We Keep Coding

Close all child threads WPF

I have a Window in WPF and user can start very long operations on it. User must be able to cancel those operations.
All of my operations are in separate threads. So my question is:
Can I terminate all threads that are started from that Window, without killing UI thread obviously, at any time?
On places where I need to do long operations threads were created and started like this
Thread thread =
new Thread(
new ThreadStart(
delegate
{...}));
thread.Start();
How to pass that object to it? is it possible? If it is important at all I do not care about graceful closing of threads, they can be killed, it would still be a solution. Is window object aware of threads to whom it is parent?
Thank you in advance.

Typically you won't want to create/destroy threads. There's much more overhead when creating a Thread every time you need one than there is in thread pools and Tasks (This applies, like specified, when you need to create a significant number of Threads in the lifetime of your processes).
The preferred approach (especially if you're using .Net 4.0, or even better 4.5) is to use Tasks.
There's is tons of documentation on how to use Tasks, and how to cancel them. #xxbbcc posted a link in a comment on your question.
However, if you still think that dealing with Threads is your best choice, you could keep a track of all the threads. Then whenever you (as a developer) or your user determines they want to kill the thread, you can just iterate through the threads and call the Abort() method on them.
public class MyExampleClass
{
private List<Thread> MyThreads { get; set; }
public MyExampleClass()
{
MyThreads = new List<Thread>();
InstanciateThreadsWithSomeSuperImportantOperations();
}
private void InstanciateThreadsWithSomeSuperImportantOperations()
{
var thread = new Thread();
// some code here
MyThreads.Add(thread);
}
public void KillAllThreads()
{
foreach (var t in MyThreads)
{
if (t.IsAlive)
t.Abort(); // Note this isn't guaranteed to stop the thread.
}
}
}

How do we check if there are no more active threads other than main thread?

I have a little c# app with multiple threads runing, but my main thread has to wait for all of threads to finish then it can do the rest.
problem now is that im using .join() for each thread, this seems wait for each thread to finish then it goes to next thread, which makes app not really multi-threading and take long time to finish.
so I wonder if there is any way I can get around this problem or just a way to check if there are no more threads is active.
thanks

If you're hanging on to the Thread object, you can use Thread.IsAlive.
Alternately, you might want to consider firing an event from your thread when it is done.

Thread.Join() doesn't mean your application isn't multithreaded - it tells the current thread to wait for the other thread to finish, which is exactly what you want.
Doing the following:
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
/** create each thread, Start() it, and add it to the list **/
foreach (Thread thread in threads)
{
thread.Join()
}
will continue to run the other threads, except the current/main thread (it will wait until the other threads are done).
Just use Thread.Join()

Ye, as said by Cuong Le, using Task Parallel Library would be much efficient.
However, you can Create a list of Threads and then check if they are alive or not.
var threadsList = new List<Thread>();
threadsList.Add(myThread); // to add
bool areDone = true;
foreach (Thread t in threadsList) {
if (t.IsAlive)
{
areDone = false;
break;
}
}
if (areDone)
{
// Everything is finished :O
}

Run multiple at same time but wanted to wait for all of them to finish, here's a way of doing the same with Parallel.ForEach:
var arrStr = new string[] {"1st", "2nd", "3rd"};
Parallel.ForEach<string>(arrStr, str =>
{
DoSomething(str); // your custom method you wanted to use
Debug.Print("Finished task for: " + str);
});
Debug.Print("All tasks finished");
That was the most simplest and efficient i guess it can go if in C# 4.0 if you want all tasks to run through same method

Try using BackgroundWorker
It raises an event in the main thread (RunWorkerCompleted) after its work is done
Here is one sample from previously answered question
https://stackoverflow.com/a/5551376/148697

What happens to the main thread in this case

I have the following multithreaded program:
class Program{
static void main(){
(new Thread(DoSomething)).Start();
}
static void DoSomething(){
// Dome something here...
}
}
A couple of questions:
Does the main thread exit after spinning off the child thread?
If it does exit and the child thread is a background thread: Is the main process going to exit or will it wait for the background thread to finish?

"By default, threads you create explicitly are foreground threads. Foreground threads keep the application alive for as long as any one of them is running, whereas background threads do not. Once all foreground threads finish, the application ends, and any background threads still running abruptly terminate.
class PriorityTest
{
static void Main (string[] args)
{
Thread worker = new Thread ( () => Console.ReadLine() );
if (args.Length > 0) worker.IsBackground = true;
worker.Start();
}
}
If this program is called without any arguments, the worker thread will take foreground status and will wait on the ReadLine statement for the user to press Enter. Simultaniously, the main thread exits, but the application keeps running because a foreground thread is still alive.
However, if an argument is passed to Main(), the worker is assigned background status, and the program exits almost immediately as the main thread ends (terminating the ReadLine and the program)."
See Joseph Albahri's (a genius and great guy) page on threading for more information (it is where this was extracted from).

