How do I return a value from a thread?
One of the easiest ways to get a return value from a thread is to use closures. Create a variable that will hold the return value from the thread and then capture it in a lambda expression. Assign the "return" value to this variable from the worker thread and then once that thread ends you can use it from the parent thread.
void Main()
{
object value = null; // Used to store the return value
var thread = new Thread(
() =>
{
value = "Hello World"; // Publish the return value
});
thread.Start();
thread.Join();
Console.WriteLine(value); // Use the return value here
}
It depends on how do you want to create the thread and available .NET version:
.NET 2.0+:
A) You can create the Thread object directly. In this case you could use "closure" - declare variable and capture it using lambda-expression:
object result = null;
Thread thread = new System.Threading.Thread(() => {
//Some work...
result = 42; });
thread.Start();
thread.Join();
Console.WriteLine(result);
B) You can use delegates and IAsyncResult and return value from EndInvoke() method:
delegate object MyFunc();
...
MyFunc x = new MyFunc(() => {
//Some work...
return 42; });
IAsyncResult asyncResult = x.BeginInvoke(null, null);
object result = x.EndInvoke(asyncResult);
C) You can use BackgroundWorker class. In this case you could use captured variable (like with Thread object) or handle RunWorkerCompleted event:
BackgroundWorker worker = new BackgroundWorker();
worker.DoWork += (s, e) => {
//Some work...
e.Result = 42;
};
worker.RunWorkerCompleted += (s, e) => {
//e.Result "returned" from thread
Console.WriteLine(e.Result);
};
worker.RunWorkerAsync();
.NET 4.0+:
Starting with .NET 4.0 you could use Task Parallel Library and Task class to start your threads. Generic class Task<TResult> allows you to get return value from Result property:
//Main thread will be blocked until task thread finishes
//(because of obtaining the value of the Result property)
int result = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {
//Some work...
return 42;}).Result;
.NET 4.5+:
Starting with .NET 4.5 you could also use async/await keywords to return value from task directly instead of obtaining Result property:
int result = await Task.Run(() => {
//Some work...
return 42; });
Note: method, which contains the code above shoud be marked with asynckeyword.
For many reasons using of Task Parallel Library is preferable way of working with threads.
I would use the BackgroundWorker approach and return the result in e.Result.
EDIT:
This is commonly associated with WinForms and WPF, but can be used by any type of .NET application. Here's sample code for a console app that uses BackgroundWorker:
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
namespace BGWorker
{
class Program
{
static bool done = false;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
BackgroundWorker bg = new BackgroundWorker();
bg.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(bg_DoWork);
bg.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(bg_RunWorkerCompleted);
bg.RunWorkerAsync();
while (!done)
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting in Main, tid " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
static void bg_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
Console.WriteLine("Completed, tid " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
done = true;
}
static void bg_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
for (int i = 1; i <= 5; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("Work Line: " + i + ", tid " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
Thread.Sleep(500);
}
}
}
}
Output:
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Work Line: 1, tid 6
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Work Line: 2, tid 6
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Work Line: 3, tid 6
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Work Line: 4, tid 6
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Work Line: 5, tid 6
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Waiting in Main, tid 10
Completed, tid 6
2014 UPDATE
See #Roger's answer below.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/24916747/141172
He points out that you can use a Task that returns a Task<T>, and check Task<T>.Result.
A thread isn't a method - you don't normally "return" a value.
However, if you're trying to fetch a value back from the results of some processing, you have many options, the two main ones being:
You can synchronize a shared piece of data, and set it appropriately.
You can also pass the data back in some form of callback.
It really depends on how you're creating the thread, and how you want to use it, as well as the language/framework/tools you're using.
