I create an example about thread,
I know that use lock could avoid thread suspending at critical section, but I have two questions.
1.Why my program get stuck if I use Thread.Sleep?
In this example, I add sleep to two thread.
Because I wish the console output more slowly, so I can easily see if there's anything wrong.
But if I use Thread.Sleep() then this program will get stuck!
2.What situation should I use Thread.Sleep?
Thanks for your kind response, have a nice day.
class MyThreadExample
{
private static int count1 = 0;
private static int count2 = 0;
Thread t1;
Thread t2;
public MyThreadExample() {
t1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(increment));
t2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(checkequal));
}
public static void Main() {
MyThreadExample mt = new MyThreadExample();
mt.t1.Start();
mt.t2.Start();
}
void increment()
{
lock (this)
{
while (true)
{
count1++; count2++;
//Thread.Sleep(0); stuck when use Sleep!
}
}
}
void checkequal()
{
lock (this)
{
while (true)
{
if (count1 == count2)
Console.WriteLine("Synchronize");
else
Console.WriteLine("unSynchronize");
// Thread.Sleep(0);
}
}
}
}
Please take a look at these following codes. Never use lock(this), instead use lock(syncObj) because you have better control over it. Lock only the critical section (ex.: only variable) and dont lock the whole while loop. In method Main, add something to wait at the end "Console.Read()", otherwise, your application is dead. This one works with or without Thread.Sleep. In your code above, your thread will enter "Increment" or "Checkequal" and the lock will never release. Thats why, it works only on Increment or Checkequal and never both.
internal class MyThreadExample
{
private static int m_Count1;
private static int m_Count2;
private readonly object m_SyncObj = new object();
private readonly Thread m_T1;
private readonly Thread m_T2;
public MyThreadExample()
{
m_T1 = new Thread(Increment) {IsBackground = true};
m_T2 = new Thread(Checkequal) {IsBackground = true};
}
public static void Main()
{
var mt = new MyThreadExample();
mt.m_T1.Start();
mt.m_T2.Start();
Console.Read();
}
private void Increment()
{
while (true)
{
lock (m_SyncObj)
{
m_Count1++;
m_Count2++;
}
Thread.Sleep(1000); //stuck when use Sleep!
}
}
private void Checkequal()
{
while (true)
{
lock (m_SyncObj)
{
Console.WriteLine(m_Count1 == m_Count2 ? "Synchronize" : "unSynchronize");
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}
Thread is a little bit old style. If you are a beginner of .NET and using .NET 4.5 or above, then use Task. Much better. All new multithreading in .NET are based on Task, like async await:
public static void Main()
{
var mt = new MyThreadExample();
Task.Run(() => { mt.Increment(); });
Task.Run(() => { mt.Checkequal(); });
Console.Read();
}
Related
Background:
I have an application I am developing that deals with a large number of addons for another application. One if its primary uses is to safely modify file records in files with fewer records so that they may be treated as one file (almost as if it is combing the files together into one set of records. To do this safely it keeps track of vital information about those files and changes made to them so that those changes can be undone if they don't work as expected.
When my application starts, it analyzes those files and keeps essential properties in a cache (to reduce load times). If a file is missing from the cache, the most important stuff is retrieved and then a background worker must process the file for more information. If a file that was previously modified has been updated with a new version of the file, the UI must confirm this with the user and its modification data removed. All of this information, including information on its modification is stored in the cache.
My Problem:
My problem is that neither of these processes are guaranteed to run (the confirmation window or the background file processor). If either of them run, then the cache must be updated by the main thread. I don't know enough about worker threads, and which thread runs the BackgroundWorker.RunWorkerCompleted event handler in order to effectively decide how to approach guaranteeing that the cache updater is run after either (or both) processes are completed.
To sum up: if either process is run, they both must finish and (potentially) wait for the other to be completed before running the cache update code. How can I do this?
