Develop Reference

Tell if Concurrent Queue updated without looping

thanks for the assistance. I've got a triple-threaded process, linked by a concurrent queue. Thread one processes information, returns to the second thread, which places data into a concurrent queue. The third thread is just looping like so:
while (true) {
if(queue.TryDequeue(out info)) {
doStuff(info);
} else {
Thread.Sleep(1);
}
}
Is there a better way to handle it such that I'm not iterating over the loop so much? The application is extremely performance sensitive, and currently just the TryDequeue is taking ~8-9% of the application runtime. Looking to decrease that as much as possible, but not really sure what my options are.

You should consider using System.Collections.Concurrent.BlockingCollection and its Add() / Take() methods. With Take() your third thread will be just suspended while waiting for new item. Add() is thread safe and can be used by second thread.
With that approach you should be able to simplify your code into something like that:
while (true) {
var info = collection.Take();
doStuff(info);
}

You can increase the sleep time. I would also use await Task.Delay instead of sleep. This way you can wait longer without the extra cpu cycles that Thread.Sleep uses and still be able to cancel the delay by making use of the CancellationTokenSource.
On another note, there are better ways of queuing up jobs. Taking into consideration that it appears you want to run these jobs synchronously, an example would be to have a singleton class that takes your work items and queues them up. So if there are no items in the queue when you add one, it should detect that and then start your job process. At the end of your job process, check for more work, use recursion to do that work or if no more jobs then exit the job process, which will run again when you add an item to the empty queue. If my assumption is wrong and you can run these jobs in parallel, why use a queue?
You may like to use a thread safe implementation of ObservableCollection. Check out this SO question ObservableCollection and threading

I don't have a recommendation that avoids looping, however I would recommend you move away from
while (true)
and consider this instead:
MyThing thing;
while (queue.TryDequeue(out thing))
{
doWork(thing);
}
Put this in a method that gets called each time the queue is modified, this ensures it is running when needed, but ends when not needed.

How safe are Interlocked.Exchange?

Beeing a threading noob, I'm trying to find a way w/o locking objects that allows me to enqueue a threadpool task, in such way that it has a max degree of parallelism = 1.
Will this code do what I think it does?
private int status;
private const int Idle = 0;
private const int Busy = 1;
private void Schedule()
{
// only schedule if we idle
// we become busy and get the old value to compare with
// in an atomic way (?)
if (Interlocked.Exchange(ref status, Busy) == Idle)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(Run);
}
}
That is, in a threadsafe way enqueue the Run method if the status is Idle.
It seems to work fine in my tests, but since this is not my area, I'm not sure.

Yes, this will do what you want. It will never allow you to get a return value of Idle when in fact status is Busy, and it will set status to Busy in the same operation, with no chance of a conflict. So far so good.
However, if you're using a ConcurrentQueue<T> later on, why do you even do this? Why do you use a ThreadPool to enqueue Run over and over again, instead of just having a single thread continually take data from the concurrent queue using TryDequeue?
In fact, there is a producer-consumer collection that is specifically designed for this, the BlockingCollection<T>. Your consumer thread would just call Take (with a cancellation token if necessary - probably a good idea) and that either returns a value as in ConcurrentQueue<T>; or if no value is available, blocks the thread until there is something to take. When some other thread adds an item to the collection, it will notify as many consumers as it has data for (in your case, no need for anything complex, since you only have one consumer).
That means you only have to handle starting and stopping a single thread, which will run an "infinite" cycle, which will call col.Take, while the producers call col.Add.
Of course, this assumes you have .NET 4.0+ available, but then again, you probably do, since you're using ConcurrentQueue<T>.

Creating a execution queue by using Task.ContinueWith?

