We Keep Coding

refreshing UI elements in work threads

Question 1: I want to refresh a label by a work thread by delegate and invoke. It works well until i try to close the form. In closing event, I stop the work thread and then the UI thread while an exception occurs(Object disposed exception). It seems that form1 is disposed. I don't know what's wrong.
Question 2: When running this code, the memory usage keep increasing. I don't think it should take so much memory space. You can see find this by checking the task manager.
here's my code:
(.Net Framework 4, winforms)
Scheduler:
class Scheduler
{
private Thread[] workThreads = null;
//Scheduler started flag
public static bool bSchedulerStarted = false;
//Work threads stop event
public static EventWaitHandle stopWaitHandle = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset);
private static Scheduler self = null;
public static Scheduler getInstance()
{
if (self == null)
{
self = new Scheduler();
}
return self;
}
private Scheduler()
{
workThreads = new Thread[1];
}
private void CreateThread()
{
workThreads[0] = new Thread(Worker.doWork);
workThreads[0].IsBackground = true;
}
public void startUp()
{
if (!bSchedulerStarted)
{
stopWaitHandle.Reset();
CreateThread();
//Start all work threads
for (int i = 0; i < 1; i++)
{
workThreads[i].Start();
}
bSchedulerStarted = true;
}
}
public void stop()
{
if (!bSchedulerStarted)
return;
//Send stop event
stopWaitHandle.Set();
bSchedulerStarted = false;
if (workThreads != null)
{
//wait for all work threads to stop
for (int i = 0; i <1; i++)
{
if (workThreads[i] != null && workThreads[i].IsAlive)
workThreads[i].Join();
}
}
}
}
Worker:
class Worker
{
public static void doWork()
{
while (true)
{
if (Scheduler.stopWaitHandle.WaitOne(10, false) == true)
{
break;
}
Form1.count++;
Form1.sysMsgEvent.Set();
Thread.Sleep(10);
}
}
}
And form:
public partial class Form1 : Form
{
public static int count = 0;
public static EventWaitHandle sysMsgEvent = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.AutoReset);
public static EventWaitHandle stopEvent = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset);
private EventWaitHandle[] waitEvent = null;
Thread UIThread = null;
private delegate void ShowMsg();
public Form1()
{
InitializeComponent();
waitEvent = new EventWaitHandle[2];
waitEvent[0] = stopEvent;
waitEvent[1] = sysMsgEvent;
}
public void UpdateUI()
{
while (true)
{
switch (EventWaitHandle.WaitAny(waitEvent))
{
case 0: //Stop UI thread
return;
case 1: //Refresh UI elements
updateLabel();
break;
default:
return;
}//switch
}//while
}
private void updateLabel()
{
if (label1.InvokeRequired)
{
ShowMsg d = new ShowMsg(updateLabel);
this.Invoke(d, null);
}
else
{
label1.Text = count.ToString();
}
}
private void Form1_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
UIThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(UpdateUI));
UIThread.Start();
Scheduler sc = Scheduler.getInstance();
sc.startUp();
}
private void Form1_FormClosing(object sender, FormClosingEventArgs e)
{
Scheduler sc = Scheduler.getInstance();
sc.stop();
//stop UI thread
Form1.stopEvent.Set();
}
}

How to use a mutex

I have one thread, that is sending data stored in a buffer of type List< string> via tcp. Another thread is writing into the buffer. As I am not very familiar with c# I'd like to know how I should use lock or Mutex correctly.
This is the code I'd like to use eventually:
while(buffer.isLocked())
{
buffer.wait();
}
buffer.lockBuffer();
buffer.add(tcpPacket);
buffer.unlockBuffer();
buffer.notify();
This is my current code. I hope someone can help me complete it.
public class Buffer
{
private Mutex mutex;
private List<string> buffer;
private bool locked = false;
public Buffer()
{
mutex = new Mutex(false);
buffer = new List<string>();
}
public bool isLocked()
{
return locked;
}
public void lockBuffer()
{
if (!locked)
{
//...
locked = true;
}
}
public void unlockBuffer()
{
if(locked)
{
mutex.ReleaseMutex();
locked = false;
}
}
public void wait()
{
mutex.WaitOne();
}
public void notify()
{
//...
}
}

