I've created a multi task program. This program has around 20 main tasks and each of them calls some sub tasks to operate file I/Os. I wanted each main task to repeat periodically every 500ms, so I enterd the code Task.Delay(500).
The problem is Task.Delay delays a lot more than 500ms sometimes. There is a case it delays more than 3 seconds.
How can I fix it?
The original progam is so big that I created a sample program below.
(1) If Task.Delay is on, over-delay happens.
(2) If Thead.Sleep is on, over-delay doesn't happen.
ThreadPool.SetMinThreads() doesn't seem to resolve it.
Thanks.
class Program
{
const int DELAY_TIME = 500;
const int TASKS = 100;
const int WAITS = 100;
const int WARNING_THRESHOLD = 100;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(workerThreads: 200, completionPortThreads: 200);
Console.WriteLine("*** Start...");
Test();
Console.WriteLine("*** Done!");
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void Test()
{
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
for (int taskId = 0; taskId < TASKS; taskId++)
{
tasks.Add(DelaysAsync(taskId));
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
}
static async Task DelaysAsync(int taskId)
{
await Task.Yield();
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
for (int i = 0; i < WAITS; i++)
{
sw.Reset();
sw.Start();
await Task.Delay(DELAY_TIME).ConfigureAwait(false); // (1)
//Thread.Sleep(DELAY_TIME); // (2)
sw.Stop();
Console.Write($"Task({taskId})_iter({i}) Elapsed={sw.ElapsedMilliseconds}");
if (sw.ElapsedMilliseconds > DELAY_TIME + WARNING_THRESHOLD)
{
Console.WriteLine(" *********** Too late!! ************");
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
}
I’ve run your test, with .NET 4.6.1 and VS 2017. Here on Xeon E3-1230 v3 CPU it never printed “Too late”, the Elapsed value was within 498-527 ms.
The Thread.Sleep version performed very similarly, 500-528ms per sleep, however the total execution time was much longer because the runtime refused to create 100 OS threads, that’s way too many, so less than 100 DelaysAsync functions ran in parallel. The debugger showed me there were 27 worker threads in Thread.Sleep version and only 9 worker threads in Task.Delay version.
I think you have other apps on your PC creating too many threads and consuming too much CPU. Windows tries to load balance threads evenly so when the whole system is CPU bound, more native threads = more CPU time and therefore less jitter.
If that’s your case and you want to prioritize your app in the scheduler, instead of using Thread.Sleep and more threads, raise the priority of your process.
It seems that I could find the answer. I changed the previous sample program like below. The main difference is using StopWatch or DateTime to measure time durations.
In StopWatch version, many delays happen.
In DateTime version, no or at least very little delays happen(s).
I guess that the cause is the contention of Timer that is used by both StopWatch and Task.Delay. I concluded that I should not use StopWatch and Task.Delay together.
Thank you.
class Program
{
const int DELAY_TIME = 500;
const int TASKS = 100;
const int WAITS = 100;
const int WARNING_THRESHOLD = 500;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (Process p = Process.GetCurrentProcess())
{
p.PriorityClass = ProcessPriorityClass.RealTime;
//ThreadPool.SetMinThreads(workerThreads: 200, completionPortThreads: 200);
int workerThreads;
int completionPortThreads;
ThreadPool.GetAvailableThreads(out workerThreads, out completionPortThreads);
Console.WriteLine($"{workerThreads}, {completionPortThreads}");
Console.WriteLine("*** Start...");
Test();
Console.WriteLine("*** Done!");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
private static void Test()
{
int totalCount = 0;
List<Task<int>> tasks = new List<Task<int>>();
for (int taskId = 0; taskId < TASKS; taskId++)
{
//tasks.Add(DelaysWithStopWatchAsync(taskId)); // many delays
tasks.Add(DelaysWithDateTimeAsync(taskId)); // no delays
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
foreach (var task in tasks)
{
totalCount += task.Result;
}
Console.WriteLine($"Total counts of deday = {totalCount}");
}
static async Task<int> DelaysWithStopWatchAsync(int taskId)
{
await Task.Yield();
int count = 0;
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
for (int i = 0; i < WAITS; i++)
{
sw.Reset();
sw.Start();
await Task.Delay(DELAY_TIME).ConfigureAwait(false); // (1)
//Thread.Sleep(DELAY_TIME); // (2)
sw.Stop();
