Develop Reference

Deadlock when updating a UI control from a worker thread

To simplify the explanation of the strange behavior I am experiencing, I have this simple class named Log which fires 1 log events every 1000msec.
public static class Log
{
public delegate void LogDel(string msg);
public static event LogDel logEvent;
public static void StartMessageGeneration ()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
logEvent.Invoke(i.ToString());
Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
}
I have the Form class below which is subscribed to the log events of the Log class so it can handle them and display in a simple text box.
Once a log message arrives, it is added to a list. Every 500msec, a timer object access that list so its content can be displayed in a text box.
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private SynchronizationContext context;
private System.Threading.Timer guiTimer = null;
private readonly object syncLock = new object();
private List<string> listOfMessages = new List<string>();
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
context = SynchronizationContext.Current;
guiTimer = new System.Threading.Timer(TimerProcessor, this, 0, 500);
Log.logEvent += Log_logEvent;
}
private void Log_logEvent(string msg)
{
lock (syncLock)
listOfMessages.Add(msg);
}
private void TimerProcessor(object obj)
{
Form1 myForm = obj as Form1;
lock (myForm.syncLock)
{
if (myForm.listOfMessages.Count == 0)
return;
myForm.context.Send(new SendOrPostCallback(delegate
{
foreach (string item in myForm.listOfMessages)
myForm.textBox1.AppendText(item + "\n");
}), null);
listOfMessages.Clear();
}
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Log.StartMessageGeneration();
}
}
The problem I see is that sometimes, there is a dead lock (application stuck). Seems that the 2 locks (1st one for adding to the list and the 2nd one for "retrieving" from the list) are somehow blocking each others.
Hints:
1) reducing the rate of sending the messages from 1 sec to 200msec seems to help (not sure why)
2) Somehow something happens when returning to the GUI thread (using the synchronization context) and accessing the GUI control. If I don't return to the GUI thread, the 2 locks are working fine together...
Thanks everyone!

