Working on .net 2.0 I need to implement the some threading and I was looking at a dummy examples but cannot find anything which implement eventnotification.
Need to know when all is done and also some sort of progress bar if you like.
I am been playing with following code by cannot see to get the event notification correctly.
How do I detect that I have finished the processing and possible updating the ui with what I have been doing?
Example code
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (PCQueue q = new PCQueue(2))
{
q.TaskCompleted += new EventHandler(OnTaskCompleted);
q.PercentageCompleted += new EventHandler(OnPercentageCompleted);
for (int i = 1; i < 100; i++)
{
string itemNumber = i.ToString(); // To avoid the captured variable trap
q.EnqueueItem(itemNumber);
}
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for items to complete...");
Console.Read();
}
}
private static void OnPercentageCompleted(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
}
static void OnTaskCompleted(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
}
}
public class PCQueue : IDisposable
{
readonly object locker = new object();
Thread[] _workers;
Queue<string> _itemQ = new Queue<string>();
public PCQueue(int workerCount)
{
_workers = new Thread[workerCount];
// Create and start a separate thread for each worker
for (int i = 0; i < workerCount; i++)
{
(_workers[i] = new Thread(Consume)).Start();
}
}
public void EnqueueItem(string item)
{
lock (locker)
{
_itemQ.Enqueue(item); // We must pulse because we're
Monitor.Pulse(locker); // changing a blocking condition.
}
}
void Consume()
{
while (true) // Keep consuming until
{ // told otherwise.
string item;
lock (locker)
{
while (_itemQ.Count == 0) Monitor.Wait(locker);
item = _itemQ.Dequeue();
}
if (item == null) return; // This signals our exit.
DoSomething(item); // Execute item.
}
}
private void DoSomething(string item)
{
Console.WriteLine(item);
}
public void Dispose()
{
// Enqueue one null item per worker to make each exit.
foreach (Thread worker in _workers)
{
EnqueueItem(null);
}
}
//where/how can I fire this event???
public event EventHandler TaskCompleted;
protected void OnCompleted(EventArgs e)
{
if (this.TaskCompleted != null)
{
this.TaskCompleted(this, e);
}
}
//where/how can I fire this event???
public event EventHandler PercentageCompleted;
protected void OnPercentageCompleted(EventArgs e)
{
if (this.PercentageCompleted != null)
{
this.PercentageCompleted(this, e);
}
}
}
Any suggestions?
You can't raise the progress event inside your queue for the simple reason that the queue does not know the total number items which are supposed to be processed. So it can't calculate a percentage. You just stick something in and it gets processed.
What you could do is to raise a ItemProcessed event and subscribe to that. Then in your main program you can do the logic of counting how many items were processed so far in relation to how many are supposed to be processed.
You can raise the complete event just before you are returning from your Consume function. However you need to keep track of how many threads are still active as Brian said in his answer. I modified the code to reflect that.
So something along these lines:
...
private int _ActiveThreads;
public PCQueue(int workerCount)
{
_ActiveThreads = workerCount;
_workers = new Thread[workerCount];
// Create and start a separate thread for each worker
for (int i = 0; i < workerCount; i++)
{
(_workers[i] = new Thread(Consume)).Start();
}
}
void Consume()
{
while (true) // Keep consuming until
{ // told otherwise.
string item;
lock (locker)
{
while (_itemQ.Count == 0) Monitor.Wait(locker);
item = _itemQ.Dequeue();
}
if (item == null) // This signals our exit.
{
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref _ActiveThreads) == 0)
{
OnCompleted(EventArgs.Empty);
}
return;
}
DoSomething(item); // Execute item.
OnItemProcessed();
}
}
public event EventHandler ItemProcessed;
protected void OnItemProcessed()
{
var handler = ItemProcessed;
if (handler != null)
{
handler(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
...
Of course you might want to create some meaningfull event args and actually pass the item which was processed to the event.
Then in main:
...
