We Keep Coding

TaskFactory, Starting a new Task when one ends

I have found many methods of using the TaskFactory but I could not find anything about starting more tasks and watching when one ends and starting another one.
I always want to have 10 tasks working.
I want something like this
int nTotalTasks=10;
int nCurrentTask=0;
Task<bool>[] tasks=new Task<bool>[nThreadsNum];
for (int i=0; i<1000; i++)
{
string param1="test";
string param2="test";
if (nCurrentTask<10) // if there are less than 10 tasks then start another one
tasks[nCurrentThread++] = Task.Factory.StartNew<bool>(() =>
{
MyClass cls = new MyClass();
bool bRet = cls.Method1(param1, param2, i); // takes up to 2 minutes to finish
return bRet;
});
// How can I stop the for loop until a new task is finished and start a new one?
}

Check out the Task.WaitAny method:
Waits for any of the provided Task objects to complete execution.
Example from the documentation:
var t1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoOperation1());
var t2 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoOperation2());
Task.WaitAny(t1, t2)

I would use a combination of Microsoft's Reactive Framework (NuGet "Rx-Main") and TPL for this. It becomes very simple.
Here's the code:
int nTotalTasks=10;
string param1="test";
string param2="test";
IDisposable subscription =
Observable
.Range(0, 1000)
.Select(i => Observable.FromAsync(() => Task.Factory.StartNew<bool>(() =>
{
MyClass cls = new MyClass();
bool bRet = cls.Method1(param1, param2, i); // takes up to 2 minutes to finish
return bRet;
})))
.Merge(nTotalTasks)
.ToArray()
.Subscribe((bool[] results) =>
{
/* Do something with the results. */
});
The key part here is the .Merge(nTotalTasks) which limits the number of concurrent tasks.
If you need to stop the processing part way thru just call subscription.Dispose() and everything gets cleaned up for you.
If you want to process each result as they are produced you can change the code from the .Merge(...) like this:
.Merge(nTotalTasks)
.Subscribe((bool result) =>
{
/* Do something with each result. */
});

This should be all you need, not complete, but all you need to do is wait on the first to complete and then run the second.
Task.WaitAny(task to wait on);
Task.Factory.StartNew()

Have you seen the BlockingCollection class? It allows you to have multiple threads running in parallel and you can wait from results from one task to execute another. See more information here.

The answer depends on whether the tasks to be scheduled are CPU or I/O bound.
For CPU-intensive work I would use Parallel.For() API setting the number of thread/tasks through MaxDegreeOfParallelism property of ParallelOptions
For I/O bound work the number of concurrently executing tasks can be significantly larger than the number of available CPUs, so the strategy is to rely on async methods as much as possible, which reduces the total number of threads waiting for completion.
How can I stop the for loop until a new task is finished and start a
new one?
The loop can be throttled by using await:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var task = DoWorkAsync();
task.Wait();
// handle results
// task.Result;
Console.WriteLine("Done.");
}
async static Task<bool> DoWorkAsync()
{
const int NUMBER_OF_SLOTS = 10;
string param1="test";
string param2="test";
var results = new bool[NUMBER_OF_SLOTS];
AsyncWorkScheduler ws = new AsyncWorkScheduler(NUMBER_OF_SLOTS);
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
{
await ws.ScheduleAsync((slotNumber) => DoWorkAsync(i, slotNumber, param1, param2, results));
}
ws.Complete();
await ws.Completion;
}
async static Task DoWorkAsync(int index, int slotNumber, string param1, string param2, bool[] results)
{
results[slotNumber] = results[slotNumber} && await Task.Factory.StartNew<bool>(() =>
{
MyClass cls = new MyClass();
bool bRet = cls.Method1(param1, param2, i); // takes up to 2 minutes to finish
return bRet;
}));
}
A helper class AsyncWorkScheduler uses TPL.DataFlow components as well as Task.WhenAll():
class AsyncWorkScheduler
{
public AsyncWorkScheduler(int numberOfSlots)
{
m_slots = new Task[numberOfSlots];
m_availableSlots = new BufferBlock<int>();
m_errors = new List<Exception>();
m_tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
m_completionPending = 0;
// Initial state: all slots are available
for(int i = 0; i < m_slots.Length; ++i)
{
m_slots[i] = Task.FromResult(false);
m_availableSlots.Post(i);
}
}
public async Task ScheduleAsync(Func<int, Task> action)
{
if (Volatile.Read(ref m_completionPending) != 0)
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Unable to schedule new items.");
}
// Acquire a slot
int slotNumber = await m_availableSlots.ReceiveAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
// Schedule a new task for a given slot
var task = action(slotNumber);
// Store a continuation on the task to handle completion events
m_slots[slotNumber] = task.ContinueWith(t => HandleCompletedTask(t, slotNumber), TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously);
}
public async void Complete()
{
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref m_completionPending, 1, 0) != 0)
{
return;
}
// Signal the queue's completion
m_availableSlots.Complete();
await Task.WhenAll(m_slots).ConfigureAwait(false);
// Set completion
if (m_errors.Count != 0)
{
m_tcs.TrySetException(m_errors);
}
else
{
m_tcs.TrySetResult(true);
}
}
public Task Completion
{
get
{
return m_tcs.Task;
}
}
void SetFailed(Exception error)
{
lock(m_errors)
{
m_errors.Add(error);
}
}
void HandleCompletedTask(Task task, int slotNumber)
{
if (task.IsFaulted || task.IsCanceled)
{
SetFailed(task.Exception);
return;
}
if (Volatile.Read(ref m_completionPending) == 1)
{
return;
}
// Release a slot
m_availableSlots.Post(slotNumber);
}
int m_completionPending;
List<Exception> m_errors;
BufferBlock<int> m_availableSlots;
TaskCompletionSource<bool> m_tcs;
Task[] m_slots;
}

