Related
We could abort a Thread like this:
Thread thread = new Thread(SomeMethod);
.
.
.
thread.Abort();
But can I abort a Task (in .Net 4.0) in the same way not by cancellation mechanism. I want to kill the Task immediately.
The guidance on not using a thread abort is controversial. I think there is still a place for it but in exceptional circumstance. However you should always attempt to design around it and see it as a last resort.
Example;
You have a simple windows form application that connects to a blocking synchronous web service. Within which it executes a function on the web service within a Parallel loop.
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.CancellationToken = cts.Token;
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = System.Environment.ProcessorCount;
Parallel.ForEach(iListOfItems, po, (item, loopState) =>
{
Thread.Sleep(120000); // pretend web service call
});
Say in this example, the blocking call takes 2 mins to complete. Now I set my MaxDegreeOfParallelism to say ProcessorCount. iListOfItems has 1000 items within it to process.
The user clicks the process button and the loop commences, we have 'up-to' 20 threads executing against 1000 items in the iListOfItems collection. Each iteration executes on its own thread. Each thread will utilise a foreground thread when created by Parallel.ForEach. This means regardless of the main application shutdown, the app domain will be kept alive until all threads have finished.
However the user needs to close the application for some reason, say they close the form.
These 20 threads will continue to execute until all 1000 items are processed. This is not ideal in this scenario, as the application will not exit as the user expects and will continue to run behind the scenes, as can be seen by taking a look in task manger.
Say the user tries to rebuild the app again (VS 2010), it reports the exe is locked, then they would have to go into task manager to kill it or just wait until all 1000 items are processed.
I would not blame you for saying, but of course! I should be cancelling these threads using the CancellationTokenSource object and calling Cancel ... but there are some problems with this as of .net 4.0. Firstly this is still never going to result in a thread abort which would offer up an abort exception followed by thread termination, so the app domain will instead need to wait for the threads to finish normally, and this means waiting for the last blocking call, which would be the very last running iteration (thread) that ultimately gets to call po.CancellationToken.ThrowIfCancellationRequested.
In the example this would mean the app domain could still stay alive for up to 2 mins, even though the form has been closed and cancel called.
Note that Calling Cancel on CancellationTokenSource does not throw an exception on the processing thread(s), which would indeed act to interrupt the blocking call similar to a thread abort and stop the execution. An exception is cached ready for when all the other threads (concurrent iterations) eventually finish and return, the exception is thrown in the initiating thread (where the loop is declared).
I chose not to use the Cancel option on a CancellationTokenSource object. This is wasteful and arguably violates the well known anti-patten of controlling the flow of the code by Exceptions.
Instead, it is arguably 'better' to implement a simple thread safe property i.e. Bool stopExecuting. Then within the loop, check the value of stopExecuting and if the value is set to true by the external influence, we can take an alternate path to close down gracefully. Since we should not call cancel, this precludes checking CancellationTokenSource.IsCancellationRequested which would otherwise be another option.
Something like the following if condition would be appropriate within the loop;
if (loopState.ShouldExitCurrentIteration || loopState.IsExceptional || stopExecuting) {loopState.Stop(); return;}
The iteration will now exit in a 'controlled' manner as well as terminating further iterations, but as I said, this does little for our issue of having to wait on the long running and blocking call(s) that are made within each iteration (parallel loop thread), since these have to complete before each thread can get to the option of checking if it should stop.
In summary, as the user closes the form, the 20 threads will be signaled to stop via stopExecuting, but they will only stop when they have finished executing their long running function call.
We can't do anything about the fact that the application domain will always stay alive and only be released when all foreground threads have completed. And this means there will be a delay associated with waiting for any blocking calls made within the loop to complete.
Only a true thread abort can interrupt the blocking call, and you must mitigate leaving the system in a unstable/undefined state the best you can in the aborted thread's exception handler which goes without question. Whether that's appropriate is a matter for the programmer to decide, based on what resource handles they chose to maintain and how easy it is to close them in a thread's finally block. You could register with a token to terminate on cancel as a semi workaround i.e.
