I am currently working with threading and backgroundworker in c#. The problem im having is that this. Say i have a main thread for user interaction and a worker thread to process txt files(various editing operations). Then after the backgroundthread runs its contents once, i have a timer start that performs another set of operations. I want these new operations that the timer runs ever x minutes to be run in the same background thread without running the previous txt related operations it ran before the timer started. How can this be done?
You should just use a System.Timers.Timer, which will run its callback on a thread pool thread.
It shouldn't matter which specific thread you run on (as long as it's not the UI thread).
If, for some reason, it does matter (eg, if you're using a single-threaded COM object), you'll need to make a dedicated thread that waits for things to do using a thread-safe queue of delegates.
You want to use an Event Driven method to execute function calls on your worker thread from your UI thread. The way to accomplish this is using BeginInvoke, you can read more about how to use it here: http://www.dreamincode.net/forums/topic/35616-cross-thread-communication-in-c%23/
Add a while loop to the end of your background worker:
while(!stop) { Thread.Sleep(yourIntervalinMilliseconds); ... }
I'd create a stop bool somewhere that the thread looks at when you want it to kick out.
Related
I am having an issue where I have a Windows CE compact framework Application written in C#, where I have the primary GUI thread set to normal priority and a communication thread set to above normal priority to get as close to pseudo real time performance. The issue I am having is within a button handler I run a loop to load config data from a file to the GUI before allowing it to be edited. This takes around 2-3 seconds to complete. While this blocking in the event handler is happening, my higher priority communication thread is being blocked. There are no locks are thread syncs in place. The communicatio thread has no dependencies on the GUI thread.
This is how I spawn my comm thread:
MbWorkerThread = new Thread(MbPollingThread);
MbWorkerThread.IsBackground = true;
MbWorkerThread.Priority = ThreadPriority.AboveNormal;
MbWorkerThread.Start();
It is an MTA application. Also, I have tried to use Thread.Sleep(1) in the GUI event handler to yield to the higher priority thread and it does not work. I also tried using signals to yield to the higher priority thread, and that does not work. The only thing that works is if I place Application.DoEvents() in the loop while loading config in the event handler. This of coarse whas just a test, as I do not want to sprinkle Application.DoEvents() throught my code to make it work since I know Application.DoEvents() is dangerous.
My understanding is that the primary GUI thread is a foreground thread, but a thread none the less. Also, I have made the communication thread a background thread just to allow it to be killed when the primary thread is exited.
I have tried everything, I have search the Internet endlessly before asking this question.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
P.S. - I though about a form timer but I know it runs in the GUI thread so that would not help. I though about another thread but I really did not what to marshall GUI updates via Invoke.
Your program starts in Main(), where you typically call Application.Run( new MyForm() ). Application.Run() implements the standard Windows Message Pump, which deals with messages from the OS and other applications, including user input, inter-process communication, repaint requests, etc.
GUI events, like Button click, are dispatched via this thread. If you perform long-running work in an event handler, other messages are not being processed.
Application.DoEvents() blocks the calling thread, and waits for all pending messages to be processed. If DoEvents helps your communication thread when Sleep(1) did not, then I suspect there is a dependency between your communication thread and the GUI/Message Pump thread.
Even if this is not the case, it is not a good idea to block the GUI thread. Move your file loading into the background with ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem() and marshal the results back to the UI at the end with Invoke or BeginInvoke.
BeginInvoke instead of Invoke fixed the issue. Thanks for the replies.
I have a situation in which I want a thread to process some sequential logic. This thread would need to interact with the main thread on occasion in order to update user input. But it should continue running otherwise without bothering the main thread. I am hopping to do this in an event-driven manner, so that the main thread doesn't have to pole the other thread for interrupts. What is the best way to do this? Is there an event-driven technique to communicating between threads much like there is in MFC?
I am using Visual Studio 2008 and (obviously) the .Net 3.5 framework.
Use the BackgroundWorker component.
Here you can find the best and complete tutorial about threading in C#, with code samples and examples.
AutoResetEvent and ManualResetEvent might be what you are after. Basically your main thread would wait using the various Wait methods of these classes until you signal from your other thread using the Set method. Then your wating thread will resume and continue with whatever comes afer Wait.
