I would like to gracefully stop an endlessly looping thread from running whenever a button is clicked. Here's what as I understand should work:
bool running = true;
private Thread myThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(threadWorker));
private void threadWorker()
{
while(running)
{
...
}
}
private void button_click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
running = false
myThread.Join();
...
}
However clicking the button freezes the UI thread. Pausing the program to debug shows it stuck on Thread.Join(). If I put the "running" flag on a separate button and click it before joining then it works fine, but this way it's is as if the flag is never changed ant the method never ends.
What am I doing wrong?
EDIT: This question is NOT a duplicate of "Why is CPU usage constantly increasing after starting/stopping threads?", adding "volatile" to the flag declaration did not solve the problem.
In my case the program was freezing at the UI update invokes (thanks to usr for telling me I can check what the other threads are doing). Replacing Control.Invoke with Control.BeginInvoke solved the problem.
The worker thread seems to be stuck at an invoke to update a chart.
The worker tries to access the UI thread through an invoke. But the UI is stuck waiting in the Join. It's a deadlock.
Thread in conjunction with UI is obsolete. Switch to using await and such problems go away.
Since you didn't mention otherwise, I suppose running is not declared volatile which means threadWorker() method doesn't check it's "real" value, but a cached value of it. Try declaring it as
volatile bool running;
Related
EDIT:
please see question history, for unchanged question in order not to invalidate comments.
I am clicking button that executes certain codes and it creates a thread (System.Threading.Thread). When I reclick button which starts process it hangs and freezes ui. What could be the reason?
public partial class ucLoader : UserControl
{
//lock object for whole instance of class ucLoader
private object lockUcLoader = new object();
//bringing info from ui
private void btnBringInfo_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
lock (lockUcLoader)
{
btnBringInfo_PerformClick(false);
}
}
//using this method because it could be called when even button not visible
internal void btnBringInfo_PerformClick(bool calledFromBandInit)
{
lock (lockUcLoader) //HANGS HERE when called multiple times and ui freeze as well
//by the way I am using (repetitive) lock, because this method also called independently from btnBringInfo_Click
{
//...
this.btnLoad_PerformClick();
}
}
//Another button perform click that could be triggered elsewhere when even button not visible
private void btnLoad_PerformClick()
{
lock (lockUcLoader) //I am using (repetitive) lock, because this method also called independently from btnBringInfo_PerformClick
{
//...
Run();
}
}
//method for creating thread which System.Threading.Thread
private void Run()
{
lock (lockUcLoader) //Maybe this lock is NOT REQUIRED, as it is called by only btnLoad_PerformClick(), could you please confirm?
{
//some code that thread can be killed when available, you can ingore this two lines as they are irrelevant to subject, I think
Source = new CancellationTokenSource();
Token = Source.Token;
var shell = new WindowsShell();
Thread = new Thread((object o) =>
{
//...
var tokenInThread = (CancellationToken)o;
exitCode =TaskExtractBatchFiles(cls, shell, exitCode);
using (var logEnt = new logEntities())
{
//Do some db operation
//...
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
//do some ui update operation
//...
});
}
}
Thread.Start(Token);
}
}
public void Progress(string message)
{
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate //ATTENTION HERE see below picture Wait occurs here
{
if (message != null && message.Trim() != string.Empty)
{
this.txtStatus.AppendText(message + Environment.NewLine);
}
});
}
}
In order to avoid get closed question, what my question is how can I prevent
below method can be accesses with out lock from background thread and ui thread
public void Progress(string message)
{
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate //ATTENTION HERE see below picture Wait occurs here
{
if (message != null && message.Trim() != string.Empty)
{
this.txtStatus.AppendText(message + Environment.NewLine);
}
});
}
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate ...
Whenever you use the lock statement in your code then you always run the risk of inducing deadlock. One of the classic threading bugs. You generally need at least two locks to get there, acquiring them in the wrong order. And yes, there are two in your program. One you declared yourself. And one you cannot see because it is buried inside the plumbing that makes Control.Invoke() work. Not being able to see a lock is what makes deadlock a difficult problem to debug.
You can reason it out, the lock inside Control.Invoke is necessary to ensure that the worker thread is blocked until the UI thread executed the delegate target. Probably also helps to reason out why the program deadlocked. You started the worker thread, it acquired the lockUcLoader lock and starts doing its job, calling Control.Invoke while doing so. Now you click the button before the worker is done, it necessarily blocks. But that makes the UI thread go catatonic and no longer capable of executing the Control.Invoke code. So the worker thread hangs on the Invoke call and it won't release the lock. And the UI thread hangs forever on the lock since the worker can't complete, deadlock city.