I have several actions that I want to execute in the background, but they have to be executed synchronously one after the other.
I was wondering if it's a good idea to use the Task.ContinueWith method to achieve this. Do you foresee any problems with this?
My code looks something like this:
private object syncRoot =new object();
private Task latestTask;
public void EnqueueAction(System.Action action)
{
lock (syncRoot)
{
if (latestTask == null)
latestTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(action);
else
latestTask = latestTask.ContinueWith(tsk => action());
}
}

There is one flaw with this, which I recently discovered myself because I am also using this method of ensuring tasks execute sequentially.
In my application I had thousands of instances of these mini-queues and quickly discovered I was having memory issues. Since these queues were often idle I was holding onto the last completed task object for a long time and preventing garbage collection. Since the result object of the last completed task was often over 85,000 bytes it was allocated to Large Object Heap (which does not perform compaction during garbage collection). This resulted in fragmentation of the LOH and the process continuously growing in size.
As a hack to avoid this, you can schedule a no-op task right after the real one within your lock. For a real solution, I will need to move to a different method of controlling the scheduling.

This should work as designed (using the fact that TPL will schedule the continuation immediately if the corresponding task already has completed).
Personally in this case I would just use a dedicated thread using a concurrent queue (ConcurrentQueue) to draw tasks from - this is more explicit but easier to parse reading the code, especially if you want to find out i.e. how many tasks are currently queued etc.

I used this snippet and have seem to get it work as designed.
The number of instances in my case does not runs in to thousands, but in single digit.
Nevertheless, no issues so far.
I would be interested in the ConcurrentQueue example, if there is any?
Thanks

How to speed up routines making use of collections in multithreading scenario

I've an application that makes use of parallelization for processing data.
The main program is in C#, while one of the routine for analyzing data is on an external C++ dll. This library scans data and calls a callback everytime a certain signal is found within the data. Data should be collected, sorted and then stored into HD.
Here is my first simple implementation of the method invoked by the callback and of the method for sorting and storing data:
// collection where saving found signals
List<MySignal> mySignalList = new List<MySignal>();
// method invoked by the callback
private void Collect(int type, long time)
{
lock(locker) { mySignalList.Add(new MySignal(type, time)); }
}
// store signals to disk
private void Store()
{
// sort the signals
mySignalList.Sort();
// file is a object that manages the writing of data to a FileStream
file.Write(mySignalList.ToArray());
}
Data is made up of a bidimensional array (short[][] data) of size 10000 x n, with n variable. I use parallelization in this way:
Parallel.For(0, 10000, (int i) =>
{
// wrapper for the external c++ dll
ProcessData(data[i]);
}
Now for each of the 10000 arrays I estimate that 0 to 4 callbacks could be fired. I'm facing a bottleneck and given that my CPU resources are not over-utilized, I suppose that the lock (together with thousand of callbacks) is the problem (am I right or there could be something else?). I've tried the ConcurrentBag collection but performances are still worse (in line with other user findings).
I thought that a possible solution for use lock-free code would be to have multiple collections. Then it would be necessary a strategy to make each thread of the parallel process working on a single collection. Collections could be for instance inside a dictionary with thread ID as key, but I do not know any .NET facility for this (I should know the threads ID for initialize the dictionary before launching the parallelization). Could be this idea feasible and, in case yes, does exist some .NET tool for this? Or alternatively, any other idea to speed up the process?
[EDIT]
I've followed the Reed Copsey's suggestion and I used the following solution (according to the profiler of VS2010, before the burden for locking and adding to the list was taking 15% of the resources, while now only 1%):
// master collection where saving found signals
List<MySignal> mySignalList = new List<MySignal>();
// thread-local storage of data (each thread is working on its List<MySignal>)
ThreadLocal<List<MySignal>> threadLocal;
// analyze data
private void AnalizeData()
{
using(threadLocal = new ThreadLocal<List<MySignal>>(() =>
{ return new List<MySignal>(); }))
{
Parallel.For<int>(0, 10000,
() =>
{ return 0;},
(i, loopState, localState) =>
{
// wrapper for the external c++ dll
ProcessData(data[i]);
return 0;
},
(localState) =>
{
lock(this)
{
// add thread-local lists to the master collection
mySignalList.AddRange(local.Value);
local.Value.Clear();
}
});
}
}
// method invoked by the callback
private void Collect(int type, long time)
{
local.Value.Add(new MySignal(type, time));
}