Console.Write($"task({taskId})_iter({i}) elapsed={sw.ElapsedMilliseconds}");
if (sw.ElapsedMilliseconds > DELAY_TIME + WARNING_THRESHOLD)
{
Console.WriteLine($" *********** Too late!! ************");
count++;
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
return count;
}
static async Task<int> DelaysWithDateTimeAsync(int taskId)
{
await Task.Yield();
int count = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < WAITS; i++)
{
DateTime start = DateTime.Now;
await Task.Delay(DELAY_TIME).ConfigureAwait(false); // (1)
//Thread.Sleep(DELAY_TIME); // (2)
DateTime end = DateTime.Now;
int duration = (end - start).Milliseconds;
Console.Write($"Task({taskId})_iter({i}) Elapsed={duration}");
if (duration > DELAY_TIME + WARNING_THRESHOLD)
{
Console.WriteLine($" *********** Too late!! ************");
count++;
}
else
{
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
return count;
}
}
Related
I try to pause all my threads when I reach a certain value but I can't do it.
I would like that when I reach this value all threads are paused for 10 seconds and after these 10 seconds all threads start again.
I tried that with : Threads.Sleep(); | Threads.Interrupt(); and Threads.Abort(); but nothing work.
I tried what you can see in the code below.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
Threads.Add(new Thread(new ThreadStart(example)));
Threads[i].Start();
}
for (int i = 0; i < Threads.Count; i++)
Threads[i].Join();
}
static void example()
{
while (true)
{
Console.WriteLine(value++);
checkValue();
}
}
public static void checkValue()
{
if (value% 1000 == 0 && value!= 0)
{
for (int i = 0; i < Threads.Count; i++)
Threads[i].Interrupt();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
for (int i = 0; i < Threads.Count; i++)
Threads[i].Resume();
}
}
Here is an example of pausing some threads cooperatively, by using the PauseTokenSource + PauseToken pair from Stephen Cleary's AsyncEx.Coordination package. This example shows also the use of the analogous CancellationTokenSource + CancellationToken pair, that inspired the creation of the aforementioned pausing mechanism.
var pts = new PauseTokenSource() { IsPaused = true };
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
int value = 0;
// Create five threads
Thread[] threads = Enumerable.Range(1, 5).Select(i => new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
while (true)
{
cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested(); // self explanatory
pts.Token.WaitWhilePaused(cts.Token); // ...and don't wait if not paused
int localValue = Interlocked.Increment(ref value);
Console.WriteLine($"Thread #{i}, Value: {localValue}");
}
}
catch (OperationCanceledException) // this exception is expected and benign
{
Console.WriteLine($"Thread #{i} Canceled");
}
})).ToArray();
// Start the threads
foreach (var thread in threads) thread.Start();
// Now lets pause and unpause the threads periodically some times
// We use the main thread (the current thread) as the controller
Thread.Sleep(500);
pts.IsPaused = false;
Thread.Sleep(1000);
pts.IsPaused = true;
Thread.Sleep(1000);
pts.IsPaused = false;
Thread.Sleep(1000);
pts.IsPaused = true;
Thread.Sleep(500);
// Finally cancel the threads and wait them to finish
cts.Cancel();
foreach (var thread in threads) thread.Join();
You may need to read this first, to get a grasp on the model used by the .NET platform for cooperative cancellation. Cooperative "pausation" is very similar.
I am trying to throttle the number of async tasks that I submit to an external database server. I created the following test code which should take 25 seconds to execute (150 tasks * 5 seconds / 30 max concurrent tasks = 25 seconds).
private async void ThrottlingTest()
{
TaskScheduler scheduler = new ConcurrentExclusiveSchedulerPair(TaskScheduler.Default, 30).ConcurrentScheduler;
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
int numTasks = 150;
Task[] tasks = new Task[numTasks];
for (int i = 0; i < numTasks; i++)
{
tasks[i] = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => Task.Delay(5000), CancellationToken.None, TaskCreationOptions.None, scheduler).Unwrap();
}
sw.Start();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
sw.Stop();
long duration = sw.ElapsedMilliseconds;
}
However, this code only takes 5 seconds to execute indicating my throttling is not working. What am I doing wrong? I suspect Task.Delay is running using the default scheduler. If so, what delay mechanism can I test with?
