We Keep Coding

Start threads at the order that they were started, only when previous thread was finished

Sorry for the confusing title, but that's basically what i need, i could do something with global variables but that would only be viable for 2 threads that are requested one after the other.
here is a pseudo code that might explain it better.
/*Async function that gets requests from a server*/
if ()//recieved request from server
{
new Thread(() =>
{
//do stuff
//in the meantime a new thread has been requested from server
//and another one 10 seconds later.. etc.
//wait for this current thread to finish
//fire up the first thread that was requested while this ongoing thread
//after the second thread is finished fire up the third thread that was requested 10 seconds after this thread
//etc...
}).Start();
}
I don't know when each thread will be requested, as it is based on the server sending info to client, so i cant do Task.ContiuneWith as it's dynamic.
So Michael suggested me to look into Queues, and i came up with it
static Queue<Action> myQ = new Queue<Action>();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new Thread(() =>
{
while (1 == 1)
{
if (myQ.FirstOrDefault() == null)
break;
myQ.FirstOrDefault().Invoke();
}
}).Start();
myQ.Enqueue(() =>
{
TestQ("First");
});
myQ.Enqueue(() =>
{
TestQ("Second");
});
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void TestQ(string s)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
Thread.Sleep(5000);
myQ.Dequeue();
}
I commented the code, i basically need to check if the act is first in queue or not.
EDIT: So i re-made it, and now it works, surely there is a better way to do this ? because i cant afford to use an infinite while loop.

You will have to use a global container for the threads. Maybe check Queues.
This class implements a queue as a circular array. Objects stored in a
Queue are inserted at one end and removed from the other.
Queues and stacks are useful when you need temporary storage for
information; that is, when you might want to discard an element after
retrieving its value. Use Queue if you need to access the information
in the same order that it is stored in the collection. Use Stack if
you need to access the information in reverse order. Use
ConcurrentQueue(Of T) or ConcurrentStack(Of T) if you need to access
the collection from multiple threads concurrently.
Three main operations can be performed on a Queue and its elements:
Enqueue adds an element to the end of the Queue.
Dequeue removes the oldest element from the start of the Queue.
Peek returns the oldest element that is at the start of the Queue but does not remove it from the Queue.
EDIT (From what you added)
Here is how I would change your example code to implement the infinite loop and keep it under your control.
static Queue<Action> myQ = new Queue<Action>();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
myQ.Enqueue(() =>
{
TestQ("First");
});
myQ.Enqueue(() =>
{
TestQ("Second");
});
Thread thread = new Thread(() =>
{
while(true) {
Thread.Sleep(5000)
if (myQ.Count > 0) {
myQ.Dequeue().Invoke()
}
}
}).Start();
// Do other stuff, eventually calling "thread.Stop()" the stop the infinite loop.
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void TestQ(string s)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
}

You could put the requests that you receive into a queue if there is a thread currently running. Then, to find out when threads return, they could fire an event. When this event fires, if there is something in the queue, start a new thread to process this new request.
The only thing with this is you have to be careful about race conditions, since you are communicating essentially between multiple threads.

Stopping a Thread, ManualResetEvent, volatile boolean or cancellationToken

I have a Thread (STAThread) in a Windows Service, which performs a big amount of work. When the windows service is restarted I want to stop this thread gracefully.
I know of a couple of ways
A volatile boolean
ManualResetEvent
CancellationToken
As far as I have found out Thread.Abort is a no go...
What is the best practice ?
The work is perfomed in another class than the one where the thread is started, so it is necessary to either introduce a cancellationToken parameter in a constructor or for example have a volatile variable. But I just can't figure out what is smartest.
Update
Just to clarify a little I have wrapped up a very simple example of what I'm talking about. As said earlier, this is being done in a windows service. Right now I'm thinking a volatile boolean that is checked on in the loop or a cancellationToken....
I cannot wait for the loop to finish, as stated below it can take several minutes, making the system administrators of the server believe that something is wrong with the service when they need to restart it.... I can without problems just drop all the work within the loop without problems, however I cannot do this with a Thread.Abort it is "evil" and furthermore a COM interface is called, so a small clean up is needed.
Class Scheduler{
private Thread apartmentThread;
private Worker worker;
void Scheduling(){
worker = new Worker();
apartmentThread = new Thread(Run);
apartmentThread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA);
apartmentThread.Start();
}
private void Run() {
while (!token.IsCancellationRequested) {
Thread.Sleep(pollInterval * MillisecondsToSeconds);
if (!token.IsCancellationRequested) {
worker.DoWork();
}
}
}
}
Class Worker{
//This will take several minutes....
public void DoWork(){
for(int i = 0; i < 50000; i++){
//Do some work including communication with a COM interface
//Communication with COM interface doesn't take long
}
}
}
UPDATE
Just examined performance, using a cancellationToken where the isCancelled state is "examined" in the code, is much faster than using a waitOne on a ManualResetEventSlim. Some quick figuers, an if on the cancellationToken iterating 100.000.000 times in a for loop costs me approx. 500 ms, where the WaitOne costs approx. 3 seconds. So performance in this scenario it is faster to use the cancellationToken.

