Develop Reference

Wait for ANY thread to finish, not ALL

I'm starting multiple threads and would like to know when any of then finishes. I know the following code:
foreach (Thread t in threads)
t.Join();
But it will only wait for all threads together. That's much too late. I need to know when one thread finishes, even when other threads are still running. I'm looking for something equivalent to WaitAny only for threads. But I can't add code to all threads I'm monitoring, so using signals or other synchronisation objects is not an option.
Some clarification: I'm working on a logging/tracing tool that should log the application's activity. I can insert log statements when a thread starts, but I can't insert a log statement on every possible way out of the thread (multiple exit points, exceptions etc.). So I'd like to register the new thread and then be notified when it finishes to write a log entry. I could asynchronously Join on every thread, but that means a second thread for every monitored thread which may seem a bit much overhead. Threads are used by various means, be it a BackgroundWorker, Task or pool thread. In its essence, it's a thread and I'd like to know when it's done. The exact thread mechanism is defined by the application, not the logging solution.

Instead of Threads use Tasks. It has the method WaitAny.
Task.WaitAny
As you can read here,
More efficient and more scalable use of system resources.
More programmatic control than is possible with a thread or work item.

In my opinion WaitHandle.WaitAny is the best solution, since you don't like to use it for some xyz reason you can try something like this.
Take the advantage of Thread.Join(int) method which takes millisecond timeout and returns true when thread is terminated or false when timed out.
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
while (!threads.Any(x=> x.Join(100)))
{
}
You can alter the timeout of Join If you know how long it will take.

My answer is based on your clarification that all you have is Thread.Current. Disclaimer: IMO, what you're trying to do is a hack, thus my idea by all means is a hack too.
So, use reflection to obtain the set of native Win32 handles for your desired threads. Your are looking for Thread.GetNativeHandle method which is internal, so you call it like thread.GetType().InvokeMember("GetNativeHandle", BindingFlags.InvokeMethod | BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.NonPublic, ...). Use a reflection tool of your choice or Framework sources to learn more about it. Once you've got the handles, go on with one of the following options:
Set up your own implementation of SynchronizationContext (derive from it) and use SynchronizationContext.WaitHelper(waitAll: false) to wait for your unmanaged handles.
Use the raw Win32 API like WaitForMultipleObjects or CoWaitForMultipleObjects (depending on whether you need to pump messages).
Perform the wait on a separate child or pool thread.
[EDITED] Depending on the execution environment of your target threads, this hack may not work, because one-to-one mapping between managed and unmanaged threads is not guaranteed:
It is possible to determine the Windows thread that is executing the code for a managed thread and to retrieve its handle. However, it still doesn't make sense to call the SetThreadAffinityMask function for this Windows thread, because the managed scheduler can continue the execution of a managed thread in another Windows thread.
It appears however, this may be an implication only for custom CLR hosts. Also, it appears to be possible to control managed thread affinity with Thread.BeginThreadAffinity and Thread.EndThreadAffinity.

You could use a background worker for your working threads.
Then hook all the RunWorkerCompleted events to a method that will wait for them.
If you want that to be synched to the code where you're currently waiting for the join, then the problem is reduced to just synchronizing that single event method to that place in code.
Better yet, I'd suggest to do what you're doing asynchronously without blocking, and just do what you want in the event.

Would you consider wrapping your thread invocations with another 'logging' thread? That way you could log synchronously before & after the thread run.
Something like this pseudo-code:
int threadLogger(<parms>) {
log("starting thread");
retcode = ActualThreadBody(<parms>);
log("exiting thread");
return retcode;
}
If you have more information on the thread started, you could log that as well.
You could also take the thread function as a parameter in the case where you have multiple types of threads to start, which it sounds like you do.

How to terminate a thread in C#?

I wanted to try my luck in threading with C#, I know a few things about threading in C.
So I just wanted to ask if i wanted to terminate a thread, I should do it with smt.Abort()
or it will "kill itself" after the function ends?
Also, is there something like pthread_exit() in C in C#?

