I'm trying to sync between two threads in my GUI system.
The main task of the system initialising two synchronisation objects and running two threads:
private FetcherAPI fetcherAPI { get; set; }
private FileReader fileReader { get; set; }
private object readerLocker;
private object writerLocker;
public Form1() {
InitializeComponent();
this.fetcherAPI = new FetcherAPI();
this.fileReader = new FileReader();
readerLocker = new object();
writerLocker = new object();
new Thread(() => {
this.fileReader.run(readerLocker);
});
new Thread(() => {
this.fixerAPI.run(writerLocker, readerLocker);
});
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) {
Monitor.Pulse(writerLocker);
}
Reader Thread:
public void run(object readerLocker) {
while(true) {
Monitor.Wait(readerLocker);
readDataFromFileAndPresent();
}
}
Writer Thread:
public void run(object writerLocker, object readerLocker) {
while(true) {
Monitor.Wait(writerLocker);
fetchCurrency();
Monitor.Pulse(readerLocker);
Monitor.Wait(readerLocker);
}
}
When pressing the button I'm getting the following error:
object synchronization method was called from an unsynchronized block of code
What am I doing wrong?
Both Wait and Pulse can only be called if you already have the lock, i.e. you're inside a lock statement, or you've successfully used Monitor.Enter to acquire the lock. You haven't done either of those things, so : indeed, it won't work. The simplest fix would be to add a lock(writerLocker).
Related
I want to start / stop a thread in order not to block the UI using button
public partial class Program_Form : Form
{
readonly BackgroundWorker m_oWorker;
[STAThread]
private void Program_Form_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// long code here
}
private async void DGW6BtnPrint_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Work.Printer_ Print = new Work.Printer_();
await Task.Run(() =>
{
Print.Print_File(this, dataGridView6, StatusText, progressBar1,
varriablesStatus);
});
}
public void BTN6PPauza_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
//What i had tried
//_canceller.Dispose();
//_canceller.Cancel();
// varriablesStatus = false;
//thread2.break;
//autoResetEvent.WaitOne();
//thread2.Join();
//_manualResetEvent.Reset();
//thread2.Abort();
//_pauseEvent.Reset();
//varriablesStatus = "Pause";
//Print_Actions();
}
}
Referenced class:
namespace OfficeTools.Work
{
class Printer_
{
public void Print_File(Program_Form callForm, DataGridView DGW,
TextBox Status, ProgressBar Progress, bool varriablesStatus)
{
foreach (DataGridViewRow Row in DGW.Rows)
{
file = DGW.Rows[Row.Index].Cells[4].Value.ToString();
PrintFiles.Print_Word(file);
}
}
}
}
How can I start stop pause resume the thread because nothing worked from what I had tried, I think the problem is from the foreach loop
I never used threads, and I can not find an example similar with mine in order to understand how should I do.
What you are asking implies that you want to use the Thread.Suspend and Thread.Resume methods. Possibly like this:
private volatile Thread _printThread;
private async void DGW6BtnPrint_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Work.Printer_ Print = new Work.Printer_();
await Task.Run(() =>
{
_printThread = Thread.CurrentThread;
try
{
Print.Print_File(this, dataGridView6, StatusText, progressBar1,
varriablesStatus);
}
finally { _printThread = null; }
});
}
public void BTN6PPauza_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var printThread = _printThread;
if (printThread != null)
{
if (printThread.ThreadState.HasFlag(ThreadState.Running))
{
printThread.Suspend();
}
else if (printThread.ThreadState.HasFlag(ThreadState.Suspended))
{
printThread.Resume();
}
}
}
The documentation of these two methods includes several cautionary warnings that discourage usage:
Thread.Suspend has been deprecated. Use other classes in System.Threading, such as Monitor, Mutex, Event, and Semaphore, to synchronize Threads or protect resources.
