Develop Reference

Is thread sleeping in while(true) loop a bad way to reduce cpu usage? [duplicate]

I have a unit of work I'm doing in a thread (not the main thread). Under certain circumstances I would like to put this thread to sleep for 10 seconds. Is Thread.Sleep(10000) the most resource efficient way to do this?

Is Thread.Sleep(10000) the most resource efficient way to do this?
Yes in the sense that it is not busy-waiting but giving up the CPU.
But it is wasting a Thread. You shouldn't scale this to many sleeping threads.

As no-one else has mentioned it...
If you want another thread to be able to wake up your "sleeping" thread, you may well want to use Monitor.Wait instead of Thread.Sleep:
private readonly object sharedMonitor;
private bool shouldStop;
public void Stop()
{
lock (sharedMonitor)
{
shouldStop = true;
Monitor.Pulse(sharedMonitor);
}
}
public void Loop()
{
while (true)
{
// Do some work...
lock (sharedMonitor)
{
if (shouldStop)
{
return;
}
Monitor.Wait(sharedMonitor, 10000);
if (shouldStop)
{
return;
}
}
}
}
Note that we only access shouldStop within the lock, so there aren't any memory model concerns.
You may want to loop round waiting until you've really slept for 10 seconds, just in case you get spurious wake-ups - it depends on how important it is that you don't do the work again for another 10 seconds. (I've never knowingly encountered spurious wakes, but I believe they're possible.)

Make a habit of using Thread.CurrentThread.Join(timeout) instead of Thread.Sleep.
The difference is that Join will still do some message pumping (e.g. GUI & COM).
Most of the time it doesn't matter but it makes life easier if you ever need to use some COM or GUI object in your application.

This will process something every x seconds without using a thread
Not sure how not using your own thread compares with a task to run that is created every two seconds
public void LogProcessor()
{
if (_isRunning)
{
WriteNewLogsToDisk();
// Come back in 2 seonds
var t = Task.Run(async delegate
{
await Task.Delay(2000);
LogProcessor();
});
}
}

From resource efficiency, yes.
For design, it depends on the circumstances for the pause. You want your work to be autonomous so if the thread has to pause because it knows to wait then put the pause in the thread code using the static Thread.Sleep method. If the pause happens because of some other external event than you need to control the thread processing, then have the thread owner keep reference to the thread and call childThread.Sleep.

Yes. There's no other efficient or safe way to sleep the thread.
However, if you're doing some work in a loop, you may want to use Sleep in loop to make aborting the thread easier, in case you want to cancel your work.
Here's an example:
bool exit = false;
...
void MyThread()
{
while(!exit)
{
// do your stuff here...
stuff...
// sleep for 10 seconds
int sc = 0;
while(sc < 1000 && !exit) { Thread.Sleep(10); sc++; }
}
}

C# While loop thread.sleep in GUI

I have a while loop inside a delegate method that is called. My issue is that while it is inside the while loop the whole GUI is frozen until it exits the while loop. How can I make it so it does not freeze the GUI? Thanks
if (!IsUploadingAvailable())
{
MessageBox.Show("Uploading is not available, please wait until it is ready!", "Upload not available");
myButton.Enabled = false;
while (IsUploadingAvailable())
{
Thread.Sleep(RandomAmountOfTime(10000));
}
MessageBox.Show("Uploading is now available!");
}

You are blocking the GUI thread. You need to do your work on a different thread, e.g. by using the BackgroundWorker class.

You should use Timer
Try This:
System.Windows.Forms.Timer timer1 = new System.Windows.Forms.Timer();
timer1.Interval=10000;//10 seconds
timer1.Tick += new System.EventHandler(timer1_Tick);
if (!IsUploadingAvailable())
{
MessageBox.Show("Uploading is not available, please wait until it is ready!", "Upload not available");
myButton.Enabled = false;
while (IsUploadingAvailable())
{
timer1.Start();
}
MessageBox.Show("Uploading is now available!");
}
private void timer1_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//do whatever you want
timer1.Stop();
}

As answered here :- Thread sleep in a for loop
You are blocking the UI thread - no updates will usually show until
you leave the event-handler. A hacky approach is to use
Application.DoEvents(), but this is lazy and risks re-entrancy
especially if you are pausing.
A better approach is to do the work on a background thread, and use
Invoke to push the data to the UI (don't talk to the UI from the
worker thread).

