I am writing a client server application that works like this:
Form1 loads and creates ServerHost. ServerHost is started to listen for TcpClient connections, on connected and accepted, ServerHost spawns a thread by way of ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(DoWork, client);
Within the DoWork() thread, I want to update Winform Controls on Form1.
This is achieved by having events in ServerHost such as ServerHost.SomethingHappened. When something happened in DoWork(), it raises the event and the Form1.Handler is called to update the winforms control.
This set up gives me cross-thread operation error.
Is use of Control.Invoke and Control.InvokeRequired healthy? I am not good at threads, and MSDN is saying to use BackgroundWorker, but I can't see how to do it here. Any advice to change the structure to avoid using Invoke in this set up?
Control.Invoke is highly questionable, and Control.InvokeRequired is downright toxic.
If at all possible, use the new async/await support, and you won't need to explicitly marshal back to the UI thread. Also, use Task.Run instead of ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem for background work.
The problem with Control.Invoke is that it ties your library to a specific UI (WinForms). Capturing a SynchronizationContext is a step above that, and implicitly capturing the SynchronizationContext by using await is even better.
You have to invoke the code that updates the user interface on the UI thread.
In general there are several options to do that:
calling Invoke on a Control
using a BackgroundWorker that has been started on the UI thread
calling Post on the SynchronizationContext of the UI thread
using Task.ContinueWith with the TaskScheduler of the UI thread
using asynchronous calls with async/await
In my opinion last method is by far the easiest for the developer, but it is only available with C# 5 and .NET 4.5 or .NET 4.0 with the Microsoft.Bcl.Async package. Tasks are nearly as easy to use but both of these methods would require you to change your code. They won't work to simply invoke a method on the UI thread from a thread pool thread.
The BackgroundWorker is usually used to schedule an action that takes quite some time. Its ReportProgress method raises the ProgressChanged event on the thread that called the RunWorkerAsync method. As such it is also not a good solution to your problem.
SynchronizationContext.Post and Control.Invoke work similarly, but Control.Invoke doesn't require you to capture the UI context, so it's easier to use.
To summarize it you should use Control.Invoke unless you want to change your code to make use of async/await.
It's fine as long as the UI thread isn't overburdened by those invokes. It does introduce some latency to the communication, which usually isn't an issue, however, it can become more of a problem if you're doing a lot of Invokes, or if the UI thread is doing a lot of work (eg. rendering complex graphs or something like that). Invoke is a synchronous method - it will not return until the invoked command is actually processed, and returns its return value.
As long as you're not tied up by these issues, all is well. Profiling and performance testing is critical to allocate your resources correctly, guessing is usually a huge waste of time and resources.
If you don't need the resulting value (or at least not synchronously) and you're starting to get into performance trouble, have a look at BeginInvoke, which handles the invoking asynchronously. This means your networking thread doesn't have to wait for the UI thread to work. This is quite critical in high performance servers with thousands of connections. They simply can't afford to wait while the UI does its thing.
However, do note, that having a server socket running on a different thread is not a good solution for larger servers, and in fact, it's no longer the easiest solution either. .NET now has great support for asynchronous calls and callbacks, making implementations of asynchronous processing a breeze. In your typical Winforms application, it means that I/O blocking applications can work without having constantly running and polling threads. For example, waiting for a new connection can be as simple as:
var connection = await listener.AcceptTcpClientAsync();
That's it. Automagically, all the callbacks will be processed at the right time, without blocking the processing, all of your own code always running on the main UI thread. In other words, you can easily do this:
while (!aborted)
{
var connection = await listener.AcceptTcpClientAsync();
tbxLog.Text += "New connection!\r\n";
}
While this seems like an infinite loop blocking the UI thread indefinitely, the reality is that when the application gets to the await keyword, it will register an asynchronous callback and returns. Only when the asynchronous callback is actually invoked (by IOCP in this case) is the code resumed (on the UI thread), and tbxLog has the text appended, followed by waiting for another connection.
