Develop Reference

How to prevent threads using the same variables

I have a multi-line textbox and I want to process each line with multi threads.
The textbox could have a lot of lines (1000+), but not as many threads. I want to use custom amount of threads to read all those 1000+ lines without any duplicates (as in each thread reading UNIQUE lines only, if a line has been read by other thread, not to read it again).
What I have right now:
private void button5_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
new Thread(new ThreadStart(threadJob)).Start();
}
}
private void threadJob()
{
for (int i = 0; i < txtSearchTerms.Lines.Length; i++)
{
lock (threadLock)
{
Console.WriteLine(txtSearchTerms.Lines[i]);
}
}
}
It does start the correct amount of threads, but they all read the same variable multiple times.

Separate data collection and data processing and next possible steps after calculation. You can safely collect results calculated in parallel by using ConcurrentBag<T>, which is simply thread-safe collection.
Then you don't need to worry about "locking" objects and all lines will be "processed" only once.
1. Collect data
2. Execute collected data in parallel
3. Handle calculated result
private string Process(string line)
{
// Your logic for given line
}
private void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var results = new ConcurrentBag<string>();
Parallel.ForEach(txtSearchTerms.Lines,
line =>
{
var result = Process(line);
results.Add(result);
});
foreach (var result in results)
{
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
}
By default Parallel.ForEach will use as much threads as underlying scheduler provides.
You can control amount of used threads by passing instance of ParallelOptions to the Parallel.ForEach method.
var options = new ParallelOptions
{
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = Environment.ProcessorCount
};
var results = new ConcurrentBag<string>();
Parallel.ForEach(values,
options,
value =>
{
var result = Process(value);
results.Add(result);
});

Consider using Parallel.ForEach to iterate over the Lines array. It is just like a normal foreach loop (i.e. each value will be processed only once), but the work is done in parallel - with multiple Tasks (threads).
var data = txtSearchTerms.Lines;
var threadCount = 4; // or whatever you want
Parallel.ForEach(data,
new ParallelOptions() { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = threadCount },
(val) =>
{
//Your code here
Console.WriteLine(val);
});
The above code will need this line to be added at the top of your file:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
Alternatively if you want to not just execute something, but also return / project something then instead try:
var results = data.AsParallel(new ParallelLinqOptions()
{
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = threadCount
}).Select(val =>
{
// Your code here, I just return the value but you could return whatever you want
return val;
}).ToList();
which still executes the code in parallel, but also returns a List (in this case with the same values in the original TextBox). And most importantly, the List will be in the same order as your input.

There many ways to do it what you want.
Take an extra class field:
private int _counter;
Use it instead of loop index. Increment it inside the lock:
private void threadJob()
{
while (true)
{
lock (threadLock)
{
if (_counter >= txtSearchTerms.Lines.Length)
return;
Console.WriteLine(txtSearchTerms.Lines[_counter]);
_counter++;
}
}
}
It works, but it very inefficient.
Lets consider another way. Each thread will handle its part of the dataset independently from the others.
public void button5_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(threadJob)).Start(i);
}
}
private void threadJob(object o)
{
int threadNumber = (int)o;
int count = txtSearchTerms.Lines.Length / threadCount;
int start = threadNumber * count;
int end = threadNumber != threadCount - 1 ? start + count : txtSearchTerms.Lines.Length;
for (int i = start; i < end; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(txtSearchTerms.Lines[i]);
}
}
This is more efficient because threads do not wait on the lock. However, the array elements are processed not in a general manner.