I am trying to throttle the number of async tasks that I submit to an external database server.
TaskSchedulers can only be used to control the number of running tasks. Asynchronous tasks do not "run". They can be "in progress", but they are not actually running code while being so. Put another way, TaskSchedulers only work as expected with synchronous tasks. Or if you want to use this terminology, TaskSchedulers were designed for Delegate Tasks; they do not understand Promise Tasks.
To throttle asynchronous operations, use SemaphoreSlim instead:
private async void ThrottlingTest()
{
SemaphoreSlim mutex = new SemaphoreSlim(30);
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
int numTasks = 150;
Task[] tasks = new Task[numTasks];
for (int i = 0; i < numTasks; i++)
tasks[i] = TestAsync();
sw.Start();
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
sw.Stop();
long duration = sw.ElapsedMilliseconds;
async Task TestAsync()
{
await mutex.WaitAsync();
try { await Task.Delay(5000); }
finally { mutex.Release(); }
}
}
I'm looking for a fast way to let many worker threads wait for an event to continue and block the main thread until all worker threads are finished. I first used TPL or AutoResetEvent but since my calculation isn't that expensive the overhead was way too much.
I found a pretty interesting article concerning this problem and got great results (using only one worker thread) with the last synchronization solution (Interlocked.CompareExchange). But I don't know how to utilize it for a scenario where many threads wait for one main tread repeatedly.
Here is an example using single thread, CompareExchange, and Barrier:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int cnt = 1000000;
var stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++) { }
Console.WriteLine($"Single thread: {stopwatch.Elapsed.TotalSeconds}s");
var run = true;
Task task;
stopwatch.Restart();
int interlock = 0;
task = Task.Run(() =>
{
while (run)
{
while (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref interlock, 0, 1) != 1) { Thread.Sleep(0); }
interlock = 2;
}
Console.WriteLine($"CompareExchange synced: {stopwatch.Elapsed.TotalSeconds}s");
});
for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
{
interlock = 1;
while (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref interlock, 0, 2) != 2) { Thread.Sleep(0); }
}
run = false;
interlock = 1;
task.Wait();
run = true;
var barrier = new Barrier(2);
stopwatch.Restart();
task = Task.Run(() =>
{
while (run) { barrier.SignalAndWait(); }
Console.WriteLine($"Barrier synced: {stopwatch.Elapsed.TotalSeconds}s");
});
for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++) { barrier.SignalAndWait(); }
Thread.Sleep(0);
run = false;
if (barrier.ParticipantsRemaining == 1) { barrier.SignalAndWait(); }
task.Wait();
Console.ReadKey();
}
Average results (in seconds) are:
Single thread: 0,002
CompareExchange: 0,4
Barrier: 1,7
As you can see Barriers' overhead seems to be arround 4 times higher! If someone can rebuild me the CompareExchange-scenario to work with multiple worker threads this would surely help, too!
Sure, 1 second overhead for a million calculations is pretty less! Actually it just interests me.
Edit:
System.Threading.Barrier seems to be the fastest solution for this scenario. For saving a double blocking (all workers ready for work, all workes finished) I used the following code for the best results:
while(work)
{
while (barrier.ParticipantsRemaining > 1) { Thread.Sleep(0); }
//Set work package
barrier.SignalAndWait()
}
It seems like you might want to use a Barrier to synchronise a number of workers with a main thread.
Here's a compilable example. Have a play with it, paying attention to when the output tells you that you can "Press <Return> to signal the workers to start".
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace Demo
{
static class Program
{
static void Main()
{
print("Main thread is starting the workers.");
int numWorkers = 10;
var barrier = new Barrier(numWorkers + 1); // Workers + main (controlling) thread.
for (int i = 0; i < numWorkers; ++i)
{
int n = i; // Prevent modified closure.