One of the most important things that differentiates a “quick and dirty” application from one that has been designed well is how the application’s user interface behaves during lengthy operations. The quick-and-dirty approach is to just do all of your work in a button’s Click event handler and not worry about the user interface. The problem with this is that the GUI will freeze up while the application does whatever work it needs to do.
A well designed application, on the other hand, is one that is careful to do as much work as possible in background threads, keeping the GUI responsive and making sure that it makes it obvious to the user that work is going on in the background and adjusts the GUI to disallow any user actions that don’t apply until after the work finishes.
BackgroundWorker was designed for exactly this kind of scenario.
See MSDN Or use the Task Parallel Library

Use Task:
if (!IsUploadingAvailable())
{
MessageBox.Show("Uploading is not available, please wait until it is ready!", "Upload not available");
myButton.Enabled = false;
await WaitForUploadingAvailable();
MessageBox.Show("Uploading is now available!");
}
async Task WaitForUploadingAvailable()
{
await Task.Run(() =>
{
while (!IsUploadingAvailable())
{
Thread.Sleep(RandomAmountOfTime(10000));
}
});
}
Declare the method that contains your code as async.

CPU friendly infinite loop

Writing an infinite loop is simple:
while(true){
//add whatever break condition here
}
But this will trash the CPU performance. This execution thread will take as much as possible from CPU's power.
What is the best way to lower the impact on CPU?
Adding some Thread.Sleep(n) should do the trick, but setting a high timeout value for Sleep() method may indicate an unresponsive application to the operating system.
Let's say I need to perform a task each minute or so in a console app.
I need to keep Main() running in an "infinite loop" while a timer will fire the event that will do the job. I would like to keep Main() with the lowest impact on CPU.
What methods do you suggest. Sleep() can be ok, but as I already mentioned, this might indicate an unresponsive thread to the operating system.
LATER EDIT:
I want to explain better what I am looking for:
I need a console app not Windows service. Console apps can simulate the Windows services on Windows Mobile 6.x systems with Compact Framework.
I need a way to keep the app alive as long as the Windows Mobile device is running.
We all know that the console app runs as long as its static Main() function runs, so I need a way to prevent Main() function exit.
In special situations (like: updating the app), I need to request the app to stop, so I need to infinitely loop and test for some exit condition. For example, this is why Console.ReadLine() is no use for me. There is no exit condition check.
Regarding the above, I still want Main() function as resource friendly as possible. Let asside the fingerprint of the function that checks for the exit condition.

To avoid the infinity loop simply use a WaitHandle. To let the process be exited from the outer world use a EventWaitHandle with a unique string. Below is an example.
If you start it the first time, it simple prints out a message every 10 seconds. If you start in the mean time a second instance of the program it will inform the other process to gracefully exit and exits itself also immediately. The CPU usage for this approach: 0%
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Create a IPC wait handle with a unique identifier.
bool createdNew;
var waitHandle = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.AutoReset, "CF2D4313-33DE-489D-9721-6AFF69841DEA", out createdNew);
var signaled = false;
// If the handle was already there, inform the other process to exit itself.
// Afterwards we'll also die.
if (!createdNew)
{
Log("Inform other process to stop.");
waitHandle.Set();
Log("Informer exited.");
return;
}
// Start a another thread that does something every 10 seconds.
var timer = new Timer(OnTimerElapsed, null, TimeSpan.Zero, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
// Wait if someone tells us to die or do every five seconds something else.
do
{
signaled = waitHandle.WaitOne(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(5));
// ToDo: Something else if desired.
} while (!signaled);
// The above loop with an interceptor could also be replaced by an endless waiter
//waitHandle.WaitOne();
Log("Got signal to kill myself.");
}
private static void Log(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now + ": " + message);
}
private static void OnTimerElapsed(object state)
{
Log("Timer elapsed.");
}

You can use System.Threading.Timer Class which provides ability to execute callback asynchronously in a given period of time.
public Timer(
TimerCallback callback,
Object state,
int dueTime,
int period
)
As alternative there is System.Timers.Timer class which exposes Elapsed Event which raises when a given period of time is elapsed.

Why would you condone the use of an infinite loop? For this example would setting the program up as a scheduled task, to be run every minute, not be more economical?

