Develop Reference

Using ThreadPool threads in library

I'm working on a .net core library that will get used mostly in web apps. This library is being built with performance in mind as this is the main design decision. There is some code that is fairly heavy and due to this, will get cached so that subsequent calls are quick. As you can imagine, the first call is slower and I don't want that. I want to execute this code at the earliest possible time to warm up the cache without affecting the other operations. I was thinking of using Task.Start() without awaiting to to achieve this.
My question is, is it frowned upon to use threadpool threads in a library, i.e what is the etiquette on this? As this will be mostly used on web apps, I feel I don't want to interfere with the client's threadpool. That being said, the library will only use one background thread and this will be less than a second. Or should I just let the client take the performance hit for first calls?

If I understand you correctly; it's perfectly legitimate to use multi-threading in a library; as a matter of fact: it happens all the time.
Basically, a lot of async Task methods do this in one way or another. (Sometimes there is no thread)
If it's so heavy you need multiple parallel threads for a long period in time, than it's best to create an explicit initialize routine, and warn the caller in the docs.
Task.Run is typically used for such processing.

Optimum use of Concurrent Collections with Threads Vs. Tasks

I've been reading this article on MSDN about C# Concurrent Collections. It talks about the optimum threading to use for particular scenarios to get the most benefit out of the collections e.g:
ConcurrentQueue performs best when one dedicated thread is queuing and one dedicated thread is de-queuing. If you do not enforce this rule, then Queue might even perform slightly faster than ConcurrentQueue on computers that have multiple cores.
Is this advice still valid when one is using Tasks instead of raw Threads? From my (limited) understanding of C# Tasks, there is no guarantee that a particular Task will always run on the same thread between context switches, or does maintaining the stack frame mean that the same rules apply in terms of best usage?
Thanks.

One task always runs on the same thread. TPL is a user-mode library. User mode has no (practical) way of migrating executing code from thread to thread. Also there would be no point to doing that.
This advice applies exactly to tasks as it does to threads.
What that piece of advice means to say is that at the same time there should be one producer and one consumer only. You can have 100 threads enqueuing from time to time as long as they do not contend.
(I'm not questioning that advice here since that is out of scope for this question. But that is what's meant here.)

Multithreading in .Net

I've a configuration xml which is being used by a batch module in my .Net 3.5 windows application.
Each node in the xml is mapped to a .Net class. Each class does processing like mathematical calculations, making db calls etc.
The batch module loads the xml, identifies the class associated with each node and then processes it.
Now, we have the following requirements:
1.Lets say there are 3 classes[3 nodes in the xml]...A,B, and C.
Class A can be dependant on class B...ie. we need to execute class B before processing class A. Class C processing should be done on a separare thread.
2.If a thread is running, then we should be able to cancel that thread in the middle of its processing.
We need to implement this whole module using .net multi-threading.
My questions are:
1.Is it possible to implement requirement # 1 above?If yes, how?
2.Given these requirements, is .Net 3.5 a good idea or .Net 4.0 would be a better choice?Would like to know advantages and disadvantages please.
Thanks for reading.

You'd be better off using the Task Parallel Library (TPL) in .NET 4.0. It'll give you lots of nice features for abstracting the actual business of creating threads in the thread pool. You could use the parallel tasks pattern to create a Task for each of the jobs defined in the XML and the TPL will handle the scheduling of those tasks regardless of the hardware. In other words if you move to a machine with more cores the TPL will schedule more threads.
1) The TPL supports the notion of continuation tasks. You can use these to enforce task ordering and pass the result of one Task or future from the antecedent to the continuation. This is the futures pattern.
// The antecedent task. Can also be created with Task.Factory.StartNew.
Task<DayOfWeek> taskA = new Task<DayOfWeek>(() => DateTime.Today.DayOfWeek);
// The continuation. Its delegate takes the antecedent task
// as an argument and can return a different type.
Task<string> continuation = taskA.ContinueWith((antecedent) =>
{
return String.Format("Today is {0}.",
antecedent.Result);
});
// Start the antecedent.
taskA.Start();
// Use the contuation's result.
Console.WriteLine(continuation.Result);
2) Thread cancellation is supported by the TPL but it is cooperative cancellation. In other words the code running in the Task must periodically check to see if it has been cancelled and shut down cleanly. TPL has good support for cancellation. Note that if you were to use threads directly you run into the same limitations. Thread.Abort is not a viable solution in almost all cases.
While you're at it you might want to look at a dependency injection container like Unity for generating configured objects from your XML configuration.
Answer to comment (below)
Jimmy: I'm not sure I understand holtavolt's comment. What is true is that using parallelism only pays off if the amount of work being done is significant, otherwise your program may spend more time managing parallelism that doing useful work. The actual datasets don't have to be large but the work needs to be significant.
For example if your inputs were large numbers and you we checking to see if they were prime then the dataset would be very small but parallelism would still pay off because the computation is costly for each number or block of numbers. Conversely you might have a very large dataset of numbers that you were searching for evenness. This would require a very large set of data but the calculation is still very cheap and a parallel implementation might still not be more efficient.
The canonical example is using Parallel.For instead of for to iterate over a dataset (large or small) but only perform a simple numerical operation like addition. In this case the expected performance improvement of utilizing multiple cores is outweighed by the overhead of creating parallel tasks and scheduling and managing them.