Control.Invoke dates from .NET 1.0, a version of the framework that has several serious design mistakes in code related to threading. While meant to be helpful, they just set death-traps for programmers to blunder into. What is unique about Control.Invoke is that it is never correct to use it.
Distinguish Control.Invoke and Control.BeginInvoke. You only ever need Invoke when you need its return value. Note how you don't, using BeginInvoke instead is good enough and instantly solves the deadlock. You'd consider Invoke to obtain a value from the UI so you can use it in the worker thread. But that induces other major threading issue, a threading race bug, the worker has no idea what state the UI is in. Say, the user might be busy interacting with it, typing a new value. You can't know what value you obtain, it will easily be the stale old value. Inevitably producing a mismatch between the UI and the work being done. The only way to avoid that mishap is to prevent the user from typing a new value, easily done with Enable = false. But now it no longer makes sense to use Invoke, you might as well pass the value when you start the thread.
So using BeginInvoke is already good enough to solve the problem. But that is not where you should stop. There is no point to those locks in the Click event handlers, all they do is make the UI unresponsive, greatly confuzzling the user. What you must do instead is set the Enable properties of those buttons to false. Set them back to true when the worker is done. Now it can't go wrong anymore, you don't need the locks and the user gets good feedback.
There is another serious problem you haven't run into yet but you must address. A UserControl has no control over its lifetime, it gets disposed when the user closes the form on which it is hosted. But that is completely out of sync with the worker thread execution, it keeps calling BeginInvoke even though the control is dead as a doornail. That will make your program bomb, hopefully on an ObjectDisposedException. A threading race bug that a lock cannot solve. The form has to help, it must actively prevent the user from closing it. Some notes about this bug in this Q+A.
For completeness I should mention the third most common threading bug that code like this is likely to suffer from. It doesn't have an official name, I call it a "firehose bug". It occurs when the worker thread calls BeginInvoke too often, giving the UI thread too much work to do. Happens easily, calling it more than about thousand times per second tends to be enough. The UI thread starts burning 100% core, trying to keep up with the invoke requests and never being able to catch up. Easy to see, it stops painting itself and responding to input, duties that are performed with a lower priority. That needs to be fixed the logical way, updating UI more than 25 times per second just produces a blur that the human eye can't observe and is therefore pointless.
I've used Visual Studio 2013 to build a C# application with a single form, and the application has two routines that update the screen. The routines that update the screen need to run on the main thread, so my own threads (which don't interact with the screen) call the BeginInvoke method on the main form when updates are required. However, something is happening somewhere in the application with the result that the two update routines stop executing. I've put logging into the app to track the calls to BeginInvoke and the execution of the update routines, and I can see that when this problem occurs, the BeginInvoke calls are made, but then nothing. When this happens, the whole application seems to freeze. I can't think of what might be causing this. How can I debug this? Is there any way of looking at what's queued to run on the main thread? When I run in debug and break into the application, all threads look normal, and the main thread doesn't appear to be doing anything, so why isn't it processing my pending update tasks?
The Control.BeginInvoke() adds the delegate to an internal thread-safe queue. And posts a message to the UI thread to tell it to go have a look in that queue. The message loop inside Application.Run() gets that message and goes about emptying the queue again, executing the delegates.
So if you don't see this happening then the most obvious reason is that the UI thread isn't inside the Application.Run() loop. A standard mistake you could make is waiting for the thread to complete for example. Very likely to cause deadlock. Never wait, if you need to run code after the thread completes then consider BackgroundWorker's RunWorkerCompleted event or TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext().
The not-so-obvious failure mode of not seeing anything happening is that you are calling BeginInvoke() far too often. If you do this more than ~1000 times per second, give or take, then you'll flood that internal queue with too many delegates. The UI thread will actually be busy emptying that queue but can never catch up, always finding yet another delegate in the queue after executing one. It goes catatonic when this happens, not taking care of its normal duties anymore. Like responding to input and painting the windows. No fix for this, other than limiting the rate at which you call BeginInvoke(). Do keep the target in mind, you only have to do it as often as the user's eyes can perceive. Updating the UI at a rate more then 25 times per second is just wasted effort.
