I am trying to understand threading concepts in .Net.
I am unable to use Yield() method. I want the control to go to a parallel thread when i becomes divisible by 10.
Please help.
Below is my sample code:
class ThreadTest
{
//Index i is declared as static so that both the threads have only one copy
static int i;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t = new Thread(WriteY);
i = 0;
//Start thread Y
t.Start();
//Do something on the main thread.
for (; i < 100; i++)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
//Simulate Yield() function
Thread.Sleep(0);
Console.WriteLine("The X thread");
}
Console.Write(i + ":X ");
}
Console.ReadKey(true);
}
static void WriteY()
{
for (; i < 100; i++)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
//Simulate Yield() function
Thread.Sleep(0);
Console.WriteLine("The Y thread");
}
Console.Write(i + ":Y ");
}
}
}
I get the compile time error:
System.Threading.Thread does not contain a definition for 'Yield'
Answered by Tudor. This method will only work on .Net 4.0 and upwards.
Ideally I would want one thread to start and want each thread to execute for 10 incremented of i each. With my current method, I either get all 'X' or all 'Y'.
Edit:
With inputs from Tudor and TheHe - I have been able to get alternate X and Y. The crux of the problem was usage of lock object. But the output of this code is not predictable.
Thread.Yield will simply enable the scheduler to select a different thread that is ready to run:
Causes the calling thread to yield execution to another thread that is
ready to run on the current processor. The operating system selects
the thread to yield to.
If other threads in your application are also waiting on that lock, you can yield all you want, they won't get a chance to run.
Btw, Yield is a .NET 4.0+ method. Make sure you're not targeting an earlier version.
Edit: IMO, to do what you want you should use events:
class Test
{
//Index i is declared as static so that both the threads have only one copy
static int i;
static AutoResetEvent parentEvent = new AutoResetEvent(true);
static AutoResetEvent childEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t = new Thread(WriteY);
i = 0;
//Start thread Y
t.Start();
// Print X on the main thread
parentEvent.WaitOne();
while (i < 100)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
childEvent.Set();
parentEvent.WaitOne();
}
Console.Write(i + ":Y ");
i++;
}
t.Join();
}
static void WriteY()
{
childEvent.WaitOne();
while (i < 100)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
parentEvent.Set();
childEvent.WaitOne();
}
Console.Write(i + ":X ");
i++;
}
}
}
Forget Thread.Yield; that is unrelated to what you are trying to do. Ultimately, you have a lock, which uses Monitor to synchronize access. Inside the lock, your thread exclusively has access. What you need to do is relinquish the lock temporarily; the way you do that is with Monitor.Wait. However, if you Wait, you also end up in the "waiting" queue rather than the "ready" queue, so in order to make sure that each thread gets attention, we also need to Pulse, both before the Wait, and also at the end (to make sure both threads get chance to exit). Here we go:
using System.Threading;
using System;
class ThreadTest
{
//Index i is declared as static so that both the threads have only one copy
static int i;
//The lock object
static readonly object locker = new object();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t = new Thread(WriteY);
i = 0;
//Start thread Y
t.Start();
lock (locker)
{
// Print X on the main thread
for (; i < 100; i++)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(locker); // move any "waiting" threads to the "ready" queue
Monitor.Wait(locker); // relinquish the lock, and wait for a pulse
Console.WriteLine("The X thread");
}
Console.Write(i + ":X ");
}
Monitor.PulseAll(locker);
}
Console.ReadKey(true);
}
static void WriteY()
{
lock (locker)
{
for (; i < 100; i++)
{
if (i % 10 == 0)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(locker); // move any "waiting" threads to the "ready" queue
Monitor.Wait(locker); // relinquish the lock, and wait for a pulse
Console.WriteLine("The Y thread");
}
Console.Write(i + ":Y ");
}
Monitor.PulseAll(locker); // move any "waiting" threads to the "ready" queue
}
}
}
from my point of view, you're locking "locker" in current thread and want to yield the current task to an other thread...
the lock is held by the first thread all the time -- it can't work?!
you have to manually lock the objects if you want to use multiple threads...
Related
I'm new to multi-threading, I want to achieve something like below using C#.
Thread 0 printed 0
Thread 1 printed 1
Thread 2 printed 2
Thread 3 printed 3
Thread 4 printed 4
Thread 5 printed 5
Thread 6 printed 6
Thread 7 printed 7
Thread 8 printed 8
Thread 9 printed 9
Thread 0 printed 10
Thread 1 printed 11
Thread 2 printed 12
Thread 3 printed 13
Thread 4 printed 14
Thread 5 printed 15
Thread 6 printed 16
Thread 7 printed 17
Thread 8 printed 18
Thread 9 printed 19
.