There's a few problems with your code, and a few... silly things.
First, your Log.StartMessageGeneration doesn't actually produce a log message every second, because you're not awaiting the task returned by Task.Delay - you're basically just creating a thousand timers very quickly (and pointlessly). The log generation is limited only by the Invoke. Using Thread.Sleep is a blocking alternative to Task.Delay if you don't want to use Tasks, await etc. Of course, therein lies your biggest problem - StartMessageGeneration is not asynchronous with respect to the UI thread!
Second, there's little point in using System.Threading.Timer on your form. Instead, just use the windows forms timer - it's entirely on the UI thread so there's no need for marshalling your code back to the UI thread. Since your TimerProcessor doesn't do any CPU work and it only blocks for a very short time, it's the more straight-forward solution.
If you decide to keep using System.Threading.Timer anyway, there's no point in manually dealing with synchronization contexts - just use BeginInvoke on the form; the same way, there's no point in passing the form as an argument to the method, since the method isn't static. this is your form. You can actually see this is the case since you omitted myForm in listOfMessages.Clear() - the two instances are the same, myForm is superfluous.
A simple pause in the debugger will easily tell you where the program is hung - learn to use the debugger well, and it will save you a lot of time. But let's just look at this logically. StartMessageGeneration runs on the UI thread, while System.Threading.Timer uses a thread-pool thread. When the timer locks syncLock, StartMessageGeneration can't enter the same lock, of course - that's fine. But then you Send to the UI thread, and... the UI thread can't do anything, since it's blocked by StartMessageGeneration, which never gives the UI an opportunity to do anything. And StartMessageGeneration can't proceed, because it's waiting on the lock. The only case where this "works" is when StartMessageGeneration runs fast enough to complete before your timer fires (thus freeing the UI thread to do its work) - which is very much possible due to your incorrect use of Task.Delay.
Now let's look on your "hints" with all we know. 1) is simply your bias in measurements. Since you never wait on the Task.Delay in any way, changing the interval does absolutely nothing (with a tiny change in case the delay is zero). 2) of course - that's where your deadlock is. Two pieces of code that depend on a shared resource, while they both require to take posession of another resource. It's a very typical case of a deadlock. Thread 1 is waiting for A to release B, and thread 2 is waiting for B to release A (in this case, A being syncLock and B being the UI thread). When you remove the Send (or replace it with Post), thread 1 no longer has to wait on B, and the deadlock disappears.
There's other things that make writing code like this simpler. There's little point in declaring your own delegate when you can just use Action<string>, for example; using await helps quite a bit when dealing with mixed UI/non-UI code, as well as managing any kind of asynchronous code. You don't need to use event where a simple function will suffice - you can just pass that delegate to a function that needs it if that makes sense, and it may make perfect sense not to allow multiple event handlers to be called. If you decide to keep with the event, at least make sure it conforms to the EventHandler delegate.
To show how your code can be rewritten to be a bit more up-to-date and actually work:
void Main()
{
Application.Run(new LogForm());
}
public static class Log
{
public static async Task GenerateMessagesAsync(Action<string> logEvent,
CancellationToken cancel)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
cancel.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
logEvent(i.ToString());
await Task.Delay(1000, cancel);
}
}
}
public partial class LogForm : Form
{
private readonly List<string> messages;
private readonly Button btnStart;
private readonly Button btnStop;
private readonly TextBox tbxLog;
private readonly System.Windows.Forms.Timer timer;
public LogForm()
{
messages = new List<string>();
btnStart = new Button { Text = "Start" };
btnStart.Click += btnStart_Click;
Controls.Add(btnStart);
btnStop =
new Button { Text = "Stop", Location = new Point(80, 0), Enabled = false };
Controls.Add(btnStop);
tbxLog = new TextBox { Height = 200, Multiline = true, Dock = DockStyle.Bottom };
Controls.Add(tbxLog);
timer = new System.Windows.Forms.Timer { Interval = 500 };
timer.Tick += TimerProcessor;
timer.Start();
}
private void TimerProcessor(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
foreach (var message in messages)
{
tbxLog.AppendText(message + Environment.NewLine);
}
messages.Clear();
}
private async void btnStart_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
btnStart.Enabled = false;
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
EventHandler stopAction = (_, __) => cts.Cancel();
btnStop.Click += stopAction;
btnStop.Enabled = true;
try
{
await Log.GenerateMessagesAsync(message => messages.Add(message), cts.Token);
}
catch (TaskCanceledException)
{
messages.Add("Cancelled.");
}
finally
{
btnStart.Enabled = true;
btnStop.Click -= stopAction;
btnStop.Enabled = false;
}
}
protected override void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing)
{
timer.Dispose();
btnStart.Dispose();
btnStop.Dispose();
tbxLog.Dispose();
}
base.Dispose(disposing);
}
}

SynchronizationContext.Send is run synchronously. When you call it, you actually block the UI thread until the operation is complete. But if UI thread is already in lock state, then it just make sense that you are in deadlock.
You can use SynchronizationContext.Post to avoid this.
I just answer on your question, but the truth is that your code need a "little" refactoring..

Calling a method after set amount of time and/or aborting thread issues

So I've got an application that employs a filesystemWatcher and triggers an event just fine. The FSW will trigger a bunch of times pretty close together. I want to create a function that triggers say an hour after the last time the FSW was triggered.
I first tried using a backgroundworker: (All code is shortened for clarity)
namespace Devo
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
BackgroundWorker bw = new BackgroundWorker();
private void fileSystemWatcher_Created(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
if (bw.IsBusy)
{
bw.CancelAsync(); //this is to, in a way, reset the timer for the delayed method.
}
//do a lot of stuff
bw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
private void backgroundWorker_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
while(sw.ElapsedMilliseconds < 180000)
{
if (bw.CancellationPending == true)
{
sw.Stop();
sw.Reset();
e.Cancel = true;
return;
}
}
sw.Stop();
sw.Reset();
DelayedMethod();
}
}
}
This didn't work as the second time bw.RunWorkerAsync() was called it was apparently busy, even though the call to bw.CancelAsync().
My next attempt involved a regular thread as I read somewhere on SO (can't find the link now) that one could not "restart" a backgroundWorker as I am trying to do.
The thread attemp is nearly identical but I thought I'd try in since there might be some constraints within the backgroundWorker that is not present in a regular thread. I thought.
namespace Devo
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
Thread PWC_counter_thread = new Thread(PWC_Counter);
private void fileSystemWatcher_Created(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
if (PWC_counter_thread.IsAlive)
PWC_counter_thread.Abort();
//do a lot of stuff
PWC_counter_thread.Start();
}
static void PWC_Counter()
{
Thread.Sleep(180000);
DelayedMethod();
}
}
}
But this gave me the same error. On the second call to PWC_counter_thread.Start() is was busy.
I'm assuming that a race condition is not present as the second thread waits for, in this example, 3 minutes, and the initial FSW method takes a good full second to execute, therefore I believe that the call to .Abort() and .CancelAsync() both are done before their respective methods are completed.
Now for the questions:
Is it possible to restart a thread in the fashion I am trying? If so, what am I doing wrong?
Should I delay my method call in another way? If so, tips?
EDIT/UPDATE/SOLUTION
I never got starting and stopping a thread to work as I wanted so I found another solution to my situation.
The situation was that I had a second thread that worked as a sort of timer where it would call a method after a set amount of time. My first thread did some work and upon finishing it would start the second thread. If the first thread got fired up again before the timer-thread had finished it was supposed to kill the thread and restart it.
This proved, for me, to be difficult to get the way I wanted. So I instead took another approach towards my wanted end result. Instead of restarting the thread I simply restarted the stopwatch that my second thread was using as a counter. This gave me the result I wanted. It's probably bad practice but it works.

