Develop Reference

how to capture value returned from method in thread execution c#

Thread[] threads = new Thread[12];
int temp;
for (int i = 0; i < threads.Length - 1; i++)
{
temp = i;
threads[temp] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(()=> test(test1[temp],"start", temp)));
threads[temp].Start();
//threads[temp].Join();
}
for(int i=0; i<threads.Length-1; i++)
{
threads[i].Join();
}
//Need to capture the response returned from method executed"test1" in thread.

You could use a Task<T> (if you're on .NET 4+), which has a return value. You could also use events to get notified when the thread is done with doing whatever it does and get the returned value that way.

I would use Microsoft's Reactive Framework for this. NugGet "Rx-Main".
var query =
Observable
.Range(0, 12)
.SelectMany(n => Observable
.Start(() => new
{
n,
r = test(test1[n], "start", n)
}))
.ToArray()
.Select(xs => xs
.OrderBy(x => x.n)
.Select(x => x.r)
.ToArray());
query.Subscribe(rs =>
{
/* do something with the results */
});

You could start the thread using another ctor overload where you can start the thread and pass an object to that thread. The thread would then save the result in a field of that object. The main thread could after the call to Join retrieve the results from all those objects. You could have an array of 12 objects each of them passed to one thread. Or you could have an array of 12 classes, each class encapsulating one thread and the corresponding object that wraps the result:
public class ThreadResult
{
public int Result {get; set;}
}
However, today you have better choices than raw threads. Take a look at TPL (Task Parallel Library) and async / await in C#.

You can also use a shared state, in this case you have to lock every access to the shared objects inside the thread method:
Thread[] threads = new Thread[12];
int temp;
string msg = "";
List<string> results = new List<string>();
for (int i = 0; i < threads.Length; i++)
{
temp = i;
threads[temp] = new Thread(() =>
{
lock (results)
{
lock (msg)
{
msg = "Hello from Thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId;
results.Add(msg);
}
}
});
threads[temp].Start();
}
for (int i = 0; i < threads.Length; i++)
{
threads[i].Join();
}

Thread start passed integer changes itself beyond what it should be [duplicate]

This question already has an answer here:
Thread alters passed Int, if start() is called separately
(1 answer)
Closed 7 years ago.
I have no idea what is going on in this. I'm trying to test thread safety of a class by spawning 100 threads to access it constantly, but it seems my anonymous method parameters are changing themselves to values they should never be and I'm confused as to why. As I have no idea what's going on, I'll just post all the functions involved in testing. Somehow I'm ending up with "Thread 98" getting the parameter "num = 100"... That shouldn't be possible and I have no idea what kind of hokey pokey is going on that is changing the integer. (in method "ThreadWriting(int num)" you'll see the point where I check for "num" to equal 100, where I put a break point to catch the offending thread in the act, and it breaks every time. Otherwise it throws an "IndexOutofRangeException" on the array "counts". I'm just trying to see if my threads are generally getting equal access to the class they're all trying to use at once.
public delegate void TempDel();
public TempDel InvokeTest;
public void TRTest3(Form1 sender)
{
InvokeTest = new TempDel(UpdateInvoke);
Thread t = new Thread(() => ConsoleUpdateTest(sender));
t.IsBackground = true;
t.Start();
POConsole.Instance.MaxLines = 20;
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
Thread t2 = new Thread(() => ThreadWriting(i));
t2.IsBackground = true;
t2.Name = String.Format("Thread {0}", i);
t2.Start();
}
}
public ulong[] counts = new ulong[100];
public void ThreadWriting(int num)
{
if(num == 100)
{
bool stop = true;
}
while (true)
{
POConsole.Instance.WriteLine("Hello from Thread " + num);
counts[num]++;
}
}
public void ConsoleUpdateTest(Form1 sender)
{
while(true)
{
sender.Invoke(InvokeTest);
Thread.Sleep(5);
}
}
public void UpdateInvoke()
{
QuickTestBox.Text = POConsole.Instance.FullFeed;
}
All my threads are named, as you can see, and none of them receives the name "Thread 100" so I have no idea how one of the other threads could get passed a parameter of 100 or the parameter could be corrupted in some way.
Apparently my thread-safety checking isn't thread safe in some way?

