I am facing an issue with communication between threads in a C#.NET application.
Hope someone will guide me in the right direction about the possible solutions.
I have an application in C#.NET.It is a windows form application.
My application has two threads - One thread is the main thread (UI thread) and the other one is the child thread. Lets call the child thread the "workerThread"
There is only one form used in the application.Lets call this form the "MainForm"
The child thread is started when the MainForm loads (used the form's "Load" event handler to start the thread)
In the MainForm class, I have a variable named "stopWork" which is a public boolean variable and it serves as a flag to indicate whether the child thread should continue working or should it stop
I have another class (besides the MainForm class) which contains the method that I execute in the the child thread. Lets call this second class the "WorkerClass".
I pass a reference to the current form (the MainForm) into the constructor of the "WorkerClass"
I have a button "stop" in the main form which sets "stopWork" to "true" if its clicked and then calls "workerThread.Join()" to wait for the child thread to finish excecution.
In the child thread, the method "doWork" keeps checking the status of "parentForm.stopWork" inside a for loop. If "stopWork" is set to "true" then the loop breaks and subsequently the method ends.
Now, the issue is, once I am clicking the "stop" button ,the application hangs.
I am pasting parts of the code below so that it is easier to understand :
public partial class MainForm : Form
{
Thread workerThread = null;
ThreadStart workerThreadStart = null;
WorkerClass workerClass = null;
public bool stopWork = true;
/*.......... some code ............*/
private void MainForm_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
workerThreadStart = new ThreadStart(startWork);
workerThread = new Thread(workerThreadStart);
stopWork = false;
workerThread.Start();
}
private void startWork()
{
workerClass = new WorkerClass(this);
}
private void buttonStop_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) //"stop" button
{
if (workerThread != null)
{
if (workerThread.IsAlive == true)
{
stopWork = true;
workerThread.Join();
}
}
}
/*.......... some more code ............*/
}
public class WorkerClass
{
MainForm parentForm=null;
/*......... some variables and code ........*/
public WorkerClass(MainForm parentForm)
{
this.parentForm=parentForm;
}
/* .............. some more code ...........*/
public void doWork()
{
/*.......... some variables and code ...........*/
for(int i=0;i<100000;i++)
{
// ** Here is the check to see if parentForm has set stopWork to true **
if(parentForm.stopWork==true)
break;
/*......... do some work in the loop ..........*/
}
}
/********* and more code .........*/
}
I think I may know where the problem lies.
The problem is in the "doWork" method in the child thread trying to access "stopWork" variable in the parent form when already the parent form is blocked by calling the "workerThread.Join()" method. So ,I think this is a "deadlock" problem.
Am I right in identifying the problem ? Or am I wrong and the problem lies somewhere else ?
In case this is indeed a deadlock, what are the possible solutions to solve this ?
I did a bit of googling and found lots of resources on thread synchronisation and how to avoid deadlocks. But I could not understand how to apply them specifically to my problem.
I would really appreciate any help or guidance on resolving this issue.
Yes, the code you wrote is highly vulnerable to deadlock. The BackgroundWorker class is especially prone to cause this kind of deadlock.
The problem is located in code we can't see in your snippet, the WorkerClass. You are surely doing something there that affects the UI in one way or another, always the primary reason to consider creating a thread in the first place. You probably use Control.Invoke() to have some code run on the UI thread and update a control. Perhaps also to signal that the worker thread is completed and, say, set the Enable property of a button back to true.
That's deadlock city, such code cannot run until the UI thread goes idle, back to pumping its message loop. It will never be idle in your case, it is stuck in Thread.Join(). The worker thread can't complete because the UI thread won't go idle, the UI thread can't go idle because the worker thread isn't finishing. Deadlock.
BackgroundWorker has this problem too, the RunWorkerCompleted event cannot run unless the UI thread is idle. What you need to do is not block the UI thread. Easier said than done, BGW can help you get this right because it runs an event when it completes. You can have this event do whatever you now do in the code past the Thread.Join() call. You'll need a boolean flag in your class to indicate that you are in the 'waiting for completion' state. This answer has relevant code.
Use a BackgroundWorker for this task instead. When you want to stop the task's execution, call the background worker's CancelAsync method.
