We Keep Coding

Asynchronous while loop

I try my windows phone app running in the background. Using a While loop that starts at leaving the app, everything works fine. But when I go into the app again, the app hangs in the infinite loop and does not load. That's why I have written a condition in the while loop, but as long as the while loop is running, no other code is considered. Is there an asynchronous while loop or something to solve the problem.
Here is my code from App.xaml.cs:
private void Application_Closing(object sender, ClosingEventArgs e)
{
WhileLoop();
}
private void Application_Activated(object sender, ActivatedEventArgs e)
{
Continue = false;
}
static bool Continue = false;
void WhileLoop()
{
Continue = true;
while(Continue == true)
{
//do something in background
}
}

It's hard for me to guess what you mean by running in Background. If you mean running under lock screen, then it's possible by Disabling IdleDetection, but that's not probably what you want to achieve as I see Closing Event and so on.
In other case when programming Windows Phone, you must know few things:
as #dcastro said in comment you have limited time when App is Closing or Dectivated,
when App is Closing, then no method, thread or anything will "survive" (or shouldn't)
when App is Deactivated - all Threads, BackroundWorkers (allmost everything connected with your App) is stopped, as MSDN says:
When the user navigates forward, away from an app, after the Deactivated event is raised, the operating system will attempt to put the app into a dormant state. In this state, all of the application’s threads are stopped and no processing takes place, but the application remains intact in memory.
the other problem is when your App is Tombstoned, then most of its resources is released,
you may perform some actions in the background by using Background Agents
or you may try to save the state of your App in IsolatedStorage or PhoneApplicationService State, (you can read more about it Here ) - save upon Deactivation, then restore upon Activation
Hope this helps.

You will need to move your loop onto a BackgroundWorker because at the minute once the while loop starts it will hog the CPU in the UI thread which means no other messages will get processed i.e. your Application_Activated event.
The problem is you are trying to break out of an infinite loop which is running in the same thread. If your while loop was on a different thread (i.e. not hogging the UI thread) then your code should work. However, I think there are better ways of doing this without using
An infinite loop
A static field
For example, a more robust approach would be to keep a reference to a BackgroundWorker on Application_Closing and then on Application_Activated you could call CancelAsync on it, this would allow you to use the CancellationPending property inside your BW for a safer shutdown of the background process.

using System.Threading;
ManualResetEventSlim waitEvent = new ManualResetEventSlim(false); // start in the unsignaled state
async void Application_Closing(object sender, ClosingEventArgs e)
{
await MyLoop(); // execute asynchronously
waitEvent.Wait(); // wait for a signal to continue
}
void Application_Activated(object sender, ActivatedEventArgs e)
{
waitEvent.Reset(); // set unsignaled
}
Task MyLoop()
{
while(true)
{
if(condition)
break;
}
waitEvent.Set(); // signal the app to continue
}

Thread.Join() causing deadlock

I have three threads in total. The first is the main UI thread, which starts a System.Threading.Thread (ExperimentThread), which in turn starts a BackgroundWorker (WorkerThread).
MainThread and WorkerThread both access a shared resource. I synchronise access to this resource with the following object:
private static readonly Object LockObject = new Object();
which I use as follows in the main loop of each thread:
lock (LockObject)
{
// Do something with shared resource here.
}
A cut-down version of ExperimentThread is as follows:
public void RunExperiment
{
while (!bStopThread)
{
lock (LockObject)
{
// Do something with shared resource here.
}
if (bStopThread)
{
break;
}
else
{
Application.DoEvents();
Thread.Sleep(250);
}
}
}
And for completeness here is the DoWork method of WorkerThread:
private void Worker_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
BackgroundWorker Worker = sender as BackgroundWorker;
for (int X = 0; X < 200; X++)
{
if (Worker.CancellationPending)
{
e.Cancel = true;
return;
}
lock (LockObject)
{
// Do something with shared resource here.
}
}
}
This seems to work fine when both threads are running freely.
At some point the UI thread will terminate the ExperimentThread by setting one of its boolean fields to true and then wait for it to end, as follows:
if (ExperimentThread.IsAlive)
{
ExperimentThread.StopThread = true;
ExperimentThread.Join(); // this line seems to cause the deadlock?
}
As soon as Join() is called, a deadlock occurs on the shared resource being accessed by ExperimentThread and WorkerThread, and my application hangs indefinitely. This happens maybe 9 out of 10 times.
If I remove ExperimentThread.Join() from the code snippet above, the deadlock never occurs, and ExperimentThread appears to terminate gracefully (it then goes on to terminate WorkerThread by calling CancelAsync()).
Any ideas what could be the problem here?
(P.S. I've been using Console.WriteLine() to determine when locks are taken and released, which is what has lead me to believe there's a deadlock. Is there a better to determine this, I could be wrong?)

