Develop Reference

Notifying about task finishing its work

I'm thinking of a simple way of reacting on task finishing its work. I came up with the following solution (paste it to WinForms application with a single button to test):
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private Thread thread;
public void DoFinishWork() {
// [4]
// UI thread - waiting for thread to finalize its work
thread.Join();
// Checking, if it really finished its work
MessageBox.Show("Thread state: " + thread.IsAlive.ToString());
}
public void DoWork() {
// [2]
// Working hard
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
public void FinishWork() {
// [3]
// Asynchronously notifying form in main thread, that work was done
Delegate del = new Action(DoFinishWork);
this.BeginInvoke(del);
// Finalizing work - this should be switched
// at some point to main thread
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) {
// [1]
// Schedule the task
ThreadStart start = new ThreadStart(DoWork);
// Schedule notification about finishing work
start += FinishWork;
thread = new Thread(start);
thread.Start();
}
}
This is meant to be a simple cancel scenario, so there will be only one thread, which will be running in parallel to the UI thread.
Is there a simpler (or more thread-safe) way of implementing this kind of notification for the Thread?
Please take into consideration two facts:
The only way i can terminate the thread is to Abort it (that's because I have no control over what is being done in the thread - 3rd party code)
Thus, I cannot use BackgroundWorker, because it only provides way of graceful termination.

Is there a simpler (or more thread-safe) way of implementing this kind of notification for the Thread?
Yes, use the TPL and let the framework worry about managing the thread
Task.StartNew(() => {
// do some stuff
}).ContinueWith((task) => {
// do some stuff after I have finished doing some other stuff
});
Or alternatively, since you are working with WinForms, use a BackgroundWorker and handle the RunWorkerCompleted event.
I mistook your notion of kill for cancel - there is no reliable way of actually killing a thread in .NET, even the documentation suggests that using Abort is more or less a gamble and gives absolutely no guarentees that the thread will actually be killed. Also, it will leave the thread and, as a consequence, the application in an unpredictable state so if you are willing to take that risk then that's up to you.
One alternative is to simply let the thread play out but just ignore the results, depending on the size of the task it might not be that big a deal.

Although you need Abort to kill the thread, you can still use the TPL. You could start that thread within the task, and wait for it as well as for an CancellationToken. When the task is cancelled before the thread finishes, you can call Abort on the thread.
It would look something like that:
// In your class:
ManualResetEvent threadFinished = new ManualResetEvent(false);
// In your calling function (button1_Click):
Task.Run( () => {
ThreadStart threadStart = new StreadStart(DoWork);
threadStart += () => { threadFinished.Set(); }
Thread thread = new Thread(threadStart);
threadFinished.Reset();
thread.Start();
WaitHandle waitCancel = cancellationToken.WaitHandle;
int waited = WaitHandle.WaitAny( new WaitHandle[]{ waitCancel, threadFinished } );
if (waited == 0 && cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
thread.Abort();
else
thread.Join()
});

Parallel.ForEach freezing on last loop [duplicate]

More newbie questions:
This code grabs a number of proxies from the list in the main window (I couldn't figure out how to make variables be available between different functions) and does a check on each one (simple httpwebrequest) and then adds them to a list called finishedProxies.
For some reason when I press the start button, the whole program hangs up. I was under the impression that Parallel creates separate threads for each action leaving the UI thread alone so that it's responsive?
private void start_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
// Populate a list of proxies
List<string> proxies = new List<string>();
List<string> finishedProxies = new List<string>();
foreach (string proxy in proxiesList.Items)
{
proxies.Add(proxy);
}
Parallel.ForEach<string>(proxies, (i) =>
{
string checkResult;
checkResult = checkProxy(i);
finishedProxies.Add(checkResult);
// update ui
/*
status.Dispatcher.Invoke(
System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherPriority.Normal,
new Action(
delegate()
{
status.Content = "hello" + checkResult;
}
)); */
// update ui finished
//Console.WriteLine("[{0}] F({1}) = {2}", Thread.CurrentThread.Name, i, CalculateFibonacciNumber(i));
});
}
I've tried using the code that's commented out to make changes to the UI inside the Parallel.Foreach and it makes the program freeze after the start button is pressed. It's worked for me before but I used Thread class.
How can I update the UI from inside the Parallel.Foreach and how do I make Parallel.Foreach work so that it doesn't make the UI freeze up while it's working?
Here's the whole code.