.
.
Thread 10 printed 99.
I have done something like this but of course, requirement is beyond.
class Program
{
static int count = 0; // the shared counter from 1 to 100
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread[] tr = new Thread[10]; // i have created 10 threads each one will print 10 cyclic values
string result = "";
int cc = 0;
while (cc!=10) {
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
tr[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(printTill10));
tr[i].Start();
tr[i].Join();
}
cc++;
}
}
string s = "";
static void printTill10()
{
Console.WriteLine(++count+ "Printed by thread #"+
Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}
I am confused either I should use a lock or something like monitor.wait or monitor.pulse etc.
Thanks for any help.
Do it like so:
First declare a variable count in the class so that it can be accessed by all threads. Also, create an object locker that will allow us to lock the count variable.
static int count;
static object locker;
Then, create the method that contains the code that the threads will all run:
static void printTill10()
{
while (true)
{
lock (locker)
{
if (count < 100)
{
count++;
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("Thread {0} printed {1}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId.ToString(), count.ToString()));
}
}
}
}
What this code does when run is the following:
Enters a while loop which loops forever.
Locks locker to make sure only one operation is being performed on count at a time.
Checks to see if count is under 100.
Increases count by one.
Prints a string exactly like the one you're trying to get (I used String.Format instead of concentration because its neater)
Simple right? This is the code that our threads will run. Now we can focus on the multithreading part.
static void Main()
{
count = 0; // Be sure to give count an initial value to prevent an exception from being thrown.
locker = new object();
Thread[] threads = new Thread[10];
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
threads[i] = new Thread(() => printTill100());
threads[i].Start();
}
Thread.Sleep(Timeout.Infinite);
}
Our Main does the following:
Gives an initial value to the count and locker variables.
Creates an array to put our threads in.
Enters a for loop which populates the array with threads and starts them.
Makes the main thread (the one code runs in by default) wait forever (specified by Timeout.Infinite. This last bit is an important one. By default, all code runs in a single thread called the main thread. If we don't tell it to wait, it will exit after the loop is done, closing the program. It will not wait until our other threads are finished.
There is just one thing you have missed while writing code in
printTill10()
method.
Just put one lock block in printTill10() method like this.
static void printTill10()
{
lock (_locker)
{
Console.WriteLine(++count + "Printed by thread #" + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}
and also declare locker object in the Pragram class like
static readonly object _locker = new object();
Here is the complete code
class Program
{
static int count = 0; // the shared counter from 1 to 100
static readonly object _locker = new object();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread[] tr = new Thread[10]; // i have created 10 threads each one will print 10 cyclic values
string result = "";
int cc = 0;
while (cc != 10)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
tr[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(printTill10));
tr[i].Start();
tr[i].Join();
}
cc++;
}
}
string s = "";
static void printTill10()
{
lock (_locker)
{
Console.WriteLine(++count + "Printed by thread #" + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}
}
It will work as per your requirement. :)
After a continuous try, I got to complete the requirements of my task. Here is the code:
using System;
using System.Threading;
public class EntryPoint
{
static private int counter = 0;
static private object theLock = new Object();
static object obj = new object();
static private void count()
{
{
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
lock (theLock)
{
Console.WriteLine("Count {0} Thread{1}",
counter++, Thread.CurrentThread.GetHashCode());
if (counter>=10)
Monitor.Pulse(theLock);
Monitor.Wait(theLock); } }}
}
static void Main()
{
Thread[] tr = new Thread[10];
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
tr[i] = new Thread(new ThreadStart(count));
tr[i].Start();
}
}
}
Monitor maintains a ready queue in a sequential order hence I achieved what I wanted:
I'm looking for a fast way to let many worker threads wait for an event to continue and block the main thread until all worker threads are finished. I first used TPL or AutoResetEvent but since my calculation isn't that expensive the overhead was way too much.
I found a pretty interesting article concerning this problem and got great results (using only one worker thread) with the last synchronization solution (Interlocked.CompareExchange). But I don't know how to utilize it for a scenario where many threads wait for one main tread repeatedly.