Generally speaking, rolling your own threading code (on any platform) is a recipe for disaster if you don't have an expert-level understanding of multithreading (and even then it's still dangerous).
Related
EDIT:
please see question history, for unchanged question in order not to invalidate comments.
I am clicking button that executes certain codes and it creates a thread (System.Threading.Thread). When I reclick button which starts process it hangs and freezes ui. What could be the reason?
public partial class ucLoader : UserControl
{
//lock object for whole instance of class ucLoader
private object lockUcLoader = new object();
//bringing info from ui
private void btnBringInfo_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
lock (lockUcLoader)
{
btnBringInfo_PerformClick(false);
}
}
//using this method because it could be called when even button not visible
internal void btnBringInfo_PerformClick(bool calledFromBandInit)
{
lock (lockUcLoader) //HANGS HERE when called multiple times and ui freeze as well
//by the way I am using (repetitive) lock, because this method also called independently from btnBringInfo_Click
{
//...
this.btnLoad_PerformClick();
}
}
//Another button perform click that could be triggered elsewhere when even button not visible
private void btnLoad_PerformClick()
{
lock (lockUcLoader) //I am using (repetitive) lock, because this method also called independently from btnBringInfo_PerformClick
{
//...
Run();
}
}
//method for creating thread which System.Threading.Thread
private void Run()
{
lock (lockUcLoader) //Maybe this lock is NOT REQUIRED, as it is called by only btnLoad_PerformClick(), could you please confirm?
{
//some code that thread can be killed when available, you can ingore this two lines as they are irrelevant to subject, I think
Source = new CancellationTokenSource();
Token = Source.Token;
var shell = new WindowsShell();
Thread = new Thread((object o) =>
{
//...
var tokenInThread = (CancellationToken)o;
exitCode =TaskExtractBatchFiles(cls, shell, exitCode);
using (var logEnt = new logEntities())
{
//Do some db operation
//...
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
//do some ui update operation
//...
});
}
}
Thread.Start(Token);
}
}
public void Progress(string message)
{
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate //ATTENTION HERE see below picture Wait occurs here
{
if (message != null && message.Trim() != string.Empty)
{
this.txtStatus.AppendText(message + Environment.NewLine);
}
});
}
}
In order to avoid get closed question, what my question is how can I prevent
below method can be accesses with out lock from background thread and ui thread
public void Progress(string message)
{
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate //ATTENTION HERE see below picture Wait occurs here
{
if (message != null && message.Trim() != string.Empty)
{
this.txtStatus.AppendText(message + Environment.NewLine);
}
});
}
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate ...
Whenever you use the lock statement in your code then you always run the risk of inducing deadlock. One of the classic threading bugs. You generally need at least two locks to get there, acquiring them in the wrong order. And yes, there are two in your program. One you declared yourself. And one you cannot see because it is buried inside the plumbing that makes Control.Invoke() work. Not being able to see a lock is what makes deadlock a difficult problem to debug.
You can reason it out, the lock inside Control.Invoke is necessary to ensure that the worker thread is blocked until the UI thread executed the delegate target. Probably also helps to reason out why the program deadlocked. You started the worker thread, it acquired the lockUcLoader lock and starts doing its job, calling Control.Invoke while doing so. Now you click the button before the worker is done, it necessarily blocks. But that makes the UI thread go catatonic and no longer capable of executing the Control.Invoke code. So the worker thread hangs on the Invoke call and it won't release the lock. And the UI thread hangs forever on the lock since the worker can't complete, deadlock city.
Control.Invoke dates from .NET 1.0, a version of the framework that has several serious design mistakes in code related to threading. While meant to be helpful, they just set death-traps for programmers to blunder into. What is unique about Control.Invoke is that it is never correct to use it.
Distinguish Control.Invoke and Control.BeginInvoke. You only ever need Invoke when you need its return value. Note how you don't, using BeginInvoke instead is good enough and instantly solves the deadlock. You'd consider Invoke to obtain a value from the UI so you can use it in the worker thread. But that induces other major threading issue, a threading race bug, the worker has no idea what state the UI is in. Say, the user might be busy interacting with it, typing a new value. You can't know what value you obtain, it will easily be the stale old value. Inevitably producing a mismatch between the UI and the work being done. The only way to avoid that mishap is to prevent the user from typing a new value, easily done with Enable = false. But now it no longer makes sense to use Invoke, you might as well pass the value when you start the thread.
