I have a process which does logging by calling an external service. Because of the overhead involved (small, but builds up for many logging messages), my process logs asynchronously, in a "fire and forget" kind of way. I don't want to wait for each log message to go through before continuing, and I don't want to fail my process for a problem with the logger.
In order to accomplish this, I have wrapped the main log call in a Task - each call to logging fires off a Task, which just goes off and does it's thing. Most of the time, my process loops through the things it needs to check, handles them, and then exits just fine, logging all the way. However, on those occasions when it finds only a single item to handle, the process completes so quickly that the process exits, thus killing all of its threads, before the logging actually happens, and I get almost nothing in the logs.
I have confirmed that this is what is happening by checking that the items are handled as expected even when they are not logged (they are), and by putting a short (100 millisecond) delay into the logging method (outside of the Task), so that the logging DOES actually block. In this case, everything logs as expected.
(Based on this, I actually believe that even when the process works as expected, we may be missing a couple of log entries from the end of each run, since it is exiting before the last entries can go through, but I haven't been able to tell for certain.)
I could just put a delay at the very end of the process, so that no matter what, it hangs at at least a second or two to give these "fire and forget" Tasks time to complete, but that feels clunky.
Another option I'm considering is creating a global list of logging Tasks that will collect the Tasks as they are created, so that I can do a Task.WaitAll() on them. This feels like a bit of overhead I shouldn't have to deal with, but it may be the best solution.
What I'm looking for is some way to, at the end of my process, do a WaitAll() type of call that doesn't require me to know what Tasks I'm waiting for - just wait for any and all Tasks still hanging out there (except for the main Thread of the process, of course).
Does such a thing exist, or do I need to just keep track of all of my Tasks globally?
You could create a task aggregator, a task that completes when all observed tasks are completed. It would be a functionally equivalent version of Task.WhenAll, but much more lightweight since only the number of incomplete tasks would be stored, not the tasks themselves. Here is an implementation of this idea:
public class TaskAggregator
{
private int _activeCount = 0;
private int _isAddingCompleted = 0;
private TaskCompletionSource<bool> _tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
public Task Task { get => _tcs.Task; }
public int ActiveCount
{
get => Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _activeCount, 0, 0);
}
public bool IsAddingCompleted
{
get => Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _isAddingCompleted, 0, 0) != 0;
}
public void Add(Task task)
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref _activeCount);
task.ContinueWith(_ =>
{
int localActiveCount = Interlocked.Decrement(ref _activeCount);
if (localActiveCount == 0 && this.IsAddingCompleted)
_tcs.TrySetResult(true);
}, TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously);
}
public void CompleteAdding()
{
Interlocked.Exchange(ref _isAddingCompleted, 1);
if (this.ActiveCount == 0) _tcs.TrySetResult(true);
}
}
Usage example:
public static TaskAggregator LogTasksAggregator = new TaskAggregator();
public static void Log(string str)
{
var logTask = Console.Out.WriteLineAsync(str);
LogTasksAggregator.Add(logTask);
}
// End of program
LogTasksAggregator.CompleteAdding();
bool completedInTime = LogTasksAggregator.Task.Wait(5000);
if (!completedInTime)
{
Console.WriteLine("LogTasksAggregator timed out");
}
I was going to suggest using internal Task[] System.Threading.Tasks.TaskScheduler.GetScheduledTasksForDebugger() as documented in TaskScheduler.GetScheduledTasks Method but it doesn't seem to return tasks that are currently running:
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Sleeping");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("Done");
});
// Retrieve method info for internal Task[] GetScheduledTasksForDebugger()
var typeInfo = typeof(System.Threading.Tasks.TaskScheduler);
var bindingAttr = BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Instance;
var methodInfo = typeInfo.GetMethod("GetScheduledTasksForDebugger", bindingAttr);
Task[] tasks = (Task[])methodInfo.Invoke(System.Threading.Tasks.TaskScheduler.Current, null);
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
I think you're going to have to manage a List<Task> and WaitAll on that.
