We Keep Coding

Wpf application with multiple STA threads still blocks user interface

A while ago we added Python scripting to a Wpf application using IronPython. At first it was only 'slave' in the sense that a script was invoked by a button click for instance and then just ran to completion returning control to Wpf. Later on we added 'master' scripting: the script runs in it's own thread, and controls the rest of the application. That was quite challenging but after a while and with help of existing SO content we got it working, seemingly. Never really used it though, until now, and unfortunately it turns out it does not work properly. Core cause is that although there are two seperate STA threads (the main Wpf one and one for the script), and hence two different Dispatcher instances, the main thread seems to get blocked because the script thread is in a loop waiting for the main thread to complete (in response to a button click processed on the script thread and starting events on the main thread). The whole point of using two threads with seperate ui windows was of course this wouldn't happen. What is going on?
update It is reproducable with minimal code, so I'm linking to that instead of posting pseudo-code here. While creating the code I found that when the window created by the script thread is not embedded (set MainWindow.hostedWin = false) the deadlock does not occur and everything behaves as expected.
in response to comments So there are 3 threads of concern coming into play. Let's call them Python, Ui and Process. Python starts Process and waits for it to complete. Process calls Invoke on Ui. Which shouldn't be doing anything at that point: after all, it's Python that is blocking, not Ui, and the whole point of this construction is that Ui shouldn't have to interact with Python. Well, except that it does somehow. Which is the culprit. In the deadlock, Ui sits at PresentationFramework.dll!System.Windows.Interop.HwndHost.OnWindowPositionChanged(System.Windows.Rect rcBoundingBox) + 0x82 bytes and Process sits at WindowsBase.dll!System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherOperation.DispatcherOperationEvent.WaitOne() + 0x2f bytes and Python is just at Thread.Sleep.
What is going on here, and how to fix it?

I'll keep it short, very few odds that this answer is going to make you happy. It is a three-way deadlock. The most severe one in the interaction between the main thread and PythonThread. This deadlock occurs in the Windows kernel, the NtUserSetWindowPos() call cannot progress. It is blocked, waiting for the WM_LBUTTONUP callback notification on the PythonThread to finish running.
This deadlock is caused by your WpfHwndEmbedHost hack. Turning a top-level window owned by another thread or process into a child window is an appcompat feature that was meant to support Windows 3.x programs. A Windows version that did not yet support threads and where having one task embedding another task's window wasn't a problem. A WPF window isn't exactly much like such a window, to put it mildly. Otherwise a well-known troublemaker, for one the reason that embedding Acrobat Reader in a browser window works so very poorly. Not turning on the WS_CHILD style flag ought to bring relief, but WPF isn't happy about that. Simply setting hostedWin to false solves the problem.
The other deadlock is the one I warned you about, the interaction between the main thread and the ProcessThread. Dispatcher.Invoke() is dangerous, it deadlocks because the main thread is stuck in the kernel. Using Dispatcher.BeginInvoke() solves the problem. Partly, you still have the main thread go catatonic for 5 seconds.
The most severe problem is the kernel lock, that's going to bite in many other ways. You are going to have to keep it a separate window to avoid it. Not good news, I'm sure.

This is a long shot but you might have to implement your own SynchronizationContext to achieve this.
As far as I understand from Andrew Nosenko's answer and his references, it seem that CLR has its own mind about the message pump for the UI thread and it's not actually possible to run two UI threads under one window (BTW, I was able to replicate the issue without IronPython, that seems to be irrelevant here)
Main reference is from cbrumme's WebLog 'Apartments and Pumping in the CLR'
I keep saying that managed blocking will perform “some pumping” when called on an STA thread. Wouldn’t it be great to know exactly what will get pumped? Unfortunately, pumping is a black art which is beyond mortal comprehension. On Win2000 and up, we simply delegate to OLE32’s CoWaitForMultipleHandles service. And before we wrote the initial cut of our pumping code for NT4 and Win9X, I thought I would glance through CoWaitForMultipleHandles to see how it is done. It is many, many pages of complex code. And it uses special flags and APIs that aren’t even available on Win9X.
I must admit I am a little out of my depth here, and might be missing the point completely, so apologies upfront if this might not be an answer to the question at all (Nevertheless it's been a good experience for me, that's for sure).
I have tried using Andrew Nosenko's SynchronizationContext implementation to come up with an example unfortunately without success. Hope it helps you and good luck!