CancellationTokenSource cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
ParallelOptions po = new ParallelOptions();
po.CancellationToken = cts.Token;
po.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = System.Environment.ProcessorCount;
Parallel.ForEach(iListOfItems, po, (item, loopState) =>
{
using (cts.Token.Register(Thread.CurrentThread.Abort))
{
Try
{
Thread.Sleep(120000); // pretend web service call
}
Catch(ThreadAbortException ex)
{
// log etc.
}
Finally
{
// clean up here
}
}
});
but this will still result in an exception in the declaring thread.
All things considered, interrupt blocking calls using the parallel.loop constructs could have been a method on the options, avoiding the use of more obscure parts of the library. But why there is no option to cancel and avoid throwing an exception in the declaring method strikes me as a possible oversight.
But can I abort a Task (in .Net 4.0) in the same way not by
cancellation mechanism. I want to kill the Task immediately.
Other answerers have told you not to do it. But yes, you can do it. You can supply Thread.Abort() as the delegate to be called by the Task's cancellation mechanism. Here is how you could configure this:
class HardAborter
{
public bool WasAborted { get; private set; }
private CancellationTokenSource Canceller { get; set; }
private Task<object> Worker { get; set; }
public void Start(Func<object> DoFunc)
{
WasAborted = false;
// start a task with a means to do a hard abort (unsafe!)
Canceller = new CancellationTokenSource();
Worker = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
// specify this thread's Abort() as the cancel delegate
using (Canceller.Token.Register(Thread.CurrentThread.Abort))
{
return DoFunc();
}
}
catch (ThreadAbortException)
{
WasAborted = true;
return false;
}
}, Canceller.Token);
}
public void Abort()
{
Canceller.Cancel();
}
}
disclaimer: don't do this.
Here is an example of what not to do:
var doNotDoThis = new HardAborter();
// start a thread writing to the console
doNotDoThis.Start(() =>
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
Console.Write(".");
}
return null;
});
// wait a second to see some output and show the WasAborted value as false
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("WasAborted: " + doNotDoThis.WasAborted);
// wait another second, abort, and print the time
Thread.Sleep(1000);
doNotDoThis.Abort();
Console.WriteLine("Abort triggered at " + DateTime.Now);
// wait until the abort finishes and print the time
while (!doNotDoThis.WasAborted) { Thread.CurrentThread.Join(0); }
Console.WriteLine("WasAborted: " + doNotDoThis.WasAborted + " at " + DateTime.Now);
Console.ReadKey();
You shouldn't use Thread.Abort()
Tasks can be Cancelled but not aborted.
The Thread.Abort() method is (severely) deprecated.
Both Threads and Tasks should cooperate when being stopped, otherwise you run the risk of leaving the system in a unstable/undefined state.
If you do need to run a Process and kill it from the outside, the only safe option is to run it in a separate AppDomain.
This answer is about .net 3.5 and earlier.
Thread-abort handling has been improved since then, a.o. by changing the way finally blocks work.
But Thread.Abort is still a suspect solution that you should always try to avoid.
And in .net Core (.net 5+) Thread.Abort() will now throw a PlatformNotSupportedException .
Kind of underscoring the 'deprecated' point.
Everyone knows (hopefully) its bad to terminate thread. The problem is when you don't own a piece of code you're calling. If this code is running in some do/while infinite loop , itself calling some native functions, etc. you're basically stuck. When this happens in your own code termination, stop or Dispose call, it's kinda ok to start shooting the bad guys (so you don't become a bad guy yourself).
