We Keep Coding

How InvokeRequired and Invoke let us make app thread safe

How InvokeRequired and Invoke let us make our apps thread safe.
Let's consider such code:
private void ThreadSafeUpdate(string message)
{
if (this.textBoxSome.InvokeRequired)
{
SetTextCallback d = new SetTextCallback(msg);
this.Invoke
(d, new object[] { message });
}
else
{
// It's on the same thread, no need for Invoke
this.textBoxSome.Text = message;
}
}
Is it possible to change state of InvokeRequired after InvokeRequired and before Invoke? If not, then why?
How does Invoking make it thread safe?
If InvokeRequired illustrate is current thread owning control, how would the thread know that it is or it is not the owner.
Let's consider that SomeMethod() is currently running on Thread1. We would like to call it from Thread2. Internally this method updates some field. Does Method.Invoke contain some kind of lock mechanism internally?
What if SomeMethod() takes very long time and we would like to run something other on the control owner thread. Does Invoking lock the owner thread or is it some kind of a background thread safe task?
ThreadSafeUpdate() //takes 5 minutes in Thread2
ThreadSafeUpdate() //after 2 minutes, we are running it in other thread2
ThreadSafeUpdate() //next run from Thread3
I think it is some kind of general pattern which can be implemented outside of winforms, what's its name?

Is it possible to change state of InvokeRequired
Yes, and it is a pretty common occurrence. Either because you started the thread too soon, before the form's Load event fired. Or because the user closed the window just as this code is running. In both cases this code fails with an exception. InvokeRequired fails when the thread races ahead of the window creation, the invoked code fails when the UI thread races ahead of the thread. The odds for an exception are low, too low to ever diagnose the bug when you test the code.
How Invoking make it thread safe?
You cannot make it safe with this code, it is a fundamental race. It must be made safe by interlocking the closing of the window with the thread execution. You must make sure that the thread stopped before allowing the window to close. The subject of this answer.
how would he know that he is or he is not owner.
This is something that can be discovered with a winapi call, GetWindowsThreadProcessId(). The Handle property is the fundamental oracle for that. Pretty decent test, but with the obvious flaw that it cannot work when the Handle is no longer valid. Using an oracle in general is unwise, you should always know when code runs on a worker thread. Such code is very fundamentally different from code that runs on the UI thread. It is slow code.
We would like to call it from Thread2
This is not in general possible. Marshaling a call from one thread to a specific other thread requires that other thread to co-operate. It must solve the producer-consumer problem. Take a look at the link, the fundamental solution to that problem is a dispatcher loop. You probably recognize it, that's how the UI thread of a program operates. Which must solve this problem, it gets notifications from arbitrary other threads and UI is never thread-safe. But worker threads in general don't try to solve this problem themselves, unless you write it explicitly, you need a thread-safe Queue and a loop that empties it.
What's if SomeMethod() takes very long time
Not sure I follow, the point of using threads is to let code that takes a long time not do anything to harm the responsiveness of the user interface.
I think it is some kind of general pattern
There is, it doesn't look like this. This kind of code tends to be written when you have an oh-shoot moment and discover that your UI is freezing. Bolting threading on top of code that was never designed to support threading is forever a bad idea. You'll overlook too many nasty little details. Very important to minimize the number of times the worker thread interacts with the UI thread, your code is doing the opposite. Fall in the pit of success with the BackgroundWorker class, its RunWorkerCompleted event gives a good synchronized way to update UI with the result of the background operation. And if you like Tasks then the TaskScheduler.FromCurrentSynchronizationContext() method helps you localize the interactions.

