Develop Reference

How to pause and resume a thread without use threading logic inside it

i cannot put threading logic inside of Run method, the run method executes many operation in database.
like this:
void Run()
{
while (true)
{
InsertEntitiesA();
DeleteEntitiesA();
UpdateEntitiesA();
InsertEntitiesB();
DeleteEntitiesB();
UpdateEntitiesB();
InsertEntitiesC();
DeleteEntitiesC();
UpdateEntitiesC();
}
}
if i pause it and the thread is on DeleteEntitiesB() i want it to stop there, and then when i resume i want it to start from where it's been stopped, DeleteEntitiesB() on the line it's been stopped.
is there a way to perform it?
i dont think there is =(
Ps: Like i said the Run method cannot be modified

You can do this using Thread.Suspend and Thread.Resume but it is generally a very bad idea. As you don't know where the thread is in its execution when you call these you have no idea whether it is in anything critical. If it is in something critical all sorts of havoc can ensue, this is probably why Microsoft decided to obsolete the methods.

It cannot be done without the thread's cooperation. What happens if you suspend the thread while it holds a critical lock? What if it holds a lock that the thread that is going to unsuspend it needs?

Possible Race condition with ManualResetEvent

Problem:
I am trying to throw 6 threads from ThreadPool to work on individual tasks. Each task's ManualResetEvent is stored in a array of manual reset event. Number of thread corresponds to the index in the ManualResetEvent Array.
Now what happens is that once I have initiated these 6 threads I move out and wait for the threads to complete. Waiting for the thread is done in the main thread.
Now some times what happens is that my waiting logic doesn't return even after a long time (2 days that I have seen). Here is the code sample for thread wait logic
foreach (ManualResetEvent whandle in eventList)
{
try
{
whandle.WaitOne();
}
catch (Exception) { }
}
As per documentation of .WaitOne. It is sync call which makes the thread to not return if Set event is not received from the thread.
Sometimes my threads have less amount of work and they may even return before I reach the Wait logic. Is it possible that .WaitOne() will wait for the Set() event even if it was received in the past?
Is this a correct logic to wait for the all the threads to close?

I'm not directly answering this question. Here is what you should do:
Start tasks using Task.Factory.StartNew and use Task.WaitAll(Task[]) to wait for them. You do not have to deal with events that way. Exceptions will nicely propagate to the "forking" thread. You don't need the old ThreadPool API anymore.
Hope this helps.

(Note: I think your best bet is Parallel.Invoke() - see later in this answer.)
What you are doing will normally work fine, so the problem is likely to be that one of your threads is blocking for some reason.
You should be able to debug this readily enough - you can attach the debugger and break into the program and then look at the call stack to see which thread(s) are blocked. Be prepared for some head-scratching if you discover a race condition though!
Another thing to be aware of that you can't do the following:
myEvent.Set();
myEvent.Reset();
with nothing (or very little) between the .Set() and the .Reset(). If you do that when several threads are waiting on myEvent, some of them will miss the event being set! (This effect is not well documented on MSDN.)
By the way, you shouldn't ignore exceptions - always log them in some way, at the very least.
(This section doesn't answer the question, but it may provide some helpful information)
I also want to mention an alternative way to wait for the threads. Since you have a set of ManualResetEvents, you can copy them to a plain array and pass it to WaitHandle.WaitAll().
Your code could look a little like this:
WaitHandle.WaitAll(eventList.ToArray());
Another approach to waiting for all threads to finish is to use a CountdownEvent. It becomes signalled when a countdown reaches zero; you start the count at the number of threads, and each thread signals it when it exits. There's an example here.
Parallel.Invoke()
If your threads do not return values, and all you want to to is to launch them and then have the launching thread wait for them to exit, then I think Parallel.Invoke() will be the best way of all. It avoids you having to handle the synchronization yourself.
(Otherwise, as svick says in the comments above, use Task rather than the old thread classes.)

Purpose of Thread.Sleep(1)?