Producer Consumer in C# with multiple (parallel) consumers and no TPL Dataflow

I am trying to implement producer/consumer pattern with multiple or parallel consumers.
I did an implementation but I would like to know how good it is. Can somebody do better? Can any of you spot any errors?
Unfortunately I can not use TPL dataflow, because we are at the end of our project and to put in an extra library in our package would take to much paperwork and we do not have that time.
What I am trying to do is to speed up the following portion:
anIntermediaryList = StepOne(anInputList); // I will put StepOne as Producer :-) Step one is remote call.
aResultList = StepTwo(anIntermediaryList); // I will put StepTwo as Consumer, however he also produces result. Step two is also a remote call.
// StepOne is way faster than StepTwo.
For this I came up with the idea that I will chunk the input list (anInputList)
StepOne will be inside of a Producer and will put the intermediary chunks into a queue.
There will be multiple Producers and they will take the intermediary results and process it with StepTwo.
Here is a simplified version of of the implementation later:
Task.Run(() => {
aChunkinputList = Split(anInputList)
foreach(aChunk in aChunkinputList)
{
anIntermediaryResult = StepOne(aChunk)
intermediaryQueue.Add(anIntermediaryResult)
}
})
while(intermediaryQueue.HasItems)
{
anItermediaryResult = intermediaryQueue.Dequeue()
Task.Run(() => {
aResultList = StepTwo(anItermediaryResult);
resultQueue.Add(aResultList)
}
}
I also thought that the best number for the parallel running Consumers would be: "Environment.ProcessorCount / 2". I would like to know if this also is a good idea.
Now here is my mock implementation and the question is can somebody do better or spot any error?
class Example
{
protected static readonly int ParameterCount_ = 1000;
protected static readonly int ChunkSize_ = 100;
// This might be a good number for the parallel consumers.
protected static readonly int ConsumerCount_ = Environment.ProcessorCount / 2;
protected Semaphore mySemaphore_ = new Semaphore(Example.ConsumerCount_, Example.ConsumerCount_);
protected ConcurrentQueue<List<int>> myIntermediaryQueue_ = new ConcurrentQueue<List<int>>();
protected ConcurrentQueue<List<int>> myResultQueue_ = new ConcurrentQueue<List<int>>();
public void Main()
{
List<int> aListToProcess = new List<int>(Example.ParameterCount_ + 1);
aListToProcess.AddRange(Enumerable.Range(0, Example.ParameterCount_));
Task aProducerTask = Task.Run(() => Producer(aListToProcess));
List<Task> aTaskList = new List<Task>();
while(!aProducerTask.IsCompleted || myIntermediaryQueue_.Count > 0)
{
List<int> aChunkToProcess;
if (myIntermediaryQueue_.TryDequeue(out aChunkToProcess))
{
mySemaphore_.WaitOne();
aTaskList.Add(Task.Run(() => Consumer(aChunkToProcess)));
}
}
Task.WaitAll(aTaskList.ToArray());
List<int> aResultList = new List<int>();
foreach(List<int> aChunk in myResultQueue_)
{
aResultList.AddRange(aChunk);
}
aResultList.Sort();
if (aListToProcess.SequenceEqual(aResultList))
{
Console.WriteLine("All good!");
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine("Bad, very bad!");
}
}
protected void Producer(List<int> elements_in)
{
List<List<int>> aChunkList = Example.SplitList(elements_in, Example.ChunkSize_);
foreach(List<int> aChunk in aChunkList)
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread Id: {0} Producing from: ({1}-{2})",
Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId,
aChunk.First(),
aChunk.Last());
myIntermediaryQueue_.Enqueue(ProduceItemsRemoteCall(aChunk));
}
}
protected void Consumer(List<int> elements_in)
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread Id: {0} Consuming from: ({1}-{2})",
Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId,
Convert.ToInt32(Math.Sqrt(elements_in.First())),
Convert.ToInt32(Math.Sqrt(elements_in.Last())));
myResultQueue_.Enqueue(ConsumeItemsRemoteCall(elements_in));
mySemaphore_.Release();
}
// Dummy Remote Call
protected List<int> ProduceItemsRemoteCall(List<int> elements_in)
{
return elements_in.Select(x => x * x).ToList();
}
// Dummy Remote Call
protected List<int> ConsumeItemsRemoteCall(List<int> elements_in)
{
return elements_in.Select(x => Convert.ToInt32(Math.Sqrt(x))).ToList();
}
public static List<List<int>> SplitList(List<int> masterList_in, int chunkSize_in)
{
List<List<int>> aReturnList = new List<List<int>>();
for (int i = 0; i < masterList_in.Count; i += chunkSize_in)
{
aReturnList.Add(masterList_in.GetRange(i, Math.Min(chunkSize_in, masterList_in.Count - i)));
}
return aReturnList;
}
}
Main function:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Example anExample = new Example();
anExample.Main();
}
}
Bye
Laszlo

Based on the comments I've posted a second and third version:
https://codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/71182/producer-consumer-in-c-with-multiple-parallel-consumers-and-no-tpl-dataflow/71233#71233

Multithreaded code to do work using configured number of thread

I want to create a multithreaded application code. I want to execute configured no of threads and each thread do the work. I want to know is this the write approach or do we have better approach. All the threads needs to be executed asynchronously.
public static bool keepThreadsAlive = false;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Program pgm = new Program();
int noOfThreads = 4;
keepThreadsAlive = true;
for (int i = 1; i <= noOfThreads; i++)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(DoWork), (object)i);
}
System.Console.ReadLine();
StopAllThreads();
System.Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void DoWork(object threadNumber)
{
int threadNum = (int)threadNumber;
int counter = 1;
while (keepThreadsAlive)
{
counter = ProcessACK(threadNum, counter);
}
}
private static int ProcessACK(int threadNum, int counter)
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} count {1}", threadNum, counter++);
Random ran = new Random();
int randomNumber = ran.Next(5000, 100000);
for (int i = 0; i < randomNumber; i++) ;
Thread.Sleep(2000);
return counter;
}

As others have pointed out, the methods you are using are dated and not as elegant as the more modern C# approach to accomplishing the same tasks.
Have a look at System.Threading.Tasks for an overview of what is available to you these days. There is even a way to set the maximum threads used in a parallel operation. Here is a simple (pseudocode) example:
Parallel.ForEach(someListOfItems, new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 8 }, item =>
{
//do stuff for each item in "someListOfItems" using a maximum of 8 threads.
});
Hope this helps.

