Busy waiting in C#

Busy waiting in C# - c#

How do you implement busy waiting in a not total inefficient way? I am facing the issue that I can load the data of my model only in a pull manner, which means I have to invoke getXYZ() methods in a continuous way.
This has to happen not fast enough for user interaction, but fast enought, that when a state in the GUI is changed, the model can be noticed and the new state is received by the getXYZ() methods.
My approach simply be:
while (c.hasChanged()) {
Thread.sleep(500);
}
updateData();
Are there better mechanisms?

Your problem seems to be solvable with Threading.
In WPF you can do:
Thread t = new Thread((ThreadStart)delegate() {
while (true) {
Thread.sleep(500);
if (c.hasChanged())
Dispatcher.Invoke((Action)delegate() {updateData();});
}
}).Start();
In WinForms
Thread t = new Thread((ThreadStart)delegate() {
while (true) {
Thread.sleep(500);
// this must derive from Control
if (c.hasChanged())
this.Invoke((Action)delegate() {updateData();});
}
}).Start();
There may be missing parameters to Invoke (which is needed to execute the code on the calling UI thread) but I'm writing this from my brain so no intellisense at disposal :D
In .NET 4 you can use TaskFactory.StartNew instead of spawning a thread by yourself.
In .Net <= 4, you could use the TreadPool for the thread.
However I recall you need this to be run at once because you expect it to be there checking as soon as possible and the thread pool won't assure you that (it could be already full, but not very likely:-).
Just don't do silly things like spawning more of them in a loop!
And inside the thread you should put a check like
while (!Closing)
so that the thread can finish when you need it without having to resort to bad things like t.Abort();
An when exiting put the Closing to true and do a t.Join() to close the checker thread.
EDIT:
I forgot to say that the Closing should be a bool property or a VOLATILE boolean, not a simple boolean, because you won't be ensured that the thread could ever finish (well it would in case you are closing the application, but it is good practice to make them finish by your will). the volatile keyword is intended to prevent the (pseudo)compiler from applying any optimizations on the code that assume values of variables cannot change

It's not clear from your post exactly what you are trying to do, but it sounds like you should put your model/service calls on a separate thread (via Background worker or async delegate) and use a callback from the model/service call to notify the UI when it's done. Your UI thread can then do busy things, like show a progress bar, but not become unresponsive.

If you are polling from a GUI, use a (WinForms) Timer.
If this is some kind of background process, your Sleep() may be the lesser evil.

Explicit busy waiting is evil and must be avoided whenever possible.
If you cannot avoid it, then build your application using the Observer design pattern and register the interested objects to an object which performs the polling, backed by a thread.
That way you have a clean design, confining the ugly stuff in just one place.

Related

How can I make a interrupt in C#? [duplicate]

I understand Thread.Abort() is evil from the multitude of articles I've read on the topic, so I'm currently in the process of ripping out all of my abort's in order to replace it for a cleaner way; and after comparing user strategies from people here on stackoverflow and then after reading "How to: Create and Terminate Threads (C# Programming Guide)" from MSDN both which state an approach very much the same -- which is to use a volatile bool approach checking strategy, which is nice, but I still have a few questions....
Immediately what stands out to me here, is what if you do not have a simple worker process which is just running a loop of crunching code? For instance for me, my process is a background file uploader process, I do in fact loop through each file, so that's something, and sure I could add my while (!_shouldStop) at the top which covers me every loop iteration, but I have many more business processes which occur before it hits it's next loop iteration, I want this cancel procedure to be snappy; don't tell me I need to sprinkle these while loops every 4-5 lines down throughout my entire worker function?!
I really hope there is a better way, could somebody please advise me on if this is in fact, the correct [and only?] approach to do this, or strategies they have used in the past to achieve what I am after.
Thanks gang.
Further reading: All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me. What if it is a linear, but timely background operation?

