i know the common ways of cancelling a backgroundworker using eventwaithandles...
but i wanna know is that right to use a while loop to trap and pause working of a backgroundworker ? i coded like this :
Bool stop = false;
private void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
progressBar1.Minimum = 0;
progressBar1.Maximum = 100000;
progressBar1.Value = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
progressBar1.Value++;
if (i == 50000)
stop = true;
while (stop)
{ }
}
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
stop = !stop;
}
Did you try it? What happened? Was it what you wanted to happen? Did you notice your computer's fans speeding up, to handle all the heat from your CPU in a tight, "do-nothing" loop?
Fact is, you should not "pause" a background task in the first place; if you don't it to keep running, interrupt it. If you want to be able to resume later, provide a mechanism to allow that. Even having your thread blocked efficiently waiting on a WaitHandle object would be the wrong thing to do, because it wastes a thread pool thread.
The code you've posted here is about the worst way to implement "pausing". Instead of waiting on some synchronization object such as a WaitHandle, you have the current thread just loop without interrupting, constantly checking the value of a flag. Even ignoring the question of whether you're using volatile (the code example doesn't show that, but then it also wouldn't compile, so…), it's terrible to force a CPU core to do so much work and yet get nowhere.
Don't pause your BackgroundWorker.DoWork handler in the first place. Really. Just don't do that. But if you insist, then at least use some kind of waitable object instead of a "spin-wait" loop as in the example you've posted here.
Here's an example of how your code might work if you wanted to avoid altogether tying up a thread while "paused". First, don't use BackgroundWorker, because it doesn't have a graceful way to do this. Second, do use await…that does specifically what you want: it allows the current method to return, but without losing track of its progress. The method will resume executing when the thing it waited on indicates completion.
In the example below, I've tried to guess at what the code that calls RunWorkerAsync() looks like. Or rather, I just assumed you've got a button2, which when clicked you call that method to start your worker task. If this is not enough to get you pointed in the right direction, please improve your question by including a good, minimal, complete code example showing what you're actually doing.
// These fields will work together to provide a way for the thread to interrupt
// itself temporarily without actually using a thread at all.
private TaskCompletionSource<object> _pause;
private readonly object _pauseLock = new object();
private void button2_Click(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
// Initialize ProgressBar. Note: in your version of the code, this was
// done in the DoWork event handler, but that handler isn't executed in
// the UI thread, and so accessing a UI object like progressBar1 is not
// a good idea. If you got away with it, you were lucky.
progressBar1.Minimum = 0;
progressBar1.Maximum = 100000;
progressBar1.Value = 0;
// This object will perform the duty of the BackgroundWorker's
// ProgressChanged event and ReportProgress() method.
Progress<int> progress = new Progress<int>(i => progressBar1.Value++);
// We do want the code to run in the background. Use Task.Run() to accomplish that
Task.Run(async () =>
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
progress.Report(i);
Task task = null;
// Locking ensures that the two threads which may be interacting
// with the _pause object do not interfere with each other.
lock (_pauseLock)
{
if (i == 50000)
{
// We want to pause. But it's possible we lost the race with
// the user, who also just pressed the pause button. So
// only allocate a new TCS if there isn't already one
if (_pause == null)
{
_pause = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
}
}
// If by the time we get here, there's a TCS to wait on, then
// set our local variable for the Task to wait on. In this way
// we resolve any other race that might occur between the time
// we checked the _pause object and then later tried to wait on it
if (_pause != null)
{
task = _pause.Task;
}
}
if (task != null)
{
// This is the most important part: using "await" tells the method to
// return, but in a way that will allow execution to resume later.
// That is, when the TCS's Task transitions to the completed state,
// this method will resume executing, using any available thread
// in the thread pool.
await task;
// Once we resume execution here, reset the TCS, to allow the pause
// to go back to pausing again.
lock (_pauseLock)
{
_pause.Dispose();
_pause = null;
}
}
}
});
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
lock (_pauseLock)
{
// A bit more complicated than toggling a flag, granted. But it achieves
// the desirable goal.
if (_pause == null)
{
// Creates the object to wait on. The worker thread will look for
// this and wait if it exists.
_pause = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
}
else if (!_pause.Task.IsCompleted)
{
// Giving the TCS a result causes its corresponding Task to transition
// to the completed state, releasing any code that might be waiting
// on it.
