We Keep Coding

Multithreads - passing arguments and receiving results

I am trying various options on working with threads. I wrote the code below, but it does not work as expected. How can I fix the code, so that the main function will correctly display the product?
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace MultiThreads
{
class Program
{
static int prod;
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread thread = new Thread(() => Multiply(2, 3));
thread.Start();
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { // do some other work until thread completes
Console.Write(i + " ");
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Prod = " + prod); // I expect 6 and it shows 0
Console.ReadKey(true);
}
public static void Multiply(int a, int b)
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
prod = a * b;
}
}
}

Ignoring the fact that you should be using non-blocking tasks, volatile properties and other coroutine principals, the immediate reason your program does not work as intended is because you didn't re-join the child thread back into the parent. See Join
Without the join, the Console.WriteLine("Prod = " + prod); occurs before the assignment prod = a * b;
static int prod;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread thread = new Thread(() => Multiply(2, 3));
thread.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{ // do some other work until thread completes
Console.Write(i + " ");
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
thread.Join(); // Halt current thread until the other one finishes.
Console.WriteLine();
Console.WriteLine("Prod = " + prod); // I expect 6 and it shows 0
Console.ReadKey(true);
}
public static void Multiply(int a, int b)
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
prod = a * b;
}

Stopwatch and ReadKey don't work properly

I'm working on my multi-threading password cracker, only numbers. It must show how much time has passed to find the password. I used Stopwatch to find it, but in functions Stopwatch doesn't work. Here is my code:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication4
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int psw = 14995399;
Stopwatch time = new Stopwatch();
Thread Thread1 = new Thread(islem1);
Thread Thread2 = new Thread(islem2);
Thread Thread3 = new Thread(islem3);
Thread Thread4 = new Thread(islem4);
time.Start();
Thread1.Start();
Thread2.Start();
Thread3.Start();
Thread4.Start();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
time.Stop();
System.Console.WriteLine("Time elapsed: {0}", time.Elapsed);
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void islem1()
{
for (int i = 00000000; i < 25000000; i++)
{
int psw = 14995399;
if (i == psw)
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Şifre=" + i);
time.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Time elapsed: {0}", time.Elapsed);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
static void islem2()
{
for (int i = 25000000; i < 50000000; i++)
{
int psw = 14995399;
if (i == psw)
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Şifre=" + i);
time.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Time elapsed: {0}", time.Elapsed);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
static void islem3()
{
for (int i = 50000000; i < 75000000; i++)
{
int psw = 14995399;
if (i == psw)
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Şifre=" + i);
time.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Time elapsed: {0}", time.Elapsed);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
static void islem4()
{
for (int i = 75000000; i < 100000000; i++)
{
int psw = 14995399;
if (i == psw)
{
System.Console.WriteLine("Şifre=" + i);
time.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Time elapsed: {0}", time.Elapsed);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
}
}

It's because your variable
Stopwatch time = new Stopwatch();
declared outside the visibility functions. The scope of visibility the var is your function Main. You can pass Stopwatch as a parameter to your functions:
Thread1.Start(time);
Or declare it as a class field:
class Program
{
private static Stopwatch time = new Stopwatch();
...
}
Note that you have just one Stopwatch instance then if you stop it in one thread it'll stopped in all application and elapsed time will not changed after that.
Then you should delete time.Stop(); from your Main method because it can caused the result in cased when your threads works longet then 1 second.
Also it's no reason to call Thread.Sleep(). Just delete this lines and your code continues work as expected.
Finally you can delete Console.ReadKey() from your thread functions because your main-thread already waits for user input.
The whole solution with configurable threads count can illustrate interesting results for different number of threads. Try the code below which can illustrate work with thread parameters and reduce lines of code:
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication4
{
internal class Program
{
private class BruteforceParams
{
public int StartNumber { get; set; }
public int EndNumber { get; set; }
}
private const int password = 14995399;
private static readonly Stopwatch time = new Stopwatch();
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
const int maxPassword = 100000000;
Console.WriteLine("Enter number of threads: ");
var threadsCountString = Console.ReadLine();
var threadsCount = int.Parse(threadsCountString);
var threads = new Thread[threadsCount];
for (int i = 0; i < threadsCount; i++)
{
var thread = new Thread(Bruteforce);
threads[i] = thread;
}
time.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < threadsCount; i++)
{
threads[i].Start(new BruteforceParams { StartNumber = i * maxPassword / threadsCount, EndNumber = (i + 1) * maxPassword / threadsCount });
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void Bruteforce(object param)
{
var bp = (BruteforceParams) param;
for (int i = bp.StartNumber; i < bp.EndNumber; i++)
{
if (i == password)
{
Console.WriteLine("Şifre=" + i);
time.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Time elapsed: {0}", time.Elapsed);
}
}
}
}
}