You must not start the parallel processing in your UI thread. See the example under the "Avoid Executing Parallel Loops on the UI Thread" header in this page.
Update: Or, you can simply create a new thread manuall and start the processing inside that as I see you have done. There's nothing wrong with that too.
Also, as Jim Mischel points out, you are accessing the lists from multiple threads at the same time, so there are race conditions there. Either substitute ConcurrentBag for List, or wrap the lists inside a lock statement each time you access them.

A good way to circumvent the problems of not being able to write to the UI thread when using Parallel statements is to use the Task Factory and delegates, see the following code, I used this to iterate over a series of files in a directory, and process them in a Parallel.ForEach loop, after each file is processed the UI thread is signaled and updated:
var files = GetFiles(directoryToScan);
tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
CancellationToken ct = tokenSource.Token;
Task task = Task.Factory.StartNew(delegate
{
// Were we already canceled?
ct.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
Parallel.ForEach(files, currentFile =>
{
// Poll on this property if you have to do
// other cleanup before throwing.
if (ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// Clean up here, then...
ct.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
}
ProcessFile(directoryToScan, currentFile, directoryToOutput);
// Update calling thread's UI
BeginInvoke((Action)(() =>
{
WriteProgress(currentFile);
}));
});
}, tokenSource.Token); // Pass same token to StartNew.
task.ContinueWith((t) =>
BeginInvoke((Action)(() =>
{
SignalCompletion(sw);
}))
);
And the methods that do the actual UI changes:
void WriteProgress(string fileName)
{
progressBar.Visible = true;
lblResizeProgressAmount.Visible = true;
lblResizeProgress.Visible = true;
progressBar.Value += 1;
Interlocked.Increment(ref counter);
lblResizeProgressAmount.Text = counter.ToString();
ListViewItem lvi = new ListViewItem(fileName);
listView1.Items.Add(lvi);
listView1.FullRowSelect = true;
}
private void SignalCompletion(Stopwatch sw)
{
sw.Stop();
if (tokenSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
InitializeFields();
lblFinished.Visible = true;
lblFinished.Text = String.Format("Processing was cancelled after {0}", sw.Elapsed.ToString());
}
else
{
lblFinished.Visible = true;
if (counter > 0)
{
lblFinished.Text = String.Format("Resized {0} images in {1}", counter, sw.Elapsed.ToString());
}
else
{
lblFinished.Text = "Nothing to resize";
}
}
}
Hope this helps!

If anyone's curious, I kinda figured it out but I'm not sure if that's good programming or any way to deal with the issue.
I created a new thread like so:
Thread t = new Thread(do_checks);
t.Start();
and put away all of the parallel stuff inside of do_checks().
Seems to be doing okay.

One problem with your code is that you're calling FinishedProxies.Add from multiple threads concurrently. That's going to cause a problem because List<T> isn't thread-safe. You'll need to protect it with a lock or some other synchronization primitive, or use a concurrent collection.
Whether that causes the UI lockup, I don't know. Without more information, it's hard to say. If the proxies list is very long and checkProxy doesn't take long to execute, then your tasks will all queue up behind that Invoke call. That's going to cause a whole bunch of pending UI updates. That will lock up the UI because the UI thread is busy servicing those queued requests.