I was reading over some threading basics and on the msdn website I found this snippet of code.
// Put the main thread to sleep for 1 millisecond to
// allow the worker thread to do some work:
Thread.Sleep(1);
Here is a link to the the page: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7a2f3ay4(v=vs.80).aspx.
Why does the main thread have sleep for 1 millisecond? Will the secondary thread not start its tasks if the main thread is continuously running? Or is the example meant for a task that takes 1 millisecond to do? As in if the task generally takes 5 seconds to complete the main thread should sleep for 5000 milliseconds?
If this is solely regarding CPU usage, here is a similar Question about Thread.Sleep.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks.

The 1 in that code is not terribly special; it will always end up sleeping longer than that, as things aren't so precise, and giving up your time slice does not equal any guarantee from the OS when you will get it back.
The purpose of the time parameter in Thread.Sleep() is that your thread will yield for at least that amount of time, roughly.
So that code is just explicitly giving up its time slot. Generally speaking, such a bit of code should not be needed, as the OS will manage your threads for you, preemptively interrupting them to work on other threads.
This kind of code is often used in "threading examples", where the writer wants to force some artificial occurrence to prove some race condition, or the like (that appears to be the case in your example)
As noted in Jon Hanna's answer to this same question, there is a subtle but important difference between Sleep(0) and Sleep(1) (or any other non-zero number), and as ChrisF alludes to, this can be important in some threading situations.
Both of those involve thread priorities; Threads can be given higher/lower priorities, such that lower priority threads will never execute as long as there are higher priority threads that have any work to do. In such a case, Sleep(1) can be required... However...
Low-priority threads are also subject to what other processes are doing on the same system; so while your process might have no higher-priority threads running, if any others do, yours still won't run.
This isn't usually something you ever need to worry about, though; the default priority is the 'normal' priority, and under most circumstances, you should not change it. Raising or lowering it has numerous implications.

Thread.Sleep(0) will give up the rest of a thread's time-slice if a thread of equal priority is ready to schedule.
Thread.Sleep(1) (or any other value, but 1 is the lowest to have this effect) will give up the rest of the thread's time-slice unconditionally. If it wants to make sure that even threads with lower priority have a chance to run (and such a thread could be doing something that is blocking this thread, it has to), then it's the one to go for.
http://www.bluebytesoftware.com/blog/PermaLink,guid,1c013d42-c983-4102-9233-ca54b8f3d1a1.aspx has more on this.

If the main thread doesn't sleep at all then the other threads will not be able to run at all.
Inserting a Sleep of any length allows the other threads some processing time. Using a small value (of 1 millisecond in this case) means that the main thread doesn't appear to lock up. You can use Sleep(0), but as Jon Hanna points out that has a different meaning to Sleep(1) (or indeed any positive value) as it only allows threads of equal priority to run.
If the task takes 5 seconds then the main thread will sleep for a total of 5,000 milliseconds, but spread out over a longer period.

It's only for the sake of the example- they want to make sure that the worker thread has the chance to print "worker thread: working..." at least once before the main thread kills it.
As Andrew implied, this is important in the example especially because if you were running on a single-processor machine, the main thread may not give up the processor, killing the background thread before it has a chance to iterate even once.

Interesting thing I noticed today. Interrupting a thread throws a ThreadInterruptedException. I was trying to catch the exception but could not for some reason. My coworker recommended that I put Thread.Sleep(1) prior to the catch statement and that allowed me to catch the ThreadInterruptedException.
// Start the listener
tcpListener_ = new TcpListener(ipAddress[0], int.Parse(portNumber_));
tcpListener_.Start();
try
{
// Wait for client connection
while (true)
{
// Wait for the new connection from the client
if (tcpListener_.Pending())
{
socket_ = tcpListener_.AcceptSocket();
changeState(InstrumentState.Connected);
readSocket();
}
Thread.Sleep(1);
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException) { }
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message, "Contineo", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Error);
Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace);
}
Some other class...
if (instrumentThread_ != null)
{
instrumentThread_.Interrupt();
instrumentThread_ = null;
}

How can I check if a function is being called on a particular Thread?