_pause.SetResult(null);
}
}
}
Note that the above is just as contrived as your original example. If all you had really was a simple single loop variable iterating from 0 to 100,000 and stopping halfway through, nothing nearly so complicated as the above would be required. You'd just store the loop variable in a data structure somewhere, exit the running task thread, and then when you want to resume, pass in the current loop variable value so the method can resume at the right index.
But I'm assuming your real-world example is not so simple. And the above strategy will work for any stateful processing, with the compiler doing all the heavy-lifting of storing away intermediate state for you.
Related
Updated with answers:
The true way of wait until a number of different tasks to be finished would need async await instead of background worker.
#
I know there are numerous discussion about backgroundworker but I've being searched around and cannot find the answer.
Here is my code example(basic logic, the actual code is much longer), I wonder if there is a way to get around this:
BackgroundWorker MCIATS1Worker = new BackgroundWorker();
private AutoResetEvent _MCIATS1WorkerResetEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
public MainWindow()
{
InitializeComponent();
MCIATS1Worker = new BackgroundWorker();
MCIATS1Worker.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(MCIATS1Worker_DoWork);
MCIATS1Worker.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
MCIATS1Worker.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
MCIATS1Worker.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(MCIATS1_RunWorkerCompleted);
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++)
{
//some code
MCIATS1Worker.RunWorkerAsync();
_MCIATS1WorkerResetEvent.WaitOne();
}
}
DoWork and runworkercompleted
void MCIATS1Worker_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
//do something here
}
void MCIATS1_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
MessageBox.Show("hello world");
_MCIATS1WorkerResetEvent.Set();
}
For some reasons, the MCIATS1_RunWorkerCompleted won't be triggered until the loop finished. And apparently the WaitOne is holding the loop.
Here is my question,
why RunWorkerCompleted won't be trigger the RunWorkerCompleted when the worker is actually finished the work?
Thank you.
###UPDATED SOLUTION
This is the right way of doing it.
private async void WhateverFunction()
{
await Task.WhenAll(MCIATS1WorkerDoWorkAsync(param),...other tasks);
}
private Task MCIATS1WorkerDoWorkAsync(bkgWorkParameter param)
{
return Task.Run(() =>
{
//Do whatever
});
}
It happens because when you use a BackgroundWorker it's RunWorkerCompleted event is posted to the SynchronizationContext of the thread that called RunWorkerAsync.
Because you call RunWorkerAsync on the UI thread the event can't run until the UI thread starts processing new messages in the message loop. However you prevented the UI thread from returning to the message loop by your _MCIATS1WorkerResetEvent.WaitOne(); call.
So what it boils down to is _MCIATS1WorkerResetEvent.Set(); is waiting for MCIATS1_RunWorkerCompleted to fire to stop blocking and MCIATS1_RunWorkerCompleted is waiting for _MCIATS1WorkerResetEvent.Set(); to stop blocking the UI thread so it's message to be processed.
Both things are waiting for the other to complete before itself completes and you have a classic deadlock.
There is no need for a for loop for this problem to happen, this same problem would happen with or without out the loop, in fact the loop never gets to run it's 2nd itteration because it will have deadlocked on the first time through so it does not matter that there is a loop at all.
Depend on what kind of work your MCIATS1Worker_DoWork method do, you can consider to use async-await approach, which makes code a little bid more cleaner.
private async Task MCIATS1WorkerDoWorkAsync()
{
await Task.Delay(1000) // do something asynchronously for 1 second
}
private async void MainWindow_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
for (int i = 1; i <= 10; i++)
{
//some code
await MCIATS1WorkerDoWorkAsync();
MessageBox.Show("hello world");
}
}
Message box will be shown 10 times every 1 second. await keyword will continue loop only after MCIATS1WorkerDoWorkAsync method has successfully finished.
With async-await your form will remain responsive and if DoWork method do some IO operations, then you will not start another thread (as BackgroundWorker do) and whole execution will happens on one thread.
