I have a main thread that invokes multiple backgroundworkers (in .net/c#).
Each of these threads starts a process in order to run an executable.
When a process ends, I want to tell the main thread to kill all other threads and their respective processes. After all of them stopped, I want to know this and continue to run the main thread for post-processing.
I keep a list of these external processes so I have no problem killing them all. My problem is how to kill all these backgroundworkers. I tried to keep a list of the threads associated with them and kill them from within the first thread that terminates, but apparently this does not kill the backgroundworker itself because the runworkercompleted method is still invoked multiple times.
Does anyone have a pattern on how to kill those workers in a nice way ? should I somehow notify the main thread to do the killing of the other workers ?
I'd recommend using async/await and CancellationTokenSources. I'll give advice on how to use BackgroundWorkers as well, but since async/await is so much more convenient (and shorter), it goes first.
async/await is convenient because it gives you the features you're looking for without much added complexity.
private async void SomeEvent(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var waiter1 = DoSomething(cts.Token);
var waiter2 = DoSomethingElse(cts.Token);
// etc.
// Wait for the first one to finish, then cancel
await Task.WhenAny(waiter1, waiter2, ...).ConfigureAwait(false);
cts.Cancel();
// wait for the remainder to finish
await Task.WhenAll(waiter1, waiter2, ...).ConfigureAwait(false);
// Do Postprocessing
}
Your "waiters" look something like this:
private async Task DoSomething(CancellationToken token)
{
// Do stuff
// Periodically check if someone has finished
if (Token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// clean up
return;
}
}
async/await code has a few gotchas, including deadlock. Since this sounds like a quick project (I could be wrong), it seems like a good place to learn - especially if there's no massive codebase to rework. If you want to learn more, I think Stephen Cleary's blog is a good place to start, particularly his intro.
On the other hand, if you're absolutely sure you want to use BackgroundWorkers... well I don't blame you, but I don't envy you either.
First, your workers have to know whether somebody else finished first. Use the finished BackgroundWorker's RunWorkerCompleted method to cancel the others BackgroundWorkers:
private void RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Error != null)
{
// Check for errors...
}
else if (e.Cancelled)
{
// Mark that this one has finished
}
else
{
// Assuming you have a set of BackgroundWorkers called "workers"
foreach (var bgw in workers)
bgw.CancelAsync();
// other stuff...
}
}
Then, add a bit of code at the end of your DoWork method to report the cancellation...
private void DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
BackgroundWorker worker = sender as BackgroundWorker;
// Do stuff...
// When "RunWorkerCompleted" is called, let it know whether this worker has been cancelled.
e.Cancel = worker.CancellationPending;
}
And that's it. You can also check the worker.CancellationPending periodically to see if you can finish earlier, but don't forget to assign worker.CancellationPending to e.Cancel before your return!
One last thing: if you want the postprocessing to continue when all workers have finished (and only then), you need to have a way to mark when a particular worker is finished (to cancel the others), and then a way to find out when they've all finished (so you can begin postprocessing). It's doable, and not too difficult - off the top of my head, I'd use a Dictionary<BackgroundWorker, bool> to indicate which workers have finished. Still, that's another piece of clutter you can avoid with async/await.
From this answer it seems there is no way to kill a Backgroundworker. However this answer shows a workaround by overriding OnDoWork and keeping a reference to Thread.CurrentThread. I would still try to have those Backgroundworkers check for a notification to cancel, though.
Related
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.
I need to do some operations on a certain interval (e.g. from 5 to 5 minutes in a loop) but need to be able to fully stop the thing whenever I want (on push of a button).
I was thinking into using a Timer class but events might fire even after the timer is stopped.
How can I have some code running on a timer and still be able to immediately bring everything to a complete stop?
Just so I am properly understood: By complete stop I mean that events stop and I can dispose of objects like the timer itself etc. I am not asking how to avoid having side effects from unexpected events that are fired after the timer is stopped!
Answer to this question depends a lot on a type of your operations.
Best scenario is to run a thread with a loop and listen to abort event.
static AutoResetEvent abort = new AutoResetEvent();
Thread worker = new Thread(WorkerThread);
void MainThread()
{
worker.Start();
Thread.Sleep(30000);
abort.Set();
}
void WorkerThread()
{
while(true)
{
if(abort.WaitOne(5000)) return;
// DO YOUR JOB
}
}
When you call abort.Set() from another thread, this one will exit.