Do not use the Suspend and Resume methods to synchronize the activities of threads. You have no way of knowing what code a thread is executing when you suspend it. If you suspend a thread while it holds locks during a security permission evaluation, other threads in the AppDomain might be blocked. If you suspend a thread while it is executing a class constructor, other threads in the AppDomain that attempt to use that class are blocked. Deadlocks can occur very easily.
It's up to you if you want to accept these risks. If you ask me, you shouldn't.
Note: The Suspend and Resume methods are not supported on .NET Core and later platforms. On these platforms they throw a PlatformNotSupportedException exception. You can use them only if you target the .NET Framework platform.
i made this work, i do not know if it is the right way but for the moment it works
public partial class Program_Form : Form
{
readonly BackgroundWorker m_oWorker;
CancellationTokenSource _tokenSource = null;
[STAThread]
private void Program_Form_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// long code here
}
private async void DGW6BtnPrint_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
_tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
var token = _tokenSource.Token;
Work.Printer_ Print = new Work.Printer_();
await Task.Run(() =>
{
Print.Print_File(this, dataGridView6, StatusText, progressBar1, token);
});
}
public void BTN6PPauza_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
_tokenSource.Cancel();
}
}
Referenced class:
namespace OfficeTools.Work
{
class Printer_
{
public void Print_File(Program_Form callForm, DataGridView DGW, TextBox Status, ProgressBar Progress, CancellationToken Token)
{
foreach (DataGridViewRow Row in DGW.Rows)
{
file = DGW.Rows[Row.Index].Cells[4].Value.ToString();
PrintFiles.Print_Word(file);
if (Token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
try
{
Winword.Quit(ref missing, ref missing, ref missing);
winword = null;
}
catch { }
return;
}
}
}
}
}
Kind regards all
Is this possible to lock method for one thread and force another to go futher rather than waiting until first thread finish? Can this problem be resolved with static thread or some proper pattern with one instance of mendtioned below service.
For presentation purposes, it can be done with static boolen like below.
public class SomeService
{
private readonly IRepository _repo;
public SomeService(IRepository repo)
{
_repo = repo;
}
private Thread threadOne;
public static bool isLocked { get; set; }
public void StartSomeMethod()
{
if(!isLocked)
{
threadOne = new Thread(SomeMethod);
isLocked = true;
}
}
public void SomeMethod()
{
while(true)
{
lots of time
}
...
isLocked = false;
}
}
I want to avoid situation when user clicked, by accident, two times to start and accidentailly second thread starts immediatelly after first finished.
You can use lock :)
object locker = new object();
void MethodToLockForAThread()
{
lock(locker)
{
//put method body here
}
}
Now the result will be that when this method is called by a thread (any thread) it puts something like flag at the beginning of lock: "STOP! You are not allowed to go any further, you must wait!" Like red light on crossroads.
When thread that called this method first, levaes the scope, then at the beginning of the scope this "red light" changes into green.
If you want to not call the method when it is already called by another thread, the only way to do this is by using bool value. For example:
object locker = new object();
bool canAccess = true;
void MethodToLockForAThread()
{
if(!canAccess)
return;
lock(locker)
{
if(!canAccess)
return;
canAccess = false;
//put method body here
canAccess = true;
}
}
Other check of canAccess in lock scope is because of what has been told on comments. No it's really thread safe. This is kind of protection that is advisible in thread safe singleton.
EDIT
After some discussion with mjwills I have to change my mind and turn more into Monitor.TryEnter. You can use it like that:
object locker = new object();
void ThreadMethod()
{
if(Monitor.TryEnter(locker, TimeSpan.FromMiliseconds(1))
{
try
{
//do the thread code
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(locker);
}
} else
return; //means that the lock has not been aquired
}
Now, lock could not be aquired because of some exception or because some other thread has already acuired it. In second parameter you can pass the time that a thread will wait to acquire a lock. I gave here short time because you don't want the other thread to do the job, when first is doing it.
So this solution seems the best.