Typically, if you want to wait for the child thread to complete, you'd add a x.Join(); line (where x is the variable of your thread) wherever you want your main thread to stop and wait for the child to complete.
EDIT: So, yes, the main thread will exit unless one of three cases occurs:
a) the spawned thread completes before the rest of the main thread code (if you add any)
b) You have a condition that waits for the thread to complete (such as the Join statement I mentioned, but there are other ways too).
c) The main thread goes into a semi-infinite loop (such as a game/graphics engine).
In your bare-bones example, it will exit for sure (given your question's parameters, a background thread).
EDIT2: Sorry, I seem to have dodged your second question (and actually only considered background threads the whole while). If it's a background thread it will exit as I've explained, if it's foreground then it shouldn't (though I don't have much experience with foreground threads, so I can't say for sure).
So to answer your questions: Yes, the main thread exits. Yes, if the child is specifically a background thread, the process will exit as well.
EDIT3: Final edit, I promise. I just wanted to add some code so that you could prove the answer yourself (which is always nice to be able to do):
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread thready = new Thread(DoSomething);
thready.IsBackground = true;
thready.Start();
}
static void DoSomething()
{
while (true)
{
Console.Write("thread's looping \n");
}
}
By toggling the thready.IsBackground = true; to thready.IsBackground = false; you get a program that runs forever (not exiting until the thread does). Leaving it as true will exit very quickly.

Depends on Thread.IsBackground.
The process will not exit before all the foreground threads finish. In the following example...
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
(new Thread(DoSomething)).Start();
}
static void DoSomething() {
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
}
...the process will exit after 5 seconds.
But in this example...
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
(new Thread(DoSomething) { IsBackground = true }).Start();
}
static void DoSomething() {
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
}
...the process will exit (almost) immediately. The effect on the child background thread that is still running is similar to forcibly killing the process, so avoid doing that if possible.

main process thread will definitely exit...
edit: i rechecked the docs and found that IsBackground property is false by default...which means the main thread will wait...the earlier response ws with regards to the 2nd question

How to Managed ALL running Threads in C# console appication?

I having problem managed thread parallel in console application.
I am running 10 threads parallel & all thread doing some specific task.
In case if any task is over/completed then doing stop/end thread and immediate I started new thread instance. I want 10 threads so anyone thread is going to stop/end then It generates new thread. but every time I want 10 threads in running mode in console application & It should be parallel work using C# console application.
How I can running 10 threads in C# console application?

At the end of each thread put a lock on some shared object (lock (obj) {}).
Then remove the current thread from a collection of threads you have.
If the collection.Count is less than 10 create a new one and put inside the collection.
Release the lock.
private List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
private void ThreadFunction() {
// do something
// here before the lock
lock (threads) {
threads.Remove(Thread.CurrentThread);
if (thread.Count < 10) {
Thread t = new Thread(ThreadFunction);
threads.Add(t);
t.Start();
}
}
}
Be sure to catch all exception inside the thread or you code will fail when a thread exception happens. That is make sure that the lock part of the code is always called (except on a Thread abord exception but that will not matter).
But as stated I think you should use a ThreadPool for such a task...

The book on threads in .Net is: http://www.albahari.com/threading/
This alone will probably answer any questions you have.
Depending on what you are using these threads for (I am guessing that you may be talking about running transactions in the background) you may want to use BackgroundWorker.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx
BackgroundWorker lets you deal with Begin/End/Progress Events only, making debugging much less error prone.

Starting multiple threads and keeping track of them from my .NET application

I would like to start x number of threads from my .NET application, and I would like to keep track of them as I will need to terminate them manually or when my application closes my application later on.
Example ==> Start Thread Alpha, Start Thread Beta .. then at any point in my application I should be able to say Terminate Thread Beta ..
What is the best way to keep track of opened threads in .NET and what do I need to know ( an id ? ) about a thread to terminate it ?

You could save yourself the donkey work and use this Smart Thread Pool. It provides a unit of work system which allows you to query each thread's status at any point, and terminate them.
If that is too much bother, then as mentioned anIDictionary<string,Thread> is probably the simplest solution. Or even simpler is give each of your thread a name, and use an IList<Thread>:
public class MyThreadPool
{
private IList<Thread> _threads;
private readonly int MAX_THREADS = 25;
public MyThreadPool()
{
_threads = new List<Thread>();
}
public void LaunchThreads()
{
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS;i++)
{
Thread thread = new Thread(ThreadEntry);
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Name = string.Format("MyThread{0}",i);
_threads.Add(thread);
thread.Start();
}
}
public void KillThread(int index)
{
string id = string.Format("MyThread{0}",index);
foreach (Thread thread in _threads)
{
if (thread.Name == id)
thread.Abort();
}
}
void ThreadEntry()
{
}
}
You can of course get a lot more involved and complicated with it. If killing your threads isn't time sensitive (for example if you don't need to kill a thread in 3 seconds in a UI) then a Thread.Join() is a better practice.
And if you haven't already read it, then Jon Skeet has this good discussion and solution for the "don't use abort" advice that is common on SO.