This is a simple closure issue, you should not be using the for loop counter as a threading parameter issue, issue happens out here, for loop and thread execution do not run at same speed, so value of i can change for multiple threads:
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
Thread t2 = new Thread(() => ThreadWriting(i));
t2.IsBackground = true;
t2.Name = String.Format("Thread {0}", i);
t2.Start();
}
Use following modification, create a local variable from loop counter
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
int j = i;
Thread t2 = new Thread(() => ThreadWriting(j));
t2.IsBackground = true;
t2.Name = String.Format("Thread {0}", j);
t2.Start();
}

TPL Dataflow Blocks

Question: Why using a WriteOnceBlock (or BufferBlock) for getting back the answer (like sort of callback) from another BufferBlock<Action> (getting back the answer happens in that posted Action) causes a deadlock (in this code)?
I thought that methods in a class can be considered as messages that we are sending to the object (like the original point of view about OOP that was proposed by - I think - Alan Kay). So I wrote this generic Actor class that helps to convert and ordinary object to an Actor (Of-course there are lots of unseen loopholes here because of mutability and things, but that's not the main concern here).
So we have these definitions:
public class Actor<T>
{
private readonly T _processor;
private readonly BufferBlock<Action<T>> _messageBox = new BufferBlock<Action<T>>();
public Actor(T processor)
{
_processor = processor;
Run();
}
public event Action<T> Send
{
add { _messageBox.Post(value); }
remove { }
}
private async void Run()
{
while (true)
{
var action = await _messageBox.ReceiveAsync();
action(_processor);
}
}
}
public interface IIdGenerator
{
long Next();
}
Now; why this code works:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var idGenerator1 = new IdInt64();
var idServer1 = new Actor<IIdGenerator>(idGenerator1);
const int n = 1000;
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
var t = new Task(() =>
{
var answer = new WriteOnceBlock<long>(null);
Action<IIdGenerator> action = x =>
{
var buffer = x.Next();
answer.Post(buffer);
};
idServer1.Send += action;
Trace.WriteLine(answer.Receive());
}, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning); // Runs on a separate new thread
t.Start();
}
Console.WriteLine("press any key you like! :)");
Console.ReadKey();
Trace.Flush();
}
And this code does not work:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var idGenerator1 = new IdInt64();
var idServer1 = new Actor<IIdGenerator>(idGenerator1);
const int n = 1000;
for (var i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
var t = new Task(() =>
{
var answer = new WriteOnceBlock<long>(null);
Action<IIdGenerator> action = x =>
{
var buffer = x.Next();
answer.Post(buffer);
};
idServer1.Send += action;
Trace.WriteLine(answer.Receive());
}, TaskCreationOptions.PreferFairness); // Runs and is managed by Task Scheduler
t.Start();
}
Console.WriteLine("press any key you like! :)");
Console.ReadKey();
Trace.Flush();
}
Different TaskCreationOptions used here to create Tasks. Maybe I am wrong about TPL Dataflow concepts here, just started to use it (A [ThreadStatic] hidden somewhere?).

The problematic issue with your code is this part: answer.Receive().
When you move it inside the action the deadlock doesn't happen:
var t = new Task(() =>
{
var answer = new WriteOnceBlock<long>(null);
Action<IIdGenerator> action = x =>
{
var buffer = x.Next();
answer.Post(buffer);
Trace.WriteLine(answer.Receive());
};
idServer1.Send += action;
});
t.Start();
So why is that? answer.Receive();, as opposed to await answer.ReceiveAsnyc(); blocks the thread until an answer is returned. When you use TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning each task gets its own thread, so there's no problem, but without it (the TaskCreationOptions.PreferFairness is irrelevant) all the thread pool threads are busy waiting and so everything is much slower. It doesn't actually deadlock, as you can see when you use 15 instead of 1000.
There are other solutions that help understand the problem:
Increasing the thread pool with ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(1000, 0); before the original code.
Using ReceiveAsnyc:
Task.Run(async () =>
{
var answer = new WriteOnceBlock<long>(null);
Action<IIdGenerator> action = x =>
{
var buffer = x.Next();
answer.Post(buffer);
};
idServer1.Send += action;
Trace.WriteLine(await answer.ReceiveAsync());
});

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.

