Develop Reference

Why is assigning a variable with a class, which constructs a thread working faster than aborting the thread instead?

I would like to run a thread and abort it when I need to run it again while the thread can be still alive, but I noticed that aborting is slow due to how aborting a thread works.
Therefore I have the following implementation of simulations, which construct threads and measure the time for the simulation:
private Thread _t;
public void Main()
{
SimulateAbortThread();
SimulateThreadClass();
}
private void SimulateAbortThread()
{
var sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
RunThread();
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
}
private void RunThread()
{
if (_t != null && _t.IsAlive) _t.Abort();
_t = new Thread(() =>
{
//doStuff();
});
_t.Start();
}
private void SimulateThreadClass()
{
var thread = new ThreadClass();
var sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
thread = new ThreadClass();
}
sw.Stop();
Console.WriteLine(sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
}
private class ThreadClass
{
public ThreadClass()
{
new Thread(() =>
{
//doStuff();
}).Start();
}
}
I discovered that creating a new instance of a class, which constructs a new thread, is faster than aborting the thread itself. The results of both simulations in real cases are identical but, due to how aborting works the simulations only differ in speed, which is why I am currently using the second simulation.
I would like to know, why the second simulation is running faster and how I can avoid assigning a variable a new instance of a class to "restart" threads while they still might run?

How do i ensure statement gets executed after all the threads have completed execution

say my main thread calls a loop which makes new threads and starts them on some other function.
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++)
{
Thread thread = new Thread(start);
thread.Start();
}
call_This_Function_After_All_Threads_Have_Completed_Execution();
How can i ensure that my method gets called only after all the other threads have completed execution.

You can use AutoResetEvent-s. Declare an AutoResetEvent array where all the threads can reach it.
AutoResetEvent[] events = new AutoResetEvent[numberOfThreads];
Start threads like this:
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++)
{
events[i] = new AutoResetEvent(false);
Thread thread = new Thread(start);
thread.Start(i);
}
WaitHandle.WaitAll(events);
call_This_Function_After_All_Threads_Have_Completed_Execution();
And finally don't forget to call the Set() method in the threads:
void start(object i)
{
//... do work
events[(int) i].Set();
}

How to use multi threading in a For loop

I want to achieve the below requirement; please suggest some solution.
string[] filenames = Directory.GetFiles("C:\Temp"); //10 files
for (int i = 0; i < filenames.count; i++)
{
ProcessFile(filenames[i]); //it takes time to execute
}
I wanted to implement multi-threading. e.g There are 10 files. I wanted to process 3 files at a time (configurable, say maxthreadcount). So 3 files will be processed in 3 threads from the for loop and if any thread completes the execution, it should pick the next item from the for loop. Also wanted to ensure all the files are processed before it exits the for loop.
Please suggest best approach.

Try
Parallel.For(0, filenames.Length, i => {
ProcessFile(filenames[i]);
});
MSDN
It's only available since .Net 4. Hope that acceptable.

This will do the job in .net 2.0:
class Program
{
static int workingCounter = 0;
static int workingLimit = 10;
static int processedCounter = 0;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string[] files = Directory.GetFiles("C:\\Temp");
int checkCount = files.Length;
foreach (string file in files)
{
//wait for free limit...
while (workingCounter >= workingLimit)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
workingCounter += 1;
ParameterizedThreadStart pts = new ParameterizedThreadStart(ProcessFile);
Thread th = new Thread(pts);
th.Start(file);
}
//wait for all threads to complete...
while (processedCounter< checkCount)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
Console.WriteLine("Work completed!");
}
static void ProcessFile(object file)
{
try
{
Console.WriteLine(DateTime.Now.ToString() + " recieved: " + file + " thread count is: " + workingCounter.ToString());
//make some sleep for demo...
Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//handle your exception...
string exMsg = ex.Message;
}
finally
{
Interlocked.Decrement(ref workingCounter);
Interlocked.Increment(ref processedCounter);
}
}
}

Take a look at the Producer/Consumer Queue example by Joe Albahari. It should provide a good starting point for what you're trying to accomplish.