So, for what it's worth, I've written those two blocking functions that use their own native thread, not a thread from the pool or some thread created by the CLR. They will stop the thread if a timeout occurs:
// returns true if the call went to completion successfully, false otherwise
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, int milliseconds) => RunWithAbort(action, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, milliseconds));
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, TimeSpan delay)
{
if (action == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(action));
var source = new CancellationTokenSource(delay);
var success = false;
var handle = IntPtr.Zero;
var fn = new Action(() =>
{
using (source.Token.Register(() => TerminateThread(handle, 0)))
{
action();
success = true;
}
});
handle = CreateThread(IntPtr.Zero, IntPtr.Zero, fn, IntPtr.Zero, 0, out var id);
WaitForSingleObject(handle, 100 + (int)delay.TotalMilliseconds);
CloseHandle(handle);
return success;
}
// returns what's the function should return if the call went to completion successfully, default(T) otherwise
public static T RunWithAbort<T>(this Func<T> func, int milliseconds) => RunWithAbort(func, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 0, milliseconds));
public static T RunWithAbort<T>(this Func<T> func, TimeSpan delay)
{
if (func == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(func));
var source = new CancellationTokenSource(delay);
var item = default(T);
var handle = IntPtr.Zero;
var fn = new Action(() =>
{
using (source.Token.Register(() => TerminateThread(handle, 0)))
{
item = func();
}
});
handle = CreateThread(IntPtr.Zero, IntPtr.Zero, fn, IntPtr.Zero, 0, out var id);
WaitForSingleObject(handle, 100 + (int)delay.TotalMilliseconds);
CloseHandle(handle);
return item;
}
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern bool TerminateThread(IntPtr hThread, int dwExitCode);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern IntPtr CreateThread(IntPtr lpThreadAttributes, IntPtr dwStackSize, Delegate lpStartAddress, IntPtr lpParameter, int dwCreationFlags, out int lpThreadId);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern bool CloseHandle(IntPtr hObject);
[DllImport("kernel32")]
private static extern int WaitForSingleObject(IntPtr hHandle, int dwMilliseconds);
While it's possible to abort a thread, in practice it's almost always a very bad idea to do so. Aborthing a thread means the thread is not given a chance to clean up after itself, leaving resources undeleted, and things in unknown states.
In practice, if you abort a thread, you should only do so in conjunction with killing the process. Sadly, all too many people think ThreadAbort is a viable way of stopping something and continuing on, it's not.
Since Tasks run as threads, you can call ThreadAbort on them, but as with generic threads you almost never want to do this, except as a last resort.
I faced a similar problem with Excel's Application.Workbooks.
If the application is busy, the method hangs eternally. My approach was simply to try to get it in a task and wait, if it takes too long, I just leave the task be and go away (there is no harm "in this case", Excel will unfreeze the moment the user finishes whatever is busy).
In this case, it's impossible to use a cancellation token. The advantage is that I don't need excessive code, aborting threads, etc.
public static List<Workbook> GetAllOpenWorkbooks()
{
//gets all open Excel applications
List<Application> applications = GetAllOpenApplications();
//this is what we want to get from the third party library that may freeze
List<Workbook> books = null;
//as Excel may freeze here due to being busy, we try to get the workbooks asynchronously
Task task = Task.Run(() =>
{
try
{
books = applications
.SelectMany(app => app.Workbooks.OfType<Workbook>()).ToList();
}
catch { }
});
//wait for task completion
task.Wait(5000);
return books; //handle outside if books is null
}
This is my implementation of an idea presented by #Simon-Mourier, using the dotnet thread, short and simple code:
public static bool RunWithAbort(this Action action, int milliseconds)
{
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(action));
var success = false;
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
action();
success = true;
});
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
thread.Join(milliseconds);
thread.Abort();
return success;
}
You can "abort" a task by running it on a thread you control and aborting that thread. This causes the task to complete in a faulted state with a ThreadAbortException. You can control thread creation with a custom task scheduler, as described in this answer. Note that the caveat about aborting a thread applies.
(If you don't ensure the task is created on its own thread, aborting it would abort either a thread-pool thread or the thread initiating the task, neither of which you typically want to do.)
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
...
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
var task = Task.Run(() => { while (true) { } });
Parallel.Invoke(() =>
{
task.Wait(cts.Token);
}, () =>
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
cts.Cancel();
});
This is a simple snippet to abort a never-ending task with CancellationTokenSource.