How do you think time.Stop(); going to work inside your function body islem1() or any other since you have defined the stopwatch inside Main() function body. You are bound to get compilation error saying time doesn't exist in current context.
static void islem1()
{
.............
time.Stop(); // this line of code
Console.WriteLine("Time elapsed: {0}", time.Elapsed);
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
Rather, you can create a separate watch per method and report that
static void islem1()
{
StopWatch time = Stopwatch.StartNew();
time.Stop(); // this line of code
Console.WriteLine("Time elapsed: {0}", time.Elapsed);
Console.ReadKey();
}

It's going to be difficult to extract meaningful timings using a single Stopwatch instance.
You might chose to make your timing measurements using a different pattern that uses a new Stopwatch for each measurement.
void Main()
{
var t1 = new Thread(_ => {
var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
DoSomething();
Console.WriteLine("took {0}ms", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
});
var t2 = new Thread(_ => {
var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
DoSomethingElse();
Console.WriteLine("took {0}ms", sw.ElapsedMilliseconds);
});
t1.Start();
t2.Start();
t1.Join();
t2.Join();
Console.ReadKey();
}
void DoSomething()
{
//do something
}
void DoSomethingElse()
{
//do something
}

synchronize two thread category

I am trying to develop an application where there are two thread category: A thread and the thread B.
if thread A is in the critical section, the thread B must wait until all thread A finish.
and if the thread B are in the critical section, the thread A must wait until all thread A complete
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplicationPontAVoieUnique
{
class Program
{
public static int nbrA=0;
public static int nbrB = 0;
public static Semaphore semA;
public static Semaphore semB;
public static Semaphore semNbrA;
public static Semaphore semNbrB;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
semNbrA = new Semaphore(1, 2);
semNbrB = new Semaphore(1, 2);
semA = new Semaphore(0, 3);
semB = new Semaphore(0, 3);
Thread A1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ActionThreadA));
A1.IsBackground = true;
A1.Name = "A1";
A1.Start();
Thread B1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ActionThreadB));
B1.IsBackground = true;
B1.Name = "B1";
B1.Start();
Thread A2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ActionThreadA));
A2.IsBackground = true;
A2.Name = "A2";
A2.Start();
Thread B2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ActionThreadB));
B2.IsBackground = true;
B2.Name = "B2";
B2.Start();
Thread A3 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ActionThreadA));
A3.IsBackground = true;
A3.Name = "A3";
A3.Start();
Thread B3 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ActionThreadB));
B3.IsBackground = true;
B3.Name = "B3";
B3.Start();
Thread A4 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ActionThreadA));
A4.IsBackground = true;
A4.Name = "A4";
A4.Start();
Thread B4 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ActionThreadB));
B4.IsBackground = true;
B4.Name = "B4";
B4.Start();
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void ActionThreadA()
{
semNbrA.WaitOne();
nbrA++;
if (nbrA == 1)
{
Console.WriteLine(Thread.CurrentThread.Name + " I'am the first A ");
semB.WaitOne();
}
semNbrA.Release();
Console.WriteLine(Thread.CurrentThread.Name + " I'am in the cs ");
Thread.Sleep(5000); //sc
semNbrA.WaitOne();
nbrA--;
if (nbrA == 0)
{
Console.WriteLine(Thread.CurrentThread.Name + " I'am the last A ");
semB.Release();
}
semNbrA.Release();
}
static void ActionThreadB()
{
semNbrB.WaitOne();
nbrB++;
if (nbrB == 1)
{
Console.WriteLine(Thread.CurrentThread.Name + " I'am the first B ");
semA.WaitOne();
}
semNbrB.Release();
Console.WriteLine(Thread.CurrentThread.Name + " I'am in the cs ");
Thread.Sleep(5000);
semNbrB.WaitOne();
nbrB--;
if (nbrB == 0)
{
Console.WriteLine(Thread.CurrentThread.Name + " I'am the last B ");
semA.Release();
}
semNbrB.Release();
}
}
}

What's the question?
You can use lock lock and AutoResetEvent instead of Semaphores.

Thread synchronization printing strings

I wrote a small programm which prints "x", then "+", then again "x" and so on.
The idea was to make it run in two threads so that the first thread prints "x" and the second prints "+". The output looks like this:
"x" -> Thread number 1
"+" -> Thread number 2
"x" -> Thread number 1enter code here
"+" -> Thread number 2
and so on..
What I wrote seems to work fine but it seems to me it is written in
very old-fashioned way:
public class Example
{
private static int count = 10;
private static int i = 0;
private static bool isOneActive = false;
private static void Run1(object o)
{
string s = o as string;
while(true)
{
if (!isOneActive)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello from thread number: " +
Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId + " -> " + s);
isOneActive = true;
if (i++ > count) break;
}
}
}
private static void Run2(object o)
{
string s = o as string;
while(true)
{
if (isOneActive)
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello from thread number: " +
Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId + " -> " + s);
isOneActive = false;
if (i++ > count) break;
}
}
}
static void Main()
{
Thread t1 = new Thread(Run1);
Thread t2 = new Thread(Run2);
t1.Start("x");
t2.Start("+");
}
I know that now .NET has a lot of instruments for thread synchronization as for example ManualResetEvent class and Task library. So how could we write the same programm using ManualResetEvent class? Is it possible at all?

