the case, then why do so many always recommend using the async versions? It seems like in this case the synchronous versions would be superior?
Also, another disadvantage of using asynchronous methods is the increased complexity and constant casting of objects. For example, having to do this:
private void SomeMethod()
{
// ...
listener.BeginAcceptTcpClient(OnAcceptConnection, listener);
}
private void OnAcceptConnection(IAsyncResult asyn)
{
TcpListener listener = (TcpListener)asyn.AsyncState;
TcpClient client = listener.EndAcceptTcpClient(asyn);
}
As opposed to this:
TcpClient client = listener.AcceptTcpClient();
Also it seems like the async versions would have much more overhead due to having to create another thread. (Basically, every connection would have a thread and then when reading that thread would also have another thread. Threadception!)
Also, there is the boxing and unboxing of the TcpListener and the overhead associated with creating, managing, and closing these additional threads.
Basically, where normally there would just be individual threads for handling individual client connections, now there is that and then an additional thread for each type of operation performed (reading/writing stream data and listening for new connections on the server's end)
Please correct me if I am wrong. I am still new to threading and I'm trying to understand this all. However, in this case it seems like using the normal synchronous methods and just blocking the thread would be the optimal solution?

TcpListener.AcceptTcpClient blocks the thread until a connection is made so there is no wasted CPU cycles.
But there is also no work getting done. A Thread is a very expensive operating system object, about the most expensive there is. Your program is consuming a megabyte of memory without it being used while the thread blocks on connection request.
However, these methods will be called on separate Task threads as it is so there is no threat of that
A Task is not a good solution either, it uses a threadpool thread but the thread will block. The threadpool manager tries to keep the number of running TP threads equal to the number of cpu cores on the machine. That won't work well when a TP thread blocks for a long time. It prevents other useful work from being done by other TP threads that are waiting to get their turn.
BeginAcceptTcpClient() uses a so-called I/O completion callback. No system resources are consumed while the socket is listening. As soon as a connection request comes in, the operating system runs an APC (asynchronous procedure call) which grabs a threadpool thread to make the callback. The thread itself is in use for, typically, a few microseconds. Very efficient.
This kind of code will get a lot simpler in the next version of C# with the next async and await keywords. End of the year, maybe.

If you call AcceptTcpClient() on any thread, that thread is useless until you get a connection.
If you call BeginAcceptTcpClient(), the calling thread can stop immediately, without wasting the thread.
This is particularly important when using the ThreadPool (or the TPL), since they use a limited number of pool threads.
If you have too many threads waiting for operations, you can run out of threadpool threads, so that new work items will have to wait until one of the other threads finish.

C# Multithreading File IO (Reading)

We have a situation where our application needs to process a series of files and rather than perform this function synchronously, we would like to employ multi-threading to have the workload split amongst different threads.
Each item of work is:
1. Open a file for read only
2. Process the data in the file
3. Write the processed data to a Dictionary
We would like to perform each file's work on a new thread?
Is this possible and should be we better to use the ThreadPool or spawn new threads keeping in mind that each item of "work" only takes 30ms however its possible that hundreds of files will need to be processed.
Any ideas to make this more efficient is appreciated.
EDIT: At the moment we are making use of the ThreadPool to handle this. If we have 500 files to process we cycle through the files and allocate each "unit of processing work" to the threadpool using QueueUserWorkItem.
Is it suitable to make use of the threadpool for this?

I would suggest you to use ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(...), in this, threads are managed by the system and the .net framework. The chances of you meshing up with your own threadpool is much higher. So I would recommend you to use Threadpool provided by .net .
It's very easy to use,
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(YourMethod), ParameterToBeUsedByMethod);
YourMethod(object o){
Your Code here...
}
For more reading please follow the link http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3dasc8as%28VS.80%29.aspx
Hope, this helps

I suggest you have a finite number of threads (say 4) and then have 4 pools of work. I.e. If you have 400 files to process have 100 files per thread split evenly. You then spawn the threads, and pass to each their work and let them run until they have finished their specific work.
You only have a certain amount of I/O bandwidth so having too many threads will not provide any benefits, also remember that creating a thread also takes a small amount of time.