I've never had problems doing it this way. No matter how you set it up, updating your controls has to be done on the thread they were created on. If you use a BackgroundWorker or some other async construct, somewhere an invoke is going to be called. I typically create a method on the form like:
delegate void TextSetter(string text);
internal void SetText(string text)
{
//call on main thread if necessary
if (InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke((TextSetter)SetText, text);
return;
}
//set the text on your label or whatever
this.StatusLabel.Text = text;
}
I've used that method in a number of applications and it's never been a problem, even updating many times per second.
As far as I'm aware, the only way to get around calling an invoke is to have your main thread constantly poll for updates, which is generally accepted as a really bad way to do things.
A really obvious simplification is to abstract away the InvokeRequired/Invoke into an extension method for a Control.
public static class FormExt {
public static void Execute(this Control c, Action a) {
if (c.InvokeRequired) {
c.Invoke(a);
} else {
a();
}
}
}
Now you just wrap up normal form updates into a lambda and execute them.
form1.Execute(() => form1.Text = "Hello world");
Related
How InvokeRequired and Invoke let us make our apps thread safe.
Let's consider such code:
private void ThreadSafeUpdate(string message)
{
if (this.textBoxSome.InvokeRequired)
{
SetTextCallback d = new SetTextCallback(msg);
this.Invoke
(d, new object[] { message });
}
else
{
// It's on the same thread, no need for Invoke
this.textBoxSome.Text = message;
}
}
Is it possible to change state of InvokeRequired after InvokeRequired and before Invoke? If not, then why?
How does Invoking make it thread safe?
If InvokeRequired illustrate is current thread owning control, how would the thread know that it is or it is not the owner.
Let's consider that SomeMethod() is currently running on Thread1. We would like to call it from Thread2. Internally this method updates some field. Does Method.Invoke contain some kind of lock mechanism internally?
What if SomeMethod() takes very long time and we would like to run something other on the control owner thread. Does Invoking lock the owner thread or is it some kind of a background thread safe task?
ThreadSafeUpdate() //takes 5 minutes in Thread2
ThreadSafeUpdate() //after 2 minutes, we are running it in other thread2
ThreadSafeUpdate() //next run from Thread3
I think it is some kind of general pattern which can be implemented outside of winforms, what's its name?
Is it possible to change state of InvokeRequired
Yes, and it is a pretty common occurrence. Either because you started the thread too soon, before the form's Load event fired. Or because the user closed the window just as this code is running. In both cases this code fails with an exception. InvokeRequired fails when the thread races ahead of the window creation, the invoked code fails when the UI thread races ahead of the thread. The odds for an exception are low, too low to ever diagnose the bug when you test the code.
How Invoking make it thread safe?
You cannot make it safe with this code, it is a fundamental race. It must be made safe by interlocking the closing of the window with the thread execution. You must make sure that the thread stopped before allowing the window to close. The subject of this answer.
how would he know that he is or he is not owner.
This is something that can be discovered with a winapi call, GetWindowsThreadProcessId(). The Handle property is the fundamental oracle for that. Pretty decent test, but with the obvious flaw that it cannot work when the Handle is no longer valid. Using an oracle in general is unwise, you should always know when code runs on a worker thread. Such code is very fundamentally different from code that runs on the UI thread. It is slow code.
We would like to call it from Thread2
This is not in general possible. Marshaling a call from one thread to a specific other thread requires that other thread to co-operate. It must solve the producer-consumer problem. Take a look at the link, the fundamental solution to that problem is a dispatcher loop. You probably recognize it, that's how the UI thread of a program operates. Which must solve this problem, it gets notifications from arbitrary other threads and UI is never thread-safe. But worker threads in general don't try to solve this problem themselves, unless you write it explicitly, you need a thread-safe Queue and a loop that empties it.
What's if SomeMethod() takes very long time
Not sure I follow, the point of using threads is to let code that takes a long time not do anything to harm the responsiveness of the user interface.