Monitoring the FPS of a Direct X Application

I am looking to create an external application that monitors the 'FPS' of a DirectX application (like FRAPS without the recording). I have read several Microsoft articles on performance measuring tools - but I am looking to get the feedback (and experience) of the community.
My question: what is the best method for obtaining the FPS of a DirectX application?

Windows has some Event Tracing for Windows providers related to DirectX profiling. The most intresting ones are Microsoft-Windows-D3D9 and Microsoft-Windows-DXGI, which allow tracing of the frame presentation events. The simplest way to calculate FPS is to count the number of PresentStart events withing a time interval and divide that by the length of the interval.
To work with ETW in C#, install Microsoft.Diagnostics.Tracing.TraceEvent package.
The following code sample displays FPS of running processes:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
using Microsoft.Diagnostics.Tracing.Session;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
//helper class to store frame timestamps
public class TimestampCollection
{
const int MAXNUM = 1000;
public string Name { get; set; }
List<long> timestamps = new List<long>(MAXNUM + 1);
object sync = new object();
//add value to the collection
public void Add(long timestamp)
{
lock (sync)
{
timestamps.Add(timestamp);
if (timestamps.Count > MAXNUM) timestamps.RemoveAt(0);
}
}
//get the number of timestamps withing interval
public int QueryCount(long from, long to)
{
int c = 0;
lock (sync)
{
foreach (var ts in timestamps)
{
if (ts >= from && ts <= to) c++;
}
}
return c;
}
}
class Program
{
//event codes (https://github.com/GameTechDev/PresentMon/blob/40ee99f437bc1061a27a2fc16a8993ee8ce4ebb5/PresentData/PresentMonTraceConsumer.cpp)
public const int EventID_D3D9PresentStart = 1;
public const int EventID_DxgiPresentStart = 42;
//ETW provider codes
public static readonly Guid DXGI_provider = Guid.Parse("{CA11C036-0102-4A2D-A6AD-F03CFED5D3C9}");
public static readonly Guid D3D9_provider = Guid.Parse("{783ACA0A-790E-4D7F-8451-AA850511C6B9}");
static TraceEventSession m_EtwSession;
static Dictionary<int, TimestampCollection> frames = new Dictionary<int, TimestampCollection>();
static Stopwatch watch = null;
static object sync = new object();
static void EtwThreadProc()
{
//start tracing
m_EtwSession.Source.Process();
}
static void OutputThreadProc()
{
//console output loop
while (true)
{
long t1, t2;
long dt = 2000;
Console.Clear();
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now.ToString() + "." + DateTime.Now.Millisecond.ToString());
Console.WriteLine();
lock (sync)
{
t2 = watch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
t1 = t2 - dt;
foreach (var x in frames.Values)
{
Console.Write(x.Name + ": ");
//get the number of frames
int count = x.QueryCount(t1, t2);
//calculate FPS
Console.WriteLine("{0} FPS", (double)count / dt * 1000.0);
}
}
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Press any key to stop tracing...");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
public static void Main(string[] argv)
{
//create ETW session and register providers
m_EtwSession = new TraceEventSession("mysess");
m_EtwSession.StopOnDispose = true;
m_EtwSession.EnableProvider("Microsoft-Windows-D3D9");
m_EtwSession.EnableProvider("Microsoft-Windows-DXGI");
//handle event
m_EtwSession.Source.AllEvents += data =>
{
//filter out frame presentation events
if (((int)data.ID == EventID_D3D9PresentStart && data.ProviderGuid == D3D9_provider) ||
((int)data.ID == EventID_DxgiPresentStart && data.ProviderGuid == DXGI_provider))
{
int pid = data.ProcessID;
long t;
lock (sync)
{
t = watch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
//if process is not yet in Dictionary, add it
if (!frames.ContainsKey(pid))
{
frames[pid] = new TimestampCollection();
string name = "";
var proc = Process.GetProcessById(pid);
if (proc != null)
{
using (proc)
{
name = proc.ProcessName;
}
}
else name = pid.ToString();
frames[pid].Name = name;
}
//store frame timestamp in collection
frames[pid].Add(t);
}
}
};
watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
Thread thETW = new Thread(EtwThreadProc);
thETW.IsBackground = true;
thETW.Start();
Thread thOutput = new Thread(OutputThreadProc);
thOutput.IsBackground = true;
thOutput.Start();
Console.ReadKey();
m_EtwSession.Dispose();
}
}
}
Based on the source code of PresentMon project.