I have delt with similiar problems in my applications where i invoked some UI updates from my heavy load threads and had the same result the UI blocked the thread. I made a solution which i now use in every application though you would need to apply it to your application it works like this:
Apart from the thread you do your work in (and the UI thread) you also need to create another thread, this one will take data from a stack and send it to the UI thread.
Essentialy when you want your UI get a update by your work thread you save the result of your work thread into a List if its more complex data then you would need to create a struct and save all the current data from the thread into the struct and add it to the List (adding data to to the list doesnt require invoke).
Now your second threads runs in a loop and checks at a certain interval if there is something in the List if there is he adds the list elements to your UI.
Here is a sample of how it should work
using System;
using System.Windows;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Data;
using System.Drawing;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Windows.Forms;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
namespace nonblock
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private ListBox l1;
private ListBox l2;
private Thread workThread;
private Thread nonBlockThread;
private List<TwoNumbers> list;
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.Size = new Size(500,500);
this.FormClosing += (ss, ee) =>
{
workThread.Abort();
nonBlockThread.Abort();
};
l1 = new ListBox();
l1.Dock = DockStyle.Left;
l2 = new ListBox();
l2.Dock = DockStyle.Right;
list = new List<TwoNumbers>();
this.Controls.Add(l1);
this.Controls.Add(l2);
workThread = new Thread(work);
workThread.Start();
nonBlockThread = new Thread(update);
nonBlockThread.Start();
}
private void work()
{
int a = 0;
int b = 0;
int counter = 0;
Random r = new Random();
while (true)
{
a += r.Next();
b += r.Next();
counter++;
if (counter % 10 == 0)
list.Add(new TwoNumbers(a, b));
Thread.Sleep(40);
}
}
private void update()
{
while (true)
{
if (list.Count > 0)
{
for (int a = 0; a < list.Count; a++)
{
l1.Invoke((MethodInvoker)(() => l1.Items.Add(list[0].n1)));
l2.Invoke((MethodInvoker)(() => l2.Items.Add(list[0].n2)));
list.RemoveAt(0);
}
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
public class TwoNumbers
{
public int n1 { get; set; }
public int n2 { get; set; }
public TwoNumbers(int a, int b)
{
n1 = a;
n2 = b;
}
}
}
}

Not updating GUI in time

I have a class that updates a GUI element
public class UpdateLabelClass
{
static MainGUI theForm = (MainGUI)Application.OpenForms[0];
Label lblCurProgress = theForm.curProgress;
public ProgressBarUpdate()
{
}
public void UpdateLabel(String newLabel)
{
lblCurProgress.Text = newLabel;
}
}
And in other classes, I make an instance of the class and call the UpdateLabel(someString);
Now the problem is, it skips the operation of updating the label, so I thought "Maybe it isn't even reaching the code", so I put a MessageBox.Show() right after it, and it updated the label.
What are possible causes to skip the label update, but perform it when I put a message bow right after? Is the program going to fast?

Most likely you are improperly running a long operation in the main UI thread which prevents the label from updating. You could "fix" this by calling DoEvents():
public void UpdateLabel(String newLabel)
{
lblCurProgress.Text = newLabel;
Application.DoEvents();
}
But this is just a band-aid on top of a bad design. You should properly move that code to a background thread and use a delegate/Invoke() to update the label.
Edit: (answering followup question)
By default, your application runs in a single thread. This includes the code that you add to control events, as well as the code that you can't see that is running behind the scenes to make your application respond in the way you'd expect. Things like user interaction (mouse clicks, keyboard presses, etc.) and painting messages (when controls are changed, your window is obscured) are placed into a queue. Those pending messages in the queue only get processed once your code has stopped running. If you have a lengthy chunk of code running, like a long loop, then those messages just sit in the queue waiting to be processed. Thus the update to the label doesn't occur until after your loop is done. What DoEvents() does is tells the application to process those pending messages in the queue, right now, and then return to the code that was currently executing. This allows the label to update in real-time like you expect it to.
When you encounter situations that are "fixed" by DoEvents(), it simply means that you are attempting to run too much code in the main UI thread. The main UI thread is supposed to be focused on responding to user interaction and keeping the display updated. Code in control event handlers should be short and sweet, so that the main UI thread can get back to doing its main job.
The proper fix is to move that lengthy code to a different thread, thus allowing the main UI thread to respond and keep itself updated. For many scenarios, the easiest approach is to place a BackgroundWorker() control on your form and wire up the DoWork(), ProgressChanged() and RunWorkerCompleted() events. *You have to set the WorkerReportsProgress() property to true, however, to handle the ProgressChanged() event. The latter two events are already marshaled to the main UI thread for you so you don't need to worry about cross-thread exceptions. From the DoWork() handler, you call ReportProgress() and pass out a progress percentage value and an optional other object (it could be anything). Those values can be retrieved in the ProgressChanged() event and used to update the GUI. The RunWorkerCompleted() event fires when all the work in the DoWork() handler has been finished.
In your case, you've got a separate class that is doing the work. You can mirror what the BackgroundWorker does by manually creating your own thread in that class to do the work. When you want to update progress, make your class raise a Custom Event that the main form subscribes to. When that event is received, however, it will be running in the context of the separate thread. It is necessary, then, to "marshal" the call across the thread boundaries so that the code is running in the main UI thread before you update the controls. This is accomplished by using delegates ("pointers" to methods) and the Invoke() method. *There are other methods to accomplish this task as well, such as a SynchronizationContext.
See here for some examples of these approaches.
Finally, here is a super simple example of a class that raises custom events from a separate thread:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private Clock Clk;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
Clk = new Clock();
Clk.CurrentTime += new Clock.TimeHack(Clk_CurrentTime);
}
private void Clk_CurrentTime(string hack)
{
if (label1.InvokeRequired)
{
Clock.TimeHack t = new Clock.TimeHack(Clk_CurrentTime);
label1.Invoke(t, new object[] { hack });
}
else
{
label1.Text = hack;
}
}
}
public class Clock
{
public delegate void TimeHack(string hack);
public event TimeHack CurrentTime;
private Thread t;
private bool stopThread = false;
public Clock()
{
t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ThreadLoop));
t.IsBackground = true; // allow it to be shutdown automatically when the application exits
t.Start();
}
private void ThreadLoop()
{
while (!stopThread)
{
if (CurrentTime != null)
{
CurrentTime(DateTime.Now.ToString());
}
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
public void Stop()
{
stopThread = true;
}
}

public void UpdateLabel(String newLabel)
{
lblCurProgress.Text = newLabel;
lblCurProgress.Refresh();
}

