namespace ThPool
{
class Program
{
private static long val = 0;
private static string obj = string.Empty;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread objThread1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(IncrementValue));
objThread1.Start();
Thread objThread2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(IncrementValue));
objThread2.Start();
objThread1.Join();
objThread2.Join();
Console.WriteLine("val=" + val + " however it should be " + (10000000 + 10000000));
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void IncrementValue()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++)
{
Monitor.Enter(obj);
val++;
Monitor.Exit(obj);
}
}
}
}
How do I use ThreadPool class in replacement of thread & monitor?
There are a couple of ways to use the thread pool. For your task, you should look at the following.
If you just need a task to run the easiest way is to use QueueUserWorkItem, which simply takes a delegate to run. The disadvantage is that you have little control over the job. The delegate can't return a value, and you don't know when the run is completed.
If you want a little more control, you can use the BeginInvoke/EndInvoke interface of delegates. This schedules the code to run on a thread pool thread. You can query the status via the IAsyncResult handle returned by BeginInvoke, and you can get the result (as well as any exception on the worker thread) via EndInvoke.
To use the Enter/Exit on Monitor properly, you have to make sure that Exit is always called. Therefore you should place your Exit call in a finally block.
However, if you don't need to supply a timeout value for Enter, you would be much better off just using the lock keyword, which compiles into a proper set of Enter and Exit calls.
EventWaitHandle[] waitHandles = new EventWaitHandle[2];
for(int i = 0; i < 2; i++)
{
waitHandles[i] = new AutoResetEvent(false);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state =>
{
EventWaitHandle handle = state as EventWaitHandle;
for(int j = 0; j < 10000000; j++)
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref val); //instead of Monitor
}
handle.Set();
}, waitHandles[i]);
}
WaitHandle.WaitAll(waitHandles);
Console.WriteLine("val=" + val + " however it should be " + (10000000 + 10000000));
You should look into ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(). It takes a delegate that is run on the threadpool thread, passing in a state object.
i.e.
string fullname = "Neil Barnwell";
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello, " + (string)state);
}, fullname);
Don't be confused by Control.BeginInvoke(). This will marshal the call to the thread that created the control, to prevent the issue where cross-thread calls update Controls. If you want simple multi-threading on a Windows form, then look into the BackgroundWorker.
Do not use the thread pool for anything but the most simple things. In fact it is extremely dangerous to aquire a lock on a thread pool thread. However you can safely use the Interlocked API's.
You can use BeginInvoke, EndInvoke. It uses the threadpool behind the scenes but it is easier to program. See here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/2e08f6yc.aspx
Related
By using the below code firstly some of the calls are not getting made lets say out of 250 , 238 calls are made and rest doesn't.Secondly I am not sure if the calls are made at the rate of 20 calls per 10 seconds.
public List<ShowData> GetAllShowAndTheirCast()
{
ShowResponse allShows = GetAllShows();
ShowCasts showCast = new ShowCasts();
showCast.showCastList = new List<ShowData>();
using (Semaphore pool = new Semaphore(20, 20))
{
for (int i = 0; i < allShows.Shows.Length; i++)
{
pool.WaitOne();
Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart((taskId) =>
{
showCast.showCastList.Add(MapResponse(allShows.Shows[i]));
}));
pool.Release();
t.Start(i);
}
}
//for (int i = 0; i < allShows.Shows.Length; i++)
//{
// showCast.showCastList.Add(MapResponse(allShows.Shows[i]));
//}
return showCast.showCastList;
}
public ShowData MapResponse(Show s)
{
CastResponse castres = new CastResponse();
castres.CastlistResponse = (GetShowCast(s.id)).CastlistResponse;
ShowData sd = new ShowData();
sd.id = s.id;
sd.name = s.name;
if (castres.CastlistResponse != null && castres.CastlistResponse.Any())
{
sd.cast = new List<CastData>();
foreach (var item in castres.CastlistResponse)
{
CastData cd = new CastData();
cd.birthday = item.person.birthday;
cd.id = item.person.id;
cd.name = item.person.name;
sd.cast.Add(cd);
}
}
return sd;
}
public ShowResponse GetAllShows()
{
ShowResponse response = new ShowResponse();
string showUrl = ClientAPIUtils.apiUrl + "shows";
response.Shows = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<Show[]>(ClientAPIUtils.GetDataFromUrl(showUrl));
return response;
}
public CastResponse GetShowCast(int showid)
{
CastResponse res = new CastResponse();
string castUrl = ClientAPIUtils.apiUrl + "shows/" + showid + "/cast";
res.CastlistResponse = JsonConvert.DeserializeObject<List<Cast>>(ClientAPIUtils.GetDataFromUrl(castUrl));
return res;
}
All the Calls should be made , but I am not sure where they are getting aborted and even please let me know how to check the rate of calls being made.
