We Keep Coding

I want threads to print natural number periodically in c#?

I'm new to multi-threading, I want to achieve something like below using C#.
Thread 0 printed 0
Thread 1 printed 1
Thread 2 printed 2
Thread 3 printed 3
Thread 4 printed 4
Thread 5 printed 5
Thread 6 printed 6
Thread 7 printed 7
Thread 8 printed 8
Thread 9 printed 9
Thread 0 printed 10
Thread 1 printed 11
Thread 2 printed 12
Thread 3 printed 13
Thread 4 printed 14
Thread 5 printed 15
Thread 6 printed 16
Thread 7 printed 17
Thread 8 printed 18
Thread 9 printed 19
.
.
.
Thread 10 printed 99.
I have done something like this but of course, requirement is beyond.
class Program
{
static int count = 0; // the shared counter from 1 to 100
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread[] tr = new Thread[10]; // i have created 10 threads each one will print 10 cyclic values
string result = "";
int cc = 0;
while (cc!=10) {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
tr[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(printTill10));
tr[i].Start();
tr[i].Join();
}
cc++;
}
}
string s = "";
static void printTill10()
{
Console.WriteLine(++count+ "Printed by thread #"+
Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}
I am confused either I should use a lock or something like monitor.wait or monitor.pulse etc.
Thanks for any help.

Do it like so:
First declare a variable count in the class so that it can be accessed by all threads. Also, create an object locker that will allow us to lock the count variable.
static int count;
static object locker;
Then, create the method that contains the code that the threads will all run:
static void printTill10()
{
while (true)
{
lock (locker)
{
if (count < 100)
{
count++;
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Thread {0} printed {1}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString(), count.ToString()));
}
}
}
}
What this code does when run is the following:
Enters a while loop which loops forever.
Locks locker to make sure only one operation is being performed on count at a time.
Checks to see if count is under 100.
Increases count by one.
Prints a string exactly like the one you're trying to get (I used String.Format instead of concentration because its neater)
Simple right? This is the code that our threads will run. Now we can focus on the multithreading part.
static void Main()
{
count = 0; // Be sure to give count an initial value to prevent an exception from being thrown.
locker = new object();
Thread[] threads = new Thread[10];
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
threads[i] = new Thread(() => printTill100());
threads[i].Start();
}
Thread.Sleep(Timeout.Infinite);
}
Our Main does the following:
Gives an initial value to the count and locker variables.
Creates an array to put our threads in.
Enters a for loop which populates the array with threads and starts them.
Makes the main thread (the one code runs in by default) wait forever (specified by Timeout.Infinite. This last bit is an important one. By default, all code runs in a single thread called the main thread. If we don't tell it to wait, it will exit after the loop is done, closing the program. It will not wait until our other threads are finished.

There is just one thing you have missed while writing code in
printTill10()
method.
Just put one lock block in printTill10() method like this.
static void printTill10()
{
lock (_locker)
{
Console.WriteLine(++count + "Printed by thread #" + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}
and also declare locker object in the Pragram class like
static readonly object _locker = new object();
Here is the complete code
class Program
{
static int count = 0; // the shared counter from 1 to 100
static readonly object _locker = new object();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread[] tr = new Thread[10]; // i have created 10 threads each one will print 10 cyclic values
string result = "";
int cc = 0;
while (cc != 10)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
tr[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(printTill10));
tr[i].Start();
tr[i].Join();
}
cc++;
}
}
string s = "";
static void printTill10()
{
lock (_locker)
{
Console.WriteLine(++count + "Printed by thread #" + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}
}
It will work as per your requirement. :)

After a continuous try, I got to complete the requirements of my task. Here is the code:
using System;
using System.Threading;
public class EntryPoint
{
static private int counter = 0;
static private object theLock = new Object();
static object obj = new object();
static private void count()
{
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
lock (theLock)
{
Console.WriteLine("Count {0} Thread{1}",
counter++, Thread.CurrentThread.GetHashCode());
if (counter>=10)
Monitor.Pulse(theLock);
Monitor.Wait(theLock); } }}
}
static void Main()
{
Thread[] tr = new Thread[10];
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
tr[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(count));
tr[i].Start();
}
}
}
Monitor maintains a ready queue in a sequential order hence I achieved what I wanted:

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();
}
}

How to use ThreadPool in c#?