thought that a possible solution for use lock-free code would be to have multiple collections. Then it would be necessary a strategy to make each thread of the parallel process working on a single collection. Collections could be for instance inside a dictionary with thread ID as key, but I do not know any .NET facility for this (I should know the threads ID for initialize the dictionary before launching the parallelization). Could be this idea feasible and, in case yes, does exist some .NET tool for this? Or alternatively, any other idea to speed up the process?
You might want to look at using ThreadLocal<T> to hold your collections. This automatically allocates a separate collection per thread.
That being said, there are overloads of Parallel.For which work with local state, and have a collection pass at the end. This, potentially, would allow you to spawn your ProcessData wrapper, where each loop body was working on its own collection, and then recombine at the end. This would, potentially, eliminate the need for locking (since each thread is working on it's own data set) until the recombination phase, which happens once per thread (instead of once per task,ie: 10000 times). This could reduce the number of locks you're taking from ~25000 (0-4*10000) down to a few (system and algorithm dependent, but on a quad core system, probably around 10 in my experience).
For details, see my blog post on aggregating data with Parallel.For/ForEach. It demonstrates the overloads and explains how they work in more detail.

You don't say how much of a "bottleneck" you're encountering. But let's look at the locks.
On my machine (quad core, 2.4 GHz), a lock costs about 70 nanoseconds if it's not contended. I don't know how long it takes to add an item to a list, but I can't imagine that it takes more than a few microseconds. But let's it takes 100 microseconds (I would be very surprised to find that it's even 10 microseconds) to add an item to the list, taking into account lock contention. So if you're adding 40,000 items to the list, that's 4,000,000 microseconds, or 4 seconds. And I would expect one core to be pegged if this were the case.
I haven't used ConcurrentBag, but I've found the performance of BlockingCollection to be very good.
I suspect, though, that your bottleneck is somewhere else. Have you done any profiling?

The basic collections in C# aren't thread safe.
The problem you're having is due to the fact that you're locking the entire collection just to call an add() method.
You could create a thread-safe collection that only locks single elements inside the collection, instead of the whole collection.
Lets look at a linked list for example.
Implement an add(item (or list)) method that does the following:
Lock collection.
A = get last item.
set last item reference to the new item (or last item in new list).
lock last item (A).
unclock collection.
add new items/list to the end of A.
unlock locked item.
This will lock the whole collection for just 3 simple tasks when adding.
Then when iterating over the list, just do a trylock() on each object. if it's locked, wait for the lock to be free (that way you're sure that the add() finished).
In C# you can do an empty lock() block on the object as a trylock().
So now you can add safely and still iterate over the list at the same time.
Similar solutions can be implemented for the other commands if needed.

Any built-in solution for a collection is going to involve some locking. There may be ways to avoid it, perhaps by segregating the actual data constructs being read/written, but you're going to have to lock SOMEWHERE.
Also, understand that Parallel.For() will use the thread pool. While simple to implement, you lose fine-grained control over creation/destruction of threads, and the thread pool involves some serious overhead when starting up a big parallel task.
From a conceptual standpoint, I would try two things in tandem to speed up this algorithm:
Create threads yourself, using the Thread class. This frees you from the scheduling slowdowns of the thread pool; a thread starts processing (or waiting for CPU time) when you tell it to start, instead of the thread pool feeding requests for threads into its internal workings at its own pace. You should be aware of the number of threads you have going at once; the rule of thumb is that the benefits of multithreading are overcome by the overhead when you have more than twice the number of active threads as "execution units" available to execute threads. However, you should be able to architect a system that takes this into account relatively simply.
Segregate the collection of results, by creating a dictionary of collections of results. Each results collection is keyed to some token carried by the thread doing the processing and passed to the callback. The dictionary can have multiple elements READ at one time without locking, and as each thread is WRITING to a different collection within the Dictionary there shouldn't be a need to lock those lists (and even if you did lock them you wouldn't be blocking other threads). The result is that the only collection that has to be locked such that it would block threads is the main dictionary, when a new collection for a new thread is added to it. That shouldn't have to happen often if you're smart about recycling tokens.