Is there a better to determine this, I could be wrong?
A better way to check this is to use something like the Concurrency Visualizer available in higher level SKUs of Visual Studio. It will allow you to see exactly what has locked each thread, and what handles threads are waiting on, etc.
As for the exact reason you are getting a deadlock - there isn't enough code to determine this, but common issues are:
ExperimentThread and the main thread (with the Join() call) are both locking on the same object - ie: within a lock(LockObject) statement.
ExperimentThread is using Control.Invoke to marshal a call back onto the UI thread. Since the UI thread is blocked (waiting on the Join()), it can never process messages, which will prevent ExperimentThread from completing.
That being said, in general, I would recommend using Task or Task<T> instead of a new Thread if you're using .NET 4 or higher. Task provides a much nicer API for working with threads, including allowing continuations instead of blocking. C# 5 extends this to even allow you to asynchronously wait for the task to complete.

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 do I properly close a C# application that has created multiple threads?

I am writing a GUI application.
The application is opening multiple threads during it's life time. One of the threads is handling events that can come from other applications, so it is waiting in a while(true) loop for the event which is never been terminated.
The user can close the application in any minute. I want to close all the threads that the main application had opened.
I am using Process.GetCurrentProcess().Kill(); to deal with this problem at the moment.
Is this a good solution? If not, why and what is the proper way to deal with this problem, how to close all threads that were opened by the main application?

If you create the new threads as background threads (by setting IsBackground before starting them), they will automatically stop when the main thread (the application thread) terminates.
(From MSDN):
A thread is either a background thread or a foreground thread. Background threads are identical to foreground threads, except that background threads do not prevent a process from terminating. Once all foreground threads belonging to a process have terminated, the common language runtime ends the process. Any remaining background threads are stopped and do not complete.

Once you already have threads waiting for some events, just add one more event that when triggered will instruct the thread to terminate.
In case you don't need to provide some means of graceful shutdown for other threads, you can switch them into the “background thread” mode to ensure automatic termination — see MSDN for a thorough discussion of this topic.

There are a lot of ways to deal with this, but ideally you want your threads to exit normally on their own rather than just killing the process.
You could do something very simple like this:
public class ThreadSignal
{
public bool Stop { get; set; }
}
Then in your thread loop, do:
public void DoWork(object state)
{
ThreadSignal signal = (ThreadSignal)state;
while(!signal.Stop)
{
// Do work here
}
}
Then when you're ready to stop, set your ThreadSignal.Stop to true. This is a very simple example, but it gives you a starting point.

You should wait in the loop with a ManualResetEvent (or AutoResetEvent).
Then just set a member variable to true when you are shutting down:
public class MyForm : Form
{
private AutoResetEvent _workTrigger = new AutoResetEvent();
private bool _shuttingDown = false;
private Thread _thread;
public void Form_Initialize()
{
_thread = new Thread(MyThreadMethod);
_thread.Start();
}
public static void MyThreadMethod(object State)
{
while (!_shuttingDown)
{
//wait for jobs.
_workTrigger.WaitOne(); //can add a timeout as parameter.
//do some work here
}
}
public void Form_Closing(object source, EventArgs e)
{
_shuttingDown = true;
_workTrigger.Set();
//wait for it to exit. You could use the timeout
//parameter and a loop to not block the UI
_thread.Join();
}
}

As you mentioned it's a GUI application so the main thread which is responsible for message loop is responsible for alerting the infinite (while(true)) loop that user wants to exit the program. I recommend to replace true with another boolean for signaling that user has closed the window like this: while(windowIsOpen) and set it to false on the unload of your form.