List of Tasks C#

var tasks = new List<Task>();
for (int i = 0; i < pageCount; i++)
{
var task = Task.Run(() =>
{
worker.GetHouses(currentPage);
});
tasks.Add(task);
currentPage++;
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
There is something i don't understand.
Whenever i use:
var tasks = new[]
{
Task.Run(() => {worker.GetHouses(1);}),
Task.Run(() => {worker.GetHouses(2);}),
Task.Run(() => {worker.GetHouses(3);})
};
And i loop trough that array, i get results perfectly fine. (when using Task.WaitAll(tasks)
When i use:
var tasks = new List<Task>();
my Task.WaitAll(tasks.toArray()) doesn't seem to work, my tasks "Status" stays on "RanToCompletion"
What did i do wrong?

You have a synchronization problem with the currentPage variable. Also create tasks with result.
Solution:
var tasks = new List<Task<List<House>>>();
for (int i = 0; i < pageCount; i++)
{
var currentPageCopy = currentPage;
var task = Task.Run(() =>
{
return worker.GetHouses(currentPageCopy);
});
tasks.Add(task);
currentPage++;
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
The problem with your code is that all GetHouses invocations will be called with currentPage + pageCount - 1 as the last value will be used for all method calls...

There's been little issue with task types.
In your sample you were using System.Threading.Tasks.Task, which does not have the result - it's intended just to do some job, like void method.
In your code here:
var tasks = new[]
{
Task.Run(() => {worker.GetHouses(1);}),
Task.Run(() => {worker.GetHouses(2);}),
Task.Run(() => {worker.GetHouses(3);})
};
no type were specified explicitly, so it turned out to be System.Threading.Tasks.Task<List<House>>, but first piece of code you specified the System.Threading.Tasks.Task explicitly:
var tasks = new List<Task>();
What you need to use is System.Threading.Tasks.Task<TResult>:
var tasks = new List<Task<List<House>>>();// <- task type specified explicitly
for (int i = 0; i < pageCount; i++)
{
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew<List<House>>(() =>// <- task type specified explicitly , though it's mandatory here
{
return worker.GetHouses(currentPage);
});
tasks.Add(task);
currentPage++;
}
In similar situations I tend to define types explicitly, so that code becomes clearer to read and as you can see, even to work.

Waiting on multiple background threads

I want know when all thread has been finished in a multithread program
without something like pooling
while(!allThreadFinished){
thread.sleep(100);
}
The solution should be used Monitor but i can't how can i approve that it's correct.
since the "SomeMethod" in the following code using network, it consume times.
public object SomeMethod(string input);
public object[] MultiThreadMethod(string[] inputs) {
var result = new object[inputs.Count()];
int i = 0;
foreach (var item in inputs) {
BackgroundWorker work = new BackgroundWorker();
work.DoWork += (sender, doWorkEventArgs) => { doWorkEventArgs.Result = SomeMethod(item); };
work.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, runWorkerCompletedEventArgs) => {
result[i] = runWorkerCompletedEventArgs.Result;
};
i++;
work.RunWorkerAsync();
}
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//**wait while all thread has been completed**
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
return result;
}

Try using the TPL http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd460717.aspx.
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
Task t1 = new Task(() =>
{
// Do something here...
});
t1.Start();
tasks.Add(t1);
Task t2 = new Task(() =>
{
// Do something here...
});
t2.Start();
tasks.Add(t2);
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());

