From time to time my applications GUI stops redrawing.
There a lot of threads that are firing all kinds of events (like timers or network data ready etc.). Also there are a lot of controls that are subscribing these events. Because of that, all the event handlers play the InvokeRequired/Invoke game.
Now I figured out that when the GUI freezes a lot of threads are waiting for Invoke() to return. Looks like the message pump stopped pumping.
The handlers look like this:
private void MyEventHandler( object sender, EventArgs e ) {
if ( InvokeRequired ) {
Invoke( new EventHandler( MyEventHandler ), sender, e );
return;
}
SetSomeStateVariable();
Invalidate();
}
Any ideas?
Solution: BeginInvoke(). Looks like you should always use BeginInvoke() if you have lots of CrossThread-Events...
Thanks.
Thanks everybody.
EDIT: Looks like BeginInvoke() really solved it. No freezing until now.
Invoke waits until the event is handled in the GUI thread. If you want it to be asynchronous use BeginInvoke()
Deadlock perhaps? Do you make sure that the events are never fired while holding a lock?
Are you able to see this with a debugger attached? If so, make it freeze and then hit the "pause" button - and see what the UI thread is doing.
Note that if you are able to get away with BeginInvoke instead of Invoke, life is a bit easier as it won't block.
Also note that you don't need the "new EventHandler" bit - just
Invoke((EventHandler) MyEventHandler, sender, e);
should be fine.
From watching this question, I can see that you're not going to get any answers that will fix the problem immediately, as most of them require you to debug the event, and it happens so infrequently that this is nearly impossible. So, let me suggest you make some code changes that might help you identify the culprit in the field.
I suggest that you create a static class whose sole purpose is to handle all your Invoke calls. I would suggest that this class has a method that takes a Control, (to call Invoke on) an Action (the method to be invoked), and a description (containing the information you would need to know to identify the method and what it is going to do).
Within the body of this method, I suggest you enqueue this information (method, description) and return immediately.
The queue should be serviced by a single thread, which pops the action/message pair off the queue, records the current time and the Action's description in a pair of properties, and then Invokes() the Action. When the Action returns, the description and time are cleared (your DateTime can be nullable, or set it to DateTime.Max). Note, since all Invokes are marshalled one at a time onto the UI thread, you're not losing anything by servicing the queue by a single thread here.
Now, here's where we get to the point of this. Our Invoking class should have a heartbeat System.Threading.Timer thread. This should NOT be a windows.forms.timer object, as that runs on the UI thread (and would be blocked when the ui is blocked!!!).
The job of this timer is to periodically peek at the time the current Action was Invoked. If DateTime.Now - BeginTime > X, the heartbeat timer will decide that this Action has blocked. The heartbeat timer will LOG (however you log) the DESCRIPTION recorded for that Action. You now have a recording of what was happening at the time your UI locked up and can debug it better.
I know it's not an answer to your problem, but at least by doing this you can get a good idea about what's going on at the time you're blocked.
The most likely answer (deadlock) has already been suggested.
Another way to simulate this behaviour is to reduce the number of pool threads and IO completion ports; you haven't called ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads(...) by any chance?
Related
I'm using this to update a control in the main thread from another thread:
private void ShowHourGlassSafe(bool visible)
{
this.Invoke((EventHandler)((s, ev) => pictureBoxHourGlass.Visible = visible));
}
I wonder what are the implications of doing it this way or if is there any risk this is going to fail?
From the many examples are there for the same thing I could not find one like this.
It could be that it's simply wrong?
Well, you've picked a rather odd delegate to choose, as you've chosen one that has two parameters despite the fact that none are needed nor will be provided. I don't know if that will cause it to break, but it's certainly doing nothing to help. You're most likely best off using a delegate that takes no parameters and returns no values, such as:
private void ShowHourGlassSafe(bool visible)
{
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)(() => pictureBoxHourGlass.Visible = visible));
}
Other than that, the fundamental concept of what you're doing is perfectly fine.
Typical problems with this kind of code:
You'll deadlock if the UI thread is doing something unwise like waiting for the thread to complete. There's no point in using Invoke, that blocks the worker thread for no benefit, just use BeginInvoke. Solves the deadlock potential and the unnecessary delay.
You'll crash when the UI was closed and pictureBoxHourGlass was disposed. Ensuring that the thread is no longer running before allowing the UI to close is very commonly overlooked. Just displaying an hour glass isn't enough, you also have to take countermeasures to prevent the user from closing the UI. Or otherwise interlock it with a way to cancel the thread first
The user will typically be befuddled when an hour glass shows up without him doing anything to ask that something gets done. The 99% correct case is that you display the hour glass with code in the UI thread and then start the thread. And hide it again when the thread completes. Easiest to do with the BackgroundWorker or Task classes, they can run code on the UI thread after the job was done.
