I have this code to pause and resume a thread:
public partial class frmMain : Form
{
(...)
ManualResetEvent wait_handle = new ManualResetEvent(true);
(...)
}
private void frmMain_Shown(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(TheLoop));
}
private void TheLoop(object stateinfo)
{
bool hasInfo = true;
while (doLoop)
{
wait_handle.WaitOne();
bool hasLines = GetInfo();
if (hasLines)
{
//Consuming time Operation 1
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(7000);
if (CurrentLine < line.Count - 1)
CurrentLine++;
else
{
bool hasInfo2 = GetInfo2();
if (hasInfo2)
{
//Consuming time Operation 2
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(7000);
}
CurrentLine = 0;
}
}
else
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(40000); //Wait to query again
}
}
private void btnPauseResume_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (btnPauseResume.Text == "Pause")
{
btnPauseResume.Text = "Resume";
wait_handle.Reset();
}
else
{
btnPauseResume.Text = "Pause";
wait_handle.Set();
}
}
The code above shows a cycle information, it works find to pause and resume the "first consuming time operation" but doesn't work for the second one, if I press the button to pause the thread in the second consuming time operation, this one continues and when the first one appears again, then it pauses there.
What am I missing here?
Thx
Have you considered using a Background Worker instead since you are using WinForms? It would probably be easier than trying to 'Pause' a thread. You can check the CancellationPending property to see if a user has elected to cancel the operation. The link has a good sample to look at.
I have never seen someone pausing a thread. Create a delegate and event inside the class or method that you are executing on a separate threat. Execute that event whenever you wish to pause your thred.
There is not any reason that I can see that would prevent a second call to WaitOne from working if placed before the 2nd time consuming operation. Since you are using a ManualResetEvent the wait handle's state will persist until either Set or Reset is called. That means if you resume the thread by calling Set then both calls to WaitOne will pass through. Likewise, if you pause the thread by calling Reset then both calls to WaitOne will block. Of course, it will not be possible to predict where the worker thread will pause if there is more than one call to WaitOne.
Got it guys! the thing is where you put the WaitOne(). For instance, if I have a While Loop (like my example) if I put the wait before it, no matter how many times I hit the pause button, it won't stop the thread, it's logic since the loop already began, but if I put it at the end, then it will work.
Appreciated your help.
Related
i know the common ways of cancelling a backgroundworker using eventwaithandles...
but i wanna know is that right to use a while loop to trap and pause working of a backgroundworker ? i coded like this :
Bool stop = false;
private void backgroundWorker1_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
progressBar1.Minimum = 0;
progressBar1.Maximum = 100000;
progressBar1.Value = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
progressBar1.Value++;
if (i == 50000)
stop = true;
while (stop)
{ }
}
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
stop = !stop;
}
Did you try it? What happened? Was it what you wanted to happen? Did you notice your computer's fans speeding up, to handle all the heat from your CPU in a tight, "do-nothing" loop?
Fact is, you should not "pause" a background task in the first place; if you don't it to keep running, interrupt it. If you want to be able to resume later, provide a mechanism to allow that. Even having your thread blocked efficiently waiting on a WaitHandle object would be the wrong thing to do, because it wastes a thread pool thread.
The code you've posted here is about the worst way to implement "pausing". Instead of waiting on some synchronization object such as a WaitHandle, you have the current thread just loop without interrupting, constantly checking the value of a flag. Even ignoring the question of whether you're using volatile (the code example doesn't show that, but then it also wouldn't compile, so…), it's terrible to force a CPU core to do so much work and yet get nowhere.
Don't pause your BackgroundWorker.DoWork handler in the first place. Really. Just don't do that. But if you insist, then at least use some kind of waitable object instead of a "spin-wait" loop as in the example you've posted here.