Unfortunately there may not be a better option. It really depends on your specific scenario. The idea is to stop the thread gracefully at safe points. That is the crux of the reason why Thread.Abort is not good; because it is not guaranteed to occur at safe points. By sprinkling the code with a stopping mechanism you are effectively manually defining the safe points. This is called cooperative cancellation. There are basically 4 broad mechanisms for doing this. You can choose the one that best fits your situation.
Poll a stopping flag
You have already mentioned this method. This a pretty common one. Make periodic checks of the flag at safe points in your algorithm and bail out when it gets signalled. The standard approach is to mark the variable volatile. If that is not possible or inconvenient then you can use a lock. Remember, you cannot mark a local variable as volatile so if a lambda expression captures it through a closure, for example, then you would have to resort to a different method for creating the memory barrier that is required. There is not a whole lot else that needs to be said for this method.
Use the new cancellation mechanisms in the TPL
This is similar to polling a stopping flag except that it uses the new cancellation data structures in the TPL. It is still based on cooperative cancellation patterns. You need to get a CancellationToken and the periodically check IsCancellationRequested. To request cancellation you would call Cancel on the CancellationTokenSource that originally provided the token. There is a lot you can do with the new cancellation mechanisms. You can read more about here.
Use wait handles
This method can be useful if your worker thread requires waiting on an specific interval or for a signal during its normal operation. You can Set a ManualResetEvent, for example, to let the thread know it is time to stop. You can test the event using the WaitOne function which returns a bool indicating whether the event was signalled. The WaitOne takes a parameter that specifies how much time to wait for the call to return if the event was not signaled in that amount of time. You can use this technique in place of Thread.Sleep and get the stopping indication at the same time. It is also useful if there are other WaitHandle instances that the thread may have to wait on. You can call WaitHandle.WaitAny to wait on any event (including the stop event) all in one call. Using an event can be better than calling Thread.Interrupt since you have more control over of the flow of the program (Thread.Interrupt throws an exception so you would have to strategically place the try-catch blocks to perform any necessary cleanup).
Specialized scenarios
There are several one-off scenarios that have very specialized stopping mechanisms. It is definitely outside the scope of this answer to enumerate them all (never mind that it would be nearly impossible). A good example of what I mean here is the Socket class. If the thread is blocked on a call to Send or Receive then calling Close will interrupt the socket on whatever blocking call it was in effectively unblocking it. I am sure there are several other areas in the BCL where similiar techniques can be used to unblock a thread.
Interrupt the thread via Thread.Interrupt
The advantage here is that it is simple and you do not have to focus on sprinkling your code with anything really. The disadvantage is that you have little control over where the safe points are in your algorithm. The reason is because Thread.Interrupt works by injecting an exception inside one of the canned BCL blocking calls. These include Thread.Sleep, WaitHandle.WaitOne, Thread.Join, etc. So you have to be wise about where you place them. However, most the time the algorithm dictates where they go and that is usually fine anyway especially if your algorithm spends most of its time in one of these blocking calls. If you algorithm does not use one of the blocking calls in the BCL then this method will not work for you. The theory here is that the ThreadInterruptException is only generated from .NET waiting call so it is likely at a safe point. At the very least you know that the thread cannot be in unmanaged code or bail out of a critical section leaving a dangling lock in an acquired state. Despite this being less invasive than Thread.Abort I still discourage its use because it is not obvious which calls respond to it and many developers will be unfamiliar with its nuances.

Well, unfortunately in multithreading you often have to compromise "snappiness" for cleanliness... you can exit a thread immediately if you Interrupt it, but it won't be very clean. So no, you don't have to sprinkle the _shouldStop checks every 4-5 lines, but if you do interrupt your thread then you should handle the exception and exit out of the loop in a clean manner.
Update
Even if it's not a looping thread (i.e. perhaps it's a thread that performs some long-running asynchronous operation or some type of block for input operation), you can Interrupt it, but you should still catch the ThreadInterruptedException and exit the thread cleanly. I think that the examples you've been reading are very appropriate.
Update 2.0
Yes I have an example... I'll just show you an example based on the link you referenced:
public class InterruptExample
{
private Thread t;
private volatile boolean alive;
public InterruptExample()
{
alive = false;
t = new Thread(()=>
{
try
{
while (alive)
{
/* Do work. */
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException exception)
{
/* Clean up. */
}
});
t.IsBackground = true;
}
public void Start()
{
alive = true;
t.Start();
}
public void Kill(int timeout = 0)
{
// somebody tells you to stop the thread
t.Interrupt();
// Optionally you can block the caller
// by making them wait until the thread exits.
// If they leave the default timeout,
// then they will not wait at all
t.Join(timeout);
}
}