Of course it can be done.
Assuming you're new, I would likely look into multithreading, and you want 1 thread per class then I would look into the backgroundworker class, and basically use it in the different classes to do the processing.
What version you want to use of .NET also depends on if this is going to run on client machines also. But I would go for .NET 4 simply because it's newest, and if you want to split up a single task into multiple threads it has built-in classes for this.

Given your use case, the Thread and BackgroundWorkerThread should be sufficient. As you'll discover in reading the MSDN information regarding these classes, you will want to support cancellation as your means of shutting down a running thread before it's complete. (Thread "killing" is something to be avoided if at all possible)
.NET 4.0 has added some advanced items in the Task Parallel Library (TPL) - where Tasks are defined and managed with some smarter affinity for their most recently used core (to provide better cache behavior, etc.), however this seems like overkill for your use case, unless you expect to be running very large datasets. See these sites for more information:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd460717.aspx
http://archive.msdn.microsoft.com/ParExtSamples

When to use Multithread?

When do you use threads in a application? For example, in simple CRUD operations, use of smtp, calling webservices that may take a few time if the server is facing bandwith issues, etc.
To be honest, i don't know how to determine if i need to use a thread (i know that it must be when we're excepting that a operation will take a few time to be done).
This may be a "noob" question but it'll be great if you share with me your experience in threads.
Thanks

I added C# and .NET tags to your question because you mention C# in your title. If that is not accurate, feel free to remove the tags.
There are different styles of multithreading. For example, there are asynchronous operations with callback functions. .NET 4 introduces the parallel Linq library. The style of multithreading you would use, or whether to use any at all, depends on what you are trying to accomplish.
Parallel execution, such as what parallel Linq would generally be trying to do, takes advantage of multiple processor cores executing instructions that do not need to wait for data from each other. There are many sources for such algorithms outside Linq, such as this. However, it is possible that parallel execution may be unable to you or that it does not suit your application.
More traditional multithreading takes advantage of threading within the .NET library (in this case) as provided by System.Thread. Remember that there is some overhead in starting processes on threads, so only use threads when the advantages of doing so outweigh this overhead. Generally speaking, you would only want to use this type of single-processor multithreading when the task running under the thread will have long gaps in which the processor could be doing something else. For example, I/O from hard disk (and, consequently, from a database system that uses one) is many orders of magnitude slower than memory access. Network access can also be slow, as another example. Multithreading could allow another process to be running while waiting for these slow (compared to the processor) operations to complete.
Another example when I have used traditional multithreading is to cache some values the first time a particular ASP.NET page is accessed within a session. I kick off a thread so that the user does not have to wait for the caching to complete before interacting with the page. I also regulate the behavior when the caching does not complete before the user requests another page so that, if the caching does not complete, it is not a problem. It simply makes some further requests faster that were previously too slow.
Consider also the cost that multithreading has to the maintainability of your application. Threaded applications can be harder to debug, for example.
I hope this answers your question at least somewhat.

Joseph Albahari summarized it very well here:
Maintaining a responsive user interface
Making efficient use of an otherwise blocked CPU
Parallel programming
Speculative execution
Allowing requests to be processed simultaneously

One reason to use threads is to split large, CPU-bound tasks across a number of CPUs/cores, to finish faster. Another is to let an extended task execute asynchronously, so the foreground can remain responsive while it runs.
Your examples seem to be concentrating on the second of these. While it can be a good reason, if you can use asynchronous I/O instead, that's usually preferable (e.g., almost anything using sockets can/will be better off using the socket(s) asynchronously). Asynchronous I/O is easier to cancel, and it'll usually have lower CPU overhead as well.