You could use the ThreadPool.
Example:
ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads(3, 3);
for (int i = 0; i < filenames.count; i++)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(ProcessFile), filenames[i]);
}
static void ProcessFile(object fileNameObj)
{
var fileName = (string)fileNameObj;
// do your processing here.
}
If you are using the ThreadPool elsewhere in your application then this would not be a good solution since it is shared across your app.
You could also grab a different thread pool implementation, for example SmartThreadPool

Rather than starting a thread for each file name, put the file names into a queue and then start up three threads to process them. Or, since the main thread is now free, start up two threads and let the main thread work on it, too:
Queue<string> MyQueue;
void MyProc()
{
string[] filenames = Directory.GetFiles(...);
MyQueue = new Queue(filenames);
// start two threads
Thread t1 = new Thread((ThreadStart)ProcessQueue);
Thread t2 = new Thread((ThreadStart)ProcessQueue);
t1.Start();
t2.Start();
// main thread processes the queue, too!
ProcessQueue();
// wait for threads to complete
t1.Join();
t2.Join();
}
private object queueLock = new object();
void ProcessQueue()
{
while (true)
{
string s;
lock (queueLock)
{
if (MyQueue.Count == 0)
{
// queue is empty
return;
}
s = MyQueue.Dequeue();
}
ProcessFile(s);
}
}
Another option is to use a semaphore to control how many threads are working:
Semaphore MySem = new Semaphore(3, 3);
void MyProc()
{
string[] filenames = Directory.GetFiles(...);
foreach (string s in filenames)
{
mySem.WaitOne();
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(ProcessFile, s);
}
// wait for all threads to finish
int count = 0;
while (count < 3)
{
mySem.WaitOne();
++count;
}
}
void ProcessFile(object state)
{
string fname = (string)state;
// do whatever
mySem.Release(); // release so another thread can start
}
The first will perform somewhat better because you don't have the overhead of starting and stopping a thread for each file name processed. The second is much shorter and cleaner, though, and takes full advantage of the thread pool. Likely you won't notice the performance difference.

Can set max threads unsing ParallelOptions
Parallel.For Method (Int32, Int32, ParallelOptions, Action)
ParallelOptions.MaxDegreeOfParallelism

var results = filenames.ToArray().AsParallel().Select(filename=>ProcessFile(filename)).ToArray();
bool ProcessFile(object fileNameObj)
{
var fileName = (string)fileNameObj;
// do your processing here.
return true;
}

When All Threads Are Complete

This is my first real attempt at using multithreading, I want to know how I can tell when all of my tasks groups are done running:
for (int i = 0; i < taskGroups.Count(); i++) {
ThreadStart t = delegate { RunThread(taskGroups[i]); };
new Thread(t).Start();
}
if(allThreadsComplete){ //???
}
Any help would be much appreciated
Addendum:
ThreadStart[] threads = new ThreadStart[taskGroups.Count()];
for (int i = 0; i < taskGroups.Count(); i++) {
threads[i] = new ThreadStart[]
threads[i] = delegate { RunThread(taskGroups[i]); };
new Thread(t).Start();
}
bool threadsComplete = false;
while(!threadsComplete){
for(int i=0;i<taskGroups.Count();i++){
if(threads[i].State == complete)
threadsComplete = true;
}
}

You need to store all your threads, and then call Thread.Join().
Something like this:
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < taskGroups.Count(); i++) {
int temp = i; //This fixes the issue with i being shared
Thread thread = new Thread(() => RunThread(taskGroups[temp]));
threads.Add(thread);
thread.Start();
}
foreach (var thread in threads) {
thread.Join();
}