I think it is some kind of general pattern
There is, it doesn't look like this. This kind of code tends to be written when you have an oh-shoot moment and discover that your UI is freezing. Bolting threading on top of code that was never designed to support threading is forever a bad idea. You'll overlook too many nasty little details. Very important to minimize the number of times the worker thread interacts with the UI thread, your code is doing the opposite. Fall in the pit of success with the BackgroundWorker class, its RunWorkerCompleted event gives a good synchronized way to update UI with the result of the background operation. And if you like Tasks then the TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() method helps you localize the interactions.
Usually, no. But it could happen if you're using await between the InvokeRequired check and Invoke call without capturing the execution context. Of course, if you're already using await, you're probably not going to be using Invoke and InvokeRequired.
EDIT: I just noticed that InvokeRequired will return false when the control handle hasn't been created yet. It shouldn't make much of a difference, because your call will fail anyway when the control hasn't quite been created yet, but it is something to keep in mind.
It doesn't make it thread-safe. It just adds the request to the control's queue, so that it's executed the next available time on the same thread the control was created on. This has more to do with windows architecture than with general thread-safety. The end result, however, is that the code runs on a single thread - of course, this still means you need to handle shared state synchronization manually, if any.
Well, it's complicated. But in the end, it boils down to comparing the thread ID of the thread that created the control, and the current thread ID. Internally, this calls the native method GetWindowThreadProcessId - the operating system keeps track of the controls (and more importantly, their message loops).
Invoke cannot return until the GUI thread returns to its message loop. Invoke itself only posts the command to the queue and waits for it to be processed. But the command is run on the GUI thread, not the Invoke-caller. So the SomeMethod calls in your example will be serialized, and the Invoke call itself will wait until the second call finishes.
This should already be answered. The key point is "only run GUI code on the GUI thread". That's how you get reliable and responsive GUI at all times.
You can use it anywhere you've got a loop or a wait on some queue. It probably isn't all that useful, although I have actually used it already a few times (mostly in legacy code).
However, all of this is just a simple explanation of the workings. The truth is, you shouldn't really need InvokeRequired... well, ever. It's an artifact of a different age. This is really mostly about juggling threads with little order, which isn't exactly a good practice. The uses I've seen are either lazy coding, or hotfixes for legacy code - using this in new code is silly. The argument for using InvokeRequired is usually like "it allows us to handle this business logic safely whether it runs in the GUI thread or not". Hopefully, you can see the problem with that logic :)
Also, it's not free thread-safety. It does introduce delays (especially when the GUI thread is also doing some work that isn't GUI - very likely in code that uses InvokeRequired in the first place). It does not protect you from accesses to the shared state from other threads. It can introduce deadlocks. And don't even get me started on doing anything with code that uses Application.DoEvents.
And of course, it's even less useful once you take await into consideration - writing asynchronous code is vastly easier, and it allows you to make sure the GUI code always runs in the GUI context, and the rest can run wherever you want (if it uses a thread at all).
I am writing a library, and would like to be able to fire a callback on a specified thread, so the end-user does not have to worry about thread-safety.
I tried using ExecutionContext, but that didn't work out too well, it would fire in the specified context (a new thread), but not on the thread that originally called the function.
The code should work like this:
void Connect() {
// This should be in the same thread ..
SocketAsyncEventArgs.Completed += eventHandler;
Socket.ConnectAsync(SocketAsyncEventArgs)
}
void eventHandler() {
// .. as this
}
You can't just run your code on some existing thread. That thread is already executing other code. But, it can provide you some way to run your code on it. The main thread in a WPF application does this using Dispatcher.Invoke(). The main thread of a WinForms application uses Control.Invoke().
There is a more general way to do this: use Synchronization.Context.Current. This would work for the main thread of WPF or WinForms application, but would execute the callback on a thread pool thread otherwise. (Unless there is some sort of custom synchronization context, which I think is very rare.)