You can create a Dictionary of threads and assign them id's, like:
Dictionary<string, Thread> threads = new Dictionary<string, Thread>();
for(int i = 0 ;i < numOfThreads;i++)
{
Thread thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(MethodToExe));
thread.Name = threadName; //Any name you want to assign
thread.Start(); //If you wish to start them straight away and call MethodToExe
threads.Add(id, thread);
}
If you don't want to save threads against an Id you can use a list and later on just enumerate it to kill threads.
And when you wish to terminate them, you can abort them. Better have some condition in your MethodToExe that allows that method to leave allowing the thread to terminate gracefully. Something like:
void MethodToExe()
{
while(_isRunning)
{
//you code here//
if(!_isRunning)
{
break;
}
//you code here//
}
}
To abort you can enumerate the dictionary and call Thread.Abort(). Be ready to catch ThreadAbortException

I asked a similar questions and received a bunch of good answers: Shutting down a multithreaded application
Note: my question did not require a graceful exit, but people still recommended that I gracefully exit from the loop of each thread.
The main thing to remember is that if you want to avoid having your threads prevent your process from terminating you should set all your threads to background:
Thread thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(testObject.RunLoop));
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.start();
The preferred way to start and manage threads is in a ThreadPool, but just about any container out there can be used to keep a reference to your threads. Your threads should always have a flag that will tell them to terminate and they should continually check it.
Furthermore, for better control you can supply your threads with a CountdownLatch: whenever a thread is exiting its loop it will signal on a CountdownLatch. Your main thread will call the CountdownLatch.Wait() method and it will block until all the threads have signaled... this allows you to properly cleanup and ensures that all your threads have shutdown before you start cleaning up.
public class CountdownLatch
{
private int m_remain;
private EventWaitHandle m_event;
public CountdownLatch(int count)
{
Reset(count);
}
public void Reset(int count)
{
if (count < 0)
throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException();
m_remain = count;
m_event = new ManualResetEvent(false);
if (m_remain == 0)
{
m_event.Set();
}
}
public void Signal()
{
// The last thread to signal also sets the event.
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref m_remain) == 0)
m_event.Set();
}
public void Wait()
{
m_event.WaitOne();
}
}
It's also worthy to mention that the Thread.Abort() method does some strange things:
When a thread calls Abort on itself,
the effect is similar to throwing an
exception; the ThreadAbortException
happens immediately, and the result is
predictable. However, if one thread
calls Abort on another thread, the
abort interrupts whatever code is
running. There is also a chance that a
static constructor could be aborted.
In rare cases, this might prevent
instances of that class from being
created in that application domain. In
the .NET Framework versions 1.0 and
1.1, there is a chance the thread could abort while a finally block is
running, in which case the finally
block is aborted.
The thread that calls Abort might
block if the thread that is being
aborted is in a protected region of
code, such as a catch block, finally
block, or constrained execution
region. If the thread that calls Abort
holds a lock that the aborted thread
requires, a deadlock can occur.

After creating your thread, you can set it's Name property. Assuming you store it in some collection you can access it conveniently via LINQ in order to retrieve (and abort) it:
var myThread = (select thread from threads where thread.Name equals "myThread").FirstOrDefault();
if(myThread != null)
myThread.Abort();

Wow, there are so many answers..
You can simply use an array to hold the threads, this will only work if the access to the array will be sequantial, but if you'll have another thread accessing this array, you will need to synchronize access
You can use the thread pool, but the thread pool is very limited and can only hold fixed amount of threads.
As mentioned above, you can create you own thread pool, which in .NET v4 becomes much easier with the introduction of safe collections.
you can manage them by holding a list of mutex object which will determine when those threads should finish, the threads will query the mutex each time they run before doing anything else, and if its set, terminate, you can manage the mutes from anywhere, and since mutex are by defenition thread-safe, its fairly easy..
i can think of another 10 ways, but those seems to work. let me know if they dont fit your needs.

Depends on how sophisticated you need it to be. You could implement your own type of ThreadPool with helper methods etc. However, I think its as simple as just maintaining a list/array and adding/removing the threads to/from the collection accordingly.
You could also use a Dictionary collection and use your own type of particular key to retrieve them i.e. Guids/strings.

As you start each thread, put it's ManagedThreadId into a Dictionary as the key and the thread instance as the value. Use a callback from each thread to return its ManagedThreadId, which you can use to remove the thread from the Dictionary when it terminates. You can also walk the Dictionary to abort threads if needed. Make the threads background threads so that they terminate if your app terminates unexpectedly.
You can use a separate callback to signal threads to continue or halt, which reflects a flag set by your UI, for a graceful exit. You should also trap the ThreadAbortException in your threads so that you can do any cleanup if you have to abort threads instead.