If cancellation is a requirement of the thing you're building, then it should be treated with as much respect as the rest of your code--it may be something you have to design for.
Lets assume that your thread is doing one of two things at all times.
Something CPU bound
Waiting for the kernel
If you're CPU bound in the thread in question, you probably have a good spot to insert the bail-out check. If you're calling into someone else's code to do some long-running CPU-bound task, then you might need to fix the external code, move it out of process (aborting threads is evil, but aborting processes is well-defined and safe), etc.
If you're waiting for the kernel, then there's probably a handle (or fd, or mach port, ...) involved in the wait. Usually if you destroy the relevant handle, the kernel will return with some failure code immediately. If you're in .net/java/etc. you'll likely end up with an exception. In C, whatever code you already have in place to handle system call failures will propagate the error up to a meaningful part of your app. Either way, you break out of the low-level place fairly cleanly and in a very timely manner without needing new code sprinkled everywhere.
A tactic I often use with this kind of code is to keep track of a list of handles that need to be closed and then have my abort function set a "cancelled" flag and then close them. When the function fails it can check the flag and report failure due to cancellation rather than due to whatever the specific exception/errno was.
You seem to be implying that an acceptable granularity for cancellation is at the level of a service call. This is probably not good thinking--you are much better off cancelling the background work synchronously and joining the old background thread from the foreground thread. It's way cleaner becasue:
It avoids a class of race conditions when old bgwork threads come back to life after unexpected delays.
It avoids potential hidden thread/memory leaks caused by hanging background processes by making it possible for the effects of a hanging background thread to hide.
There are two reasons to be scared of this approach:
You don't think you can abort your own code in a timely fashion. If cancellation is a requirement of your app, the decision you really need to make is a resource/business decision: do a hack, or fix your problem cleanly.
You don't trust some code you're calling because it's out of your control. If you really don't trust it, consider moving it out-of-process. You get much better isolation from many kinds of risks, including this one, that way.

The best answer largely depends on what you're doing in the thread.
Like you said, most answers revolve around polling a shared boolean every couple lines. Even though you may not like it, this is often the simplest scheme. If you want to make your life easier, you can write a method like ThrowIfCancelled(), which throws some kind of exception if you're done. The purists will say this is (gasp) using exceptions for control flow, but then again cacelling is exceptional imo.
If you're doing IO operations (like network stuff), you may want to consider doing everything using async operations.
If you're doing a sequence of steps, you could use the IEnumerable trick to make a state machine. Example:
<
abstract class StateMachine : IDisposable
{
public abstract IEnumerable<object> Main();
public virtual void Dispose()
{
/// ... override with free-ing code ...
}
bool wasCancelled;
public bool Cancel()
{
// ... set wasCancelled using locking scheme of choice ...
}
public Thread Run()
{
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
foreach(var x in Main())
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
}
}
finally { Dispose(); }
});
thread.Start()
}
}
class MyStateMachine : StateMachine
{
public override IEnumerabl<object> Main()
{
DoSomething();
yield return null;
DoSomethingElse();
yield return null;
}
}
// then call new MyStateMachine().Run() to run.
>
Overengineering? It depends how many state machines you use. If you just have 1, yes. If you have 100, then maybe not. Too tricky? Well, it depends. Another bonus of this approach is that it lets you (with minor modifications) move your operation into a Timer.tick callback and void threading altogether if it makes sense.
and do everything that blucz says too.