Simply use the delegate approach.
int val;
Thread thread = new Thread(() => { val = Multiply(1, 2); });
thread.Start();
Now make Multiply function that will work on another thread:
int Multiply(int x, int y)
{
return x * y;
}
My favorite class, runs any method on another thread with just 2 lines of code.
class ThreadedExecuter<T> where T : class
{
public delegate void CallBackDelegate(T returnValue);
public delegate T MethodDelegate();
private CallBackDelegate callback;
private MethodDelegate method;
private Thread t;
public ThreadedExecuter(MethodDelegate method, CallBackDelegate callback)
{
this.method = method;
this.callback = callback;
t = new Thread(this.Process);
}
public void Start()
{
t.Start();
}
public void Abort()
{
t.Abort();
callback(null); //can be left out depending on your needs
}
private void Process()
{
T stuffReturned = method();
callback(stuffReturned);
}
}
usage
void startthework()
{
ThreadedExecuter<string> executer = new ThreadedExecuter<string>(someLongFunction, longFunctionComplete);
executer.Start();
}
string someLongFunction()
{
while(!workComplete)
WorkWork();
return resultOfWork;
}
void longFunctionComplete(string s)
{
PrintWorkComplete(s);
}
Beware that longFunctionComplete will NOT execute on the same thread as starthework.
For methods that take parameters you can always use closures, or expand the class.
Here is a simple example using a delegate ...
void Main()
{
DoIt d1 = Doer.DoThatThang;
DoIt d2 = Doer.DoThatThang;
IAsyncResult r1 = d1.BeginInvoke( 5, null, null );
IAsyncResult r2 = d2.BeginInvoke( 10, null, null );
Thread.Sleep( 1000 );
var s1 = d1.EndInvoke( r1 );
var s2 = d2.EndInvoke( r2 );
s1.Dump(); // You told me 5
s2.Dump(); // You told me 10
}
public delegate string DoIt( int x );
public class Doer
{
public static string DoThatThang( int x )
{
return "You told me " + x.ToString();
}
}
There's a terrific series on threading at Threading in C#.
With the latest .NET Framework, it is possible to return a value from a separate thread using a Task, where the Result property blocks the calling thread until the task finishes:
Task<MyClass> task = Task<MyClass>.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
string s = "my message";
double d = 3.14159;
return new MyClass { Name = s, Number = d };
});
MyClass test = task.Result;
For details, please see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd537613(v=vs.110).aspx
ThreadStart delegates in C# used to start threads have return type 'void'.
If you wish to get a 'return value' from a thread, you should write to a shared location (in an appropriate thread-safe manner) and read from that when the thread has completed executing.
I came across this thread when also trying to obtain the return value of a method that gets executed within a Thread. I thought I would post my solution that works.
This solution uses an class to store both the method to be executed (indirectly) and stores the returning value. The class can be used for any function and any return type. You just instantiate the object using the return value type and then pass the function to call via a lambda (or delegate).
C# 3.0 Implementation
public class ThreadedMethod<T>
{
private T mResult;
public T Result
{
get { return mResult; }
private set { mResult = value; }
}
public ThreadedMethod()
{
}
//If supporting .net 3.5
public void ExecuteMethod(Func<T> func)
{
Result = func.Invoke();
}
//If supporting only 2.0 use this and
//comment out the other overload
public void ExecuteMethod(Delegate d)
{
Result = (T)d.DynamicInvoke();
}
}
To use this code you can use a Lambda (or a delegate). Here is the example using lambdas:
ThreadedMethod<bool> threadedMethod = new ThreadedMethod<bool>();
Thread workerThread = new Thread((unused) =>
threadedMethod.ExecuteMethod(() =>
SomeMethod()));
workerThread.Start();
workerThread.Join();
if (threadedMethod.Result == false)
{
//do something about it...
}
VB.NET 2008 Implementation
Anyone using VB.NET 2008 can't use lambdas with non-value returning methods. This affects the ThreadedMethod class, so we'll make ExecuteMethod return the value of the function. This doesn't hurt anything.