I have a windows service that sends email in a one of 5 threads (done to increase the speed the service can send email):
private AutoResetEvent block;
private ThreadedQueue<Message> messageQueue;
private void DoSend()
{
try
{
while(!this.disposing)
{
this.block.WaitOne();
Message message = null;
if (this.messageQueue.TryDequeue(out message))
{
this.block.Set();
}
if(message != null)
{
this.Send(message);
}
}
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Log
}
}
I have a Queue method that adds one or more new message to the messageQueue and calls block.Set() so that one of the 5 threads can send the message. When one of the threads is allowed to run, so long as there are messages in the queue, block.Set() is called so that the next message can be de-queued and another of 5 threads will work to send it. And so on, until the queue is empty. This all works OK.
However when I dispose my object, I set the disposing variable and then for each thread:
if(thread.ThreadState == ThreadState.Running)
{
thread.Join();
}
else if(thread.ThreadState == ThreadState.WaitSleepJoin)
{
thread.Abort();
}
Most of the time, the threads are sleeping due to the block.WaitOne and so the above code aborts the thread. However this causes thread abort exceptions to be logged. I could catch thread abort exceptions separately to other exceptions and choose not to log, but it doesn't seem very clean.
What is the best way to clean up these threads without causing this excess logging?
UPDATE:
I've changed the above to:
private ManualResetEvent block;
private ThreadedQueue<Message> messageQueue;
private void DoSend()
{
try
{
while(!this.disposing)
{
this.block.WaitOne();
Message message = null;
if (!this.messageQueue.TryDequeue(out message) && !this.disposing)
{
// There's nothing else to send for now to block the sending threads
// unless we're disposing as we want the other threads to exit too
this.block.Reset();
}
if(message != null)
{
this.Send(message);
}
}
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Log
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.disposing = true;
this.block.Set();
foreach(Thread thread in this.sendingThreads) {
thread.Join();
}
this.block.Dispose();
this.sendingThreads = null;
}
Thanks for the help.
You are playing a very dangerous game. Your code is particularly prone to deadlock. You'll see the thread state as ThreadState.Running and the thread calls WaitOne() a microsecond later. Your Join() call will deadlock and never return.
You can get a thread that's blocked on a WaitOne() call to unblock by disposing the AutoResetEvent. That will throw a predicable exception, ObjectDisposedException, one you can catch. Use another ManualResetEvent to signal the thread to exit. No need for Thread.Abort() that way.
Use BlockingCollection instead. it will produce simple clean and short code which can be understood, managed and debugged...
one producer five consumers... threading 101.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd267312.aspx
ALL
I was working on a little code which is for search a thread by thread id in the processes of computer.
All my code looks like below , Please help to review it. :)
using System.Diagnostics;
public class NKDiagnostics
{
private Process[] m_arrSysProcesses;
private void Init()
{
m_arrSysProcesses = Process.GetProcesses(".");
}
public static ProcessThread[] GetProcessThreads(int nProcID)
{
try
{
Process proc = Process.GetProcessById(nProcID);
ProcessThread[] threads = new ProcessThread[proc.Threads.Count];
proc.Threads.CopyTo(threads, 0);
return threads;
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Message);
return null;
}
}
}
and In another class, I assign a thread to execute my function named DoNothing
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((t) => Utility.DoNothing((TimeSpan)t),
TimeSpan.FromMinutes(1));
and the function DoNothing code is
public class Utility
{
public static void DoNothing(TimeSpan timeout, TextBox txtThreadId)
{
TimeoutHelper helper = new TimeoutHelper(timeout);
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000 * 5);
if (helper.RemainingTime() <= TimeSpan.Zero)
{
MessageBox.Show("This thread's work is finished.");
break;
}
else
{
if (Thread.CurrentThread.IsThreadPoolThread)
{
MessageBox.show( Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString());
}
}
}
}
}
My problem is the Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId shows 10, I searched it in all the process. But did't found it .