Why don't you write a small application and use the system's task scheduler to run it every minute, hour...etc?
Another option would be to write a Windows Service which runs in the background. The service could use a simple Alarm class like the following on MSDN:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wkzf914z%28v=VS.90%29.aspx#Y2400
You can use it to periodically trigger your method. Internally this Alarm class uses a timer:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.timers.timer.aspx
Just set the timer's interval correctly (e.g. 60000 milliseconds) and it will raise the Elapsed event periodically. Attach an event handler to the Elapsed event to perform your task. No need to implement an "infinite loop" just to keep the application alive. This is handled for you by the service.

I did this for an application that had to process files as they were dropped on a folder. Your best bet is a timer (as suggested) with a Console.ReadLine() at the end of "main" without putting in a loop.
Now, your concern about telling the app to stop:
I have also done this via some rudimentary "file" monitor. Simply creating the file "quit.txt" in the root folder of the application (by either my program or another application that might request it to stop) will make the application quit. Semi-code:
<do your timer thing here>
watcher = new FileSystemWatcher();
watcher.Path = <path of your application or other known accessible path>;
watcher.Changed += new FileSystemEventHandler(OnNewFile);
Console.ReadLine();
The OnNewFile could be something like this:
private static void OnNewFile(object source, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
if(System.IO.Path.GetFileName(e.FullPath)).ToLower()=="quit.txt")
... remove current quit.txt
Environment.Exit(1);
}
Now you mentioned that this is (or could be) for a mobile application? You might not have the file system watcher. In that case, maybe you just need to "kill" the process (you said "In special situations (like: updating the app), I need to request the app to stop". Whoever the "requester" to stop it is, should simply kill the process)

It sounds to me like you want Main() to enter an interruptable loop. For this to happen, multiple threads must be involved somewhere (or your loop must poll periodically; I am not discussing that solution here though). Either another thread in the same application, or a thread in another process, must be able to signal to your Main() loop that it should terminate.
If this is true, then I think you want to use a ManualResetEvent or an EventWaitHandle . You can wait on that event until it is signalled (and the signalling would have to be done by another thread).
For example:
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace Demo
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
startThreadThatSignalsTerminatorAfterSomeTime();
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for terminator to be signalled.");
waitForTerminatorToBeSignalled();
Console.WriteLine("Finished waiting.");
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void waitForTerminatorToBeSignalled()
{
_terminator.WaitOne(); // Waits forever, but you can specify a timeout if needed.
}
private static void startThreadThatSignalsTerminatorAfterSomeTime()
{
// Instead of this thread signalling the event, a thread in a completely
// different process could do so.
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(5000);
_terminator.Set();
});
}
// I'm using an EventWaitHandle rather than a ManualResetEvent because that can be named and therefore
// used by threads in a different process. For intra-process use you can use a ManualResetEvent, which
// uses slightly fewer resources and so may be a better choice.
static readonly EventWaitHandle _terminator = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset, "MyEventName");
}
}

You can use Begin-/End-Invoke to yield to other threads. E.g.
public static void ExecuteAsyncLoop(Func<bool> loopBody)
{
loopBody.BeginInvoke(ExecuteAsyncLoop, loopBody);
}
private static void ExecuteAsyncLoop(IAsyncResult result)
{
var func = ((Func<bool>)result.AsyncState);
try
{
if (!func.EndInvoke(result))
return;
}
catch
{
// Do something with exception.
return;
}
func.BeginInvoke(ExecuteAsyncLoop, func);
}
You would use it as such:
ExecuteAsyncLoop(() =>
{
// Do something.
return true; // Loop indefinitely.
});
This used 60% of one core on my machine (completely empty loop). Alternatively, you can use this (Source) code in the body of your loop:
private static readonly bool IsSingleCpuMachine = (Environment.ProcessorCount == 1);
[DllImport("kernel32", ExactSpelling = true)]
private static extern void SwitchToThread();
private static void StallThread()
{
// On a single-CPU system, spinning does no good
if (IsSingleCpuMachine) SwitchToThread();
// Multi-CPU system might be hyper-threaded, let other thread run
else Thread.SpinWait(1);
}
while (true)
{
// Do something.
StallThread();
}
That used 20% of one core on my machine.

To expound on a comment CodeInChaos made:
You can set a given thread's priority. Threads are scheduled for execution based on their priority. The scheduling algorithm used to determine the order of thread execution varies with each operating system. All threads default to "normal" priority, but if you set your loop to low; it shouldn't steal time from threads set to normal.

The Timer approach is probably your best bet, but since you mention Thread.Sleep there is an interesting Thread.SpinWait or SpinWait struct alternative for similar problems that can sometimes be better than short Thread.Sleep invocations.
Also see this question: What's the purpose of Thread.SpinWait method?