Favor the Action delegate types for consistency:
private void ShowHourGlassSafe(bool visible) {
this.BeginInvoke(new Action(() => something.Visible = visible));
}
There are a hundred examples in blogs, etc. on how to implement a background worker that logs or gives status to a foreground GUI element. Most of them include an approach to handle the race condition that exists between spawning the worker thread, and creating the foreground dialog with ShowDialog(). However, it occured to me that a simple approach is to force the creation of the handle in the form constructor, so that the thread won't be able to trigger an Invoke/BeginInvoke call on the form prior to its handle creation.
Consider a simple example of a Logger class that uses a background worker thread to log to the foreground.
Assume, also, that we don't want NLog or some other heavy framework to do something so simple and lightweight.
My logger window is opened with ShowDialog() by the foreground thread, but only after the background "worker" thread is started. The worker thread calls logger.Log() which itself uses logForm.BeginInvoke() to update the log control correctly on the foreground thread.
public override void Log(string s)
{
form.BeginInvoke(logDelegate, s);
}
Where logDelegate is just a simple wrapper around "form.Log()" or some other code that may update a progress bar.
The problem lies in the race condition that exists; when the background worker thread starts logging before the foreground ShowDialog() is called the form's Handle hasn't yet been created so the BeginInvoke() call fails.
I'm familiar with the various approaches, including using a Form OnLoad event and a timer to create the worker task suspended until the OnLoad event generates a timer message that starts the task once the form is shown, or, as mentioned, using a queue for the messages. However, I think that simply forcing the dialog's handle to create early (in the constructor) ensures there is no race condition, assuming the thread is spawned off by the same thread that creates the dialog.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.windows.forms.control.handle(v=vs.71).aspx
MSDN says: "If the handle has not yet been created, referencing this property will force the handle to be created."
So my logger wraps a form, and its constructor does:
public SimpleProgressDialog() {
var h = form.Handle; // dereference the handle
}
The solution seems too simple to be correct. I'm specifically interested in why the seemingly too simple solution is or isn't safe to use.
Any comments? Am I missing something else?
EDIT: I'm NOT asking for alternatives. Not asking how to use NLog or Log4net, etc. if I were, I'd write a page about all of the customer constraints on this app, etc.
By the number of upvotes, there are a lot of other people that would like to know the answer too.
If you are concerned that referencing Control.Handle relies on a side effect in order to create the handle, you can simply call Control.CreateControl() to create it. However, referencing the property has the benefit of not initializing it if it already exists.
As for whether this is safe or not assuming the handle is created, you are correct: as long as you create the handle before spawning the background task on the same thread, you will avoid a race condition.
My two cents: there's no real need to force early handle creation if the logging framework simply maintains a buffer of undisplayed log entries while the handle has not been created. It could be implemented as a Queue, or many other things. Messing with the order of handle creation in .NET makes me squeamish.
I think the only danger is decreased performance. Handle creation is deferred in winforms to speed things up. However, since it sound like this is a one-time operation, it doesn't sound costly, so I think your approach is fine.
You can always check the IsHandleCreated property of your form to see if the handle has been built yet; however, there are some caveats. I've been in a similar spot to yours, where winforms controls are being created/destroyed dynamically with lots of multithreading going on. The pattern we wound up using was quite a bit like this:
private void SomeEventHandler(object sender, EventArgs e) // called from a bg thread
{
MethodInvoker ivk = delegate
{
if(this.IsDisposed)
return; // bail out! Run away!
// maybe look for queued stuff if it exists?
// the code to run on the UI thread
};
if(this.IsDisposed)
return; // run away! killer rabbits with pointy teeth!
if(!this.IsHandleCreated) // handle not built yet, do something in the meantime
DoSomethingToQueueTheCall(ivk);
else
this.BeginInvoke(ivk);
}
The big lesson here is to expect a kaboom if you attempt to interact with your form after it has been disposed. Don't rely on InvokeRequired, since it will return false on any thread if the control's handle hasn't been created yet. Also don't rely solely on IsHandleCreated since that will return false after the control has been disposed.
Basically, you have three flags whose state will tell you what you need to know about the control's initialization state and whether or not you're on a BG thread relative to the control.
The control can be in one of three initialization states:
Uninitialized, no handle created yet
InvokeRequired returns false on every thread
IsHandleCreated returns false
IsDisposed returns false
Initialized, ready, active
InvokeRequired does what the docs say
IsHandleCreated returns true
IsDisposed returns false
Disposed
InvokeRequired returns false on every thread
IsHandleCreated returns false
IsDisposed returns true
Hope this helps.