Perhaps the a piece of the problem is that you have such a long method / while loop. Whether or not you are having threading issues, you should break it down into smaller processing steps. Let's suppose those steps are Alpha(), Bravo(), Charlie() and Delta().
You could then do something like this:
public void MyBigBackgroundTask()
{
Action[] tasks = new Action[] { Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta };
int workStepSize = 0;
while (!_shouldStop)
{
tasks[workStepSize++]();
workStepSize %= tasks.Length;
};
}
So yes it loops endlessly, but checks if it is time to stop between each business step.

You don't have to sprinkle while loops everywhere. The outer while loop just checks if it's been told to stop and if so doesn't make another iteration...
If you have a straight "go do something and close out" thread (no loops in it) then you just check the _shouldStop boolean either before or after each major spot inside the thread. That way you know whether it should continue on or bail out.
for example:
public void DoWork() {
RunSomeBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
RunSomeOtherBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
//....
}

Instead of adding a while loop where a loop doesn't otherwise belong, add something like if (_shouldStop) CleanupAndExit(); wherever it makes sense to do so. There's no need to check after every single operation or sprinkle the code all over with them. Instead, think of each check as a chance to exit the thread at that point and add them strategically with this in mind.

All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me
There are not a lot of ways to make code take a long time. Looping is a pretty essential programming construct. Making code take a long time without looping takes a huge amount of statements. Hundreds of thousands.
Or calling some other code that is doing the looping for you. Yes, hard to make that code stop on demand. That just doesn't work.

Best practice for an endless/ periodic execution of code in C#

Often in my code I start threads which basically look like this:
void WatchForSomething()
{
while(true)
{
if(SomeCondition)
{
//Raise Event to handle Condition
OnSomeCondition();
}
Sleep(100);
}
}
just to know if some condition is true or not (for example if a have a bad coded library with no events, just boolean variables and I need a "live-view" of them).
I wonder if there is a better way to accomplish this kind of work like a Windows function to hook in which can run my methods all x sec. Or should I code a global event for my app, raising all x secs and let him call my methods like this:
//Event from Windows or selfmade
TicEvent += new TicEventHandler(WatchForSomething));
and then this method:
void WatchForSomething()
{
if(SomeCondition)
{
//Raise Event to handle Condition
OnSomeCondition();
}
}
So, I hope this is not closed because of being a "subjective question" or something, I just want to know what the best practice for this kind of work is.

There isn't necessarily a "best way" to write long-running event processing code. It depends on what kind of application you are developing.
The first example you show is the idiomatic way in which you would often see the main method of a long-running thread written. While it's generally desirable to use a mutex or waitable event synchronization primitive rather than a call to Sleep() - it is otherwise a typical pattern used to implement event processing loops. The benefit of this approach is that it allows specialized processing to run on a separate thread - allowing your application's main thread to perform other tasks or remain responsive to user input. The downside of this approach is that it may require the use of memory barriers (such as locks) to ensure that shared resources are not corrupted. It also makes it more difficult to update your UI, since you must generally marshal such calls back to the UI thread.
The second approach is often used as well - particularly in systems that already have an event-drive API such as WinForms, WPF, or Silverlight. Using a timer object or Idle event is the typical manner in which periodic background checks can be made if there is no user-initiated event that triggers your processing. The benefit here is that it's easy to interact and update user interface objects (since they are directly accessible from the same thread) and it's mitigates the need for locks and mutexes to protected data. One potential downside of this approach is if the processing that must be performed is time-consuming it can make your application unresponsive to user input.
If you are not writing applications that have a user interface (such as services) then the first form is used much more often.
As an aside ... when possible, it's better to use a synchronization object like an EventWaitHandle or Semaphore to signal when work is available to be processed. This allows you to avoid using Thread.Sleep and/or Timer objects. It reduces the average latency between when work is available to be performed and when event processing code is triggered, and it minimizes the overhead of using background threads, since they can be more efficiently scheduled by the runtime environment and won't consume any CPU cycles until there's work to do.
It's also worth mentioning that if the processing you do is in response to communications with external sources (MessageQueues, HTTP, TCP, etc) you can use technologies like WCF to provide the skeleton of your event handling code. WCF provides base classes that make it substantially easier to implement both Client and Server systems that asynchronously respond to communication event activity.