You can use threads when you need different execution paths. This leads(when done correctly) to more responsive and/or faster applications but also leads to more complex code and debugging.
In a simple CRUD scenario maybe is not that useful, but maybe your UI is consuming a slow web service. If you your code is tied to your UI thread you will have unresponsive UI between the service calls.
In that case, using System.Threading.Threads maybe be overkill because you don't need so much control. Using a BackgrounWorker maybe a better choice.
Threading is something difficult to master, but the benefits when used correctly are huge, performance is the most common.

Somehow you have answered your question by yourself. Using threads whenever you execute time consuming operations is right choice. Also you should it in situations when you want to make things faster. For example you want to process some amount of files - each file can be processed by different thread.
By using threads you can better utilize power of multi-core/processor machines.
Monitoring some data in background of your application.
There are dozens of such scenarios.

Realising my comment might suffice as an answer ...
I like to view multi-threading scenarios from a resource perspective. In other words, UI (graphics), networking, disk IO, CPU (cores), RAM etc. I find that helps when deciding where to use multi-threading in the general sense at least.
The reasoning behind this is simply that I can take advantage of one resource on a specific thread (eg. Disk IO) while at the same time using another thread to accomplish something else using a different resource.

Alternative to Threads

I've read that threads are very problematic. What alternatives are available? Something that handles blocking and stuff automatically?
A lot of people recommend the background worker, but I've no idea why.
Anyone care to explain "easy" alternatives? The user will be able to select the number of threads to use (depending on their speed needs and computer power).
Any ideas?

To summarize the problems with threads:
if threads share memory, you can get
race conditions
if you avoid races by liberally using locks, you
can get deadlocks (see the dining philosophers problem)
An example of a race: suppose two threads share access to some memory where a number is stored. Thread 1 reads from the memory address and stores it in a CPU register. Thread 2 does the same. Now thread 1 increments the number and writes it back to memory. Thread 2 then does the same. End result: the number was only incremented by 1, while both threads tried to increment it. The outcome of such interactions depend on timing. Worse, your code may seem to work bug-free but once in a blue moon the timing is wrong and bad things happen.
To avoid these problems, the answer is simple: avoid sharing writable memory. Instead, use message passing to communicate between threads. An extreme example is to put the threads in separate processes and communicate via TCP/IP connections or named pipes.
Another approach is to share only read-only data structures, which is why functional programming languages can work so well with multiple threads.

This is a bit higher-level answer, but it may be useful if you want to consider other alternatives to threads. Anyway, most of the answers discussed solutions based on threads (or thread pools) or maybe tasks from .NET 4.0, but there is one more alternative, which is called message-passing. This has been successfuly used in Erlang (a functional language used by Ericsson). Since functional programming is becoming more mainstream in these days (e.g. F#), I thought I could mention it. In genral:
Threads (or thread pools) can usually used when you have some relatively long-running computation. When it needs to share state with other threads, it gets tricky (you have to correctly use locks or other synchronization primitives).
Tasks (available in TPL in .NET 4.0) are very lightweight - you can split your program into thousands of tasks and then let the runtime run them (it will use optimal number of threads). If you can write your algorithm using tasks instead of threads, it sounds like a good idea - you can avoid some synchronization when you run computation using smaller steps.
Declarative approaches (PLINQ in .NET 4.0 is a great option) if you have some higher-level data processing operation that can be encoded using LINQ primitives, then you can use this technique. The runtime will automatically parallelize your code, because LINQ doesn't specify how exactly should it evaluate the results (you just say what results you want to get).
Message-passing allows you two write program as concurrently running processes that perform some (relatively simple) tasks and communicate by sending messages to each other. This is great, because you can share some state (send messages) without the usual synchronization issues (you just send a message, then do other thing or wait for messages). Here is a good introduction to message-passing in F# from Robert Pickering.
Note that the last three techniques are quite related to functional programming - in functional programming, you desing programs differently - as computations that return result (which makes it easier to use Tasks). You also often write declarative and higher-level code (which makes it easier to use Declarative approaches).
When it comes to actual implementation, F# has a wonderful message-passing library right in the core libraries. In C#, you can use Concurrency & Coordination Runtime, which feels a bit "hacky", but is probably quite powerful too (but may look too complicated).

