We Keep Coding

Parallel processing using TPL in windows service

I have a windows service which is consuming a messaging system to fetch messages. I have also created a callback mechanism with the help of Timer class which helps me to check the message after some fixed time to fetch and process. Previously, the service is processing the message one by one. But I want after the message arrives the processing mechanism to execute in parallel. So if the first message arrived it should go for processing on one task and even if the processing is not finished for the first message still after the interval time configured using the callback method (callback is working now) next message should be picked and processed on a different task.
Below is my code:
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Subsriber<Message> subsriber = new Subsriber<Message>()
{
Interval = 1000
};
subsriber.Callback(Process, m => m != null);
});
public static void Process(Message message)
{
if (message != null)
{
// Processing logic
}
else
{
}
}
But using the Task Factory I am not able to control the number of tasks in parallel so in my case I want to configure the number of tasks on which messages will run on the availability of the tasks?
Update:
Updated my above code to add multiple tasks
Below is the code:
private static void Main()
{
try
{
int taskCount = 5;
Task.Factory.StartNewAsync(() =>
{
Subscriber<Message> consumer = new
Subcriber<Message>()
{
Interval = 1000
};
consumer.CallBack(Process, msg => msg!=
null);
}, taskCount);
Console.ReadLine();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
}
public static void StartNewAsync(this TaskFactory
target, Action action, int taskCount)
{
var tasks = new Task[taskCount];
for (int i = 0; i < taskCount; i++)
{
tasks[i] = target.StartNew(action);
}
}
public static void Process(Message message)
{
if (message != null)
{
}
else
{ }
}
}

I think what your looking for will result in quite a large sample. I'm trying just to demonstrate how you would do this with ActionBlock<T>. There's still a lot of unknowns so I left the sample as skeleton you can build off. In the sample the ActionBlock will handle and process in parallel all your messages as they're received from your messaging system
public class Processor
{
private readonly IMessagingSystem _messagingSystem;
private readonly ActionBlock<Message> _handler;
private bool _pollForMessages;
public Processor(IMessagingSystem messagingSystem)
{
_messagingSystem = messagingSystem;
_handler = new ActionBlock<Message>(msg => Process(msg), new ExecutionDataflowBlockOptions()
{
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 5 //or any configured value
});
}
public async Task Start()
{
_pollForMessages = true;
while (_pollForMessages)
{
var msg = await _messagingSystem.ReceiveMessageAsync();
await _handler.SendAsync(msg);
}
}
public void Stop()
{
_pollForMessages = false;
}
private void Process(Message message)
{
//handle message
}
}
More Examples
And Ideas