Lots of "advanced" answers here but IMO simply using a Thread.Sleep(lowvalue) should suffice for most.
Timers are also a solution, but the code behind a timer is also an infinity loop - I would assume - that fires your code on elapsed intervals, but they have the correct infinity-loop setup.
If you need a large sleep, you can cut it into smaller sleeps.
So something like this is a simple and easy 0% CPU solution for a non-UI app.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
bool wait = true;
int sleepLen = 1 * 60 * 1000; // 1 minute
while (wait)
{
//... your code
var sleepCount = sleepLen / 100;
for (int i = 0; i < sleepCount; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
}
Regarding how the OS detects if the app is unresponsive. I do not know of any other tests than on UI applications, where there are methods to check if the UI thread processes UI code. Thread sleeps on the UI will easily be discovered. The Windows "Application is unresponsive" uses a simple native method "SendMessageTimeout" to see detect if the app has an unresponse UI.
Any infinity loop on an UI app should always be run in a separate thread.

To keep console applications running just add a Console.ReadLine() to the end of your code in Main().
If the user shouldn't be able to terminate the application you can do this with a loop like the following:
while (true){
Console.ReadLine();
}

Stopping work from one thread using another thread

Not sure if my title is worded well, but whatever :)
I have two threads: the main thread with the work that needs to be done, and a worker thread that contains a form with a progress bar and a cancel button. In normal code, it would be the other way around, but I can't do that in this case.
When the user clicks the cancel button, a prompt is displayed asking if he wants to really cancel the work. The problem is that work continues on the main thread. I can get the main thread to stop work and such, but I would like for it to stop doing work when he clicks "Yes" on the prompt.
Example:
// Main thread work starts here
t1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(progressForm_Start));
t1.Start();
// Working
for (i = 0; i <= 10000; i++)
{
semaphore.WaitOne();
if (pBar.Running)
bgworker_ProgressChanged(i);
semaphore.Release();
if (pBar.IsCancelled) break;
}
t1.Abort();
// Main thread work ends here
// Start progress bar form in another thread
void progressForm_Start()
{
pBar.Status("Starting");
pBar.ShowDialog();
}
I could theoretically include a prompt in the cancelWatch() function, but then I would have to do that everywhere I'm implementing this class.

I have a couple of quick comments:
Avoid using Thread.Abort() here's why.
Make your thread a background thread: Thread.IsBackground = true (this will automatically exit the thread when your app exits).
Here is a detailed discussion on how to safely stop a thread from running: Is it safe to use a boolean flag to stop a thread from running in C#
To stop the work on the main thread you'd have to do something like this:
boolean volatile isRunning = true;
static void Main(...)
{
// ...
// Working
for (i = 0; i <= 10000; i++)
{
semaphore.WaitOne();
if (!isRunning) break; // exit if not running
if (pBar.Running)
bgworker_ProgressChanged(i);
semaphore.Release();
}
//...
t1.Interrupt();// make the worker thread catch the exception
}
//
void cancelButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
isRunning = false; // optimistic stop
semaphore.Release();
}

I recommend using CancellationTokenSource, which can handle this kind of complex scenario. It's part of the Task Parallel Library but does not actually have to be used with Task objects; it can just as easily be used with old-style Thread objects.
Of course, if you have the time, I'd recommend defining the main thread's work as a Task object (running on the main UI thread by using TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext).
Note that everything above assumes .NET 4.0. If you're still stuck on the old platform, you'll just have to have a bool cancelled; field protected by a lock or some such thing. Tip: don't call Thread.Abort; it's evil.

Pausing a method for set # of milliseconds

I need to do a sort of "timeout" or pause in my method for 10 seconds (10000 milliseconds), but I'm not sure if the following would work as i do not have multi-threading.
Thread.Sleep(10000);
I will try to use that current code, but I would appreciate if someone could explain the best and correct way of doing this, especially if the above code does not work properly. Thanks!
UPDATE: This program is actually a console application that in the function in question is doing many HTTPWebRequests to one server, so I wish to delay them for a specified amount of milliseconds. Thus, no callback is required - all that is needed is an "unconditional pause" - basically just the whole thing stops for 10 seconds and then keeps going. I'm pleased that C# still considers this as a thread, so Thread.Sleep(...) would work. Thanks everybody!