Here's an example of how your code might work if you wanted to avoid altogether tying up a thread while "paused". First, don't use BackgroundWorker, because it doesn't have a graceful way to do this. Second, do use await…that does specifically what you want: it allows the current method to return, but without losing track of its progress. The method will resume executing when the thing it waited on indicates completion.
In the example below, I've tried to guess at what the code that calls RunWorkerAsync() looks like. Or rather, I just assumed you've got a button2, which when clicked you call that method to start your worker task. If this is not enough to get you pointed in the right direction, please improve your question by including a good, minimal, complete code example showing what you're actually doing.
// These fields will work together to provide a way for the thread to interrupt
// itself temporarily without actually using a thread at all.
private TaskCompletionSource<object> _pause;
private readonly object _pauseLock = new object();
private void button2_Click(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
// Initialize ProgressBar. Note: in your version of the code, this was
// done in the DoWork event handler, but that handler isn't executed in
// the UI thread, and so accessing a UI object like progressBar1 is not
// a good idea. If you got away with it, you were lucky.
progressBar1.Minimum = 0;
progressBar1.Maximum = 100000;
progressBar1.Value = 0;
// This object will perform the duty of the BackgroundWorker's
// ProgressChanged event and ReportProgress() method.
Progress<int> progress = new Progress<int>(i => progressBar1.Value++);
// We do want the code to run in the background. Use Task.Run() to accomplish that
Task.Run(async () =>
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
progress.Report(i);
Task task = null;
// Locking ensures that the two threads which may be interacting
// with the _pause object do not interfere with each other.
lock (_pauseLock)
{
if (i == 50000)
{
// We want to pause. But it's possible we lost the race with
// the user, who also just pressed the pause button. So
// only allocate a new TCS if there isn't already one
if (_pause == null)
{
_pause = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
}
}
// If by the time we get here, there's a TCS to wait on, then
// set our local variable for the Task to wait on. In this way
// we resolve any other race that might occur between the time
// we checked the _pause object and then later tried to wait on it
if (_pause != null)
{
task = _pause.Task;
}
}
if (task != null)
{
// This is the most important part: using "await" tells the method to
// return, but in a way that will allow execution to resume later.
// That is, when the TCS's Task transitions to the completed state,
// this method will resume executing, using any available thread
// in the thread pool.
await task;
// Once we resume execution here, reset the TCS, to allow the pause
// to go back to pausing again.
lock (_pauseLock)
{
_pause.Dispose();
_pause = null;
}
}
}
});
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
lock (_pauseLock)
{
// A bit more complicated than toggling a flag, granted. But it achieves
// the desirable goal.
if (_pause == null)
{
// Creates the object to wait on. The worker thread will look for
// this and wait if it exists.
_pause = new TaskCompletionSource<object>();
}
else if (!_pause.Task.IsCompleted)
{
// Giving the TCS a result causes its corresponding Task to transition
// to the completed state, releasing any code that might be waiting
// on it.
_pause.SetResult(null);
}
}
}
Note that the above is just as contrived as your original example. If all you had really was a simple single loop variable iterating from 0 to 100,000 and stopping halfway through, nothing nearly so complicated as the above would be required. You'd just store the loop variable in a data structure somewhere, exit the running task thread, and then when you want to resume, pass in the current loop variable value so the method can resume at the right index.
But I'm assuming your real-world example is not so simple. And the above strategy will work for any stateful processing, with the compiler doing all the heavy-lifting of storing away intermediate state for you.
I'm currently making a program to simulate a set of ATMs in visual C#. It's supposed to stop somebody accessing their account if it has already been accessed from a different location. Is it possible to show a message that the account has already been accessed while a semaphore is waiting?