If you're using 3.5 then you can write your own CountdownEvent, if you're using 4.0 then you can use the built in CountdownEvent to do something like this:
CountdownEvent = new CountdownEvent(taskGroups.Count());
for (int i = 0; i < taskGroups.Count(); i++)
{
int item = i; // copy i locally
ThreadStart t = delegate
{
RunThread(taskGroups[item]);
latch.Signal();
};
new Thread(t).Start();
}
latch.Wait();
The latch.Wait() will cause your code to block until the threads have all finished. Furthermore, you might want to change the way you start your thread a bit:
CountdownEvent = new CountdownEvent(taskGroups.Count());
for (int i = 0; i < taskGroups.Count(); i++)
{
int item = i; // copy i locally
Thread t = new Thread(()=>
{
RunThread(taskGroups[item]);
latch.Signal();
});
t.IsBackground = true;
t.Start();
}
latch.Wait();
Note that I'm setting the thread to background: this your application from hanging when exit and not all threads have finished (i.e. prevents ghost or daemon threads).

You can use Thread.Join to make sure that each individual thread has finished running.

You can add public static integer field to the main thread, in each child thread increase it by one when it's completed then in the main thread wait (in a loop) until that variable is equal to the taskGroups.Count().

First of all consider switching to the new asynchronous pattern using Task.
Anyway if you want to wait for all your threads you can call Thread.Join:
var threads = new List<Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < taskGroups.Count(); i++) {
ThreadStart t = delegate { RunThread(taskGroups[i]); };
var thread = new Thread(t);
threads.Add(thread);
thread.Start();
}
threads.ForEach(a => a.Join());
Remember that you can also pass a timeout parameter that will wait until the thread finishes only if it doesn't takes more than the time you passed in.

You can check the ThreadState property of each Thread object.

Waiting for all threads to complete, with a timeout

I'm running into a common pattern in the code that I'm writing, where I need to wait for all threads in a group to complete, with a timeout. The timeout is supposed to be the time required for all threads to complete, so simply doing Thread.Join(timeout) for each thread won't work, since the possible timeout is then timeout * numThreads.
Right now I do something like the following:
var threadFinishEvents = new List<EventWaitHandle>();
foreach (DataObject data in dataList)
{
// Create local variables for the thread delegate
var threadFinish = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset);
threadFinishEvents.Add(threadFinish);
var localData = (DataObject) data.Clone();
var thread = new Thread(
delegate()
{
DoThreadStuff(localData);
threadFinish.Set();
}
);
thread.Start();
}
Mutex.WaitAll(threadFinishEvents.ToArray(), timeout);
However, it seems like there should be a simpler idiom for this sort of thing.

I still think using Join is simpler. Record the expected completion time (as Now+timeout), then, in a loop, do
if(!thread.Join(End-now))
throw new NotFinishedInTime();

With .NET 4.0 I find System.Threading.Tasks a lot easier to work with. Here's spin-wait loop which works reliably for me. It blocks the main thread until all the tasks complete. There's also Task.WaitAll, but that hasn't always worked for me.
for (int i = 0; i < N; i++)
{
tasks[i] = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
DoThreadStuff(localData);
});
}
while (tasks.Any(t => !t.IsCompleted)) { } //spin wait

This doesn't answer the question (no timeout), but I've made a very simple extension method to wait all threads of a collection:
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace Extensions
{
public static class ThreadExtension
{
public static void WaitAll(this IEnumerable<Thread> threads)
{
if(threads!=null)
{
foreach(Thread thread in threads)
{ thread.Join(); }
}
}
}
}
Then you simply call:
List<Thread> threads=new List<Thread>();
//Add your threads to this collection
threads.WaitAll();

Since the question got bumped I will go ahead and post my solution.
using (var finished = new CountdownEvent(1))
{
for (DataObject data in dataList)
{
finished.AddCount();
var localData = (DataObject)data.Clone();
var thread = new Thread(
delegate()
{
try
{
DoThreadStuff(localData);
threadFinish.Set();
}
finally
{
finished.Signal();
}
}
);
thread.Start();
}
finished.Signal();
finished.Wait(YOUR_TIMEOUT);
}

Off the top of my head, why don't you just Thread.Join(timeout) and remove the time it took to join from the total timeout?
// pseudo-c#:
TimeSpan timeout = timeoutPerThread * threads.Count();
foreach (Thread thread in threads)
{
DateTime start = DateTime.Now;
if (!thread.Join(timeout))
throw new TimeoutException();
timeout -= (DateTime.Now - start);
}
Edit: code is now less pseudo. don't understand why you would mod an answer -2 when the answer you modded +4 is exactly the same, only less detailed.

