I have a somewhat unusual scenario where I need to be able to outright slaughter "hung", self-hosted WorkflowInstance's after a given timeout threshold. I tried the Abort(), Terminate() and Cancel() methods but these are all too "nice". They all appear to require a response from the WorkflowInstance before they are honored.
In my scenario, a workflow entered an infinite loop and was therefore unresponsive. Calls to the normal methods mentioned above would simply hang since the workflow was completely unresponsive. I was surprised to learn the WorkflowRuntime does not appear have a mechanism for dealing with this scenario, or that Abort() and Terminate() are merely suggestions as opposed to violent directives.
I scoured google/msdn/stackoverflow/etc trying to find out what to do when Terminate() simply isn't going to get the job done and came up dry. I considered creating my own base activity and giving it a timeout value so my "root" activity can kill itself if one of its child activities hangs. This approach seems like I'd be swatting at flies with a sledge hammer...
Is there a technique I overlooked?
The only true solution is to consider this a bug, fix whatever went wrong, and consider the matter closed.
The only way to forcibly abort any code that is locked in an infinite loop is to call Abort() on the thread. Of course, this is considered bad juju, and should only be done when the state of the application can be ensured after the call.
So, you must supply the WorkflowApplication an implementation of SynchronizationContext that you write which can call Abort() on the thread that the workflow Post()s to.
I am not sure if this will work, but have you tried the WorkflowInstance.TryUnload() function? I remember this to fire off a few events inside of the workflow (been a while since I did this), so you might be able to have an event handler in your workflow that catches this and does a kill switch on itself.
Related
When closing an application, what is the best way to close foreground threads at the same time?
From all my research, it seems to be that the best way is to set IsBackground to true..
Is this correct or is there a better way? I'm skeptical as it doesn't seem to follow Microsofts normally descriptive method name pattern.
It will certainly work, the CLR will abort a thread like that when your main startup exits. Pretty similar to using Thread.Abort(), minus the drastic failure modes you'd normally suffer from using Abort(). It is a rude abort, there's nothing that the thread itself can do to stop it. And there will be no more code that runs afterwards that could fail due to the typical problems you'd get from Abort(), like a deadlock. Other than finalizers.
Calling it "correct" is however a bit of a stretch, there's also nothing that the thread can do to terminate cleanly. Which might be detrimental if it has externally observable behavior. Like updating a dbase, talking over a socket or writing a file. That's rudely interrupted as well, potentially leaving a confused server or a half-written file that can cause trouble later. A mitigating circumstance is that this will also happen when your program dies on an unhandled exception, you'd expect it to not cause trouble either. It depends :)
I'm working on a ASP.NET website that on some requests will run a very lengthy caching process. I'm wondering what happens exactly if the execution timeout is reached while it is still running in terms of how the code handles it.
Particularly I am wondering about things like if the code is in the try of a try/finally block will the finally still be run?
Also given I am not sure I want the caching to terminate even if it goes on that long is there a way with spawning new threads, etc. that I can circumvent this execution timeout? I am thinking it would be much nicer to return to the user immediately and say "a cache build is happening" rather than just letting them time out. I have recently started playing with some locking code to make sure only one cache build happens at a time but am thinking about extending this to make it run out of sync.
I've not really played with creating threads and such like myself so am not sure exactly how they work, particularly in terms of interacting with ASP.NET. eg if the parent thread that launched it is terminated will that have any effect on the spawned thread?
I know there is kind of a lot of different questions in here and I can split them if that is deemed best but they all seem to go together... I'll try to summarise the questions though:
Will a finally block still be executed if a thread is terminated by ASP.NET while in the try block
Would newly created threads be subject to the same timeouts as the original thread?
Would newly created threads die at the same time as the parent thread that created them?
And the general one of what is the best way to do long running background processes on an ASP.NET site?