I want to open a thread to do the things it needs to do until a new command is given by the user. Then this thread should either close or receive a new command.
I have seen many posts that sending a variable to a running thread is hard, that is why I decided to kill the thread and start it again with the new variable.
I used the following post: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1327377 but without success. When I start the thread again (after it has done abort()) it gives me an exception: System.Threading.ThreadStateException.
private static Thread t = new Thread(Threading);
private static bool _running = false;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
[get arg]
if (CanRedo(arg))
{
if (t.IsAlive)
{
_running = false;
t.Interrupt();
if (t.Join(2000)) // with a '!' like in the post, abort() would not be called
{
t.Abort();
}
}
_running = true;
t.Start(arg); // gives System.Threading.ThreadStateException
}
}
private static void Threading(object obj)
{
_stopped = false;
string arg = obj.ToString();
while(_running)
{
if (bot._isDone)
{
ExecuteInstruction(arg);
}
}
}
What am I doing wrong?
I'm going to guess that you don't literally mean to abort the thread and start that same thread again. That's because if we start a thread to do some work we don't care which thread it is. If you cancel one thing and start something else, you probably don't care if it's the same thread or a different one. (In fact it's probably better if you don't care. If you need precise control over which thread is doing what then something has gotten complicated.) You can't "abort" a thread and restart it anyway.
Regarding Thread.Abort:
The Thread.Abort method should be used with caution. Particularly when you call it to abort a thread other than the current thread, you do not know what code has executed or failed to execute when the ThreadAbortException is thrown, nor can you be certain of the state of your application or any application and user state that it is responsible for preserving. For example, calling Thread.Abort may prevent static constructors from executing or prevent the release of unmanaged resources.
It's like firing an employee by teleporting them out of the building without warning. What if they were in the middle of a phone call or carrying a stack of papers? That might be okay in an emergency, but it wouldn't be a normal way to operate. It would be better to let the employee know that they need to wrap up what they're doing immediately. Put down what you're carrying. Tell the customer that you can't finish entering their order and they'll need to call back.
You're describing an expected behavior, so it would be better to cancel the thread in an orderly way.
That's where we might use a CancellationToken. In effect you're passing an object to the thread and telling it to check it from time to time to see if it should cancel what it's doing.
So you could start your thread like this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var cts = new CancellationTokenSource())
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(DoSomethingOnAnotherThread, cts.Token);
// This is just for demonstration. It allows the other thread to run for a little while
// before it gets canceled.
Thread.Sleep(5000);
cts.Cancel();
}
}
private static void DoSomethingOnAnotherThread(object obj)
{
var cancellationToken = (CancellationToken) obj;
// This thread does its thing. Once in a while it does this:
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
return;
}
// Keep doing what it's doing.
}
}
Whatever the method is that's running in your separate thread, it's going to check IsCancellationRequested from time to time. If it's right in the middle of doing something it can stop. If it has unmanaged resources it can dispose them. But the important thing is that you can cancel what it does in a predictable way that leaves your application in a known state.
CancellationToken is one way to do this. In other really simple scenarios where the whole thing is happening inside one class you could also use a boolean field or property that acts as a flag to tell the thread if it needs to stop. The separate thread checks it to see if cancellation has been requested.
But using the CancellationToken makes it more manageable if you want to refactor and now the method executing on another thread is a in separate class. When you use a known pattern it makes it easier for the next person to understand what's going on.
Here's some documentation.
What about doing it this way:
private static Task t = null;
private static CancellationTokenSource cts = null;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
[get arg]
if (CanRedo(out var arg))
{
if (t != null)
{
cts.Cancel();
t.Wait();
}
// Set up a new task and matching cancellation token
cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
t = Task.Run(() => liveTask(arg, cts.Token));
}
}
private static void liveTask(object obj, CancellationToken ct)
{
string arg = obj.ToString();
while(!ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if (bot._isDone)
{
ExecuteInstruction(arg);
}
}
}
Tasks are cancellable, and I can see nothing in your thread that requires the same physical thread to be re-used.