This is as good as it gets for an event-style. You have to wait and listen to receive an react on an event. How else are you supposed to stop your thread work in case you get an event gracefully? This is not possible with threads in general in any language.
Your only other possibility is frequent interrupting and polling.
Have a look at .Net Reactive Extensions IObservable and in particular the SubscribeOn and ObserveOn extension methods.
ObserveOn is where the work is done ( your background thread ), SubscribeOn is where the notifications go ( your UI thread ).
If you are using the BackgroundWorker you can raise a Progress event.
Here's an example on how to update a progress bar.
Ah ha! there is an event-driven way to do it. I borrowed the Dispatcher from WPF. I just give the spinning thread access to the main thread's CurrentDispatcher I let the thread spin and when it needs attention it invokes a delegate on the Dispatcher and sleeps waiting for the main thread to interrupt it. I know I could use Invoke instead of BeginInvoke, but I needed to use the interrupt because the method that restarts the worker thread is not a synchronous part of the dispatched delegates stack.
For better or worse, here is my code:
private void Run()
{
while (true)
{
...
// Need attention from the main thread
// "_main" is the main thread's Dispatcher instance.
_main.BeginInvoke(new MyEventHandler(OnNeedsAttention), this, new MyEventArgs(...));
try
{
Thread.Sleep(Timeout.Infinite);
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException) { }
}
}
I am using .NET 3.5 and am trying to wrap my head around a problem (not being a supreme threading expert bear with me).
I have a windows service which has a very intensive process that is always running, I have put this process onto a separate thread so that the main thread of my service can handle operational tasks - i.e., service audit cycles, handling configuration changes, etc, etc.
I'm starting the thread via the typical ThreadStart to a method which kicks the process off - call it workerthread.
On this workerthread I am sending data to another server, as is expected the server reboots every now and again and connection is lost and I need to re-establish the connection (I am notified by the lost of connection via an event). From here I do my reconnect logic and I am back in and running, however what I easily started to notice to happen was that I was creating this worker thread over and over again each time (not what I want).
Now I could kill the workerthread when I lose the connection and start a new one but this seems like a waste of resources.
What I really want to do, is marshal the call (i.e., my thread start method) back to the thread that is still in memory although not doing anything.
Please post any examples or docs you have that would be of use.
Thanks.
You should avoid killing the worker thread. When you forcibly kill a Win32 thread, not all of its resources are fully recovered. I believe the reserved virtual address space (or is it the root page?) for the thread stack is not recovered when a Win32 thread is killed. It may not be much, but in a long-running server service process, it will add up over time and eventually bring down your service.
If the thread is allowed to exit its threadproc to terminate normally, all the resources are recovered.
If the background thread will be running continuously (not sleeping), you could just use a global boolean flag to communicate state between the main thread and the background thread. As long as the background thread checks this global flag periodically. If the flag is set, the thread can shut itself down cleanly and exit. No need for locking semantics if the main thread is the only writer and the background thread only reads the flag value.
When the background thread loses the connection to the server that it's sending data to, why doesn't it perform the reconnect on its own? It's not clear to me why the main thread needs to tear down the background thread to start another.
You can use the Singleton pattern. In your case, make the connection a static object. Both threads can access the object, which means construct it and use it.
The main thread could construct it whenever required, and the worker thread access it whenever it is available.
Call the method using ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem instead. This method grabs a thread from the thread pool and kicks off a method. It appears to be ideal for the task of starting a method on another thread.
Also, when you say "typical ThreadStart" do you mean you're creating and starting a new Thread with a ThreadStart parameter, or you're creating a ThreadStart and calling Invoke on it?
Have you considered a BackgroundWorker?
From what I understand, you just have a single thread that's doing work, unless the need arises where you have to cancel it's processing.
I would kill (but end gracefully if possible) the worker thread anyway. Everything gets garbage-collected, and you can start from scratch.
How often does this server reboot happen? If it happens often enough for resources to be a problem, it's probably happening too often.
The BackgroundWorker is a bit slower than using plain threads, but it has the option of supporting the CancelAsync method.
Basically, BackgroundWorker is a wrapper around a worker thread with some extra options and events.
