We Keep Coding

c# updating a progress form from external methods during a thread

Prepared for downvotes but I am really nowhere near getting to grips with the ins and outs of threading with this backgroundworker, but I've managed to just about get a structure for what I want:
public class cls1
{
private FormProgress myProgForm = new FormProgress();
public BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker(); // new instance of bkgworker
public void prepare_a_job()
{
worker.WorkerReportsProgress = true; // Allows the worker to report progress
worker.ProgressChanged += worker_ProgressChanged; // Adding handler to update progress
worker.DoWork += job1; // Adding handler for the ACTUAL JOB METHOD
myProgForm.Show(); // Show the prog update form
worker.RunWorkerAsync(); // Start the job, already! Wo lo loo
}
void job1(object sender, EventArgs e) // Do 0 to 100
{
for (int i = 0; i <= 100; i++)
{
(sender as BackgroundWorker).ReportProgress(i); // ReportProgress uses percentages
Thread.Sleep(50);
}
// THIS IS WHERE I'D INSERT ANOTHER METHOD
}
void worker_ProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
{
if(e.ProgressPercentage == 100) // If the % gets to 100
{
myProgForm.UPDATEME("", true); // then pass true to close progressForm
}
else
{
myProgForm.UPDATEME("Counting\n" + e.ProgressPercentage); // else just update
}
}
}
And on my FormProgress I just have this method:
public void UPDATEME(string MSG, bool finish = false)
{
this.label1.Text = MSG;
this.Refresh();
if (finish) { this.Close(); }
}
Messy, right? But it works (and I've been trying to find/learn this stuff for 24 hours and this is the first thing I even remotely understand.
The issue I'm having with this mess, is calling the UPDATEME() method from any other methods I want to call during the job1 routine - e.g. in reality this won't just be a loop to waste time, it'll be a set of conditions to call a tonne of other methods in various orders.
I tried bunging in a 2nd method into job1 and within that 2nd method call UPDATEME but it's not a thread-safe cross-thread update...
I think it might have something to do with Invoking but then I also read something about MSDN BackgroundWorker was another way to allow thread-safe without invoke and then my head exploded and my brain fell out.
How can I always refer to my ProgressForm.UPDATEME("new progress message") method within any other method in my code?
EDIT:
For instance I'd insert a call to this 2nd method in the job1 call
void myOtherMethod()
{
(worker).ReportProgress(0);
myProgForm.UPDATEME("Doing part 1");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
myProgForm.UPDATEME("Doing part 2");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
myProgForm.UPDATEME("Doing part 3");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}

How can I always refer to my ProgressForm.UPDATEME("new progress
message") method within any other method in my code?
Like this:
public void UPDATEME(string MSG, bool finish = false)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(() => this.UPDATEME(MSG, finish)));
}
else
{
this.label1.Text = MSG;
if (finish) { this.Close(); }
}
}
I don't really understand how invoking the method from within itself
gets round the fact the method is called outside the 1st level
thread ...
It is confusing at first as this is a recursive call. The "meat" is that Invoke() runs whatever is inside it on the same thread that created the control (the form itself in this case). When we enter the method the second time (due to recursion) the check returns false and we safely run the else block on the UI thread.
You can actually get rid of the check (and recursion) by always calling Invoke() whether it's needed or not like this:
public void UPDATEME(string MSG, bool finish = false)
{
this.Invoke(new Action(() =>
{
this.label1.Text = MSG;
if (finish) { this.Close(); }
}));
}
Here is an alternate version that still checks if Invoke() is required, but doesn't use recursion (less confusing, but we've now introduced duplicate code):
public void UPDATEME(string MSG, bool finish = false)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke(new Action(() =>
{
this.label1.Text = MSG;
if (finish) { this.Close(); }
}));
}
else
{
this.label1.Text = MSG;
if (finish) { this.Close(); }
}
}
For those that are "detail oriented", here is an approach/variation (I'm using MethodInvoker instead of Action) showing one way to remove the duplicate code above:
public void UPDATEME(string MSG, bool finish = false)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
this.updater(MSG, finish);
});
}
else
{
this.updater(MSG, finish);
}
}
private void updater(string MSG, bool finish = false) // NOT thread safe, thus the private (don't call directly)
{
this.label1.Text = MSG;
if (finish) { this.Close(); }
}

