First of all I am totally new to threading in C#. I have created multiple threads as shown below.
if (flag)
{
foreach (string empNo in empList)
{
Thread thrd = new Thread(()=>ComputeSalary(empNo));
threadList.Add(thrd);
thrd.Start();
}
}
Before proceeding further I need check if at least one thread is completed its execution so that I can perform additional operations.
I also tried creating the list of type thread and by added it to list, so that I can check if at least one thread has completed its execution. I tried with thrd.IsAlive but it always gives me current thread status.
Is there any other way to check if atleast on thread has completed its execution?
You can use AutoResetEvent.
var reset = new AutoResetEvent(false); // ComputeSalary should have access to reset
.....
....
if (flag)
{
foreach (string empNo in empList)
{
Thread thrd = new Thread(()=>ComputeSalary(empNo));
threadList.Add(thrd);
thrd.Start();
}
reset.WaitOne();
}
.....
.....
void ComputeSalary(int empNo)
{
.....
reset.set()
}
Other options are callback function, event or a flag/counter(this is not advised).
Here is a solution based on the Task Parallel Library:
// Create a list of tasks for each string in empList
List<Task> empTaskList = empList.Select(emp => Task.Run(() => ComputeSalary(emp)))
.ToList();
// Give me the task that finished first.
var firstFinishedTask = await Task.WhenAny(empTaskList);
A couple of things to note:
In order to use await inside your method, you will have to declare it as async Task or or async Task<T> where T is the desired return type
Task.Run is your equivalent of new Thread().Start(). The difference is Task.Run will use the ThreadPool (unless you explicitly tell it not to), and the Thread class will construct an entirely new thread.
Notice the use of await. This tells the compiler to yield control back to the caller until Task.WhenAny returns the first task that finished.
You should read more about async-await here
Related
I need your help, with threads I'm full 0 and you only need to create a certain thread and complete it on command, BUT I do not create each thread in advance, as there will be a lot of them, I do it like this:
Thread thread = new Thread(() => Go(..... many many variables that are taken from the listview ......));
thread.Start();
So, as noted above, variables are taken from the listview, which in turn is loaded by me from the file and then I run the threads I need. BUT the process in the stream is infinite and will end only if I completely close the program, and I would like to end the stream in the same way as I started it (right click on the desired line-start/stop). As I said, I have never worked with threads and thought that it was somehow simple, like when you start a thread, you assign it an ID and end it with the same ID, but alas. I have searched all over Google and have not found an EXAMPLE that suits me (I will repeat for the third time - I have never worked with threads and I do not need to say "go read about TPL"), so I ask for help, preferably with an example)
I have a very bad idea: in the sheet there is an invisible column in which an id is generated at the start, then when I send a command to start the thread, a unique variable is created with the name for example int id1=0 and its name is passed to the thread itself and each time the loop starts, id1=0 or 1 is checked in it, respectively, if 0-continue, if 1-empty. Well, it is logical that when you click the stop button, its value changes to 1. But something seems to me that the holy spirit of multithreading will punish me for this when the threads become 100+. I read this idea somewhere, so don't swear)
You do not need hundreds of threads for this. Your worker "threads" are performing HTTP requests, which can be done asynchronously without requiring a new thread. Also, hundreds of threads wouldn't really help you unless you have hundreds of CPU cores (you don't).
For this sort of work, I'd recommend the following:
Write a method that does all the work your thread does, but also checks a CancellationToken with each iteration.
Calls the method in a loop, once for each account, and store the resulting tasks in an array or list. Or use LINQ (as I do in this example) to create the list.
When your program terminates, activate the CancellationToken.
After cancelling, you have to await all the tasks in order to observe any possible exceptions and exit cleanly.
For example
public async Task DoTheWork(Account account, CancellationToken token)
{
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
var result = await httpClient.GetAsync(account.Url);
await DoSomethingWithResult(result);
await Task.Delay(1000);
}
}
//Main program
var accounts = GetAccountList();
var source = new CancellationTokenSource();
var tasks = accounts.Select( x => DoTheWork(x, source.Token) ).ToList();
//When exiting
source.Cancel();
await Task.WhenAll( tasks );
source.Dispose();
Indivivdual cancellation
Here's another approach that keeps a list of the accounts and a delegate that can be used for cancelling the task for that specific account.