I'm assuming that your goal is to process all data about shows but no more than 20 at once.
For that kind of task you should probably use ThreadPool and limit maximum number of concurrent threads using SetMaxThreads.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.threading.threadpool?view=netframework-4.7.2
You have to make sure that collection that you are using to store your results is thread-safe.
showCast.showCastList = new List<ShowData>();
I don't think that standard List is thread-safe. Thread-safe collection is ConcurrentBag (there are others as well). You can make standard list thread-safe but it requires more code. After you are done processing and need to have results in list or array you can convert collection to desired type.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.collections.concurrent.concurrentbag-1?view=netframework-4.7.2
Now to usage of semaphore. What your semaphore is doing is ensuring that maximum 20 threads can be created at once. Assuming that this loop runs in your app main thread your semaphore has no purpose. To make it work you need to release semaphore once thread is completed; but you are calling thread Start() after calling Release(). That results in thread being executed outside "critical area".
using (Semaphore pool = new Semaphore(20, 20)) {
for (int i = 0; i < allShows.Shows.Length; i++) {
pool.WaitOne();
Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart((taskId) =>
{
showCast.showCastList.Add(MapResponse(allShows.Shows[i]));
pool.Release();
}));
t.Start(i);
}
}
I did not test this solution; additional problems might arise.
Another issue with this program is that it does not wait for all threads to complete. Once all threads are started; program will end. It is possible (and in your case I'm sure) that not all threads completed its operation; this is why ~240 data packets are done when program finishes.
thread.Join();
But if called right after Start() it will stop main thread until it is completed so to keep program concurrent you need to create a list of threads and Join() them at the end of program. It is not the best solution. How to wait on all threads that program can add to ThreadPool
Wait until all threads finished their work in ThreadPool
As final note you cannot access loop counter like that. Final value of loop counter is evaluated later and with test I ran; code has tendency to process odd records twice and skip even. This is happening because loop increases counter before previous thread is executed and causes to access elements outside bounds of array.
Possible solution to that is to create method that will create thread. Having it in separate method will evaluate allShows.Shows[i] to show before next loop pass.
public void CreateAndStartThread(Show show, Semaphore pool, ShowCasts showCast)
{
pool.WaitOne();
Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart((s) => {
showCast.showCastList.Add(MapResponse((Show)s));
pool.Release();
}));
t.Start(show);
}
Concurrent programming is tricky and I would highly recommend to do some exercises with examples on common pitfalls. Books on C# programming are sure to have a chapter or two on the topic. There are plenty of online courses and tutorials on this topic to learn from.
Edit:
Working solution. Still might have some issues.
public ShowCasts GetAllShowAndTheirCast()
{
ShowResponse allShows = GetAllShows();
ConcurrentBag<ShowData> result = new ConcurrentBag<ShowData>();
using (var countdownEvent = new CountdownEvent(allShows.Shows.Length))
{
using (Semaphore pool = new Semaphore(20, 20))
{
for (int i = 0; i < allShows.Shows.Length; i++)
{
CreateAndStartThread(allShows.Shows[i], pool, result, countdownEvent);
}
countdownEvent.Wait();
}
}
return new ShowCasts() { showCastList = result.ToList() };
}
public void CreateAndStartThread(Show show, Semaphore pool, ConcurrentBag<ShowData> result, CountdownEvent countdownEvent)
{
pool.WaitOne();
Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart((s) =>
{
result.Add(MapResponse((Show)s));
pool.Release();
countdownEvent.Signal();
}));
t.Start(show);
}
On a console application, i am currently starting an array of threads. The thread is passed an object and running a method in it. I would like to know how to call a method on the object inside the individual running threads.
Dispatcher doesn't work. SynchronizationContext "Send" runs on the calling thread and "Post" uses a new thread. I would like to be able to call the method and pass parameters on a running thread on the target thread it's running on and not the calling thread.