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (PCQueue q = new PCQueue(2))
{
q.ItemProcessed += ItemProcessed;
q.TaskCompleted += OnTaskCompleted;
for (int i = 1; i <= totalNumberOfItems; i++)
{
string itemNumber = i.ToString(); // To avoid the captured variable trap
q.EnqueueItem(itemNumber);
}
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for items to complete...");
Console.Read();
}
}
private static int currentProcessCount = 0;
private static int totalNumberOfItems = 100;
private static void ItemProcessed(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
currentProcessCount++;
Console.WriteLine("Progress: {0}%", ((double)currentProcessCount / (double)totalNumberOfItems) * 100.0);
}
static void OnTaskCompleted(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Console.WriteLine("Done");
}
...
Needless to say that all that static stuff should go. This is just based on your example.
One more remark:
Your PCQueue currently requires that you enqueue as many null values as you have worker threads otherwise only one thread will quit and the others will wait until your process quits. You can change that by looking at the first item and only removing it when it is not null - thus leaving the marker there for all threads. So Consume would change to this:
void Consume()
{
while (true) // Keep consuming until
{ // told otherwise.
string item;
lock (locker)
{
while (_itemQ.Count == 0) Monitor.Wait(locker);
item = _itemQ.Peek();
if (item != null) _itemQ.Dequeue();
else Monitor.PulseAll(); // if the head of the queue is null then make sure all other threads are also woken up so they can quit
}
if (item == null) // This signals our exit.
{
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref _ActiveThreads) == 0)
{
OnCompleted(EventArgs.Empty);
}
return;
}
DoSomething(item); // Execute item.
OnItemProcessed();
}
}
In your PCQueue class you will need to keep track of how many worker threads are still active and raise TaskCompleted only after all threads have been instructed to end.
void Consume()
{
while (true)
{
string item;
lock (locker)
{
while (_itemQ.Count == 0) Monitor.Wait(locker);
item = _itemQ.Dequeue();
}
if (item == null)
{
// activeThreads is set to the number of workers in the constructor.
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref activeThreads) == 0)
{
// Take a snapshot of the event so that a null check + invocation is safe.
// This works because delegates are immutable.
var copy = TaskCompleted;
if (copy != null)
{
copy(this, new EventArgs());
}
}
return;
}
DoSomething(item); // Execute item.
}
}
A couple of other points:
Kudos for getting the blocking queue implemented correctly. Most people get it wrong.
Remember to marshal the TaskCompleted event handler back onto the UI thread before touching any UI controls.
You could raise PercentCompleted from DoSomething, but without a clear indication of how many items the queue is suppose to hold the value will not make sense. I second Chris' recommendation on this point.
Related
Let me try to explain the design pattern I'm looking to implement. I have a Queue<Item> or some other collection of Items that needs to be processed by some method
static void Process(Item item)
{
// ...
}
They can be processed synchronously or asynchronously.
This queue will be getting items added to it periodically, because I have some method like
static void AddWorkToQueue()
{
// ...
}
that gets run on a timer
timer.Elapsed += AddWorkToQueue();
So what I need is some type "continuous while loop" that stops whenever the queue is empty.
How can I use C#.NET to do this in the best way? Are there any built-in libraries for solving this type of problem?
You could create a custom queue class and change it's listener:
public class CustomQueue : Queue<object>
{
public event EventHandler FirstItemInserted;
protected virtual void OnFirstItemInserted()
{
FirstItemInserted?.Invoke(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
//Modified Enqueue method.
public new void Enqueue(object obj)
{
//Call the listener every time an item is inserted into the empty queue.
if (Count == 0)
{
base.Enqueue(obj);
OnFirstItemInserted();
}
else
base.Enqueue(obj);
}
}
The "Enqueue" method was changed to call the listener after each first insert.
All you'll need to do is to call a method to consume each item of your queue as long as there are items to dequeue.
class MyProgram
{
private static CustomQueue MyQueue;
public MyProgram()
{
MyQueue = new CustomQueue();
MyQueue.FirstItemInserted += ConsumeQueue;
//Activate timer...
}
private static void ConsumeQueue(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
object item;
while (MyQueue.Count > 0)
{
item = MyQueue.Dequeue();
//Do something...