Public Class ThreadedMethod(Of T)
Private mResult As T
Public Property Result() As T
Get
Return mResult
End Get
Private Set(ByVal value As T)
mResult = value
End Set
End Property
Sub New()
End Sub
'If supporting .net 3.5'
Function ExecuteMethod(ByVal func As Func(Of T)) As T
Result = func.Invoke()
Return Result
End Function
'If supporting only 2.0 use this and'
'comment out the other overload'
Function ExecuteMethod(ByVal d As [Delegate]) As T
Result = DirectCast(d.DynamicInvoke(), T)
Return Result
End Function
End Class
If you don't want to use a BackgroundWorker, and just use a regular Thread, then you can fire an event to return data like this:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.ComponentModel;
using System.Data;
using System.Drawing;
using System.Text;
using System.Windows.Forms;
using System.Threading;
namespace ThreadWithDataReturnExample
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private Thread thread1 = null;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
thread1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(this.threadEntryPoint));
Thread1Completed += new AsyncCompletedEventHandler(thread1_Thread1Completed);
}
private void startButton_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
thread1.Start();
//Alternatively, you could pass some object
//in such as Start(someObject);
//With apprioriate locking, or protocol where
//no other threads access the object until
//an event signals when the thread is complete,
//any other class with a reference to the object
//would be able to access that data.
//But instead, I'm going to use AsyncCompletedEventArgs
//in an event that signals completion
}
void thread1_Thread1Completed(object sender, AsyncCompletedEventArgs e)
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{//marshal the call if we are not on the GUI thread
BeginInvoke(new AsyncCompletedEventHandler(thread1_Thread1Completed),
new object[] { sender, e });
}
else
{
//display error if error occurred
//if no error occurred, process data
if (e.Error == null)
{//then success
MessageBox.Show("Worker thread completed successfully");
DataYouWantToReturn someData = e.UserState as DataYouWantToReturn;
MessageBox.Show("Your data my lord: " + someData.someProperty);
}
else//error
{
MessageBox.Show("The following error occurred:" + Environment.NewLine + e.Error.ToString());
}
}
}
#region I would actually move all of this into it's own class
private void threadEntryPoint()
{
//do a bunch of stuff
//when you are done:
//initialize object with data that you want to return
DataYouWantToReturn dataYouWantToReturn = new DataYouWantToReturn();
dataYouWantToReturn.someProperty = "more data";
//signal completion by firing an event
OnThread1Completed(new AsyncCompletedEventArgs(null, false, dataYouWantToReturn));
}
/// <summary>
/// Occurs when processing has finished or an error occurred.
/// </summary>
public event AsyncCompletedEventHandler Thread1Completed;
protected virtual void OnThread1Completed(AsyncCompletedEventArgs e)
{
//copy locally
AsyncCompletedEventHandler handler = Thread1Completed;
if (handler != null)
{
handler(this, e);
}
}
#endregion
}
}
Can use This Code:
private Object MyThread(Object Data)
{
Object response = null;
Thread newThread = new Thread(() =>
{
response = MyFunction(Data);
//MyFunction Is Function that you Define
});
newThread.Start();
newThread.Join();
return response;
}
The BackgroundWorker is nice when developing for Windows Forms.
Say you wanted to pass a simple class back and forth:
class Anything {
// Number and Text are for instructional purposes only
public int Number { get; set; }
public string Text { get; set; }
// Data can be any object - even another class
public object Data { get; set; }
}
I wrote up a short class that does the following:
Create or Clear a list
Start a loop
In loop, create a new item for the list
In loop, create a thread
In loop, send the item as a parameter to the thread
In loop, start the thread
In loop, add thread to list to watch
After loop, join each thread
After all joins have completed, display the results
From inside the thread routine:
Call lock so that only 1 thread can enter this routine at a time (others have to wait)
Post information about the item.
Modify the item.
When the thread completes, the data is displayed on the console.