Since you do create the window on the calling thread you can end up with deadlocks. If the thread that creates the window has no message pump running your BeginInvoke will add your delegate call to the message queue which will never be emptied, if you do not have an Application.Run() on the same thread which will process the window messages.
It is also very slow to send around window messages for each log message. It is much better to have a producer consumer model where your logging thread adds a message to a Queue<string> which is emptied by another thread. The only time you need to lock is when you enqueue or dequeue a message. The consumer thread can wait for an event with a timeout to start processing the next message when either the event was signaled or the timeout (e.g. 100ms) has elapsed.
A thread safe blocking Queue can be found here.
I have an application wherein I would like a function to be executed in the same thread when an event is fired. For example:
SomeCode()
{
// Do something...
// Fire event to run SomeOtherCode().
}
SomeOtherCode()
{
// Do something else...
}
I do not want to simply call the function because it will hold things up. SomeOtherFuction() needs to be executed in the same thread because it needs to access the form controls, and I need it to begin execution from an event trigger firing. I am using Microsoft Visual C# 2008 Express Edition. Thanks.
::: EDIT:::
Additional Details: The bottom line is that the contrustor of my form application is taking far too long to complete, and it is causing a significant delay, from when the user launches the application to when the application window appears on the display. This is not a problem on faster computers, but on slower computers it is a big problem. I need to exit the contrustor as soon as possible, thus allowing the framework to draw the application window, and continue initialization outside the constructor. (All essential items would still be initialized inside the constructor.)
An event-triggered function call would be ideal. I would prefer not to use a timer. Interlacing the affected code with Invokes is impractical in my situation and would require much more time to implement than I have to work on this. A simple example of an event-driven function call is all I'm really looking for. Thanks.
From your posts it's seems like you're confusing a few issues. The standard pattern in .Net is for events to run synchronously. The following lines are essentially identical in terms of when they execute.
Option #1
SomeCode();
SomeOtherCode();
Option #2
SomeEvent += delegate { SomeOtherCode(); }
...
SomeCode();
SomeEvent(this,EventArgs.Empty);
If you want to unblock the UI thread and run the code later you'll need to use some mechanism to delay the running of the SomeOtherCode function. The easiest way to do this in a WinForms application is to use a WinForms Timer instance. This will raise an event on the UI thread at a later point in time that you can respond to. It also won't block the UI thread during this time allowing your form to continue processing.
You seem to be asking to run SomeOtherCode() later.
You can call BeginInvoke (either from the UI thread or from any other thread) to queue a function to run during the next message loop:
BeginInvoke(new Action(SomeOtherCode));
It seems that you would want to add an event to the class that exposes the SomeCode method. Then, the class that implements the SomeOtherCode method would attach an event handler that calls the SomeOtherCode method.
It's completely viable to have this done in one class, in case you have some sort of state model where you want to add/remove the call depending on some other logic.
I think you want to put SomeOtherCode into a Task or BackgroundWorker, which would then synchronize with the UI thread to send it updates.
I recently posted on my blog a class that makes updating the UI from a Task as easy as from a BGW. I do recommend using Task rather than BackgroundWorker.
Simialr to what Stephen said, I would recommend that you move as much of that initialization code to a background thread or task. Let the background thread do as much work as possible, then send the necessary window updates to your UI thread via Action<>'s. Here's some quick psuedo-sample code:
protected void LoadMyListInBackground(object state)
{
List<string> myList = Databse.FetchMyList(myParameters); // This take a while, so the UI thread isn't waiting
ShowMyList(myList);
}
protected void ShowMyList(List<string> theList)
{
if(InvokeRequired)
Invoke(new Action<List<string>>(ShowMyList, theList);
else
{
foreach(string item in theList)
myListBox.Items.Add(item);
}
}
In this example the UI thread is free to keep drawing your window while the background thread does the lengthy database work. The problem is, even if you fire an event outside of your constructor, and that event occurs on the UI thread and takes a long time, the user might see the window but that window is going to 'freeze' and possibly appear to be 'crashed' to the user. This technique prevents that and provides a better user experience.
I have a code engine that plays long WAV files by playing smaller chunks in succession using the waveOutOpen and waveOutWrite API methods. In order to update my UI as the file plays, from the callback function as each buffer completes playing I Invoke a separate thread (because you want to do as little as possible inside the callback function) that calls a method in my form.