}
}
}
You can use BufferBlock<Item> from TPL DataFlow (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh160414(v=vs.110).aspx):
using System.Threading.Tasks.Dataflow;
static void AddWorkToQueue()
{
queue.Send(new Item());
}
static async void MainLoop()
{
while (true) // may be you need some cancellation token to trigger end of processing
{
var item = await queue.ReceiveAsync();
ProcessItem(item);
}
}
The big picture is to have a Thread t print from 1 to a certain value and then pause execution depending on a signal (ManualResetEvent) during which another thread s executes. After s is done, it sets the signal. Hence, T resumes its execution.
class A
{
int key;
int temp;
public A(int x)
{
key = x;
}
public EventHandler eventHandler;
private void onKeyReached(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
eventHandler(this, e);
}
public int Temp
{
get { return temp; }
set
{
if (value == temp) return;
else if (temp == key)
onKeyReached(this, EventArgs.Empty);
else
temp = value;
}
}
}
class Test
{
static A a = new A(500);
//signal to pause or resume threads
static ManualResetEvent signal = new ManualResetEvent(true);
static void Main()
{
a.eventHandler += WorkOnKeyReached;
Thread t = new Thread(F);
t.Start();
}
static void F()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
a.Temp = i;
//when a.Temp == a.Key, a.OnkeyReached() is fired.
signal.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine(a.Temp);
}
}
static void WorkOnKeyReached(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
signal.Reset();
Thread s = new Thread(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Doing something else...");
Thread.Sleep(3000);
Console.WriteLine("Done..");
signal.Set();
});
s.Start();
}
}
Program works as expected for the first half until Thread t pauses upon signal being reset in WorkOnKeyReached.
Yet after WorkOnKeyReached is done, I set the signal expect t to continue.
ouput:
1
2
..
500
Doing something else...
Done.
500
Doing something else...
Done.
Can anyone help explain this phenomenon? I'm just playing around with Threads and other things.
public int Temp
{
get { return temp; }
set
{
if (value == temp) return;
else if (temp == key)
onKeyReached(this, EventArgs.Empty);
//else
temp = value;
}
}
Basically take out the else or it will never increment past 500
in my WPF - C# application, I have a time consuming function, which I execute with a BackgroundWorker. The job of this function is to add given data from a file into a database. Now and then, I need some user feedback, for example the data is already in the store and I want to ask the user, whether he wants to merge the data or create a new object or skip the data completely. Much like the dialog windows shows, if I try to copy a file to a location, where a file with the same name already exists.
The problem is, that I cannot call a GUI-window from a non GUI-thread. How could I implement this behavior?
Thanks in advance,
Frank
You could work with EventWaitHandle ou AutoResetEvent, then whenever you want to prompt the user, you could the signal UI, and then wait for the responde. The information about the file could be stored on a variable.
If possible... my suggestion is to architect your long running task into atomic operations. Then you can create a queue of items accessible by both your background thread and UI thread.
public class WorkItem<T>
{
public T Data { get; set; }
public Func<bool> Validate { get; set; }
public Func<T, bool> Action { get; set; }
}
You can use something like this class. It uses a queue to manage the execution of your work items, and an observable collection to signal the UI:
public class TaskRunner<T>
{
private readonly Queue<WorkItem<T>> _queue;
public ObservableCollection<WorkItem<T>> NeedsAttention { get; private set; }
public bool WorkRemaining
{
get { return NeedsAttention.Count > 0 && _queue.Count > 0; }
}
public TaskRunner(IEnumerable<WorkItem<T>> items)
{
_queue = new Queue<WorkItem<T>>(items);
NeedsAttention = new ObservableCollection<WorkItem<T>>();
}
public event EventHandler WorkCompleted;
public void LongRunningTask()
{
while (WorkRemaining)
{
if (_queue.Any())
{
var workItem = _queue.Dequeue();
if (workItem.Validate())
{
workItem.Action(workItem.Data);
}
else
{
NeedsAttention.Add(workItem);
}
}
else
{
Thread.Sleep(500); // check if the queue has items every 500ms
}
}
var completedEvent = WorkCompleted;
if (completedEvent != null)
{
completedEvent(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
public void Queue(WorkItem<T> item)
{
// TODO remove the item from the NeedsAttention collection
_queue.Enqueue(item);
}
}
Your UI codebehind could look something like
public class TaskRunnerPage : Page
{
private TaskRunner<XElement> _taskrunner;
public void DoWork()
{
var work = Enumerable.Empty<WorkItem<XElement>>(); // TODO create your workItems
_taskrunner = new TaskRunner<XElement>(work);
_taskrunner.NeedsAttention.CollectionChanged += OnItemNeedsAttention;
Task.Run(() => _taskrunner.LongRunningTask()); // run this on a non-UI thread
}
private void OnItemNeedsAttention(object sender, NotifyCollectionChangedEventArgs e)
{
// e.NewItems contains items that need attention.