Your code isn't only old fashioned, it is very inefficient. It spins for no reason doing nothing but waiting; this is called Busy wait should be avoided whenever possible.
Better approach is to use Waithandles as noted in comments.
A naive implementation with very little change in your code will look something like the following.
public class Example
{
private static int count = 10;
private static int i = 0;
private static AutoResetEvent firstEvent = new AutoResetEvent(true);
private static AutoResetEvent secondEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private static void Run1(object o)
{
string s = o as string;
while (true)
{
firstEvent.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Hello from thread number: " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId + " -> " + s);
secondEvent.Set();
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref i) > count)
break;
}
}
private static void Run2(object o)
{
string s = o as string;
while (true)
{
secondEvent.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Hello from thread number: " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId + " -> " + s);
firstEvent.Set();
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref i) > count)
break;
}
}
static void Main()
{
Thread t1 = new Thread(Run1);
Thread t2 = new Thread(Run2);
t1.Start("x");
t2.Start("+");
}
}
Note that firstEvent is instantiated with the initialState flag set to true which means that first thread doesn't waits initially.

Consider this example (fiddle):
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var console = new object();
int i = 0;
Task.Run(() =>
{
lock (console)
while (i++ < 10)
{
Console.Write(i);
Monitor.Pulse(console);
Monitor.Wait(console);
}
});
Task.Run(() =>
{
lock (console)
while (i < 10)
{
Console.Write('+');
Monitor.Pulse(console);
Monitor.Wait(console);
}
});
Console.ReadLine(); // Task.WaitAll might be better, remove for fiddle
}

How to block new threads until all threads are created and started

I am building a small application simulating a horse race in order to gain some basic skill in working with threads.
My code contains this loop:
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfHorses; i++)
{
horsesThreads[i] = new Thread(horsesTypes[i].Race);
horsesThreads[i].Start(100);
}
In order to keep the race 'fair', I've been looking for a way to make all newly created threads wait until the rest of the new threads are set, and only then launch all of them to start running their methods (Please note that I understand that technically the threads can't be launched at the 'same time')
So basically, I am looking for something like this:
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfHorses; i++)
{
horsesThreads[i] = new Thread(horsesTypes[i].Race);
}
Monitor.LaunchThreads(horsesThreads);

Threading does not promise fairness or deterministic results, so it's not a good way to simulate a race.
Having said that, there are some sync objects that might do what you ask. I think the Barrier class (Fx 4+) is what you want.

The Barrier class is designed to support this.
Here's an example:
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace Demo
{
class Program
{
private void run()
{
int numberOfHorses = 12;
// Use a barrier with a participant count that is one more than the
// the number of threads. The extra one is for the main thread,
// which is used to signal the start of the race.
using (Barrier barrier = new Barrier(numberOfHorses + 1))
{
var horsesThreads = new Thread[numberOfHorses];
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfHorses; i++)
{
int horseNumber = i;
horsesThreads[i] = new Thread(() => runRace(horseNumber, barrier));
horsesThreads[i].Start();
}
Console.WriteLine("Press <RETURN> to start the race!");
Console.ReadLine();
// Signals the start of the race. None of the threads that called
// SignalAndWait() will return from the call until *all* the
// participants have signalled the barrier.
barrier.SignalAndWait();
Console.WriteLine("Race started!");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
private static void runRace(int horseNumber, Barrier barrier)
{
Console.WriteLine("Horse " + horseNumber + " is waiting to start.");
barrier.SignalAndWait();
Console.WriteLine("Horse " + horseNumber + " has started.");
}
private static void Main()
{
new Program().run();
}
}
}
[EDIT] I just noticed that Henk already mentioned Barrier, but I'll leave this answer here because it has some sample code.

I'd be looking at a ManualResetEvent as a gate; inside the Thread, decrement a counter; if it is still non-zero, wait on the gate; otherwise, open the gate. Basically:
using System;
using System.Threading;
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
ManualResetEvent gate = new ManualResetEvent(false);
int numberOfThreads = 10, pending = numberOfThreads;
Thread[] threads = new Thread[numberOfThreads];
ParameterizedThreadStart work = name =>
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} approaches the tape", name);
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref pending) == 0)
{
Console.WriteLine("And they're off!");
gate.Set();
}
else gate.WaitOne();
Race();
Console.WriteLine("{0} crosses the line", name);
};
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++)
{
threads[i] = new Thread(work);
threads[i].Start(i);
}
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++)
{
threads[i].Join();
}
Console.WriteLine("all done");
}
static readonly Random rand = new Random();
static void Race()
{
int time;
lock (rand)
{
time = rand.Next(500,1000);
}
Thread.Sleep(time);
}
}