I am working on a network application with threading. I have an event handler which results in a form showing on the screen. The problem is that the thread that makes this call blocks right after, so the form that shows blocks as well.
I have hacked this problem by making that function change something in the form it's currently in, and then used invoke required to force the new form onto that thread. This is a terrible hack, what is the right way to make the new form.Show() method go through its own thread.
Note that I have tried just making a worker thread that runs only form.show() but the form disappears right after the call.
Thank you,
PM
You don't want UI elements being created in their own threads. The primary thread that launched your application should be the UI thread. Create and show all elements on this thread. All your heavy, long-time or blocking work should be done on their own threads.
You can use BackgroundWorker to execute a single additional task without blocking your UI and get automatic synchronization when you need to make updates to the main (UI) thread such as to update progress bars or show a final result.
If you need multiple threads doing long-running work, use the ThreadPool. You will have to do your own cross-thread synchronization if you need to update UI elements. There are a ton of answers on how to do that already if that's the route you go.
If you have multiple threads that are being blocked while waiting for something to happen, you should use threads yourself. This will keep the ThreadPool from being starved of threads because they are all blocking. (I believe this has been changed in .NET 4 so if you're targeting that version you can probably easily continue using the ThreadPool in this situation.)
Have you tried placing the blocking call in a BackgroundWorker (separate thread)? When that blocking call is done, your background-worker thread completes (which is handled by your main UI thread). Then in that completed handler you can show your form/message or whatever...
If you haven't tried that then give it a shot. Note that i have not tested this since i dont know exactly what you're doing.
Cheers.
Related
In my C# Windows Forms application there are two threads:
Main Thread (Program.cs)
WorkerClass Thread (STA-Apartment).
When there is long running Task, it freeze/stuck the entire process and No exception or notification fired..it hangs application.
Internally applications doing processing of records only (selection from SQL tables & inserting in Access DB tables)
UI updates will be done using event Action feature.
Find attached snap for stuck process parallel tasks. Seems like threads internally wait for each other and get process blocked. Code related to the SystemEvents.UserPreferenceChanged event is on one of the stacks.
Why does this happen and how can I resolve it?
It deadlocks on a SystemEvents.UserPreferenceChanged event. This is the standard way an app with windows on more than one thread deadlocks. Best way to invoke the deadlock is to press the Windows+L key. You can see this deadlock analyzed in depth in this blog post.
The SystemEvents class is the troublemaker here, it makes an attempt to raise it events on the UI thread of a program. Which is very important, UI isn't thread-safe. Trouble is, you've got two threads that created UI. SystemEvents is incapable of guessing which one is right, it only has 50% odds at it so is doomed to get it wrong. If it initially guessed wrong at which thread in your program is the UI thread, and that thread exited, then it will be 100% wrong.
This makes creating UI on a worker thread exceedingly hazardous of course. It is technically possible, you'll however have to avoid using several controls from the toolbox. They don't handle the UserPreferenceChanged event well when it is raised on the wrong thread. The ones that definitely cause deadlock are DataGridView, NumericUpDown, DomainUpDown, ToolStrip+MenuStrip and the ToolStripItem derived classes. The ones that are iffy (can't analyze the code deep enough) are RichTextBox and ProgressBar. Looks like I ought to put ProgressBar in the first set, judging from your callstacks.
The true cure is to not create UI on a worker thread. It is never necessary, the UI thread of your program is already capable of handling any number of windows.
I know there are several threads concerning this topic, but I think mine is different.
In my application I open a form where the user can input some parameters for a upcomming printing. This printing is supposed to be run in a background worker. So I fire that background worker with the event "OnFormClosing".
Within that background worker I need to access the GUI and change/read it, so I need a control.Invoke(). "Sometimes" the Invoke keeps stuck at the invoke call itself and doesn't execute the delegate. My main thread is working fine and is not blocked. I still can interact with the GUI doing other stuff. Before posting any code: Are there any other conditions for executing a control.Invoke() other than
The main GUI thread is not blocked
The contorl must exist, the handle created and not be disposed
The main thread doesn't need to be free and exactly the invoke is called correct? It should continue once the main thread is idle...
Thanks for any help
Update:
Here is the thread situation during that issue:
The Main thread is executing this:
Application.Run(appContext);
So it is idle.