In your BackgroundWorker example you probably have an issue with racing. CancelAsync(), as its name implies, is an asynchronious call, meaning that BackgroundWorker does not stop working immediately and it might still work when try to restart it. To avoid that, you should subscribe to RunWorkerCompleted event and wait for it to fire before calling bw.RunWorkerAsync(); again. For example:
public Form1()
{
bw = new BackgroundWorker();
bw.RunWorkerCompleted += OnCompleted;
}
private BackgroundWorker bw;
private ManualResetEvent completed = new ManualResetEvent(false);
private void OnCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
completed.Set();
}
private void fileSystemWatcher_Created(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
if (bw.IsBusy)
{
bw.CancelAsync();
completed.WaitOne();
}
//do a lot of stuff
completed.Reset();
bw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
You have multiple issues with your Thread-based example.
You should never call Thread.Abort(). Instead, you should implement a cancellation mechanism, similar to that of BackgroundWorker. Make a bool field (_isCancelled or something) and check it periodically in thread delegate.
You can not reuse a Thread object. You should always create a new one.

You would be best off encapsulating this in a class, and use a System.Threading.Timer to detect the inactivity.
Here's an example I put together. The idea is that you create an InactivityDetector with the appropriate inactivity threshold (an hour in your case) and a callback method that will be called when that period of inactivity is exceeded.
You have to call InactivityDetector.RegisterActivity() whenever activity is detected (e.g. in your case a file creation is detected).
Once the inactivity callback has been issued, it will not be called again until RegisterActivity() has been called again (this prevents multiple callbacks for the same period of extended inactivity).
Your code would pass DelayedMethod for the inactivity Action delegate.
Note that the callback is on a separate thread!
(Also note that I didn't put in any parameter validation, to keep the code shorter.)
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
sealed class Program
{
void test()
{
using (var inactivityDetector = new InactivityDetector(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(2), inactivityDetected))
{
for (int loop = 0; loop < 3; ++loop)
{
Console.WriteLine("Keeping busy once a second for 5 seconds.");
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("Registering activity");
inactivityDetector.RegisterActivity();
}
Console.WriteLine("Entering 3 second inactivity");
Thread.Sleep(3000);
inactivityDetector.RegisterActivity();
}
}
}
static void inactivityDetected()
{
Console.WriteLine("Inactivity detected.");
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new Program().test();
}
}
public sealed class InactivityDetector: IDisposable
{
public InactivityDetector(TimeSpan inactivityThreshold, Action onInactivity)
{
_inactivityThreshold = inactivityThreshold;
_onInactivity = onInactivity;
_timer = new Timer(timerCallback, null, (int)inactivityThreshold.TotalMilliseconds, -1);
}
public void RegisterActivity()
{
_timer.Change(-1, -1);
_timer.Change((int)_inactivityThreshold.TotalMilliseconds, -1);
}
private void timerCallback(object state)
{
_timer.Change(-1, -1);
_onInactivity();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_timer.Dispose();
}
private readonly TimeSpan _inactivityThreshold;
private readonly Action _onInactivity;
private readonly Timer _timer;
}
}