Here is the part of the code where the semaphore is used:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
count++;
if (count == 1)
{
account = findAccount();
if (findAccount() != 5)
{
textBox1.Text = "Please Enter Your Pin";
}
else
{
textBox1.Text = "Please Enter Your Account Number";
count = 0;
}
textBox2.Clear();
}
if (count == 2)
{
if (findPin(account) == true)
{
semaphore.WaitOne();
textBox1.Text = "1: Take Out Cash \r\n2: Balance \r\n3: Exit";
}
else
{
semaphore.Release();
textBox1.Text = "Please Enter Your Account Number";
count = 0;
}
textBox2.Clear();
}
if (count == 3)
{
atm();
}
if (count == 4)
{
withdraw();
}
if (count == 5)
{
int value = Convert.ToInt32(textBox2.Text);
customWithdrawl(value);
}
}
Consider doing two calls to WaitOne. The first call will have a timeout of zero and return a bool that will tell you whether or not you got the semaphore, or someone else still owns it. Two things can happen from there:
1) If someone else owns it, pop up a message that says "Someone else owns the semaphore" and call WaitOne again, but without a timeout (like you're doing now). After the 2nd call to WaitOne returns, close the window that you popped up a second ago..
2) If your call to waitOne with 0 timeout returns true, then you got the semaphore on the 1st try. No need to pop up a window.
Example:
if( semaphore.WaitOne(0) ) //This returns immediately
{
//We own the semaphore now.
DoWhateverYouNeedToDo();
}
else
{
//Looks like someone else already owns the semaphore.
PopUpNotification();
semaphore.WaitOne(); //This one will block until the semaphore is available
DoWhateverYouNeedToDo();
CloseNotification();
}
semaphore.Release();
Note, there are some other issues lurking here.
You probably want to use a try/finally block to release the semaphore to ensure that it gets released across all exception paths.
It's also probably a bad idea to call semaphore.WaitOne() from the GUI thread because the application will become non-responsive while it waits. In fact, you may not see the result of PopUpNotification() if you've hung the GUI thread while doing the 2nd Wait. Consider doing the long wait on a 2nd thread and raising an event back on the GUI thread once you own the semaphore
Consider the following design to resolve Issue 2:
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if(AcquireSemaphoreAndGenerateCallback())
{
//Semaphore was acquired right away. Go ahead and do whatever we need to do
DoWhateverYouNeedToDo();
semaphore.Release()
}
else
{
//Semaphore was not acquired right away. Callback will occur in a bit
//Because we're not blocking the GUI thread, this text will appear right away
textBox1.Text = "Waiting on the Semaphore!";
//Notice that the method returns right here, so the GUI will be able to redraw itself
}
}
//This method will either acquire the semaphore right away and return true, or
//have a worker thread wait on the semaphore and return false. In the 2nd case,
//"CallbackMethod" will run on the GUI thread once the semaphore has been acquired
private void AcquireSemaphoreAndGenerateCallback()
{
if( semaphore.WaitOne(0) ) //This returns immediately
{
return true; //We have the semaphore and didn't have to wait!
}
else
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(Waiter));
return false; //Indicate that we didn't acquire right away
}
}
//Wait on the semaphore and invoke "CallbackMethod" once we own it. This method
//is meant to run on a background thread.
private void Waiter(object unused)
{
//This is running on a separate thread
Semaphore.WaitOne(); //Could take a while
//Because we're running on a separate thread, we need to use "BeginInvoke" so
//that the method we're calling runs on the GUI thread
this.BeginInvoke(new Action(CallbackMethod));
}
private void CallbackMethod()
{
textBox1.Text = string.Empty; //Get rid of the "Waiting For Semaphore" text. Can't do this if we're not running on the GUI thread
DoWhateverYouNeedToDo();
semaphore.Release();
}
Now, this solution could also be fraught with peril. It's kind of hard to follow the execution of the program because it jumps around from method to method. If you have an exception, it could be difficult to recover from and make sure all of your program state is correct. You also have to keep track of things like the account number and the pin numbers through all of these method calls. In order to do that, Waiter and CallbackMethod should probably take some parameter that tracks this state that gets passed along to each step. There's also no way to abort waiting (a time out). It will probably work, but shouldn't make it into any production code because it would be too difficult to maintain or extend.