But this is the best you can do. Like I said, you can't run your code on some other thread when you want. The code in that other thread has to allow you to do that.
That's the thing about asynchronous functions -- you can't guarantee when you'll get called back, or what thread will be running your callback function. Consider that the cost of being able to "set it and forget it".
There's usually no need for that much control anyway. If you "need" to have a specific thread run your callback, what you really need is to review why that's necessary. If it's something that needs to run on the UI thread, there's Control.Invoke. (The UI thread anticipates needing to be handed stuff to do, because of how the architecture works, so controls have a way to pass callbacks to run on that thread. You can't just up and do that with arbitrary threads -- they have to be expecting to be passed a callback like that.) Otherwise, if you have an issue with locks or something, chances are you're trying to use asynchronous functionality to do stuff that should really be done synchronously in a separate thread.
I'm making several HttpWebRequest.BeginGetResponse calls, and in the callback method of the BeginGetResponse, I'm invoking an EventHandler. In the EventHandler, there is logic to test if the download was successful. If not, it tries to redownload the Html. I'm noticing lots of threads being generated especially when there are errors. So, on which thread do the Async Callbacks run?
Is there anyway I can invoke the EventHandler on the original thread? If that is not posible, can I invoke it on the UI thread?
Thanks!
Callbacks are made on a threadpool thread. There is no mechanism in .NET to make code run on a specific thread. That is very hard to come by, you can't just interrupt a thread while it is busy and make it run some code. That causes horrible re-entrancy problems that a lock cannot solve.
A thread must be in an idle state, not actively mutating the state of the program. There's one kind of thread that behaves that way, the UI thread in a Winforms or WPF app. That's also the thread that has to deal with objects that are fundamentally thread-unsafe, anything related to the UI. This is not a coincidence.
Both class libraries make it possible to marshal a call from a worker thread to the UI thread, specifically to help getting the UI updated in a thread-safe way. In Winforms you use Control.Begin/Invoke(), in WPF you use Dispatcher.Begin/Invoke(). BackgroundWorker is a handy class to get this done without explicitly managing the marshaling. But isn't suitable for I/O completion callbacks.
What do you mean by "on the original thread"? Which original thread? You can marshal to the UI thread using Control.BeginInvoke or Dispatcher.BeginInvoke. You can't marshal to an arbitrary thread - it has to have something like a message pump waiting for work.
As for which thread HttpWebRequest async callbacks are executed on - I would expect either a general thread pool worker thread, or possibly an IO completion port thread.
Using the Begin/End Async pattern, be aware that it's possible for many kinds of tasks to complete on the thread they were called from. When you call BeginXXX, it returns a boolean that signifies if the task was completed on the calling thread or not.
The basic answer is, it could be any thread.
If you are using WPF you can use the Dispatcher to invoke your logic on the UI thread.
Otherwise, (if not in WPF) you could use a SyncrhronizationContext to accomplish the same thing.
I have a situation in which I want a thread to process some sequential logic. This thread would need to interact with the main thread on occasion in order to update user input. But it should continue running otherwise without bothering the main thread. I am hopping to do this in an event-driven manner, so that the main thread doesn't have to pole the other thread for interrupts. What is the best way to do this? Is there an event-driven technique to communicating between threads much like there is in MFC?
I am using Visual Studio 2008 and (obviously) the .Net 3.5 framework.
Use the BackgroundWorker component.
Here you can find the best and complete tutorial about threading in C#, with code samples and examples.
AutoResetEvent and ManualResetEvent might be what you are after. Basically your main thread would wait using the various Wait methods of these classes until you signal from your other thread using the Set method. Then your wating thread will resume and continue with whatever comes afer Wait.
This is as good as it gets for an event-style. You have to wait and listen to receive an react on an event. How else are you supposed to stop your thread work in case you get an event gracefully? This is not possible with threads in general in any language.
Your only other possibility is frequent interrupting and polling.