It would be better if you use System.Collections.Concurrent.BlockingCollection. It doesn't require an external sync.
For those who don't use 4.0
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace MyCollections
{
public class BlockingQueue<T> : IDisposable
{
Queue<T> _Queue = new Queue<T>();
SemaphoreSlim _ItemsInQueue = null;
SemaphoreSlim _FreeSlots = null;
int _MaxItems = -1;
public BlockingQueue(int maxItems=Int32.MaxValue)
{
_MaxItems = maxItems;
_ItemsInQueue = new SemaphoreSlim(0, maxItems);
_FreeSlots = new SemaphoreSlim(maxItems, maxItems);
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_ItemsInQueue != null) _ItemsInQueue.Dispose();
if (_FreeSlots != null) _FreeSlots.Dispose();
}
public int Count
{
get { return _ItemsInQueue.CurrentCount; }
}
public void Add(T item)
{
if(_MaxItems != Int32.MaxValue) _FreeSlots.Wait();
lock (this)
{
_Queue.Enqueue(item);
_ItemsInQueue.Release();
}
}
public T Take()
{
T item = default(T);
_ItemsInQueue.Wait();
lock (this)
{
item = _Queue.Dequeue();
if (_MaxItems != Int32.MaxValue) _FreeSlots.Release();
}
return item;
}
}
}

The following code is not thread-safe. If two threads are entering this method at the same time, both might pass the if condition successfully.
public void lockBuffer()
{
if (!locked)
{
//...
locked = true;
}
}
You simply might want to do something like this:
lock (_sycnObject)
{
buffer.lockBuffer();
buffer.add(tcpPacket);
buffer.unlockBuffer();
buffer.notify();
}
I don't think you're doing something sophisticated that requires more than the simple to use lock-statement.

I wouldn't use Mutexes since I suppose you aren't dealing with multiple processes synchronization. Locks are pretty fine and simpler to implement:
class Buffer
{
private readonly object syncObject = new object();
private readonly List<string> buffer = new List<string>();
public void AddPacket(string packet)
{
lock (syncObject)
{
buffer.Add(packet);
}
}
public void Notify()
{
// Do something, if needed lock again here
// lock (syncObject)
// {
// Notify Implementation
// }
}
}
The usage is obviously (as you requested):
var myBuffer = new Buffer();
myBuffer.Add("Hello, World!");
myBuffer.Notify();

How do I track down a synchronization error?