correct method of threading

I am very new to WPF. And just started learning threading.
Here is my scenario:
I've created a program with a button named START. When start button is clicked it starts to do some complex task in different thread. Just before beginning the complex task it also creates a UI elements in another STA thread (technically i don't know what i am saying).
Here is a sample code:
// button click event
private void button1_Click(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e)
{
System.Threading.Thread myThread = new System.Threading.Thread(
() => buttonUpdate("Hello "));
myThread.Start();
}
private void buttonUpdate(string text)
{
System.Threading.Thread myThread = new System.Threading.Thread(createUI);
myThread.SetApartmentState(System.Threading.ApartmentState.STA);
// set the current thread to background so that it's existant will totally
// depend upon existance of main thread.
myThread.IsBackground = true;
myThread.Start();
// Please don't read this loop it's just for my entertainment!
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100);
button1.updateControl(new Action(
() => button1.Content = text + i.ToString()));
if (i == 100)
break;
}
// close main window after the value of "i" reaches 100;
this.updateControl(new Action(()=>this.Close()));
}
// method to create UI in STA thread. This thread will be set to run
// as background thread.
private void createUI()
{
// Create Grids and other UI component here
}
The above code succesfully does what i want to do. But do you think it's the correct way? so far i don't have any problem here.
EDIT: OOps I forgot to mention this class:
public static class ControlException
{
public static void updateControl(this Control control, Action code)
{
if (!control.Dispatcher.CheckAccess())
control.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(code);
else
code.Invoke();
}
}

If you are using .NET 4.0 you might want to consider using the Task class from the Task parallel library. Read into it since you say you are new to threading. It's much more flexible to use.
Also I think that this link could be very helpful to you:
http://www.albahari.com/threading/

There seems to be no good reason to use 2 threads.
You should be able to execute the createUI() on the main thread. That'll be complicated enough when it becomes time to fill those controls.

Only one thread can interact with the UI. If you are going to add a control to a page or windows then you must use the thread that created the page or window. The typical scenario is to use threading to create expensive data or object in the background and then on the callback (running on the primary thread) retrieve the result and bind appropriate data to the UI. Look at using BackgroundWorker as it takes care of a lot of the threading detail for you. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.componentmodel.backgroundworker.aspx Why do you want to create UI objects on another thead?

Deadlock in WinForms that is prevented by right click on the taskbar

I encountered a strange problem with our Windows C# / .NET application. Actually it is a GUI application, my job is the included network component, encapsulated in an assembly. I do not know the code of the main/GUI application, I could contact it's developer though.
Now the application's UI has buttons to "Start" and "Stop" the network engine. Both buttons work.
To make my component threadsafe I am using a lock around three methods. I dont't want a client to be able to call Stop() before Start() finished. Additinally there is a Polling Timer.
I tried to show you as few lines as possible and simpified the problem:
private Timer actionTimer = new Timer(new
TimerCallback(actionTimer_TimerCallback),
null, Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite);
public void Start()
{
lock (driverLock)
{
active = true;
// Trigger the first timer event in 500ms
actionTimer.Change(500, Timeout.Infinite);
}
}
private void actionTimer_TimerCallback(object state)
{
lock (driverLock)
{
if (!active) return;
log.Debug("Before event");
StatusEvent(this, new StatusEventArgs()); // it hangs here
log.Debug("After event");
// Now restart timer
actionTimer.Change(500, Timeout.Infinite);
}
}
public void Stop()
{
lock (driverLock)
{
active = false;
}
}
Here is how to reproduce my problem. As I said, the Start and Stop buttons both work, but if you press Start(), and during the execution of the TimerCallback press Stop(), this prevents the TimerCallback to return. It hangs exactly at the same position, the StatusEvent. So the lock is never released and the GUI also hangs, because it's call of the Stop() method cannot proceed.
Now I observed the following: If the application hangs because of this "deadlock" and I click on the application in the task bar with the right mouse button, it continues. It just works as expected then. Anybody has an explanation or better a solution for this?
By the way, I also tried it with InvokeIfRequired as I don't know the internas of the GUI application. This is neccesary if my StatusEvent would change something in the GUI.
Since I have no reference to the GUI controls, I used (assuming only one target):
Delegate firstTarget = StatusEvent.GetInocationList()[0];
ISynchronizeInvoke syncInvoke = firstTarget.Target as ISynchronizeInvoke;
if (syncInvoke.InvokeRequired)
{
syncInvoke.Invoke(firstTarget, new object[] { this, new StatusEventArgs() });
}
else
{
firstTarget.Method.Invoke(firstTarget.Target, new object[] { this, new StatusEventArgs() });
}
This approach didn't change the problem. I think this is because I am Invoking on the main application's event handlers, not on the GUI controls. So the main app is responsible for Invoking? But anyway, AFAIK not using Invoke although needed would not result in a deadlock like this but (hopefully) in an exception.