You may not have multi-threading, but you're still executing within a thread: all code executes in a thread.
Calling Thread.Sleep will indeed pause the current thread. Do you really want it to unconditionally pause for 10 seconds, or do you want to be able to be "woken up" by something else happening? If you're only actually using one thread, calling Sleep may well be the best way forward, but it will depend on the situation.
In particular, if you're writing a GUI app you don't want to use Thread.Sleep from the UI thread, as otherwise your whole app will become unresponsive for 10 seconds.
If you could give more information about your application, that would help us to advise you better.

Thread.Sleep is fine, and AFAIK the proper way. Even if you are not Multithreaded: There is always at least one Thread, and if you send that to sleep, it sleeps.
Another (bad) way is a spinlock, something like:
// Do never ever use this
private void DoNothing(){ }
private void KillCPU()
{
DateTime target = DateTime.Now.AddSeconds(10);
while(DateTime.Now < target) DoNothing();
DoStuffAfterWaiting10Seconds();
}
This is sadly still being used by people and while it will halt your program for 10 seconds, it will run at 100% CPU Utilization (Well, on Multi-Core systems it's one core).

That will indeed pause the executing thread/method for 10 seconds. Are you seeing a specific problem?
Note that you shouldn't Sleep the UI thread - it would be better to do a callback instead.
Note also that there are other ways of blocking a thread that allow simpler access to get it going again (if you find it is OK after 2s); such as Monitor.Wait(obj, 10000) (allowing another thread to Pulse if needed to wake it up):
static void Main() {
object lockObj = new object();
lock (lockObj) {
new Thread(GetInput).Start(lockObj);
Monitor.Wait(lockObj, 10000);
}
Console.WriteLine("Main exiting");
}
static void GetInput(object state) {
Console.WriteLine("press return...");
string s = Console.ReadLine();
lock (state) {
Monitor.Pulse(state);
}
Console.WriteLine("GetInput exiting");
}
You can do this with Thread.Interrupt too, but IMO that is messier.

You could use a separate thread to do it:
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
delegate(object state)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("done");
});
But, if this is a Windows Forms app, you will need to invoke the code after the delay from the Gui thread (this article, for example: How to update the GUI from another thread in C#?).
[Edit] Just saw your update. If it's a console app, then this will work. But if you haven't used multiple threads so far, then you need to be aware that this code will be executed in a different thread, which means you will have to take care about thread synchronization issues.
If you don't need background workers, stick to "keeping it simple".

Here is a pause class that will pause for the desired milliseconds and wont consume your CPU resources.
public class PauseClass
{
//(C) Michael Roberg
//Please feel free to distribute this class but include my credentials.
System.Timers.Timer pauseTimer = null;
public void BreakPause()
{
if (pauseTimer != null)
{
pauseTimer.Stop();
pauseTimer.Enabled = false;
}
}
public bool Pause(int miliseconds)
{
ThreadPriority CurrentPriority = Thread.CurrentThread.Priority;
if (miliseconds > 0)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Priority = ThreadPriority.Lowest;
pauseTimer = new System.Timers.Timer();
pauseTimer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(pauseTimer_Elapsed);
pauseTimer.Interval = miliseconds;
pauseTimer.Enabled = true;
while (pauseTimer.Enabled)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
Application.DoEvents();
//pausThread.Sleep(1);
}
pauseTimer.Elapsed -= new ElapsedEventHandler(pauseTimer_Elapsed);
}
Thread.CurrentThread.Priority = CurrentPriority;
return true;
}
private void pauseTimer_Elapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
pauseTimer.Enabled = false;
}
}

Yes, that works just fine.
You don't have to have multiple threads to make use of some of the methods in the Thread class. You always have at least one thread.

For a timeout, you should have a static volatile boolean isRunning class field. When the new thread starts, the isRunning must become true, and at the end must become false.
The main thread should have a method that loops for the isRunning during the timeout you define. When the timeout ends, you should implement the logic. But, never use the abort thread method.
A pause... there isn't a straightforward solution. It depends on what you are doing inside the thread. However, you could look at Monitor.Wait.

If you can have an async method, you can do something like to pause the function at a certain location. Once pause is set false it will continue executing the rest of the code in the method. Since this is an async method and delay is async too UI execution wouldn't be affected.
* Please note that asyn is supported only in .net 4.5 and higher.
bool pause = true;
void async foo()
{
//some code
while (pause)
{
await Task.Delay(100);
}
//some code
}