Updating GUI from thread C#, without binding to UI controls

It is know that Invoke method is used when u need to update gui from other thread. But How can I implement this without binding control to code?
Here's my test class:
class test
{
public List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
public int nThreads = 0;
public int maxThreads = 5;
public void DoWork(object data)
{
string message = (string)data;
//MessageBox.Show(message);
}
public void CreateThread(object data)
{
if (nThreads >= maxThreads)
return;
Thread newThread = new Thread(DoWork);
threads.Add(newThread);
newThread.IsBackground = true;
newThread.Start(data);
nThreads++;
}
public void WindUpThreads()
{
//MessageBox.Show("count: " + nThreads.ToString());
for(int i = 0; i < threads.Count; i++)
{
if (threads[i].IsAlive == false)
{
threads[i].Abort();
threads.RemoveAt(i);
//MessageBox.Show("removing at " + i.ToString());
}
}
nThreads = threads.Count;
}
}
The question is = what tecnique I must use in order to update gui but not hardcode control into class? I've tried to pass delegate to DoWork Method, but this doesn't work (http://pastebin.com/VaSYFxPw). Thanks!
I'm using WinForms, .NET 3.5
Here's the button_click handler:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
button1.Enabled = false;
test thTest = new test();
string[] strings;
try
{
strings = File.ReadAllLines("C:\\users\\alex\\desktop\\test.txt");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
return;
}
bool flag = true;
int counter = 0;
int dataCount = strings.Length;
while (flag == true)
{
if (counter >= dataCount)
{
flag = false;
}
while (thTest.nThreads < thTest.maxThreads)
{
if (flag == false)
break;
thTest.CreateThread(strings[counter]);
//Data d = new Data();
//d.deleg = AddItem;
//d.mess = strings[counter];
//thTest.CreateThread((object)d);
//MessageBox.Show(counter.ToString());
counter++;
}
thTest.WindUpThreads();
if (flag == false)
{
do
{
thTest.WindUpThreads();
} while (thTest.nThreads != 0);
}
}
listBox1.Items.Add("Done");
}
The idea is that I'am launching threads for each task I want to process. After while I'am checking are there completed tasks, then they being shutdowned and new ones are launched until there no more tasks left.

Rather than making DoWork responsible for updating the UI with the results of the operation it performs, simply have it return the value:
//TODO change the type of the result as appropriate
public string DoWork(string message)
{
string output = "output";
//TODO do some work to come up with the result;
return output;
}
Then use Task.Run to create a Task that represents that work being done in a thread pool thread. You can then await that task from your button click handler.
private async void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
button1.Enabled = false;
test thTest = new test();
//I'd note that you really should pull out reading in this file from your UI code;
//it should be in a separate method, and it should also be reading
//the file asynchronously.
string[] strings;
try
{
strings = System.IO.File.ReadAllLines("C:\\users\\alex\\desktop\\test.txt");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
return;
}
foreach (var line in strings)
{
var result = await thTest.DoWork(line);
listBox1.Items.Add(result);
}
listBox1.Items.Add("Done");
}
If you really want to be old school about it, you can use a BackgroundWorker instead. Simply do your work in the DoWork handler, setting the result (through the argument) when you've computed it, and update the UI with the result in the RunWorkerCompleted event handler. This lets you keep the UI and non-UI work separate, although it's far less powerful, general purpose, and extensible, as the newer features.

The question is = what tecnique I must use in order to update gui but not hardcode control into class? I've tried to pass delegate to DoWork Method, but this doesn't work
This is indeed the one of the possible techniques. It doesn't work because you have a blocking loop in the UI thread - the most of the code inside the button1_Click handler. It doesn't matter that you spawn additional worker threads - that code keeps the UI thread busy, thus Control.Invoke / Control.BeginInvoke doesn't work because they are processed by the UI thread message loop, which in this case has no chance to do that. The end result is a classical deadlock.
So, you can use the delegate approach, but to make it work, you need to move that code in a separate thread. Something like this
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
button1.Enabled = false;
var worker = new Thread(DoWork);
worker.IsBackground = true;
worker.Start();
}
private void OnWorkComplete(Exception error)
{
if (error != null)
MessageBox.Show(error.Message);
button1.Enabled = true;
}
private void DoWork()
{
Exception error = null;
try { DoWorkCore(); }
catch (Exception ex) { error = ex; }
Invoke(new Action(OnWorkComplete), error);
}
private void DoWorkCore()
{
test thTest = new test();
// NOTE: No try/catch for showing message boxes, this is running on a non UI thread
string[] strings = File.ReadAllLines("C:\\users\\alex\\desktop\\test.txt");
bool flag = true;
int counter = 0;
int dataCount = strings.Length;
// The rest of the code...
// Pass a delegate to the other threads.
// Make sure using Invoke when you need to access/update UI elements
}