ADJUNCT INFO (My current intervention that doesn't seem to work very well):
I have a line in the RunWorkerCompleted handler that waits until the form reference is null before continuing and exiting but maybe this was a mistake as it sometimes locks my program up.
SpinWait.SpinUntil(() => overwriteForm == null);
I haven't included any more code because I anticipate that this is more of a conceptual question than a code one. However, if necessary, I can supply code if it helps.
I think CountDownTask is what you need
using System;
using System.Threading;
public class Program
{
public class AtomicInteger
{
protected int value = 0;
public AtomicInteger(int value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public int DecrementAndGet()
{
int answer = Interlocked.Decrement(ref value);
return answer;
}
}
public interface Runnable
{
void Run();
}
public class CountDownTask
{
private AtomicInteger count;
private Runnable task;
private Object lk = new Object();
private volatile bool runnable;
private bool cancelled;
public CountDownTask(Int32 count, Runnable task)
{
this.count = new AtomicInteger(count);
this.task = task;
this.runnable = false;
this.cancelled = false;
}
public void CountDown()
{
if (count.DecrementAndGet() == 0)
{
lock (lk)
{
runnable = true;
Monitor.Pulse(lk);
}
}
}
public void Await()
{
lock (lk)
{
while (!runnable)
{
Monitor.Wait(lk);
}
if (cancelled)
{
Console.WriteLine("Sorry! I was cancelled");
}
else {
task.Run();
}
}
}
public void Cancel()
{
lock (lk)
{
runnable = true;
cancelled = true;
Monitor.Pulse(lk);
}
}
}
public class HelloWorldTask : Runnable
{
public void Run()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello World, I'm last one");
}
}
public static void Main()
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Name = "Main";
Console.WriteLine("Current Thread: " + Thread.CurrentThread.Name);
CountDownTask countDownTask = new CountDownTask(3, new HelloWorldTask());
Thread worker1 = new Thread(() => {
Console.WriteLine("Worker 1 run");
countDownTask.CountDown();
});
Thread worker2 = new Thread(() => {
Console.WriteLine("Worker 2 run");
countDownTask.CountDown();
});
Thread lastThread = new Thread(() => countDownTask.Await());
lastThread.Start();
worker1.Start();
worker2.Start();
//countDownTask.Cancel();
Console.WriteLine("Main Thread Run");
countDownTask.CountDown();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
let me explain (but you can refer Java CountDownLatch)
1. To ensure a task must run after another tasks, we need create a Wait function to wait for they done, so I used
while(!runnable) {
Monitor.Wait(lk);
}
2. When there is a task done, we need count down, and if count down to zero (it means all of the tasks was done) we will need notify to blocked thread to wake up and process task
if(count.decrementAndGet() == 0) {
lock(lk) {
runnable = true;
Monitor.Pulse(lk);
}
}
Let read more about volatile, thanks
While dung ta van's "CountDownTask" answer isn't quite what I needed, it heavily inspired the solution below (see it for more info). Basically all I did was add some extra functionality and most importantly: made it so that each task "vote" on the outcome (true or false). Thanks dung ta van!
To be fair, dung ta van's solution DOES work to guarantee execution which as it turns out isn't quite what I needed. My solution adds the ability to make that execution conditional.