Usually, no. But it could happen if you're using await between the InvokeRequired check and Invoke call without capturing the execution context. Of course, if you're already using await, you're probably not going to be using Invoke and InvokeRequired.
EDIT: I just noticed that InvokeRequired will return false when the control handle hasn't been created yet. It shouldn't make much of a difference, because your call will fail anyway when the control hasn't quite been created yet, but it is something to keep in mind.
It doesn't make it thread-safe. It just adds the request to the control's queue, so that it's executed the next available time on the same thread the control was created on. This has more to do with windows architecture than with general thread-safety. The end result, however, is that the code runs on a single thread - of course, this still means you need to handle shared state synchronization manually, if any.
Well, it's complicated. But in the end, it boils down to comparing the thread ID of the thread that created the control, and the current thread ID. Internally, this calls the native method GetWindowThreadProcessId - the operating system keeps track of the controls (and more importantly, their message loops).
Invoke cannot return until the GUI thread returns to its message loop. Invoke itself only posts the command to the queue and waits for it to be processed. But the command is run on the GUI thread, not the Invoke-caller. So the SomeMethod calls in your example will be serialized, and the Invoke call itself will wait until the second call finishes.
This should already be answered. The key point is "only run GUI code on the GUI thread". That's how you get reliable and responsive GUI at all times.
You can use it anywhere you've got a loop or a wait on some queue. It probably isn't all that useful, although I have actually used it already a few times (mostly in legacy code).
However, all of this is just a simple explanation of the workings. The truth is, you shouldn't really need InvokeRequired... well, ever. It's an artifact of a different age. This is really mostly about juggling threads with little order, which isn't exactly a good practice. The uses I've seen are either lazy coding, or hotfixes for legacy code - using this in new code is silly. The argument for using InvokeRequired is usually like "it allows us to handle this business logic safely whether it runs in the GUI thread or not". Hopefully, you can see the problem with that logic :)
Also, it's not free thread-safety. It does introduce delays (especially when the GUI thread is also doing some work that isn't GUI - very likely in code that uses InvokeRequired in the first place). It does not protect you from accesses to the shared state from other threads. It can introduce deadlocks. And don't even get me started on doing anything with code that uses Application.DoEvents.
And of course, it's even less useful once you take await into consideration - writing asynchronous code is vastly easier, and it allows you to make sure the GUI code always runs in the GUI context, and the rest can run wherever you want (if it uses a thread at all).

Deadlock when worker thread tries to invoke something on main thread

I am using an external component which periodically shoots events from a worker thread. In my event handler I use a Dispatcher to invoke some method on the main thread. This works nicely...
private void HandleXYZ(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
...
if(OnTrigger != null)
dispatcher.Invoke(OnTrigger, new TimeSpan(0, 0, 1), e);
}
However, when the program shuts down and the external component Dispose()s, the program sometimes hangs (and can only be seen and killed in the task manager).
When I look at what is happening it looks like "the component" is waiting for the event to return on the main thread (it stays in the Dispose() method), while the worker thread waits for the dispatcher to invoke the mentioned call to the main thread (it hangs in the dispatcher.Invoke-line).
For now I solved the shutdown problem by adding a timeout to the Invoke, which seems to work but feels wrong.
Is there a cleaner way to do something like this? Can I force the main thread to take some time for jobs from other threads before shutting down?
I have tried to "disconnect" the event before shutting down, but that does not help, because the dispatcher is(could be) already waiting, when the program start to shut down...
PS: external component means here that I do not have access to the source code...

Yes, this is a common source of deadlock. It hangs because the dispatcher exited the dispatcher loop it won't respond to Invoke requests anymore. A quick cure is to use BeginInvoke instead, it doesn't wait for the invoke target to finish executing. Another quickie is to set the worker thread's IsBackground property to True so the CLR will kill it.
These are quick fixes and they may well work for you. Certainly on your dev machine, but if you have a nagging feeling that it may still go wrong then you're right, not observing a deadlock or threading race does not prove they are not present. There are two "good" ways to do it completely safely:
don't allow the main thread to exit until you are sure that the worker thread terminated and can no longer raise events. This answer shows the pattern.
terminate the program forcefully with Environment.Exit(). This is very crude but very effective, a sledgehammer you'll only reach for when you have a heavily threaded program where the UI thread is only second citizen. Odd as this may sound as a suitable approach, the new C++ language standard has elevated it to a supported way to terminate a program. You can read more about it in this answer. Do note how it allows for cleanup functions to be registered, you'll have to do something similar with, say, the AppDomain.ProcessExit event. Focus on the first bullet before you do this.

As for the event subscriptions, it is indeed a good idea to clean them up when you know that a particluar object is not needed anymore. Otherwise you would risk creating memory leaks. You might also want to have a look at the weak event pattern (MSDN).
Regarding the deadlock itself, without knowing your code, we can only guess.
I do not see the HandleXYZ() as a culprit, I would rather check your IDisposable() implemntaion. Have a look at the MSDN documentation and compare it to your implementation.
I suppose that somewhere in there in your implementation some method calls are made that depend on the timing of the GarbageCollector, which is indeterministic: Sometimes it may work out in your case, sometime it may not.

Is it possible to kill WaitForSingleObject(handle, INFINITE)?