This might be due to the two update routines attempting to update the UI at the same time. I've seen strange UI behaviour, e.g. partially updated controls, when many UI updates occur in a short space of time when triggered by multiple interleaved events. The two routines are different routines, yes?
A possible way to solve this is to use asynchronous delegate invocation on the UI thread. In the code below I've assumed that your UI is a WinForms Form, and I've named the two routines UpdateA and UpdateB.
private bool isUpdating;
public delegate void UpdateDelegate();
private void UpdateA()
{
if (isUpdating)
{
this.BeginInvoke(new UpdateDelegate(UpdateA));
}
else
{
isUpdating = true;
try
{
// ... do UI updates for A
}
finally
{
isUpdating = false;
}
}
}
private void UpdateB()
{
if (isUpdating)
{
this.BeginInvoke(new UpdateDelegate(UpdateB));
}
else
{
isUpdating = true;
try
{
// ... do UI updates for B
}
finally
{
isUpdating = false;
}
}
}
By the way, I didn't use lock above to synchronise access to flag isUpdating, on the assumption that both UpdateA and UpdateB execute on the UI thread. They are invoked asynchronously by the worker threads via BeginInvoke.
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've found this topic, How to suspend a thread by its name from the main thread?, but no satisfactory answer for what I'm trying to achieve.
I'm using threading and the WatiN class to perform events on two browsers in the same windows form at the same time.
I would like to, from the main UI thread, press a pause button available within one of the browsers that, through deriving the control name of the browser the pause button was pressed on, use that' name to figure out which sub-thread is associated with it's running logic, and pause that running logic until the play button is pressed.
Now today, we are so accomplished in terms of code and technology, there should be a way to do this.
What do you think?
Researching Ideas:
Pragmatically create ManualResetEvent and name it, use the UI pause button to grab the open browser control name, which is similiarly named after the child thread and browser control name (such a browser_5 & thread_5) to somehow target in on the MRE in the child thread, and close the gate to pause the logic. (But can this be done on child thread from the main UI thread?)
Don't use thread.Suspend
At first blush, it seems you could use thread.Suspend() to pause it and thread.Resume() to unpause it. But this is not a very good idea. See the MSDN article for thread.Suspend for why you should never use it unless you intend to terminate the AppDomain for that thread.
Do not use the Suspend and Resume methods to synchronize the activities of threads. You have no way of knowing what code a thread is executing when you suspend it. If you suspend a thread while it holds locks during a security permission evaluation, other threads in the AppDomain might be blocked. If you suspend a thread while it is executing a class constructor, other threads in the AppDomain that attempt to use that class are blocked. Deadlocks can occur very easily.
A sub-loop would work, but isn't perfect
It isn't the best option, but you could use a similar technique to the one described in that question you linked.
Instead of exiting the loop when a stop button is pressed, have it enter and wait inside a sub-loop while paused. Do a Thread.Sleep in that sub-loop to keep the CPU from pegging.
This isn't the most efficient code possible, because it keeps the thread running, and hangs for another 100ms when resuming.
public class YourForm : Form
{
private volatile bool _pause = false;
private void StartButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var thread = new Thread(
() =>
{
while (...)
{
// Periodically poll the _pause flag.
while (_pause)
{
// Now that we're paused, wait until we're unpaused
// before proceeding further in the outer loop
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
// Todo: The rest of the processing here
}
});
thread.Start();
}
private void PauseButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
_pause = !_pause; // Toggle
}
}
Use thread synchronization
The best option is to use one of the various thread synchronization structures, like ManualResetEvent. Pausing threads is exactly what they're designed for. They're very efficient because they are implemented with a mutex.
public class YourForm : Form
{
private volatile bool _pause = false;
private static ManualResetEvent mre = new ManualResetEvent(true);
private void StartButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var thread = new Thread(ThreadImplementation);
thread.Start();
}
private void PauseButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
_pause = !_pause;
if(_pause)
{
mre.Reset();
}
else
{
mre.Set();
}
}
private void ThreadImplementation()
{
while (...)
{
// Periodically wait on the event
mre.WaitOne();
// Todo: The rest of the processing here
}
}
}
Your ManualResetEvent idea is exactly correct.
Make the child threads WaitOne() on the event between each step.
To pause the request, call Reset(); to unpause, call Set().
If the event is set, WaitOne() will return immediately.
This will be much more efficient than repeated sleeps.