Move code that run on a UI thread and access global states to a thread

I am trying to move as much processing out of the UI thread on my Windows Phone app. I have some code that is being executed when I click on a button. The code is conceptually similar to the code below.
private int Processing(int a, int b, int c) {
this.A = this.moreProcessing(a);
this.B = this.moreProcessing(b);
this.C = this.moreProcessing(c);
int newInt = /* ... */
return newInt;
}
public void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs args) {
var result = Processing(1, 2, 3);
this.MyTextBox.Content = result;
}
That would be very easy to move the execution on that code on a thread if the Processing method wasn't setting/getting global state variables.
How do I make sure that only one thread at a time is running in the right sequence? Right now it is easy since the processing code runs on the UI thread. The nice thing about the UI thread is that it guarantee me that everything runs in the right order and one at a time. How do I replicate that with threads?
I could refactor the entire code to have almost no global state, but cannot necessarily do that right now. I could also use lock, but I am just wondering if there's a better way. The processing I am doing isn't super heavy. However, I sometime see some lag in the UI and I want to keep the UI thread as free as possible.
Thanks!

There are a few approaches.
If you intend to fire up a new thread for every Button_Click event, then indeed you could have multiple threads that wish to write to the same variables. You can solve that by wrapping the access to those variables in a lock statement.
Alternatively, you could have one thread always running dedicated to the Processing thread. Use a BlockingCollection to communicate between the UI thread and the Processing thread. Whenever a Button_Click happens, place the relevant info on the BlockingCollection, and have the Processing thread pull work items off of that BlockingCollection.
Untested code that should be close to OK:
class ProcessingParams // Or use a Tuple<int, int, int>
{
public int A { get; set; }
public int B { get; set; }
public int C { get; set; }
}
BlockingCollection<int> bc = new BlockingCollection<int>();
private int Processing() {
try
{
while (true)
{
ProcesingParams params = bc.Take();
this.A = this.moreProcessing(params.A);
this.B = this.moreProcessing(params.B);
this.C = this.moreProcessing(params.C);
int newInt = /* ... */
return newInt; // Rather than 'return' the int, place it in this.MyTextBox.Content using thread marshalling
}
}
catch (InvalidOperationException)
{
// IOE means that Take() was called on a completed collection
}
}
public void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs args) {
//var result = Processing(1, 2, 3);
bc.Add (new ProcessingParams() { A = 1, B = 2, C = 3 };
//this.MyTextBox.Content = result;
}
When your application closes down, remember to call
bc.CompleteAdding(); // Causes the processing thread to end

A very simple solution is to use a BackgroundWorker. It allows you to offload your work to a background thread and notify you when it is complete. (see below for another option)
void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.DoWork += (s, e) =>
{
e.Result = Processing(1, 2, 3);
};
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += (s1, e1) =>
{
MyTextBox.Content = e1.Result;
MyButton.IsEnabled = true;
};
// Disable the button to stop multiple clicks
MyButton.IsEnabled = false;
worker.RunWorkerAsync();
}
Another option is to get your code ready for the next version of Windows Phone and start using the Task Parallel Library. TPL is available with .Net4, but is not available with Windows Phone. There are some NuGet packages that do support Silverlight and Windows Phone. Add one of these packages to your project and you can change your code to (syntax may not be 100% correct):
private Task<int> ProcessAsync(int a, int b, int c)
{
var taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<int>();
var task = Task.Factory.StartNew<int>(() =>
{
// Do your work
return newInt;
}
task.ContinueWith(t => taskCompletionSource.SetResult(t.Result));
return taskCompletionSource.Task;
}
void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
// Disable the button to prevent more clicks
MyButton.IsEnabled = false;
var task = ProcessAsync(1,2,3);
task.ContinueWith(t =>
{
MyTextBox.Content = t.Result;
MyButton.IsEnabled = true;
});
}