Threading issue in C# using BackgroundWorker

Can some kind soul please explain why the following psudocode would not work. The problem is that the lock can never be aquired on the backgroundWorker (Monitor.TryEnter(bw)) when called from a new thread. If I call it from the main UI thread it works fine.
Thanks
P
public class MyClass
{
private BackgroundWorker bw;
private void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
System.Threading.Thread t =
new System.Threading.Thread(new System.Threading.ThreadStart(DoStuff));
t.IsBackground = true;
t.Start();
}
private void DoStuff()
{
if (Monitor.TryEnter(bw))
{
WorkDetails wd = new WorkDetails('some stuff here');
bw.RunWorkerAsync(wd);
// etc... etc...
}
}
}

Are you missing a Monitor.Exit at the end of the if block.
Without a Monitor.Exit, whichever thread first does a Monitor.TryEnter successfully will be the only thread that can enter again.

I'm not sure you are using the background worker (BGW) as it was intended
The idea behind it, usually, is that you don't create threads yourself but rather specify to the BGW what you want to be done asynchronously. so your code should look like:
private BackgroundWorker bw = new BackgroundWorker ();
ctor
{
bw.DoWork += (sender, e) => DoStuff();
}
private void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
bw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
For more information, see here
comments:
As a rule of thumb, never lock on arbitrary objects (like you do on bw) but rather on objects whose sole purpose is locking. I recommend you read Jon Skeet's excellent multi threading guide
You can add the BGW declaratively via the designer, saving yourself the instantiation and event hooking code

Call method on the GUI thread from a timers thread

In my application I am using a timer to check for updates in an RSS feed, if new items are found I pop up a custom dialog to inform the user. When I run the check manually everything works great, but when the automatic check runs in the timers Elapsed event the custom dialog is not displayed.
First of all is this a thread issue? (I am assuming it is because both the manual and automatic check use the same code).
When I run the automatic check, do I have to invoke the method that runs the check from the Timers Elapsed event handler?
Is there something I need to do in my custom dialog class?
Edit:
this is a winforms application.
Here is an example of what the code is like. (Please don't point out syntax errors in this code example, this is just a simple example not real code).
public class MainForm : System.Windows.Forms.Form
{
//This is the object that does most of the work.
ObjectThatDoesWork MyObjectThatDoesWork = new ObjectThatDoesWork();
MyObjectThatDoesWork.NewItemsFound += new NewItemsFoundEventHandler(Found_New_Items);
private void Found_New_Items(object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
//Display custom dialog to alert user.
}
//Method that doesn't really exist in my class,
// but shows that the main form can call Update for a manual check.
private void Button_Click(object sender, System.EventArgs e)
{
MyObjectThatDoesWork.Update();
}
//The rest of MainForm with boring main form stuff
}
public class ObjectThatDoesWork
{
System.Timers.Timer timer;
public ObjectThatDoesWork()
{
timer = new System.Timers.Timer();
timer.Interval = 600000;
timer.AutoReset = true;
timer.Elapsed += new new System.Timers.ElapsedEventHandler(TimeToWork);
timer.Start();
}
private void TimeToWork(object sender, System.Timers.ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
Update();
}
public void Update()
{
//Check for updates and raise an event if new items are found.
//The event is consumed by the main form.
OnNewItemsFound(this);
}
public delgate void NewItemsFoundEventHandler(object sender, System.EventArgs e);
public event NewItemsFoundEventHandler NewItemsFound;
protected void OnNewItemsFound(object sender)
{
if(NewItemsFound != null)
{
NewItemsFound(sender, new System.EventArgs());
}
}
}
After reading some of the comments and answers, I think my problem is that I am using a System.Timers.Timer not a System.Windows.Forms.Timer.
EDIT:
After changing to a Forms.Timer initial testing looks good (but no new items exist yet so have not seen the custom dialog). I added a bit of code to output the thread ID to a file when the update method is called. Using the Timers.Timer the thread ID was not the GUI thread, but using the Forms.Timer the thread ID is the same as the GUI.

Which timer are you using? System.Windows.Forms.Timer automatically fires the event on the UI thread. If you are using other one you will need to use Control.Invoke to call the method on UI thread.