As for why right-click "unlocks" your application, my "educated guess" of events that lead to this behaviour is as follows:
(when your component was created) GUI registered a subscriber to the status notification event
Your component acquires lock (in a worker thread, not GUI thread), then fires status notification event
The GUI callback for status notification event is called and it starts updating GUI; the updates are causing events to be sent to the event loop
While the update is going on, "Start" button gets clicked
Win32 sends a click message to the GUI thread and tries to handle it synchronously
Handler for the "Start" button gets called, it then calls "Start" method on your component (on GUI thread)
Note that the status update has not finished yet; start button handler "cut in front of"
the remaining GUI updates in status update (this actually happens quite a bit in Win32)
"Start" method tries to acquire your component's lock (on GUI thread), blocks
GUI thread is now hung (waits for start handler to finish; start handler waits for lock; the lock is held by worker thread that marshalled a GUI update call to GUI thread and waits for the update call to finish; the GUI update call marshalled from worker thread is waiting for start handler that cut in front of it to finish; ...)
If you now right-click on taskbar, my guess is that taskbar manager (somehow) starts a "sub-event-loop" (much like modal dialogs start their own "sub-event-loops", see Raymond Chen's blog for details) and processes queued events for the application
The extra event loop triggered by the right-click can now process the GUI updates that were marshalled from the worker thread; this unblocks the worker thread; this in turn releases the lock; this in turn unblocks application's GUI thread so it can finish handling start button click (because it can now acquire the lock)
You could test this theory by causing your application to "bite", then breaking into debugger and looking at the stack trace of the worker thread for your component. It should be blocked in some transition to GUI thread. The GUI thread itself should be blocked in the lock statement, but down the stack you should be able to see some "cut in front of the line" calls...
I think the first recommendation to be able to track this issue down would be to turn on the flag Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = true;.
Next, I would recommend firing the notification event outside of the lock. What I usually do is gather information needed by an event inside a lock, then release the lock and use the information I gathered to fire the event. Something along the lines:
string status;
lock (driverLock) {
if (!active) { return; }
status = ...
actionTimer.Change(500, Timeout.Infinite);
}
StatusEvent(this, new StatusEventArgs(status));
But most importantly, I would review who are the intended clients of your component. From the method names and your description I suspect GUI is the only one (it tells you when to start and stop; you tell it when your status changes). In that case you should not be using a lock. Start & stop methods could simply be setting and resetting a manual-reset event to indicate whether your component is active (a semaphore, really).
[update]
In trying to reproduce your scenario I wrote the following simple program. You should be able to copy the code, compile and run it without problems (I built it as a console application that starts a form :-) )
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Windows.Forms;
using Timer=System.Threading.Timer;
namespace LockTest
{
public static class Program
{
// Used by component's notification event
private sealed class MyEventArgs : EventArgs
{
public string NotificationText { get; set; }
}
// Simple component implementation; fires notification event 500 msecs after previous notification event finished
private sealed class MyComponent
{
public MyComponent()
{
this._timer = new Timer(this.Notify, null, -1, -1); // not started yet
}
public void Start()
{
lock (this._lock)
{
if (!this._active)
{
this._active = true;
this._timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500d), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1d));
}
}
}
public void Stop()
{
lock (this._lock)
{
this._active = false;
}
}
public event EventHandler<MyEventArgs> Notification;
private void Notify(object ignore) // this will be invoked invoked in the context of a threadpool worker thread
{
lock (this._lock)
{
if (!this._active) { return; }
var notification = this.Notification; // make a local copy
if (notification != null)
{
notification(this, new MyEventArgs { NotificationText = "Now is " + DateTime.Now.ToString("o") });
}
this._timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500d), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1d)); // rinse and repeat
}
}
private bool _active;
private readonly object _lock = new object();
private readonly Timer _timer;
}
// Simple form to excercise our component
private sealed class MyForm : Form
{
public MyForm()
{
this.Text = "UI Lock Demo";
this.AutoSize = true;
this.AutoSizeMode = AutoSizeMode.GrowAndShrink;
var container = new FlowLayoutPanel { FlowDirection = FlowDirection.TopDown, Dock = DockStyle.Fill, AutoSize = true, AutoSizeMode = AutoSizeMode.GrowAndShrink };
this.Controls.Add(container);
this._status = new Label { Width = 300, Text = "Ready, press Start" };
container.Controls.Add(this._status);
this._component.Notification += this.UpdateStatus;
var button = new Button { Text = "Start" };
button.Click += (sender, args) => this._component.Start();
container.Controls.Add(button);
button = new Button { Text = "Stop" };
button.Click += (sender, args) => this._component.Stop();
container.Controls.Add(button);
}
private void UpdateStatus(object sender, MyEventArgs args)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
Thread.Sleep(2000);
this.Invoke(new EventHandler<MyEventArgs>(this.UpdateStatus), sender, args);
}
else
{
this._status.Text = args.NotificationText;
}
}
private readonly Label _status;
private readonly MyComponent _component = new MyComponent();
}
// Program entry point, runs event loop for the form that excercises out component
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
Control.CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = true;
Application.EnableVisualStyles();
using (var form = new MyForm())
{
Application.Run(form);
}
}
}
}
As you can see, the code has 3 parts - first, the component that is using timer to call notification method every 500 milliseconds; second, a simple form with label and start/stop buttons; and finally main function to run the even loop.
You can deadlock the application by clicking start button and then within 2 seconds clicking stop button. However, the application is not "unfrozen" when I right-click on taskbar, sigh.
When I break into the deadlocked application, this is what I see when switched to the worker (timer) thread:
And this is what I see when switched to the main thread:
I would appreciate if you could try compiling and running this example; if it works the same for you as me, you could try updating the code to be more similar to what you have in your application and perhaps we can reproduce your exact issue. Once we reproduce it in a test application like this, it shouldn't be a problem to refactor it to make the problem go away (we would isolate essence of the problem).
[update 2]
I guess we agree that we can't easily reproduce your behaviour with the example I provided. I'm still pretty sure the deadlock in your scenario is broken by an extra even loop being introduced on right-click and this event loop processing messages pending from the notification callback. However, how this is achieved is beyond me.
That said I would like to make the following recommendation. Could you try these changes in your application and let me know if they solved the deadlock problem? Essentially, you would move ALL component code to worker threads (i.e. nothing that has to do with your component will be running on GUI thread any more except code to delegate to worker threads :-) )...
public void Start()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate // added
{
lock (this._lock)
{
if (!this._active)
{
this._active = true;
this._timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500d), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1d));
}
}
});
}
public void Stop()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(delegate // added
{
lock (this._lock)
{
this._active = false;
}
});
}
I moved body of Start and Stop methods into a thread-pool worker thread (much like your timers call your callback regularly in context of a thread-pool worker). This means GUI thread will never own the lock, the lock will only be acquired in context of (probably different for each call) thread-pool worker threads.
Note that with the change above, my sample program doesn't deadlock any more (even with "Invoke" instead of "BeginInvoke").
[update 3]
As per your comment, queueing Start method is not acceptable because it needs to indicate whether the component was able to start. In this case I would recommend treating the "active" flag differently. You would switch to "int" (0 stopped, 1 running)and use "Interlocked" static methods to manipulate it (I assume that your component has more state it exposes - you would guard access to anything other than "active" flag with your lock):
public bool Start()
{
if (0 == Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref this._active, 0, 0)) // will evaluate to true if we're not started; this is a variation on the double-checked locking pattern, without the problems associated with lack of memory barriers (see http://www.cs.umd.edu/~pugh/java/memoryModel/DoubleCheckedLocking.html)
{
lock (this._lock) // serialize all Start calls that are invoked on an un-started component from different threads
{
if (this._active == 0) // make sure only the first Start call gets through to actual start, 2nd part of double-checked locking pattern
{
// run component startup
this._timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500d), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1d));
Interlocked.Exchange(ref this._active, 1); // now mark the component as successfully started
}
}
}
return true;
}
public void Stop()
{
Interlocked.Exchange(ref this._active, 0);
}
private void Notify(object ignore) // this will be invoked invoked in the context of a threadpool worker thread
{
if (0 != Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref this._active, 0, 0)) // only handle the timer event in started components (notice the pattern is the same as in Start method except for the return value comparison)
{
lock (this._lock) // protect internal state
{
if (this._active != 0)
{
var notification = this.Notification; // make a local copy
if (notification != null)
{
notification(this, new MyEventArgs { NotificationText = "Now is " + DateTime.Now.ToString("o") });
}
this._timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500d), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1d)); // rinse and repeat
}
}
}
}
private int _active;