Don't lose your threads around the application - keep'em somewhere (List<Thread> will do fine). Then when the time is right (closing time) notify each one that it should finish what it's doing and exit.
Then, .Join() all of them, then allow application to exit.
Don't ever go to 'ThreadAbort' realm, it's dark side of the force that lurks there.

Generally how I do this is:
Create a Class that encapsulates this behavior (e.g. handling incoming messages in the background
Have the Class inherit from IDisposable. When Dispose() is called set a private variable named _disposed
Create my dedicated thread in my Class constructor.
Have a private AutoResetEvent named _workToDo. Your background thread will wait on this event and only do a work loop when this event is signaled.
Have a public method to send the message to your background worker that queues the work up and then sets _workToDo to tell your background thread to do the work.
Putting this all together, you get:
public class BackgroundProcessor : IDisposed
{
private Thread _backgroundThread;
private bool _disposed;
private AutoResetEvent _workToDo = new AutoResetEvent(false);
// where T is a class with the set of parameters for your background work
private Queue<T> _workQueue = Queue.Synchronized(new Queue<T>);
public BackgroundProcessor()
{
_backgroundThread = new Thread(DoBackgroundWork);
_backgroundThread.Start();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_disposed = true;
// Wait 5 seconds for the processing of any previously submitted work to finish.
// This gives you a clean exit. May want to check return value for timeout and log
// a warning if pending background work was not completed in time.
// If you're not sure what you want to do yet, a Debug.Assert is a great place to
// start because it will let you know if you do or don't go over time in general
// in your debug builds.
// Do *not* Join() and wait infinitely. This is a great way to introduce shutdown
// hangs into your app where your UI disappears but your process hangs around
// invisibly forever. Nasty problem to debug later...
Debug.Assert(_backgroundThread.Join(5000));
}
// Called by your 'other application'
public void GiveMeWorkToDo(T workParameters)
{
_workQueue.Enqueue(workParameters);
_workToDo.Set();
}
private void DoBackgroundWork()
{
while (!_disposed)
{
// 500 ms timeout to WaitOne allows your Dispose event to be detected if there is
// No work being submitted. This is a fancier version of a Thread.Sleep(500)
// loop. This is better because you will immediately start work when a new
// message is posted instead of waiting for the current Sleep statement to time
// out first.
_workToDo.WaitOne(500);
// It's possible multiple sets of work accumulated or that the previous loop picked up the work and there's none left. This is a thread safe way of handling this.
T workParamters = _workQueue.Count > 0 ? workParameters = _workQueue.Dequeue() : null;
do
{
DoSomething(workParameters);
workParameters = _workQueue.Count > 0 ? workParameters = _workQueue.Dequeue() : null;
} while (workParameters != null)
}
}
}

Consider using the BackGroundWorker class. Since it's using the threadpool (via BeginInvoke()), you'd get background threads. As a bonus you get convenient progress reporting, cancellation and completion callbacks (already marshalled to the UI thread).