You haven't posted enough of your implementation but I would highly recommend a CancellationToken if that is available to you. It's simple enough to use and understand from a maintainability standpoint. You can setup cooperative cancellation as well too if you decide to have more than one worker thread.
If you find yourself in a situation where this thread may block for long periods of time, it's best to setup your architecture so that this doesn't occur. You shouldn't be starting threads that won't play nice when you tell them to stop. If they don't stop when you ask them, the only real way is to tear down the process and let the OS kill them.
Eric Lippert posted a fantastic answer to a somewhat-related question here.

I tend to use a bool flag, a lock object and a Terminate() method, such as:
object locker = new object();
bool do_term = false;
Thread thread = new Thread(ThreadStart(ThreadProc));
thread.Start();
void ThreadProc()
{
while (true) {
lock (locker) {
if (do_term) break;
}
... do work...
}
}
void Terminate()
{
lock (locker) {
do_term = true;
}
}
Asides from Terminate() all the other fields and methods are private to the "worker" class.

Use a WaitHandle, most preferably a ManualResetEvent. Your best bet is to let whatever is in your loop finish. This is the safest way to accomplish your goal.
ManualResetEvent _stopSignal = new ManualResetEvent(false); // Your "stopper"
ManualResetEvent _exitedSignal = new ManualResetEvent(false);
void DoProcessing() {
try {
while (!_stopSignal.WaitOne(0)) {
DoSomething();
}
}
finally {
_exitedSignal.Set();
}
}
void DoSomething() {
//Some work goes here
}
public void Terminate() {
_stopSignal.Set();
_exitedSignal.WaitOne();
}
Then to use it:
Thread thread = new Thread(() => { thing.DoProcessing(); });
thread.Start();
//Some time later...
thing.Terminate();
If you have a particularly long-running process in your "DoSomething" implementation, you may want to call that asynchronously, and provide it with state information. That can get pretty complicated, though -- better to just wait until your process is finished, then exit, if you are able.

There are two situations in which you may find your thread:
Processing.
Blocking.
In the case where your thread is processing something, you must wait for your thread to finish processing in order for it to safely exit. If it's part of a work loop, then you can use a boolean flag to terminate the loop.
In the case where your thread is blocking, then you need to wake your thread and get it processing again. A thread may be blocking on a ManualResetEvent, a database call, a socket call or whatever else you could block on. In order to wake it up, you must call the Thread.Interrupt() method which will raise a ThreadInterruptedException.
It may look something like this:
private object sync = new object():
private bool running = false;
private void Run()
{
running = true;
while(true)
{
try
{
lock(sync)
{
if(!running)
{
break;
}
}
BlockingFunction();
}
catch(ThreadInterruptedException)
{
break;
}
}
}
public void Stop()
{
lock(sync)
{
running = false;
}
}
And here is how you can use it:
MyRunner r = new MyRunner();
Thread t = new Thread(()=>
{
r.Run();
});
t.IsBackground = true;
t.Start();
// To stop the thread
r.Stop();
// Interrupt the thread if it's in a blocking state
t.Interrupt();
// Wait for the thread to exit
t.Join();

Separate threadPool for each task

I've got application which has two main task: encoding, processing video.
These tasks are independant.
Each task I would like run with configurable number of threads.
For this reason for one task I usually use ThreadPool and SetMaxThreads. But now I've got two tasks and would like "two configurable(number of threads) threapool for each task".
Well, ThreadPool is a static class. So how can I implement my strategy(easy configurable number of threads for each task).
Thanks

You will probably want your own thread pool. If you are using .NET 4.0 then it is actually fairly easy to roll your own if you use the BlockingCollection class.
public class CustomThreadPool
{
private BlockingCollection<Action> m_WorkItems = new BlockingCollection<Action>();
public CustomThreadPool(int numberOfThreads)
{
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++)
{
var thread = new Thread(
() =>
{
while (true)
{
Action action = m_WorkItems.Take();
action();
}
});
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
}
}
public void QueueUserWorkItem(Action action)
{
m_WorkItems.Add(action);
}
}
That is really all there is to it. You would create a CustomThreadPool for each actual pool you want to control. I posted the minimum amount of code to get a crude thread pool going. Naturally, you might want to tweak and expand this implementation to suit your specific need.

Make all threads sleep

I work with new Parallel.For that creates multiple threads to perform the same operation.
In case one of the threads fail, it means that I'm working "too fast" and I need to put all the threads to rest for a few seconds.
Is there a way to perform something like Thread.Sleep - only to do the same on all threads at once?

