We Keep Coding

Best way to let many worker-threads wait for mainthread and vice versa

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();
}
}

Releasing many threads from one event signal

I have a application where multiple threads have to wait on an event to indicate that new data is available in a list. My expectation was that I could use an AutoResetEvent, WaitOne on it in each thread, and then when the data is available Set the event.
However, because it is auto reset the first thread clears the event and doesn't release the other threads. Now I could presumably make it a manual reset and implement a counter, but my feeling is that this is a common problem and so there must be a standard way to do it, but searching the docs I couldn't find one.
Any help? Here is some sample code that doesn't release all the threads:
static AutoResetEvent eve = new AutoResetEvent(false);
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var threads = new List<Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
int iCopy = i;
var t = new Thread(() => thread(iCopy));
threads.Add(t);
t.Start();
}
Console.WriteLine("Pausing");
Thread.Sleep(5000);
eve.Set();
foreach (var t in threads) t.Join();
Console.WriteLine("All done");
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void thread(int n)
{
eve.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0}", n);
}

Just use the ManualResetEvent in the place of AutoRestEvent. There is not need for counter. I tried , it worked below is the code.
static ManualResetEvent eve = new ManualResetEvent(false);
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var threads = new List<Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
int iCopy = i;
var t = new Thread(() => thread(iCopy));
threads.Add(t);
t.Start();
}
Console.WriteLine("Pausing");
Thread.Sleep(5000);
eve.Set();
foreach (var t in threads) t.Join();
Console.WriteLine("All done");
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void thread(int n)
{
eve.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0}", n);
}

I have a application where multiple threads have to wait on an event to indicate that new data is available in a list. My expectation was that I could use an AutoResetEvent, WaitOne on it in each thread, and then when the data is available Set the event.
You have a bit of a XY Problem, however thankfully you included what your "X" was (Make the threads get new data from a list once it is available).
Based off of your description I think you would be better off using a BlockingCollection, you can spin up as many threads as you want and they will all block till new data is available, as soon as data is available they unblock and take data till there is none left then re-block.
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
class Program
{
static BlockingCollection<int> _items = new BlockingCollection<int>();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
//Start up 4 threads
var threads = new Thread[4];
for (int i = 0; i < threads.Length; i++)
{
var iCopy = i;
threads[i] = new Thread(() => ProcessItems(iCopy));
threads[i].IsBackground = true;
threads[i].Start();
}
//Give the threads 5 items to process.
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
_items.Add(i);
}
Console.WriteLine("All items queued, sleeping 2 seconds");
Thread.Sleep(2000);
//Give the threads 10 more items to process.
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
_items.Add(i);
}
_items.CompleteAdding();
Console.WriteLine("Marked adding complete");
foreach (var t in threads) t.Join();
Console.WriteLine("All threads complete");
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void ProcessItems(int i)
{
var rnd = new Random(i);
foreach (var item in _items.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} Processing item {1}", i, item);
//Simulate a random amount work
Thread.Sleep(rnd.Next(100, 500));
}
}
}
}

If you really want to release all the waiting threads just once, use an array of semaphores, one for each thread. When you want them all to go, send one unit to each semaphore in a loop.

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);
}
}

.NET 2.0 Processing very large lists using ThreadPool

This is further to my question here
By doing some reading .... I moved away from Semaphores to ThreadPool.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
namespace ThreadPoolTest
{
class Data
{
public int Pos { get; set; }
public int Num { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static ManualResetEvent[] resetEvents = new ManualResetEvent[20];
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int s = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
resetEvents[s] = new ManualResetEvent(false);
Data d = new Data();
d.Pos = s;
d.Num = i;
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(Process), (object)d);
if (s >= 19)
{
WaitHandle.WaitAll(resetEvents);
Console.WriteLine("Press Enter to Move forward");
Console.ReadLine();
s = 0;
}
else
{
s = s + 1;
}
}
}
private static void Process(object o)
{
Data d = (Data) o;
Console.WriteLine(d.Num.ToString());
Thread.Sleep(10000);
resetEvents[d.Pos].Set();
}
}
}
This code works and I am able to process in the sets of 20. But I don't like this code because of WaitAll. So let's say I start a batch of 20, and 3 threads take longer time while 17 have finished. Even then I will keep the 17 threads as waiting because of the WaitAll.
WaitAny would have been good... but it seems rather messy that I will have to build so much of control structures like Stacks, Lists, Queues etc in order to use the pool efficiently.
The other thing I don't like is that whole global variable in the class for resetEvents. because this array has to be shared between the Process method and the main loop.
The above code works... but I need your help in improving it.
Again... I am on .NET 2.0 VS 2008. I cannot use .NET 4.0 parallel/async framework.