This was my solution which worked:
public enum PendingBool
{
Unknown = -1,
False,
True
}
public interface IRunnableTask
{
void Run();
}
public class AtomicInteger
{
int integer;
public int Value { get { return integer; } }
public AtomicInteger(int value) { integer = value; }
public int Decrement() { return Interlocked.Decrement(ref integer); }
public static implicit operator int(AtomicInteger ai) { return ai.integer; }
}
public class TaskElectionEventArgs
{
public bool VoteResult { get; private set; }
public TaskElectionEventArgs(bool vote) { VoteResult = vote; }
}
public delegate void VoteEventHandler(object sender, TaskElectionEventArgs e);
public class SingleVoteTask
{
private AtomicInteger votesLeft;
private IRunnableTask task;
private volatile bool runTask = false;
private object _lock = new object();
public event VoteEventHandler VoteCast;
public event VoteEventHandler TaskCompleted;
public bool IsWaiting { get { return votesLeft.Value > 0; } }
public PendingBool Result
{
get
{
if (votesLeft > 0)
return PendingBool.Unknown;
else if (runTask)
return PendingBool.True;
else
return PendingBool.False;
}
}
public SingleVoteTask(int numberOfVotes, IRunnableTask taskToRun)
{
votesLeft = new AtomicInteger(numberOfVotes);
task = taskToRun;
}
public void CastVote(bool vote)
{
votesLeft.Decrement();
runTask |= vote;
VoteCast?.Invoke(this, new TaskElectionEventArgs(vote));
if (votesLeft == 0)
lock (_lock)
{
Monitor.Pulse(_lock);
}
}
public void Await()
{
lock(_lock)
{
while (votesLeft > 0)
Monitor.Wait(_lock);
if (runTask)
task.Run();
TaskCompleted?.Invoke(this, new TaskElectionEventArgs(runTask));
}
}
}
Implementing the above solution was as simple as creating the SingleVoteTask in the UI thread and then having each thread affecting the outcome cast a vote.
I am starting with threads and wrote for the sake of learning the following simple program, which later would be used to calculate about 100,000 times a formula (it is a relatively simple one but which takes an iterated range of values).
The problem with it is that I expected every thread to execute in almost no time and thus the complete program to finish nearly immediately, but the fact is that everything runs too slow (about 10s)...
static readonly double TotalIterations = 1000;
public static Iterations ActualIterations = new Iterations();
public static void Main()
{
var par1 = "foo";
var par2 = "boo";
var par3 = 3;
for (int i = 0; i < TotalIterations; i++)
{
new Thread(() => new Calculations().Calculate(par1, par2, par3)).Start();
}
AwaitingThreads();
}
static void AwaitThreads()
{
Console.WriteLine("Awaiting threads to finished...");
while (true)
{
lock (ActualIterations)
{
if (ActualIterations.Progress() == TotalIterations) break;
}
Thread.Sleep(1 * 1000);
}
Console.WriteLine("All threads finished!");
}
public class Calculations {
public bool Calculate(string par1, string par2, int par3)
{
// ...
bool result = false;
lock (ActualIterations)
{
ActualIterations.Incr();
}
return result;
}
}
public class Iterations
{
int progress = 0;
public void Incr()
{
progress++;
}
public int Progress()
{
return progress;
}
}
I also tried using a ThreadPool like this, but there was no improvement...
static readonly double TotalIterations = 1000;
static string par1 = "foo";
static string par2 = "boo";
static int par3 = 3;
public static Iterations ActualIterations = new Iterations();
public static void Main()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(MyThreadPool);
AwaitThreads();
}
static void AwaitThreads()
{
Console.WriteLine("Awaiting threads to finished...");
while (true)
{
lock (ActualIterations)
{
if (ActualIterations.Progress() == TotalIterations) break;
}
Thread.Sleep(1 * 1000);
}
Console.WriteLine("All threads finished!");
}
static void MyThreadPool(Object stateInfo)
{
for (int i = 0; i < TotalIterations; i++)
{
new Thread(() => new Calculations().Calculate(par1, par2, par3)).Start();
}
}
public class Calculations {
public bool Calculate(string par1, string par2, int par3)
{
// ...
bool result = false;
lock (ActualIterations)
{
ActualIterations.Incr();
}
return result;
}
}
public class Iterations
{
int progress = 0;
public void Incr()
{
progress++;
}
public int Progress()
{
return progress;
}
}
When I quit using threads in this example and use a static method, executing it sequentially in my for loop, the program finishes in 1s...
Can anybody enlighten me what I am doing wrong here with those threads?