ProcessThread[] m_Threads = NKDiagnostics.GetProcessThreads(processId);
for (int i = 0; i < m_Threads.Length; i++)
{
if (m_Threads[i].Id.Equals(10))
{
MessageBox.Show("Found it.");
}
}
Am I missing something? why I can't find this thread ? please help me .thanks.
Updated
The original idea of mine to do some experiment with this code is trying to find a way to get the status of the managed thread. obviously in the way I posted here doesn't make it. so my question is how can I know the status of managed thread with specified thread id? thanks.
Thread.ManagedThreadId and ProcessThread.Id are not comparable. The first is assigned by the .NET runtime, while the second is the value of the native thread handle the OS assigns to each thread.
It is also not possible to map one to the other:
An operating-system ThreadId has no fixed relationship to a managed
thread, because an unmanaged host can control the relationship between
managed and unmanaged threads. Specifically, a sophisticated host can
use the Fiber API to schedule many managed threads against the same
operating system thread, or to move a managed thread among different
operating system threads.
Therefore your code cannot be made to work as is.
As an aside, there is a possible race condition here:
ProcessThread[] threads = new ProcessThread[proc.Threads.Count];
proc.Threads.CopyTo(threads, 0);
It is possible that proc.Threads is modified after the array has been initialized but before CopyTo executes. To avoid this race condition evaluate proc.Threads only once, for example:
var threads = proc.Threads.ToArray();
Process threads are unmanaged threads; a Thread.CurrentThread is a managed thread; while the two are related, it is not guaranteed there is a 1:1 mapping between the two, nor is it guaranteed that a managed thread stays associated with the same unmanaged thread.
I would suggest not looking at the ManagedThreadId if you are comparing to unmanaged threads.
I have found different articles about this exception but none of them was my case.
Here is the source code:
class Program
{
private static Mutex mutex;
private static bool mutexIsLocked = false;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ICrmService crmService =
new ArmenianSoftware.Crm.Common.CrmServiceWrapper(GetCrmService("Armsoft", "crmserver"));
//Lock mutex for concurrent access to workflow
mutex = new Mutex(true, "ArmenianSoftware.Crm.Common.FilterCtiCallLogActivity");
mutexIsLocked = true;
//Create object for updating filtered cti call log
ArmenianSoftware.Crm.Common.FilterCtiCallLog filterCtiCallLog =
new ArmenianSoftware.Crm.Common.FilterCtiCallLog(crmService);
//Bind events
filterCtiCallLog.CtiCallsRetrieved += new EventHandler<ArmenianSoftware.Crm.Common.CtiCallsRetrievedEventArgs>(filterCtiCallLog_CtiCallsRetrieved);
//Execute filter
try
{
filterCtiCallLog.CreateFilteredCtiCallLogSync();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
finally
{
if (mutexIsLocked)
{
mutexIsLocked = false;
mutex.ReleaseMutex();
}
}
}
static void filterCtiCallLog_CtiCallsRetrieved(object sender,
ArmenianSoftware.Crm.Common.CtiCallsRetrievedEventArgs e)
{
tryasasas
{
if (mutexIsLocked)
{
mutexIsLocked = false;
mutex.ReleaseMutex();
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
}
}
filterCtiCallLog.CreateFilteredCtiCallLogSync(); function executes requests to server, and raises some events, one of which is CtiCallsRetrieve event. And I need to release the mutex when this event is fired. But on calling the mutex.Release() function exception is thrown. CreateFilteredCtiCallLogSync works synchronously. What is the problem?
Keeping a bool around that indicates that the mutex is owned is a grave mistake. You are not making the bool thread-safe. You got into this pickle because you are using the wrong synchronization object. A mutex has thread-affinity, the owner of a mutex is a thread. The thread that acquired it must also be the one that calls ReleaseMutex(). Which is why your code bombs.
You in all likelihood need an event here, use AutoResetEvent. Create it in the main thread, call Set() in the worker, WaitOne() in the main thread to wait for the worker to complete its job. And dispose it afterwards. Also note that using a thread to perform a job and having your main thread wait for its completion is not productive. You might as well have the main thread do the job.