The CancelAsync method only works when WorkerSupportsCancellation is set.
When CancelAsync is called, CancellationPending is set.
The worker thread should periodically check CancellationPending to see if needs to quit prematurely.
--jeroen
how can i make a user control to run on its own thread ?
e.g. by following code in a user control , coz user control uses main app thread it make main thread to sleep
Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromMinutes(2));
User controls need to run on the UI thread because that is a restriction in the Windows API. If you try and use Windows Forms controls from another thread you will get an exception.
You can run other code in another thread, but use the UI thread to update the controls. You can use BackgroundWorker for this. Or you can use the InvokeRequired and Invoke or BeginInvoke methods on the control instance to have it execute code on the UI thread.
You mention you want to use a mutex lock. A mutex is to avoid having multiple threads access a resource at the same time. If all your code is running in the same thread then you don't need a lock at all.
Objects don't really "run" themselves - methods are executed on a thread.
Now if you want a particular method to execute in a different thread, you need to either create a new thread, use the threadpool explicitly, or use something which uses the threadpool for you - such as BackgroundWorker.
What are you doing when you want to sleep for two minutes? Could you avoid sleeping by just setting a timer to fire (in the UI thread) in two minutes instead? If this is part of some long-running process, you should use BackgroundWorker or some other way of executing on a different thread, but with the control itself still handling updates and events on the UI thread.
I currently have a thread that listens for data from the network and then runs rules on it. I then want to pass the data to the GUI. I am worried about having a deadlock in the GUI. I cant figure out were to put the mutexes on the GUI side. I am also using c# and dotnet 3.5.
What I have come up with is
1) Using a timer to create an event and dump the thread. Worried about performance.
2) Use an intermediary event to copy the data to GUI.
3) Dig in and figure out thread safe way of using GUI.
What do you think is best way to proceed?
Edit: Here is the solution I am using. I pass in the changed element and then protect the big object with a mutex. I use helper function to switch threads using InvokeRequired then BeginInvoke with a delegate. Pulled from reading the answers and then following links until reaching Threading in Windows Forms by Jon Skeet.
delegate void UInt32ParameterDelegate(UInt32 n);
public void UpdateLocation(UInt32 n)
{
if (InvokeRequired)
{
// We're not in the UI thread, so we need to call BeginInvoke
BeginInvoke(new UInt32ParameterDelegate(UpdateLocation), new object[] { n });
return;
}
// Must be on the UI thread if we've got this far
this.engine.location.UpdateBusy.WaitOne();
// do the work in here
this.engine.location.UpdateBusy.ReleaseMutex();
}
Synchronization is very easy in Windows Forms. You can call Control.Invoke() in the background thread. The thread will stall until the delegate has finished running on the UI thread. No sync required at all.
If stalling the thread is a problem, use Control.BeginInvoke(). You'll have to protect the object(s) you pass to the delegate with a lock if the thread might alter them while it continues running. That's rarely the case in a producer-consumer scenario, the thread can simply create new objects.
Do make sure that you don't Invoke() too often. Do it more frequently than about 1000 times per second and the UI thread will stop pumping Windows messages, being bogged down by handling the invoke requests. Since it is human eyes you're trying to please, invoking more than about 25 times per second is just wasted effort. Pool intermediate results in a collection object.
I hope I understand your problem correctly.
After the background thread reads the data and does whatever it wants, it should use Invoke to call a method on the GUI thread. That method would update anything that should be updated in the GUI.
Never read from the network on the GUI thread. It's only a matter of time before your application runs during a network outage and your GUI hangs as a result. This will really frustrate your users.
In your situation I think the best approach is to have a background thread complete the read operation. Then take the resulting data and move it back to the GUI thread via a SynchronizationContext Post or Send method.
you should just pass an event from your network thread to your UI thread.
then cross threads using begininvoke so you don't get a cross thread exception.
Need help getting info across a UI thread and another thread in C#
You could use a backgroundworker that will process the datareading in a background thread and when it's done you can end the backgroundworker triggering it's RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler. In the RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler you can update your GUI thread with the result.
Isn't easier to just throw a delegate who raise an event that inform the form to refresh itself?