We Keep Coding

Disposing of a Form with An Awaited Method Inside

Let's say I have a form with a piece of data that needs to be used in an await'ed method as such:
using (var riskForm = new RiskValidationForm(config))
{
if (riskForm.OpenDialog() == DialogResult.Cancel)
return;
await Task.Run(() => MyMethod(riskForm.GetRiskData());
}
Is this dangerous? I'm afraid that the form might dispose, getting rid of what RiskData() returns before the awaited method is started. Hence I'd be calling RiskData() on something that is already disposed of. Is this possible?
Function signature of MyMethod:
private void MyMethod(RiskLimitsConfigurationCollection riskLimits)

No, it's not possible that the Form will be disposed before the completion of the Task. The await inside the using statement ensures that. But even if you removed the using/await combination (making the task essentially fire-and-forget) there would still be no problem. The garbage collector doesn't recycle objects that are still in use. The Task would hold a reference to a closure that would hold a reference to the RiskValidationForm, and Task objects are not recycled before their completion (unless the application is terminated).
You have two other reasons to worry though:
You have to worry about the thread-safety of the MyMethod method. It may be called by multiple threads concurrently, unless there is UI code that prevents it from happening (for example by disabling the activation Button while the task is still running).
You have to worry about the thread-affinity of the GetRiskData method. If this method accesses any method or property of any UI control of the RiskValidationForm form, you have committed a cross-thread violation because you have accessed a UI element from a thread other than the UI thread.

How to make thread safe event handler

In my application I have a queue which fires notifications whenever there are any changes to the queue, but sometimes it happens that when there are simultaneous operations on the queue event handler that it fires multiple times and that's okay, but what I don't want is,...
Below is the code for the event handler:
private async void NotificationQueue_Changed(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (!IsQueueInProcess)
await ProcessQeueue();
}
In ProcessQueue method I am setting IsQueueInProcess to true and whenever it gets completed it is set to false. Now, the problem is that whenever multiple event notifications fire simultaneously multiple ProcessQeueue methods start executing, which I don't want. I want to make sure that there will be only one execution of ProcessQeueue at any given time.

Given your statement that this event is raised whenever there are any changes to the queue, and that the queue can be used concurrently (i.e. there are multiple producers adding things to the queue), it seems likely to me that the best way to address this would be to abandon the event-based behavior altogether. Instead, using BlockingCollection<T>, with a thread dedicated to processing the queue via GetConsumingEnumerable(). That method will block the thread as long as the queue is empty, and will allow the thread to remove and process items in the queue any time any other thread adds something to it. The collection itself is thread-safe, so using that you would not require any additional thread synchronization (for the handling of the queue, that is…it's possible processing an item involves thread interactions, but there's nothing in your question that describes that aspect, so I can't say one way or the other anything about that).
That said, taking the question literally, the simplest approach would be to include a semaphore:
private readonly SemaphoreSlim _semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(1);
private async void NotificationQueue_Changed(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (_semaphore.Wait(0))
{
await ProcessQueue();
_semaphore.Release();
}
}
The above attempts to acquire the semaphore's lock. With a timeout of 0 milliseconds, it will return immediately even if the semaphore could not be acquired. The return value indicates whether the semaphore was successfully acquired or not.
In this way, as long as there is no outstanding queue-processing operation, the current event handler invocation can acquire the semaphore and will call the ProcessQueue() method. When that operation completes, the continuation will release the semaphore. Until that happens, no other invocation of the event handler will be able to acquire the semaphore, and thus will not initiate processing of the queue.
I'll note that nothing here guarantees a solution to threads racing with each other that would ensure the queue is always either empty, or always has some processing operation acting on it. That's up to you, to ensure that the ProcessQueue() method has the synchronization needed to guarantee that if any thread has modified the queue and caused this event to be raised, that that thread will not fail to initiate another round of processing should the first round not be able to observe the change.
Or put another way, you need to make sure that for any thread that is going to raise that event, either its change to the queue will be observed by the current processing operation, or that thread will initiate a new one.
There's not enough context in your question for anyone to be able to address that concern specifically. I will just point out that it's a common enough thing for someone to overlook when trying to implement this sort of system. IMHO, all the more reason to just have a dedicated thread using BlockingCollection<T> to consume elements added to the queue. :)
See also the related question How to avoid reentrancy with async void event handlers?. This is a slightly different question, in that the accepted answer causes each invocation of the event handler to result in the operation initiated by the event handler. Your scenario is simpler, since you simply want to skip initiation of a new operation, but you may still find some useful insight there.