Won't the parallel programming options in .Net 4 be an "easy" way to use threads? I'm not sure what I'd suggest for .Net 3.5 and earlier...
This MSDN link to the Parallel Computing Developer Center has links to lots of info on Parellel Programming including links to videos, etc.

I can recommend this project. Smart Thread Pool
Project Description
Smart Thread Pool is a thread pool written in C#. It is far more advanced than the .NET built-in thread pool.
Here is a list of the thread pool features:
The number of threads dynamically changes according to the workload on the threads in the pool.
Work items can return a value.
A work item can be cancelled.
The caller thread's context is used when the work item is executed (limited).
Usage of minimum number of Win32 event handles, so the handle count of the application won't explode.
The caller can wait for multiple or all the work items to complete.
Work item can have a PostExecute callback, which is called as soon the work item is completed.
The state object, that accompanies the work item, can be disposed automatically.
Work item exceptions are sent back to the caller.
Work items have priority.
Work items group.
The caller can suspend the start of a thread pool and work items group.
Threads have priority.
Can run COM objects that have single threaded apartment.
Support Action and Func delegates.
Support for WindowsCE (limited)
The MaxThreads and MinThreads can be changed at run time.
Cancel behavior is imporved.

"Problematic" is not the word I would use to describe working with threads. "Tedious" is a more appropriate description.
If you are new to threaded programming, I would suggest reading this thread as a starting point. It is by no means exhaustive but has some good introductory information. From there, I would continue to scour this website and other programming sites for information related to specific threading questions you may have.
As for specific threading options in C#, here's some suggestions on when to use each one.
Use BackgroundWorker if you have a single task that runs in the background and needs to interact with the UI. The task of marshalling data and method calls to the UI thread are handled automatically through its event-based model. Avoid BackgroundWorker if (1) your assembly does not already reference the System.Windows.Form assembly, (2) you need the thread to be a foreground thread, or (3) you need to manipulate the thread priority.
Use a ThreadPool thread when efficiency is desired. The ThreadPool helps avoid the overhead associated with creating, starting, and stopping threads. Avoid using the ThreadPool if (1) the task runs for the lifetime of your application, (2) you need the thread to be a foreground thread, (3) you need to manipulate the thread priority, or (4) you need the thread to have a fixed identity (aborting, suspending, discovering).
Use the Thread class for long-running tasks and when you require features offered by a formal threading model, e.g., choosing between foreground and background threads, tweaking the thread priority, fine-grained control over thread execution, etc.

Any time you introduce multiple threads, each running at once, you open up the potential for race conditions. To avoid these, you tend to need to add synchronization, which adds complexity, as well as the potential for deadlocks.
Many tools make this easier. .NET has quite a few classes specifically meant to ease the pain of dealing with multiple threads, including the BackgroundWorker class, which makes running background work and interacting with a user interface much simpler.
.NET 4 is going to do a lot to ease this even more. The Task Parallel Library and PLINQ dramatically ease working with multiple threads.
As for your last comment:
The user will be able to select the number of threads to use (depending on their speed needs and computer power).
Most of the routines in .NET are built upon the ThreadPool. In .NET 4, when using the TPL, the work load will actually scale at runtime, for you, eliminating the burden of having to specify the number of threads to use. However, there are ways to do this now.
Currently, you can use ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads to help limit the number of threads generated. In TPL, you can specify ParallelOptions.MaxDegreesOfParallelism, and pass an instance of the ParallelOptions into your routine to control this. The default behavior scales up with more threads as you add more processing cores, which is usually the best behavior in any case.

Threads are not problematic if you understand what causes problems with them.
For ex. if you avoid statics, you know which API's to use (e.g. use synchronized streams), you will avoid many of the issues that come up for their bad utilization.

If threading is a problem (this can happen if you have unsafe/unmanaged 3rd party dll's that cannot support multithreading. In this can an option is to create a meachism to queue the operations. ie store the parameters of the action to a database and just run through them one at a time. This can be done in a windows service. Obviously this will take longer but in some cases is the only option.

Threads are indispensable tools for solving many problems, and it behooves the maturing developer to know how to effectively use them. But like many tools, they can cause some very difficult-to-find bugs.
Don't shy away from some so useful just because it can cause problems, instead study and practice until you become the go-to guy for multi-threaded apps.
A great place to start is Joe Albahari's article: http://www.albahari.com/threading/.