//Declare this somewhere it will persist for the duration of the program
//The key to this dictionary is the account you wish to cancel
//The value is a delegate that you can call to cancel its task
Dictionary<Account, Func<Task>> _tasks = new Dictionary<Account, Func<Task>>();
async Task CreateTasks()
{
var accounts = GetAccounts();
foreach (var account in accounts)
{
var source = new CancellationTokenSource();
var task = DoTheWork(account, source.Token);
_tasks.Add(account, () => { source.Cancel(); return task; });
}
}
//Retrieve the delegate from the dictionary and call it to cancel its task
//Then await the task to observe any exceptions
//Then remove it from the list
async Task CancelTask(Account account)
{
var cancelAction = _tasks[account];
var task = cancelAction();
await task;
_tasks.Remove(account);
}
async Task CancelAllTasks()
{
var tasks = _tasks.Select(x => x.Value()).ToList();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
I have this C# code, it works but it won't wait until the method completed
foreach (var listBoxItem in visualListBox1.Items)
{
lblCursor.Text = "Processing.. " + listBoxItem;
Thread t = new Thread(() => extract_group(listBoxItem.ToString()));
t.IsBackground = false;
t.Name = "Group Scrapper";
t.Start();
}
How to wait until extract_group method is done before moving to the next listBoxItem?
I used t.join() but it made the UI unresponsive.
Using async/await helps you to not block main thread.
public async Task ExtractGroupAsync()
{
... (logic of the method)
... (you should use async methods here as well with await before executing those methods)
}
You execute this "ExtractGroup" task like:
var example = await ExtractGroupAsync();
It makes GUI unresponsive, because you are on GUI thread. Run whole code, in separate thread.
Note: when you want to access GUI elements from another thread, you should use invoke, for example:
t.Invoke(() => t.Name = "Group Scrapper");
If you want to stick with Thread I recommend using a WaitHandle e.g. AsyncManualResetEvent Class. This approach allows to make a thread wait without blocking CPU (e.g. spinlock).
Your provided example would become:
private static AsyncManualResetEvent mre = new AsyncManualResetEvent(false, true);
public async Task DoSomethingAsync(...)
{
foreach (var listBoxItem in visualListBox1.Items)
{
lblCursor.Text = "Processing.. " + listBoxItem;
Thread t = new Thread(() => ExtractGroup(listBoxItem.ToString()));
t.IsBackground = false;
t.Name = "Group Scrapper";
t.Start();
// Wait for signal to proceed without blocking resources
await mre.WaitAsync();
}
}
private void ExtractGroup(string groupName)
{
// Do something ...
// Signal handle to release all waiting threads (makes them continue).
// Subsequent calls to Set() or WaitOne() won't show effects until Rest() was called
mre.Set();
// Reset handle to make future call of WaitOne() wait again.
mre.Reset();
}
Another solution would be to go with the TPL and use Task instead of Thread:
public async Task DoWorkAsync()
{
foreach (var listBoxItem in visualListBox1.Items)
{
lblCursor.Text = "Processing.. " + listBoxItem;
// Wait for signal to proceed without blocking resources
await Task.Run(() => ExtractGroup(listBoxItem.ToString()));
}
}
The issue with your code sample is, that you are currently on the main thread, the UI thread. Calling Thread.Join() does what you think it does: it blocks the waiting thread until the running thread completes. But as mentioned, the waiting thread is the UI thread, so the UI becomes unresponsive and can even deadlock in some scenario. When you use async/await your invocations become asynchronous and hence awaitable without blocking the UI thread.
Updated to explain things more clearly
I've got an application that runs a number of tasks. Some are created initially and other can be added later. I need need a programming structure that will wait on all the tasks to complete. Once the all the tasks complete some other code should run that cleans things up and does some final processing of data generated by the other tasks.
I've come up with a way to do this, but wouldn't call it elegant. So I'm looking to see if there is a better way.
What I do is keep a list of the tasks in a ConcurrentBag (a thread safe collection). At the start of the process I create and add some tasks to the ConcurrentBag. As the process does its thing if a new task is created that also needs to finish before the final steps I also add it to the ConcurrentBag.
Task.Wait accepts an array of Tasks as its argument. I can convert the ConcurrentBag into an array, but that array won't include any Tasks added to the Bag after Task.Wait was called.
So I have a two step wait process in a do while loop. In the body of the loop I do a simple Task.Wait on the array generated from the Bag. When it completes it means all the original tasks are done. Then in the while test I do a quick 1 millisecond test of a new array generated from the ConcurrentBag. If no new tasks were added, or any new tasks also completed it will return true, so the not condition exits the loop.