Update 2: Sample code
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Data.SqlClient;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace CallingFromAnotherThread
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var threadCount = 10;
var threads = new Thread[threadCount];
Console.WriteLine("Main on Thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
Dog d = new Dog();
threads[i] = new Thread(d.Run);
threads[i].Start();
}
Thread.Sleep(5000);
//how can i call dog.Bark("woof");
//on the individual dogs and make sure they run on the thread they were created on.
//not on the calling thread and not on a new thread.
}
}
class Dog
{
public void Run()
{
Console.WriteLine("Running on Thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
public void Bark(string text)
{
Console.WriteLine(text);
Console.WriteLine("Barking on Thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}
}
Update 1:
Using synchronizationContext.Send results to using the calling thread
Channel created
Main thread 10
SyncData Added for thread 11
Consuming channel ran on thread 11
Calling AddConsumer on thread 10
Consumer added consumercb78b. Executed on thread 10
Calling AddConsumer on thread 10
Consumer added consumer783c4. Executed on thread 10
Using synchronizationContext.Post results to using a different thread
Channel created
Main thread 10
SyncData Added for thread 11
Consuming channel ran on thread 11
Calling AddConsumer on thread 12
Consumer added consumercb78b. Executed on thread 6
Calling AddConsumer on thread 10
Consumer added consumer783c4. Executed on thread 7
The target thread must run the code "on itself" - or it is just accessing the object across threads. This is done with some form of event dispatch loop on the target thread itself.
The SynchronizationContext abstraction can and does support this if the underlying provider supports it. For example in either WinForms or WPF (which themselves use the "window message pump") using Post will "run on the UI thread".
Basically, all such constructs follow some variation of the pattern:
// On "target thread"
while (running) {
var action = getNextDelegateFromQueue();
action();
}
// On other thread
postDelegateToQueue(actionToDoOnTargetThread);
It is fairly simple to create a primitive queue system manually - just make sure to use the correct synchronization guards. (Although I am sure there are tidy "solved problem" libraries out there; including wrapping everything up into a SynchronizationContext.)
Here is a primitive version of the manual queue. Note that there may be is1 a race condition.. but, FWIW:
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
namespace DogPark
{
internal class DogPark
{
private readonly string _parkName;
private readonly Thread _thread;
private readonly ConcurrentQueue<Action> _actions = new ConcurrentQueue<Action>();
private volatile bool _isOpen;
public DogPark(string parkName)
{
_parkName = parkName;
_isOpen = true;
_thread = new Thread(OpenPark);
_thread.Name = parkName;
_thread.Start();
}
// Runs in "target" thread
private void OpenPark(object obj)
{
while (true)
{
Action action;
if (_actions.TryDequeue(out action))
{
Program.WriteLine("Something is happening at {0}!", _parkName);
try
{
action();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Program.WriteLine("Bad dog did {0}!", ex.Message);
}
}
else
{
// Nothing left!
if (!_isOpen && _actions.IsEmpty)
{
return;
}
}
Thread.Sleep(0); // Don't toaster CPU
}
}
// Called from external thread
public void DoItInThePark(Action action)
{
if (_isOpen)
{
_actions.Enqueue(action);
}
}
// Called from external thread
public void ClosePark()
{
_isOpen = false;
Program.WriteLine("{0} is closing for the day!", _parkName);
// Block until queue empty.
while (!_actions.IsEmpty)
{
Program.WriteLine("Waiting for the dogs to finish at {0}, {1} actions left!", _parkName, _actions.Count);
Thread.Sleep(0); // Don't toaster CPU
}
Program.WriteLine("{0} is closed!", _parkName);
}
}
internal class Dog
{
private readonly string _name;
public Dog(string name)
{
_name = name;
}
public void Run()
{
Program.WriteLine("{0} is running at {1}!", _name, Thread.CurrentThread.Name);
}
public void Bark()
{
Program.WriteLine("{0} is barking at {1}!", _name, Thread.CurrentThread.Name);
}
}
internal class Program
{
// "Thread Safe WriteLine"
public static void WriteLine(params string[] arguments)
{
lock (Console.Out)
{
Console.Out.WriteLine(arguments);
}
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Name = "Home";
var yorkshire = new DogPark("Yorkshire");
var thunderpass = new DogPark("Thunder Pass");
var bill = new Dog("Bill the Terrier");
var rosemary = new Dog("Rosie");
bill.Run();
yorkshire.DoItInThePark(rosemary.Run);
yorkshire.DoItInThePark(rosemary.Bark);
thunderpass.DoItInThePark(bill.Bark);
yorkshire.DoItInThePark(rosemary.Run);
thunderpass.ClosePark();
yorkshire.ClosePark();
}
}
}
The output should look about like the following - keep in mind that this will change when run multiples times due to the inherent nature of non-synchronized threads.