I read somewhere that using Thread.Abort() method is one of the worst way to kill a thread because it does not free the memory assigned to this thread. (I don't know if that's true, correct me if it's wrong and Abort() method is the one I should use.) Therefore the best way to call killing a thread would be creating a variable that defiles if thread can run, ie:
bool threadResult;
t = new System.Threading.Thread(() => doSomeStuff());
t.Start();
abortThread();
//***************************************************
bool threadCanRun = true;
void doSomeStuff()
{
while(threadCanRun)
// do work
}
void abortThread()
{
threadCanRun = false;
}
But... what if the thread cannot be stopped like that? Ie:
void doSomeStuff()
{
WebClient wc = new Webclient();
string url = "www.mywebsite.com";
string content = wc.DownloadString(url);
}
Let's say that I want to spend less than 100ms on doing this thread^. If it won't end until the time passes (I'm using the following construction: if (t.Join(100)) ) I should abort it somehow to keep my program running. So, what's the proper way to end up the working thread?
Sure, in this particular case I can use try-catch to handle most of exceptions, but this is just an example. Also, if my connection is really slow and the webpage is really big it would take more that 100ms and no exception will be thrown.
PS. I'm almost sure that it does not matter, but I'm working on WPF app with some Forms references. The target FW is NET 4.0.
If you want your thread to be able to end in 100ms, you should design thread to check for running condition (threadCanRun) at least once per 100ms. Your question is too general so I cannot give you more precise answer.
Also, it is good programming practice to join with your thread immediately after threadCanRun = false; although somebody could disagree with that.
In my opinion using the BackgroundWorker class is safer but if you want to use a Thread then you have to implement a flag cancellation pattern.
If you are using .Net Framework 4.0 the you can use the CancellationTokenSource class like this:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
CancellationTokenSource cancelSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
int threadCounter = 0;
int mainCounter = 0;
public void doSomeStuff(CancellationToken cancelToken)
{
cancelToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
threadCounter = i;
// If you want to cancel the thread just call the Cancel method of the cancelSource.
if (i == 88)
{
cancelSource.Cancel();
}
if (cancelSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
// Do some Thread clean up here
}
}
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
new Thread(() => doSomeStuff(cancelSource.Token)).Start();
// Do something else while the thread has not been cancelled
while (!cancelSource.IsCancellationRequested)
{
mainCounter++;
}
textBox1.Text = "The thread was cancelled when 'mainCounter' was at: " + mainCounter.ToString();
}
}
Also you can use the CancellationToken which has the IsCancellationRequested property and ThrowIfCancellationRequested method.
I'm currently making a program to simulate a set of ATMs in visual C#. It's supposed to stop somebody accessing their account if it has already been accessed from a different location. Is it possible to show a message that the account has already been accessed while a semaphore is waiting?
Here is the part of the code where the semaphore is used:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
count++;
if (count == 1)
{
account = findAccount();
if (findAccount() != 5)
{
textBox1.Text = "Please Enter Your Pin";
}
else
{
textBox1.Text = "Please Enter Your Account Number";
count = 0;
}
textBox2.Clear();
}
if (count == 2)
{
if (findPin(account) == true)
{
semaphore.WaitOne();
textBox1.Text = "1: Take Out Cash \r\n2: Balance \r\n3: Exit";
}
else
{
semaphore.Release();
textBox1.Text = "Please Enter Your Account Number";
count = 0;
}
textBox2.Clear();
}
if (count == 3)
{
atm();
}
if (count == 4)
{
withdraw();
}
if (count == 5)
{
int value = Convert.ToInt32(textBox2.Text);
customWithdrawl(value);
}
}
Consider doing two calls to WaitOne. The first call will have a timeout of zero and return a bool that will tell you whether or not you got the semaphore, or someone else still owns it. Two things can happen from there:
1) If someone else owns it, pop up a message that says "Someone else owns the semaphore" and call WaitOne again, but without a timeout (like you're doing now). After the 2nd call to WaitOne returns, close the window that you popped up a second ago..
2) If your call to waitOne with 0 timeout returns true, then you got the semaphore on the 1st try. No need to pop up a window.
Example:
if( semaphore.WaitOne(0) ) //This returns immediately
{
//We own the semaphore now.
DoWhateverYouNeedToDo();
}
else
{
//Looks like someone else already owns the semaphore.
PopUpNotification();
semaphore.WaitOne(); //This one will block until the semaphore is available
DoWhateverYouNeedToDo();
CloseNotification();
}
semaphore.Release();
Note, there are some other issues lurking here.
You probably want to use a try/finally block to release the semaphore to ensure that it gets released across all exception paths.