Task.Run(() => worker(barrier, n));
}
while (true)
{
print("***************** Press <RETURN> to signal the workers to start");
Console.ReadLine();
print("Main thread is signalling all the workers to start.");
// This will wait for all the workers to issue their call to
// barrier.SignalAndWait() before it returns:
barrier.SignalAndWait();
// At this point, all workers AND the main thread are at the same point.
}
}
static void worker(Barrier barrier, int workerNumber)
{
int iter = 0;
while (true)
{
print($"Worker {workerNumber} on iteration {iter} is waiting for barrier.");
// This will wait for all the other workers AND the main thread
// to issue their call to barrier.SignalAndWait() before it returns:
barrier.SignalAndWait();
// At this point, all workers AND the main thread are at the same point.
int delay = randomDelayMilliseconds();
print($"Worker {workerNumber} got barrier, now sleeping for {delay}");
Thread.Sleep(delay);
print($"Worker {workerNumber} finished work for iteration {iter}.");
}
}
static void print(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine($"[{sw.ElapsedMilliseconds:00000}] {message}");
}
static int randomDelayMilliseconds()
{
lock (rng)
{
return rng.Next(10000) + 5000;
}
}
static Random rng = new Random();
static Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
}
}
I have a console app that is making HTTP queries and adding/updating products in my database according to response. Some fail and need to be retried a few times.
The way I came up with was to use a dictionary to store the product ID and a Task. Then I can check all the task results and re-run.
This is working but it strikes me as inefficient. Tasks are not being re-created until all tasks have finished. It would be more efficient if they were immediately restarted but I can't figure out how to do this. Also every retry involves a query to the database as only the ID is stored.
I made small app that shows how I am currently retrying failed requests.
Can someone suggest a more efficient method for retrying?
class Program
{
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
HttpQuery m = new HttpQuery();
var task = Task.Run(() => m.Start());
Task.WaitAll(task);
Console.WriteLine("Finished");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
class HttpQuery
{
public async Task Start()
{
// dictionary where key represent reference to something that needs to be processed and bool whether it has completed or not
ConcurrentDictionary<int, Task<bool>> monitor = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, Task<bool>>();
// start async tasks.
Console.WriteLine("starting first try");
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
Console.Write(i+",");
monitor[i] = this.Query(i);
}
// wait for completion
await Task.WhenAll(monitor.Values.ToArray());
Console.WriteLine();
// start retries
// number of retries per query
int retries = 10;
int count = 0;
// check if max retries exceeded or all completed
while (count < retries && monitor.Any(x => x.Value.Result == false))
{
// make list of numbers that failed
List<int> retryList = monitor.Where(x => x.Value.Result == false).Select(x => x.Key).ToList();
Console.WriteLine("starting try number: " + (count+1) + ", Processing: " + retryList.Count);
// create list of tasks to wait for
List<Task<bool>> toWait = new List<Task<bool>>();
foreach (var i in retryList)
{
Console.Write(i + ",");
monitor[i] = this.Query(i);
toWait.Add(monitor[i]);
}
// wait for completion
await Task.WhenAll(toWait.ToArray());
Console.WriteLine();
count++;
}
Console.WriteLine("ended");
Console.ReadLine();
}
public async Task<bool> Query(int i)
{
// simulate a http request that may or may not fail
Random r = new Random();
int delay = i * r.Next(1, 10);
await Task.Delay(delay);
if (r.Next(0,2) == 1)
{
return true;
}
else
{
return false;
}
}
}
You can create another method and wrap all these ugly retry logic. All of that ugly code goes away :)
public async Task Start()
{
const int MaxNumberOfTries = 10;
List<Task<bool>> tasks = new List<Task<bool>>();
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
tasks.Add(this.QueryWithRetry(i, MaxNumberOfTries));
}
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
}
public async Task<bool> QueryWithRetry(int i, int numOfTries)
{
int tries = 0;
bool result;
do
{
result = await Query(i);
tries++;
} while (!result && tries < numOfTries);
return result;
}
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);
}
}