I am having problems closing an application that uses WaitForSingleObject() with an INFINITE timout.
The full picture is this. I am doing the following to allow my application to handle the device wakeup event:
Register the event with:
CeRunAppAtEvent("\\\\.\\Notifications\\NamedEvents\\WakeupEvent",
NOTIFICATION_EVENT_WAKEUP);
Start a new thread to wait on:
Thread waitForWakeThread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(WaitForWakeup));
waitForWakeThread.Start();
Then do the following in the target method:
private void WaitForWakeup()
{
IntPtr handle = CreateEvent(IntPtr.Zero, 0, 0, "WakeupEvent");
while (true)
{
WaitForSingleObject(handle, INFINITE);
MessageBox.Show("Wakey wakey");
}
}
This all works fine until I try to close the application when, predictably, WaitForSingleObject continues to wait and does not allow the app to close properly. We only allow one instance of our app to run at a time and we check for this on startup. It appears to continue running until the device is soft reset.
Is there a way to kill the handle that WaitForSingleObject is waiting for, to force it to return?
Many thanks.

Use WaitForMultipleObject instead, and pass 2 handles. The existing one, and one for an event called something like 'exit'. During app shutdown, SetEvent on the exit event, and the WaitForMultipleObject will return and you can get it to exit the thread gracefully.
You need to switch on the return value of WaitForMultipleObject to do the appropriate behaviour depending on which one of the handles was triggered.
Possibly, also, you can set the thread to be a background thread. This will prevent it from stopping your application from shutting down when the main thread terminates.
See:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.thread.isbackground.aspx

This is what I would do...
Use the EventWaitHandle class instead of calling CreateEvent directly. There shouldn't be any need to use the Windows API other than CeRunAppAtEvent (and API calls make code ugly...). Get this working first.
Before creating the thread, create a ManualResetEvent variable that is not initially flagged. Call it "TerminateEvent".
Replace the WaitForSingleObject API call with WaitHandle.WaitAny(WaitHandle[]) and pass an array containing "TerminateEvent" and the EventWaitHandle class wrapping the CeRunAppAtEvent notification.
Your loop can use the return value of WaitAny to determine what to do. The return value is the array index of the wait handle that unblocked the thread, so you can determine whether to continue the loop or not.
To cleanly end the thread, you can call "Set" on your "TerminateEvent" and then "Join" the thread to wait for it to terminate.

'This all works fine until I try to close the application when, predictably, WaitForSingleObject continues to wait and does not allow the app to close properly.'
Any app can close, no matter what its threads are doing. If you call ExitProcess(0) from any thread in your app, the app will close, no matter if there are threads waiting INFINITE on some API/sychro, sleeping, running on another processor, whatever. The OS will change the state of all theads that are not running to 'never run again' and use its interprocessor driver to hard-interrupt any other processors that are actually running your thread code. Once all the threads are stopped, the OS frees handles, segments etc and your app no longer exists.
Problems arise when developers try to 'cleanly' shut down threads that are stuck - like yours, when the app is closing. So..
Do you have a TThread.WaitFor, or similar, in an OnClose/OnCloseQuery handler, FormDestroy or destructor? If you have, and have no vital reason to ensure that the thread is terminated, just comment it out!
This allows the main form to close and so your code will finally reach the ExitProcess() it has been trying to get at since you clicked on the red cross button
You could, of coure, just call ExitProcess() yourself, but this may leave you with resources leaked in other proceses - database connections, for example.
'216/217 errors on close if I don't stop the threads'. This often happens because developers have followed the er... 'unfortunate' Delphi thread examples and communicate with threads by directly exchanging data between secondary thread fields and main thread fields, (eg. TThread.synchronize). This just sucks and is hell-bent on causing problems, even in the app run, never mind at shutdown when a form has been destroyed and a thread is trying to write to it or a thread has been destroyed and a main-thread form is trying ot call methods on it. It is much safer to communicate asynchronously with threads by means of queueing/PostMessaging objects that outlive both of them, eg. objects created in the thread/form and freed in the form/thread, or by means of a (thread-safe), pool of objects created in an initialization section. Forms can then close/free safely while associated threads may continue to pointlessly fill up objects for handling until the main form closes, ExitProcess() is reached and the OS annihilates the threads.
'My Form handle is invalid because it has closed but my thread tries to post a message to it'. If the PostMessage excepts, exit your thread. A better way is similar to the approach above - only post messages to a window that outlives all forms. Create one in an initialization section with a trivial WndProc that only handles one const message number that all threads use for posting. You can use wParam to pass the TwinControl instance that the thread is trying to communicate with, (usually a form variable), while lParam passes the object being communicated. When it gets a message from a thread, WndProc calls 'Peform' on the TwinControl passed and the TwinControl will get the comms object in a message-handler. A simple global boolean, 'AppClosing', say, can stop the WndProc calling Peform() on TwinControls that are freeing themselves during shutdown. This approach also avoids problems arising when the OS recreates your form window with a different handle - the Delphi form handle is not used and Windows will not recreate/change the handle of the simple form created in initialization.
I have followed these approaches for decades and do not get any shutdown problems, even with apps with dozens of threads slinging objects around on queues.
Rgds,
Martin