This is what I think might be happening in your code-base.
Normal Scenario: You click on button. Do not use Parallel.Foreach loop. Use Dispatcher class and push the code to run on separate thread in background. Once the background thread is done processing, it will invoke the main UI thread for updating the UI. In this scenario, the background thread(invoked via Dispatcher) knows about the main UI thread, which it needs to callback. Or simply said the main UI thread has its own identity.
Using Parallel.Foreach loop: Once you invoke Paralle.Foreach loop, the framework uses the threadpool thread. ThreadPool threads are chosen randomly and the executing code should never make any assumption on the identity of the chosen thread. In the original code its very much possible that dispatcher thread invoked via Parallel.Foreach loop is not able to figure out the thread which it is associated with. When you use explicit thread, then it works fine because the explicit thread has its own identity which can be relied upon by the executing code.
Ideally if your main concern is all about keeping UI responsive, then you should first use the Dispatcher class to push the code in background thread and then in there use what ever logic you want to speedup the overall execution.

if you want to use parallel foreach in GUI control like button click etc
then put parallel foreach in Task.Factory.StartNew
like
private void start_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
await Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
Parallel.ForEach(YourArrayList, (ArraySingleValue) =>
{
Console.WriteLine("your background process code goes here for:"+ArraySingleValue);
})
);
}//func end
it will resolve freeze/stuck or hang issue

Thread runs slow when Invoke UI-Element

i am programming a benchmark tool, that reads a bunch of variables from a local server in a thread.
int countReads = 1000;
Int64 count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < countReads; i++)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Priority = ThreadPriority.Highest;
DateTime start = DateTime.Now;
session.Read(null, 0, TimestampsToReturn.Neither, idCollection, out ReadResults, out diagnosticInfos);
DateTime stop = DateTime.Now;
Thread.CurrentThread.Priority = ThreadPriority.Normal;
TimeSpan delay = (stop - start);
double s = delay.TotalMilliseconds;
count += (Int64)s;
Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Render, new Action(() =>
{
progressBar1.Value = i;
}));
}
double avg = (double)count / countReads;
Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Input, new Action(() =>
{
listBox1.Items.Add(avg);
}));
I am calculating the timespan it took to proceed the read and getting the average timespan at the end.
DateTime start = DateTime.Now;
session.Read(null, 0, TimestampsToReturn.Neither, idCollection, out ReadResults, out diagnosticInfos);
DateTime stop = DateTime.Now
if i run the code without updating the progressbar it took about 5ms average.
but if i run it with
Dispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Render, new Action(() =>
{
progressBar1.Value = i;
}));
it takes about 10 ms average.
My question is, why is the timespan higher when using the progressbar?
i am just calculating the timespan for the read. Not including the progressbar update.
Is there any way to evacuate the ui-painting so that it doesn´t effect my read-timespan?
Thanks for your help.
Best regards

Stop using Invoke to transfer progress information to the UI thread. Publish the progress information to a shared data structure or variable and have the UI thread poll for it using a timer on a reasonable interval. I know it seems like we have all been brainwashed into thinking Invoke is the be-all method for doing worker-to-UI thread interactions, but for simple progress information it can be (and often is) the worst method.
A polling method using a timer on the UI thread offers the following benefits.
It breaks the tight coupling that Invoke imposes on both the UI and worker threads.
The UI thread gets to dictate when and how often it should update the progress information instead of the other way around. When you stop and think about it this is how it should be anyway.
You get more throughput on both the UI and worker threads.
I know this does not directly answer your question as to why session.Read appears to run slower. Try changing your strategy for updating progress information from a push model (via Invoke) to a pull model (via a timer). See if that makes a difference. Even if it does not I would still stick with the pull model for the reasons listed above.

Here is what MSDN says about Dispatcher.Invoke
Executes the specified delegate synchronously on the thread the Dispatcher is associated with.
So, basically, Dispatcher.Invoke blocks until the dispatcher thread as handled the request.
Try Dispatcher.BeginInvoke instead.