The problem with it is that I expected every thread to execute in almost no time
Right. You're ignoring the fact that creating a new thread is a relatively expensive operation. Far, far more expensive than "acquiring a lock and incrementing an integer" which is the work you're doing in the thread.
To give a real world comparison, it's a little like ordering a new car, waiting it to be delivered, and then driving it 1km. That's going to be slower than just walking 1km.
Using the thread pool would be faster, but you're not using it correctly - you're launching one thread pool task which then creates all the other threads again.
I would encourage you to look at using Task<T> instead, which normally uses the thread pool under the hood, and is a generally more modern abstraction for this sort of work.
This is the way to proceed doing what you wanted to do:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
tasks.Add(Task.Run(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Calculations " + DateTime.Now);
}));
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
}
}
Tasks are actually optimized and programmer-friendly to use if you need to work with threads.
Another advice i want to give you is to create an Object just for locking purposes, example:
class Program
{
private static Object _locker = new Object();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
tasks.Add(Task.Run(() =>
{
lock (_locker)
{
Console.WriteLine("Calculations " + DateTime.Now);
}
}));
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
}
}
I see the problem in the AwaitThreads method.
It uses the same lock (ActualIterations) as working thread and it makes working threads to wait for shared resource additionally.
Also (as it was mentioned by #Euphoric) the thread working code you have shown is just about single increment and it uses the shared resource between all threads.
You have to change it in some another way and try to avoid shared resource usage in multi threaded environment.
For example, if you need to make some calculation on huge data array you have to feed each thread own data part to be processed and then wait for all tasks to be finished. There is Task concept and Task.WaitAll
I am creating a custom CountdownWaitHandle class it has the following method:
public void Signal()
{
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref threadsInstances) <= 0)
{
mre.Set();
}
}
mre is a instance of ManualResetEvent class and I use this class to block the current thread and wait to all threads complete his work and each thread when finish his work or occurred an exception call Signal() method.
So my question if the return value of Interlock.Decrement and condition(<=0) could cause any Concurrency Issue inside if condition? or I have to use a lock statement for the if condition and if body instead of Interlock like as example above:
lock(_lock)
{
if (--threadsInstances <= 0)
{
mre.Set();
}
}
Note:I am using 3.5 net.
Complete code:
public class CountdownWaitHandle : WaitHandle
{
private int threadsInstances = 0;
private ManualResetEvent mre;
private readonly object threadsyncAccess = new object();
public CountdownWaitHandle(int initialCount)
{
threadsInstances = initialCount;
mre = new ManualResetEvent(false);
}
public void AddCount()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref threadsInstances);
}
public void Signal()
{
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref threadsInstances) <= 0)
{
mre.Set();
}
}
public override bool WaitOne()
{
return mre.WaitOne();
}
}
In this example.
I am going to use my custom CountdownEvent class to download a large
file using chunks for any Cloud Site. So each chunk after finish downloading his range bytes it release the resources or move to another Stream.
public static void Main(String[] args)
{
CountdownWaitHandle customCountDown = new CountdownWaitHandle(0)
while (i < 100)
{
SpecificWork work1 = new SpecificWork (startPosition, endPosition, customCountDown);
customCountDown.AddCount();
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(PerformTask, work1); // after finish download it invokes to Signal method.
}
customCountDown.WaitOne();
}
Interlocked.Decrement will work as intended in this sample, assuming you are calling Interlocked.Increment to raise the count above zero.
Of course, using CountdownEvent would be better than building your own synchronization object.
What is it and how to use?
I need that as I have a timer that inserts into DB every second, and I have a shared resource between timer handler and the main thread.
I want to gurantee that if the timer handler takes more than one second in the insertion the waited threads should be executed in order.
This is a sample code for my timer handler:
private void InsertBasicVaraibles(object param)
{
try
{
DataTablesMutex.WaitOne();//mutex for my shared resources
//insert into DB
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Handle
}
finally
{
DataTablesMutex.ReleaseMutex();
}
}
But currently the mutex does not guarantee any order.
