We Keep Coding

How to read/write from a global variable in main thread

I have a C# Windows IoT Background application I have created. That application has multiple threads in the ThreadPool that run indefinitely.
These threads need to be able to read/write to global variables in the main thread, but I am not sure how to accomplish this. Here is an example of what I am trying to do:
// main task
public sealed class StartupTask : IBackgroundTask
{
private static BackgroundTaskDeferral _Deferral = null;
private static MyThreadClass1 thread1 = null;
private static MyThreadClass2 thread2 = null;
private static MyThreadClass3 thread3 = null;
List<Object> MyDevices = null;
public async void Run(IBackgroundTaskInstance taskInstance)
{
_Deferral = taskInstance.GetDeferral();
MyDevices = GetDeviceList();
thread1 = new MyThreadClass1();
await ThreadPool.RunAsync(workItem =>
{
thread1.Start();
});
thread2 = new MyThreadClass2();
await ThreadPool.RunAsync(workItem =>
{
thread2.Start();
});
thread3 = new MyThreadClass3();
await ThreadPool.RunAsync(workItem =>
{
thread3.Start();
});
}
}
internal class MyThreadClass1
{
public async void Start()
{ }
}
internal class MyThreadClass2
{
public async void Start()
{ }
}
internal class MyThreadClass3
{
public async void Start()
{ }
}
In any of the three threads that are running, I need to be able to read and write to List<Object> MyDevices.
The threads all have different functions, but they all interact with "MyDevices", so if one thread makes a change to that list, the other threads need to know about the change right away.
What is the best way to go about doing this?
Thanks!

These threads need to be able to read/write to global variables in the main thread
The easiest way to deal with this requirement is to remove it. Is it possible to code the solution so that each thread owns a device? Or is it possible to rethink the thread's responsibilities so that they communicate by message passing instead of updating shared data? Usually these alternative approaches result in much cleaner and less buggy code. But not always.
You will need locks to protect shared data. The easiest way to do this is with the lock statement, e.g.:
object _mutex = new object();
List<Object> MyDevices = null;
...
var device = ...;
lock (_mutex)
{
MyDevices.Add(device);
}
Generally, you want to minimize the code in the lock statement. Also, you may want to have one lock for the List<Object> and a separate lock for each item in the list, depending on how your thread use those devices.

One thing you might want to consider using is an ObservableCollection. This class implements the INotifyPropertyChanged interface, which notifies any listeners of changes to the underlying collection.
Next, you'll want to implement an event handler for PropertyChanged in your Thread classes like so (I recommend making either an interface or base class that handles this since you appear to be using different classes for each Thread):
public sealed class MyThreadBase
{
private ObservableCollection<object> MyDevices;
public MyThreadBase(ObservableCollection<object> deviceList)
{
MyDevices = deviceList;
MyDevices.PropertyChanged += MyDevices_PropertyChanged; // Register listener
}
private void MyDevices_PropertyChanged(object sender, PropertyChangedEventArgs e)
{
lock (MyDevices)
{
// Do something with the data...
}
}
}
The lock statement is used so that the thread is blocked when another thread is reading or writing to MyDevices. This is typically important in synchronization and is known as the readers-writers problem. I'd suggest reading up on that and possible solutions as well.
If you intend, however, for each thread to iterate over the devices and do something with each one, then you will run into issues, as iterating over a changing collection is not a good idea (and when using a foreach loop, will actually throw an exception), so keep that in mind too.