A couple things come to mind when reviewing your code. The first thing is that you are not checking for a null delegate before firing the status event. If no listeners are bound to the event, then this will cause an exception, which if not caught or handled, might cause strange issues in threaded code.
So the first thing I'd so is this:
if(StatusEvent != null)
{
StatusEvent(this, new StatusEventArgs());
}
The other thing that comes to mind is that perhaps your lock is failing you in some manner. What type of object are you using for the lock? The simplest thing to use is just a plain ole "object", but you must ensure you are not using a value type (e.g. int, float, etc.) that would be boxed for locking, thus never really establishing a lock since each lock statement would box and create a new object instance. You should also keep in mind that a lock only keeps "other" threads out. If called on the same thread, then it will sail through the lock statement.

If you don't have the source for the GUI (which you probably should) you can use Reflector to disassemble it. There is even a plugin to generate source files so you could run the app in your VS IDE and set breakpoints.

Not having access to the GUI source makes this harder, but a general tip here... The WinForm GUI is not managed code, and doesn't mix well with .NET threading. The recommended solution for this is to use a BackgroundWorker to spawn a thread that is independent of the WinForm. Once you're running in the thread started by the BackgroundWorker, you're in pure managed code and you can use .NET's timers and threading for pretty much anything. The restriction is that you have to use the BackgroundWorker's events to pass information back to the GUI, and your thread started by the BackgroundWorker can't access the Winform controls.
Also, you'd be well off to disable the "Stop" button while the "Start" task is running, and vice versa. But a BackgroundWorker is still the way to go; that way the WinForm doesn't hang while the background thread is running.

Yes, this is a classic deadlock scenario. The StatusEvent cannot proceed because it needs the UI thread to update the controls. The UI thread is however stuck, trying to acquire the driverLock. Held by the code that calls StatusEvent. Neither thread can proceed.
Two ways to break the lock:
the StatusEvent code might not necessarily need to run synchronously. Use BeginInvoke instead of Invoke.
the UI thread might not necessarily need to wait for the thread to stop. Your thread could notify it later.
There is not enough context in your snippets to decide which one is better.
Note that you might have a potential race on the timer too, it isn't visible in your snippet. But the callback might run a microsecond after the timer was stopped. Avoid this kind of headache by using a real thread instead of a timer callback. It can do things periodically by calling WaitOne() on a ManualResetEvent, passing a timeout value. That ManualResetEvent is good to signal the thread to stop.

A wild guess here: Could the status message somehow be causing the other app to call your Stop task?
I would put debug stuff at the start of all three methods, see if you're deadlocking on yourself.

Display progress bar while doing some work in C#?