You can use TPL to do the same, you will avoid using Thread.Sleep(), and it will be much clearer. Check this out: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd537610.aspx
Your example with TPL would look like this (untested code):
private ConcurrentBag<object> _results;
public object[] MultiThreadMethod(string[] inputs)
{
_results = new ConcurrentBag<object>();
var tasks = new Task[inputs.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < inputs.Length; i++)
{
tasks[i] = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoWork(inputs[i]));
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
return _results.ToArray();
}
private void DoWork(string item)
{
_results.Add(SomeMethod(item));
}
EDIT: Without ConcurrentBag:
public object[] MultiThreadMethod(string[] inputs)
{
var tasks = new Task<object>[inputs.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < inputs.Length; i++)
{
tasks[i] = Task<object>.Factory.StartNew(() => DoWork(inputs[i]));
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
return tasks.Select(task => task.Result).ToArray();
}
private object DoWork(string item)
{
return SomeMethod(item);
}

Hook the RunWorkerCompleted event on the BackgroundWorker. It will fire when the work is done.
A complete example of how to use the BackgroundWorker properly can be found here.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd537608.aspx
// Sequential version
foreach (var item in sourceCollection)
Process(item);
// Parallel equivalent
Parallel.ForEach(sourceCollection, item => Process(item));

Create multiple threads and wait for all of them to complete

How can I create multiple threads and wait for all of them to complete?

It depends which version of the .NET Framework you are using. .NET 4.0 made thread management a whole lot easier using Tasks:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Task task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => doStuff());
Task task2 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => doStuff());
Task task3 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => doStuff());
Task.WaitAll(task1, task2, task3);
Console.WriteLine("All threads complete");
}
static void doStuff()
{
//do stuff here
}
}
In previous versions of .NET you could use the BackgroundWorker object, use ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(), or create your threads manually and use Thread.Join() to wait for them to complete:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t1 = new Thread(doStuff);
t1.Start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(doStuff);
t2.Start();
Thread t3 = new Thread(doStuff);
t3.Start();
t1.Join();
t2.Join();
t3.Join();
Console.WriteLine("All threads complete");
}

I think you need WaitHandler.WaitAll. Here is an example:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int numOfThreads = 10;
WaitHandle[] waitHandles = new WaitHandle[numOfThreads];
for (int i = 0; i < numOfThreads; i++)
{
var j = i;
// Or you can use AutoResetEvent/ManualResetEvent
var handle = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset);
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(j * 1000);
Console.WriteLine("Thread{0} exits", j);
handle.Set();
});
waitHandles[j] = handle;
thread.Start();
}
WaitHandle.WaitAll(waitHandles);
Console.WriteLine("Main thread exits");
Console.Read();
}
FCL has a few more convenient functions.
(1) Task.WaitAll, as well as its overloads, when you want to do some tasks in parallel (and with no return values).
var tasks = new[]
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomething1()),
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomething2()),
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomething3())
};
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
(2) Task.WhenAll when you want to do some tasks with return values. It performs the operations and puts the results in an array. It's thread-safe, and you don't need to using a thread-safe container and implement the add operation yourself.
var tasks = new[]
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => GetSomething1()),
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => GetSomething2()),
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => GetSomething3())
};
var things = Task.WhenAll(tasks);

I've made a very simple extension method to wait for all threads of a collection:
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace Extensions {
public static class ThreadExtension {
public static void WaitAll (this IEnumerable<Thread> threads) {
if (threads != null) {
foreach (Thread thread in threads) {
thread.Join();
}
}
}
}
}
Then you simply call:
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
// Add your threads to this collection
threads.WaitAll();

In .NET 4.0, you can use the Task Parallel Library.
In earlier versions, you can create a list of Thread objects in a loop, calling Start on each one, and then make another loop and call Join on each one.

If you don't want to use the Task class (for instance, in .NET 3.5), you can just start all your threads, and then add them to the list and join them in a foreach loop.
Example:
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
// Start threads
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
int tmp = i; // Copy value for closure
Thread t = new Thread(() => Console.WriteLine(tmp));
t.Start();
threads.Add(t);
}
// Join threads (wait threads)
foreach (Thread thread in threads) {
thread.Join();
}

I don't know if there is a better way, but the following describes how I did it with a counter and background worker thread.
private object _lock = new object();
private int _runningThreads = 0;
private int Counter{
get{
lock(_lock)
return _runningThreads;
}
set{
lock(_lock)
_runningThreads = value;
}
}
Now whenever you create a worker thread, increment the counter:
var t = new BackgroundWorker();
// Add RunWorkerCompleted handler
// Start thread
Counter++;
In work completed, decrement the counter:
private void RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
Counter--;
}
Now you can check for the counter anytime to see if any thread is running:
if(Couonter>0){
// Some thread is yet to finish.
}