If you really wanted to do it right, you should consider encapsulating the ATM logic in an object that will raise events that the GUI can subscribe to. You could have a method like ATM.LogInAsync(Account,Pin) that you could call. This method would return immediately, but some time later, an event on the ATM class like "LogInComplete" would fire. This event would have a custom EventArgs object that would contain data to trace which log-in has occurred (mainly the Account number). This is called the Event-based Asynchronous Pattern
Alternatively, if you're using C# 5.0, you can use the new Async/Await syntax in the AcquireSemaphoreAndGenerateCallback() method. That's probably the easiest way because the compiler will handle most of the complexities for you
Yes, you may show your message/form/messagebox right before the Wait method. Then when it receives the signal to unblock, you hide your message.
I have time-consuming function and I want to give the user an opportunity to stop it by clicking a button in the UI when he notices that it takes too long. How can I do this?
You can use BackgroundWorker class to run time and resource consuming stuff on other thread, and use its CancelAsync method, to request (it's not immediate execution) cancelation of the other thread.
For concrete example on how to implement that, can have a look on accepted answer in this question:
How to wait for a BackgroundWorker to cancel?
First of all, you need to run the time-consuming function in a thread separate from the main thread. Otherwise the UI will stop responding.
Then you need to have a static variable or a shared instance where the UI can set a flag indicating that the time-consuming function should stop.
Finally, the time-consuming function should regular check the flag and stop processing if it is set.
The BackgroundWorker class implements this pattern and solves a few other requirements as well (such as the inter-thread communication and the progress reporting).
Lets say your time-consuming method is called MyTimeConsumingMethod.
void MyTimeConsumingMethod()
{
//Do stuff
}
Put globally a thread:
Thread t;
Put in your Form_Load()
t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(MyTimeConsumingMethod));
t.Start();
And on button press:
t.Abort();
Try running it on a Background Worker.
This Gives a good example of how to use it.
Then you can call
Worker.CancelAsync();
when the user wants to cancel the operation
Here's an example
bool _cancel = false;
private void count()
{
_cancel = false;
new System.Threading.Thread(delegate()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
if (_cancel)
break;
Console.WriteLine(i);
}
}).Start();
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
_cancel = true;
}
I have a button that on click event I get some information from the network.
When I get information I parse it and add items to ListBox. All is fine, but when I do a fast double-click on button, it seems that two background workers are running and after finishing all work, items in the list are dublicated.
I want to do so that if you click button and the proccess of getting information is in work, this thread is stopping and only after first work is completed the second one is beginning.
Yes, I know about AutoResetEvent, but when I used it it helped me only one time and never more. I can't implement this situation and hope that you will help me!
Now I even try to make easier but no success :( : I added a flag field(RefreshDialogs)(default false), when the user clicks on button, if flag is true(it means that work is doing), nothing is doing, but when flag field is set to false, all is fine and we start a new proccess.
When Backgroundwork completes, I change field flag to false(it means that user can run a new proccess).
private void Message_Refresh_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
if (!RefreshDialogs)
{
RefreshDialogs = true;
if (threadBackgroundDialogs.WorkerSupportsCancellation)
{
threadBackgroundDialogs.CancelAsync();
}
if (!threadBackgroundDialogs.IsBusy)
{
downloadedDialogs = 0;
threadBackgroundDialogs = new BackgroundWorker();
threadBackgroundDialogs.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
threadBackgroundDialogs.DoWork += LoadDialogs;
threadBackgroundDialogs.RunWorkerCompleted += ProcessCompleted;
threadBackgroundDialogs.RunWorkerAsync();
}
}
}
void ProcessCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
RefreshDialogs = false;
}
So you want to keep the second process running while the first works, but they shouldn't disturb each other? And after the first one finishes the second one continues?