Instead of having to deal with threads or manage thread pools directly I would suggest using a higher-level library like Parallel Extensions (PEX):
var filesContent = from file in enumerableOfFilesToProcess
select new
{
File=file,
Content=File.ReadAllText(file)
};
var processedContent = from content in filesContent
select new
{
content.File,
ProcessedContent = ProcessContent(content.Content)
};
var dictionary = processedContent
.AsParallel()
.ToDictionary(c => c.File);
PEX will handle thread management according to available cores and load while you get to concentrate about the business logic at hand (wow, that sounded like a commercial!)
PEX is part of the .Net Framework 4.0 but a back-port to 3.5 is also available as part of the Reactive Framework.

I suggest using the CCR (Concurrency and Coordination Runtime) it will handle the low-level threading details for you. As for your strategy, one thread per work item may not be the best approach depending on how you attempt to write to the dictionary, because you may create heavy contention since dictionaries aren't thread safe.
Here's some sample code using the CCR, an Interleave would work nicely here:
Arbiter.Activate(dispatcherQueue, Arbiter.Interleave(
new TeardownReceiverGroup(Arbiter.Receive<bool>(
false, mainPort, new Handler<bool>(Teardown))),
new ExclusiveReceiverGroup(Arbiter.Receive<object>(
true, mainPort, new Handler<object>(WriteData))),
new ConcurrentReceiverGroup(Arbiter.Receive<string>(
true, mainPort, new Handler<string>(ReadAndProcessData)))));
public void WriteData(object data)
{
// write data to the dictionary
// this code is never executed in parallel so no synchronization code needed
}
public void ReadAndProcessData(string s)
{
// this code gets scheduled to be executed in parallel
// CCR take care of the task scheduling for you
}
public void Teardown(bool b)
{
// clean up when all tasks are done
}

In the long run, I think you'll be happier if you manage your own threads. This will let you control how many are running and make it easy to report status.
Build a worker class that does the processing and give it a callback routine to return results and status.
For each file, create a worker instance and a thread to run it. Put the thread in a Queue.
Peel threads off of the queue up to the maximum you want to run simultaneously. As each thread completes go get another one. Adjust the maximum and measure throughput. I prefer to use a Dictionary to hold running threads, keyed by their ManagedThreadId.
To stop early, just clear the queue.
Use locking around your thread collections to preserve your sanity.

Use ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem to execute each independent task. Definitely don't create hundreds of threads. That is likely to cause major headaches.

The general rule for using the ThreadPool is if you don't want to worry about when the threads finish (or use Mutexes to track them), or worry about stopping the threads.
So do you need to worry about when the work is done? If not, the ThreadPool is the best option. If you want to track the overall progress, stop threads then your own collection of threads is best.
ThreadPool is generally more efficient if you are re-using threads. This question will give you a more detailed discussion.
Hth

Using the ThreadPool for each individual task is definitely a bad idea. From my experience this tends to hurt performance more than helping it. The first reason is that a considerable amount of overhead is required just to allocate a task for the ThreadPool to execute. By default, each application is assigned it's own ThreadPool that is initialized with ~100 thread capacity. When you are executing 400 operations in a parallel, it does not take long to fill the queue with requests and now you have ~100 threads all competing for CPU cycles. Yes the .NET framework does a great job with throttling and prioritizing the queue, however, I have found that the ThreadPool is best left for long-running operations that probably won't occur very often (loading a configuration file, or random web requests). Using the ThreadPool to fire off a few operations at random is much more efficient than using it to execute hundreds of requests at once. Given the current information, the best course of action would be something similar to this:
Create a System.Threading.Thread (or use a SINGLE ThreadPool thread) with a queue that the application can post requests to
Use the FileStream's BeginRead and BeginWrite methods to perform the IO operations. This will cause the .NET framework to use native API's to thread and execute the IO (IOCP).
This will give you 2 leverages, one is that your requests will still get processed in parallel while allowing the operating system to manage file system access and threading. The second is that because the bottleneck of the vast majority of systems will be the HDD, you can implement a custom priority sort and throttling to your request thread to give greater control over resource usage.
Currently I have been writing a similar application and using this method is both efficient and fast... Without any threading or throttling my application was only using 10-15% CPU, which can be acceptable for some operations depending on the processing involved, however, it made my PC as slow as if an application was using 80%+ of the CPU. This was the file system access. The ThreadPool and IOCP functions do not care if they are bogging the PC down, so don't get confused, they are optimized for performance, even if that performance means your HDD is squeeling like a pig.
The only problem I have had is memory usage ran a little high (50+ mb) during the testing phaze with approximately 35 streams open at once. I am currently working on a solution similar to the MSDN recommendation for SocketAsyncEventArgs, using a pool to allow x number of requests to be operating simultaneously, which ultimately led me to this forum post.
Hope this helps somebody with their decision making in the future :)