I've recently made my simple graphics library multi-threaded. It is now faster - And the simulation jitters a lot, as if various places had cached old position data and then applied it after it had gone "stale".
Basically, the boxes move, then jerk back, then move, then jerk back...There's no collision as of yet, so it's not that.
Not sure what code to post.
Thanks.
Edit: Whatever it is, also causes lag spikes.
Edit2:
TaskManager:
public class TaskManager
{
public delegate void MethodDel(float timestep);
private Queue<MethodDel> queue;
private List<TaskHandler> handlers;
private float value;
public float Value
{
get
{
return value;
}
set
{
this.value = value;
}
}
public TaskManager()
{
this.queue = new Queue<MethodDel>();
this.handlers = new List<TaskHandler>(System.Environment.ProcessorCount);
for (int t = 0; t < this.handlers.Capacity; ++t)
this.handlers.Add(new TaskHandler(this));
foreach (var handler in handlers)
handler.Start();
this.value = 0;
}
public void Start()
{
foreach (var handler in handlers)
handler.Wake();
}
public void Stop()
{
lock (queue)
queue.Clear();
foreach (var handler in handlers)
handler.StopWhenDone();
}
public void StopWhenDone()
{
foreach (var handler in handlers)
handler.StopWhenDone();
}
public void AddToQueue(MethodDel method)
{
lock (queue)
queue.Enqueue(method);
}
public bool GetFromQueue(out MethodDel method)
{
lock (queue)
{
if (queue.Count == 0) { method = null; return false; }
method = queue.Dequeue();
return true;
}
}
public int GetQueueCount()
{
return queue.Count;
}
public void Wait()
{
// Have to wait for them one at a time because the main thread is STA.
WaitHandle[] waitHandles = new WaitHandle[1];
// for (int t = 0; t < handlers.Count; ++t) waitHandles[t] = handlers[t].WaitHandle;
// WaitHandle.WaitAll(waitHandles);
for (int t = 0; t < handlers.Count; ++t) { waitHandles[0] = handlers[t].WaitHandle; WaitHandle.WaitAll(waitHandles); }
}
}
TaskHandler:
public class TaskHandler
{
private TaskManager manager;
private Thread thread;
private bool stopWhenDone;
private ManualResetEvent waitHandle;
public ManualResetEvent WaitHandle
{
get
{
return waitHandle;
}
}
public TaskHandler(TaskManager manager)
{
this.manager = manager;
}
public void Start()
{
waitHandle = new ManualResetEvent(false);
stopWhenDone = false;
thread = new Thread(Run);
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.MTA);
thread.Start();
}
public void StopWhenDone()
{
this.stopWhenDone = true;
}
private void Run()
{
TaskManager.MethodDel curMethod;
while (true)
{
while (!stopWhenDone || manager.GetQueueCount() > 0)
{
if (manager.GetFromQueue(out curMethod))
{
curMethod(manager.Value);
}
}
waitHandle.Set();
waitHandle.WaitOne();
}
}
public void Wake()
{
waitHandle.Set();
}
}
The main Update loop:
public virtual void Update(float timestep)
{
taskManager.Value = timestep; taskManager.Start();
foreach (Camera camera in cameraLookup.Values)
// camera.Update(timestep);
taskManager.AddToQueue(camera.Update);
taskManager.StopWhenDone();
taskManager.Wait();
/* foreach (IAffector affector in affectorLookup.Values)
affector.Update(timestep); */
foreach (IAffector affector in affectorLookup.Values)
taskManager.AddToQueue(affector.Update);
taskManager.StopWhenDone();
taskManager.Wait();
// taskManager.StopWhenDone();
// taskManager.Wait();
foreach (IConstraint constraint in constraintLookup.Values)
// constraint.Update(timestep);
taskManager.AddToQueue(constraint.Update);
taskManager.StopWhenDone();
taskManager.Wait();
foreach (Physic physic in physicLookup.Values)
// physic.Update(timestep);
taskManager.AddToQueue(physic.Update);
taskManager.StopWhenDone();
taskManager.Wait();
foreach (Body body in bodyLookup.Values)
// body.Update(timestep);
taskManager.AddToQueue(body.Update);
taskManager.StopWhenDone();
taskManager.Wait();
foreach (Model model in modelLookup.Values)
// model.Update(timestep);
taskManager.AddToQueue(model.Update);
taskManager.StopWhenDone();
taskManager.Wait();
}

How are you managing the data, can you test at the point it is read to tell if it is stale? Providing advice on a multi-threaded app is pretty difficult. You could try setting up some tracing and log the specific pieces where you think the problem might be. If you logged when data is changed and when it is read you might be able to figure out where it is going wrong.
Post some example code to show us how you manage the data and we can take it from there.

If the data is going "stale", then you need to fix your caching system to evict/update old data.
Threading really isn't that hard, the logic is simple. The problem with threading is identifying your data that is shared and not shared, tracking this data, and make sure this data is updated in the correct order. Most of this has to do with your program's structure. Structure is much much more important when you add threads into your program.