It's also probably a bad idea to call semaphore.WaitOne() from the GUI thread because the application will become non-responsive while it waits. In fact, you may not see the result of PopUpNotification() if you've hung the GUI thread while doing the 2nd Wait. Consider doing the long wait on a 2nd thread and raising an event back on the GUI thread once you own the semaphore
Consider the following design to resolve Issue 2:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if(AcquireSemaphoreAndGenerateCallback())
{
//Semaphore was acquired right away. Go ahead and do whatever we need to do
DoWhateverYouNeedToDo();
semaphore.Release()
}
else
{
//Semaphore was not acquired right away. Callback will occur in a bit
//Because we're not blocking the GUI thread, this text will appear right away
textBox1.Text = "Waiting on the Semaphore!";
//Notice that the method returns right here, so the GUI will be able to redraw itself
}
}
//This method will either acquire the semaphore right away and return true, or
//have a worker thread wait on the semaphore and return false. In the 2nd case,
//"CallbackMethod" will run on the GUI thread once the semaphore has been acquired
private void AcquireSemaphoreAndGenerateCallback()
{
if( semaphore.WaitOne(0) ) //This returns immediately
{
return true; //We have the semaphore and didn't have to wait!
}
else
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(Waiter));
return false; //Indicate that we didn't acquire right away
}
}
//Wait on the semaphore and invoke "CallbackMethod" once we own it. This method
//is meant to run on a background thread.
private void Waiter(object unused)
{
//This is running on a separate thread
Semaphore.WaitOne(); //Could take a while
//Because we're running on a separate thread, we need to use "BeginInvoke" so
//that the method we're calling runs on the GUI thread
this.BeginInvoke(new Action(CallbackMethod));
}
private void CallbackMethod()
{
textBox1.Text = string.Empty; //Get rid of the "Waiting For Semaphore" text. Can't do this if we're not running on the GUI thread
DoWhateverYouNeedToDo();
semaphore.Release();
}
Now, this solution could also be fraught with peril. It's kind of hard to follow the execution of the program because it jumps around from method to method. If you have an exception, it could be difficult to recover from and make sure all of your program state is correct. You also have to keep track of things like the account number and the pin numbers through all of these method calls. In order to do that, Waiter and CallbackMethod should probably take some parameter that tracks this state that gets passed along to each step. There's also no way to abort waiting (a time out). It will probably work, but shouldn't make it into any production code because it would be too difficult to maintain or extend.
If you really wanted to do it right, you should consider encapsulating the ATM logic in an object that will raise events that the GUI can subscribe to. You could have a method like ATM.LogInAsync(Account,Pin) that you could call. This method would return immediately, but some time later, an event on the ATM class like "LogInComplete" would fire. This event would have a custom EventArgs object that would contain data to trace which log-in has occurred (mainly the Account number). This is called the Event-based Asynchronous Pattern
Alternatively, if you're using C# 5.0, you can use the new Async/Await syntax in the AcquireSemaphoreAndGenerateCallback() method. That's probably the easiest way because the compiler will handle most of the complexities for you
Yes, you may show your message/form/messagebox right before the Wait method. Then when it receives the signal to unblock, you hide your message.
I have this code to pause and resume a thread:
public partial class frmMain : Form
{
(...)
ManualResetEvent wait_handle = new ManualResetEvent(true);
(...)
}
private void frmMain_Shown(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(TheLoop));
}
private void TheLoop(object stateinfo)
{
bool hasInfo = true;
while (doLoop)
{
wait_handle.WaitOne();
bool hasLines = GetInfo();
if (hasLines)
{
//Consuming time Operation 1
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(7000);
if (CurrentLine < line.Count - 1)
CurrentLine++;
else
{
bool hasInfo2 = GetInfo2();
if (hasInfo2)
{
//Consuming time Operation 2
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(7000);
}
CurrentLine = 0;
}
}
else
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(40000); //Wait to query again
}
}
private void btnPauseResume_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (btnPauseResume.Text == "Pause")
{
btnPauseResume.Text = "Resume";
wait_handle.Reset();
}
else
{
btnPauseResume.Text = "Pause";
wait_handle.Set();
}
}
The code above shows a cycle information, it works find to pause and resume the "first consuming time operation" but doesn't work for the second one, if I press the button to pause the thread in the second consuming time operation, this one continues and when the first one appears again, then it pauses there.
What am I missing here?
Thx
Have you considered using a Background Worker instead since you are using WinForms? It would probably be easier than trying to 'Pause' a thread. You can check the CancellationPending property to see if a user has elected to cancel the operation. The link has a good sample to look at.