Thread.Abort will "kill" the thread, but this is roughly equivalent to:
Scenario: You want to turn off your computer
Solution: You strap dynamite to your computer, light it, and run.
It's FAR better to trigger an "exit condition", either via CancellationTokenSource.Cancel, setting some (safely accessed) "is running" bool, etc., and calling Thread.Join. This is more like:
Scenario: You want to turn off your computer
Solution: You click start, shut down, and wait until the computer powers down.

You don't need to terminate a thread manually once the function has ended.
If you spawn up a thread to run a method, once the method has returned the thread will be shut down automatically as it has nothing further to execute.*
You can of course, manually abort a thread by simply calling Abort(), but this is pretty much un-recommended due to potential thread state corruption due to unreliable determination of where a thread is at in its current execution state. If you need to handle the killing of threads yourself, you may be best looking into using a CancellationToken. You could also read up on the Cancellation of Managed Threads article on MSDN.
** That is, unless, you're using a ThreadPool to perform your work. You shouldn't worry about aborting these threads as they're reused across different queued tasks.

Terminating a thread externally (from outside the thread) is a bad idea; you never know what the thread was in the middle of doing when you kill it asynchronously. In C#, if your thread function returns, the thread ends.
This MSDN article How to: Create and Terminate Threads (C# Programming Guide) has some notes and some sample code that you will probably find helpful.

Thread.Abort()
Thread.Join();
Thread = null;

How do I abort a .NET task?

Here's the situation, I am writing the framework for a code war contest. As the code runs, for each turn, it calls a method in the library provided by each contestant. The rules of the contest is the method must return in 1 second or we kill the task calling them. We then use a default result for that turn.
The method has no support for a cancel because we cannot trust the called code to respond to a cancel. And we need to kill the thread because if we have 10 or 20 ignored background tasks then all calls going forward will provide fewer clock cycles on each call and methods that before took less than 1 second now take more.
On the plus side, the method we're killing should have no resources open, etc. so an abort should not leave anything hanging.
Update: Two things to keep in mind here. First, this is like a game - so performance is important. Second, the worker thread is unlikely to have any resources open. If one of the called methods goes overlong, I need to abort it and move on quickly.

You should run each contestant in his own AppDomain with low privileges. This has several advantages:
It's sandboxed
It can't interact with any other code in the process
Force unloading an AppDomain is relatively clean.
Even if you prefer killing the thread over unloading the AppDomain I'd still put each contestant into an AppDomain to get the isolation.
Unfortunately Thread.Abort is not enough. It still executes finally clauses which can take as long as they want.

I would recommend that you run the code in a second process and carefully define the interface for communicating with it to ensure that it can handle not receiving a response. Most operating systems are designed to clean up fairly well after a killing a process.
For communication, you should probably avoid .NET remoting, as that seems likely to be left in an inconsistent state on the server side. Some other choices: sockets, named pipes, web service.

Thread.Interrupt() method is maybe what you are looking for.
As the MSDN documentation says, "If this thread is not currently blocked in a wait, sleep, or join state, it will be interrupted when it next begins to block."
It is not an abort, it forces the running thread to throws ThreadInterruptedException when the thread enters in a wait state.
You can then use a timer in another thread with a timeout to check if the thread don't really want to terminate, if the thread refuses to terminate in, for example, 30 seconds, you can abort it.

Best practice for continual running process in C#

I am working on a project in C#.NET using the .NET framework version 3.5.
My project has a class called Focuser.cs which represents a physical device, a telescope focuser, that can communicate with a PC via a serial (RS-232) port. My class (Focuser) has properties such as CurrentPosition, CurrentTemperature, ect which represents the current conditions of the focuser which can change at any time. So, my Focuser class needs to continually poll the device for these values and update its internal fields. My question is, what is the best way to perform this continual polling sequence? Occasionally, the user will need to switch the device into a different mode which will require the ability to stop the polling, perform some action, and then resume polling.
My first attempt was to use a time that ticks every 500ms and then calls up a background worker which polls for one position and one temperature then returns. When the timer ticks if the background worker isBusy then it just returns and tries again 500ms later. Someone suggested that I get rid of the background worker all together and just do the poll in the timer tick event. So I set the AutoReset property of the timer to false and then just restart the timer every time a poll finishes. These two techniques seemed to behave the exact same way in my application so I am not sure if one is better than the other. I also tried creating a new thread every time I want to do a poll operation using a new ThreadStart and all that. This also seemed to work fine.
I should mention one other thing. This class is part of a COM object server which basically means that the class library that is produced will be called upon via COM. I am not sure if this has any influence on the answer but I just thought I should throw it out there.
The reason I am asking all of this is that all of my test harness runs and debug builds work just fine but when I do a release build and try to make calls to my class from another application, that application freezes up and I am having a hard time determining the cause.
Any advice, suggestions, comments would be appreciated.
Thanks, Jordan