Adding a delegate can be useful for posting your data directly back to your main thread, but you may need to use Invoke if some of the data items are not thread safe.
class AnyTask {
private object m_lock;
public AnyTask() {
m_lock = new object();
}
// Something to use the delegate
public event MainDelegate OnUpdate;
public void Test_Function(int count) {
var list = new List<Thread>(count);
for (var i = 0; i < count; i++) {
var thread = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(Thread_Task));
var item = new Anything() {
Number = i,
Text = String.Format("Test_Function #{0}", i)
};
thread.Start(item);
list.Add(thread);
}
foreach (var thread in list) {
thread.Join();
}
}
private void MainUpdate(Anything item, bool original) {
if (OnUpdate != null) {
OnUpdate(item, original);
}
}
private void Thread_Task(object parameter) {
lock (m_lock) {
var item = (Anything)parameter;
MainUpdate(item, true);
item.Text = String.Format("{0}; Thread_Task #{1}", item.Text, item.Number);
item.Number = 0;
MainUpdate(item, false);
}
}
}
To test this, create a little Console Application, and put this in the Program.cs file:
// A delegate makes life simpler
delegate void MainDelegate(Anything sender, bool original);
class Program {
private const int COUNT = 15;
private static List<Anything> m_list;
static void Main(string[] args) {
m_list = new List<Anything>(COUNT);
var obj = new AnyTask();
obj.OnUpdate += new MainDelegate(ThreadMessages);
obj.Test_Function(COUNT);
Console.WriteLine();
foreach (var item in m_list) {
Console.WriteLine("[Complete]:" + item.Text);
}
Console.WriteLine("Press any key to exit.");
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void ThreadMessages(Anything item, bool original) {
if (original) {
Console.WriteLine("[main method]:" + item.Text);
} else {
m_list.Add(item);
}
}
}
Here is a screenshot of what I got with this:
I hope others can understand what I've tried to explain.
I enjoy working on threads and using delegates. They make C# a lot of fun.
Appendix: For VB Coders
I wanted to see what was involved in writing the code above as a VB Console Application. The conversion involved a few things I didn't expect, so I will update this thread here for those wanting to know how to thread in VB.
Imports System.Threading
Delegate Sub MainDelegate(sender As Anything, original As Boolean)
Class Main
Private Const COUNT As Integer = 15
Private Shared m_list As List(Of Anything)
Public Shared Sub Main(args As String())
m_list = New List(Of Anything)(COUNT)
Dim obj As New AnyTask()
AddHandler obj.OnUpdate, New MainDelegate(AddressOf ThreadMessages)
obj.Test_Function(COUNT)
Console.WriteLine()
For Each item As Anything In m_list
Console.WriteLine("[Complete]:" + item.Text)
Next
Console.WriteLine("Press any key to exit.")
Console.ReadKey()
End Sub
Private Shared Sub ThreadMessages(item As Anything, original As Boolean)
If original Then
Console.WriteLine("[main method]:" + item.Text)
Else
m_list.Add(item)
End If
End Sub
End Class
Class AnyTask
Private m_lock As Object
Public Sub New()
m_lock = New Object()
End Sub
' Something to use the delegate
Public Event OnUpdate As MainDelegate
Public Sub Test_Function(count As Integer)
Dim list As New List(Of Thread)(count)
For i As Int32 = 0 To count - 1
Dim thread As New Thread(New ParameterizedThreadStart(AddressOf Thread_Task))
Dim item As New Anything()
item.Number = i
item.Text = String.Format("Test_Function #{0}", i)
thread.Start(item)
list.Add(thread)
Next
For Each thread As Thread In list
thread.Join()
Next
End Sub
Private Sub MainUpdate(item As Anything, original As Boolean)
RaiseEvent OnUpdate(item, original)
End Sub
Private Sub Thread_Task(parameter As Object)
SyncLock m_lock
Dim item As Anything = DirectCast(parameter, Anything)
MainUpdate(item, True)
item.Text = [String].Format("{0}; Thread_Task #{1}", item.Text, item.Number)
item.Number = 0
MainUpdate(item, False)
End SyncLock
End Sub
End Class
Class Anything
' Number and Text are for instructional purposes only
Public Property Number() As Integer
Get
Return m_Number
End Get
Set(value As Integer)
m_Number = value
End Set
End Property
Private m_Number As Integer
Public Property Text() As String
Get
Return m_Text
End Get
Set(value As String)
m_Text = value
End Set
End Property
Private m_Text As String
' Data can be anything or another class
Public Property Data() As Object
Get
Return m_Data
End Get
Set(value As Object)
m_Data = value
End Set
End Property
Private m_Data As Object
End Class
Threads do not really have return values. However, if you create a delegate, you can invoke it asynchronously via the BeginInvoke method. This will execute the method on a thread pool thread. You can get any return value from such as call via EndInvoke.