You'll need to write your own class to do this, I found this example (pasted because it looks as though the site's domain has lapsed):
using System.Threading;
public sealed class QueuedLock
{
private object innerLock;
private volatile int ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile int ticketToRide = 1;
public QueuedLock()
{
innerLock = new Object();
}
public void Enter()
{
int myTicket = Interlocked.Increment(ref ticketsCount);
Monitor.Enter(innerLock);
while (true)
{
if (myTicket == ticketToRide)
{
return;
}
else
{
Monitor.Wait(innerLock);
}
}
}
public void Exit()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref ticketToRide);
Monitor.PulseAll(innerLock);
Monitor.Exit(innerLock);
}
}
Example of usage:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
try
{
queuedLock.Enter();
// here code which needs to be synchronized
// in correct order
}
finally
{
queuedLock.Exit();
}
Source via archive.org
Just reading Joe Duffy's "Concurrent Programming on Windows" it sounds like you'll usually get FIFO behaviour from .NET monitors, but there are some situations where that won't occur.
Page 273 of the book says: "Because monitors use kernel objects internally, they exhibit the same roughly-FIFO behavior that the OS synchronization mechanisms also exhibit (described in the previous chapter). Monitors are unfair, so if another thread sneaks in and acquires the lock before an awakened waiting thread tries to acquire the lock, the sneaky thread is permitted to acquire the lock."
I can't immediately find the section referenced "in the previous chapter" but it does note that locks have been made deliberately unfair in recent editions of Windows to improve scalability and reduce lock convoys.
Do you definitely need your lock to be FIFO? Maybe there's a different way to approach the problem. I don't know of any locks in .NET which are guaranteed to be FIFO.
You should re-design your system to not rely on the execution order of the threads. For example, rather than have your threads make a DB call that might take more than one second, have your threads place the command they would execute into a data structure like a queue (or a heap if there is something that says "this one should be before another one"). Then, in spare time, drain the queue and do your db inserts one at a time in the proper order.
There is no guaranteed order on any built-in synchronisation objects: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684266(VS.85).aspx
If you want a guaranteed order you'll have to try and build something yourself, note though that it's not as easy as it might sound, especially when multiple threads reach the synchronisation point at (close to) the same time. To some extent the order they will be released will always be 'random' since you cannot predict in which order the point is reached, so does it really matter?
Actually the answers are good, but I solved the problem by removing the timer and run the method (timer-handler previously) into background thread as follows
private void InsertBasicVaraibles()
{
int functionStopwatch = 0;
while(true)
{
try
{
functionStopwatch = Environment.TickCount;
DataTablesMutex.WaitOne();//mutex for my shared resources
//insert into DB
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Handle
}
finally
{
DataTablesMutex.ReleaseMutex();
}
//simulate the timer tick value
functionStopwatch = Environment.TickCount - functionStopwatch;
int diff = INSERTION_PERIOD - functionStopwatch;
int sleep = diff >= 0 ? diff:0;
Thread.Sleep(sleep);
}
}
Follow up on Matthew Brindley's answer.
If converting code from
lock (LocalConnection.locker) {...}
then you could either do a IDisposable or do what I did:
public static void Locking(Action action) {
Lock();
try {
action();
} finally {
Unlock();
}
}
LocalConnection.Locking( () => {...});
I decided against IDisposable because it would creates a new invisible object on every call.