Synchronization Exception

I have two threads, one thread processes a queue and the other thread adds stuff into the queue.
I want to put the queue processing thread to sleep when its finished processing the queue
I want to have the 2nd thread tell it to wake up when it has added an item to the queue
However these functions call System.Threading.SynchronizationLockException: Object synchronization method was called from an unsynchronized block of code on the Monitor.PulseAll(waiting); call, because I havent synchronized the function with the waiting object. [which I dont want to do, i want to be able to process while adding items to the queue]. How can I achieve this?
Queue<object> items = new Queue<object>();
object waiting = new object();
1st Thread
public void ProcessQueue()
{
while (true)
{
if (items.Count == 0)
Monitor.Wait(waiting);
object real = null;
lock(items) {
object item = items.Dequeue();
real = item;
}
if(real == null)
continue;
.. bla bla bla
}
}
2nd Thread involves
public void AddItem(object o)
{
... bla bla bla
lock(items)
{
items.Enqueue(o);
}
Monitor.PulseAll(waiting);
}

The answer is in the error message you posted:
"Object synchronization method was called from an unsynchronized block of code on the Monitor.PulseAll(waiting);"
You have to call Monitor.PulseAll(waiting) from inside the lock(waiting) block.
Also... you have to call Monitor.Wait from within a lock block as well.

If you have access to .NET 4.0, what you want to do can be achieved by BlockingCollection<T>.
If you want to do it yourself by means of the Monitor class and signaling with Pulse(), you are actually on the right track.
You get the exception because to call Wait(), Pulse() and PulseAll(), you have to own the lock on the specified object. You happen to miss this on waiting.
A sample basic thread-safe queue that can be used:
with foreach on the consumer,
with while or your favorite conditional construct on the producer side,
handles multiple producers/consumers and
uses lock(), Monitor.Pulse(), Monitor.PulseAll() and Monitor.Wait():
.
public class SignaledQueue<T>
{
Queue<T> queue = new Queue<T>();
volatile bool shutDown = false;
public bool Enqueue(T item)
{
if (!shutDown)
{
lock (queue)
{
queue.Enqueue(item);
//Pulse only if there can be waiters.
if (queue.Count == 1)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(queue);
}
}
return true;
}
//Indicate that processing should stop.
return false;
}
public IEnumerable<T> DequeueAll()
{
while (!shutDown)
{
do
{
T item;
lock (queue)
{
//If the queue is empty, wait.
if (queue.Count == 0)
{
if (shutDown) break;
Monitor.Wait(queue);
if (queue.Count == 0) break;
}
item = queue.Dequeue();
}
yield return item;
} while (!shutDown);
}
}
public void SignalShutDown()
{
shutDown = true;
lock (queue)
{
//Signal all waiting consumers with PulseAll().
Monitor.PulseAll(queue);
}
}
}
Sample usage:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int numProducers = 4, numConsumers = 2;
SignaledQueue<int> queue = new SignaledQueue<int>();
ParameterizedThreadStart produce = delegate(object obj)
{
Random rng = new Random((int)obj);
int num = 0;
while (queue.Enqueue(++num))
{
Thread.Sleep(rng.Next(100));
}
};
ThreadStart consume = delegate
{
foreach (int num in queue.DequeueAll())
{
Console.Write(" {0}", num);
}
};
Random seedRng = new Random();
for (int i = 0; i < numProducers; i++)
{
new Thread(produce).Start(seedRng.Next());
}
for (int i = 0; i < numConsumers; i++)
{
new Thread(consume).Start();
}
Console.ReadKey(true);
queue.SignalShutDown();
}
}

Use Semaphore http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/system.threading.semaphore.aspx it was designed exactly for this

I prefer to use a callback that launches a processing thread that continues until it's caught up, with locks causing simultaneous readers and writers to wait in line:
public delegate void CallbackDelegate();
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Queue<object> items = new Queue<object>();
Processor processor = new Processor(items);
Adder adder = new Adder(items, new CallbackDelegate(processor.CallBack));
Thread addThread = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(adder.AddItem));
object objectToAdd = new object();
addThread.Start(objectToAdd);
}
}
class Processor
{
Queue<object> items;
public Processor(Queue<object> itemsArg)
{
items = itemsArg;
}
public void ProcessQueue()
{
lock (items)
{
while (items.Count > 0)
{
object real = items.Dequeue();
// process real
}
}
}
public void CallBack()
{
Thread processThread = new Thread(ProcessQueue);
processThread.IsBackground = true;
processThread.Start();
}
}
class Adder
{
Queue<object> items;
CallbackDelegate callback;
public Adder(Queue<object> itemsArg, CallbackDelegate callbackArg)
{
items = itemsArg;
callback = callbackArg;
}
public void AddItem(object o)
{
lock (items) { items.Enqueue(o); }
callback();
}
}