So using BeginInvoke is already good enough to solve the problem. But that is not where you should stop. There is no point to those locks in the Click event handlers, all they do is make the UI unresponsive, greatly confuzzling the user. What you must do instead is set the Enable properties of those buttons to false. Set them back to true when the worker is done. Now it can't go wrong anymore, you don't need the locks and the user gets good feedback.
There is another serious problem you haven't run into yet but you must address. A UserControl has no control over its lifetime, it gets disposed when the user closes the form on which it is hosted. But that is completely out of sync with the worker thread execution, it keeps calling BeginInvoke even though the control is dead as a doornail. That will make your program bomb, hopefully on an ObjectDisposedException. A threading race bug that a lock cannot solve. The form has to help, it must actively prevent the user from closing it. Some notes about this bug in this Q+A.
For completeness I should mention the third most common threading bug that code like this is likely to suffer from. It doesn't have an official name, I call it a "firehose bug". It occurs when the worker thread calls BeginInvoke too often, giving the UI thread too much work to do. Happens easily, calling it more than about thousand times per second tends to be enough. The UI thread starts burning 100% core, trying to keep up with the invoke requests and never being able to catch up. Easy to see, it stops painting itself and responding to input, duties that are performed with a lower priority. That needs to be fixed the logical way, updating UI more than 25 times per second just produces a blur that the human eye can't observe and is therefore pointless.
I would like to gracefully stop an endlessly looping thread from running whenever a button is clicked. Here's what as I understand should work:
bool running = true;
private Thread myThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(threadWorker));
private void threadWorker()
{
while(running)
{
...
}
}
private void button_click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
running = false
myThread.Join();
...
}
However clicking the button freezes the UI thread. Pausing the program to debug shows it stuck on Thread.Join(). If I put the "running" flag on a separate button and click it before joining then it works fine, but this way it's is as if the flag is never changed ant the method never ends.
What am I doing wrong?
EDIT: This question is NOT a duplicate of "Why is CPU usage constantly increasing after starting/stopping threads?", adding "volatile" to the flag declaration did not solve the problem.
In my case the program was freezing at the UI update invokes (thanks to usr for telling me I can check what the other threads are doing). Replacing Control.Invoke with Control.BeginInvoke solved the problem.
The worker thread seems to be stuck at an invoke to update a chart.
The worker tries to access the UI thread through an invoke. But the UI is stuck waiting in the Join. It's a deadlock.
Thread in conjunction with UI is obsolete. Switch to using await and such problems go away.
Since you didn't mention otherwise, I suppose running is not declared volatile which means threadWorker() method doesn't check it's "real" value, but a cached value of it. Try declaring it as
volatile bool running;
I have a class that updates a GUI element
public class UpdateLabelClass
{
static MainGUI theForm = (MainGUI)Application.OpenForms[0];
Label lblCurProgress = theForm.curProgress;
public ProgressBarUpdate()
{
}
public void UpdateLabel(String newLabel)
{
lblCurProgress.Text = newLabel;
}
}
And in other classes, I make an instance of the class and call the UpdateLabel(someString);
Now the problem is, it skips the operation of updating the label, so I thought "Maybe it isn't even reaching the code", so I put a MessageBox.Show() right after it, and it updated the label.
What are possible causes to skip the label update, but perform it when I put a message bow right after? Is the program going to fast?
Most likely you are improperly running a long operation in the main UI thread which prevents the label from updating. You could "fix" this by calling DoEvents():
public void UpdateLabel(String newLabel)
{
lblCurProgress.Text = newLabel;
Application.DoEvents();
}
But this is just a band-aid on top of a bad design. You should properly move that code to a background thread and use a delegate/Invoke() to update the label.
Edit: (answering followup question)
By default, your application runs in a single thread. This includes the code that you add to control events, as well as the code that you can't see that is running behind the scenes to make your application respond in the way you'd expect. Things like user interaction (mouse clicks, keyboard presses, etc.) and painting messages (when controls are changed, your window is obscured) are placed into a queue. Those pending messages in the queue only get processed once your code has stopped running. If you have a lengthy chunk of code running, like a long loop, then those messages just sit in the queue waiting to be processed. Thus the update to the label doesn't occur until after your loop is done. What DoEvents() does is tells the application to process those pending messages in the queue, right now, and then return to the code that was currently executing. This allows the label to update in real-time like you expect it to.