Sorry for some noobish questions, I've never really played with threads and they still intimidate me a bit (my brain says they are hard). I could probably test the answer to a lot of tehse questions but I wouldn't be confident enough of my tests. :)
Edit to add:
In response to Capital G:
The problem I have is that the ASp.NET execution timeout is currently set to one hour which is not always long enough for some of these processes I reckon. I've put some stuff in with locks to prevent more than one person setting off these long processes and I was worried the locks might not be released (which if finally blocks aren't always run might happen I guess).
Your comments on not running long processes in ASP.NET is why I was thinking of moving them to other threads rather than blocking the request thread but I don't know if that still counts as running within the ASP.NET architecture that you said was bad.
The code is not actually mine so I'm not allowed (and not sure I 100% understand it enough) to rework it into a service though that is certainly where it would best live.
Would using a BackgroundWorker process for something that could take an hour be feasible in this situation (with respect to comments on long running processes in ASP.NET). I would then make request return a "Cache is building" page until its finished and then go back to serving normally... Its all a bit of a nightmare but its my job so I've got to find a way to improve it. :)
Interesting question, just tested and no it's not guaranteed to execute the code in the finally block, if a thread is aborted it could stop at any point in the processing. You can design some sanity checking and other mechanisms to handle special cleanup routines and such but it has a lot to do with your thread handling as well.
Not necessarily, it depends on how your implementing your threads. If you are working with threads yourself, then you can easily get into situations where the parent thread is killed while it's child threads are still out there processing, you generally want to do some cleanup in the parent thread that ends the child threads as well. Some objects might do a lot of this for you as well, so it's a tough call to say one way or the other. Never assume this at the very least.
No, not necessarily, don't assume this at least, again has to do with your design and whether your doing threading yourself or using some higher level threading object/pattern. I would never assume this regardless.
I don't recommend long running processes within the ASP.NET architecture, unless its within the typical timeout, if it's 10-20s okay but if it's minutes, no, the reason is resource usage within ASP.NET and it's awfully bad on a user. That being said you could perform asynchronous operations where you hand off the work to the server, then you return back to the user when the processing is finished, (this is great for those 10-20s+ processes), the user can be given a little animation or otherwise not have their browser all stuck for that long waiting for whatever is happening on the server to happen.
If it is a long running process, things that take greater than 30-60s+, unless it absolutely has to be done in ASP.NET due to the nature of the process, I suggest moving it to a windows service and schedule it in some way to occur when required.
Note: Threading CAN be complicated, it's not that it's hard so much as that you have to be very aware of what your doing, which requires a firm understanding of what threads are and how they work, I'm no expert, but I'm also not completely new and I'll tell you that in most situations you don't need to get into the realm of threading, even when it seems like you do, if you must however, I would suggest looking into the BackgroundWorker object as they are simplified for the purposes of doing batched processing etc. (honestly for many situations that DO need threads, this is usually a very simple solution).
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
Long or time consuming processes to be started behind the web-page; it should not hit the ASP.NET execution time out; the user page should be freed; running the requests under lock etc. All these situation points towards using async services. In one of the products, where I architected, used services for such scenarios. The service exposes some async method to initiate. The status of the progress can be queried using another method. Every request is given some id and no duplicate requests are fired ever. The progress proceeds even if the user logs out. The user can see the results at a later time.
If you have looked at such options already, let me know if there is any issue. Or if you are yet to look in this direction, please get it this way. For any help, just send in your comments.
I was writing up a long, detailed question, but just scrapped it in favor of a simpler question that I didn't find an answer to here.
Brief app description:
I have a WPF app that spawns several threads, and each thread executes its own WF. What are some of the best ways to handle errors in the threads and WF that will allow user interaction from the GUI side? I definitely plan to handle any low level exceptions in the thread, because I don't want the thread to exit.
Summary of questions:
How have you implemented communication between WF and the thread that starts it? There is WorkflowTerminated, but I don't want the workflow to exit -- I need to fix the problem and let it continue. I assume the only option is using a FaultHandler, but was wondering if there's another way to do it without using an activity block. I am hoping there's a framework out there that I just haven't found yet.
The error from WF needs to get caught by the thread, which then needs to display the error in the GUI. The user will then make a logical choice for recovery, which should then be sent back to the thread, and then to WF. Again, is there something existing out there that I should take a look at?