Thread Pooling help

Having some issue with Threadpooling here that I need some help with please. I am trying to write a Generator, and I need to allow users generate up to 10,000 lines with the code below. Problem with this is the line
WaitHandle.WaitAll(doneEvents);
Can only handle 64 WaitAll at a time, How can I best apply thread pooling to my code in this case?
public void GenerateInsertStatements(int iRequiredRows)
{
// One event is used for each row object
ManualResetEvent[] doneEvents = new ManualResetEvent[iRequiredRows];
Row[] rows = new Row[iRequiredRows];
for (int i = 0; i < iRequiredRows; i++)
{
doneEvents[i] = new ManualResetEvent(false);
Row row = new Row(this.Name, this.TableColumns, doneEvents[i]);
rows[i] = row;
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(row.ThreadPoolCallback, i);
}
WaitHandle.WaitAll(doneEvents);
using (sr = new StreamWriter(this.Name + ".sql"))
{
for(int i=0; i<rows.Length; i++)
{
WriteStatementToFile(i, rows[i].GeneratedInsertStatement);
}
}
}
Thanks in advance

I would use just one WaitHandle and one int. Like:
int done_when_zero; // This is a field of the class
ManualResetEvent evt = new ManualResetEvent (false); // Field
...
done_when_zero = iRequiredRows; // This goes before the loop
...
evt.WaitOne (); // this goes after the loop
evt.Reset (); // Prepare for next execution if needed
And then, at the end of ThreadPoolCallback:
if (Interlocked.Decrement (ref done_when_zero)) <= 0)
evt.Set ();

As it was already suggested using a counter and a single ManualResetEvent should work fine for you. Below is ThreadPoolWait class taken from .NET Matters: ThreadPoolWait and HandleLeakTracer (see Figure 3 Better Implementation of ThreadPoolWait for more info)
public class ThreadPoolWait : IDisposable
{
private int _remainingWorkItems = 1;
private ManualResetEvent _done = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public void QueueUserWorkItem(WaitCallback callback)
{
QueueUserWorkItem(callback, null);
}
public void QueueUserWorkItem(WaitCallback callback, object state)
{
ThrowIfDisposed();
QueuedCallback qc = new QueuedCallback();
qc.Callback = callback;
qc.State = state;
lock (_done) _remainingWorkItems++;
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(HandleWorkItem), qc);
}
public bool WaitOne() { return WaitOne(-1, false); }
public bool WaitOne(TimeSpan timeout, bool exitContext)
{
return WaitOne((int)timeout.TotalMilliseconds, exitContext);
}
public bool WaitOne(int millisecondsTimeout, bool exitContext)
{
ThrowIfDisposed();
DoneWorkItem();
bool rv = _done.WaitOne(millisecondsTimeout, exitContext);
lock (_done)
{
if (rv)
{
_remainingWorkItems = 1;
_done.Reset();
}
else _remainingWorkItems++;
}
return rv;
}
private void HandleWorkItem(object state)
{
QueuedCallback qc = (QueuedCallback)state;
try { qc.Callback(qc.State); }
finally { DoneWorkItem(); }
}
private void DoneWorkItem()
{
lock (_done)
{
--_remainingWorkItems;
if (_remainingWorkItems == 0) _done.Set();
}
}
private class QueuedCallback
{
public WaitCallback Callback;
public object State;
}
private void ThrowIfDisposed()
{
if (_done == null) throw new ObjectDisposedException(GetType().Name);
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_done != null)
{
((IDisposable)_done).Dispose();
_done = null;
}
}
}

Probably not the most efficient solution, but it should work regardless of the 64 wait handles limit :
for(int i = 0; i < iRequiredRows; i++)
doneEvents[i].WaitOne();