I agree with Peter that abandoning event-based notifications is the best solution, and that you should move to a producer/consumer queue. However, I recommend one of the TPL Dataflow blocks instead of BlockingCollection<T>.
In particular, ActionBlock<T> should work quite nicely:
private readonly ActionBlock<T> notificationQueue = new ActionBlock<T>(async t =>
{
await ProcessQueueItem(t);
});
By default, TPL Dataflow blocks have a concurrency limit of 1.

Threading, how to instantiate multiple threads without using a class structure

What I have is a loop reading some data and when a set of circumstances are met I need to instantiate a thread. However, the created thread might not complete before the loop criteria is met and I need to create another thread doing the same thing. This is part of an ocr app and I haven't done much thread work before.
while loop
if(criteria)
{
observer = new BackgroundWorker();
observer.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(observer_DoObserving);
observer.RunWorkerAsync();
}
the observer_DoObserving function calls the ocr app, waits for a response and then processes it appropriately and sets observer = null at the end. So how would I create multiple instances of the 'observer' thread. Of course instantly I thought of a class structure, is this an appropriate way to do it or is there another way that is appropriate for threading.
I hope this makes sense.
Thanks, R.

You could use the thread pool, specifically ThreadPool.
while (something)
{
if (criteria)
{
// QueueUserWorkItem also has an overload that allows you to pass data
// that data will then be passed into WorkerMethod when it is called
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(WorkerMethod));
}
}
// ...
private void WorkerMethod(object state)
{
// do work here
}

How you handle this depends in large part on whether the background thread needs to communicate anything to the main thread when it's done. If the background thread really is "fire and forget", then there's no particular reason why you need to maintain a reference to the observer. So you could write:
while loop
{
if(criteria)
{
BackgroundWorker observer = new BackgroundWorker();
observer.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(observer_DoObserving);
observer.RunWorkerAsync();
}
}
The thread does its work and goes away. observer is a local variable that goes out of scope when execution leaves the if block. There's no way that the variable will be overwritten if you have to start another observer thread before the first one is finished.
If you need to keep track of information for individual observers, then you'd create an object of some type (a class that you define) that contains information about the worker's state, and pass that to the RunWorkerAsync method. The worker can then modify that object and send you progress notifications (see the ProgressChanged event and the ReportProgress method), and also report the status when the worker has finished (see RunWorkerCompleted, the state object you passed to RunWorkerAsync will be in the RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs.UserState property).

I am not entirely able to grasp what you are doing exactly, so I may or may not be helpful here;
You seem to be, in part, asking if it's appropriate to create a class to hold some data indicating the state of a thread or what it's working on. That is entirely appropriate to do, provided the object is not an 'expensive' one to create. (no creating Exception objects and throwing them around all the time, for instance).

Best practices for moving objects to a separate thread

We have an implementation for an Ultrasound machine application current where the Ultrasound object is created on the UI's thread. A Singleton implementation would have been good here, but regardless, isn't.
Recently, the set methods changed such that they automatically stop and restart the ultrasound machine, which can take between 10-100ms depending on the state of the machine. For most cases, this isn't too bad of a problem, however it's still causing the UI thread to block for 100ms. Additionally, these methods are not thread-safe and must be called on the same thread where the object was initialized.
This largest issue this is now causing is unresponsive buttons in the UI, especially sliders which may try to update variables many times as you slide the bar. As a result, sliders especially will stutter and update very slowly as it makes many set calls through databound propeties.
What is a good way to create a thread specifically for the creation and work for this Ultrasound object, which will persist through the lifetime of the application?
A current temporary workaround involves spawning a Timer, and invoking a parameter update once we have detected the slider hasn't moved for 200ms, however a Timer would then have to be implemented for every slider and seems like a very messy solution which solves unresponsive sliders, but still blocks the UI thread occasionally.