When I run this code then nothing is shown on the console, but when I debug then it displays the output. Please explain why this happen? How I can get info when the Thread completes the task?
public class TestClass
{
static void Main()
{
ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads(5, 5);
for (int x = 0; x < 10; x++)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(printnum), x);
}
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static void printnum(object n)
{
Console.WriteLine("Call " + n);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { Console.WriteLine(i); }
}
}

From the documentation for Console.ReadKey():
The ReadKey method waits, that is, blocks on the thread issuing the
ReadKey method, until a character or function key is pressed.
What it actually does is acquire a lock on Console.InternalSyncObject, which prevents further operations on the console.
The Console.ReadLine() method does not block the thread in this way. You can use it instead.
Reading this article I'm guessing you have .NET 4.5 installed?

The other's are right. If you do not wait for the threads to finish, you need to use Console.ReadLine. But if you do wait - as you asked - you can still use Console.ReadKey. I changed your code accordingly. Also checkout Microsofts example on how to use the ThreadPool.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
const int count = 10;
var waitHandles = new ManualResetEvent[count];
ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads(5, 5);
for (int x = 0; x < count; x++)
{
var handle = new ManualResetEvent(false);
waitHandles[x] = handle;
var worker = new MyWorker(handle, x);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(MyWorker.printnum), worker);
}
WaitHandle.WaitAll(waitHandles);
Console.WriteLine("Press any key to finish");
Console.ReadKey();
}
class MyWorker
{
readonly ManualResetEvent handle;
readonly int number;
public MyWorker(ManualResetEvent handle, int number)
{
this.handle = handle;
this.number = number;
}
public static void printnum(object obj)
{
var worker = (MyWorker)obj;
Console.WriteLine("Call " + worker.number);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { Console.WriteLine(i); }
// we are done
worker.handle.Set();
}
}
The key is that you have to use WaitHandles. Each thread gets one handle which is set to true when the thread finishes. In your main method you have to wait for all handles to be set to true.

Semaphore Block Main Process Instead of Multiple Threads

So according to MSDN, and many other places I've read, they use a semaphore and block within the individual threads, like so:
private static Semaphore _pool;
public static void Main()
{
_pool = new Semaphore(0, 3);
for(int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++)
{
Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(Worker));
t.Start(i);
}
}
private static void Worker(object num)
{
try
{
_pool.WaitOne();
// do a long process here
}
finally
{
_pool.Release();
}
}
Wouldn't it make more sense to block the process so that you don't create potentially 1000s of threads all at once depending on the number of iterations in Main()? For example:
private static Semaphore _pool;
public static void Main()
{
_pool = new Semaphore(0, 3);
for(int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++)
{
_pool.WaitOne(); // wait for semaphore release here
Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(Worker));
t.Start(i);
}
}
private static void Worker(object num)
{
try
{
// do a long process here
}
finally
{
_pool.Release();
}
}
Maybe both ways are not wrong and it depends on the situation? Or there is a better way to do this once there are a lot of iterations?
Edit: This is a windows service, so I'm not blocking the UI thread.

The reason you would normally do it inside the thread is you want to make that exclusive section as small as possible. You don't need the entire thread synchronized, only where that thread accesses the shared resource.
So a more realistic version of Worker is
private static void Worker(object num)
{
//Do a bunch of work that can happen in parallel
try
{
_pool.WaitOne();
// do a small amount of work that can only happen in 3 threads at once
}
finally
{
_pool.Release();
}
//Do a bunch more work that can happen in parallel
}
(P.S. If you are doing something that uses 1000 threads, you are doing something wrong. You should likely rather be using a ThreadPool or Tasks for many short-lived workloads or make each thread do more work.)
Here is how to do it with Parallel.ForEach
private static BlockingCollection<int> _pool;
public static void Main()
{
_pool = new BlockingCollection<int>();
Task.Run(() => //This is run in another thread so it shows data is being taken out and put in at the same time
{
for(int i = 1; i <= 1000; i++)
{
_pool.Add(i);
}
_pool.CompleteAdding(); //Lets the foreach know no new items will be showing up.
});
//This will work on the items in _pool, if there is no items in the collection it will block till CompleteAdding() is called.
Parallel.ForEach(_pool.GetConsumingEnumerable(), new ParallelOptions {MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 3}, Worker);
}
private static void Worker(int num)
{
// do a long process here
}

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;