If you have a look at Reactive Extensions, it provides an elegant way of doing this using the observable pattern.
var timer = Observable.Interval(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(100));
timer.Subscribe(tick => OnSomeCondition());
A nice thing about observables is the ability to compose and combine further observables from existing ones, and even use LINQ expressions to create new ones. For example, if you wanted to have a second timer that was in sync with the first, but only triggering every 1 second, you could say
var seconds = from tick in timer where tick % 10 == 0 select tick;
seconds.Subscribe(tick => OnSomeOtherCondition());

By the way, Thread.Sleep is probably never a good idea.
A basic problem with Thread.Sleep that people are usually not aware of, is that the internal implementation of Thread.Sleep does not pump STA messages. The best and easiest alternative, if you have to wait a given time and can't use a kernel sync object, is to replace Thread.Sleep with Thread.Join on the current thread, with the wanted timeout. Thread.Join will behave the same, i.e. the thread would wait the wanted time, but in the meantime STA objects will be pumped.
Why this is important (some detailed explanatiopn follows)?
Sometimes, without you even knowing, one of your threads may have created an STA COM object. (For example this sometimes happens behind the scenes when you use Shell APIs). Now suppose a thread of yours has created an STA COM object, and is now in a call to Thread.Sleep.
If at sometime the COM object has to be deleted (which can happen at an unexpected time by the GC), then the Finalizer thread will try calling the object's distruvtor. This call will be marshalled to the object's STA thread, which will be blocked.
Now, in fact, you will have a blocked Finalizer thread. In this situations objects can't be freed from memory, and bad things will follow.
So the bottom line: Thread.Sleep=bad. Thread.Join=reasonable alternative.

The first example you show is a rather inelegant way to implement a periodic timer. .NET has a number of timer objects that make this kind of thing almost trivial. Look into System.Windows.Forms.Timer, System.Timers.Timer and System.Threading.Timer.
For example, here's how you'd use a System.Threading.Timer to replace your first example:
System.Threading.Timer MyTimer = new System.Threading.Timer(CheckCondition, null, 100, 100);
void CheckCondition(object state)
{
if (SomeCondition())
{
OnSomeCondition();
}
}
That code will call CheckCondition every 100 milliseconds (or thereabouts).

You don't provide a lot of background on why you're doing this, or what you're trying to accomplish, but if its possible, you might want to look into creating a windows service.

Use a BackgroundWoker for additional thread safe measures:
BackgroundWorker bw = new BackgroundWorker();
bw.WorkerSupportsCancellation = true;
bw.WorkerReportsProgress = true;
.
.
.
private void bw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
BackgroundWorker worker = sender as BackgroundWorker;
for (;;)
{
if (worker.CancellationPending == true)
{
e.Cancel = true;
break;
}
else
{
// Perform a time consuming operation and report progress.
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
}
For more info visit: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc221403%28v=vs.95%29.aspx

A very simple way for non blocking wait other threads/tasks is:
(new ManualResetEvent(false)).WaitOne(500); //Waits 500ms

Question about terminating a thread cleanly in .NET

I understand Thread.Abort() is evil from the multitude of articles I've read on the topic, so I'm currently in the process of ripping out all of my abort's in order to replace it for a cleaner way; and after comparing user strategies from people here on stackoverflow and then after reading "How to: Create and Terminate Threads (C# Programming Guide)" from MSDN both which state an approach very much the same -- which is to use a volatile bool approach checking strategy, which is nice, but I still have a few questions....
Immediately what stands out to me here, is what if you do not have a simple worker process which is just running a loop of crunching code? For instance for me, my process is a background file uploader process, I do in fact loop through each file, so that's something, and sure I could add my while (!_shouldStop) at the top which covers me every loop iteration, but I have many more business processes which occur before it hits it's next loop iteration, I want this cancel procedure to be snappy; don't tell me I need to sprinkle these while loops every 4-5 lines down throughout my entire worker function?!
I really hope there is a better way, could somebody please advise me on if this is in fact, the correct [and only?] approach to do this, or strategies they have used in the past to achieve what I am after.
Thanks gang.
Further reading: All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me. What if it is a linear, but timely background operation?