Here is an example using single thread, CompareExchange, and Barrier:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int cnt = 1000000;
var stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++) { }
Console.WriteLine($"Single thread: {stopwatch.Elapsed.TotalSeconds}s");
var run = true;
Task task;
stopwatch.Restart();
int interlock = 0;
task = Task.Run(() =>
{
while (run)
{
while (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref interlock, 0, 1) != 1) { Thread.Sleep(0); }
interlock = 2;
}
Console.WriteLine($"CompareExchange synced: {stopwatch.Elapsed.TotalSeconds}s");
});
for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++)
{
interlock = 1;
while (Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref interlock, 0, 2) != 2) { Thread.Sleep(0); }
}
run = false;
interlock = 1;
task.Wait();
run = true;
var barrier = new Barrier(2);
stopwatch.Restart();
task = Task.Run(() =>
{
while (run) { barrier.SignalAndWait(); }
Console.WriteLine($"Barrier synced: {stopwatch.Elapsed.TotalSeconds}s");
});
for (int i = 0; i < cnt; i++) { barrier.SignalAndWait(); }
Thread.Sleep(0);
run = false;
if (barrier.ParticipantsRemaining == 1) { barrier.SignalAndWait(); }
task.Wait();
Console.ReadKey();
}
Average results (in seconds) are:
Single thread: 0,002
CompareExchange: 0,4
Barrier: 1,7
As you can see Barriers' overhead seems to be arround 4 times higher! If someone can rebuild me the CompareExchange-scenario to work with multiple worker threads this would surely help, too!
Sure, 1 second overhead for a million calculations is pretty less! Actually it just interests me.
Edit:
System.Threading.Barrier seems to be the fastest solution for this scenario. For saving a double blocking (all workers ready for work, all workes finished) I used the following code for the best results:
while(work)
{
while (barrier.ParticipantsRemaining > 1) { Thread.Sleep(0); }
//Set work package
barrier.SignalAndWait()
}
It seems like you might want to use a Barrier to synchronise a number of workers with a main thread.
Here's a compilable example. Have a play with it, paying attention to when the output tells you that you can "Press <Return> to signal the workers to start".
using System;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace Demo
{
static class Program
{
static void Main()
{
print("Main thread is starting the workers.");
int numWorkers = 10;
var barrier = new Barrier(numWorkers + 1); // Workers + main (controlling) thread.
for (int i = 0; i < numWorkers; ++i)
{
int n = i; // Prevent modified closure.
Task.Run(() => worker(barrier, n));
}
while (true)
{
print("***************** Press <RETURN> to signal the workers to start");
Console.ReadLine();
print("Main thread is signalling all the workers to start.");
// This will wait for all the workers to issue their call to
// barrier.SignalAndWait() before it returns:
barrier.SignalAndWait();
// At this point, all workers AND the main thread are at the same point.
}
}
static void worker(Barrier barrier, int workerNumber)
{
int iter = 0;
while (true)
{
print($"Worker {workerNumber} on iteration {iter} is waiting for barrier.");
// This will wait for all the other workers AND the main thread
// to issue their call to barrier.SignalAndWait() before it returns:
barrier.SignalAndWait();
// At this point, all workers AND the main thread are at the same point.
int delay = randomDelayMilliseconds();
print($"Worker {workerNumber} got barrier, now sleeping for {delay}");
Thread.Sleep(delay);
print($"Worker {workerNumber} finished work for iteration {iter}.");
}
}
static void print(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine($"[{sw.ElapsedMilliseconds:00000}] {message}");
}
static int randomDelayMilliseconds()
{
lock (rng)
{
return rng.Next(10000) + 5000;
}
}
static Random rng = new Random();
static Stopwatch sw = Stopwatch.StartNew();
}
}
This class uses lock and Interlocked.
Both increaseCount.with_lock.Run(); and increaseCount.with_interlock.Run(); prints between 96-100.
I am expecting both of them to print always 100. What did I make mistake?
public static class increaseCount {
public static int counter = 0;
public static readonly object myLock = new object();
public static class with_lock {
public static void Run() {
List<Thread> pool = new List<Thread>();
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
pool.Add(new Thread(f));
}
Parallel.ForEach(pool, x => x.Start());
Console.WriteLine(counter); //should print 100
}
static void f() {
lock(myLock) {
counter++;
}
}
}
public static class with_interlock {
public static void Run() {
List<Thread> pool = new List<Thread>();
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
pool.Add(new Thread(f));
}
Parallel.ForEach(pool, x => x.Start());
Console.WriteLine(counter);//should print 100
}
static void f() {
Interlocked.Add(ref counter, 1);
}
}
}
In both cases, you start up your threads but you don't wait for them to complete so you don't reach the 100 before you print the result and the app closes.
If after you start all thread you would wait for all these threads to complete with Thread.Join you would always get the correct result:
List<Thread> pool = new List<Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
pool.Add(new Thread(f));
}
Parallel.ForEach(pool, x => x.Start());
foreach (var thread in pool)
{
thread.Join();
}
Console.WriteLine(counter);
Note: This seems like a test of some kind, but you should know that blocking multiple threads on a single lock is a huge waste of resources.