Crude way: While loop:
if (!RefreshDialogs)
{
RefreshDialogs = true;
this becomes:
while(RefreshDialogs)
{
}
RefreshDialogs = true;
After you set it false the second process wwill jump out of the while. (Note this is extremly inefficent since both processes will be running all the time, i'm pretty sure the second one will block the first one, but with multitasking now it shouldn't, if it block use a Dispatcher.Thread)
Elegant way: Use A Semaphore
http://msdn.microsoft.com/de-de/library/system.threading.semaphore%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
If you find it impossible to have both processes running at the same time, or want another way:
Add an Array/List/int and when the second process notices there is the first process running, like with your bool, increase your Added variable, and at the end of the process, restart the new process and decrese the variable:
int number;
if (!RefreshDialogs)
{
RefreshDialogs = true;
your code;
if(number > 0)
{
number--;
restart process
}
}
else
{
number++;
}
I have to admit, i like my last proposal the most, since its highly efficent.
Make your thread blocking. That is easy;
lock(someSharedGlobalObject)
{
Do Work, Exit early if cancelled
}
This way other threads will wait until the first thread releases the lock. They will never execute simultaneously and silently wait until they can continue.
As for other options; why not disable the button when clicked and re-enable it when the backgroundworker completes. Only problem is this does not allow for cancelling the current thread. The user has to wait for it to finish. It does make any concurrency go away very easily.
How about this approach?
Create a request queue or counter which will be incremented on every button click. Every time that count is > 0. Start the background worker. When the information comes, decrement the count and check for 0. If its still > 0 restart the worker. In that your request handler becomes sequential.
In this approach you may face the problem of continuous reference of the count by two threads, for that you may use a lock unlock condition.
I hav followed this approach for my app and it works well, hope it does the same for you.
I'm not an Windows Phone expert, but as I see it has support for TPL, so following code would read nicely:
private object syncRoot =new object();
private Task latestTask;
public void EnqueueAction(System.Action action)
{
lock (syncRoot)
{
if (latestTask == null)
latestTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(action);
else
latestTask = latestTask.ContinueWith(tsk => action());
}
}
Use can use semaphores
class TheClass
{
static SemaphoreSlim _sem = new SemaphoreSlim (3);
static void Main()
{
for (int i = 1; i <= 5; i++)
new Thread (Enter).Start (i);
}
static void Enter (object name)
{
Console.WriteLine (name + " wants to enter");
_sem.Wait();
Console.WriteLine (name + " has entered!");
Thread.Sleep (1000 * (int) name );
Console.WriteLine (name + " is leaving");
_sem.Release(); }
}
}
I found the solution and thanks to #Giedrius. Flag RefreshingDialogs is set to true only when proccess is at the end, when I added items to Listbox. The reason why I'am using this flag is that state of process changes to complete when the asynchronous operation of getting content from network(HttpWebRequest, method BeginGetRequestStream) begins, but after network operaion is complete I need to make UI operations and not only them(parse content and add it to Listbox)My solution is:
private object syncRoot = new object();
private Task latestTask;
public void EnqueueAction(System.Action action)
{
lock (syncRoot)
{
if (latestTask == null)
{
downloadedDialogs = 0;
latestTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(action);
}
else if(latestTask.IsCompleted && !RefreshingDialogs)
{
RefreshingDialogs = true;
downloadedDialogs = 0;
latestTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(action);
}
}
}
private void Message_Refresh_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Action ac = new Action(LoadDialogs2);
EnqueueAction(ac);
}
I'm in trouble with this code. I'm using .Net (C#) with Winform Application.
I need to run RunProgram Method which has loop that make a call to a method named ListLoop.
In this function there is a forach that creates 1 thread for each element a list.
(Please Read the code before continue to read the description so you could understand what i'm talking about )
The problem is that if i dont make any control in the "for" (RunProgram Method) it starts (of course) 10 times The ListLoop Function.