The worker thread is waiting at this line:
fileName = (string)cbPrintFile.Invoke(new Func<String>(() => cbPrintFile.Text));
which is not executed like I state above. cbPrintFile is a combobox
Invoke is "enqueue and wait for it to be processed". If it is becoming "stuck", that suggests that you have deadlocked, for example because the UI thread is still in an event-handler waiting on the worker. If the code is properly de-coupled, you can probably replace the Invoke with BeginInvoke, which allows the worker to continue after queuing the work. Of course, it would also be good to ensure that the UI is never waiting on a worker. This can be done accidentally if trying to hold a lock (on the same object) in both places. You can investigate simply by pausing the application, pressing ctrl+d,t to bring up the threads, and ctrl+d,c to see the call-stack of each in turn.
I know how to pass data from a worker thread to the main thread via Invoke/BeginInvoke.
I can also pull from a thread safe collection with a timer from the main thread.
I prefer using tasks (Task.Factory.StartNewTask()) and using Backgroundworker with them seams a bit clumsy.
Sometimes the gui is a bit laggy which is due to (Begin)Invoke I assume.
Pulling with a timer also doesn't feel like the right way.
Creating a new Backgroundworker for each new task seams also strange.
Are there any other possibilities?
In .NET, memory is shared within an AppDomain, which means all threads can access all data. So, what you're actually doing is controlling access to particular bits of data from particular threads so they don't interfere with each other.
Invoke and BeginInvoke allow you to run code on the UI thread, which is useful because UI controls can only be accessed from the UI thread. BackgroundWorker is another solution, as is SynchronizationContext.
However, they all work by sending known windows messages to the UI message loop. If you call Invoke too often, you send too many messages and the UI thread is swamped which makes the UI "a bit laggy".
If this happens, you must slow down the rate that messages are sent. There are a couple of ways to do this:
1) Call Invoke less frequently: this means waiting for bigger "chunks" of state changes in your background thread before it calls Invoke to update the UI.
2) Use a UI Timer: there is no point in trying to update the UI faster than the human eye can detect. A UI Timer also sends windows messages to the UI message loop, but at a known rate. The Tick handler can then pull the necessary data from shared memory to update the UI.
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. The choice really depends on how easy it is to group state changes in the background thread into bigger chunks, while making sure the UI doesn't miss any state changes.
besides updating GUI controls from background threads, is there any other operations that should avoid being done on background threads in winforms?
Oh, there are plenty of traps. BGW doesn't do much to protect you from the usual hazards of threaded programming. And adds some of its own:
Variables that are accessed from both the BGW and the UI thread must be protected by a lock.
Do not update a bound data source in a BGW. The control updates will be done on the BGW thread but will not generate an exception.
Don't call ReportProgress() too often. Doing it more than about 1000 times per second will freeze the UI thread. About 25 times/sec is enough.
Careful with the userstate argument you can pass to ReportProgress(). It must not be modified by the BGW after the call.
Don't loop on the IsBusy property in the UI thread, it will deadlock.
The BGW thread will be aborted when the main form closes. Watch out for necessary cleanup.
Be sure to inspect the Error property in the RunWorkerCompleted event, it tells you when something went wrong.
This is sort of broad. Don't do anything in a background thread if you don't need to; that is, don't thread out some code just because you feel like it. Use threads where it is appropriate such as for long running tasks that you do not want to interrupt the GUI and so forth. Also, if you end up just calling Application.DoEvents() from your main UI thread just waiting on a task from another thread, you might think about keeping one thread and doing the work in small pieces in a loop where you would repaint the GUI with DoEvents() calls. This is just a suggesiton; however, of course, many times you do need to create multiple threads.
Perhaps you can ask about particular situations?
Well, the reason you should not update GUI controls on a background thread is that the GUI control classes are not threadsafe. So, you can generalize that: don't mess with instances of non-threadsafe classes from a background thread if there is some other thread that might also use them. (That's broad, I know, but anything that breaks that rule could get you in trouble).
But I think the gist of your question is whether or not you've covered all the bases that Control.Invoke() was created to cover. If so, yes, you have ... Control.Invoke was specifically designed for the fact that controls are not threadsafe, and therefore, other threads should only modify controls via Control.Invoke().