Ok, sorry I'm short on time but here's the general idea/skeleton of what I was thinking as an alternative.
If I'm honest though I think the ActionBlock<T> is the better option as there's just so much done for you, with the only limit being that you can't dynamically scale the amount of work it will do it once, although I think the limit can be quite high. If you get into doing it this way you could have more control or just have a kind of dynamic amount of tasks running but you'll have to do a lot of things manually, e.g if you want to limit the amount of tasks running at a time, you'd have to implement a queueing system (something ActionBlock handles for you) and then maintain it. I guess it depends on how many messages you're receiving and how fast your process handles them.
You'll have to check it out and think of how it could apply to your direct use case as I think some of the details area a little sketchily implemented on my side around the concurrentbag idea.
So the idea behind what I've thrown together here is that you can start any number of tasks, or add to the tasks running or cancel tasks individually by using the collection.
The main thing I think is just making the method that the Callback runs fire off a thread that does the work, instead of subscribing within a separate thread.
I used Task.Factory.StartNew as you did, but stored the returned Task object in an object (TaskInfo) which also had it's CancellationTokenSource, it's Id (assigned externally) as properties, and then added that to a collection of TaskInfo which is a property on the class this is all a part of:
Updated - to avoid this being too confusing i've just updated the code that was here previously.
You'll have to update bits of it and fill in the blanks in places like with whatever you have for my HeartbeatController, and the few events that get called because they're beyond the scope of the question but the idea would be the same.
public class TaskContainer
{
private ConcurrentBag<TaskInfo> Tasks;
public TaskContainer(){
Tasks = new ConcurrentBag<TaskInfo>();
}
//entry point
//UPDATED
public void StartAndMonitor(int processorCount)
{
for (int i = 0; i <= processorCount; i++)
{
Processor task = new Processor(ProcessorId = i);
CreateProcessorTask(task);
}
this.IsRunning = true;
MonitorTasks();
}
private void CreateProcessorTask(Processor processor)
{
CancellationTokenSource cancellationTokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task taskInstance = Task.Factory.StartNew(
() => processor.Start(cancellationTokenSource.Token)
);
//bind status update event
processor.ProcessorStatusUpdated += ReportProcessorProcess;
Tasks.Add(new ProcessorInfo()
{
ProcessorId = processor.ProcessorId,
Task = taskInstance,
CancellationTokenSource = cancellationTokenSource
});
}
//this method gets called once but the HeartbeatController gets an action as a param that it then
//executes on a timer. I haven't included that but you get the idea
//This method also checks for tasks that have stopped and restarts them if the manifest call says they should be running.
//Will also start any new tasks included in the manifest and stop any that aren't included in the manifest.
internal void MonitorTasks()
{
HeartbeatController.Beat(() =>
{
HeartBeatHappened?.Invoke(this, null);
List<int> tasksToStart = new List<int>();
//this is an api call or whatever drives your config that says what tasks must be running.
var newManifest = this.GetManifest(Properties.Settings.Default.ResourceId);
//task Removed Check - If a Processor is removed from the task pool, cancel it if running and remove it from the Tasks List.
List<int> instanceIds = new List<int>();
newManifest.Processors.ForEach(x => instanceIds.Add(x.ProcessorId));
var removed = Tasks.Select(x => x.ProcessorId).ToList().Except(instanceIds).ToList();
if (removed.Count() > 0)
{
foreach (var extaskId in removed)
{
var task = Tasks.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ProcessorId == extaskId);
task.CancellationTokenSource?.Cancel();
}
}
foreach (var newtask in newManifest.Processors)
{
var oldtask = Tasks.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ProcessorId == newtask.ProcessorId);
//Existing task check
if (oldtask != null && oldtask.Task != null)
{
if (!oldtask.Task.IsCanceled && (oldtask.Task.IsCompleted || oldtask.Task.IsFaulted))
{
var ex = oldtask.Task.Exception;
tasksToStart.Add(oldtask.ProcessorId);
continue;
}
}
else //New task Check
tasksToStart.Add(newtask.ProcessorId);
}
foreach (var item in tasksToStart)
{
var taskToRemove = Tasks.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ProcessorId == item);
if (taskToRemove != null)
Tasks.Remove(taskToRemove);
var task = newManifest.Processors.FirstOrDefault(x => x.ProcessorId == item);
if (task != null)
{
CreateProcessorTask(task);
}
}
});
}
}
//UPDATED
public class Processor{
private int ProcessorId;
private Subsriber<Message> subsriber;
public Processor(int processorId) => ProcessorId = processorId;
public void Start(CancellationToken token)
{
Subsriber<Message> subsriber = new Subsriber<Message>()
{
Interval = 1000
};
subsriber.Callback(Process, m => m != null);
}
private void Process()
{
//do work
}
}
Hope this gives you an idea of how else you can approach your problem and that I didn't miss the point :).
Update
To use events to update progress or which tasks are processing, I'd extract them into their own class, which then has subscribe methods on it, and when creating a new instance of that class, assign the event to a handler in the parent class which can then update your UI or whatever you want it to do with that info.
So the content of Process() would look more like this:
Processor processor = new Processor();
Task task = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => processor.ProcessMessage(cancellationTokenSource.CancellationToken));
processor.StatusUpdated += ReportProcess;

How to do a repeatable work with c# task?

I use sharpPacp to receive udp packet, when the packed arrived , I use a BackgroundThread to process the received packed like this:
private void BackgroundThread()
{
while (!BackgroundThreadStop)
{
bool shouldSleep = true;
lock (QueueLock)
{
if (PacketQueue.Count != 0)
{
shouldSleep = false;
}
}
if (shouldSleep)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(250);
}
else // should process the queue
{
//List<RawCapture> ourQueue;
List<UdpPacket> ourQueue;
lock (QueueLock)
{
// swap queues, giving the capture callback a new one
ourQueue = PacketQueue;
PacketQueue = new List<UdpPacket>();
}
//I write my repeatable work in here
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
ProcePacket(ourQueue);
});
if (statisticsUiNeedsUpdate)
{
UpdateCaptureStatistics();
statisticsUiNeedsUpdate = false;
}
}
}
}
where ProcePacket(ourQueue) is a methed take a long time to finished.
my program run for a while,then the cpu is almost 98% used and memory increased to a large number,at last it dead.
I think the problem is I create too many task ,but how can I do reapeatable work with only one task?