This may not be an option for you, but if you can use the Parallel Extension for .NET then you could use Tasks instead of raw threads and then use Task.WaitAll() to wait for them to complete.

I read the book C# 4.0: The Complete Reference of Herbert Schildt. The author use join to give a solution :
class MyThread
{
public int Count;
public Thread Thrd;
public MyThread(string name)
{
Count = 0;
Thrd = new Thread(this.Run);
Thrd.Name = name;
Thrd.Start();
}
// Entry point of thread.
void Run()
{
Console.WriteLine(Thrd.Name + " starting.");
do
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
Console.WriteLine("In " + Thrd.Name +
", Count is " + Count);
Count++;
} while (Count < 10);
Console.WriteLine(Thrd.Name + " terminating.");
}
}
// Use Join() to wait for threads to end.
class JoinThreads
{
static void Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("Main thread starting.");
// Construct three threads.
MyThread mt1 = new MyThread("Child #1");
MyThread mt2 = new MyThread("Child #2");
MyThread mt3 = new MyThread("Child #3");
mt1.Thrd.Join();
Console.WriteLine("Child #1 joined.");
mt2.Thrd.Join();
Console.WriteLine("Child #2 joined.");
mt3.Thrd.Join();
Console.WriteLine("Child #3 joined.");
Console.WriteLine("Main thread ending.");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}

I was tying to figure out how to do this but i could not get any answers from google.
I know this is an old thread but here was my solution:
Use the following class:
class ThreadWaiter
{
private int _numThreads = 0;
private int _spinTime;
public ThreadWaiter(int SpinTime)
{
this._spinTime = SpinTime;
}
public void AddThreads(int numThreads)
{
_numThreads += numThreads;
}
public void RemoveThread()
{
if (_numThreads > 0)
{
_numThreads--;
}
}
public void Wait()
{
while (_numThreads != 0)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(_spinTime);
}
}
}
Call Addthreads(int numThreads) before executing a thread(s).
Call RemoveThread() after each one has completed.
Use Wait() at the point that you want to wait for all the threads to complete
before continuing

Possible solution:
var tasks = dataList
.Select(data => Task.Factory.StartNew(arg => DoThreadStuff(data), TaskContinuationOptions.LongRunning | TaskContinuationOptions.PreferFairness))
.ToArray();
var timeout = TimeSpan.FromMinutes(1);
Task.WaitAll(tasks, timeout);
Assuming dataList is the list of items and each item needs to be processed in a separate thread.

Here is an implementation inspired by Martin v. Löwis's answer:
/// <summary>
/// Blocks the calling thread until all threads terminate, or the specified
/// time elapses. Returns true if all threads terminated in time, or false if
/// at least one thread has not terminated after the specified amount of time
/// elapsed.
/// </summary>
public static bool JoinAll(IEnumerable<Thread> threads, TimeSpan timeout)
{
ArgumentNullException.ThrowIfNull(threads);
if (timeout < TimeSpan.Zero)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(timeout));
Stopwatch stopwatch = Stopwatch.StartNew();
foreach (Thread thread in threads)
{
if (!thread.IsAlive) continue;
TimeSpan remaining = timeout - stopwatch.Elapsed;
if (remaining < TimeSpan.Zero) return false;
if (!thread.Join(remaining)) return false;
}
return true;
}
For measuring the remaining time, instead of the DateTime.Now it uses a Stopwatch. The Stopwatch component is not sensitive to system-wide clock adjustments.
Usage example:
bool allTerminated = JoinAll(new[] { thread1, thread2 }, TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
The timeout must be a positive or zero TimeSpan. The Timeout.InfiniteTimeSpan constant is not supported.