Example:
static int GetAnswer() {
return 42;
}
...
Func<int> method = GetAnswer;
var res = method.BeginInvoke(null, null); // provide args as needed
var answer = method.EndInvoke(res);
GetAnswer will execute on a thread pool thread and when completed you can retrieve the answer via EndInvoke as shown.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
string returnValue = null;
new Thread(
() =>
{
returnValue =test() ;
}).Start();
Console.WriteLine(returnValue);
Console.ReadKey();
}
public static string test()
{
return "Returning From Thread called method";
}
}
A simple solution is to pass a parameter by ref to the function that is running in the thread and change its value in the thread.
// create a list of threads
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
//declare the ref params
bool is1 = false;
bool is2 = false;
threads.Add(new Thread(() => myFunction(someVar, ref is1)));
threads.Add(new Thread(() => myFunction(someVar, ref is2)));
threads.ForEach(x => x.Start());
// wait for threads to finish
threads.ForEach(x => x.Join());
//check the ref params
if (!is1)
{
//do something
}
if (!is2)
{
//do somethign else
}
If you can't change the function that is running in the tread, you can wrap it another function:
bool theirFunction(var someVar){
return false;
}
void myFunction(var someVar ref bool result){
result = theirFunction(myVar);
}
class Program
{
public static void ActionResultPrint(string i)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var tl = new List<Thread>();
tl.Add(new Thread(() => Run(10, ActionResultPrint)));
tl.Add(new Thread(() => Run(20, ActionResultPrint)));
tl.ForEach(x => x.Start());
tl.ForEach(x => x.Join());
}
public static void Run(int j, Action<string> action)
{
string rvalue = string.Empty;
for (int i = 0; i <= j; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
rvalue = i.ToString();
Console.WriteLine(rvalue);
}
action($#"output {j}");
}
}
when threads are used , value can be passed and returned in following ways:
int value = -1;
Thread t1 = new Thread(() => { value = compute(a); });
t1.Start();
if(value!=-1)
{...}
public int compute(int[] a1)
{
//...code logic
return -1;
}
I'm no kind of expert in threading, that's why I did it like this:
I created a Settings file and
Inside the new thread:
Setting.Default.ValueToBeSaved;
Setting.Default.Save();
Then I pick up that value whenever I need it.
How do I close down and wait for a semaphore to be fully released?
private SemaphoreSlim _processSemaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(10);
public async Task<Modification> Process(IList<Command> commands)
{
Assert.IsFalse(_shuttingDown, "Server is in shutdown phase");
await _processSemaphore.WaitAsync();
try
{
// threads that have reached this far must be allowed to complete
return _database.Process(commands);
}
finally
{
_processSemaphore.Release();
}
}
public async Task StopAsync()
{
_shuttingDown = true;
// how wait for threads to complete without cancelling?
await ?