If you are actually doing this to protect access to an object that's not thread-safe (it isn't clear) then use the lock statement.
Another reason why this exception may occur:
if (Monitor.TryEnter(_lock))
{
try
{
... await MyMethodAsync(); ...
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(_lock);
}
}
I get this exception on Monitor.Exit when after 'await' another thread continues execution.
Edit:
Use SemaphoreSlim, because it doesn't require releasing thread to be the same.
You will also run into this exception if you do the following:
mutex.WaitOne();
… Some Work...
await someTask;
mutex.ReleaseMutex();
That's because the code after the await can be executed on a different thread from the line just before. Basically, it seems that if you asynch code now (in early 2020), Mutexes simply don't work. Use events or something.
I have found the problem. First several things about the filterCtiCallLog class. I have designed it so to work both asynchronous and synchronous. For first I have written code for asynchronous execution. I needed a way to trigger events from child worker thread to parent, to report the working state. For this I have used AsyncOperation class and it's post method. Here is the code part for triggering CtiCallsRetrieved event.
public class FilterCtiCallLog
{
private int RequestCount = 0;
private AsyncOperation createCallsAsync = null;
private SendOrPostCallback ctiCallsRetrievedPost;
public void CreateFilteredCtiCallLogSync()
{
createCallsAsync = AsyncOperationManager.CreateOperation(null);
ctiCallsRetrievedPost = new SendOrPostCallback(CtiCallsRetrievedPost);
CreateFilteredCtiCallLog();
}
private void CreateFilteredCtiCallLog()
{
int count=0;
//do the job
//............
//...........
//Raise the event
createCallsAsync.Post(CtiCallsRetrievedPost, new CtiCallsRetrievedEventArgs(count));
//...........
//...........
}
public event EventHandler<CtiCallsRetrievedEventArgs> CtiCallsRetrieved;
private void CtiCallsRetrievedPost(object state)
{
CtiCallsRetrievedEventArgs args = state as CtiCallsRetrievedEventArgs;
if (CtiCallsRetrieved != null)
CtiCallsRetrieved(this, args);
}
}
As you can see the code is executing synchronously. The problem here is in AsyncOperation.Post() method. I presumed that if it is called in the main thread it will act as simply triggering the event, not posting it to parent thread. However it wasn't the case. I don't know how it is working, but I have changed the code, to check if the CreateFilteredCtiCallLog is called sync or async. And if it is async call I used AsyncOperation.Post method, if not, I have simply triggered the EventHandler if it is not null. Here is the corrected code
public class FilterCtiCallLog
{
private int RequestCount = 0;
private AsyncOperation createCallsAsync = null;
private SendOrPostCallback ctiCallsRetrievedPost;
public void CreateFilteredCtiCallLogSync()
{
createCallsAsync = AsyncOperationManager.CreateOperation(null);
ctiCallsRetrievedPost = new SendOrPostCallback(CtiCallsRetrievedPost);
CreateFilteredCtiCallLog(false);
}
private void CreateFilteredCtiCallLog(bool isAsync)
{
int count=0;
//do the job
//............
//...........
//Raise the event
RaiseEvent(CtiCallsRetrievedPost, new CtiCallsRetrievedEventArgs(count),isAsync);
//...........
//...........
}
public event EventHandler<CtiCallsRetrievedEventArgs> CtiCallsRetrieved;
private void RaiseEvent(SendOrPostCallback callback, object state, bool isAsync)
{
if (isAsync)
createCallsAsync.Post(callback, state);
else
callback(state);
}
private void CtiCallsRetrievedPost(object state)
{
CtiCallsRetrievedEventArgs args = state as CtiCallsRetrievedEventArgs;
if (CtiCallsRetrieved != null)
CtiCallsRetrieved(this, args);
}
}
Thanks everybody for the answers!
I have seen this happen when you lock code using a Monitor, then call an async code and you get this, when using a lock(object) you get a compiler error, however between monitor.enter(object) and Monitor.Exist(object) the compiler does not complain... unfortunately.