We could abort a Thread like this:
Thread thread = new Thread(SomeMethod);
.
.
.
thread.Abort();
But can I abort a Task (in .Net 4.0) in the same way not by cancellation mechanism. I want to kill the Task immediately.
The guidance on not using a thread abort is controversial. I think there is still a place for it but in exceptional circumstance. However you should always attempt to design around it and see it as a last resort.
Example;
You have a simple windows form application that connects to a blocking synchronous web service. Within which it executes a function on the web service within a Parallel loop.
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.CancellationToken = cts.Token;
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = System.Environment.ProcessorCount;
Parallel.ForEach(iListOfItems, po, (item, loopState) =>
{
Thread.Sleep(120000); // pretend web service call
});
Say in this example, the blocking call takes 2 mins to complete. Now I set my MaxDegreeOfParallelism to say ProcessorCount. iListOfItems has 1000 items within it to process.
The user clicks the process button and the loop commences, we have 'up-to' 20 threads executing against 1000 items in the iListOfItems collection. Each iteration executes on its own thread. Each thread will utilise a foreground thread when created by Parallel.ForEach. This means regardless of the main application shutdown, the app domain will be kept alive until all threads have finished.
However the user needs to close the application for some reason, say they close the form.
These 20 threads will continue to execute until all 1000 items are processed. This is not ideal in this scenario, as the application will not exit as the user expects and will continue to run behind the scenes, as can be seen by taking a look in task manger.
Say the user tries to rebuild the app again (VS 2010), it reports the exe is locked, then they would have to go into task manager to kill it or just wait until all 1000 items are processed.
I would not blame you for saying, but of course! I should be cancelling these threads using the CancellationTokenSource object and calling Cancel ... but there are some problems with this as of .net 4.0. Firstly this is still never going to result in a thread abort which would offer up an abort exception followed by thread termination, so the app domain will instead need to wait for the threads to finish normally, and this means waiting for the last blocking call, which would be the very last running iteration (thread) that ultimately gets to call po.CancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested.
In the example this would mean the app domain could still stay alive for up to 2 mins, even though the form has been closed and cancel called.
Note that Calling Cancel on CancellationTokenSource does not throw an exception on the processing thread(s), which would indeed act to interrupt the blocking call similar to a thread abort and stop the execution. An exception is cached ready for when all the other threads (concurrent iterations) eventually finish and return, the exception is thrown in the initiating thread (where the loop is declared).
I chose not to use the Cancel option on a CancellationTokenSource object. This is wasteful and arguably violates the well known anti-patten of controlling the flow of the code by Exceptions.
Instead, it is arguably 'better' to implement a simple thread safe property i.e. Bool stopExecuting. Then within the loop, check the value of stopExecuting and if the value is set to true by the external influence, we can take an alternate path to close down gracefully. Since we should not call cancel, this precludes checking CancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested which would otherwise be another option.
Something like the following if condition would be appropriate within the loop;
if (loopState.ShouldExitCurrentIteration || loopState.IsExceptional || stopExecuting) {loopState.Stop(); return;}
The iteration will now exit in a 'controlled' manner as well as terminating further iterations, but as I said, this does little for our issue of having to wait on the long running and blocking call(s) that are made within each iteration (parallel loop thread), since these have to complete before each thread can get to the option of checking if it should stop.
In summary, as the user closes the form, the 20 threads will be signaled to stop via stopExecuting, but they will only stop when they have finished executing their long running function call.
We can't do anything about the fact that the application domain will always stay alive and only be released when all foreground threads have completed. And this means there will be a delay associated with waiting for any blocking calls made within the loop to complete.