I suspect that a ManualResetEventSlim would be slightly faster.
I am facing an issue with communication between threads in a C#.NET application.
Hope someone will guide me in the right direction about the possible solutions.
I have an application in C#.NET.It is a windows form application.
My application has two threads - One thread is the main thread (UI thread) and the other one is the child thread. Lets call the child thread the "workerThread"
There is only one form used in the application.Lets call this form the "MainForm"
The child thread is started when the MainForm loads (used the form's "Load" event handler to start the thread)
In the MainForm class, I have a variable named "stopWork" which is a public boolean variable and it serves as a flag to indicate whether the child thread should continue working or should it stop
I have another class (besides the MainForm class) which contains the method that I execute in the the child thread. Lets call this second class the "WorkerClass".
I pass a reference to the current form (the MainForm) into the constructor of the "WorkerClass"
I have a button "stop" in the main form which sets "stopWork" to "true" if its clicked and then calls "workerThread.Join()" to wait for the child thread to finish excecution.
In the child thread, the method "doWork" keeps checking the status of "parentForm.stopWork" inside a for loop. If "stopWork" is set to "true" then the loop breaks and subsequently the method ends.
Now, the issue is, once I am clicking the "stop" button ,the application hangs.
I am pasting parts of the code below so that it is easier to understand :
public partial class MainForm : Form
{
Thread workerThread = null;
ThreadStart workerThreadStart = null;
WorkerClass workerClass = null;
public bool stopWork = true;
/*.......... some code ............*/
private void MainForm_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
workerThreadStart = new ThreadStart(startWork);
workerThread = new Thread(workerThreadStart);
stopWork = false;
workerThread.Start();
}
private void startWork()
{
workerClass = new WorkerClass(this);
}
private void buttonStop_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) //"stop" button
{
if (workerThread != null)
{
if (workerThread.IsAlive == true)
{
stopWork = true;
workerThread.Join();
}
}
}
/*.......... some more code ............*/
}
public class WorkerClass
{
MainForm parentForm=null;
/*......... some variables and code ........*/
public WorkerClass(MainForm parentForm)
{
this.parentForm=parentForm;
}
/* .............. some more code ...........*/
public void doWork()
{
/*.......... some variables and code ...........*/
for(int i=0;i<100000;i++)
{
// ** Here is the check to see if parentForm has set stopWork to true **
if(parentForm.stopWork==true)
break;
/*......... do some work in the loop ..........*/
}
}
/********* and more code .........*/
}
I think I may know where the problem lies.
The problem is in the "doWork" method in the child thread trying to access "stopWork" variable in the parent form when already the parent form is blocked by calling the "workerThread.Join()" method. So ,I think this is a "deadlock" problem.
Am I right in identifying the problem ? Or am I wrong and the problem lies somewhere else ?
In case this is indeed a deadlock, what are the possible solutions to solve this ?
I did a bit of googling and found lots of resources on thread synchronisation and how to avoid deadlocks. But I could not understand how to apply them specifically to my problem.
I would really appreciate any help or guidance on resolving this issue.
Yes, the code you wrote is highly vulnerable to deadlock. The BackgroundWorker class is especially prone to cause this kind of deadlock.
The problem is located in code we can't see in your snippet, the WorkerClass. You are surely doing something there that affects the UI in one way or another, always the primary reason to consider creating a thread in the first place. You probably use Control.Invoke() to have some code run on the UI thread and update a control. Perhaps also to signal that the worker thread is completed and, say, set the Enable property of a button back to true.
That's deadlock city, such code cannot run until the UI thread goes idle, back to pumping its message loop. It will never be idle in your case, it is stuck in Thread.Join(). The worker thread can't complete because the UI thread won't go idle, the UI thread can't go idle because the worker thread isn't finishing. Deadlock.
BackgroundWorker has this problem too, the RunWorkerCompleted event cannot run unless the UI thread is idle. What you need to do is not block the UI thread. Easier said than done, BGW can help you get this right because it runs an event when it completes. You can have this event do whatever you now do in the code past the Thread.Join() call. You'll need a boolean flag in your class to indicate that you are in the 'waiting for completion' state. This answer has relevant code.
Use a BackgroundWorker for this task instead. When you want to stop the task's execution, call the background worker's CancelAsync method.
Generally speaking, rolling your own threading code (on any platform) is a recipe for disaster if you don't have an expert-level understanding of multithreading (and even then it's still dangerous).