Try this:
public void Button_Click(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
Button.Enabled = false;
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(BackgroundProcessing));
}
private void BackgroundProcessing(object state)
{
var result = Processing(1, 2, 3);
// Call back to UI thread with results
Invoke(new Action(() => {
this.MyTextBox.Content = result;
Button.Enabled = true;
}));
}
private int Processing(int a, int b, int c)
{
this.A = this.moreProcessing(a);
this.B = this.moreProcessing(b);
this.C = this.moreProcessing(c);
int newInt = /* ... */
return newInt;
}

How to wait for background worker to finish processing?

I have 3 background workers each processing a channel of a 24-bit Bitmap image (Y, Cb, Cr). The processing for each 8-bit image takes several seconds and they might not complete at the same time.
I want to merge the channels back into one image when I'm done. When a button is clicked, each of the backgroundWorkerN.RunWorkerAsync() is started and when they complete I set a flag for true. I tried using a while loop while (!y && !cb && !cr) { } to continually check the flags until they are true then exit loop and continue processing the code below which is the code to merge the channels back together. But instead the process never ends when I run it.
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerAsync();
backgroundWorker2.RunWorkerAsync();
backgroundWorker3.RunWorkerAsync();
while (!y && !cb && !cr) { }
//Merge Code
}

Building on the answer from Renuiz, I would do it this way:
private object lockObj;
private void backgroundWorkerN_RunWorkerCompleted(
object sender,
RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
lock (lockObj)
{
y = true;
if (cb && cr) // if cb and cr flags are true -
// other backgroundWorkers finished work
{
someMethodToDoOtherStuff();
}
}
}

Maybe you could set and check flags in background worker complete event handlers. For example:
private void backgroundWorkerN_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
y = true;
if(cb && cr)//if cb and cr flags are true - other backgroundWorkers finished work
someMethodToDoOtherStuff();
}

I would use three threads instead of background workers.
using System.Threading;
class MyConversionClass
{
public YCBCR Input;
public RGB Output
private Thread Thread1;
private Thread Thread2;
private Thread Thread3;
private int pCompletionCount;
public MyConversionClass(YCBCR myInput, RGB myOutput)
{
this.Input = myInput;
this.Output = myOutput;
this.Thread1 = new Thread(this.ComputeY);
this.Thread2 = new Thread(this.ComputeCB);
this.Thread3 = new Thread(this.ComputeCR);
}
public void Start()
{
this.Thread1.Start();
this.Thread2.Start();
this.Thread3.Start();
}
public void WaitCompletion()
{
this.Thread1.Join();
this.Thread2.Join();
this.Thread3.Join();
}
// Call this method in background worker 1
private void ComputeY()
{
// for each pixel do My stuff
...
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref this.CompletionCount) == 3)
this.MergeTogether();
}
// Call this method in background worker 2
private void ComputeCB()
{
// for each pixel do My stuff
...
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref this.CompletionCount) == 3)
this.MergeTogether();
}
// Call this method in background worker 3
private void ComputeCR()
{
// for each pixel do My stuff
...
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref this.CompletionCount) == 3)
this.MergeTogether();
}
private void MergeTogether()
{
// We merge the three channels together
...
}
}
Now in your code you simply do this:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
MyConversionClass conversion = new MyConversionClass(myinput, myoutput);
conversion.Start();
conversion.WaitCompletion();
... your other stuff
}
However this will pause your GUI until all operations are completed.
I would use SynchronizationContext instead to notify the GUI that the operation has completed.
This version uses SynchronizationContext for synchronizing the GUI thread without waiting at all.
This will keep the GUI responsive and performs the entire conversion operation in the other threads.
using System.Threading;
class MyConversionClass
{
public YCBCR Input;
public RGB Output
private EventHandler Completed;
private Thread Thread1;
private Thread Thread2;
private Thread Thread3;
private SynchronizationContext SyncContext;
private volatile int pCompletionCount;
public MyConversionClass()
{
this.Thread1 = new Thread(this.ComputeY);
this.Thread2 = new Thread(this.ComputeCB);
this.Thread3 = new Thread(this.ComputeCR);
}
public void Start(YCBCR myInput, RGB myOutput, SynchronizationContext syncContext, EventHandler completed)
{
this.SyncContext = syncContext;
this.Completed = completed;
this.Input = myInput;
this.Output = myOutput;
this.Thread1.Start();
this.Thread2.Start();
this.Thread3.Start();
}
// Call this method in background worker 1
private void ComputeY()
{
... // for each pixel do My stuff
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref this.CompletionCount) == 3)
this.MergeTogether();
}
// Call this method in background worker 2
private void ComputeCB()
{
... // for each pixel do My stuff
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref this.CompletionCount) == 3)
this.MergeTogether();
}
// Call this method in background worker 3
private void ComputeCR()
{
... // for each pixel do My stuff
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref this.CompletionCount) == 3)
this.MergeTogether();
}
private void MergeTogether()
{
... // We merge the three channels together
// We finish everything, we can notify the application that everything is completed.
this.syncContext.Post(RaiseCompleted, this);
}
private static void RaiseCompleted(object state)
{
(state as MyConversionClass).OnCompleted(EventArgs.Empty);
}
// This function is called in GUI thread when everything completes.
protected virtual void OnCompleted(EventArgs e)
{
EventHandler completed = this.Completed;
this.Completed = null;
if (completed != null)
completed(this, e);
}
}
Now, in your code...
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
button1.Enabled = false;
MyConversionClass conversion = new MyConversionClass();
conversion.Start(myinput, myoutput, SynchronizationContext.Current, this.conversion_Completed);
}
private void conversion_Completed(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var output = (sender as MyConversionClass).Output;
... your other stuff that uses output
button1.Enabled = true;
}
The good things of both method is that they are GUI agnostic, you can put them in a library and keep your precious multi-threading conversion code totally independant on the GUI you are using, that is, WPF, Web or Windows Forms.