When you encounter situations that are "fixed" by DoEvents(), it simply means that you are attempting to run too much code in the main UI thread. The main UI thread is supposed to be focused on responding to user interaction and keeping the display updated. Code in control event handlers should be short and sweet, so that the main UI thread can get back to doing its main job.
The proper fix is to move that lengthy code to a different thread, thus allowing the main UI thread to respond and keep itself updated. For many scenarios, the easiest approach is to place a BackgroundWorker() control on your form and wire up the DoWork(), ProgressChanged() and RunWorkerCompleted() events. *You have to set the WorkerReportsProgress() property to true, however, to handle the ProgressChanged() event. The latter two events are already marshaled to the main UI thread for you so you don't need to worry about cross-thread exceptions. From the DoWork() handler, you call ReportProgress() and pass out a progress percentage value and an optional other object (it could be anything). Those values can be retrieved in the ProgressChanged() event and used to update the GUI. The RunWorkerCompleted() event fires when all the work in the DoWork() handler has been finished.
In your case, you've got a separate class that is doing the work. You can mirror what the BackgroundWorker does by manually creating your own thread in that class to do the work. When you want to update progress, make your class raise a Custom Event that the main form subscribes to. When that event is received, however, it will be running in the context of the separate thread. It is necessary, then, to "marshal" the call across the thread boundaries so that the code is running in the main UI thread before you update the controls. This is accomplished by using delegates ("pointers" to methods) and the Invoke() method. *There are other methods to accomplish this task as well, such as a SynchronizationContext.
See here for some examples of these approaches.
Finally, here is a super simple example of a class that raises custom events from a separate thread:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
private Clock Clk;
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
Clk = new Clock();
Clk.CurrentTime += new Clock.TimeHack(Clk_CurrentTime);
}
private void Clk_CurrentTime(string hack)
{
if (label1.InvokeRequired)
{
Clock.TimeHack t = new Clock.TimeHack(Clk_CurrentTime);
label1.Invoke(t, new object[] { hack });
}
else
{
label1.Text = hack;
}
}
}
public class Clock
{
public delegate void TimeHack(string hack);
public event TimeHack CurrentTime;
private Thread t;
private bool stopThread = false;
public Clock()
{
t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ThreadLoop));
t.IsBackground = true; // allow it to be shutdown automatically when the application exits
t.Start();
}
private void ThreadLoop()
{
while (!stopThread)
{
if (CurrentTime != null)
{
CurrentTime(DateTime.Now.ToString());
}
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
public void Stop()
{
stopThread = true;
}
}
public void UpdateLabel(String newLabel)
{
lblCurProgress.Text = newLabel;
lblCurProgress.Refresh();
}
I inherited some code that has two non-UI threads that update various WinForm controls.
The code is using InvokeRequired and Invoke to update the UI; however, I still once in a while get the error: Cross-thread operation not valid: Control 'lvReports' accessed on a thread other than it was created on.
I suspect I am dealing with a race condition and that I need to introduce a lock into the method below, but that said, I can find dozens of examples on how to update UI from a non-UI thread safely but no examples or discussion on how to deal with two threads updating the same controls in a race scenario.
So my question is: how do I rewrite the code below to handle updating the UI properly given a race condition and that I need to update UI from non-UI threads?
// two separate theads call this method in a instance of a WinForm
private void LoadReports()
{
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke(new MethodInvoker(this.LoadReports));
}
else
{
// some code removed to keep exampe simple...
SetCtlVisible(lvReports, true);
if (this.InvokeRequired)
{
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate { lvReports.Refresh(); });
}
else
{
lvReports.Refresh();
}
}
}
delegate void SetVisibleCallback(Control ctl, bool visible);
private void SetCtlVisible(Control ctl, bool visible)
{
if (ctl.InvokeRequired)
{
SetVisibleCallback d = new SetVisibleCallback(SetCtlVisible);
ctl.Invoke(d, new object[] { ctl, visible });
}
else
{
ctl.Visible = visible;
}
}
Here are some thoughts:
Does this.InvokeRequired differ from ctl.InvokeRequired at any time?