Multi thread worker thread status

I create my threads as
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
Searcher src = new Searcher(i, this);
threads[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(src.getIpRange));
threads[i].Name = string.Format(i.ToString());
}
foreach (Thread t in threads)
{
t.Start();
}
with threadCount(= 100, 150, 255 etc...) but I can't learn how many threads working. on execute time.
and I want to control when all threads finishes their job. and give me a message like "All threads are dead, jobs completed..."
like backgroundWorker's RunWorkerCompleted event

Determining when all the threads are finished is simple.
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
threads[i].Join();
}
Console.WriteLine("All threads are done!");
Can you elaborate on your other requirements?

You can check the ThreadState property of the Thread.
Might be better to use async methods. This gives you a WaitHandle object, and you can use WaitHandle.WaitAll to wait for all of your async methods to finish.
Here's an intro to asynchronous programming:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa719598%28v=VS.71%29.aspx

You definitely want to use the Task class for this or a higher-level concept like Parallel.ForEach. Using the Thread class directly is quite painful.
I recently wrote a blog post comparing various asynchronous approaches, listed in order from best (Task) to worst (Thread).
Here's an example using Task, demonstrating what you wanted to do:
// Start all tasks
var threads = new Task[threadCount];
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
Searcher src = new Searcher(i, this);
threads[i] = Task.Factory.StartNew(src.getIpRange);
}
// How many are running right now?
var runningCount = threads.Count(x => x.Status == TaskStatus.Running);
// Register a callback when they have all completed (this does not block)
Task.Factory.ContinueWhenAll(threads, MyCallback);

Add a delegate to Searcher and pass it a callback method from your main thread that each thread will call when it finishes. As you launch each thread, add it to a Dictionary keyed by the thread's ManagedThreadId. When each thread finishes, the callback removes the thread from the Dictionary and checks to see if the count is zero.
Dictionary<int, Thread> activeThreads = new Dictionary<int, Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
Searcher src = new Searcher(i, this);
src.Done = new SearcherDoneDelegate(ThreadDone);
threads[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(src.getIpRange));
threads[i].Name = string.Format(i.ToString());
}
foreach (Thread t in threads)
{
lock (activeThreads)
{
activeThreads.Add(t.ManagedThreadId, t);
}
t.Start();
}
}
public void ThreadDone(int threadIdArg)
{
lock (activeThreads)
{
activeThreads.Remove(threadIdArg);
if (activeThreads.Count == 0)
{
// all done
}
}
}
public delegate void SearcherDoneDelegate(int threadIdArg);
public static object locker = new object();
public class Searcher
{
public SearcherDoneDelegate Done { get; set; }
public void getIpRange()
{
Done(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}
If you have more threads than you want to run at one time, put them into a Queue and peel them off as older threads finish (use the callback).

First, I have to point out that creating 100, 150, 255, etc. threads is probably not a good idea. You might be better off using the ThreadPool or Task class (if using .NET 4.0). Aside from that there are two well established methods for waiting until all threads complete.
Join the thread.
Thread.Join blocks until the target thread finishes.
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
Searcher src = new Searcher(i, this);
threads[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(src.getIpRange));
threads[i].Name = string.Format(i.ToString());
}
foreach (Thread t in threads)
{
t.Start();
}
foreach (Thread t in threads)
{
t.Join();
}
Use a CountdownEvent.
A CountdownEvent waits until its internal count reaches zero. This method is better suited if you want to use the ThreadPool. If you are not using .NET 4.0 you can get a really simple implementation over at Joe Albahari's website.
var finished = new CountdownEvent(1);
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
finished.AddCount();
Searcher src = new Searcher(i, this);
threads[i] = new Thread(
() =>
{
try
{
src.getIpRange();
}
finally
{
finished.Signal();
}
}
threads[i].Name = string.Format(i.ToString());
}
foreach (Thread t in threads)
{
t.Start();
}
finished.Signal();
finished.WaitOne();

Why can't you use critical section protected single variable to control a number of active threads? Thread function can modify this variable (having entered critical section, of course).