There are several ways you can do this. Probably the easiest, based on what you've posted above, would be:
const int MaxThreads = 4;
const int ItemsToProcess = 10000;
private Semaphore _sem = new Semaphore(MaxThreads, MaxThreads);
void DoTheWork()
{
int s = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < ItemsToProcess; ++i)
{
_sem.WaitOne();
Data d = new Data();
d.Pos = s;
d.Num = i;
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(Process, d);
++s;
if (s >= 19)
s = 0;
}
// All items have been assigned threads.
// Now, acquire the semaphore "MaxThreads" times.
// When counter reaches that number, we know all threads are done.
int semCount = 0;
while (semCount < MaxThreads)
{
_sem.WaitOne();
++semCount;
}
// All items are processed
// Clear the semaphore for next time.
_sem.Release(semCount);
}
void Process(object o)
{
// do the processing ...
// release the semaphore
_sem.Release();
}
I only used four threads in my example because that's how many cores I have. It makes little sense to be using 20 threads when only four of them can be processing at any one time. But you're free to increase the MaxThreads number if you like.

So I'm pretty sure this is all .NET 2.0.
We'll start out defining Action, because I'm so used to using it. If using this solution in 3.5+, remove that definition.
Next, we create a queue of actions based on the input.
After that we define a callback; this callback is the meat of the method.
It first grabs the next item in the queue (using a lock since the queue isn't thread safe). If it ended up having an item to grab it executes that item. Next it adds a new item to the thread pool which is "itself". This is a recursive anonymous method (you don't come across uses of that all that often). This means that when the callback is called for the first time it will execute one item, then schedule a task which will execute another item, and that item will schedule a task that executes another item, and so on. Eventually the queue will run out, and they'll stop queuing more items.
We also want the method to block until we're all done, so for that we keep track of how many of these callbacks have finished through incrementing a counter. When that counter reaches the task limit we signal the event.
Finally we start N of these callbacks in the thread pool.
public delegate void Action();
public static void Execute(IEnumerable<Action> actions, int maxConcurrentItems)
{
object key = new object();
Queue<Action> queue = new Queue<Action>(actions);
int count = 0;
AutoResetEvent whenDone = new AutoResetEvent(false);
WaitCallback callback = null;
callback = delegate
{
Action action = null;
lock (key)
{
if (queue.Count > 0)
action = queue.Dequeue();
}
if (action != null)
{
action();
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(callback);
}
else
{
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref count) == maxConcurrentItems)
whenDone.Set();
}
};
for (int i = 0; i < maxConcurrentItems; i++)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(callback);
}
whenDone.WaitOne();
}
Here's another option that doesn't use the thread pool, and just uses a fixed number of threads:
public static void Execute(IEnumerable<Action> actions, int maxConcurrentItems)
{
Thread[] threads = new Thread[maxConcurrentItems];
object key = new object();
Queue<Action> queue = new Queue<Action>(actions);
for (int i = 0; i < maxConcurrentItems; i++)
{
threads[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(delegate
{
Action action = null;
do
{
lock (key)
{
if (queue.Count > 0)
action = queue.Dequeue();
else
action = null;
}
if (action != null)
{
action();
}
} while (action != null);
}));
threads[i].Start();
}
for (int i = 0; i < maxConcurrentItems; i++)
{
threads[i].Join();
}
}