But if your code is long running, you won't be able to exit until job is done.
To exit immediately you will have to abort thread, but this is not too wise because of resource consumption.
Alternatively, if your operation is long running (let's say you are going through long array), you can check "abort" event state from time to time (every iteration of loop, for example) like this abort.WaitOne(0).
The race condition with the timer is unavoidable since, as you say, the callbacks are executed from the thread pool. However, I believe you can safely dispose the timer even while it's still executing the events. An option which might help is if you consider using the System.Threading.Timer instead of System.Timers.Timer, for which you can call Timer.Dispose(WaitHandle) if you need to have a way to know when the timer events have finished executing. This will prevent race conditions for the cases where you also need to dispose of some other resource - a resource that the event consumer function will attempt to use.
As for the "immediate" requirement, the most immediate would probably be something that uses a synchronization primitive of sorts to stop execution. For example consider this:
static System.Timers.Timer timer;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var cancelSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
timer = new System.Timers.Timer(200);
timer.Elapsed += new SomeTimerConsumer(cancelSource.Token).timer_Elapsed;
timer.Start();
// Let it run for a while
Thread.Sleep(5000);
// Stop "immediately"
cancelSource.Cancel(); // Tell running events to finish ASAP
lock (timer)
timer.Dispose();
}
class SomeTimerConsumer
{
private CancellationToken cancelTimer;
public SomeTimerConsumer(CancellationToken cancelTimer)
{
this.cancelTimer = cancelTimer;
}
public void timer_Elapsed(object sender, System.Timers.ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
lock (timer)
{
// Do some potentially long operation, that respects cancellation requests
if (cancelTimer.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
// More stuff here
}
}
}
This is a toy example, but it illustrates my point. The 3 lines that do the "stop immediately" have the following features:
By the time the Dispose call returns, none of the // More stuff here code will ever execute again.
None of the // More stuff here code can execute while the timer is being disposed, because of the lock.
The previous 2 features require the lock, but they prevent the timer from stopping "immediately" because on entering the lock it needs to wait for all timer events calls to finish if they have started. For this reason I added in the cancellation as the fastest way to abort the currently executing events while still guaranteeing that they won't be executing during timer dispose.
Note: if you need multiple timer events to execute simultaneously, consider using a ReaderWriterLockSlim instead of a monitor.
I'd consider one of these two options:
Put a safety check in the events that you need to execute. Something like a database flag. So even if the Timer fails to stop the event will bail out when the safety check fails.
Use something like Quartz.Net for scheduling. This is really heavy handed but it'll do what you want.
Suppose you have a search textbox and have a search algorithm attached to the TextChanged event, that runs with a BackgroundWorker. If there comes a new character in the textbox, i need to cancel the previous search and run it again.
I tried using events in between the main thread and the bgw, from this previous question, but I still get the error "currently busy and cannot run multiple tasks concurrently"
BackgroundWorker bgw_Search = new BackgroundWorker();
bgw_Search.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(bgw_Search_DoWork);
private AutoResetEvent _resetEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private void txtSearch_TextChanged(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
SearchWithBgw();
}
private void SearchWithBgw()
{
// cancel previous search
if (bgw_Search.IsBusy)
{
bgw_Search.CancelAsync();
// wait for the bgw to finish, so it can be reused.
_resetEvent.WaitOne(); // will block until _resetEvent.Set() call made
}
// start new search
bgw_Search.RunWorkerAsync(); // error "cannot run multiple tasks concurrently"
}
void bgw_Search_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
Search(txtSearch.Text, e);
}
private void Search(string aQuery, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
int i = 1;
while (i < 3) // simulating search processing...