Of course the preferable way to solve this is to use WaitForMultipleObjects, or any other suitable function that is able to wait for multiple criterias (such as WaitForMultipleObjects, MsgWaitForMultipleObjects, etc.).
However if you have no control over which function is used - there're some tricky methods to solve this.
You may hack the functions imported from system DLL, by altering in memory the import table of any module. Since WaitForMultipleObjects is exported from kernel32.dll - it's ok.
using this technics you may redirect the function caller into your hands, and there you will be able to use the WaitForMultipleObjects.

Safely Closing A Thread

I'm writing a bit of code that will open a MessageBox on a separate thread to prevent the MessageBox from stopping the program. It is very very important that starting a new thread will not crash the program that I am running, but I don't know enough about threads to make sure this happens.
My question is, after starting the thread, how can I safely dispose of it after the MessageBox closes? I imagine closing/disposing of it is necessary so it's not just floating around after it is created and started.
Please advise, thanks!
var Thread = new Thread
(
()=>
{
MessageBox.Show("Buy pizza, Pay with snakes");
}
);
Thread.Start();

You don't need to do anything special.
Thread instances are automatically "cleaned up" (rather they become candidates for garbage collection) when there's no references to them (in your code) and their main method body has terminated. In fact, Thread doesn't implement IDisposable - so speaking of it's "disposal" is incorrect.
In your example, once the lambda method completes (ie the message box is closed), the thread will automatically terminate. You don't need to do anything extra.
Now there's a difference between reclaiming allocated memory and having objects become candidates for disposal/collection. Any objects allocated will remain on the GC heap until the next collection cleans them up ... but you shouldn't have to care about that.
A separate issue you may need to contend with is performing UI operations on a thread other than the main UI thread. While it is possible, you have to be careful not to reference any UI elements that are created on a different thread from the one you create.

The thread will close automatically after the scope of the lambda expression is left... in your case you don't need to worry about anything.
In general it's also good practice to set the thread to background, because if your application is closed you might get a message box just hanging out there by itself:
var thread = new Thread(
()=>
{
MessageBox.Show("Buy pizza, pay with snakes");
});
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
Note: it's preferred that your variables start with a lower letter. For details on naming conventions please see the Microsoft Naming Guidelines.

A Thread will automatically clean itself up once the code contained within it completes. You don't have to manually dispose of it (and, in fact, it's not IDisposable!).

A few things first...
Threads don't "crash" the program unless an unhandled exception is thrown from within it.
You don't need to dispose of a thread. Finishing its main routine is enough.
If necessary, you can make your program wait for the end of the thread execution using the Join() method on your Thread instance.
And then a suggestion: it seems that you need a modeless MessageBox. AFAIK, the feasible way of doing this is creating a custom form and display it through Show() instead of ShowDialog().

In C#, you shouldn't have to care all that much once the thread goes out of scope. It's a simple answer, but simple is good: let the computer do what it's good at. :-)

You should be aware that if an exception is thrown by your worker thread and is not caught, then your application may abort (as Humberto mentioned in point #1). The example you provided is trivial, and I can't imagine that it would throw an exception, but you may want to consider at least wrapping the worker thread logic in a try/catch.
I would suggest not using a separate thread for this purpose. Create your own form for displaying the message and show it with the Show method. Creating a form like this isn't too difficult; I recommend making use of the Button.DialogResult, Form.AcceptButton, and Form.CancelButton properties. You have more control over the appearance of the form
In terms of reliability, an advantage of keeping your code out of a worker thread is that you can subscribe to the Application.ThreadException event in order to handle any exceptions that were not caught by your application's logic. This allows you to prevent your application from crashing due to an unhandled exception, but be aware that this will affect your entire application.

C# Communication between threads

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