Thread Yield method simulation using Sleep

I am trying to understand threading concepts in .Net.
I am unable to use Yield() method. I want the control to go to a parallel thread when i becomes divisible by 10.
Please help.
Below is my sample code:
class ThreadTest
{
//Index i is declared as static so that both the threads have only one copy
static int i;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t = new Thread(WriteY);
i = 0;
//Start thread Y
t.Start();
//Do something on the main thread.
for (; i < 100; i++)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
//Simulate Yield() function
Thread.Sleep(0);
Console.WriteLine("The X thread");
}
Console.Write(i + ":X ");
}
Console.ReadKey(true);
}
static void WriteY()
{
for (; i < 100; i++)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
//Simulate Yield() function
Thread.Sleep(0);
Console.WriteLine("The Y thread");
}
Console.Write(i + ":Y ");
}
}
}
I get the compile time error:
System.Threading.Thread does not contain a definition for 'Yield'
Answered by Tudor. This method will only work on .Net 4.0 and upwards.
Ideally I would want one thread to start and want each thread to execute for 10 incremented of i each. With my current method, I either get all 'X' or all 'Y'.
Edit:
With inputs from Tudor and TheHe - I have been able to get alternate X and Y. The crux of the problem was usage of lock object. But the output of this code is not predictable.

Thread.Yield will simply enable the scheduler to select a different thread that is ready to run:
Causes the calling thread to yield execution to another thread that is
ready to run on the current processor. The operating system selects
the thread to yield to.
If other threads in your application are also waiting on that lock, you can yield all you want, they won't get a chance to run.
Btw, Yield is a .NET 4.0+ method. Make sure you're not targeting an earlier version.
Edit: IMO, to do what you want you should use events:
class Test
{
//Index i is declared as static so that both the threads have only one copy
static int i;
static AutoResetEvent parentEvent = new AutoResetEvent(true);
static AutoResetEvent childEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t = new Thread(WriteY);
i = 0;
//Start thread Y
t.Start();
// Print X on the main thread
parentEvent.WaitOne();
while (i < 100)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
childEvent.Set();
parentEvent.WaitOne();
}
Console.Write(i + ":Y ");
i++;
}
t.Join();
}
static void WriteY()
{
childEvent.WaitOne();
while (i < 100)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
parentEvent.Set();
childEvent.WaitOne();
}
Console.Write(i + ":X ");
i++;
}
}
}

Forget Thread.Yield; that is unrelated to what you are trying to do. Ultimately, you have a lock, which uses Monitor to synchronize access. Inside the lock, your thread exclusively has access. What you need to do is relinquish the lock temporarily; the way you do that is with Monitor.Wait. However, if you Wait, you also end up in the "waiting" queue rather than the "ready" queue, so in order to make sure that each thread gets attention, we also need to Pulse, both before the Wait, and also at the end (to make sure both threads get chance to exit). Here we go:
using System.Threading;
using System;
class ThreadTest
{
//Index i is declared as static so that both the threads have only one copy
static int i;
//The lock object
static readonly object locker = new object();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t = new Thread(WriteY);
i = 0;
//Start thread Y
t.Start();
lock (locker)
{
// Print X on the main thread
for (; i < 100; i++)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(locker); // move any "waiting" threads to the "ready" queue
Monitor.Wait(locker); // relinquish the lock, and wait for a pulse
Console.WriteLine("The X thread");
}
Console.Write(i + ":X ");
}
Monitor.PulseAll(locker);
}
Console.ReadKey(true);
}
static void WriteY()
{
lock (locker)
{
for (; i < 100; i++)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(locker); // move any "waiting" threads to the "ready" queue
Monitor.Wait(locker); // relinquish the lock, and wait for a pulse
Console.WriteLine("The Y thread");
}
Console.Write(i + ":Y ");
}
Monitor.PulseAll(locker); // move any "waiting" threads to the "ready" queue
}
}
}

from my point of view, you're locking "locker" in current thread and want to yield the current task to an other thread...
the lock is held by the first thread all the time -- it can't work?!
you have to manually lock the objects if you want to use multiple threads...