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
i++;
if (bgw_Search.CancellationPending)
{
_resetEvent.Set(); // signal that worker is done
e.Cancel = true;
return;
}
}
}
EDIT To reflect answers. Don´t reuse the BackgroundWorker, create a new one:
private void SearchWithBgw()
{
if (bgw_Search.IsBusy)
{
bgw_Search.CancelAsync();
_resetEvent.WaitOne(); // will block until _resetEvent.Set() call made
bgw_Search = new BackgroundWorker();
bgw_Search.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
bgw_Search.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(bgw_Search_DoWork);
}
bgw_Search.RunWorkerAsync();
}
When the _resetEvent.WaitOne() call completes, the worker thread isn't actually done. It is busy returning from DoWork() and waiting for an opportunity to run the RunWorkerCompleted event, if any. That takes time.
There is no reliable way to ensure the BGW is completed in a synchronous way. Blocking on IsBusy or waiting for the RunWorkerCompleted event to run is going to cause deadlock. If you really want to use only one bgw then you'll have to queue the requests. Or just don't sweat the small stuff and allocate another bgw. They cost very little.
Create a new background worker if the old one exists.
private void SearchWithBgw()
{
// cancel previous search
if (bgw_Search.IsBusy)
{
bgw_Search.CancelAsync();
// wait for the bgw to finish, so it can be reused.
_resetEvent.WaitOne(); // will block until _resetEvent.Set() call made
BackgroundWorker bgw_Search = new BackgroundWorker();
bgw_Search.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(bgw_Search_DoWork);
}
// start new search
bgw_Search.RunWorkerAsync(); // error "cannot run multiple tasks concurrently"
}
Also I know you put fake code in, but you want to make sure you set _resetEvent when the code completes normally too.
Do not reuse a Backgroundworker. It is a cheap resource, it is not a Thread.
make sure your Bgw code stops, yours looks OK. The Bgw will release the Thread to the pool.
but in the mean time, create a new Task/Bgw for a new job.
You may want to unsubscribe your Completed event from the old Bgw.
I think you should consider not cancelling the background worker.
If you cancel requests and the user types faster than your server returns queries, he will not see suggestions until he is finished typing.
In interactive scenarios like this, It could be better to show responses that run behind with what the user's typing. Your user will know he can stop typing if the word he has in mind is your suggestions list.
This will be also better for your server when it is busy, because instead of many cancelled requests, who will cost something but that are ultimately not shown, there will be fewer requests whose response you actually use.
I ran into similar issues with (3d) rendering applications, where the beginner's mistake is to cancel and rerender on every mousemove. This lead to a lot of computation and little interactive feedback.
Background: I used to call a stored procedure during my Form Load. However, since this resulted in a suboptimal UI experience, I put my SP call in a task of its own inside the Shown event. Since this is typically the last event in the form display process, it resulted in a much better experience than putting stuff in the Form load event. I have:
private void MainForm_Shown(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
dbCheckTask = Task<bool>.Factory.StartNew(RunSPAndCheckStuff());
// both of below run on the GUI thread.
// if I print the thread ID in mycallback it is the GUI thread id
dbCheckTask.ContinueWith(mycallback());
// I also tried below. But obviously, that too runs on the GUI thread
mycallback(dbCheckTask.Result)
}
Because they fire on the GUI thread, my startup form paint is still neither instantaneous nor smooth. How can I get my task complete callback on a non-GUI thread without resorting to events? Whenever the task completes and if something is wrong and only if something is wrong (bool result returned false) then the user gets a message box pop. Until then he could go ahead and do other non database related stuff on the form. Please advise how I can get a task completion callback with task result in a non gui thread. Thank you
All this stuff is addressed best in the Async language extensions you can download here and has the homepage here.
It introduces the async and await keywords to C# and VB that will let you write code that switches back and forth between UI and background threads effortlessly even within a single method. The compiler will convert that to tasks, continuations, error catching etc etc transparantly without you having to worry about any of that. The example that would interest you would be this one:
public async void AsyncSwitchToCPU() {
Console.WriteLine("On the UI thread.");
// Switch to a thread pool thread:
await new SynchronizationContext().SwitchTo();
Console.WriteLine("Starting CPU-intensive work on background thread...");
int result = DoCpuIntensiveWork();
Console.WriteLine("Done with CPU-intensive work!");
// Switch back to UI thread
await Application.Current.Dispatcher.SwitchTo();
Console.WriteLine("Back on the UI thread. Result is {0}.", result);
}
public int DoCpuIntensiveWork()
{
// Simulate some CPU-bound work on the background thread:
Thread.Sleep(5000);
return 123;
}
This even has a go-live license (with some reservations from MS). Very elegant stuff borrowed from F#.