You can use WaitHandle.WaitAll in conjunction with EventWaitHandle to achieve what you need. Herein enclosed a code sample which does what I mentioned. The enclosed code is just an outline of how the solution will look like. You must add proper exception handling and defensive approach to make this code more stable.
using System;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication7
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
BWorkerSyncExample sample = new BWorkerSyncExample();
sample.M();
}
}
class BWorkerSyncExample
{
BackgroundWorker worker1, worker2, worker3;
EventWaitHandle[] waithandles;
public void M()
{
Console.WriteLine("Starting background worker threads");
waithandles = new EventWaitHandle[3];
waithandles[0] = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset);
waithandles[1] = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset);
waithandles[2] = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset);
StartBWorkerOne();
StartBWorkerTwo();
StartBWorkerThree();
//Wait until all background worker complete or timeout elapse
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for workers to complete...");
WaitHandle.WaitAll(waithandles, 10000);
Console.WriteLine("All workers finished their activities");
Console.ReadLine();
}
void StartBWorkerThree()
{
if (worker3 == null)
{
worker3 = new BackgroundWorker();
worker3.DoWork += (sender, args) =>
{
M3();
Console.WriteLine("I am done- Worker Three");
};
worker3.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, args) =>
{
waithandles[2].Set();
};
}
if (!worker3.IsBusy)
worker3.RunWorkerAsync();
}
void StartBWorkerTwo()
{
if (worker2 == null)
{
worker2 = new BackgroundWorker();
worker2.DoWork += (sender, args) =>
{
M2();
Console.WriteLine("I am done- Worker Two");
};
worker2.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, args) =>
{
waithandles[1].Set();
};
}
if (!worker2.IsBusy)
worker2.RunWorkerAsync();
}
void StartBWorkerOne()
{
if (worker1 == null)
{
worker1 = new BackgroundWorker();
worker1.DoWork += (sender, args) =>
{
M1();
Console.WriteLine("I am done- Worker One");
};
worker1.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, args) =>
{
waithandles[0].Set();
};
}
if (!worker1.IsBusy)
worker1.RunWorkerAsync();
}
void M1()
{
//do all your image processing here.
//simulate some intensive activity.
Thread.Sleep(3000);
}
void M2()
{
//do all your image processing here.
//simulate some intensive activity.
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
void M3()
{
//do all your image processing here.
//simulate some intensive activity.
Thread.Sleep(4000);
}
}
}