Server multithreading overkill?

I'm creating a server-type application at the moment which will do the usual listening for connections from external clients and, when they connect, handle requests, etc.
At the moment, my implementation creates a pair of threads every time a client connects. One thread simply reads requests from the socket and adds them to a queue, and the second reads the requests from the queue and processes them.
I'm basically looking for opinions on whether or not you think having all of these threads is overkill, and importantly whether this approach is going to cause me problems.
It is important to note that most of the time these threads will be idle - I use wait handles (ManualResetEvent) in both threads. The Reader thread waits until a message is available and if so, reads it and dumps it in a queue for the Process thread. The Process thread waits until the reader signals that a message is in the queue (again, using a wait handle). Unless a particular client is really hammering the server, these threads will be sat waiting. Is this costly?
I'm done a bit of testing - had 1,000 clients connected continually nagging - the server (so, 2,000+ threads) and it seemed to cope quite well.

I think your implementation is flawed. This kind of design doesn't scale because creating threads is expensive and there is a limit on how many threads can be created.
That is the reason that most implementations of this type use a thread pool. That makes it easy to put a cap on the maximum amount of threads while easily managing new connections and reusing the threads when the work is finished.
If all you are doing with your thread is putting items in a queue, then use the
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem method to use the default .NET thread pool.
You haven't given enough information in your question to specify for definite but perhaps you now only need one other thread, constantly running clearing down the queue, you can use a wait handle to signal when something has been added.
Just make sure to synchronise access to your queue or things will go horribly wrong.

I advice to use following patter. First you need thread pool - build in or custom. Have a thread that checks is there something available to read, if yes it picks Reader thread. Then reading thread puts into queue and then thread from pool of processing threads will pick it. it will minimize number of threads and minimize time spend in waiting state

When to use thread pool in C#? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been trying to learn multi-threaded programming in C# and I am confused about when it is best to use a thread pool vs. create my own threads. One book recommends using a thread pool for small tasks only (whatever that means), but I can't seem to find any real guidelines.
What are some pros and cons of thread pools vs creating my own threads? And what are some example use cases for each?

I would suggest you use a thread pool in C# for the same reasons as any other language.
When you want to limit the number of threads running or don't want the overhead of creating and destroying them, use a thread pool.
By small tasks, the book you read means tasks with a short lifetime. If it takes ten seconds to create a thread which only runs for one second, that's one place where you should be using pools (ignore my actual figures, it's the ratio that counts).
Otherwise you spend the bulk of your time creating and destroying threads rather than simply doing the work they're intended to do.