Remember that the timer hides its own background worker thread, which basically sleeps for the interval, then fires its Elapsed event. Knowing that, it makes sense just to put the polling in Elapsed. This would be the best practice IMO, rather than starting a thread from a thread. You can start and stop Timers as well, so the code that switches modes can Stop() the Timer, perform the task, then Start() it again, and the Timer doesn't even have to know the telescope IsBusy.
However, what I WOULD keep track of is whether another instance of the Elapsed event handler is still running. You could lock the Elapsed handler's code, or you could set a flag, visible from any thread, that indicates another Elapsed() event handler is still working; Elapsed event handlers that see this flag set can exit immediately, avoiding concurrency problems working with the serial port.

So it looks like you have looked at 2 options:
Timer. The Timer is non-blocking while waiting (uses another thread), so the rest of the program can continue running and be responsive. When the timer event kicks off, you simply get/update the current values.
Timer + BackgroundWorker. The background worker is also simply a separate thread. It may take longer to actually start the thread than to simply get the current values. Unless it takes a long time to get the current values and causes your program to become unresponsive, this is unnecessary complexity.
If getting values is fast enough, stick to #1 for simplicity.
If getting values is slow, #2 will work but unnecessarily has a thread start a thread. Instead, do it with only a BackgroundWorker (no Timer). Create the BackgroundWorker once and store in a variable. No need to recreate it every time. Make sure to set WorkerSupportsCancellation to true. Whenever you want to start checking values, on your main program thread do bgWorker.RunWorkerAsync(). When you want to stop, do bgWorker.CancelAsync(). Inside your DoWork method, have a loop that checks the values and does a Thread.Sleep(500). Since it's a separate thread, it won't make your program unresponsive. In the loop conditions, also check to see if the polling was cancelled and break out. You'll probably need a way to get the values back to the main thread. You can use ReportProgress() if an integer is good enough. Otherwise you can create an object to hold the content, but make sure to lock (object) { } before reading and modifying it. This is a quick summary, but if you go this route I would recommend you read: http://www.albahari.com/threading/part3.aspx#_BackgroundWorker

Is the process of contacting the telescope and getting the current values actually take long enough to warrant polling? Have you tried dropping the multithreading and just blocking while you get the current value?
To answer your question, however, I would suggest not using a background worker but an actual Thread that updates the properties continuously.
If all these properties are read only (can you set the temp of the telescope?) and there are no dependencies between them (e.g., no transactions are required to update multiple properties at once) you can drop all the blocking code and let your thread update willy-nilly while other threads access the properties.
I suggest a real, dedicated Thread rather than the thread pool just because of a lack of knowledge of what might happen when mixing background threads and COM servers. Also, apartment state might play into this; with a Thread you can try STA but you can't do that with a threadpool thread.

You say the app freezes up in a release build?
To eliminate extra variables, I'd take all the timer/multi-threaded code out of the application(just comment it out), and try it with a straightforward blocking method.
i.e. You click a button, it calls a function, that function hits the COM object for data, and then updates the UI. All in a blocking, synchronous fashion. This will tell you for sure whether it's the multi-threading code that's freezing you up, or if it's the COM interaction itself.

How about starting a background thread with ThreadPool? Then enter a loop based on a bool (While (bContinue)) that loops and does your work and then a Thread.Sleep at the end of the loop - exiting the program would include setting bContinue to false so the thread stops - perhaps hook it up to the OnStop event in a windows service
bool bRet = ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(ThreadFunc));
private void ThreadFunc(object objState)
{
// enter loop
bContinue = true;
while (bContinue) {
// do stuff
// sleep
Thread.Sleep(m_iWaitTime_ms);
}
}

How to detect when main thread terminates?

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