C# thread pool limiting threads

Alright...I've given the site a fair search and have read over many posts about this topic. I found this question: Code for a simple thread pool in C# especially helpful.
However, as it always seems, what I need varies slightly.
I have looked over the MSDN example and adapted it to my needs somewhat. The example I refer to is here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/3dasc8as(VS.80,printer).aspx
My issue is this. I have a fairly simple set of code that loads a web page via the HttpWebRequest and WebResponse classes and reads the results via a Stream. I fire off this method in a thread as it will need to executed many times. The method itself is pretty short, but the number of times it needs to be fired (with varied data for each time) varies. It can be anywhere from 1 to 200.
Everything I've read seems to indicate the ThreadPool class being the prime candidate. Here is what things get tricky. I might need to fire off this thing say 100 times, but I can only have 3 threads at most running (for this particular task).
I've tried setting the MaxThreads on the ThreadPool via:
ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads(3, 3);
I'm not entirely convinced this approach is working. Furthermore, I don't want to clobber other web sites or programs running on the system this will be running on. So, by limiting the # of threads on the ThreadPool, can I be certain that this pertains to my code and my threads only?
The MSDN example uses the event drive approach and calls WaitHandle.WaitAll(doneEvents); which is how I'm doing this.
So the heart of my question is, how does one ensure or specify a maximum number of threads that can be run for their code, but have the code keep running more threads as the previous ones finish up until some arbitrary point? Am I tackling this the right way?
Sincerely,
Jason
Okay, I've added a semaphore approach and completely removed the ThreadPool code. It seems simple enough. I got my info from: http://www.albahari.com/threading/part2.aspx
It's this example that showed me how:
[text below here is a copy/paste from the site]
A Semaphore with a capacity of one is similar to a Mutex or lock, except that the Semaphore has no "owner" – it's thread-agnostic. Any thread can call Release on a Semaphore, while with Mutex and lock, only the thread that obtained the resource can release it.
In this following example, ten threads execute a loop with a Sleep statement in the middle. A Semaphore ensures that not more than three threads can execute that Sleep statement at once:
class SemaphoreTest
{
static Semaphore s = new Semaphore(3, 3); // Available=3; Capacity=3
static void Main()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
new Thread(Go).Start();
}
static void Go()
{
while (true)
{
s.WaitOne();
Thread.Sleep(100); // Only 3 threads can get here at once
s.Release();
}
}
}

Note: if you are limiting this to "3" just so you don't overwhelm the machine running your app, I'd make sure this is a problem first. The threadpool is supposed to manage this for you. On the other hand, if you don't want to overwhelm some other resource, then read on!
You can't manage the size of the threadpool (or really much of anything about it).
In this case, I'd use a semaphore to manage access to your resource. In your case, your resource is running the web scrape, or calculating some report, etc.
To do this, in your static class, create a semaphore object:
System.Threading.Semaphore S = new System.Threading.Semaphore(3, 3);
Then, in each thread, you do this:
System.Threading.Semaphore S = new System.Threading.Semaphore(3, 3);
try
{
// wait your turn (decrement)
S.WaitOne();
// do your thing
}
finally {
// release so others can go (increment)
S.Release();
}
Each thread will block on the S.WaitOne() until it is given the signal to proceed. Once S has been decremented 3 times, all threads will block until one of them increments the counter.
This solution isn't perfect.
If you want something a little cleaner, and more efficient, I'd recommend going with a BlockingQueue approach wherein you enqueue the work you want performed into a global Blocking Queue object.
Meanwhile, you have three threads (which you created--not in the threadpool), popping work out of the queue to perform. This isn't that tricky to setup and is very fast and simple.
Examples:
Best threading queue example / best practice
Best method to get objects from a BlockingQueue in a concurrent program?

It's a static class like any other, which means that anything you do with it affects every other thread in the current process. It doesn't affect other processes.
I consider this one of the larger design flaws in .NET, however. Who came up with the brilliant idea of making the thread pool static? As your example shows, we often want a thread pool dedicated to our task, without having it interfere with unrelated tasks elsewhere in the system.