When the other thread could not acquire the lock, it will go further instead of waiting (well it will wait for 1 milisecond).
Since lock is a language-specific wrapper around Monitor class, you need Monitor.TryEnter:
public class SomeService
{
private readonly object lockObject = new object();
public void StartSomeMethod()
{
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObject))
{
// start new thread
}
}
public void SomeMethod()
{
try
{
// ...
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(lockObject);
}
}
}
You can use a AutoResetEvent instead of your isLocked flag.
AutoResetEvent autoResetEvent = new AutoResetEvent(true);
public void StartSomeMethod()
{
if(autoResetEvent.WaitOne(0))
{
//start thread
}
}
public void SomeMethod()
{
try
{
//Do your work
}
finally
{
autoResetEvent.Set();
}
}
When using the StartNew() method to kick off a process on a new thread, I need to figure out how to make another call into this object in that same thread (I assume this would be some sort of Join operation?).
The following example is dumbed down to illustrate the meat of what I am trying to do. I am well aware it is severely lacking in basic concurrency considerations. But I didn't want to cloud the code with all of that logic, so please forgive me on that.
The following console app shows what I am trying to accomplish. Assume on the StartNew() call a new thread with ID 9976 is created and the method invoked there. I would like the subsequent call to ProcessImmediate() in the file system watcher change event handler to be made on thread 9976 as well. As it stands, the call would share the same thread that is used for the file system watcher change event.
Can this be done, and if so, how?
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var runner = new Runner();
runner.Run();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public class Runner
{
private Activity _activity = null;
private FileSystemWatcher _fileSystemWatcher;
public void Run()
{
_activity = new Activity();
// start activity on a new thread
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => _activity.Go());
_fileSystemWatcher = new FileSystemWatcher();
_fileSystemWatcher.Filter = "*.watcher";
_fileSystemWatcher.Path = "c:\temp";
_fileSystemWatcher.Changed += FileSystemWatcher_Changed;
_fileSystemWatcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
}
private void FileSystemWatcher_Changed(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
// WANT TO CALL THIS FOR ACTIVITY RUNNING ON PREVIOUSLY CALLED THREAD
_activity.ProcessImmediate();
}
}
public class Activity
{
public void Go()
{
while (!Stop)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting() { }
public void ProcessImmediate()
{
// for purposes of this example, assume that Go is magically in its sleep state when ProcessImmediate is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
}
public bool Stop { get; set; }
}
}
* UPDATE *
Thanks for the excellent responses. I took Mike's suggestion and implemented it for my console app. Below is the full working code which also includes the use of a cancellation token. I post this in case someone else might find it useful.
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var runner = new Runner();
runner.Run();
Console.ReadKey();
runner.Stop();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
public class Runner
{
private Activity _activity = null;
private FileSystemWatcher _fileSystemWatcher;
private CancellationTokenSource _cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
public void Stop() { _cts.Cancel(); }
public void Run()
{
_activity = new Activity();
// start activity on a new thread
var task = new Task(() => _activity.Go(_cts.Token), _cts.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
task.Start();
_fileSystemWatcher = new FileSystemWatcher();
_fileSystemWatcher.Filter = "*.watcher";
_fileSystemWatcher.Path = "C:\\Temp\\FileSystemWatcherPath";
_fileSystemWatcher.Changed += FileSystemWatcher_Changed;
_fileSystemWatcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true;
}
private void FileSystemWatcher_Changed(object sender, FileSystemEventArgs e)
{
// WANT TO CALL THIS FOR ACTIVITY RUNNING ON PREVIOUSLY CALLED THREAD
_activity.ProcessImmediate();
}
}
public class Activity : IDisposable
{
private AutoResetEvent _processing = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public void Go(CancellationToken ct)
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Name = "Go";
while (!ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
_processing.WaitOne(5000);
}
Console.WriteLine("Exiting");
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting()
{
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Doing Something Interesting on thread {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId));
}
public void ProcessImmediate()
{
// for purposes of this example, assume that Go is magically in its sleep state when ProcessImmediate is called
_processing.Set();
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_processing != null)
{
_processing.Dispose();
_processing = null;
}
}
}
}
First, you should use TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning if you are creating a task that will not complete quickly. Second, use an AutoResetEvent to signal the waiting thread to wake up. Note that below ProcessImmediate will return before DoSomethingInteresting has completed running on the other thread. Example:
using System.Threading;
public class Activity : IDisposable
{
private AutoResetEvent _processing = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public void Go()
{
while (!Stop)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
_processing.WaitOne(2000);
}
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting() { }
public void ProcessImmediate()
{
_processing.Set();
}
public bool Stop { get; set; }
public void Dispose()
{
if (_processing != null)
{
_processing.Dispose();
_processing = null;
}
}
}
User mike has given a better solution, which will be appropriate when you like to call the same method immediately. If you want to call a different methods immediately I'll expand mike's answer to achieve that.