Consider using AutoResetEvents:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
var e1 = new System.Threading.AutoResetEvent(false);
var e2 = new System.Threading.AutoResetEvent(false);
var e3 = new System.Threading.AutoResetEvent(false);
backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerAsync(e1);
backgroundWorker2.RunWorkerAsync(e2);
backgroundWorker3.RunWorkerAsync(e3);
// Keep the UI Responsive
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(x =>
{
// Wait for the background workers
e1.WaitOne();
e2.WaitOne();
e3.WaitOne();
MethodThatNotifiesIamFinished();
});
//Merge Code
}
void BackgroundWorkerMethod(object obj)
{
var evt = obj as AutoResetEvent;
//Do calculations
etv.Set();
}
This way you do not waste cpu time in some loops & using a seperate thread for waiting keeps the UI Responsive.

Cant understand: using lock () but never executing code

I'm learning about threads in C#, and i get this behavior that i cant understand.
The code simulates I/O operations, like files or serial port, where only one thread can access it at time, and it blocks until finishes.
Four threads are started. Each performs just a count. It works ok, i can see on the form the counts growing. But there is a button to count from the form thread. When i push it, the main thread freezes. The debugger shows that the others threads keep counting, one by one, but the form thread never gets access to the resource.
1) Why the lock(tty) from the form thread never gets access to it, when the others threads has no problem ?
2) Is there a better way to do this type of synchronization ?
Sorry about the big code:
public class MegaAPI
{
public int SomeStupidBlockingFunction(int c)
{
Thread.Sleep(800);
return ++c;
}
}
class UIThread
{
public delegate void dlComandoMaquina();
public class T0_SyncEvents
{
private EventWaitHandle _EventFechar; // Exit thread event
public T0_SyncEvents()
{
_EventFechar = new ManualResetEvent(false);
}
public EventWaitHandle EventFecharThread // Exit thread event
{
get { return _EventFechar; }
}
}
public class T0_Thread
{
private T0_SyncEvents _syncEvents;
private int _msTimeOut;
private dlComandoMaquina _ComandoMaquina;
public T0_Thread(T0_SyncEvents e, dlComandoMaquina ComandoMaquina, int msTimeOut)
{
_syncEvents = e;
_msTimeOut = msTimeOut;
_ComandoMaquina = ComandoMaquina;
}
public void VaiRodar() // thread running code
{
while (!_syncEvents.EventFecharThread.WaitOne(_msTimeOut, false))
{
_ComandoMaquina();
}
}
}
}
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
MegaAPI tty;
UIThread.T0_Thread thr1;
UIThread.T0_SyncEvents thrE1;
Thread Thread1;
int ACount1 = 0;
void UIUpdate1()
{
lock (tty)
{
ACount1 = tty.SomeStupidBlockingFunction(ACount1);
}
this.BeginInvoke((Action)delegate { txtAuto1.Text = ACount1.ToString(); });
}
UIThread.T0_Thread thr2;
UIThread.T0_SyncEvents thrE2;
Thread Thread2;
int ACount2 = 0;
void UIUpdate2()
{
lock (tty)
{
ACount2 = tty.SomeStupidBlockingFunction(ACount2);
}
this.BeginInvoke((Action)delegate { txtAuto2.Text = ACount2.ToString(); });
}
UIThread.T0_Thread thr3;
UIThread.T0_SyncEvents thrE3;
Thread Thread3;
int ACount3 = 0;
void UIUpdate3()
{
lock (tty)
{
ACount3 = tty.SomeStupidBlockingFunction(ACount3);
}
this.BeginInvoke((Action)delegate { txtAuto3.Text = ACount3.ToString(); });
}
UIThread.T0_Thread thr4;
UIThread.T0_SyncEvents thrE4;
Thread Thread4;
int ACount4 = 0;
void UIUpdate4()
{
lock (tty)
{
ACount4 = tty.SomeStupidBlockingFunction(ACount4);
}
this.BeginInvoke((Action)delegate { txtAuto4.Text = ACount4.ToString(); });
}
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
tty = new MegaAPI();
thrE1 = new UIThread.T0_SyncEvents();
thr1 = new UIThread.T0_Thread(thrE1, UIUpdate1, 500);
Thread1 = new Thread(thr1.VaiRodar);
Thread1.Start();
thrE2 = new UIThread.T0_SyncEvents();
thr2 = new UIThread.T0_Thread(thrE2, UIUpdate2, 500);
Thread2 = new Thread(thr2.VaiRodar);
Thread2.Start();
thrE3 = new UIThread.T0_SyncEvents();
thr3 = new UIThread.T0_Thread(thrE3, UIUpdate3, 500);
Thread3 = new Thread(thr3.VaiRodar);
Thread3.Start();
thrE4 = new UIThread.T0_SyncEvents();
thr4 = new UIThread.T0_Thread(thrE4, UIUpdate4, 500);
Thread4 = new Thread(thr4.VaiRodar);
Thread4.Start();
}
private void Form1_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
thrE1.EventFecharThread.Set();
thrE2.EventFecharThread.Set();
thrE3.EventFecharThread.Set();
thrE4.EventFecharThread.Set();
Thread1.Join();
Thread2.Join();
Thread3.Join();
Thread4.Join();
}
int Mcount = 0;
private void btManual_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Cursor.Current = Cursors.WaitCursor;
lock (tty) // locks here ! Never runs inside! But the other threads keep counting..
{
Mcount = tty.SomeStupidBlockingFunction(Mcount);
txtManual.Text = Mcount.ToString();
}
Cursor.Current = Cursors.Default;
}
}