foreach (var item in e.NewItems)
{
var workItem = (WorkItem<XElement>) item;
// do something with workItem
PromptUser();
}
}
/// <summary>
/// TODO Use this callback from your UI
/// </summary>
private void OnUserAction()
{
// TODO create a new workItem with your changed parameters
var workItem = new WorkItem<XElement>();
_taskrunner.Queue(workItem);
}
}
This code is untested! But the basic principle should work for you.
Specifically to your case
private void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
var a = Test1("a");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
var b = (string)Invoke(new Func<string>(() => Test2("b")));
MessageBox.Show(a + b);
}
private string Test1(string text)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
return (string)this.Invoke(new Func<string>(() => Test1(text)));
else
{
MessageBox.Show(text);
return "test1";
}
}
private string Test2(string text)
{
MessageBox.Show(text);
return "test2";
}
Test2 is a normal method which you have to invoke from background worker. Test1 can be called directly and uses safe pattern to invoke itself.
MessageBox.Show is similar to yourForm.ShowDialog (both are modal), you pass parameters to it (text) and you return value (can be a value of property of yourForm which is set when form is closed). I am using string, but it can be any data type obviously.
From the input of the answers here, I came to the following solution:
(Mis)Using the ReportProgress-method of the Backgroundworker in Combination with a EventWaitHandle. If I want to interact with the user, I call the ReportProgress-method and setting the background process on wait. In the Handler for the ReportProgress event I do the interaction and when finished, I release the EventWaitHandle.
BackgroundWorker bgw;
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
bgw = new BackgroundWorker();
bgw.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(bgw_DoWork);
bgw.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(bgw_RunWorkerCompleted);
bgw.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
bgw.ProgressChanged += new ProgressChangedEventHandler(bgw_ProgressChanged);
}
// Starting the time consuming operation
private void Button_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
bgw.RunWorkerAsync();
}
// using the ProgressChanged-Handler to execute the user interaction
void bgw_ProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
{
UserStateData usd = e.UserState as UserStateData;
// UserStateData.Message is used to see **who** called the method
if (usd.Message == "X")
{
// do the user interaction here
UserInteraction wnd = new UserInteraction();
wnd.ShowDialog();
// A global variable to carry the information and the EventWaitHandle
Controller.instance.TWS.Message = wnd.TextBox_Message.Text;
Controller.instance.TWS.Background.Set();
}
}
void bgw_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
MessageBox.Show(e.Result.ToString());
}
// our time consuming operation
void bgw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
// need 4 userinteraction: raise the ReportProgress event and Wait
bgw.ReportProgress(0, new UserStateData() { Message = "X", Data = "Test" });
Controller.instance.TWS.Background.WaitOne();
// The WaitHandle was released, the needed information should be written to global variable
string first = Controller.instance.TWS.Message.ToString();
// ... and again
Thread.Sleep(2000);
bgw.ReportProgress(0, new UserStateData() { Message = "X", Data = "Test" });
Controller.instance.TWS.Background.WaitOne();
e.Result = first + Controller.instance.TWS.Message;
}
I hope I did not overlooked some critical issues. I'm not so familar with multithreading - maybe there should be some lock(object) somewhere?
I would like to run code alternatively, so I could stop execution at any moment. Is this code safe?
static class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var foo = new Foo();
//wait for interaction (this will be GUI app, so eg. btnNext_click)
foo.Continue();
//wait again etc.
foo.Continue();
foo.Continue();
foo.Continue();
foo.Continue();
foo.Continue();
}
}
class Foo
{
public Foo()
{
new Thread(Run).Start();
}
private void Run()
{
Break();
OnRun();
}
protected virtual void OnRun()
{
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
Break();
}
//do something else and break;
}
private void Break()
{
lock (this)
{
Monitor.Pulse(this);
Monitor.Wait(this);
}
}
public void Continue()
{
lock (this)
{
Monitor.Pulse(this);
Monitor.Wait(this);
}
}
}
Of course I know, that now the application will never ends, but that's not the point.