This is a direct answer to the question, except for the Parallel.For bit.
It really is a horrible pattern; you should probably be using a proper synchronization mechanism, and get the worker threads to, without preemption, occasionally check if they need to 'back off.'
In addition, this uses Thread.Suspend and Thread.Resume which are both deprecated, and with good reason (from Thread.Suspend):
"Do not use the Suspend and Resume methods to synchronize the activities of threads. You have no way of knowing what code a thread is executing when you suspend it. If you suspend a thread while it holds locks during a security permission evaluation, other threads in the AppDomain might be blocked. If you suspend a thread while it is executing a class constructor, other threads in the AppDomain that attempt to use that class are blocked. Deadlocks can occur very easily."
(Untested)
public class Worker
{
private readonly Thread[] _threads;
private readonly object _locker = new object();
private readonly TimeSpan _tooFastSuspensionSpan;
private DateTime _lastSuspensionTime;
public Worker(int numThreads, TimeSpan tooFastSuspensionSpan)
{
_tooFastSuspensionSpan = tooFastSuspensionSpan;
_threads = Enumerable.Repeat(new ThreadStart(DoWork), numThreads)
.Select(ts => new Thread(ts))
.ToArray();
}
public void Run()
{
foreach (var thread in _threads)
{
thread.Start();
}
}
private void DoWork()
{
while (!IsWorkComplete())
{
try
{
// Do work here
}
catch (TooFastException)
{
SuspendAll();
}
}
}
private void SuspendAll()
{
lock (_locker)
{
// We don't want N near-simultaneous failures causing a sleep-duration of N * _tooFastSuspensionSpan
// 1 second is arbitrary. We can't be deterministic about it since we are forcefully suspending threads
var now = DateTime.Now;
if (now.Subtract(_lastSuspensionTime) < _tooFastSuspensionSpan + TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1))
return;
_lastSuspensionTime = now;
var otherThreads = _threads.Where(t => t.ManagedThreadId != Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId).ToArray();
foreach (var otherThread in otherThreads)
otherThread.Suspend();
Thread.Sleep(_tooFastSuspensionSpan);
foreach (var otherThread in otherThreads)
otherThread.Resume();
}
}
}

You need to create an inventory of your worker threads and then perhaps you can use Thread.Suspend and Resume methods. Mind you that using Suspend can be dangerous (for example, thread may have acquired lock before suspending). And suspend/resume have been marked obsolate due to such issues.

Multi-Threading - waiting for all threads to be signalled

I have scenarios where I need a main thread to wait until every one of a set of possible more than 64 threads have completed their work, and for that I wrote the following helper utility, (to avoid the 64 waithandle limit on WaitHandle.WaitAll())
public static void WaitAll(WaitHandle[] handles)
{
if (handles == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("handles",
"WaitHandle[] handles was null");
foreach (WaitHandle wh in handles) wh.WaitOne();
}
With this utility method, however, each waithandle is only examined after every preceding one in the array has been signalled... so it is in effect synchronous, and will not work if the waithandles are autoResetEvent wait handles (which clear as soon as a waiting thread has been released)
To fix this issue I am considering changing this code to the following, but would like others to check and see if it looks like it will work, or if anyone sees any issues with it, or can suggest a better way ...
Thanks in advance:
public static void WaitAllParallel(WaitHandle[] handles)
{
if (handles == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("handles",
"WaitHandle[] handles was null");
int actThreadCount = handles.Length;
object locker = new object();
foreach (WaitHandle wh in handles)
{
WaitHandle qwH = wh;
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
delegate
{
try { qwH.WaitOne(); }
finally { lock(locker) --actThreadCount; }
});
}
while (actThreadCount > 0) Thread.Sleep(80);
}

If you know how many threads you have, you can use an interlocked decrement. This is how I usually do it:
{
eventDone = new AutoResetEvent();
totalCount = 128;
for(0...128) {ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(ThreadWorker, ...);}
}
void ThreadWorker(object state)
try
{
... work and more work
}
finally
{
int runningCount = Interlocked.Decrement(ref totalCount);
if (0 == runningCount)
{
// This is the last thread, notify the waiters
eventDone.Set();
}
}
Actually, most times I don't even signal but instead invoke a callback continues the processing from where the waiter would continue. Less blocked threads, more scalability.
I know is different and may not apply to your case (eg. for sure will not work if some of thoe handles are not threads, but I/O or events), but it may worth thinking about this.

I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to do, but would a CountdownEvent (.NET 4.0) conceptually solve your problem?

I'm not a C# or .NET programmer, but you could use a semaphore that is posted when one of your worker threads exits. The monitoring thread would simply wait on the semaphore n times where n is the number of worker threads. Semaphores are traditionally used to count resources in use but they can be used to count jobs completed by waiting on the same semaphore for n times.

When working with lots of simultaneous threads, I prefer to add each thread's ManagedThreadId into a Dictionary when I start the thread, and then have each thread invoke a callback routine that removes the dying thread's id from the Dictionary. The Dictionary's Count property tells you how many threads are active. Use the value side of the key/value pair to hold info that your UI thread can use to report status. Wrap the Dictionary with a lock to keep things safe.

ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(o =>
{
try
{
using (var h = (o as WaitHandle))
{
if (!h.WaitOne(100000))
{
// Alert main thread of the timeout
}
}
}
finally
{
Interlocked.Decrement(ref actThreadCount);
}
}, wh);