Bill the Terrier is running at Home!
Something is happening at Thunder Pass!
Something is happening at Yorkshire!
Rosie is running at Yorkshire!
Bill the Terrier is barking at Thunder Pass!
Something is happening at Yorkshire!
Rosie is barking at Yorkshire!
Something is happening at Yorkshire!
Rosie is running at Yorkshire!
Thunder Pass is closing for the day!
Thunder Pass is closed!
Yorkshire is closing for the day!
Yorkshire is closed!
There is nothing preventing a dog from performing at multiple dog parks simultaneously.
1 There is a race condition present and it is this: a park may close before the last dog action runs.
This is because the dog park thread dequeues the action before the action is run - and the method to close the dog park only waits until all the actions are dequeued.
There are multiple ways to address it, for instance:
The concurrent queue could first peek-use-then-dequeue-after-the-action, or
A separate volatile isClosed-for-real flag (set from the dog park thread) could be used, or ..
I've left the bug in as a reminder of the perils of threading..
A running thread is already executing a method. You cannot directly force that thread to leave the method and enter a new one. However, you could send information to that thread to leave the current method and do something else. But this only works if the executed method can react on that passed information.
In general, you can use threads to call/execute methods, but you cannot call a method ON a running thread.
Edit, based on your updates:
If you want to use the same threads to execute dog.run and dog.bark, and do it in the same objects, the you need to modify your code:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var threadCount = 10;
var threads = new Thread[threadCount];
Console.WriteLine("Main on Thread " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
// keep the dog objects outside the creation block in order to access them later again. Always useful.
Dog[] dogs = New Dog[threadCount];
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
dogs[i] = new Dog();
threads[i] = new Thread(d.Run);
threads[i].Start();
}
Thread.Sleep(5000);
//how can i call dog.Bark("woof") --> here you go:
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
threads[i] = new Thread(d.Bark);
threads[i].Start();
}
// but this will create NEW threads because the others habe exited after finishing d.run, and habe been deleted. Is this a problem for you?
// maybe the other threads are still running, causing a parallel execution of d.run and d.bark.
//on the individual dogs and make sure they run on the thread they were created on.
//not on the calling thread and not on a new thread. -->
// instead of d.run, call d.doActions and loop inside that function, check for commands from external sources:
for (int i = 0; i < threadCount; i++)
{
threads[i] = new Thread(d.doActions);
threads[i].Start();
}
// but in this case there will be sequential execution of actions. No parallel run and bark.
}
Inside your dog class:
Enum class EnumAction
{
Nothing,
Run,
bark,
exit,
};
EnumAction m_enAction;
Object m_oLockAction;
void SetAction (EnumAction i_enAction)
{
Monitor.Enter (m_oLockAction);
m_enAction = i_enAction;
Monitor.Exit (m_oLockAction);
}
void SetAction (EnumAction i_enAction)
{
Monitor.Enter (m_oLockAction);
m_enAction = i_enAction;
Monitor.Exit (m_oLockAction);
}
Void doActions()
{
EnumAction enAction;
Do
{
Thread.sleep(20);
enAction = GetAction();
Switch(enAction)
{
Case EnumAction.run:
Run(); break;
Case ...
}
} while (enAction != EnumAction.exit);
}
Got it? ;-)
Sorry for any typos, I was typing on my mobile phone, and I usually use C++CLI.
Another advice: as you would read the variable m_enAction inside the thread and write it from outside, you need to ensure that it gets updated properly due to the access from different threads. The threads MUST NOT cache the variable in the CPU, otherwise they don't see it changing. Use locks (e.g. Monitor) to achieve that. (But do not use a Monitor on m_enAction, because you can use Monitors only on objects. Create a dummy object for this purpose.)