Only a true thread abort can interrupt the blocking call, and you must mitigate leaving the system in a unstable/undefined state the best you can in the aborted thread's exception handler which goes without question. Whether that's appropriate is a matter for the programmer to decide, based on what resource handles they chose to maintain and how easy it is to close them in a thread's finally block. You could register with a token to terminate on cancel as a semi workaround i.e.
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.CancellationToken = cts.Token;
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = System.Environment.ProcessorCount;
Parallel.ForEach(iListOfItems, po, (item, loopState) =>
{
using (cts.Token.Register(Thread.CurrentThread.Abort))
{
Try
{
Thread.Sleep(120000); // pretend web service call
}
Catch(ThreadAbortException ex)
{
// log etc.
}
Finally
{
// clean up here
}
}
});
but this will still result in an exception in the declaring thread.
All things considered, interrupt blocking calls using the parallel.loop constructs could have been a method on the options, avoiding the use of more obscure parts of the library. But why there is no option to cancel and avoid throwing an exception in the declaring method strikes me as a possible oversight.
But can I abort a Task (in .Net 4.0) in the same way not by
cancellation mechanism. I want to kill the Task immediately.
Other answerers have told you not to do it. But yes, you can do it. You can supply Thread.Abort() as the delegate to be called by the Task's cancellation mechanism. Here is how you could configure this:
class HardAborter
{
public bool WasAborted { get; private set; }
private CancellationTokenSource Canceller { get; set; }
private Task<object> Worker { get; set; }
public void Start(Func<object> DoFunc)
{
WasAborted = false;
// start a task with a means to do a hard abort (unsafe!)
Canceller = new CancellationTokenSource();
Worker = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
// specify this thread's Abort() as the cancel delegate
using (Canceller.Token.Register(Thread.CurrentThread.Abort))
{
return DoFunc();
}
}
catch (ThreadAbortException)
{
WasAborted = true;
return false;
}
}, Canceller.Token);
}
public void Abort()
{
Canceller.Cancel();
}
}
disclaimer: don't do this.
Here is an example of what not to do:
var doNotDoThis = new HardAborter();
// start a thread writing to the console
doNotDoThis.Start(() =>
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
Console.Write(".");
}
return null;
});
// wait a second to see some output and show the WasAborted value as false
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("WasAborted: " + doNotDoThis.WasAborted);
// wait another second, abort, and print the time
Thread.Sleep(1000);
doNotDoThis.Abort();
Console.WriteLine("Abort triggered at " + DateTime.Now);
// wait until the abort finishes and print the time
while (!doNotDoThis.WasAborted) { Thread.CurrentThread.Join(0); }
Console.WriteLine("WasAborted: " + doNotDoThis.WasAborted + " at " + DateTime.Now);
Console.ReadKey();
You shouldn't use Thread.Abort()
Tasks can be Cancelled but not aborted.
The Thread.Abort() method is (severely) deprecated.
Both Threads and Tasks should cooperate when being stopped, otherwise you run the risk of leaving the system in a unstable/undefined state.
If you do need to run a Process and kill it from the outside, the only safe option is to run it in a separate AppDomain.
This answer is about .net 3.5 and earlier.
Thread-abort handling has been improved since then, a.o. by changing the way finally blocks work.
But Thread.Abort is still a suspect solution that you should always try to avoid.
And in .net Core (.net 5+) Thread.Abort() will now throw a PlatformNotSupportedException .
Kind of underscoring the 'deprecated' point.
Everyone knows (hopefully) its bad to terminate thread. The problem is when you don't own a piece of code you're calling. If this code is running in some do/while infinite loop , itself calling some native functions, etc. you're basically stuck. When this happens in your own code termination, stop or Dispose call, it's kinda ok to start shooting the bad guys (so you don't become a bad guy yourself).