If I have Thread A which is the main Application Thread and a secondary Thread. How can I check if a function is being called within Thread B?
Basically I am trying to implement the following code snippit:
public void ensureRunningOnCorrectThread()
{
if( function is being called within ThreadB )
{
performIO()
}
else
{
// call performIO so that it is called (invoked?) on ThreadB
}
}
Is there a way to perform this functionality within C# or is there a better way of looking at the problem?
EDIT 1
I have noticed the following within the MSDN documentation, although Im a dit dubious as to whether or not its a good thing to be doing! :
// if function is being called within ThreadB
if( System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.Equals(ThreadB) )
{
}
EDIT 2
I realise that Im looking at this problem in the wrong way (thanks to the answers below who helped me see this) all I care about is that the IO does not happen on ThreadA. This means that it could happen on ThreadB or indeed anyother Thread e.g. a BackgroundWorker. I have decided that creating a new BackgroundWorker within the else portion of the above f statement ensures that the IO is performed in a non-blocking fashion. Im not entirely sure that this is the best solution to my problem, however it appears to work!

Here's one way to do it:
if (System.Threading.Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId == ThreadB.ManagedThreadId)
...
I don't know enough about .NET's Thread class implementation to know if the comparison above is equivalent to Equals() or not, but in absence of this knowledge, comparing the IDs is a safe bet.
There may be a better (where better = easier, faster, etc.) way to accomplish what you're trying to do, depending on a few things like:
what kind of app (ASP.NET, WinForms, console, etc.) are you building?
why do you want to enforce I/O on only one thread?
what kind of I/O is this? (e.g. writes to one file? network I/O constrained to one socket? etc.)
what are your performance constraints relative to cost of locking, number of concurrent worker threads, etc?
whether the "else" clause in your code needs to be blocking, fire-and-forget, or something more sophisticated
how you want to deal with timeouts, deadlocks, etc.
Adding this info to your question would be helpful, although if yours is a WinForms app and you're talking about user-facing GUI I/O, you can skip the other questions since the scenario is obvious.
Keep in mind that // call performIO so that it is called (invoked?) on ThreadB implementation will vary depending on whether this is WinForms, ASP.NET, console, etc.
If WinForms, check out this CodeProject post for a cool way to handle it. Also see MSDN for how this is usually handled using InvokeRequired.
If Console or generalized server app (no GUI), you'll need to figure out how to let the main thread know that it has work waiting-- and you may want to consider an alternate implementation which has a I/O worker thread or thread pool which just sits around executing queued I/O requests that you queue to it. Or you might want to consider synchronizing your I/O requests (easier) instead of marshalling calls over to one thread (harder).
If ASP.NET, you're probably implementing this in the wrong way. It's usually more effective to use ASP.NET async pages and/or to (per above) synchronize snchronizing to your I/O using lock{} or another synchronization method.

What you are trying to do is the opposite of what the InvokeRequired property of a windows form control does, so if it's a window form application, you could just use the property of your main form:
if (InvokeRequired) {
// running in a separate thread
} else {
// running in the main thread, so needs to send the task to the worker thread
}

The else part of your snippet, Invoking PerformIO on ThreadB is only going to work when ThreadB is the Main thread running a Messageloop.
So maybe you should rethink what you are doing here, it is not a normal construction.

Does your secondary thread do anything else besides the performIO() function? If not, then an easy way to do this is to use a System.Threading.ManualResetEvent. Have the secondary thread sit in a while loop waiting for the event to be set. When the event is signaled, the secondary thread can perform the I/O processing. To signal the event, have the main thread call the Set() method of the event object.
using System.Threading;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ManualResetEvent processEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
Thread thread = new Thread(delegate() {
while (processEvent.WaitOne()) {
performIO();
processEvent.Reset(); // reset for next pass...
}
});
thread.Name = "I/O Processing Thread"; // name the thread
thread.Start();
// Do GUI stuff...
// When time to perform the IO processing, signal the event.
processEvent.Set();
}
Also, as an aside, get into the habit of naming any System.Threading.Thread objects as they are created. When you create the secondary thread, set the thread name via the Name property. This will help you when looking at the Threads window in Debug sessions, and it also allows you to print the thread name to the console or the Output window if the thread identity is ever in doubt.