The form contains a class level EventHandler that handles a method within which I update UI elements with new information. In the form method called from the waveOutWrite callback function, I use the Invoke method like so:
if (_updatedisplay == null)
{
// UpdateDisplay contains code to set control properties on the form
_updatedisplay = new EventHandler(UpdateDisplay);
}
Invoke(_updatedisplay);
Everythings works, but it appears that once in a while there is a noticeable lag or delay in the updating of the UI elements. This is easy to see because I am using the UpdateDisplay method to drive an animation, so the delays appear as "hiccups" where the sprite appears to freeze for a split second before it jumps to its expected position.
Is it possible that there is sometimes a long (maybe 10-15 milliseconds) delay involved in cross-thread communication like this? If so, what's a better way of handling something like this?
Update: by the way, I'm definitely not sure that Invoke is the culprit here. Another possibility is a lag between when a chunk of audio finishes playing and when the callback function actually gets called.
Update 2: per itowlson's suggestion, I used a System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch to benchmark the lag between Invoke and method call. Out of 1156 measurements, I got 1146 at 0ms, 8 at 1ms, and 2 at 2ms. I think it's safe to say Invoke is not my culprit here.
Yes, there can be an arbitrarily long delay. Invoke works by sending a Windows message to the target control, so it will only get processed when the target thread pumps messages. If the thread is already processing a message, and that processing takes time, then there may be an appreciable delay before the thread pumps its next message and thereby processes the Invoke.
A better way may be to call BeginInvoke. This doesn't avoid the potential delay in the UI thread processing the message, but it saves your calling thread from being blocked while waiting for the UI thread to pump messages. However, this may not help in your scenario where it sounds like it's the busy-ness of the UI thread which is causing glitching in the animation.
Update in response to your update: Note all I'm saying here is that there could be an arbitrarily long delay, not that there will be a noticeable delay or that this is definitely the cause of your delay. 10-15ms does seem an unusually long time for an application to spend in message processing unless there's something really intensive happening on the UI thread, so you're certainly wise to consider alternative causes!
My problem is this:
I have two threads, my UI thread, and a worker thread. My worker thread is running in a seperate class that gets instantiated by the form, which passes itself as an ISynchronizeInvoke to the worker class, which then uses Invoke on that interface to call it's events, which provide status updates to the UI for display. This works wonderfully.
I noticed that my background thread seemed to be running slowly though, so I changed the call to Invoke to BeginInvoke, thinking that "I'm just providing progress updates, it doesn't need to be exactly synchronous, no harm done" except that now I'm getting oddities with the progress update. My progress bar updates, but the label's text doesn't, and if I change to another window and try to change back, it acts like the UI thread is locked up, so I'm wondering if perhaps my progress calls (which happen very often) are overloading the UI thread so much that it never processes messages. Is this possible at all, or is there something else at work here?
You're definitively overloading the UI thread.
In your first sample, you were (behind the scenes) sending a message to the UI thread, waiting for it to be processed (that's the purpose of invoke, which ultimately relies on SendMessage), and then sending another one. In the meantime, other messages were probably enqueued (WM_PAINT messages, for example) and processed.
In your second sample, by using BeginInvoke (which ultimately relies on PostMessage), you massively enqueued a lot of messages in the message queue, that the message pump must sequentially handle. And of course, while it's handling those thousands of messages, it cannot handle the OS messages (WM_PAINT, etc..) which makes your UI look "frozen"
You're probably providing too much status updates ; try to lower the feedback level.
If you want to understand better how messages work in windows, this is the place to start.
A few thoughts;
try batching your updates; for example, there is no point updating for every iteration in a loop; depending on the speed, perhaps every 50 / 500. In the case of lists, you would buffer in a local list variable, take the list over via Invoke / BeginInvoke, and process the buffer on the UI thread
variable capture; if you are using BeginInvoke and anonymous methods, you could have problems... I'll add an example below
making the UI update efficient - especially if you are processing a list; some controls (especially list-based controls) have a pair of methods like BeginEdit / EndEdit, that stop the UI redrawing when you are making lots of updates; instead, it waits until the End* is called
capture problem... imagine (worker):
List<string> stuff = new List<string>();
for(int i = 0 ; i < 50000 ; i++) {
stuff.Add(i.ToString());
if((i % 100) == 0) {
// update UI
BeginInvoke((MethodInvoker) delegate {
foreach(string s in stuff) {
listBox.Items.Add(s);
}
});
}
}
Did you notice that at some point both threads are talking to stuff? The UI thread can be iterating it while the worker thread (which has kept running past BeginInvoke) keeps adding. This can cause issues. Not usually performance issues (unless you are catching the exceptions and taking a long time to log them), but definitely issues. Options here would include:
using Invoke to run the update synchronously
create a new buffer per update, so that the two threads never have the same list instance (you'd need to look very carefully at the variable scoped to make sure, though)