I want to display a progress bar while doing some work, but that would hang the UI and the progress bar won't update.
I have a WinForm ProgressForm with a ProgressBar that will continue indefinitely in a marquee fashion.
using(ProgressForm p = new ProgressForm(this))
{
//Do Some Work
}
Now there are many ways to solve the issue, like using BeginInvoke, wait for the task to complete and call EndInvoke. Or using the BackgroundWorker or Threads.
I am having some issues with the EndInvoke, though that's not the question. The question is which is the best and the simplest way you use to handle such situations, where you have to show the user that the program is working and not unresponsive, and how do you handle that with simplest code possible that is efficient and won't leak, and can update the GUI.
Like BackgroundWorker needs to have multiple functions, declare member variables, etc. Also you need to then hold a reference to the ProgressBar Form and dispose of it.
Edit: BackgroundWorker is not the answer because it may be that I don't get the progress notification, which means there would be no call to ProgressChanged as the DoWork is a single call to an external function, but I need to keep call the Application.DoEvents(); for the progress bar to keep rotating.
The bounty is for the best code solution for this problem. I just need to call Application.DoEvents() so that the Marque progress bar will work, while the worker function works in the Main thread, and it doesn't return any progress notification. I never needed .NET magic code to report progress automatically, I just needed a better solution than :
Action<String, String> exec = DoSomethingLongAndNotReturnAnyNotification;
IAsyncResult result = exec.BeginInvoke(path, parameters, null, null);
while (!result.IsCompleted)
{
Application.DoEvents();
}
exec.EndInvoke(result);
that keeps the progress bar alive (means not freezing but refreshes the marque)

It seems to me that you are operating on at least one false assumption.
1. You don't need to raise the ProgressChanged event to have a responsive UI
In your question you say this:
BackgroundWorker is not the answer
because it may be that I don't get the
progress notification, which means
there would be no call to
ProgressChanged as the DoWork is a
single call to an external function .
. .
Actually, it does not matter whether you call the ProgressChanged event or not. The whole purpose of that event is to temporarily transfer control back to the GUI thread to make an update that somehow reflects the progress of the work being done by the BackgroundWorker. If you are simply displaying a marquee progress bar, it would actually be pointless to raise the ProgressChanged event at all. The progress bar will continue rotating as long as it is displayed because the BackgroundWorker is doing its work on a separate thread from the GUI.
(On a side note, DoWork is an event, which means that it is not just "a single call to an external function"; you can add as many handlers as you like; and each of those handlers can contain as many function calls as it likes.)
2. You don't need to call Application.DoEvents to have a responsive UI
To me it sounds like you believe that the only way for the GUI to update is by calling Application.DoEvents:
I need to keep call the
Application.DoEvents(); for the
progress bar to keep rotating.
This is not true in a multithreaded scenario; if you use a BackgroundWorker, the GUI will continue to be responsive (on its own thread) while the BackgroundWorker does whatever has been attached to its DoWork event. Below is a simple example of how this might work for you.
private void ShowProgressFormWhileBackgroundWorkerRuns() {
// this is your presumably long-running method
Action<string, string> exec = DoSomethingLongAndNotReturnAnyNotification;
ProgressForm p = new ProgressForm(this);
BackgroundWorker b = new BackgroundWorker();
// set the worker to call your long-running method
b.DoWork += (object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e) => {
exec.Invoke(path, parameters);
};
// set the worker to close your progress form when it's completed
b.RunWorkerCompleted += (object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e) => {
if (p != null && p.Visible) p.Close();
};
// now actually show the form
p.Show();
// this only tells your BackgroundWorker to START working;
// the current (i.e., GUI) thread will immediately continue,
// which means your progress bar will update, the window
// will continue firing button click events and all that
// good stuff
b.RunWorkerAsync();
}
3. You can't run two methods at the same time on the same thread
You say this:
I just need to call
Application.DoEvents() so that the
Marque progress bar will work, while
the worker function works in the Main
thread . . .
What you're asking for is simply not real. The "main" thread for a Windows Forms application is the GUI thread, which, if it's busy with your long-running method, is not providing visual updates. If you believe otherwise, I suspect you misunderstand what BeginInvoke does: it launches a delegate on a separate thread. In fact, the example code you have included in your question to call Application.DoEvents between exec.BeginInvoke and exec.EndInvoke is redundant; you are actually calling Application.DoEvents repeatedly from the GUI thread, which would be updating anyway. (If you found otherwise, I suspect it's because you called exec.EndInvoke right away, which blocked the current thread until the method finished.)
So yes, the answer you're looking for is to use a BackgroundWorker.
You could use BeginInvoke, but instead of calling EndInvoke from the GUI thread (which will block it if the method isn't finished), pass an AsyncCallback parameter to your BeginInvoke call (instead of just passing null), and close the progress form in your callback. Be aware, however, that if you do that, you're going to have to invoke the method that closes the progress form from the GUI thread, since otherwise you'll be trying to close a form, which is a GUI function, from a non-GUI thread. But really, all the pitfalls of using BeginInvoke/EndInvoke have already been dealt with for you with the BackgroundWorker class, even if you think it's ".NET magic code" (to me, it's just an intuitive and useful tool).