Well, unfortunately in multithreading you often have to compromise "snappiness" for cleanliness... you can exit a thread immediately if you Interrupt it, but it won't be very clean. So no, you don't have to sprinkle the _shouldStop checks every 4-5 lines, but if you do interrupt your thread then you should handle the exception and exit out of the loop in a clean manner.
Update
Even if it's not a looping thread (i.e. perhaps it's a thread that performs some long-running asynchronous operation or some type of block for input operation), you can Interrupt it, but you should still catch the ThreadInterruptedException and exit the thread cleanly. I think that the examples you've been reading are very appropriate.
Update 2.0
Yes I have an example... I'll just show you an example based on the link you referenced:
public class InterruptExample
{
private Thread t;
private volatile boolean alive;
public InterruptExample()
{
alive = false;
t = new Thread(()=>
{
try
{
while (alive)
{
/* Do work. */
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException exception)
{
/* Clean up. */
}
});
t.IsBackground = true;
}
public void Start()
{
alive = true;
t.Start();
}
public void Kill(int timeout = 0)
{
// somebody tells you to stop the thread
t.Interrupt();
// Optionally you can block the caller
// by making them wait until the thread exits.
// If they leave the default timeout,
// then they will not wait at all
t.Join(timeout);
}
}

If cancellation is a requirement of the thing you're building, then it should be treated with as much respect as the rest of your code--it may be something you have to design for.
Lets assume that your thread is doing one of two things at all times.
Something CPU bound
Waiting for the kernel
If you're CPU bound in the thread in question, you probably have a good spot to insert the bail-out check. If you're calling into someone else's code to do some long-running CPU-bound task, then you might need to fix the external code, move it out of process (aborting threads is evil, but aborting processes is well-defined and safe), etc.
If you're waiting for the kernel, then there's probably a handle (or fd, or mach port, ...) involved in the wait. Usually if you destroy the relevant handle, the kernel will return with some failure code immediately. If you're in .net/java/etc. you'll likely end up with an exception. In C, whatever code you already have in place to handle system call failures will propagate the error up to a meaningful part of your app. Either way, you break out of the low-level place fairly cleanly and in a very timely manner without needing new code sprinkled everywhere.
A tactic I often use with this kind of code is to keep track of a list of handles that need to be closed and then have my abort function set a "cancelled" flag and then close them. When the function fails it can check the flag and report failure due to cancellation rather than due to whatever the specific exception/errno was.
You seem to be implying that an acceptable granularity for cancellation is at the level of a service call. This is probably not good thinking--you are much better off cancelling the background work synchronously and joining the old background thread from the foreground thread. It's way cleaner becasue:
It avoids a class of race conditions when old bgwork threads come back to life after unexpected delays.
It avoids potential hidden thread/memory leaks caused by hanging background processes by making it possible for the effects of a hanging background thread to hide.
There are two reasons to be scared of this approach:
You don't think you can abort your own code in a timely fashion. If cancellation is a requirement of your app, the decision you really need to make is a resource/business decision: do a hack, or fix your problem cleanly.
You don't trust some code you're calling because it's out of your control. If you really don't trust it, consider moving it out-of-process. You get much better isolation from many kinds of risks, including this one, that way.