You should use Forms.Timer here, or if you use other kind of timers, serialize calls to UI with .Invoke()

Is your application a WPF-Application? If so, you must delegate the work from your background-thread to the Dispatcher associated with the UI thread.
Post some code, so you can get better help and have a look at the Dispatcher class http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.threading.dispatcher.invoke.aspx

private static System.Threading.SynchronizationContext _UI_Context;
//call this function once from the UI thread
internal static void init_CallOnUIThread()
{
_UI_Context = System.Threading.SynchronizationContext.Current;
}
public static void CallOnUIThread(Action action, bool asynchronous = false)
{
if (!asynchronous)
_UI_Context.Send((o) =>
{
action();
}, null);
else
_UI_Context.Post((o) =>
{
action();
}, null);
}

How do I run a simple bit of code in a new thread?

I have a bit of code that I need to run in a different thread than the GUI as it currently causes the form to freeze whilst the code runs (10 seconds or so).
Assume I have never created a new thread before; what's a simple/basic example of how to do this in C# and using .NET Framework 2.0 or later?

Good place to start reading is Joe Albahari.
If you want to create your own thread, this is as simple as it gets:
using System.Threading;
new Thread(() =>
{
Thread.CurrentThread.IsBackground = true;
/* run your code here */
Console.WriteLine("Hello, world");
}).Start();

BackgroundWorker seems to be best choice for you.
Here is my minimal example. After you click on the button the background worker will begin working in background thread and also report its progress simultaneously. It will also report after the work completes.
using System.ComponentModel;
...
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
BackgroundWorker bw = new BackgroundWorker();
// this allows our worker to report progress during work
bw.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
// what to do in the background thread
bw.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(
delegate(object o, DoWorkEventArgs args)
{
BackgroundWorker b = o as BackgroundWorker;
// do some simple processing for 10 seconds
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++)
{
// report the progress in percent
b.ReportProgress(i * 10);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
});
// what to do when progress changed (update the progress bar for example)
bw.ProgressChanged += new ProgressChangedEventHandler(
delegate(object o, ProgressChangedEventArgs args)
{
label1.Text = string.Format("{0}% Completed", args.ProgressPercentage);
});
// what to do when worker completes its task (notify the user)
bw.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(
delegate(object o, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs args)
{
label1.Text = "Finished!";
});
bw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
Note:
I put everything in single method
using C#'s anonymous method for
simplicity but you can always pull
them out to different methods.
It is safe to update GUI within
ProgressChanged or
RunWorkerCompleted handlers.
However, updating GUI from DoWork
will cause
InvalidOperationException.

The ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem is pretty ideal for something simple. The only caveat is accessing a control from the other thread.
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate {
DoSomethingThatDoesntInvolveAControl();
}, null);

Here is another option:
Task.Run(()=>{
//Here is a new thread
});

Quick and dirty, but it will work:
Using at top:
using System.Threading;
simple code:
static void Main( string[] args )
{
Thread t = new Thread( NewThread );
t.Start();
}
static void NewThread()
{
//code goes here
}
I just threw this into a new console application for an exmaple

Try using the BackgroundWorker class. You give it delegates for what to run, and to be notified when work has finished. There is an example on the MSDN page that I linked to.

If you want to get a value:
var someValue;
Thread thread = new Thread(delegate()
{
//Do somthing and set your value
someValue = "Hello World";
});
thread.Start();
while (thread.IsAlive)
Application.DoEvents();

Put that code in a function (the code that can't be executed on the same thread as the GUI), and to trigger that code's execution put the following.
Thread myThread= new Thread(nameOfFunction);
workerThread.Start();
Calling the start function on the thread object will cause the execution of your function call in a new thread.

Here how can use threads with a progressBar , its just for understing how the threads works, in the form there are three progressBar and 4 button:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
Thread t, t2, t3;
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = false;
t = new Thread(birinicBar); //evry thread workes with a new progressBar
t2 = new Thread(ikinciBar);
t3 = new Thread(ucuncuBar);
}
public void birinicBar() //to make progressBar work
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
progressBar1.Value++;
Thread.Sleep(100); // this progressBar gonna work faster
}
}
public void ikinciBar()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
progressBar2.Value++;
Thread.Sleep(200);
}
}
public void ucuncuBar()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
progressBar3.Value++;
Thread.Sleep(300);
}
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) //that button to start the threads
{
t.Start();
t2.Start(); t3.Start();
}
private void button4_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)//that button to stup the threads with the progressBar
{
t.Suspend();
t2.Suspend();
t3.Suspend();
}
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)// that is for contuniue after stuping
{
t.Resume();
t2.Resume();
t3.Resume();
}
private void button3_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) // finally with that button you can remove all of the threads
{
t.Abort();
t2.Abort();
t3.Abort();
}
}