For me the easiest way is definitely to use a BackgroundWorker, which is specifically designed for this kind of task. The ProgressChanged event is perfectly fitted to update a progress bar, without worrying about cross-thread calls

There's a load of information about threading with .NET/C# on Stackoverflow, but the article that cleared up windows forms threading for me was our resident oracle, Jon Skeet's "Threading in Windows Forms".
The whole series is worth reading to brush up on your knowledge or learn from scratch.
I'm impatient, just show me some code
As far as "show me the code" goes, below is how I would do it with C# 3.5. The form contains 4 controls:
a textbox
a progressbar
2 buttons: "buttonLongTask" and "buttonAnother"
buttonAnother is there purely to demonstrate that the UI isn't blocked while the count-to-100 task is running.
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
}
private void buttonLongTask_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Thread thread = new Thread(LongTask);
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
}
private void buttonAnother_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
textBox1.Text = "Have you seen this?";
}
private void LongTask()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
Update1(i);
Thread.Sleep(500);
}
}
public void Update1(int i)
{
if (InvokeRequired)
{
this.BeginInvoke(new Action<int>(Update1), new object[] { i });
return;
}
progressBar1.Value = i;
}
}

And another example that BackgroundWorker is the right way to do it...
using System;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Threading;
using System.Windows.Forms;
namespace SerialSample
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private BackgroundWorker _BackgroundWorker;
private Random _Random;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
_ProgressBar.Style = ProgressBarStyle.Marquee;
_ProgressBar.Visible = false;
_Random = new Random();
InitializeBackgroundWorker();
}
private void InitializeBackgroundWorker()
{
_BackgroundWorker = new BackgroundWorker();
_BackgroundWorker.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
_BackgroundWorker.DoWork += (sender, e) => ((MethodInvoker)e.Argument).Invoke();
_BackgroundWorker.ProgressChanged += (sender, e) =>
{
_ProgressBar.Style = ProgressBarStyle.Continuous;
_ProgressBar.Value = e.ProgressPercentage;
};
_BackgroundWorker.RunWorkerCompleted += (sender, e) =>
{
if (_ProgressBar.Style == ProgressBarStyle.Marquee)
{
_ProgressBar.Visible = false;
}
};
}
private void buttonStart_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
_BackgroundWorker.RunWorkerAsync(new MethodInvoker(() =>
{
_ProgressBar.BeginInvoke(new MethodInvoker(() => _ProgressBar.Visible = true));
for (int i = 0; i < 1000; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
_BackgroundWorker.ReportProgress(i / 10);
}
}));
}
}
}

Indeed you are on the right track. You should use another thread, and you have identified the best ways to do that. The rest is just updating the progress bar. In case you don't want to use BackgroundWorker like others have suggested, there is one trick to keep in mind. The trick is that you cannot update the progress bar from the worker thread because UI can be only manipulated from the UI thread. So you use the Invoke method. It goes something like this (fix the syntax errors yourself, I'm just writing a quick example):
class MyForm: Form
{
private void delegate UpdateDelegate(int Progress);
private void UpdateProgress(int Progress)
{
if ( this.InvokeRequired )
this.Invoke((UpdateDelegate)UpdateProgress, Progress);
else
this.MyProgressBar.Progress = Progress;
}
}
The InvokeRequired property will return true on every thread except the one that owns the form. The Invoke method will call the method on the UI thread, and will block until it completes. If you don't want to block, you can call BeginInvoke instead.

BackgroundWorker is not the answer because it may be that I don't get the progress notification...
What on earth does the fact that you're not getting progress notification have to do with the use of BackgroundWorker? If your long-running task doesn't have a reliable mechanism for reporting its progress, there's no way to reliably report its progress.
The simplest possible way to report progress of a long-running method is to run the method on the UI thread and have it report progress by updating the progress bar and then calling Application.DoEvents(). This will, technically, work. But the UI will be unresponsive between calls to Application.DoEvents(). This is the quick and dirty solution, and as Steve McConnell observes, the problem with quick and dirty solutions is that the bitterness of the dirty remains long after the sweetness of the quick is forgotten.
The next simplest way, as alluded to by another poster, is to implement a modal form that uses a BackgroundWorker to execute the long-running method. This provides a generally better user experience, and it frees you from having to solve the potentially complicated problem of what parts of your UI to leave functional while the long-running task is executing - while the modal form is open, none of the rest of your UI will respond to user actions. This is the quick and clean solution.
But it's still pretty user-hostile. It still locks up the UI while the long-running task is executing; it just does it in a pretty way. To make a user-friendly solution, you need to execute the task on another thread. The easiest way to do that is with a BackgroundWorker.
This approach opens the door to a lot of problems. It won't "leak," whatever that is supposed to mean. But whatever the long-running method is doing, it now has to do it in complete isolation from the pieces of the UI that remain enabled while it's running. And by complete, I mean complete. If the user can click anywhere with a mouse and cause some update to be made to some object that your long-running method ever looks at, you'll have problems. Any object that your long-running method uses which can raise an event is a potential road to misery.
It's that, and not getting BackgroundWorker to work properly, that's going to be the source of all of the pain.

I have to throw the simplest answer out there. You could always just implement the progress bar and have no relationship to anything of actual progress. Just start filling the bar say 1% a second, or 10% a second whatever seems similar to your action and if it fills over to start again.
This will atleast give the user the appearance of processing and make them understand to wait instead of just clicking a button and seeing nothing happen then clicking it more.

Here is another sample code to use BackgroundWorker to update ProgressBar, just add BackgroundWorker and Progressbar to your main form and use below code:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
Shown += new EventHandler(Form1_Shown);
// To report progress from the background worker we need to set this property
backgroundWorker1.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
// This event will be raised on the worker thread when the worker starts
backgroundWorker1.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(backgroundWorker1_DoWork);
// This event will be raised when we call ReportProgress
backgroundWorker1.ProgressChanged += new ProgressChangedEventHandler(backgroundWorker1_ProgressChanged);
}
void Form1_Shown(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// Start the background worker
backgroundWorker1.RunWorkerAsync();
}
// On worker thread so do our thing!
void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
// Your background task goes here
for (int i = 0; i <= 100; i++)
{
// Report progress to 'UI' thread
backgroundWorker1.ReportProgress(i);
// Simulate long task
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
// Back on the 'UI' thread so we can update the progress bar
void backgroundWorker1_ProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
{
// The progress percentage is a property of e
progressBar1.Value = e.ProgressPercentage;
}
}
refrence:from codeproject

Use the BackgroundWorker component it is designed for exactly this scenario.
You can hook into its progress update events and update your progress bar. The BackgroundWorker class ensures the callbacks are marshalled to the UI thread so you don't need to worry about any of that detail either.