If it returns false (because a new task was added that didn't complete) we go back and do a non-timed Task.Wait. Then rinse and repeat until all new and old tasks are done.
// defined on the class, perhaps they should be properties
CancellationTokenSource Source = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken Token = Source.Token;
ConcurrentBag<Task> ToDoList = new ConcurrentBag<Task>();
public void RunAndWait() {
// start some tasks add them to the list
for (int i = 0; i < 12; i++)
{
Task task = new Task(() => SillyExample(Token), Token);
ToDoList.Add(task);
task.Start();
}
// now wait for those task, and any other tasks added to ToDoList to complete
try
{
do
{
Task.WaitAll(ToDoList.ToArray(), Token);
} while (! Task.WaitAll(ToDoList.ToArray(), 1, Token));
}
catch (OperationCanceledException e)
{
// any special handling of cancel we might want to do
}
// code that should only run after all tasks complete
}
Is there a more elegant way to do this?
I'd recommend using a ConcurrentQueue and removing items as you wait for them. Due to the first-in-first-out nature of queues, if you get to the point where there's nothing left in the queue, you know that you've waited for all the tasks that have been added up to that point.
ConcurrentQueue<Task> ToDoQueue = new ConcurrentQueue<Task>();
...
while(ToDoQueue.Count > 0 && !Token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
Task task;
if(ToDoQueue.TryDequeue(out task))
{
task.Wait(Token);
}
}
Here's a very cool way using Microsoft's Reactive Framework (NuGet "Rx-Main").
var taskSubject = new Subject<Task>();
var query = taskSubject.Select(t => Observable.FromAsync(() => t)).Merge();
var subscription =
query.Subscribe(
u => { /* Each Task Completed */ },
() => Console.WriteLine("All Tasks Completed."));
Now, to add tasks, just do this:
taskSubject.OnNext(Task.Run(() => { }));
taskSubject.OnNext(Task.Run(() => { }));
taskSubject.OnNext(Task.Run(() => { }));
And then to signal completion:
taskSubject.OnCompleted();
It is important to note that signalling completion doesn't complete the query immediately, it will wait for all of the tasks to finish too. Signalling completion just says that you will no longer add any new tasks.
Finally, if you want to cancel, then just do this:
subscription.Dispose();
The main idea here is to fetch some data from somewhere, when it's fetched start writing it, and then prepare the next batch of data to be written, while waiting for the previous write to be complete.
I know that a Task cannot be restarted or reused (nor should it be), although I am trying to find a way to do something like this :
//The "WriteTargetData" method should take the "data" variable
//created in the loop below as a parameter
//WriteData basically do a shedload of mongodb upserts in a separate thread,
//it takes approx. 20-30 secs to run
var task = new Task(() => WriteData(somedata));
//GetData also takes some time.
foreach (var data in queries.Select(GetData))
{
if (task.Status != TaskStatus.Running)
{
//start task with "data" as a parameter
//continue the loop to prepare the next batch of data to be written
}
else
{
//wait for task to be completed
//"restart" task
//continue the loop to prepare the next batch of data to be written
}
}
Any suggestion appreciated ! Thanks. I don't necessarily want to use Task, I just think it might be the way to go.
This may be over simplifying your requirements, but would simply "waiting" for the previous task to complete work for you? You can use Task.WaitAny and Task.WaitAll to wait for previous operations to complete.
pseudo code:
// Method that makes calls to fetch and write data.
public async Task DoStuff()
{
Task currTask = null;
object somedata = await FetchData();
while (somedata != null)
{
// Wait for previous task.
if (currTask != null)
Task.WaitAny(currTask);
currTask = WriteData(somedata);
somedata = await FetchData();
}
}
// Whatever method fetches data.
public Task<object> FetchData()
{
var data = new object();
return Task.FromResult(data);
}
// Whatever method writes data.
public Task WriteData(object somedata)
{
return Task.Factory.StartNew(() => { /* write data */});
}
The Task class is not designed to be restarted. so you Need to create a new task and run the body with the same Parameters. Next i do not see where you start the task with the WriteData function in its body. That will property Eliminate the call of if (task.Status != TaskStatus.Running) There are AFAIK only the class Task and Thread where task is only the abstraction of an action that will be scheduled with the TaskScheduler and executed in different threads ( when we talking about the Common task Scheduler, the one you get when you call TaskFactory.Scheduler ) and the Number of the Threads are equal to the number of Processor Cores.