The best answer largely depends on what you're doing in the thread.
Like you said, most answers revolve around polling a shared boolean every couple lines. Even though you may not like it, this is often the simplest scheme. If you want to make your life easier, you can write a method like ThrowIfCancelled(), which throws some kind of exception if you're done. The purists will say this is (gasp) using exceptions for control flow, but then again cacelling is exceptional imo.
If you're doing IO operations (like network stuff), you may want to consider doing everything using async operations.
If you're doing a sequence of steps, you could use the IEnumerable trick to make a state machine. Example:
<
abstract class StateMachine : IDisposable
{
public abstract IEnumerable<object> Main();
public virtual void Dispose()
{
/// ... override with free-ing code ...
}
bool wasCancelled;
public bool Cancel()
{
// ... set wasCancelled using locking scheme of choice ...
}
public Thread Run()
{
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
foreach(var x in Main())
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
}
}
finally { Dispose(); }
});
thread.Start()
}
}
class MyStateMachine : StateMachine
{
public override IEnumerabl<object> Main()
{
DoSomething();
yield return null;
DoSomethingElse();
yield return null;
}
}
// then call new MyStateMachine().Run() to run.
>
Overengineering? It depends how many state machines you use. If you just have 1, yes. If you have 100, then maybe not. Too tricky? Well, it depends. Another bonus of this approach is that it lets you (with minor modifications) move your operation into a Timer.tick callback and void threading altogether if it makes sense.
and do everything that blucz says too.

Perhaps the a piece of the problem is that you have such a long method / while loop. Whether or not you are having threading issues, you should break it down into smaller processing steps. Let's suppose those steps are Alpha(), Bravo(), Charlie() and Delta().
You could then do something like this:
public void MyBigBackgroundTask()
{
Action[] tasks = new Action[] { Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta };
int workStepSize = 0;
while (!_shouldStop)
{
tasks[workStepSize++]();
workStepSize %= tasks.Length;
};
}
So yes it loops endlessly, but checks if it is time to stop between each business step.

You don't have to sprinkle while loops everywhere. The outer while loop just checks if it's been told to stop and if so doesn't make another iteration...
If you have a straight "go do something and close out" thread (no loops in it) then you just check the _shouldStop boolean either before or after each major spot inside the thread. That way you know whether it should continue on or bail out.
for example:
public void DoWork() {
RunSomeBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
RunSomeOtherBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
//....
}

Instead of adding a while loop where a loop doesn't otherwise belong, add something like if (_shouldStop) CleanupAndExit(); wherever it makes sense to do so. There's no need to check after every single operation or sprinkle the code all over with them. Instead, think of each check as a chance to exit the thread at that point and add them strategically with this in mind.

All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me
There are not a lot of ways to make code take a long time. Looping is a pretty essential programming construct. Making code take a long time without looping takes a huge amount of statements. Hundreds of thousands.
Or calling some other code that is doing the looping for you. Yes, hard to make that code stop on demand. That just doesn't work.

C# Improvement on a Fire-and-Forget

Greetings
I have a program that creates multiples instances of a class, runs the same long-running Update method on all instances and waits for completion. I'm following Kev's approach from this question of adding the Update to ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem.
In the main prog., I'm sleeping for a few minutes and checking a Boolean in the last child to see if done
while(!child[child.Length-1].isFinished) {
Thread.Sleep(...);
}
This solution is working the way I want, but is there a better way to do this? Both for the independent instances and checking if all work is done.
Thanks
UPDATE:
There doesn't need to be locking. The different instances each have a different web service url they request from, and do similar work on the response. They're all doing their own thing.

If you know the number of operations that will be performed, use a countdown and an event:
Activity[] activities = GetActivities();
int remaining = activities.Length;
using (ManualResetEvent finishedEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false))
{
foreach (Activity activity in activities)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(s =>
{
activity.Run();
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref remaining) == 0)
finishedEvent.Set();
});
}
finishedEvent.WaitOne();
}
Don't poll for completion. The .NET Framework (and the Windows OS in general) has a number of threading primitives specifically designed to prevent the need for spinlocks, and a polling loop with Sleep is really just a slow spinlock.

You can try Semaphore.

A blocking way of waiting is a bit more elegant than polling. See the Monitor.Wait/Monitor.Pulse (Semaphore works ok too) for a simple way to block and signal. C# has some syntactic sugar around the Monitor class in the form of the lock keyword.

This doesn't look good. There is almost never a valid reason to assume that when the last thread is completed that the other ones are done as well. Unless you somehow interlock the worker threads, which you should never do. It also makes little sense to Sleep(), waiting for a thread to complete. You might as well do the work that thread is doing.
If you've got multiple threads going, give them each a ManualResetEvent. You can wait on completion with WaitHandle.WaitAll(). Counting down a thread counter with the Interlocked class can work too. Or use a CountdownLatch.