Using a flag to attempt to monitor a kernel synchro object state will just not work - the point of using those synchro calls is that they work correctly without any explicit checking. Setting flags will just cause intermittent problems because the flag may be changed inappropriately due to interrupts between checking the flag and acting on it.
A mutex can only be released by the threat that acquired it. If you callback is called by a different thread, (one internal to CreateFilteredCtiCallLogSync() or a kernel thread pool), the release will fail.
It's not clear exactly what you are attempting to do. Presumably, you want to serialize access to CreateFilteredCtiCallLogSync() and the callback flags that the instance is available for re-use? If so, you could use a semaphore instead - init. it to one unit, wait for it at the start and release it in the callback.
Is there some issue where sometimes the callback is not called, and hence the try/finally/release? If so this way out seems a bit dodgy if the callback is asychronous and may be called by another thread after the setup thread has left the function.
I only had this one once or twice, and in every case it came about by trying to release a mutex I didn't own.
Are you sure the events are raised on the same thread the mutex was acquired on?
Although you mention that filterCtiCallLog.CreateFilteredCtiCallLogSync() is a blocking call, perhaps it spawns of worker threads that raise the event?
Maybe not the most meaningful error message, I've seen this happen in some third party code as below,
object obj = new object();
lock (obj)
{
//do something
Monitor.Exit(obj);//obj released
}//exception happens here, when trying to release obj
I have read the thread and got some ideas. But did not know what exactly need to do to solve the issue. I face the same error when uploading the image to the s3 at nopCommerce solution.And the below code is working for me.
using var mutex = new Mutex(false, thumbFileName);
mutex.WaitOne();
try
{
if (pictureBinary != null)
{
try
{
using var image = SKBitmap.Decode(pictureBinary);
var format = GetImageFormatByMimeType(picture.MimeType);
pictureBinary = ImageResize(image, format, targetSize);
}
catch
{
}
}
if (s3Enabled)
//await S3UploadImageOnThumbsAsync(thumbFileName, pictureBinary, picture.MimeType, picture, targetSize);
// The above code was causing the issue. Because it is wait for the thread.
//So I replace the code below line and the error disappear. This also kind of same implementation by nopCommerce.
//The thread need to wait.
S3UploadImageOnThumbsAsync(thumbFileName, pictureBinary, picture.MimeType, picture, targetSize).Wait();
else
File.WriteAllBytes(thumbFilePath, pictureBinary);
}
finally
{
mutex.ReleaseMutex();
}
Im using a gmail class so that my app can send me notification over gmail.
Its done like this:
public static void SendMessage(string message)
{
Notification.message = message;
Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(SendMessageThreaded));
t.Start();
}
and the threaded function look like this:
private static void SendMessageThreaded()
{
try
{
if (Notification.message != "")
RC.Gmail.GmailMessage.SendFromGmail("accname", "accpass", "email", "subject", Notification.message);
Notification.message = "";
}
catch
{ }
}
So after SendMessageThreaded is run, does it close by itself or do i have to
t.Start()
t.Abort()
or something?
The thread needs to be started once - at which point it will execute the code block assigned to it and exit.
You don't need to explicitly clean up the thread in most cases (unless you want to bail out early for example )
Yes , the thread is closed by itself.
That is when all instructions in the method run on the secodn thread have been called.
yes,definitely. it will close itself when it ends.
The thread will go out of scope and be available for garbage collection as soon as SendFromGmail finishes.
So yes, it closes automatically.
No need, it will return back to the thread pool and wait for other task, if none it will kill itself.
Yes it will close, but you should but a timeout in order to avoid zombies anyway if the main thread crash while the second thread is waiting for it.
The Abort() method throws an ThreadAbortException that you can handle:
public void SendMessageThreaded()
{
try
{
// thread logic
}
catch (ThreadAbortException tae)
{
// thread was aborted, by t.Abort()
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// other error
}
}
By using
t.Abort(myObject)
you can "send" any object that helps you to handle the abort handling. You can use ExceptionState property to access that object.