I suspect you are hitting something with the Windows message loop and threading in WinForms. I don't know what that is, but here are a few pointers:
You can run the button's task in a backgroundWorker to keep the work off the UI thread. That solves the lock problem. Drag a BackgroundWorker from the toolbox and drop it on your Form in the designer, and hook up the event, i.e.:
this.backgroundWorker1.DoWork += new System.ComponentModel.DoWorkEventHandler(this.backgroundWorker1_DoWork);
then switch your code in btManual_Click to call the background worker like this:
backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerAsync();
and then:
private void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
Mcount = tty.SomeStupidBlockingFunction(Mcount);
this.BeginInvoke((Action)delegate { txtManual.Text = Mcount.ToString(); });
}
I've left out the lock (tty) because I would rather see only one of these statements inside the function, rather than five of them outside. And instead of locking on tty, I would create a private variable like this:
public class MegaAPI
{
private object sync = new object();
public int SomeStupidBlockingFunction(int c)
{
lock (this.sync)
{
Thread.Sleep(800);
return ++c;
}
}
}
Everywhere else is then simplified, for example:
void UIUpdate1()
{
ACount1 = tty.SomeStupidBlockingFunction(ACount1);
this.BeginInvoke((Action)delegate { txtAuto1.Text = ACount1.ToString(); });
}
And since you can't run the background worker while it's still processing, here is a quick-and-dirty solution: disable the button while it's working:
this.backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerCompleted += new System.ComponentModel.RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(this.backgroundWorker1_RunWorkerCompleted);
and then:
private void btManual_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.btManual.Enabled = false;
backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerAsync();
}
and:
private void backgroundWorker1_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
this.btManual.Enabled = true;
}
So I recommend:
Keep a single lock () statement
inside the function needing the
synchronization
Keep the lock object private
Run the work on a background worker

Mutexes do not provide fairness by default. They just guarantee that your process as a whole will make forward progress. It is the implementation's job to pick the best thread to get the mutex based on characteristics of the scheduler and so on. It is the coder's job to make sure that the thread that gets the mutex does whatever work the program needs done.
If it's a problem for you if the "wrong thread" gets the mutex, you are doing it wrong. Mutexes are for cases where there is no "wrong thread". If you need fairness or predictable scheduling, you need to use a locking primitive that provides it or use thread priorities.
Mutexes tend to act in strange ways when threads that hold them aren't CPU-limited. Your threads acquire the mutex and then deschedule themselves. This will lead to degenerate scheduling behavior just like the behavior you're seeing. (They won't break their guarantees, of course, but they will act much less like a theoretically perfect mutex that also provided things like fairness.)