Fraps inserts a DLL into every running application and hooks specific DX calls to figure out the framerate and capture video, pretty sure that you'll have to do something similar. After a bit of poking around I found a Github project that does some basic DX hooking for doing captures and overlays, so that might be a good spot to start out with. Though I've not used it personally so I can't totally vouch for the quality.
http://spazzarama.com/2011/03/14/c-screen-capture-and-overlays-for-direct3d-9-10-and-11-using-api-hooks/

Building on https://stackoverflow.com/a/54625953/12047161:
I had more success not using the stopwatch as the event triggers seems to be asynchronous with the actual frames. I kept getting batches of 20-50 frames all at once, making the estimated FPS fluctuate between 50 and 250% of the actual value.
Instead i used TimeStampRelativeMSec
//handle event
m_EtwSession.Source.AllEvents += data =>
{
//filter out frame presentation events
if((int) data.ID == EventID_DxgiPresentStart && data.ProviderGuid == DXGI_provider)
{
int pid = data.ProcessID;
long t;
t = watch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
//if process is not yet in Dictionary, add it
if (!frames.ContainsKey(pid))
{
frames[pid] = new TimestampCollection();
string name = "";
var proc = Process.GetProcessById(pid);
if (proc != null)
{
using (proc)
{
name = proc.ProcessName;
}
}
else name = pid.ToString();
frames[pid].Name = name;
}
frames[pid].Add((long)data.TimeStampRelativeMSec);
}
};
property from the TraceEvent class, and calculate FPS by rounding the average time between an arbitrary number of past entries:
public double GetFrameTime(int count)
{
double returnValue = 0;
int listCount = timestamps.Count;
if(listCount > count)
{
for(int i = 1; i <= count; i++)
{
returnValue += timestamps[listCount - i] - timestamps[listCount - (i + 1)];
}
returnValue /= count;
}
return returnValue;
}
This method gave me far more accurate (Compared to, as available, in-game counters) of several different games i've tried.

ThreadQueue problems in "Accelerated C# 2008"

Example for threading queue book "Accelerated C# 2008" (CrudeThreadPool class) not work correctly. If I insert long job in WorkFunction() on 2-processor machine executing for next task don't run before first is over. How to solve this problem? I want to load the processor to 100 percent
public class CrudeThreadPool
{
static readonly int MAX_WORK_THREADS = 4;
static readonly int WAIT_TIMEOUT = 2000;
public delegate void WorkDelegate();
public CrudeThreadPool()
{
stop = 0;
workLock = new Object();
workQueue = new Queue();
threads = new Thread[MAX_WORK_THREADS];
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_WORK_THREADS; ++i)
{
threads[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.ThreadFunc));
threads[i].Start();
}
}
private void ThreadFunc()
{
lock (workLock)
{
int shouldStop = 0;
do
{
shouldStop = Interlocked.Exchange(ref stop, stop);
if (shouldStop == 0)
{
WorkDelegate workItem = null;
if (Monitor.Wait(workLock, WAIT_TIMEOUT))
{
// Process the item on the front of the queue
lock (workQueue)
{
workItem = (WorkDelegate)workQueue.Dequeue();
}
workItem();
}
}
} while (shouldStop == 0);
}
}
public void SubmitWorkItem(WorkDelegate item)
{
lock (workLock)
{
lock (workQueue)
{
workQueue.Enqueue(item);
}
Monitor.Pulse(workLock);
}
}
public void Shutdown()
{
Interlocked.Exchange(ref stop, 1);
}
private Queue workQueue;
private Object workLock;
private Thread[] threads;
private int stop;
}
public class EntryPoint
{
static void WorkFunction()
{
Console.WriteLine("WorkFunction() called on Thread 0}", Thread.CurrentThread.GetHashCode());
//some long job
double s = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 100000000; i++)
s += Math.Sin(i);
}
static void Main()
{
CrudeThreadPool pool = new CrudeThreadPool();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
pool.SubmitWorkItem(
new CrudeThreadPool.WorkDelegate(EntryPoint.WorkFunction));
}
pool.Shutdown();
}
}

I can see 2 problems:
Inside ThreadFunc() you take a lock(workLock) for the duration of the method, meaning your threadpool is no longer async.
in the Main() method, you close down the threadpool w/o waiting for it to finish. Oddly enough that is why it is working now, stopping each ThreadFunc after 1 loop.

It's hard to tell because there's no indentation, but it looks to me like it's executing the work item while still holding workLock - which is basically going to serialize all the work.
If at all possible, I suggest you start using the Parallel Extensions framework in .NET 4, which has obviously had rather more time spent on it. Otherwise, there's the existing thread pool in the framework, and there are other implementations around if you're willing to have a look. I have one in MiscUtil although I haven't looked at the code for quite a while - it's pretty primitive.