If current executing thread is associated with Dispatcher you are using - Invoke() will block this thread so in this case try out using Dispatcher.BeginInvoke() it will do the job asynchronously.
MSDN, Dispatcher.Invoke Method:
Invoke is a synchronous operation; therefore, control will not return
to the calling object until after the callback returns.
BTW, just of interest try out DispatcherPriority.Send

I came 9 years late to the party, but I think this is an even easier solution: Just wait until the progress bar value reaches a certain threshold before updating it. In my example, I refresh the toolbar every fifth of the maximum value.
private static int progressBarMaxValue = -1;
private static int progressBarChunkSize = -1;
public static void progressBarSetNotRealTimeValue(ProgressBar progressBar, int argNewValue)
{
if (progressBarMaxValue != -1)
{
if (argNewValue < progressBarChunkSize)
{
//Threshold not reached yet, discard the new value.
return;
}
else
{
//Allow the update, and set the next threshold higher.
progressBarChunkSize += progressBarChunkSize;
}
}
if (Thread.CurrentThread.IsBackground)
{
progressBar.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
if (progressBarMaxValue == -1)
{
progressBarMaxValue = progressBar.Maximum;
progressBarChunkSize = progressBar.Maximum / 5;
}
progressBar.Value = argNewValue;
}));
}
else
{
progressBar.Value = argNewValue;
}
}

Show progress only if a background operation is long

I'm developing a C# operation and I would like to show a modal progress dialog, but only when an operation will be long (for example, more than 3 seconds). I execute my operations in a background thread.
The problem is that I don't know in advance whether the operation will be long or short.
Some software as IntelliJ has a timer aproach. If the operation takes more than x time, then show a dialog then.
What do you think that is a good pattern to implement this?
Wait the UI thread with a timer, and show dialog there?
Must I DoEvents() when I show the dialog?

Here's what I'd do:
1) Use a BackgroundWorker.
2) In before you call the method RunWorkerAsync, store the current time in a variable.
3) In the DoWork event, you'll need to call ReportProgress. In the ProgressChanged event, check to see if the time has elapsed greater than three seconds. If so, show dialog.
Here is a MSDN example for the BackgroundWorker: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221403(v=vs.95).aspx
Note: In general, I agree with Ramhound's comment. Just always display the progress. But if you're not using BackgroundWorker, I would start using it. It'll make your life easier.

I will go with the first choice here with some modifications:
First run the possible long running operation in different thread.
Then run a different thread to check the first one status by a wait handle with timeout to wait it for finish. if the time out triggers there show the progress bar.
Something like:
private ManualResetEvent _finishLoadingNotifier = new ManualResetEvent(false);
private const int ShowProgressTimeOut = 1000 * 3;//3 seconds
private void YourLongOperation()
{
....
_finishLoadingNotifier.Set();//after finish your work
}
private void StartProgressIfNeededThread()
{
int result = WaitHandle.WaitAny(new WaitHandle[] { _finishLoadingNotifier }, ShowProgressTimeOut);
if (result > 1)
{
//show the progress bar.
}
}

Assuming you have a DoPossiblyLongOperation(), ShowProgressDialog() and HideProgressDialog() methods, you could use the TPL to do the heavy lifting for you:
var longOperation = new Task(DoPossiblyLongOperation).ContinueWith(() => myProgressDialog.Invoke(new Action(HideProgressDialog)));
if (Task.WaitAny(longOperation, new Task(() => Thread.Sleep(3000))) == 1)
ShowProgressDialog();

I would keep the progress dialog separate from the background activity, to separate my UI logic from the rest of the application. So the sequence would be (This is essentially the same as what IntelliJ does):
UI starts the background operation (in a BackgroundWorker) and set up a timer for X seconds
When the timer expires UI shows the progress dialog (if the background task is still running)
When the background task completes the timer is cancelled and the dialog (if any) is closed
Using a timer instead of a separate thread is more resource-efficient.