I have added the necessary code. Check out the differences between the edits to see the changes.
You cannot run second method while first method is running. If you want them to run in parallel you need another thread. However, your object needs to be thread safe.
Execution of thread simply means execution of sequence of instruction. Dispatcher is nothing else than an infinite loop that executes queued method one after another.
I recommend you to use tasks instead of threads. Use Parallel.ForEach to run Dog.Run method on each dog object instance. To run Bark method use Task.Run(dog.Bark).
Since you used running and barking dog as an example you could write your own "dispatcher". That means infinite loop that would execute all queued work. In that case you could have all dogs in single thread. Sounds weird, but you could have unlimited amount of dogs. At the end, only as many threads can be executed at the same time as many CPU cores is available
I have developed an application in c#. The class structure is as follows.
Form1 => The UI form. Has a backgroundworker, processbar, and a "ok" button.
SourceReader, TimedWebClient, HttpWorker, ReportWriter //clases do some work
Controller => Has the all over control. From "ok" button click an instance of this class called "cntrl" is created. This cntrlr is a global variable in Form1.cs.
(At the constructor of the Controler I create SourceReader, TimedWebClient,HttpWorker,ReportWriter instances. )
Then I call the RunWorkerAsync() of the background worker.
Within it code is as follows.
private void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
int iterator = 1;
for (iterator = 1; iterator <= this.urlList.Count; iterator++)
{
cntrlr.Vmain(iterator-1);
backgroundWorker1.ReportProgress(iterator);
}
}
At themoment ReportProgress updates the progressbar.
The urlList mentioned above has 1000 of urls. cntlr.Vamin(int i) process the whole process at themoment. I want to give the task to several threads, each one having to process 100 of urls. Though access for other instances or methods of them is not prohibited, access to ReportWriter should be limited to only one thread at a time. I can't find a way to do this. If any one have an idea or an answer, please explain.
If you do want to restrict multiple threads using the same method concurrently then I would use the Semaphore class to facilitate the required thread limit; here's how...
A semaphore is like a mean night club bouncer, it has been provide a club capacity and is not allowed to exceed this limit. Once the club is full, no one else can enter... A queue builds up outside. Then as one person leaves another can enter (analogy thanks to J. Albahari).
A Semaphore with a value of one is equivalent to a Mutex or Lock except that the Semaphore has no owner so that it is thread ignorant. Any thread can call Release on a Semaphore whereas with a Mutex/Lock only the thread that obtained the Mutex/Lock can release it.
Now, for your case we are able to use Semaphores to limit concurrency and prevent too many threads from executing a particular piece of code at once. In the following example five threads try to enter a night club that only allows entry to three...
class BadAssClub
{
static SemaphoreSlim sem = new SemaphoreSlim(3);
static void Main()
{
for (int i = 1; i <= 5; i++)
new Thread(Enter).Start(i);
}
// Enfore only three threads running this method at once.
static void Enter(int i)
{
try
{
Console.WriteLine(i + " wants to enter.");
sem.Wait();
Console.WriteLine(i + " is in!");
Thread.Sleep(1000 * (int)i);
Console.WriteLine(i + " is leaving...");
}
finally
{
sem.Release();
}
}
}
Note, that SemaphoreSlim is a lighter weight version of the Semaphore class and incurs about a quarter of the overhead. it is sufficient for what you require.
I hope this helps.
I think I would have used the ThreadPool, instead of background worker, and given each thread 1, not 100 url's to process. The thread pool will limit the number of threads it starts at once, so you wont have to worry about getting 1000 requests at once. Have a look here for a good example
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3dasc8as.aspx
Feeling a little more adventurous? Consider using TPL DataFlow to download a bunch of urls:
var urls = new[]{
"http://www.google.com",
"http://www.microsoft.com",
"http://www.apple.com",
"http://www.stackoverflow.com"};
var tb = new TransformBlock<string, string>(async url => {
using(var wc = new WebClient())
{
var data = await wc.DownloadStringTaskAsync(url);
Console.WriteLine("Downloaded : {0}", url);
return data;
}
}, new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions{MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 4});
var ab = new ActionBlock<string>(data => {
//process your data
Console.WriteLine("data length = {0}", data.Length);
}, new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions{MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 1});
tb.LinkTo(ab); //join output of producer to consumer block
foreach(var u in urls)
{
tb.Post(u);
}
tb.Complete();
Note how you can control the parallelism of each block explicitly, so you can gather in parallel but process without going concurrent (for example).