To you Business App. Why do you wait for the execution of WriteData? Would it be not a lot more easy to gater all data and than submit them into one big Write?
something like ?
public void Do()
{
var task = StartTask(500);
var array = new[] {1000, 2000, 3000};
foreach (var data in array)
{
if (task.IsCompleted)
{
task = StartTask(data);
}
else
{
task.Wait();
task = StartTask(data);
}
}
}
private Task StartTask(int data)
{
var task = new Task(DoSmth, data);
task.Start();
return task;
}
private void DoSmth(object time)
{
Thread.Sleep((int) time);
}
You can use a thread and an AutoResetEvent. I have code like this for several different threads in my program:
These are variable declarations that belong to the main program.
public AutoResetEvent StartTask = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public bool IsStopping = false;
public Thread RepeatingTaskThread;
Somewhere in your initialization code:
RepeatingTaskThread = new Thread( new ThreadStart( RepeatingTaskProcessor ) ) { IsBackground = true; };
RepeatingTaskThread.Start();
Then the method that runs the repeating task would look something like this:
private void RepeatingTaskProcessor() {
// Keep looping until the program is going down.
while (!IsStopping) {
// Wait to receive notification that there's something to process.
StartTask.WaitOne();
// Exit if the program is stopping now.
if (IsStopping) return;
// Execute your task
PerformTask();
}
}
If there are several different tasks you want to run, you can add a variable that would indicate which one to process and modify the logic in PerformTask to pick which one to run.
I know that it doesn't use the Task class, but there's more than one way to skin a cat & this will work.
here is sample code for starting multiple task
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
//foreach (KeyValuePair<string, string> entry in dicList)
Parallel.ForEach(dicList,
entry =>
{
//create and add the Progress in UI thread
var ucProgress = (Progress)fpPanel.Invoke(createProgress, entry);
//execute ucProgress.Process(); in non-UI thread in parallel.
//the .Process(); must update UI by using *Invoke
ucProgress.Process();
System.Threading.Thread.SpinWait(5000000);
});
});
.ContinueWith(task =>
{
//to handle exceptions use task.Exception member
var progressBar = (ProgressBar)task.AsyncState;
if (!task.IsCancelled)
{
//hide progress bar here and reset pb.Value = 0
}
},
TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() //update UI from UI thread
);
when we start multiple task using Task.Factory.StartNew() then we can use .ContinueWith() block to determine when each task finish. i mean ContinueWith block fire once for each task completion. so i just want to know is there any mechanism in TPL library. if i start 10 task using Task.Factory.StartNew() so how do i notify after when 10 task will be finish. please give some insight with sample code.
if i start 10 task using Task.Factory.StartNew() so how do i notify after when 10 task will be finish
Three options:
The blocking Task.WaitAll call, which only returns when all the given tasks have completed
The async Task.WhenAll call, which returns a task which completes when all the given tasks have completed. (Introduced in .NET 4.5.)
TaskFactory.ContinueWhenAll, which adds a continuation task which will run when all the given tasks have completed.
if i start 10 task using Task.Factory.StartNew() so how do i notify after when 10 task will be finish
You can use Task.WaitAll. This call will block current thread until all tasks are finished.
Side note: you seem to be using Task, Parallel and Thread.SpinWait, which makes your code complex. I would spend a bit of time analysing if that complexity is really necessary.
You can use the WaitAll(). Example :
Func<bool> DummyMethod = () =>{
// When ready, send back complete!
return true;
};
// Create list of tasks
System.Threading.Tasks.Task<bool>[] tasks = new System.Threading.Tasks.Task<bool>[2];
// First task
var firstTask = System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DummyMethod(), TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
tasks[0] = firstTask;
// Second task
var secondTask = System.Threading.Tasks.Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DummyMethod(), TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
tasks[1] = secondTask;
// Launch all
System.Threading.Tasks.Task.WaitAll(tasks);
Another solution:
After the completion of all the operation inside Parallel.For(...) it return an onject of ParallelLoopResult, Documentation:
For returns a System.Threading.Tasks.ParallelLoopResult object when
all threads have completed. This return value is useful when you are
stopping or breaking loop iteration manually, because the
ParallelLoopResult stores information such as the last iteration that
ran to completion. If one or more exceptions occur on one of the
threads, a System.AggregateException will be thrown.
The ParallelLoopResult class has a IsCompleted property that is set to false when a Stop() of Break() method has been executed.
Example:
ParallelLoopResult result = Parallel.For(...);
if (result.IsCompleted)
{
//Start another task
}
Note that it advised to use it only when breaking or stoping the loop manually (otherwise just use WaitAll, WhenAll etc).