Reading your requirements the simplest way would be to display a mode-less form and use a standard System.Windows.Forms timer to update the progress on the mode-less form. No threads, no possible memory leaks.
As this only uses the one UI thread, you would also need to call Application.DoEvents() at certain points during your main processing to guarantee the progress bar is updated visually.

Re: Your edit.
You need a BackgroundWorker or Thread to do the work, but it must call ReportProgress() periodically to tell the UI thread what it is doing. DotNet can't magically work out how much of the work you have done, so you have to tell it (a) what the maximum progress amount you will reach is, and then (b) about 100 or so times during the process, tell it which amount you are up to. (If you report progress fewer than 100 times, the progess bar will jump in large steps. If you report more than 100 times, you will just be wasting time trying to report a finer detail than the progress bar will helpfully display)
If your UI thread can happily continue while the background worker is running, then your work is done.
However, realistically, in most situations where the progress indication needs to be running, your UI needs to be very careful to avoid a re-entrant call. e.g. If you are running a progress display while exporting data, you don't want to allow the user to start exporting data again while the export is in progress.
You can handle this in two ways:
The export operation checks to see if the background worker is running, and disabled the export option while it is already importing. This will allow the user to do anything at all in your program except exporting - this could still be dangerous if the user could (for example) edit the data that is being exported.
Run the progress bar as a "modal" display so that your program reamins "alive" during the export, but the user can't actually do anything (other than cancel) until the export completes. DotNet is rubbish at supporting this, even though it's the most common approach. In this case, you need to put the UI thread into a busy wait loop where it calls Application.DoEvents() to keep message handling running (so the progress bar will work), but you need to add a MessageFilter that only allows your application to respond to "safe" events (e.g. it would allow Paint events so your application windows continue to redraw, but it would filter out mouse and keyboard messages so that the user can't actually do anything in the proigram while the export is in progress. There are also a couple of sneaky messages you'll need to pass through to allow the window to work as normal, and figuring these out will take a few minutes - I have a list of them at work, but don't have them to hand here I'm afraid. It's all the obvious ones like NCHITTEST plus a sneaky .net one (evilly in the WM_USER range) which is vital to get this working).
The last "gotcha" with the awful dotNet progress bar is that when you finish your operation and close the progress bar you'll find that it usually exits when reporting a value like "80%". Even if you force it to 100% and then wait for about half a second, it still may not reach 100%. Arrrgh! The solution is to set the progress to 100%, then to 99%, and then back to 100% - when the progress bar is told to move forwards, it animates slowly towards the target value. But if you tell it to go "backwards", it jumps immediately to that position. So by reversing it momentarily at the end, you can get it to actually show the value you asked it to show.

If you want a "rotating" progress bar, why not set the progress bar style to "Marquee" and using a BackgroundWorker to keep the UI responsive? You won't achieve a rotating progress bar easier than using the "Marquee" - style...

We are use modal form with BackgroundWorker for such a thing.
Here is quick solution:
public class ProgressWorker<TArgument> : BackgroundWorker where TArgument : class
{
public Action<TArgument> Action { get; set; }
protected override void OnDoWork(DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
if (Action!=null)
{
Action(e.Argument as TArgument);
}
}
}
public sealed partial class ProgressDlg<TArgument> : Form where TArgument : class
{
private readonly Action<TArgument> action;
public Exception Error { get; set; }
public ProgressDlg(Action<TArgument> action)
{
if (action == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("action");
this.action = action;
//InitializeComponent();
//MaximumSize = Size;
MaximizeBox = false;
Closing += new System.ComponentModel.CancelEventHandler(ProgressDlg_Closing);
}
public string NotificationText
{
set
{
if (value!=null)
{
Invoke(new Action<string>(s => Text = value));
}
}
}
void ProgressDlg_Closing(object sender, System.ComponentModel.CancelEventArgs e)
{
FormClosingEventArgs args = (FormClosingEventArgs)e;
if (args.CloseReason == CloseReason.UserClosing)
{
e.Cancel = true;
}
}
private void ProgressDlg_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
}
public void RunWorker(TArgument argument)
{
System.Windows.Forms.Application.DoEvents();
using (var worker = new ProgressWorker<TArgument> {Action = action})
{
worker.RunWorkerAsync();
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += worker_RunWorkerCompleted;
ShowDialog();
}
}
void worker_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, System.ComponentModel.RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (e.Error != null)
{
Error = e.Error;
DialogResult = DialogResult.Abort;
return;
}
DialogResult = DialogResult.OK;
}
}
And how we use it:
var dlg = new ProgressDlg<string>(obj =>
{
//DoWork()
Thread.Sleep(10000);
MessageBox.Show("Background task completed "obj);
});
dlg.RunWorker("SampleValue");
if (dlg.Error != null)
{
MessageBox.Show(dlg.Error.Message, "ERROR", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Error);
}
dlg.Dispose();