Deadlock in WinForms that is prevented by right click on the taskbar

I encountered a strange problem with our Windows C# / .NET application. Actually it is a GUI application, my job is the included network component, encapsulated in an assembly. I do not know the code of the main/GUI application, I could contact it's developer though.
Now the application's UI has buttons to "Start" and "Stop" the network engine. Both buttons work.
To make my component threadsafe I am using a lock around three methods. I dont't want a client to be able to call Stop() before Start() finished. Additinally there is a Polling Timer.
I tried to show you as few lines as possible and simpified the problem:
private Timer actionTimer = new Timer(new
TimerCallback(actionTimer_TimerCallback),
null, Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite);
public void Start()
{
lock (driverLock)
{
active = true;
// Trigger the first timer event in 500ms
actionTimer.Change(500, Timeout.Infinite);
}
}
private void actionTimer_TimerCallback(object state)
{
lock (driverLock)
{
if (!active) return;
log.Debug("Before event");
StatusEvent(this, new StatusEventArgs()); // it hangs here
log.Debug("After event");
// Now restart timer
actionTimer.Change(500, Timeout.Infinite);
}
}
public void Stop()
{
lock (driverLock)
{
active = false;
}
}
Here is how to reproduce my problem. As I said, the Start and Stop buttons both work, but if you press Start(), and during the execution of the TimerCallback press Stop(), this prevents the TimerCallback to return. It hangs exactly at the same position, the StatusEvent. So the lock is never released and the GUI also hangs, because it's call of the Stop() method cannot proceed.
Now I observed the following: If the application hangs because of this "deadlock" and I click on the application in the task bar with the right mouse button, it continues. It just works as expected then. Anybody has an explanation or better a solution for this?
By the way, I also tried it with InvokeIfRequired as I don't know the internas of the GUI application. This is neccesary if my StatusEvent would change something in the GUI.
Since I have no reference to the GUI controls, I used (assuming only one target):
Delegate firstTarget = StatusEvent.GetInocationList()[0];
ISynchronizeInvoke syncInvoke = firstTarget.Target as ISynchronizeInvoke;
if (syncInvoke.InvokeRequired)
{
syncInvoke.Invoke(firstTarget, new object[] { this, new StatusEventArgs() });
}
else
{
firstTarget.Method.Invoke(firstTarget.Target, new object[] { this, new StatusEventArgs() });
}
This approach didn't change the problem. I think this is because I am Invoking on the main application's event handlers, not on the GUI controls. So the main app is responsible for Invoking? But anyway, AFAIK not using Invoke although needed would not result in a deadlock like this but (hopefully) in an exception.