Have a look at .Net Reactive Extensions IObservable and in particular the SubscribeOn and ObserveOn extension methods.
ObserveOn is where the work is done ( your background thread ), SubscribeOn is where the notifications go ( your UI thread ).
If you are using the BackgroundWorker you can raise a Progress event.
Here's an example on how to update a progress bar.
Ah ha! there is an event-driven way to do it. I borrowed the Dispatcher from WPF. I just give the spinning thread access to the main thread's CurrentDispatcher I let the thread spin and when it needs attention it invokes a delegate on the Dispatcher and sleeps waiting for the main thread to interrupt it. I know I could use Invoke instead of BeginInvoke, but I needed to use the interrupt because the method that restarts the worker thread is not a synchronous part of the dispatched delegates stack.
For better or worse, here is my code:
private void Run()
{
while (true)
{
...
// Need attention from the main thread
// "_main" is the main thread's Dispatcher instance.
_main.BeginInvoke(new MyEventHandler(OnNeedsAttention), this, new MyEventArgs(...));
try
{
Thread.Sleep(Timeout.Infinite);
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException) { }
}
}
I currently have a thread that listens for data from the network and then runs rules on it. I then want to pass the data to the GUI. I am worried about having a deadlock in the GUI. I cant figure out were to put the mutexes on the GUI side. I am also using c# and dotnet 3.5.
What I have come up with is
1) Using a timer to create an event and dump the thread. Worried about performance.
2) Use an intermediary event to copy the data to GUI.
3) Dig in and figure out thread safe way of using GUI.
What do you think is best way to proceed?
Edit: Here is the solution I am using. I pass in the changed element and then protect the big object with a mutex. I use helper function to switch threads using InvokeRequired then BeginInvoke with a delegate. Pulled from reading the answers and then following links until reaching Threading in Windows Forms by Jon Skeet.
delegate void UInt32ParameterDelegate(UInt32 n);
public void UpdateLocation(UInt32 n)
{
if (InvokeRequired)
{
// We're not in the UI thread, so we need to call BeginInvoke
BeginInvoke(new UInt32ParameterDelegate(UpdateLocation), new object[] { n });
return;
}
// Must be on the UI thread if we've got this far
this.engine.location.UpdateBusy.WaitOne();
// do the work in here
this.engine.location.UpdateBusy.ReleaseMutex();
}
Synchronization is very easy in Windows Forms. You can call Control.Invoke() in the background thread. The thread will stall until the delegate has finished running on the UI thread. No sync required at all.
If stalling the thread is a problem, use Control.BeginInvoke(). You'll have to protect the object(s) you pass to the delegate with a lock if the thread might alter them while it continues running. That's rarely the case in a producer-consumer scenario, the thread can simply create new objects.
Do make sure that you don't Invoke() too often. Do it more frequently than about 1000 times per second and the UI thread will stop pumping Windows messages, being bogged down by handling the invoke requests. Since it is human eyes you're trying to please, invoking more than about 25 times per second is just wasted effort. Pool intermediate results in a collection object.
I hope I understand your problem correctly.
After the background thread reads the data and does whatever it wants, it should use Invoke to call a method on the GUI thread. That method would update anything that should be updated in the GUI.
Never read from the network on the GUI thread. It's only a matter of time before your application runs during a network outage and your GUI hangs as a result. This will really frustrate your users.
In your situation I think the best approach is to have a background thread complete the read operation. Then take the resulting data and move it back to the GUI thread via a SynchronizationContext Post or Send method.
you should just pass an event from your network thread to your UI thread.
then cross threads using begininvoke so you don't get a cross thread exception.
Need help getting info across a UI thread and another thread in C#
You could use a backgroundworker that will process the datareading in a background thread and when it's done you can end the backgroundworker triggering it's RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler. In the RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler you can update your GUI thread with the result.
Isn't easier to just throw a delegate who raise an event that inform the form to refresh itself?