Multi-threading mechanisms to run some lengthy operations from winforms code and communication with GUI

What do I want to achieve: I want to perform some time consuming operations from my MDI winforms application (C# - .NET).
An MDI child form may create the thread with the operation, which may take long time (from 0.1 seconds, to even half hour) to complete. In the meantime I want the UI to respond to user actions, including manipulation of data in some other MDI child form. When the operation completes, the thread should notify the MDI child that the calculations are done,
so that the MDI child can perform the post-processing.
How can I achieve this:
Should I use explicit threading (i.e., create explicit threads), thread pools? Or simply just propose your solution. Should I create foreground or background threads?
And how does the thread communicates with the GUI, according the solution you propose?
If you know of a working example that handles a similar situation, please make a note.

I think you are looking for the BackgroundWorker class. Example

Use the BackgroundWorker class. It does just what you're looking for:
BackgroundWorker backgroundWorker = new BackgroundWorker();
backgroundWorker.DoWork += new DoWorkEventHandler(LongRunningCode);
backgroundWorker.RunWorkerCompleted += new RunWorkerCompletedEventHandler(CallbackOnCompletion);
backgroundWorker.RunWorkerAsync();
Also, to update your UI from the background thread, you need to call Invoke on your UI element.

This depends, slightly.
In general, I agree with BFree that the BackgroundWorker is likely the best option here. I makes notification back to the UI simple, etc.
That being said, the only reason I'm posting, and questioning whether you may want to use BackgroundWorker is this statement:
which may take long time (from 0.1 seconds, to even half hour) to complete
BackgroundWorker uses a ThreadPool thread to perform its processing. This means that closing your Application form will terminate the thread, since it's a background thread.
If your "half hour" processing "work" is something that you would like to have continue operating, even if the form is closed, you may want to make your own foreground thread to perform this operation, and handle the UI marshaling yourself.

While the BackgroundWorker object is an obvious choice, it may not be advisable for a lengthy process, as it uses the ThreadPool. The conventional wisdom around the ThreadPool is that it shouldn't be used for long-running tasks; in these cases explicit thread creation is advisable.
You can still interact with the GUI by calling Invoke or BeginInvoke on the form (or any of its controls), passing in a delegate that will perform the GUI-related actions.

If you have a very finite number of threads (let's say, at most 4), then you can create them yourself. If you need them to be managed in a way that you don't want to deal with it, then a threadpool is one option or .NET 4.0's System.Threading.Tasks namespace.
You'll probably need to use delegates. Here's an example of one that writes to the UI and one that reads from the UI:
delegate void SetResultsTextCallback(string text);
delegate string GetIterationCountCallback();
private void SetResultsText(string text)
{
if (this.ResultsBox.InvokeRequired)
{
var d = new SetResultsTextCallback(SetResultsText);
this.Invoke(d, new object[] { text });
}
else
{
this.ResultsBox.Text = text;
}
}
private string GetIterationCount()
{
if (this.RepetitionSelector.InvokeRequired)
{
var del = new GetIterationCountCallback(GetIterationCount);
IAsyncResult result = del.BeginInvoke(null, null);
return del.EndInvoke(result);
}
else
{
return RepetitionSelector.SelectedItem.ToString();
}
}
In this example, ResultsBox is a TextBox and RepetitionSelector is a combobox.

You have many options:
Use BackgroundWorker directly which basically does most of the work for you, but the lengthy operation must be known by the UI.
Inherit from System.ComponentModel.BackgroundWorker which enables to use the operation as a component and separate the logic from the UI.
Use the Event-based pattern, which would allow greater control for the parameters and events raised.
Use the delegates, if there is really nothing to report but the ned of the operation. You must have caution as the callback method is not guaranteed to run in the UI thread.

I recommend creating a thread and using a callback method to communicate with the UI.
I give an example in this solution, where you'll also find examples for other approaches: .NET Threading & Locks & Waiting.

We Keep Coding

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.