Buffer tasks data with timeout

I have a rather tricky question to solve. I have multiple (up to hundred or more) tasks, each of them produce a piece of data, say, string. These tasks can be spawn in every moment and there can be huge amount of them in one time and no at another. Each task must receive bool, indicating, whether is was completed correctly or not (that's important).
I want to implement some kind of buffer, to agregate data from tasks and flush it to external service, returning operation state (ok or fail). Also, my buffer must be flushed by timeout (to prevent waiting for new tasks to generate data for too long).
So far i tried to make some shared list of items. Tasks can add items to list and there is another task, checking timer or count of items in list and flushing them. But in this approach i can't tell status of flush operation to task, which is very bad for me.
I'll be gratefull for any approarch to solve my problem.

As I understand, you need to save result of each task to database/service, but you don't want to do it immediately.
There can be more than one solution to your problem, but it's difficult to come up with the best one, so I'll describe how I would have done it ... quickly.
A container for data you need to save/send.
public class TaskResultEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public bool Result { get; set; }
}
A notifier which also runs the task for you. I assumed you can delay execution of tasks.
public class NotifyingTaskRunner
{
public event EventHandler<TaskResultEventArgs> TaskCompleted;
public void RunAndNotify(Task<bool> task)
{
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
OnTaskCompleted(this, new TaskResultEventArgs { Result = t.Result });
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnRanToCompletion);
task.Start();
}
protected virtual void OnTaskCompleted(object sender, TaskResultEventArgs e)
{
var h = TaskCompleted;
if (h != null)
{
h.Invoke(sender, e);
}
}
}
A listener which can buffer and/or flush results (or you might want to delegate this to another class).
public class Listener
{
private ConcurrentQueue<bool> _queue = new ConcurrentQueue<bool>();
public Listener(NotifyingTaskRunner runner)
{
runner.TaskCompleted += Flush;
}
public async void Flush(object sender, TaskResultEventArgs e)
{
// Enqueue status to flush everything later (or flush it immediately)
_queue.Enqueue(e.Result);
}
}
And this is how you can use everything together.
var runner = new NotifyingTaskRunner();
var listener = new Listener(runner);
var t1 = new Task<bool>(() => { return true; });
var t2 = new Task<bool>(() => { return false; });
runner.RunAndNotify(t1);
runner.RunAndNotify(t2);

classic producer consumer pattern using blockingcollection and tasks .net 4 TPL

Please see below pseudo code
//Single or multiple Producers produce using below method
void Produce(object itemToQueue)
{
concurrentQueue.enqueue(itemToQueue);
consumerSignal.set;
}
//somewhere else we have started a consumer like this
//we have only one consumer
void StartConsumer()
{
while (!concurrentQueue.IsEmpty())
{
if (concurrentQueue.TrydeQueue(out item))
{
//long running processing of item
}
}
consumerSignal.WaitOne();
}
How do I port this pattern I have used since time immemorial to use taskfactory created tasks and the new signalling features of net 4. In other words if someone were to write this pattern using net 4 how would it look like ? Pseudo code is fine. Iam already using .net 4 concurrentQueue as you can see. How do I use a task and possibly use some newer signalling mechanism if possible. thanks
Solution to my problem below thanks to Jon/Dan. Sweet.
No manual signalling or while(true) or while(itemstoProcess) type loops like the old days
//Single or multiple Producers produce using below method
void Produce(object itemToQueue)
{
blockingCollection.add(item);
}
//somewhere else we have started a consumer like this
//this supports multiple consumers !
task(StartConsuming()).Start;
void StartConsuming()
{
foreach (object item in blockingCollection.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
//long running processing of item
}
}
cancellations are handled using cancel tokens

You would use BlockingCollection<T>. There's an example in the documentation.
That class is specifically designed to make this trivial.