So, for what it's worth, I've written those two blocking functions that use their own native thread, not a thread from the pool or some thread created by the CLR. They will stop the thread if a timeout occurs:
// returns true if the call went to completion successfully, false otherwise
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, int milliseconds) => RunWithAbort(action, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, milliseconds));
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, TimeSpan delay)
{
if (action == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(action));
var source = new CancellationTokenSource(delay);
var success = false;
var handle = IntPtr.Zero;
var fn = new Action(() =>
{
using (source.Token.Register(() => TerminateThread(handle, 0)))
{
action();
success = true;
}
});
handle = CreateThread(IntPtr.Zero, IntPtr.Zero, fn, IntPtr.Zero, 0, out var id);
WaitForSingleObject(handle, 100 + (int)delay.TotalMilliseconds);
CloseHandle(handle);
return success;
}
// returns what's the function should return if the call went to completion successfully, default(T) otherwise
public static T RunWithAbort<T>(this Func<T> func, int milliseconds) => RunWithAbort(func, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, milliseconds));
public static T RunWithAbort<T>(this Func<T> func, TimeSpan delay)
{
if (func == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(func));
var source = new CancellationTokenSource(delay);
var item = default(T);
var handle = IntPtr.Zero;
var fn = new Action(() =>
{
using (source.Token.Register(() => TerminateThread(handle, 0)))
{
item = func();
}
});
handle = CreateThread(IntPtr.Zero, IntPtr.Zero, fn, IntPtr.Zero, 0, out var id);
WaitForSingleObject(handle, 100 + (int)delay.TotalMilliseconds);
CloseHandle(handle);
return item;
}
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern bool TerminateThread(IntPtr hThread, int dwExitCode);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern IntPtr CreateThread(IntPtr lpThreadAttributes, IntPtr dwStackSize, Delegate lpStartAddress, IntPtr lpParameter, int dwCreationFlags, out int lpThreadId);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern bool CloseHandle(IntPtr hObject);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern int WaitForSingleObject(IntPtr hHandle, int dwMilliseconds);
While it's possible to abort a thread, in practice it's almost always a very bad idea to do so. Aborthing a thread means the thread is not given a chance to clean up after itself, leaving resources undeleted, and things in unknown states.
In practice, if you abort a thread, you should only do so in conjunction with killing the process. Sadly, all too many people think ThreadAbort is a viable way of stopping something and continuing on, it's not.
Since Tasks run as threads, you can call ThreadAbort on them, but as with generic threads you almost never want to do this, except as a last resort.
I faced a similar problem with Excel's Application.Workbooks.
If the application is busy, the method hangs eternally. My approach was simply to try to get it in a task and wait, if it takes too long, I just leave the task be and go away (there is no harm "in this case", Excel will unfreeze the moment the user finishes whatever is busy).
In this case, it's impossible to use a cancellation token. The advantage is that I don't need excessive code, aborting threads, etc.
public static List<Workbook> GetAllOpenWorkbooks()
{
//gets all open Excel applications
List<Application> applications = GetAllOpenApplications();
//this is what we want to get from the third party library that may freeze
List<Workbook> books = null;
//as Excel may freeze here due to being busy, we try to get the workbooks asynchronously
Task task = Task.Run(() =>
{
try
{
books = applications
.SelectMany(app => app.Workbooks.OfType<Workbook>()).ToList();
}
catch { }
});
//wait for task completion
task.Wait(5000);
return books; //handle outside if books is null
}
This is my implementation of an idea presented by #Simon-Mourier, using the dotnet thread, short and simple code:
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, int milliseconds)
{
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(action));
var success = false;
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
action();
success = true;
});
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
thread.Join(milliseconds);
thread.Abort();
return success;
}
You can "abort" a task by running it on a thread you control and aborting that thread. This causes the task to complete in a faulted state with a ThreadAbortException. You can control thread creation with a custom task scheduler, as described in this answer. Note that the caveat about aborting a thread applies.
(If you don't ensure the task is created on its own thread, aborting it would abort either a thread-pool thread or the thread initiating the task, neither of which you typically want to do.)
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
...