}
private SemaphoreSlim _processSemaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(10);
private int _concurrency;
private TaskCompletionSource<int> _source;
private ManualResetEvent _awaitor;
public void Start()
{
//solution 1
_concurrency = 0;
_source = new TaskCompletionSource<int>();
_shuttingDown = false;
//solution 2
_awaitor = new ManualResetEvent(false);
//your code
}
public async Task<Modification> Process(IList<Command> commands)
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref _concurrency);
Assert.IsFalse(_shuttingDown, "Server is in shutdown phase");
await _processSemaphore.WaitAsync();
try
{
// threads that have reached this far must be allowed to complete
return _database.Process(commands);
}
finally
{
_processSemaphore.Release();
//check and release
int concurrency = Interlocked.Decrement(ref _concurrency);
if (_shuttingDown && concurrency == 0)
{
//solution 1
_source.TrySetResult(0);
//solution 2
_awaitor.Set();
}
}
}
public async Task StopAsync()
{
_shuttingDown = true;
// how wait for threads to complete without cancelling?
if (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _concurrency, 0, 0) != 0)
{
await _source.Task;//solution 1
_awaitor.WaitOne();//solution 2
}
}
Might not be exactly what you need, but I had a similar case and I solved it with the CountdownEvent class
private CountdownEvent _countdownEvent = new CountdownEvent(1);
process_method() {
//if the count is zero means that we already called finalize
if (_countdownEvent.IsSet)
return;
try
{
//this can throw and exception if we try to add when the countdown has already reached 0.
//this exception happens when one process_method B has passed the _counddownEvent.IsSet check and context switched to
//to another process_method A that was the last one (after finalize waits for 0) and sets the countdown to 0. Which
//triggers finalization and should not allow new process_method, so process_methodB not continuing is good (finalization is
//in progress).
_countdownEvent.AddCount(1);
} catch
{
return;
}
try
{
//your process
}
finally
{
_countdownEvent.Signal();
}
}
And then when you are ready to wait for the count to be zero:
finalize() {
_countdownEvent.Signal();
_countdownEvent.Wait(_finalizationSafetyTimeout, cancellationToken)
}
I have tasks running that call a method that reads from RabbitMQ. When there is nothing in the queue, the method simply blocks. So the tasks have a "running" status, but aren't actually doing anything. Is there any way to gracefully end these tasks?
The code that accesses the queue is as follows:
private void FindWork(CancellationToken ct)
{
if (ct.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
bool result = false;
bool process = false;
bool queueResult = false;
Work_Work work = null;
try
{
using (Queue workQueue = new Queue(_workQueue))
{
// Look for work on the work queue
workQueue.Open(Queue.Mode.Consume);
work = workQueue.ConsumeWithBlocking<Work_Work>();
// Do some work with the message ...
return;
The tasks are created as follows:
private void Run()
{
while (!_stop)
{
// Remove and stopped tasks from the pool
List<int> removeThreads = new List<int>();
lock (_tasks)
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<int, Task> task in _tasks)
{
if (task.Value.Status != TaskStatus.Running)
{
task.Value.Wait();
removeThreads.Add(task.Value.Id);
}
}
foreach (int taskID in removeThreads)
_tasks.Remove(taskID);
}
CancellationToken ct = _cts.Token;
TaskFactory factory = new TaskFactory(ct, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, TaskContinuationOptions.LongRunning, null);
// Create new tasks if we have room in the pool
while (_tasks.Count < _runningMax)
{
Task task = factory.StartNew(() => FindWork(ct));
lock (_tasks)
_tasks.Add(task.Id, task);
}
// Take a rest so we don't run the CPU to death
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
Currently I have changed my task creation code to look like the following so that I can abort the tasks. I know this is not a good solution, but I don't know what else to do.
while (_tasks.Count < _runningMax)
{
Task task = factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
using (_cts.Token.Register(Thread.CurrentThread.Abort))
{
FindWork(ct);
}
}
catch (ThreadAbortException)
{
return;
}
}, _cts.Token);
_tasks.Add(task.Id, task);
}
Could the following work in your scenario?