I need this, because I would like to present steps in some kind of an algorithm and describe what is going on in particular moment, and making everything in one thread would lead to many complications even when using small amount of loops in the code. For example those lines:
for (var i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
Break();
}
should be then replaced with:
if (this.i < 5)
{
Console.WriteLine(i++);
}
And that is just a small example of what I want to present. The code will be more complicated than a dummy for loop.
I recommend you check out this blog post about implementing fibers.
Code (In case the site goes down.)
public class Fiber
{
private readonly Stack<IEnumerator> stackFrame = new Stack<IEnumerator>();
private IEnumerator currentRoutine;
public Fiber(IEnumerator entryPoint)
{
this.currentRoutine = entryPoint;
}
public bool Step()
{
if (currentRoutine.MoveNext())
{
var subRoutine = currentRoutine.Current
as IEnumerator;
if (subRoutine != null)
{
stackFrame.Push(currentRoutine);
currentRoutine = subRoutine;
}
}
else if (stackFrame.Count > 0)
{
currentRoutine = stackFrame.Pop();
}
else
{
OnFiberTerminated(
new FiberTerminatedEventArgs(
currentRoutine.Current
)
);
return false;
}
return true;
}
public event EventHandler<FiberTerminatedEventArgs> FiberTerminated;
private void OnFiberTerminated(FiberTerminatedEventArgs e)
{
var handler = FiberTerminated;
if (handler != null)
{
handler(this, e);
}
}
}
public class FiberTerminatedEventArgs : EventArgs
{
private readonly object result;
public FiberTerminatedEventArgs(object result)
{
this.result = result;
}
public object Result
{
get { return this.result; }
}
}
class FiberTest
{
private static IEnumerator Recurse(int n)
{
Console.WriteLine(n);
yield return n;
if (n > 0)
{
yield return Recurse(n - 1);
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var fiber = new Fiber(Recurse(5));
while (fiber.Step()) ;
}
}
"...this will be GUI app..."
Then you probably do not want and will not have sequential code like above in Main().
I.e. the main GUI thread will not execute a serial code like above, but generally be idle, repainting, etc. or handling the Continue button click.
In that event handler you may better use an Auto|ManualResetEvent to signal the worker to proceed.
In the worker, just wait for the event.
I would suggest that any time one considers using Monitor.Wait(), one should write code so that it would work correctly if the Wait sometimes spontaneously acted as though it received a pulse. Typically, this means one should use the pattern:
lock(monitorObj)
{
while(notYetReady)
Monitor.Wait(monitorObj);
}
For your scenario, I'd suggest doing something like:
lock(monitorObj)
{
turn = [[identifier for this "thread"]];
Monitor.PulseAll(monitorObj);
while(turn != [[identifier for this "thread"]])
Monitor.Wait(monitorObj);
}
It is not possible for turn to change between its being checked whether it's the current thread's turn to proceed and the Monitor.Wait. Thus, if the Wait isn't skipped, the PulseAll is guaranteed to awaken it. Note that the code would work just fine if Wait spontaneously acted as though it received a pulse--it would simply spin around, observe turn wasn't set for the current thread, and go back to waiting.
I wrote a multithreaded application for .NET and in a very important portion of code I have the following:
public class ContainerClass {
private object list_lock;
private ArrayList list;
private object init_lock = new object();
private ThreadClass thread;
public void Start() {
lock(init_lock) {
if (thread == null) {
thread = new ThreadClass();
...
}
}
}
public void Stop() {
lock(init_lock) {
if (thread != null) {
thread.processList(0);
thread.finish();
thread.waitUntilFinished();
thread = null;
} else {
throw new ApplicationException("Assertion failed - already stopped.");
}
...