Rgds Gert-Jan
I'd use a BackgroundWorker for this, personally. One way to get your callback to run on the task thread would be to modify your method call and task creation as follows:
private void MainForm_Shown(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
dbCheckTask = Task<bool>.Factory.StartNew(() => RunSPAndCheckStuff(mycallback));
...
}
private bool RunSPAndCheckStuff(Action<bool> callback)
{
bool result = false;
// Do stuff
callback(result);
return result;
}
You should look into using the Asynchronous API's rather than calling the synchronous versions in a background thread:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.data.sqlclient.sqlcommand.beginexecutenonquery.aspx
The advantage to that is that no thread will be blocked, and I believe the callback will be called on ThreadPool thread, e.g. NOT on the GUI thread. From there you can marshal any GUI calls back to the GUI thread with Invoke/BeginInvoke.
Why not doing:
Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>WorkerMethod());
And define WorkerMethod() as:
void WorkerMethod()
{
RunSPAndCheckStuff(); // this blocks until finished
DoSomeMoreStuff(); // then this continuous
}
Otherwise please provide more details on what do you want to accomplish.
There is a sequence for FORM(some UI) should get downloaded using service.
Currently, this download is in a BackgroundWorker Thread.
Now, since the performance is slow... We decided to categories the FORMS into 2 and start downloading parallely using another BackgroundWorker on top of the existing Thread.
Now, the scenario is the either of this BackgroundWorker should wait for other to complete.
So, how to implement it.
I tried with AutoResetEvent. but, i could not achieve this.
Any help is appreciated.
I don't think that the scenario is really that one BackgroundWorker should wait for another. What you really want is to fire some UI event after (and only after) both of them complete. It's a subtle but important difference; the second version is a lot easier to code.
public class Form1 : Form
{
private object download1Result;
private object download2Result;
private void BeginDownload()
{
// Next two lines are only necessary if this is called multiple times
download1Result = null;
download2Result = null;
bwDownload1.RunWorkerAsync();
bwDownload2.RunWorkerAsync();
}
private void bwDownload1_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender,
RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
download1Result = e.Result;
if (download2Result != null)
DisplayResults();
}
private void bwDownload2_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender,
RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
download2Result = e.Result;
if (download1Result != null)
DisplayResults();
}
private void DisplayResults()
{
// Do something with download1Result and download2Result
}
}
Note that those object references should be strongly-typed, I just used object because I don't know what you're downloading.
This is really all you need; the RunWorkerCompleted event runs in the foreground thread so you actually don't need to worry about synchronization or race conditions in there. No need for lock statements, AutoResetEvent, etc. Just use two member variables to hold the results, or two boolean flags if the result of either can actually be null.
You should be able to use two AutoResetEvent's and the WaitAll function to wait for both to complete. Call the Set function on the AutoResetEvent objects in the respective OnRunWorkerCompleted event.
Jeffrey Richter is THE guru when it comes to multi threading and he's written an amazing library called Power Threading Library which makes doing tasks like downloading n files asynchronously and continuing after they are all completed (or one or some), really simple.
Take a little time out to watch the video, learn about it and you won't regret it. Using the power threading library (which is free and has a Silverlight and Compact Framework version also) also makes your code easier to read, which is a big advantage when doing any async stuff.
Good luck,
Mark
int completedCount = 0;
void threadProc1() { //your thread1 proc
//do something
....
completedCount++;
while (completedCount < 2) Thread.Sleep(10);
//now both threads are done
}
void threadProc2() { //your thread1 proc
//do something
....
completedCount++;
while (completedCount < 2) Thread.Sleep(10);
//now both threads are done
}
Just use 2 BackgroundWorker objects, and have each one alert the UI when it completes. That way you can display a spinner, progress bar, whatever on the UI and update it as download results come back from the threads. You will also avoid any risks of thread deadlocking, etc.
By the way, just so we are all clear, you should NEVER call a blocking function such as WaitAll from the UI thread. It will cause the UI to completely lock up which will make you users wonder WTF is going on :)