So i would add in that "For" a code which wait that all Threads are terminated, so i can do Something and Then continue with the next loop.
I tried thread.join() but it freeze my UI application
(it's Application which inside has a WebControl Browser).
Even if i Try to play with returnThred and with thread.isAlive it still freezes UI.
If i hadn't the Multithread i'll dont stay here with those problems but it's the only good solution for my program i think.
Is there a simple solution for my code?
Update: Maybe it'snt clear my question.
I just want run the ListLoop X times but before start the next one i want wait that all threads are dead (That ones of the first call) so i can do some control and continue with the loop inside RunProgram.
Update2 I have this UI application which has a WebBrowser Control. I have a List of Links Object (each element of this class has string url and idHost =1 2 3 4...1 for google 2 for yahoo etc...)
I want make a loop where my program start a newTab (with Method AddTab(url) ) for each element of the list. When all links are opened (and so all the threads are deads and) i need to do something that count how many pages opened and who was the idHost save it and start another Loop with the list(This list take random element from a Bigger List)
Update 3 I just tried with BackGround Worker but i cant use it cause the WebKit that i'm using give COM error. Something for the Tasks.
Thanks
private void RunProgram()
{
List<Links> TheList = new List<Links>();
//Do something to Populate the List
List<System.Threading.Thread> returnThread = new List<.....>();
for(int i=0; i<10; i++)
{
returnThread=ListLoop(TheList);
// ???????????
// When Loop Method has finished and all threads stopped
// Do something
// Continue for the next Loop
}
}
private List<System.Threading.Thread> ListLoop(List<Links> list)
{
List<System.Threading.Thread> threading = new List<System.Threading.Thread>();
foreach (Links link in list)
{
Links tmp = new Links();
tmp = link;
var thread = new System.Threading.Thread(p =>
{
lock (l)
{
Action action = () =>
{
AddTab(tmp);
};
this.Invoke(action);
if (tmp.idHost == 1) //if IDhost == Google wait 5sec
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
else
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(2000);
}
}
});
threading.Add(thread);
thread.Start();
}
return threading;
}
If RunProgram is called from your main application, it will freeze your main form if it sleeps or waits for threads to terminate. You should run the RunProgram method in its own thread, so it can then create the worker threads, and then you can wait for the threads to complete in your for loop before starting new ones.
You could use AutoResetEvent to signal when threads are finished so you can simply wait on the AutoResetEvent before continuing the loop. The BackgroundWorker class may be a good class to look at for creating your threads as well.
I'm not sure if I understood your question properly, but:
You work asynchronously here... You can't wait in your code without stopping the GUI.
I think your solution will be to separate your function into 2 parts - The 1st one you just written, and the second one works after the threads are all dead.
For the second part (check the threads) I'd use either another thread (That waits until the threads are dead than continues to your code) or a Timer if you'd like to save threads and integrate easily into the main form
UPDATE:
Here is an example of how a blocking function that doesn't block the GUI thread:
using System.Windows.Forms;
using System.Threading;
using System;
namespace Threads
{
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public event EventHandler OnSomethingFinishes;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
OnSomethingFinishes += new EventHandler(Form1_OnSomethingFinishes);
}
void Form1_OnSomethingFinishes(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.Invoke(new EventHandler(Form1_OnSomethingFinishesSafe), sender, e);
}
void Form1_OnSomethingFinishesSafe(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.Text = "Done!";
}
private void BlockingFunction(object a_oParameter)
{
// Do something that blocks
Thread.Sleep(2000);
if (OnSomethingFinishes != null)
OnSomethingFinishes(this, null);
}
private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
Thread l_oThread = new Thread(BlockingFunction);
l_oThread.Start();
this.Text = "Please Wait...";
}
}
}
button1 starts the process. Notice that you have to invoke the function after the event is handled to move the control to the main GUI thread
Hope this helps