other threads need to know about the change right away
If you want low latency notifications, threads must spend the majority of time sleeping on something. E.g. executing Dispatcher.Run() that will sleep waiting for messages/tasks to process.
If that’s your case, you can use ObservableCollection instead of List, and write CollectionChanged handler that forwards notifications for your 3 threads. Or if that’s what you want, forward notifications to 2 other threads, excluding the current one, if you won’t want the thread that initiated the change to process changed event.
I'm not sure if the Dispatcher class is available on Windows IoT platform. Definitely not the case for .NET core. Even if not, high-level building blocks to create one are available. Here’s an example implementation that also implements synchronization context, very simple because relies on high-level ConcurrentQueue and BlockingCollection generic classes.
using kvp = KeyValuePair<SendOrPostCallback, object>;
enum eShutdownReason : byte
{
Completed,
Failed,
Unexpected,
}
class Dispatcher : IDisposable
{
const int maxQueueLength = 100;
readonly ConcurrentQueue<kvp> m_queue;
readonly BlockingCollection<kvp> m_block;
public Dispatcher()
{
m_queue = new ConcurrentQueue<kvp>();
m_block = new BlockingCollection<kvp>( m_queue, maxQueueLength );
createdThreadId = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId;
prevContext = SynchronizationContext.Current;
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext( new SyncContext( this ) );
}
readonly SynchronizationContext prevContext;
readonly int createdThreadId;
class SyncContext : SynchronizationContext
{
readonly Dispatcher dispatcher;
public SyncContext( Dispatcher dispatcher )
{
this.dispatcher = dispatcher;
}
// https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/pfxteam/2012/01/20/await-synchronizationcontext-and-console-apps/
public override void Post( SendOrPostCallback cb, object state )
{
dispatcher.Post( cb, state );
}
}
/// <summary>Run the dispatcher. Must be called on the same thread that constructed the object.</summary>
public eShutdownReason Run()
{
Debug.Assert( Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId == createdThreadId );
while( true )
{
kvp h;
try
{
h = m_block.Take();
}
catch( Exception ex )
{
ex.logError( "Dispatcher crashed" );
return eShutdownReason.Unexpected;
}
if( null == h.Key )
return (eShutdownReason)h.Value;
try
{
h.Key( h.Value );
}
catch( Exception ex )
{
ex.logError( "Exception in Dispatcher.Run" );
}
}
}
/// <summary>Signal dispatcher to shut down. Can be called from any thread.</summary>
public void Stop( eShutdownReason why )
{
Logger.Info( "Shutting down, because {0}", why );
Post( null, why );
}
/// <summary>Post a callback to the queue. Can be called from any thread.</summary>
public void Post( SendOrPostCallback cb, object state = null )
{
if( !m_block.TryAdd( new kvp( cb, state ) ) )
throw new ApplicationException( "Unable to post a callback to the dispatcher: the dispatcher queue is full" );
}
void IDisposable.Dispose()
{
Debug.Assert( Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId == createdThreadId );
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext( prevContext );
}
}
Regardless on whether you’ll use built-in Dispatcher or my custom one, all threads must call it’s Run method, then use asynchronous posted tasks, or async methods, to run code within the dispatcher.

How to dispatch work among several processors?

I have a class wich performs some data processing:
class Processor
{
public Processor() {
// Load lot of data
}
public string GetResult(string input) {
// ...
}
}
I need to implement a service wich exposes HTTP API to this class. I use Owin and Microsoft.AspNet.* libs to host HTTP Web API. For each request it creates a new thread to handle it, but I cannot instantiate Processor on every request as it takes enormous time to load some data in its constructor. Also I cannot reuse one instance from different threads as it was not designed to be thread safe. But I can instantiate several instances of Processor on service start, and then dispatch work among them. Say I allow up to 20 concurrent HTTP requests for my service. I create 20 instances of Processor and add Busy flag to the class:
class Processor
{
public bool Busy { get; set; }
// ...
}
I wrote Dispatcher class like this:
class Dispatcher
{
readonly Processor[] _processors;
readonly SemaphoreSlim _semaphore;
public Dispatcher(int maxProcessors)
{
_semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(maxProcessors);
_processors = new Processor[maxProcessors];
// Instantiate Processors, etc...
}
public string GetResult(string input)
{
try
{
_semaphore.Wait(); // Surplus requests will wait here.
Processor processor;
lock (_processors)
{
// It is guaranteed that such processor exists if we entered the semaphore.
processor = _processors.First(p => !p.Busy);
processor.Busy = true;
}
var result = processor.GetResult(input);
processor.Busy = false;
return result;
}
finally
{
_semaphore.Release();
}
}
}
Then I can basically call it through Dispatcher in ApiController:
public class ServiceController : ApiController
{
static Dispatcher _dispatcher = new Dispatcher(20);
[Route("result")]
[HttpGet]
public string Result(string input)
{
return _dispatcher.GetResult(input);
}
}
Is it implemented correctly for my purpose?
I tested it and it works, but I wonder if I reinvented the wheel and .NET Framework has somewhat ready to use for my case, or if it could be implemented easier.