Instead of spawning multiple threads and having them waiting in the queue, I would have a single thread in an infinite polling loop and having that one spawn a new thread when a new piede of work comes in. You can add a semaphore to limit the number of threads you create. Check sample code below, I've used a BlockingCollection instead of the RabbitMQ .
public class QueueManager
{
public BlockingCollection<Work> blockingCollection = new BlockingCollection<Work>();
private const int _maxRunningTasks = 3;
static SemaphoreSlim _sem = new SemaphoreSlim(_maxRunningTasks);
public void Queue()
{
blockingCollection.Add(new Work());
}
public void Consume()
{
while (true)
{
Work work = blockingCollection.Take();
_sem.Wait();
Task t = Task.Factory.StartNew(work.DoWork);
}
}
public class Work
{
public void DoWork()
{
Thread.Sleep(5000);
_sem.Release();
Console.WriteLine("Finished work");
}
}
}
and my testing class
class Test
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Consumer c = new Consumer();
Task t = Task.Factory.StartNew(c.Consume);
c.Queue();
c.Queue();
c.Queue();
c.Queue();
c.Queue();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
To make this work, you'd need to change ConsumeWithBlocking to support cancellation. I'm not familiar with RabbitMQ, but apparently it supports cancellation on the consumer channel.
So, instead of doing Thread.CurrentThread.Abort from Token.Register callback, do the right thing and cancel the operation gracefully via proper RabbitMQ API.
On a side note, the thread you're currently trying to abort is most likely not the one which is blocked by ConsumeWithBlocking.
I'm trying to implement a concurrent producer/consumer queue with multiple producers and one consumer: the producers add some data to the Queue, and the consumer dequeues these data from the queue in order to update a collection. This collection must be periodically backed up to a new file. For this purpose I created a custom serializable collection: serialization could be performed by using the DataContractSerializer.
The queue is only shared between the consumer and the producers, so access to this queue must be managed to avoid race conditions.
The custom collection is shared between the consumer and a backup thread.
The backup thread could be activated periodically using a System.Threading.Timer object: it may initially be scheduled by the consumer, and then it would be scheduled at the end of every backup procedure.
Finally, a shutdown method should stop the queuing by producers, then stop the consumer, perform the last backup and dispose the timer.
The dequeuing of an item at a time may not be efficient, so I thought of using two queues: when the first queue becomes full, the producers notify the consumer by invoking Monitor.Pulse. As soon as the consumer receives the notification, the queues are swapped, so while producers enqueue new items, the consumer can process the previous ones.
The sample that I wrote seems to work properly. I think it is also thread-safe, but I'm not sure about that. The following code, for simplicity I used a Queue<int>. I also used (again for simplicity) an ArrayList instead of collection serializable.
public class QueueManager
{
private readonly int m_QueueMaxSize;
private readonly TimeSpan m_BackupPeriod;
private readonly object m_SyncRoot_1 = new object();
private Queue<int> m_InputQueue = new Queue<int>();
private bool m_Shutdown;
private bool m_Pulsed;
private readonly object m_SyncRoot_2 = new object();
private ArrayList m_CustomCollection = new ArrayList();
private Thread m_ConsumerThread;
private Timer m_BackupThread;
private WaitHandle m_Disposed;
public QueueManager()
{
m_ConsumerThread = new Thread(Work) { IsBackground = true };
m_QueueMaxSize = 7;
m_BackupPeriod = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(30);
}
public void Run()
{
m_Shutdown = m_Pulsed = false;
m_BackupThread = new Timer(DoBackup);
m_Disposed = new AutoResetEvent(false);
m_ConsumerThread.Start();
}
public void Shutdown()
{
lock (m_SyncRoot_1)
{
m_Shutdown = true;
Console.WriteLine("Worker shutdown...");
Monitor.Pulse(m_SyncRoot_1);
}
m_ConsumerThread.Join();
WaitHandle.WaitAll(new WaitHandle[] { m_Disposed });
if (m_InputQueue != null) { m_InputQueue.Clear(); }
if (m_CustomCollection != null) { m_CustomCollection.Clear(); }
Console.WriteLine("Worker stopped!");
}
public void Enqueue(int item)
{
lock (m_SyncRoot_1)
{
if (m_InputQueue.Count == m_QueueMaxSize)
{
if (!m_Pulsed)
{
Monitor.Pulse(m_SyncRoot_1); // it notifies the consumer...