One thing that's really great about programming the GUI is that you don't have to worry about multiple threads mucking things up for you (assuming you've got CheckForIllegalCrossThreadCalls = true, as you should). It's all single-threaded, operating by means of a message pump (queue) that processes incoming messages one-by-one.
Since you've indicated that you need to synchronize method calls that are not written to be thread-safe (totally understandable), there's no reason you can't implement your own message pump to deal with your Ultrasound object.
A naive, very simplistic version might look something like this (the BlockingCollection<T> class is great if you're on .NET 4.0 or have installed Rx extensions; otherwise, you can just use a plain vanilla Queue<T> and do your own locking). Warning: this is just a quick skeleton I've thrown together just now; I make no promises as to its robustness or even correctness.
class MessagePump<T>
{
// In your case you would set this to your Ultrasound object.
// You could just as easily design this class to be "object-agnostic";
// but I think that coupling an instance to a specific object makes it clearer
// what the purpose of the MessagePump<T> is.
private T _obj;
private BlockingCollection<Action<T>> _workItems;
private Thread _thread;
public MessagePump(T obj)
{
_obj = obj;
// Note: the default underlying data store for a BlockingCollection<T>
// is a FIFO ConcurrentQueue<T>, which is what we want.
_workItems = new BlockingCollection<Action<T>>();
_thread = new Thread(ProcessQueue);
_thread.IsBackground = true;
_thread.Start();
}
public void Submit(Action<T> workItem)
{
_workItems.Add(workItem);
}
private void ProcessQueue()
{
for (;;)
{
Action<T> workItem = _workItems.Take();
try
{
workItem(_obj);
}
catch
{
// Put in some exception handling mechanism so that
// this thread is always running. One idea would be to
// raise an event containing the Exception object on a
// threadpool thread. You definitely don't want to raise
// the event from THIS thread, though, since then you
// could hit ANOTHER exception, which would defeat the
// purpose of this catch block.
}
}
}
}
Then what would happen is: every time you want to interact with your Ultrasound object in some way, you do so through this message pump, by calling Submit and passing in some action that works with your Ultrasound object. The Ultrasound object then receives all messages sent to it synchronously (by which I mean, one at a time), while operating on its own non-GUI thread.

You should maintain a dedicated UltraSound thread, which creates the UltraSound object and then listens for callbacks from other threads.
You should maintain a thread-safe queue of delegates and have the UltraSound thread repeatedly execute and remove the first delegate in the queue.
This way, the UI thread can post actions to the queue, which will then be executed asynchronously by the UltraSound thread.

I'm not sure I fully understand the setup, but here is my attempt at a solution:
How about having the event handler for the slider check the last event time, and wait for 50ms before processing a user adjustment (only process the most recent value).
Then have a thread using a while loop and waiting on an AutoResetEvent trigger from the GUI. It would then create the object and set it?

How to force multiple commands to execute in same threading timeslice?

I have a C# app that needs to do a hot swap of a data input stream to a new handler class without breaking the data stream.
To do this, I have to perform multiple steps in a single thread without any other threads (most of all the data recieving thread) to run in between them due to CPU switching.
This is a simplified version of the situation but it should illustrate the problem.
void SwapInputHandler(Foo oldHandler, Foo newHandler)
{
UnhookProtocol(oldHandler);
HookProtocol(newHandler);
}
These two lines (unhook and hook) must execute in the same cpu slice to prevent any packets from getting through in case another thread executes in between them.
How can I make sure that these two commands run squentially using C# threading methods?
edit
There seems to be some confusion so I will try to be more specific. I didn't mean concurrently as in executing at the same time, just in the same cpu time slice so that no thread executes before these two complete. A lock is not what I'm looking for because that will only prevent THIS CODE from being executed again before the two commands run. I need to prevent ANY THREAD from running before these commands are done. Also, again I say this is a simplified version of my problem so don't try to solve my example, please answer the question.