Is the second InvokeRequired test needed given the first?
Is the implementation of SetCtlVisible needed if I keep the first InvokeRequired?
Should I delete the first InvokeRequired and keep all the code in the else clause?
Is lock needed around the else clause?
Using InvokeRequired like this is an anti-pattern. You know that this method is getting called from a thread, InvokeRequired should always be true.
Now you can use it to troubleshoot your problem. If it is false then there's something seriously wrong. Throw an exception, the debugger will stop and let you find out why it isn't working properly. And always call Invoke(), invoke to a little helper method that does the rest of LoadReports().
Also note that you are using it wrong in the rest of your code. You know that the remainder of LoadReports() runs on the UI thread, you used Invoke(). No point in testing it again, including inside SetCtlVisible().
The typical reason for getting the bomb is because the thread is running LoadReports() too soon, before the form's window is created. You need to interlock that. The form's Load event is the signal.
I've inherited code where BeginInvoke is called from the main thread (not a background thread, which is usually the pattern). I am trying to understand what it actually does in this scenario.
Does the method being called in the BeginInvoke get in line of messages that come down to the window? The docs say asynchronously, so that is my assumption.
How does the framework prioritize when to kick off the method called by BeginInvoke?
Edit: The code looks like this:
System.Action<bool> finalizeUI = delegate(bool open)
{
try
{
// do somewhat time consuming stuff
}
finally
{
Cursor.Current = Cursors.Default;
}
};
Cursor.Current = Cursors.WaitCursor;
BeginInvoke(finalizeUI, true);
This is happening in the Form_Load event.
edit
Now that we see the code, it's clear that this is just a way to move some initialization out of Form_Load but still have it happen before the user can interact with the form.
The call to BeginInvoke is inside Form_load, and is not called on another object, so this is a call to Form.BeginInvoke. So what's happening is this.
Form_Load passes a delegate to Form.BeginInvoke, this puts a message in the form's message queue that is ahead of all user input messages. It sets the cursor to a wait cursor.
Form_Load returns, and the rest of form initialization is allowed to complete, the form most likely becomes visible at this point.
Once the code falls into the message pump, the first thing is sees in the queue is the delegate, so it runs that.
as the delegate completes, it changes the cursor back to the normal cursor, and returns
profit!
original post below
I depends on the object that you call BeginInvoke on. If the object is derived from Control then Control.BeginInvoke will run on the thread that created the control. See JaredPar's answer.
But there is another pattern for the use of BeginInvoke. if the object is a delegate, then BeginInvoke runs the callback on a separate thread, one that may be created specifically for that purpose.
public class Foo
{
...
public Object Bar(object arg)
{
// this function will run on a separate thread.
}
}
...
// this delegate is used to Invoke Bar on Foo in separate thread, this must
// take the same arguments and return the same value as the Bar method of Foo
public delegate object FooBarCaller (object arg);
...
// call this on the main thread to invoke Foo.Bar on a background thread
//
public IAsyncResult BeginFooBar(AsyncCallback callback, object arg)
{
Foo foo = new Foo();
FooBarCaller caller = new FooBarCaller (foo.Bar);
return caller.BeginInvoke (arg);
}
This pattern is one reason that BeginInvoke is called from the main thread rather than from a background thread.
In the case BeginInvoke is called on a UI thread it will still go through the process of posting a Windows Message to the message queue where the message will wait to be processed. The delegate will run when the message is processed. This message is not prioritized in any way that's different than it being called from the background thread.
In this scenario I suspect the call looks like:
private void Button1_Click(object sender, ButtonClickEventArgs e)
{
Control.BeginInvoke(new MethodInvoker(()=> /* code etc. */));
}
What's happening is that some code will run on on a threadpool thread, and update the control on the thread that created the control whereas if Control.Invoke was used, some code would run on the thread that created the control, and update the control on that thread as well.
Prior to widespread BackgroundWorker use, you had to synchronize back to the UI thread before doing any operations on Controls created on the UI thread (i.e. pretty much every Control).
There's a pretty good reference example here down in the "Thread-Safe Calls to a Windows Forms Control" section.