Basically in your class that is going to be run in the thread, create an event and event handler. The object that then spins up this task can register to that event. When it is raised by the task, (in this case you would raise the event when it is done) you can do something, ie. give it more work.
Create your events in the class that will be run in the child thread:
public event TaskCompleteEventHandler OnComplete;
public event TaskErrorEventHandler OnError;
Register to your events in the object that is spinning up the classes:
task.OnComplete += TaskComplete;
task.OnError += TaskComplete;
Create the function in the calling class that will handle the event:
public void TaskComplete()
{
//give the thread more work
}

Threadpool with endless worker threads

I have class which implements an endless worker thread like this example, in my case representing a body. During runtime I will have between 0 and ~8 instances live at any time with instances constantly being created and destroyed.
Most of the time this class has a lifecycle of 30 seconds to 5 minutes but occasionally there may be a number of instances created and destroyed in a relatively short period of time. This is where I tend to run into performance issues given the low spec hardware this code is running on.
I would now like to rewrite the behavior so that I use a ThreadPool for my collection of running workers and I am struggling to find the correct way to structure the code.
Basically the code I have at the moment is something like
public class BodyCollection : IReadOnlyDictionary<ulong, TrackedBody>
{
public void Update()
{
if (createNew)
{
var body = new TrackedBody();
body.BeginTracking();
this.Add(1234, body);
}
if (remove)
{
TrackedBody body = this[1234];
body.StopTracking();
this.Remove(body);
}
}
}
public class TrackedBody
{
private readonly Thread _BiometricsThread;
private volatile bool _Continue = true;
public TrackedBody()
{
_BiometricsThread = new Thread(RunBiometricsThread);
}
public void BeginTracking()
{
_BiometricsThread.Start();
}
public void StopTracking()
{
_Continue = false;
}
private void RunBiometricsThread()
{
while(_Continue)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}
So how do I re-write the above to utilize a ThreadPool correctly and so that I can cancel running threads on the ThreadPool as required? Do I use CancellationTokens or ManualResetEvents to control the threads?

I strongly believe you should be using more modern methods of asynchronous programming. We are going to use the Task Parallel Library here because it gives you the features you want for free:
Tracking completion
Cancellation
Thread pool
public class TrackedBody
{
public Task BeginTrackingAsync(CancellationToken cancellation)
{
return Task.Run(() => RunBiometricsThread(cancellation));
}
private void RunBiometricsThread(CancellationToken cancellation)
{
while(!cancellation.IsCancellationRequested)
{
Task.Delay(1000, cancellation);
}
}
}
Note that I have removed the async keyword. This was doing nothing on its own.
You can use the task to track the state of the ongoing work. You can use the cancellation token to stop all work.

System.Threading.Timer Calling an Implicit Duplicate of a Callback Function?