I have never seen someone pausing a thread. Create a delegate and event inside the class or method that you are executing on a separate threat. Execute that event whenever you wish to pause your thred.
There is not any reason that I can see that would prevent a second call to WaitOne from working if placed before the 2nd time consuming operation. Since you are using a ManualResetEvent the wait handle's state will persist until either Set or Reset is called. That means if you resume the thread by calling Set then both calls to WaitOne will pass through. Likewise, if you pause the thread by calling Reset then both calls to WaitOne will block. Of course, it will not be possible to predict where the worker thread will pause if there is more than one call to WaitOne.
Got it guys! the thing is where you put the WaitOne(). For instance, if I have a While Loop (like my example) if I put the wait before it, no matter how many times I hit the pause button, it won't stop the thread, it's logic since the loop already began, but if I put it at the end, then it will work.
Appreciated your help.
I have to wait for an event to be triggered. My initial solution was to use AutoResetEvent and WaitOne(), but the event was always triggered just after the waiting timeout was over. So I went back to the approach below, but I still have the same problem. 2 or 3 seconds after the timeout is over the event gets triggered no matter what the timeout was.
_wait = true;
_delayedResponse = null;
var thread = new Thread(delegate
{
while (_wait)
{
Thread.Sleep(500);
if (_delayedResponse != null)
return;
}
});
thread.Start();
var received = thread.Join(_responseTimeout);
_wait = false;
if (!received)
throw new TimeoutException(
"Timeout for waiting for response reached.");
return _delayedResponse;
Here is the event handler code:
private void OnResponseArrived(object sender, ResponseEventArgs args)
{
_delayedResponse = args.VerificationResponse;
}
The event itself is triggered from another functions that calls the function above.
Basically it looks like this:
var result = DoStuff(); // Library function that is responsible for the event
if (result.Status == Status.Wait)
Wait(); // Function above
Does anyone have an idea what causes this problem and how I can solve it?
EDIT: No longer relevant. Forwarded the OnResponseArrived event, because I found no other solution in time.
Thread.Join is a blocking call - it'll stop the thread you're calling from doing any other work. My guess is that you're waiting for the event on a background thread, but the code that will raise your event is running on the same thread as the code you posted runs in.
By calling thread.Join you're blocking the thread that should be doing your processing. So, you wait for your timeout to expire... then whichever method your posted code is in completes... then your processing actually happens and the ResponseArrived event is raised.
It would be useful if you'd post the rest of your code, but the gist of the solution will be to run the actual work (whatever code raises the ResponseArrived event) in a background thread - and remove the extra threading from the code you posted.
EDIT in response to comment...
In order to synchronise your two pieces of code, you can use an AutoResetEvent. Instead of using Thread.Sleep and your other code, try something like this:
// create an un-signalled AutoResetEvent
AutoResetEvent _waitForResponse = new AutoResetEvent(false);
void YourNewWorkerMethod()
{
_delayedResponse = null;
var result = DoStuff();
// this causes the current thread to wait for the AutoResetEvent to be signalled
// ... the parameter is a timeout value in milliseconds
if (!_waitForResponse.WaitOne(5000))
throw new TimeOutException();
return _delayedResponse;
}
private void OnResponseArrived(object sender, ResponseEventArgs args)
{
_delayedResponse = args.VerificationResponse;
_waitForResponse.Set(); // this signals the waiting thread to continue...
}
Note that you'll need to dispose of the AutoResetEvent when you're done with it.
Well, the first thing you need to do is make sure that DoStuff actually works in a background thread.
If that is correct, the way your code is written right now, you don't event need to spawn a second thread, just to join it one line below, something like this would simply work (as a test):
// handler needs to be attached before starting
library.ResponseReceived += OnResponseReceived;
// call the method
var result = library.DoStuff();
// poll and sleep, but 10 times max (5s)
int watchdog = 10;
while (_delayedResponse == null && watchdog-- > 0)
Thread.Sleep(500);
// detach handler - always clean up after yourself
library.ResponseReceived -= OnResponseReceived;
Console.WriteLine(_delayedResponse != null);
If this works, and you are programming a WinForms app, then you should consider doing the entire thing in a background thread, and then notifying the UI when it's finished. Of course, you will need to provide more details if you need help with that.