}
}
private class ThreadedClass {
private ContainerClass container;
private Thread thread;
private bool finished;
private bool actually_finished;
public ThreadedClass(ContainerClass container) {
this.container = container;
thread = new Thread(run);
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
}
private void run() {
bool local_finished = false;
while (!local_finished) {
ArrayList to_process = null;
lock (container.list_lock) {
if (container.list.Count > 0) {
to_process = new ArrayList();
to_process.AddRange(container.list);
}
}
if (to_process == null) {
// Nothing to process so wait
lock (this) {
if (!finished) {
try {
Monitor.Wait(this);
} catch (ThreadInterruptedException) {
}
}
}
} else if (to_process.Count > 0) {
// Something to process, so go ahead and process the journals,
int sz = to_process.Count;
// For all elements
for (int i = 0; i < sz; ++i) {
// Pick the lowest element to process
object obj = to_process[i];
try {
// process the element...
...
} catch (IOException e) {
...
// If there is an error processing the best thing to do is finish
lock (this) {
finished = true;
}
}
}
}
lock (this) {
local_finished = finished;
// Remove the elements that we have just processed.
if (to_process != null) {
lock (container.list_lock) {
int sz = to_process.Count;
for (int i = 0; i < sz; ++i) {
container.list.RemoveAt(0);
}
}
}
// Notify any threads waiting
Monitor.PulseAll(this);
}
}
lock (this) {
actually_finished = true;
Monitor.PulseAll(this);
}
}
public void waitUntilFinished() {
lock (this) {
try {
while (!actually_finished) {
Monitor.Wait(this);
}
} catch (ThreadInterruptedException e) {
throw new ApplicationException("Interrupted: " + e.Message);
}
}
}
public void processList(int until_size) {
lock (this) {
Monitor.PulseAll(this);
int sz;
lock (container.list_lock) {
sz = container.list.Count;
}
// Wait until the sz is smaller than 'until_size'
while (sz > until_size) {
try {
Monitor.Wait(this);
} catch (ThreadInterruptedException ) {
}
lock (container.list_lock) {
sz = container.list.Count;
}
}
}
}
}
}
As you can see, the thread waits until the collection is empty but it seems that the synchronization clashes forbids the thread to enter at the point (the only one in the whole code) where an element is removed from the collection list in the ContainerClass.
This clash provokes the code to never return and the application to continue running if the method processList is called with the value of until_size of 0.
I beg any better developer than me (and I guess there are a lot out there) to help me fixing this small piece of code, since I really can't understand why the list isn't decremented...
Thank you very much from the bottom of my heart.
PS. I would like to underline that the code works perfectly for all the time: the only situation in which it brakes it's when calling thread.processList(0) from ContainerClass.Stop().
Could the problem be that you are locking the ThreadClass object itself rather than a synchronizing object?
Try adding another private variable to lock on:
private static readonly object lockObject = new object()
and replace all the calls of lock(this) with lock(lockObject)
MSDN clearly advises against what your doing:
In general, avoid locking on a public
type, or instances beyond your code's
control. The common constructs lock
(this), lock (typeof (MyType)), and
lock ("myLock") violate this
guideline:
lock (this) is a problem if the instance can be accessed publicly.
Edit:
I think I see a deadlock condition. If you call run() when there are no objects to process, or you get to no objects to process, you lock(this), then call Monitor.Wait(this) and the thread waits:
if (to_process == null) {
// Nothing to process so wait
lock (this) { /* nothing's going to get this lock again until Monitor.PulseAll(this) is called from somewhere */
if (!finished) {
try {
Monitor.Wait(this); /* thread is waiting for Pulse(this) or PulseAll(this) */
} catch (ThreadInterruptedException) {
}
}
}
}
If you are in this condition when you call Container.Stop(), when ThreadProcess.processList(int) is called, you call lock(this) again, which can't enter the section because the run() method still has the lock:
lock (this) { /* run still holds this lock, waiting for PulseAll(this) to be called */
Monitor.PulseAll(this); /* this isn't called so run() never continues */
int sz;
lock (container.list_lock) {
sz = container.list.Count;
}
So, Monitor.PulseAll() can't be called to free the waiting thread in the run() method to exit the lock(this) area, so they are deadlocked waiting on each other. Right?
I think you should try to explain better what you actually want to achieve.
public void processList(int until_size) {
lock (this) {
Monitor.PulseAll(this);
This looks very strange as you should call the Monitor.Pulse when changing the lock state and not when beginning with locking.
Where are you creating the worker threads - this section is not clear as I see only Thread.Start()?
Btw I would advise you to look at PowerCollections - maybe you find what you need there.