I am working on a WPF GUI (using MVVM) to control an embedded device. As of yet, the device is still in development and not currently functioning reliably. As such I have created the following fake device:
interface IConnection
{
bool IsValid { get; }
bool Open();
void Close();
void Write(string message);
}
class SerialConnection : IConnection
{
// Not yet implemented
}
class DevConnection : IConnection
{
Timer _timer;
Action<string> _callback;
public bool IsValid {...}
public DevConnection(Action<string> callback)
{
_timer = new Timer(tick, null, Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite);
_callback = callback;
}
public bool Open() {...}
public void Close() {...}
public void Write(string Message) {...}
private void tick(object args)
{
_callback("V01" + ToHex(vol1) + "\n");
...
}
}
The
Action<string> _callback;
is the function used by my model to read the payload of the connection and update its state appropriately
class Model
{
IConnection _connection;
public Model()
{
_connection = new DevConnection(Message);
}
private void Message(string payload)
{
...
_volume1 = floatValue;
...
}
}
However when the Model is created, I change a bunch of the properties elsewhere before calling Model.IConnection.Open() to start the timer. Every time the Message() callback is called, the debugger shows the Model as still being in its original, constructed state.
1) What is going on behind the scenes here? Is the Threading.Timer creating a new thread for its counting / tick execution? If so, why is it creating a default copy of my Model class?
2) How do I fix it? I even tried giving the DevConnection a copy of my Model class to operate on directly (not how I'd like to setup the architecture) and it still resulted in the same undesired behavior
Unfortunately I have only a rudimentary understanding of the theory of threading, with no idea how to implement it in C#. Tragically I suspect that this issue is a result of thread mis-management.

Given that the mysterious "extra copies of the Model class" issue was solved. There remains the issue of how you can safely update your UI from a timer scheduled callback.
As was mentioned by #Frank J, your callback will be invoked on a thread pool thread, whereas it is only allowed to update UI elements from the context of the UI thread. This means you will need to marshal the callback's actions performed in the Message method to the UI thread context if they directly or indirectly update UI elements.
The code snippet below shows one way of doing that.
class Model
{
private readonly SynchronizationContext _synchronizationContext;
private readonly IConnection _connection;
public Model()
{
// Capture UI synchronization context.
// Note: this assumes that Model is constructed on the UI thread.
_synchronizationContext = SynchronizationContext.Current;
_connection = new DevConnection(MessageCallback);
}
private void MessageCallback(string payload)
{
// schedule UI update on the UI thread.
_synchronizationContext.Post(
new SendOrPostCallback(ctx => Message(payload)),
null);
}
private void Message(string payload)
{
...
_volume1 = floatValue;
...
}
}
One more piece of advice: I think IConnection should be an IDisposable because you will have to dispose of the timer somewhere.

Is there a common pattern for initializing object on a background thread?

I have an object that takes a long time to be initialized. Therefore I the capability to Start Initializing on application startup. Any subsequent calls to methods on the class we need to have a delay mechanism that waits for the class to finish initialization.
I have a couple of potential solutions however I am not entirely satisfied with either of them. The first uses Task.Delay in a while loop and the second uses SemaphoreSlim but involves some unnecessary blocking. I feel this must be a fairly common requirement, can anybody provide some advice on how to best manage this?
Oh btw, this is a Metro application so we have limited API's
Here is the pseudocode:
public class ExposeSomeInterestingItems
{
private InitialisationState _initialised;
private readonly SemaphoreSlim _waiter =
new SemaphoreSlim(0);
public async Task StartInitialize()
{
if (_initialised == InitialisationState.Initialised)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException(
"Attempted to initialise ActiveTrackDown" +
"loads when it is already initialized");
}
_initialised =
InitialisationState.StartedInitialisation;
new TaskFactory().StartNew(async () =>
{
// This takes some time to load
this._interestingItems =
InterestingItemsLoader.LoadItems();
_waiter.Release();
_initialised = InitialisationState.Initialised;
});
}
public InterestingItem GetItem(string id)
{
DelayUntilLoaded();
DelayUntilLoadedAlternative();
}
private async Task DelayUntilLoaded()
{
if (_initialised == InitialisationState.NotInitialised)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Error " +
"occurred attempting to access details on " +
"ActiveTrackDownloads before calling initialise");
}
while (true)
{
if (_initialised == InitialisationState.Initialised)
{
return;
}
await Task.Delay(300);
}
}
private async Task DelayUntilLoadedAlternative()
{
if (_initialised == InitialisationState.NotInitialised)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException(
"Error occurred attempting to access details " +
"on ActiveTrackDownloads before calling initialise");
}
try
{
await _waiter.WaitAsync();
}
finally
{
_waiter.Release();
}
}
}