If you are going to use the raw Thread object then you need to set IsBackground to true at a minimum and you should also set the Threading Apartment model (probably STA).
public static void DoWork()
{
// do some work
}
public static void StartWorker()
{
Thread worker = new Thread(DoWork);
worker.IsBackground = true;
worker.SetApartmentState(System.Threading.ApartmentState.STA);
worker.Start()
}
I would recommend the BackgroundWorker class if you need UI interaction.

// following declaration of delegate ,,,
public delegate long GetEnergyUsageDelegate(DateTime lastRunTime,
DateTime procDateTime);
// following inside of some client method
GetEnergyUsageDelegate nrgDel = GetEnergyUsage;
IAsyncResult aR = nrgDel.BeginInvoke(lastRunTime, procDT, null, null);
while (!aR.IsCompleted) Thread.Sleep(500);
int usageCnt = nrgDel.EndInvoke(aR);
Charles your code(above) is not correct. You do not need to spin wait for completion. EndInvoke will block until the WaitHandle is signaled.
If you want to block until completion you simply need to
nrgDel.EndInvoke(nrgDel.BeginInvoke(lastRuntime,procDT,null,null));
or alternatively
ar.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne();
But what is the point of issuing anyc calls if you block? You might as well just use a synchronous call. A better bet would be to not block and pass in a lambda for cleanup:
nrgDel.BeginInvoke(lastRuntime,procDT,(ar)=> {ar.EndInvoke(ar);},null);
One thing to keep in mind is that you must call EndInvoke. A lot of people forget this and end up leaking the WaitHandle as most async implementations release the waithandle in EndInvoke.

another option, that uses delegates and the Thread Pool...
assuming 'GetEnergyUsage' is a method that takes a DateTime and another DateTime as input arguments, and returns an Int...
// following declaration of delegate ,,,
public delegate long GetEnergyUsageDelegate(DateTime lastRunTime,
DateTime procDateTime);
// following inside of some client method
GetEnergyUsageDelegate nrgDel = GetEnergyUsage;
IAsyncResult aR = nrgDel.BeginInvoke(lastRunTime, procDT, null, null);
while (!aR.IsCompleted) Thread.Sleep(500);
int usageCnt = nrgDel.EndInvoke(aR);

There are many ways of running separate threads in .Net, each has different behaviors. Do you need to continue running the thread after the GUI quits? Do you need to pass information between the thread and GUI? Does the thread need to update the GUI? Should the thread do one task then quit, or should it continue running? The answers to these questions will tell you which method to use.
There is a good async method article at the Code Project web site that describes the various methods and provides sample code.
Note this article was written before the async/await pattern and Task Parallel Library were introduced into .NET.

How to: Use a Background Thread to Search for Files
You have to be very carefull with access from other threads to GUI specific stuff (it is common for many GUI toolkits). If you want to update something in GUI from processing thread check this answer that I think is useful for WinForms. For WPF see this (it shows how to touch component in UpdateProgress() method so it will work from other threads, but actually I don't like it is not doing CheckAccess() before doing BeginInvoke through Dispathcer, see and search for CheckAccess in it)
Was looking .NET specific book on threading and found this one (free downloadable). See http://www.albahari.com/threading/ for more details about it.
I believe you will find what you need to launch execution as new thread in first 20 pages and it has many more (not sure about GUI specific snippets I mean strictly specific to threading). Would be glad to hear what community thinks about this work 'cause I'm reading this one. For now looked pretty neat for me (for showing .NET specific methods and types for threading). Also it covers .NET 2.0 (and not ancient 1.1) what I really appreciate.

I'd recommend looking at Jeff Richter's Power Threading Library and specifically the IAsyncEnumerator. Take a look at the video on Charlie Calvert's blog where Richter goes over it for a good overview.
Don't be put off by the name because it makes asynchronous programming tasks easier to code.