Performing the operation in a single time slice will not help at all - the operation could just execute on another core or processor in parallel and access the stream while you perform the swap. You will have to use locking to prevent everybody from accessing the stream while it is in an inconsistent state.

Your data receiving thread needs to lock around accessing the handler pointer and you need to lock around changing the handler pointer.
Alternatively if your handler is a single variable you could use Interlocked.Exchange() to swap the value atomically.

Why not go at this from another direction, and let the thread in question handle the swap. Presumably, something wakes up when there's data to be handled, and passes it off to the current Foo. Could you post a notification to that thread that it needs to swap in a new handler the next time it wakes up? That would be much less fraught, I'd think.

Okay - to answer your specific question.
You can enumerate through all the threads in your process and call Thread.Suspend() on each one (except the active one), make the change and then call Thread.Resume().

Assuming your handlers are thread safe, my recommendation is to write a public wrapper over your handlers that does all the locking it needs using a private lock so you can safely change the handlers behind the scenes.
If you do this you can also use a ReaderWriterLockSlim, for accessing the wrapped handlers which allows concurrent read access.
Or you could architect your wrapper class and handler clases in such a way that no locking is required and the handler swamping can be done using a simple interlocked write or compare exchange.
Here's and example:
public interface IHandler
{
void Foo();
void Bar();
}
public class ThreadSafeHandler : IHandler
{
ReaderWriterLockSlim rwLock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim();
IHandler wrappedHandler;
public ThreadSafeHandler(IHandler handler)
{
wrappedHandler = handler;
}
public void Foo()
{
try
{
rwLock.EnterReadLock();
wrappedHandler.Foo();
}
finally
{
rwLock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
public void Bar()
{
try
{
rwLock.EnterReadLock();
wrappedHandler.Foo();
}
finally
{
rwLock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
public void SwapHandler(IHandler newHandler)
{
try
{
rwLock.EnterWriteLock();
UnhookProtocol(wrappedHandler);
HookProtocol(newHandler);
}
finally
{
rwLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
}
Take note that this is still not thread safe if atomic operations are required on the handler's methods, then you would need to use higher order locking between treads or add methods on your wrapper class to support thread safe atomic operations (something like, BeginTreadSafeBlock() folowed by EndTreadSafeBlock() that lock the wrapped handler for writing for a series of operations.

You can't and it's logical that you can't. The best you can do is avoid any other thread from disrupting the state between those two actions (as have already been said).
Here is why you can't:
Imagine there was an block that told the operating system to never thread switch while you're on that block. That would be technically possible but will lead to starvation everywhere.
You might thing your threads are the only one being used but that's an unwise assumption. There's the garbage collector, there are the async operations that works with threadpool threads, an external reference, such as a COM object could span its own thread (in your memory space) so that noone could progress while you're at it.
Imagine you make a very long operation in your HookOperation method. It involves a lot of non leaky operations but, as the Garbage Collector can't take over to free your resources, you end up without any memory left. Or imagine you call a COM object that uses multithreading to handle your request... but it can't start the new threads (well it can start them but they never get to run) and then joins them waiting for them to finish before coming back... and therefore you join on yourself, never returning!!.

As other posters have already said, you can't enforce system-wide critical section from user-mode code. However, you don't need it to implement the hot swapping.
Here is how.
Implement a proxy with the same interface as your hot-swappable Foo object. The proxy shall call HookProtocol and never unhook (until your app is stopped). It shall contain a reference to the current Foo handler, which you can replace with a new instance when needed. The proxy shall direct the data it receives from hooked functions to the current handler. Also, it shall provide a method for atomic replacement of the current Foo handler instance (there is a number of ways to implement it, from simple mutex to lock-free).