Your second block of code looks better. But, starting a Task and then immediately waiting on it is pointless. Just call Take and then process the item that is returned directly on the consuming thread. That is how the producer-consumer pattern is meant to be done. If you think the processing of work items is intensive enough to warrant more consumers then by all means start more consumers. BlockingCollection is safe multiple producers and multiple consumers.
public class YourCode
{
private BlockingCollection<object> queue = new BlockingCollection<object>();
public YourCode()
{
var thread = new Thread(StartConsuming);
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
}
public void Produce(object item)
{
queue.Add(item);
}
private void StartConsuming()
{
while (true)
{
object item = queue.Take();
// Add your code to process the item here.
// Do not start another task or thread.
}
}
}

I've used a pattern before that creates a sort of 'on-demand' queue consumer (based on consuming from a ConcurrentQueue):
private void FireAndForget(Action fire)
{
_firedEvents.Enqueue(fire);
lock (_taskLock)
{
if (_launcherTask == null)
{
_launcherTask = new Task(LaunchEvents);
_launcherTask.ContinueWith(EventsComplete);
_launcherTask.Start();
}
}
}
private void LaunchEvents()
{
Action nextEvent;
while (_firedEvents.TryDequeue(out nextEvent))
{
if (_synchronized)
{
var syncEvent = nextEvent;
_mediator._syncContext.Send(state => syncEvent(), null);
}
else
{
nextEvent();
}
lock (_taskLock)
{
if (_firedEvents.Count == 0)
{
_launcherTask = null;
break;
}
}
}
}
private void EventsComplete(Task task)
{
if (task.IsFaulted && task.Exception != null)
{
// Do something with task Exception here
}
}

Namedpipe to list while being able to read or use that list?

Let's say I have a list and am streaming data from a namedpipe to that list.
hypothetical sample:
private void myStreamingThread()
{
while(mypipe.isconnected)
{
if (mypipe.hasdata)
myList.add(mypipe.data);
}
}
Then on another thread I need to read that list every 1000ms for example:
private void myListReadingThread()
{
while(isStarted)
{
if (myList.count > 0)
{
//do whatever I need to.
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
My priority here is to be able to read the list every 1000 ms and do whatever I need with the list but at the same time it is very important to be able to get the new data from it that comes from the pipe.
What is a good method to come with this ?
Forgot to mention I am tied to .NET 3.5

I would recommend using a Queue with a lock.
Queue<string> myQueue = new Queue<string>();
private void myStreamingThread()
{
while(mypipe.isconnected)
{
if (mypipe.hasdata)
{
lock (myQueue)
{
myQueue.add(mypipe.data);
}
}
}
}
If you want to empty the queue every 1000 ms, do not use Thread.Sleep. Use a timer instead.
System.Threading.Timer t = new Timer(myListReadingProc, null, 1000, 1000);
private void myListReadingProc(object s)
{
while (myQueue.Count > 0)
{
lock (myQueue)
{
string item = myQueue.Dequeue();
// do whatever
}
}
}
Note that the above assumes that the queue is only being read by one thread. If multiple threads are reading, then there's a race condition. But the above will work with a single reader and one or more writers.

I would suggest using a ConcurrentQueue (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd267265.aspx). If you use a simple List<> then you will encourter a lot threading issues.
The other practice would be to use a mutex called outstandingWork and wait on it instead of Thread.Sleep(). Then when you enqueue some work you pulse outstandingWork. This means that you sleep when no work is available but start processing work immediately instead of sleep the entire 1 second.
Edit
As #Prix pointed out, you are using .Net 3.5. So you cannot use ConcurrentQueue. Use the Queue class with the following
Queue<Work> queue;
AutoResetEvent outstandingWork = new AutoResetEvent(false);
void Enqueue(Work work)
{
lock (queue)
{
queue.Enqueue(work);
outstandingWork.Set();
}
}
Work DequeMaybe()
{
lock (queue)
{
if (queue.Count == 0) return null;
return queue.Dequeue();
}
}
void DoWork()
{
while (true)
{
Work work = DequeMaybe();
if (work == null)
{
outstandingWork.WaitOne();
continue;
}
// Do the work.
}
}