As to reentrancy issue I modified the code to this:
public sealed class QueuedLock {
private object innerLock = new object();
private volatile int ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile int ticketToRide = 1;
ThreadLocal<int> reenter = new ThreadLocal<int>();
public void Enter() {
reenter.Value++;
if ( reenter.Value > 1 )
return;
int myTicket = Interlocked.Increment( ref ticketsCount );
Monitor.Enter( innerLock );
while ( true ) {
if ( myTicket == ticketToRide ) {
return;
} else {
Monitor.Wait( innerLock );
}
}
}
public void Exit() {
if ( reenter.Value > 0 )
reenter.Value--;
if ( reenter.Value > 0 )
return;
Interlocked.Increment( ref ticketToRide );
Monitor.PulseAll( innerLock );
Monitor.Exit( innerLock );
}
}
In case anyone needs Matt's solution in F#
type internal QueuedLock() =
let innerLock = Object()
let ticketsCount = ref 0
let ticketToRide = ref 1
member __.Enter () =
let myTicket = Interlocked.Increment ticketsCount
Monitor.Enter innerLock
while myTicket <> Volatile.Read ticketToRide do
Monitor.Wait innerLock |> ignore
member __.Exit () =
Interlocked.Increment ticketToRide |> ignore
Monitor.PulseAll innerLock
Monitor.Exit innerLock
Elaborating on Matt Brindley's great answer so that it works with the using statement:
public sealed class QueuedLockProvider
{
private readonly object _innerLock;
private volatile int _ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile int _ticketToRide = 1;
public QueuedLockProvider()
{
_innerLock = new object();
}
public Lock GetLock()
{
return new Lock(this);
}
private void Enter()
{
int myTicket = Interlocked.Increment(ref _ticketsCount);
Monitor.Enter(_innerLock);
while (true)
{
if (myTicket == _ticketToRide)
{
return;
}
else
{
Monitor.Wait(_innerLock);
}
}
}
private void Exit()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref _ticketToRide);
Monitor.PulseAll(_innerLock);
Monitor.Exit(_innerLock);
}
public class Lock : IDisposable
{
private readonly QueuedLockProvider _lockProvider;
internal Lock(QueuedLockProvider lockProvider)
{
_lockProvider = lockProvider;
_lockProvider.Enter();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_lockProvider.Exit();
}
}
}
Now use it like this:
QueuedLockProvider _myLockProvider = new QueuedLockProvider();
// ...
using(_myLockProvider.GetLock())
{
// here code which needs to be synchronized
// in correct order
}
NOTE: The examples provided are susceptible to Deadlocks.
Example:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
void func1()
{
try
{
queuedLock.Enter();
fubc2()
}
finally
{
queuedLock.Exit();
}
}
void func2()
{
try
{
queuedLock.Enter(); //<<<< DEADLOCK
}
finally
{
queuedLock.Exit();
}
}
Re. optional solution (inc. an optional IDisposable usage):
public sealed class QueuedLock
{
private class SyncObject : IDisposable
{
private Action m_action = null;
public SyncObject(Action action)
{
m_action = action;
}
public void Dispose()
{
lock (this)
{
var action = m_action;
m_action = null;
action?.Invoke();
}
}
}
private readonly object m_innerLock = new Object();
private volatile uint m_ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile uint m_ticketToRide = 1;
public bool Enter()
{
if (Monitor.IsEntered(m_innerLock))
return false;
uint myTicket = Interlocked.Increment(ref m_ticketsCount);
Monitor.Enter(m_innerLock);
while (true)
{
if (myTicket == m_ticketToRide)
return true;
Monitor.Wait(m_innerLock);
}
}
public void Exit()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref m_ticketToRide);
Monitor.PulseAll(m_innerLock);
Monitor.Exit(m_innerLock);
}
public IDisposable GetLock()
{
if (Enter())
return new SyncObject(Exit);
return new SyncObject(null);
}
}
Usage:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
void func1()
{
bool isLockAquire = false;
try
{
isLockAquire = queuedLock.Enter();
// here code which needs to be synchronized in correct order
}
finally
{
if (isLockAquire)
queuedLock.Exit();
}
}
or:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
void func1()
{
using (queuedLock.GetLock())
{
// here code which needs to be synchronized in correct order
}
}
For a "log information for support" type of function I'd like to enumerate and dump active thread information.