Recommended non-blocking solution and no new Threads:
try
{
var t = DoLongProcessAsync();
if (await Task.WhenAny(t, Task.Delay(1000)) != t) ShowProgress();
await t;
}
finally
{
HideProgress();
}

I got the idea from Jalal Said answer. I required the need to timeout or cancel the progress display. Instead of passing an additional parameter (cancellation token handle) to the WaitAny I changed the design to depend on Task.Delay()
private const int ShowProgressTimeOut = 750;//750 ms seconds
public static void Report(CancellationTokenSource cts)
{
Task.Run(async () =>
{
await Task.Delay(ShowProgressTimeOut);
if (!cts.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// Report progress
}
});
}
Use it like so;
private async Task YourLongOperation()
{
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
try
{
// Long running task on background thread
await Task.Run(() => {
Report(cts);
// Do work
cts.Cancel();
});
}
catch (Exception ex) { }
finally {cts.Cancel();}
}

C# : Blocking a function call until condition met

I am developing a C# Winforms application, part of the application will be uploading files to a webserver using AsyncUpload (using it,due to the need to use a porgress callback) , In the C# program
i got a simple for loop that calls The Uploading function
for(int i=0;i < 10 ; i++)
{
Uploadfun();
}
And the fun does some magic:
Uploadfun()
{
// Logic comes here
// webClient.UploadFileAsync runs a 2nd thread to perform upload ..
webClient.UploadFileAsync(uri, "PUT", fileNameOnHD);
}
And a callback that gets called when the Async upload is done
Upload_Completed_callback()
{
//Callback event
}
Edit
The logic sequence:
Fun gets called (from loop)
Fun logic is executed and done..
Goes back to for loop
Callback will be called eventually, when UploadFileAsync (which is running some logic in another thread) will end
The problem is on the 3rd point, when the execution moves back to the for loop, i need to block the loop from continuing until the callback get called.

So if I understand correctly, you want to call UploadFileAsync then block until the async call has hit your callback. If so, I'd use AutoResetEvent i.e
private readonly AutoResetEvent _signal = new AutoResetEvent(false);
fun()
{
// Logic comes here
// runs a 2nd thread to perform upload .. calling "callback()" when done
webClient.UploadFileAsync(uri, "PUT", fileNameOnHD);
_signal.WaitOne(); // wait for the async call to complete and hit the callback
}
callback()
{
//Callback event
_signal.Set(); // signal that the async upload completed
}
Using AutoResetEvent means that the state gets automatically reset after Set has been called and a waiting thread receives the signal via WaitOne

In C# methods block by default, so you shouldn't need to do anything. I'm assuming that for some reason you are calling a non-blocking method that starts a background task / thread / whatever and gives you a callback when it's done. You want to call this asynchonous method in a synchronous manner.
You can call fun from inside the callback. Something along these lines (pseudo-code):
int n;
callFunTenTimes()
{
n = 0;
fun(n);
}
callback()
{
++n;
if (n < 10)
fun(n);
else
print("done");
}
This is similar to continuation passing style.
An advantage to this method is that you can also make your method asynchronous without adding any extra threads, locks, or extra logic - you just supply a callback function which your client can subscribe to. It works well in an event-driven environment.

Zebrabox does have it right using a WaitHandle.
While Juliet's solution does work, the thread performing the spin-wait will consume a significant amount of processor in proportion to the WaitHandle, which would essentially be sitting idle.

The problem is here:
for(int i=0;i < 10 ; i++)
{
fun(); <-- if we block until this function finishes here, we stop the UI thread
}
What you're doing is sequential. And if you can't afford to block the UI thread, move the loop off the UI thread:
volatile downloadComplete;
void DownloadUpdates()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state =>
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
downloadComplete = false;
webClient.UploadFileAsync(uri, "PUT", fileNameOnHD);
while(!downloadComplete) { Thread.Sleep(1); }
});
}
Upload_Completed_callback()
{
downloadComplete = true;
}
Now you can block the execution of the loop without halting your UI thread, and you also get the benefit of progress indicators from the webclient class.