I agree with Bobby that your question is too broad. Instead start with the assumption that if you have to create a worker thread, you're not going to put anything in it except what absolutely has to be there to complete the required task.
I have a WinForms app written in C# with .NET 3.5. It runs a lengthy batch process. I want the app to update status of what the batch process is doing. What is the best way to update the UI?
The BackgroundWorker sounds like the object you want.
The quick and dirty way is using Application.DoEvents() But this can cause problems with the order events are handled. So it's not recommended
The problem is probably not that you have to yield to the ui thread but that you do the processing on the ui thread blocking it from handling messages. You can use the backgroundworker component to do the batch processing on a different thread without blocking the UI thread.
Run the lengthy process on a background thread. The background worker class is an easy way of doing this - it provides simple support for sending progress updates and completion events for which the event handlers are called on the correct thread for you. This keeps the code clean and concise.
To display the updates, progress bars or status bar text are two of the most common approaches.
The key thing to remember is if you are doing things on a background thread, you must switch to the UI thread in order to update windows controls etc.
To beef out what people are saying about DoEvents, here's a description of what can happen.
Say you have some form with data on it and your long running event is saving it to the database or generating a report based on it. You start saving or generating the report, and then periodically you call DoEvents so that the screen keeps painting.
Unfortunately the screen isn't just painting, it will also react to user actions. This is because DoEvents stops what you're doing now to process all the windows messages waiting to be processed by your Winforms app. These messages include requests to redraw, as well as any user typing, clicking, etc.
So for example, while you're saving the data, the user can do things like making the app show a modal dialog box that's completely unrelated to the long running task (eg Help->About). Now you're reacting to new user actions inside the already running long running task. DoEvents will return when all the events that were waiting when you called it are finished, and then your long running task will continue.
What if the user doesn't close the modal dialog? Your long running task waits forever until this dialog is closed. If you're committing to a database and holding a transaction, now you're holding a transaction open while the user is having a coffee. Either your transaction times out and you lose your persistence work, or the transaction doesn't time out and you potentially deadlock other users of the DB.
What's happening here is that Application.DoEvents makes your code reentrant. See the wikipedia definition here. Note some points from the top of the article, that for code to be reentrant, it:
Must hold no static (or global) non-constant data.
Must work only on the data provided to it by the caller.
Must not rely on locks to singleton resources.
Must not call non-reentrant computer programs or routines.
It's very unlikely that long running code in a WinForms app is working only on data passed to the method by the caller, doesn't hold static data, holds no locks, and calls only other reentrant methods.
As many people here are saying, DoEvents can lead to some very weird scenarios in code. The bugs it can lead to can be very hard to diagnose, and your user is not likely to tell you "Oh, this might have happened because I clicked this unrelated button while I was waiting for it to save".
Use Backgroundworker, and if you are also trying to update the GUI thread by handling the ProgressChanged event(like, for a ProgressBar), be sure to also set WorkerReportsProgress=true, or the thread that is reporting progress will die the first time it tries to call ReportProgress...
an exception is thrown, but you might not see it unless you have 'when thrown' enabled, and the output will just show that the thread exited.
Use the backgroundworker component to run your batch processing in a seperate thread, this will then not impact on the UI thread.
I want to restate what my previous commenters noted: please avoid DoEvents() whenever possible, as this is almost always a form of "hack" and causes maintenance nightmares.
If you go the BackgroundWorker road (which I suggest), you'll have to deal with cross-threading calls to the UI if you want to call any methods or properties of Controls, as these are thread-affine and must be called only from the thread they were created on. Use Control.Invoke() and/or Control.BeginInvoke() as appropriate.
If you are running in a background/worker thread, you can call Control.Invoke on one of your UI controls to run a delegate in the UI thread.
Control.Invoke is synchronous (Waits until the delegate returns). If you don't want to wait you use .BeginInvoke() to only queue the command.
The returnvalue of .BeginInvoke() allows you to check if the method completed or to wait until it completed.
Application.DoEvents() or possibly run the batch on a separate thread?
DoEvents() was what I was looking for but I've also voted up the backgroundworker answers because that looks like a good solution that I will investigate some more.