We Keep Coding

Pause/resume a thread in C#

I try to pause all my threads when I reach a certain value but I can't do it.
I would like that when I reach this value all threads are paused for 10 seconds and after these 10 seconds all threads start again.
I tried that with : Threads.Sleep(); | Threads.Interrupt(); and Threads.Abort(); but nothing work.
I tried what you can see in the code below.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
Threads.Add(new Thread(new ThreadStart(example)));
Threads[i].Start();
}
for (int i = 0; i < Threads.Count; i++)
Threads[i].Join();
}
static void example()
{
while (true)
{
Console.WriteLine(value++);
checkValue();
}
}
public static void checkValue()
{
if (value% 1000 == 0 && value!= 0)
{
for (int i = 0; i < Threads.Count; i++)
Threads[i].Interrupt();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
for (int i = 0; i < Threads.Count; i++)
Threads[i].Resume();
}
}

Here is an example of pausing some threads cooperatively, by using the PauseTokenSource + PauseToken pair from Stephen Cleary's AsyncEx.Coordination package. This example shows also the use of the analogous CancellationTokenSource + CancellationToken pair, that inspired the creation of the aforementioned pausing mechanism.
var pts = new PauseTokenSource() { IsPaused = true };
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
int value = 0;
// Create five threads
Thread[] threads = Enumerable.Range(1, 5).Select(i => new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
while (true)
{
cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested(); // self explanatory
pts.Token.WaitWhilePaused(cts.Token); // ...and don't wait if not paused
int localValue = Interlocked.Increment(ref value);
Console.WriteLine($"Thread #{i}, Value: {localValue}");
}
}
catch (OperationCanceledException) // this exception is expected and benign
{
Console.WriteLine($"Thread #{i} Canceled");
}
})).ToArray();
// Start the threads
foreach (var thread in threads) thread.Start();
// Now lets pause and unpause the threads periodically some times
// We use the main thread (the current thread) as the controller
Thread.Sleep(500);
pts.IsPaused = false;
Thread.Sleep(1000);
pts.IsPaused = true;
Thread.Sleep(1000);
pts.IsPaused = false;
Thread.Sleep(1000);
pts.IsPaused = true;
Thread.Sleep(500);
// Finally cancel the threads and wait them to finish
cts.Cancel();
foreach (var thread in threads) thread.Join();
You may need to read this first, to get a grasp on the model used by the .NET platform for cooperative cancellation. Cooperative "pausation" is very similar.

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);
}
}

Starting threads in a loop passing array elements to each

i start 4 threads in a loop. each thread gets a reference to an array element to write the result.
But on the line where i create each thread, i get a System.IndexOutOfRangeException. I'm amazed that the index "i" is going out of range.
here is an example:
void ThreadsStarter()
{
double[] data = new double[4];
for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
Thread my_thread = new Thread(() => Work(data[i]));
my_thread.Start();
}
}
void Work(double data)
{
}
Why this is happening?

This is a common error: i gets evaluated when threads starts, which happens after the loop has ended. Make a temp, assign i to it, and use temp instead of i in your lambda to fix the issue:
void ThreadsStarter()
{
double[] data = new double[4];
for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
var temp = i;
Thread my_thread = new Thread(() => Work(ref data[temp]));
my_thread.Start();
}
}
void Work(ref double data)
{
}

How wait all thread

I have code, that create 5 threads. I need wait, until all threads finished their work, and after return value. How can I do this?
public static int num=-1;
public int GetValue()
{
Thread t=null;
for (int i = 0; i <=5; i++)
{
t = new Thread(() => PasswdThread(i));
t.Start();
}
//how wait all thread, and than return value?
return num;
}
public void PasswdThread(int i)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Random r=new Random();
int n=r.Next(10);
if (n==5)
{
num=r.Next(1000);
}
}
Of course this is not a real code. The actual code is much more complicated, so I simplified it.
P.S. Look carefully. I am not use Task, so I can't use method Wait() or WaitAll(). Also I can't use Join(), because Join wait one thread. If they start wait thread, which already finished they work, the will wait infinity.

Make an array of thread like below and call WaitAll function
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
Thread thread = null;
for (int i = 0; i <=5; i++)
{
t = new Thread(() => PasswdThread(i));
t.Start();
threads.add(t);
}
Thread.WaitAll(thread);
//how wait all thread, and than return value?
return num;

create a ManualResetEvent handle for each your thread, and then call WaitHandle.WaitAll(handles) in your main thread.
static WaitHandle[] handles = new WaitHandle[5];
`
public void PasswdThread(int i)
{
handles[i] = new ManualResetEvent(false);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Random r=new Random();
int n=r.Next(10);
if (n==5)
{
num=r.Next(1000);
}
handles[i].Set();
}
Get more information on http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z6w25xa6.aspx

I think you can use Thread.WaitAll(thread_array) or in other case you can also use Thread.Sleep(100)
In Thread.sleep, 100 is number of milliseconds. So in this case thread would sleep for 100 milliseconds.
And in Thread.WaitAll - thread_Array is array of threads that you wanna wait.

As this question is effectively a duplicate, please see this answer, (code copied below, all credit to Reed Copsey.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int numThreads = 10;
ManualResetEvent resetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
int toProcess = numThreads;
// Start workers.
for (int i = 0; i < numThreads; i++)
{
new Thread(delegate()
{
Console.WriteLine(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
// If we're the last thread, signal
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref toProcess) == 0)
resetEvent.Set();
}).Start();
}
// Wait for workers.
resetEvent.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Finished.");
}
}
Aside
Also note that your PasswdThread code will not produce random numbers. The Random object should be declared statically, outside of your method, to produce random numbers.
Additionally you never use the int i parameter of that method.

I would use TPL for this, imo it's the most up to date technique for handling this sort of synchronization. Given the real life code is probably more complex, I'll rework the example slightly:
public int GetValue()
{
List<Task<int>> tasks = new List<Task<int>>();
for (int i = 0; i <=5; i++)
{
tasks.Add(PasswdThread(i));
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
// You can now query all the tasks:
foreach (int result in tasks.Select(t => t.Result))
{
if (result == 100) // Do something to pick the desired result...
{
return result;
}
}
return -1;
}
public Task<int> PasswdThread(int i)
{
return Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Random r=new Random();
int n=r.Next(10);
if (n==5)
{
return r.Next(1000);
}
return 0;
});
}

Thread t=null;
List<Thread> lst = new List<Thread();
for (int i = 0; i <=5; i++)
{
t = new Thread(() => PasswdThread(i));
lst.Add(t);
t.Start();
}
//how wait all thread, and than return value?
foreach(var item in lst)
{
while(item.IsAlive)
{
Thread.Sleep(5);
}
}
return num;