As for why right-click "unlocks" your application, my "educated guess" of events that lead to this behaviour is as follows:
(when your component was created) GUI registered a subscriber to the status notification event
Your component acquires lock (in a worker thread, not GUI thread), then fires status notification event
The GUI callback for status notification event is called and it starts updating GUI; the updates are causing events to be sent to the event loop
While the update is going on, "Start" button gets clicked
Win32 sends a click message to the GUI thread and tries to handle it synchronously
Handler for the "Start" button gets called, it then calls "Start" method on your component (on GUI thread)
Note that the status update has not finished yet; start button handler "cut in front of"
the remaining GUI updates in status update (this actually happens quite a bit in Win32)
"Start" method tries to acquire your component's lock (on GUI thread), blocks
GUI thread is now hung (waits for start handler to finish; start handler waits for lock; the lock is held by worker thread that marshalled a GUI update call to GUI thread and waits for the update call to finish; the GUI update call marshalled from worker thread is waiting for start handler that cut in front of it to finish; ...)
If you now right-click on taskbar, my guess is that taskbar manager (somehow) starts a "sub-event-loop" (much like modal dialogs start their own "sub-event-loops", see Raymond Chen's blog for details) and processes queued events for the application
The extra event loop triggered by the right-click can now process the GUI updates that were marshalled from the worker thread; this unblocks the worker thread; this in turn releases the lock; this in turn unblocks application's GUI thread so it can finish handling start button click (because it can now acquire the lock)
You could test this theory by causing your application to "bite", then breaking into debugger and looking at the stack trace of the worker thread for your component. It should be blocked in some transition to GUI thread. The GUI thread itself should be blocked in the lock statement, but down the stack you should be able to see some "cut in front of the line" calls...
I think the first recommendation to be able to track this issue down would be to turn on the flag Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = true;.
Next, I would recommend firing the notification event outside of the lock. What I usually do is gather information needed by an event inside a lock, then release the lock and use the information I gathered to fire the event. Something along the lines:
string status;
lock (driverLock) {
if (!active) { return; }
status = ...
actionTimer.Change(500, Timeout.Infinite);
}
StatusEvent(this, new StatusEventArgs(status));
But most importantly, I would review who are the intended clients of your component. From the method names and your description I suspect GUI is the only one (it tells you when to start and stop; you tell it when your status changes). In that case you should not be using a lock. Start & stop methods could simply be setting and resetting a manual-reset event to indicate whether your component is active (a semaphore, really).
[update]
In trying to reproduce your scenario I wrote the following simple program. You should be able to copy the code, compile and run it without problems (I built it as a console application that starts a form :-) )
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Windows.Forms;
using Timer=System.Threading.Timer;
namespace LockTest
{
public static class Program
{
// Used by component's notification event
private sealed class MyEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public string NotificationText { get; set; }
}
// Simple component implementation; fires notification event 500 msecs after previous notification event finished
private sealed class MyComponent
{
public MyComponent()
{
this._timer = new Timer(this.Notify, null, -1, -1); // not started yet
}
public void Start()
{
lock (this._lock)
{
if (!this._active)
{
this._active = true;
this._timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500d), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1d));
}
}
}
public void Stop()
{
lock (this._lock)
{
this._active = false;
}
}
public event EventHandler<MyEventArgs> Notification;
private void Notify(object ignore) // this will be invoked invoked in the context of a threadpool worker thread
{
lock (this._lock)
{
if (!this._active) { return; }
var notification = this.Notification; // make a local copy
if (notification != null)
{
notification(this, new MyEventArgs { NotificationText = "Now is " + DateTime.Now.ToString("o") });
}
this._timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500d), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1d)); // rinse and repeat
}
}
private bool _active;
private readonly object _lock = new object();
private readonly Timer _timer;
}
// Simple form to excercise our component
private sealed class MyForm : Form
{
public MyForm()
{
this.Text = "UI Lock Demo";
this.AutoSize = true;
this.AutoSizeMode = AutoSizeMode.GrowAndShrink;
var container = new FlowLayoutPanel { FlowDirection = FlowDirection.TopDown, Dock = DockStyle.Fill, AutoSize = true, AutoSizeMode = AutoSizeMode.GrowAndShrink };
this.Controls.Add(container);
this._status = new Label { Width = 300, Text = "Ready, press Start" };
container.Controls.Add(this._status);
this._component.Notification += this.UpdateStatus;
var button = new Button { Text = "Start" };
button.Click += (sender, args) => this._component.Start();
container.Controls.Add(button);
button = new Button { Text = "Stop" };
button.Click += (sender, args) => this._component.Stop();
container.Controls.Add(button);
}
private void UpdateStatus(object sender, MyEventArgs args)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
this.Invoke(new EventHandler<MyEventArgs>(this.UpdateStatus), sender, args);
}
else
{
this._status.Text = args.NotificationText;
}
}
private readonly Label _status;
private readonly MyComponent _component = new MyComponent();
}
// Program entry point, runs event loop for the form that excercises out component
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = true;
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
using (var form = new MyForm())
{
Application.Run(form);
}
}
}
}
As you can see, the code has 3 parts - first, the component that is using timer to call notification method every 500 milliseconds; second, a simple form with label and start/stop buttons; and finally main function to run the even loop.
You can deadlock the application by clicking start button and then within 2 seconds clicking stop button. However, the application is not "unfrozen" when I right-click on taskbar, sigh.
When I break into the deadlocked application, this is what I see when switched to the worker (timer) thread:
And this is what I see when switched to the main thread:
I would appreciate if you could try compiling and running this example; if it works the same for you as me, you could try updating the code to be more similar to what you have in your application and perhaps we can reproduce your exact issue. Once we reproduce it in a test application like this, it shouldn't be a problem to refactor it to make the problem go away (we would isolate essence of the problem).
[update 2]
I guess we agree that we can't easily reproduce your behaviour with the example I provided. I'm still pretty sure the deadlock in your scenario is broken by an extra even loop being introduced on right-click and this event loop processing messages pending from the notification callback. However, how this is achieved is beyond me.
That said I would like to make the following recommendation. Could you try these changes in your application and let me know if they solved the deadlock problem? Essentially, you would move ALL component code to worker threads (i.e. nothing that has to do with your component will be running on GUI thread any more except code to delegate to worker threads :-) )...
public void Start()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate // added
{
lock (this._lock)
{
if (!this._active)
{
this._active = true;
this._timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500d), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1d));
}
}
});
}
public void Stop()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate // added
{
lock (this._lock)
{
this._active = false;
}
});
}
I moved body of Start and Stop methods into a thread-pool worker thread (much like your timers call your callback regularly in context of a thread-pool worker). This means GUI thread will never own the lock, the lock will only be acquired in context of (probably different for each call) thread-pool worker threads.
Note that with the change above, my sample program doesn't deadlock any more (even with "Invoke" instead of "BeginInvoke").
[update 3]
As per your comment, queueing Start method is not acceptable because it needs to indicate whether the component was able to start. In this case I would recommend treating the "active" flag differently. You would switch to "int" (0 stopped, 1 running)and use "Interlocked" static methods to manipulate it (I assume that your component has more state it exposes - you would guard access to anything other than "active" flag with your lock):
public bool Start()
{
if (0 == Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref this._active, 0, 0)) // will evaluate to true if we're not started; this is a variation on the double-checked locking pattern, without the problems associated with lack of memory barriers (see http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html)
{
lock (this._lock) // serialize all Start calls that are invoked on an un-started component from different threads
{
if (this._active == 0) // make sure only the first Start call gets through to actual start, 2nd part of double-checked locking pattern
{
// run component startup
this._timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500d), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1d));
Interlocked.Exchange(ref this._active, 1); // now mark the component as successfully started
}
}
}
return true;
}
public void Stop()
{
Interlocked.Exchange(ref this._active, 0);
}
private void Notify(object ignore) // this will be invoked invoked in the context of a threadpool worker thread
{
if (0 != Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref this._active, 0, 0)) // only handle the timer event in started components (notice the pattern is the same as in Start method except for the return value comparison)
{
lock (this._lock) // protect internal state
{
if (this._active != 0)
{
var notification = this.Notification; // make a local copy
if (notification != null)
{
notification(this, new MyEventArgs { NotificationText = "Now is " + DateTime.Now.ToString("o") });
}
this._timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500d), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1d)); // rinse and repeat
}
}
}
}
private int _active;