using System.Threading;
public class Activity : IDisposable
{
private AutoResetEvent _processing = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private ConcurrentQueue<Action> actionsToProcess = new ConcurrentQueue<Action>();
public void Go()
{
while (!Stop)
{
// for purposes of this example, magically assume that ProcessImmediate has not been called when this is called
DoSomethingInteresting();
_processing.WaitOne(2000);
while(!actionsToProcess.IsEmpty)
{
Action action;
if(actionsToProcess.TryDeque(out action))
action();
}
}
}
protected virtual void DoSomethingInteresting() { }
public void ProcessImmediate(Action action)
{
actionsToProcess.Enqueue(action);
_processing.Set();
}
public bool Stop { get; set; }
public void Dispose()
{
if (_processing != null)
{
_processing.Dispose();
_processing = null;
}
}
}
To execute different methods on the same thread you can use a message loop that dispatches incoming requests. A simple option would be to use the event loop scheduler of the Reactive Extensions and to "recursively" schedule your Go() function - if in the mean time a different operation is scheduled it would be processed before the next Go() operation.
Here is a sample:
class Loop
: IDisposable
{
IScheduler scheduler = new EventLoopScheduler();
MultipleAssignmentDisposable stopper = new MultipleAssignmentDisposable();
public Loop()
{
Next();
}
void Next()
{
if (!stopper.IsDisposed)
stopper.Disposable = scheduler.Schedule(Handler);
}
void Handler()
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("Handler: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
Next();
}
public void Notify()
{
scheduler.Schedule(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Notify: {0}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
});
}
public void Dispose()
{
stopper.Dispose();
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var l = new Loop())
{
Console.WriteLine("Press 'q' to quit.");
while (Console.ReadKey().Key != ConsoleKey.Q)
l.Notify();
}
}
I have a function that is called in rapid succession that has a open database connection.
my issue is that before one database connection is closed, another instance of the function is called and i could possibly receive a deadlock in the database.
I have tried:
private static WaitHandle[] waitHandles = new WaitHandle[]
{
new AutoResetEvent(false)
};
protected override void Broadcast(Data data, string updatedBy)
{
Action newAction = new Action(() =>
{
DataManagerFactory.PerformWithDataManager(
dataManager =>
{
// Update status and broadcast the changes
data.UpdateModifiedColumns(dataManager, updatedBy);
BroadcastManager.Instance().PerformBroadcast(
data,
BroadcastAction.Update,
Feature.None);
},
e => m_log.Error(ServerLog.ConfigIdlingRequestHandler_UpdateFailed() + e.Message));
}
);
Thread workerThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(newAction));
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(workerThread.Start, waitHandles[0]);
WaitHandle.WaitAll(waitHandles);
}
but i recieve a thread error and the program freezes. It has something to do with the thread start function having no parameters i believe.