I believe it's because your Parallel.Foreach call simply calls start on all the threads in pool but they haven't necessarily completed by the time the loops finished and the Console.WriteLine is called. If you were to insert a Thread.Sleep(5000); // 5s sleep or similar before the Console.WriteLine it would likely always print out what you expect.
Your code is fine. The only problem is your expectation. Basically, not all 100 threads get to run untill the counter is displayed. Try putting a Thread.Sleep(1000) before the Console.WriteLine(counter) and you shall see what I mean.
Edit: wrongly posted as a comment the first time.
I am building a small application simulating a horse race in order to gain some basic skill in working with threads.
My code contains this loop:
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfHorses; i++)
{
horsesThreads[i] = new Thread(horsesTypes[i].Race);
horsesThreads[i].Start(100);
}
In order to keep the race 'fair', I've been looking for a way to make all newly created threads wait until the rest of the new threads are set, and only then launch all of them to start running their methods (Please note that I understand that technically the threads can't be launched at the 'same time')
So basically, I am looking for something like this:
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfHorses; i++)
{
horsesThreads[i] = new Thread(horsesTypes[i].Race);
}
Monitor.LaunchThreads(horsesThreads);
Threading does not promise fairness or deterministic results, so it's not a good way to simulate a race.
Having said that, there are some sync objects that might do what you ask. I think the Barrier class (Fx 4+) is what you want.
The Barrier class is designed to support this.
Here's an example:
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace Demo
{
class Program
{
private void run()
{
int numberOfHorses = 12;
// Use a barrier with a participant count that is one more than the
// the number of threads. The extra one is for the main thread,
// which is used to signal the start of the race.
using (Barrier barrier = new Barrier(numberOfHorses + 1))
{
var horsesThreads = new Thread[numberOfHorses];
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfHorses; i++)
{
int horseNumber = i;
horsesThreads[i] = new Thread(() => runRace(horseNumber, barrier));
horsesThreads[i].Start();
}
Console.WriteLine("Press <RETURN> to start the race!");
Console.ReadLine();
// Signals the start of the race. None of the threads that called
// SignalAndWait() will return from the call until *all* the
// participants have signalled the barrier.
barrier.SignalAndWait();
Console.WriteLine("Race started!");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
private static void runRace(int horseNumber, Barrier barrier)
{
Console.WriteLine("Horse " + horseNumber + " is waiting to start.");
barrier.SignalAndWait();
Console.WriteLine("Horse " + horseNumber + " has started.");
}
private static void Main()
{
new Program().run();
}
}
}
[EDIT] I just noticed that Henk already mentioned Barrier, but I'll leave this answer here because it has some sample code.
I'd be looking at a ManualResetEvent as a gate; inside the Thread, decrement a counter; if it is still non-zero, wait on the gate; otherwise, open the gate. Basically:
using System;
using System.Threading;
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
ManualResetEvent gate = new ManualResetEvent(false);
int numberOfThreads = 10, pending = numberOfThreads;
Thread[] threads = new Thread[numberOfThreads];
ParameterizedThreadStart work = name =>
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} approaches the tape", name);
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref pending) == 0)
{
Console.WriteLine("And they're off!");
gate.Set();
}
else gate.WaitOne();
Race();
Console.WriteLine("{0} crosses the line", name);
};
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++)
{
threads[i] = new Thread(work);
threads[i].Start(i);
}
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++)
{
threads[i].Join();
}
Console.WriteLine("all done");
}
static readonly Random rand = new Random();
static void Race()
{
int time;
lock (rand)
{
time = rand.Next(500,1000);
}
Thread.Sleep(time);
}
}
I've got this code below, where I spawn several threads, normally about 7, and join them to wait until all are done:
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
Thread thread;
foreach (int size in _parameterCombinations.Keys)
{
thread = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(CalculateResults));
thread.Start(size);
threads.Add(thread);
}
// wait for all threads to finish
for (int index = 0; index < threads.Count; index++)
{
threads[index].Join();
}
When I check this most of the time only one or two threads are running at the same time, only once or twice when I rerun the app all of them executed.
Is there any way to force all the threads to start executing?
Many thanks.
Your code is fine.. i changed it abit to show you that the execution of the thread is not limited to 2 threads.
I would look for problems in the calculation process..
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
Thread thread;
for (int i = 0; i < 7; i++)
{
thread = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(CalculateResults));
thread.Start();
threads.Add(thread);
}
// wait for all threads to finish
for (int index = 0; index < threads.Count; index++)
{
threads[index].Join();
}
}
static void CalculateResults(object obj)
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread number " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId + " is alive");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("Thread number " + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId + " is closing");
}
}