Just grab it with nuget. Easy.
In C# is there any difference between using a delegate to do some work asynchronously (calling BeginInvoke()) and using a ThreadPool thread as shown below
public void asynchronousWork(object num)
{
//asynchronous work to be done
Console.WriteLine(num);
}
public void test()
{
Action<object> myCustomDelegate = this.asynchronousWork;
int x = 7;
//Using Delegate
myCustomDelegate.BeginInvoke(7, null, null);
//Using Threadpool
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(asynchronousWork), 7);
Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
Edit:
BeginInvoke makes sure that a thread from the thread pool is used to execute the asynchronous code , so is there any difference?
Joe Duffy, in his Concurrent Programming on Windows book (page 418), says this about Delegate.BeginInvoke:
All delegate types, by convention offer a BeginInvoke and EndInvoke method alongside the ordinary synchronous Invoke method. While this is a nice programming model feature, you should stay away from them wherever possible. The implementation uses remoting infrastructure which imposes a sizable overhead to asynchronous invocation. Queue work to the thread pool directly is often a better approach, though that means you have to co-ordinate the rendezvous logic yourself.
EDIT: I created the following simple test of the relative overheads:
int counter = 0;
int iterations = 1000000;
Action d = () => { Interlocked.Increment(ref counter); };
var stopwatch = new System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < iterations; i++)
{
var asyncResult = d.BeginInvoke(null, null);
}
do { } while(counter < iterations);
stopwatch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Took {0}ms", stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds);
Console.ReadLine();
On my machine the above test runs in around 20 seconds. Replacing the BeginInvoke call with
System.Threading.ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state =>
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref counter);
});
changes the running time to 864ms.
I am trying to bypass the the wait64 handle limit that .net 3.5 imposes
I have seen this thread : Workaround for the WaitHandle.WaitAll 64 handle limit?
So I understand the general idea but I am having difficulty because I am not using a delegate but rather
I am basically working of this example :
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3dasc8as%28VS.80%29.aspx
This link http://www.switchonthecode.com/tutorials/csharp-tutorial-using-the-threadpool
is similar but again the int variable keeping track of the tasks is a member variable.
Where in the above example would I pass the threadCount integer?
Do I pass it in the callback method as an object? I think I am having trouble with the callback method and passing by reference.
Thanks Stephen,
That link is not entirely clear to me.
Let me post my code to help myself clarify:
for (int flows = 0; flows < NumFlows; flows++)
{
ResetEvents[flows] = new ManualResetEvent(false);
ICalculator calculator = new NewtonRaphson(Perturbations);
Calculators[flows] = calculator;
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(calculator.ThreadPoolCallback, flows);
}
resetEvent.WaitOne();
Where would I pass in my threadCount variable. I assume it needs to be decremented in calculator.ThreadPoolCallback?
You should not be using multiple wait handles to wait for the completion of multiple work items in the ThreadPool. Not only is it not scalable you will eventually bump into the 64 handle limit imposed by the WaitHandle.WaitAll method (as you have done already). The correct pattern to use in this situation is a counting wait handle. There is one available in the Reactive Extensions download for .NET 3.5 via the CountdownEvent class.
var finished = new CountdownEvent(1);
for (int flows = 0; flows < NumFlows; flows++)
{
finished.AddCount();
ICalculator calculator = new NewtonRaphson(Perturbations);
Calculators[flows] = calculator;
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
(state) =>
{
try
{
calculator.ThreadPoolCallback(state);
}
finally
{
finished.Signal();
}
}, flows);
}
finished.Signal();
finished.Wait();
An anonymous method might be easiest:
int threadCount = 0;
for (int flows = 0; flows < NumFlows; flows++)
{
ICalculator calculator = new NewtonRaphson(Perturbations);
Calculators[flows] = calculator;
// We're about to queue a new piece of work:
// make a note of the fact a new work item is starting
Interlocked.Increment(ref threadCount);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
delegate
{
calculator.ThreadPoolCallback(flows);
// We've finished this piece of work...
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref threadCount) == 0)
{
// ...and we're the last one.
// Signal back to the main thread.
resetEvent.Set();
}
}, null);
}
resetEvent.WaitOne();