A couple things come to mind when reviewing your code. The first thing is that you are not checking for a null delegate before firing the status event. If no listeners are bound to the event, then this will cause an exception, which if not caught or handled, might cause strange issues in threaded code.
So the first thing I'd so is this:
if(StatusEvent != null)
{
StatusEvent(this, new StatusEventArgs());
}
The other thing that comes to mind is that perhaps your lock is failing you in some manner. What type of object are you using for the lock? The simplest thing to use is just a plain ole "object", but you must ensure you are not using a value type (e.g. int, float, etc.) that would be boxed for locking, thus never really establishing a lock since each lock statement would box and create a new object instance. You should also keep in mind that a lock only keeps "other" threads out. If called on the same thread, then it will sail through the lock statement.

If you don't have the source for the GUI (which you probably should) you can use Reflector to disassemble it. There is even a plugin to generate source files so you could run the app in your VS IDE and set breakpoints.

Not having access to the GUI source makes this harder, but a general tip here... The WinForm GUI is not managed code, and doesn't mix well with .NET threading. The recommended solution for this is to use a BackgroundWorker to spawn a thread that is independent of the WinForm. Once you're running in the thread started by the BackgroundWorker, you're in pure managed code and you can use .NET's timers and threading for pretty much anything. The restriction is that you have to use the BackgroundWorker's events to pass information back to the GUI, and your thread started by the BackgroundWorker can't access the Winform controls.
Also, you'd be well off to disable the "Stop" button while the "Start" task is running, and vice versa. But a BackgroundWorker is still the way to go; that way the WinForm doesn't hang while the background thread is running.

Yes, this is a classic deadlock scenario. The StatusEvent cannot proceed because it needs the UI thread to update the controls. The UI thread is however stuck, trying to acquire the driverLock. Held by the code that calls StatusEvent. Neither thread can proceed.
Two ways to break the lock:
the StatusEvent code might not necessarily need to run synchronously. Use BeginInvoke instead of Invoke.
the UI thread might not necessarily need to wait for the thread to stop. Your thread could notify it later.
There is not enough context in your snippets to decide which one is better.
Note that you might have a potential race on the timer too, it isn't visible in your snippet. But the callback might run a microsecond after the timer was stopped. Avoid this kind of headache by using a real thread instead of a timer callback. It can do things periodically by calling WaitOne() on a ManualResetEvent, passing a timeout value. That ManualResetEvent is good to signal the thread to stop.

A wild guess here: Could the status message somehow be causing the other app to call your Stop task?
I would put debug stuff at the start of all three methods, see if you're deadlocking on yourself.