Even buzzwords / keywords that accomplish what I am describing would be really helpful, and I can do the legwork on researching each of them. However, any additional insight is always welcome. :)
What's worked for me in multi-threaded WPF apps is to have the errant thread invoke a callback method that passes the exception and other info back to the UI thread. Callbacks can have return values, so if your thread can block while waiting for the user to respond, then that can work for you. Remember that the callback will run on the thread that calls it, so any UI updates have to be done via the control's dispatcher. You will have to decide whether all of the threads use the same callback and what kind of synchronization you'll need if there's a chance that multiple threads can throw exceptions simultaneously.
Here's how I ended up solving this problem. But first a little background info:
User clicks a button in the GUI that causes the candy packager to start running. This is done via a command binding in the ViewModel, which then calls a low-level function in the Model. The function in the model launches a thread and executes a state machine.
At some point, the machine will fail. When it does, I compile information about the error and possible (known) recovery methods. I put this into an object and then pass it to the GUI via a callback interface. In the meantime, the worker thread is stuck waiting for an Event to get set.
Eventually, the candy worker will notice the error and will click a button telling the system what to do. This results in two things: 1) it flags one of the recovery methods as the preferred one, and 2) sets the event. Now the worker thread continues on, checks for the preferred error recovery method and transitions into the respective state in the state machine.
This works very well (so far). The part I know is totally lame is the manner in which it checks for the preferred error recovery method. I am essentially setting a string variable, and then comparing this string to a list of known strings. Ultra lame, but I'm not sure of a better way to do this, other than using an enum. Does anyone have recommendations for me?
What I need to know:
I would like to detect when a the main thread (process?) terminates so that I can ensure certain actions are performed before it is terminated.
What I have found myself:
I found the events AppDomain.DomainUnload and AppDomain.ProcessExit. AppDomain.DomainUnload seems to work with non-applications like MbUnit. AppDomain.ProcessExit seems to work with applications but there is a 3 second time limit which I really don't like. Is there more ways to detect when an AppDomain / process terminates?
Background:
I am looking for such an event to ensure my log is persistet to file when the application terminates. The actual logging runs on another thread using a producer-consumer pattern where it is very likely that log entries might queue up in memory and I need to ensure this queue is saved to file when the application terminates.
Is there anything else I should be aware of?
Update:
Changed the above to reflect what I have found out myself. I am not happy with the 3 second time limit during ProcessExit. The MSDN documentation does say though that it can be extended:
The total execution time of all
ProcessExit event handlers is limited,
just as the total execution time of
all finalizers is limited at process
shutdown. The default is three
seconds, which can be overridden by an
unmanaged host.
Does anyone know how to override the default?
More ideas are also highly appreciated!
Follow up:
I have posted a follow up question to this.
You should have an entry point for your application. Normally you can do there some logging when all tasks are terminated:
static void Main()
{
try
{
Application.Run( .... );
}
finally
{
// logging ...
}
}
What exactly do you want to find out?
When the process terminates? (Just because the AppDomain is unloaded doesn't necessarily mean that the entire process is terminating)
When the main thread terminates (If there are other non-background threads, the main thread can terminate without the process terminating (or AppDomain unloading)
So they're not quite the same thing.
Anyway, it is generally dangerous to have log messages buffered in memory at all. What happens if someone turns off the power? Or if I terminate your process through Task Manager? All your log messages are gone. So often, you'll want unbuffered writes in your log, to get messages pushed to disk immediately.
Anyway, another (more robust) approach might be to run the logger itself in a non-background thread. That way, even if the rest of the application terminates, the logger won't, so the process is kept alive. Then you just have to set some flag when the rest of the app terminates, to let the logger know that it too should close once it has written out all pending log messages.
It still won't save you from the case where the system loses power or someone forcibly termianates the process on the OS-level, but it will handle all cases where the application closes normally, and gives you unlimited time to perform clean-up actions (since the process isn't actually terminating yet, it's still got one live thread)
ie. guaranteed to be called and have unlimited time to finish?