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var task = Task.Run(() => { while (true) { } });
Parallel.Invoke(() =>
{
task.Wait(cts.Token);
}, () =>
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
cts.Cancel();
});
This is a simple snippet to abort a never-ending task with CancellationTokenSource.
I'd like to know how can i check status of an asynchronous task in c#.
I have a save method to save users, and i'd like to run a background task to update them after the save.
I'm in framework 4.0, here is my code to begin the task
System.Threading.Tasks.Task task = null;
task = System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
beginTask();
});
My problem is the task take some times to end (near 7 mins) so if someone do several user saves, the task is runned several times, so i'd like to check before running the task if the function beginTask() is already running to avoid to have a lot of background tasks are running.
Thanks
Maybe try do it this way-
Initialise your task object:
Task task = new Task(begintask);
And add new method to run it, for example:
public void StartTask(Task t)
{
if (t.Status == TaskStatus.Running)
return;
else
t.Start();
}
Of course you can add more conditions depend of task's states.
I think I found better solution. Check if it suits you.
public class TaskDemo
{
private static AutoResetEvent autoReset = new AutoResetEvent(true);
Action beginTask = () =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Method start");
Thread.Sleep(2000);
};
public void RunTask()
{
Task myTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
autoReset.WaitOne();
beginTask();
}).ContinueWith(t => autoReset.Set());
}
}
And simply console app test:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
TaskDemo td = new TaskDemo();
// Simulation multiple requests
Thread.Sleep(1000);
td.RunTask();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
td.RunTask();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
td.RunTask();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
td.RunTask();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
td.RunTask();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
td.RunTask();
}
The clue is to use AutoResetEvent to signal task state and
Task myTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
autoReset.WaitOne();
beginTask();
}).ContinueWith(t => autoReset.Set());
to change its state during run and after finish (ContinueWith(t => autoReset.Set()).
Each Task object has a Task.Status property of type TaskStatus which can be queried if you already have the task object. It will tell you whether the task is running, finished, cancelled, etc.
If you want to check if ANY task is running that particular chunk of functionality that may be more difficult. One possible suggestion would be keeping a Task variable globally accessible for that reason and any time they tried to run that functionality the code did:
Check the global to see if one is running.
If not create a new Task to run it and assign it to the global variable
Else perform whatever handling you wanted to do if it was already running (wait for it to finish perhaps?)
It sounds like you're a) misunderstanding tasks a bit and b) need to take a look at your solution design.
A task is an object representing a piece of work to be done. A task is NOT the BeginTask method itself. The BeginTask method is more or less just a set of instructions to carry out. It doesn't have any state. Individual Tasks which implement those instructions do have a state which can be queried.
If you want to make it so only one Task could be run per user you'd just have to somewhere globally store a collection of Tasks per user (such as a Dictionary with the Key being the user).
This would ideally be created and stored in either some sort of governing class that contains this section of application functionality or in the outer program if it is one.
To make reference to your comment of "i need to avoid to create a new task everytime i save my users", for this you're going to have to adapt that particular piece of code to check the stored status of any running Tasks. So in my idea above you'd alter that piece of functionality to check if a Task exists for the user you're saving in the Dictionary of already begun tasks and if it does, check the status of it.
If you're not sure though please keep asking questions in the comments. Perhaps if you gave more information on how the system this is in, is structured I'd be better able to assist.
Hope that helps.
You can use property Task.IsCompleted or Task.Status
And by the way try to investigation of this method Task.ContinueWith
I think using of Task.ContinueWith is better way for multitask solutions.
See example below which explain my suggestion with using Task.ContinueWith:
System.Threading.Tasks.Task task = null;
if (task==null)
{
task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
beginTask();
});
return;
}
if (task.Status == TaskStatus.Running)
{
task.ContinueWith((x) =>
{
beginTask();
});
}
else
{
task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
beginTask();
});
}
This implementation can resolve scope of potential problem like:
How to keep previous Task
When should system launch previous Tasks
I'm writing a Windows Service that will kick off multiple worker threads that will listen to Amazon SQS queues and process messages. There will be about 20 threads listening to 10 queues.