C# thread pool limiting threads

Alright...I've given the site a fair search and have read over many posts about this topic. I found this question: Code for a simple thread pool in C# especially helpful.
However, as it always seems, what I need varies slightly.
I have looked over the MSDN example and adapted it to my needs somewhat. The example I refer to is here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3dasc8as(VS.80,printer).aspx
My issue is this. I have a fairly simple set of code that loads a web page via the HttpWebRequest and WebResponse classes and reads the results via a Stream. I fire off this method in a thread as it will need to executed many times. The method itself is pretty short, but the number of times it needs to be fired (with varied data for each time) varies. It can be anywhere from 1 to 200.
Everything I've read seems to indicate the ThreadPool class being the prime candidate. Here is what things get tricky. I might need to fire off this thing say 100 times, but I can only have 3 threads at most running (for this particular task).
I've tried setting the MaxThreads on the ThreadPool via:
ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads(3, 3);
I'm not entirely convinced this approach is working. Furthermore, I don't want to clobber other web sites or programs running on the system this will be running on. So, by limiting the # of threads on the ThreadPool, can I be certain that this pertains to my code and my threads only?
The MSDN example uses the event drive approach and calls WaitHandle.WaitAll(doneEvents); which is how I'm doing this.
So the heart of my question is, how does one ensure or specify a maximum number of threads that can be run for their code, but have the code keep running more threads as the previous ones finish up until some arbitrary point? Am I tackling this the right way?
Sincerely,
Jason
Okay, I've added a semaphore approach and completely removed the ThreadPool code. It seems simple enough. I got my info from: http://www.albahari.com/threading/part2.aspx
It's this example that showed me how:
[text below here is a copy/paste from the site]
A Semaphore with a capacity of one is similar to a Mutex or lock, except that the Semaphore has no "owner" – it's thread-agnostic. Any thread can call Release on a Semaphore, while with Mutex and lock, only the thread that obtained the resource can release it.
In this following example, ten threads execute a loop with a Sleep statement in the middle. A Semaphore ensures that not more than three threads can execute that Sleep statement at once:
class SemaphoreTest
{
static Semaphore s = new Semaphore(3, 3); // Available=3; Capacity=3
static void Main()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
new Thread(Go).Start();
}
static void Go()
{
while (true)
{
s.WaitOne();
Thread.Sleep(100); // Only 3 threads can get here at once
s.Release();
}
}
}

Note: if you are limiting this to "3" just so you don't overwhelm the machine running your app, I'd make sure this is a problem first. The threadpool is supposed to manage this for you. On the other hand, if you don't want to overwhelm some other resource, then read on!
You can't manage the size of the threadpool (or really much of anything about it).
In this case, I'd use a semaphore to manage access to your resource. In your case, your resource is running the web scrape, or calculating some report, etc.
To do this, in your static class, create a semaphore object:
System.Threading.Semaphore S = new System.Threading.Semaphore(3, 3);
Then, in each thread, you do this:
System.Threading.Semaphore S = new System.Threading.Semaphore(3, 3);
try
{
// wait your turn (decrement)
S.WaitOne();
// do your thing
}
finally {
// release so others can go (increment)
S.Release();
}
Each thread will block on the S.WaitOne() until it is given the signal to proceed. Once S has been decremented 3 times, all threads will block until one of them increments the counter.
This solution isn't perfect.
If you want something a little cleaner, and more efficient, I'd recommend going with a BlockingQueue approach wherein you enqueue the work you want performed into a global Blocking Queue object.
Meanwhile, you have three threads (which you created--not in the threadpool), popping work out of the queue to perform. This isn't that tricky to setup and is very fast and simple.
Examples:
Best threading queue example / best practice
Best method to get objects from a BlockingQueue in a concurrent program?

It's a static class like any other, which means that anything you do with it affects every other thread in the current process. It doesn't affect other processes.
I consider this one of the larger design flaws in .NET, however. Who came up with the brilliant idea of making the thread pool static? As your example shows, we often want a thread pool dedicated to our task, without having it interfere with unrelated tasks elsewhere in the system.