If you have lots of logical tasks that require constant processing and you want that to be done in parallel use the pool+scheduler.
If you need to make your IO related tasks concurrently such as downloading stuff from remote servers or disk access, but need to do this say once every few minutes, then make your own threads and kill them once you're finished.
Edit: About some considerations, I use thread pools for database access, physics/simulation, AI(games), and for scripted tasks ran on virtual machines that process lots of user defined tasks.
Normally a pool consists of 2 threads per processor (so likely 4 nowadays), however you can set up the amount of threads you want, if you know how many you need.
Edit: The reason to make your own threads is because of context changes, (thats when threads need to swap in and out of the process, along with their memory). Having useless context changes, say when you aren't using your threads, just leaving them sit around as one might say, can easily half the performance of your program (say you have 3 sleeping threads and 2 active threads). Thus if those downloading threads are just waiting they're eating up tons of CPU and cooling down the cache for your real application

Here's a nice summary of the thread pool in .Net: http://blogs.msdn.com/pedram/archive/2007/08/05/dedicated-thread-or-a-threadpool-thread.aspx
The post also has some points on when you should not use the thread pool and start your own thread instead.

I highly recommend reading the this free e-book:
Threading in C# by Joseph Albahari
At least read the "Getting Started" section. The e-book provides a great introduction and includes a wealth of advanced threading information as well.
Knowing whether or not to use the thread pool is just the beginning. Next you will need to determine which method of entering the thread pool best suits your needs:
Task Parallel Library (.NET Framework
4.0)
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem
Asynchronous Delegates
BackgroundWorker
This e-book explains these all and advises when to use them vs. create your own thread.

The thread pool is designed to reduce context switching among your threads. Consider a process that has several components running. Each of those components could be creating worker threads. The more threads in your process, the more time is wasted on context switching.
Now, if each of those components were queuing items to the thread pool, you would have a lot less context switching overhead.
The thread pool is designed to maximize the work being done across your CPUs (or CPU cores). That is why, by default, the thread pool spins up multiple threads per processor.
There are some situations where you would not want to use the thread pool. If you are waiting on I/O, or waiting on an event, etc then you tie up that thread pool thread and it can't be used by anyone else. Same idea applies to long running tasks, though what constitutes a long running task is subjective.
Pax Diablo makes a good point as well. Spinning up threads is not free. It takes time and they consume additional memory for their stack space. The thread pool will re-use threads to amortize this cost.
Note: you asked about using a thread pool thread to download data or perform disk I/O. You should not use a thread pool thread for this (for the reasons I outlined above). Instead use asynchronous I/O (aka the BeginXX and EndXX methods). For a FileStream that would be BeginRead and EndRead. For an HttpWebRequest that would be BeginGetResponse and EndGetResponse. They are more complicated to use, but they are the proper way to perform multi-threaded I/O.

Beware of the .NET thread pool for operations that may block for any significant, variable or unknown part of their processing, as it is prone to thread starvation. Consider using the .NET parallel extensions, which provide a good number of logical abstractions over threaded operations. They also include a new scheduler, which should be an improvement on ThreadPool. See here

One reason to use the thread pool for small tasks only is that there are a limited number of thread pool threads. If one is used for a long time then it stops that thread from being used by other code. If this happens many times then the thread pool can become used up.
Using up the thread pool can have subtle effects - some .NET timers use thread pool threads and will not fire, for example.

If you have a background task that will live for a long time, like for the entire lifetime of your application, then creating your own thread is a reasonable thing. If you have short jobs that need to be done in a thread, then use thread pooling.
In an application where you are creating many threads, the overhead of creating the threads becomes substantial. Using the thread pool creates the threads once and reuses them, thus avoiding the thread creation overhead.
In an application that I worked on, changing from creating threads to using the thread pool for the short lived threads really helpped the through put of the application.