The threads will have to be always running and that's why I'm leaning towards to actually using actual threads for the worker loops rather than threadpool threads.
Here is a top level implementation. Windows service will kick off multiple worker threads and each will listen to it's queue and process messages.
protected override void OnStart(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < _workers; i++)
{
new Thread(RunWorker).Start();
}
}
Here is the implementation of the work
public async void RunWorker()
{
while(true)
{
// .. get message from amazon sqs sync.. about 20ms
var message = sqsClient.ReceiveMessage();
try
{
await PerformWebRequestAsync(message);
await InsertIntoDbAsync(message);
}
catch(SomeExeception)
{
// ... log
//continue to retry
continue;
}
sqsClient.DeleteMessage();
}
}
I know I can perform the same operation with Task.Run and execute it on the threadpool thread rather than starting individual thread, but I don't see a reason for that since each thread will always be running.
Do you see any problems with this implementation? How reliable would it be to leave threads always running in this fashion and what can I do to make sure that each thread is always running?
One problem with your existing solution is that you call your RunWorker in a fire-and-forget manner, albeit on a new thread (i.e., new Thread(RunWorker).Start()).
RunWorker is an async method, it will return to the caller when the execution point hits the first await (i.e. await PerformWebRequestAsync(message)). If PerformWebRequestAsync returns a pending task, RunWorker returns and the new thread you just started terminates.
I don't think you need a new thread here at all, just use AmazonSQSClient.ReceiveMessageAsync and await its result. Another thing is that you shouldn't be using async void methods unless you really don't care about tracking the state of the asynchronous task. Use async Task instead.
Your code might look like this:
List<Task> _workers = new List<Task>();
CancellationTokenSource _cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
protected override void OnStart(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < _MAX_WORKERS; i++)
{
_workers.Add(RunWorkerAsync(_cts.Token));
}
}
public async Task RunWorkerAsync(CancellationToken token)
{
while(true)
{
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
// .. get message from amazon sqs sync.. about 20ms
var message = await sqsClient.ReceiveMessageAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
try
{
await PerformWebRequestAsync(message);
await InsertIntoDbAsync(message);
}
catch(SomeExeception)
{
// ... log
//continue to retry
continue;
}
sqsClient.DeleteMessage();
}
}
Now, to stop all pending workers, you could simple do this (from the main "request dispatcher" thread):
_cts.Cancel();
try
{
Task.WaitAll(_workers.ToArray());
}
catch (AggregateException ex)
{
ex.Handle(inner => inner is OperationCanceledException);
}
Note, ConfigureAwait(false) is optional for Windows Service, because there's no synchronization context on the initial thread, by default. However, I'd keep it that way to make the code independent of the execution environment (for cases where there is synchronization context).
Finally, if for some reason you cannot use ReceiveMessageAsync, or you need to call another blocking API, or simply do a piece of CPU intensive work at the beginning of RunWorkerAsync, just wrap it with Task.Run (as opposed to wrapping the whole RunWorkerAsync):
var message = await Task.Run(
() => sqsClient.ReceiveMessage()).ConfigureAwait(false);
Well, for one I'd use a CancellationTokenSource instantiated in the service and passed down to the workers. Your while statement would become:
while(!cancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
//rest of the code
}
This way you can cancel all your workers from the OnStop service method.
Additionally, you should watch for:
If you're playing with thread states from outside of the thread, then a ThreadStateException, or ThreadInterruptedException or one of the others might be thrown. So, you want to handle a proper thread restart.
Do the workers need to run without pause in-between iterations? I would throw in a sleep in there (even a few ms's) just so they don't keep the CPU up for nothing.
You need to handle ThreadStartException and restart the worker, if it occurs.
Other than that there's no reason why those 10 treads can't run for as long as the service runs (days, weeks, months at a time).