Thanks for any help
This is how it's done. Create class that does the job:
public class MyAsyncClass
{
public delegate void NotifyComplete(string message);
public event NotifyComplete NotifyCompleteEvent;
//Starts async thread...
public void Start()
{
System.Threading.Thread t = new System.Threading.Thread(new System.Threading.ThreadStart(DoSomeJob));
t.Start();
}
void DoSomeJob()
{
//just wait 5 sec for nothing special...
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
if (NotifyCompleteEvent != null)
{
NotifyCompleteEvent("My job is completed!");
}
}
}
Now this is code from another class, that calls first one:
MyAsyncClass myClass = null;
private void button2_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
myClass = new MyAsyncClass();
myClass.NotifyCompleteEvent += new MyAsyncClass.NotifyComplete(myClass_NotifyCompleteEvent);
//here I start the job inside working class...
myClass.Start();
}
//here my class is notified from working class when job is completed...
delegate void myClassDelegate(string message);
void myClass_NotifyCompleteEvent(string message)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
Delegate d = new myClassDelegate(myClass_NotifyCompleteEvent);
this.Invoke(d, new object[] { message });
}
else
{
MessageBox.Show(message);
}
}
Let me know if I need to explain some details.
Alternative to this is BackgroudWorker:
I am trying to lock a "boxed" object in a c# app, is this not possible?
class t
{
System.Object t_x = new object();
public t(int p)
{
t_x = p;
}
public void w()
{
lock (t_x)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
{
t_x = ((int)t_x) + 1;
Console.WriteLine(t_x);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}
}
}
In another class I can start 2 threads:
Thread b1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(t1.w));
b1.Start();
Thread b2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(t1.w));
b2.Start();
However the portion is not locked.
When I lock an arbitrary object (i.e. one created and not modified as object a=new object()) it locks well.
Is boxing operation somehow "depromotes" my Object??
No, you can't do this - the lock block is shorthand for the following:
try(Monitor.Enter(lockObject))
{
//critical section
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(lockObject)
}
The documentation for Monitor.Enter states, "Use Monitor to lock objects (that is, reference types), not value types. When you pass a value type variable to Enter, it is boxed as an object. If you pass the same variable to Enter again, it is boxed as a separate object, and the thread does not block"
You need to create a separate lock object. The problem is that you re-assign t_x inside the loop. Assuming thread b1 gets inside the loop before b2 gets to the lock statement, b2 will be allowed inside the lock statement because, by that time, t_x will be a new object that does not have a lock on it.
The lock (t_x) call boxes an integer as a temporary object. Each call to lock(t_x) creates a New object and locking is useless.
(Lock expects an object and creates a NEW temporary object from the integer)
Just create a seperate lock object like said above by Femaref.
You have to use an extra object for the lock
object lockObj = new object();
public void foo()
{
lock(lockObj)
{
//do stuff here
}
}
If you really want (need?) to lock on the object, you can use a kind of wrapper :
public class IntWrapper
{
public int Value{get;set;}
}
Or if you need to stay more abstract :
public class ObjectWrapper
{
public Object Value { get;set; }
}
If you want to recognise when the data is loaded and also if the use tries to use it before then, you can do something like this:
Have a boolean flag like you mention, but use a separate object to lock before accessing it to prevent cross-thread race conditions.
When the user tries to use the data, if it is not loaded (check the variable) you can add another event handler to the worker RunWorkerCompleted event, that will immediately do what the user wants when the data is loaded.
Example:
public class MyClass
{
private bool dataIsReady = false;
private object locker = new object();
BackgroundWorker worker;
public void Begin()
{
worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(worker_RunWorkerCompleted);
}
public void worker_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
lock (locker)
{
dataIsReady = true;
}
}
public void UseTriesToUseData()
{
lock (locker)
{
if (dataIsReady)
{
DoStuff();
}
else
{
this.worker.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(DoStuffCaller);
}
}
}
private void DoStuff()
{
// Do stuff with data.
}
private void DoStuffCaller(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
this.DoStuff();
}
}