Unfortunately, NO option is going to have unlimited time, and be guaranteed. There is no way to enforce this, as many things can happen. Somebody tripping over the power cord or a forced termination of your program will prevent any option from giving you adequate time to handle things.
In general, putting your logic at the end of the Main routine is probably the most reasonable option, since that gives you complete freedom in handling your termination events. You have no time constraints there, and can have the processing take as much time as needed.
There are no guarantees that this will run, though, since a forceful termination of your program may bypass this entirely.
Based on the documentation, it looks like the default application domain (the one your Main method is probably running in) will not receive the DomainUnload event.
I don't know a built-in event that would do what you expect.
You could define your own custom event, have interested parties register with it, and fire off the event just before you return from Main().
I don't know how old this thread is, but I've had a similar problem whcih was a little tough for me to solve.
I had a WinForms application that was not firing any of the above forementioned events when a user logged out. Wraaping the Application.Run() in a try finally didn't work either.
Now to get around this you would have to using PInvoke into Win32 API's to achieve this. Well you did prior to .NET 2.0 anyways. Luckly MS introduced a new class called SystemEvents. With this class you can catch a SessionEnd event. This event allows you to cleanup when the OS want to terminate your app. There is no .NET time limit o this event it appears, although the OS will eventually kill your app if you take too long. This is a little more than 3 seconds, although 3 seconds should be plenty of time to cleanup.
Secondly my other problem was I wanted my worker thread to terminate the main thread once it was finished its work. With an Application.Run() this was hard to achieve. What I ended up doing was calling Application.Run() with a shared Application context. The thread is then able to call ApplicationContext.ThreadExit() to force the Application.Run to return. This seems to work quite nicely.
Hope this helps someone.
Regards
NozFX
I have a program that will analyzes source code. It can recursively go through a directory to find all projects, and then recursively go through the project to find all source code.
I want to create a cancel process button, which allows the user to stop the code parsing. I run the code parsing in a background worker. I want to be able to watch for the cancel event.
The problem is figuring out how to edit my code so that it will go and check that item and return back to the GUI. The parsing process goes several methods deep.
In a much smaller process, I successfully use a thread-safe singleton that has a bool that says whether or not a cancel has been requested, and stop the loop where it is running.
What would be the best way of working this cancel request into my code?
EDIT: Here is an idea, inspired by John Saunders' answer.
What if I run a background thread in my processing thread that watches for the Cancel Singleton to change, and then throw an exception from that process? Does this seem like good practice? This does not work as intended
EDIT 2: John Saunders' answer seems to be the best for now. I will just throw my own exception when the Singleton is true for now. I'll wait to see if any other solutions are proposed
Thread.Abort is a bad idea, as it interrupts the thread at an arbitrary point - probably interrupts it where you'd least like to be interrupted.
Set a flag that it seen by the thread being cancelled. Check it at the beginning of each operation. The idea would be to identify places in the code where it is safe to stop, and to check the flag at only those points.
You may find it useful to throw an exception at those points. The exception should be one that is not caught by your code until it reaches the boundary between your code and the UI. At that point, your code would simply return.
You could use the Thread.Abort() function on your background worker thread. This throws a ThreadAbortException which you can catch in any of your methods but which will atomatically be rethrown at the end of the catch blocks.
Also all finally-blocks will be executed.
It sounds like you're using the .NET backgroundworker class. I think you can pass a object parameter into the RunWorkerAsync method which then becomes accessible to the background thread in the DoWork event handler argument.
You could then modify that object in the UI thread (for example update a boolean cancel property) and periodically check on it from your background process.
There are various ways to perform a cancel on threaded operations; all of which involve the periodic checking of a flag or other value to determine if the thread should continue operating or not.
I would not recommend throwing exceptions for this feature. First of all, cancelling is not an exceptional circumstance, and second, it's overkill for what you're trying to implement.
Instead, you could use a simple, thread-safe boolean flag as a static member of a class accessible from any thread, or use a synchronization object such as a named Mutex. Signalling the synchronization object would then allow the thread to know it must cancel.