m_Pulsed = true;
}
Monitor.Wait(m_SyncRoot_1); // ... and waits for Pulse
}
m_InputQueue.Enqueue(item);
Console.WriteLine("{0} \t {1} >", Thread.CurrentThread.Name, item.ToString("+000;-000;"));
}
}
private void Work()
{
m_BackupThread.Change(m_BackupPeriod, TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1));
Queue<int> m_SwapQueueRef, m_WorkerQueue = new Queue<int>();
Console.WriteLine("Worker started!");
while (true)
{
lock (m_SyncRoot_1)
{
if (m_InputQueue.Count < m_QueueMaxSize && !m_Shutdown) Monitor.Wait(m_SyncRoot_1);
Console.WriteLine("\nswapping...");
m_SwapQueueRef = m_InputQueue;
m_InputQueue = m_WorkerQueue;
m_WorkerQueue = m_SwapQueueRef;
m_Pulsed = false;
Monitor.PulseAll(m_SyncRoot_1); // all producers are notified
}
Console.WriteLine("Worker\t < {0}", String.Join(",", m_WorkerQueue.ToArray()));
lock (m_SyncRoot_2)
{
Console.WriteLine("Updating custom dictionary...");
foreach (int item in m_WorkerQueue)
{
m_CustomCollection.Add(item);
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("Custom dictionary updated successfully!");
}
if (m_Shutdown)
{
// schedule last backup
m_BackupThread.Change(0, Timeout.Infinite);
return;
}
m_WorkerQueue.Clear();
}
}
private void DoBackup(object state)
{
try
{
lock (m_SyncRoot_2)
{
Console.WriteLine("Backup...");
Thread.Sleep(2000);
Console.WriteLine("Backup completed at {0}", DateTime.Now);
}
}
finally
{
if (m_Shutdown) { m_BackupThread.Dispose(m_Disposed); }
else { m_BackupThread.Change(m_BackupPeriod, TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1)); }
}
}
}
Some objects are initialized in the Run method to allow you to restart this QueueManager after it is stopped, as shown in the code below.
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
QueueManager queue = new QueueManager();
var t1 = new Thread(() =>
{
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
queue.Enqueue(i);
Thread.Sleep(1500);
}
}) { Name = "t1" };
var t2 = new Thread(() =>
{
for (int i = 0; i > -30; i--)
{
queue.Enqueue(i);
Thread.Sleep(3000);
}
}) { Name = "t2" };
t1.Start(); t2.Start(); queue.Run();
t1.Join(); t2.Join(); queue.Shutdown();
Console.ReadLine();
var t3 = new Thread(() =>
{
for (int i = 0; i < 50; i++)
{
queue.Enqueue(i);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}) { Name = "t3" };
var t4 = new Thread(() =>
{
for (int i = 0; i > -30; i--)
{
queue.Enqueue(i);
Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
}) { Name = "t4" };
t3.Start(); t4.Start(); queue.Run();
t3.Join(); t4.Join(); queue.Shutdown();
Console.ReadLine();
}
I would suggest using the BlockingCollection for a producer/consumer queue. It was designed specifically for that purpose. The producers add items using Add and the consumers use Take. If there are no items to take then it will block until one is added. It is already designed to be used in a multithreaded environment, so if you're just using those methods there's no need to explicitly use any locks or other synchronization code.