I think that a better design would be an asynchronous factory, where the calling code awaits the object creation and then receives a regular object instance.
Stealing liberally from Stephen Toub:
public class AsyncLazy<T> : Lazy<Task<T>>
{
public AsyncLazy(Func<T> valueFactory) :
base(() => Task.Run(valueFactory)) { }
public AsyncLazy(Func<Task<T>> taskFactory) :
base(() => Task.Run(taskFactory)) { }
public TaskAwaiter<T> GetAwaiter() { return Value.GetAwaiter(); }
}
public static class ExposeSomeInterestingItemsFactory
{
public static AsyncLazy<ExposeSomeInterestingItems> Instance
{
get { return _instance; }
}
private static readonly AsyncLazy<ExposeSomeInterestingItems> _instance =
new AsyncLazy<ExposeSomeInterestingItems>(() => new ExposeSomeInterestingItems());
public static void StartInitialization()
{
var unused = Instance.Value;
}
}
public class ExposeSomeInterestingItems
{
public ExposeSomeInterestingItems()
{
// This takes some time to load
this._interestingItems = InterestingItemsLoader.LoadItems();
}
public InterestingItem GetItem(string id)
{
// Regular logic. No "delays".
}
}
...
var exposeSomeInterestingItems = await ExposeSomeInterestingItemsFactory.Instance;
var item = exposeSomeInterestingItems.GetItem("id");
That way, you keep the Single Responsibility Principle nicely:
AsyncLazy<T> combines Task<T> with Lazy<T> (so the instance is created asynchronously only when needed).
ExposeSomeInterestingItemsFactory contains construction logic.
ExposeSomeInterestingItems is only concerned with exposing interesting items, rather than having to pollute all its members with asynchronous delays.
Also, this solution is asynchronous throughout (no blocking), which is good (particularly for Metro apps).
Update, 2012-09-14: I've taken this code and cleaned it up and commented it on my blog.

You can use the Task<T> for this. This will take care of all the synchronisation for you and allows you to block untill the value is available:
private static Task<HeavyObject> heavyObjectInitializer;
// Call this method during application initialization
public static void Bootstrap()
{
heavyObjectInitializer = new Task<HeavyObject>(() =>
{
// creation of heavy object here
return new HeavyObject();
});
// Start running the initialization right now on a
// background thread. We don't have to wait on this.
heavyObjectInitializer.Start();
}
// Call this method whenever you need to use the object.
public static HeavyObject GetHeavyObject()
{
// Get the initialized object, or block untill this
// instance gets available.
return heavyObjectInitializer.Result;
}
Optionally, you can also query to see if the object is available or not:
public static bool IsHeavyObjectAvailable
{
get { return heavyObjectInitializer.IsCompleted; }
}

Put the method calls into a queue which you process when you finish initialising. Only put methods into the queue when you have not yet initialised.

You could move to a an event driven architecture where you application is in different states.
Initially the application moves into the Starting state. In this state HeavyObject is created using a background task. When the initialization is complete an event is fired. (You don't have to use an actual .NET event. You can use callbacks or something similar and frameworks like Reactive Extensions allows you to compose sequences of events.)
When all initialization events have fired you move into the Started state of your application. For an UI application this could modify the UI to enable some previously disabled operations.

Check this Prototype Pattern. Maybe it can help you
You only need to create your object once and clone it when you need another one.