I'm well aware of the fact that race conditions can make this information semi-inaccurate, but I'd like to try to get the best possible result, even if it isn't 100% accurate.
I looked at Process.Threads, but it returns ProcessThread objects, I'd like to have a collection of Thread objects, so that I can log their name, and whether they're background threads or not.
Is there such a collection available, even if it is just a snapshot of the active threads when I call it?
ie.
Thread[] activeThreads = ??
Note, to be clear, I am not asking about Process.Threads, this collection gives me a lot, but not all of what I want. I want to know how much time specific named threads in our application is currently using (which means I will have to look at connecting the two types of objects later, but the names is more important than the CPU time to begin with.)
If you're willing to replace your application's Thread creations with another wrapper class, said wrapper class can track the active and inactive Threads for you. Here's a minimal workable shell of such a wrapper:
namespace ThreadTracker
{
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Collections.ObjectModel;
using System.Threading;
public class TrackedThread
{
private static readonly IList<Thread> threadList = new List<Thread>();
private readonly Thread thread;
private readonly ParameterizedThreadStart start1;
private readonly ThreadStart start2;
public TrackedThread(ParameterizedThreadStart start)
{
this.start1 = start;
this.thread = new Thread(this.StartThreadParameterized);
lock (threadList)
{
threadList.Add(this.thread);
}
}
public TrackedThread(ThreadStart start)
{
this.start2 = start;
this.thread = new Thread(this.StartThread);
lock (threadList)
{
threadList.Add(this.thread);
}
}
public TrackedThread(ParameterizedThreadStart start, int maxStackSize)
{
this.start1 = start;
this.thread = new Thread(this.StartThreadParameterized, maxStackSize);
lock (threadList)
{
threadList.Add(this.thread);
}
}
public TrackedThread(ThreadStart start, int maxStackSize)
{
this.start2 = start;
this.thread = new Thread(this.StartThread, maxStackSize);
lock (threadList)
{
threadList.Add(this.thread);
}
}
public static int Count
{
get
{
lock (threadList)
{
return threadList.Count;
}
}
}
public static IEnumerable<Thread> ThreadList
{
get
{
lock (threadList)
{
return new ReadOnlyCollection<Thread>(threadList);
}
}
}
// either: (a) expose the thread object itself via a property or,
// (b) expose the other Thread public methods you need to replicate.
// This example uses (a).
public Thread Thread
{
get
{
return this.thread;
}
}
private void StartThreadParameterized(object obj)
{
try
{
this.start1(obj);
}
finally
{
lock (threadList)
{
threadList.Remove(this.thread);
}
}
}
private void StartThread()
{
try
{
this.start2();
}
finally
{
lock (threadList)
{
threadList.Remove(this.thread);
}
}
}
}
}
and a quick test driver of it (note I do not iterate over the list of threads, merely get the count in the list):
namespace ThreadTracker
{
using System;
using System.Threading;
internal static class Program
{
private static void Main()
{
var thread1 = new TrackedThread(DoNothingForFiveSeconds);
var thread2 = new TrackedThread(DoNothingForTenSeconds);
var thread3 = new TrackedThread(DoNothingForSomeTime);
thread1.Thread.Start();
thread2.Thread.Start();
thread3.Thread.Start(15);
while (TrackedThread.Count > 0)
{
Console.WriteLine(TrackedThread.Count);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void DoNothingForFiveSeconds()
{
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
private static void DoNothingForTenSeconds()
{
Thread.Sleep(10000);
}
private static void DoNothingForSomeTime(object seconds)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000 * (int)seconds);
}
}
}
Not sure if you can go such a route, but it will accomplish the goal if you're able to incorporate at an early stage of development.
Is it feasible for you to store thread information in a lookup as you create each thread in your application?
As each thread starts, you can get its ID using AppDomain.GetCurrentThreadId(). Later, you can use this to cross reference with the data returned from Process.Threads.