For the highest performance with concurrently executing units, write your own thread pool, where a pool of Thread objects are created at start up and go to blocking (formerly suspended), waiting on a context to run (an object with a standard interface implemented by your code).
So many articles about Tasks vs. Threads vs. the .NET ThreadPool fail to really give you what you need to make a decision for performance. But when you compare them, Threads win out and especially a pool of Threads. They are distributed the best across CPUs and they start up faster.
What should be discussed is the fact that the main execution unit of Windows (including Windows 10) is a thread, and OS context switching overhead is usually negligible. Simply put, I have not been able to find convincing evidence of many of these articles, whether the article claims higher performance by saving context switching or better CPU usage.
Now for a bit of realism:
Most of us won’t need our application to be deterministic, and most of us do not have a hard-knocks background with threads, which for instance often comes with developing an operating system. What I wrote above is not for a beginner.
So what may be most important is to discuss is what is easy to program.
If you create your own thread pool, you’ll have a bit of writing to do as you’ll need to be concerned with tracking execution status, how to simulate suspend and resume, and how to cancel execution – including in an application-wide shut down. You might also have to be concerned with whether you want to dynamically grow your pool and also what capacity limitation your pool will have. I can write such a framework in an hour but that is because I’ve done it so many times.
Perhaps the easiest way to write an execution unit is to use a Task. The beauty of a Task is that you can create one and kick it off in-line in your code (though caution may be warranted). You can pass a cancellation token to handle when you want to cancel the Task. Also, it uses the promise approach to chaining events, and you can have it return a specific type of value. Moreover, with async and await, more options exist and your code will be more portable.
In essence, it is important to understand the pros and cons with Tasks vs. Threads vs. the .NET ThreadPool. If I need high performance, I am going to use threads, and I prefer using my own pool.
An easy way to compare is start up 512 Threads, 512 Tasks, and 512 ThreadPool threads. You’ll find a delay in the beginning with Threads (hence, why write a thread pool), but all 512 Threads will be running in a few seconds while Tasks and .NET ThreadPool threads take up to a few minutes to all start.
Below are the results of such a test (i5 quad core with 16 GB of RAM), giving each 30 seconds to run. The code executed performs simple file I/O on an SSD drive.
Test Results

Thread pools are great when you have more tasks to process than available threads.
You can add all the tasks to a thread pool and specify the maximum number of threads that can run at a certain time.
Check out this page on MSDN:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3dasc8as(VS.80).aspx

Always use a thread pool if you can, work at the highest level of abstraction possible. Thread pools hide creating and destroying threads for you, this is usually a good thing!

Most of the time you can use the pool as you avoid the expensive process of creating the thread.
However in some scenarios you may want to create a thread. For example if you are not the only one using the thread pool and the thread you create is long-lived (to avoid consuming shared resources) or for example if you want to control the stacksize of the thread.

Don't forget to investigate the Background worker.
I find for a lot of situations, it gives me just what i want without the heavy lifting.
Cheers.

I usually use the Threadpool whenever I need to just do something on another thread and don't really care when it runs or ends. Something like logging or maybe even background downloading a file (though there are better ways to do that async-style). I use my own thread when I need more control. Also what I've found is using a Threadsafe queue (hack your own) to store "command objects" is nice when I have multiple commands that I need to work on in >1 thread. So you'd may split up an Xml file and put each element in a queue and then have multiple threads working on doing some processing on these elements. I wrote such a queue way back in uni (VB.net!) that I've converted to C#. I've included it below for no particular reason (this code might contain some errors).
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace ThreadSafeQueue {
public class ThreadSafeQueue<T> {
private Queue<T> _queue;
public ThreadSafeQueue() {
_queue = new Queue<T>();
}
public void EnqueueSafe(T item) {
lock ( this ) {
_queue.Enqueue(item);
if ( _queue.Count >= 1 )
Monitor.Pulse(this);
}
}
public T DequeueSafe() {
lock ( this ) {
while ( _queue.Count <= 0 )
Monitor.Wait(this);
return this.DeEnqueueUnblock();
}
}
private T DeEnqueueUnblock() {
return _queue.Dequeue();
}
}
}

I wanted a thread pool to distribute work across cores with as little latency as possible, and that didn't have to play well with other applications. I found that the .NET thread pool performance wasn't as good as it could be. I knew I wanted one thread per core, so I wrote my own thread pool substitute class. The code is provided as an answer to another StackOverflow question over here.
As to the original question, the thread pool is useful for breaking repetitive computations up into parts that can be executed in parallel (assuming they can be executed in parallel without changing the outcome). Manual thread management is useful for tasks like UI and IO.