Most proposed answers don't take into account a time-out interval, which is very important to prevent a possible deadlock. Next is my sample code. (Note that I'm primarily a Win32 developer, and that's how I'd do it there.)
//'arrRunningThreads' = List<Thread>
//Wait for all threads
const int knmsMaxWait = 3 * 1000; //3 sec timeout
int nmsBeginTicks = Environment.TickCount;
foreach(Thread thrd in arrRunningThreads)
{
//See time left
int nmsElapsed = Environment.TickCount - nmsBeginTicks;
int nmsRemain = knmsMaxWait - nmsElapsed;
if(nmsRemain < 0)
nmsRemain = 0;
//Then wait for thread to exit
if(!thrd.Join(nmsRemain))
{
//It didn't exit in time, terminate it
thrd.Abort();
//Issue a debugger warning
Debug.Assert(false, "Terminated thread");
}
}

In my case, I could not instantiate my objects on the the thread pool with Task.Run() or Task.Factory.StartNew(). They would not synchronize my long running delegates correctly.
I needed the delegates to run asynchronously, pausing my main thread for their collective completion. The Thread.Join() would not work since I wanted to wait for collective completion in the middle of the parent thread, not at the end.
With the Task.Run() or Task.Factory.StartNew(), either all the child threads blocked each other or the parent thread would not be blocked, ... I couldn't figure out how to go with async delegates because of the re-serialization of the await syntax.
Here is my solution using Threads instead of Tasks:
using (EventWaitHandle wh = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset))
{
int outdex = mediaServerMinConnections - 1;
for (int i = 0; i < mediaServerMinConnections; i++)
{
new Thread(() =>
{
sshPool.Enqueue(new SshHandler());
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref outdex) < 1)
wh.Set();
}).Start();
}
wh.WaitOne();
}

WaitAll for multiple handles on a STA thread is not supported

Why do I get this error message? "WaitAll for multiple handles on a STA thread is not supported."
Should I use [MTAThreadAttribute] attribut? Update: Dosn't work with WPF applications!
Note:
It error is at line WaitHandle.WaitAll(doneEvents);
I'm using a standard WPF project.
private void Search()
{
const int CPUs = 2;
var doneEvents = new ManualResetEvent[CPUs];
// Configure and launch threads using ThreadPool:
for (int i = 0; i < CPUs; i++)
{
doneEvents[i] = new ManualResetEvent(false);
var f = new Indexer(Paths[i], doneEvents[i]);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(f.WaitCallBack, i);
}
// Wait for all threads in pool
WaitHandle.WaitAll(doneEvents);
Debug.WriteLine("Search completed!");
}
Update: The following solution doesn’t work for WPF applications!
It is not possible to change the main application attribute to MTAThreadAttribute. It will result in the following error:
Error: "WaitAll for multiple handles on a STA thread is not supported."

Actually I use the following to replace WaitHandle.WaitAll(doneEvents);
foreach (var e in doneEvents)
e.WaitOne();

What about using the Tasks to do your threading for you.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.tasks.task.aspx
var task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomeWork());
var task2 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomeWork());
var task3 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomeWork());
Task.WaitAll(task1, task2, task3);

Use one ManualResetEvent and wait on it. Also maintain a TaskCount variable that is set to the number of worker threads you start, use Interlocked.Decrement in the worker thread code as the very last action of the worker and signal the event if the counter reaches zero,e.g.
// other worker actions...
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref taskCount) == 0)
doneEvent.Set();

I would refactor your code to use the CountdownEvent class instead.
private void Search()
{
const int CPUs = 2;
var done = new CountdownEvent(1);
// Configure and launch threads using ThreadPool:
for (int i = 0; i < CPUs; i++)
{
done.AddCount();
var f = new Indexer(Paths[i], doneEvents[i]);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
(state) =>
{
try
{
f.WaitCallBack(state);
}
finally
{
done.Signal();
}
}, i);
}
// Wait for all threads in pool
done.Signal();
done.Wait();
Debug.WriteLine("Search completed!");
}

use something like this:
foreach (ITask Task in Tasks)
{
Task.WaitHandle = CompletedEvent;
new Thread(Task.Run).Start();
}
int TasksCount = Tasks.Count;
for (int i = 0; i < TasksCount; i++)
CompletedEvent.WaitOne();
if (AllCompleted != null)
AllCompleted(this, EventArgs.Empty);